256 J. Szulecka et al.
governance studies investigate the move from centralised forms of authority
to more fluid, problem- focused networks (Smith, 2007) and are well suited
to comparative analyses (Stephenson, 2013, p. 830). Marks and Hooghe operationalise this term by distinguishing between two ideal types of multi- level
governance: type I and type II (Marks & Hooghe, 2004).
Scholars applying multi- level governance need to be careful and reflective
in the way they employ the approach. As already noted, it is both a descriptive metaphor and an analytical framework for studying change in public
policy making. At the same time, multi- level governance is simultaneously a
framework for analysis, a solution for collaboration between stakeholders and
a strategy for better policy implementation, improved information and
consultation, and should improve the quality of decision- making and implementation (Gollata & Newig, 2017). Empirical evidence indicates that polycentric governance systems produce greater environmental outputs than
monocentric ones (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). In the context of food waste,
multi- stakeholder collaboration and public–private partnerships are necessary
to find sustainable solutions to reducing food waste (Halloran et al., 2014).
In this analysis, we try to provide an overview of existing food waste policies and governance arrangements, and so we employ multi- level governance
as an analytical framework, operationalising the two ideal- typical arrangements – type I and type II – in a comparative analysis. In the conclusion,
drawing lessons and policy recommendations from our research, we reflect
on food waste multi- level governance as a strategy or benchmark for good
governance and effective policy for tackling the problem.
Multi- level governance gives us an effective tool with which to conduct a
structured comparison of the three cases. We identify the relevant actors, i.e.
all stakeholders and institutional actors who influence the food issue area, and
we look at their sectoral category (public, industry and third sector), as well as
the levels of governance on which they operate. Further, we analyse the
different policy outcomes, and categorise them according to the ideal- typical
distinction proposed by Hooghe and Marks, identifying characteristic elements of type I and type II arrangements (Table 13.1).
The empirical part of the chapter builds on a wide- ranging review of secondary scientific literature, government documents, public and industry statistics and applied grey literature. This is combined with the data gathered at
an expert workshop on food waste, hosted by the Nordic Institute for Studies
in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) in Oslo on 23 November
2017, and supported by ten expert interviews conducted by two of the
authors in the spring of 2018 with food waste researchers, NGOs and industry and policy representatives.
governance studies investigate the move from centralised forms of authority
to more fluid, problem- focused networks (Smith, 2007) and are well suited
to comparative analyses (Stephenson, 2013, p. 830). Marks and Hooghe operationalise this term by distinguishing between two ideal types of multi- level
governance: type I and type II (Marks & Hooghe, 2004).
Scholars applying multi- level governance need to be careful and reflective
in the way they employ the approach. As already noted, it is both a descriptive metaphor and an analytical framework for studying change in public
policy making. At the same time, multi- level governance is simultaneously a
framework for analysis, a solution for collaboration between stakeholders and
a strategy for better policy implementation, improved information and
consultation, and should improve the quality of decision- making and implementation (Gollata & Newig, 2017). Empirical evidence indicates that polycentric governance systems produce greater environmental outputs than
monocentric ones (Newig & Fritsch, 2009). In the context of food waste,
multi- stakeholder collaboration and public–private partnerships are necessary
to find sustainable solutions to reducing food waste (Halloran et al., 2014).
In this analysis, we try to provide an overview of existing food waste policies and governance arrangements, and so we employ multi- level governance
as an analytical framework, operationalising the two ideal- typical arrangements – type I and type II – in a comparative analysis. In the conclusion,
drawing lessons and policy recommendations from our research, we reflect
on food waste multi- level governance as a strategy or benchmark for good
governance and effective policy for tackling the problem.
Multi- level governance gives us an effective tool with which to conduct a
structured comparison of the three cases. We identify the relevant actors, i.e.
all stakeholders and institutional actors who influence the food issue area, and
we look at their sectoral category (public, industry and third sector), as well as
the levels of governance on which they operate. Further, we analyse the
different policy outcomes, and categorise them according to the ideal- typical
distinction proposed by Hooghe and Marks, identifying characteristic elements of type I and type II arrangements (Table 13.1).
The empirical part of the chapter builds on a wide- ranging review of secondary scientific literature, government documents, public and industry statistics and applied grey literature. This is combined with the data gathered at
an expert workshop on food waste, hosted by the Nordic Institute for Studies
in Innovation, Research and Education (NIFU) in Oslo on 23 November
2017, and supported by ten expert interviews conducted by two of the
authors in the spring of 2018 with food waste researchers, NGOs and industry and policy representatives.