Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and Policy Network Analysis

Abstract

This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro‐level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state–society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy‐making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state–society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed.

Las administraciones públicas en la era del gobierno abierto. Gobernanza inteligente para un cambio de paradigma en la gestión pública

“…El origen de este concepto coincide aproximadamente en el tiempo con el surgimiento de la NGP y cuenta con algunos elementos comunes derivados de la realidad compartida en la que se inscriben, así como el tipo de Estado y Administración Pública en que se desarrollan (Bovaird, 2005). No obstante, los referentes teóricos son diferentes, ya que la gobernanza pública no se asienta en un visión economicista, sino más bien en una perspectiva que incide en el papel creciente del entorno y en la necesidad de construir redes de colabo-ración con actores públicos-privados para solucionar problemas sociales (Fawcett y Daugbjerg, 2012;Osborne, 2006;Provan y Kenis, 2008;Robichau, 2011). Adicionalmente, este modelo pone el acento en el rol de construcción de coaliciones, que debería ser la principal función de las organizaciones del sector público, así como la superación de las ideas tradicionales de control y jerarquía, frente a la influencia y la red.…”

What is the ‘dominant model’ of British policymaking? Comparing majoritarian and policy community ideas

“…'Policy community' was eventually described as a particular type of policy network characterised by close and insulated relationships between an exclusive elite (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992). Such classifications of networks were soon followed by theological debates on their nature and explanatory value (for example, Dowding, 1995;Marsh and Smith, 2000;Dowding, 2001;Fawcett and Daugbjerg, 2012). This over-intellectualisation detracted from the relatively simple, original use of 'policy community' to capture the 'post parliamentary' UK and the idea that 'normal' British policymaking was characterised by stable and often-consensual relationships between groups and government.…”

The Efficacy of Local Governance Arrangements in Relation to Homelessness. A Comparison of Copenhagen, Glasgow, and Amsterdam

“…The efficacy of local governance arrangements can be assessed on the basis of aspects such as the quality of the services offered and the related societal effects (Bovard and Löffler 2002;Fawcett and Daugbjerg 2012). The central research question was whether possible differences in the administrative-political approach to homelessness between northern European metropolitan cities lead to differences in the quality of the services offered, as well as in the related societal effects.…”