How Democratic Is “Governance”? Lessons from Swiss Drug Policy

Wälti, Sonja; Küjbler, Daniel; Papadopoulos, Yannis

doi:10.1111/j.0952-1895.2004.00238.x

Cited by 47 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 27 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Case studies of drug policy, public transport, cultural policy, and water provision have shown that lines of accountability are blurred in governance networks (Kübler & Schwab, 2007). The budgetary process seems to provide the main link for connecting governance networks to both elected politicians in representative institutions as well as the electorate through direct democratic instruments (Wälti, Kübler, & Papadopoulos, 2004). Legal procedures for budget or credit approval generally stipulate a cascade of decisions by different bodies (the executive, parliament, electorate) according to the amount that is involved.…”

Section: The Power Of Elected Politicians In Governance Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks

Skelcher

Klijn

Kübler

et al. 2011

Administrative Theory & Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advances in understanding the democratic anchorage of governance networks require carefully designed and contextually grounded empirical analysis that take into account contextual factors. The article uses a conjectural framework to study the impact of the national democratic milieu on the relationship between network governance and representative institutions in four European countries: the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The article shows that the distinction between majoritarian and consensus democracy as well as the varying strength of voluntary associations are important contextual factors that help explain cross-national differences in the relationship between governance networks and representative institutions. We conclude that a context of weak associationalism in majoritarian democracies facilitates the instrumentalization of networks by government actors (United Kingdom), whereas a more complementary role of governance networks prevails in 7

show abstract

Section: The Power Of Elected Politicians In Governance Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks

Skelcher

Klijn

Kübler

et al. 2011

Administrative Theory & Praxis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is an important component of the contribution of participatory tools to policy efficiency, but not the only one. In fragmented societies, ordinary majoritarian procedures can result in choices made by ill-informed majorities, causing prejudice to minorities whose intense preferences are thus violated (Guggenberger 1984;Scharpf 1999) -for instance, socially stigmatised groups (Waelti et al 2004). Moreover, as suggested by the literature on neo-corporatism considered as a governability device, electoral competition can engender over-promising and short-term calculations are innonative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?…”

Section: Efficiency and Effectivenessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?

Papadopoulos

Warin

2007

European J Political Res

Self Cite

255

159

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The overall project aims to establish a dialogue between normative democratic theory and research on policy formulation and implementation. This introductory article first notes the growth of various participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making, portrays the context of this growth and justifies the cases selected. It then presents the conceptual framework used for the study of these procedures, which mainly draws on participatory and deliberative democratic theory and the literature on the shift from ‘government’ to ‘governance’. Based on this conceptual framework, the article focuses on four research questions the authors consider particularly important for the assessment of the contribution of the devices under scrutiny to democratic and effective decision making: questions of openness and access (input‐legitimacy); questions regarding the quality of deliberation (throughput); questions of efficiency and effectiveness (output‐legitimacy); and the issue of their insertion into the public space (questions of transparency and accountability).

show abstract

“…These forms continue to provide the main basis for legitimate agency in the context of urban governance (Häikiö 2007). It seems that traditional routines of legitimization ensure that governance practices do not call into question representative institutions (Wälti et al 2004). The idea of representation and elected representatives representing collective interests (or the common good) justifies representative democracy as the main field of decision making in the context of the purchaser-provider model as well.…”

Section: Diverse Local Democracymentioning

confidence: 99%

The Diversity of Citizenship and Democracy in Local Public Management Reform

Häikiö

2010

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article conceptualizes the diversity of citizenship and democracy in urban settings by studying the cultural and discursive structures of local public management reform. The reform in question is founded on the ideas of new public management. It has been suggested that in these kinds of reforms, citizens are transformed into consumers. However, this discursive case study shows that this is a simplistic and narrow view by conceptualizing the ways in which people's positions and democracy are interpreted locally. Definitions of local citizenship and democracy are framed simultaneously by multiple discourses, both local and global, yielding a local mixture of citizenship, consumerism and clientism. Representative, expert, participatory and user democracy are all present in the cultural structures of the plans for local government reform, but discourses that afford powerful positions to local citizens remain marginal. Citizens are not identified as being extensively involved in urban governance practices. A strengthening of political agency requires that diverse positions of local citizens and forms of democracy are considered in relation to each other and in relation to power structures and resources.

show abstract

How Democratic Is “Governance”? Lessons from Swiss Drug Policy

Cited by 47 publications

References 27 publications

Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks

Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks

Are innovative, participatory and deliberative procedures in policy making democratic and effective?

The Diversity of Citizenship and Democracy in Local Public Management Reform

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About