Network Governance
= interfirm coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social systems, in contrast to bureaucratic structures within firms and formal contractual relationships between them.
More from the Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_governance
Typology of Governance Models
Andrej Zwitter
"While governance is often depicted as comprising old and new governance (Rhodes, 1996), it can be more usefully distinguished into three modes of governance:
(1) hierarchical and vertical command and control structures,
(2) increasingly horizontal co-regulation, and
(3) network governance (Hazenberg & Zwitter, 2020).
Mode (1) governance refers to the traditional form of governance carried out by the state through hierarchical command-and-control structures. It relies on authoritative institutions to make policies through the enforcement of hard law, legitimized through justificatory strategies resting on public sovereignty and public input in political decision-making. It is inherently political and institutional and is identity-based, meaning that the state’s identity is seen as authoritative and legitimate. Power relationships are static and governed via structured governance mechanisms, with the state as the dominant hierarchical authority in policymaking. Mode (2) governance is a newer approach to policymaking that moves away from traditional vertical command-and-control structures of the state to more horizontal modes of policymaking. It aims to create a level playing field between societal actors and changes the roles and power relationships of actors involved in policymaking.
Mode (2) governance is role-based in the distribution of governance tasks, as opposed to identity-based. The distinction between modes (1) and (2) governance is not always clear in practice, and many hybrid forms exist.
The governance of the digital domain requires conceptualizing power relationships as fluid, distributed, and often residing in a network of distributed actors rather than in a single, centralized actor.
Mode (3) governance was introduced to accommodate these findings. Described as “decentralized network governance”, mode (3) governance involves distributing governing tasks according to capability and exerted power. In this form of governance, regulatory mechanisms must be flexible, and power must be perceived as residing in specific and changing relationships rather than identities or roles. Decentralized network governance understands power as fluid and dynamic, and different actors can possess power as a relational, variable and functional variable (Hazenberg & Zwitter, 2020)."
(https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09763-9)
More Information
- see: How Network Governance Adds Value, by Shann Turnbull
Selected Turnbull bibliography on Network Governance
Compiled by Shann Turnbull:
‘Network Governance Theory Development and Examples, August, 2013, Summary of PhD dissertation completed at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2000, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2343456
‘The governance of firms controlled by more than one board: Theory development and examples’ PhD dissertation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, 2000, http://ssrn.com/abstract=858244.
‘A sustainable future for corporate governance theory and practice’ in S. Boubaker, B. Nguyen and D. N. Guyen (Eds.) Corporate Governance: Recent Developments and New Trends, pp. 347–368, Springer-Vertag, Heidelberg 2013. Chapter only 29.99 Euros from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-31579-4_15 or http://ssrn.com/abstract=1987305.
‘Sustaining society with economic democracy’, 2013 International Conference on Economics and Social Science (ICESS 2013), Melbourne, January 20, posted at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2220072.
‘Integrating social responsibility into corporate governance’, in Ivan Tchotourian (Ed.), Company Law and CSR: New Legal and Economic Challenges (analysed from a Comparative Perspective). Paris: Bruylant, 2013, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2261518.
‘Re-inventing Governance Using the Laws of Nature’, in Best Practice in Corporate Governance, Volume 1, pp. 42-45, ed. John Peters, 2013, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2062579.
‘How can non-profit organizations enhance performance and legitimize their operations? Working Paper 2013 http://ssrn.com/abstract=2223032
‘A Transaction Byte Paradigm for Researching Organisations’, in Giulia Mancini & Mariarosalba Angrisani, eds. Mapping Systemic Knowledge, Chapter XI, pp. 243-267, 2013, Lambert Academic Publishing: Saarbrucken, Germany, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2220047.
‘Could the 2008 US Financial Crisis been avoided with Network Governance?’ in Turnbull, S. & Pirson, M. 2012 International Journal of Disclosure and Governance, Special issue on Financial Crises and Regulatory Responses, 9(1): 1–27, posted at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/jdg/journal/v9/n3/full/jdg201126a.html (Working paper at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1855982).
‘The limitations in corporate governance best practices’, in The Sage Handbook of Corporate Governance, Thomas Clarke and Douglas Branson (eds.) Chapter 19, 428–449, Sage: London & Thousand Oaks, CA, 2012, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1806383.
‘Corporate Governance, Risk Management, and the Financial Crisis- An Information Processing View’ with Michael Pirson. In Corporate Governance: An International Review, 19(5): 459–470 September, 2011, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8683.2011.00860.x/abstract.
‘Towards more humanistic governance: Network governance structures’ with Michael Pirson. In The Journal of Business Ethics, 99(1): 101–114, March 2011, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1679450 & http://www.springerlink.com/content/k26w255266718176/fulltext.pdf.
‘Could the 2008 US Financial Crisis been avoided with Network Governance?’ with Michael Pirson, presented to the 10th Annual Society of Heterodox Economists (SHE) Conference, December 6, 2011, hosted by University of New South Wales, Coogee Crown Plaza Hotel, Sydney, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1855982.
‘Why “Best” Corporate Governance Practices are Unethical and Less Competitive?’ In Laura Hartman and Joseph Des Jardins (eds.), Business Ethics for Personal Integrity and Social Responsibility, 2nd ed. Burr Ridge, pp 576–583, IL: McGraw-Hill, 2010, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1260047.
‘Mitigating the exposure of corporate boards to risk and unethical conflicts’ in Risk Management and Corporate Governance, Robert Kolbe, ed. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing, Loyola University Monograph Series, Chapter 7, pp. 143–74, 2009, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=1106792.
‘The science of governance: A blind spot of risk managers and corporate governance reform’, Special Issue of the Journal of Risk Management in Financial Institutions on The Blind Spots of Risk Management, Henry Stewart Publications Volume 1 No. 4. 360–8, July-September, 2008, available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1742584.
‘Corporate Governance: Theories, Challenges, Paradigms’, in T. Clarke and M. dela Rama, Fundamentals of Corporate Governance Volume 1 Ownership and Control, London: Sage Publications, pp 40–78, http://papers.ssrn.com/paper.taf?abstract_id=221350.
‘Analysing Network Governance of Public Assets’, Corporate Governance: An International Review, Volume 15, Issue 6, December, pp 1079–89, http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract_id=786805.
The use of bytes to analyse complex organizations’, in Managing the Complex: Philosophy, theory and Applications, Kurt Richardson, Ed., A Volume in: Managing the Complex, Chapter 9 pp. 152165, Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc: Information Age Publishing Inc. 2005, http://ssrn.com/abstract=645281.
‘Why Anglo corporations should not be trusted: And how they could be trusted’, FSR Forum, Financiële Studievereniging Rotterdam, Erasmus University Rotterdam, 6:2, pp. 6,7,9,10,11,12,14,15, February 2004, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=492524
‘Corporate accountability – an impact on community expectations, Corporate Ownership and Control: International scientific journal, 1:1, pp. 2634, Sumy, Ukraine, Fall, 2003 (English and Russian)
‘Network governance not Western practices: To protect directors and stakeholders’, Corporate Governance International, 6:3, pp. 414, September, Hong Kong, 2003, http://ssrn.com/abstract=492522.
‘The Case for Introducing Stakeholder Corporations’ prepared for the Institute for International Corporate Governance and Accountability, The George Washington University Law School, November 2003, http://ssrn.com/abstract=436400 .
‘The science of corporate governance’ Corporate Governance: An International Review, 10:4, 256–72, October, 2002 http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=316939>.
A New Way to Govern: Organisations and society after Enron, The New Economics Foundation, 2002, London, http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=319867.
‘The competitive advantages of compound boards’, Corporate Governance International, 4:2, pp. 22–38, June, Hong Kong, 2001. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=277537.
'Stakeholder Governance: A cybernetic and property rights analysis', in Corporate Governance: The history of management thought, R.I. Tricker, ed., pp. 401–413, 2000, Ashgate Publishing: London. Originally published in Corporate Governance: An International Review, 5:1. pp. 11–23, January, 1997, http://ssrn.com/abstract=11355.