Metagovernance and Democratic Legitimacy: a theoretical essay in light of non-market approaches

Purpose of the study: The aim this study is to demonstrate why metagovernance not effective in increasing democratic legitimacy networks; end, an articulated map will be presented describe how interactions occur within metagoverned environments. Methodology/approach: To construct macro-model analysis, methodology Quivy and Campenhoudt (2005) was used. consolidate knowledge involved theoretical approach, Knowledge Development Process-Constructivist (Proknow-C) method by Ensslin, Dutra Ensslin (2000)was Such a proposal allowed multidisciplinary perspective, capturing important concepts from economics organizational theory apply them meta-governed environment. Originality/Relevance: Metagovernance systems suggest some ability provide plurality social environment, that we need understand "if" "how" applies; recent academia under discussion; its impact countries with developing institutional Key findings: Metagoverned involve multiple players; difficulty reconciliation raises transaction costs, both ex-ante - achieve consensus network ex-post when creating mechanisms deal disgruntled actors. scenario leads key players effect coalitions 'narrow road' theirown interests, practice corporate political activity seeking influence decision making. Actions focus on impacting public agent designated as metagovernor, order possible changes environment (regulation). Theoretical/methodological contributions: An has been proposed, presenting cycle It shows sometimes decisions taken are most ones, but those interest coalitions. Social contributions / management: From it necessary outcome networked decision-making can become more democratic, environments less susceptible harmful activity, especially democracies.