Governance Networks

Governance is usually defined as the processes through which a plurality of actors aim to produce and deliver public purpose in the broad sense of political visions, operative plans, problem definitions, policy solutions, infrastructures, regulations, resource allocations, and public services. Governance can be provided by unicentric forms of government based on hierarchical command structures. It may [Page 1030]also involve forming multicentric forms of quasi markets where public and/or private actors compete to deliver goods and services on terms defined by elected governments. Finally, governance may take the form of pluricentric partnerships and networks in which policy decisions are reached through negotiated interaction among interdependent actors.

The study of governance networks constitutes a novel research field based on the “discovery” of nonhierarchical forms of governance involving networks of public and/or private actors. The basic argument prompting the recent surge in governance network research is that public policy, defined as common attempts to achieve a desired outcome, is the result of governing processes that are no longer controlled by the government, instead involving a wide range of relevant and affected actors engaged in ongoing negotiations that give rise to a stable pattern of horizontal interaction constituting a specific mode of coordination. It is this “heterarchic” mode of coordination that is dubbed “governance networks” in the academic literature.

The focus on governance networks has an empirical background in the widespread recognition of the increasingly fragmented, complex, and dynamic character of contemporary society. Fragmentation increases as a result of the functional differentiation of society into relatively autonomous subsystems and organizational entities. At the same time, the breakup of the sedimented forms of political alignment and identification spurs multiplication of political actors and identities. Complexity increases as a result of the growth and interweaving of crosscutting policy problems, and it is further augmented by the advent of new forms of risk and the blurring of the boundaries between institutions, sectors, and scales. Finally, new societal dynamics are created by the proliferation and interconnection of new spatial and temporal horizons of action. The contingent articulation and interaction of the different rationalities, procedures, and strategies for solving policy problems and exploiting new opportunities produces new and unpredictable developments. The result of the growing fragmentation, complexity, and dynamism is an increasing ungovernability of society that makes it difficult to meet the growing steering ambitions demanding that public governance be flexible, knowledge based, targeted, responsive, and inexpensive. The mobilization of the knowledge, resources, and energies of relevant and affected actors through governance networks offers a promising way out of this impasse.

Leading politicians and executive administrators seem to have taken governance networks to their hearts. Governments around the world and at different levels increasingly aim to govern at a distance by creating arenas for self-governance and self-regulation. Public agencies and managers are becoming linked through new initiatives aiming to promote joined-up government. Last but not least, public and private actors are brought together through the formation of different kinds of partnerships and collaborative governance.

After closer inspection of the definition of governance networks and a brief account of the theoretical roots of the concept of governance networks, some caveats regarding the discussion of governance networks are presented here. This is followed by an assessment of the merits and problems of governance networks in public policy making. Finally, some of the main theories of governance networks are presented before a concluding discussion of the major themes in the research on governance networks.

...