Network Governance: Opportunities and Challenges - Essay Example

NETWORK GOVERNANCE: OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES Introduction Governance today has to deal with numerous challenges that emerge out of what Ulrich Beck (1992) called as the risk society. Central to this development is the interconnection of networks in addition to the broadening and the deepening of risks that result as a consequence of the so-called techno-modernization (p19). Here, information and communication technologies are interconnected with the socio-organizational and physical networks causing new hazards to grow exponentially along with productive forces. The potential negative effect of (these variables) to the stability and integrity of society requires a type of management that can address interconnected risks, multiple dimensions and different kinds of problems. Network governance is perceived as the model that could effectively address these issues. Taylor (2007) provided a definition of network governance through an explanation of the British public administration experience. This was based ona the New Labour government policy, which promoted an agenda of social inclusion, the modernization of the bureaucracy and the introduction of reforms in public service. According to Taylorw the regime introduced a kind of networked governance that promotes partnership, community engagement and double devolutio. (p298). A crucial component of this policy is how citizens and service users are encouraged to be involved in the policy making process through a range of mechanisms that include but not limited to, citizens’ panels, citizens’ juries, user and area-based forums (p298). The objectives  of the engagement and inclusion dimensions to public administration are widely seen as an effective model of public service. It does not only benefit the end users of those services, but it also makes it easier for the government to govern because of the level of cooperation involved. This illustration is supported by Querejeta (2008) who explained that whereas governance is associated with the structure of decision making and control within an organization, or in the case of Taylor’s example, the bureaucracy, network governance does significantly more. It describes “the structure of decision making across firms and other institutions within a network, thereby looking at [and addressing] degrees of power, control, coordination and integration within decision-making processes” (p93). Another perspective that could provide further insights as to what network governance is Clark’s (2009) explanation that governing “involves bringing together the relevant state and societal actors and building issue-specific constituencies,” and that “these patterns of interaction, state actors and a multitude of interest organizations are involved in multilateral negotiations about the allocation of functionally specific values” (p52). The literature and academic investigation has provided different conceptions of what network governance is. The diversity of the investigations ranges from the economic, political, social to legal and even psychological perspectives. This highlights the manner by which network society has emerged and how it defined the currently changing reality which calls for a new kind of governance and management. This issue will be explored by this paper, with particular emphasis on how network governance can provide opportunities and challenges in addressing the problems of the rapidly changing world. Opportunities Unarguably, network governance offer several opportunities. For example, according to Sorensen (2002), network governance addresses the problem posed by developments such as the increased role played by international political institutions, techno-modernixation, new administrative techniques that emphasize institutional self-regulation, and public-private sectors partnerships (p693). This is the reason why the network governanceeframework is effectivy in governing the modere networked society. It offers a model that can adapt to the interplay of interconnected networks and infrastructures, of policy regimes, and other factors that create risks and vulnerabilities. For instance, this is demonstrated in the case of effective policy networks. This is the “set of formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and other actors ?? structured around shared interests in public policymaking and implementation” (Rhodes, p1244). The individuals, institutions and groups involved are diverse but they are tied to each other and became interdependent. The efficacy by which the network is governed is reflected in the ease by which policies are drafted, adopted and implemented through negotiations between the policy network’snparticipants. According to Rhodes, the key concept is the institutional linkages – these are the mechanisms that thrive in network governance and often result in compromise, harmony and, hence, efficiency in policymaking (p1246). As opposed to the traditional hierarchical form of governance, network governance can address issues more effectively. The red tape in bureaucracy is often marginalized. Fragmentation is also effectively addressed. As power is increasingly devolved, as with the case of the United Kingdom, network governance became more and more successful in navigating politics and the diluted power given to policymakers. The network governance principle allows for a collective response and actions to issues because of its horizontality. Government units come together in order to accomplish collectively what they can no longer do on their own (Enderlein, Walti and Zurn 2011, p358). Another positive character of the network governance is the nature of a network to be flexible and malleable. What this means is that a network can easily be built, dismantled, then rebuilt. This is the reason why there are numerous and diverse approaches by which stakeholders and actors can reposition themselves within the process. This flexibility also allows for plenty of room to maneuver in responding to issues and problems that seem to come from everywhere all at once. In a fragmented society, conflicts can be widespread, requiring an asymmetrical management approach. Meuleman (2008) highlighted this when he explained the concept of process management, a supposedly flexible form of administration that ensures the achievement of solutions to problems because the relevant actors and stakeholders are involved in the process (p83). The fact that network governance also promotes the diffusion of roles is helpful in this area. The reason is that such development can ultimately lead to the professionalization of policymaking. Also, a key predictor why network governance is effective is the fact that it enhances and encourages the distribution of trust in networked relationships. According to Durant (2010), “governance is most effective when there is pervasive trust” (p493). This is very important because in governance, there is an obvious power differentials. Establishing trust can ensure that participants do not feel blindsided or marginalized. It is crucial in interdependence and cooperation. According to Deyo, Doner and Hersberg (2001), “informal relations and a shared sense of community breeds trust that permits firms and institutions to cooperate in ways which enhanced flexibility in the production and achievement of objectives in highly dynamic and volatile environments” (p8). There are numerous other opportunities to network governance but the most important of these is administrative efficiency. This has been demonstrated in the cases of the effective policy networks in Britain, with its coalition governments and the involvement of interest groups in policymaking. Richardson (2006) argued that “it is the relationship involved in committees, the policy community of departments and groups, the practices of cooption and the consensual style, that perhaps better account for policy outcomes” (p10). This relationship is supposedly more effective than party positions, party ideologies and influence. The negotiation initiatives involved ensure that participants have collective interest, stake and accountability. Unarguably, network governance allows for managers to assume the part of a convenor, one that promotes and maintains convergence and cooperation. This convergence, in turn, lead to an increase in administrative flexibility, the encouragement of specialization, the dilution of risks, the ease by which common ground and compromise can be achieved and the creation of trusting relations among its participants. The host of benefits, however, does not erase the fact that there are still many problems in network governance. Challenges There are several challenges in network governance. The first of these is how to reconcile the conflict between the objective of administrative efficiency and the need to encourage and accommodate the network’s members through an inclusive decision making process. It is up to the actors and members to negotiate how such conflict can be resolved. The tension, however, may result in protracted policymaking or decision making process. Another critical challenge involves the issue about legitimacy. According to Durant (YEAR ????) this is highlighted in the tension for the quests for internal and external legitimacy. He argued that in the former, individual agency participants see network interactions and coordinated efforts as legitimate ways of conducting business for realizing potential benefits whereas in the latter, participants collectively see the actions and activities of the network as benefitting the network itself rather individual participants (p494). In this area, the variable of self or group interest could come into play. If this dominates the dialogue, interaction and negotiations, meaningful policy decisions may be harder to achieve. Then, there is a need to reconcile or determine which should be prioritized. On one hand, there is the need for flexibility to respond quickly to opportunities and threats and, on the other, the need for stability to maintain legitimacy. (Durant, p494) This aspect highlights how the challenges in network governance are interdependent and how each could result as a consequence of the other. All in all, it is important to remember that challenges in network governance are interrelated with its functions, purposes and benefits. From this perspective and that of the context of the system as dominated by many, several network failures can further be identified. Wienges (2010), for example, cited how dominant participants can override the decision of the majority or how agreements can only be achieved on the smallest commonality among participants (p302). There are several problems that can further arise from these network governance failures. But what is worse is that a problem could entail a string of other interrelated problems, resulting in a bigger dilemma; this is part of the nature of network governance. While interdependency could work positively in network governance policy making processes, it could also aggravate problems. If not properly addressed these variables could lead to the inefficiency of network governance. It is important to highlight that the processes at work within the system, though few and streamlined, can be complex and daunting and, hence, would require equally complicated solutions once critical problems arise. Conclusion Network governance is a recent phenomenon especially in public administration. It is part of the evolution or development that transpires in our society. Today,nsociety is increasingly characterized by numerous and diverse variables such as the dominance of international institutions,, the advent of powerful technologies, the empowerment of the public, the permeation and influence of the media, among other variables. They collectively shape a policy and administrative environment that requires a new framework and revolutionary models and approaches that address the evolving characteristics, needs and circumstances of the actors involved in modern governance. This is the reason why network governance is crucial. It is the answer to the highly fragmented landscape and diverse players and stakeholders in policymaking today. It provides opportunities by which governments can govern efficiently in a period wherein the rigid hierarchical forms of governance can no longer adequately respond to contemporary threats and opportunities. Certainly, there are hazards and challenges in the system of networked administration. A number of which are outlined by this paper. But, as has been explained, these problems are tied to the functions and characteristics of network governance itself. For example, critics have put forward the argument that the sheer number of players encouraged to participate in policymaking can lead to a protracted process or, worse, achieve very little since compromise may be difficult to achieve. To put it another way, an opportunity can assume the form of a threat if network governance failure occurs. But this should underscore how the problems and challenges entailed in the system could effectively be addressed. What is fundamentally required is to make sure that failures are avoided. This is not impossible to achieve. This paper has raised the fact that, in network governance, it is easier and more effective to negotiate conflict. This is further supported by the point mentioned about how the system is characterized by a high level of trust among its participating members. These two core characteristics should ensure that network governance works and effectively achieve its objectives. References Beck, U 1992, Risk society: towards a new modernity. SAGE, London. Clark, T 2009, European corporate governance: readings and perspectives. Routledge, Oxon. Deyo, F, Doner, R and Hershberg, E 2001, Economic governance and the challenge of flexibility in East Asia. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD. Durant, R 2010, The Oxford Handbook of American Bureaucracy. Oxford University Press. Enderlein, H, Walti, S and Zurn, M 2011, Handbook on Multi-Level Governance. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. Kleindorfer, P, Wind, Y and Gunther, R 2009, The network challenge: strategy, profit, and risk in an interlinked world. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle, NJ. Meuleman, L 2008, Public Management and the Metagovernance of Hierarchies, Networks and Markets: The Feasibility of Designing and Managing Governance Style Combinations. Springer, Berlin. Querejeta, MJ 2008, Networks, governance and economic development: bridging disciplinary frontiers. Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd., Cheltenham. Rhodes, R.A. 2007, "Understanding Governance: Ten Years On." Organization Studies, vol. 28, no. 8, pp. 1243-1264. Richardson, J 2006, European Union: power and policy-making. Routledge, London. Sorensen, E 2002, "Democratic Theory and Network Governance." Administrative Theory and Praxis, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 693-720. Taylor, M 2006, "Community Participation in the Real World: Opportunities and Pitfalls in New Governance Spaces," Urban Studies, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 297-317. Wienges, S 2010, Governance in Global Policy Networks: Individual Strategies and Collective Action in Five Sustainable Energy-Related Type II Partnerships. Peter Lang GmbH, Frankfurt. Read More