Democratic Anchorage Research Articles

The review and development of professional standards through the lens of Democratic Anchorage points

AbstractThe recent review of the Scottish professional standards for teachers, led by the General Teaching Council for Scotland, offered a unique perspective to interrogate participative approaches in policy‐making in the Scottish education context and to provide insights and implications for future policy‐making. Using one of the authors’ experiences as a General Teaching Council Scotland Officer during the review of the professional standards, this paper conceptualises the consultation process as a form of democratic governance, using Sørensen and Torfing's framing of the four anchorage points that enable democratic legitimacy in governance networks. This perspective places policy‐making within a governance structure that is created by networks that interact, overlap and are entangled with each other, implying a decentralised form of governance. An analysis of the stages of the review process demonstrated that it was participatory. However, there was an over‐reliance on the established policy‐making community. In addition, authentic participation was restricted as choices were limited by the metagovernor. We argue that Sørensen and Torfing's anchorage points for democratic legitimacy allow an interrogation of the extent to which policy‐making in Scottish education is authentically democratic and conclude by offering a framework of critical questions for more transparent democratic participation in future iterations of similar professional standards reviews.

Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses

Public administration and politics meet turbulence: The search for robust governance responses

Urban contractual agreements as an adaptive governance strategy: under what conditions do they work in multi-level cooperation?

ABSTRACT The Norwegian urban growth agreement (UGA) is a governance platform combining transport-infrastructure development with land-use and transport policy. It is a policy package of measures involving network cooperation between national, regional and local government levels established to coordinate transport and land-use development. Shared responsibility for goal achievement, autonomy and learning and adaptation as new knowledge and experience arise are clear prerequisites for the UGAs. This makes it relevant to investigate the conditions for the UGAs to work as an adaptive governance strategy because their central features are in line with the attributes of adaptive governance. Further, adaptive governance is an approach to handle complex problems like transport development issues. The study shows that UGAs have several strengths in terms of autonomy and learning. However, the multi-level cooperation in the UGAs is framed by complex underlying structures of roles and powers, which challenge the working and legitimacy of the governance structures. Multi-level adaptive governance processes like the UGAs require attention to issues of power and legitimacy. Securing transparency and democratic anchorage is paramount in bringing such processes in line with the intended benefits of adaptive governance.

The democratic anchorage of governance networks in smart cities: an empirical assessment

ABSTRACTThe paper addresses the problem of democratic legitimacy of smart cities as a system of governance networks. Using data collected during a 2-year research project, such as the qualitative analysis of reports and documents and semi-structured interviews with key informants, the paper elaborates an Index of Democratic Smart Governance and applies it to four European smart cities: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Turin, and Vienna. Results show that smart cities are anchored in principles of democratic representation, but the link between political institutions and the general public is not entirely developed due to the lack of mechanisms truly fostering citizens’ participation and voicing.

Social embeddedness of policy actors. The failure of consumer-owned wind energy in Finland

This article investigates democratic performance of policy networks. To shed new light on this topic, the social embeddedness, i.e. social and economic ties of actors in and around policy networks are analysed. A qualitative case study of energy policy networks in Finland is presented. Energy-intensive industries, incumbent utilities and the government are the main actors in policy networks. There are also extensive ties between them. Wind energy developers are formally linked to the networks. However, they have few possibilities to participate in the policy processes or to make an impact on policies. Similarly, representation of the people is poor. Also, the policy debates are not open-ended. Hence, it appears that the policy actors' social embeddedness casts a shadow on the democratic anchorage of the policy networks. Based on these tentative findings, it is concluded that the democratic performance of policy networks should be investigated, not assumed.

A bayesian approach for behavioral public administration: Citizen assessments of local government sustainability performance

Citizens are increasingly critical information-processors, and government performance information has become ubiquitous to the tenants of democratic anchorage and support for public programs. Yet human perceptions of governmental policies and outcomes are increasingly partisan and resistant to updating. Partisan motivated reasoning can lead to inaccurate or biased assessments of both the merit of specific policies and governmental performance. This article presents a case for the use of Bayesian inference for experimental work on information-processing. Combining previous findings with a new experimental design, this study examines whether provision of performance information on local government implementation of federally initiated sustainability efforts ameliorates the partisan motivated reasoning of citizens. Contrary to expectations, the study finds evidence of attitude-strengthening in the face of disconfirming performance as well as suggesting partisan cues may help citizens calibrate their evaluations.

The democratizing impact of governance networks: From pluralization, via democratic anchorage, to interactive political leadership

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 concern for how governance networks can strengthen and democratize political leadership. Tying political leadership to networked processes of collaborative governance fosters ‘interactive political leadership’. The article presents theoretical arguments in support of interactive political leadership, and provides an illustrative case study of a recent attempt to strengthen political leadership through the systematic involvement of elected politicians in local governance networks. The article concludes by reflecting on how interactive political leadership could transform our thinking about democracy.

Linking democratic anchorage and regulatory authority: The case of internet regulators

AbstractScholars and practitioners have repeatedly questioned the democraticness and the authority of transnational multi‐stakeholder organizations, especially those that regulate the internet. To contribute to this discussion, we studied the “democratic anchorages” and the regulatory authority of 23 internet regulators. In particular, we conducted a fuzzy‐set qualitative comparative analysis assessing whether and which anchorages correspond to necessary and/or sufficient conditions for exerting regulatory authority. Our results show that strong anchorage in democratic procedures is specifically relevant for this outcome. Further, we find that weak anchorage in democratically elected politicians leads to high regulatory authority, confirming the significance of non‐state actors in this policy field. More generally, our findings support but also qualify expectations about the compatibility and mutual reinforcement of democratic quality and regulatory authority at the transnational level.

Making governance networks more democratic: lessons from the Swedish governmental commissions

Governance networks (GNs) are theorized as institutions for state–civil society interaction with important merits as well as shortcomings for effective and democratic governance. Here we compare GNs with a far less researched type of state–civil society interaction, the Swedish governmental commission (GC), critically discussing them in terms of organizational and functional features, the role of the state and democratic anchorage. Drawing on lessons from the institutional design of GCs, we contest the notion that well-functioning GNs require a low level of formal institutionalization and discuss how democratic problems with GNs could be addressed through a formal institutional framework that provides pre-established and generally applied ground rules, ensures elected politicians the final say on policy, and values broad participation and consultation. Recognizing that GNs are not a self-evident form for state–civil society interactions, traditional institutional designs should be more fully considered in the discussion and theorization of the democratic anchorage of GNs.

Democratic anchorage and performance: Comparing two network approaches to land-use and transport-system development

This paper describes two Norwegian governance networks. While both address questions about land-use and transport, the ways in which they are democratically anchored differ. Starting out from goals set for climate-friendly transport, linkages between democratic anchorage and network effectiveness are discussed. In some ways the network with the lowest stakeholder involvement, and therefore the smallest network structure, has come furthest – measures are implemented quickly and extensive resources are used to improve public transport. The other network does not have the same implementation rate or resource-use, but has shown strong efforts to mobilise and coordinate a wide set of actors. Both approaches involve important elements for reducing emissions from transport, specifically the effectiveness and toughness of one and the broader mobilisation of the other. Applying a wide set of criteria to evaluate network performance, the paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the two network structures.

Handling the Two Conflicting Discourses of Partnerships and Participation in Regional Planning

This article argues that regional planning is dominated by two conflicting discourses that have different principles of involvement: the discourse of partnerships and the discourse of broad participation. These discourses and principles are not easy to reconcile in practice. On the basis of studies in the literature and a comprehensive case study, this article discusses how these conflicting discourses in regional planning challenge democratic norms, and how this problem is dealt with by the regional political leadership. The article shows that the use of meta-governance strategies and broad arenas of participation might be used in this respect, for example, by constantly having a focus on maintaining democratic anchorage when partnerships are used in regional planning processes.

A Chartist Singularity? Mobilizing to Promote Democratic Petitions in Britain and France, 1838-1848

Attention has certainly been paid to the international dimension of the Chartist movement in the form of consideration of links that were established between some Chartists and continental exiles in Britain, but recent developments in the historiography of Chartism have suggested a number of new perspectives. It is time to reappraise the singularities of the movement in relation to its continental counterparts. Were the Chartists alone in mobilizing so many people in favour of democracy in the 1840s, bearing in mind that Chartism flourished on the eve of the European revolutions of 1848? This article looks at the convergences and the divergences between Chartism and European movements and argues that it was the depth of democratic anchorage and the scale of organized agitation (such as using petitions addressed to elected representatives) to mobilize the masses to make democratic claims in the European model that differentiates the Chartist movement from its French counterpart.

The governance network of European football: introducing new governance approaches to steer football at the EU level

The authors of this article aim at introducing a new approach in the academic debate on governance failures in professional football. In recent years, political, legal and economic driving forces have led to the emergence of a governance network in European football. We state that this provides the European Union (EU) with the opportunity, if not the duty, to get a grip on the football sector through meta-governance. Further improvement of the network's democratic legitimacy through the enhancement of its democratic anchorage via the introduction of more openness, stakeholder participation and meta-governance by the EU should help the network to deal with the growing complexity of the football world. This way, governance networks in sport can be the solution to the governance failures in the sector, just like governance networks were the solution to many examples of government and market failures in modern society.

New challenges for leadership and accountability in local public services in England

PurposeIncreasing diversity in public service provision brings potential benefits around choice and innovation, but could also blur lines of accountability and create weak governance. The purpose of this paper is to provide a new approach to accountability, to help leaders develop effective network governance.Design/methodology/approachThis paper provides a summative review of previous thinking about good governance and presents the new concept of a “web of accountability”. It examines four potential typologies of public service delivery and considers potential governance models and the accountability issues for leaders that arise in each one. The theory and challenge of securing democratic anchorage is used as a framework against which to test each model.FindingsThe paper finds that all the potential typologies considered raise different questions for local leaders about accountability and good governance. None perfectly secures democratic anchorage when considered against the four criteria which help to anchor network governance in a democratic society, but they all have different strengths in terms of accountability, transparency, involvement and scrutiny.Practical implicationsThe paper offers a new practical tool, the Accountability Works for You framework, as one way of assessing governance arrangements and developing a locally‐owned approach to accountability.Originality/valueThe paper uses original research and the unique concept of the “web of accountability” developed by the author's organisation, the Centre for Public Scrutiny. Accountability Works for You is a new framework available for public sector leaders. It emphasises culture and behaviours (“software”) over process and structure (“hardware”) in thinking about governance.

The Problem of Democratic Anchorage for Interlocal Agreements

More attention must be given to the performance of interlocal agreements (ILAs) as they continue to grow in popularity as a mode of service provision in U.S. cities. This study scrutinizes the democratic performance of ILAs, drawing theoretical insights from the literature on network governance. Because ILAs shift service responsibility from individual cities to multijurisdictional arrangements, these tools may lead to complaints about the responsiveness of the service to the public in the individual units served by the multijurisdictional arrangement. Thus, democratic anchorage is central to assessments of ILA performance. This study evaluates democratic anchorage by identifying concerns with ILAs in interviews with a sample of local elected officials in Michigan. The concerns then are discussed in the context of the institutional collective action framework, a theoretical foundation that has become popular for explaining the emergence of ILAs and regional cooperation.

The Changing Role of the State in Dutch Regional Partnerships

We address the changing relationship of the state vis-à-vis regional partnerships on issues of state policy performance, partnership legitimacy, and the role and position of the state. Theoretical expectations regarding these issues differ greatly according to whether a state-centric or a society-centric perspective is adopted. A general case study of Dutch area-based rural policy (1988–2008) reveals that changes predominantly lean towards the state-centric perspective. These changes include an increased usage of regional partnerships as state instruments, an improved democratic anchorage of regional partnerships, and a continuation of the state's privileged position. An embedded case study shows that individual partnerships can continue to develop in other directions and can institutionalise into largely self-organising partnerships. We conclude by showing that regional partnerships can serve as state instruments, provided that a certain degree of self-organisation is possible. Overregulation of regional partnerships could eventually undermine their overall performance.

Democratic Anchorage of Infrastructural Governance Networks: the Case of the Femern Belt Forum

Governance networks are often praised for their contribution to making public governance and spatial planning more effective. However, the democratic performance of governance networks is heavily disputed. In order to make a more precise assessment of the democratic quality of governance networks, we need to develop normative criteria that permit us to measure the democratic quality of governance networks on different dimensions. Such criteria are developed and brought together in our model for the democratic anchorage of governance networks. This article aims to improve the democratic anchorage model in two different ways: by offering operational definitions of the basic dimensions of the model and by demonstrating how the assessment criteria can be applied in an empirical case study of a long-lasting, multilevel governance network involved in the recent decision to build a bridge between Denmark and Germany. The democratic anchorage model helps to assess the democratic performance of specific governance networks and to gain knowledge about the critical factors determining their degree of democratic anchorage. Such knowledge is crucial for developing pro-active strategies for enhancing the democratic performance of specific governance networks.

Critical perspectives on network governance in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration

Significant claims have been made about the benefits of network governance and management in securing community involvement and assisting social integration in complex urban regeneration programmes. The move from vertical to horizontal forms of coordination, and the assumption of a more equal power distribution between participants, have combined with an emphasis on mutuality and trust to present networks as a promising mechanism for pluriform involvement and collective decision-making. Often this promise runs ahead of the evidence of how network governance functions in practice, the opportunities for different actors to influence the process and the often disappointing outcomes of joint decision-making. This special issue contributes to the ‘second generation of research on governance networks’ by tackling key questions relating to the sources of governance network failure and success. Building on the articles in this special issue, we explore these questions in relation to urban regeneration, community involvement and the integration of minority groups in The Netherlands, Sweden and England. This article reviews the articles in this special issue from the perspective of Klijn and Skelcher’s (2007) four conjectures on democracy and governance networks and Sørensen and Torfing’s (2007) four conditions for democratic anchorage. It also suggests ways in which the research agenda on networks in urban regeneration, community involvement and integration might be developed.

Does Democratic Anchorage Matter?

Does democracy matter? This is an intriguing question. Not only as a normative question, democracy is a value in itself that can be cherished for that reason alone but also as a question of its impact on the outcomes of governance processes. In this article, the authors look at the question of to what degree citizens and politicians are involved in governance processes around environmental projects and what the effect is of these forms of democratic embedding on the outcomes of those projects. The research is based on a survey in 2006 that resulted in 337 respondents involved in spatial projects in the Netherlands. The analysis shows that, according to respondents, both stakeholders and political parties are well involved in the process (stakeholders slightly more than political actors). The authors also find that both democratic anchorage forms are related to perceived outcomes, but only stakeholder involvement has a strong significant effect on outcomes.

The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion

The challenge of enhancing the ‘democratic anchorage’ of partnerships has become a central concern in policy studies. Radical reform proposals designed to level the deliberative playing field include community veto powers and the appointment of neutral arbiters. Welcome as they would be, however, it is questionable whether such reforms would overcome power asymmetries in the partnership arena. A study of the local politics of social inclusion in two UK cities, Dundee and Hull, suggests that managerialism, driven by national governments, is eroding the prospects for partnership democratisation. But more significantly for the reformist agenda, public managers and community activists think in incompatible frames about the role of partnerships and in ways that are not understood by the other party. Non-communication undermines the prospects for an equitable democratic consensus. Insights from Bourdieu suggest that even in environments more favourable to equitable democratic discourse than those in Dundee and Hull, subtle manifestations of power in culture, discourse and bearing would undermine the potential for a Habermasian consensus between radically unequal actors. In a radical departure from the network governance paradigm, it is therefore argued that empowerment may depend less on enhanced network democracy than on strong independent community organisation capable of acting separately and coercively against governing institutions and elites – an exit-action strategy. These preliminary conclusions point to a substantial research agenda on the politics of the state–civil society nexus.