The aim of this article is to examine the impact of ‘informal governance’ on democratic legitimacy. Informal governance can be defined as a means of decision-making that is un-codified, non-institutional and where social relationships play crucial roles. The issue of informality in policy making is particularly timely as global nations seek to manage complex policy problems within contested and uncertain environments. This development has prompted a new style of public leadership - one that relies less on bureaucracy and formal structures and more on networks and informal relations. In many countries this issue has been compounded by austerity politics. Public spending cuts and reductions in state capacity have created new fluid spaces for non-state actors, which has transformed the ways that the state, market and civil society come together to enact policy. This draws attention to the importance of governance forms beyond formal hierarchy and markets in influencing the political and policy process.
Informal practices can enhance policy effectiveness by building trust between participants and providing a safe environment to explore innovative solutions. However, it can also challenge open debate and public scrutiny. The prevalence of informal processes and relationships raise important questions about democratic legitimacy in governance networks. Governance networks are neither intrinsically undemocratic nor intrinsically democratic. Their democratic credentials depend on their functioning and contextual environment. Drawing on a recent case study of English devolution policy in the UK (which is characterised by a high degree of informal governance), this article will examine the impact of informal governance on democratic legitimacy. It will explore whether it is possible to harness the positive aspects of informal governance while maintaining appropriate levels of democratic legitimacy in the policy process.