Metagovernance and Democratic Legitimacy: a theoretical essay in light of non-market approaches

Abstract

Purpose of the study: The aim of this study is to demonstrate why metagovernance is not effective in increasing the democratic legitimacy of networks; to this end, an articulated map will be presented to describe how interactions occur within metagoverned environments. Methodology/approach: To construct the macro-model of analysis, the methodology of Quivy and Campenhoudt (2005) was used. To consolidate the knowledge involved in the theoretical approach, the Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist (Proknow-C) method by Ensslin, Dutra and Ensslin (2000)was used. Such a proposal allowed a multidisciplinary perspective, capturing important concepts from economics and organizational theory to apply them to the meta-governed environment. Originality/Relevance: Metagovernance systems suggest some ability to provide democratic plurality to a social environment, in that we need to understand "if" and "how" this applies; metagovernance is recent in academia and is under discussion; we need to understand its impact in countries with developing institutional environments. Key findings: Metagoverned systems involve multiple players; difficulty of reconciliation raises transaction costs, both ex-ante - to achieve consensus in the network - and ex-post - when creating mechanisms to deal with disgruntled actors. Such a scenario leads key players to effect coalitions to 'narrow the road' to theirown interests, and practice corporate political activity seeking to influence decision making. Actions will focus on impacting the public agent designated as metagovernor, in order to influence possible changes in the environment (regulation). Theoretical/methodological contributions: An articulated map has been proposed, presenting the cycle of interactions within a metagoverned environment. It shows that sometimes the decisions taken are not the most democratic ones, but those of interest to coalitions. Social contributions / to management: From a legitimacy perspective, it is necessary to understand how the outcome of networked decision-making can become more democratic, and how metagoverned environments can become less susceptible to harmful corporate political activity, especially in developing democracies.