The EU also has its advantages and disadvantages in its development. The advantages of the EU certainly provide easy integration for its members to conduct economic activities, but if there is a crisis in one or two of the member countries, the European Union seems to have difficulty to solve the problem. Issues related to the country that will leave the EU also proves that the EU is not yet solid as a whole, since some countries also have not complied with all regulations set by the European Union - see at the present time Poland and Hungary in terms of refugee policy within the MLG of EU.

The MLG can surely be achieved if the "absolute power" is able to successfully impelement and enforce its policies towards the SNGs. As long as there is still an imbalance of sound in power (*far from being a precise concept), the MLG will be everything else than comfortable for nation staates. 

Nigeria and the EU? or the EU and the USA? After all, comparisons are good fun, as long as apples are compared to apples, pears to pears. Well, The US is a federation with presidential system, while the EU is a confederation, thus the Member States continue to have their sovereignty. Furthermore, The European Union is based on treaties that must be accepted by the members, the US on a constitution. In the EU all treaties must be ratified unanimously by all members. This also risks the blockade. The EU therefore lacks a truly sovereign government and a proper constitution. The same compare with the EU also applies to the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 

While I could not fault Trio's logic in his answer, it might not capture the full potential for a MLG thinking in other confederational or federational arrangements. The Australian federal system confined within a somewhat rigid constitution (now over 100 years old) has begun to test MLG potential via an extra constitutional meeting of all state premiers and the federal government. Until now this body has served as a ritual echo chamber to settle claims in allocation of federal funds; but a reform process commenced several years ago resulted in a large number of longer term agreements (10-15 years) to advance national goals in areas such as housing, health, education, indigenous affairs where states and the federal government have overlapping and often contested responsibility. These agreements are driven by performance indicators relatively hard to manipulate politically, and real (financial) power sharing. Further as the agreement terms stretch beyond the political re-election cycles there is some prospect that true MLG gains on the European model can be made. The same development can be seen in foreign policy for loose alliances such as ASEAN - its positive uniform moves towards agreement on human rights for instance, would have been impossible to achieve politically in member states acting within sovereign confines. I believe these two examples give some hint as to how MLG can be seen as a path for the future.

You can look at intergovernmental relations in federal states to compare the similarities and differences between them.

My take on ASEAN: The EU, since its inception, has clearly chosen the course of economic cooperation. Based on the inability of one country to meet its own needs and and to respond to global challenges more comprehensively, regionalism becomes the answer. In the context of ASEAN, economic cooperation is not a basic of regional integration, so in exploring the challenges of globalization and global economic integration, ASEAN's policies have not (yet!?) shown all its potential.

Still, there is no need to reform in each country that would create a wider conflict because Southeast Asian society differs from all sorts of aspects with the people of the European Union.For instance, ASEAN is upholding the sovereignty of its member states (Treaty of Amity). Political cooperation certainly will not be as deep as the EU having supranational power; the sovereignty of the EU in agreed areas lies above the sovereignty of member states. For information purpose: Asean itself is still divided with "different ideologies" from its member states. 

In conclusion, it can be drawn that ASEAN can not be an organization that can sustain all its members and move from the current position which will be transformed into a supranational form just like the EU does. Much needs to be done by ASEAN if it wants to transform into a desirable model, the change must be subverted from/ within the organization itself and move on to a larger power hierarchy. In my humble opinion, this organization must be reformed first. Still today, a staff recruitment still uses a 2-3 year contract system. ASEAN needs to seek / develop cadres from member countries as experts in the field of international organizations. These experts are not only experts in the field of management of international organizations, but also experts in the field of law of international organizations. On the contrary, the EU is shaped by experts. EU is financially independent, whereas ASEAN is still dependent on donors (non-member creditors). With the current fragile organizational conditions, I am very pessimistic that political cooperation can be realized within ASEAN. I think ASEAN is still implementing open integration. If it is to build a regional bloc for the common good, apply a seamless European integration. Infrastructure and economic suprastructure built up by the economically developed EU member countries makes the implementation of an integrated free market area easier to happen. The situation still leaves a lot to be desired in this area for ASEAN. (*Please consider the economic gap between "the developed country" and the developing countries within ASEAN, and the case of Brexit - a lesson to learn!) 

Hope you enjoy my other random logic. 

Canada has multi-level governance in the sense that the federal government is responsible for certain areas of policy (defence, foreign policy, international trade, etc.) and the provinces and territories are responsible for education, health care delivery, social services, etc.. In Canada, municipalities are responsible for local services such as public transit, urban planning and zoning, garbage collection, sewers, etc.. Municipalities are technically under the authority of the province/territory in which they are located, and have access primarily to property tax funding. However, there is increasing tension because some major municipalities (e.g. Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal) have populations that exceed the population of some provinces and territories, and are dealing with more complex needs for which property tax revenue is insufficient. As Canadian cities continue to grow, the current model of multilevel governance and particularly the structure of tax revenues will continue to be a source of stress.

Dear Abdulrazaq Kayode Abdulkareem

The multi-level governance functions at different levels, with horizontal, vertical and diagonal relationships existing between the institutions, levels of connections and the respective geographical regions.

It was Daniel Bodansky and colleagues who described multi-level governance in terms of horizontal relationships existing between institutions at the identical hierarchical or geographical level; as vertical relationships between institutions on varying levels, and as diagonal ones present between them on different levels in different countries. Thus, the multi-level governance aims at investigating the potential relationships that can exist between specific levels of governance and to construct connections with international, transnational, national and subnational initiatives in order to ensure the achievement of a common goal.