Network Governance

Complicated

lots to do but you know what needs to happen so you can plan

Complex

many interconnected parts that influence each other so a solution is hard to find

wicked problems

problems that have no straightforward solutions, that are not well understood and that affect or are affected by multiple actors with different and sometimes conflicting perceptions, interests and values

Substantive complexity

difference between actors in perceptions of problem, solution and information; actors interpret information differently, information gathering cannot solve it. caused by the uncertain and ambiguous nature of the problem

Strategic complexity

interdependence and relationship between actors, each apples their own strategy, actors respond to and anticipate one another’s strategic moves, so processes are erratic and unpredictable

Institutional complexity

structure of the whole network; formal and informal rules from different institutional backgrounds; actors work from different institutional backgrounds, uncertainty about which rules guide interaction

three paradigms over time

traditional public administration; new public management; network governance

Bureaucratic practices (TPA)

maintaining control; functional diversity

Managerial practices (NPM)

promoting competition; performance management

Networking practices (NG)

relationship building; negotiation

Actors

individuals groups, organisations with the capacity to act autonomously and enact strategies to influence the course, content and outcomes of interaction processes

Resources

the range of formal and informal means that actors possess (or require) in order to achieve their objectives

Interdependencies

situation where multiple independent actors rely on each other for vital resources, information, skills, or authority to solve complex problems; influence power relations in networks, ‘force’ actors to interact with each other

competencies (authority)

formal/juridicial authority to make certain decisions, typically held by public or semi-public actors

Production resources

tangible means and tools, e.g. owing land or construction equipment

Financial resources

money and budgets, including the costs of participating in network processes

Information + knowledge

explicit (easily exchanged) or implicit/tacit knowledge, which is hard to handle

strategic capabilities

skills to navigate network processes and use resources strategically; organising capacity, relationshops, skills with media

legitimacy

the extent to which an actor’s actions and the role that this actor fulfils are considered justified; can stem from formal sources (elections) or informal ones

dependency based on importance and substitutability

dependency is determined by how important a resource is and whether it can be substituted or acquired elsewhere

Veto power

ability of an actor to block an agreement

substantive complexity

uncertainty and lack of consensus over the nature of the issue; caused by the presence of multiple problem perceptions and various interpretations of information

perceptions

more or less coherent set of beliefs, ideas and opinions

selective perspective

an actor’s perspective never captures the full picture; you only see how limited it is by comparing it to others, hence the importance of collaboration

framing

a way of selecting, organising, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality so as to provide guideposts for knowing, analysing, persuading and acting

Power games

imposing frames; attacking or undermining framing of others

argumentation game

debate in which actors engage in problem framing by promoting their problem perceptions and stories to try to convince others, to impose their perceptions upon others or to negotiate a consensus about the nature of the problem

Dialogue of the deaf

interactions in which actors try to convince one another but oney reinforce their own perceptions and end up in a substantive impasse

Cognitive dissonance

perceptions as part of belief system

peer pressure

prevalent perceptions in a peer’s group/network

Information gathering

systematic collection, sharing, and analysis of data by various autonomous actors; type 1 response

Counter expertise

strategic mobilisation of alternative knowledge, evidence and research by non-state actors to contest, challenge or alter dominant policies established by institutional authorities; type 2 response

policy advocacy

activities aimed at selectively gathering evidence for the support of a particular policy or class of policies

report rains

parties fire reports at one another, information overload; strengthened by social media

meditation rules

journalistic professionalism vs. commercial viability; commercial rules dominate, leading to news that must be appealing

Media biases

dramatisation, personalisation, fragmentation, authority-disorder bias

Problem identification

what does the actor see as the main issue

norms and standards

why is this problematic from their perspectives

causal attribution

what does the actor believe is causing the problem

solution direction

in what direction does the actor believe solutions should be sought

preferred solutions

what specific solutions does the actor advocate

means and instruments

what methods or tools does the actor think should be used

affected vs. affecting

does the actor see themselves as mainly impacted by the problem, or as someone who can actively influence outcomes

level of responsibility

how much responsibility or power does the actor believe they have in addressing the problem

strategies

series of coherent and more or less deliberate actions that actors in the network take to influence the content, course and outcomes of network governance in accordance with their perceptions of the problem or situation at hand

arenas

specific place or institutional setting where specific group of actors meet and interact

wait and see

delaying investment until its certain that the solutions can actually be realised

hit and run

cooperating only until they’ve achieved their own goal

free riding

leaving it to others to find solutions whilst still benefiting without investing own resources

rounds model

an analytical framework used to study and reconstruct highly complex, unpredictable decision-making processes

substantive outcomes

the delivery of polices, services, the implementation of plans or the failure to do so

process outcomes

quality of the interaction process

institutional outcomes

development of shared rules, new institutional arrangements

negotiations

process in which explicit proposals are out forward for thwart purpose of reaching agreement on an exchange or the realisation of a common interest where conflicting interests are present

zone of acceptability and zone of agreement

each actor will try to achieve an agreement closest to their most preferred outcome

Tactics

control over the agenda; playing for time; flattery and charm; choice of location; coalition forming; persuasion and management of meaning

institutions

structures within which complex interactions take place

supra-individual structures

systems of rules, shared institutions, cultural norms and collective arrangements that exist above and beyond any single participant

emerging networks

actors come form different institutional backgrounds

mature networks

changes in the wider institutional environment

institutional design

efforts to change or shape existing institutional characteristics of governance networks or to build new networks

rules in networks

emerge during interactions; either consciously created and decided upon (formal); or evolve naturally (informal)

regulative approach (external structures)

rules restrict behaviour and are maintained by sanctions; rules as an incentive structure

normative approach (internalised; in the mind)

normative expectations and social obligations; rules that are followed because theyre appropriate/morally just

cognitive approach (internalised; in the mind)

rules that are self-evident, taken for granted; rules that create meaning and establish a meaningful context for action

administrative storytelling (reframing)

ongoing discussion in which political and administrative actors prepare the ground for certain changes

sensitising concepts

they point to a problem and focus attention on the one hand and suggest solutions on the other

position rules (structural)

specific actor’s roles and allowed actions; may limit number of actors in a position

boundary rules (structural)

define eligibility to enter or leave positions

Decision-making rules (procedural)

specify how decisions are made, who decides, procedural steps, conflict resolution

Information rules (procedural)

specify what information is available to whom, flows, frequency, and language

Reward rules (outcome oriented)

specific incentives or rewards for behaviour; formal or informal

scope rules (outcome oriented)

define the focus and goals of the network; types of issues and outcomes addressed

product rules (outcome oriented)

define standards for outputs or outcomes

trust

the expectation of an actor A that another actor B will abstain from opportunistic behaviour when an opportunity for that emerges

network management

all deliberate strategies aimed at facilitating and guiding the interactions including content, and/or changing the features of the network with the intention to collaborative further in network governance

meta governance

string focus on democratic anchorage; elected officials as meta governors

facilitative leadership

leading actors over whom you have no formal authority; focused more on individual collaborative processes

insiders

someone who benefits from breakthrough; building trust essential

outsider

someone who likely needs to be compensated; neural position may benefit

institutional design

institutional aspect of networks, broad and more lasting impact, difficult to bring about and control

network management of process

interventions in processes, more limietd in scope, lower risk of path dependency

facilitation

motivating actors, providing facility, creating an atmosphere conductive to constructive interactions

mediation

act as go-between; make procedural and substantive proposals

agreeing on process rules

about objectives, participation, steps, methods, info

Handling conflicting perceptions

aligning perceptions, changing perceptions, creating substantive variety, furthering goal intertwinement

evaluation

assessing the success or failure of processes, policies

ex ante goal evaluation

determine the goals of the policy; determine performance indicators that belong to goals; assess whether the goals are met

ex post satisficing

satisfaction of actors with outcome

cognitive learning (related to substantive outcomes)

shared knowledge and insights on problems, solutions, perception variety, possible common ground

strategic learning (related to process outcomes)

growing consciousness of dependencies

institutional learning (related to institutional outcomes)

enduring relations and trust

joint image building

better insight in problems and solutions

negotiated knowledge

joint interpretations of research outcomes

substantive enrichment

innovative solutions; incorporation of lessons from critiques

goal intertwinement

diverging objectives combined in solutions

ex post satisficing

satisfaction of actors with outcome

ex post rationalisation

tendency of network actors or evaluators to justify, reframe, or explain decisions and outcomes after they have occurred, often to make them appear more planned, collaborative, or successful than they actually were

input legitimacy

focus on initial conditions

throughput legitimacy

focus on process of decision-making