Introduction
Nowadays, much attention is paid to the concept of networks that could be used in public administration or to represent the public sector from different perspectives. For a long period, different researchers and writers discussed the development of networks and offered their ideas and approaches to comprehend the concept. Today, many scholars continue investigating the issue of network analysis in the study of public management. In this paper, the ways of how the term “network” can be used in public administration and policy will be explored relying on the theories developed by O’Toole, Burt, Cross, Cummings, and Jones and the typologies introduced by Borgatti and Foster.
In general, 21 studies will be mentioned in this paper to clarify the development of the concept and its importance in public administration. The point is that the use of networks has been considerably increased in public management (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Therefore, many questions appear in this research arena, and it is necessary to comprehend the nature of network management and clarify if such factors as collaboration, flexibility, responsibility, and decision-making may influence the work in the field of public network management.
Question Importance
In the mid of the 20th century, people started focusing on network research. The intentions to change their individualist and essentialist explanations to relational and contextual understandings made people more pragmatic and self-contained (Borgatti & Foster, 2003). At the same time, the rapid growth of new terms and approaches created the background for new confusion and diversity in the field. It is necessary to identify and organize the literature on network analysis in public administration in a proper way using appropriate domains, factors, and possible contributions. It is not enough to learn what other people think about public network management. It is necessary to combine different theories, facts, and approaches to support the discussion of network analysis from a public management theoretical perspective and answer the main question about the types of networks that exist in public management and the potential contributions of network analysis in public management.
The evolution of public administration during the last several decades is impressive indeed. The offered network literature should help to explain the shift in public management and the role of networks in this shift. The success of the analysis of the chosen perspective and the development of networks depends on how the crucial definitions are given, the main theories are introduced, and the important conclusions are developed.
The scholarly work created by O’Toole (1997) is probably one of the most effective and influential projects with the help of which people began treating networks seriously. The author gave a clear definition of networks, saying that they were the structures of interdependence that could involve multiple organizations at the same time (O’Toole, 1997). However, this definition does not cover all peculiarities of networks. Other conceptual developments and relations should be taken into consideration while evaluating and analyzing the facts from the offered sources. The empirical examination of networks in public management has to be developed to clarify what kind of work has to be done further, improve the work of public managers, and promote the development of networks.
It is also expected to answer a list of “big management questions” (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001), investigate various issues in network management, and compare network management with traditional management in terms of flexibility, accountability, trust, power, productivity, and contributions. The use of networks is a new method in public management with the help of which it turns out to be possible to incorporate complex organizational relationships and deliver intergovernmental programs most effectively and beneficially (Berry et al., 2004).
Evaluation and Analysis
Definition of Networks in Public Management
The analysis and evaluation of networks in public management should begin by giving a clear definition of the concept. The peculiar feature of public network management research is the necessity to consider the contributions of many researchers because each explanation has its value. In addition to the definition given by O’Toole, it is necessary to admit the work by Schneider, Scholz, Lubell, Mindruta, and Edwardsen (2003) where network-based structures are defined as effective structures with a high level of interdependence. Such characteristics may involve several organizations and make them focus on one or several common problems relying on the offered administrative, political, and even ideological boundaries (Schneider et al., 2003). Besides, the investigation of Putman (1993) shows that all networks are usually horizontally organized avoiding the challenges of hierarchies and promoting solidarity and integrity.
Finally, the definition offered by Borgatti and Foster (2003) helps to connect the previous ideas and comprehend that networks in public managers are different actors, also known as nodes, including people, organizations, and concepts, that may be connected by various ties in the form of directed, undirected, dichotomous, and valued relationships. The development of such relations may gain different forms and lead to different outcomes. Therefore, it is expected to use as many effective theories and approaches as possible to comprehend how to control networks in public management and achieve positive results.
Theories in Public Network Management Research
Public network management research is characterized by several theories with the help of which it is possible to investigate recent organizational changes and contributions. Different people offer different theories considering the factors they find the most important in their studies. Some of these theories will be discussed below to create a general theoretical framework for discussing the main issues in public network management research.
Network and ties
Regarding the definitions offered by several researchers, the main peculiarity of networks in public management is the connection between everything involved, also known as ties. Cross and Cummings (2004) mention that the intentions to explain networks in terms of public management make people forget about the crucial features of ties and their possible relations to networks. However, this relation cannot be neglected because it determines the value of organizational work. There are many organizational boundaries and physical barriers that may be disregarded in case the ties with these relations are discussed.
As soon as people comprehend how to develop ties and consider personal and organizational needs, they could develop effective networks and integrate their knowledge. Granovetter (1973) suggested using social networks as the tool that linked micro and macro organizational levels and investigated the ties. On the one hand, networks are based on interactions and interpersonal ties where personal ideas, motivational factors, and inspiration are considered. On the other hand, network analysis includes the evaluation of macro elements such as social mobility, political relations, and diffusion (Granovetter, 1973).
Structural hole theory
The offered ties and networks may undergo certain changes and challenges as a result of which structural holes occur (Burt, 1992; Cross & Cummings, 2004). The theory of structural holes includes the explanation of such situations where the lack of connectivity among people within the same network may be observed. Burt (1992) offered the term “nonredundancy” as the possibility to explain the nature of the relations between the actors. The hole is used as a buffer where all members of a particular network may define their strengths and weaknesses and clarify if they want either to continue developing such relations, to make some improvements, or to stop them immediately. The structure of ties is predetermined by the desire of all individuals to be engaged in such ties and exchange knowledge and experiences that are crucial for organizational development (Monge & Contractor, 2003).
Embeddedness approach
The embeddedness approach is another crucial theory with the help of which networks may be discussed in public management and defined as a unique economic factor (Granovetter, 1985; Uzzi, 1996). The embeddedness is the link between what happens in the economic world and the sociological world. According to the study developed by Uzzi (1996), the embeddedness process helps to cover all types of social relations and unite them with the economic factors that may influence business behavior. This approach is similar to the theory of networks and ties in business. However, in comparison to the previous theories, this approach has one particular focus that is the relation between personal needs and economic factors. Business cannot be properly developed in case people neglect significant economic aspects in the work of ordinary people that create networks.
Self-organizing theory
Recently, certain improvements have been made in discussing the role and contributions of self-organizing networks in the development of individual and public service relations (Shrestha & Feiock, 2009). This theory helps to define the mechanisms with the help of which regional problems may be addressed, and the environmental issues may be identified. However, at the same time, people should understand that networks need to exist independently and contribute to the development of organizations and the skills of workers. Public management, as well as networks in this field, is a broad concept (Agranoff & McGuire, 1998), and self-governance is the theory that helps to control the activities and demonstrate what achievements should be made and what mistakes have to be avoided.
Network governance theory
If the self-governing theory helps people or other actors to comprehend their responsibilities and duties in public management, the network governance theory is the general approach that is used to explain the conditions under which network governance and control are possible. This theory aims at defining the connection between economics and social theories and taking the steps that may drive organizations to structural embedding and transaction improvement (Jones, Hesterly, & Borgatti, 1997). Due to the necessity to consider all traditional governance mechanisms that determine the relations between the actors, it is also expected to focus on the theory that enhances the competitiveness and effectiveness of networks (Provan & Milward, 1995).
Social capital and networks
Finally, in past discussions of networks and public management, certain attention was paid to the concept of social capital and its impact on the development of networks. Social capital includes all possible investments in the development of social relations with a certain number of returns in the marketplace (Lin, 2001). At the same time, social capital is the possibility of valued resources, including political, cultural, and economic ties, being aggregated (Lin, 1999). From this theoretical point of view, all public goods, norms, and rules should also be defined as social capital that can be obtained or lost in a short period (Burt, 1997; Coleman, 1988). Still, such contradictions make people think about the value of networks and the possibility to use ties as protection for certain individuals.
Factors of Network Management
Network management may have many definitions due to the number of functions that have to be performed. Still, research developed by such scholars as O’Toole (1997) and Agranoff and McGuire (2001) proves that this field is still in need of knowledge to improve the functionality of public administration and determine the attributes that should matter in management. It is not enough to develop appropriate functional equivalents to frequently used management processes as it was offered by Agranoff and McGuire (2001). The social network analysis is usually based on effective service delivery and properly chosen instruments (attributes) with the help of which managers’ actions may be compared in regards to the impacts they have on networks (Berry et al., 2004).
Flexibility
Flexibility is one of the main attributes of networking because it promotes mobility of resources and quick access to the required skills and technologies that help stabilize business situations and control the market (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Networks introduce the guides which create hierarchies in the market and sustain rigidity. Such networks make it possible to move federal assistance using local governments regarding current needs and conditions (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). Federal support promotes the possibility to manage political issues or improve public responsiveness in case of emergency. Besides, network flexibility may be used to solve bureaucratic issues when the power of hierarchies cannot be used or cannot be achieved due to resource deficiencies.
Decision making
Decision-making processes play an important role in networking as well. As a rule, decisions can be made in collaboration with all actors. However, the scholars insist that certain legal, administrative procedures have to be followed because they promote the work of all systems in a proper way (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). All decisions have to be deliberative and creative because they demonstrate the current achievement of a network, the possibility to implement technologies, and the necessity to plan actions and build teams. Social capital is also a crucial factor in the decision-making process that occurs in networks. Human behavior, personal development, and readiness to think and make fast decisions or change them reasonably predetermine the success of networking in public management.
Accountability
Networks in public administration also include the necessity to establish accountability and self-responsibility (O’Toole, 1997). This issue remains to be venerable because of the impossibility to understand if bureaucrats can work according to certain instructions, or if they neglect all rules and assume new directions that cannot be checked or disregard general norms (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001). In cases when control is lost, and political or administrative instabilities are observed, accountability is hard to achieve in networking, and the quality of public management can be questionable (Agranoff & McGuire, 1998). Therefore, the task of managers and administrators is to create appropriate conditions to promote accountability in networks and find solutions for contradicting relationships that may occur in multiorganizational settings.
Trust and dependency
Many public managers work hard to comprehend how to use legal authorities in their work and find out the required cohesion factor in networks. Network cohesion may have different meanings and explanations. However, regarding different scholarship approaches and thoughts, it is possible to introduce cohesion as the factor that promotes effective leadership, guidance, self-management, mutual dependency of all actors of networks, and the identification of the opportunities at work (Agranoff & McGuire, 2001; Cross & Cummings, 2004; Shrestha & Feiock; 2009). The success of networking depends on the recognition of this cohesion factor. Therefore, Agranoff and McGuire (2001) offer to develop trustful relations and trust-based governance structures to promote harmony in all actions taken and decisions made.
Network power
In network management, the role of organizational power cannot be neglected. This power is the ability to control the actions of all actors of a working process. According to Agranoff and McGuire (2001) and Jones et al. (1997), the exploitation of power in networks may be explained by the necessity to complete complex tasks and clarify the specifications of the relations that exist between different people, organizations, and concepts. The peculiar feature of power in networks is its possibility to be neutral, as well as to obtain the required for a particular situation character (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Sometimes, power is used to support and approve the decision made. Sometimes, power is used to suppress people or organizations and impose another point of view. Such diversity proves the necessity to focus on the distribution of power in networks.
Results and productivity
Many scholars also want to know if their discussions about networks in public administration and the solutions made by different actors in a working process lead to some results and the improvements of situations. In other words, people want to know if social changes which are based on the promotion of networking in public administration bring positive results (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). The work of public managers may vary. Still, the outcomes of their decisions and the strategies used may be observed in work with clients and suppliers, the possibilities to solve challenges and meet personal and professional needs, and the abilities to plan and investigate the future from different aspects.
Conclusion
In general, this paper helps to cover the main aspects of networking in public administration. Some factors and decisions could be predicted because the idea of networking presupposes the necessity to collaborate, lead, and develop trustful relations among all team members. At the same time, the chosen sources help to clarify what kind of work should be performed by different people at different levels. Public management networks may be supported and criticized. Still, there is one clear position that cannot be ignored: networks help to stabilize public management and organize the work of many people at the same time. There are many legal and economic aspects, and researchers have to discuss all of them regularly to clarify what kind of work has been already done and what achievements may be expected.
References
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (1998). Multinetwork management: Collaboration and the hollow state in local economic policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(1), 67-91.
Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 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 communities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539-552.
Borgatti, S.P., & Foster, P.C. (2003). The network paradigm in organizational research: A review and typology. Journal of Management, 29(6), 991-1013.
Burt, R.S. (1992). The social structure of competition. Web.
Burt, R.S. (1997). The contingent value of social capital. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 339-365.
Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95-120.
Cross, R., & Cummings, J.N. (2004). Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. The Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 925-937.
Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481-510.
Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S., & Borgatti, S.P. (1997). A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms. The Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 911-945.
Lin, N. (1999). Building a network theory of social capital. Connections, 22(1), 28-51.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Monge, P.R., & Contractor, N.S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
O’Toole, L.J. (1997). The implications for democracy in a networked bureaucratic world. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7(3), 443-459.
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.
Putman, R. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect, 13, 35-42.
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the national estuary program. American Journal of political science, 47(1), 143-158.
Shrestha, M.K., & Feiock, R.C. (2009). Governing U.S. metropolitan areas: Self-organizing and multiplex service networks. American Politics Research, 37(5), 801-823.
Uzzi, B. (1996). The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: The network effect. American Sociological Review, 61(4), 674-698.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.