Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not?

The relationship between representative democracy and governance networks is investigated at a theoretical level. Four conjectures about the relationship are defined. The incompatibility conjectures rests on the primacy of politics and sees governance networks as a threat. The complementarity conjecture presents governance networks as a means of enabling greater participation in the policy process and sensitivity in programme implementation. The transitional conjecture posits a wider evolution of governance forms towards network relationships. The instrumental conjecture views governance networks as a powerful means through which dominant interests can achieve their goals. Illustrative implications for theory and practice are identified, in relation to power in the policy process, the public interest, and the role of public managers. The heuristic potential of the conjectures is demonstrated through the identification of an outline research agenda

Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes

__Abstract__ Governance networks are characterized by complex interaction and decision making, and much uncertainty. Surprisingly, there is very little research on the impact of trust in achieving results in governance networks. This article asks two questions: (a) Does trust influence the outcomes of environmental projects? and (b) Does active network management improve the level of trust in networks? The study is based on a Web-based survey of respondents involved in environmental projects. The results indicate that trust does matter for perceived outcomes and that network management strategies enhance the level of trust

Global Sustainability Under Uncertainty: How Do Multinationals Craft Regulatory Policies?

Multinational corporations are increasingly mindful of the significance of sustainability transitions and the need for operations that are energy efficient and environmentally sound. Achieving sustainability under conditions of uncertainty entails the involvement of multiple stakeholders in initiating and carrying outsustainability-focused initiatives. Using longitudinal analysis of Royal Dutch Shell’s sustainability policies, we developed an integrated model to elucidate how uncertainty influences sustainability policies in the specific context of multinational corporations (hereinafter – MNCs). We identified three phases in theevolution of Shell’s sustainability innovation: a self-reflective phase (2000–2003) characterized by intense pressure from climate advocacy groups, an investment phase (2004–2006) for which the MNC attempted to rise to the waste disposal and pollution challenge through renewable sources of energy, and a reorganization phase (2007–2010) to streamline operations. We also uncovered themes that influence how regulatory policies are crafted: responding positively to the “community’s voice”, risk spreading through joint ventures, revenue transparency for government accountability and reporting innovation that confronts hard truths. The practical implications are outlined

Appeals to evidence for the resolution of wicked problems: the origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias

Wicked policy problems are often said to be characterized by their ‘intractability’, whereby appeals to evidence are unable to provide policy resolution. Advocates for ‘Evidence Based Policy’ (EBP) often lament these situations as representing the misuse of evidence for strategic ends, while critical policy studies authors counter that policy decisions are fundamentally about competing values, with the (blind) embrace of technical evidence depoliticizing political decisions. This paper aims to help resolve these conflicts and, in doing so, consider how to address this particular feature of problem wickedness. Specifically the paper delineates two forms of evidentiary bias that drive intractability, each of which is reflected by contrasting positions in the EBP debates: ‘technical bias’ - referring to invalid uses of evidence; and ‘issue bias’ - referring to how pieces of evidence direct policy agendas to particular concerns. Drawing on the fields of policy studies and cognitive psychology, the paper explores the ways in which competing interests and values manifest in these forms of bias, and shape evidence utilization through different mechanisms. The paper presents a conceptual framework reflecting on how the nature of policy problems in terms of their complexity, contestation, and polarization can help identify the potential origins and mechanisms of evidentiary bias leading to intractability in some wicked policy debates. The discussion reflects on whether being better informed about such mechanisms permit future work that may lead to strategies to mitigate or overcome such intractability in the future