Types of Network Governance and Network Performance: Community Development Project Case

The Inner Functioning of Local Governance Networks in Centralized Countries: A ‘Brave New World’?

“…Intensity refers to the frequency of interactions and meetings among members. LGNs with greater diversity may require a higher degree of intensity to promote group cohesion, reduce enforcement and monitoring costs, and to increase the cooperation within LGNs (Park and Park 2009). In turn, this cohesion promotes various positive benefits, such as higher internal support, higher individual satisfaction, lower team conflict, and lower team member turnover.…”

“…While diversity and intensity may reduce the efficiency of LGNs-as transaction costs tend to increase (Park and Park 2009)-coordination may emerge as a relevant intervening variable. If a core faction acts as the LGNs gatekeeper (with an effective network manager), it becomes possible to accommodate a larger set of participants and widen the sphere of action, since the involvement of all actors may no longer be required for many (routine) network decisions.…”

“…If a core faction acts as the LGNs gatekeeper (with an effective network manager), it becomes possible to accommodate a larger set of participants and widen the sphere of action, since the involvement of all actors may no longer be required for many (routine) network decisions. Hence, a centralized coordination (with specific external structures) can help circumvent the time-consuming and resource-intensive activities, along with the transaction costs involved (Feiock and Scholz 2009;Park and Park 2009). Arguably, a centralized specific management structure may facilitate the ability of attracting different stakeholders and facilitates (or coerces) collaboration among actors (Ansell and Gash 2008;Emerson et al 2012).…”