Network governance, which involves an informal and self-regulated set of public and private actors, who together address various political and social problems, has substantially altered the institutional landscape concerning the formation and implementation of public policy. A common view is that this has made it possible to enhance pluralism and disperse political power by transferring power from the sovereign state to a wider set of private actors and stakeholders. I argue in this article that we need to analyze network governance in reference to the concept of domination and the theoretical tradition of neo-republicanism. For this purpose, I develop a theoretical framework that specifies five dimensions in which domination may arise and, conversely, be mitigated. An alternative image of network governance emerges which reveals that this type of governance may in fact generate a form of institutional domination that encompasses both citizens and civil society actors due to the arbitrary influence that certain network participants come to exercise upon the life choices of nonparticipants.
This article argues that existent critique against the discourse and practice of governance by networks fails to consider the more substantial political challenges that such a style of governance generates. By not addressing the depoliticization claims present in the discourse of governance by networks there is a continuation of the seemingly attractive solution and possibility for states to perform metagovernance of networks. Such suggestions have, however, overlooked the instability of networks and the politics of politics that this form of organization entails. By making use of a retheorization of sovereign power and its double relationship to public political space, it is argued that new insights can be gained with regards to the role of networks in contemporary politics. This retheorization suggests that sovereign power is present when decisions are made both on the political nature of issues and on whether accountability to the wider public should apply. Thus, contrary to the claim that sovereign power is declining as networks get involved in public affairs, it is argued here that such power is even more present due to an increased uncertainty of political boundaries that arise in the implementation and maintenance of new governing structures.
The aim of this paper is to investigate the changing relations between individuals and public authorities within the Swedish crisis management system from 1995 to 2017. After the end of the Cold War, Sweden adopted a broader understanding of security that utilizes alternative governance strategies beyond sovereign means and focuses upon domestic security and the protection of vital systems. This has resulted in the emergence of collaborative arrangements involving public and private actors and as well as the extensive responsibilization of individuals. The latter has taken place since emergency and exceptionalism persist as vital concepts also in domestic security management. The present discussion argues that these two concepts restrict possibilities for democratizing security management and provides the means for harnessing the inclusion of volunteers while not granting them due voice in collaborative governance arrangements. However, responsibilization strategies include ‘activation’ which in turn may invoke critical agency and reflection as well as enable resistance toward the current apolitical notion of crisis management.