In search for inclusiveness: vertical complexity in public-nonprofit networks

Abstract

We examine how and why public-nonprofit networks incorporate vertical complexity into their governance structures to allow network members to participate in the decision-making process. Our results show that public-nonprofit networks establish levels of vertical complexity by hiring network coordinators and establishing group modes of governance (steering committees and workgroups). The representatives of the leading agencies state that vertical complexity is necessary in terms of balancing inclusiveness and efficiency in the network. The network members confirm that next to coordinators acting as stewards and mediators, group modes of governance are equally important for counterbalancing the uneven distribution of decision-making power and for restoring trust.

Network of Networks: Preliminary Lessons from the Antwerp Port Authority on Crisis Management and Network Governance to Deal with the COVID‐19 Pandemic

“…This not only prompts us to rethink the original dimensions of network governance outlined by Provan and Kenis (2008) from an exogenous perspective, but also suggests adopting a dynamic and set‐theoretic approach toward brokerage (cf. Kwon et al 2020; Vermeiren, Raeymaeckers, and Beagles 2019).…”

The Governance of Public–Nonprofit Service Networks: Four Propositions

“…Indeed, governance processes aimed at excluding a subset or all network partners can be used to enforce decisions throughout the network (Vangen et al, 2015). On the other hand, in line with principal–steward models, inclusiveness in network decision-making and building trust relationships are considered to be important governance processes (Bryson et al, 2006; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Stone et al, 2010; Vangen et al, 2015; Vermeiren et al, 2019). The public agency trusts the participating nonprofit organizations to make decisions conform to the network’s objectives.…”

“…Without their support, the network is unable to provide the necessary customized or tailor-made services to its target groups. The public agency, therefore, needs to balance the benefits of including nonprofit members in network decision-making processes with the costs of consulting them and reaching consensus, and the corresponding loss in decision-making efficiency (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Vangen et al, 2015; Vermeiren et al, 2019). In some cases, this balance may shift toward a very open mode of governance (Vangen & Huxham, 2003), where nonprofit members obtain power in network decision-making at the expense of the authority of the leading public agency.…”

“…Governments are increasingly relying on service delivery networks with nonprofit organizations to address complex social problems or “wicked issues” in ways that cannot be achieved by one organization alone (Isett et al, 2011; Provan & Lemaire, 2012). We focus on mandated lead-organization public–nonprofit service networks that aim to deliver publicly funded social services to vulnerable target groups such as children, frail elderly, people in poverty, and people with mental health problems (Graddy & Chen, 2006; Johnston & Romzek, 2008; Raeymaeckers et al, 2017; Span et al, 2012; Vermeiren et al, 2019). These networks are a unique type of service delivery networks due to their lead-organization structure and mandated nature.…”

“…These networks are a unique type of service delivery networks due to their lead-organization structure and mandated nature. First, they have a lead-organization structure because they are established and funded by a public agency affiliated to the government (Provan & Kenis, 2008; Raeymaeckers et al, 2017; Span et al, 2012; Vermeiren et al, 2019). Second, they are “mandated or contracted,” as opposed to “self-initiated” by the nonprofit members themselves, meaning that complex publicly funded services are delivered through government contracting with nonprofit organizations (Johnston & Romzek, 2008; Provan & Kenis, 2008; Van Slyke, 2007).…”