On Inclusion and Network Governance: The Democratic Disconnect of Dutch Energy Transitions

Abstract

The coordination of policy networks, or network governance, poses threats and opportunities for democracy. Against the norms of liberal democracy, multi‐actor partnerships do not fare well: they appear to lack responsiveness, public accountability and democratic legitimacy. But in terms of promoting deliberation and participation, networks could potentially deepen democracy. This paper injects some empirical insights into this debate by exploring network governance from the perspective of inclusion. It argues that any account of ‘democratic’ network governance must look beyond outputs, and consider the extent to which network arrangements include both ‘functional’ and ‘descriptive’ representatives of those potentially affected by decisions. An analysis of the inclusivity of network governance in recent Dutch energy reforms finds that partnerships are dominated by industry and government elites, at the expense of broader democratic engagement. A series of strategies are proposed for how to make network governance more accessible and accountable to affected publics.

Participation in Transition(s): Reconceiving Public Engagements in Energy Transitions as Co-Produced, Emergent and Diverse

“…As noted earlier, existing analyses of participation in transitions have found transitions management arrangements to be overly technocratic and exclusive (Hendriks, 2008;Lawhon & Murphy, 2011) whereas so-called 'bottom-up' or grassroots processes are more closely associated with the social shaping of innovation in line with the needs of the communities (Seyfang & Smith, 2007). While there are no doubt differences along these lines, our analysis is particularly revealing in highlighting commonalities and complexities across all cases, which upset and question a simplistic technocratic/democratic binary.…”

“…One of the few existing studies of participation and deliberation in sustainability transitions is Hendriks' (2008Hendriks' ( , 2009Hendriks & Grin, 2007) analysis of democratic and inclusionary processes in Dutch TM experiments. The democratic criteria of inclusion (who is involved/participates?…”

Private experiments in global governance: primary commodity roundtables and the politics of deliberation

“…In addition, we would argue that it is equally important not to downplay the legitimacy-deficits of governance regimes that incorporate the state as an actor. Such deficits are illustrated by Carolyn Hendriks' analysis of a public-private governance scheme in the Netherlands, which describes how government involvement is quite compatible with the exclusion of societal interests and domination by corporate actors (Hendriks 2008;see also Brown 2010). And, most importantly, we should not overlook the fact that at least some private regimes appear to succeed in generating a certain degree of acceptance in the eyes of stakeholders (Hall and Biersteker 2002: 4).…”

Performative policy studies: realizing “transition management”

“…Some particular points of critique were: (1) a managerial approach of establishing a new social order that is implicit in transition management, ignoring a diversity of publicly relevant views, values and concerns , (2) the simplicity and selectivity of the general framing of socio-technical change and sustainability that underlie the model of transition management (Smith et al 2005, Smith and Stirling 2007, Smith and Stirling 2010, (3) a democratic deficit in conceptualising and conducting the policy (Hendriks and Grin 2007, Hendriks 2008, Hendriks 2009), (4) naivety with respect to the politics of learning and experimenting for socio-technical change (Meadowcroft 2005, Meadowcroft 2007, Meadowcroft 2009, Smith and Stirling 2010, Voß and Bornemann 2011) and a neglect of political dynamics that interfere with the process of policy design and implementation (Kern and Smith 2008, Kern and Howlett 2009, Voß et al 2009, and (5), especially with regard to the Dutch energy transition, a widespread critical assessment referring to capture by incumbent industrial interests and a competing neoliberal discourse coalition Smith 2008, Smith and). …”