1

“Public networks” say Americans, “public networks” reply Europeans, but

are they talking about the same issue?

Daniela Cristofoli

Assistant Professor in Public Management

University of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland

e-mail daniela.cristofoli@usi.ch

Myrna Mandell

Professor Emeritus, California State University, Los Angeles, US

Adjunct Faculty, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia

e-mail: mmandell@csu.edu

Marco Meneguzzo

Full Professor in Public Management

University of Tor Vergata, Roma, Italy

University of Lugano, Lugano, Switzerland

e-mail: marco.meneguzzo@usi.ch

2

“Public networks” say Americans, “public networks” reply Europeans, but

are they talking about the same issue?

Since the end of the Seventies, public networks have been implemented in many

countries to solve “wicked” public problems, addressing such issues as health, social care,

local development and education (Agranoff & McGuire, 1998; Ferlie & Pettigrew, 1996;

Ferlie et al. 2011; O’Toole, 1997; Milward & Provan, 2003; Provan & Milward, 1995, 2001;

Provan & Sebastian, 1998).

Accordingly, scholars from Scandinavian to Italy and from Australia to the US have

started to investigate the topic, and the literature on public networks have tremendously

grown up.

Despite the “global” nature of the phenomenon, some doubts raise about the existence of

a “global” community of public network scholars. In a tentative to systematize the literature

on governance and governance network, Klijn (2008) shed lights on similarities and

differences between the American and the European approach at public networks, and invite

researchers to search from greater levels of integration in the future.

Our paper aims at empirically exploring the existence of different geographical/“Country-

based” communities of public network scholars, investigating their similarities and

differences, and analyzing their evolution over time.

For these purposes we conducted a content analysis on the abstracts of the articles

published on 10 leading public administration/public management academic journals since the

end of the Seventies, and correlated some of their characteristics (theoretical framework, main

topics and research methods) with the authors’ Country of origin. 160 articles were

considered and data were analyzed through the usual statistical correlation tests.

3

Results seem to suggest the existence of at least two public network scholar communities

in the world, more managerial-oriented and “American” the former and more governance-

oriented and “European” the latter. More specifically, whereas the community of American

scholars (Agranoff, 1986, 2006; Agranoff & McGuire 1998, 2001; Huang & Provan, 2007a,

2007b; Isett & Provan, 2005; Mandell, 1994; Mandell & Keast, 2008; McGuire, 2002;

McGuire & Agranoff, 2011; Meyer & O’Toole, 2001, 2003, 2010; Milward & Provan 1995,

1998a, 1998b, 2003; Milward et al. 2010; O’Toole 1995, 1996; O’Toole & Meyer 1999,

2004a, 204b 2006; Provan & Milward 1991, 1995, 2001; Provan & Sebastian, 1998; Provan

et al.. 2005; Provan et al. 2009) seem to prefer taking a managerial approach at service-

delivery networks, investigate how to make them really work and use quantitative research

methods, the European scholars (Borzel, 2011; Ferlie et al, 2011; Kickert et al. 1997; Klijn,

2008; Klijn & Koopenjan, 2000, 2006; Klijn & Sckelcher, 2007; Klijn et al. 2010; Koopenjan

& Klijn, 2004; Raab, 2003; Skelcher, 2005; 2010; Toke, 2010; Toke & Marsh, 2003; Voets,

2008) seem to prefer taking a governance approach at policy networks, investigating their

formation and governance rules and using qualitative research methods. Nevertheless, in the

last years, as auspicated by Klijn (2008), a convergence seems to be identifiable between the

two communities.

The final section of our paper discusses these results and suggests some instruments to

foster the dialogue and build a bridge between the existent public network academic

communities.

The development of literature on inter-organizational relations and networks

The study of networks is an outgrowth of the study of interorganizational relations. The

study of interorganizational relations began in the 1960s. As organizations grew more

complex, the problems facing managers could no longer be easily answered by looking only

at variables from the intraorganizational level of analysis. Instead, investigators began to look

4

for answers outside the boundaries of the organization. The study of interorganizational

relations therefore began with the relationship of the organization to its environment (Aiken

& Hage, 1968; Emery & Trist, 1965; Thompson, 1967).

The literature on interorganizational relations, in America, developed based on two

separate, but complementary trains of thought. One was based on the study of organizations

by sociologists. The other was based on the studies of organizations from a management

perspective.

The study of interorganizational relations by sociologists was related to the concern of the

government, in the 1960’s, to achieve better “coordination” among various health and social

service agencies. It was believed that better coordination was needed between these agencies

in order to improve the delivery of services. The problem for the government was to devise

new ways for organizations to behave in order to carry out this coordination. The environment

of these agencies was viewed as a constraint and sociologists looked at the problems of

manipulating variables within the structure of the individual organizations (Zeitz, 1980).

One of the central problems for researchers in these studies, however, was to be able to

determine which the “relevant” portions of the environment were. Certainly an organization

had to learn to deal with other organizations and to manage the resulting interdependencies.

The question was how to determine which were the “relevant” organizations within the total

environment. The work of Evan (1966) on the “organization set” was the first attempt to

provide a conceptual framework in which the boundaries of relationships could be

determined.

Just as the concept of the “organization set” was constructed by Evan (1966) to provide a

framework for viewing the interaction of sets of organizations, the “interorganizational

network” was developed to provide a framework in which to view the interactions of a

network of organizations. As interactions between organizations became more and more

5

complex, the use of the concept of the “organization set” for studying these interactions

became less useful. The concept of the interorganizational network was developed to try to

broaden the spectrum within which these interactions could be understood.

Tichy (1984) points out that the study of networks is not new and has its roots in

anthropology, social psychology, and sociology. Studies by sociologists, for example, include

viewing cities and whole communities as networks (Laumann, et al, 1978; Perucci & Pilsuk,

1970; Turk, 1970, 1973, 1977; Warren, 1973; Warren, et al, 1974). In addition, in the

literature on intraorganizational theory, the idea of networks in terms of social network

analysis (Tichy, et al, 1979) and communication patterns in organizations (Rogers &

Argawala-Rogers, 1976) has been explored. The application of this concept to the study of

interorganizational relations, however, was a relatively new phenomenon (Aldrich &

Whetten, 1981; Provan, 1983; Zeitz, 1980).

The study of interorganizational relations from the management tradition was centered on

the practical concerns of managers in operating their businesses. The increasing complexities

of the environment forced managers to consider the effects of the environment in a more

systematic manner. This work looked at which aspects of the environment could be

manipulated or controlled to achieve their management objectives (Zald, 1966).

The focus was therefore on practical problems of managing within a “turbulent

environment”. The concern, however, was not in understanding the underlying social

structure of which businesses were a part, but rather on discovering “what aspects of the

environment could be better predicted and controlled in order to achieve management

objectives, whatever those objectives might be” (Zeitz, 1980, p. 42).

From these initial beginnings of interorganizational relations, however, the importance of

interorganizational networks as a field of study grew (Aldirch, 1977, 1979; Aldrich &

Whetten, 1981).

6

In the early literature, Aldrich (1979) indicated that an interorganizational network “is

identified by tracking down all of the ties binding organizations in a population defined and

explicitly bounded by an investigator” (Aldrich, 1979, p.324). The problem for researchers

has been to define the boundaries of the interorganizational network. This problem can be

seen in the number of definitions used in the literature. The interorganizational network has

been defined as:

All organizations linked by a specific type of relation. The network is

constructed by finding the ties between all organizations in a population (Aldrich,

1979, p. 324);

All of the groups and organizations, as well as the consumers, (who usually

are not organized into either groups or organizations, one of the basic reasons why

their interest remain unrepresented), associated with a particular production system

designed to service some client or customer (Hage, 1973, p. 18);

A context in which interaction takes place, and it may affect the nature and

intensity of relations between organizations (Molnar & Rogers, 1979, p. 414);

Consists of a number of distinguishable organizations having a significant

amount of interaction with each other (Benson, 1979, p. 230).

In addition to being able to define networks, a number of other considerations have

delineated the early work on networks. The early work of Warren (1967) on the

interorganizational field emphasizes the characteristics or patterns of networks as a whole. An

interorganizational field is the population of all organizations with the same functional

interests. The importance of this concept of the interorganizational field is the notion that

decision-making within this context is “allowed to form out of the interaction of various

organizations” (Warren, 1967, p. 411). The focus is on the structure of the interaction of

7

actors, rather than on the constraints of the boundaries of the interorganizational network. The

concept of the interorganizational field thus points to the centrality of the interaction

processes within the interorganizational network. Further, it allows us to look at the total

structure of interorganizational linkages.

In the work of Hanf et al (1978) and Porter (1980) on “implementation structures” (i.e.,

interorganizational networks) they found that there were a number of arrangements possible.

Their structures are constantly changing and do not necessarily have to be hierarchically

arranged. Finally, networks include an array of actors (both organizational and individual)

with a variety of goals and objectives.

This early work led to a number of studies that focused on various aspects of networks

(Agranoff, 1986; Gray, 1989; Hanf & Scharpf, 1978; Kickert et al, 1997; Mandell, 1988,

1994). These studies led to a revised definition by O’Toole (1997). He defined networks as:

…structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts

thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of the others in

some larger hierarchical arrangement (p.45).

This definition has been adapted by most researchers as what is meant today by networks.

Many of the early works on interorganizational networks (Aldrich, 1979; Aldrich &

Whetten, 1981; Negandhi, 1980; Nystrom & Starbuck, 1984; Wright, 1983) focused on

studies of interorganizational relations from the perspective of a particular organization rather

than on a network of organizations. One notable exception was a study done by Stern (1979)

on intercollegiate athletics. This was one of the earliest studies that focused on a network of

organizations. The emphasis, however, is from a private sector perspective. A number of such

early studies focus on arrangements between organizations that are generally competitive in

nature, but recognize the need for collaboration. Pennings (1981) refers to these organizations

as strategically interdependent organizations. Another area of concern in the private sector is

8

what Horwich & Prahalad (1981) refer to as multi-organizational enterprises. They see this as

an emerging form of collaboration between private and public sector organizations1.

The early literature on interorganizational relations and specifically interorganizational

networks in the public sector has been extensive. These arrangements have been referred to in

a number of different ways:

Interorganizational systems (Milward, 1982);

Mandated networks (Porter & Warner, 1979);

Implementation structures (Hjern & Porter, 1981; Porter, 1985; Porter &

Warner, 1979);

Management networks (Wright, 1983);

Directed interorganizational systems (Lawless, 1981);

Federations (Provan, 1983).

The emphasis on interorganizational networks in the public sector grows out of the need

to better understand the complexities involved in managing intergovernmental relations. The

importance of understanding how managing in networks is different from managing within

individual organizations was made clear initially by the work of Agranoff & McGuire (2001)

on network management.

Over the years, they and many other researchers from US to Europe and from Europe to

Australia (Agranoff, 2003, 2006; Agranoff & McGuire, 2001, 2003; Huxham, 2000; Huxham

& Vangen, 1996; Innes & Booher, 2010; Keast, 2004; Keast, et al, 2004; Koppenjan & Klijn,

2004; O’Leary et al,, 2006; Mandell, 2001, 2008; Provan & Milward, 1995, 2001) have

1 It should be noted that these types of arrangements are seen as distinct from public‐private partnerships 

9

emphasized the importance of understanding how management in networks needs to be

differentiated from management in single organization.

In spite of a plethora of literature on networks, on a variety of topics, it is not clear if there

is a single theory of networks or many theories, or if networks are just a metaphor for the

different ways we work together. This paper is therefore meant to begin the dialogue of what

we really mean by networks.

Network approaches around the world: so close, so far

Little by little that studies on public networks grew up, many authors have started to

claim that the conceptual frameworks, the key terms and the methods employed in the public

network literature created a “complex and confusing picture” (Berry et al. 2004). In the

tentative to wind a skein into a ball, then, during the last years, some authors have started to

systematize the existent literature, thus shedding light on similarities and differences among

communities of researchers.

In 2004 Berry at al. proposed to identify three communities of network researchers,

characterized by a different theoretical background (i.e., sociology, political science and

public administration/public management), and their own assumptions about human

motivation, their own principal research questions and their own research methods. The first

community, focused on “social network analysis”, is grounded in the sociological tradition

and more specifically in the sociometric studies rooted in Gestalt psychology (Moreno,

(1934), in the Manchester anthropologists (Mitchell and Clyde, 1969; Nadel, 1957), and in the

Harvard structuralists (Dahl, 1961; Dahrendorf, 1959; Grannovetter, 1973, 1974, 1985).

According to this approach, “structure matters” as predictors of various micro or macro

outcomes. In this perspective, some of the most investigated topics deal with the

consequences of network structure on attitude similarity, job satisfaction, individual power,

leadership (at micro-level), and board interlock, joint-ventures, alliances and shared

10

knowledge (at macro-level). The employed methods range from case study to quantitative

approaches, as block modeling analysis, Euclidean distance analysis, regression analysis and

dynamic-network modeling. The second community, Berry et al. (2004) identified, labeled

“policy network” community, is rooted in the political science field, and more specifically in

studies concerning policy innovation (Berry & Berry, 1990; Mintrom, 2000; Walker, 1969),

policy change and agenda setting (Dahl, 1961; Kingdom, 1984; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith,

1999), and new institutional economics (North, 1990; O’Toole, 1997; Schneider et al 2003;

Williamson, 1975, 1982). Coherently with this theoretical background, studies in the policy

network tradition focused above all on how policy actors achieve desired policies, and how

their roles within the network influence the policy outcomes. Method employed range from

case study to regression analysis, to time series and event history analysis. The third

community, “public management network” community (in the Berry et al. (2004) parlance), is

rooted in the public administration and public management field. The main aim of studies in

this tradition is to understand (1) whether networks exist and how they function (Mandell

1988), (2) how the network managers can successfully manage them and what competences

and skills are necessary for this purpose (Agranoff & McGuire 2001; Gage & Mandell, 1990)

and (3) what impact networks have on service delivery and clients satisfaction (Agranoff &

McGuire, 2003; Provan & Milward 1995). Research methods are above all based on multiple

and comparative case study, social network analysis and regression analysis.

At the end of their article, Berry et al. (2004) also showed how the managerial community

is the youngest of the three communities, developed firstly in the US, where scholars

produced a wide variety of articles and books focusing on managing networks (Agranoff &

McGuire, 1998; O’Toole, 1997; Provan & Milward, 1991, 1995, 2001), and later in Europe,

where “a parallel literature developed” (Kickert et al. 997; Marsh & Rhodes, 1992).

11

Some years later, in one of the first tentative to conceptualize the “governance and

governance network” approach in Europe, Klijn (2008) came back to those differences in the

public network literature (in terms of what is studied, the used theoretical assumptions and the

employed methods) and explicitly related them at the authors’ Country of origin, thus

implicitly arguing the existence of two geographical/Country-based communities of network

scholars, “American” the former and “European” the latter.

More specifically, first, Klijn (2008) proposed three different theoretical approaches at the

study of public networks. The first deals with research on policy networks and is rooted in the

British political science tradition (we will label it “British policy networks approach”). It

draws back to the works of Rhodes (1988), Marsh & Rhodes (1992), Marsh (1998) on the

policy outcomes of different policy networks. This approach conceives networks as a pattern

of formal or informal ties linking government and interest groups (politicians, public servants,

ministries, municipalities, interest organization, etc.) and focuses on the actors participating in

policy networks and having the power to influence the policy agenda and the decision-making

process. The second approach concerns research on interorganizational service delivery and

policy implementation networks (“service delivery and implementation tradition”, in the Klijn

parlance) (Agranoff, 1998; Mandell, 1994; Provan & Milward, 1995). It draws back to the

organizational science tradition (Rogers & Whetten, 1982) and views network as instruments

to deliver services. It is focused on how to construct and coordinate the activity of different

network partners in order to ensure the service production. The third approach is based on

research on governing networks (“governance network”, as Klijn labeled it) (Kickert, 1997;

Klijn & Koopenjan, 2000), and is rooted in the public administration tradition and in the

research on inter-organizational decision-making (Hanf & Scharpf, 1978). It focuses on the

complexity of the decision-making to achieve policy outcomes and aims at reconstructing and

improving the network functioning and governance. All the three approaches used qualitative

12

(case study) and quantitative (social network analysis and survey) methods, even if it is easier

to find quantitative researches in the service delivery tradition and qualitative ones in the

policy network or governance traditions.

Secondly, later in his article, Klijn (2008) explicitly linked these theoretical traditions at

what he calls the American and the European approach at network studies. Whereas, in fact,

the policy network tradition crosses over the two scholars’ communities, he argued (2008),

the service delivery and implementation tradition is typical of the American approach, more

focused on the problems of how to ensure the effectiveness of the service-delivery, and the

governance network tradition is more proper of the European approach, more interested in the

complexity of public decision-making and in the effective policy network governance. Klijn

(2008) also suggested a different methodological approach in the two scholar communities:

Americans normally employ greater use of quantitative methods (in the classical forms of

regression analysis or social network analysis), whereas Europeans almost exclusively relies

on case studies and discourse analysis.

On top of it, other authors shed light on some regional differences in the network

literature, thus arguing the existence of “subregional” communities of network researchers.

Pedersen (2010) spoke of a Danish policy network approach, Taylor (1992) shed light on the

differences between the German and the British approach at policy networks and Klijn (2008)

also spoke of some differences in the network community between the South and the North of

Europe.

Method

The aim of our paper is to empirically investigate the existence of different

geographical/“Country-based” communities of public network scholars, explore their

similarities and differences, and analyze their evolution over time.

13

For this purpose we conducted a content analysis on the abstracts of the articles published

from 1979 to 2011 in 10 leading public administration/public management journals, and

analyzed either the existence of a correlation between certain article characteristics

(theoretical framework, main topics and research methods) and the authors’ Country of origin,

either the evolution of such article characteristics over time (1979-2011).

More specifically, starting from the 1979 Stern’s article on public networks, we designed

a three-step procedure to analyze the existing literature on public networks.

The first step concerned the data/article collection. First, we considered all the public

administration/public management journals included in ISI, and then selected the top five

American journals and the top five European journals (Table 1). As far as American journals

are concerned, we took into consideration the five highly ranked journals according to their

impact factors: American Review of Public Administration (ARPA); Journal of Policy

Analysis and Management (JPAM), Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

(JPART), Public Administration (PA), Public Administration Review (PAR). As far as the

European journals are concerned, we considered Governance (GOV), Local Government

Studies (LGS), Public Money and Management (PMM), Public Management Review (PMR)

and the recently admitted in ISI International Public Management Journal (IPMJ) (as younger

than the American journals, in fact, only four European journals have received an impact

factor in 2011) (Table 1). We chose to consider five American and five European journals in

order to avoid biases in the article selection, due to the fact that it could be easier for

American scholars to publish on American journals (and for European scholars to publish on

European journals). Secondly, we collected all the articles published from 1979 to 2011 in the

ten journals, containing the word “public networks” in their abstract. We chose 1979 as

starting point as, as previously showed, we assumed the work published by Stern (1979),

“The development of an interorganizational control network: The case of intercollegiate

14

athletics”, on Administrative Science Quarterly as the first article using the word “network”.

384 articles were then collected (Table 1); the titles and abstracts of those articles were

quickly screened in order to be sure they dealt with “public networks”: 224 articles were then

dropped. First we considered only articles, research notes, responses and rejoinders, whereas

book reviews were excluded, as were letters to the editor. Secondly, we eliminated all the

articles generically referring to network as link among people or organizations, and using the

word network to indicate the infrastructure in the utility industry, etc. etc. At the end, 160

articles were retrieved and included in our data base (Table 1).

Insert Table 1 about here

The second step concerned the data reduction. By reading the abstracts of the retrieved

articles, we systematically copied and pasted sentences referring to their theoretical

background, their research questions and their research methods. When those information

were not available on the abstract, we considered the article full text. Then, by comparing the

collected data and considering the existent literature, we could identify some umbrella

concepts dealing with the theoretical framework, the main topics and the methods of public

network research (Table 2). The 160 articles were then coded according to those categories.

Following Klijn (2008), we identified three categories to code the article theoretical

background; we labeled them: policy network approach (Marsh, 1998; Marsh & Rhodes,

1992; Rhodes, 1988); public management network approach (to recall McGuire & Agranoff,

2010) and governance network approach (Klijn, 2008). The article main topics were also

coded depending on the fact that the articles dealt with the network establishment (in terms of

network formation and characteristics), the network functioning (in terms of network

management and governance) or the network performance (in terms of network effectiveness

for the clients of the provided services or in terms of policy outcome). The research methods

were categorized into qualitative or quantitative depending on the fact studies employ

15

qualitative data analysis procedures (Miles & Huberman, 1994), or quantitative data analysis

techniques (eg. social network analysis, regression models, etc.). According to this approach,

works using a case study research design, but then collecting data through a survey and

analyzing them through social network analysis techniques, correlation tests or regression

models (eg. Provan & Milward, 1995) were coded as quantitative. As it is usual in citation

analysis (eg. Usdiken & Pasadeos, 1995) the assignment of an article to a specific country or

geographic areas (eg. American, European, Asian, Others, etc. etc.) depends on the University

affiliation of the first author (eg. location of the home institution of the author or, in the case

of multiple authorship, on the institutional affiliation of the first author).

Insert Table 2 about here

The third step concerned the data analysis. First, we considered the characteristics of the

160 article, by simply analyzing their distribution of frequencies along our four categories

(author’s Country of origin, theoretical framework, main topics and methods); secondly, in

order to identify different communities of public network scholars, we empirically explored

the existence of a correlation between the author’s Country of origin and the other articles

characteristics (Chi test based on Pearson’s index); thirdly, we conducted a longitudinal

analysis by mapping the evolution of the identified communities of researchers from 1979 to

2011.

In the following, we will present the study results, in terms of (1) sample description and

article characteristics; (2) correlation tests and communities of public network scholars; (3)

longitudinal analysis and evolution of the public network scholar communities over time.

Results and discussion

Table 3 describes the main characteristics of the public network articles published from

1979 to 2011 in the ten journal included in our analysis, thus shedding light on the main

characteristics of the community of scholars generally focusing on public networks.

16

Insert Table 3 about here

Out of the 160 articles included in our data base, 52 articles are theoretical and 108

articles are empirical in nature. The high number of theoretical and conceptual articles shows

the need of the public network scholar community to think over its origin and characteristics;

the most of those articles in fact systematize the existent literature in order to understand

“Where We Are and Where We Need to Go” (to recall Isett et al. 2011). As far as the article

theoretical framework is concerned, the 29.4% of the considered articles assumes the policy

network approach, the 33.8% takes the public management network approach and the

remaining 28.1% is based on the governance network approach, thus witnessing a main focus

of network scholars on the most consolidated British and American approach, whereas the

governance approach, typical of the North European Countries, appears new and again in its

preliminary steps of development. Concerning the most investigated topics, scholars seem to

concentrate more on network performance (39.4% of the articles) and network formation

(with the 37.5% of the articles dealing with the network establishment), whereas the aspects

concerning the network functioning and management appear to be more neglected (only the

15.6% of the network articles focuses on them). The remaining 7.5% of the considered

articles are systematization of the existent literature. About method, the public network

scholars reveals a preference for the qualitative approach, dominating in the policy network

and governance network community, and also greatly employed in the managerial

community: the 68.5% of the considered articles are in fact qualitative in nature and the

31.5% are quantitative.

As far as the author’s Country of origin is considered, the European scholars seem to be

more numerous than the American ones, coherently with the early development of the British

policy network theory at the beginning of the Eighties (the public management network

approach and the governance approach developed only during the nineties). The 54.4% of our

17

articles are in fact authored by an European scholar (and as better detailed later, the 44.8% of

them is written by an English scholar), whereas only the 38.8% is authored by an American

scholar. Then, the 6.9% of our articles are written by scholars of other Countries, mainly

Australia, Canada and China (Table 4). As far as European articles are considered, the 44.8%

of the considered articles are written by English scholars and the 41.3% comes from the North

of Europe (Netherlands 21.8% and Nordic Countries 19.5%), thus revealing the North

European nature of public network scholar community in Europe. Only, in fact, the 5.7% of

the considered articles comes from the South of Europe: France (2.3%), Spain (2.3%) and

Italy (1.1%) (Table 4).

On the basis of these considerations, two communities of public network scholars seem to

clearly emerge: American the former and European the latter. As a consequence, in the

following we will focus our analysis on them and better explore their characteristics and

evolution over time.

Insert Table 4 about here

Normally, American scholars seem to prefer publishing on American journals: the

85.48% of the American-authored articles are in fact published on the five American journals

considered. Americans seem also to prefer the two journals of JPAR and PAR as target

journals for their publication, where the most of their articles appears (JPART 41.98% and

PAR 22.58%). Only, the 14.52% of the American scholars published on the other side of the

Atlantic, and the most of those articles was published on a special issue of IPMJ. Europeans

seem to be more prone to glance across the Atlantic; the 41.38% of the European-authored

articles was published on European journals, but the 58.62% was published on American

journals. The high number of European publications on American journals can be explained

by taking into consideration the peculiarities of PA, as journal both trying to match the

American and the European tradition, and giving room at the policy network approach (the

18

57% of the articles published on PA assumes in fact the British policy network tradition as

theoretical framework) (Table 5).

As far as the target journals are considered, then, the European community seems to be

more open and “cross-section” than the American one, appearing, instead, focused on a few

journals and forming a sort of elite group. This different approach can be also explained by

taking into consideration the journal history and reputation, being the American journals

normally older and more highly ranked than the European one. Nevertheless, as academic

journals are an extraordinary instrument to spread ideas and to favour the researcher

communities’ meeting, an invitation can be addressed to American scholars to take into

consideration also European journals.

Insert Table 5 about here

As far as the article theoretical background is considered (Table 6), American scholars

seem to prefer the public management network approach (64.52% of the published articles),

coherently with their main focus on networks for the joint provision of public services, even if

they seem also to take often the policy network theory as their theoretical framework

(17.74%). On the other side of the Atlantic, the picture is completely different: Europeans

focus mainly on the governance approach (45.98% of the published articles) and neglect the

managerial approach (13.79%). They seem to find a point of contact with the American

community in the policy network tradition, representing the theoretical background of the

33.33% of the European-authored articles (Table 5). That can also be explained by taking into

consideration the origin of the European network approach and its main focus on policy-

making networks (Klijn, 2008).

When considering the research topics, coherently with the managerial approach,

Americans seem to be more focused on how to measure the network performance and predict

the network success (47.37% of the published articles), and how to explain the network

19

formation and development (29.82%). On the other side, the network functioning and

management seems to be more neglected (22.81%). A similar focalization on network origins

and results can also be identified among the European scholars, even if the European scholars

seem to be more interested to explain the network rationalities (and justify the network

formation in comparison with the most traditional organizational forms of market and

hierarchies) (48.78% of the published articles) than investigating the network impact on

policies and policy outcomes (37.8%). As for the American communities, the internal

network functioning seems to be an under-investigated topic, despite the number of

invitations to try to better understand the policy network governance and management

(13.41%) (Table 6).

As far as methods are considered, American scholars seem to be more quantitative-

oriented than the European ones. The 62.79% of the American articles employs in fact

quantitative instruments and techniques for the data analysis, whereas the European articles

seem to rely almost exclusively on more qualitative and interpretative data analysis

instruments (87.5%) (Table 6).

Such insights are confirmed by the results of the correlation test (Table 6). A strong

correlation seems in fact to exist between the authors’ Country of origin and both the article

theoretical framework (X20.05 (df3) = 7.82, p = 2.24694E-11) and methods (X2

0.05 (df1) = 3.84,

p = 1.75849E-07). A weaker correlation can also be identified with the main topics public

network researchers normally focus on (X20.1 (df2) = 4.61, p =0.067).

On the basis of these considerations, the results of our study seem to suggest the

existence of two distinct, and not well integrated, communities of network scholars in the

world, more managerial-oriented and “American” the former (Agranoff, 1986, 2006;

Agranoff & McGuire 1998, 2001; Huang & Provan, 2007a, 2007b; Isett & Provan, 2005;

Mandell, 1994; Mandell & Keast, 2008; McGuire, 2002; McGuire & Agranoff, 2011; Meyer

20

& O’Toole, 2001, 2003, 2010; Milward & Provan 1995, 1998a, 1998b, 2003; Milward et al.

2010; O’Toole 1995, 1996; O’Toole & Meyer 1999, 2004a, 204b 2006; Provan & Milward

1991, 1995, 2001; Provan & Sebastian, 1998; Provan et al. 2005; Provan et al. 2009) and

more governance-oriented and “European” the latter (Borzel, 2011; Ferlie et al. 2011; Kickert

et al. 1997; Klijn, 2008; Klijn & Koopenjan, 2000, 2006; Klijn & Sckelcher, 2007; Klijn et al.

2010; Koopenjan & Klijn, 2004; Raab, 2003; Skelcher, 2005; 2010; Toke, 2010; Toke &

Marsh, 2003; Voets, 2008). More specifically, whereas the community of American scholars

seem to prefer taking a managerial approach at the networks for the provision of public

services, to investigate how to make them really work and to use quantitative data analysis

techniques, the European scholars seem to prefer assuming a governance approach at policy-

making networks, to investigate their formation and main characteristics and to use qualitative

and interpretative data analysis techniques.

Insert Table 6 about here

The longitudinal analysis conducted on the American and the European public network

communities from 1979 to 2011 does not seem to lead to significantly different results. As far

as the evolution of the characteristics of the two communities are considered, in fact, the

American and the European communities seem to remain consistent with their main spirit,

and seem to weakly invest in the development of a common field. Since its origin, the

American community seems to be managerial-oriented, concerned by the problems of

network performance and quantitative in nature. From 1979 to 2011, it seems to develop by

strengthening those characteristics. The number of articles taking the public management

approach remained always higher than that of articles taking the policy network or

governance network approach; on top of it, it has been growing tremendously since 1996.

Similarly, since 2000 the number of articles focusing on the network performance has been

significantly increasing. Concerning methods, the American community has always been

21

focused on quantitative data analysis techniques, even if the number of qualitative studies has

significantly increased during the last years (Figure 1). A similar history can be told if we

consider the European community, developing by strengthening its own characteristics, even

if some signals of a greater openness toward the American approach can also be identified. As

Figure 2 shows the European community developed by strengthening its own characteristics

as community focused on network governance, investigating above all the network

establishment and qualitative in nature. Nevertheless, during the last years the number of

studies focusing on the network outcome and employing quantitative data analysis techniques

seem to have been significantly increased.

Insert Figure 1 and Figure 2 about here

Conclusion

The results of our study witness the existence of at least two distinct scholar communities

in the world: American the former and European the latter, each one with its own theoretical

framework, main interests and research methods.

This can be explained by taking into consideration the peculiarities of the American

public administration (Peters 1998) and the distinctiveness of the European one (Kickert

2005).

In this perspective, the development of the managerial approach to public networks in

America, and of the governance approach to public networks in Europe can be explained

against the historical nature of the public administration and state-society relationships in

those countries. In the US, the minimalist State normally engages in public-public and public-

private networks to jointly provide public services, thus leading to a prevalent focus on

service delivery networks and problems related to their functioning in the network literature.

On the other side, the prominent role of European governments in the welfare state in Europe

and of the strength interest groups in these societies (Kooiman, 1993; Schmitter & Lembruch,

22

1979) naturally lead to focus on actors’ role within policy networks and their power to

influence policy-making.

What is more difficult to explain is the manifest separation between the two communities,

that seem to have no or few points of contact, when, as Berry et al (2004) and Klijn (2008)

argue, there are many point of contacts between the different theoretical and methodological

traditions at public networks that should be positively merged and contaminated.

To follow such invitation, initiatives as the Transatlantic Dialogue Conference organized

every year within the framework of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA) to

foster the dialogue between American and European scholars seem to be particularly

important. On top of it, internationally co-authored articles can be useful to facilitate the

contamination among the existent network communities, but are traditionally neglected. In

our data base, in fact, only the 14% of the selected articles are international (i.e. co-authored

by authors of different countries). Fostering the collaboration among scholars working in

different Universities around the world is, in this perspective, another instrument to encourage

the dialogue and build a bridge between the existent and independent public network

academic communities.

23

Table 1 – Public network articles published from 1979 to 20011

  available on publisher web‐site 

Total no. of articles retrieved 

Total no. of articles screened as relevant 

% of relevant articles 

US ‐ American Journals         

The American review of public administration   1917‐2011  27  12  11% 

Journal of Policy Analisys and Management  1981‐2011  8  0  0% 

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 

1991‐2011  57  33  31% 

Public Administration  1923‐2011  117  44  41% 

Public Administration Review  1940‐2011  61  18  17% 

US  ‐ American Journals Total    270  107  100% 

EU ‐ European Journals         

Governance  1988‐2011  35  11  21% 

International Public Management Journal  2005‐2011  11  6  11% 

Local Government Studies  1975‐2011  14  7  13% 

Public Money and Management  1988‐2011  19  7  13% 

Public Management Review  2000‐2011  35  22  42% 

EU ‐ European Journals Total    114  53  100% 

US + EU Total    384  160   

24

Table 2 – Methods for data analysis

Keywords Public network Databases Journal publisher web site Search criteria

“network” in the abstract

Results

Total # of articles retrieved: 384 Total # of articles screened as relevant: 160 Total # of empirical studies: 108 Total # of normative/theoretical paper: 52 Total # of US-authored articles: 62 Total # of EU-authored studies: 87 Total # of articles from other countries: 11

Coding system

Author origin country: affiliation of the article first author Theoretical framework Policy network approach: (Rhodes 1988; Marsh and Rhodes 1992; Marsh 1998) Public management network approach (Mandell 1994; Provan and Milward 1995; Agranoff 1998) Governance network approach (Kickert et al. 1997; Koppenjan and Kickert 2004; Klijn, 2008) Main topics Network formation (network establishment, network structural characteristics and their predictors, rationales for networks against market and hierarchy, role of government in policy network, network development) Network functioning (network management, competences and skills of the network managers, control and accountability issue) Network performance (effectiveness of service-delivery network, predictors of public network effectiveness, policy outcomes, network effects on policy outcomes, network impact on democracy) Methods Qualitative approach (interpretative data analysis techniques, discourse analysis) Quantitative approach (social network analysis, regression models, correlation tests)

25

Table 3 – Sample description and article characteristics

Total no. of articles screened as relevant 160 US-authored articles 38.8% EU-authored articles 54.4% Others 6.9% Normative/theoretical papers 32.5% Empirical papers 67.5% Theoretcal framework Policy network theory 29.4% Public Management network theory 33.8% Governance network theory 28.1% Organization and economic theory 8.8% Main topics Network formation 37.5% Network functioning 15.6% Network performance 39.4% Literature review 7.5% Methods Quantitative approach 31.5% Qualitative approach 68.5%

Table 4 – Geographical distribution of public network articles

US-authored articles 38.8% EU-authored articles 54.4% Others 6.9% EU-authored articles UK 44.8% Netherlands 21.8% Nordic Countries 19.5% Italy 1.1% Germany 4.6% France 2.3% Spain 2.3% Belgium 2.3% Turkey 1.1%

26

Table 5 – US and EU authored articles – target journals

Total no. of articles

screened as relevant

US-authored articles

EU-authored articles

Others

US - American Journals The American review of public administration 12 11.29% 5.75% 0.00% Journal of Policy Analisys and Management 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

33 41.94% 8.05% 0.00%

Public Administration 44 9.68% 41.38% 18.18% Public Administration Review 18 22.58% 3.45% 9.09% US - American Journals Total 107 EU - European Journals Governance 11 1.61% 5.75% 45.45% International Public Management Journal 6 6.45% 2.30% 0.00% Local Government Studies 7 0.00% 8.05% 0.00% Public Money and Management 7 0.00% 8.05% 0.00% Public Management Review 22 6.45% 17.24% 27.27% EU - European Journals Total 53 US + EU Total 160 100% 100% 100%

Table 6 - US and EU authored articles – main characteristics

US - authored articles

EU - authored articles

Theoretical framework Policy network theory 17.74% 33.33% Public Management network theory 64.52% 13.79% Governance network theory 4.84% 45.98% Organization and economic theory 12.90% 6.90% X2

0.05 (df3) = 7.82. p = 2.24694E-11

Main topics Network establishment 29.82% 48.78% Network functioning 22.81% 13.41% Network performance 47.37% 37.80% X2

0.1 (df2) = 4.61. p =0.067

Methods Quantitative approach 62.79% 12.50% Qualitative approach 37.21% 87.50% X2

0.05 (df1) = 3.84. p = 1.75849E-07

27

Figure 1 – Evolution of the American community on public networks

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Policy network theory

Public Managementnetwork theory

Governance networktheory

Organization andeconomic theory

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Network establishment

Network functioning

Network performance

Review

28

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Qualitative studies

Quantitative studies

Figure 2 - Evolution of the European community on public networks

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Policy network theory

Public Managementnetwork theory

Governance networktheory

Organization andeconomic theory

29

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Network establishment

Network functioning

Network performance

Review

0

5

10

15

20

25

1990-1995 1996-2000 2001-2005 2006-2011

Qualitative studies

Quantitative studies

30

References

Agranoff R. (1986). Intergovernmental Management: Human Services Problem Solving In Six Metropolitan Areas. State University of New York Press: Albany. NY.

Agranoff R. (2001). Big Questions in Public Network Management Research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(3): 295–326.

Agranoff R. (2003). Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Agranof. R. (2003). Leveraging networks: A guide for public managers working across organizations. Washington. D.C.. IBM endowment for the Business of Government (March).

Agranoff R. (2006). Inside collaborative networks: Ten lessons for public managers. Public Administration Review. Special Issue. Supplement to Issue 66:6.

Agranoff R. & McGuire M. (1998). Multinetwork Management: Collaboration and the Hollow State in Local Economics. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 8(1): 67–92.

Agranoff. R. & McGuire M. (2001). After the network is formed: Process. Power and performance. In M. P. Mandell (Ed). Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management. pp11-29. Quorum Books. Westport. Ct.

Agranoff R. & McGuire M. (2003). Collaborative public management. Washington. D.C.. Georgetown University Press.

Aiken. M.. & Hage J. (1968). Organizational interdependence and intraorganizational structure. American Sociological Review. 33. 912-930.

Aldirch. H. (1977). Visions and villains: The politics of designing interorganizational relations. Organization and Administrative Sciences. 8: 23-40.

Aldirch. H. (1979). Organizations and environments. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey. Aldrich. H. & Whetten. D.A. (1981). Organization sets. action sets and networks: Making the most

of simplicity. In P.C. Nystrum and W.H. Starbuck (Eds) Handbook of Organizational Design. Vol. 1 (pp385-408). Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Berry F. & Berry W. (1990). State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. American Political Science Review 84(2): 395–415. Berry F.S., Brower R.S., Choi S.O., Goa W.X., Jang H., 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: 539–552

Börzel T.A. (2011). Networks: reified metaphor or governance panacea?. Public Administration, 89: 49–63.

Dahl R.A. (1961). Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dahrendorf R. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Emery F.E.. & Trist E.L. (1965). The causal texture of organizational environments. Human Relations. 18. 21-32.

Evan W.M. (1966). The Organization set: Toward a theory of interorganizational relations. In J.D. Thompson (Ed) Approaches to organizational design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Ferlie E. & Pettigrew A. (1996). Managing Through Networks: Some Issues and Implications for the NHS, British Journal of Management, 7, March, 81-99.

Ferlie E., Fitzgerald L., McGivern G., Dopson, S. & Bennett C. (2011), Public policy networks and ‘wicked problems': a nascent solution?. Public Administration, 89.

Gage R.W. & Mandell M.P. (1988). Strategies for managing intergovernmental policies and networks. Praeger. Westport. Ct.

31

Gray B. (1989). Collaborating: finding common ground for multiparty problems. Jossey-Bass Publishers. San Francisco.

Gage R.W. & Mandell M.P. eds. (1990). Strategies for Managing Intergovernmental Policies and Networks. New York: Praeger.

Granovetter M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology. 78(6): 1360–80.

Granovetter M. (1974). Getting a Job: A Study of Contracts and Careers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Granovetter M. (1985). Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481–510

Hage. J. (1973). A strategy for creating interdependent delivery systems to meet complex needs. . In A. R. Negandhi (Ed). Organization theory and interorganizational analysis. Kent Comparative Research Institute: Kent State University. Kent. Ohio.

Hanf. K. and F. W. Scharpf (Eds) (1978). Interorganizational policy making. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hanf. K. Hjern. B. & Porter D.O. (1978). Local networks of manpower training in the Federal Republic of Germany and Sweden. In K. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf. Eds. Interorganizational policy making: Limits to coordination and central control. pp 303-344. Sage Publications. London & New York.

Hjern. B. & Porter D.O. (1981). Implementation structures: A new unit of administrative analysis. Organization Studies. 2(3): 211-227.

Horwich. M. & Prahalad. C.K. (1981). Managing multiorganization enterprises: The emerging strategic frontier. Sloan Management Review. Winter: 1-16.

Huang K. & Provan K.G. (2007a). Resource Tangibility and Patterns of Interaction in a Publicly Funded Health and Human Services Network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: 17(3): 435-454.

Huang K. & Provan K.G. (2007b). Structural embeddedness and organizational social outcomes in a centrally governed mental health services network. Public Management Review. Volume 9, Issue 2: 169 - 189

Huxham. C. (2000). The challenge of collaborative governance. Public Management. 2(3): 337-357.

Huxham. C. & Vangen S. (1996). Key themes in the management of relationships between public and non-profit organizations. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 9(7): 5-17.

Innes. J.E. & Booher D.E. (2010). Planning with complexity: An introduction to collaborative rationality for public policy. Routledge. London and New York.

Isett K.R. & Provan K.G. (2005). The Evolution of Dyadic Interorganizational Relationships in a Network of Publicly Funded Nonprofit Agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 15(1): 149-165,

Isett K.R, Mergel I.A., LeRoux K., Mischen P.A., & Rethemeyer R.K. (2011). Networks in Public Administration Scholarship: Understanding Where We Are and Where We Need to Go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: 21(suppl 1): 57-73

Keast. R. (2004). Integrated public services: The role of networked arrangements. Unpublished PhD thesis. School of Management. Queensland University of Technology. Australia.

Keast. R.. Mandell. M.P.. Brown. K. and G. Woolcock (2004). Network structures: Working differently and changing expectations. Public Administration Review. 64(3): 363-371.

Kickert. W.J. M. Klijn. E-H. & Koppenjan J. (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. Sage Publications: London.

Kickert. W.J.M. (2005). Distinctiveness in the Study of Public Management in Europe. Public Management Review. 7(4): 537-563.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown.

32

Klijn E.H. (2008). Governance and Governance Networks in Europe An assessment of ten years of research on the theme. Public Management Review. 10 (4): 505 – 525.

Klijn E.H. & Skelcher C. (2007), Democracy and governance networks: compatible or not?. Public Administration, 85: 587–608.

Klijn E.H. &. Koppenjan J.F.M. (2000). Public Management and Policy Networks. Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management Review. 2(2): 135 – 158.

Klijn E.H. &. Koppenjan J.F.M. (2006). Institutional design. Changing institutional features of networks. Public Management Review. 8 (1): 141 – 160.

Klijn E.H., Steijn B. & Edelenbos J. (2010). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration, 88: 1063–1082.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions. Beverly Hills, CA:Sage.

Koppenjan. J. and Klijn E.H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks. Routledge. London & New York.

Laumann. E.O., Galaskiewicz. J & Marsden P.V. (1978). Community structures as interorganizational linkages. Annual Review of Sociology. 4: 455-484.

Lawless. M.W. (1981). Directed interorganizational systems: Network strategy making in public service delivery. Unpublished manuscript. California state University. Northrdige. California.

Mandell. M.P. (1988). Intergovernmental management in interorganizational networks: A revised perspective. International Journal of Public Administration. 11(4): 393-416.

Mandell. M.P. (1994). Managing interdependencies through program structures: a revised paradigm. American Review of Public Administration. 24(1): 99-121.

Mandell. M.P. (Ed) (2001). Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management. Quorum Books. Westport. Ct.

Mandell. M.P. (2008). Understanding the realities of collaborative networks. In M. Considinhe and S. Giguere (Eds). The theory and practice of local governance and economic development. pp 63-79. Palgrave Macmillan. New York.

Mandell. M.P., Keast R. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks. Developing a framework for revised performance measures. Public Management Review. 10(6): 715 – 731

Marsh D. ed. (1998) Comparing Policy Networks in British Government Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marsh D. & Rhodes A. (1992). Policy Networks in British Government. London: Oxford University

Press. Mintrom M. (2000). Policy Entrepreneurs and School Choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown

University Press. Mitchell J.C. (1969). The Concept and Use of Social Networks. In Social Networks in Urban

Situations, edited by J.C. Mitchell, 1–50. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Moreno J. (1934). Who Shall Survive? New York: Beacon Press. Nadel S.F. (1957). The Theory of Social Structure. London: Cohen and West. North D. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press. McGuire M. (2002). Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do

It. Public Administration Review, 62: 599–609. McGuire M. & Agranoff R. (2011). The Limitations of public management networks. Public

Administration, 89(1): Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage. Milward H.B. (1982). Interorganizational policy systems and research on public organizations.

Administrative Science Quarterly. 13(4):457-478.

33

Milward H.B., Provan K.G. (1998). Principles for Controlling Agents: The Political Economy of Network Structure. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 8 (2): 203-221.

Milward, H.B. & Provan, K.G. (1998b), Measuring Network Structure. Public Administration, 76: 387–407.

Milward, H.B. and Provan, K.G. (2003), Managing the hollow state. Collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review. 5(1): 1 – 18.

Milward H.B., Provan K.G., Fish A., Isett K.R. & Huang K. Governance and Collaboration: An Evolutionary Study of Two Mental Health Networks. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 20(suppl 1): 25-41.

Meier K.J. & O'Toole L.J. (2003), Managerial Strategies and Behavior in Networks: A Model with Evidence from U.S. Public Education. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theroy. 11(3): 271-294

Meier, K.J. & O'Toole, L.J. (2003), Public Management and Educational Performance: The Impact of Managerial Networking. Public Administration Review. 63: 689–699.

Meier, K.J. & O'Toole, L.J. (2010), Beware of managers not bearing gifts: how management capacity augments the impact of managerial networking. Public Administration, 88: 1025–1044.

Molnar J.J. & Rogers. D.L. (1979). A comparative model of interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24: 405-425.

Negandhi. A.R. (1980). Interorganization Theory. The Kent State University Press. Kent. Ohio. Nystrom. P.C. and Starbuck. W.H. (Eds) (1984). Handbook of organizational design. Volume I and

II. Oxford University Press. Oxford. O’Leary. R.. Bingham B.L & Gerard C. (2006). Special Issue on collaborative public management.

Public Administration Review. Supplement. 66:6. O'Toole L.J (1996). Hollowing the Infrastructure: Revolving Loan Programs and Network

Dynamics in the American States. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 6(2): 225-242.

O’Toole. Jr. L.J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review. 57(1): 45-52.

O'Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. (1995). Rational Choice and Policy Implementation: Implications for Interorganizational Network Management. The American Review of Public Administration. 25 (1): 43-57.

O'Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. (1999). Modeling the Impact of Public Management: Implications of Structural Context. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: 9(4): 505-526.

O'Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. (2004). Public Management in Intergovernmental Networks: Matching Structural Networks and Managerial Networking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 14(4): 469-494

O'Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. (2004). Desperately Seeking Selznick: Cooptation and the Dark Side of Public Management in Networks. Public Administration Review, 64: 681–693.

O'Toole L.J. & Meier, K.J. (2006). Networking in the Penumbra: Public Management, Cooptative Links, and Distributional Consequences. International Public Management Journal. 9 (3): 271 – 294.

Pedersen A.B. (2010). The fight over Danish nature: explaining policy network change and policy change. Public Administration, 88: 346–363.

Pennings. J. M. (1981) Strategically interdependent organizations. In J. P. Nystrom and H. Starbuck (Eds). Handbook of organizational design. vol I. pp433-455. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Perucci. R. and M. Pilsuk (1970). Leaders and ruling elites: The interorganizational bases of community power. American Sociological Review. 35: 1040 – 1057.

Porter. D. O. and Warner. D. C. (1979). Organizations and implementation structures. Unpublished manuscript. University of Texas. Austin.

34

Porter. D. O. (1980). Accounting for discretion and local environments in social experimentation and program administration: Some proposed alternative conceptualizations. Austin Texas. Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs.

Provan. K. G. (1983). The federation as an interorganizational network. Academy of Management Review. 8(1):78-89.

Provan. K.G. & Milward H.B. (1991). Institutional-Level Norms and Organizational Involvement in a Service-Implementation Network Institutional-Level Norms and Organizational Involvement in a Service-Implementation Network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: (1) 4: 391-417.

Provan. K.G. &. Milward H.B. (1995). Theory of interorganizational effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 40: 1-13.

Provan. K.G. & Milward H.B. (2001). Do networks really work? Public Administration Review. 51(4):414-423.

Provan K.G. & Sebastian J.G. 1998. ‘Network Within Networks: Service Link Overlap, Organizational Cliques, and Network Effectiveness’, Academy of Management Journal. 41(4): 453–63.

Provan K.G., Veazie M.A., Staten L. K. & Teufel-Shone, N.I. (2005), The Use of Network Analysis to Strengthen Community Partnerships. Public Administration Review, 65: 603–613.

Provan K.G., Huang K., & Milward H.B. (2009). The Evolution of Structural Embeddedness and Organizational Social Outcomes in a Centrally Governed Health and Human Services Network. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(4): 873-893.

Raab J. (2002). Where Do Policy Networks Come From? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 12(4): 581-622.

Rogers. E. M. & Argawala-Rogers R. (1976). Communication in organizations. Free Press: New York.

Rogers D. L. & Whetten, D.A. eds (1982) Interorganizational Coordination: Theory, Research, and Implementation, Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Sabatier P. & Hank Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Assessment.In Theories of the Policy Process, edited by PaulSabatier, 117–67. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

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): 142–57.

Schmitter, P.C. & Lehmbruch G. (1979). Trends toward corporatist intermediation, edited by Philippe C. Schmitter and Gerhard Lehmbruch Sage.

Skelcher C. (2005), Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance. Governance, 18: 89–110.

Skelcher C. (2010). Fishing in Muddy Waters: Principals, Agents, and Democratic Governance in Europe. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 20(suppl 1): 61-75.

Stern. R. N. (1979). The development of an interorganizational control network: The case of intercollegiate athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly. 24(2): 243-266.

Taylor, A. J. (1992), Issue networks and the restructuring of the British and west German coal industries in the 1980s. Public Administration, 70: 47–66.

Thompson. J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tichy. N.M. (1984). Networks as organizations. In P.C. Nystrum and W.H. Starbuck (Eds)

Handbook of organizational design: Volume 2. pp 225-249. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Tichy. N.M., Tushman. M.L. & S. Fombrun (1979). Social network analysis for organizations. Academy of Management Review. 4(4): 507-519.

Toke D. & Marsh, D. (2003), Policy networks and the GM crops issue: assessing the utility of a dialectical model of policy networks. Public Administration, 81: 229–251.

35

Toke D. (2010), Politics by heuristics: policy networks with a focus on actor resources, as illustrated by the case of renewable energy policy under new labour. Public Administration, 88: 764–781.

Turk. H. (1970). Interorganizational networks in urban society: Initial perspectives and comparative research. American Sociological Review. 35: 1-9.

Turk H. (1973). Comparative urban structures from an interorganizational perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly. 18: 37-55.

Turk. H. (1977). Organizations in modern life. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco. Voets J., Van Dooren W., De Rynck F. (2008). A Framework for Assessing the Performance of

Policy Networks. Public Management Review. 10 (6): 773 – 790. Üsdiken B. & Pasadeos Y. 1995. Organizational Analysis in North America and Europe: A

Comparison of Co-Citation Networks, Organization Studies, 16(3), pp. 503–27. Warren. R.L. (1967). The interorganizational field as a focus for investigation. Administrative

Science Quarterly. 12(3): 396-419. Warren. R.L. (1973). The community in America. Rand McNally: Chicago. Warren. R.L. Burgunder. A.F. & Rose S.M. (1974). The structure of urban reform. Heath:

Lexington. Massachusetts. Walker J. (1969). The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States. American Political

Science Review 63(3): 880–99. Williamson O. (1975). Markets and Hierarchies. New York: Free Press. Williamson O. (1981). The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach. American

Journal of Sociology. 87(3): 548–77. Zald. M. (1966). Organizations as policies: An analysis of community organization agencies. Social

Forces. 2:56-65. Zeitz. G. (1980). Interorganizational relationships and social structure: A critique of some aspects.

In A. R. Negandhi (Ed). Interorganization Theory. pp 39-48. Kent Comparative Research Institute: Kent State University. Kent. Ohio.

Wright. D. S. (1983). Managing the intergovernmental scene: The changing drama of federalism. intergovernmental relations. and intergovernmental management. In W. P. Eddy (Ed). Handbook of organizational management. 417 -454. Marcel Dekker. New York.