On the Democracy and Relevance of Governance Networks: The Case of Ostrobothnia, Finland

  • Kenneth Nordberg
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Democracy, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship for Growth book series (DIG)


The essential issue in this study is the relevance of the output of governance networks and the impact this relevance has on the democratic qualities of the network. The case study of regional policy planning in Ostrobothnia in Finland compares the network operations with democratic ideals found in governance network theory and deliberative democracy theory. The contrast between casual conversation and discussions for deciding crucial issues becomes a central point for understanding the impact of relevance. It is concluded that a policy network cannot be democratic until its output is relevant, and the suggestion put forward is that this may be accomplished through increasing publicity.


Governance networks Deliberative democracy Regional planning Agonism Relevance 


  1. Bäcklund, P., & Mäntysalo, R. (2011). Agonism and institutional ambiguity: Ideas on democracy and the role of participation in the development of planning theory and practice – The case of Finland. Planning Theory, 9(4), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Damgaard, B., & Torfing, J. (2011). The impact of meta-governance on local governance networks : Lessons from danish employment policy. Local Government Studies, 37, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doheny, S., & O’Neill, C. (2010). Becoming deliberative citizens: The moral learning process of the citizen luror. Political Studies, 58(4), 630–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dryzek, J. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Dryzek, J. (2007). Networks and democratic ideals: Equality, freedom, and communication. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Eckersley, R. (2000). Deliberative democracy, ecological representation and risk: Towards a democracy of the affected. In M. Saward (Ed.), Democratic innovation: Deliberation, representation and association. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Elmkvist, T. (2011). Vision Västra Götaland. Den regionala dimensionen – en gemensam region? Göteborg: SOM-institutet.Google Scholar
  8. Ernstson, U., Fransson, U., & Lorentzon, S. (2011). Vision Västra Götaland – Det goda livet. Utvecklingen 2000–2009 belyst genom index- och indikatorstudier. Göteborg: Göteborgs Universitet.Google Scholar
  9. Esmark, A. (2007). Democratic accountability and network governance – Problems and potentials. In E. Sørensen & J. Torfing (Eds.), Theories of democratic network governance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2001). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  11. Habermas, J. (1984). Theory of communicative action (Vol. 1, Reason and the rationalization of society). Beacon PressCambridge.Google Scholar
  12. Habermas, J. (1999). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: The democratic disconnect of dutch energy transitions. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hiironniemi, S. (2005). Networks and governance in Finland. Journal of Nordregio, 5(4), 19–22.Google Scholar
  15. Hirst, P. (2000). Democracy and governance. In J. Pierre (Ed.), Debating governance – Authority, steering and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (1997). Managing complex networks. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  17. March, J., & Olsen, J. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  18. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  19. Nyseth, T. (2008). Network governance in contested urban landscapes. Planning Theory & Practice, 9(4), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability, public policy and management. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Salminen, A. (2008). Evaluating the new governance of the welfare state in Finland. International Journal of Public Administration, 31(10), 1242–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Smith, G., & Wales, C. (2000). Citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 48(1), 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sørensen, E. (2010). Governance and democracy. Centre for Democratic Network Governance Working Paper Series, 2010 (1). Roskilde: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  24. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). Network governance and post-liberal democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 27(2), 197–237.Google Scholar
  25. Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Västra Götalandsregionen. (2005). Vision Västra Gätaland – Det goda livet. Vänersborg: Region Västra Götaland.Google Scholar
  27. Västra Götalandsregionen. (2008). Vägen till det goda livet, Slutrapport från panelen som följer upp genomförandet av Vision Västra Götaland. Vänersborg: Region Västra Götaland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kenneth Nordberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Åbo Akademi UniversityVasaFinland

Personalised recommendations