NETWORKS AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

1. NETWORKS AND PUBLICMANAGEMENT Grahame Thompson The Open University

2. NETWORKS IN THE NHS CONTEXT • Means of Policy Formation (‘Policy Networks’) • Means of Policy Implementation Care Delivery Mechanisms (‘Managed Clinical Networks’) • Means of Knowledge Management Main issues are: Strategic versus Operational considerations

3. ATTRIBUTES OF TRADITIONAL FORMS OF CO-ORDINATION AND GOVERNANCE AS CONCEIVED FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PUBLIC POLICY • Hierarchies/Bureaucracies • centralized power, • vertical command chain • decision making rules • specialized functions • line-management procedures • strong reporting mechanisms • (Quasi)-Markets • exchange processes • price mechanism triggered • interaction between supply and demand emphasised • payments for goods and services • often (though not necessarily) operated in competitive environment • Networks • parties with common aims working together • trust, altruism, solidarity, reciprocity • collaboration and cooperation • partnerships and joint working • joint decision making between network partners

4. Hierarchies/ Bureacracies (Quasi)-Markets Networks

5. EMERGING FORMS OF PUBLIC ORGANIZATIONAL COORDINATION ANDGOVERNANCE Homogenization and Centralization of Control (‘tightness’) Legal/ Administrative Economic Hierarchy Markets/Managerialism ‘Internal’control ‘External’control Self-regulation Open-systems Relational Moral & Ethical Differentiation and Flexibility of Control (‘looseness’)

6. THE AGENDA FOR REFORM ? (DAP MODEL (C. Pollitt 2004)) D Disaggregation of agencies from Ministries A Autonomization of those agencies in terms of greater managerial freedom P practice of Performancecontracting and monitoring based on targeting linked to resources

7. TYPES OF NETWORK SOCIAL INTEGRATION WEAK STRONG Co-operativeNetworks shared identities collective behaviours informal ties ‘policy community’ Isolated/Individualistic Networks opportunistic behaviour individualized incentive suspicion WEAK SOCIAL REGULATION Project/Enclave Networks Periodic/ad-hoc alliances & partnerships ‘Issue networks’ EnduringNetworks Long-term/rule driven compliance ‘hierarchical’ control STRONG

8. STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF TYPES OF NETWORK SOCIAL INTEGRATION STRONG WEAK • Isolated/Individualized • Harnesses self interest and instrumental action • demonstrates competitive success • suits professionals and professionalization • zero-sum competition • high transaction costs • can encourage perverse incentives • lack of common bonds • potential for corruption • difficult to manage/needs goals andtargets • Co-operative • Enables coping and survival • reduces exposure during adversity • strong on security, trust and goodwill • some possibility of managing • limited collective action • difficult to get decision made • can get too big and unwieldy • time consuming and frustration can set in + + WEAK – – SOCIAL REGULATION • Project/Enclave • Clear commitments and goals • policy focussed • can lead to protectionism • closed and difficult relationships with outsiders • schisms and burnouts • some instability • not readily managed • Enduring • Enables collective action and complex division of labour • clarity of rules and norms/good accountability • readily managed • over centralized and regulated • excessive proceduralism • demotivation • lacks flexibility • encourages patronage + + STRONG – –

9. METHODOLOGIES AND NETWORK ANALYSIS EGOFRAME Fields Structural/’enriched individualistic’/embeddedness Dynamic properties Stress: Contacts/relations Individualistic Switching Data sets Structural positioning (bloc modelling, structural equivalences/holes) Methods & techniques: Ethnographic Stories & narratives Insiders & outsiders ‘Web-like’ Boundaries/hierarchical Domain of operation: ‘Weave-like’ Open-ended

10. Macro Political Structures/Models Involving ‘Network Formations’ of Various Kinds That Affect Policy Making • Policy Networks • Policy community • Issue networks • Fragmentation of the policy making framework: • sectoralization of policy making, organizational explosion, increased scope for policy making, democratization/fragmentation of the state, blurring of boundaries between public and private, overcrowded policy making (increase in ‘policy turnover rate’) • Corporatism • Private interest governance • Large-scale interest groups/ ‘social partners’ • Macro-level network of policy governance operating in parallel to state apparatuses • Return of ‘social compacts’ • Associationalism • Pluralistic version of ‘corporatism’ • Political associations with ‘dispersed sovereignties’ (commissions, churches, trusts, trade unions, friendly societies, professional societies, places of work) • ‘Negotiated state’ • Normative mutualism

11. NGOs of Dissent • Similar to associationalism/private interest governance • Campaigning and propaganda for a particular purpose • Persuasion, mobilization, pressure politics • ‘Bottom-up’ rather than ‘top-down’ networks • Elites • Small groups with a particular access to power • Based on common economic, political and cultural outlook/formation • ‘Exclusive/top-down’ network. • Undemocratic and non-egalitarian • Multi-Level Governance and ‘Comitology’ • Vertical networks • OMC • Distribution of jurisdictions • Experts

12. SOME ISSUES AND PROBLEMS WITH POLICY NETWORKS ACCOUNTABILITY DEMOCRATIC CHARACTER LEGITIMACY GENUINE REFORM OR RECONSOLIDATION? Open network system of genuine policy influence? Or Recentralization? — ‘shadow of hierarchy’ Complete privatization? — ‘shadow of the market’

13. DILEMMAS OF ACCOUNTABILITY ‘PRINCIPAL’ Department of HealthStrategic Health Authorities (SHAs) Governmental Apparatus Primary Health-Care Trusts(PHCTs) PHCTas‘AGENT’ PHCTas ‘PRINCIPAL’ GPs/Local Hospitals/Clinics/Other Local Providers Local Community ‘AGENT’

14. EXPLAINING THE DYNAMICS OF NETWORK CHANGE • Hybridization • mixed systems • relatively stable combinations and outcomes • Continued Disequilibrium • tensions between participants • continual attention by those involved on the ground • (‘intelligent policy and managerial disequlibrium’) • Formulation and Reformulation of ‘Political’ Alliances • implicit and explicit alliances • incentives and performance seen as a consequence of different alliances

15. THE ROLE OF ‘ALLIANCES’ IN EXPLAINING CHANGE • In the NHS: Consultants/Doctors + Patients versus Managers + Private Suppliers • In respect of Socio-economic Organization 1. 1960’s & 1970’s: Managers + Workers (implicit?) i) Stable and moderate wage increases ii) Productivity growth iii) Keeps managerial pay in check iv) Strong and good returns to shareholders • 1980s: Managers + Customers i) Promise of ever cheaper products and services ii) Downsizing of activities iii) Ruthless pruning of labour iv) Beginning of managerial pay hike • 1990s: (Greedy) Managers + Investors (financial institutions) + (support from) Consultants and Lawyers i) Escalating CEO pay ii) Shareholder activism iii) ‘Formidable’ alliance 4. 2010s?: Progressive Managers + Ethical investors + Ethical consumers