Impacts of joint municipal agencification on the democratic governance of waste management

Abstract

PurposeThe study examines how introducing joint municipal arm's length bodies (ALBs) into municipal waste management has influenced the preconditions of democratic governance.Design/methodology/approachThe authors describe and explain the democratic implications of joint municipal agencification by reviewing the perspectives of representative and participative democracy. Through this approach, the authors apply the exit–voice framework developed by Albert Hirschman to highlight the potential roles and rights of citizens. This research includes country case studies of Finland and Norway. The authors analyse and systematize Finnish and Norwegian waste and organizational policies by reviewing national regulatory documents, commentaries and guidance materials to identify the fundamental missions and institutional traditions of the alternative organizational forms of joint ALBs.FindingsThe study findings highlight that joint agencification has an adverse effect on the democratic governance of waste management policy and services even though these are public monopoly services. They also demonstrate that all joint municipal ALBs limit the classic elements of representative democracy in general, and that private-law ALBs limit residents' rights to influence and participate.Originality/valueThis study contributes to local public management studies by applying Hirschman's theory to comparative reviews of joint agencification and ALBs. It revealed the similarities and differences between the different organizational forms of joint ALBs applied in Finland and Norway. It also demonstrated how the democratic rights of residents depend on how municipalities collaborate.

Agencification, policy reversal and the reforms of the French health care system

“…The assumption is that decentralized managerial structures are more likely to listen to local stakeholders than agencies with centralized budget processes (Curto and Dias, 2014) and that the delegation of policy implementation to agencies can enhance the performance of public organizations and cater to individual preferences more effectively. Valkama et al (2022) report the adverse effects of joint agencification on democratic governance and residents' rights to influence and participate. Hood and Peters (2004) discussed the unintended effects of agencification on government operations, including the fragmentation of bureaucracy.…”