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

Assessing public leadership styles for innovation:A comparison of Copenhagen, Rotterdam and Barcelona

This article explores which leadership qualities public managers regard as important for public innovation. It is based on a survey of 365 senior public managers in Copenhagen, Rotterdam and Barcelona. Five perspectives on leadership were identified and tested using a number of items. Some of these proved to be more robust than others. Analysis of the three cities reveals a nuanced set of leadership styles, which include a transformational style, and one that is more dedicated to motivating employees, risk-taking and including others in decision-making. This suggests the need for more research on leadership and public-sector innovation

Governance, Coordination and Evaluation: the case for an epistemological focus and a return to C.E. Lindblom

While much political science research focuses on conceptualizing and analyzing various forms of governance, there remains a need to develop frameworks and criteria for governance evaluation (Torfing et al 2012). The post-positivist turn, influential in recent governance theory, emphasizes the complexity, uncertainty and the contested normative dimensions of policy analysis. Yet a central evaluative question still arises concerning the capacity of governance networks to facilitate ‘coordination’. The classic contributions of Charles Lindblom, although pre-dating the contemporary governance literature, can enable further elaboration of and engagement with this question. Lindblom’s conceptualisation of coordination challenges in the face of complexity shares with post-positivism a recognition of the inevitably contested nature of policy goals. Yet Lindblom suggests a closer focus on the complex, dynamically evolving, broadly ‘economic’ choices and trade-offs involved in defining and delivery policy for enabling these goals to be achieved and the significant epistemological challenges that they raise for policy-makers. This focus can complement and enrich both post-positivist scholarship and the process and incentives-orientated approaches which predominate in contemporary political science research on coordination in governance. This is briefly illustrated through a short case study evaluating governance for steering markets towards delivering low and zero carbon homes in England

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

Water Managers' Boundary Judgments and Adaptive Water Governance. An Analysis of the Dutch Haringvliet Sluices Case

__Abstract__ In this paper, we explore how managing actors' boundary judgments influence the adaptability of water governance. We approach this question by examining the relationship between the way water managers frame, and act in, complex water issues on the one hand and develop adaptive water governance strategies on the other. We define four categories of boundary judgments made by water managers in order to deal with the complexities in water governance issues. An in-depth case study analysis of an attempt to adjust the management of the water regime in the south-west Delta of the Netherlands is provided in order to reconstruct the water managers' boundary judgments and their impact upon governance strategies used. We found that, most of the time, the water managers involved predominantly made tight boundary judgments. These tight boundary judgments seemed to hamper the mutual learning process among a variety of stakeholders that is needed to realize adaptive water governance. We argue that wide boundary judgments enhance the chance of realizing adaptive practices and build upon exploration, learning, and connection

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

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