Democracy in Area-Based Policy Networks

Abstract

This article discusses the issue of democratic quality of area-based policy networks, with particular attention to the complex settings of network relations and to the changes in local regimes. It is argued that present associative and deliberative frameworks of democratic theory are useful but inadequate to enable proper assessments of multilevel and multiactor policy arrangements. The article therefore combines both frameworks with a contextualized and dynamic perspective and supports this position with a case analysis of a spatial planning network in Ghent, Belgium. It finds that in Flanders, local representative democracy was dominated by corporatism and party political arrangements, and emergent networks for spatial planning are replacing old corporatist arrangements in a new institutional framework for local representative democracy. The article concludes that analyzing area-based networks without analyzing changes in representative democracy in the same area can easily lead to biased conclusions.

Policy design without democracy? Making democratic sense of transition management

“…In some cases, network arrangements are constrained and shaped by the existing structures and norms of liberal democracy (e.g. Aars and Fimreite 2005;de Rynck and Voets 2006;Denters et al 2003).…”

Rescaling territorial governance: A Flemish perspective

“…Another aspect of PGCA is the importance of party politics and informal relations (De Rynck & Voets, 2006). Informal and party political relations seem to be decisive in getting results in area-based policy networks-like PGCA-in Flanders.…”

Challenges of Citizen Participation in Infrastructure Policy‐Making in Multi‐Level Systems—The Case of Onshore Wind Energy Expansion in Germany

“…The German Energy Transition exhibits characteristics that can be described as “wicked” issues (Koppenjan & Klijn, ). Due to their complex and multi‐faceted nature, wicked issues are not well understood at the beginning of a governance process (de Rynck & Voets, , p. 60). Moreover, involved stakeholders have conflicting preferences and different values (van Meerkerk, Edelenbos & Klijn, ).…”

“…Both normative criteria are difficult to apply to governance processes of wicked issues: “In this type of situation, it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to assess whether or not the output matches the initial input, interests, and demands; the latter are often precisely the subject of negotiations within complex processes. With contested issues, moreover, it is not clear whose input should be applied to judge the quality of the output.” (de Rynck & Voets, , p. 60) It is suggested to implement forms of unconventional and non‐institutionalized political action (Kaase & Barnes, ), namely participation, to enhance the legitimacy of governance processes of wicked problems. However, if and to what extent participation contributes to legitimacy depends considerably on its specific implementation (Ziekow, , p. 319).…”

“…While the latter focuses on the proper integration of concerned interest groups and individuals, the former is rather concerned with the negotiation process itself: “In the deliberative approach, output is evaluated differently than in the associative approach. Because output is negotiated in the process, the question is whether the participants accept the result of the processes, even if the latter deviated from the initial demand (or inputs) of the participants.” (de Rynck & Voets, , p. 61) In contrast to theoretical or conceptual analyses of participation measures of the German Energy Transition process (Renn, ), empirical analyses exploring the legitimacy of unconventional participatory measures focus on a particular measure. Moreover, these analyses examine legitimacy empirically by asking involved citizens, stakeholders, interest groups, etc.…”