High‐capacity and Low‐capacity Governance Networks in Welfare Services Delivery: A Typology and Empirical Examination of the Case of Israeli Municipalities

Abstract

A major argument of this paper is that to enhance the theoretical value of the concept of governance one must focus on how governance networks operate and with what outcomes. To that end, the paper offers a typology of governance‐network capacity (GNC). Network capacity is assessed on a continuum from low to high, on the basis of four abilities of public actors: to select non‐public collaborators, determine the goals of the network, exercise professional discretion, and recruit new resources. Differences in GNC are discussed in terms of their implications for equality and the degree to which new forms of governing networks create bases for retaining or increasing the inequality between municipalities. The paper presents findings from a study of collaborations between public and non‐public actors in 78 governance networks that provide welfare services, operating in six municipalities in Israel.

Institutional Logics, Institutional Work, and Public Service Innovation in Non‐profit Organizations

“…Around the turn of the twenty‐first century, a competing logic, NPG, developed (see Denhardt and Denhardt ; Hartley ; Osborne ), premised on the idea that public services evolve from a complex social system in which multiple processes and interdependent actors contribute to PSD (Menahem and Stein ). Public services as such are not created or controlled by hierarchy or market logics but are ‘co‐produced’ through interactions between networks of organizations, government, and citizens (Pestoff et al .…”

The evolution of governance networks in a time of crisis. Evidence from the Italian tourism sector

“…Despite the vagueness that often affected the first studies on networks and did not permit the building of a welldefined and univocal model of performance evaluation (Kenis and Provan, 2009;Singh and Prakash, 2010), a number of contributions have been able to identify critical factors influencing network outcomes (Menahem and Stein, 2013). These are considered to be essential references in the following attempt to define an evaluation frame of network performance.…”

“…In the start-up phase, for instance, a variable to be monitored is the identification of the promoter, in order to verify the respect of the bottom-up principle (Agranoff and McGuire, 2001;Van Raaija, 2006). The criterion of selection of the relevant interests should also be evaluated as it should be directed, following an inclusion perspective, to involve most of the population (Hanf and Scharpf, 1978;Vangen and Huxham, 2003;Menahem and Stein, 2013). Another two key elements are related to process management (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004;Klijn et al, 2010): the concrete contribution, in terms of ideas and motivation, given by network members in the beginning phase, and the fair financial participation of privates (Commission of the European Communities, 2004;Herranz, 2010).…”

“…In this context, for instance, resources are Giovanelli et al 79 held by independent actors and management has to be strongly externally oriented . The criteria followed to select relevant interests deserves as much attention as for the integration profile, but to assess whether members holding the best resources, other than having a primary interest, have been included (Hanf and Scharpf, 1978;Vangen and Huxham, 2003;Menahem and Stein, 2013). Participants' contribution, in the starting phase, should then be judged in relation to negotiation intensity (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998;Keast et al, 2004).…”

Managerial capacity in conflict environments: Management effects of private military and security companies in Iraq

“…Network capability is the ability to coordinate with the various bureaucracies, US agencies, governments (US and Iraq) and military commands in Iraq. Network capability is the ability of managers to leverage resources, personnel and information to implement policy (Menahem and Stein ). Networking capability can be identified by military rank because individuals with higher rank have bureaucratic advantages in the military's hierarchical system.…”