The Effects of Media and their Logic on Legitimacy Sources within Local Governance Networks: A Three-Case Comparative Study

Abstract

Although theoretical and empirical work on the democratic legitimacy of governance networks is growing, little attention has been paid to the impact of mediatisation on democracies. Media have their own logic of news-making led by the media’s rules, aims, production routines and constraints, which affect political decision-making processes. In this article, we specifically study how media and their logic affect three democratic legitimacy sources of political decision-making within governance networks: voice, due deliberation and accountability. We conducted a comparative case study of three local governance networks using a mixed method design, combining extensive qualitative case studies, interviews and a quantitative content analysis of media reports. In all three cases, media logic increased voice possibilities for citizen groups. Furthermore, it broadened the deliberation process, although this did not improve the quality of this process per se, because the media focus on drama and negativity. Finally, media logic often pushed political authorities into a reactive communication style as they had to fight against negative images in the media. Proactive communication about projects, such as public relation (PR) strategies and branding, is difficult in such a media landscape.

Key Words:

• Media logic
• mediatisation
• democratic legitimacy
• governance networks
• citizen groups
• water management

Acknowledgements

This article is written within the research project Complex Decision-Making in the Drama Democracy, financed by NWO, project number 301002005. An earlier version was presented at the IRSPM conference and the IPA conference in 2012. Special thanks to Erik Hans Klijn, Steven van de Walle, Jurian Edelenbos and the research group Governance of Complex Systems (GOCS) for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

^1. As Sørensen (2002, p. 715) rightly points out that a governance network ‘exhibits and aggravates inherent problems in some of the basic concepts of liberal democracy’. However, an extensive elaboration of the relationship between governance networks and traditional models of democracy is beyond the scope of this article. Interesting elaborations in this matter are, for example, provided by Sørensen (2002) and Dryzek (2007, 2010).

^2. In Teisman’s (2000) decision-making model, which relates especially to decision-making and interactions between actors in governance networks, decision-making is defined as an intertwined clew of a series of decisions taken by a variety of parties. The interactions between actors and the interdependence of actors are stressed. Rounds are distinguished by a crucial decision or event (e.g. the involvement of a new actor), defined by the researchers in retrospect, but based on the reconstruction of the process by the involved actors. The crucial decision or event is the beginning of a next round and generally serves as a focal point of reference for the actors involved.

^3. IJsseldelta-Zuid, dijkteruglegging Lent and Noordwaard.

^4. These categories can be found in Table 1. They are recoded as dummy variables. We used the dummy variables of ‘citizens group as key subject in news report’ and ‘executive politicians as key subject in news report’ in our further analysis.

^5. In Dutch: werkgroep Zwartendijk (IJsseldelta-Zuid); Lentse Federatie (Lent); an bewonersvereniging Bandijk (Noordwaard)

^6. The interview with the Werkendam alderman (Noordwaard case) is an exception in this matter. This interview was by telephone and took about 45 min.

^7. However, we must remark that regional television programmes are quite recent phenomena on the Internet. The earliest regional television item is from March 2006, and the date regional broadcasters started their broadcasting on the Internet may even differ per outlet. This may lead to small biases in the analysis.

^8. Furthermore, the particular history of the small village Lent, ‘annexed’ by the city of Nijmegen (‘David versus Goliath’ as the interviewees called it) in 1998, provided an interesting narrative for the media to mention.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Iris Korthagen

Iris Korthagen is a PhD student at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam and member of the research group Governance of Complex Systems (GOCS). Her PhD project focusses on the mediatisation of public decision-making processes. She studies how the logic of news reporting influences the content and the process of decision-making in governance networks.

Ingmar Van Meerkerk

Ingmar van Meerkerk is a PhD student at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He is involved in the research group GOCS. His current research focusses on boundary-spanning activities in relation to the legitimacy and performance of interactive governance settings. In this area, he has published in Policy Sciences, European Planning Studies, Environment and Planning C (forthcoming) and Water Resources Management.