Public Administration/Sociology/MISOC: Summary of reading material and lectures
2.2 - Network Governance
Part 1: Introduction to networks
1) Chapter 1: Introduction
Government and other forms of modern social networks have to face increasingly complex
(wicked) problems everyday, which require a lot of knowledge and involve many actors, such
as governments, companies and other public or private organisations. Traditional forms of
dealing with such problems are insufficient today. These actors are needed in this process,
as they may have (power over) certain resources needed to resolve these wicked problems.
This creates interdependencies between actors and thus, extensive interaction, which is how
governance networks are born: enduring patterns of social relations between actors that deal
with a problem, policy or public service.
To grasp the importance of governance networks, the definition of a few concepts must be
understood:
- Government: problem solving, policy making or service delivery according to the
Traditional Public Administration (TPA) Model, characterized by bureaucracies, ‘Big
Government’ and the deconstruction of problems. This model eventually couldn’t
keep up with the ever growing and diverse supply of wishes and needs of the
citizens.
- Governance: the process of governing, rather than the form of government.
Governance can and has been defined as:
● Good or corporate governance, referring to the principles of a well functioning
public administration. These consist of fair treatment of citizens under the rule
of law.
● New Public Management (NPM), which strives to improve performance and
accountability of public organisations, which should ‘steer’, rather than ‘row’.
● Multi-level of inter-governmental governance, aimed at the difficulty found in
problem solving in multi-actor settings.
● Network governance, aimed at complex interaction processes in a network of
different actors, such as individuals, groups and (groups of) organisations.
Furthermore, there exist four common misconceptions relating to governance:
● Governance is not everywhere, as many tasks are done in a bureaucratic and
hierarchical setting, adhering to the TPA Model.
● Governance is not NPM, as NPM much more than the concepts of
governance emphasized the need of steering by the government, rather than
horizontal relations between government and other organisations.
● Governance is not apolitical, as governance is inherently about bringing
different values together.
● Governance is not composed of self-governing networks, as many attempts
by governmental actors to influence (self-steering) networks can be seen.
Thus, governance can be defined as network governance, or governance within governance
networks, as the theoretical foundations of the two concepts are the same. As such,
,governance is the process that occurs within governance networks, which have a few
common characteristics:
- They deal with complex problems that can only be solved through the collective
action of several actors.
- High interdependency exists between actors, due to the resources they possess.
- These interdependencies cause strategic complexity and uncertainty during
interactions.
- Each autonomous actor has their own perceptions, which leads to substantial
disagreements on how the network should act.
- Network interactions are enduring and are durable over time.
In one sentence, governance networks are more or less stable patterns of social relations
between mutually dependent actors, which cluster around a policy problem, a policy
programme, or a set of resources and emerge, are sustained, and are changed
through series of interactions. Governance networks are related to a few other concepts:
- Governance network processes: the interaction processes within governance
networks that deal with specific problems, policies or services.
- Network governance: the set of conscious steering attempts used by actors within
governance networks aimed at influencing the interaction processes within or the
characteristics of these networks.
- Network management: the deliberate strategies aimed and facilitating and guiding
interactions, or changing the features of the network, with the intent of facilitating
collaboration within the network processes.
Complexity is an inherent characteristic of governance networks, but is not the same as
complicatedness, which applies to systems which consist of many components that interact
in a complicated way. Complicatedness can be solved through deconstruction of problems
and information gathering, but complex problems are hard to know and recognized and may
change during a process and are therefore unpredictable. Governance networks are
characterized by three types of complexity:
1. Substantive complexity, caused by uncertainty and a lack of consensus concerning
the nature of problems, their causes and solutions due to differences in actor
perceptions.
2. Strategic complexity, caused by strategic choices that actors make. Due to
differences in perceptions, a large amount of diverse strategies exists. Furthermore,
actors anticipate and react to others’ strategies, causing unpredictability and
uncertainty within interaction processes.
3. Institutional complexity, resulting from the fact that actors often come from different
institutional backgrounds. Complex issues, after all, cut across traditional
organizational borders. Therefore, interaction in governance networks is often
characterized by a clash of institutional regimes.
These forms of complexity cannot be handled in a traditional or bureaucratic way. The
network approach, however, provides concepts and theories for analyzing complex
processes of problem solving, policymaking and service delivery. This approach may be
used as a starting point for understanding the above forms of complexity, and may serve as
a recommendation for people trying to deal with such complexities.
,2) Chapter 2: An intellectual history of networks
There exist three main branches of research into different types of governance networks.
First is research into policy networks, the field of which rose from studies into political
science and is centered around how (which) interest groups affect the decision-making and
agenda-setting processes. Central in these studies was the question whether power was
diffused throughout society (pluralism) or centered within a few individuals (elitism). This
discussion resulted in a vast amount of research on relationships between government and
pressure groups, and their influence on the policy process. American scientists specialized
in agenda-setting, with concepts such as mobilization of bias and the role of the media
playing an important role. Elitists put emphasis on the supposed existence of non-decisions,
which stated that change was impossible due to the centralization of power, while pluralists
stated that such barriers could be overcome. The concept of (sub)systems also arose from
such discussions, used to indicate close interactions within policy systems. In Europe,
pluralists found their scientific rivals in the neo-corporatists, rather than the pluralists. They
also argued that policy processes couldn’t just be influenced by anyone: only well-organized
groups stood a chance, resulting in the creation of the concept of policy communities. These
studies tell us that different actors have different levels of access to policy processes, that
these processes are often complex and that the shared institutional norms between actors
are rather stable.
Second is inter-organizational research delivery and policy implementation, stemming from
organizational science. This field focuses on interdependencies and networks as methods
for implementation and the delivering of services, how services are coordinated and what
mechanisms achieve effectivity and efficiency in this. Central to this are different forms and
networks of interdependencies, but also power. Research was done into how the relations of
and within organisations affected their performance, resulting in the following typologies of
dependency:
- Pooled interdependency, in which everyone makes their own contribution to the
network. Standardization leads to quality cooperation here.
- Sequential interdependency, in which the input of one actor is dependent on the
output of the other. Coordination by planning is appropriate here.
- Mutual dependence relationships: in which the output of each actor forms input for
the others. Mutual adjustment is needed for correct coordination. In this sense,
parties involved retain their autonomy, as it is based on voluntary and informal
interaction.
Mapping of networks was important in these forms of research, as it allowed researchers to
see what actors were involved and how policies and services were processed. This has
emphasized the idea of a hollow state, in which government does not solve problems on it’s
own, but is responsible for facilitating for other organisations to solve the problem
(strengthened by the recent trend towards outsourcing and privatization). These studies
emphasize the interdependency and power differences between actors, complications of
processes due to resource dependency and the existence of institutions as forms of social
interaction.
, The third and last branch of research looks into collaborative governance and
intergovernmental relationships and stems from public administration, starting with the study
of politikverflechtung by Scharpf. This field focuses on the problems that arise from wicked
policy problems within an institutional context characterized by (horizontal and vertical)
fragmentation, which cause actors to have differing perceptions of the problem. As wicked
problems stem from multiple causes and do not have a single clear solution, this field
emphasized the almost game-like complexity of decision-making: collaboration is needed to
avoid stalemates and to arrive at outcomes. Studies from this field have been used as
examples on how to steer or manage networks. They show us how governmental actors
(should) come into play within the policy process and how their perception of problems differ,
how decision-making processes are even more complex than was assumed in the other
fields and how networks consist of more than just a sum of institutions, being characterized
by the existence of interdependent actors.
3) Lecture: Governance, wicked problems and interdependency
Governance networks mainly deal with wicked problems, implying that the actors within
these are interdependent. These actors can’t solve problems on their own, as they need
each other’s resources. This requires extensive interaction, which is part of the reason why
governance is needed. In earlier times, this was done through the traditional model of
government, characterized by the supposed existence of rational decision makers,
command and control and an intellectual policy design process which follows a linear
process, often known as the policy cycle. This model, however, has become problematic due
to the limited resources the government has access to, rising implementation and monitoring
costs, the uniformity of government, the fact that imposing invokes resistance. In complex
situations, this leads to expensive but poor solutions. Network governance is the answer to
all of this, but actors find it hard to interact, negotiate and collaborate. This is why
governance is needed in the form of network management: conscious attempts to enhance
interactions between actors, with the goal of facilitate and mediating these processes.
