Abstract:Initially, governance networks were intended as tools for making public governance more effective. Yet, scholars have argued that governance networks also have the potential to democratize public governance. This article provides an overview of theoretical arguments pertaining to the democratizing impact of governance networks. It claims that the initial celebration of the pluralization of public governance and the subsequent call for a democratic anchorage of governance networks should give way to a new conce… Show more
“…There needs to be some form of democratic control and accountability. Sorensen and Torfing (2018) argue that governance networks can have a democratizing effect by tying political leaders more closely to local stakeholders and citizens. They argue that governance networks, 'provide an essential ingredient in promoting integrative, participatory and deliberative forms of democracy as a supplement to aggregative, representative and majoritarian forms of democracy that frequently fail to meet citizens' demands for more active and direct participation' (ibid, 303).…”
Section: Governance Network and Democratic Legitimacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research findings show that due Westminster process was the driving force behind the initiative and that central government actors sought legitimation through clear lines of accountability to Ministers, quality deliberation and securing outcomes. While this provides evidence of legitimation for Kleine (2018), other governance scholars champion a more comprehensive approach to citizen engagement, even when faced with the difficulties of managing complex networks (Sorensen and Torfing, 2018;Papadopalous, 2017). The challenge for politicians and policy makers moving forward is to harness the positive aspects of informality, while seeking to redress some of the negative aspects identified in this decentred analysis.…”
The aim of this article is to examine the impact of informal governance on democratic legitimacy. It draws on the literatures on informal governance and decentred theory to examine how governance mechanisms that are un-written, un-codified and non-institutional impact on democratic legitimacy in governance networks. Drawing on a case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article explores how informal governance impacts on different dimensions of legitimacy -input, throughout and output. It does so by drawing on the narratives and stories of central government officials directly involved in English devolution between 2015 and 2018. Findings reveal that even when formal structures are weak, democratic legitimacy can be secured, especially in promoting effective decision making and problem solving -throughput legitimacy. Nonetheless, a decentred analysis has shown a high level of selectivity and differentiation in central-local relationships that undermines legitimation based on input (inclusiveness) and outcome (results) legitimacy. This assessment provides important new insights into how governance networks characterized by high levels of informality can promote democratic legitimacy in ways that reflect the nuances of political decision making in highly complex environments. The challenge for politicians and policy makers moving forward is to actively manage the inevitable trade-offs generated through the use of informality if accusations of a democratic deficit are to be averted.
“…There needs to be some form of democratic control and accountability. Sorensen and Torfing (2018) argue that governance networks can have a democratizing effect by tying political leaders more closely to local stakeholders and citizens. They argue that governance networks, 'provide an essential ingredient in promoting integrative, participatory and deliberative forms of democracy as a supplement to aggregative, representative and majoritarian forms of democracy that frequently fail to meet citizens' demands for more active and direct participation' (ibid, 303).…”
Section: Governance Network and Democratic Legitimacymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research findings show that due Westminster process was the driving force behind the initiative and that central government actors sought legitimation through clear lines of accountability to Ministers, quality deliberation and securing outcomes. While this provides evidence of legitimation for Kleine (2018), other governance scholars champion a more comprehensive approach to citizen engagement, even when faced with the difficulties of managing complex networks (Sorensen and Torfing, 2018;Papadopalous, 2017). The challenge for politicians and policy makers moving forward is to harness the positive aspects of informality, while seeking to redress some of the negative aspects identified in this decentred analysis.…”
The aim of this article is to examine the impact of informal governance on democratic legitimacy. It draws on the literatures on informal governance and decentred theory to examine how governance mechanisms that are un-written, un-codified and non-institutional impact on democratic legitimacy in governance networks. Drawing on a case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article explores how informal governance impacts on different dimensions of legitimacy -input, throughout and output. It does so by drawing on the narratives and stories of central government officials directly involved in English devolution between 2015 and 2018. Findings reveal that even when formal structures are weak, democratic legitimacy can be secured, especially in promoting effective decision making and problem solving -throughput legitimacy. Nonetheless, a decentred analysis has shown a high level of selectivity and differentiation in central-local relationships that undermines legitimation based on input (inclusiveness) and outcome (results) legitimacy. This assessment provides important new insights into how governance networks characterized by high levels of informality can promote democratic legitimacy in ways that reflect the nuances of political decision making in highly complex environments. The challenge for politicians and policy makers moving forward is to actively manage the inevitable trade-offs generated through the use of informality if accusations of a democratic deficit are to be averted.
“…Public value is about creating outputs and outcomes in the interest of the common good, including the clients, citizens and stakeholders which the policy affects. Doing this requires that the voices and expectations of affected groups feed into policy deliberations in a meaningful way (Sørensen and Torfing ). Sørensen and Torfing (, p. 236) make explicit reference to the production of public value when they define governance networks as:A stable articulation of mutually dependent, but operationally autonomous actors from state, market and civil society, who interact through conflict‐ridden negotiations that take place within an institutionalized framework of rules, norms, shared knowledge and social imaginaries; facilitate self‐regulated policy making in the shadow of hierarchy; and contribute to the production of ‘public value’ in a broad sense of problem definitions, visions, ideas, plans and concrete regulations that are deemed relevant to broad sections of the population.…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A lack of transparency and openness can result in mistrust, marginalization and ‘fuzzy accountability’ (Flinders et al ). A degree of political astuteness is required to manage the delicate ‘tipping point’ (Ayres et al ) between the flexibility afforded by soft metagovernance and the need to protect democratic legitimacy (Sørensen and Torfing ).…”
Section: Theoretical Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Public value is about creating outputs and outcomes in the interest of the common good, including the clients, citizens and stakeholders which the policy affects. Doing this requires that the voices and expectations of affected groups feed into policy deliberations in a meaningful way (Sørensen and Torfing 2018). Sørensen and Torfing (2009, p. 236) make explicit reference to the production of public value when they define governance networks as:…”
Section: Metagovernance As Public Leadershipmentioning
The aim of this article is to explore the opportunities and challenges of employing ‘soft’ metagovernance to promote public value in governance networks. Soft metagovernance can be defined as a form of relational leadership that is exercised through face‐to‐face contact. This involves making an emotional connection with people to exert influence through a collaborative endeavour, rather than employing bureaucratic authority. Drawing on a case study of a local social enterprise—The Bristol Pound—in the UK, this article examines how soft metagovernance can be used by non‐state actors as a form of leadership to create public value. Evidence reveals that relational forms of leadership are a powerful asset in helping leaders of networks to create public value. Moreover, if network leaders understand how soft metagovernance functions they can use it more purposefully to maximize public value creation and mitigate the risks of public value destruction in governance networks.
Many countries in the “Global North” that have enjoyed relative food security for a number of decades now face challenges that may lead to disturbances in food supplies. Global markets and global flows are not as self‐evident as they were a few years ago and new modes of governance for managing national food security during crisis are required. Recent events such as the COVID‐19 pandemic have further showed that global production systems and communications are fragile to a range of different disturbances. This article examines the possibility of managing national food security through collaborative arrangements between public authorities and private food companies through a case study of the Swedish approach to food security. The analysis is based on a theoretical framework that highlights the importance of motivation, leadership, shared understanding, and trust as four dimensions that evaluate collaborative governance in precrisis situations. We conclude that although a broader understnding of the importance of food security has emerged, collaborative governance arrangements run the risk of creating only an illusion of readiness, due to unclear mandates and clear leadership not able to advance trust, legal structures, or concrete agreements for ensuring national food security.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
