Suchergebnisse

In this article, we discuss how complexity is viewed in governance network theory. The article provides a systematic elaboration of the notion of complexity, distinguishing three types: substantive, strategic , and institutional complexity. We argue that dealing with these types of complexity in networks is essentially a matter of mutual adaption and cooperation. An important explanation for the occurrence of deadlocks, breakthroughs and outcomes is the presence and the quality of attempts to manage complex interaction processes in networks.

Western liberal governments increasingly seek to improve the performance of the public sector by spurring innovation. New Public Management reforms from the 1980s onward viewed strategic entrepreneurial leadership and public–private competition as key drivers of public innovation. By contrast, the current wave of New Public Governance reforms perceives collaboration between relevant and affected actors from the public and private sector as the primary vehicle of public innovation, and tends to see governance networks as potential arenas for collaborative innovation. The new focus on collaborative innovation in networks poses a fundamental challenge for public managers, elected politicians, and others aiming to metagovern governance networks. Hence, we claim that a specific metagovernance strategy is needed when the purpose of governance networks is to stimulate efficiency, effectiveness, and democratic legitimacy through innovation rather than incremental improvements. The article aims to sketch out the contours of such a strategy by comparing it with more traditional metagovernance strategies. The argument is illustrated by an empirical analysis of an example of collaborative innovation in Danish elderly care.

AbstractAre bureaucratic and network forms of organization compatible with democracy? Two observations made in the literature inspire this question: Liberal democracies around the world have been challenged by populist authoritarian movements and leaders, and multicentric forms of governance (i.e., governance networks) are utilized increasingly in public policymaking and service delivery in many of these democracies. Based on these observations, we propose that a conceptual investigation of the possible links between three ideal types of democracy (i.e., liberal, deliberative/discursive, and practice-based democracy) and two ideal types of social organization (bureaucracy and governance networks) can help us to better understand the challenges in public policy making and administration in the early 21st century. In doing so, we adopt Max Weber's conceptual analytical method of using ideal typical abstractions and understanding their historical contexts. With our conceptual analysis, we demonstrate that governance networks may be problematic for liberal and deliberative forms of democracy and are most compatible with practice-based democracy. We propose that a configurational approach should be used in conceptualizing the relations between the ideal types of democracy and social organization.

The growth in studying complexity, governance, and networks is a noticeable fact. Complex public policy problems require productive collaborations among multiple actors from different sectors. Public, private, and not-for-profit organizations work through governance networks and collaborative governance to solve complex public policy problems. There is a strong interest in both the practice and theory of networks in public governance. This interest has given boost to the use of social network analysis (SNA) in studies on complex governance networks. This special issue of Complexity, Governance, & Networks, includes theoretically, conceptually, and analytically rigorous papers with social network analysis applications. The papers help our understanding in studying complex governance networks.

Western liberal governments increasingly seek to improve the performance of the public sector by spurring innovation. New Public Management reforms from the 1980s onward viewed strategic entrepreneurial leadership and public–private competition as key drivers of public innovation. By contrast, the current wave of New Public Governance reforms perceives collaboration between relevant and affected actors from the public and private sector as the primary vehicle of public innovation, and tends to see governance networks as potential arenas for collaborative innovation. The new focus on collaborative innovation in networks poses a fundamental challenge for public managers, elected politicians, and others aiming to metagovern governance networks. Hence, we claim that a specific metagovernance strategy is needed when the purpose of governance networks is to stimulate efficiency, effectiveness, and democratic legitimacy through innovation rather than incremental improvements. The article aims to sketch out the contours of such a strategy by comparing it with more traditional metagovernance strategies. The argument is illustrated by an empirical analysis of an example of collaborative innovation in Danish elderly care.

Governance through the negotiated interaction of a plurality of public, semi-public & private actors seems to provide an efficient means for governing our increasingly complex, fragmented & multi-layered societies. However, the big question is whether governance networks also contribute to the democratic governance of society. Governance network theory & post-liberal theories of democracy claim that there are both democratic problems & potentials associated with interactive network governance. In order to be able to assess, & possibly improve, the democratic performance of governance networks, the authors of this article develop & substantiate an analytical model for measuring the democratic anchorage of governance networks in different political constituencies & in an appropriate set of democratic rules & norms. In addition, it is argued that politicians should play a key role in efforts to ensure the democratic anchorage of governance networks. 63 References. Adapted from the source document.