No abstract

No abstract

Network governance, which involves an informal and self-regulated set of public and private actors who together address various political and social problems, has substantially altered the institutional landscape concerning the formation and implementation of public policy. A common view is that this has made it possible to enhance pluralism and disperse political power by transferring power from the sovereign state to a wider set of private actors and stakeholders. I argue in this article that we need to analyze network governance in reference to the concept of domination and the theoretical tradition of neorepublicanism. For this purpose, I develop a theoretical framework that specifies five dimensions in which domination may arise and, conversely, be mitigated. An alternative image of network governance emerges which reveals that this type of governance may in fact generate a form of institutional domination that encompasses both citizens and civil society actors due to the arbitrary influence that certain network participants come to exercise upon the life choices of non-participants.Acknowledgments: An early version of this article was presented at the Seminar for Public Policy and Administration, Department of Government, Uppsala University. The author is grateful for the comments of the seminar participants as well as those of colleagues who read and discussed the text during the working process. A special thanks is extended to Andrew Blasko for his proofreading of the manuscript. The author also wishes to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful remarks that helped improve the article as a whole, including its core arguments.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the changing relations between individuals and public authorities within the Swedish crisis management system from 1995 to 2017. After the end of the Cold War, Sweden adopted a broader understanding of security that utilizes alternative governance strategies beyond sovereign means and focuses upon domestic security and the protection of vital systems. This has resulted in the emergence of collaborative arrangements involving public and private actors and as well as the extensive responsibilization of individuals. The latter has taken place since emergency and exceptionalism persist as vital concepts also in domestic security management. The present discussion argues that these two concepts restrict possibilities for democratizing security management and provides the means for harnessing the inclusion of volunteers while not granting them due voice in collaborative governance arrangements. However, responsibilization strategies include 'activation' which in turn may invoke critical agency and reflection as well as enable resistance toward the current apolitical notion of crisis management.

Sweden is well-known as the first country in the world to adopt client criminalization in the effort to control and eventually eliminate prostitution. Less known and discussed is the emergence of extensive collaborative governance arrangements that serve as complements to the legal framework. The aim of this article is to provide new knowledge as it investigates the multifaceted ways in which governance arrangements have developed in Sweden, employing collaborative governance theories and the Regulatory-Intermediaries-Target (RIT) model for this purpose. Also explored are the strategies of responsibilization directed towards target groups that have been utilized in implementing policies to control prostitution and trafficking. The article analyzes not only the rationale behind the adoption of collaborative governance in Sweden, but also the complex governance practices, in which a range of actors are involved in policy making and application as well as regulation, that have emerged in this regard. We conclude that the previous understanding of the Swedish model needs to be revised, and that although collaborative governance has made a fruitful contribution to the field in question, it also introduces new types of problems, particularly a significant increase in informality and decision-making outside the legal framework, primarily by civil society actors.