120928 ees helsinki networks are causing effects - … · networks are causing effects – but...

Contact:

Center for Evaluation

Box 15 11 50D-66041 Saarbrücken

Phone.: +49 - (0)6 81- 3 02 - 33 20E-Mail: [email protected]

www.ceval.de and www.sprintconsult.eu

Networks are causing effects – but how?!

Impact evaluation of networks

Dr. Sebastian Elbe, Dr. Judith ElbeSPRINT Consult, DarmstadtDr. Wolfgang Meyer, Maria AlbrechtCEval, Saarland University, Saarbruecken

Content

Impact Evaluation of Regional Network

Governance

Example I: Regional Bioenergy Networks

Example II: Cross-Border Networks

Conclusion and some Recommendations

28.06.2013 Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer 2

Network Theories

• Economic theories

- Theories of the firm, the organization and transaction costs

–> why are corporate actors necessary?

- Bipolarity of ‘market’ and ‘hierarchy’ oversimplified reality

-> broad variety of mixed or hybrid organizational forms of

cooperation classified as ‘networks’

• Political theories

- New Public Policy, regulation and governance theories

-> how is participative policy possible beyond government?

- Relation between decision makers and the people

- > networks as a new form of political decision making


Impact Evaluation of Network Governance



Governanceof networks

(socialinstitutions)

„Governancewithin

networks“(coordination

of action)

„Governancethrough

networks“ (effectivity ofcooperation)

Continous regulations to (re-)produceTrust Impact

composing

interrelated


Criteria Organisation „Hierarchy“

Network Market

Goals Long term, diffuse

Mid term,limited

Short term,exchange only

Strukture Formal Order(Division of

Labor)„Responsibility“

Informal Rules

(egalitarian)„Trust“

None

„Offer and Demand“

Process Regulated route

ModeratedDiscourse Bargaining

Aktors Members (closed)

Delegates Participants (open)

Finance Own Budget

Partially shared Budgets

Divided Budgets

Personal Own Personal SharedManagement

None

Evaluating Governance within Networks



Reaching the target groups

Acceptance by target groups

(and stakeholders)

Impact of network actions

Sustainability of impacts

Utility for target groups

Evaluating Governance through Networks


Challenges for Evaluating Regional Governance

• Process analysis: regional network governance is a

process – but network methods are structural

oriented and time is too short for repeated measures

• Multilevel analysis: processes are evolving on several

different levels and must be assessed by multilevel

analysis – but network methods focus on people only

• Communication analysis: the driving forces are

communication and exchange activities which must

be analyzed adequately – but network methods focus

on subjective opinions only.



Regional Bioenergy Networks

Example I:Regional Bioenergy

Networks in Germany



Background


Position and Size of 25 Bioenergy‐Regions in Germany Colours indicate number of contact persons within the network(Kartengrundlage: FnR).


28.06.2013 Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer


Method used

• Quantitative network analyses at two different

points in time in 25 so called bioenergy regions

• Data collection: at the beginning of the funding

period in 2009 and beginning of 2012

• The network analysis includes information

about the qualities of each contact, attributes of

the regional population, identification with the

region, and the work of the network

management to collect further qualitative data

in addition to quantitative network analysis.


Regional Bioenergy Networks Diversity of Network Forms

A ‘good’ example:high density,

very compact,many actors involved


Diversity of Network Forms

A ‘bad’ example:low density,very small,

Only the four providers are doing the work



Main experiences

• Process Analysis

- The networks tend to decrease in size; certain parts

grow closer together

- Networks are shifting.

• Multi-level Analysis

- Not applicable: personal relationships were of interest

for the network analysis based on a social capital

concept.

• Communication Analysis

- Using a methodological ‘trick’: selection of theoretical

foundation (social capital) for the analysis.

28.06.2013 14Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer

Cross-Border Networks

Example II:Cross-Border Networks in the ‘Grande Region’Saar-Lor-Lux

28.06.2013 15Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer

Cross-border Networks


3 Languages(French, German, Luxembourgish)

4 National States (Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg)

5 Federal States (Lorraine, Luxembourg,Rhineland-Palatine, Saarland, Wallonia)

12 Departments(only border departments)

About 200.000 People arecrossing borders every dayon their way to work

Background


010203040

Regierungskommission (1970)

Regionalkommission

Interregionaler Parlamentarierrat

Gipfel der Großregion

Interregionaler Gewerkschaftsrat Saar-Lor-Lux-…

Gewerkschaftliche Interregionale im Dreiländereck

Gewerkschaftliche Plattform

Interregionaler Rat der Handwerkskammer

Arbeitsgemeinschaft Industrie- und Handelskammern

Wirtschafts- und Sozialausschuss der Großregion

EURES

Interregionale Arbeitsmarktbeobachtungsstelle

Task Force Grenzgänger (2011)

Age of main Labor Market Networks in the Grande Region (2012)

Politics

Labor Market

Economic andSocial Partners


Method used


17 qualitative Interviews

102 Participants


Context- and Situationanalysis

Selection of Relevant Actors

Expert Interviews

Additional Expert Interviews

Network Research

By using recommendations

1. Phase

Standardized Online Survey

Governanceand Decision

Making

Challengesand Problems

Development and

Perspective

Network Analysis

------------------------------------------------------------------------------2. Phase

Cross-Border Networks


Networks:• WSAGR: Wirtschafts- &

Sozialausschuss der Großregion• TF: Task Force Grenzgänger• EURES-T SLLR• EURES-T PED• IBA: Interregionale Arbeits-

marktbeobachtungsstelle• IPR: Interregionaler

Parlamentarierrat• IHK: Arbeitsgemeinschaft der

Industrie- und Handelskammern• HWK: Interregionaler Rat der

Handwerkskammern• IGR: Interregionaler

Gewerkschaftsrat• Gewerkschaftliche Plattform• Interregionale:

Gewerkschaftliche Interregionale im Dreiländereck

• Gipfel/Regionalkommission

Density: 0,59Source: Albrecht & Meyer 2012

Personal Network of Networks


Main experiences

• Process Analysis

- Number of networks increased in the last 40 years –

few dynamics in networks (reported by actors)

- sophisticated system that could save its influence less

by extension but by creating new competences

• Multi-Level Analysis

- Taking into account multi-membership

- Aggregating personal to group opinions

• Communication Analysis

- Language Problem

- Asking the interviewees to name the three most

important successes, but no communication analysis28.06.2013 Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer 20

Conclusions and Recommendations

Process analysis: Assessing dynamics

• Only a dynamic approach is able to answer the

question if and how the networks are developing

• The “gold standard”: Network analysis of the

same networks at different points in time – but

regional governance networks develop slowly and

it needs a long time for research

• Second best solution: Qualitative longitudinal

analysis of data of the networks by document

analysis and interviews – but what about validity?



Multilevel Analysis: Avoiding a personal focus

• Taking into account personal networks,

delegations and multi-membership

• The “gold standard”: To avoid the bias between

organization and person, interview always several

persons from an organization, analyze their

positions in the organization and then weight the

data by these positions for an aggregated value



Communication Analysis: More in-depth

assessment necessary

• There is no “gold standard” at the moment –

communication sciences should be more

included

• Bioenergy case interpreted the networks in

relation to the existing social capital to estimate

knowledge transfer/capability of acting


Elbe, Elbe, Albrecht and Meyer 2012

120928 ees helsinki networks are causing effects - … · networks are causing effects – but...

Documents