style (e.g., hierarchical, network or market governance) or any combination believed to be fit-for-all-purposes. Metagovernance (a.k.a. governance of governance) consists in designing and managing a diversified combination of governance styles (Meuleman and Niestroy, 2015; Christopoulos, Horvat and Kull, 2012). It aims at producing coordinated governance (at some degree) that varies depending on the particular combination of hierarchical, market and/or network governance. 23 Within this framework, apparently contrasting approaches (e.g., bottom-up versus top-down modes, cooperative versus marketoriented methods, (strong) leadership versus (decentralized) ownership) are not contradictory but mutually enforcing and can be reconciled in a particular way to be implemented in a particular policy situation. The implementation of the 2030 Agenda poses the challenge of how to combine different governance approaches successfully “on the ground”. That is, choosing the situationally best tailor-made combination of hierarchical, network and market governance styles depending on the available opportunities (and limitations) posed by a specific territory and its policy actors.
Multi-level governance Since its emergence in the late 1990s (Hooghe and Marks, 2001, 2003) multi-level governance (MLG) has gained momentum. Notably, the term has achieved a relevant institutional support, especially among policymakers and IGOs (Committee of the Region’s White Paper on Multilevel Governance, UNDP, OECD, among others). While the ‘first generation’ of scholarship was caught up with the novelty of new governance forms and how these could transform basic institutional structures, the ‘second generation’ of literature steered MLG towards new modes of governance and regulation (Stephenson, 2013). In general terms, multilevel governance evokes an atypical scenario of decision making, characterized by a plural process of interest negotiation, vertically and horizontally integrated and open to the participation of stakeholders. This hypothetical scenario - if it exists - would mean a rupture with the more traditional forms of centralized governing style (command-and-control). This is where the novelty lies. Governance styles can be defined as the processes of decision-making and implementation, including the manner in which the organizations involved relate to each other. Three ideal-typical (in Weberian sense) governance styles are usually distinguished: hierarchical, network and market governance. Every country has a different “starting point” and preference for a governance style (or styles combination) due to constitutional settings, traditions, and political culture. The European Union has been characterized as a major supranational instance of multi-level metagovernance governing a wide range of complex and interrelated problems.
23
15