Governance Networks

Within the last decades of the twentieth century, the concept of governance developed within political studies and the fields related to it. This concept is one that seeks to promote the idea that there is a wide variety of approaches that are required to make sure that there is an understanding of the world and the changing nature of the role of the state within the international system. Furthermore, there is the rise of the belief that governance can be used to promote the idea that the contemporary world is where individuals live in a world where there are a diversity of coexisting networks that are aimed at safeguarding the lives of individuals as well as society in general (Bush, Oosterveer, Bailey, & Mol, 2015). These networks have developed in such a way that ensures that there is the creation of a better understanding of the massive urbanization, globalization, and a diversity of other societal demands that have come about because of the considerable participation of the civil society in everyday life (Fung, 2015). This new knowledge is essential in bringing about an understanding of the way that the world is developing because it allows for the inclusion of the manner that new concepts such as the participation of the civic society has been able to establish a strong public voice in decision making. In this paper, there will be a discussion and analysis of the concept of the governance network and the manner through which it has been able to affect the world.

One of the most significant aspects of the governance network is that it has led to the argument that societies are increasingly becoming fragmented. This is mainly because of the belief that the new demands that are being made on governments has led them towards a shift from the more traditional bureaucratic order to one that is more responsive to the demands of society (Wiesel & Modell, 2014). Such interactive governments have the potential of leading towards the fragmentation of society because it involves a process where there is greater devolution of power in such a way that promotes the achievement of more efficiency when it comes to service delivery. Governance networks have also become critical when it comes to policymaking because the individuals involved in the latter tend to consult with the diverse stakeholders in society before any decisions are made (Bovaird, Stoker, Jones, Loeffler, & Pinilla Roncancio, 2016). The arbitrary decision making processes that was an essential aspect of the bureaucratic forms of government are increasingly being abandoned in favour of more open ones where there is need to seek to achieve the approval of stakeholders before policies are implemented (Denis, Ferlie, & Van Gestel, 2015; Greve, 2015). Furthermore, there has also been an increasing role of the private sector in those aspects of government that were previously the strict domain of the public sector (O'Toole, 2015). Thus, governance networks have become essential means through which to bring about a form of governmental devolution that seeks to enhance service delivery in the most efficient way possible while at the same time reducing the role of government in the process. It has also ensured that the role of government in society has essentially become blurred because the institutions involved in service delivery have their roles increasingly being taken by more specialized entities from the private sector.

The latter collaborative arrangements have made it possible for governments to undertake their tasks in a manner that is more supervisory than active. Governance networks have ensured that there is an increase in the proliferation of governance arrangements either with the private sector or other governments with the aim of bringing about a more efficient achievement of goals (Page, Stone, Bryson, & Crosby, 2015). This is especially the case considering that there are some governance networks which have developed between a local government, other governments, as well as the private sector with the aim of seeking to achieve the best possible results when it comes to undertaking their functions. These new collaborations have essentially made it possible for governance networks to become more common in the contemporary world to such an extent that they have become the norm. It is currently normal for individuals to expect that network arrangements will bring them the services that they need without a complete reliance on their governments to provide the services (Vangen, Hayes, & Cornforth, 2015). Governments have ended up becoming facilitators and guarantors rather than the actual providers of services; meaning that there has developed a necessity that there is the establishment of newer networks to increase efficiency. It has also become possible for a new layer of governance to appear within local governments, with these layers playing a significant role when it comes to the development of strong initiatives aimed at enhancing efficiency while at the same time reducing the role of government (Kapucu, Hu, & Khosa, 2017). The various stakeholders in society have also come to have a say in the management of their own governments and how services are delivered. However, despite this being the case, it is essential to approach governance networks with caution because despite their being widespread, they have not been as widely adopted as expected.

Governance networks have brought about a greater understanding of the role that networks can play in enhancing the role of governments. This is because it involves an understanding of the manner through which the complexity of the multi-governmental landscape has become a necessity in the contemporary world (De Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2016). It is necessary to consider that governance networks have essentially made it possible for there to be the creation of means through which to bring about the interaction between a diversity of actors in society in such a way that promotes the interests of all involved because there is devolution of functions (Borg, Toikka, & Primmer, 2015). Furthermore, it has become possible for these actors to come to terms with each other’s capabilities in such a way that helps to bring about the achievement of means through which to promote the diversification of functions towards the achievement of common goals. Thus, it can be argued that politicians and administrators have become the main actors when it comes to the promotion of societal interests and this has been in such a way that they have come to be seen as the guarantors of public services (Bryson, Crosby, & Bloomberg, 2014; Head & Alford, 2015). However, despite the achievement of this objective, it has become essential to consider that these individuals have gained considerable power over a diversity of functions. This is especially the case considering that these individuals might end up abusing their power to ensure that they serve the interests of their respective organizations or lobbies that sponsored them towards attaining their positions (Howlett & Ramesh, 2016). Therefore, there should be a process where there is the development of awareness concerning the relationships between the actors in various governance networks so that it can be possible to bring about the achievement of greater transparency in the processes that are undertaken.

The term governance network implies that there is a convergence when it comes to a diversity of issues concerning government and the manner through which it is operated. It is necessary to consider that this convergence is one that has taken place in order to meet the needs of society while at the same time promoting a situation where there is the achievement of common goals in as efficient a manner as possible (Lecy, Mergel, & Schmitz, 2014). While there has been considerable debate concerning what exactly governance networks mean, it is pertinent to consider that it is a reality in the contemporary world and has to be understood as such. A body of knowledge and concepts concerning governance networks has grown over the years and this has led to the establishment of means through which an understanding of the term can be understood. One of the most important factors concerning governance networks is that is involves a situation where service delivery and policy are developed and implemented through networks that involve actors that are essentially interdependent. The interdependency between the various actors can be considered to be an essential aspect of promoting the development of the networks that are involved in service delivery (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2015). It is also necessary to stress that it is the actors who make choices concerning the strategies that they have to use in order to find and make solutions to various problems. There are also instances where there is a complexity of interactions and negotiating partners that come about because of the interdependencies that occur between actors (Skelcher & Smith, 2015). Therefore, the different governance networks tend to be quite diverse in their make up because each of them is developed to satisfy a large number of unique needs (Van den Hurk & Verhoest, 2015). The variety of perceptions and strategies that they have to implement requires that there is the achievement of unique problem solving, service delivery and policy implementation initiatives at all times to ensure efficiency.

In conclusion, the governance network approach is one that stresses the need to consider the outcomes of the implementation of different policies and service delivery. A consideration of the outcomes ensures that there are initiatives aimed at promoting the development of the most pertinent policies possible while at the same time including the most qualified actors to undertake the diverse tasks involved in bringing about the achievement of results. The development of an understanding of needs is critical for the creation of institutionalization of the relationships that come about between the different actors. These create patterns that are necessary for the promotion of effective working relationships between actors that make it possible to bring about strong service delivery initiatives. The relationships involved are those that ensure that there is the establishment of social networks that are necessary for not only bringing about better service delivery, but also ensures that there is the establishment of a basis upon which the various actors can work together in other networks. Finally, the relationships between the various actors ensures that there is the emergence of rules that promote the regulation of the behaviour within networks; making it possible for actors to explore new content that might enhance their efficiency while at the same time helping in enhancing the quality of services being delivered.

References

Borg, R., Toikka, A., & Primmer, E. (2015). Social capital and governance: a social network analysis of forest biodiversity collaboration in Central Finland. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 90-97.

Bovaird, T., Stoker, G., Jones, T., Loeffler, E., & Pinilla Roncancio, M. (2016). Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 47-68.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public administration review, 74(4), 445-456.

Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2015). Designing and implementing cross‐sector collaborations: Needed and challenging. Public administration review, 75(5), 647-663.

Bush, S. R., Oosterveer, P., Bailey, M., & Mol, A. P. (2015). Sustainability governance of chains and networks: a review and future outlook. Journal of Cleaner Production, 107, 8-19.

De Vries, H., Bekkers, V., & Tummers, L. (2016). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Public Administration, 94(1), 146-166.

Denis, J. L., Ferlie, E., & Van Gestel, N. (2015). Understanding hybridity in public organizations. Public Administration, 93(2), 273-289.

Fung, A. (2015). Putting the public back into governance: The challenges of citizen participation and its future. Public administration review, 75(4), 513-522.

Greve, C. (2015). Ideas in public management reform for the 2010s. Digitalization, value creation and involvement. Public Organization Review, 15(1), 49-65.

Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (2016). Achilles' heels of governance: Critical capacity deficits and their role in governance failures. Regulation & Governance, 10(4), 301-313.

Kapucu, N., Hu, Q., & Khosa, S. (2017). The state of network research in public administration. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1087-1120.

Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643-665.

O'Toole, L. J. (2015). Networks and networking: The public administrative agendas. Public administration review, 75(3), 361-371.

Page, S. B., Stone, M. M., Bryson, J. M., & Crosby, B. C. (2015). Public Value Creation by Cross‐Sector Collaborations: A Framework and Challenges of Assessment. Public Administration, 93(3), 715-732.

Skelcher, C., & Smith, S. R. (2015). Theorizing hybridity: Institutional logics, complex organizations, and actor identities: The case of nonprofits. Public Administration, 93(2), 433-448.

Van den Hurk, M., & Verhoest, K. (2015). The governance of public–private partnerships in sports infrastructure: Interfering complexities in Belgium. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 201-211.

Vangen, S., Hayes, J. P., & Cornforth, C. (2015). Governing cross-sector, inter-organizational collaborations. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1237-1260.

Wiesel, F., & Modell, S. (2014). From new public management to new public governance? Hybridization and implications for public sector consumerism. Financial Accountability & Management, 30(2), 175-205.