The Collaborative Dilemma of Network Based Development, Roger Normann

  • 414 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
414
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Hordaland (463 000) Bergen (248 000) -- Oslo + Akershus (1 080 000) Oslo (560 000)

Transcript

  • 1.  
  • 2. The Collaborative Dilemma of Network Based Development Dr. Roger Normann, University of Agder and Agderforskning Symposium of thinkers and doers „ Possibilities and challenges of civil society in Latvia” Friday June 4 th 2010, Riga Latvian Society House, Latvia
  • 3. S hort bio
    • Education
      • Cand.polit political science (UiT), and PhD industrial management (NTNU)
    • Current positions
      • Sr Researcher, Agderforskning (applied research)
      • Postdoc (2010-13) University of Agder in organisational science (study of multi-level governance processes in UK, Lithuania (Baltic states) and Norway)
      • Group leader RIS research centre, a new research centre located at University of Agder and Agderforskning
    • Research interests
      • Network governance, rural/regional development, organisational science, action research
  • 4. The Agder region in the southernmost part of Norway Some population figures (2008), source Statistics Norway Kristiansand (79 000) Arendal (41 000) Stavanger (120 000) Sandnes (62 000) Oslo (560 000) Bergen (248 000) Rogaland (413 000) Agder region (272 000)
  • 5.
    • PART I: Why is network based development emerging so strong?
    • PART II: Why is network based development so difficult?
    • PART III: Brief outline of a theoretical framework to support a better understanding of the challenges involved
    • PART IV: Suggestions based on reflections from current regionalization processes in Norway
    Outline
  • 6. Why networks?
    • Networks are the hot topic within almost every sphere of modern society, and has since the early 1990s increasingly become so
      • We live in an networked globalised and regionalised era, with twitter, facebook, linkedIn, instant news, hotmail and gmail, video and messaging all available from our computers and mobile services.
      • Network mode of development is both linked to new ways of thinking of democracy, society, regions, the relationship between private, civil and public sectors and to “old” ways of tri-partite collaboration/corporatism
    • A healthy warning
      • Networks can be effective but is also a fragile (compared to public bureaucracy and markets) and network developments can relatively quickly shift into dysfunctional and ineffective patterns
  • 7. Networks are Different *Adapted from: Powell, W. W. (1990), "Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization", Research in Organizational Behavior, 12 , 295–336. Forms* Key Features Market Hierarchy Network Normative basis Contacts – Property Rights Employment Relationships Complementary Strengths Means of Communication Prices Routines Relational Methods of conflict resolution Haggling- resort to courts for enforcements Administrative fiat- supervision Norm of reciprocity- Reputational concerns Degree of Flexibility High Low Medium Amount of commitment Among the Parties Low Medium to High Medium to High Tone or Climate Precision and/or Suspicion Formal, bureaucratic Open-ended mutual benefits Actor Preferences or Choices Independent Dependent Interdependent
  • 8. The main argument to support network based development
    • The main argument
      • The main argument for participants is that you can do things that you otherwise not could do, because you can access and utilise resources, competences, know-how, information, capabilities, practical skills, capital, etc. that otherwise (using e.g. only the market or public bureaucracy) would be unavailable to you.
    • Innovation and development policy
      • Linking institutions, firms, R&D institutions, civil society, and government in new ways to solve and address shared development challenges
      • Network based development is closely linked to the current and dominating recipe of how innovation and development policies should be executed and emerging knowledge economy should be supported ref. OECD, EU, various national programmes etc.
    • Known through various concepts and theories
      • Regional clusters, triple-helix, regional innovation systems, creative regions, network governance, etc.
  • 9.
    • PART I: Why is network based development emerging so strong?
    • PART II: Why is network based development so difficult?
    • PART III: Brief outline of a theoretical framework to support a better understanding of the challenges involved
    • PART IV: Suggestions based on reflections from current regionalization processes in Norway
  • 10. What is a governance network system?
    • Actors, organisations, networks who participates in (regional) development processes, including the resources, capabilities, bargaining leverages, and interests, they embody.
    • Formal rules and informal norms (collaborative rationality) witch regulates behaviour between actors in networks
    • Structures, ideas, narratives which informs actors what it is that is sensible, correct, expedient, and likewise what is unwise, counterproductive, and unreasonable, etc.
    • All forms of direct, indirect and meta-steering of one or more networks.
    • The totality that networks, actors, network resources, norms, structures, and steering efforts form can be understood as a governance network system.
    Builds on the definition of a ‘governance network’ by Sørensen and Torfing Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2007) Theories of democratic network governance (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian)
  • 11. A typology of the challenges given by network based development processes Normann, R. H., & Isaksen, A. (2009). Klyngegovernance: Perspektiver på styrt utvikling av regionale næringsklynger (No. FoU rapport nr. 3/2009). Kristiansand: Agderforskning. Consensus on priorities, strategies and development aims No consensus on priorities, strategies and development aims Consensus on roles, responsibilities, and authority A Best case scenario, effective collaboration B Type I conflicts No consensus on roles, responsibilities, and authority C Type II conflicts D Difficult to sustain collaboration over time with this configuration
  • 12. The Collaborative Dilemma
    • Premises:
      • Networks needs steering in order to realise specific goals. Without any shared strategy, vision or purpose development processes can develop into strategic null-sum games among network participants --- to little steering of networks can lead to institutional fragmentation
      • Regional stakeholders/elites have only a limited degree of formal hierarchical power over network actors, if they steer to much participants can object, exit, choose alternatives, sabotage (turn into syrup), etc. --- therefore can also to much steering of networks lead to institutional fragmentation
    • Assumption
      • Regional/national networks can only work effectively if network structures also is accompanied with a “collaborative rationality”.
    • Question:
      • How can we facilitate the emergence of an “collaborative rationality” and thus avoiding the dilemma?
  • 13.
    • PART I: Why is network based development emerging so strong?
    • PART II: Why is network based development so difficult?
    • PART III: Brief outline of a theoretical framework to support a better understanding of the challenges involved
    • PART IV: Suggestions based on reflections from current regionalization processes in Norway
  • 14. We can distinguish between three independent sources of network collaboration
    • Instrumental collaboration (type A):
      • Resulting from successful(*) negotiation and/or coordination of particular issues, positions, resources, interests etc. between network actors, thus instrumental collaboration in particular applies to measurable quantities.
      • (*) Successful refers not to the justness, ethics or smartness of the negotiated terms but to what extent open conflict is avoided and further collective action is made possible.
    • Institutional collaboration (type B):
      • Emerges when network actors adapt their actions to appropriate (culturally acceptable) norms and rules, thus institutional collaboration refers to informal regulative mechanisms that exists between actors in networks, ref democratic practices.
    • Ideological collaboration (type C):
      • Stems from he mobilisation of actors and institutions energies and capabilities within a discursively constructed framework. Thus, ideological collaboration is based on the presence of common beliefs, shared understandings, ideas, and visions. Influencing such ideas is often labelled meta-governance.
  • 15. Typology of collaborative network patterns that produces consensus Type Description Collaborative pattern A Agreements based on negotiations and strategic interactions. Related to a specific issues or phases. Not necessarily manifested into a repeating relational pattern. B Interactions based on a relational understanding of other actors and institutions. Related to a specific collaborative arenas. The relational patterns (norms) are not necessarily transferable to other arenas or spheres. C Joint action based on a shared understandings and beliefs. Related to specific contextual circumstances. The dominant narrative (discursive framework) is difficult to change/adept to new circumstances. A +B Networks organised around a specific subject matter or development issue. Relatively robust collaborative patterns are likely to emerge. Doesn't necessarily transcend institutional boundaries or spheres. A +C Transactions between actors/institutions from different contexts (visitors) that recognise shared beliefs, values, norms. Situational and not necessarily rooted in a deeper relational understanding of the other. B +C An ceremonial type of interaction that repeats itself and could transcend specific contexts. An ineffective but robust (repeating) collaborative pattern. A +B +C Actors committed to collaborating on a broader range of issues that transcends specific arenas, institutional interest or contexts. The most resilient collaborative pattern, the critical issue is the inherent quality of the development narrative.
  • 16.
    • PART I: Why is network based development emerging so strong?
    • PART II: Why is network based development so difficult?
    • PART III: Brief outline of a theoretical framework to support a better understanding of the challenges involved
    • PART IV: Suggestions based on reflections from current regionalization processes in Norway
  • 17. A short review of two different paths of network development
    • Agder
    • 1990-2005
      • Regionalisation processes take off
      • Unifying regional strategies
      • Unelected leadership/dev. regime (Normann 2007)
      • Success story in terms of effectiveness
      • All major governance network lead by non- elected
      • Strong sense of collaboration for a common purpose
    • 2005-2010
      • New competing strategies emerges; fragmentation (OECD 2009)
      • New role for counties; takes on regional leadership
      • Old leaders still present; In sum; Institutional fragmentation of the RGS
      • All major governance network lead by non- elected
    • 1990-2010
      • almost exponential expansion of regional governance system elements
    • Unelected leadership
    • Effective dev. then inst. fragmentation
    • Rogaland
    • 1990-2005
      • Regionalisation processes take off
      • Strong leadership anchored in the city (Mayor)
      • Regional strategies are developed
      • Success story in terms of effectiveness
    • 2005-2010
      • New role for counties; increased level of competition between city government and regional (county) government.
      • Some signs of fragmentation but the city Mayor still dominates
      • Strong sense of shared purpose – collaboration characterised by high level of consensus.
      • All major governance network lead by elected (city Mayor)
    • 1990-2010
      • almost exponential expansion of regional governance system elements
    • Democratic leadership
    • Effective dev. no inst. fragmentation
  • 18. Emphasising two dimensions: The role of elected politicians, and regional strategy
    • Regional strategies
      • are important since they potentially can meta govern loosely coupled network actors
    • Elected politicians
      • Direct involvement by elected politicians (regional /city/state representative government) is important since these are the actors most likely over time to held necessary legitimacy across different intuitions and sectors in the network system
  • 19.
    • Effective network development needs to address both instrumental, institutional, and ideological dimensions
    • Emerging networks should focus on developing
      • Unifying strategies with clear and ambitious goals
      • Since networks inherently are heterarchic systems a collaborative and democratic culture is needed
      • Sustainable network development must have competent leadership and a leadership that has legitimacy across sectors, actors, and organisations. This leadership must be developed and can be shared!
  • 20. RIS Contact information: Professor Hans Christian Garmann Johnsen T: (47) 37253160 E: [email_address] Post.doc Roger Normann T: (47) 48010540 E: [email_address] The ideas presented here is also forthcoming as a chapter in: Johnsen, H. C. G., & Ennals, J. R. (Eds) (2011) Creating Collaborative Advantage (Farnham: Gower).