This chapter introduces the volume, sets out its key themes, and explains how the chapters interrogate the nexus between governance and anti-politics via the concept of depoliticization. It argues that the literature on governance has drawn attention to a ‘capacity gap’ between elected politicians and those who actually take decisions about essential public services, while the literature on anti-politics has highlighted a growing ‘democratic gap’ between politicians and citizens. These issues arise in a dynamic context that is captured by concepts such as meta-governance and multilevel governance but also a wider disillusionment with neo-liberal ideology. This book addresses the ‘research gap’ that arises from the relative absence of studies that have drilled down into the relationship between the ‘capacity gap’ and ‘democratic gap’, by focusing on depoliticization. Overall, we argue that studies of depoliticization are well placed to examine these questions and especially the ‘nexus’ between governance and anti-politics.

This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro‐level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state–society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy‐making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state–society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed.

No abstract

Policy transfer has become a crucial aspect of the contemporary world of policy‐making. However, the relationship between the actual process of policy transfer and the ‘success’ of policy outcomes generated by that transfer is an under‐researched area. This article addresses the following key question: what factors affect the success, or otherwise, of policy transfer? This question is explored using a putatively successful case of policy transfer, the Gateway Review process between 2001 and 2010, focusing particularly on three of the early transfers of this process from the UK to Victoria and then to the Commonwealth level and New South Wales in Australia.

No abstract

The literature on autonomous public agencies often adopts a top‐down approach, focusing on the means with which those agencies can be steered and controlled. This article opens up the black box of the agencies and zooms in on their CEO's and their perceptions of hierarchical accountability. The article focuses on felt accountability, denoting the manager's (a) expectation to have to explain substantive decisions to a parent department perceived to be (b) legitimate and (c) to have the expertise to evaluate those decisions. We explore felt accountability of agency‐CEO's and its institutional antecedents with a survey in seven countries combining insights from public administration and psychology. Our bottom‐up perspective reveals close connections between de facto control practices rather than formal institutional characteristics and felt accountability of CEO's of agencies. We contend that felt accountability is a crucial cog aligning accountability holders' expectations and behaviors by CEO's.

This article develops a heuristic for comparative governance analysis. The heuristic depicts four network types by combining network structure with the state's capacity to metagovern. It suggests that each network type produces a particular combination of input and output legitimacy. We illustrate the heuristic and its utility using a comparative study of agri-food networks (organic farming and land use) in four countries, which each exhibit different combinations of input and output legitimacy respectively. The article concludes by using a fifth case study to illustrate what a network type that produces high levels of input and output legitimacy might look like.

In contemporary public governance, leaders of public organizations are faced with multiple, and oftentimes conflictual, accountability claims. Drawing upon a survey of CEO’s of agencies in seven countries, we explore whether and how conflictual accountability regimes relate to strategic behaviors by agency-CEO’s and their political principals. The presence of conflictual accountability is experienced as a major challenge and is associated with important behavioral responses by those CEO’s. This article demonstrates empirically how conflictual accountability is related to (a) controlling behaviors by principals, (b) constituency building behaviors by agencies, and (c) a general pattern of intensified contacts and information processing by both parties.