Social-Political Governance

Kooiman, Jan

doi:10.1080/14719037800000005

Cited by 288 publications

(161 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

143

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They are not merely a "metaphor" (Dowding 1995;Pappi and Henning 1998); policy networks as a "new mode of governance" (Börzel 1998) and their relevance for political outcomes can indeed be pinpointed by the "methodological toolbox" (Kenis and Schneider 1991) of social network analysis-policy networks do seem to matter, even in the originally metaphorical sense. What remains unanswered is the question whether this is beneficial or detrimental to the welfare of a society, and whether we can steer these developments in the sense of a second-order governance of governance arrangements (Kooiman 1999).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

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: Resultsmentioning

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

“…However, the largely unsophisticated approach by sporting organisations to governance has created patterns of historically derived behaviours, or, in Kooiman's (1993) terms, a pattern of behaviours and structures has evolved impacting generations of actors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a search for theoretical perspectives that shed light on the federated nature of sport governance, constructs such as institutional theory (Hoye & Cuskelly, 2007), resource dependence theory (Ferkins & Shilbury, 2010;Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), stakeholder theory (Hung, 1998;Oliver, 1990), inter-organisational relationships (Dickson, Arnold, & Chalip, 2005), and network theory (Henry & Lee, 2004;Kooiman, 1993) have begun to emerge within the scholarly conversation about sport governance. Network theory and the construct of inter-organisational relationships were considered particularly insightful for the present study.…”

Section: Locating the Study: Scholarly Conversations In Sport Governancementioning

confidence: 99%

Sport governance encounters: Insights from lived experiences

Shilbury

Ferkins

Smythe

2013

Sport Management Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…While less sharply defined than the more extreme versions, these more temperate versions of governance represent somewhat more accurately the complexity that is entailed in contemporary governing. These moderate conceptions of governance are represented in part by the "Dutch school" of governance, that considers governance a "socio-political" process (Kooiman, 1993). In this version of the process networks of societal actors are heavily involved in providing governance, yet do so in cooperation with, and to some extent under the direction of, the state actors.…”

Section: The Governance Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Governance: A Garbage Can Perspective

Peters

2005

Governing Complex Societies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

teaching and research staff, visiting professors, graduate students, visiting fellows, and invited participants in seminars, workshops, and conferences. As usual, authors bear full responsibility for the content of their contributions. AbstractAs I worked through the revisions of this paper I realized that I was to a great extent returning to the dominant themes from one of the first books I ever published. This was Can Government Go Bankrupt?, written with Richard Rose and published in 1978. That book and this paper both deal with the authority of governments and their capacity to govern. Dror (2001) provides a very detailed analysis of governance capacity, but much of that analysis will actually come down to the presence of legitimacy for the governing system, and the capacity to use steering instruments effectively to reach desired collective goals. The issues to be raised in this paper are concentrated primarily on governance questions at the level of central governments and multi-level interactions, rather than of the international system, but much of the same logic of sovereignty/authority is in operation. Abstrakt

show abstract

Social-Political Governance

Cited by 288 publications

References 22 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

Sport governance encounters: Insights from lived experiences

Governance: A Garbage Can Perspective

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About