Cited by 351Public Policy and Administration ResearchPolitical Systems and GovernancePublic Administration and Governance

Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance

SKELCHER, CHRIS·2005·Governance

Abstract

Political and managerial processes are creating polycentric networks that transcend the traditional ideas of jurisdictional integrity in state-centric systems. Jurisdictional integrity refers to the political and legal competence of a unit of government to operate within a spatial and functional realm. An intrinsic element of jurisdictional integrity in a democratic system is that citizens are enabled to give consent to and pass judgment on the exercise of authority by that governmental entity. The concept of jurisdictional integrity is shown to apply differentially in relation to the traditional institutions of government in comparison with the emergent complex of quasi-governmental agencies, special purpose bodies and multi-organizational collaborations. Distinctions are drawn between club, agency and polity entities within this emergent organizational field. Problems to be faced in the design of institutions for network governance under conditions of polycentrism are identified and solutions reviewed. The potential of consociationalism to enable collective decision making across a polycentric system is highlighted. Informal norms are shown to be essential in enabling such a system for network governance to operate effectively.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2004.00267.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In the case of a polycentric governance system, conventional mechanisms for accountability may prove inadequate on account of the dispersal of decision-making authority among governmental and nongovernmental actors.

    “In the case of a polycentric governance system, conventional mechanisms for accountability (e.g., the electoral process, deliberative processes, public hearings, demonstrations [Skelcher, 2005]) may prove inadequate on account of the dispersal of decision-making authority among governmental and nongovernmental actors.”

    From Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons (2019) · cites this paper as Skelcher, 2005

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
SKELCHER, C.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Corresponding author
SKELCHER, CHRIS
Venue
Governance
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
89-110
ISSN
  • 0952-1895 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0491
OpenAlex
W2003198164
Cited by
351
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 43 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 20
FWCI
40.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Governance (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Institute of Management Research, College of Business Administration Seoul National University
  • University of Birmingham
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Systems and Governance
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Public Administration and Governance
Keywords
polycentricity, network governance, democratic governance, consociationalism, inter-agency cooperation, group decision making, informal norms, institutional design, citizen consent

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review