CAHIERS DU CRISES
–
COLLECTION ÉTUDES THÉORIQUES
–
NO
ET0908
68
– and therefore urban elites – was avoided. This is a parallel to the case of the Tower Colliery,
where the satisfaction of material interests – in the form of employment under decent
conditions – also played a prominent part. Due to direct engagement of formerly excluded
actors, a “space that is conducive towards citizenship” (García 2006: 752) has been created in
these cases. This leads to the possibility of collective learning by the participating citizens, as
participation is a political learning process, and to the notion of a “public state”, which is ruled
more directly by its citizens than the bureaucratically administered Fordist welfare state (Novy
2003b). The proposed notion of citizenship comprises both a social and a political dimension
(García 2006: 748) and is therefore able to grasp the dialectical relationship between the
content and the process dimensions of social exclusion. Furthermore it is useful in dealing
with the complex relationship between agency and structure and in conceptualising the
question of the relevant geographical sphere or political level. We would therefore suggest the
claim for equal citizenship as a concrete utopia that should inform socially creative strategies
in the field of governance and democracy.
GOVERNANCE AND DEMOCRACY
–
KATARIS PROJECT
69
5
5
.
.
D
D
I
I
M
M
E
E
N
N
S
S
I
I
O
O
N
N
S
S
O
O
F
F
M
M
U
U
L
L
T
T
I
I
-
-
L
L
E
E
V
V
E
E
L
L
G
G
O
O
V
V
E
E
R
R
N
N
A
A
N
N
C
C
E
E
A
A
N
N
D
D
S
S
O
O
C
C
I
I
A
A
L
L
L
L
Y
Y
C
C
R
R
E
E
A
A
T
T
I
I
V
V
E
E
S
S
T
T
R
R
A
A
T
T
E
E
G
G
I
I
E
E
S
S
(
(
S
S
C
C
S
S
)
)
Multi-level governance (Bache/Flinders 2004; Eising 2004) is an important dimension in the
KATARSIS-case studies. In a few cases, like Porto Alegre, upscaling is a crucial part of the
politics of scale or of attempts to broaden alliances. Local empowerment has led to regional
developmental efforts. In other cases, like Tower Colliery the emphasis is on proper spaces of
innovation and power that permit alternatives to liberal governance. Multi-level governance is
a concept which has been developed for the understanding of current transformations within
the European Union. It tries to grasp the double movement which shifts power away from the
national state towards trans-national and multi-national levels as well as the local and urban
levels.
The term “level” hints at a hierarchy of the different political levels involved. Marks and
Hooghe (2004) distinguish two different types of multi-level governance, which are shown in
table 3. Whereas type I multi-level governance refers to the more classic forms of federalism,
type II multi-level governance refers to more flexible arrangements with intersecting
memberships and could thus be called “network governance”. This second type of governance
is less transparent, as there is a certain lack of rules and regulations, which leads to problems
concerning democratic legitimacy. The first type is more in tune with traditional forms of
liberal and republican democracy based on sovereignty.