Complexity, Governance, and Networks: Perspectives From Public Administration
Complexity, Governance, and Networks: Perspectives From Public Administration
Complexity, Governance, and Networks: Perspectives From Public Administration
DOI: 10.7564/14-CGN3
Complex public policy problems require a productive collaboration among different actors
from multiple sectors. Networks are widely applied as a public management tool and strategy.
This warrantrs a deeper analysis of networks and network management in public
administration. There is a strong interest in both in practice and theory of networks in public
administration. This requires an analysis of complex networks within public governance
settings. In this this essay I briefly discuss research streams on complex networks, network
governance, and current re- search challenges in public administration.
Keywords: Complexity, networks, network governance, network analysis.
1. Introduction
30/04/14 11:02 PM
Article_14-3.indd 1
2 N. Kapucu / Complexity, Governance, and Networks
the public sector mobilize resources from non-state actors in order to deliver effective
ser- vices and formulate and implement public policies (Frederickson, 1999; Ingold &
Varone, 2012; Kapucu, 2012; Powell, 1990; Rhodes & Williams, 1996).
The literature has identified various types of networks such as collaborative net-
works, policy networks, public management networks, and governance networks
(Heaney, 2006; Isett, Mergel, LeRoux, Mischen, & Rethemeyer, 2011). The literature on
policy net- works is the oldest; the focus of this literature is mainly on public policy
decision-making and involves policy making actors. The term collaborative networks is
commonly used to depict the networks of governmental and non-governmental
organizations in the adminis- tration of public programs and the delivery of public
services. The term governance net- works emphasize the governance process to achieve
cross-sector and inter-organizational goals in the public sector (Isett et al., 2011).
Governance networks conceptualization call to the attention the fact that government
agencies, or the public sector in general, cannot solve today’s complex policy problems
by themselves and they need the help of non-state actors (Lecy, Mergel, & Schmitz,
2013). In the public administration and policy literature, often the terms policy,
collaborative, and governance networks are used interchangeably.
Networks can offer the complex, interdependent responses to complex policy prob-
lems that have uncertain solutions and can lead to political disagreements (Provan &
Lemaire, 2012). Complex problems “lack a definite formulation” and a “stopping rule”;
“[e]numerable sets of potential solutions” do not exist for these wicked problems, and
the solutions are just “better or worse,” not right or wrong (Koliba, Meek, & Zia, 2011a,
p. 15). Networks are also necessary when political processes complicate administrative
strategies (Kettl, 2006). Networks can combine human capital in order to participate in
collaborative problem-solving activities. The use of network concept can be traced back
to the beginning of the studies on federalism in the U.S. (Kettl, 2006; Koliba et al.,
2011a). Scholars connected network governance to intergovernmental cooperation in the
1960s (Emerson, Nabatchi, & Balogh, 2012).
As public problems have become more and more complex, there has been a real-
ization that individual government agencies working alone can no longer handle them.
Instead, there has been a growing emphasis on replacing hierarchical bureaucratic struc-
tures with more integrated horizontal networks. These networks have been the focus of
recent works on collaborative public management involving a variety of network
arrange- ments. Although these types of collaborative efforts are increasing in numbers,
a related growing concern is whether such arrangements have been any more effective
than those involving single-agency or hierarchical structures. The measures that are often
used to answer this question are those that apply to individual organizations, rather than
network arrangements.
Networks are complex systems that have emergent qualities, they are adaptive to
changing conditions, and they have the capability to self-organize. In both systems
theory
N. Kapucu / Complexity, Governance, and Networks 3
and complexity theory, the roles of feedback and interactions play a central role in under-
standing society (Koliba et al., 2011a). As complex systems, networks change according
to the “relative strength of feedback loops” (Koliba et al., 2011a, p. 92). Negative feed-
back are “controls placed over the system that come into effect when the system deviates
from a goal” (Koliba et al., 2011a, p. 175). Positive feedback are rewards to the system
that accentuates as a result of the two forces of mimicking and attention shifting, which
together lead to saliency of previously ignored policy issues in a debate. The medium of
feedback in governance networks may be explicit or tacit in the following possible
forms: policy tools – grants, contract agreements, and regulations, representation and
interest group competition, acts of administration, accountability, and performance
measurement (Koliba et al., 2011a).
Networks involve a number of actors that are not only connected to each other, but
also interdependent (Agranoff, 2007; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). According to
Sørensen (2006) the term governance implies “a complex governing process in which a
multitude of public and private actors interact to govern society” (p. 99). Governance
networks are characterized by the complexity of the interactions and decision-making
process as well as the policy development and implementation (Klijn, Edelenbos, &
Steijn, 2010). Complex- ity is described as the challenges and uncertainties that arise
when managing and govern- ing through networks, making policy decisions, and policy
implementations. The high level of interdependence, number of functions, and number of
actors involved in networks increase their complexity. Sørensen (2006) specifically
states that the multitude of actors (and expected functions and tasks) involved in the
process of governance increases the complexity of network governance. The different
perceptions, cultures, goal convergence, institutional frameworks, and power structures
of actors involved in the networks also cause complexity (O’Leary & Vij, 2012).
The existence of uncertainties contributes to complexity of networks in addition to
the other factors highlighted above. Bueren, Klijn, and Koppenjan (2003) identify three
types of uncertainties that typify policy problems: cognitive, strategic, and institutional
uncertainty. Cognitive uncertainty, as the name implies deals with the lack of a clear un-
derstanding of the causal relationships that underlie the problem and are a result of a
lack of scientific knowledge on the subject matter. Strategic uncertainty results from the
multiple perspectives coming from multiple actors trying to address the wicked prob-
lem. Conflicting strategies and diverging perceptions may result in a lack of progress in
formulating solutions and also unexpected consequences. Institutional uncertainty is the
result of the nature of decision-making that takes place through complex policy networks
that are polycentric in nature, fragmented and belong to multiple arenas and levels (local,
regional, country-level, global).
Some in the literature highlight the complexity and uncertainty in governing net-
works and focus on how to deal with policy problems by utilizing networks and
governance
4 N. Kapucu / Complexity, Governance, and Networks
4. Network Governance
through empirical analysis (Span, Luijkx, Schols, & Schalk, 2012), while most others
rely on conceptual and theoretical discussions on the outcomes of collaborative
arrangements (Rogers & Weber, 2010), network management strategies and performance
measurements of networks (Herranz, 2008, 2010; Provan & Milward, 2001), and
network performance and effectiveness (Provan & Lemaire, 2012; Provan & Milward,
1995).
There is also a literature on the implications of network governance for democracy
(Bogason & Musso, 2006; Heikkila & Isett, 2007; Klijn & Edelenbos, 2013; Mathur &
Skelcher, 2007; Sørensen, 2006; Sørensen & Torfing, 2009; Zeemering, 2012). There is
an emphasis on enhancing accountability and promoting democratic values in networks
by the involvement of citizens (Bogason & Musso, 2006; Fung, 2006). Klijn and
Skelcher (2007) suggest that more recently scholars have started studying the
relationship between representative democracy and governance networks, or as Klijn and
Skelcher (2007) call it the “democratic dimension of governance networks.”
Other recent topics and areas of study concern the influence of trust in the
performance of governance networks (Klijn et al., 2010), accountability of networks
(Koliba, Mills, & Zia, 2011b), economic development networks (Feiock, Lee, & Park,
2012), and environmental management (Robins, Bates, & Pattison, 2011). Some recent
studies applied new innovative methods of analyzing performance of networks, such as
comparing effectiveness of disaster response networks by comparing planned networks
with emergent/actual networks during disasters (Brooks, Bodeau, & Fedorowicz, 2012;
Choi & Brower, 2006; Kapucu & Demiroz, 2011; Nohrstedt, 2013).
5. Methodological Issues
understanding the complexities and processes involved in the interactions and exchanges
that make up a governance network. Other researchers used comparative case studies
(Herranz, 2010; Nowell, 2009; Rogers & Weber, 2010).
Most studies on networks either relied on interviews of network actors, or some
document or content analysis. Elite interviews are a common source of data for research
on governance networks (e.g., Sørensen, 2006; Zeemering, 2012). Sørensen (2006) relied
on elite interviews to understand the outcomes of network governance in four Danish
municipalities, for example. Even though limited, some of the articles used social
network analysis (SNA) as a method. Among the measures used, whole network such as
density, visual maps, and centralization measures along with ego network measures,
such as de- gree centrality and betweenness centrality were most common.
SNA is utilized as an analysis method in analyzing theoretical constructs that are
defined as relational. These constructs can be processes and outcomes (Knox, Savage, &
Harvey, 2006; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). SNA analyzes ties among actors or nodes
with in a network. Actors within a network can represent individuals, organizations, and
commu- nities. These ties can indicate communication, information exchange, formal
contractual relations, or, informal friendship ties between nodes. SNA provides ways to
analyze dy- namic relationships between various actors and examining complex
processes and various types of interactions within network governance systems. Both
intra- organizational and inter-organizational relationships can be studied using SNA.
6. Conclusion
studies on networks remain limited. I hope that Complexity, Governance, and Networks
will provide a platform for researchers from interdisciplinary perspectives, including
pub- lic administration, to advance research on complex governance networks.
References
Agranoff, R. (2007). Managing within networks: Adding value to public organizations. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of
Public Administration Research and Theory, 11, 295–326.
Berry, F. S., Brower, R. S., Choi, S. O., Goa, W. X., Jang, H.S., Kwon, M., & Word, J. (2004). Three
traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other
research commu- nities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539–552.
Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stake-
holder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.
Bogason, P., & Musso, J. A. (2006). The democratic prospects of network governance. The American
Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 3–18.
Brooks, J., Bodeau, D., & Fedorowicz, J. (2012). Network management in emergency response: Articulation
practices of state-level managers – interweaving up, down and sideways. Administration & Society,
45(8), 911–948.
Bueren, E. M. V, Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks:
Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective.Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 13(2), 193–212.
Choi, S. O., & Brower, R. S. (2006). When practice matters more than government plans: A network
analysis of local emergency management. Administration and Society, 37(6), 651–678.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
Feiock, R. C., Lee, I. W., & Park, H. J. (2012). Administrators’ and elected officials’ collaboration networks:
Selecting partners to reduce risk in economic development. Public Administration Review, 72(s1), 58–68.
Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(s1),
66–75.
Frederickson, H. G. (1999). The repositioning of American Public Administration. PS: Political Science and
Politics, 32(4), 701–711.
Heaney, M. T. (2006). Brokering health policy: Coalitions, parties, and interest group influence. Journal of
Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(5), 887–944.
Heikkila, T., & Isett, K. R. (2007). Citizen involvement and performance management in special-purpose
governments. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 238–248.
Herranz, J., Jr. (2008). The multisectoral trilemma of network management. Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18(1), 1–31.
Herranz, J., Jr. (2010). Multilevel performance indicators for multisectoral networks and management. The
American Review of Public Administration, 40(4), 445–460.
Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2012). Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346.
Isett, K. R., Mergel, I. A., LeRoux, K., Mischen, P. A., & Rethemeyer, R. K. (2011). Networks in public ad-
ministration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public
Admin- istration Research and Theory, 21(s1), i157–i173.
Kapucu, N. (2012). The network governance in response to acts of terrorism: Comparative analyses.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Kapucu, N., & Demiroz, F. (2011). Measuring performance for collaborative public management: Using
network analysis methods and tools. Public Performance and Management Review, 34(4), 551–581.
8 N. Kapucu / Complexity, Governance, and Networks
Kettl, D. F. (2006). Managing boundaries in American administration: The collaboration imperative. Public
Administration Review, 66(1), 10–19.
Klijn, E., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). The influence of democratic legitimacy on outcomes in governance networks.
Administration & Society, 45(6), 627–650.
Klijn, E., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes.
Administration & Society, 42(2), 193–221.
Klijn, E. H., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Public Admin-
istration, 85(3), 587–608.
Knox, H., Savage, M., & Harvey, P. (2006). Social networks and the study of relations: Networks as method,
metaphor and form. Economy and Society, 35(1), 113–140.
Koliba, C., Meek, J. C., & Zia, A. (2011a). Governance networks in public administration and public policy.
New York, NY: CRC Press.
Koliba, C., Mills, R. M., & Zia, A. (2011b). Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of
public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following hurricane Katrina. Public
Administra- tion Review, 71(2), 210–220.
Lecy, J. D., Mergel, I. A., & Schmitz, H. P. (2013). Networks in public administration. Public Management
Review, 15(1), 1–23.
Mathur, N., & Skelcher, C. (2007). Evaluating democratic performance: Methodologies for assessing the
relationship between network governance and citizens. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 228–237.
McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we know it.
Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 33–43.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2001). Managerial strategies and behavior in networks: A model with
evidence from U.S. public education. Journal of Public Administration and Theory, 11(3), 271–293.
Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2007). Modeling public management: Empirical analysis of the management-
performance nexus. Public Administration Review, 9(4), 503–527.
Nohrstedt, D. (2013). Explaining mobilization and performance of collaborations in routine emergency
management. Administration & Society, 1–28. doi:10.1177/0095399712473983.
Nowell, B. (2009). Out of sync and unaware? Exploring the effects of problem frame alignment and discor-
dance in community collaboratives. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 91–116.
O’Leary, R., & Vij, N. (2012). Collaborative public management where have we been and where are we
going?
The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administra-
tion. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45–52.
Polidano, C. (2001). Why civil service reforms fail. Public Management Review, 3(3), 345–362.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organiza-
tional Behavior, 12, 295–336.
Provan, K. G., & Huang, K. (2012). Resource tangibility and the evolution of a publicly funded health and
human services network. Public Administration Review, 72(3), 366–375.
Provan, K.G., & Kenis, P. (2007). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness.
Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
Provan, K. G., & Lemaire, R. H. (2012). Core concepts and key ideas for understanding public sector organi-
zational networks: Using research to inform scholarship and practice. Public Administration Review,
72(5), 638–648.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public
sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(3), 414–423.
Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A
comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.
Rhodes, R., & Williams, A. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies,
44(4), 652–667.
Robins, G., Bates, L., & Pattison, P. (2011). Network governance and environmental management: Conflict
and cooperation. Public Administration, 89(4), 1293–1313.
N. Kapucu / Complexity, Governance, and Networks 9
Rogers, E., & Weber, E. P. (2010). Thinking harder about outcomes for collaborative governance arrange-
ments. The American Review of Public Administration, 40(5), 546–567.
Sørensen, E. (2006). Metagovernance: The changing role of politicians in processes of democratic gover-
nance. American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 98–114.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2009). Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagov-
ernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234–258.
Span, K. C., Luijkx, K. G., Schols, J. M., & Schalk, R. (2012). The relationship between governance roles
and performance in local public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis. The American
Review of Public Administration, 42(2), 186–201.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management a new narrative for networked governance? The American
Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., Breeman, G., & Stiller, S. J. (2012). Governance capabilities for dealing
wisely with wicked problems. Administration & Society, 1–31. doi:10.1177/0095399712469195.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Zeemering, E. S. (2012). The problem of democratic anchorage for interlocal agreements. The American
Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 87–103.