Democratic Anchorage of

Infrastructural Governance
Networks : The Case of The
Femern Belt Forum

M.Sc. Transportation Systems

Technical University of Munich
Governance
WS 2016/17
By Ahmed Mourad, Maksudul Alim, Dimas Numan Fadhil

Overview
Governance Network.
Developing a normative criteria that permits measuring the democratic
quality of governance networks on different dimensions.
Improving and analyzing the DEMOCRATIC ANCHORAGE MODEL

Offer operational definitions of the basic dimensions of the model.

Applying the assessment criteria in an empirical case study involving a
recent decision to build a bridge between Denmark and Germany.

Introduction
What are Governance Networks?
Governance

networks

can

be

conceived

stable

articulation

of

interdependent, but operationally autonomous actors who interact with one

another through negotiations that take place within a regulative, normative,
cognitive and imaginary framework, which is self-regulating within limits set by
external authorities, and contribute to the production of public purpose.
Formal OR Informal and self grown, open and inclusive OR closed and

exclusive, perusing broad society-wide goals OR have a narrow focus in policy

formulation. governance networks role is unlikely to diminish in the near future.

Introduction

Public engagement is often brief and limited to the

pre-decision phase.
Sometimes, however, public and private actors
become

engaged

governance

in

relatively

networks that

long-lasting

may contribute to

agenda setting.

The democratic quality of Governance networks is

subjected to dispute.
some researchers claim that governance networks represent
a threat to democracy by enhancing the influence of

unaccountable coalitions of self-interested elites.

others

argue

that

governance

networks

help

to

strengthen

democracy enhancing participation, deliberation and contestation .

Introduction

What is a DEMOCRATIC ANCHORAGE MODEL ?

A model that helps to assess the democratic performance of specific

governance networks and to gain knowledge about the critical factors

determining their degree of democratic anchorage.

Introduction

Claims that governance networks are democratically

anchored to the extent that they:
1) Are controlled by democratically elected
politicians;
2) represent the membership basis of the

participating groups and organizations;

3) are accountable to a territorially defined citizenry;
and
4) facilitate interaction in accordance with a
commonly accepted democratic grammar of
conduct.

Introduction
1) Anchorage in democratically elected politicians
The basic rationale for anchoring governance networks in democratically
elected politicians is that government control with governance networks
helps to ensure that the structure, procedures and decisions of these
networks are in line with the popular will expressed by the political majority
of elected assemblies.
However, the problem is that the very idea that elected politicians can
control governance networks is flawed.
Hence, we must rethink the notion of political control in order to
understand how politicians can monitor and influence governance
networks.
Reformulate the notion of political control in terms of metagovernance,
defined as the regulation of self-regulation

Introduction
1) Anchorage in democratically elected politicians
Pointing to four different tools which elected politicians and other

potential metagovernors can use in their attempt to metagovern

governance networks:
Network design
Network framing
Network management
Network participation

Introduction
1) Anchorage in democratically elected politicians
Democratic anchorage in elected politicians can be measured by

paying attention to the following norms:

The elected politicians must be aware of the presence, role and character
of the governance network in question and have access to information
about its processes, outputs and outcomes.
They must assume the role of metagovernors and decide how important it is
tometagovern the network.
They must define the objectives of their metagovernance and combine
different metagovernance tools to achieve these objectives.

10

Introduction
2) Anchorage in the membership basis of participating groups
and organizations
The rationale for anchoring governance networks in the membership basis of
participating groups and organizations is that the members of these groups and
organizations constitute a demos of directly affected people that the different
network actors must represent in order for the governance network to obtain
democratic legitimacy.
By contrast, we shall contend that the interests and preferences to be
represented are never fully constituted, since they are formed within a particular
discursive context that is constantly destabilized by dislocatory events that reveal
the ultimately undecidable character of all social and political identities.
The interests and preferences of the participating groups and organizations are
defined by the way they are articulated by their representatives in the
governance network.

11

Introduction
2) Anchorage in the membership basis of participating groups
and organizations
The relationship between the network representatives and the constituency that
they claim to represent should be terms of the degree to which the represented
identify with the representatives.
We should be careful not to perceive identification as an abstract question of
whether people trust their would-be representatives to do the right thing. Rather,
identification should be evaluated in relation to the concrete performance of the
representatives. in order for a network actor to become recognized as a
legitimate player by the other actors in the network.
The represented groups and organizations must be aware of the claims to
represent and must identify with these claims by constructing a we-relationship
to the representative.

12

Introduction
2) Anchorage in the membership basis of participating groups and
organizations
Democratic anchorage in participating groups and organizations can be
measured by paying attention to the following norms:
Network actors must advance claims to represent specific groups and/or
organizations.
The represented groups and/or organizations must be aware of these claims

and

accept

their

validity

by

constructing

we-relationship

to

the

representative(s).
The represented groups and/or organizations must have the capacity and
opportunity to critically evaluate how their interests and preferences are

constructed and pursued by the representative(s).

The representative(s) must be sensitive to criticism from the represented.

Introduction
13

3) Anchorage in a teritorially defined citizenry

The idea of anchoring governance networks in a territorially defined citizenry is
to make the networks being accountable to the citizen who are indirectly
affected by the decisions made by a governance network
To measure democratic anchorage:
The tasks, remit and composition of a governance network must be fully visible to
concerned publics
The governance network must produce regular narrative accounts that seek to

justify its decisions, actions and results in the eyes of the broader citizenry
(transparency)
The network actors must engage in a constructive dialogue with those who are
publicly contesting their decisions, actions and results (public dialogue)

The governance network must display some level of responsiveness towards criticisms
and alternative proposals raised in the public debate (public debate will not help
much, if the governance network are unwilling to respond)

Introduction
4) Anchorage in democratic rules and norms

14

The idea of anchoring governance networks in democratic rules and norms is to ensure that
governance networks are not only democratically anchored in external political constituencies, but
also in a set of democratic standards regulating the processes and interactions proceeding within the
network.

To measure democratic anchorage:

Inclusion and exclusion must be subject to ongoing negotiations, and these negotiations should result in explicit
criteria for admittance that should be consistently applied.

The degree of inclusion in governance networks should be a function of the intensity of the actors
affectedness, and the included actors should be able to influence the decisions made by the governance
network (demand for the inclusion of the affected factors).

The deliberation within governance networks must be governed by a democratic ethos that ensures openness,
agonistic respect, commitment to reach a rough consensus, and a relatively transparent decision-making
process (demand for democratic deliberation that based on openness).

Participation in the governance network must contribute to the enhancement of the political empowerment of
the participating actors

The governance network must stimulate democratic innovation through self reflexive and experimental
processes (demand for a democratic improvement of the interactive system of governance).

Applying the democratic anchorage model

15

In principle, a specific governance network can be evaluated on the basis of all of

the dimensions and criteria explicated above.
Nevertheless, we cannot expect all governance networks to perform equally well
on all four dimensions.
It is impossible to make iron-cast rules for the relevance of the different anchorage
points, since everything ultimately depends on a concrete assessment of the form
and character of the governance network in question. Contextualization is also
needed when interpreting and acting upon the results of the assessment of the
democratic anchorage of a specific governance network.
The results of the measurement of the strength of each of the four anchorage points
will not be a question of either/or, but a matter of degrees (in the following

measured as weak, moderate, or strong), and the results will only make sense
when the political and institutional conditions for the democratic performance of
the governance network in question are taken into account.

The Democratic anchorage of the Femern Belt Forum

16

Source: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/03/the-tunnel-project-that-could-reshape-the-european-map/388

Source: http://buildipedia.com/aec-pros/public-infrastructure/infrastructure-at-work-fehmarnbelt-fixed-link

The Femern Belt Bridge

The Democratic anchorage of the Femern

Belt Forum

17

In 1994, local mayors from the southern part of Zealand, together with a group of public administrators
from the Regional County, therefore took the initiative to form a governance network with the
declared intention of gaining political support for the building of a bridge between the small Danish
town of Rdby and the Femern peninsula on the northern shores of Germany (Femern Belt Network)

The construction of the resund Bridge connecting Denmark and Sweden meant that the Femern Belt

Bridge could be re-launched as the missing link that could help realize the old dream about a beeline
road connection between Scandinavia and Germany

The first attempt to reach an agreement about the building of a bridge over the Femern Belt was
made at a summit meeting in 2006 between Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen and
German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Despite the high hopes of the Femern Belt Forum, no final decision
was made on that occasion.

The Femern Belt Forum has brought together a large number of public and private actors in a multilevel governance network that was highly successful in lobbying and preparing for the construction of
a Femern Belt Bridge. In that sense we might judge the governance network to be rather effective.
However, the question remains: to what extent has the governance network been democratically
anchored?

First Anchorage Point: Democratic Anchorage in election

18

The elected politicians in the national government and Danish parliament did
not assume the role of metagovernors vis--vis the governance network. Due to
the lobbying role of the governance network, it was the governance network

that contacted the national politicians rather than the other way around
The Femern Belt Forum has been democratically legitimized by the multi-level
metagovernance exercised by the local and regional politicians and
administrators, and to some extent also by the transnational political authorities
in the EU, although we should bear in mind that the link between the structural
fund programmes and democratically elected politicians in the EU is extremely
weak

Democratic legitimacy could have been further enhanced if the national

politicians who were one of the key targets of the lobby activities of the
network had assumed responsibility for metagoverning the Femern Belt Forum.
Democratic Anchorage: MODERATE

Democratic anchorage in
participating groups and organizations
Participation:
Representation vs bringing useful resources.

RepresentatIon
Political Connections,

P Knowledge etc.

Democratic anchorage in
participating groups and organizations
RepresentatIon:
Flexibility to claim whom or what to represent.
No major dispute over the validity of the reprasantation claims.
Regular contact with the represented parties varied among the
representatives.
Democratic anchorage: STRONG

Democratic anchorage in a territorially

defined citizenry
Positive:
Open to the local press most of the time.
Necessary informations were available on the website.
Constructive debate and criticism were allowed to some extent.

Democratic anchorage in a territorially

defined citizenry
Negetive:
Very little coverage on the national press.
Agendas and duration of the meetings were unavailable on the website.
Shut down of public debates before the final decision.

Democratic anchorage: MODERATE

Democratic anchorage in democratic

rules and norms
The criteria of inclusion and exclusion were never made explicit and
changed over time.
In 2000, when the network actors thought the final approval was near, the
number of actors were reduced.
After failing to obtain the approval, the governance network again
become inclusive.

Democratic anchorage in democratic

rules and norms
Public administrators and the labour market organizations had upper hand.
But politicians and private actors were in disadvantage.
The meetings were conducted in civilized manner with proper respect.
No voting; the decisions were made on the basis of consensus.
The governance network fails completely to maintain a functional internal
democracy.

Democratic anchorage in democratic

rules and norms
Three affected groups were excluded from the Governance networko

Danish taxpayers.

Scandinavian business firms and transport companies.

Critical actors on the German side of the border.

Democratic anchorage: WEAK

Democratic anchorage of the Femern

Belt Forum
In elected politiciansMODERATE

In participating groups
and organizationsSTRONG

OverallMODERATE
In territorially defined
citizenry-

MODERATE

In democratic rules and

normsWEAK

Conclusion
The argument presented in this article has elaborated on the original model of
democratic anchorage in three crucial ways Operationalized and contextualized the key dimensions of the model in order to
facilitate a context sensitive empirical analysis.
Demonstrated how the democratic anchorage model can be used in an
empirical case study of a governance network that is related to a major
infrastructure project.
It showed how the qualitative measurement of the democratic performance of
the Femern Belt Forum in relation to the four anchorage points can lead to a
relatively clear verdict.

Thank you!