Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic 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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Constructing and contesting legitimacy and accountability in polycentric regulatory regimes
Black, J. (2008) · Regulation & Governance · doi:10.1111/j.1748-5991.2008.00034.x · Cited by 1,215 · see citing works
Polycentric Systems of Governance: A Theoretical Model for the Commons
Carlisle, K., & Gruby, R. L. (2019) · Policy Studies Journal · doi:10.1111/psj.12212 · Cited by 745 · see citing works
- 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