Benefits can take a variety of forms, for example financial/material (profits, working space, and increased transport capacity), or more intangibly (image and knowledge development). The costs of cooperation can be one-time only (preparation, adaptation of the internal organization), or recurring (organizational coordination , adaptation and tuning of substantive objectives). But what is important is the added value of synergy, i.e. being able to develop a product with characteristics that would not have been available without a PPP. Cooperation , however, implies an increase in the number of participants. Also, in partnerships, the actors are usually dependent upon each other. These two basic conditions create problems (see, for example, Emerson, 1962; Scharpf, 1978; Rogers and Whetten, 1992; Klijn and Teisman, 2000). Network Governance This problem of cooperation can be explored through the network perspective on governance, which assumes that policy is developed and implemented in networks of organizations (see, for example, Kickert et al., 1997; Klijn and Koppenjan, 2000). Policy networks can be defined as 'changing patterns of social relationships between interdependent actors which take shape around policy problems and/or clusters of resources and that are formed, maintained and changed by an ecology of games'. Networks emerge and continue to exist because actors are dependent on each other. Actors cannot achieve their objectives without resources which are possessed by other actors. Thus, networks are characterized by a limited substitutability of resources, which ensures that

It has become popular to advocate partnership arrangements. Such partnerships may be seen as new forms of governance, which fit in with the imminent network society. However, the idea of partnership is often introduced without much reflection on the need to reorganize policy‐making processes and to adjust existing institutional structures. In this contribution, we discuss the ambiguity of partnerships. An empirical basis is provided by means of an analysis of the policy making on the expansion of the Rotterdam harbor. This case indicates that although new governance schemes are being proposed and explored, they still have to comply with the existing procedures in which they are imbedded. Governments especially are not prepared to adjust to governance arrangements. Policy making continues to be based on self‐referential organizational decisions, rather than on joint interorganizational policy making. This raises questions about the added value of intended cooperative governance processes.

This article elaborates on the question of how complex decision making can be analysed. Three conceptual models are compared: the phase model, the stream model and the rounds model. Each model is based on specific assumptions about what decision making is and how it should be analysed. The phase model focuses on successive and distinctive stages in a process, i.e. defining a problem, searching for, choosing and implementing solutions. The stream model emphasizes concurrent streams of participants, problems and solutions, defining decision making as the connection between these streams. The rounds model combines elements of the other two models, in assuming that several actors introduce combinations of problems and solutions, and create progress through interaction. Each model generates specific insights, as is shown from the example of the 'Betuwe line', a railway line intended for the transport of cargo, in the Netherlands. The phase model concentrates on decisions taken by a focal actor; the stream model focuses on the coincidental links between problems, solutions and actors; and the rounds model on the interaction between actors.

No abstract

No abstract