From Vertical Hierarchies to Horizontal Networks: Evolving Coordination in Multilevel Systems

In recent decades, governance structures around the world have undergone significant transformation, with multilevel systems emerging as a dominant model. In this context, multilevel governance has emerged as a key concept, highlighting how power is shared both vertically (across levels) and horizontally (among actors at the same level) to shape policies, deliver services, and provide meaningful leadership coherently. This shift reflects growing pressures, such as regional identity or political fragmentation, which challenge traditional unitary models of government. Many multilevel systems, which involve multiple layers of government, from local to federal, including Belgium, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the European Union, are navigating the complexities of governance across overlapping jurisdictions. Certainly, the scope of multilevel governance varies across contexts. Some multilevel systems have adopted full implementation, as exemplified by Belgium, while others have introduced more partial or limited forms of multilevel governance, as observed in Italy or Spain.

However, multilevel governance introduces numerous challenges. One of the challenges lies in ensuring effective coordination – both vertical and horizontal – across various levels of government and other actors. Vertically, the challenge lies in establishing effective instruments and mechanisms (such as financial grants, equalization payments, intergovernmental committees, and consultations between elected officials) that facilitate interaction between different levels of government, typically among central, provincial, regional, and local authorities. Horizontally, the challenge involves developing instruments and mechanisms (such as intergovernmental councils, networks of local governments, cross-regional initiatives, and cross-border cooperation) that support interaction among actors operating at the same level of government, including provinces, regional governments, municipalities, and even ministries. In both cases, the overarching objective is to promote convergence or coherent and integrated governance across multiple levels of the governmental system. However, achieving convergence in multilevel systems depends on the ability to embrace adaptiveness, while fostering trust and cooperation. This interplay of interests and powers, if managed effectively, can ensure cohesive leadership and policy-making, even amidst significant change and divergence.

Coordination Chaos in Multilevel Systems

Many multilevel systems have implemented multi-level governance, however, they are often seen as unstable. That is due to the fact that the levels and actors within multilevel systems possess the capacity to evolve independently and in divergent directions. It would be easy to characterize their interaction as a Willy Wonka’s elevator that can move sideways, slantwise, longwise, backways, squareways, and frontways, or in any other direction. Because of this, multilevel systems exhibit not only convergence (interdependence and coherence) but also divergence (disassociation and incoherence) in their interactions between levels and actors. Since this adds complexity to institutional settings and decision-making, this is frequently viewed as a cause of instability. For example, as a result of identity differences, Bosnia and Herzegovina is divided into two main entities, the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska, alongside the autonomous Brčko District. The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina itself is further subdivided into 10 cantons. Each level has its own government and competences. The multilevel complexities were starkly exposed during the 2014 floods, which affected large parts of the country. Disaster response was severely hampered by the lack of a centralized emergency management system. Civil protection agencies operated separately within each entity and canton, with minimal mechanisms for inter-entity or inter-cantonal coordination. As a result, early warning systems, evacuation protocols, and resource distribution were inconsistent and delayed. Communication breakdowns between the various levels of government and overlapping competencies prevented a unified and efficient response.

To promote stability, one of the main issues in regulating multilevel systems is enabling interaction between levels and actors. Effective management of such systems should ideally incorporate the essential interactions both vertically (across levels of government) and horizontally (between actors at the same level), to introduce more convergence. Both conceptual and theoretical approaches confirm that more interaction is linked to (improved) coordination. The dilemma, therefore, lies in determining how to enable and maintain coordination in multilevel systems.

Vertical Coordination: Principles, Practices, and Limitations

Contemporary practice at national and EU level demonstrates the existence of several coordination tools and procedures. These include simply passing legislation and putting it into effect as the two most rudimentary coordination mechanisms in the pursuit of greater convergence. However, other means should be taken into account, one of which is the principle of loyalty, mutual consideration, or comity. This principle refers to cooperation between substate authorities to facilitate the central level tasks and is in use in many multilevel systems. For example, the Belgian Constitution necessitates cooperation between the authorities based on respect for federal loyalty, even despite the allocation of powers based on exclusivity. In Spain and Italy, the constitutional court established the duty of loyalty, whereas in South Africa, similar provisions are to be found in specific statutes. It is interesting to note that the UK has informal agreements that are typically bilateral and are used to highlight what is generally referred to as the principle of federal loyalty. Finally, Member States of the EU must uphold the duty of loyalty or the principle of loyal cooperation.

Coordination tools predominantly concentrate on top-down or bottom-up vertical interactions. In an effort to synchronize their actions, the central level will steer lower levels and actors, which is the main focus of top-down vertical or dirigist coordination. Financial grants and taxes are specifically used for this type of steering. In Switzerland, for example, the top-down vertical strategy involves the coordination of personal and corporate taxes that can be imposed at the federal and cantonal levels. Apart from this, a variety of strategies based on laws, international agreements, and policies started by lower levels collectively form the bottom-up vertical coordination. For example, in order to help lower levels better define and position their policy requests and to enable higher levels to produce better policies, EU regulators have resorted to transforming informal networks that already exist into procedures and tools for coordination between national and supranational levels. More specifically, local and regional authorities across the EU often exchanged best practices and coordinated informally. The Committee of the Regions institutionalized this process by establishing a formal consultative assembly that ensures their perspectives can be considered in policymaking. However, both top-down and bottom-up vertical strategies are obviously very hierarchical and as such support the dominance of specific levels and actors. Consequently, this dynamic may provoke resistance or pushbacks. For example, in Spain, the central government’s top-down control and limitations on Catalonia’s (fiscal) autonomy contributed to growing regional dissatisfaction, which ultimately culminated in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. This suggests that vertical coordination may not be the most optimal solution.

From Vertical to Horizontal: Exploring Non-Hierarchical Coordination

Since coordination across levels and actors is essential to efficient governance, it is imperative to also investigate horizontal coordination, not unknown in comparative scholarship but certainly neglected. A notable example is  the EU’s Open Method of Coordination. While it is generally considered a form of vertical coordination, where the EU sets guidelines, Member States voluntarily align their policies, it also fosters horizontal coordination. Member States engage in the exchange of best practices, peer review, and, in some cases, regions within Member States also cooperate horizontally through networks encouraged by the Open Method of Coordination. Among the various policy areas, social policy coordination stands out as particularly challenging because of diversity and disparities among Member States. Nevertheless, the Open Method of Coordination allows Member States to assess the results of their coordinated endeavors through progress monitoring and peer review.

Clearly, managing multilevel governance in multilevel systems entails dynamic, negotiated, interactions between all levels and actors, not only vertically but also horizontally. Unlike vertical coordination, horizontal coordination is inherently non-hierarchical, as it involves collaboration between actors who operate on equal footing. These interactions rely on mutual agreement and the exchange of best practices rather than dominance, making them essential for fostering trust and coherence across the levels.

On one hand, the non-hierarchical coordination has the potential to allow convergence through the adaptiveness of the system. Spain serves as an example, where regions like the Basque Country and Catalonia enjoy varying levels of autonomy, sparking continuous negotiations between regional and local governments to balance diverse values and competing interests. Similarly, in the EU, the division of powers between the EU and Member States is ever-evolving. As the EU has expanded, ongoing discussions among Member States shape policies in different fields to accommodate new members and their (shifting) political landscapes. On the other hand, the non-hierarchical coordination links interaction and dependency across levels and actors to mutual trust in the management of the system. For example, in Belgium, horizontal co-ordination during the Covid-19 pandemic, supported by the Concertation Committee, played a vital role in ensuring strong leadership and a unified response. The Committee brought together federal and regional government representatives, fostering cooperation and trust across all levels. This collaboration ensured clear, consistent measures while allowing for regional flexibility, keeping the system aligned in its fight against the virus. In other words, adaptiveness and trust are cohesion-promoting characteristics as they bind levels and actors together through their shared interest. Adaptiveness enables constant fine-tuning of common interests and solidarity across levels and actors while trust underpins assumptions that each competing reality will maintain its position despite the system’s transformation.

Rethinking Coordination?

If the goal is to maintain a cohesive system, the non-hierarchical approach to coordination necessitates a fundamental rethinking of the current conception of coordination in multi-level systems. In other words, a multilevel system must enable a platform with appropriate coordinative tools that can facilitate communication across different levels and actors based on adaptiveness and trust. This would therefore suggest that the multi-level system is optimally kept, or sufficiently stable. Still, this does not imply that greater convergence will immediately result in greater cohesion and, thus, greater stability. However, it suggests that, the right level of coordination will allow for a higher level of convergence, which is a foundation for cohesion and stability.

* The annual ICON S conference took place between 8 and 10 July 2024 at the IE University Law School in Madrid, Spain. The conference focused on transformations in public law, AI revolution, and the need for resilience especially concerning economic growth, environmental preservation, and social equity. The themes called for a discussion on the capacity of constitutions, state structures, and regulatory regimes to respond to these challenges. This blog summarizes a presentation given at the conference on the neglected topic of non-hierarchical coordination in multilevel governance based on the previously published paper in Accommodating Diversity in Multilevel Constitutional Orders Legal Mechanisms of Divergence and Convergence.