The horizontal and vertical articulation of SHD processes

The question of governance and the act of governing is centrally important for SHD at the local level. However, transferring the World Bank definition of governance² to the territorial level and to the broader realm of collective action and decision-making seems to characterize ‘multilevel governance as the form of governance of the moderns, in other words, the new form of con­ducting politics and making public policies, as an alternative and replacing the vertically hierarchical nation-state model' (Noferini, 2010, p.

Since Marks's (1992) reference to multilevel governance (henceforth, MLG) to describe decision-making dynamics within the EU, the term has been used to describe the novel form of public policymaking stemming from the existence of ‘overarching, multi-level policy networks' (Marks et al., 1996, p. 167). It has also been defined as ‘a panoply of systems of coordination and negotiation among formally independent but functionally interdepen­dent entities' (Piattoni, 2010, p. 26). Indeed, the continuous widening of the social space of relations due to global competition, the social division of labour in global value chains, and international migrations affect not only nations as a whole, but also regions, places, communities and people. The realization that ‘states do not “develop”, only the modern world-system as a whole' (Wallerstein, 2000, p. 112) leads us to emphasize the importance of inextricable connections between structural transformations of the world system and development processes at the territorial level.

MLG can provide a new lens to analyse the ways the realms of polity, politics and policy (Marks, 1996) have been affected by the “unraveling of the central state” (Marks and Hooghe, 2003) and the transformation of societal mobilization (Marks et al., 1996). In particular, Piattoni (2010) argues that the simultaneous activation of three dimensions of change - centre-periphery relations within unitary states (devolution and federalism), domestic-foreign arrangements of international coordination and regula­tion, and state-society dynamics of increased involvement of public interest groups in policy design implementation, monitoring and evaluation - have pushed us away from the ideal-typical sovereign state³ to poly-centric gov­ernance mechanisms (Skelcher, 2005).

With regard to the SHD perspective at the local level, the most innova­tive elements can be represented in terms of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of (dis)articulation, which lie at the core of MLG.

Horizontal articulation within territorial systems

As previously discussed, the territorial perspective to SHD is based on a multi-actor and multi-sector approach, whereas LDS is characterized by complex relations among agents and stakeholders within policy networks⁴ that, through negotiation, coordination, learning and competition, keep redefining their connections and drive the evolution of the system itself.

The transformation of societal mobilization entailed by MLG in the realm of politics is therefore in line with the perspective advanced in this book, as well as arguments favouring political participation and stakeholders' involvement commonly stressed by the CA and the place-based approach to local development. In particular, Barca, McCann and Rodriguez-Pose's (2012, p. 148) call for ‘a system which promotes a space for public debate by all local actors open to dissent and alternative views' appears consistent with Sen's (1999, p. 18) argument concerning the intrinsic and instrumental value of ‘the ability of people to help themselves and to influence the world', particularly in relation to the enhancement of democracy as the ‘mecha­nism that people have designed to rule themselves' (Deneulin, 2009, p. 187). Moreover, MLG may widen or restrict the involvement of public groups in terms of policymaking (e.g.

For example, public-private partnerships (PPP) represent a widely dis­cussed form of institutional arrangements (EC, 2003; Hodge and Greve, 2005; World Economic Forum, 2006), where the joint efforts, risks and responsibilities of the public and private sectors are directed towards shared or compatible objectives. Similar partnerships, whose multiple forms generally vary in terms of private involvement, may therefore contribute to SHD, especially if they adapt to - or evolve along with - territorial features and needs, and if they establish enduring horizontal relationships of comple­mentarity for efficiency intended to promote SHD. In this respect, Chapter 5 explores a case study of PPP within the perspective of SHD at the local level. Nonetheless, PPP can also be established at national and international levels (e.g. the UN Global Compact).

Another example involves the inclusion of civil society (associations, NGOs and policy platforms, etc.) in new governance arrangements and partnership practice (EU, 2001), along with greater devolution of power (Piattoni, 2010)⁶, recalling Gramsci's definition of civil society as a social sphere or a public space where political thought is transformed into action (Gramsci, 1971). Nonetheless, issues regarding strictly consultative or deliberative forms of participation, the lobbying capacity and accountability of interests, the extent to which civil society's voice is considered within decision-making processes and involvement when an organized and dynamic civil society is missing, remain important questions for academic and policy debate (Narayan et al., 2000; Grinspun, 2001; Green, 2012).

Similarly, the inclusion of universities and research centres in systemic articulation mechanisms for SHD is linked to the increasing recognition of their developmental role (Brundenius et al., 2009), not only regarding the enhancement of human capital and diffusion of knowledge but also increasingly as policy entrepreneurs and innovators themselves (Bellandi and Caloffi, 2010).

Finally, MLG may foster the pursuit of SHD trajectories at the local level, as it no longer takes a sectoral approach, but instead adopts an integrated territorial approach to development strategies (e.g. for the achievement of the MDGs and the SDGs), given the incapacity and inconsistencies of over-centralized sectoral and fragmented approaches to deliver sustainable development outcomes. Indeed, today it is increasingly recognized by policymakers and practitioners that governance is no longer organized in "sealed-off departments”, but rather in multi-departmental, inter-administrative, multi-actor structures that deal with multiple issues concerning territorial societies.

It is important to emphasize, however, that questions regarding horizon­tal articulation for SHD within local systems (e.g. which actors/stakeholders should mobilize? How and why?) can only be answered through specially tailored contextual analysis, avoiding standardized prescriptions.

Vertical articulation of territorial systems within nation-states and along international connections

The second dimension of (dis)articulation for SHD processes relates primarily to the shift of competencies away from central states to sub-national gov­ernment tiers and to the supranational level (e.g. EU), as well as the pervasiveness of inter-territorial relationships among communities in terms of networks, flows and cooperation agreements.

Marks et al. (1996, p. 167) take ‘the existence of overlapping competencies among multiple levels of government and the interaction of political actors across those levels' as the point of departure for an MLG approach.

In addition, the MLG perspective offers common ground for the coordi­nation and synergic convergence of top-down and bottom-up approaches to local development.⁸ This integration is central in the framework devel­oped in this book, in order to analyse and target the drivers of the territorial dynamics of SHD processes in a comprehensive way, avoiding external non­tailored policies and isolated local strategies detached from the national and supranational development dynamics.

This articulation is primarily important within nation-states, where inter­governmental relations shape the spaces to manoeuvre of agents and insti­tutions at different levels (local and extra-local) to foster SHD. As reminded by Osmani (2001), the local government system is substantially regulated by the respective national government regarding its formation, boundaries, jurisdiction, etc. For instance, given that territories and local authorities are embedded in specific national institutional and legal contexts, it appears that ‘in many cases, with a clear political will for reform at the national level, with no real powers and without the presence of a clear regulatory framework, any action taken locally is destined to fail' (Noferini, 2010, p.

Moving to the international connections associated with an MLG perspec­tive, an element of novelty is found in the relevance of trans-territorial flows (e.g. distant interactions) and networks and their influence on territorial SHD dynamics. In practice, not only financial capital flows but also foreign direct investment (e.g. stemming from delocalization of R&D activities) and distant knowledge interactions within global pipelines (Bathelt et al., 2004) shape the evolution of LDSs (Cantwell and lammarino, 2001; Marin and Bell, 2006; lammarino et al., 2008). Cultural connections established among different territories (e.g. as part of decentralized cooperation initiatives), the sharing of practices and experience involved with learning-by-comparing (Hospers and Beugelsdijk, 2002) and tailored adaptation are also relevant.⁹ In addition, innovation - not just in technological but also in social and institutional terms - is nurtured by trans-territorial innovation networks (Bellini and Hilpert, 2013), which are primarily constructed out of com­munities of practice, knowledge communities and transnational ethnic communities (Coe and Bunnell, 2003), which dynamically strengthen or weaken the linkages among distant territories.

Related to these arguments are three further elements of MLG. The first involves the increasing role of associations of sub-national entities (e.g. United Cities and Local Governance - UCLG, Arco Latino; Partenalia; the Conference of Peripheral Maritime Regions - CRPM) within national and international development debates to exploit economies of scale and scope in the provision of public goods and the elaboration of action plans (e.g. Local Agenda 21). The second refers to the mobilization of transnational groups and international social movements (e.g. Amnesty International; La Via Campesina; Greenpeace; Slow Food; Association for Women's Rights in Development; Disabled People's International), which cross domestic­international boundaries to defend global values and interests with a clear territorial relevance. Finally, as discussed in more detail in the fourth chapter, linkages within the international cooperation arena have a fundamental importance in sustaining or hampering SHD strategies at all levels (Biggeri and Canitano, 2010), connecting countries through multi- and bilateral con­nections and territories and through horizontal decentralized cooperation initiatives (Fernandez de Losada et al., 2012). Regarding the latter, Noferini (2010, p. 169) argues that ‘decentralised cooperation has a number of virtues lacking in other forms of cooperation', and similarly the Committee of the Regions of the EU (2009, p. 29) stresses that ‘strengthening territorial coop­eration is vital to meet the objectives of economic, social and territorial cohesion.'

Overall, MLG entails a substantial modification of "policy networks”, which nowadays involve sub-national actors (e.g. public interest groups and local authorities), central governments and institutions, and trans-territorial social movements and associations, dealing directly with supranational actors as well as among themselves in the international arena. For instance, international meetings and forums (such as HLF-4 in Busan and Rio+20) in recent years have increasingly involved local and regional societies in consultative and deliberative processes (e.g. the Global Task Force of Local and Regional Government for the post-2015 Development Agenda). In addi­tion, the opportunity and capacity of local actors to engage in dialogue at the supranational level without interference from national stakeholders is becoming increasingly relevant. A clear example is the importance attached by regional governments in the EU to increasing their lobbying capacity with regards to the allocation of European funding by establishing their own seats of representation in Brussels.¹⁰

However, in analysing the vertical connections affecting SHD processes of LDS, it is worth stressing the importance of global public goods (GPGs), as policies regarding health, the environment and finance (among other things), produce positive or negative externalities that extend to trans­territorial and trans-national socio-economic groups and to current and future generations at the global level (Kanbur et al., 1999; Sandler, 2004). Indeed, the system of international relations can be viewed as composed of individual geopolitical units that interact creating reciprocal externalities and producing, voluntary or involuntary, social benefits or costs at the global level (Wallerstein, 2000). Thus, regardless of their tangible (e.g. healthy natural environment) or intangible (e.g. peace, financial stability, free trade) features, GPGs shape the territorial evolution and trajectories of SHD and call for collective, as well as individual, actions, for their provision, and should reflect the overall final objectives of the international community.¹¹ Not only international treaties, trans-national agreements and common poli­cies are required to foster the achievement of final objectives (i.e. essential activities). Individual actions by, and within, single territorial communi­ties are also necessary to support the production and provision of GPGs (complementary activities). In fact, lack of responsible coordination and of structured and shared regulatory regimes within the international arena (Wallerstein, 2000) - where market forces are relatively free to work - can add an element of instability to the evolution of LDS. The detrimental effects of lacking coordination may become more evident when strategy actions from a single LDS are rational and positive per se, but the outcomes overall become negative at the aggregate or global level, as shown in the game­theory model of international coordination presented in Appendix 3.1. For instance, for any single country and territory, the strategic advice to stay competitive through "labour market flexibility”¹² (as suggested throughout the 1980s and 1990s by the IMF and the World Bank) may have appeared necessary and appropriate. Once such policies were pursued systematically, however, by many emerging and developing countries and territories, this strategy involved increasingly tough competition over labour costs and lower levels of labour protection (Raworth, 2004), which produced vicious circles and feedback loops hampering SHD trajectories.

The consolidation and strengthening of inter-governmental cooperation is therefore crucial today, requiring standards, rules, decisional procedures and principles, where the expectations of international actors converge on some issues, and the supranational institutional infrastructure is geared to sustaining international collective action.

In sum, placing emphasis on MLG mechanisms within the perspective of SHD at the local level entails recognizing the emergence of a multi­level polity (Piattoni, 2010) and poly-centric governance (Skelcher, 2005) along with its implicit and explicit influence on the territorial dynamics of

SHD processes. Nonetheless, MLG is not conceived as positive and fostering good and/or democratic governance per se,¹³ but rather as impacting on the horizontal and vertical policy networks, which constitute the modern form of governance of territorial societies. Therefore, it is necessary not only to develop a political culture of MLG (EU, 2001 and 2009) but also to open spaces and occasions for multilevel dialogue and articulation that build on local formal and informal arrangements of mobilization and interaction (e.g. the case studies discussed in Section 3.4). For instance, by creating structured online tools and mechanisms for the trans-territorial exchange of innova­tions contributing to territorial HD, the Innovation for Development and South-South Cooperation (IDEASS) program has contributed to opening an international arena of knowledge diffusion and to strengthening interactive learning processes that sustain the expansion of agents' capabilities.

These arguments also call for developing an analytical culture of MLG within the CA literature, and building on complementarities with other dis­ciplines including political studies, European integration studies, sociology and economic geography. The application of the STEHD framework to MLG mechanisms discussed in this book may provide some fresh insights and initial steps in this direction.

3.3