Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector
Publication Year: 1997
Subject: Public & Nonprofit Management
Although the concept of policy networks is now well-established in the field, most research has to content itself with description and analysis of their contribution to policy failure. This book goes further. It accepts policy networks as a fundamental characteristic of modern societies and presents an overview of the strategies for the management of these networks, as well as illustrating the various strategies for intervention.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: Introduction: A Management Perspective on Policy Networks
- Governance: The Debate on the Limits of Government
- The Concept of the ‘Policy Network’
- The Network Approach to Governance
- Managing Policy Networks: A Preliminary Exploration
- The Focus of the Book
Part I: Policy Networks and Network Management: A State of the Art
- Chapter 2: Policy Networks: An Overview
- Policy Analysis: From Rational Actor to Network
- Interorganizational Relations and Networks
- Policy Communities, Subsystems and Networks
- Characteristics of Policy Networks
- Chapter 3: Public Management and Network Management: An Overview
- Public Management and Governance: Some General Trends
- Public Management and Governance in Policy Networks
- Network Management
- Strategies for Network Management
- Conditions for Network Management
- Governmental Organizations and Network Management
Part II: Network Dynamics and Management
- Chapter 4: The Dynamics of Closedness in Networks
- Some Forms of Closedness from the Literature on Networks
- First Clarification for Closedness: Individual Veto Power
- Second Clarification for Closedness: Actors' Frames of Reference
- Interference between the First and Second Clarification for Closedness
- Communication between Frames: The Formation of a Social Reality
- Third Clarification for Closedness: Network Culture
- Network and Actors
- Interference between Network Culture and Frames of Reference
- Explanatory Model for Determining Clarifications for Closedness
- On Fashionable Interventions and Problems of Network Management
- Chapter 5: Managing Perceptions in Networks
- The Role of Perceptions in Interaction Processes: Joint Action and Fixations
- Perceptions, Policy Networks and Configurations
- Variation and Confrontation as Conditions for Change
- Towards a Management of Perceptions
- Strategies Aimed at the Social Dimension of Interaction
- Strategies Aimed at the Cognitive Dimension
- Limits to the Management of Perceptions
- Chapter 6: Strategies and Games in Networks
- Games as a Metaphor for Processes in Networks
- Management Strategies in Networks
- Criteria for the Evaluation of Complex Decision Making
- Chapter 7: Instruments for Network Management
- Background and Problem Definition
- The Tools of Government: Three Families of Instruments
- Policy Networks and the Choice and Use of Instruments
- Linking Factors for Network Management
- Instruments for Network Management
- Instrumentalism on the Institutional Level
- Concluding Observations
- Chapter 8: Managing Implementation Processes in Networks
- Managing Implementation
- Chapter 9: Normative Notes: Perspectives on Networks
- Introduction: A Fool May Ask More Questions in an Hour …
- The Special Status of Public Actors
- Process Norms and Substantive Norms for Steering
- The Structuring of Networks: Plurality of Values
- Responsibility, Liability and Control
- Normative Risks
Part III: Conclusion: Strategies for Network Management
- Chapter 10: Managing Networks in the Public Sector: Findings and Reflections
- Network Management: Finding a Common Purpose
- Strategies for Network Management
- Evaluating Network Management
- The Role of Public Actors in Networks
- Three Perspectives on Networks and Network Management
- Conclusions and Perspectives
© Walter J.M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn and Joop F.M. Koppenjan 1997
First published 1997
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without permission in writing from the Publishers.
SAGE Publications Ltd
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications Inc
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications India Pvt Ltd
32, M-Block Market
Greater Kailash – I
New Delhi 110 048
British Library Cataloguing in Publication data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN 0 7619 5547 X
ISBN 0 7619 5548 8 (pbk)
Library of Congress catalog card number 97-066130
Typeset by M Rules
Printed in Great Britain by The Cromwell Press Ltd,
Broughton Gifford, Melksham, Wiltshire
Contributors' Notes[Page viii]
Dr J.A. de Bruijn studied Dutch law and political science at Leiden University. From 1986 to 1992 he worked at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. He received his PhD on a dissertation about economic subsidization ‘The Ministry of Economic Affairs: an Instrumental and Organizational Analysis of the Use of Economic Subsidies’ (VUGA, Den Haag, 1991). Now he works as a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Delft University of Technology. He publishes in the field of public administration and the internal management of public organizations.
Professor K.I. Hanf is a faculty member of the Department of Public Administration at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. He received his PhD in 1968. The title of his thesis was ‘The Higher Civil Service in West Germany’ (University Microfilm International, London). He is co-author and editor of Interorganizational Policy Making (with F.W. Scharpf, Sage, London, 1978). In early 1993 he was named part-time professor in the field of environmental management at Nijenrode University.
Professor E.F. ten Heuvelhof is Professor of Public Administration at the Delft University of Technology and the Department of Public Administration at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. He received his PhD in 1982. His thesis was entitled ‘Towards an Empirical Policy Theory: Local Municipal/Council Policy-making with regard to New Local Neighbourhood Shopping Centres’ (in Dutch, Amsterdam, 1982). His publications include works on the administrative aspects of physical planning and environmental policy.
Dr P.L. Hupe has been a lecturer in the Department of Public Administration at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. For several years he worked as a policy adviser in the Dutch civil service since 1986. He has published on issues of the welfare state, institutional analysis, and policy implementation, in particular in the field of socio-economics. His thesis, ‘The Quality of Power: Minister De Uyl's Employment Plan in a Fivefold Perspective’, was published in October 1992.
Professor W.J.M. Kickert studied experimental physics at Utrecht University and received his PhD in organization science from the Department of Business Administration at the Technical University Eindhoven with his [Page ix]thesis ‘Organization of Decision-Making’ (North Holland Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1980). He then joined the Department of Public Administration at the University of Nijmegen and subsequently worked at the Ministry of Education and Sciences, most recently as an adviser. In 1990 he was appointed Professor of Public Administration, specializing in public management, at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Dr E.-H. Klijn studied public administration at the University of Twente and was employed as a researcher from 1984 to 1989 on the Faculty of Architecture at the Technical University Delft. He has been a lecturer since 1989 in the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In 1996 he received his doctorate from Rotterdam with his thesis ‘Rules and Governance in Networks: the Influence of Network Rules on the Restructuring of Post-war Housing’. His research interests and publications focus on policy networks, housing policy and public-private partnerships.
Dr J.F.M. Koppenjan worked until recently at the Department of Public Administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. In 1993 he received his doctorate from Rotterdam with his thesis ‘Managing the Policy-Making Process: A Study of Public Policy Formation in the Field of Home Administration’ (in Dutch, VUGA, Den Haag). Since September 1996 he has worked as a lecturer at the Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Technical University of Delft. His publications focus on policy processes, governance of policy projects and network management. His research interests lie in the field of intergovernmental relations, safety policy and the environment.
Professor L.J. O'Toole Jr. is Professor of Political Science and Senior Research Associate in the Institute of Community and Area Development at the University of Georgia (USA). He has published widely on the subjects of policy implementation, administrative theory and intergovernmental relations. Previously he served in the faculties of the University of Virginia and Auburn University.
Professor A.B. Ringeling studied political science at the Free University Amsterdam. In 1969 he joined the staff of Nijmegen University, initially as a member of the law faculty and later with the Institute for Political Science. He received his PhD in 1978 with his dissertation ‘Policy Discretion of Civil Servants’ (in Dutch, Samsom Uitgeverij, Alphen a/d Rijn). In 1981 he became a professor at Erasmus University Rotterdam where he teaches public administration, specializing in the study of public policy.
Dr L. Schaap studied public sciences at the University of Groningen. In 1989 he was appointed as a research assistant at Erasmus University's Department of Public Administration. Since 1993 he has worked there as a lecturer. He publishes in the field of the formation of regions and the history of Dutch [Page x]public administration. He is currently working on his PhD thesis on the contribution of the theory of autopoetic social systems to problems with societal steering.
Dr G.R. Teisman is a senior lecturer at the Erasmus University Rotterdam in the Department of Public Administration. He has been Professor of Physical Planning at the Catholic University of Nijmegen since spring 1997. He received his PhD in September 1992. The title of his thesis was ‘Complex Decision Making. A Pluricentric Perspective on Decision Making about Investments in Infrastructure.’ He specializes in interorganizational management, policy making, physical planning, infrastructures and public works.
Dr C.J.A.M. Termeer studied agricultural engineering at the Agricultural University in Wageningen. From 1988 to 1993 she worked at Erasmus University's Department of Public Administration in Rotterdam. In 1993 she received her PhD with her thesis ‘Dynamics and Inertia in the Dutch Manure Policies: a Study of Change Processes in the Pig Farming Network’ (VUGA, Den Haag). In 1993 she was appointed as a lecturer at the Technical University Delft. Since June 1996 she has worked at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. She publishes on change processes, the agricultural network and environmental policy.
Dr M.J.W. van Twist studied the sciences of public and business administration at Erasmus University Rotterdam. Since 1989 he has been working at the Department of Public Administration as a research assistant and lecturer. In 1995 he received his PhD from Rotterdam with his thesis ‘Verbal Renewal: Notes on the Art of Administrative Science.’ At present he is a lecturer at the Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Technical University Delft, where he teaches public management and policy science.
Foreword by Professor R.A.W. Rhodes[Page xi]
Britain and the Netherlands are both unitary states. Not for them the messy intergovernmental games of federal states. They have coherent policy making and effective central control. Unfortunately, the simplicities of formal-legal categories mislead as often as not. Britain and the Netherlands may be unitary states but they are also differentiated polities, operating through a multi-form maze of institutions which central government can steer only imperfectly and indirectly. ‘Governance’ is a defining characteristic of such differentiated polities.
Finer (1970: 3–4) treats government and governance as synonyms but in current use governance stands for a change in the meaning of government, referring to: a new process of governing; or a changed condition of ordered rule; or the new method by which society is governed. Inevitably, there are several contending meanings for the term. It refers to, for example, the minimal state; corporate governance; the new public management; and ‘good governance’ (see Rhodes, 1997: ch. 3). Here, governance refers to self-organizing, inter organizational networks, with the following characteristics.
- Interdependence between organizations. Governance is broader than government, covering non-state actors. Changing the boundaries of the state means the boundaries between public, private and voluntary sectors become shifting and opaque.
- Continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes.
- Game-like interactions, rooted in trust and regulated by rules of the game negotiated and agreed by network participants.
- No sovereign authority, so networks have a significant degree of autonomy from the state and are not accountable to it. They are self-organizing. Although the state does not occupy a sovereign position, it can indirectly and imperfectly steer networks.
R.A.W. Rhodes is Professor of Politics (Research) at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne and Director of the Economic and Social Research Council's Whitehall Research Programme. He is the author or editor of several books including recently (with Patrick Dunleavy, eds), Prime Minister, Cabinet and Core Executive (Macmillan, 1995); (with P. Weller and H. Bakvis, eds), The Hollow Crown (Macmillan, 1997); and Understanding Governance (Open University Press, 1997). He has published chapters in a great number of books and articles in such major journals as British Journal of Political Science, European Journal of Political Research, Parliamentary Affairs, Political Studies, Public Administration, Public Administration Review and West European Politics. He has been editor of Public Administration since 1986.
[Page xii]Interorganizational linkages are a defining characteristic of service delivery. The term ‘network’ describes the several interdependent actors involved in delivering services. These networks are made up of organizations which need to exchange resources (for example, money, authority, information, expertise) to achieve their objectives, to maximize their influence over outcomes, and to avoid becoming dependent on other players in the game. As British government creates agencies, bypasses local government, uses special-purpose bodies to deliver services, and encourages public–private partnerships, so networks become increasingly prominent among British governing structures. Governance is about managing such networks:
Instead of relying on the state or the market, socio-political governance is directed at the creation of patterns of interaction in which political and traditional hierarchical governing and social self-organization are complementary, in which responsibility and accountability for interventions is spread over public and private actors. (Kooiman, 1993: 252)
Crucially, networks are self-organizing. At its simplest, self-organizing means a network is autonomous and self-governing:
The control capacity of government is limited for a number of reasons: lack of legitimacy, complexity of policy processes, complexity and multitude of institutions concerned etc. Government is only one of many actors that influence the course of events in a societal system. Government does not have enough power to exert its will on other actors. Other social institutions are, to a great extent, autonomous. They are not controlled by any single superordinated actor, not even the government. They largely control themselves. Autonomy not only implies freedom, it also implies self-responsibility. Autonomous systems have a much larger degree of freedom of self-governance. Deregulation, government withdrawal and steering at a distance … are all notions of less direct government regulation and control, which lead to more autonomy and self-governance for social institutions. (Kickert, 1993c: 275)
In short, integrated networks resist government steering, develop their own policies and mould their environments. Central government is no longer supreme. The political system is increasingly differentiated. We don't live in unitary states but in ‘the centreless society’ (Luhmann, 1982: xv); in the poly-centric state characterized by multiple centres. The task of government is to enable socio-political interactions; to encourage many and varied arrangements for coping with problems and to distribute services among the several actors. Such new patterns of interaction abound: for example, self- and co-regulation, public-private partnerships, cooperative management, and joint entrepreneurial ventures.
Governments can choose between governing structures. To markets and hierarchies, we can now add networks. None of these structures for authoritatively allocating resources and exercising control and co-ordination is intrinsically ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The choice is a matter of practicality; that is, under what conditions does each governing structure work effectively? Bureaucracy remains the prime example of hierarchy or coordination by administrative order and, for all the recent changes, it is still a major way of delivering services. Privatization, marketing testing and the purchaser–provider [Page xiii]split are examples of government using markets or quasi-markets to deliver services. Price competition is the key to efficient and better quality services. Competition and markets are now a fixed part of the governmental landscape. It is less widely recognized, especially in Britain, that government now works through networks characterized by trust and mutual adjustment. Governance is one such structure and this book addresses the key issue in governance: ‘How do we manage networks?’
The governance approach and network management remain a minority interest in Britain and too few are aware of the pioneering work carried out by Walter Kickert, Jan Kooiman and their colleagues at the Erasmus University, Rotterdam. The ‘governance club’ research programme was set up in 1990, building on earlier work on administrative decision making. It focuses on policy making and governance in and of networks. Specifically, the group's theoretical work focuses on: policy instruments for governance, polycentric decision making, managing the policy process, the role of rules and perceptions in games and networks, network management and evaluating networks and their outcomes. Their empirical work covers technology policy, employment policy, agriculture, and intergovernmental relations. In collaboration with the publisher VUGA Uitgeverij BV in The Hague, the group edits a series on ‘Networks, complexity and dynamics’. Unfortunately, few of these works are available for the English reader. This volume is invaluable, because it provides the first conspectus of their work in English (see also Kickert, 1993b; Kooiman, 1993; Klijn, Koppenjan and Termeer, 1995).
Normally, the literature on socio-cybernetics and governance contents itself with redescribing government and policy making. It provides insights, not tools. This book takes the argument a stage further by showing how governments can manage networks. It itemizes and illustrates a toolkit for managing networks. Table 10.1 summarizes the available tools and Chapters 6–8 explain the several strategies of intervention. Recently, I discussed the work of the Erasmus school at a conference. I was told their work was too abstract; ‘they live in the clouds’. In this book, they come down to earth with a bang. They would be the first to admit that a lot remains to be done to expand and refine the toolkit of network management, but they have taken important early steps.
There is one important gap in their work. They focus on steering networks, adopting a managerial perspective, and discuss only briefly the topic of the accountability of networks in representative democracies. There is even less discussion of how to open networks to citizens. There is a need to adopt a political perspective on policy networks; to explore ways of democratizing functional domains.
Markets and capitalism may have triumphed but we have some new ideologies voiced by the new tribes: vocal minorities with a taste for direct action over representation in ‘normal politics’. The new tribes include the environmentalists, the anti-roads lobby, the anti-smoking campaign, the campaign against blood sports, and the claims of religious and racial minorities. There are many new ideologies; outside ‘normal politics’, possibly from choice but [Page xiv]definitely by exclusion. Governments will have to cope with them and this challenge raises the problem of how to sustain the legitimacy of government. The answer does not lie with managerial fixes.
There is also an accountability deficit. Hirst (1990: 2) comments that representative democracy delivers ‘low levels of governmental accountability and public influence on decision making’. He notes that ‘big government is now so big’ that it defeats effective coordination by the centre and grows ‘undirected’ and by ‘accretion’ (1990: 31–2). So, both the new tribes and the accountability deficit mean we need to reinvent representative democracy; to experiment with new forms of democracy.
There is no shortage of proposals for new forms of democracy. Hirst (1990: 8) argues for a pluralist state ‘in which distinct functionally and territorially specific domains of authority enjoy the autonomy necessary to perform their tasks’. Such ‘pluralizing of the state’ reduces ‘the scope of central state power’. The ways of so containing the central state vary. Hirst favours both functional representation in the guise of corporatism (1990: 12–15) and ‘associational democracy’ based on ‘voluntary self-governing associations’ (1994). Both schemes take domains of functional authority as the basic building block and are, therefore, consistent with a policy network interpretation of government.
The conventional account of policy networks treats them as an instance of private government, arguing that networks are political oligarchies that shut out the public (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992: 265). Fox and Miller (1995: 118–27) suggest a way of challenging this world of private governments and developing accountability in policy networks by arguing for a pluralism of discourse. They stipulate four ‘warrants for discourse’ which are necessary conditions for authentic communication: sincerity, situation-regarding intentionality, willing attention, and substantive contribution. They argue that: ‘insincerity destroys trust’ which is essential to authentic discourse; situation-regarding intentionality ensures that discourse is about something and considers the context of the problem; willing attention will bring about passionate engagement; and participants should offer a distinct view or specific expertise. These norms ‘police the discourse’ and Fox and Miller (1995: 149) argue that citizens could be regaining control of government through their participation in networks as users and governors, creating a ‘post-modern public administration’. Policy networks are ‘nascent forms’ of ‘publicly interested discourse’ in which all the affected parties participate ‘together to work out possibilities for what to do next’.
Representative democracy in differentiated polities requires, therefore, explicit accountability; in multiple forms and in many forums; with openness of information and access to sustain warrants of discourse; and flexible institutions willing to encourage experiments with multiple and new forms of accountability. The task has scarcely begun, in either theory or practice.
Perhaps the most common criticism of the governance approach stems from its roots in socio-cybernetic theory with its baffling neologisms. The specialized language gets in the way of the message, which seems arcane and [Page xv]unrelated to the everyday problems of government. A book is doomed among practitioners when written in social science-ese, extensively using jargon. Also, it is folk wisdom that the social sciences restate the obvious in an abstruse way. All too often academics make maps of complexity, insisting that complex problems require complex solutions. This stance contrasts sharply with the snappy ‘ten commandments’ of the latest management bestseller. The study of governance needs its bestseller with snappy aphorisms and vivid stories.
The task should not be beyond us. There are two aphorisms for which this book provides plenty of illustrations. ‘For every complex problem there is a simple solution, and it is always wrong’; and, ‘Messy problems demand messy solutions.’ And if resorting to vernacular language upsets our academic colleagues we can always rephrase these insights more formally as ‘reducing complexity through institutional differentiation’ (Luhmann, 1982).
Equally, the vivid story should not escape our attention. I live in North Yorkshire, where one of my master's students did his thesis on the local-level implementation structure for AIDS in one district. It is a quiet rural area with a few small towns; it is not the cosmopolitan capital of the western world. There is night-life, but it shuts at 11 p.m. The government requires health and local authorities to provide for AIDS sufferers. To plan the service, 19 organizations have come together to form the planning team. An unbelievable 39 organizations are involved in delivering the service. There is no hierarchy among the organizations: no one organization can plan and command the others. And yet there are only 24 people who are HIV positive in the area. A tinge of black humour is unavoidable: there is only one clear policy choice – find a patient for each organization! Or if we forswear irony, we can always return to the safe haven of our jargon; we have here a clear case of ‘multi-organizational sub-optimization’. But ironic humour, or at least telling a good story, must become part of the social scientist's toolkit, if we are to be accessible. We must do so to persuade governments to change their operating codes; to choose between governing structures and recognize governance and the skills of network management.
Managing institutional differentiation and pluralization is a task confronting all advanced industrial democracies because they all reduce complexity by differentiation; that is, fracturing problems into their component parts and designing legal-institutional ‘solutions’ for each part. This book provides some telling lessons on how to manage such organizational complexity and introduces a toolkit for managing the networks of differentiated polities.[Page xvi]
In public administration the concept ‘policy network’ has become quite popular. It refers to the relatively stable relations between (different) governmental and (semi-) private organizations, in which processes of policy making take place. Until recently the concept ‘policy network’ had often been negatively evaluated. It was seen as one of the main reasons for policy failure: non-transparent and impenetrable forms of interest representations which prevent policy innovations and threaten the effectiveness, efficiency and democratic legitimacy of the public sector.
We do not support this view. Networks are a fundamental characteristic of modern societies and it should be the task of policy scientists to explore the potentials of public policy making and governance in networks. With this in mind, the idea of network management is elaborated and examined in this book.
Many of the ideas expressed in this book are inspired by the work of members of a group of researchers in the Departments of Public Administration of Erasmus University Rotterdam and Leiden University and the Faculty of Systems Engineering, Policy Analysis and Management of the Delft University of Technology. Since 1989, this group has met regularly in order to discuss theoretical issues, research designs and findings. Among their publications are a series of PhD theses in which the consequences of policy networks for public policy and governance in specific policy areas have been empirically analysed. Although there is diversity in the work of the researchers, a more or less coherent body of theoretical knowledge has been developed which forms the basis of this book.
This book makes two major contributions to the field, in addition to the ideas developed in the research group. First, although within the group the concept of policy networks has guided much of the research and analysis, the idea of network management has never before been elaborated as systematically and profoundly as it is here. Second, although members of the group have published in international journals, our ideas are presented here for the first time in a comprehensive way for an international audience. We hope this will contribute to the international debate on topics such as governance and new public management and we look forward to the discussions we hope it will encourage.
It was the ambition of the editors to make the book more than just a compilation of contributions of several individuals. We did this not only by investing our time, energy and knowledge in several ‘editorial chapters’ (Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 10), but also by inviting the authors to read and [Page xviii]comment on each other's contributions. So this book is the joint product of all the authors, and we would like to thank them for their efforts.
We would also like to thank the other members of the research group ‘Policy and governance in complex networks’, who were likewise involved in reading and commenting on the concept texts. Our special thanks go to Kathy Owen, who, with the help of Vicky Wightman, transformed our Dutch and – probably worse – our attempts to write in English into readable text. We also wish to express our gratitude to Ankie Assink, Edith Aalbers, Steven de Waal, and Karin Feteris, who assisted us on various occasions with the processing of the manuscript.
Bibliography[Page 192]1986) Intergovernmental Management. Human Services Problem-Solving in Six Metropolitan Areas, State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.(1990a) Frameworks for Comparative Analysis of Intergovernmental Relations, SPEA Occasional Paper no. 26, Indiana University.(1990b) ‘Responding to human crises: intergovernmental policy networks’, in R.W.Gage and M.P.Mandell (eds), pp. 57–80.(1968) ‘Organizational interdependence and intra-organizational structure’, American Sociological Review, 33(6) pp. 912–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2092683and (1979) Organizations and Environments, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.(1981) ‘Organization-sets, action-sets and networks: making the most out of simplicity’, in P.C.Nystrom and W.H.Starbuck (eds), pp. 385–408.and (1971) Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Little, Brown, Boston, MA.(1980) ‘Public and private management: are they fundamentally alike in all unimportant aspects?’, OPM document, 127–51–1, pp. 27–38. Reprinted in R.T.Golembievsky and F.Gibson (eds) (1983) Readings in Public Administration, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA. pp. 1–19.(1988) ‘The architecture of linkage’. Paper presented at the Workshop on Connected Games: Theory, Methodology, and Applications, Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung, Cologne., and (1994) De milieuvergunning in bedrijf (fase 2): Een onderzoek naar het effect van de milieuvergunning op het milieugedrag in vier bedrijven, Centrum voor Schone Technologie en Milieubeleid, Universiteit Twente, E.C.W. achtergrondstudie nr.21, Enschede., and (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.and (1990) Administrative reforms in public management: paradigms, principles, paradoxes and pendulums', Governance, 3(2) pp. 115–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1990.tb00111.x(1984) The Evolution of Cooperation, Basic Books, New York.(1962) ‘Two faces of power’, American Political Science Review, 56(4) pp. 947–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1952796and (1977) The Implementation Game: What Happens after a Bill Becomes Law?, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.(1981) Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy, Methuen, London.and (1975) ‘Political evaluation’, in F.I.Greenstein and N.W.Polsby (eds), Handbook of Political Science, part I, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. pp. 337–401.and (Bekke, A.J.G.M. and de Vries, J. (eds) (1991) Tussen politiek en klantenkring, Vakgroep Bestuurskunde Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Leiden.1978) ‘The interorganizational network as a political economy’, in L.Karpik (ed.), pp. 69–102.(1982) ‘A framework for policy analysis’, in D.L.Rogers and D.A.Whetten (eds), pp. 137–76.(1991) ‘Politieke wetenschap en de derde macht’, Acta Politica, 26(3), pp. 257–68.(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the [Page 193]Sociology of Knowledge, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, UK.and (Beus, J.W. de and van Doorn, J.A.A. (eds) (1986) De geconstrueerde samenleving: vormen en gevolgen van classificerend beleid, Boom, Meppel.1982) ‘Structural sociology and network analysis: an overview’, in P.V.Marsden and N.Lin (eds), pp. 273–80.(1987) All Organizations Are Public: Bridging Public and Private Organizational Theories, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.(Bozeman, B. (ed.) (1993) Public Management: The State of the Art, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.1963) A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process, Free Press, New York.and (1994) ‘Networks as models of analysis: water policy in comparative perspective’, Environmental Politics, 3(4), pp. 1–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644019408414165, and (1983) Managing Conflict at Organizational Interfaces, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.(1990) Economische Zaken en economische subsidies: een instrumentele en organizatorische analyse van de toepassing van economische subsidies, Vuga, Den Haag.(1991) Sturingsinstrumenten voor de overheid: over complexe netwerken en een tweede generatie sturingsinstrumenten, Stenfert Kroese, Leiden.and (1995) Netwerkmanagement: strategieën, instrumenten, normen, Lemma, Utrecht.and (1992) ‘Instrumenten van overheidsbeleid’, Beleidswetenschap, 6(1), pp. 69–93., and (1987) The Shaping of Social Organization: Social Rule System Theory with Application, Sage, London.and (1965) ‘Organizational learning: observations toward a theory’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 10(2), pp. 175–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391412and (1985) ‘Varieties of corporatism: the importance of the meso-level of interest intermediation’, in A.Cawson (ed.), Organized Interests and the State: Studies in Meso-Corporatism, Sage, London. pp. 1–21.(1986) Corporatism and Political Theory, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.(1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of Industrial Enterprise, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.(1977) The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA., Jr. (1983) Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-building, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. First published in 1972.and (1989) Structuration Theory: Anthony Giddens and the Constitution of Social Life, St Martin's Press, Oxford.(1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice', Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1) pp. 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2392088, and (1977) ‘Exchange and power in networks of interorganizational relations’, The Sociological Quarterly, 18(1) pp. 62–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1977.tb02162.x(1988) ‘Besturen op afstand: particulier corporatisme als bestuursvorm’, in J.G.A.van Mierlo and L.G.Gerrichhauzen (eds), Het particulier initiatief in de Nederlandse verzorgingsmaatschappij: een bestuurskundige benadering, De Tijdstroom, Lochem. pp. 20–50.(1980) Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.and (1970) After the Revolution? Authority in a Good Society, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.(1993) ‘Publiek-private samenwerking en convenanten: een juridisch perpectief’, in J.Th.A.Bressers et al. (eds), Beleidsinstrumenten bestuurskundig beschouwd, Van Goorcum, Assen. pp. 93–106.(1989) ‘De werkelijkheid van de terugtred’, in W.Derksen, Th.G.Drupsteen and [Page 194]W.J.Witteveen (eds), De terugtred van de regelgevers: meer regels, minder sturing?, W.E.J. Tjeenk, Willink, Zwolle. pp. 17–33.(1984) Problem Definition in Policy Analysis, University Press of Kansas, Kansas.(1989) Beleidsinstrumenten en energiebesparing: de toepassing en effectiviteit van voorlichting en subsidies, gericht op energiebesparing in de industrie van 1977 tot 1987, Vakgroep bestuurskunde: Universiteit Twente, Enschede.(1993) Instrumenten voor energiebesparing, Vakgroep bestuurskunde: Universiteit Twente, Enschede.(1983) Decision-making at the Top: The Shaping of Strategic Direction, Basic Books, New York.and (1988) ‘The ambition of policy design’, Policy Studies Review, 7(4), pp. 705–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1988.tb00890.x, and (1981) Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.(1993) ‘Modes of governance’, in J.Kooiman (ed.), pp. 21–35.(1965) A Systems Analysis of Political Lief, Wiley, New York.(1971) The Symbolic Uses of Politics: Mass Arousal and Quiescence, Markham Publishers, Chicago.(1977) Political Language: Words that Succeed and Policies that Fail, Academic Press, New York.(1975) ‘Nondecisions reconsidered’, Acta Politica, 10(3) pp. 277–301.and (Ellwein, T., Hesse, J.J., Mayntz, R. and Scharpf, F.W. (eds) (1987) Jahrbuch zur Staats- und Verwaltungswissenschaft, Nomos, Baden-Baden.1979) ‘Backward mapping: implementation research and policy decisions’, Political Science Quarterly, 94(4) pp. 601–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2149628(1986) Introduction, in J.Elster, Rational Choice, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.(1962) ‘Power-dependence relations’, American Sociological Review, 27, pp. 31–40. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2089716(1965) ‘The causal texture of organizational environments’, Human Relations, 18(1) pp. 21–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872676501800103and (1982), ‘Networks, ideologies and belief systems’, in P.V.Marsden and N.Lin (eds), pp. 159–72.(1992) Cosa nostra, De Kern, Baarn.and (1970) Comparative Government, Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, London.(1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.and (1989) Planning in the Face of Power, University of California Press, Berkeley.(1971) L'ordre du discours, Gallimard, Paris.(1976) De orde van het vertoog, Boom, Meppel.(1984) ‘What is an author?’ in P.Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader, Pantheon Books, New York. pp. 101–20.(1996) Post-modern Public Administration: Towards Discourse, Sage, London.and (1965) The Political Process: Executive Bureau-Legislative Committee Relations, Random House, New York.(1987) ‘A theoretical and conceptual re-examination of subsystem politics’, Public Policy and Administration, 2(1) pp. 9–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/095207678700200102and (1974) Public Planning: The Inter-corporate Dimension, Tavistock, London., and (Gage, R.W. and Mandell, M.P. (eds) (1990) Strategies for Managing Intergovernmental Policies and Networks, Praeger, New York.1990) Het woning corporatie stel sel in beweging, Delftse Universitaire Pers, Delft.(1979) Central Problems in Social Theory, Macmillan, London.(1984) The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Macmillan, London.([Page 195]GlasbergenP. (ed.) (1995) Managing Environmental Disputes: Network Management as an Alternative, Kluwer, Dordrecht.1981) Netwerken van organizaties: strategieën, spelen, structuren, Vuga, Den Haag.(1988) Government and the Chemical Industry, Clarendon Press, Oxford., and (Guba, E.G. (ed.) (1990) The Paradigm Dialog, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.1976) The Quest for Control, John Wiley, London.(1989) ‘Discours-coalities in politiek en beleid: de interpretatie van bestuurlijke heroriënteringen in de Amsterdamse gemeenteraad’, Beleidswetenschap, 3(3) pp. 242–63.(1993) ‘Policy paradigms, social learning and the state’, Comparative Politics, 25(3) pp. 275–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/422246(1978) Introduction, in K.I.Hanf and F.W.Scharpf (eds).(1993) ‘Enforcing environmental laws: the social regulation of co-production’, in M.Hill (ed.), New Agendas in the Study of the Policy Process, Harvester Wheat sheaf, New York. pp. 88–109.(1992) ‘Revisiting old friends: networks, implementation structures and the management of interorganizational relations’, European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2) pp. 163–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00293.xand (Hanf, K.I. and Scharpf, F.W. (eds) (1978) Interorganizational Policy Making: Limits to Coordination and Central Control, Sage, London.Hanf, K.I. and Toonen, Th.A.J. (eds) (1985) Policy Implementation in Federal and Unitary Systems, Nijhoff, Dordrecht.1978) ‘Local networks of manpower training in the Federal Republics of Germany and Sweden’, in K.I.Hanf and F.W.Scharpf (eds), pp. 303–44., and (1977) Managing the Commons, Freeman, San Francisco.and (1986) Organization Theory for Public Administration, Scott Foresman, New York.and (1990) Groupthink in Government: A Study of Small Groups and Policy Failure, Proefschrift Leiden, Leiden.(1978) ‘Issue networks and the executive establishment’, in A.King (ed.), The New American Political System, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, DC., pp. 87–124.(1974) The Private Government of Public Money, Macmillan, London.and (1981) ‘How organizations learn and unlearn’, in P.C.Nystrom and W.H.Starbuck (eds), pp. 3–27.(1974) ‘Patterns of European politics: the European “Polity” model’, in: M.O.Heisler (ed.), Politics in Structure: Structures and Processes in Some Postindustrial Democracies, David McKay, New York.(1993) Gedragsnormen voor overheden in horizontal structuren: het alterneren van eenzijdige en meerzijdige vormen van sturing bij de toepassing van het principe ‘de vervuiler betaalt’, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(1970) Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations and States, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.(1990) Representative Democracy and its Limits, Polity Press, Cambridge.(1994) Associative Democracy: New Forms of Economic and Social Governance, Polity Press, Cambridge.(1981) ‘Implementation structures: a new unit for administrative analysis’, Organizational Studies, 3, pp. 211–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084068100200301and (1983) The Tools of Government, Macmillan, London.(1991) A public management for all seasons', Public Administration, 69(1) pp. 3–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x(1991) Administrative Argument, Dartmouth, Aldershot.and (Hufen, J.A.M. and Ringeling, A.B. (eds) (1990) Beleidsnetwerken: overheids-, semi-overheids- en particuliere organizaties in wisselwerking, Vuga, Den Haag.1972) The Restless Organization, Wiley, Sydney.([Page 196]1993) The politics of implementation: individual, organizational and political co-production in social services delivery', in M.Hill (ed.), New Agendas in the Study of the Policy Process, Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York. pp. 130–51.(1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton Mimin, Boston, MA.(1987) Improving Management in Government: The Next Steps, HMSO, London., and (1990a) ‘Sub-governments, policy communities and networks: refilling the old bottles?’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3) pp. 319–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002003004(1990b) ‘Policy community realism versus “New” institutionalist ambiguity’, Political Studies, 38(3) pp. 470–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1990.tb01082.x(1992) ‘A preliminary ordering of policy network labels’, European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2) pp. 7–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00286.xand (Karpik, L. (ed.) (1978) Organization and Environment, Sage, London.Kaufmann, F.X., Majone, G. and Ostrom, V. (eds) (1986) Guidance, Control and Evaluation in the Public Sector: The Bielefeld Interdisciplinary Project, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.1987) Making Public Policy: A Hopeful View of American Government, Basic Books, New York.(1988) Government by Proxy, Congressional Quarterly, Washington, DC.(1991) Complexiteit, zelfsturing en dynamiek, Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen a/d Rijn.(Kickert, W.J.M. (ed.) (1993a), Veranderingen in management en organisatie bij de rijksoverheid, Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen a/d Rijn.1993b) ‘Complexity, governance and dynamics: conceptual explorations of public network management’, in J.Kooiman (ed.), pp. 191–204.(1993c) ‘Autopoiesis and the science of (public) administration: essence, sense and nonsense’, Organization Studies, 14 pp. 261–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/017084069301400205(Kickert, W.J.M., Aquina, H. and Korsten, A. (eds) (1985) Planning binnen perken, Kerckebosch, Zeist.1984) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, Little, Brown, Boston, MA.(1984) A political perspective', in T.Miller (ed.), Public Sector Performance: a Conceptual Turning Point, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. pp. 161–93.(1982) ‘The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches’, in E.Ostrom (ed.), Strategies of Political Inquiry, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. pp. 197–222.and (1993) ‘Regels in beleidsnetwerken: de institutionele context van beleid’, in O.van Heffen en M.J.W.van Twist (eds), Beleid en wetenschap, Samsom H.D. Tjeenk Willink, Alphen aid Rijn., pp. 229–40.(1996) ‘Analysing and managing policy processes in complex networks: a theoretical examination of the concept policy network and its problems’, Administration and Society, 289(1) pp. 90–119.(1991) ‘Effective policy making in a multi actor setting: Networks and steering’, in R.J. in 'tVeld et al., pp. 99–112.and (1992) ‘Besluitvorming in beleidsnetwerken: een theoretische beschouwing over het analyseren en verbeteren van beleidsprocessen in complexe beleidsstelsels’, Beleidswetenschap, 6(1) pp. 32–51.and (1992) ‘Changes in local housing policy networks: reestablishing relations of housing authorities and housing associations’ (Risbo paper B10). Paper presented at the international research conference ‘European Cities: Growth and Decline’, The Hague, April 13–16.and (1995) ‘Managing networks in the public sector: a theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks’, Public Administration, 73(3) pp. 437–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1995.tb00837.x, and (1986) Communicatief en strategisch handelen: inleiding tot de handelingstheorie van Habermas, Coutinhou, Muiderberg.and ([Page 197]Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government – Society Interactions, Sage, London.1987) Managing Public Organizations: Lessons from Contemporary European Experience, Sage, London.and (1991) ‘Falen en leren rond de paspoortaffaire: de hardleersheid van een ministerie geanalyseerd’, Beleid en maatschappij, 18(1) pp. 20–30.(1993) Management van de beleidsvorming: een studie naar de totstandkoming van beleid op het terrein van het binnenlands bestuur, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(1991) ‘Autopoiesis, learning and governmental steering’, in R.J. in 'tVeld et al., pp. 171–82.and (1993) Netwerkmanagement in het openbaar bestuur, Vuga, Den Haag., and (Koppenjan, J.F.M., Ringeling, A.B. and te Velde, R.H.A. (eds) (1987) Beleidsvorming in Nederland, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.1981) Voluntary Agencies in the Welfare State, University of California Press, Berkeley.(1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.(1969) ‘Redundancy, rationality and the problem of duplication and overlap’, Public Administration Review, 29(3) pp. 346–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/973247(1987) The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains, University of Wisconsin Press, Wisconsin.and (1976) Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence System, Academic Press, New York.and (1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.and (Lehmbruch, G. and Schmitter, P.C. (eds) (1982) Patterns of Corporatist Policy-making, Sage, London.1991) Beleid op niveau: over de architectuur van overheidsinterventie, Boom, Meppel.(1961) ‘Exchange as a conceptual framework for the study of interorganizational relationships’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, pp. 583–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2390622and (1986) Organizational Transformation: Approaches, Strategies, Theories, Praeger, New York.and (1965) The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment, Free Press, London.(1979) ‘Still muddling not yet through, Public Administration Review, 39, 6, pp. 517–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/976178(1979) Usable Knowledge: Social Science and Social Problem Solving, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.and (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services, Russell Sage Foundation, New York.(1962) ‘Interorganizational analysis: a hypothesis on co-ordinating agencies’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 6(4) pp. 395–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2390723and (1975) ‘Environment, organization and the individual’, in A.R.Negandhi (ed.), pp. 77–89.(1991) ‘Schuld en solidariteit: over de collectivering van aansprakelijkheid’, in A.M.Hoi and M.A.Loth, Dilemma's van aansprakelijkheid, W.E.J. Tjeenk Willink, Zwolle. pp. 21–36.(1963) American business, public policy, case studies and political theory', World Politics, 16, pp. 677–715. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2009452(1982) The Differentiation of Society, Columbia University Press, New York.(1984) Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie, Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main.(1990) Essays on Self-Reference, Columbia University Press, New York.(1981) Managing the Public's Business: The Job of the Government Executive, Basic Books, New York.([Page 198]1993) ‘Policy achievement as a collective good: a strategic perspective on managing social programs’, in B.Bozeman (ed.), pp. 108–33., Jr. (1986) ‘Mutual adjustment by debate and persuasion’, in E.X.Kaufmann et al. (eds), pp. 445–58.(1990) ‘Network management: strategic behavior in the public sector’, in R.W.Gage and M.P.Mandell (eds), pp. 20–53.(1992) ‘Managing interdependencies through program structures: a revised paradigm’. Paper presented at the European Consortium for Political Research, workshop, ‘Management of Interorganizational Networks’, Limerick, Ireland, March 30-April 4.(1962) ‘The business firm as a political coalition’, Journal of Politics, 24, pp. 662–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2128040(1978) ‘Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice’, The Bell Journal of Economics, 9(2) pp. 587–608. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3003600(March, J.G. (ed.) (1988) Decisions and Organizations, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.1976a) ‘Attention and the ambiguity of self interest’, in J.G.March and J.P.Olsen (1976b), pp. 38–53.and (1976b) Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, Universitetsforlaget, Bergen.and (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics, Free Press, New York.and (Marin, B. and Mayntz, R. (eds) (1991) Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Marsden, P.V. and Lin, N. (eds) (1982) Social Structure and Network Analysis, Sage, London.Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (eds) (1992) Policy Networks in British Government, Clarendon Press, Oxford. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198278528.001.00011993) Accounts and Audit of Pension Schemes, Butterworths, London.and (1987) ‘Political control and societal problems’, in Th.Ellwein, J.J.Hesse, R.Mayntz and F.W.Scharpf (eds), Yearbook of Government and Public Administration, Nomos, Baden-Baden. pp. 81–98.(1993) ‘Governing failures and the problem of governability: some comments on a theoretical paradigm’, in J.Kooiman (ed.), pp. 9–20.(1978) Vollzugsprobleme der Umweltpolitik: empirische Untersuchung der Implementation von Gesetzen im Bereich der Luftreinhaltung und des Gewaesserschutzes, Kohlhammer, Stuttgart., et al. (1985) ‘Policy subsystems, networks and the tools of public management’, in K.I.Hanf and Th.A.J.Toonen, pp. 105–30.and (1979) The Structuring of Organizations, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.(1969) ‘The concepts and use of social networks’, in J.C.Mitchell (ed.), Social Networks in Urban Situations, Manchester University Press, Manchester. pp. 1–50.(1986) The Mediation Process: Practical Strategies for Resolving Conflict, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.(1986) Images of Organizations, Sage, London.(Negandhi, A.R. (ed.) (1975) Interorganization Theory, Kansas University Press, Kansas City.1992) Besturen binnen verschuivende grenzen, Kerkebosch, Zeist.(1993) ‘Over “net” werken in netwerken’, in J.E.M.Koppenjan, J.A.de Bruijn and W.J.M.Kickert (eds), Netlerkmanagement in het openbaar bestuur: over de mogelijkheden van overheidssturing in beleidsnetwerken, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage. pp. 169–75.(1995) The Incorporation of Environmental Elements in Strategic Decision-making Processes in Industry: Government-Corporate Interaction from a Business Perspective, Humanitas, Rotterdam.(OECD (1990) PUMA: Public Management Studies, OECD, Paris.OECD (1993) Public Management: OECD Country Profiles, OECD, Paris.1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.(1992) Reinventing Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit is [Page 199]Transforming the Public Sector, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.and (1980) ‘Hobbes, convenant and constitution’, Publius, 10(4) pp. 83–100.(1986) ‘A method for institutional analysis’, in F.X.Kaufmann, et al. (eds), pp. 459–79.(1990) Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807763(1986) ‘Policy recommendations for multi-actor implementation: an assessment of the field’, Journal of Public Policy, 6(2) pp. 181–210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00006486(1988) ‘Strategies for intergovernmental management: implementing programs in interorganizational networks’, Journal of Public Administration, 11(4) pp. 417–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900698808524596(1995) ‘Rational choice and policy implementation: implications for interorganizational network management’. American Review of Public Administration, 25(1): 43–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/027507409502500103, Jr. (1984) ‘Interorganizational policy implementation’, Public Administration Review, 44, pp. 491–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3110411and (1986) ‘The rules of the game: abortion politics in the Netherlands’, in J.Lovenduski and J.Outshoorn (eds) The New Politics of Abortion, Sage, London. pp. 5–26.(1982) Language, Semantics and Ideology: Stating the Obvious, Macmillan, London.(1988) ‘The public-private distinction in organization theory’, Academy of Management Review, 13(2) pp. 182–201.and (1981) Power in Organizations, Pitman, Boston.(1976) ‘Joint ventures and interorganizational interdependence’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(3) pp. 398–418. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2391851and (1990) Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.(1993) Managerialism and the Public Services: Cuts or Cultural Change in the 1990's?, Basil Blackwell, Oxford.(1990) Sturing van strategische besluitvorming: mogelijkheden en grenzen, VU Uitgeverij, Amsterdam.(1978) l'État. le pouvoir, Ie socialisme, PUF, Paris.(1983) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland, University of California Press, Berkeley. First published 1973.and (1991) ‘Institutional-level norms and organizational involvement in a service-implementation network’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(4) pp. 391–417.and (1991) Understanding and Managing Public Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.(Rapport Externe Commissie Ministeriele verantwoordelijkheid (voorz. Scheltema)Steekhoudend ministerschap, Tweede Kamer, 1992–1993, 21427, nr. 40–1.1986) ‘Frame-reflective policy discourse’, Beleidsanalyse, 15(4) pp. 4–18.and (1992) ‘Reframing policy discourse’, in F.Fischer and J.Forester (eds), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning, Duke University Press, Durham, NC. pp. 145–66.and (1980) Analysing intergovernmental relations', European Journal of Political Research, 8(3) pp. 289–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00575.x(1981) Control and Power in Central and Local Relations, Gower, Farnborough.(1988) Beyond Westminster and Whitehall: The Sub-central Governments of Britain, Unwin Hyman, London.(1990) ‘Policy networks: a British perspective’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2(3) pp. 293–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002003003(1997) Understanding Governance, Open University Press, Buckingham.(1992) ‘New directions in the study of policy networks’, European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2) pp. 181–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00294.xand (Richardson, J.J. (ed.) (1982) Policy Styles in Western Europe, Allen and Unwin, London.1979) Governing under Pressure: The Policy Process in a Post-Parliamentary Democracy, Martin Robertson, Oxford.and ([Page 200]1983) Instrumenten van overheidsbeleid, Samson, Alphen a/d Rijn.(1993) Het imago van de overheid, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(1988) De besluitvorming rond het nieuwe paspoort, Tweede Kamer zitting, 20.559, no. 11.and (1987) Congress, the Bureaucracy and Public Policy, Dorsey, Homewood, IL. First published 1976.and (1980) The Administrative Process, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.(1982) ‘Consequences’, in D.L.Rogers and D.A.Whetten (eds) pp. 32–54.and (Rogers, D.L. and Whetten, D.A. (eds) (1982) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, Iowa State University Press, Ames.1986) ‘Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research’, Journal of Public Policy, 6(1) pp. 21–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00003846(1988) ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein’, Policy Sciences, 21, pp. 129–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406(1985) ‘Strategic interaction, learning and policy evolution: a synthetic model’, in K.I.Hanf and Th.A.J.Toonen (eds) pp. 301–34.and (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.and (1978) ‘Interorganizational policy studies: issues, concepts and perspectives’, in K.I.Hanf and F.W.Scharpf (eds) pp. 345–70.(1989) ‘Decision rules, decision styles and policy choices’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1(2) pp. 149–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692889001002003(1990) ‘Games real actors could play: the problem of mutual predictability’, Rationality and Society, 2(4) pp. 471–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1043463190002004005(1991) ‘Games real actors could play: the challenge of complexity’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 3(3) pp. 277–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0951692891003003003(Scharpf, F.W. (ed.) (1993) Games in Hierarchies and Networks: Analytical and Empirical Approaches to the Study of Governmental Institutions, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.1976) Politikverjlechtung: Theorie und Empirie des kooperativen Foderalismus in der Bundesrepublik, Scriptor, Kronberg., and (1978) ‘Policy effectiveness and conflict avoidance in intergovernmental policy formation’, in K.I.Hanf and F.W.Scharpf (eds) pp. 57–114., and (1960) The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.(Schmitter, P.C. and Lehmbruch, G. (eds) (1979) Trends toward Corporatist Intermediation, Sage, London.1985) ‘Sturing en het recht’, in M.A.P.Bovens and W.J.Witteveen, pp. 113–25.(1957) Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-making Processes in Administrative Organization, Macmillan, New York.(1992) ‘The agricultural policy community: maintaining a close relationship’, in D.Marsh and J.A.W.Rhodes (eds), pp. 27–50.(1990) ‘Omgaan met milieuconflicten in de besluitvorming: de consensusbenadering voor win/win-uitkomsten’, Milieu, 5(1) pp. 8–13.(1988) The End of Public Administration: Problems of the Profession in the Post-progressive Era, Transnational Publishers, Dobbs Ferry, NY.(1991) Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction, St Martin's Press, New York.(1991) Reluctant Partners: Implementing Federal Policy, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, P.A.(1992) ‘Labour and international finance, 1964–1976’, in: D.Marsh and R.A.W.Rhodes (eds), pp. 200–48.(Streeck, W. and Schmitter, P.C. (eds) (1985) Private Interest Government: Beyond Market and State, Sage, London.[Page 201]1985) De labyrinthische staat: over politiek, ideologie en moderniteit, SUA, Amsterdam.(1987) Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes, Basic Books, New York.and (1988) Vergunning verleend: een bestuurskundige studie naar vergunningen op grond van de Wet inzake de luchtverontreiniging en de Wet algemene bepalingen milieuhygiene, Eburon, Delft.(1987) The Possibility of Cooperation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.(1992) Complexe besluitvorming: een pluricentrisch perspectief op besluitvorming over ruimtelijke investeringen, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(1993) Dynamiek en inertie rondom mestbeleid: een studie naar veranderingsprocessen in het varkenshouderijnetwerk, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(1982) ‘Reflexives Recht: Entwicklungsmodelle des Rechts in vergleichender Perspektive’, Archiv für Rechts- und Sozialphilosophie, 68(1) pp. 13–59.(1967) Organizations in Action, McGraw-Hili, New York.(Thompson, G.J., Frances, R., Levacic and Mitchell, J. (eds) (1991) Markets, Hierarchies and Networks, Sage, London.1981) ‘Gemeentelijke invloed in een vervlochten bestuur’, Beleid en maatschappij, 8(11) pp. 334–341.(1987) Denken over binnenlands bestuur, Vuga, Den Haag.(1993) Democratiseren door convenanten, Rijksuniversiteit Leiden/Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, Leiden.and (1992) Meso-bestuur in Europees perspectief: de Randstadprovincies uit de pas?, Vakgroep bestuurskunde: Rijksuniversiteit Leiden, Leiden., and (1964) The Governmental Process, Knopf, New York.(1990) Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics, University of California Press, Berkeley.(1970) ‘Interorganizational networks in urban society: initial perspectives and comparative research’, American Sociological Review, 35(1) pp. 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2093849(1991) Organizeuren: configuratiepraatjes en autopoëzie, RISBO, Rotterdam.(1991) ‘Introduction to configuration approach: a process theory for societal steering,’ in R.J. In 'tVeld et al. (eds), pp. 19–30.and (1974) ‘Autopoiesis, the organization of living systems, its characterization and a model’, Biosystems, 6(5) pp. 187–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0303-2647%2874%2990031-8, and (1989) De verguisde staat, Vuga, 's-Gravenhage.(Veld, R.J., in 't, Schaap, L., Termeer, C.J.A.M. and van Twist, M.J.W. (eds) (1991) Autopoiesis and Configuration Theory: New Approaches to Societal Steering, Kluwer, Dordrecht. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3522-11992) Recommendations for a Process Standard concerning the Environmental and Feasibility Analysis as Laid Out in the Dutch Covenant on Packaging, Erasmus Universiteit, Rotterdam., in 't, and (1991) ‘Managing of social cognitive configurations in a multiple context’, in R.J. in 'tVeld et al. (eds), pp. 67–79.(1992) ‘Dimensions and types of policy networks’, European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2) pp. 29–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00287.x(1985) ‘Policy subsystems as a unit of analysis in implementation studies: a struggle for theoretical synthesis’, in K.J.Hanf and Th.A.J.Toonen (eds), pp. 71–96.(1990) Refounding Public Administration, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.(1975) ‘The interaction of community decision organizations: some conceptual considerations and empirical findings’, in A.R.Negandhi (ed.), pp. 167–181., , , and (Wassenberg, A. (ed.) (1980) Netwerken: organizatie en strategie, Boom, Meppel.1984) ‘Netwerken binnenste buiten’, in A.J.G.M.Bekke and U.Rosenthal (eds), pp. 199–213.(1979) The Social Psychology of Organizing, Random House, New York.([Page 202]1981). The Politics of Mistrust: Estimating American Oil and Gas Resources, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.and (1987) Comparative Government Industry Relations, Clarendon Press, Oxford.and (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, The Free Press, New York.(1989) Corporatism in Perspective, Sage, London.(1983) ‘Managing the intergovernmental scene: the changing dramas of federalism, intergovernmental relations and intergovernmental management’, in W.B.Eddy (ed.) Handbook of Organization Management, Marcel Dekker, New York. pp. 417–54.(1988) ‘Policy community, policy network and comparative industrial policies’, Political Studies, 36(4) pp. 593–612. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1988.tb00251.x(1990) De Dynamiek van Beleid: Onbetaalde Arbeid en Theorieen over Beleid, ICG Printing, Dordrecht.(