Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

From Fragmentation to Comprehensiveness in Network Governance

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Public networks are increasingly implemented at different government levels and across policy areas to increase coordination of services, decision-making and services delivery. Network governance is one promising theoretical perspective through which networks have been studied by different scholars and schools of thought. However, the literature on network governance is still fragmented, sectorial and issues-based. An overarching framework for the comprehensive analysis of the accumulate knowledge is missing. To address this limitation, we propose a comprehensive framework for analyzing the development of the findings in the field. The framework includes four building blocks that reflect the main issues debated in literature: the conditions affecting the choice of a mode of network governance, the modes of network governance, the dimensions of meta-governance and the outcome evaluation. The framework would support academics and policy makers who deal with network governance in different policy domains. The article concludes with a discussion of the proposed framework and its applications in future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aarsæther, N., Bjørna, H., Fotel, T., & Sørensen, E. (2009). Evaluating the democratic accountability of Governance Network: analysing two Nordic Megaprojects. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 577–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326.

  • Ahujia, G. (2000). Collaboration networks, structural holes, and innovation: a longitudinal study. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, K., & Stoker, G. (2012). Meta-governance and nuclear power in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(7), 1026–1051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakker, R. M. (2010). Taking stock of temporary organizational forms: a systematic review and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 466–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, S. J. (2008). New philanthropy, new networks and new governance in education. Political Studies, 56(4), 747–765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, S., & Hindmoor, A. (Eds.). (2009). Rethinking governance: The centrality of the state in modern society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., & Stone, M. M. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66(1), 44–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, S., Horvath, B., & Kull, M. (2012). Advancing the governance of cross-sectoral policies for the sustainable development: a meta-governance perspective. Public Administration and Development, 32, 305–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cristofoli, D. and Markovic, J. (2013). Contingencies and organizing principles in public networks, paper presented at EGPA Annual Conference, 11–13 September, Edimburgh.

  • Damgaard, B., & Torfing, J. (2010). Network governance of active employment policy: the Danish experience. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(3), 248–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denyer, D., & Tranfield, D. (2009). Producing a systematic review. In D. A. Buchanan & A. Brymann (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of organizational research methods. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donahue, J. (2004). ‘On collaborative governance’, Corporate social responsibility initiative working Paper No. 2. Cambridge: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotel, T., & Hanssen, G. S. (2009). Meta-governance of regional governance networks in Nordic countries. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 557–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. M. (2011). The third sector, user involvement and public service reform: a case study in the co-governance of health service provision. Public Administration, 89(3), 909–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, P. M., Graene, C., & Finn, R. (2009). Leadership, service reform, and public-service networks: the case of cancer-genetics pilots in the English NHS. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 769–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haveri, A., Nyholm, I., Røiseland, A., & Vabo, I. (2009). Governing collaborations: practices of meta-governance in Finnish and Norwegian Local Governments. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 39–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hendriks, C. M. (2008). On inclusion and network governance: the democratic disconnect of Dutch energy transition. Public Administration, 86(4), 1009–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: lessons from six watershed mnagament programs. Administration and Society, 37(3), 281–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Network in public administration scholarship: understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(1), i157–i173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2002). The future of the capitalist state. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and metagivernance: On reflexivity, requisite variety, requisite irony. In H. Bang (Ed.), Governance as social and political communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., Hestrly, W., & Borgatti, S. P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911–945.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenis, P., & Provan, K. G. (2009). Towards an exogenous theory of public network performance. Public Administration, 87(3), 440–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H. (2005). Designing and managing networks: possibilities and limitations for network management. European Political Science, 4, 328–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance network: compatible or not? Public Administration, 85(3), 587–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010a). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88(4), 1063–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn, E. H., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010b). Trust in governance networks: its impact on outcomes. Administration and Society, 42(2), 193–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman, J. (2003). Governing as governance. London: Sage Publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004a). Managing uncertainties in networks: Public Private controversies. Abindong: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2004b). Managing uncertainties in networks – a network approach to problem solving and decision-making. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. M. (2011). The future of network governance research: strength in diversity and synthesis. Public Administration, 89(4), 1221–1234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Löfgren, K., & Ringholm, T. (2009). Introduction: new network modes of Nordic local governance. Local Government Studies, 35(5), 505–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macciò, L. and Cristofoli, D. (2013). Governance and services delivery networks: two of a kind?, paper presented at EGPA Annual Conference, 11–13 September, Edimburgh.

  • Mathur, N., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Evaluating democratic performance: methodologies for assessing the relationship between network governance and citizens. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 228–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public managemement: assessing what we know and how we know it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.

  • Meuleman, L. (2008a). ‘Public management and the meta-governance of hierarchies, networks and markets: the feasibility of designing and managing governance style combinations’, in Contributions to Management Science XIV. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, L. (2008b). Metagoverning governance styles – broadening the public manager’s action perspective. In L. Melemann (Ed.), Public management and the meta-governance of hierarchies, networks and markets. Leipzig: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meuleman, L. (2010). The cultural division of meta-governance: why governance doctrines way fail. Public Organization Review, 10, 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milward, H., & Provan, K. G. (2006). A manager’s guide to choosing and using collaborative networks. Washington, DC: IBM Centre for The Business of Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milward, H. B., Provan, K. G., Fish, A., Isett, K. R., & Huang, K. (2009). Governance and collaboration: an evolutionary study of Two mental health network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), i125–i141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Seitz, G. (2012). Leadership in interorganizational networks: a literature review and suggestions for future research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 428–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyholm, I., & Haveri, A. (2009). Between government and governance. Local Solutions for reconciling representative government and network governance. Local Government Studies, 35(1), 109–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: structure, management and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: a comparative study of four mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do network really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 64(1), 414–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Fish, A., & Sydow, J. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: a review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Huang, K., & Milward, B. H. (2009). The evolution of structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed health and human service network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(4), 873–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provan, K. G., Beagles, J. E., Mercken, L., & Leischow, S. J. (2013). Awareness of evidence-based practices by organizations in a publicly funded smoking cessation network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(1), 133–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raab, J., & Milward, H. B. (2003). Dark networks as problems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 13(4), 413–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raab, J., Mannak, R. S., & Cambré, B. (2013). Combining structure, governance and context: a configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut039.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, G., Bates, L., & Pattison, P. (2011). Network governance and environmental management: conflict and cooperation. Public Administration, 89(1), 1293–1313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez, C., Lagnely, A., Beland, F., & Denis, J. L. (2007). Governance, power and mandated collaboration in an interorganizational network. Administration and Society, 39, 150–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Røiseland, A. (2011). Understanding local governance: institutional forms of collaboration. Public Administration, 89(3), 879–893.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2005). The democratic problem and the potentials of network governance. European Political Science, 4, 348–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E. (2006). Meta-governance: the changing role of politicians in processes of democratic governance. The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Science, 28(3), 195–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (Eds.). (2007). Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through meta-governance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: governmental rethoric or governance scheme? Public Administration Review, 62(2), 197–205.

  • Thompson, G. F. (2003). Between hierarchies and markets. The logic and limits of network forms of organization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2005a). Governance network theory: towards a second generation. European Political Science, 4, 305–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J. (2005b). Symposium: governance network. European Political Science, 4, 301–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turrini, A., Cristofoli, D., Frosini, F., & Nasi, G. (2010). Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration, 88(2), 528–550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wachhaus, T. A. (2012). Anarchy as a model for network governance. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management, Economics and Industrial Engineering, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

    Martina Dal Molin & Cristina Masella

Authors
  1. Martina Dal Molin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristina Masella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martina Dal Molin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Molin, M.D., Masella, C. From Fragmentation to Comprehensiveness in Network Governance. Public Organiz Rev 16, 493–508 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0320-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-015-0320-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation