In Europe, public administrations at different levels of authority are involved in the process of implementing legal acts. Multi-level governance has long been established as a concept to describe this phenomenon. However, the concept raises important normative issues regarding how to assess the agency of administrative bodies in systems of complex interdependence. The article develops a concept of multilevel reasoning that is constituted by two attitudes towards inter-institutional challenges: constructive conciliation and well-placed deference. This conceptual framework is needed to capture the success conditions of administrative reasoning in settings of multilevel governance. To illustrate the analytical force of the framework, the article explains how it helps us interpret the evaluations of two scandals of welfare administration in Norway and the Netherlands. These cases exemplify why lack of constructive conciliation and well-placed deference generate legitimate criticism. The cases attest to the advantage of a constructive theory of administrative reasoning over established perspectives that are focused on deficits and cognitive overload rather than on active choice.
The article introduces an approach to multi-level governance that acknowledges the idea of national administrations as interconnected and interdependent yet simultaneously counteracts proclivities to view administrative failures as matters of cognitive inability and ignorance. The framework of multilevel reasoning directs attention to the institutionalization of reason-giving procedures that are attuned to legitimate divisions of labor and authority.
Log in to comment