Abstract
In contemporary times complexity is a characteristic of local governance, in particular as a result of the severe problems which are limiting the capacity of public sector to answer social needs, produce and deliver services, etc. The organizational answer that local governance is producing in order to assure a new effectiveness to its actions is the creation of the so-called governance networks. Such a concept defines an organizational innovation that implies for public and private actors both challenges and opportunities. Which are the conditions that characterize these networks? And why they can result efficient despite such internal differences? The aim of the chapter is to identify the main features that characterizes these networks, which are their goals in the broader framework of the occurring changes to local governance trying to sketch which is their role and the opportunities connected to this organizational innovation for public administration and the implications for the connection between p.a. and social actors.
TopIntroduction
In this historical phase in various European countries, we are assisting to a redefinition of the competencies among different level of governments; this decentralization involves a redistribution of power, authority and monetary resources towards lower level of government implying so new arrangements in the relationship between these different authority structures (Haveri 2006). This process defines a framework characterized by a high dispersion of authority and competencies which are fragmented among these various levels around which the governance issues are organized, determining so that arrangements of power, competencies and relationships that is called multilevel governance (Hooghe and Marks 2003; van Popering-Verkerk and van Buuren 2016).
The devolution of powers, authority and resources which is at the base of the multilevel model, feed the amplification of fragmentation that is a distinctive feature of new governance systems; an unavoidable produced by the need to foster and improve specialization and bring services production/supply as close as possible to citizens (Peters 1998; Hooghe and Marks 2003; van Popering-Verkerk and van Buuren 2016).
As a result of this state of affairs, the great challenge that local governance is facing at the moment is the quest for coordination and cooperation between and within governance levels and among different actors (Peters 1998), otherwise every effort to realize a more efficient and effective governance model could be useless (van Popering-Verkerk and van Buuren 2016).
If we take in consideration, for example, the production of public services at the local level, we can appreciate that inter-municipal co-operation and interaction networks are becoming more relevant (Haveri 2006; Klok et al. 2018; Previtali and Salvati 2018), requesting the effort to foster new organizational models and instruments for coordination.
These networks which can represent different levels of government and/or different actors within the same territory, may be characterized by the simultaneous presence of different interests, power asymmetries, conditions of interdependence and organizational differences. Such a concept defines an organizational innovation that implies for public (local governments, public administration) and private actors (citizens, associations, profit and non-profit organizations) both challenges and opportunities.
The broader aim of the chapter is to identify some of the main features that characterize these networks, which are their goals in the framework of the occurring changes to local governance, trying to sketch which is their role and the opportunities connected to this organizational innovation for public administration and the implications for the connection between p.a. and social actors, as it is well represented by a particular experience of governance network like the one of the inter-municipal cooperation.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Structure: The stable framework within which actors operate. It defines ties and opportunities for agents’ actions.
Fragmentation: The division of actors/resources/knowledge and services in different streams that make complicated the cooperative action.
Institutionalization: The creation of stable patterns of action and behaviour, based on routinized formal and informal rules.
Territorialisation: The shift of resources, authority, and competences towards the lowest levels of government.
Process: The sum of dynamic interactions that occur among actors.
Power Asymmetry: The unbalance of resources and authority among the actors which operate in the same network.
Network: A model of cooperation between different actors based on the pooling of resources and the definition of common tasks.
Coordination: The activity to organize according to a task, a role and/or a duty different actors/organizations involved in a cooperative action.