The Relationship between Governance Networks and Social Networks: Progress, Problems and Prospects
| Author | Roger Patulny,Gaby Ramia,Kyla Cassells,Greg Marston |
| DOI | 10.1177/1478929917713952 |
| Published date | 01 November 2018 |
| Date | 01 November 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
research-article2017
Article
Political Studies Review
2018, Vol. 16(4) 331 –341
The Relationship between
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Governance Networks and
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917713952
DOI: 10.1177/1478929917713952
journals.sagepub.com/home/psrev
Social Networks: Progress,
Problems and Prospects
Gaby Ramia1, Roger Patulny2,
Greg Marston3 and Kyla Cassells1
Abstract
A governance networks literature that uses social network analysis has emerged, but research
tends to be more technical than conceptual. This restricts its accessibility and usefulness for
non-quantitative scholars and practitioners alike. Furthermore, the literature has not adequately
appreciated the importance of informal networking for the effective operation of governance
networks. This can hinder inter-disciplinary analysis. Through a critical review, this article identifies
four areas of challenge for the governance networks literature and offers four corresponding,
complementary sets of concepts from the social network analysis field: (a) the difference between
policy networks and governance networks, (b) the role and status of people in governance
networks, (c) the ‘dark side’ of networks and the role of power differentials within them and (d)
network evaluation and the question of ‘what works’ in network management. The article argues
that a less technical, more accessible account of social network analysis offers an additional lens
through which to view governance networks.
Keywords
governance networks, policy networks, public management networks, social networks, social
network analysis
Accepted: 29 March 2017
A network is formed when ties and interactions, whether formal or informal, are forged
between a multiplicity of actors. A ‘governance network’ is a formal network based on
connections between formal actors, organisations and sectors. More specifically, it refers
1 Department of Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney, Camperdown,
NSW, Australia
2University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
3University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
Corresponding author:
Gaby Ramia, Department of Government and International Relations, The University of Sydney,
H04 Merewether Building, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Email: gaby.ramia@sydney.edu.au
332
Political Studies Review 16 (4)
to ‘public policy making and implementation through a web of relationships between
government, business and civil society actors’ (Klijn, 2008: 511). The networking that
occurs within governance networks is both formal and informal, although in governance
studies the informal dimension is less well understood than the formal, hampering under-
standing of the relationship between the two. Better incorporation of ‘social network’
concepts, which are based on informal networking, can help to address this concern.
Social networks are networks underpinned by social ties between individuals and by ‘the
norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness’ (Putnam, 2000: 19).
Some authors point to the need for a better understanding of social networks as a
means to shed light on governance networks (Berry et al., 2004; Lecy et al., 2014; Lewis,
2010, 2011). Yet with the partial exception of Lewis (2010), whose purpose is to analyse
the relationship between the allied concept of social capital and public policy, none of
these authors have made understanding social networks their central objective. Other
works use ‘social network analysis’ (SNA) – the study of social structures through the use
of network and graph theories (Scott, 1988, 2000) – to analyse specific themes in govern-
ance networks. The themes include network structure (Milward and Provan, 1998), the
evaluation of networks (Drew et al., 2011), innovation (Considine and Lewis, 2007),
partnerships as networks (Lewis et al., 2008) and networking by politicians and bureau-
crats (Alexander et al., 2011).
Taken together, however, to varying degrees, these studies have tended to be technical-
empirical rather than theoretically conceptual in approach. Their readers are often required
to have quantitative and/or mathematical training before being able to utilise their pre-
scriptions, which does not account for the fact that practitioners and qualitative scholars
alike may not have such training. Examples of this literature are plentiful. In their analysis
of the structural relationships between organisations, Milward and Provan (1998) sought
to ‘measure’ the structural ties of two networks to compare ‘how well integrated’ each
network was. Similarly, in their evaluation of a global network of individuals and health
service organisations, Drew et al. (2011) use ‘visual representations of complex relation-
ships within networks’. Such representations are graphs rather than tables. Considine and
Lewis’ (2007) innovation study uses SNA as a means to demonstrate the comparative
importance of explaining who within governance networks can be labelled innovators.
Alexander et al. (2011) use survey data and a variety of quantitative methods to examine
the networking behaviour of politicians and bureaucrats. In order to comprehensively
understand any of these works or contest them on their own terms, a base level of profi-
ciency in quantitative analysis is required.
It should be borne in mind that quantitative methodologies are broadly characteristic
of the wider literature on SNA (Burt, 2005; Pichler and Wallace, 2007; Scott, 1988, 2000;
Watts, 1999). Equally, however, in his review of the evolution of SNA scholarship, Scott
(1988: 109) emphasises the importance of remembering that the roots of the social net-
work concept lie in the qualitative analysis of social ties between individuals. He argues
that, although SNA research has been mainly numerically based in recent decades, its
origins lay ‘not so much [in] a specialised method as [in] a formulation of the fundamen-
tal concepts of the sociological enterprise’, where the sociological enterprise refers to the
everyday analytical work of a sociologist.
With this in mind, along with the usefulness, understanding and falsifiability of such
research, this article uses critical review to analyse the relationship between governance
networks and social networks. It does not contend that exploring the links between the two
network types offers a superior lens on governance networks. Instead, it argues that a less
Ramia et al.
333
Table 1. Governance Network Issues and What Social Networks Can Offer.
Challenge
Issues for governance networks
Social networks/SNA
1. The difference between
Fragmented literature
‘Relational’ network concepts
policy networks and
Conflicting terminology over
Structure of networks
governance networks
network types
(Inter-)organisational SNA
2. ‘People’ in governance
Agency versus structure
The intentions of people are
networks
‘Culture’ of networks
at the centre
Quality and quantity in
connections
3. The ‘dark side’ of
‘Dark networks’
‘Downward levelling norms’
networks
Elitism and power differentials
Competition for social and
among members
economic resources
Cartel-like behaviour
‘Negative social capital’ within
networks
Network diversity/homophily
4. Network evaluation
Network ‘levels’
Social capital and network
and ‘what works’
Stakeholder views
effectiveness
Large number of network
Interlocking relationships
members
SNA: social network analysis.
technical account of social networks, that traces their SNA qualities and connections to
governance networks, offers an additional, complementary window through which to view
governance networks. Four strands of the literature are reviewed and complementary social
network concepts are considered. These strands, which are summarised in Table 1, cover (a)
the difference between policy networks and governance networks, (b) the role and status of
people in governance networks, (c) the ‘dark side’ of networks and the role of power dif-
ferentials within them, and (d) and network evaluation and the question of ‘what works’ in
network management. We begin with a discussion of the concept of social networks.
Social Networks
SNA can be applied to arenas as diverse as the social sciences allow, from interlocking
corporate directorships in business studies (Alexander, 2003), to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial