This paper explores the relationship between different types of multilevel governance systems and policy coherence (i.e., uniformity of goals and rules) through a study of the governance systems for water and large carnivores in Sweden. The study objects represent multilevel governance systems for contested natural resources in the same national context, although in different policy areas and with substantial differences in institutional arrangements. We define the characteristics of each governance system through an institutional analysis of official records and compare their perceived ability to promote coherence through a statistical analysis of survey data. Our empirical results both support and problematize common ideas about how different institutional features relate to policy coherence in multilevel governance. The results clearly indicate that multilevel governance systems are challenged by conflicting goals and rules, both within and across governance systems, and that the capacity to address these difficulties is generally perceived as wanting in both types of systems. The results tentatively suggest that clashes with other governance systems are more prominent in polycentric and ecologically based systems, whereas internal goal and rule conflicts are more prevalent in centralized and more traditionally organized systems. The findings contribute to our understanding of the quandaries associated with the design of new governance systems. The study also contributes important insights into what features to focus on in attempts to mitigate the downsides of different institutional arrangements in multilevel governance systems.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

The party and trustee principles are two representational styles used to describe how politicians make decisions. Swedish politicians have historically relied more on the party principle than the trustee principle. This article studies the decision-making practices of local Swedish politicians by exploring to what extent they rely on these principles when making decisions on two issues that diverge in political dignity: tax level and organisational change in the municipal administration. The study draws on new institutional theory, in which theories from rational choice and sociological institutionalism were used for modelling and performing a large study. The results indicate that, although Swedish politicians still rely on the party principle when making decisions, there is a significant difference as to what extent they do so in regard to the two policy issues. The trustee principle is more frequently used when deciding on organisational change than on tax levels. This result is valid for all Swedish parties, except for a relatively new political party at the extreme right of the ideological spectrum. Future research of the two decision-making principles in relation to other policy issues, as well as research that delves deeper into the deviant results of the different political parties, is encouraged.

No abstract

This paper addresses how the design of collaborative regimes influences markers of legitimacy in Swedish water-and large carnivore governance. Based on institutional analysis and statistical analysis of survey data, the study examines two systems with different types of collaborative designs and compares them in relation to markers of legitimacy, in terms of perceived process quality, policy agreement and policy acceptance among the involved decision-making actors and concerned organizations. The findings show how the design of collaboration influences some, but not all, explored markers of legitimacy. First, the categories of actors involved; whom they are accountable to; and the authority given to the collaborative forums, effect perceptions of influence, the possibility of reaching joint agreements and the degree of policy agreement among involved decision-makers. Second, the findings indicate that the degree of policy agreement among concerned organizations is unaffected by differences in institutional design. Third, the degree of policy acceptance among involved decision-making actors and concerned organizations was unaffected by institutional design and notably high in both systems. The results both verify and develop previous research findings and the message to policymakers is to carefully consider the design when introducing new collaborative forums, including whom to invite, in what role, and with what mandate.

In the policy sciences, the intractability of disputes in natural resource governance is commonly explained in terms of a "devil shift" between rival policy coalitions. In a devil shift, policy actors overestimate the power of their opponents and exaggerate the differences between their own and their opponents' policy beliefs. While the devil shift is widely recognized in policy research, knowledge of its causes and solutions remains limited. Drawing insights from the advocacy coalition framework and social identity theory, we empirically explore beliefs and social identity as two potential drivers of the devil shift. Next, we investigate the potential of collaborative venues to decrease the devil shift over time. These assumptions are tested through statistical analyses of longitudinal survey data targeting actors involved in three policy subsystems within Swedish large carnivore management. Our evidence shows, first, that the devil shift is more pronounced if coalitions are defined by shared beliefs rather than by shared identity. Second, our study shows that participation in collaborative venues does not reduce the devil shift over time. We end by proposing methodological and theoretical steps to advance knowledge of the devil shift in contested policy subsystems.