Contributions from
the Column
Tribune

Development stepchild: land reforms deserve donor support

Solar solutions for Andean people

Policy networks help to improve global governance


02/2006
  

[ Policy networks ]

Approaches to global governance

Highly complex tasks – such as implementing sustainable energy systems worldwide – defy governance by the market or state alone. Progress is impossible without the cooperation of different actors from government, business and civil society. The dilemma for policy-makers lies in the fact that such networks cannot be governed hierarchically, but function through the self-interest of the participants. Nonetheless, their success can be promoted systematically.


[ By Stephan Manning and Sebastian Wienges ]

The 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg officially recognised partnerships between governments, business and civil society. They are known as “Type II partnerships”, in contrast to conventional intergovernmental cooperation (“Type I”). In political science circles, Type II partnerships are also known as policy networks.

Such networks offer various advantages. By including additional actors, they improve effectiveness. The new actors make additional resources available, which relieves the pressure on public budgets (Brenner et. al., 2002). In the context of the WSSD, Type II partnerships are subject to the following “guiding principles”:
– They should be committed to the Agenda 21 and Millennium Development Goals.
– They should be of a voluntary, self-organising nature, and have a multi-sectoral approach.
– They should involve local, regional and international partners.

The “Framework for Action on Energy” approved in Johannesburg also focused on the meaning of Type II partnerships, setting up these three networks among others:
– the Global Village Energy Partnership (GVEP), which is involved in ensuring access to modern energy services for the poor,
– the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), which is committed to the development of the energy market, and
– the Global Network on Energy for Sustainable Development (GNESD), which defines and evaluates policies with the help of 20 research institutes.

Many social scientists assume that policy networks, rather than governments or markets, are better suited for managing complex social problems. This is because networks can unleash potential synergies, react flexibly and process more complex information than government hierarchies or profit-driven markets.

However, the crucial question is how such networks should be governed. After all, they neither have a commanding office, nor are they regulated simply by prices. Social scientists distinguish between three different approaches to network governance: the institutional, the emergent and the reflexive.

The institutional approach emphasises that networks can only fully develop their potential when regulating structures – “institutions” – help the participating actors to coordinate their activities (Kenis, Schneider, 1996). Typical institutions in this sense are agreements on objectives, procedures for selecting partners and interest intermediation, which can be set down in statutes. Coordination offices, to organise workshops and provide internet platforms, are characteristic of this approach.

The three networks mentioned above – GVEP, REEEP and GNESD – have all formulated objectives, and defined criteria for selecting partners: GVEP and REEEP are open to anyone who declares an interest and who identifies with their objectives. For GNESD, scientists were selected systematically from all parts of the world. Technical secretariats provide internet platforms and databases to all three networks, and organise workshops.

Such structures, however, are not enough for complex networks to function properly. There is a limit to the extent to which independent actors are prepared to be regulated, or to subordinate their interests to those of the networks. If internet platforms are to be used and if networks are to motivate various activities, the participants must be convinced of their value. This involves more than simply establishing formal contacts.

Against this background, social scientists have developed the concept of emergent governance (Rhodes, 1997). Rhodes emphasises self-organisation and the importance of spontaneous processes, which are often not the result of intentional planning. For example, cooperation often results from actors recognising complementary interests and opportunities to pool expertise. Mutual trust facilitates this process. In fact, the numerous participants in GVEP (approx. 650), REEEP (over 80) and GNESD (20) have joined forces for quite diverse reasons.


Opportunities
provided by reflexivity

Emergent processes, meanwhile, harbour the risk that networks may run off course. The overarching goals can easily be lost from view. Latent conflicts or a lack of expertise can – often unnoticed – slow down activities. There is a certain dilemma for policy-makers in that the dynamic aspects of networks depend on emergent processes, which cannot be governed directly. Without governance, however, stated objectives can easily be missed.

The reflexive approach to governance helps to deal with this tension. The aim is to systematically create opportunities for emergent processes and to institutionalise them following critical examination by the participants. Both network members and external stakeholders know when they see a structure or activity which is significant, and they can also suggest improvements. Their exchange of perspectives, experiences and interests helps to both develop and control the network. In this context three aspects of a reflexive approach can be helpful:

– First, it is important for network actors to be aware of their role as boundary spanners. They act as mediators between what happens in the network and the environment.
– Second, good practices should be identified and made known both inside and outside the network. However, it is the actors themselves, and not the secretariats, who should determine what constitutes good practice.
– Third, networks should organise regular “Network Development Workshops”. These could take the form of large group interventions (open space or future search), which help to reflect and effectively develop cooperation in the network (Sydow, Manning, 2006).

In practice, the above networks use these options to a greater or lesser degree. GVEP and REEEP include actors from various regions and social groups. These actors have different perspectives on the problem of sustainable energy systems, and they are in contact as boundary spanners with numerous other players both inside and outside the network. The REEEP secretariat has established an information clearing house, to assist people to access information and expert contacts from databases . Network participants constantly feed in new data and evaluate it, in order to facilitate the exchange of knowledge. Such a “learning information system” has to be used to be effective, and requires the mindful participation of relevant actors. .

Similarly, GVEP and REEEP maintain project databases, which network actors and outsiders use to identify good practices. “Trampoline”, the REEEP-intranet, registers large numbers of users. In the case of GNESD, network actors work on identifying “good policies” in the development and use of sustainable energy systems by international comparison. However, the networks should incorporate those examples into learning processes and new initiatives. Only by applying them in specific contexts actors will get to know whether these practices and policies are really “good”.

None of these networks has carried out network development workshops so far. The GVEP has only discussed this possibility. The implementation of such workshops, however, requires the professional support of experienced moderators.

In summary, the success of policy networks relies on the interaction of institutional, emergent and reflexive factors. Institutional structures are needed to support emergent initiatives, while institutional success relies on emergent dynamics. Reflexive action promotes the effective use and mutual development of structures and initiatives.


Stephan Manning
is writing his PhD dissertation on binding processes in project networks at the Institute of Management at the Free University of Berlin.
manning@wiwiss.fu-berlin.de

Sebastian Wienges
is writing his PhD dissertation on networks for sustainable energy in development cooperation at the Chair of International Politics at the University of Potsdam. swienges@globalpublicpolicy.net


Links:
Networks / Energy policy
http://www.gvep.org
http://www.reeep.org
http://www.gnesd.org

References:
Benner, Thorsten, Reinicke, Wolfgang H., Witte, Jan Martin, 2002:
Shaping globalisation. The role of global public policy networks, in Bertelsmann Foundation, Ed., Transparency: A Basis For Responsibility and Cooperation, Gütersloh, Bertelsmann Foundation Publishers.
Kenis, Patrick, Schneider, Volker, (Ed.), 1996:
Organisation und Netzwerk. Institutionelle Steuerung in Wirtschaft und Politik, Organisation and Network. Institutional Governance in Business and Politics) Frankfurt/Main, New York, Campus.
Rhodes, Rod A.W., 1997:
Foreword, in Kickert, Walter, Klijn, Eerik-Hans, Koppenjan, Joop, Ed., Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector, London, Sage.
Sydow, Jörg, Manning, Stephan, (Ed.), 2006:
Netzwerke beraten, (Consulting networks), Wiesbaden, Gabler. (Forthcoming)