Paul Fawcett

Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and Policy Network Analysis:

This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a networks structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed.

Branding, politics and democracy

Branding and franchising, which are common features of commerce, have, more recently, permeated into politics in a number of ways. However, this development has received limited academic attention, an omission which this article addresses. More specifically, it has two main aims. Firstly, we develop a heuristic for analysing the relationship between branding and politics. Here, our intention is to stimulate discussion and, as with any heuristic, this one will stand or fall depending on whether other researchers find it useful. Secondly, we critically examine the relationship between political marketing/branding and governance and democracy. Here, we argue strongly that it is essential to develop a more critical political marketing/branding agenda. This research agenda would be much less instrumental in its research concerns and draw on broader epistemological and theoretical perspectives, allowing it to interrogate the relationship between marketing/branding and democracy in more depth than is the case at present.

Metagovernance, Network Structure, and Legitimacy: Developing a Heuristic for Comparative Governance Analysis

This article develops a heuristic for comparative governance analysis. The heuristic depicts four network types by combining network structure with the state’s capacity to metagovern. It suggests that each network type produces a particular combination of input and output legitimacy. We illustrate the heuristic and its utility using a comparative study of agri-food networks (organic farming and land use) in four countries, which each exhibit different combinations of input and output legitimacy respectively. The article concludes by using a fifth case study to illustrate what a network type that produces high levels of input and output legitimacy might look like.

Network Governance and the 2020 Summit

The idea that governance has replaced government, and that networks have replaced hierarchy as the dominant mode of governance, have become mainstream views in the public policy literature. In this article, we consider a key initiative of the Rudd government in Australia, the 2020 Summit, which, at first sight, seems like an example of network governance in action. Having considered the operation and outcomes of the Summit, however, we argue that it more accurately illustrates how governments, perhaps particularly in Westminster systems, attempt to preserve hierarchy, through a process of metagovernance.

Governance, acceleration and time – emerging issues for governance theory and practice

ABSTRACT Time and acceleration have remained at the periphery of debates about the theory and practice of governance, yet they add an important contextual dimension to Sørensen and Torfing’s contribution and discussion about ‘emerging agendas and future paths’. This short intervention illustrates this point by drawing on contemporary debates that have taken contrary positions on what would represent an appropriate response to the ‘accelerated polity’. Whilst some have argued that slower temporal horizons should be promoted over faster ones (acceleration-as-evil), others have argued that we should embrace the opportunities presented by the imperative of speed (acceleration-as-potential). The commentary concludes that whilst the fast/slow dichotomy is unhelpful, it does serve a purpose in provoking further inquiry into the ‘accelerated polity’, its meaning, effect and impact.

Governance, public policy and boundary-making

ABSTRACT This symposium draws attention to innovative and emerging research in Australian public policy exploring the interplay of governance, public policy and boundary-making. Conceptually and substantively, boundaries are fundamental to understanding policy outcomes, yet remain overlooked and undertheorised. We aim to contribute to public policy debates, in Australia and beyond, by provoking further reflection on this theme, in particular, the distributive effects of boundaries in policy-making; the blurring of boundaries implicit to governance frameworks; the crossing of boundaries, especially by policy-officials within and between institutions; the construction of boundaries to separate and marginalise; and the existence of temporal–spatial boundaries that demarcate jurisdiction and authority. In short, the study of governance and public policy-making is marked by multiple different types of boundaries but the way in which boundaries get drawn and redrawn is also suffuse with political contestation meaning they raise crucial questions about the exercise of power.

Doing democracy and governance in the fast lane? Towards a ‘politics of time’ in an accelerated polity

ABSTRACT This article examines the relationship between time, governance and political participation through a critical engagement with the ‘acceleration thesis’. Whilst the acceleration thesis argues that the ‘shrinking of the present’ is a condition of contemporary governance, others have viewed it as dysfunctional to the democratic process and effective policymaking. By drawing on a wide range of literature and through the use of illustrative examples, this article argues that slow and fast politics have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to the practice of governance and democratic participation. In turn, questions are raised about how public organisations and others might manage temporality and change in an ‘accelerated polity’. The article concludes by calling for further research into the ‘politics of time’ and its effects on public policymaking and political participation.

Becoming a Metagovernor: A Case Study of the Murray-Darling Basin Authority

The Murray-Darling Basin is Australia’s most important river system. It is home to over two million people, covers 14% of the country’s landmass and is of national significance socially, culturally, economically and environmentally. The governance network surrounding the Basin is complex involving multiple levels of governments (Commonwealth, state and territory) as well as numerous non-state actors, including individuals and communities living in the Basin, industry groups and environmentalists. The past three to four decades have seen increased levels of intergovernmental cooperation and coordination as nearly all actors have recognised the need for concerted action in order to avoid potentially catastrophic, long-term and irreversible environmental damage within the Basin. The decision to create the Murray Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) in September 2008 represented another step towards increased cooperation as it was the first time in Australian history that a dedicated Agency had been created with an explicit mandate to develop an integrated water management plan at the Basin level. This paper tracks ebbs and flows in the extent to which the MDBA was able to secure the political legitimacy that it required in order to successfully oversee the development of this Plan from the MDBA’s establishment in September 2008 through to the Plan’s commencement in November 2012. We analyse the MDBA’s capacity to develop political legitimacy during this time, which we conceptualise in terms of the cognitive, moral, and pragmatic legitimacy that the Agency was able to achieve within the wider community. We also show how the MDBA learned to become an effective metagovernor by shaping, developing and mending its political legitimacy. Thus, we are able to track how the MDBA was able to learn from its past failures at metagovernance. This article hence provides the first systematic empirical analysis of how delegated agencies can become effective metagovernors through direct attempts to foster their political legitimacy. More broadly, we conclude that to become effective (and to effectively become) metagovernors, organisations require stakeholders within and beyond the immediate governance network to accept their decisions (on whatever grounds) as appropriate and justified – i.e. legitimate – whilst also recognising that achieving such a status is more likely to be provisional, transitory and ephemeral, rather than lengthy, enduring and permanent. This is increasingly relevant, we argue, in late-modern societies where trust in elected or non-elected authorities is increasingly challenged.