Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Interactive and state-centric relational governance scholars disagree about the concept of metagovernance. Contestation relates to who can metagovern, the processes that can steer policy networks and the extent of autonomy held by non-state actors. This article uses data generated from interviews with policy officials and document analysis to examine the validity of these competing claims in relation to a European crisis management network. The findings validate both conceptualisations in terms of the minutia of network governance but they also question their value as a proxy for understanding how the European Union has affected the policymaking authority of the nation-state.

Keywords

Administrative organization and structures crisis management European Union metagovernance multi-level government networks

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agranoff

(2007) Managing within Networks, Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Bell

Hindmoor

(2009) Rethinking Governance: The Centrality of the State in Modern Society, Port Melbourne VIC: Cambridge University Press.

Bell

Park

(2006) The problematic metagovernance of networks: water reform in New South Wales. Journal of Public Policy 26(1): 63–83.

Bevir

Rhodes

RAW

(2003) Interpreting British Governance, London: Routledge.

Bevir

Rhodes

RAW

(2004) Interpreting British governance. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6(2): 129–164.

Bouckeart

Peters

Verhoerst

(2010) The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations: Shifting Patterns of Public Management, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cabinet Office (2011) Civil Contingencies act enhancement programme: Programme initiation document. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-contingencies-act-enhancement-programme-programme-initiation-document (accessed 9 July 2014).

Cabinet Office (2012a) Emergency preparedness: Guidance on part 1 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-preparedness (accessed 9 July 2014).

Cabinet Office (2012b) A summary of the 2012 sector resilience plans. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/2012-sector-resilience-plan (accessed 18 July 2014).

10.

Cabinet Office (2013) Emergency response and recovery: Non statutory guidance accompanying the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/emergency-response-and-recovery (accessed 9 July 2014).

11.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, Sage Publications.

12.

Damgaard

Torfing

(2011) The impact of metagovernance on local governance networks. Lessons from Danish employment policy. Local Government Studies 37(3): 291–316.

13.

Department for Communities and Local Government (2012) Fire and rescue national framework for England. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/fire-and-rescue-national-framework-for-england (accessed 9 July 2014).

14.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2011a) Understanding the risks, empowering communities and building resilience. Available at: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/geho0711btwk-e-e.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014).

15.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2011b) Co-operation and Requesting Information in Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management. London: The Stationary Office.

16.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2012a) Contingency plan for exotic notifiable diseases of animals. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/contingency-plan-for-exotic-notifiable-diseases-of-animals–2 (accessed 9 July 2014).

17.

Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (2012b) Designation of structures and features for flood and coastal erosion risk management purposes. Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69579/pb13804-fcerm-infonote.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014).

18.

Department for International Development (2013) Evaluation strategy: Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPA) and Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF). Available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-strategy-programme-partnership-arrangements-ppa-and-global-poverty-action-fund-gpaf (accessed 9 July 2014).

19.

European Commission (2008) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on Reinforcing the Union's Disaster Response Capacity, COM (2008) 130 final.

20.

European Commission (2009) Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A Community Approach on the Prevention of Natural and Man-made Disasters, COM (2009) 82 final.

21.

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (2011) Available at: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/67579/HERR.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014).

22.

Jessop

(2004) Multi-level governance and multi-level metagovernance. In: Bache

Flinders

(eds) Multi-Level Governance, New York: Oxford University Press.

23.

John

(2011) Making Policy Work, Oxon: Routledge.

24.

Kooiman

Jentoft

(2009) Meta-governance: values, norms and principles and the making of hard choice. Public Administration 87(4): 818–836.

25.

Moran

(2010) Policy-Making in an Interdependent World. In: Hay

(eds) New Directions in Political Science: Responding to the Challenges of an Interdependent World, Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 25–42.

26.

Percival

(2009) Exploring the influence of local policy networks on the implementation of drug policy reform: the case of California’s Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Journal of Public Management Research and Theory 9: 795–815.

27.

Peters

(2010) Meta-governance and public management’. In: Osborne

(ed) The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance, Oxon: Routledge, pp. 36–52.

28.

Schout

Jordan

Twena

(2010) From old to new governance in the EU: explaining a diagnostic deficit. West European Politics 33(1): 154–170.

29.

Sørenson

(2006) Metagovernance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. American Review of Public Administration 36: 98–114.

30.

Sørenson

Torfing

(2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance’. Public Administration 87(2): 234–258.

31.

Torfing

Peters

Pierre

Sørenson

(2012) Interactive Governance: Advancing the Paradigm, New York: Oxford University Press.

32.

UNISDR European Commission OECD (2013) Peer review report: United Kingdom. Available from: www.unisdr.org/files/32996_32996hfaukpeerreview20131.pdf (accessed 9 July 2014).

33.

Wallington

Lawrence

Barton

(2008) Reflections on the legitimacy of regional environmental governance: lessons from Australia's experiment in natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning 10(1): 1–30.

34.

Whitehead

(2003) In the shadow of hierarchy: meta-governance, policy reform and urban regeneration in the West Midlands. Area 35(1): 6–14.

More micro than meta? Competing concepts of metagovernance in the European Union

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References