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

Abstract

Efforts to strategically implement governance reforms have become a common way in which to deal with complex social and political issues. The analysis presented in this article addresses recent governance reforms in Malmö, Sweden, that are intended to help resolve complex problems of urban segregation and social inequality. The article identifies important difficulties that have been encountered in promoting increased participation in spite of the great awareness on the part of local actors of the problems facing the community. The study brings forth evidence that there are good reasons for reassessing the inclusive ethos of network governance and for a critical investigation of precisely who gains access to political processes when network governance arrangements are implemented from above.

Near-repeat burglary patterns in Malmö: Stability and change over time

“…As part of the Öresund region, Copenhagen, in Denmark, and Malmö, in Sweden, share a common labour market. Each day, around 50,000 people commute into Malmö, while around 30,000 commute to work in surrounding areas (Larsson, 2014). Malmö's housing characteristics are mainly shaped by rental apartments (Larsson, 2014).…”

“…Each day, around 50,000 people commute into Malmö, while around 30,000 commute to work in surrounding areas (Larsson, 2014). Malmö's housing characteristics are mainly shaped by rental apartments (Larsson, 2014). The present study employs data from what was formerly the Malmö Police Area, which encompasses the municipalities of Malmö and Burlöv.…”

The governmentality of network governance: Collaboration as a new facet of the liberal art of governing

“…Participation in network governance is prescribed for various actors depending on the issue at hand. At times this involves individual citizens in their roles as policy recipients or target groups, but it may also involve the participation of established civil society organizations, which provides space for collaboration among elites (Larsson, , ). As this participation is supposedly voluntary it is of great interest to identify the citizens and organizations that do in fact take part in network governance.…”

“…First, it embraces demands for participation and inclusion in order to overcome distrust of public institutions and associated crisis of legitimacy, and second, it seeks to optimize the governability of complex modern societies in which the autonomy and self‐regulation of private actors, non‐governmental organizations, and ordinary citizens are safeguarded and even promoted (de Sousa Santos, ). States and key public actors, along with a wide set of international organizations, now often explicitly promote governance, with the help of experts through public investigations and open seminars, as a desirable and even necessary way in which to govern (Brandtner, Höllerer, Meyer, & Kornberger, ; la Cour & Andersen, ; Larsson, ).…”

“…This specific approach to political rule is encapsulated in the concept of big society advanced by David Cameron in 2010 in the UK as he was making the case for the return of civil society, voluntarism, and activism (Scott, ). Another example is provided by Sweden, where governance and collaboration have been identified as key instruments for dealing with ethnic segregation and related urban problems (Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmö, ; see also Larsson, for additonal analysis of governance promotion). Most significantly, the Malmö Commission explicitly argued that it was necessary to “complement representative democracy's hierarchical structure (government) with network‐based and horizontal structures (governance)” (Commission for a Socially Sustainable Malmö, ; Löfgren, ).…”