Networks, Hierarchies, and Hybrids

ABSTRACT

Clusters of organizations making at least modest efforts to collaborate on implementing joint solutions to public sector problems are often called “networks.” By directing attention away from the hierarchical aspects of these clusters, and towards the voluntaristic and egalitarian aspects, this nomenclature can undermine and distort our understanding of the phenomenon. Such organizational clusters can be more fruitfully thought of as “implementation hybrids,” a type of collective production arrangement that has its own distinctive strengths and weaknesses, which this article delineates.

Notes

The subjectivity in such an approach is readily admitted. That is not a great defect, however, if perceptions of ingenuity are broadly shared. It has the great virtue, moreover, of acknowledging that the study of managerial and administrative processes might, for some purposes, make use of something other than a positivist metaphysic and methodology.

http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/vet/newcastle.htm

For a longer discussion and more examples, see (Bardach 2004; 2012).

The Provan and Kenis conception of a “network” likewise seems to assume a system primarily driven by exchange and coordination functions, just as I have postulated (2008, 231). My integration function is subsumed in their “governance” function, although, as I indicate in the following, I would add conflict management to integration to constitute a “leadership” function.

In an earlier work, I argued that government agencies that had had more experience, and sympathy, with the “reinvention” agenda of a greater results orientation, more flexibility, and less hierarchy were doing better with interagency collaborative work than those that had not (Bardach 1998, 307).

They are often plagued with a variety of inefficiencies as well. But leaving these aside for the moment, under-funding is still prevalent.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Eugene Bardach

Eugene Bardach ([email protected]) is Emeritus Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley. He is the author of a widely-used primer on policy analysis (A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem-Solving) and has written works on policy implementation and public management. His current research is about the nature of anti-Semitism.