Conference Agenda

How has policy layering in Belgian asylum reception policy reshaped local-federal relations and coordination? This study investigates how successive layers of asylum reception policy in Belgium have affected intergovernmental relations (IGR), particularly the coordination between federal and local governments (Hooghe & Marks, 2003; Pierson, 2004). Intergovernmental coordination in asylum reception policy is crucial during global migration crises, ensuring better reception capacities and less strain on national systems (Oliver et al., 2020; Scholten & Penninx, 2016). Building on this, policy layering plays a crucial role in structuring intergovernmental relations. It can reinforce coordination or, conversely, fragmentation because the interaction between different layers can either align or create contradictions between governance structures. When policy layers are coherent, they enhance coordination and institutional stability (Daugbjerg & Swinbank, 2016; Peckham et al., 2022). However, misalignment between layers leads to fragmentation, overlapping authority, and inefficiencies (Foli & Ohemeng, 2022; Kelly et al., 2019).

To analyze these governance shifts, we distinguish between the three mechanisms of policy layering: instrumental, actor, and ideational layering (Capano, 2019; Mahoney & Thelen, 2010). Instrumental layering introduces new policy instruments alongside existing ones, which can improve policy coherence but also create contradictions (van der Heijden, 2011). Ideational layering introduces shifts in policy paradigms and goals (Feindt & Flynn, 2009). Actor layering involves the addition of new policy actors, such as municipalities and NGOs, redistributing power and responsibilities across governance levels (Capano, 2019). This process can strengthen intergovernmental relations but also generate tensions (Wellstead, 2018).

Our analytical framework will examine how these mechanisms interact and shape policy outcomes. By mapping these interactions, we provide insight into the governance dynamics of policy layering and its impact on intergovernmental relations. Applying a historical institutionalist lens, this case study of Belgium’s asylum reception policy analyzes how policy layering has reshaped governance in its decentralized federal system. Typically, this entails overlapping responsibilities between federal, regional, and local authorities that create both coordination and friction (Adam et al., 2018). Specifically, instrumental layering includes the municipal dispersal plan of 1986. Actor layering is evident in the establishment of Fedasil, the growing role of municipalities, and increased NGO involvement in crisis reception (Adam et al., 2020). Ideational layering reflects shifts from integration-focused to deterrence-based policies and the transition from financial to material support (Bianchini, 2020; Lafleur & Marfouk, 2019).

Using historical process tracing, we examine how layering has shaped intergovernmental coordination (Wang et al., 2018; Wellstead, 2018). In the paper, we will elaborate on our theoretical framework and research design. Additionally, we will present initial findings based on semi-structured interviews with policymakers, migration officials, and NGO representatives at both federal and local levels.

One of the main topics of intergovernmental relations (IGR) research is (de)centralization. Shifts in both directions continue to take place in countries around the world in response to similar pressures and with similarly high expectations (Andrews & De Vries 2007; Ruano & Profiroiu 2017). Decentralization research to date does however not show clear results, and sometimes shows even contradictory results (e.g. Andrews & De Vries 2007; Ebinger et al. 2011). What is more, the limited research into decentralization effects shows many other factors are at play, for example form of decentralization, policy field, political interests, and country size (Andrews & De Vries 2007; Ebinger et al. 2011; Bannink & Ossewaarde 2012).

In this paper we build on this work and focus on the decentralization process and practice in one policy field, employability services, over a longer period of time in three countries belonging to the Nordic countries (Schwab et al. 2017), Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries have in common that they have politically and functionally strong local governments with a moderate to high level of local autonomy and a consensual, cooperative, pragmatic and open political culture. The decentralization of employability services in these countries has however taken different forms (political or administrative decentralization, vertical or horizontal deconcentration, or combinations thereof).

Interestingly, policy makers in the three countries have had rather similar expectations of these different forms of decentralization: higher levels of efficiency and effectiveness and improved integration of service delivery to citizens. In this paper, we confront policy makers expectations with theoretical expectations of the different forms of decentralization and the mechanisms and actual effects of decentralization in the three countries. Our results are based on desk research of policy documents, reports, evaluations, scientific research and (open) databases as well as semi-structured interviews with key persons working in national government, the public employment service (PES) (if applicable at different levels), municipalities, professional or trade associations, social partners, and several (scientific) experts conducted in 2023/2024. In the paper, we discuss (i) the context of labor market policy and the administrative traditions, (ii) the decentralization process, (iii) the decentralization forms and practices, and use these elements to explain (iv) the goal achievement of the decentralization processes in the three countries, which turns out to be rather limited.

References

Andrews, C.W. &. Vries, M.S. (2007). High Expectations, Varying Outcomes: Decentralization and Participation in Brazil, Japan, Russia and Sweden. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(3), 425-451.

Bannink, D.B.D., & Ossewaarde, R. (2012). Decentralization: New Modes of Governance and Administrative Responsibility. Administration & Society, 44(5), 595-624.

Ebinger, F., Grohs, S., & Reiter, R. (2011). The Performance of Decentralisation Strategies Compared: An Assessment of Decentralisation Strategies and their Impact on Local Government Performance in Germany, France and England. Local Government Studies, 37(5), 553-575.

Ruano, J.M., & Profiroiu, M. (2017). The Palgrave Handbook of Decentralisation in Europe. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Schwab, C., Bouckaert, G., &Kuhlmann, S. (Eds.) (2017). The Future of Local Government in Europe. Lessons from Research and Practice in 31 Countries. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

The paper has two main aims. Our first aim is to delineate the Nordic politico-administrative systems of employment policy. Two decades ago, the Nordic countries had rather similar, national state-centred models with state-owned, single purpose employment offices responsible for the customer interface at the local level. Now only Sweden has maintained the original model, while Denmark, Finland and Norway have all reformed their employment policy systems, in different ways. Denmark reorganised employment services as part of its comprehensive structural reform in 2007. The responsibility for the local job centres was decentralised to the municipalities. As of 2006, Norway established the new Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration (Nav). In Nav, the state and the municipalities cooperate in providing a single gateway into public labour and welfare services. Finland decentralised in January 2025 employment services to municipalities. The main reason was that municipalities are closer to clients, and employers. In effect, because of the small average size of Finnish municipalities, 45 employment districts were founded. The national government also maintains some control functions.

Our second aim is to analyse the four employment policy models from an IGR perspective. Denmark, Finland and Norway emphasise in different ways the local presence of employment policy, while Sweden has the national state-based model. We ask, how do local and regional policy processes mesh with regional and central-level policies and vice versa? The Finnish model, for example, emphasises the role of municipalities, at the same time preserving the control function of national authorities. In addition, employment policy is regulated by law, hence providing the parliament to have a say. Can municipalities accordingly conduct autonomous decision-making? We also aim at comparing the change motives of Denmark, Finland, and Norway as well as the “not-changing” motive of Sweden, to see, whether the change trajectories of Nordic employment policies resemble each other or not, and why.

As Europe intensifies its efforts towards climate neutrality and resource efficiency, sustainable consumption—of both energy and water—emerges as a key challenge requiring coordinated action across multiple levels of government. This paper explores how national and regional governance structures interact in shaping citizens' behaviors in the context of energy and water transition, focusing on the industrially rooted GZM Metropolis in Southern Poland. The study draws upon the evolving scholarship on Inter-Governmental Relations and multi-level governance (Hooghe & Marks, 2001; Cotella et al. 2021, Peters & Pierre, 2017), while incorporating behavioral insights into public policy (Grimmelikhuijsen et al., 2017; Kubera, 2023).

Empirically, the paper presents results from a nationwide representative survey (N = 1067), conducted in 2024 and 2025 using the CAWI method. Respondents were stratified by key demographic variables to ensure generalizability. To capture the complexity of consumption behaviours, we employed exploratory factor analysis and structural equation modeling (SEM). These statistical techniques enabled us to uncover latent behavioral dimensions and test causal paths between environmental awareness, social norms, economic motivations, and self-reported practices. The robustness of the model supports cross-regional and comparative applications.

Key findings show that while environmental awareness is growing, especially among younger urban populations, the actual implementation of sustainable practices (e.g., use of RES, energy-saving appliances, water-saving devices) remains limited. Economic factors (e.g., upfront costs), institutional barriers (e.g., complex administrative procedures), and psychological aspects (e.g., low perceived efficacy) create a significant intention-action gap.

From a governance perspective, the paper analyzes the alignment—and misalignment—between national programs such as Clean Air and local/regional implementation strategies. In Poland’s highly centralized system, local governments such as GZM often operate with limited autonomy and constrained financial or regulatory flexibility. Nevertheless, local authorities attempt to adapt or complement national policies with grassroots initiatives, targeted communication campaigns, and energy-awareness programs. These hybrid responses highlight both resilience and institutional tensions.

The paper critiques traditional nation-centric models of IGR and supports a shift towards issue-specific, adaptive governance structures (Ruggeri, 2018; Hernandez at.al, 2025; Martínez-Cantó, J., & Fernandes, J. M.,2025), better suited to address cross-sectoral and citizen-driven challenges. We extend the behavioural public administration approach by integrating environmental behavior models with institutional and policy design literature.

Drawing on Ostrom’s (2015) theory of collective action and contemporary work on policy layering and bricolage, we argue for the need to create governance ecosystems that combine financial incentives, regulatory clarity, and social norm interventions. The case of GZM illustrates both the potential and limits of subnational innovation in the face of fragmented vertical coordination.

Moreover, the paper critically reflects on the changing nature of intergovernmental relations in Poland, arguing that the climate transition agenda is shifting the traditional power balance between central and regional authorities. GZM emerges as a case of localized adaptation within a largely top-down system, raising questions about institutional flexibility, administrative capacity, and subnational agency. The findings contribute to the debate on policy-driven IGR reform and offer insights into how new environmental and behavioral challenges are reshaping multi-level governance in Europe.