Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden

Abstract

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.

Acceptability of Government Measures Against Covid-19 Pandemic in Senegal: a Mixed Methods Study

“…1), with the immediate consequence of the virus circulating. We are, therefore, at the heart of the study of the coherence of public policies, a new criterion for evaluating development interventions [60], and a central concept in political science [13,61]. The national press has also widely commented on the state's decision to authorise the reopening of places of worship, claiming that the justi cation was in no way health-related, but political, as it gave way in particular to pressure from Muslim brotherhoods, which are known to have enormous political and economic weight in Senegal [59].…”

“…In Europe and China, studies show the important role of knowledge and vulnerability to the disease, as well as con dence in the government in the acceptance of measures to combat the COVID-19 pandemic [8][9][10][11][12]. In addition, political science research has long shown the importance of consistency in government measures and choices to promote their acceptability [13].…”

COVID-19 related interdisciplinary methods: Preventing errors and detecting research opportunities

“…Because conflicts between goals and rules tend to occur in systems that emphasize command and control functions, new models aim at polycentrism and participation [111] , [112] . These recent approaches seek preventing the far-reaching –although totally avoidable– problems that frequently affect governance systems, as the following cases document.…”

Redes Interorganizacionais De Aprendizagem Para a Segurança Pública

“…Neste sentido, a Governança Multinível (MultiGov) emerge como o modelo contemporâneo para governar as redes de aprendizagem, já que é um sistema complexo de governança de redes de interações e colaborações multiníveis e multidimensionais, que transcende fronteiras entre atores autônomos, responsáveis e engajados em processos decisórios colaborativos, coesos e transparentes na busca de soluções coletivas Em um ambiente onde a solução efetiva dos problemas exige esforços coletivos e formação de redes, sistemas de governança que não consideram a diversidade de atores em múltiplos níveis são incapazes de lidar com a complexidade e a diversidade de ações necessárias para gerar resultados efetivos (SANDSTRÖM et al, 2020). Para Wilson (2017) o modelo MultiGov é resultado dessa tendência.…”