Combining Structure, Governance, and Context: A Configurational Approach to Network Effectiveness

Raab, Jörg; Mannak, Remco S.; Cambré, Bart

doi:10.1093/jopart/mut039

Cited by 231 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

209

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the first can be understood as institutional power defined by formal rules, the second can be characterized as informal structural power or access to political influence (Stokman and Zeggelink 1996). Historically, the view on power in management and decision making developed hand-in-hand with the emergence of what is often called interorganizational collaboration or network governance (Provan and Kenis 2008;Raab and Kenis 2009;Raab, Mannak, and Cambré 2013;Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2007). Processes are shaped by both horizontal and vertical integration of actors into the governance system (Bolleyer and Börzel 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Further developing this notion, Provan and Sebastian (1998) showed how networks characterized by strongly integrated and overlapping subgroups can achieve good performance as well. The criticality of the core agency for network success is confirmed by subsequent studies by Huang and Provan (2007) and Raab, Mannak, and Cambré (2015).…”

Section: How To Make Public Network Succeedmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…In another study, Raab, Mannak, and Cambré (2015) explored how network structure (in terms of network integration), network context (in terms of resource munificence and stability) and network governance modes can combine to achieve good performance. Through the analysis of 39 crime prevention networks, they identified two different pathways for network success: the former is represented by integrated networks in existence for at least 3 years, with a high degree of stability and with a considerable amount of resources; the latter is made up of networks that are again integrated, at least 3 year old, with a high degree of stability, but are also characterized by the presence of a network administrative organization (NAO).…”

Section: How To Make Public Network Succeedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative administration: the management of successful networks

Cristofoli

Meneguzzo

Riccucci

2016

Public Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite a general consensus on the importance of collaborative settings for the solution of 'wicked' problems, questions of how to successfully manage public networks remain without a clear answer. Some authors highlighted the importance of the network structure and context; other authors shed light on network management and coordination mechanisms. More recently, some scholars have stressed the criticality of 'soft' factors, such as interorganizational trust. In this multifaceted landscape, the goal of the special issue is to stimulate a dialogue on the functioning of public networks, and contribute to the development of sound knowledge about how to make them succeed.

show abstract

“…A permanência das empresas e a continuidade da rede ocorrem, assim, em função do caráter motivacional dos integrantes. Essa discussão vai ao encontro dos achados de Raab et al (2013), que salientam que as redes levam um longo tempo para se organizarem efetivamente e obterem resultados visíveis.…”

Section: Figura 2: Síntese Dos Fatores Que Influenciam Na Saída De Emunclassified

Por que as empresas saem de redes? Contribuições para formação, gestão e fortalecimento de redes interorganizacionais

Klein

Pereira

2018

ROC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this study is to identify which factors are related to the withdrawn of firms from interorganizational networks. To achieve the proposed objective we select seven interorganizational networks were selected that all of those had companies leaving them, and through interviews with the presidents of these networks data were collected. As analytical procedures of these data, we followed the technic of content analysis. The results show that a set of factors is connected to companies leaving networking, among them: the lack of criteria for selection, lack of commitment and trust, opportunistic attitudes, network cost, individualism, immediacy of results and lack of achievement of goals. The conclusion has been that even if the benefits that companies may have when acting as a group are clear, some factors may become negative the cost vs benefit relation to the partners, who may decide to leave the network.

show abstract

Combining Structure, Governance, and Context: A Configurational Approach to Network Effectiveness

Cited by 231 publications

References 27 publications

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Collaborative administration: the management of successful networks

Por que as empresas saem de redes? Contribuições para formação, gestão e fortalecimento de redes interorganizacionais

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About