Suchergebnisse

This article elaborates on the question of how complex decision making can be analysed. Three conceptual models are compared: the phase model, the stream model and the rounds model. Each model is based on specific assumptions about what decision making is and how it should be analysed. The phase model focuses on successive and distinctive stages in a process, i.e. defining a problem, searching for, choosing and implementing solutions. The stream model emphasizes concurrent streams of participants, problems and solutions, defining decision making as the connection between these streams. The rounds model combines elements of the other two models, in assuming that several actors introduce combinations of problems and solutions, and create progress through interaction. Each model generates specific insights, as is shown from the example of the 'Betwe line', a railway line intended for the transport of cargo, in the Netherlands. The phase model concentrates on decisions taken by a focal actor; the stream model focuses on the coincidentallinks between problems, solutions and actors; and the rounds model on the interaction between actors.

We argue that the complexity of an interconnected society and its governance require a complexity-informed approach to our domain. Concepts and theories from the complexity sciences can help with this. There is a notable increase of the use of such concepts and theories but the theory transfer isn't as straightforward as it may seem. "Emergence" is helpful in understanding the particular differences between the various realms of science. Within the social sciences in general and public administration in particular, emergence highlights the non-decomposable, contingent, non-compressible and time-asymmetric nature of reality. Subsequently, we propose three methods that take these aspects into account when putting concepts from the complexity sciences to the test: qualitative comparative analysis, dynamic network analysis, and group model building.

Résumé Dans le présent article, nous proposons de conclure ce numéro spécial consacré à la gouvernance de l'eau. Nous revenons sur les différentes contributions et examinons différentes observations intéressantes issues des trois articles axés sur le Wisconsin, la Californie et l'Équateur méridional. Nous plaçons ces observations dans une nouvelle perspective en matière d'intégration : la synchronisation des systèmes, considérée comme une option d'intégration dans les systèmes de gouvernance complexes, où personne n'est responsable. Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Dans le présent épilogue, nous rassemblons les conclusions des contributions à ce numéro spécial. Nous en sommes arrivés à envisager le débat sur la fragmentation-intégration dans l'administration sous un nouvel angle, à savoir celui de la synchronisation des systèmes. En examinant différents cas dans le secteur de l'eau aux Pays-Bas, aux États-Unis et en Amérique du Sud, l'on obtient trois principes de synchronisation des systèmes : La synchronisation est synonyme d'auto-organisation et de variation; la synchronisation est synonyme de réflexion et d'action entre soi-même et un ensemble plus large; la synchronisation revient à agir sur les frontières des sous-systèmes et au-delà de celles-ci. Ces principes sont nécessaires pour réaliser la synchronisation de systèmes dans lesquels différents sous-systèmes conservent en grande partie leur identité, mais s'efforcent d'assurer une cohérence.

Résumé Dans ce numéro spécial sur la gouvernance de l'eau, nous nous intéressons à la question de la fragmentation et de l'intégration d'un point de vue international. Notre intention est d'examiner la façon dont différents pays d'Amérique du Sud et d'Europe ainsi que les États-Unis font face à la fragmentation dans les questions liées à l'eau. Cette première contribution constitue d'une part une introduction au thème de la gouvernance de l'eau et au débat qui fait rage dans l'administration publique à propos de la fragmentation/de l'intégration et, d'autre part, présente des exemples issus des Pays-Bas (deux zones de delta) pour illustrer la fragmentation et les tentatives d'intégration. Ces deux cas montrent que la fragmentation est manifeste et que les tentatives d'intégration existent bel et bien, mais sont souvent vaines. D'une part (Delta du sud-ouest), on vise l'intégration au travers de la centralisation (coordination descendante) et de la création d'une structure globale formelle (par le biais de la législation) et, d'autre part (Delta d'Ijssel – Sud), on constate que l'intégration est difficile à gérer et entraîne des effets d'éviction et des disparitions (des initiatives d'intégration régionale centrales aux initiatives d'intégration locale). Remarques à l'intention des praticiens Les ressources en eau, en particulier l'eau douce, vont devenir l'une des ressources les plus rares pour les humains, les sociétés et les écosystèmes. Cela s'observe déjà dans plusieurs régions du monde. Un tiers de la population mondiale vit dans des pays soumis à des stress hydriques. La gouvernance de l'eau est par ailleurs déterminante sur le plan des excédents d'eau. Tous les deltas du monde ou presque sont concernés, et trois quarts de la population mondiale vit dans des deltas. Le point de départ commun de ce numéro spécial sur la gouvernance de l'eau concerne la fragmentation des responsabilités observée dans ce domaine. Parvenir à la coopération et à l'intégration dans des systèmes aussi fragmentés est un problème de gouvernance fondamental.

In this manuscript we conclude the special issue on Water Governance. We look back on the different contributions and discuss different interesting insights from the three contributions focusing on Wisconsin, California and Southern Ecuador. We place these insights into a new perspective on integration, i.e. system synchronization, which the authors consider to be an option for integration in complex governance systems, where nobody is in charge.Points for practitionersIn this epilogue we have picked the fruits of the contributions to this symposium. We have come to another way of looking at the fragmentation—integration debate in public administration, i.e. system synchronization. By discussing different water cases from Wisconsin, California and Southern Ecuador, we have arrived at three principles of system synchronization: Synchronization means self-organization and variation; Synchronization means thinking and acting between self and the larger whole; Synchronization means operating on and beyond the boundaries of subsystems. These principles are needed to realize system synchronicity in which different subsystems largely hold their identity, but strive for coherence.

This special issue on water governance pays attention to the aspect of fragmentation and integration from an international point of view. We want to give insights into how different countries — the USA, South America and Europe — are dealing with fragmentation in water issues. This first contribution was partly an introduction on the theme of water governance and the fragmentation—integration public administration discussion, and partly gave case illustrations from the Netherlands (two delta areas) in showing how fragmentation and attempts at integration took place. These two cases illustrated that fragmentation is manifest and attempts at integration are alive, but are often not effective. On the one hand (southwestern delta) integration is sought for through centralization (top-down coordination) and creating one overall formal structure (through legislation), on the other hand (IJsseldelta-South) we saw that integration is difficult to manage leading to crowding out and fading out effects (from central, regional integration efforts to local integration efforts).Points for practitionersWater resources, especially fresh water, will become one of the scarcest resources for humans, societies and ecosystems. In several areas of the world this is already quite evident. A third of the world's population lives in water-stressed countries. Water governance is also crucial in terms of water surplus. Almost all the deltas in the world will face flooding problems, and three-quarters of the world's population live in deltas. The joint starting point for this symposium on Water Governance is the existing fragmentation of responsibilities in this field. Achieving cooperation and integration in such fragmented systems is a core problem in governance.

The aim of this paper is to describe and analyze the management strategies of cooperation in public-private partnerships (PPPs) in spatial planning. We describe a specific case study: the Dutch location development project 'Sijtwende'. We deal with the main question of what this case teaches us about the management of complex processes of cooperation between public and private partners. We will describe the difficulties in the cooperation. Furthermore, we will look for important breakthroughs in the process of collaborative development of the area. In this paper we combine theoretical thoughts on PPP models, and management and empirical insights from out in-depth case study, in order to find balances in using project and process management strategies for managing complex spatial planning processes.

From the introduction: 1. Yet Another Journal? Why is it necessary to publish a new journal about complexity, governance, and networks? There has been an increasing interest in complexity, governance, and network studies in recent decades. A number of these studies have been published in most prestigious journals in public policy, public administration, and political science. Also a few journals that specialize in these areas were launched in recent years. So, why this journal? And why now? The publication of this journal is not only a response to the surging demand for scholarly outlets that publish articles in these areas, but also a response to the need to create a venue to bring together the insights of complexity, governance, and network scholars. Complexity, Governance & Networks will serve as an incubator for conceptual and theory development, methodological advancements in these three areas of study, empiri- cal research, and idea exchanges among them for possible future syntheses. The articles that appear in this inaugural issue of the journal demonstrate how much the thinking and methods in these three areas have advanced. The authors, who are well-known experts in their areas, assess the current state of the advancements and possible directions for future research and conceptual development.