cuglesan

7/30/2019 cuglesan

1/14

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006

________________________________________________________________________

1

Multi-level governance in the EU: What Model for Romania?

Natalia Cuglesan

________________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The 1988-1993 Structural Fund management reforms, have given birth to a new

approach of EU policies, and led to the decentralization of regional developmentprograms from the European Commission to member states and further on to regional

and local authorities (belonging to the private sector). Since the adoption of the

partnership principle in the multi-annual program planning, implementation and

evaluation process, a new architecture has been implemented within the European Union.

In this article, I examine how different supranational, national and regional actors

influence or actively take part in the decision-making processes, aiming to defend andpromote their own interests. The multi-level governance system, which requires a much

more active participation in the decision-making, will be compared with the two rival

systems intergovernmentalism and federalism. The growing role played by democracyin the elaboration of decisions supports the promotion of these new structures within the

European Union.

1. The Concepts of Governance and Multi-level Governance

Until recently, the concept of governance had been used in the academic literature torefer to the responsibilities of governing authorities. The important role of the state oninternational level on the one hand, and the centralization of all powers in the hands of

government on the other hand, supported this approach. Due to the late 1980s reforms

regarding the elaboration and implementation of regional development policies, the termgovernance has acquired a different meaning.

The World Bank1

gave a first definition forgovernance, which highlights the relationshipbetween the government and the countrys wealth

2. Even though this interpretation of the

term has been adopted by most UN institutions, the academic literature prefers J.

Kooimanss3

definition of the governance which makes reference to the relationship

Natalia Cuglesan is a PhD student at Babes-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania.1 World Bank, Governance: The World Banks Experience, Washington D.C. 1994.2 Governance is defined as follows: the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a

countrys economic and social development.3 Apud Dele Olowu, Governance in developing countries: The challenge of multi-level governance, paper

presented at the Seventh International Seminar on Geo-Information Science (GIS) in developing countries,

15-18 May, Enschede, the Netherlands, 2002, p.3.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

2/14


________________________________________________________________________

2

between leaders and citizens4. This interpretation is very interesting as it allows

researchers who study relationships between leaders and citizens to observe the

asymmetric distribution of power and responsibilities to the centre and the periphery, tothose who detain power and the rest of the society to be more precise. Furthermore, this

asymmetry is also extended to the relationship between other sub-national actors (e.g. the

relationship between regional authorities and inhabitants of a city, or between two cities).The Commission on Global Governance offers a synthetic definition forgovernance,

describing it as the ensemble of means through which institutions and citizens manage

their common affairs5. This definition also recognizes the competition spirit between

actors and participants6. The World Banks definition is accepted by the Canadian

International Development Agency (CIDA) which adds to the definition the concept of

good governance, which is described as the exercise of power by various levels of

government that is effective, honest, equitable, transparent and accountable7. Moreover,

Isabelle Johnson considers that redefining the concept ofgovernance is widening its

meaning in order to allow taking into account all the interactions among all those

involved in the decision-making8.

The competencies granted to certain commissions by the decisions of the Council

9

were a permanent source of tension between the European Parliament and the European

Commission; by the decision 1999/468 certain competencies related to the activity of thecommissions

10were granted to the Parliament. Another source of tensions, but this time

between the national governments and the European Commission, was the eligibility of

the regional and local authorities, as well as of some private actors in the process of the

planning, implementation and evaluation of the regional development programs. Thenational governments were not satisfied with the Commissions decision of considering

sub-national authorities (regional and local authorities and private actors) eligible as

partners for developing regional development programs11

,12

.

In this context of participating in the elaboration of decisions there is the new image of

the European Union, an image promoted in academic literature as a multi-level

4 The definition proposed by Jens Kooimans is: governance is the form in which public or private actors

do not separately, but in conjunction, engage in problem solving together, in combination, that is to say co-

arrangements, in: Jens Kooimans,Modern Governance: New government-Society Relations, London, Sage

Publications, 1993, p.2, apud Dele Olowu, op.cit, p. 3.5 Mike Kahler, David A. Lake, Globalization and Governance, in Mike Kahler&David A.Lake.(Eds),

Governance in a global economy, Princeton Univ. Press, 2003, http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles.6 Governance is defined as a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be

accomodated and cooperation action may be taken, in: Mike Kahler&David A. Lake, op.cit, p.6.7 Isabelle Johnson,Redefining the concept of governance, p.3, http://www.acdi-cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES./8Ibidem , p.4.

9 Nick Bernard , Multi-level governance in the European Union, Kluwer International Law, the Hague,

2002, p.148-15110 The information leaflets sent to the Parliament by the Commission, concerning the commissions agenda,

the draft, the rsult of the vote and the summary of the debates, as per. Art. 7(3), Decision no 1999/468 .11 Art. 4, Directive 2081/93/EEC, modified by Directive 1260/1999.12 The academic literature underlined that the reforms of 1988 were an attack to the intergovernmental

paradigm, see Kutsal Yesilkagit &Jens Blom-Hansen, Supranaional governance or naional business-as-

usual?, paper prepared for presenation at the XIV Nordic Political Science Assoc., Reykjavik, Iceland, 11-

13 August 2005, p.2, http://registration.yourhost.is/nopsa2005/papers.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

3/14


________________________________________________________________________

3

governance system, where the European Union institutions play the part of actors in the

governance network, by which they influence to some extent the decisions taken, but

have no control power from a hierarchical perspective13

. According to T. Brzel, adding athird, or even a fourth level of authority lead to the increase in the complexity of the

decision making process and also to the necessity of a non-hierarchic coordination of the

participating actors from the public and private field, as well as of all the administrativelevels.

Multi-level governance represents the entire relations between actors situated on different

territorial levels, both from public and private field. The concept of multi-level

governance, as a system of continuous negotiation between the government and

different territorial levels, is introduced in the academic literature debates by G.

Marks14

, but only in the recent years has this concept been amply discussed from the

perspective of a supranationalist organisation, like the European Union. The subject ofmulti-level governance is also discussed in three other works by L. Hooghe i G.Marks

15,16

,17

; the accent is here placed on evidentiating the specific characteristics of this

system; there are two types of multi-level governance distinguished.

2. The actors participating to the process of decision-making and its implementing

Multi-level governance reveals the mode of transferring certain competences from the

portfolio of the national state to the supranational level and respectively to the sub-

national authorities, public and private. The actors participating to the process of

elaborating and implementing EU policies are therefore situated on differentadministrative levels; the relations between these are characterized through partnership

and competition.

2.1. Supranational actors

At a supranational level the European Commission is the main actor the executivepower in the European Union and its dominant position, established through the

treaties, in relation with the other partners, still generates tensions from the part of the

member states and from the European Parliament. The Commission has importantcompetences in the legislative domain. It forwards the projects to the Council, which can

pass them. Again of a major importance are its competences in the domain of

13 Nick Bernard , op. cit., p.239.14 Apud Ian Bache , Europeanization and Britain: Towards Multi-level Governance ?, paper prepared for

the EUSA 9th Biennial Conference in Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2, 2005, p.5.15 Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks,Types of Multi-level governance, in: European Integration online

Papers(EIOP), vol.5(2001), No.11, pp. 4 12, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-011a.htm.16 Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks,Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-level

governance, in: HISPolitical Science Series, oo. 87, 2003, pp.5-9.17 Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks, Contrasting visions of Multi-level Governance, in: Ian Bache, Mike

Flinders Eds.),Multi-level governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004, pp.15-30.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

4/14


________________________________________________________________________

4

surveillance for the respect of the provisions of the treaties and the decisions of the

Council. The legislative elaboration and adoption process is very fragmented18

,19

because

in all domains the Commission receives the propositions under the form ofrecommendations from the work-groups and before the Council passes them, they must

examined by the COREPER. Many projects are the result of a joint collaboration between

the Commission and the Council.In order to justify the delegation of competences towards a supernational organization

several models have been formulated in the academic literature. One of the models has

been promoted by the American political literature and represents a functionalistapproach explaining the choice of an agent invested with certain functions presuming that

the thus chosen institution shall be effective on the one hand, and transaction costs with

the adoption of the public policy20

shall be lowered on the other hand.

According to opinions expressed in the American literature, the costs that can be lowered

as a consequence of the delegation of power refer to informational costs related to

obtaining technical information and specialized expertise, needed in order to propose

efficient public policies, and to costs with the credible commitment. Keohane argumentsthe functionalist theory by laying his grounds on the two types of costs and the projects

envisaging strategies to lower these costs.In the case of the European Union, the Commission has been accredited with four

different types of competences through the Treaty of Rome21

(art 211-219 EC). What

should be mentioned is that, through the agreement of the member states, special

mechanisms have been created in order to limit the Commissions discretional powers.Among these there is the comitology system of monitoring the Commission by the

committees of the representatives of the member states, the attributions of the European

Court of Justice (ECJ) in the field of implementation of the provisions of the law and thejudiciary control, as well as the role of the European Parliament in terms of voting the

Commission and the right to veto (censorship), stated but not yet used.22

The domain of the regional policy clearly states the relationship frame between the

Commission and the member states, namely the vertical coordination between the

Commission, the member states and the regional authorities. The most frequent clashes

that occurred in the vertical coordination process derived from the different prioritiesbetween the member states and the Commission. For example there has been observed

the tendency of the representatives of the member states to favour, through programmes

18 Jose de Areilza, op.cit.,p.7.19 Stephanie Bailer, The European Commissions Power: Overrated or Justified ?, Paper to be presented at

the EUSA 9th Biennial International Conference, Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2, 2005, p.4.20

Mark A. Pollack, Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the Treaty of Amsterdam, in: EIOP,vol.3(1999), No.6, pp.7-9, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-oo6a.htm .21 For example, art 211 established, among other things, four main functions in the portfolio of the

Commission: to insure the respect of the provisions of the treaties by the member states, to formulate

recommendations and opinions, if need be; the right to decide and participate together with the Council and

the Parliament at the elaboration of provisions of the treaty; to make use of its competences, conferred by

the Council, for the implementation of the laws passed.22 The Treaty of Amsterdam has re-confirmed the right of the European Parliament, established at

Maastricht, to vote upon the membership of the Commission and to veto, but, because of different reasons,

this measure was never taken, and is also quite difficult to implement anyway.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

5/14


________________________________________________________________________

5

of regional development, the circumscriptions where they were chosen, in order to

maintain their popularity and the electorates support for the future elections23

.

Subsequently, the policy of the member states has differentiated from that of the EU,even if the European Union has always aimed at discouraging this kind of practices.

The two important institutions of the EU, the European Parliament and the EuropeanCourt of Justice have received, during the years, new competences and they took action

in turning the decision-making process and the control and surveillance process in the

judiciary field into democratic processes. Examples include the competences of theParliament in respect of the approval of the budget, the co-decision process, which

influences roughly three quarters of the legislative acts, as well as voting the

Commission. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has gained, especially through the

European Act and the Treaty of Amsterdam new competences in addition to thoseestablished through the Treaty of Rome.

Besides these committees, the EU institutions benefit from the activity of 17 agencies,

most of which have been created between 1994 and 1995, following the decision of theEuropean Council in 1993. Each of these agencies, with its object of activity set at the

moment of its formation or modified later on, is unique for that particular domain.

2.2. National Actors

The debate over the role of the European Union member states has risen concomitantlywith the enlargement of the European integration. One of the most justified questions is:

Do states exercise the prerogatives of the sovereignty or do they merely execute, more

or less obediently, the decisions taken at EU level?There is not an answer unanimous accepted in the academic literature: the theories on

European integration assess the position of the member states towards the EU24

in

different ways. The two main theories, intergovernmentalism and supranationalism,which have dominated for decades the debate over the states position in the process of

European integration, offer opposite alternatives.

Intergovernmentalists consider that the whole process of the integration is nothing more

than the effect of the common will of the member states. The actors deciding thecontinuity of the European integration are the national governments, who make the

decision in this regard, but also make sure they protect their own geopolitical and

economic interests.25

Intergovernmentalists also claim that, in this context, the Europeanintegration is under the control of member states, while the action of supranational

institutions has minor effects.

The federalist approach (belonging to the supranationalism theory) upon theorganization and functioning of the EU, appears concomitantly with the increase of the

23 Carolyn Marie Dudek, Coordinating Regional Policy in the EU, paper prepared for the EUSA 9th

Biennial Conference, Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2, 2005, p.7.24 Vasile Puca & Adrian Liviu Ivan (coord), Regiune i Regionalizare n Uniunea European, Institutul de

Studii Internaionale, Cluj-Napoca 2004, p.12.25 Tanja A.Brzel., Shaping and Taking EU Policies: Member State responses to Europeanization, in:

Queens Papers on Europeanization, No.2, 2003, pp.2-5.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

6/14


________________________________________________________________________

6

role of the Commission and of the European Parliament in elaborating and making

decisions but also with the acknowledgement of regions as eligible partners in promoting

EU policies. According to this model, the EU is a supranational state, where the decisionsare made in agreement with the reports established between the different governing

levels, meaning in accordance with the way in which the competences of each level are

divided

26

. In the academic literature this model was considered very close to the modelproposed by Jacques Delors, ex-president of the European Commission.

The federalist model imposed itself in the late 80s together with the mass promotion of

the regional policy, whose purpose consisted of the removal or the decrease of economicdifferences. According to this model, the Commission is the supranational level deciding

over the EU general policy, according to the competences it was given, and the states and

the regions dispose of the responsibilities stipulated by the fundamental law of each

member state. Promoting the federalist model influences the rhythm of the administrativereforms in most of the member states

The fourth model, the multi-level governance model, appeared at the beginning of 90s

and promotes a new view over the relationships inside the EU but also with the member

states in what regards decision making, the number of participants, the national and sub-national actors. What is then the role played by a supranational structure according tot

this model? The famous promoters of this model, Liesbet Hooghe, Gary Marks27

and IanBache

28tackle the multi-level governance system as a governing model in the EU. This

model was characterized by L. Hooghe as a Europe with regions in order to emphasize

the distinction between it and Delorss federalist Europe of regions29

. Multi-level

implies admitting that there is a great number of actors who take part in the decision-making, in exercising influences for adopting decisions. The competences of each level

are recognized through their participation at the elaboration and implementation of

community, national, regional and local policies. The actors among which thecompetences and responsibilities must be divided are no longer the states alone, as in the

intergovernmentalist model, but also supranational and sub-national actors, as

interdependencies will grow along with the integration and the cooperation among actorsfrom different administrative levels will develop itself by promoting the principles of

partnership, organization and concentration which are the fundamental principles of the

regional development policy.

2.3. Regional actors

The consequences of applying the new implementation policy of the StructuralFunds have found a response in the vertical inter-governmental coordination plan,

because on the basis of the partnership prinicple, the regional actors have full access to

both phases of the Eu policy elaboration and implementation. The cooperation betweenthe regional and national authorities must lead to the fulfillment of the development and

operational plans, before these are presented for analysis to the European Commission. In

26 Vasile Puca & Adrian Liviu Ivan (coord), op.cit., p.39.27 Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, Multi-level governance and European Integration, Rowman and

Littlefield, Oxford 2001.28 Ian Bache, Mike Flinders (Eds.), Multi-level governance, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004.29 Apud Mike Goldsmith, op.cit., p.5.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

7/14


________________________________________________________________________

7

the planning phase, regional interests can be promoted by authorities participating to the

elaboration of the plan, while during the subsequent phases the regions dispose of real

possibilities of influencing the financing of the projects; of course, it is a well-known factthat each project approved by the Commission has to be co-financed by regional and

national authorities, as the case may be, and that the ways of influencing the decisions at

EU level can be done either at a national level, or by the interventions of the RegionsCommittee30

or of the European Parliment31

, including through negotiations with the

Commission32

. Every member state of the EU has its own territorial-administrative

structure, where the transfer of competences from national level to sub-nationalauthorities sometimes depends on a series of political, economic, cultural and ethnical

factors, but the involvement of the regions in the elaboration and implementation of EU

policies is an indubitable reality. The states that are representative for the decentralization

of the decisions at national level, Germany33

, Austria34

and Belgium35

have continued toshow interest for the introduction of some reforms that would optimize the allocation

procedures of the Structural Funds. For example, the 1996 reform introduced by

Germany36

wanted to allow regional actors to get out from the protection of the

Bundeslnder and participate in the elaboration of the development plans. Between theEuropean level and the regional one are found the state agencies whose role of mediation

and protection of the interests of the region is very important.

2.4. Local actors

Another aspect of partnerships is the involvement of local authorities in setting updevelopment programs. Local communities have different frameworks of organization

and representation in each state. However, the important aspect is the increasing

involvement in local government of local actors coming from different areas such as

30 Arthur Benz and Burkard Eberlein, Regions in European Governance: The logic of Multi-levelInteraction, in: Working Paper RSCNo 98/31, pp 4-12.31 Beate Kohler-Koch, Organized interests in the EC and the European Parliament, in: European

Integration online Papers (EIOP), vol.1(1997), No.9, p.9, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-009a.htm.32 Liesbet Hooghe, Serving - Political Orientation of Senior Commission Officials , in:

European Integration online Papers, vol.1(1997), No.8, p.19, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-008a.htm.33 The federal system, characterized through the distribution of the competences between central authorities

(federal) and those of the Bundeslnder, also assigns competences to the regions; see also Fritz. W.

Scharpf , Optionen des Fderalismus in Deutschland und Europa, Campus Verlag, Frankfurt am

Main/New York 1994, pp. 92-116.34 Udo Bullman, Austria: The end of Proportional Government, in: John Loughlin (ED.), Subnational

Democracy in the European Union. Challeenges and Opportunities, Oxford University Press, Oxford

2001, pp.117-132.35

Frank Delmartino, Belgia dup a patra reform de stat: federalism complet sau confederalism nconstituire? , in:Altera, An 4(1998), Nr.7, pp.30-56.36 Thomas Conzelmann,of Regional Development Policies ? Linking the Multi-

level governance approach with theories of policy learning and policy chang , in: EIOP, vol.2(1998), No.

4 , p.3, http://eiop.or.at./eiop/texte/1998-004a.htm.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

8/14


________________________________________________________________________

8

business, unions, nongovernmental orgnanizations, etc. In France, for instance, prior to

the adoption of decentratlisation reforms (Law no. 213/March 2nd

1982), the territorial-

administrative structure of the Fifth Republic comprisesd only dpartements andcommunes (municipalites). The legislative authority of a commune si the town council

(conseil municipal), elected directly, while executive power rests with the mayor, elected

indirectly by town councilors.

37

The mayor has two fundamental prerogatives:1) as representative of the state in the municipality, he or she is in charge of enforcing

national legislation and preserve public safety throughout the commune;

2) the mayor represents the municipality as the executive officer of the town council.Article 72 of the Constitution sanctions the principle of autonomous decision-making for

local communities and establishes departments as territorial communities which may take

decisions in all matters that are within powers granted by the legislative. (Les

Collectivits territoriales ont vocation prendre les dcisions pour lensemble descomptences qui peuvent le mieux tre mise en oeuvre leur chelon). The structure and

functioning of general councils in the departments was not affected by the creation of

regions. Executive power in departments rests with the prefect, whose main prerogatives

are budget execution and enforcement of the general councils decisions.

38

Local autonomy is inextricably linked with the issue of financing programs for business,

social and cultural development, and all other activities that appertain to these territorialcommunities. There are three sources for local community financing: the annual state

budget, local taxes and VAT revenue

2.5. Interest Groups

Interest groups seek to influence decision-making in the EU, at a national, regional

and local level. Consequently, interest groups consist of multinational, national and local

companies that exert their influence through various channels in order to promote theirinterests. Lobbying is legal and present at all levels of EU government. It is carried out by

organized groups from every economic sector. Locally, the chambers of commerce and

industry, the representatives of local business, unions and other organizations (evencharities), work to promote economic, service and social interests39.

The strongest pressure on the decision-making process is exerted at the level of EU

institutions. Transnational organizations permeate all areas of decision-making.40, 41.

In addition to direct lobby opportunities in the European Parliament, the Commission orthe Council, researchers also mention indirect lobby channels in the Council, carried out

by national delegations in Brussels, the members of the working groups within the

Council (COREPER) and even by national governments42

.

37 John Loughlin and Daniel-L. Seiler, France: Between Centralization and Fragmentation, in: John

Loughlin (Ed.), op. cit., pp.192-196.38 Grard Marcou , op.cit., p.17.39 Udo Bullmann, op.cit., p.100.40 Justin Greenwood and Ruth Webster, Are EU Business Associations Governable?, in: European

Integration online Papers (EIOP), vol. 4(2000), No.3, pp.5-9.41 Sonia Mazey and Jeremy Richardson, Interest groups and EU policy-making: organizational logic and

venue shopping, http://www.INTEREST%20GROUPS%20AND%20 EU%20POLICY%20, p.8.42Ibidem, pp.21-22.

43 Laurentiu Baltatu (2003), Reforma Guvernantei Europene, Reforma Constitutionala si Institutionala

a UE, Editura Economica, Bucuresti

7/30/2019 cuglesan

9/14


________________________________________________________________________

9

3. Multi-level governance in Romania

In Romania, the MLG system represents a preoccupation not only for the academic

literature but it represents an interest also for the policy makers in the perspective of

Romanias EU accession. The constitutional and institutional reforms undergone by theEU have been approached in a series of works like: Reforma Guvernantei Europene,

Reforma constitutionala si institutionala a UE by Laurentiu Baltatu43, Reforma

institutionala a UE,Reforma constitutionala si institutionala a UE, de Nicolae Idu44

and

Reforma constitutionala si internationala a UEpublished under the coordination of Petre

Prisecaru and Nicolae Idu45

. An excellent book through its content, Guvernanta Uniunii

Europene having as author Petre Prisecaru46

, approaches the multi-level governance from

a conceptual point of view and and its impact on the EU policies , inclusively the role ofthe national state in the new EU architecture. In Romania, the regional decentralization

was performed through the existing local authorities and the establishment of the

development regions was based on the extending of competences of the local authorities,

the new created Regional development councils not having juridical personality.A radiography on Romanias situation between 2001-2004 was accomplished by A.

Ghinea in the paperMulti-level governance in Romania47

.Romania is a unitary national state and its territorial structure includes 42 counties,

over 276 towns and cities, from which 103 are cities, and 2727 communes48

. The multi-

level governance in Romania consists of two levels: central and local, at the latest level

are mayoralties, local and county councils, while the first level consists of government,ministers, governmental agencies and territorial public administration unites, which

represent the central authority at local level. According to Romanian legislation, all

members of local and county councils are elected through universal, direct, individualand free ballot every four years. The local authorities have several competencies related

to the administration of local public interests and their financial resources are established

44 Nicolae Idu, Gilda Truica (2003), Reforma Institutionala a UE, Reforma constitutionala si

institutionala a UE, Editura Economica , Bucuresti

45 Petre Prisecaru, Nicolae Idu(2003),Reforma constitutionala si internationala a UE, Editura Economica,

Bucuresti.

46 Petre Prisecaru (2005), Guvernanta Uniunii Europene, Economica, Bucuresti.

47 A. Ghinea, Multi-level governance in Romania, Internet48 Statistical Annuar of Romania, 2004.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

10/14


________________________________________________________________________

10

by law. Romania must develop new regional structures which must be equipped with

adequate competences for fulfilling all attributions. We can put the question: Which will

be the perspectives of the regionalization in Romania? There are three basic ideas forregionalization in Romania

49, launched at various meetings which were organized by the

Romanian government, but, for time being, the developing regions remain the single

variant and the future of the multi-level governance system in Romania include only twolevels: central and local.

3.1 The Competences of the central authorities

The Government as a collective body constitutes the main executive authority, having

general competences in matters of government and public administration. t is led by thePrime Minister. The ministers and governmental agencies are established by an organic

law and their responsibility consists in the management of public administrationaccording to governing plan and National Developing Plan, elaborated together with

interested actors, as Regional Development Councils and other institutions. The

governmental representatives in territory are prefectures and county departments. Their

attributions like the protection of national interests, the supervision of law respect or themonitoring of the legality of local and county authorities are also established by law.

3.2 Local authorities competences

The decentralization in the large sense of the term means any dump of attributions

from the central level to the local level, regardless of the used method. From the point of

view of the paper, the decentralization is evaluated depending on the method of achievingthis transfer. A frequently used method is the transfer from the central level to the

administrative units (currently named territorial decentralization). The second method of

the decentralization process can be performed in the public services area and consists ofdetaching some public services from the duty of the central or local public administration

followed by granting the juridical personality to these units, to fulfill their duties.

The local authorities include the following: mayoralty, local council and countycouncil. All local authorities have the same rights from administrative point of view, i.e.

each has the right to make decisions for solving issues of local interest. At communal

level, the local council represents a deliberative authority, while the mayor is an

executive authority. The increase of the efficiency level of the local governance inRomania, is conditioned by the capacity of the local authorities to elaborate and

implement public policies at local level and to involve all interested factors, including

from the private sector in the decision-making and implementation process. Thepromotion of the public-private partnership, as a cooperation modality between a public

and a private authority, constitutes a more than welcome solution from the point of

satisfying the local and regional interests in areas like environmental protection,infrastructure, tourism, urban development. Although the partnership is legislatively and

institutionally instituted, it is still insufficiently implemented at national or through

49Consiliul Judetean Iasi(2004), Nota privind unele puncte de vedere europene referitoare la problematica

politicii regionale, a regionalizarii si regionalismului in Europa, UNJCR, The first meeting task force

regarding regionalization in Romania, Sinaia 15-16 Ianuarie (Source:Internet)

7/30/2019 cuglesan

11/14


________________________________________________________________________

11

community programs50

. With the aim of improving the training of the public servants

from the public institutions, it would be necessary to carry out a series of

programs(workshops, training sessions, research stages, seminars, round tables) incooperation with the Federation of the Local Authorities from Romania(FALR) for : a)

strengthening the partnership with the national public administration. b) the unitary

representation of the common interests of the local authorities in relation with the centralpublic administration, NGOs at national and international level. c) the harmonization of

the interests of the association members for the equilibrated economical and social

development of the local authorities. A more efficient governance will depend on thecompetences granted to the sub-national authorities, through law, in the framework of the

decentralization process51

and if the financial resources are assured for the economical,

social, cultural and scientific development projects.

4. Conclusions

The European Union can be described as a multi-level governance system, in which the

decisional authority is distributed among national governments, supranational

organizations (the European Commission, the European Parliament, the European Courtof Justice), sub-national authorities (regional and local), as well transnational and sub-

national interest groups, such as several private actors involved in the localadministration; it is worth mentioning the important role that work committees and EU

agencies play in the elaboration of the European policy. In Romania, the regional

decentralization was performed through the existing local authorities and the

establishment of the development regions was based on the extending of competences ofthe local authorities, the new created Regional Development Councils not having

juridical personality. Romanias accession to the European Union is strongly related to

the implementation of the regional policy. Romania must develop new regional structureswhich must be equipped with adequate competences for fulfilling all attributions. We can

ask ourselves: Which will be the perspectives of the regionalization in Romania? There

are three basic ideas for regionalization in Romania, launched at various meetings whichwere organized by the Romanian government, but, for the time being, the developing

regions remain the single variant and the future of the multi-level governance system in

Romania include only two levels: central and local.

References

Arribas, Gracia, Vera(2005), The changing Dynamics of Sub-State participation: The

Commissions Proposals for Increasing Regional and Local Involvement In europeanPolicy Processes, European Institute of Public Administration(EIPA), No.2, pp.19-25.

Bache, Ian (2003),Europeanization: A Governance Aproach, Paper presented at the

EUSA 8th Biennial Conference, Nashville, March 27-29.

50 This is one of the most important conclusion of the Conference Regional and Rural Development in

Romania after EU accession,Building Operational Synergies, Bucharest, 2006 June, 28-29.

51 The Law framework of the decentralization, No.195/22 May 2006, published in M.Of.453/25 May

2006.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

12/14


________________________________________________________________________

12

Bache, I.an, Flinders, Mike (2004),Multi-level governance, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Bache, Ian(2005), Europeanization and Britain : Towards Multi-level governance ?,Paper presented at EUSA 9

thBiennial Conference in Austin, Texas, March 31 April 2.

Bailer, Stephanie (2005), The European Commissions Power : Overrated or Justified?,

Paper to be presented at the EUSA 9

th

Biennial International Conference, Austin, Texas,March 31-April 2.

Benz, Arthur&Eberlein, Burkard (1998),Regions in European Governance: The logic of

multi-level Interaction, European Univ. Institute, Paper RSC No 98/31.Bernard, Nick (2002),Multi-level governance in the European Union, Kluwer Law

International, London.

Brzel, Tanja A.(1997),Whats So Special About Policy Networks ? An Exploration of

the Concept and its Usefulness in Studying European Governance, in: EIOP, vol. 1, No.16, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-016a.htm.

Brzel, Tanja A.(2001),Private-Public Partnership: Effective and Legitimate Tools of

International Governance?, paper prepared for the Workshop on Global Governance,

Florence, April 6-7.Brzel, Tanja A(2003a), Shaping and Taking EU Policies: Member State responses to

Europeanization, Queens Papers on Europeanization, No.2.Brzel, Tanja A.(2003b),How the European Union interacts with its Member States, in:

Political Science Series, No.93.

Bromley, Simon (2001), Governing the European Union, Sage Publications, London.

Bullmann, Udo(2001),Federalism under strain, in: Loughlin, John(Ed.), Sub-nationalDemocracy in the European Union . Challeenges and Opportunities, Oxford University

Press, Oxford, pp.83-116.

Bullman, Udo(2001), Austria: The end of Proportional Government , in: John Loughlin(Ed.) op.cit., pp.117-132.

Commission of European Communities (2001),European Governance A white paper,

Brussels.Consiliul Judetean Iasi(2004),Nota privind unele puncte de vedere europene referitoare

la problematica politicii regionale, a regionalizarii si regionalismului in Europa,

UNJCR, Thje first meetig task force regarding the regionalization in Romania, Sinaia

January 15-16 (Source: Internet)Conzelmann, Thomas (1998),Europeanizationof Regional Development Policies ?

Linking the Multi-level governance approach with theories of policy learning and policy

change, in: EIOP, vol. 2, No.4, p.3 http://eiop.or.at./eiop/texte/1998-004a.htm.Delmartino, Frank(1998),Belgia dup a patra reform de stat: federalism complet sau

confederalism n constituire? , in: Altera, An 4, Nr.7, pp.30-56.

Dudek, Carolyn Marie(2005), Coordinating Regional Policy in the EU, paper preparedfor the EUSA 9th Biennial Conference, Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2.

Eberlein, Burkard & Kerwer, Dieter(2002), Theorising the New Modes of European

Union Governance, in: European Integration online Papers, vol.6, No.5,http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2002-005a.htm.

Funck, Bernard, Pizzati, Leon(2003),European Integration , regional policy and growth,

The World Bank, Washington D.C.

7/30/2019 cuglesan

13/14


________________________________________________________________________

13

Greenwood, J., Webster, R.(2000),Are European Union Business Associations

Governable?, in : EIOP , vol. 4, No. 3 , http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2000-003a.htm .

Guvernul Romaniei (2006),Regional and Rural Development in Romania after EUaccession,Building Operational Synergies, Conference, Bucharest, June, 28-29

Haibach, Georg LLM (2005), Governance by Committee: The role of Committees in

European Policy Making and Policy Implementation, paper prepared for EUSA 9

th

Biennial Conference, Austin, Texas, March 31-April 2.

Hooghe, Liesbet (1997), Serving Europe- Political Orientations of Senior

Commission Officials, in: EIOP, vol.1, No.8, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-008a.htm.Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks,Gary(2001a),Multi-level governance and EuropeanIntegration, Rowman and Littlefield, Oxford.

Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks,Gary(2001b), Types of Multi-level governance, in: European

Integration online Papers (EIOP), vol.5, No.11, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/2001-011a.htmHooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary(2003), Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of

Multi-level governance, in: HISPolitical Science Series, No.87

Hooghe, Liesbet & Marks, Gary(2004), Contrasting visions of Multi-level Governance,

in: Bache, Ian, Flinders, Mike(Eds.), op.cit., pp.15-31.Idu, Nicolae, Truica, Gilda(2003),Reforma Institutionala a UE, Reforma constitutionala

si institutionala a UE, Editura Economica , BucurestiIvan, Adrian.Liviu(2003a),Perspective teoretice ale construciei europene, Eikon, Cluj-

Napoca.

Ivan, Adrian(2003b), Gouvernance et lUnion Europenne. De la rforme institutionelle

au Trait instituant une Constitution pour lEurope, in: Transylvanian Review, vol.XII,No.4, pp.100-111

Johnson, Isabelle,Redefining the concept of governance, http://www.acdi-

cida.gc.ca/INET/IMAGES./.Kahler, Mike & Lake, David A.(2003), Globalization and Governance, in: Kahler ,

Mike&Lake, David A.(Eds), Governance in a global economy, Princeton University

Press, http://www.pupress.princeton.edu/titles.Kohler-Koch, Beate(1997),Organized interests in the EC and the European Parliament,

in: European Integration online Papers(EIOP), vol.1(1997), No.9,

http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-009a.htm.

Kutsal, Yesilkagit & Blom-Hansen, Jens(2005), Supranational governance or nationalbusiness as usual ?, Paper presented at the XIV Nordic Political Science Association

(NOPSA), Reykjavik, Iceland, August 11-13.

Marcou, Gerard(1999),Experiena francez n regionalizare: descentralizarea regionaln statul unitar, in: Altera, An 5, Nr.9, pp.7-35.

Marks, Gary, et all (1996), Governance in the European Union, Sage Publication Inc.,

London.Olowu, Dele(2002), Governance in developing countries: The challenge of multi-level

governance, Seventh International Seminar on Geo-Information Science(GIS) in

developing countries, Enschede, Netherland, May 15-18.Prisecaru, Petre, Nicolae Idu(2003),Reforma constitutionala si internationala a UE,

Editura Economica , Bucuresti

Pollack, Mark A.(1999),Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the Treaty of

Amsterdam, in: EIOP, vol.3, No.6, pp.7-9, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1999-oo6a.htm

7/30/2019 cuglesan

14/14


________________________________________________________________________

14

Prisecaru, Petre(2005), Guvernanta Uniunii Europene, Economica, Bucuresti

Vasile Puscas(2004a),IT&C, the engine of spreading information concerning theacquis

communautaire, at the International conference Day, Bucharest, June 3.Puscas, Vasile(2004b), The Impact of european Integration on Romania: problems and

perspectives, in: Messina, P.(Ed),EU Enlargement, Borders, Boundaries and Constraints,

Policy Euronet Laboratory, University of Padova, pp.65-88.Puscas, Vasile(2004c), Adrian Liviu Ivan(coord),Regiune si Regionalizare in Uniunea

Europeana, Institutul Cultural Roman, Institutul de Studii Internationale, Cluj-Napoca.

Puscas, Vasile(2004d), Subsidiaritatea si politica regionala comunitara, in: Puscas, V.,Ivan, A. I.(Coord), op.cit., pp. 143-156.

Puscas, Vasile(2005),Relatii internationale/transnationale, Editura Sincron, Cluj-

Napoca.

Trondal, Jarle(2005),EU Committee Governance and the Emerging CommunityAdninistration, paper prepared for EUSA 9

thBiennial Conference, Austin, Texas, March

31-April 2, http://aei.pitt.edu.archive /00002980.

***, UE Agencies, http://europa.eu.int/agencies/history_en.htm.

Wallace, Hellen, Wallace,William(2000), Policy Making in the EU, Oxford University

Documents

cuglesan