Meta‐Governance and Collaborative Crisis Management—Competing Rationalities in the Management of the Swedish Security Communications System

Abstract

It is well recognized that contemporary crisis call for collaborative efforts across both organizational and jurisdictional boundaries. One of the key challenges for governments and public authorities responsible for organizing crisis management is to find adequate ways in which they can support decentralized and collaborative responses. This effort can be analyzed through the meta-governance approach that suggests that different instruments can be used to support decentralized collaborative efforts. This article analyzes the management of crisis communication in Sweden and the implementation of a new national Security Communications System (SCS) as a specific case of meta-governance. The main finding suggests that meta-governance may be impaired by combining different types of governance (sovereignty, markets, or network management) due to competing rationality invested in each governance style. The deadlock was, however, resolved by direct involvement and increased deliberation between the meta-governors and the end users as it generated a shared understanding of crisis management and the utility of a single SCS. Besides identifying the importance of direct involvement in terms of network management the article also suggests that meta-governors need to develop a deeper and more sensitive understanding of the selforganizing nature of networks in order to be able to support collaborative crisis management.

A theoretical framework for analyzing institutionalized domination in network governance arrangements

“…Network 3 governance has in fact become a management "ideology" that is manifest in the increasing creation and adoption of network arrangements, which comprises a normative "metagovernance stance" (Larsson 2015, 175;Larsson 2017a). Weible and Carter have recently observed that a convergence between policy process research, public management scholarship, and studies of non-profit and voluntary activities may strengthen the process and outcomes of governance (Weible and Carter 2017, 1).…”

Organizing service delivery on social media platforms? Loosely organized networks, co-optation, and the welfare state

“…LONs as ad hoc ventures may or may not have access to or possess such expertise or local knowledge. Furthermore, research on crisis management highlights the importance of a reliable quality of the information exchanged between partners in a governance network (Larsson 2017). It is through such information flowing through recognized communication channels that the governance network may implement the state's policy objective in times of crisis.…”

“…Critical research has pointed out how such neo-liberal management practices seek to transfer responsibility for social well-being by moving it from the public sector to individual citizens (O'Malley 2010;Bulley 2013;Joseph 2013). A crisis governance network requires effective communication and a shared understanding of the problem to be solved (Larsson 2017). However, at the same time, resilient organizations embrace pluralism and openly test different interpretations of the situation at hand (Termeer and van der Brink 2013) adding to the complexity of the governance network.…”

Meta-governance and the segregated city: difficulties with realizing the participatory ethos in network governance – evidence from Malmö City, Sweden

“…There are studies which indicate that meta-governance can be effective for dealing with homelessness (Doberstein 2016), securing housing in rural regions in Australia (Wilson, Morrison, and Everingham 2017), and promoting co-management in the reception of newly arrived immigrants (Qvist 2017). Other studies have shown, however, that metagovernance can lead to deadlock when it utilizes the competing rationalities of differing styles of governance (Larsson 2017(Larsson , 2019. But there have been no studies that actually investigate how to deal with biased political participation in segregated cities, the effects of which can purportedly be mitigated by meta-governance.…”

“…1 This explicit recommendation to adopt network governance in an effort to promote democratic participation and resolve social and political problems provides an opportunity for us to test the core thesis of meta-governance. The latter may be stated as deliberate efforts aimed at encouraging other actors to become engaged in collaborative governance, along with increasing pluralism and deliberation by means of the active involvement of NGOs, private companies, citizens, and policy recipients (Larsson 2017(Larsson , 2019Agger and Poulsen 2017). We should bear in mind, however, that the project of reforms in Malmö provides a difficult test for meta-governance in that it is a well-known fact that immigrants, ethnic minorities, and those who are socio-economically disadvantaged rarely participate either in formal political institutions, or in informal governance structures (Andrew 2009;Hertting 2009;Dekker et al 2010;Parés, Bonet-Martí, and Martí-Costa 2012; see also Andersen and Biseth 2013).…”