“New Governance” and Associative Pluralism: The Case of Drug Policy in Swiss Cities

Abstract

Throughout the 1990s, hierarchical administrative governance structures have been replaced by self‐governing networks for various motives, one of which is to improve the authenticity and democratic quality of public decisions. Thus, “new governance” has been praised for its propensity to provide a plurality of civil society organizations with access to the decision process. This article explores these claims based on the case of drug policy in Swiss cities. We show that self‐governing networks indeed seem to have increased the involvement of civil society organizations in the policy process. However, we also find evidence that self‐governing networks may in the longer run induce state control over civil society organizations, thus ultimately reducing associative pluralism. They do so either by imposing a policy paradigm or by excluding actors who do not comply with the dominant paradigm from the networks. We conclude by arguing that self‐organizing networks should not be dismissed, given that former hierarchical bureaucratic approaches to drug‐related problems have failed even worse. Rather, their long‐term effects should be subject to further examination aimed at developing adequate responses to their shortcomings.