Search results

This paper challenges a common understanding, implicit in many governance studies, that once policy networks are in place, the form of governing that follows is network governing. It is argued that policy networks may be understood as a way of organizing stakeholders and only under specific conditions may the governing mode in which the networks operate be termed network governing. Consequently, policy networks may subsist under other governing modes, for example, under a hierarchical mode. The present study uses actor‐centred case studies in the area of Danish employment policy. Employment policy in Denmark is municipally implemented and the study found that the local governing mode was determined mainly by the municipality's approach to local co‐governing. Less important, but nevertheless significant, is the capacity and interest of key private actors. Thus it is argued that nationally mandated local policy networks are insufficient in themselves to assure network governing in all settings. The reasons hierarchical governing modes prevail over those of network governing are identified and discussed in terms of agency and structure.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) are, according to the literature, assigned a crucial role providing better policy implementation and generating trust between the system and the citizens. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's division between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today more public managers are expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. More interactive and participative collaborative policy processes increasingly require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers to SLB. The key question raised is thus: What kind of skills and capabilities of SLB are needed in more interactive forms of public policy making? And what are the consequences for how the universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals that work in the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinize what challenges and dilemmas the professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By differing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists' we are capable to pinpoint more precisely which skills are needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that keep the rule of law and that support well-functioning local communities – or in more broad terms: skills needed to secure democracy and economic efficiency. ; Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

Street-level bureaucrats (SLB) play a crucial role in ensuring better policy implementa- tion and generating trust between the system and citizens, according to the literature. In this article, we argue that Lipsky's distinction between public managers and SLB needs an update. Today, public managers are increasingly expected to work closely and directly with affected stakeholders in order to solve cross-cutting 'wicked problems'. Interactive and participative collaborative policy processes require public managers to move from back-office work to front-office work, in effect converting public managers into SLB. The key question raised is, thus: what kind of skills and capabilities do SLB need to engage in today's more interactive forms of public policy-making? And what are the implications for how universities educate these groups?' Drawing on a study of 32 urban professionals who work on the frontline in deprived neighbourhoods, we scrutinise the challenges and dilemmas that professionals face in their work with interactive processes. By distinguishing between 'academic specialists' and 'academic generalists', we are able to pinpoint and differentiate between skills needed for each of these groups in order to secure transparent processes that abide by the rule of law and support well-functioning local communities and, more broadly, the skills needed to secure democracy and econom- ic efficiency.

The recent reform of the Danish governance system in the field of active employment policy has been subject to fierce criticism, as many commentators fear that it is the beginning of the end of the Danish Model of active stakeholder involvement. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data, this study aims to analyse the impact of the governance reform by assessing the initial experiences with the Local Employment Councils (LECs). The analysis shows that the LECs are relatively well-functioning and contribute to an effective and democratic governance of local employment policy. Furthermore, the tight metagovernance of the LECs does not seem to straight-jacket the LECs as there is a considerable scope for local policy making which makes it worthwhile for the social partners to participate in the local networks.

In the European Union (EU), employment policy is a prerogative of the member states. Therefore the EU's ability to govern in this area depends on its capability to involve national governments and relevant stakeholders in a collaborative effort to formulate and implement shared policy objectives. Drawing an analytical distinction between cooperation, coordination and collaboration, the article analyses the formulation and implementation of EU employment policies. It concludes that while the formulation of policy objectives and the discussion of national policy approaches do involve elements of collaboration, the implementation phase mainly consists in the less demanding forms of cooperation and coordination.