Metagovernance

The purpose of metagovernance is to create some form of coordination, coherence and integration in the fragmented structures of network governance without completely undermining the autonomy, engagement and self-regulation in governance networks (Sørensen, 2006). Sørensen argues that there are four main types of metagovernance.
The first is the political and economic framing of network governance. This could take the form of regulation through political goals and visions, allocation of financial and other resources to network activity, or framing through the building of common discourses and narratives in the governance situation. The second type of metagovernance is network design, and can involve decisions regarding who ought to participate, how networks and processes are structured, and so on. The third type of metagovernance is network management. This concerns the regulation of tensions, resolution of conflicts, and management of unequal resources in the networks (Klijn & Edelenbos, 2007). Finally, the fourth metagovernance technique is network participation where politicians and planners can directly influence the discussions and decisions made in the networks (Sørensen, 2006, pp. 110–113).

Rhodes (1997, p. 660) – to take one although important example out of the literature – therefore describes the characteristics of governance as “interdependence between organisations; continuing interactions between network members; game-like interactions, rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game negotiated and agreed by network participants; a significant degree of autonomy from the state.”

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding governance. Policy networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, Buckingham/ Philadelphia: Open University Press.

European Commission’s white paper on governance promoting principles referring to openness, participation, accountability, effectiveness and coherence (CEC, 2001)

CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2001) European Governance; White Paper, Brussels, 25-7-2001, COM(2001) 428 def., Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Governance networks: “A stable articulation of mutually dependent, but operationally autonomous actors from state, market and civic society, who interact through conflict-ridden negotiations that take place within an institutionalised framework of rules, norms, shared knowledge and social imaginaries; and contribute to the production of ‘public value’ in a broad sense of problem definitions, vision, ideas, plans and concrete regulations that are deemed relevant to broad sections of the population.” (Sørensen & Torfing, 2009, p. 236).

Three broad traditions are identified:

1. A Northern and Western European tradition for the corporatist involvement of social partners (currently developing into broader stakeholder dialogue). 
2. A Southern European tradition, whereby networks are negatively associated with lobbyism, corruption and criminal activities; and civil society participation in public governance is associated with the devolution of power to local and regional authorities; 
3. A Central and Eastern European tradition where networks are negatively associated with the rule of old or new cliques, but a large effort being made to develop a legal framework for public-private co-governance (Sørensen & Torfing, 2009, p. 238). 

Sørensen, E. & J. Torfing (2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance, Public Administration, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 234-258.

“Meta-governance is a way of enhancing coordinated governance in a fragmented political system based on a high degree of autonomy for a plurality of self-governing networks and institutions. (…) [M]eta-governance is an indirect form of governing that is exercised by influencing various processes of self-governance.” (Sørensen, 2006, p. 100) “Meta-governance is therefore an indirect means of performing ‘regulation of selfregulation’, both at the macro level (e.g. Jessop, 2002) of societal governance and at the micro level of network management (Klijn & Edelenbos, 2007)”. (Sehested, 2009, p. 248).

Sørensen, E. (2006) Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance, American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 36, No. 1, 98-114.

Klijn, E. & J. Edelenbos (2007) Metagovernance as network management, in: Sørensen, E. & J. Torfing (eds) Theories of Democratic Network Governance, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 199-214.

Three forms of private involvement in spatial development projects

1. In the traditional contracting out scheme the government specifies what is needed, thereafter follows a tendering procedure leading to contracting out. The role of the private actor is to carry out the production process of the specified project, and the finished job is handed over to the government. 
2. A characteristic of the combination model is that governments and private parties is involved in decision making at an early stage, but still develops separate ways for public and private decision making. The government defines its global aims, next ensues an early tendering procedure that picks the best private proposal even though a definitive public decision is not available. The private actors shape the proposal in interaction with public decision making units. In the final step the project realization is provided by private companies. 
3. The partner model builds on a joint platform set up by governments and private parties in which all actors participate on a risk sharing basis. Together they form a joint principal relation to parties who tender for part of the project, and there are joint schemes for production and exploitation.

Teisman, G.R. & E.H. Klijn (2002) Partnership Arrangements, Public Administration Review, Vol. 62, No. 2, pp. 197-205.

Collaborative governance and network governance

The role of democracy: planners are not fully aware of the impact towards building a more democratic process and society.

The role of planners can be seen as mediating political visions with financial framing.

Source:

Sehested, K. (2009) Urban planners as network managers and metagoverners, Planning Theory & Practice 10(2): 245-263.).