The legitimacy of regional governance networks: Gaining credibility in the shadow of hierarchy

Abstract

This paper explores the sources of legitimacy of regional governance networks and pays special attention to the aspect of credibility. We argue that legitimacy of regional governance networks is not only based on legality, justifiability, and consent, but also on the ability of the regional governance network to gain credibility in the shadow of hierarchical decision making. Credibility has not received the same degree of attention as other aspects of legitimacy. However, networked forms of governing -such as regional governance -to a large extent rely on the belief held by participating governmental actors and higher levels of government in this type of collaboration and governing. They must be convinced of the added value of this type of collaboration. We empirically illustrate the importance of credibility as an aspect of legitimacy, using two examples of cases of regional housing governance in the Netherlands.

Enacting governance through strategy: A comparative study of governance configurations in Sydney and Vienna

“…The authors of the city's strategy need to legitimize their authorship, but at the same time the proposed course of action needs to be legitimized within the document. Obviously, legitimacy cannot be dictated, but requires the acceptance of the administration's audiences (Eshuis and Edwards, 2013;Levelt and Metze, 2014). While our empirical study does not allow us to assess how far the two cities' strategies were perceived as legitimate and by whom, we can identify rhetorical mechanisms that seek to establish the strategy document, its authors, and its prioritizations as legitimate.…”

Regional governance and public accountability in planning for new housing: A new approach in South Holland, the Netherlands

“…It may be more challenging to introduce a coherent set of accountability arrangements to other countries where one governance approach has prevailed more than others. Even in the studied case, however, multiple lines of accountability had to be rearranged to buttress one another in order to effectuate the new style of regional housing planning and to earn its ''credibility'' (Levelt and Metze, 2013), taking three full years (2012)(2013)(2014) to initiate and routinize it. Considering this, the conceptual framework used in this paper can be useful for assessing existing accountability arrangements and identifying weak lines to improve in other contexts where regional planning is either conformance-based (as in Mediterranean countries) or performancebased (as in England) (Kang and Korthals Altes, 2015).…”

Pathways to legitimacy

“…Moreover, governance and planning scholars have become increasingly concerned with legitimacy gaps and “democratic deficits” as voluntary and collaborative forms of “thin” or weakly institutionalized network and multilevel governance have proliferated in the “soft spaces” that lie between traditional formal hierarchies and whose fuzzy boundaries reflect their complex relational geographies (Haughton et al, 2013; Stoker, 1998; Swyngedouw, 2005). In this vein, Levelt and Metze (2014) emphasize the importance of “credibility” in voluntary regional collaborations. As collaborative regional governance networks are typically less institutionalized compared with local and national governments, their performance depends on participating actors’ “belief in [their] effectiveness and trustworthiness” (p. 2372), a form of legitimacy that must be continually reproduced (see also Lau, 2014; Stern, 2008).…”