Suchergebnisse

In the Scandinavian countries, the regional level of governance is neither the locus of large-scale policy reforms nor a significant provider of welfare to citizens. Nevertheless, it has some important policy tasks in the area of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. These policy areas are rife with wicked and unruly problems that combine cognitive uncertainties with the risk of political conflict and stalemate. Dealing with these problems requires the construction of network arenas in which a range of public and private actors can collaborate in order to find innovative solutions to common problems. The paper analyses the efforts of Norwegian regions to enhance collaborative innovation through the formation of interactive governance arenas. It compares three different policy areas in order to better understand how different forms of interactive governance enhance collaborative innovation for economic, social and environmental sustainability. The ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of Norwegian regions to solve wicked and unruly problems through collaborative innovation.

Scale is an overlooked issue in the literature on interactive governance. This special issue investigates the challenges posed by the scale and scaling of network and collaborative forms of governance. Our original motivation arose from a concern about whether collaborative governance can scale up. As we learned more, our inquiry expanded to include the tensions inherent in collaboration across scales or at multiple scales and the issue of dynamically scaling collaboration to adapt to changing problems and demands. The diverse cases in this special issue explore these challenges in a range of concrete empirical domains than span the globe.

In the Scandinavian countries, the regional level of governance is neither the locus of large-scale policy reforms nor a significant provider of welfare to citizens. Nevertheless, it has some important policy tasks in the area of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. These policy areas are rife with wicked and unruly problems that combine cognitive uncertainties with the risk of political conflict and stalemate. Dealing with these problems requires the construction of network arenas in which a range of public and private actors can collaborate in order to find innovative solutions to common problems. The paper analyses the efforts of Norwegian regions to enhance collaborative innovation through the formation of interactive governance arenas. It compares three different policy areas in order to better understand how different forms of interactive governance enhance collaborative innovation for economic, social and environmental sustainability. The ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of Norwegian regions to solve wicked and unruly problems through collaborative innovation. ; In the Scandinavian countries, the regional level of governance is neither the locus of large-scale policy reforms nor a significant provider of welfare to citizens. Nevertheless, it has some important policy tasks in the area of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. These policy areas are rife with wicked and unruly problems that combine cognitive uncertainties with the risk of political conflict and stalemate. Dealing with these problems requires the construction of network arenas in which a range of public and private actors can collaborate in order to find innovative solutions to common problems. The paper analyses the efforts of Norwegian regions to enhance collaborative innovation through the formation of interactive governance arenas. It compares three different policy areas in order to better understand how different forms of interactive governance enhance collaborative innovation for economic, social and environmental sustainability. The ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of Norwegian regions to solve wicked and unruly problems through collaborative innovation.

Artikel 3In the Scandinavian countries, the regional level of governance is neither the locus of large-scale policy reforms nor a significant provider of welfare to citizens. Nevertheless, it has some important policy tasks in the area of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. These policy areas are rife with wicked and unruly problems that combine cognitive uncertainties with the risk of political conflict and stalemate. Dealing with these problems requires the construction of network arenas in which a range of public and private actors can collaborate in order to find innovative solutions to common problems. The paper analyses the efforts of Norwegian regions to enhance collaborative innovation through the formation of interactive governance arenas. It compares three different policy areas in order to better understand how different forms of interactive governance enhance collaborative innovation for economic, social and environmental sustainability. The ultimate goal is to assess the ability and potential of Norwegian regions to solve wicked and unruly problems through collaborative innovation.

This article maps how the sub-national regional levels of governance in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have changed from a high degree of institutional convergence to a pattern of institutional divergence. It analyses the similarities and differences in the changes in regional governance and discusses how these changes can be understood. Our supposition is that the more or less rational explanations of change found in main strands of the new institutionalism fail to explain the recent reforms of regional governance. Consequently, we ourselves have to contend with explanations in which rational action plays a limited role and contingent articulations of political and institutional conditions, together with spillover effects from reforms of local governance structures, are central to understanding the reforms that have produced the increasingly divergent patterns of regional governance in Scandinavia.

This article maps how the sub-national regional levels of governance in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have changed from a high degree of institutional convergence to a pattern of institutional divergence. It analyses the similarities and differences in the changes in regional governance and discusses how these changes can be understood. Our supposition is that the more or less rational explanations of change found in main strands of the new institutionalism fail to explain the recent reforms of regional governance. Consequently, we ourselves have to contend with explanations in which rational action plays a limited role and contingent articulations of political and institutional conditions, together with spillover effects from reforms of local governance structures, are central to understanding the reforms that have produced the increasingly divergent patterns of regional governance in Scandinavia. ; This article maps how the sub-national regional levels of governance in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have changed from a high degree of institutional convergence to a pattern of institutional divergence. It analyses the similarities and differences in the changes in regional governance and discusses how these changes can be understood. Our supposition is that the more or less rational explanations of change found in main strands of the new institutionalism fail to explain the recent reforms of regional governance. Consequently, we ourselves have to contend with explanations in which rational action plays a limited role and contingent articulations of political and institutional conditions, together with spillover effects from reforms of local governance structures, are central to understanding the reforms that have produced the increasingly divergent patterns of regional governance in Scandinavia.

Artikel 1This article maps how the sub-national regional levels of governance in Denmark, Norway and Sweden have changed from a high degree of institutional convergence to a pattern of institutional divergence. It analyses the similarities and differences in the changes in regional governance and discusses how these changes can be understood. Our supposition is that the more or less rational explanations of change found in main strands of the new institutionalism fail to explain the recent reforms of regional governance. Consequently, we ourselves have to contend with explanations in which rational action plays a limited role and contingent articulations of political and institutional conditions, together with spillover effects from reforms of local governance structures, are central to understanding the reforms that have produced the increasingly divergent patterns of regional governance in Scandinavia.