Network tasks and accountability: A configurational analysis of EU regulatory networks

Intergovernmental networks have become a prominent cooperative mechanism to deal with trans-boundary and interdependent problems. Yet, we still have limited knowledge of how these collaborative endeavours are governed, which is crucial to properly understanding how they function. This article empirically examines the structural governance configurations of rule-enforcing networks in the European Union. The article relies on data from 37 networks with rule-enforcing tasks and conducts a qualitative comparative analysis. We find three basic governance structure configurations used by rule-enforcing networks: first, a configuration with legal accountability, which is characterized by having a board of appeals; second, one with administrative accountability that, in addition to a board of appeals, has powerful executive boards and professional experts in the network plenary; and a third one with democratic accountability that incorporates legislative representatives in the network plenary. We argue that these results show how network tasks are related to accountability and governance.     

Networks, Management and Institutions: Public Administration as 'Normal Science'

How does network analysis fit into the development of public administration as an academic discipline? This article tries to bridge theoretical developments in public administration between the middle of the 1970s and the first half of the 1990s. The benchmarks being used are (1) the now classical account by Vincent Ostrom of The Intellectual Crisis in (American) Public Administration - published 25 years ago this year - and (2) Christopher Hood’s reconstruction of core values in (British) new public management. Rather than representing analytical developments as an endless succession of different or even mutually exclusive approaches, this contribution tries to reconcile different foci for analysing public administration. Administrative theory provides us with a rather stable meta-theoretical framework for studying the meaning of quality in government, governance and public administration at various levels of analysis. By relating the emergence of network analysis in PA to parallel developments such as the resurgence of (neo-)managerial and (neo-)institutional analysis, it also becomes clear that network analysis is useful as an analytical device, but that it needs to be linked to theoretical perspectives that provide us with operational assumptions about ‘networks’. Network analysis in itself only provides split ground for reinventing government and refounding public administration.     

GOVERNING INFORMATION: A THREE DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

This article examines the institutional, political and regulatory dimensions of environmental assessment (EA) processes. While EA is most often conceptualized as a regulatory instrument, this article contends that viewing EA in this narrow fashion obscures the broader implications and significance of EA as a distinct form of governance. When conceived as a mode of governance, EA varies considerably in terms of the key governance characteristics emphasized in this symposium. The empirical evidence rests upon three cases studies looking at very different multi‐level governance contexts: the Tamar Valley Pulp Mill in Australia, the Whites Point Quarry in Canada, and the Byströe Canal Project in the Ukraine. The case study analysis identifies large variations in the institutional, political and regulatory form that EAs take, indicating that approaches identifying EA as a form of ‘New Governance’ are overly simplistic. The analysis also points to the multi‐directional influence of different governance dimensions. The insights derived from the use of the three dimensional framework validate its value as an analytical tool.     

Conceptualizing throughput legitimacy: Procedural mechanisms of accountability,transparency, inclusiveness and openness in EU governance

This symposium demonstrates the potential for throughput legitimacy as a concept for shedding empirical light on the strengths and weaknesses of multi‐level governance, as well as challenging the concept theoretically. This article introduces the symposium by conceptualizing throughput legitimacy as an ‘umbrella concept’, encompassing a constellation of normative criteria not necessarily empirically interrelated. It argues that in order to interrogate multi‐level governance processes in all their complexity, it makes sense for us to develop normative standards that are not naïve about the empirical realities of how power is exercised within multi‐level governance, or how it may interact with legitimacy. We argue that while throughput legitimacy has its normative limits, it can be substantively useful for these purposes. While being no replacement for input and output legitimacy, throughput legitimacy offers distinctive normative criteria—accountability, transparency, inclusiveness and openness—and points towards substantive institutional reforms.     

The role of social structure for governing natural resources in decentralized political systems: Insights from governing a fishery in Indonesia

This empirical research investigates whether distinct network configurations between actors facilitate or impede successful local natural resource governance in decentralized political systems. Network analysis is applied to disentangle the interaction between actors involved in a decentralized fishery governance system in Indonesia from a polycentric perspective. Using an embedded network case study design, the study examines whether common interaction patterns are observed in local study sites with more successful governance outcomes compared to study sites with less successful outcomes. Three common patterns are identified: (i) higher frequency of interaction of local actors, and (ii) stronger activity of local non‐governmental actors in the polycentric governance network are found in the sites with more successful outcomes. Furthermore, the results show (iii) a higher centralization of the local governance networks with rent‐seeking actors in strong brokerage positions where highly unsustainable resource use prevails. This points to the existence of a ‘dark side’ of brokerage.     

DEMOCRACY AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS: COMPATIBLE OR NOT?

This paper investigates the relationship between representative democracy and governance networks at a theoretical level. It does so by offering four conjectures and their implications for theory and practice. The incompatibility conjectures rests on the primacy of politics and sees governance networks as a threat. The complementarity conjecture presents governance networks as a means of enabling greater participation in the policy process and sensitivity in programme implementation. The transitional conjecture posits a wider evolution of governance forms towards network relationships. The instrumental conjecture views governance networks as a powerful means through which dominant interests can achieve their goals. Illustrative implications for theory and practice are identified, in relation to power in the policy process, the public interest, and the role of public managers. The heuristic potential of the conjectures is demonstrated through the identification of an outline research agenda.     

The governance of urban regeneration: a critique of the 'governing without government' thesis

This paper offers a critique of the concept of governance as networks. Using the complementary concept of regime governance, it argues that networks are not the primary mode of governance in the politics of urban regeneration in the UK. Drawing on primary and secondary material, it is argued that Central Government is becoming more influential in the local policy arena. In the 'mix' of market, hierarchy and network, hierarchy is more pervasive than network. It is therefore argued that partnerships should be treated as a distinct mode of governance. These conclusions demonstrate that despite the fashion for copying urban policies from the USA, local politics in the UK remain very different. Ironically, the transfer of policies developed in the USA has tended to entrench divergent practices and outcomes. The UK does not, therefore, appear to be moving toward the US model of regime politics. It is concluded that the partnership and network/regime models of governance should be subjected to rigorous comparative studies.     

Conceptual Issues in Inter-Agency Collaboration

Inter-agency collaboration – or partnership as it now commonly termed – is central to New Labour's agenda, but the general support for a partnership approach conceals disputes about definitions and approaches. This article begins by examining the shift to more complex and ambitious partnerships in health, social care and regeneration, which require new modes of governance. The three main modes – market, hierarchy and network – are briefly described and contrasted, and located within the recent history of public service development. It is argued that they are best seen as overlain and co-existing, resulting in a hybrid mode of governance which is characterised by tension and contradiction. The article goes on to discuss the issues this raises for real partnerships in trying to understand the collaborative imperative and the barriers to its effective achievement. Although the network mode has its attractions, there are complex issues of membership, management and culture which need to be addressed. It is concluded that hierarchy, markets and networks will co-exist better where each acknowledges its own limits and the strengths of others.     

Symposium Introduction: Competency and Higher Civil Servants

‘Competency’ is a word that seems to have crept into the language of public administration and policy relatively recently, although largely under the radar of academic scholarship in Europe. This article introduces a symposium of papers that address key questions about competency management: how and why has it become popular and what are the implications of the spread of ‘competency’ approaches? As the introductory paper, it outlines the intellectual background to competency approaches and outlines three interpretations of their development. One interpretation sees them as a passing fad; a ‘difference’ interpretation sees them as a common label for widely varying patterns and practices; and a ‘sameness’ interpretation treats competency management as a symptom of broader politico‐administrative developments.     

Networks in the Policy Process: An International Perspective

Abstract

This article (and more broadly this special issue) indicate that various types of policy networks, including governance networks, social networks, proto‐networks, and issue networks are defining the way that policy processes take place in various parts of the world. By focusing on network behavior in Africa, eastern Europe, and Denmark, it is clear that interorganizational cohesion, accesibility, trust generation, and “framing” issues are central to understanding network policy outcomes. Important implications regarding links between network characteristics and democracy are also suggested.     

Spurring Vaccine Development for the Developing World: A Collaborative Governance Perspective on Product Development Partnerships

Collaborative governance has emerged recently as an alternative to the traditional sector-based, single-actor approaches for addressing complex governance challenges. However, previous research has given little attention to collaborative governance within international policy contexts. To address this gap, an integrative collaborative governance framework is used to analyze product development partnerships (PDPs) that seek to develop vaccines to prevent the spread of devastating diseases within the developing world. The analysis indicates that PDPs are helping address acute governance challenges and are emblematic of the increasing importance of nonprofit organizations in collaborative governance regimes. Implications for research on collaborative governance are also discussed.     

NETWORKS: REIFIED METAPHOR OR GOVERNANCE PANACEA?

This article will discuss the contribution of Rod Rhodes to the research on networks. I will focus on networks as a typology of state/society relations and as a particular form of governance. It is not only here that Rhodes has left his deepest mark; most research on networks still falls in one of the two sub‐fields. The typology of policy networks, which he developed with David Marsh more than 15 years ago, has become a classic and still forms a major reference point for studies on public policy‐making. Rhodes also pioneered the concept of network governance in the study of British politics to capture the profound changes in the Westminister model since the late 1970s. Regarding more recent developments, Rhodes has been among the first to discuss the reflexivity of networks, introducing some postmodernist thinking into public administration research. Finally, Rhodes has helped advance the ‘ethnographic turn’ in network studies.     

RHODES' CONTRIBUTION TO GOVERNANCE THEORY: PRAISE,CRITICISM AND THE FUTURE GOVERNANCE DEBATE

This article discusses Rod Rhodes' contribution to governance theory. Rod Rhodes' work on governance has been much quoted. He has contributed to setting a new governance agenda and to an ongoing governance debate. This debate has also had an impact on political practice. However, as this paper argues, Rhodes' definition of governance is problematic in that it is narrowly identified with networks, and it is not consistently applied. Rhodes' concept of governance remains too narrow for it to be able to include a comparative analysis of a variation of governance forms. In addition, the governance concept needs to be equipped with tools from political economy in order be able to incorporate important aspects of interests, power and conflict. The way forward for governance theory would seem to involve the inclusion of political economy analysis of context as it affects beliefs and dilemmas.     

MAKING GOVERNANCE NETWORKS EFFECTIVE AND DEMOCRATIC THROUGH METAGOVERNANCE

In response to the growing discrepancy between the steadily rising steering ambitions and the increasing fragmentation of social and political life, governance networks are mushrooming. Governance through the formation of networks composed of public and private actors might help solve wicked problems and enhance democratic participation in public policy-making, but it may also create conflicts and deadlocks and make public governance less transparent and accountable. In order to ensure that governance networks contribute to an effective and democratic governing of society, careful metagovernance by politicians, public managers and other relevant actors is necessary. In this paper, we discuss how to assess the effective performance and democratic quality of governance networks. We also describe how different metagovernance tools can be used in the pursuit of effective and democratic network governance. Finally, we argue that public metagovernors must develop their strategic and collaborative competences in order to become able to metagovern governance networks.     

Community Stakeholder Responses to Countering Violent Extremism Locally

ABSTRACT

In the United States, despite federal efforts to empower communities to form local governance networks to develop and implement collaborative countering violent extremism (CVE) programs, local CVE governance networks are rare. Why do CVE governance networks emerge within only some communities? I argue that three factors—interest in CVE, capacity to participate, and facilitation—determine the prospects for the emergence of a CVE governance network within a community. The article uses a matching technique to identify and compare the community stakeholder responses to CVE in two communities—Houston, TX and Columbus, OH. Survey research of stakeholders who participated in Houston and stakeholders most likely to participate in Columbus but did not highlights the importance of the three factors. By focusing on these drivers of collaborative governance, the article provides an explanation for the lack of CVE collaboration in the United States.     

Explaining collaboration in consensual and conflictual governance networks

The conditions under which policy beliefs and influential actors shape collaborative behaviour in governance networks are not well understood. This article applies exponential random graph models to network data from Finland and Sweden to investigate how beliefs, reputational power and the role of public authorities structure collaboration ties in the two countries’ climate change governance networks. Results show that only in Finland's conflictual climate policy domain do actors collaborate with those with similar beliefs and with reputational power, while only in Sweden's consensual climate policy domain do public authorities play central impartial coordinating roles. These results indicate that conflict is present in a governance network when beliefs and reputational power determine collaboration and that it is absent when public authorities occupy central roles. They also suggest that relative success in climate policy action is likely to occur when public authorities take on network manager roles.     

The Impact of Metagovernance on Local Governance Networks. Lessons from Danish Employment Policy

This article analyses the impact of metagovernance on the functioning of local governance networks. It does so by comparing the functioning of four local governance networks in the field of local employment policy in Denmark. Between 2007 and 2009, two of these networks were linked to jobcentres in which the municipality and a state agency shared responsibility for employment policy, while the other two were linked to jobcentres in which the municipality had full responsibility. We explore two types of metagovernance that the local governance networks were subject to: general, hands-off metagovernance consisting of the assignment of full responsibility to the municipality alone, or of shared responsibility to the municipality and the state jointly; and tailored and fine-tuned metagovernance directed towards only one or a few networks and their corresponding jobcentre(s). Our findings suggest that, as network governance becomes a mature phenomenon, the importance of metagovernance increases, particularly for strategic reasons. More specifically, we find that the functioning of local governance networks is only marginally affected by acts of general, hands-off metagovernance, such as the different organisational set-ups ascribed to the jobcentres. More influential are the hands-on network management tools, such as direct consultancy. Hands-on metagovernance instruments, however, are more costly for the metagovernor. Whichever tool is applied, the local actors' responsiveness to metagovernance is significant for the outcome.     

Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of Intergovernmental and Network Management

Abstract

The basic research concepts of intergovernmental and network management are examined with regard to blending the two into a unified theory of collaborative management. A substantial literature in both fields has emerged and is ripe for conceptually enhancing interorganizational management in the public sector. The collaborative management concepts forwarded emanate from the authors' comprehensive study of collaborative public management in 237 cities. The major concerns that are found to be ready for knowledge unification include: (1) multiple network complexity and the emergence of governance through policy networks, (2) strategic behavior and its implementation through networks, (3) the role of government institutions in network governance, and (4) the use of myriad policy instruments and multiorganizational activity. Each of these research arenas are representative of the kind of knowledge base that can be blended and extended to help public managers understand how to operate in the vertical/horizontal matrix of intergovernmental network management.     

Democratic anchorage and performance: Comparing two network approaches to land-use and transport-system development

Abstract

This paper describes two Norwegian governance networks. While both address questions about land-use and transport, the ways in which they are democratically anchored differ. Starting out from goals set for climate-friendly transport, linkages between democratic anchorage and network effectiveness are discussed. In some ways the network with the lowest stakeholder involvement, and therefore the smallest network structure, has come furthest – measures are implemented quickly and extensive resources are used to improve public transport. The other network does not have the same implementation rate or resource-use, but has shown strong efforts to mobilise and coordinate a wide set of actors. Both approaches involve important elements for reducing emissions from transport, specifically the effectiveness and toughness of one and the broader mobilisation of the other. Applying a wide set of criteria to evaluate network performance, the paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the two network structures.