Partnership Arrangements: Governmental Rhetoric or Governance Scheme?

Abstract

It has become popular to advocate partnership arrangements. Such partnerships may be seen as new forms of governance, which fit in with the imminent network society. However, the idea of partnership is often introduced without much reflection on the need to reorganize policy‐making processes and to adjust existing institutional structures. In this contribution, we discuss the ambiguity of partnerships. An empirical basis is provided by means of an analysis of the policy making on the expansion of the Rotterdam harbor. This case indicates that although new governance schemes are being proposed and explored, they still have to comply with the existing procedures in which they are imbedded. Governments especially are not prepared to adjust to governance arrangements. Policy making continues to be based on self‐referential organizational decisions, rather than on joint interorganizational policy making. This raises questions about the added value of intended cooperative governance processes.

Evolving ICT and governance in organizational networks - Conceptual and theoretical foundations

“…Public sector networks are important for addressing pressing social problems and needs, such as health and social needs of children and people with mental illnesses (Provan and Milward 1995), unemployment and workforce development (Herranz 2008), regional economic development (Teisman and Klijn 2002), and regulatory compliance (Bharosa et al 2013). Government agencies have also recently begun to exploit Web 2.0 social media (e.g.…”

Regional design: Discretionary approaches to regional planning in The Netherlands

“…That Dutch indicative frameworks became more open to interpretations has enhanced the engagement of actors in regional planning (Hajer & Zonneveld, 2000;Teisman & Klijn, 2002;Salet, 2006) but also led to the emergence of distinct decision-making practices, among them a range that was commonly labelled 'regional design'. Many plan actors, de-central governments, coalitions among these and coalitions among these and private agencies have favoured to respond to indicative plans, set out by the national government, through making plans themselves.…”

From Target to Implementation: Perspectives for the International Governance of Forest Landscape Restoration

“…In this view, scholars consider governments to be the decisive actors in top-down processes, and they seldom attribute a role to non-state actors and institutions that extends beyond -observation‖ [14]. Indeed, the important watch-dog function of observers does not directly shape the policy outcome; however, their significant indirect impacts and their role in raising public awareness and, consequently, the expectations placed on the negotiating governments is widely recognized [33]. In contrast to the aforementioned hierarchical perspective, modern theories on environmental governance attribute a much more important role to non-state actors and take the view that they can (and should) contribute much more than just ensuring the transparency of governmental behavior in negotiations.…”