Suchergebnisse

First published as a Special Issue of Policy & Politics, the book offers critical reflections on the recent history and future direction of policy studies, advancing the debate by rethinking the ways in which scholars and students of policy studies can (re)engage with pertinent issues

The book offers critical reflections on the recent history and future direction of policy studies, advancing the debate by rethinking the ways in which scholars and students of policy studies can (re)engage with pertinent issues. First published as a special issue of Policy & Politics.

First published as a Special Issue of Policy & Politics, the book offers critical reflections on the recent history and future direction of policy studies, advancing the debate by rethinking the ways in which scholars and students of policy studies can (re)engage with pertinent issues.

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 undermine 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.

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.

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.

The aim of this article is to examine the role played by 'informal governance' in shaping political innovation. Informal governance can be defined as a means of decision-making that is un-codified, non-institutional and where social relationships play crucial roles. Drawing on a case study of English devolution in the United Kingdom, this article explores the impact of informal governance on three dimensions of political innovation - innovations in polity (institutions), politics (process) and policy (outcomes). It argues that an analysis of informal governance is essential if we are to fully understand how political innovation occurs. Research evidence suggest that even when formal structures and procedures are weak, political innovation can still thrive.

This report is based on work conducted by the Political Studies Association Research Commission - Examining the impact of 'informal governance' on devolution to England's cities. It has explored the impact of informal governance on both the effectiveness of decision making around the recent devolution deals in England and its impact on democracy. The report's findings are based on an in-depth literature review and semi-structured interviews with key actors involved in the devolution deal process. It concludes that the devolution agenda offers a real opportunity to significantly transform the way England is governed. However, devolution to English cities is not sustainable without greater transparency and legitimacy in decision making.