Managing networks in the public sector: A theoretical study of management strategies in policy networks

Public policy usually develops in complex networks of public, quasi-public and private organizations. It is now generally accepted that these networks set limits to the governance capability of the administration. A good deal less is known about the opportunities which policy networks offer for tackling social and administrative problems. This article deals with the way network management enables government organizations to benefit from networks. Building on the theoretical concepts of 'networks' and 'games', two forms of network management are identified: game management and network structuring. Four key aspects can be identified for both of these management fonns: actors and their relations, resources, rules and perceptions. At thesame time, criteria for the assessment and improvement of network management are examined. The article concludes with a consideration of the limits of network management

Slimme sturing

De vraagstukken waar onze samenleving vandaag de dag mee geconfronteerd wordt, zijn dusdanig complex (‘wicked’) dat traditionele sturingswijzen tekortschieten of falen. Deze uitdaging was de reden voor de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) om een onderzoeksprogramma te starten naar ‘smart governance’ oftewel slimme sturing. In dit themanummer staat slimme sturing centraal. In dit inleidende artikel kijken we op basis van de inzichten uit de bijdragen van dit themanummer kritisch naar zowel het concept als de praktijk van slimme sturing. Wat maakt slimme sturing slim, hoe werkt het, is het voor iedereen slim, maakt slimme sturing de verwachtingen waar, en wat kunnen we van deze voorbeelden van slimme sturing leren

How to assess the adaptive capacity of legislation and policies

Abstract: Intuitively it is clear that institutions can both enhance and hamper the adaptive capacity of a society. But what characteristics make an institution more or less helpful for development and implementation of adaptation strategies? Based on the literature, we developed an analytical framework to assess the adaptive capacity of institutions. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel consists of six dimensions: variety, learning, autonomous ability to change, leadership, legitimacy and resources. The six dimensions were operationalised into 22 criteria and were applied to formal institutions in a content analysis. We conclude that sometimes dimensions and criteria seem to contradict each other, which is not surprising, because this reflects existing paradoxes in the governance of society. We would like to discuss the analytical instrument and its possible uses with the audience of the Amsterdam Conference

Mission-oriented public policy and the new evaluation culture

In this chapter, our aim is to develop a framework to improve public policy-related evaluation practice for a more adaptive and anticipatory evaluation approach, better in tune with complex interactions and interdependencies that have emerged on our policy agenda today. One of the features of this space for interactions that is public policy is its mission orientation. Such an orientation is accompanied by the evolution of public policy instruments, which in turn necessitate new evaluation approaches. We are convinced that this requires developing a conceptual framework, which can be taken forward to test and further operationalise in situations where similar systemic transformations for policy development are elaborated upon. Based on our work on public-sector leadership, we are proposing a framework for evaluation in a more mission-driven and systems-based perspective. The framework seeks to take better into consideration the diversity of policy interventions at our disposal, ranging from traditional budgetary or legislative instruments to experimentation and piloting. Changes are identified in the very characteristics of the societal problems we are trying to solve, as well as in the nature of policy, both subsequently requiring a more multifaceted scope of evaluation, an emerging practice being towards a more mission-oriented one as well as a more nuanced approach depending on whether one is interested in the multi-organisational performance, policy service delivery or quality of outputs and impacts from policy initiatives and projects. The focus of evaluation in turn ranges from the accountability to evaluation criteria, timescale, motivation, as well as type of intervention used.fi=vertaisarvioitu|en=peerReviewed

A framework to assess the resilience of farming systems

Agricultural systems in Europe face accumulating economic, ecological and societal challenges, raising concerns about their resilience to shocks and stresses. These resilience issues need to be addressed with a focus on the regional context in which farming systems operate because farms, farmers’ organizations, service suppliers and supply chain actors are embedded in local environments and functions of agriculture. We define resilience of a farming system as its ability to ensure the provision of the system functions in the face of increasingly complex and accumulating economic, social, environmental and institutional shocks and stresses, through capacities of robustness, adaptability and transformability. We (i) develop a framework to assess the resilience of farming systems, and (ii) present a methodology to operationalize the framework with a view to Europe’s diverse farming systems. The framework is designed to assess resilience to specific challenges (specified resilience) as well as a farming system’s capacity to deal with the unknown, uncertainty and surprise (general resilience). The framework provides a heuristic to analyze system properties, challenges (shocks, long-term stresses), indicators to measure the performance of system functions, resilience capacities and resilience-enhancing attributes. Capacities and attributes refer to adaptive cycle processes of agricultural practices, farm demographics, governance and risk management. The novelty of the framework pertains to the focal scale of analysis, i.e. the farming system level, the consideration of accumulating challenges and various agricultural processes, and the consideration that farming systems provide multiple functions that can change over time. Furthermore, the distinction between three resilience capacities (robustness, adaptability, transformability) ensures that the framework goes beyond narrow definitions that limit resilience to robustness. The methodology deploys a mixed-methods approach: quantitative methods, such as statistics, econometrics and modelling, are used to identify underlying patterns, causal explanations and likely contributing factors; while qualitative methods, such as interviews, participatory approaches and stakeholder workshops, access experiential and contextual knowledge and provide more nuanced insights. More specifically, analysis along the framework explores multiple nested levels of farming systems (e.g. farm, farm household, supply chain, farming system) over a time horizon of 1-2 generations, thereby enabling reflection on potential temporal and scalar trade-offs across resilience attributes. The richness of the framework is illustrated for the arable farming system in Veenkoloniën, the Netherlands. The analysis reveals a relatively low capacity of this farming system to transform and farmers feeling distressed about transformation, while other members of their households have experienced many examples of transformation