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 Inter-municipal level: inter-municipal companies, formal and informal networks Municipal level: 589 municipalities (cities, communes), (intra-)municipal networks Local Government

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

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 Knowledge/ information = Key resource Top-down EU => local authorities Implementing EU policy Responding to programmes ‘policy-takers’ Bottom-up 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

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 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 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

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