|
Abstract:
|
"Governance networks ebb and flow, become dormant or extinct, only to resurface with new members, and
names, forms, or boundaries. The paper uses a systematic qualitative analysis (e.g., coding, cross-case
analysis) of data from 6 watershed governance efforts in the United States – Delaware Inland Bays, Lake
Tahoe, Narragansett Bay, Salt Ponds, Tampa Bay, and Tillamook Bay – to examine these developmental
processes. The study’s objective was to develop theory grounded in these data to explain the linkages
between network structures and processes.
The paper describes a four stage life-cycle model. Each stage represents a cluster of developmental
challenges related to sustaining the health and useful life of a governance network. The activation stage is
the turbulent period of network formation. The collectivity stage is exemplified by high member cohesion
and reliable network processes. The institutionalization stage marks the solidification of network
processes. The final stage is stability, decline, reorientation, or recreation, which recognizes the various
paths mature networks follow. The model’s central feature is the convergence on a configuration of rules
(formal and informal) that create the social architecture that structures network processes. These relatively
long periods of convergence are punctuated by reorientations involving relatively rapid periods of
discontinuous change that alter character of the network’s structure and processes. Recreations are also
possible that involve the additional shift in core values.
The analysis identifies three interrelated sets of rules that interact to form this social architecture by
building on the work of Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues. Some rules are crafted deliberately. Others
emerge as members confront developmental challenges or get imposed upon the network by funders,
government agencies, or legislators. Two sets of boundary rules are particularly important – member rules
and strategy rules. Decision rules create the processes members use to make decisions and include rules
related to preference aggregation, distribution of power, distribution of roles or responsibilities, and the
distribution of participation in decision making. As networks evolve, coordination rules emerge to specify
resource exchanges, monitor behavior, enforce agreements, and resolve disputes. The analysis also found
evidence of at least two reorientation (recreation) in each watershed, with examples of changes occurring
both endogenously in response to self-organizing processes and exogenously as network actors responded
to incentives provided by federal funding agencies.
The social architecture is important because governance networks, like other organizational forms,
are a functional enterprise with a useful life. The social architecture provides coordination,
direction and shared purpose to network processes. However, once established, it can be costly
and difficult to change. Similarly, once the network’s useful life has passed, it is time to disband,
re-orient, or re-create the network to allow their resources to be redeployed in more productive
public purposes. Accordingly, framework presented in the paper identifies important design
choices that members should carefully consider during the development of governance networks."
|