Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons for Public Managers

This paper offers practical insights for public managers as they work within interorganizational networks. It is based on the author's empirical study of 14 networks involving federal, state, and local government managers working with nongovernmental organizations. The findings suggest that networks are hardly crowding out the role of public agencies; though they are limited in their decision scope, they can add collaborative public value when approaching nettlesome policy and program problems.     

MANAGING IN NETWORK SETTINGS

The focus of this article is on managing networks. A network knowledge base is developed from the authors' studies of city government involvement in economic development, management within rural enterprises and the evaluation of a rural strategic planning project. Other public management network analyses are also incorporated. Management in network settings is not based on central authority and cannot be guided by a single organizational goal as is the case in the classical management approach. Management involves managing flexible structures toward collective efficiency. The ability to manage is related to the internal condition of the manager's primary organization. It involves technical, legal, political and cost dimensions. It requires different capacities, skills and knowledge from that of single organization management. The next steps in the research would include the development of the skills needed, an analysis of the role of organizational power and the operational variables of networks, the issue of network cohesion, and the question of loss of control or difficulty in assessing network accountability.     

Toward Federal Democracy in Spain: An Examination of Intergovernmental Relations

Intergovernmental relations is playing a key role in the emergenceof federal arrangements in post-Franco Spain. The transitionto democracy included the building of a state made up of autonomouscommunities, which is transforming the regime into one withmany centers of power, in both the historic regions and therest of the country. Intergovernmental institutional, political,and fiscal patterns demonstrate the evolving nature of self-ruleand shared rule, moving Spain closer into the orbit of otherfederal systems.     

A Jurisdiction-Based Model of Intergovernmental Management in U.S. Cities

Variations in levels of intergovernmental activity are explainedin terms other than standard "top-down" or "bottom-up" federalmanagement perspectives. Data from 237 cities on intergovernmentalmanagement by local managers of economic development policyindicate that differences are determined by the degree to whichmanagers assume a more mutually interactive approach throughbargaining, strategic activity, local adjustment, and otherinternal actions. The jurisdiction-based model is consistentwith growing diversity in the federal system and with changingmodels of public management.     

Partnerships in public management: rural enterprise alliances

This paper addresses public management implications of a certain form of network: the rural enterprise alliance, a formal nonmetropolitan partnership among producers, distributors, labor unions, employer associations, credit institutions, and government agencies. Six alliances are examined as examples of “postmodern” public organizing, as it fits into emergent “bottom up” approaches to economic development. Organizing locally for global competition is bringing on more decentralized, flexible, yet comprehensive public management approaches, emphasizing demand programming, self-management, incentives and information, leverage and engagement, and de-differentiated structuring. Public managers must increasingly deal with challenges like those related to the emergence of alliances.     

Intergovernmental Management: Federal Changes, State Responses, and New State Initiatives

This article surveys state responses and new state initiativesin 1983 to three sets of successive federal changes in domesticpolicy. Collectively referred to as the New Federalism, thesechanges include the block grants and accompanying regulatoryreforms of 1981, the changes in Medicaid reimbursement policyof 1982, and the job training and development programs of late1982 and early 1983. Following a brief overview of these changesin intergovernmental management perspective, state responsesin 1983 are examined in three areas—policy development,policy and program management, and service delivery management.     

Managing Federalism Through Metropolitan Human Services Intergovernmental Bodies

This article examines the emerging role of metropolitan intergovernmentalhuman services bodies (IGBs). As a result of changes in federalismduring the past few decades, a growing number of metropolitanareas have found the need to replace their defunct health andwelfare planning councils with new metropolitan groups involvinglocal governments as well as private sector funders. These humanservices bodies, comprised of top level elected and appointeddecision-makers, conduct interjurisdictional planning and policymakingfocused on social problems and also perform other intergovernmentalroles. In dealing with social problems locally, they accessfederal and state programs, match them with local funds andservices, and thus manage federalism from a community perspective.This article focuses on nine of the twenty-five known IGBs.     

American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management

Changes in the United States federal system mean that managers must operate by taking into account multiple interacting governments and nongovernmental organizations; dealing with numerous programs emanating from Washington and state capitols; and engaging in multiple intergovernmental transactions with an expanding number of intergovernmental instruments. Four models of management within this changing system are identified. The top-down model emphasizes executive-branch control and is embedded in enforcement and exchange related to the laws, regulations, funding rules, program standards, and guidelines associated with federal/state grant, procurement, and regulation programs. The donor-recipient model emphasizes mutual dependence or shared program administration, where two-party bargaining or reciprocal interactions among government officials is the norm. The jurisdiction-based model is defined by the initiated actions of local officials and managers who seek out program adjustments and other actors and resources to serve the strategic aims of their governments. The network model highlights the actions of multiple interdependent government and nongovernmental organizations pursuing joint action and intergovernmental adjustment. Although the first two models are long-standing and the latter two are emergent, all appear to be alive and well on the intergovernmental scene, posing complex challenges for public managers.     

Directions in intergoverni1ental management

This paper identifies the emerging concept of intergovernmental management (IGM). As a process that focuses on the routine transactions between governments, IGM has become associated with increased interjurisdictional complexity and the corresponding need to manage. Ten IGM approaches are explained. Research and definitional issues related to this central intergovernmental concept are then raised.