IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v51y2014i11p2371-2386.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Melika Levelt

    (Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands)

  • Tamara Metze

    (Tilburg University, The Netherlands)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Melika Levelt & Tamara Metze, 2014. "The legitimacy of regional governance networks: Gaining credibility in the shadow of hierarchy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(11), pages 2371-2386, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:51:y:2014:i:11:p:2371-2386
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098013513044
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098013513044
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098013513044?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Parkinson, 2003. "Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 51(1), pages 180-196, March.
    2. Jen Nelles, 2013. "Cooperation and Capacity? Exploring the Sources and Limits of City-Region Governance Partnerships," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 1349-1367, July.
    3. Maarten Hajer & Wil Zonneveld, 2000. "Spatial Planning in the Network Society-Rethinking the Principles of Planning in the Netherlands," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 337-355, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Haus & David Sweeting, 2006. "Local Democracy and Political Leadership: Drawing a Map," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(2), pages 267-288, June.
    2. Liu, Yansui & Zhou, Yang, 2021. "Territory spatial planning and national governance system in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Sangbum Shin & Taedong Lee, 2021. "Credible Empowerment and Deliberative Participation: A Comparative Study of Two Nuclear Energy Policy Deliberation Cases in Korea," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(1), pages 97-112, January.
    4. Sungho Park & Craig S. Maher & Carol Ebdon, 2020. "Interlocal Collaboration and Local Fiscal Structure: Do State Incentives Matter?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 20-43, June.
    5. Jizhe Zhou & Quanhua Hou, 2021. "Complex Network-Based Research on the Resilience of Rural Settlements in Sanshui Watershed," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-26, October.
    6. Melanie Bedore, 2014. "The convening power of food as growth machine politics: A study of food policymaking and partnership formation in Baltimore," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(14), pages 2979-2995, November.
    7. Judith Westerink & Annet Kempenaar & Marjo van Lierop & Stefan Groot & Arnold van der Valk & Adri van den Brink, 2017. "The participating government: Shifting boundaries in collaborative spatial planning of urban regions," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(1), pages 147-168, February.
    8. Niedziałkowski, Krzysztof & Beunen, Raoul, 2019. "The risky business of planning reform – The evolution of local spatial planning in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 11-20.
    9. Aleksandra Krstikj, 2021. "Social Innovation in the Undergraduate Architecture Studio," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-22, March.
    10. Chisung Park & Jooha Lee & Changho Chung, 2015. "Is “legitimized” policy always successful? Policy legitimacy and cultural policy in Korea," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 319-338, September.
    11. Farrell, Katharine N., 2014. "Intellectual mercantilism and franchise equity: A critical study of the ecological political economy of international payments for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 137-146.
    12. Piotr Lorens & Agnieszka Zimnicka, 2023. "Planning Around Polarisation: Components of Finding Common Ground Based on Regeneration Projects in London and Gdańsk," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 389-400.
    13. Ki Woong Cho & Kyujin Jung, 2018. "From Collaborative to Hegemonic Water Resource Governance through Dualism and Jeong : Lessons Learned from the Daegu-Gumi Water Intake Source Conflict in Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-18, November.
    14. Anouk Patel-Campillo, 2011. "Forging the Neoliberal Competitiveness Agenda: Planning Policy and Practice in the Dutch and Colombian Cut-Flower Commodity Chains," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(11), pages 2516-2532, November.
    15. Carolyn Hendriks, 2005. "Participatory storylines and their influence on deliberative forums," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 38(1), pages 1-20, March.
    16. Ate Poorthuis & Michiel van Meeteren, 2021. "Containment and Connectivity in Dutch Urban Systems: A Network‐Analytical Operationalisation of the Three‐Systems Model," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 112(4), pages 387-403, September.
    17. Or Levkovich & Jan Rouwendal, 2016. "Spatial Planning and Segmentation of the Land Market," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-018/VIII, Tinbergen Institute.
    18. Agterbosch, Susanne & Glasbergen, Pieter & Vermeulen, Walter J.V., 2007. "Social barriers in wind power implementation in The Netherlands: Perceptions of wind power entrepreneurs and local civil servants of institutional and social conditions in realizing wind power project," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(6), pages 1025-1055, August.
    19. Hysing, Erik, 2015. "Citizen participation or representative government – Building legitimacy for the Gothenburg congestion tax," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-8.
    20. Hwanbae Kim & Jae-Kyoung Chung & Myeong-Hun Lee, 2019. "Social Network Analysis of the Jangwi Urban Regeneration Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-15, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:51:y:2014:i:11:p:2371-2386. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.