Conference Agenda

This paper examines the evolving role of subnational actors in EU decision-making through a comparative analysis of their direct representation in Brussels. It investigates how regions (one level below the national/federal level) utilize bottom-up mobilization strategies, shaped by political mandates derived from regional citizens, to influence EU policymaking, often bypassing national governments. The study addresses the growing intersection of Europeanization and regionalization (Tatham, 2018), highlighting the increasing significance of subnational influence in the EU's multi-level governance framework (Harbers, Tatham, Tillin, & Zuber, 2021; Trobbiani, 2016).

The research explores how regional offices in Brussels function as intermediaries for territorial and functional interests, translating regional political mandates into lobbying, information gathering, and network-building activities (Marks, Haesly, & Mbaye, 2002). By comparing regions with varying degrees of constitutional authority – Flanders (Belgium), Bavaria (Germany), and Salzburg (Austria) – the study identifies how bottom-up democratic processes shape regional engagement in EU governance. This comparative approach acknowledges that while the number of actors in Brussels has increased, access to and influence within the decision-making process is not equally distributed (Kettunen & Kull, 2009). Additionally, the mobilization and interest representation of local actors, which share similarities with interest groups, also plays a role in the EU's multi-level system (Guderjan & Verhelst, 2021).

Expected findings include patterns in how regional political mandates influence the priorities and activities of regional offices. The research anticipates that regions with strong democratic legitimacy and a high degree of Europeanization will demonstrate more assertive representation, while others may focus on information-gathering and networking. Ultimately, this study will contribute to multi-level governance theories by demonstrating how regional mobilization in Brussels complements traditional state-centric models and enhances the democratic nature of EU governance. For practitioners, it will provide insights for strengthening the legitimacy and effectiveness of regional representation in the EU.

This research commences with a comprehensive review of the fundamental principles of multilevel governance theory, and further discusses its practical applications across global regions. The multi-level governance theory put forward by the European Union is in line with the paradigm of supranational governance within the EU. If we focus on the hierarchical issues within multi-level governance, the practice of multi-level governance also has typicality in China. This study analyzes how Beijing, as the capital, has adopted the core strategy of multi-level governance in the process of relieving functions that are not central to its role as the capital, especially in the face of increasingly severe urban problems in a large metropolis. We have selected a classic case study: the transformation and relocation of the traditional clothing wholesale industry to Hebei Province or Tianjin Municipality, which are adjacent to Beijing. Through in-depth interview analysis, we found that the most challenging aspect in the process of multi-level governance is to clearly identify the stakeholders and their core interests. During multiple rounds of interest adjustment, a relative balance of interests among the core stakeholders is ultimately achieved. The multi-level governance involving the challenging collaboration of Beijing, Tianjin, and Hebei has also achieved a certain degree of progress.

The refugee crisis following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 posed an extraordinary challenge to Poland’s multi-level crisis management system, revealing the limits of vertical coordination mechanisms and highlighting the critical role of horizontal governance. Despite the formal dominance of central authorities in Poland’s unitary crisis management system (Walczak, 2009; Piwowarski & Rozwadowski, 2016), local governments—particularly in Poland’s largest cities, which became the main destinations for Ukrainian refugees—quickly assumed the leading role in managing the crisis, frequently operating beyond formal procedures and legal prerogatives. Drawing on qualitative research into intergovernmental relations, this article demonstrates that the early stage of the crisis was marked by significant asymmetries in institutional preparedness and procedural clarity at the central level (Najwyższa Izba Kontroli, 2013; 2018), which prompted municipalities to activate informal and formal horizontal networks of collaboration with other cities, NGOs, and private actors (Boin et al., 2005; Kapucu, 2006). These networks allowed for swift mobilization of resources, allocation of accommodation, and provision of humanitarian aid, often ahead of and later in cooperation with central government agencies (Firlit-Fesnak, 2022; Wojtowicz, 2025). We argue that in the absence of timely vertical directives, horizontal alliances between progressive actors at the municipal level became a necessary condition for effective emergency response. The article identifies these networks of cooperation and the specific types of actions undertaken within them, showing how they evolved in real time to address local needs. This emergent governance dynamic confirms the salience of bottom-up, multilayer cooperation under crisis, as described by Bergström et al. (2022) in their typology of Multilayer Policy Processes, rather than the expected top-down centralised or conflicted policy processes. Ultimately, the Polish case illustrates that when formal crisis procedures fall short, horizontal collaboration can not only fill institutional voids but also produce locally tailored, effective responses that reshape intergovernmental relations (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Deverell & Hansén, 2020).