The article "Unraveling the Central State, But How?: Types of Multi-Level Governance" by Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks explores the evolution of governance structures from centralized to multi-level systems. The authors distinguish between two types of multi-level governance: Type I and Type II. Type I governance features a limited number of general-purpose jurisdictions that are non-intersecting and durable, while Type II governance consists of numerous task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. The article discusses the advantages of each type, such as the efficiency of large jurisdictions in exploiting economies of scale and the adaptability of smaller, specialized jurisdictions to changing needs. It also addresses the coordination challenges of multi-level governance, where policies of one jurisdiction can have spillover effects on others. The authors argue that Type I and Type II governance reflect different conceptions of community, with Type I often rooted in communal identity and Type II designed to solve specific policy problems. The article concludes by suggesting that these two types of governance are complementary and coexist to address the complexities of modern governance.The article "Unraveling the Central State, But How?: Types of Multi-Level Governance" by Liesbet Hooghe and Gary Marks explores the evolution of governance structures from centralized to multi-level systems. The authors distinguish between two types of multi-level governance: Type I and Type II. Type I governance features a limited number of general-purpose jurisdictions that are non-intersecting and durable, while Type II governance consists of numerous task-specific, intersecting, and flexible jurisdictions. The article discusses the advantages of each type, such as the efficiency of large jurisdictions in exploiting economies of scale and the adaptability of smaller, specialized jurisdictions to changing needs. It also addresses the coordination challenges of multi-level governance, where policies of one jurisdiction can have spillover effects on others. The authors argue that Type I and Type II governance reflect different conceptions of community, with Type I often rooted in communal identity and Type II designed to solve specific policy problems. The article concludes by suggesting that these two types of governance are complementary and coexist to address the complexities of modern governance.