How different multilevel and multi-actor arrangements impact policy implementation: evidence from EU regional policy

ABSTRACT

While implementation through multilevel governance (MLG) has often been found to have achieved limited success, the literature agrees that further studies are required to investigate if and how different MLG systems impact policy implementation. By collecting data from the implementation of four European Union (EU) regional development programmes, characterized by distinct organizational and institutional arrangements, this article adopts a performance-oriented approach to EU implementation in order to support or challenge the conventional assumptions about the expected benefits of MLG. The data suggest that effective MLG needs a central coordinating authority that has the power to enforce decentralized actors’ compliance, mobilize the implementation bodies, and provide actors with adequate organizational structures and the resources that they lack.

KEYWORDS:

• multilevel governance
• EU multilevel implementation
• EU Cohesion Policy
• Italy
• Spain

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author thanks the journal editors and anonymous reviewers for their valuable advice and comments on previous versions of this paper.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 In accordance with EU regulations, reporting on the development programmes financed within the fourth EU programming period ended in March 2017, while in the following years, the activities relevant for the assessment of OPs were completed, and all the monitoring data were disclosed. At the time of writing, it was not possible to assess the OPs financed during the fifth programming period, as these were currently being implemented. The analysis of the fourth programming cycle allowed for the empirical investigation of each stage of implementation for the 2007–13 ERDF OPs by covering the preparation, financing, management, monitoring and assessment of their operations.

2 Interview with a Commission official in DG Regio, Brussels, 13 October 2016.

3 Interview with an external evaluator, Madrid, 7 February 2017.

4 Interview with a representative from the MA, Madrid, 8 August 2019.

5 Interview with an official working on regional structure, Naples, 16 January 2017.

6 Interview with a representative from the MA, Madrid, 6 August 2019.

7 Interview with an institutional stakeholder, Rome, 1 March 2016.

8 Interview with Commission officials in DG Regio, Brussels, 12 October 2016.

9 Interview with an official working on regional structure, Santiago de Compostela, 10 July 2017.

10 Interview with a Commission official in DG Regio, Brussels, 2 May 2018.

11 Interview with a socio-economic stakeholder, Catanzaro, 25 January 2017.

12 Interview with an official working on regional structure, Naples, 16 January 2017.

13 Interview with an external evaluator, Rome, 2 November 2016.

14 Interview with a national official, Rome, 7 August 2019.