2006
DOI: 10.1080/10967490600899580
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Networking in the Penumbra: Public Management, Cooptative Links, and Distributional Consequences

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 26 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 54 publications
1
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Because the contracting relationships and spending more than the typical amount of time with interest group leaders is associated with more perceived influence, we can conclude that direct access enables interest group influence over the decision making of public managers, probably in much the same manner that legislators are influenced by interest groups. Thus, our findings further highlight some of the potential downsides of decentralized governance networks that involve close collaborative relationships between public managers and representatives of external groups (Kelleher and Yackee 2009;O'Toole and Meier 2006;Whitford 2002;Witko 2011). However, our finding that more legislative power is also associated with greater perceived interest group influence indicates that, whatever the other benefits of increased centralization (Whitford 2002), more centralization would perhaps not limit interest group influence over agencies because groups can mobilize central political principals to pressurize agencies on their behalf (Stigler 1971).…”
Section: Discussion Of Findingssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…Because the contracting relationships and spending more than the typical amount of time with interest group leaders is associated with more perceived influence, we can conclude that direct access enables interest group influence over the decision making of public managers, probably in much the same manner that legislators are influenced by interest groups. Thus, our findings further highlight some of the potential downsides of decentralized governance networks that involve close collaborative relationships between public managers and representatives of external groups (Kelleher and Yackee 2009;O'Toole and Meier 2006;Whitford 2002;Witko 2011). However, our finding that more legislative power is also associated with greater perceived interest group influence indicates that, whatever the other benefits of increased centralization (Whitford 2002), more centralization would perhaps not limit interest group influence over agencies because groups can mobilize central political principals to pressurize agencies on their behalf (Stigler 1971).…”
Section: Discussion Of Findingssupporting
confidence: 51%
“…Therefore, network governance is focused on establishing complex interaction processes in terms of solving the collective action dilemmas [34]. It links relevant stakeholders by forming formal or informal relationships embedded in vertical and/or horizontal cooperative networks [35][36][37].…”
Section: Water Governance Network Governance and Ecology Of Gamesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, Mincheva and Gurr (2008) discuss ‘unholy alliances' and ‘marriages of convenience’ between terrorist and criminal organizations. And Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr and Kenneth J. Meier (2004a, 2006) persuasively argue that even legitimate networks may have a dark side to them.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%