The EU and its Local Satellites challenges opportunities

The EU and its Local Satellites: challenges & opportunities for multilevel policy-learning dr. Tom Verhelst Prof. dr. Herwig Reynaert Centre for Local Politics – Ghent University (Belgium)

Context: Belgian local government in MLG EU level: Commission, Parliament, Council National level: federal state, 3 regions, 3 communities Provincial level: 10 second-tier authorities Local Government Inter-municipal level: inter-municipal companies, formal and informal networks Municipal level: 589 municipalities (cities, communes), (intra-)municipal networks

The Europeanization of local government • Increasing connection between local government and EU • Def: “the interplay between actors and institutions on the European and the city level, which leads to changes in local politics, policies, institutional arrangements, discourse, actors’ preferences, values, norms and belief systems on both levels” (Hamedinger & Wolffhardt, 2010: 28) • Catch-all concept • Focus: policy-learning

Pyramids & ladders Polity Politics Policy (Börzel & Risse, 2000) (John, 2000)

Europeanization & Belgian municipalities • On-line survey 2013; CFOs Flemish municipalities (N= 261, 53%) Importance of objectives (% - fairly – important) EU in the municipal organization (% yes) Impact EU on local government (% large)

The EU-local solar system Top-down Bottom-up • EU => local authorities • Implementing EU policy • Responding to programmes • ‘policy-takers’ • Local authorities => EU • Influencing EU policy • Promoting local interests • ‘policy-makers’ Horizontal • EU context, incentive • Networks of local authorities • Exchange best-practice, t-d & b-u Knowledge/ information = Key resource

The top-down dimension Dynamics: • EU policy-making affects local government e. g. environment (water quality, air quality, energy efficiency public buildings), public procurement, agriculture, economic development • EU provides local authorities (earmarked) funding opportunities via programmes e. g. ESF, EFRO, Urbact, etc. Implications policy-learning: • EU: • Policy feedback via programme procedures, impact analyses, implementation monitoring, etc. • Local authorities: • Monitor EU legislation beforehand • Adjust organization in order to obtain funding • Example: • Develop administrative capacity through bidding procedure EU programs & feedback loop

The bottom-up dimension Dynamics: • Market of supply/demand, information exchanged for influence • EU needs input & legitimacy in policy-making • Local authorities need to promote interests and impact upon legislation Implications policy-learning: • Local authorities: • Acquire negotiating skills, MLG • Familiarize with policies of other engaged authorities & EU policy • EU: • Receives input local practices • Receives input implementation • Examples: • PPC in Public Procurement Directives; Roma Policy; IT

The horizontal dimension Dynamics: • EU provides framework, incentive for transnational cooperation e. g. EGTCs • Local authorities participate in (a wide range of) European networks with different outlook for different ends e. g. twinning, cultural exchange, thematic networks Implications policy-learning: • Local authorities: • Exchange best practice • Gain knowledge, experience and enhance individual capacity • Innovative solutions to common problems • Benefits from other dimensions • Examples: • Eurometropole, Canal Zone

Conclusion: opportunities & challenges • Input policy-making • Support & info implementation • Balanced interests & overview • Communication • Legitimacy of and involvement in EU and local policy • Enhance policy quality • Promote interests • Best practice transfer & policy learning • Internal organization, strategy, leadership, resources EU Local Government Society Political Science • Established discipline • Diversify vs transversal patterns • Link to other disciplines