Eurocrisis

Now that I have given an overview of the European "network governance system", I would like to compare it with the systems in USA, Austria, France and Switzerland.
The US, as the EU, has a pluralist society but there is a stronger feeling of unity among the citizens; therefore, the majority rule is adopted and minorities accept the majority's will. The state is the "arena" where interests are represented and the state is not only a mediator but also an authority, which always has the final word.
Austria has a very integrated society, where societal interests are well represented by few highly institutionalized association that collaborate to make economic policies; therefore, the common purpose for the representation of societal interests is used. At the same time, different groups exist side-by-side, although historically there has always been a contraposition of employees and employers, which is why the consociation organizing principle is used.
France is traditionally a statist nation, where interest groups have little influence over the state's policy indeed lobbying is not highly regarded; nevertheless, the government makes consultations with an informative purpose. Interests are organized by common purpose, although there is not a real confrontation between those who retain power and interest groups; in other words, whoever has power only cares about ruling in the way they deem as most appropriate. This pragmatic and authoritative way of governance is naturally followed by the majority rule system, where governance requires subordination.
Switzerland, instead, can be seen as a miniaturized Europe, with different populations that have different languages and religions. The unification of the cantons in a federal state happened recently, in 1848, and was dragged mostly from a balance of costs/benefits; still, cultural differences among cantons remain fully alive. As a consequence, Switzerland has a consociation system, since minorities cannot remain ignored and many minorities retain a veto power. This kind of system can be slow and inefficient but, on the other hand, it does respect the pluralities in society. As I stated, the society is extremely heterogeneous and, therefore, there aren't strong associations at a national level that represent societal interests; hence, parallel interest prevails. Following Kohler-Koch we could define Switzerland as a network governance system. However, Switzerland differs from the rest of Europe since it has reached a mature level of integration, and negotiation is not the way of governing; rather, it is the government that governs. The government, even if it has to consider all the minorities, acts as a decision-maker and not as a mediator.