Regional Governance

Criteria of Regional Governance

In recent decades, large-scale societal changes have radically undermined the idea of a strongly intervening nation-state. As the nation-state has been gradually displaced as the center of regulation, new centers of power have emerged at the supranational and subnational levels. The concept of regional governance denotes the shift of governance to the subnational level. It emerges where national policies lack suitable implementation and where specific regional institutions are necessary for developmental solutions. In addition, regional governance emerges where problems exceed their local borders and where conventional modes of regulation turn out to be not adequate.

Regional governance must be analytically distinguished from regional government. While the [Page 2390]latter refers to state institutions, formal rules, and practices to administrate political subdivisions, regional governance relates to a mode of self-regulation in which regional problems are treated by cooperative actors operating at a regional level. This view incorporates both public and private actors into a pluralistic network that results in “multi-actor level play.”

Since regional governance involves actors from different political subsystems, the strategy for encouraging cooperation has been changed. Besides intrasystemic relations (e.g., intermunicipal cooperation, strategic alliances, and public engagement), other types of intersystemic interactions (e.g., public-private partnerships, corporate citizenship, and public participatory channels) become increasingly prominent. Thus, the term regional governance refers not to an entirely new phenomenon but to a group of large changes that appeared during the past decades. Regional governance represents the reality of complex interdependencies and interactions among numerous institutions. It refers to a comparatively loose coupling of participating stakeholders acting voluntarily.

Although regional governance is characterized by direct and flexible interplay, the establishment and consolidation of a minimum of institutional capacities are nevertheless central preconditions. As those institutions may differ regionally, certain governance arrangements may be more effective than others. In many cases, a core is constituted that canalizes interactions, minimizes transaction costs, and increases the reliability of expectations. In doing so, the organizational core forms the “administrative infrastructure” but without formal bureaucratic procedures. In addition, a charismatic leader often presides over the organizational core. Because of the power to integrate the actors of different proveniences, such leaders are essential for regional cooperation to succeed.

In analytical terms, regional governance can be characterized by changes in the logic, principles, and instruments of governance. A shift from state-centered, top-down interventional strategies to bottom-up and network-like strategies of regional actors becomes increasingly apparent. Thus, state control and coordination are displaced by public and private cooperation, and the state's instruments of regulation (e.g., licensing procedures, regional policy) are increasingly accompanied by communicative processes (e.g., moderation and mediation).

...