Intergovernmentalism and Multilevel Governance

Intergovernmentalism and Multilevel Governance - GLE1010G (March 2-4)

Page 1

  • Intergovernmentalism

  • Multilevel Governance

Page 2

  • Panelists:

    • Alice Sparberg Alexiou

    • Jane Jacobs (Urban Visionary)

    • Richard Florida (Author of The Rise of the Creative Class)

  • Theme: A New Urban Future

  • Focus Areas: Place-based and multi-level thinking.

Page 3

  • Our Roadmap:

    1. Five Questions About Multiple Governments

    2. Intergovernmental Relations: Two Traditional Models

    3. 21st Century Drivers of Change

    4. Intergovernmental Relations: Two Innovative Models

    5. Place-based Thinkers: Jane Jacobs and Richard Florida

Page 4

  • Orienting Observations:

    • Many countries operate with multiple governments, necessitating an understanding of intergovernmental relationships for effective governance.

    • 21st-century challenges cross various jurisdictions and sectors, highlighting the need for collaborative governance.

    • Definition of Multilevel Governance: A shift towards distributing decision-making across various levels (local, regional, national, international) aims to enhance policy flexibility, inclusivity, and effectiveness in tackling interconnected issues.

Page 5

  • Five Governing Questions:

    1. Is governance unitary, federal, multilevel, or place-based?

    2. Does the central government hold supreme authority, or is it shared with other governance levels?

    3. What degree of local autonomy exists for cities and regions?

    4. Do governments cooperate or compete?

    5. Which governance system is deemed preferable?

Page 6

  • Unitary Governance Characteristics:

    1. Central government possesses sovereign authority; local/regional authorities are subordinate.

    2. Delegation of specific responsibilities to lower levels for efficiency and responsiveness.

    3. Intergovernmental relations are primarily top-down and hierarchical.

    4. Mandated implementation of standardized programs for citizen services.

    5. Intergovernmental relations characterized by "forced cooperation."

Page 7

  • Federal Governance Characteristics:

    1. Provincial/state governments have constitutional parity with federal/national governments.

    2. Dual levels maintain elected legislatures/executives; each has law-making power.

    3. A written constitution outlines the division of powers, framing shared sovereignty.

    4. Examples of shared jurisdiction rights include agriculture and immigration; challenges include issues like environment and healthcare.

    5. Intergovernmental relations can oscillate between conflict and cooperation.

Page 8

  • Unitary vs. Federal Governance Comparisons:

    • Unitary:

    • Decisive action, political accountability, seeks national unity, potentially limits local autonomy, can stifle policy innovation.

    • Federal:

    • Allows for cooperative federalism, enhancing local autonomy, promotes policy innovation.

Page 9

  • Remarks on Governance Dynamics:

    • Relationships between central and subnational governments are increasingly negotiated and contextually defined (Pierre and Peters).

    • Challenges Faced by Governance Models:

    • Existence of wicked problems.

    • Significance of cities in governance.

    • Issues of indigenous self-determination.

    • Growing mistrust, alienation, and polarization in populations.

    • Unitary governance criticized for being excessively hierarchical, while federal governance is seen as compartmentalized.

Page 10

  • Emergence of Multilevel Governance:

    • Trend Insight: Over the last seventy years, authoritative decision-making has been increasingly decentralized both upward (to international institutions) and downward (to subnational entities).

    • Multilevel governance is now considered a new normative framework in governance.

Page 11

  • Key Shifts in Intergovernmental Relationships:

    1. Movement towards negotiated agreements among governments rather than rigid adherence to hierarchies.

    2. Increased governance autonomy and policy input granted to localities (cities and regions).

    3. Growing acknowledgment of international institutions in influencing domestic governance.

Page 12

  • Case Study: Canada's National Housing Strategy:

    • Lack of mention of housing in the Canadian Constitution emphasizes the need for multilevel governance involvement.

    • Intergovernmental aspects of the housing crisis include:

    • Federal funding initiatives addressing homelessness.

    • Provincial responsibilities concerning social housing and rent control.

    • Municipal roles in land usage and infrastructure management.

    • Special recognition of Indigenous housing needs for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit populations.

    • Objectives:

      • Invest in affordable housing and rental solutions.

      • Aim to reduce chronic homelessness by half by 2028.

      • Create 100,000 new affordable homes for families in need.

      • Build strong, safe communities to support family prosperity.

Page 13

  • Components of the National Housing Strategy:

    1. International Framework: Recognition of the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right (UN Covenant).

    2. Federal Investment: $115 billion over 10 years with a legislated right to housing framework.

    • Implementation Frameworks include:

    1. Federal-Provinical/Territorial: National Housing Co-Investment Fund.

    2. Federal-Municipal: Housing Accelerator Fund.

    3. Federal-Municipal-Nonprofit: Reaching Home Homelessness Plan.

    4. Federal-Indigenous: Urban, Rural, Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy.

    5. Federal Housing Advocate: Oversight for the "right to housing."

Page 14

  • Emerging Multilevel Governance Questions:

    1. Is there a balance between flexible multilevel action and maintaining effective democratic oversight?

    2. How can voters ascertain which government level is responsible for the successes or failures of housing policies?

    3. The need for a coordinating agency to establish meta governance amid diverse networks.

    4. How to ensure local voices influence decision-making while respecting community diversity?

Page 15

  • Concept of Place-Based Federalism:

    • Response to governance challenges emphasizing:

    • Wicked Problems

    • Significance of cities in governance

    • Indigenous self-determination issues

    • Trust issues involving alienation and polarization.

    • Aim: Fill gaps in unitary/federal models through leveraging multilevel governance potential.

Page 16

  • Foundations of Place-Based Federalism:

    • Motivation: Recognizing local communities as vital governance actors enhances political systems.

    • Analysis: Historically overlooked municipalities are seeing a rise in local governance partnerships.

    • Finding: Merely relying on federal/provincial "localizing workarounds" is insufficient.

    • Proposal: Develop a new governance playbook emphasizing a place-based federalism approach with a “Start local, Build-Up and Out” philosophy.

Page 17

  • Place-Based Federalism Playbook Components:

    • Geographical Considerations: Addressing unique issues such as housing and immigration in relation to local contexts.

    • Policy Contextualization: Aligning policies with local conditions to foster sustainable growth and transitions.

    • Blended Knowledge Approach: Incorporating local knowledge, lived experience, and technical expertise in governance.

    • Network Governance: Highlighting the role of local and Indigenous governments in partnerships with other local sectors.

    • External Relations: Fostering multi-level collaboration as opposed to isolated decision-making.

    • Spatial Equity Focus: Ensuring access to resources and opportunities throughout urban-rural and regional systems.

Page 18

  • Case Study: Immigrant and Refugee Settlement in Canada:

    • Immigration seen as crucial for Canada’s future; aims to welcome 300,000 newcomers yearly without facing significant political backlash.

    • However, challenges persist as newcomers struggle with integration and host communities may lack the capacity to provide adequate services.

    • Immigration is a fragmented area in Canadian federalism characterized by:

    • Federal: Setting recruitment numbers and criteria for immigration categories (business, family, refugees).

    • Provincial: Addressing settlement services (housing, education, healthcare).

    • Municipal: Focusing on integration efforts (community belonging and network building).

Page 19

  • Local Immigration Partnerships (LIPs) in Canada:

    • Framework: Federally funded with provincial cooperative elements and leadership at municipal/community levels.

    • Multi-Sector Requirement: Collaboration across health, education, private sector, and settlement services.

    • Mandate: To connect newcomers with culturally appropriate services and foster integration between host society and immigrant experiences.

    • Pilot Launch: Started with 5 cities in 2008, now expanded to 77 LIPs.

    • Local Priorities Approach:

    • Tailor settlement initiatives based on community specificities to increase efficacy in service delivery.

    • Encourage settlement beyond metropolitan areas attracting newcomers.

    • Align immigrant skills with local labour market needs to promote economic integration.

Page 20

  • Example: London Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership Structure

    • Council Composition: Includes chairs representing sectors such as settlement, education, health & wellbeing, and civic engagement, spearheaded by a central local council chair.

    • Purpose of the LMLIP: To strengthen local and regional community roles in immigrant integration through a collaborative framework, facilitating sustainable local solutions for successful immigrant integration in London and Middlesex.

    • Focus Direction: Promoting social and economic integration of new immigrants through comprehensive planning agendas that encompass immigration needs within community development efforts.