DO POLICY NETWORKS LEAD TO NETWORK GOVERNING?

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.     

Who governs? Parties and policies in Denmark

Abstract. The literature on party government, coalition formation, and links between party and policy tends to assume that parties in government command legislative majorities that can be used to enact desired policies. This assumption, however, does not apply in general. In Scandinavia, and especially in Denmark, the minority type of government is predominant. Minority governments cannot govern by means of their own votes. Two questions for research are therefore obvious. Why do Scandinavian countries deviate from the normal pattern of government formation? And what are the consequences of minority government for policy making? While the first question has been treated in recent research, this paper carries the analysis a step further by exploring the policy consequences of minority government in Denmark during the 1980s. It is shown that the government may in fact not always govern, that the government may actually be the opposition, and, consequently, that the party-policy link can indeed be extremely complex.     

Causes, forms, and consequences of sectoral policy-making: some Danish evidence

Abstract. The article reviews policy-making patterns with respect to the importance and limits of sectorization and adds new analyses of the involvement of interest groups and bureaucrats in the legislative process. The pattern of sectoral policy-making appears to vary according to types of actors involved, stages of the process, party in government, and policy area in question. Basically however, it is a process of affected interests in action. While the findings fit well with some democratic principles they also give reason for some concern.