EXPLORING EUROPEAN POLITICAL SPHERE FOR TRANSNATIONAL NETWORK ACTIVITIES OF SUBNATIONAL LEVEL

Abstract

Transnational networking of local and regional authorities- interaction with their counterparts, higher or lower levels of governments with the intention of cooperation and partnership - can be deliberated as one of the remarkable aspects of EU governance system. In this respect, some denote that these network activities play a facilitating role in the involvement of local and regional authorities in EU governance processes. Further, it can be argued that local and regional authorities come together for purposes such as mutual information sharing, cooperation, joint project development, sharing best practices, lobbying activities, accessing financial resources. These interactions reflect a kind of mobility and visibility for them within the EU political sphere.
This paper aims to explore to a certain extent European political sphere for transnational network activities of subnational level through two substantial dimensions: Brussels representation and EU regional/cohesion policy. In the context of these dimensions, interaction and mobilization processes between subnational level and other levels of governments supposed to be adequately more pronounced and recognizable. The study points out the conclusions that European political sphere for transnational network activities of local and regional authorities could be taken into consideration for more dynamic, encouraging, rewarding, structured and constructive political involvement and engagement of subnational level. Correspondingly, this field should continue to be studied whether political sphere is evolved to be a more conform realm with aforementioned purposes particularly after the end of recent programming periods of regional/cohesion policy.

Keywords

• EU Governance
• EU Subnational Policies
• Transnational Local Government Networks

YEREL YÖNETİMLERİN ULUSÖTESİ AĞ FAALİYETLERİ İÇİN AVRUPA POLİTİKA ALANI

Öz

Yerel ve bölgesel yönetimlerin ulusötesi düzeyde yürüttükleri ağ faaliyetleri – muadilleri, üst ya da alt düzeydeki yönetimler ile işbirliği ve ortaklık amacıyla gerçekleştirilen etkileşim- AB yönetişim sisteminin dikkate çeken yönlerinden biri olarak tartışılabilir. Bu bağlamda, söz konusu ağ faaliyetlerinin yerel ve bölgesel yönetimlerin AB yönetişim süreçlerine katılımında kolaylaştırıcı bir rol oynadığını ifade edilebilmektedir. Ayrıca, yerel ve bölgesel yönetimlerin karşılıklı bilgi paylaşımı, işbirliği, ortak proje geliştirme, en iyi uygulama paylaşımı, lobi faaliyetleri, mali kaynaklara erişim gibi amaçlarla bir araya geldiği söylenebilir. Bu etkileşimler, AB siyasi alanı içinde onların faaliyetlerine bir tür hareketlilik ve görünürlük boyutu katabilmektedir.
Bu makale, ulusaltı düzeyi temsil eden yerel ve bölgesel yönetimlerin ulusötesi ağ faaliyetleri için Avrupa’nın sunduğu siyasi alanı iki önemli boyut aracılığıyla belirli yönleri kapsamında incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır: Brüksel’deki temsil ve AB bölgesel / uyum politikası. Zira ulusaltı düzey ile diğer yönetim düzeyleri arasındaki etkileşim ve hareketlilik süreçleri, bu boyutlar itibarıyla daha tanımlanabilir ve belirgin olarak değerlendirilebilir. Çalışma, yerel ve bölgesel yönetimlerin ulusötesi ağ faaliyetlerine yönelik Avrupa siyasi alanının daha fazla siyasi katılıma ve süreçlere angajmana yapılandırılmış şekilde dinamizm katma, teşvik etme ve ödüllendirme boyutlarıyla ele alınabileceği sonucunu yansıtmaktadır. Söz konusu sonuca bağlı olarak, özellikle bölgesel/uyum politikasının son programlama döneminin bitiminden sonra, analiz edilen bu siyasi alanın yukarıda belirtilen amaçlarla daha uyumlu bir zemine kavuşup kavuşamadığının araştırılması faydalı olabilecektir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• AB Yönetişimi
• AB Yerel Politikaları
• Ulusötesi Yerel Yönetim Ağları

Kaynakça

1. Bache, I. (2003, 27th-29th March). Europeanization: A Governance Approach. EUSA 8th Biennial International Conference, Nashville. http://aei.pitt.edu/554/1/Bache_EUSA.txt, (14.12.2020).
2. Bache, I. (2007). The Politics of Redistribution. In K. E. Jørgensen, M. A. Pollack & B. Rosamond (Eds.). Handbook of European Union Politics (pp. 395-412). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
3. Bäckstrand, K. (2006). Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships for Sustainable Development: Rethinking Legitimacy, Accountability and Effectiveness. European Environment, 16(5), 290-306. doi: 10.1002/eet.425
4. Barnett, M., & Sikkink, K. (2009). From International Relations to Global Society. In R. E. Goodin (Eds.). The Oxford Handbooks of Political Science (pp. 748-768). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5. Bevir, M., Rhodes, R. A. W., & Weller, P. (2003). Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector in Comparative and Historical Perspective. Public Administration, 81(1), 1-17. doi: 10.1111/1467-9299.00334.
6. Bevir, M. (2011). Governance as Theory, Practice, and Dilemma. In M. Bevir (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Governance (pp. 1-16). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
7. Beyers, J., & Donas, T. (2014). Inter-regional Networks in Brussels: Analyzing the Information Exchanges among Regional Offices. European Union Politics, 15(4), 1-25. doi: 10.1177/1465116514536269.
8. Borghetto, E., & Franchino, F. (2010). The Role of Subnational Authorities in the Implementation of EU Directives. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(6), 759-780. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2010.486972

9. Borrás, S. (2007). The European Commission as Network Broker. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 11(1), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/2007-001.pdf, (14.12.2020).
10. Börzel, T. A. (1997). What So Special About Policy Networks? – An Exploration of the Concept and Its Usefulness in Studying European Governance. European Integration online Papers (EIoP), 1(16), http://eiop.or.at/eiop/pdf/1997-016.pdf, (14.12.2020).
11. Castells, M. (2005). Enformasyon Çağı, Ekonomi, Toplum ve Kültür: Ağ Toplumunun Yükselişi. İstanbul: İstanbul Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları.
12. Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 78-93. doi: 10.1177/0002716207311877
13. Castells, M. (2010). The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture Volume I. (2nd ed.). United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
14. Cheema, G. S., & Rondinelli, D. A. (2007). From Government Decentralization to Decentralized Governance. In G. S. Cheema & D. A. Rondinelli (Eds.), Decentralizing Governance: Emerging Concepts and Practices (pp. 1-20). Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
15. Chhotray, V., & Stoker, G. (2009). Governance Theory and Practice: A Cross-Disciplinary Approach. Chippenham and Eastbourne: CPI Antony Rowe (Palgrave Macmillan).
16. Commission of the European Communities. (2001, 25th July). European Governance – A White Paper. (COM[2001] 428 final-Official Journal C287 of 12.10.2011). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52001DC0428&rid=1, (14.12.2020).
17. Donas T., & Beyers, J. (2013). How Regions Assemble in Brussels: The Organizational Form of Territorial Representation in the European Union. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(4), 527-550. doi: 10.1093/publius/pjs042.
18. European Commission. (2001). Innovative Actions under the ERDF: 2000-06. [COM(2001) 60 Final, Not published in the Official Journal]. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=LEGISSUM:g24210&from=HR, (14.12.2020).
19. European Commission. (2014). A Reformed Cohesion Policy for Europe. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/infographic/cohesion_policy_20142020_pano_en.pdf, (14.12.2020).
20. European Commission. (2018). Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on laying down common provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund Plus, the Cohesion Fund, and the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund and financial rules for those and for the Asylum and Migration Fund, the Internal Security Fund and the Border Management and Visa Instrument. [COM(2018) 375 Final, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:26b02a36-6376-11e8-ab9c-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_1&format=PDF, (14.12.2020).
21. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2013a, 17th December). Regulation No. EU/1303/2013. Official Journal L347-320 of 20.12.2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32013R1303&from=EN), (14.12.2020).
22. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2013b, 17th December). Regulation No. EU/1301/2013. Official Journal L347-289 of 20.12.2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0289:0302:EN:PDF
23. European Parliament and Council of the European Union. (2013c, 17th December). Regulation No. EU/1299/2013. Official Journal L347-259 of 20.12.2013. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0259:0280:EN:PDF, (14.12.2020).
24. Goldsmith, M. (2003). Variable Geometry, Multilevel Governance: European Integration and Subnational Government in the New Millennium. In K. Featherstone & C. Radaelli (Eds.), The Politics of Europeanization (pp. 112-133). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hafner-Burton, E. M., Kahler, M., & Montgomery, A. H. (2009). Network Analysis for International Relations. International Organization, 63(3), 559-592. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090195
26. Held, D. (1995). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance. California: Stanford University Press.
27. Hooghe, L. ve Marks, G. (2001). Multi-level Governance and European Integration. Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
28. Hughes, O. E. (2012). Public Management and Administration: An Introduction (4th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
29. Huysseune, M., & Jans, T. (2008). Brussels as the Capital of a Europe of the Regions? Regional Offices as European Policy Actors. School of Politics, Brussels Studies, Issue No. 16.
30. Jerzyniak, T. (2011, 03th-04th March). Policy Lessons from Experimentation with Regional Programmes for Innovative Actions (RPIA). International Evaluation Conference: What’s New and What Works in the EU Cohesion Policy 2007-2013: Discoveries and Lessons for 2014-2020, Vilnius.
31. http://www.esparama.lt/es_parama_pletra/failai/fm/failai/Verinimo_konferencija_2011/Konferencijos_pranesimai/2nd_day_A_session_Innovative_measures/2.2.A._Innovative_measures/2.2.A_Jerzyniak.pdf, (14.12.2020).
32. Jessop, B. (2004). Multi-level Governance and Multi-level Meta-governance. In I. Bache & M. V. Flinders (Eds.). Multi-level Governance (pp. 49-74). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33. Keck, M. E., & Sikkink, K. (1999). Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics. International Social Science Journal, 51(159), 89-101. doi: 10.1111/1468-2451.00179
34. Klijn, E. H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and Governance Networks: Compatible or Not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608.
35. Klijn, E. H. (2008). Governance and Governance Networks in Europe: An Assessment of 10 Years of Research on the Theme. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505-525. doi: 10.1080/14719030802263954
36. Knill, C. & Lehmkuhl, D. (2002). Private Actors and the State: Internationalization and Changing Patterns of Governance. Governance, 15(1), 41-63. doi: 10.1111/1468-0491.00179
37. Koliba, C., Meek, J. W., & Zia, A. (2010). Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, Taylor&Francis Group.
38. Ladeur, K. H. (2004). Globalization and Public Governance. In K. H. Ladeur (Eds.), Public Governance in the Age of Globalization (pp. 1-23). Oxon: Routledge.
39. Leach, M., Bloom, G., Ely, A., Nightingale, P., Scoones, I., Shah, E., & Smith, A. (2007). Understanding Governance: Pathways to Sustainability. STEPS Working Paper 2. http://steps-centre.org/wp-content/uploads/final_steps_governance.pdf, (14.12.2020).
40. Loughlin, J. (2004). The “Transformation” of Governance: New Directions in Policy and Politics. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 50(1), 8-22.
41. Lynn, L. E, Heinrich, C. J., & Hill, C. J. (2001). Improving Governance: A Logic for Empirical Research. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
42. Nölke, A. (2003). The Relevance of Transnational Policy Networks: Some Examples from the European Commission and the Bretton Woods Institutions. Journal of International Relations and Development, 3(6), 276–298.
43. Peterson, J. (2003). Policy Networks. Reihe Politikwissenschaft Political Science Series, No. 90. http://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_90.pdf, (14.12.2020).
44. Reference Framework for Sustainable Cities. http://rfsc.eu/, (14.12.2020).
45. Rhodes, R. A. W. (2017). Network Governance and the Differentiated Polity: Selected Essays, Volume I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Risse, T. (2013). Transnational Actors and World Politics. In W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse & B. A. Simmons (Eds.), Handbook of International Relations (pp. 426-452). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
47. Rosenau, J. N. (1998). Governance and Democracy in a Globalizing World. In D. Archibugi, D. Held & M. Köhler (Eds.), Re-imagining Political Community (pp. 28-57). Cambridge: Polity Press.
48. Sassen, S. (2005). The Global City: Introducing a Concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs, 11(2), 27-43.
49. Schmitter, P. C. (2003). Democracy in Europe and Europe's Democratization. Journal of Democracy, 14(4), 71-85.
50. Sending, O. J., & Neumann, I. B. (2006). Governance to Governmentality: Analyzing NGOs, States, and Power. International Studies Quarterly, 50(3), 651–672. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2006.00418.x
51. Slaughter, A. M. (2004). A New World Order. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
52. Swyngedouw, E. (2005). Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State. Urban Studies, 42(11), 1991– 2006.
53. Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E.-H. (2002). Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme? Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197–205. doi: 10.1111/0033-3352.00170
54. Territorial Agenda of the European Union 2020. (2011, 19th May). Agreed at the Informal Ministerial Meeting of Ministers responsible for Spatial Planning and Territorial Development, Hungary. https://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/policy/what/territorial-cohesion/territorial_agenda_2020.pdf, (14.12.2020).
55. Torfing, J. (2007). Introduction: Democratic Network Governance. In M. Marcussen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Democratic Network Governance in Europe (pp. 1-20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.