UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks


Skelcher, C; Klijn, E H; Kübler, D; Sorensen, E; Sullivan, H (2011). Explaining the Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 33(1):7-38.

Abstract

Advances in understanding the democratic anchorage of governance networks require carefully designed and contextually grounded empirical analysis that take into account contextual factors. The article uses a conjectural framework to study the impact of the national democratic milieu on the relationship between network governance and representative institutions in four European countries: the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The article shows that the distinction between majoritarian and consensus democracy as well as the varying strength of voluntary associations are important contextual factors that help explain cross-national differences in the relationship between governance networks and representative institutions. We conclude that a context of weak associationalism in majoritarian democracies facilitates the instrumentalization of networks by government actors (United Kingdom), whereas a more complementary role of governance networks prevails in consensus democracies (Switzerland). However, in consensus democracies characterized by a context of strong associationalism (the Netherlands and Denmark), the spread of governance networks in public policy making is likely to lead to more substantial transformations of the democratic processes.

Advances in understanding the democratic anchorage of governance networks require carefully designed and contextually grounded empirical analysis that take into account contextual factors. The article uses a conjectural framework to study the impact of the national democratic milieu on the relationship between network governance and representative institutions in four European countries: the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and Denmark. The article shows that the distinction between majoritarian and consensus democracy as well as the varying strength of voluntary associations are important contextual factors that help explain cross-national differences in the relationship between governance networks and representative institutions. We conclude that a context of weak associationalism in majoritarian democracies facilitates the instrumentalization of networks by government actors (United Kingdom), whereas a more complementary role of governance networks prevails in consensus democracies (Switzerland). However, in consensus democracies characterized by a context of strong associationalism (the Netherlands and Denmark), the spread of governance networks in public policy making is likely to lead to more substantial transformations of the democratic processes.

Altmetrics

Downloads

84 downloads since deposited on 22 Feb 2012
17 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Other titles:Governance networks, democratic anchorage, and the impact of national political context: a comparative analysis of four European countries
Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:06 Faculty of Arts > Institute of Political Science
Dewey Decimal Classification:320 Political science
Uncontrolled Keywords:Democracy, Representative government & representation, Netherlands, Great Britain, Switzerland, Denmark
Language:English
Date:2011
Deposited On:22 Feb 2012 09:19
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 15:26
Publisher:Sharpe
ISSN:1084-1806
Publisher DOI:10.2753/ATP1084-1806330100
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-56043

Download

[img]
Preview
Content: Published Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 218kB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations