{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018596787827557058, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.964705882352941, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Making governance networks more democratic: lessons from the Swedish governmental commissions

Governance networks (GNs) are theorized as institutions for state–civil society interaction with important merits as well as shortcomings for effective and democratic governance. Here we compare GNs with a far less researched type of state–civil society interaction, the Swedish governmental commission (GC), critically discussing them in terms of organizational and functional features, the role of the state and democratic anchorage. Drawing on lessons from the institutional design of GCs, we contest the notion that well-functioning GNs require a low level of formal institutionalization and discuss how democratic problems with GNs could be addressed through a formal institutional framework that provides pre-established and generally applied ground rules, ensures elected politicians the final say on policy, and values broad participation and consultation. Recognizing that GNs are not a self-evident form for state–civil society interactions, traditional institutional designs should be more fully considered in the discussion and theorization of the democratic anchorage of GNs.