Está en la página 1de 14

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.

org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________

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 development programs 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 and promote 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 democracy in 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 to refer to the responsibilities of governing authorities. The important role of the state on international 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 term governance has acquired a different meaning. The World Bank1 gave a first definition for governance, which highlights the relationship between the government and the countrys wealth2. 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. 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.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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, to those 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 for governance, 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 of governance 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 Council9 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 the commissions10 were 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. The national 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
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 coarrangements, 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./ 8 Ibidem , p.4.
9 4

Nick Bernard , Multi-level governance in the European Union, Kluwer International Law, the Hague, 2002, p.148-151 10 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-asusual?, paper prepared for presenation at the XIV Nordic Political Science Assoc., Reykjavik, Iceland, 1113 August 2005, p.2, http://registration.yourhost.is/nopsa2005/papers.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 a third, 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 administrative levels. 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 of multi-level governance is also discussed in three other works by L. Hooghe i G. Marks15,16,17; 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 subnational authorities, public and private. The actors participating to the process of elaborating and implementing EU policies are therefore situated on different administrative 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 executive power 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 important competences 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 14

Nick Bernard , op. cit., p.239. 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: HIS Political 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.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 of recommendations 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 functionalist approach 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 arguments the 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 the judiciary 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 priorities between 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 19

Jose de Areilza, op.cit., p.7. 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.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 European Court 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 the Parliament 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 those established 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 the European 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 concomitantly with 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 the continuity 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 European integration 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 the organization 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.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 decisions are 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 divided26. In the academic literature this model was considered very close to the model proposed 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 economic differences. 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 administrative reforms 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 subnational 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 Ian Bache28 tackle 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 decisionmaking, 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 the competences 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 actors from 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 Structural Funds 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 between the 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 27

Vasile Puca & Adrian Liviu Ivan (coord), op.cit., p.39. 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.

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 fact that 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 Regions Committee30 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-national authorities 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 to show 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 the European 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 up development 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
Arthur Benz and Burkard Eberlein, Regions in European Governance: The logic of Multi-level Interaction, in: Working Paper RSC No 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 <<Europe>> - 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 n constituire? , in: Altera, An 4(1998), Nr.7, pp.30-56. 36 Thomas Conzelmann,<<Europeanization>>of Regional Development Policies ? Linking the Multilevel 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.
30

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ business, unions, nongovernmental orgnanizations, etc. In France, for instance, prior to the adoption of decentratlisation reforms (Law no. 213/March 2nd 1982), the territorialadministrative structure of the Fifth Republic comprisesd only dpartements and communes (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 des comptences 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 territorial communities. 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 their interests. 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 (even charities), 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 or the 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. 42 Ibidem, pp.21-22. 43 Laurentiu Baltatu (2003), Reforma Guvernantei Europene, Reforma Constitutionala si Institutionala a UE, Editura Economica, Bucuresti

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 the EU 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 UE published 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 of the 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 paper Multi-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 multilevel 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, individual and 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 48

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

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 for regionalization in Romania49, 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 two levels: 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 the Prime Minister. The ministers and governmental agencies are established by an organic law and their responsibility consists in the management of public administration according 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 the monitoring 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 achieving this 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 of detaching 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 county council. 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 in Romania, 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. The promotion 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

49

Consiliul 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)

10

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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) in cooperation 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 central public 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 the competences 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 Court of Justice), sub-national authorities (regional and local), as well transnational and subnational interest groups, such as several private actors involved in the local administration; 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 of the 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 structures which 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 which were 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 european Policy 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.

11

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 9th Biennial 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 9th 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-national Democracy 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 prepared for 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.

12

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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 EU accession, 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 9th 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 European Integration, 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.htm Hooghe, Liesbet, Marks, Gary(2003), Unraveling the Central State, But How? Types of Multi-level governance, in: HIS Political 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 , Bucuresti Ivan, Adrian.Liviu(2003a), Perspective teoretice ale construciei europene, Eikon, ClujNapoca. 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.acdicida.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 national business 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 regional n 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

13

Natalia Cuglesan Eurojournal.org, October 2006 ________________________________________________________________________ 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, ClujNapoca. Trondal, Jarle(2005), EU Committee Governance and the Emerging Community Adninistration, paper prepared for EUSA 9th Biennial 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

14