Network Governance in Contested Urban Landscapes

Abstract

Urban planning is one of the policy fields where new forms of governance are developing. The article focuses on governance networks as one emergent form of governance in urban planning. In governance literature, discourse networks are seen as a threat to representative democracy. This article argues that the consequences for democracy depend on the type of network that develops and its performance in relation to democratic norms. Governance networks are discussed through the lens of democratic network governance, the utility of which is explored as an analytical tool in a case study of urban planning in Norway. In this context a governance network was constructed as a response to market-orientated planning practice in order to enhance citizen participation and public debate. The aim of this article is to discuss the relevance of the theory of network governance relating it to new forms of participation in public planning processes. The study shows that governance networks could strengthen democracy, though important questions about meta-governance, however, remain unsolved. The article also shows that networks operating in an institutional vacuum tend to fail in institutional capacity building.

Planning for smart sustainable cities: Decisions in the planning process and actor networks

“…• Fourthly, it has been shown that without connections to formal institutions, it is hard for governance networks to make a change [17,25]. The planning authority as metagovernor provides such a connection.…”

“…The result was leadership by a highly competent network, capable of constructing alternative perspectives and visions on city planning". [17].…”

“…[15]), but are also questioned in the way these modes of governance influence democratic concerns such as accountability, representation and transparency [15][16][17]. Within the concept of network governance there is however room for a variety of different models of governance, which can be characterised by e.g.…”

“…Nyseth [17] defines network governance as "relatively stable, horizontal articulations of interdependent but operationally autonomous actors, who interact through negotiations which take place within a regulative, normative, cognitive framework that is self-regulated within limits set by external agencies and which contributes to the production of public purpose." ([17] p. 499).…”

“…Within the concept of network governance there is however room for a variety of different models of governance, which can be characterised by e.g. the degree of public control and formalisation, whether they are elitist or pluralist, open or closed, and depending on when in the process participation takes place [14,[17][18][19][20][21][22].…”