Multilevel governance is defined as the distribution of authority at different levels within a country and beyond its borders and is a necessary mechanism that allows countries and institutions to manage their governance structures[1]. This governance structure is done through established local, regional, or national authorities that are recognized as legitimate. Multilevel governance is one hand a concentration of power from low levels to a national or supranational level, and on the other, the distribution of power to local regional, or national levels[2]. In global affairs, organizations such as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), the European Union (EU), and the African Union (AU) are good examples of structures that have multilevel governance as their core mechanism. It has been argued that the AU is the African model of the AU. Below is a comparative analysis of these two organizations focusing on their functional structure, integration efforts, workforce, and historical ties under the lens of three multi-level governance theories.
In the study of multilevel governance, there are three recognized theories or schools of thought that are used namely intergovernmentalism, post-functionalism, and neo-functionalism to understand the processes of integration. Neofunctionalism describes integration as a series of processes that are sequential and lead to a specific desired outcome. Developed by Hass in 1958, this theory argues that each country sphere in which all state and non-state actors work for their interests. Intergovernmentalism theory describes how national states work together through negotiations to reach mutually agreed upon advantages. The theory focuses on the roles and responsibilities of national governments as actors to work to cooperate with others while preserving their national interests. Post-functionalism is a theory that argues that for the state to reach integration, they go through a series of conflicts and frictional belief systems as a result of their national identities. The theory focuses nation’s national identity and when attempting to conform to the rules of multilevel governance, they are more likely to create conflict rather than cooperation. According to this theory, national identity leads to more fractions as there are a rise and local and regional radical groups, therefore, disrupting the integration process.
The AU was created in 2022 following the demise of the Organization for African Unity (OAU) to reintroduce the African continent to global politics as one integrated continental body and improve on social, economic, and political efforts within the continent (Abdulrahman and Abraham, 2021). The AU used a multilevel governance structure with the supranational institution at its headquarters and other institutions with specific mandates related to Human Rights, justice, society, culture, and economy.
The EU was established in 1993 and uses a multilevel governance approach in the guidance of its policy-making and regional integration promotion. The EU in practice functions through policies and multilevel governance starting from the local, regional, and national levels under a supranational body that is the union’s central governance. In modern history, the EU’s progress and integration, although not perfect, have been hailed as a good example of the importance of multilevel governance and a one-continent approach to tackling challenges.
Since its inception, the AU has made strides, however, its acceptance in the continent and the world remains a test. The organization has also faced many challenges related to crises, climate disasters, and political and diplomatic quarrels between countries. In the case of the EU, neo-functionalism describes the organization’s efforts to integrate its 54 member states, however, according to the post-functionalism theory, there are many fractions present in the form of regional integration blocks. One key feature of African integration is the creation of blocks such as the East African Community (EAC), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), and the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (EMCCA)[3]. These organization blocks are recognized in the regions they represent, in all of Africa and globally. Currently, their mandate is not under the AU and their efforts in social economic, and political progress are not always aligned or in cooperation with the AU.
The goal of the EU was the establish a supranational organization that is legitimate and recognized globally. The EU has been evolving since its creation and various crises and global changes have affected and challenged the organization and its integration, especially in the last decade. Under the intergovernmentalism theory, the EU made significant progress in ensuring the cooperation of member states toward mutual goals. Even though the organization faced challenges and intra-countries disagreements, the purpose of the EU remains, and the organization can be considered a success story in terms of integration[4]. Some of the challenges for the EU include internal fractions led by nationalist groups, disrupting the integration process, which is in line with the post-functionalism theory, however, they pose challenges that are still manageable by the organization.
It is fair to state that the AU in its establishment, used the EU as a blueprint in terms of the supranational structure. In the analysis of the structure, it is evidenced that the AU used the EU model is establishing the roles, responsibilities, and functions of different AU institutions[5]. Furthermore, there are similarities between these two organizations at least on paper but not necessarily in reality. As a few examples amongst others, the AU put in place an Assembly of Heads of State and Governments which is loosely modeled after the European Council of the EU. The AU’s Executive Council is also a version of the EU’s Council of Ministers.
Regarding the goals, it can be argued that both organizations pursue the same which is regional integration to promote peace, security, economic, social, and cultural prosperity. Both organizations have the steps to achieve these goals but have had different results. The EU inception has brokered peace, understanding, and cooperation amongst its members when challenges arose (COVID-19, migration, financial and energy crises in the last decade) to ensure peace and security in line with the intergovernmentalism theory stating the importance of cooperation. In the regional economy, the EU plays a central role in coordinating regional economic ventures through treaties, partnerships, and regional regulations. The AU has also taken steps to ensure peace by leading negotiations and brokering peace deals amongst their member states. The AU has also made efforts to reach social, and economic integration through.
agreements and treaties. The AU, however, is faced with recurring conflicts and political instability that jeopardize the road to full peace, security, economy, and sustainable development. The road to Pan-African peace remains a challenge as rising conflicts often destabilize entire regions. For example, the current conflict onion in Soudan has the potential to destabilize the neighboring countries which are already in fragile states. The AU also somewhat competes with regional block organizations such as ECOWAS, EMCCA, and EAS. These blocks have made significant regional integration progress and may someday become Africa’s version of the EU. In matters related to the countries they represent; these organizations often have the first say. In the case of the AU, there are further block creations grouping a limited number of countries within the same region. For example, the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD), and the G5 Sahel were created to tackle the rise of extremism in the Sahel region. These institutional bodies could potentially endanger the integration process as they have nationalist traits linking them. As per the post-functionalism theory, the rise of regional nationalist groups can easily disrupt the integration process. When challenges arise, for example, the Boko Haram threat in the West and Central African regions, various institutions (AU, G5 Sahel, CEN-SAD) were involved in seeking solutions, however without adequately cooperating. The multitude of voices and approaches in tackling the same issue remains an issue in itself in African affairs.
At its inception, the EU had 6 member states and currently has 27 with a workforce of approximately 13,000 civil servants. The EU has put significant human resources in the organization to ensure it achieves its mandate and serves all its member states. The AU on the other hand has 55[6] member states and operates with a significantly smaller number of professionals. From its beginnings, the AU started with many member states, and this was a challenge from the start. Although the organization is growing, it still needs to make significant efforts in providing adequate human resources. Regarding the size of the organization, the number of staff influences decision-making at the central level. The EU with more staff could potentially find the decision-making process more practical whereas the AU with a limited workforce faces many challenges in the process.
The AU and EU are historically linked due to the colonization period in which a number of European countries colonized the continent. Today, countries in West and Central Africa keep close ties with France their former colonizer, and countries in East Africa have close ties with the United Kingdom. In this comparative analysis, this historical tie plays an important role worth mentioning. The AU having modeled its structure after the EU has also done so because of the historical ties. Currently, both organizations engage in partnerships in global affairs, however, the EU maintains interests in the African continent and therefore has a slightly authoritarian approach to its dealings with the AU. In African affairs, the EU, as part of the International Community, often makes influential decisions in regard to a particular issue in Africa. This influence is not reciprocal as the AU is not in a political position to be involved in European Affairs.
The intergovernmentalism, neo-functionalism, and post-functionalism theories illustrate the progress made in integration and the challenges by both unions. In the comparison of the EU and the AU, both regions are vastly different with diverse economic and social capacities, therefore, their organization’s integration progress has yielded different contextual results. The EU was created almost a decade prior to the AU, and the latter having modeled its structure with the former, both organizations have the same integration and regional cooperation goals. Furthermore, both unions in accordance with intergovernmental theory, have made attempts and progress through cooperation amongst their member states to achieve the said integration. The AU could learn from the EU’s regional integration experiences and contextualize them to fit the needs of the African continent.
Deborah M Ndjerareou
Photo credit: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20200317/africa-union-and-european-union-join-forces-ensuring-peace-africa.
[1] https://hooghe.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11492/2020/11/2020_hooghe-marks-schakel_multilevel-governance_reduced-size-Caramani.pdf
[2] https://hooghe.web.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/11492/2020/11/2020_hooghe-marks-schakel_multilevel-governance_reduced-size-Caramani.pdf
[3] doi:http://aei.pitt.edu/9046/1/dp_c184_Kuehnhardt.pdf
[4] http://www.jstor.org/stable/45073460
[5] http://journals.rcmss.com/index.php/ijpcs/article/view/146
[6] https://au.int/en/overview#:~:text=The%20African%20Union%20(AU)%20is,countries%20of%20the%20African%20Continent.
We Write Afrika 
Leave a comment