DO POLICY NETWORKS LEAD TO NETWORK GOVERNING?
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| Author | BODIL DAMGAARD |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2006.00607.x |
Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (673–691)
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
EUROPEAN
FORUM
DO POLICY NETWORKS LEAD TO NETWORK
GOVERNING?
BODIL DAMGAARD
This paper challenges a common understanding, implicit in many governance stud-
ies, that once policy networks are in place, the form of governing that follows is
network governing. It is argued that policy networks may be understood as a way
of organizing stakeholders and only under specifi c conditions may the governing
mode in which the networks operate be termed network governing. Consequently,
policy networks may subsist under other governing modes, for example, under a
hierarchical mode. The present study uses actor-centred case studies in the area of
Danish employment policy. Employment policy in Denmark is municipally imple-
mented and the study found that the local governing mode was determined mainly
by the municipality ’ s approach to local co-governing. Less important, but neverthe-
less signifi cant, is the capacity and interest of key private actors. Thus it is argued
that nationally mandated local policy networks are insuffi cient in themselves to
assure network governing in all settings. The reasons hierarchical governing modes
prevail over those of network governing are identifi ed and discussed in terms of
agency and structure.
INTRODUCTION
This article questions whether the creation of local policy networks leads to
network governing. Using the examples of four Danish municipalities, it
aims to explore what determines the extent to which collaboration between
public and private actors at the local level and in a given policy area may be
properly termed network governing. As will be discussed, underlying this
question is a recognition that the matter of local network governing is an
issue considerably more complex than ‘ merely ’ mandating the creation of
local policy networks.
Bodil Damgaard is a Senior Researcher at the Danish National Institute of Social Research,
Copenhagen.
674 BODIL DAMGAARD
© Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2006 Public Administration Vol. 84, No. 3, 2006 (673–691)
Policy networks may be considered basic ‘ building blocks ’ of network
governing; the literature, however, is remarkably silent regarding the issue
of how policy networks link to network governing. This is all the more star-
tling given the importance network governing is considered to have in the
fi eld of public administration and policy-making. Scholars have argued that
because modern societies are complex, dynamic and differentiated, govern-
ing them is no longer a matter exclusively for the state ( Kooiman 1993, 2003;
Pierre and Peters 2000; Hirst 2000 ). When governing is a matter for both
public and private actors – neither of which have the capacity to address
public policy problems alone but fi nd themselves participating in interorga-
nizational schemes characterized by resource dependencies – we may speak
of network governing ( Hanf and Scharpf 1978; Marin and Mayntz 1991;
Marsh and Rhodes 1992 ; Kickert 1993; Rhodes 1997; Kickert et al. 1997; Jessop
1998 ). The common understanding of network governing is that it hinges on
policy networks. While there is no single broadly accepted defi nition of the
term policy networks, they are frequently considered to be autonomous, a
feature that will be discussed below.
Network governing can be considered to be one governing mode among
many ( Kooiman 2003 ), albeit an important one. The judgement of scholars
is that network governing is potentially more favourable in terms of out-
comes than either hierarchical, ex-ante state-driven steering or ex-post market-
driven coordination ( Jessop 1998 ). In addition, networks appear to have the
ability to combine the individual autonomy of markets with the property of
hierarchies, that is, to consciously pursue goals and act according to anti-
cipated effects ( Mayntz 1993 ). Indeed, over time, network governing may
become a tool for steering and advancing democracy ( Jensen and Sørensen
2004 ) as well as for furthering system legitimacy ( Pierre 2000 ). From another
perspective, studies have shown positive effects from managerial network-
ing ( O ’ Toole and Meier 2003, 2004 ), without, however, taking different modes
of governing into account.
Considering the hailed potentials of network governing, it is understandable
that governments at all levels engage in the promotion, governing and man-
agement of policy networks ( Kooiman 1993; Kickert et al. 1997; Koppenjan and
Klijn 2004 ). Meta-governors – typically, but not exclusively, governments – may
shape fundamental features of policy networks even when these networks
are self-organizing ( Jessop 1998 ). In terms of meta-governing, the basic char-
acteristics of a policy network and the basic rules under which it functions
are laid out ( Klijn et al. 1995; Jessop 1998; Kooiman 2003 ).
However, as has been said, the literature does not offer much guidance
on the question of whether the creation of policy networks does in fact
lead to network governing. In order to explore this issue, it is productive
to distinguish between: (a) policy networks as a way of organizing stake-
holders; and (b) policy networks as constituting a mode of governing
(in this case network governing). Making this distinction the key concept
of network autonomy may be analysed at both levels – vis-à-vis both
To continue reading
Request your trial