LECTURE ONE THREE APPROACHES INTO STRATEGIC SPATIAL PLANNING (SSP)

Paradigm
What type of outcome am I looking for?
5 types of paradigms (first: choose the paradigm)
APPROACHES
Interactive
Communicative (including discourse)
Institutional (social norms)
1. Interactive Approaches into Strategic Planning: interaction between different actors to get outcomes;
strong influences from pluralism and from public choice approaches; the main challenge is coordinate the
world of fragmentation
- Strategy of direct reciprocity as solution: Cooperation; Coalition Building; Exchange of interests;
Negotiation; Create win-win solutions.
- Applications in practice: Networking management; shared implementation, interdependence theories;
creativity and innovation during the process; sociocratic and technocratic applications.
- Objections: no history; neglection of power and of institutional patterns.
2. Communicative: symbolic meaning of words; tell stories (plausible histories GREEN HEART); try convince
the others; uses metaphors in order to organize the attention in a very selective way (organic metaphors
symbolic messages); What are people thinking?; institutionalism of discourses.
3. Institutional: social norms (rules) framework for the plans to be built upon; planner acts upon social
expectations (what is wanted, but have to pay attention to the rules) ;
- 3 levels of institutional analysis:
FIRST LEVEL: social and cultural rules (trust and believe systems)
SECOND LEVEL: rules of regimes (may be formal or informal) (always be aware of differences between
the norms and their real meaning in practice)
THIRD LEVEL: reflection on institutions in practice of planning.

It is possible to combine paradigms, but often the value of it get lost (is isnt done correctly)
We always have to select assumptions

1. Salet, Faludi (2000)

THREE APPROACHES TO STRATEGIC PLANNING
The approaches seek to deal with the question of legitimacy and effectiveness in SSP.
Institutional approach
connects planning theory to the sociological theory of institutions and regimes theories of economic, political and
constitutional order.
Investigates underlying patterns, institutions = patterns of social rules
2 dominant styles the first concentrate on the issues regarding the legitimization and embedding of planning and
policy; the second is aimed at the sustainable embedding of certain normative targets via institutionalisation.
Communicative approach
Planning makes use of symbols, discourses & framing.
Long tradition in the use of cartographic imagery, planning concepts and metaphors as well as illustrations and
conceptual framework intended to carry themselves forward in the behaviour of public and private policy actors.
Interactive approach
Reaction on the on-sided view on planning. Not just one actor (government) but a multitude of different actors
pluralistic vision on different actors (public-private)
2. Rein, Laws communicative approach
Controversy, Reframing and Reflection
Framing and Reframing
Framing and reframing are forms of social labour that responds to a need to make sense of social situations.
Definitions used:
Frame: structure to draw a pattern in chaos
Controversy: input that does not fit in the frame
Three criteria for a frame:
1.
It outlines order in an otherwise chaotic situation
2.
It not self-evident, it has to be sponsored (actors have to support and promote it)
3.
It is linked to factual content (Facts and values are merged)
Examples:
1.
Hajer (1990) main ecological structure - discuss the recent shift in policy frames for agriculture and
natural resources in the Netherlands. giving back to nature
2. Michael Van Eeten (Dialogues of Deaf) describes how policy frame of the green heart. The green
heart/Randstad frame refers to the urbanization formed by Amsterdam, Rotterdam, the Hague, and Utrecht.

There are 4 characteristics of policy frames

1) Help to order experience and guide action
2) frames are never self-revealing: they require an institutional sponsor
3) Frames do have norms and values
4) Frames can be controversy
Reframing occurs when theres a controversy within the existing frame.
The competing frames each suggested different ways of parsing the landscape, giving rise to different facts to
describe the situation and different criteria to measure and evaluate change.
Reframing comes up when there is a controversy or a disagreement within the existing frame.

Controversy
There are two ways to deal with controversy:

The limits of Rationality

There limits of rationality because of norms. Choices can only be rational when they are shielded from multiple and
conflicting values. Frame conflicts may occur when people have different values.

The limits of Reflection

The basic idea of reflection is to reflect on the frame conflicts and identify ways to resolve it. Practioners (action
of policy-makers, corporate managers, public advocates, citizens and policy analysts) have to devise a form of action,
but the nature of skilled action is intuitive. Practice is based on assumptions. Doubt about the beliefs of practice would
inhibit the spontaneity that actions in specific situations require. The instinctive way of coping with practice makes
practice resistant to reflection.

The limits of Deliberation

Provide communicative conditions that generate reasonable results. (Rely on the force of better argument.)
Deliberative discourses hinges on the ability not only to persuade with arguments but also to be open and to handle
with norms of respect and reciprocity. However, this does not resolve the problem of a double interpretation. In
different contexts, different meanings arise, even with the same normative standard of argumentation.

Reframing of controversy in practice

Changes on conventions arise when actors must produce a collective value. Actors can frame or reframe disputed
conventions. Actors are working to coordinate programs of action to develop institutions. We call this kind of actors,
institutional sponsors.
Uncertainty comes up once actors step outside the limited zones of stability and predictability in which
established conventions are hold. Effort is required when it comes to framing or reframing in order to make
common sense. (Social labour is always required to reach a common interpretation.)
Understanding the dynamics of reframing is complex and difficult. In many cases, both frames are true. If each side is
focusing on convincing the other of the truth of their view, the dispute can easily end up in a dialogue of the deaf.

Structuring Reframing
1.
there is reframing without reflection:
Groups that first sponsored the frame never believed they can actually reframe political and economic systems.
2. there is reflection followed by reframing:
A protest raised by local communities followed by an interactive policy making process (with reframing as a target).
3. there is strategic reframing:
Occurs when advocates on one frame hitch on shifts in the context to adjust the existing frame.
Reframing trough instrumental problem solving:
Arises when the effort to resolve disputes is done in a way that participants understand each other. Participants
engage in joint brainstorming sessions and create new options.
Conclusion
The author suggest that there is a need for a framework that mediates action at the level of practice in institutions. (a
framework to clarify the relationship between different forms of reframing)
Furthermore, the author is confident of the following two aspects:
- There is an ability of human actors to reframe and to learn about reframing.
- There is an ability of actors to renew categories and commitments by reframing them.

3.

Bolan, R. (2000) institutional approach

Social Interaction and Institutional Design: The case of housing in the USA
Institutions: socially constructed, reproduced social practices as patterns of intentional coordinated human actions
carried out repeatedly over time.
5 basic forms of human interaction:
1) competition
2) exchange
3) co-operation
4) altrusim
5) bonding

This indicates that an institutional design is based on moral order and that behaviour is guided by loyalty and trust but
also because of the fear of being caught.

Friend, J. (2000) Operational Choices and Strategic Spatial Planning

What is often viewed first there is a strategic plan, then the proposals are being implemented through operational
decisions. But it ist this simplistic: it is multi-dimensional. Planning = communicative action.
There is a difference between structure plans (broad policy for land use) and local plans (intended to interpret these
policies in more specific local terms).
The relationship between strategic planning and operational decision-making is still too often seen as one-way,
hierarchical and sequential. According to conventional knowledge, there is first a strategic plan and after that,
implementations follow through operational decisions.
This paper focuses on one aspect in the two-way relationship between strategic planning and operational decisionmaking in planning as communicative action (Habermas, 1984): the relationship between generic (policy) and specific
(operational) statements of interest.
Friend explains the difference between decisions and policies by saying that a decision is in one moment in time and
then immediately goes into history. A policy is essentially a stance that, once articulated, contributes to the context
within which a succession of decisions in the future will be made. This does not entail that policy is a mere accretion of
a series of policy decisions of this kind to follow.
Decision-taking: A final visible step of public commitment.
Decision-making: A more extensive process, also covering all the steps and subtle interactions that led up to
the point of the decision.
Structure plans: Concerned with broad policy over a relatively large area.
Local plans: Intended to interpret in more specific local terms.
The structure plan was made up so that the approval of strategic plans did not become protracted by the need to hear
a large number of objections that related purely to local land-use matters. The new distinction (structure-local) was
both hierarchical and sequential. In order to execute this policy there where tiles/key diagrams (diagrams) made
up of the spatial area that certain policies would affect. This was done so that for example local farmers could quickly

draw inferences as to whether their property lay in the square of a certain colour, or a neighbouring square of a
different colour. In the policy here, it wasnt so much about the agreeing on the direction of the policy statements, but
on the degree of specificity with which it was expressed. This was because some matters were highly sensitive, so
you could so will not be permitted or, for example, will not normally be permitted. There came to be strong policy,
weaker policy and none.

The influence of policy development and policy change goes two ways, as displayed in Figure 1.
Policy stress: This comes to be when local decision makers have to deal with conflicting guidelines of several
policy makers.
Policy erosion: Existing policies acting in opposition of to any active procedures of policy making or policy
development. This could come into expression by the de-specification of a plan, to make it stand the test of
changing circumstances that in turn can make the plan subject to public ridicule and rendered worthless.
Any resurgence of strategic planning should be accompanied by an explanatory analysis of the relationships between
strategic planning and operational decision-making.

LECTURE TWO FIRST PARADIGM COLLOQUIUM: Pluralism and interactive approaches of planning
1.

Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E. Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of
Collaborative Planning

Consensus Building processes with different individuals representing different interests engage in long term,
face-to-face discussions, seeking agreement on strategy, plans policies or actions.
o They are sometimes established by government agencies or legislative bodies to deal with what
seem to be intractable problems
o Defined as a process that is truly facilitated, as opposed to merely chaired.
o Assumptions and constraints are not taken for granted, but explored. Consensus building owes a
substantial debt to the practice and literature of negotiation and mediation
o Such face-to-face group communication allows the sincerity, legitimacy, comprehensibility, and
accuracy of statements to be tested, and the inclusion of opposing stakeholders makes it likely
that assumptions are questioned.
o The processes, like role-playing games, are transformative: they change the players, what they
know, and what they are likely to do. Since the players often are the people in a position to have
an effect on the resource or the problem, change in their attitudes and knowledge matters and in
itself is a major part of the long-term consequences.
Bricolage way of framing the situation and developing combinations of actions that are different from the
options already there.
o Produces, rather than a solution to a known problem, a new way of framing the situation and of
developing unanticipated combinations of actions that are qualitatively different from the options on
the table at the outset.
o Five disciplines necessary to learning in an organization, including
personal mastery or a kind of individual empowerment
the ability to get past assumptions and engage in double loop learning
the capacity to create a collectively shared vision,
team learning
systems thinking.
o Senge distinguishes two types of discourse: (which in the best case work together synergistically)
Dialogue
is about finding and developing a pool of shared meaning
Discussion
is something like ping pong: an idea is batted back and forth, analysed
and criticized, and each participant seeks to win by having her or his point of view
accepted.
o Bohm (1987) defines the three basic conditions necessary for dialogue (lead to frame reflection
Planning = learning):
1) participants must suspend their assumptions;
2) participants must regard one another as colleagues;
3) there must be a facilitator.
o Bricolage as a form of reasoning is fundamentally different from science or engineering, in which
the end product decides what means should be used. In bricolage the end product is decided by
the way the materials at hand can be assembled. So, in policy making, there is no one best way,
but many different ways in which one might assemble heterogeneous and available concepts and
policy ideas into a coherent and workable strategy.
o Bricolage is a nonlinear, holistic attack on a problem that results in some practical product.
Participants bring to the dialogue experience, ideas, methods and scenarios that they can imagine and then jointly
piece it together to create a strategy on where all can agree.
Examples:
o Metropolitan Transportation Commission's (MTC's) Bay Area Partnership of transportation
providers and regulators, designed as a collaboration to implement the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA): an ongoing consensus building effort in metropolitan
transportation planning
o Sacramento Water Forum (SWF), which is developing a water management strategy for the lower
American river, a key water source in the Sacramento region. The Forum includes water
purveyors, local governments, environmental groups, and business interests.
o California Governance Consensus Project (CGCP)
Role Playing: Whatever else consensus building may be, it is definitely role playing. Participants come to the
table representing stakeholders with different interests.
o It build and maintain trust even when the group cannot agree on what seems reasonable.
o Like role-playing games, consensus building begins with something like a storytelling phase that
lays out the setting, the drama, and the characteristics of the players. Community leaders or a
project organizer may begin by describing the situation, explaining why they set up the project;
experts may be invited to outline their understandings of the problems and provide statistical
information on the issues; and the players give their own views of the issues. All this sets the stage

for the next phase, which is, typically, to develop a set of tasks that can lead to constructive ideas
and actions. At this point no one knows how things will evolve, and the group tries to find tasks that
will trigger peoples thinking and generate a productive dialogue.
The Dialogue: Storytelling, Drama and Bricolage
o The dialogue starts with some stories of participants what would happen in his or her community if a
particular proposal were implemented.
o Once participants accepted that what they were doing was playing with ideas and simulating through their
discussion the possible distributary of a proposed policy, rather than advocating it or arguing against it,
they were more comfortable.
o Drama is important in consensus building, particularly, the evidence suggests, to move and change the
players. The drama is in some sense a ritual.
o The informal, unstructured interaction among individuals that builds personal connections and comfort is
crucial to consensus building.
The Advantages of Role Playing
Enjoyment is crucial, if only to assure that participants come regularly to sessions.
Because these simulations include real life actors, the exercises themselves and the learning associated with them
are part of the product.
As this imagery of the collaborative role-playing game becomes accepted, it will accomplish a number of other things.
To begin with:
it will be easier to move people beyond the mode of competitive and beggar-thy-neighbour (making yourself
better and others worse) positions and have to work together;
participants also will come to accept that in these games without frontiers there will be no end point, that
dealing with complex, controversial issues must be continuous.
Finally, reflecting on consensus building through scenario building and bricolage prompts changes in our
thinking about comprehensive planning.
The Intellectual and Cultural Context
Turkle (1995): uncertain moments in daily life leads people to search for collaborative ways to understand and
respond.
Work with artificial intelligence and on the functioning of the human brain provides a powerful alternative metaphor for
how collective knowledge is created. For example, thousands of tiny computer processors connected together as
parallel systems handled problems that were impossible for serial computers. They can do so in great part because
they learn faster and develop complex responses based on feedback, rather than attempting to analyze all
possibilities (Kelly, 1994).
Innes and Booher state that consensus building is a form of collective intelligence, which works as
researchers now think the brain does, through distributed intelligence and the networks that link it together.
The knowledge of participants stays with them, even when they are outside the consensus building and
becomes a sort of shared knowledge.
Some management theorists argue that consensus building has the same dynamic as business organizations.
Organizational structures that use this adaptive system adopt four strategies, each with similarities to consensus
building in planning.
1. They collaborate, forming alliances even with competitors for some vital functions, though continuing to
compete in other areas.
2. They use adaptive strategies to rapidly assimilate knowledge and develop new approaches.
3. They distribute their activities so there is no single location for all aspects of the business.
4. They decentralize as the lowest level players, those in contact with the customers, are given a significant part
in shaping the strategy.
Conclusion
One of the keys to developing a theory of collaborative planning, and elaborating the paradigm for
communicative planning will be to give a central place to role-play simulation as a method of interaction and
bricolage as a mode of collective reasoning.
Ultimately, games without frontiers will not only allow war without tears, but even help us to look beyond customary
constraints to new possibilities; they will help to turn the possible into the real.

2. Lindblom Incrementatlism
STILL MUDDLING, NOT YET THROUGH

3 meaning of incrementalism
1) simple incrementalism analysis that is limited to consideration of alternative policies. Alternative that is just a
little bit different from the original state.
2) disjoined incrementalism more complex form of simple incrementalism.
is very helpful to understand the limitations of policy.
3) strategic analysis chosen set of strategies to simplify complex problem.
Muddling through, = incrementalism, and is often seen as the usual method of policy making, because
revolution, drastic changes and big steps are impossible.

Seen as a political pattern, incrementalism is changing step by step or a series of small changes (evolutionary).
But the overall thought is; we can do better!
Lindblom gives 3 meanings of incrementalism as policy analysis:

1. Simple incremental analysis; limited to consideration of alternative policies which are only incrementally different
from the status quo (current situation).
2. Disjointed incrementalism; the analysis of mutually supporting sets of simplifying & focusing stratagems
(strategies/plans) of which simple incrementalism is one. Others he mentions are, the limitation to familiar alternatives,
intertwining policy goals & empirical aspects, analytical preoccupation with remedies instead of positive goals to be
sought, sequence of trail & error, exploring only some possible consequences of an alternative and fragmentation of
analytical work to many participants in policy making (I guess this is where partisan mutual adjustment kicks in?)
3. Strategic analysis; limited to any calculated or thoughtfully chosen set of stratagems to simplify complex problems
to short cut the conventionally comprehensive scientific analysis (synopsis, need to be comprehensive / complete).

Disjointed incrementalism is one of several possible forms of strategic analysis, and simple incremental analysis is
one of several elements in disjointed incremental analysis.

Case for strategic analysis:

No one can complete the analysis of a complex problem. The best we can do is partially analysis or bounded
rationality.
Aspiring to improving policy analysis through the use of strategies is a directing or guiding aspiration. It points to
something to be done, something to be studied and learned, and something that can be successfully
approximated.
Completeness / synopsis is never approached, so striving to achieve impossible synopsis is unproductive. It
doesnt help an analyst to choose manageable tasks and the aspiration to develop improved strategies does. This
points to something to be done, studied and learned, something that can be approximated. The older
conventional way, problem solving pretending synopsis and knowing you cant approximate this, leads to worse
patterns of analysis and decisions than those who carry out a strategic analysis.

o
o

Case for disjointed incrementalism: sort of strategic analysis practiced with skill.
It sets analysts on a productive course of analysis, away from attempts of completeness which leads to bad decisions.
A practical objection to disjointed incrementalism is that one can find better kinds of strategic analysis. There are
better norms / ideals of analysis available, but the alternative of synopsis isnt one of them. All analysis are incomplete,
so all fail to grasp whats the good policy. Attempts to synopsis are therefore also incomplete.
The choice between synopsis & disjointed incrementalism (or all strategic analysis) is between ill-considered
accidental incompleteness or a deliberated designed incompleteness. We need analytical strategies to make the most
of our limited abilities to understand the whole.
Case of simple incrementalism: part of more complex strategies.
Its an aspect of analysis which is useful depending on circumstances and the strategies of which it is part.
Partisan Mutual Adjustment & pluralism:
o Partisan mutual adjustment, found in varying degrees in all political systems, takes the form of fragmented or
greatly decentralized political decision making in which the various somewhat autonomous participants
mutually affect one another (as they always do), with the result that policy making displays certain interesting
characteristics.
- policies are resultants of the mutual adjustment
- policies are influenced by a broad range of participants and interests
- the connection between a policy and good reasons for it is obscure, since the many participants will act
for diverse reasons.
- despite the absence or weakness of central coordination of the participants, their mutual adjustments of
many kinds (of which bargaining is only one) will to some degree coordinate them as policy makers.
o "Partisan mutual adjustment" pins down one meaning of "pluralism."
o Objections to partisan mutual adjustment:
- often voiced as objections to pluralism, often begin with the allegation that not all interests are represented
by participants in it, nor are participants influential in proportion to the numbers of citizens for whom they act.
- is fraudulent: The various participants do not in fact represent the variety of interests and values of the
population.

- turns out to be an objection to its particular form in many countries. It is a form in which, though none of the
participants can on their own initiate a change, many or all can veto it.
Politics and analysis:
Confusing incrementalism with partisan mutual adjustment has incorrectly associated incremental analysis with
irrationality of politics and synoptic form of analysis with the analysis he addresses. 2 mistakes are made:
1. Incrementalism is a form of analysis, it is not politics! Partisan mutual adjustment is politics. The coordination of
participation is done by political interactions and not by a centrally directed analysed coordination (a strategy).
2. In politics (also partisan mutual adjustment) the use of persuasion is common to influence each other. There is a
need to analyse how to influence or persuade the opponent to get them as a proponent, and not what is the best
policy! Is this adequate information for policy formation? This can be useful and partisan analysis is analytical
productive in politics by making policy making more intelligent, because you get to know more about opponents.
Conclusion:
It is obvious that complex problems cant be completely analysed and we therefore need strategies to analyse
problems and this incompleteness more skilful.
Fragmentation of policy making and consequent political interaction among many participants are methods of
restriction power, BUT also of raising the level of information and rationality on decisions.
Policy analysis should be a social process and not just focusing on what is in the analysts mind. (Partisan mutual
adjustment as a concept of intelligence).
Social interaction can handle problems sometimes better than analysis can. Understanding of social problems is
therefore not always necessary. Partisan mutual adjustment can be seen as mechanism for social rationality rather
than as curbing central authority.
Difference between partisan mutual adjustment and incrementalism: Incrementalism is a form of analysis. PMA is
a form of politics.

3. Klijn Public management and policy networks

Governance = directed influence of societal processes.

New public management = attempt to translate managerial ideas from the private sector to public organizations
Network management = focuses on mediating and co-ordinating inter organizational policy making.
Concepts of network management:
comes from bottom-up approach. Policy in this sense takes place through interaction between different actors in
networks of interdependent actors. Other central concepts rules of the game.
Two types of network management strategies
1) Process management intends to improve the interaction between actors in policy games.
2) Network constitution focused on realising changes in the network. They seek for institutional change,
reframing
Reason for failing the fact that actors are not aware of their external dependencies. (They have the idea that
they can solve the problem alone for example).
Reason for success concerted action thus requires that actors are able to judge their mutual dependencies
and possibilities of co-operation.
2actors.
Within the network approach, the government takes a special position.
Introduction
There are two perspectives on governance: the first perspective reduces state and distinguishes between government
and governance, and the second perspective takes into account interdependencies of public, private and semi-private
actors. This last one is the focus of the article.
The policy network approach focuses attention on the interaction processes between interdependent actors and the
complexity of objectives and strategies as a consequence of that interaction. An important difference with the process
model is that in the network approach, more attention is given to the institutional context in which complex interactions
take place.
The network approach assumes that actors are mutually dependent. Actors cannot achieve their objectives without
resources that are possessed by other actors.
What is the criticism on network approach, and what is the response of the authors?
1 No theoretical basis (no theory)
Largest point of critique. But, there actually is a framework: Network approach assumes that a cooperation between a
large numbers of actors is necessary, because they need each others resources (Scharpf and others). This
cooperation needs game management to happen. There are two types of this network management:
1) process management (improving interaction between actors) and
2) network constitution (making changes in the network. Requires institutional change and takes time). The network
manager is an independent mediator in the process.
2 No power to explain success or failure (too descriptive)
Rules improve or limit certain behaviour, and therefore makes decision making easier. Rules are social constructions
and are a sign of trust. They prevent unfair behaviour. Within these rules, certain things are required at
1) interaction level and network level

2) for collective action, for example: actors to judge each others dependencies and possibilities, costs and risks are
limited and actors need to belong to the same network.
3 Neglect of role of power (nobody has power)
Having certain resources gives certain power. Also, resources are distributed unevenly, which makes some actors
stronger than others. Actors with less power can only participate if they have veto power and are included in the
process.
4 Hard to evaluate (no norms)
Actors do not have the same perception of the goal. Also goals change. Therefore, finding the right evaluation criterion
is difficult. A win-win situation is seen as a criterion for success. Ex post judgment (afterwards) is better for this than
formulating ex ante (before) objective analysis.
5 Neglect of role government (saying that government is just another organisation)
Governments have unique resources (eg. budget, access mass media, and democratic legitimization). They also have
limitations (eg. Showing exemplary behaviour, need for social acceptance). Because they represent the public good,
and network games are open and fair, they must seek to organize network games.
A distinction is made between two types of network management strategies:
a) process management: intends to improve the interaction between actors in policy games. given. Rules (formal
or informal), resource divisions and existing actors are treated as a given starting point for the management
strategies. Important process management strategies are:
- the selection and activation of actors;
- the improvement of mutual perception about an issue or solution;
- the creation of temporary organizational arrangements between organizations;
- the improvement and supervision of interactions by means of process and
- conflict management
b) Network constitution is focused on realizing changes in the network. Network constitution strategies can be
focused on:
- changing the position of actors or the introduction of new actors;
- changing the rules (for instance those that regulate access to a process);
- reframing (fundamentally alter ideas about the functioning and the substantive problems of the network)
A network manager is not a central actor or director, but rather a mediator and stimulator (Forester 1989).

Role of government: Governments have four options concerning network games. The first one is not to join, in which
case they impose ideas on other actors. Secondly, work together with other actors. This is legitimate and standard.
Thirdly, take up the role as process manager. Fourthly, take role as network builder, which is perfect according to
authors.
Conclusions
The policy network approach has developed a relatively elaborate, empirically grounded and recognizable theoretical
framework (pp 154). But, in practice this is not yet accepted. According to the authors, this should become part of
standard operating procedures. They want to do this in three ways: 1) by further developing, testing and evaluating
these processes in practice, 2) by stating the institutional conditions for implementation (what are the barriers?) and 3)
what are the consequences of applying a network theory?
4.
Agranoff Public Network Management Research

Networks multiorganizational arrangements for policy problems which cannot be achieved by one single
organization

Network management behaviours:

1. Activation: process of identifying participants for the network
2. Framing: establishing the rules of the network
3. Mobilizing: establish a set of common objectives
4. Synthesizing: creating a good environment for productive interaction

Empowerment is based on information social capital

Network management is very flexible. They are lighter on their feet than hierarchies

Is there some form of authority within NM? everyone is a little bit accountable but none is absolutely
accountable. Mutual self-responsibility, is not the same as legal authority

Why do people engage in networks?

1) Trust,
2) Shared belief,
3) Mutual dependency,
4) Leadership and guidance ability

There is some form of power within the networks it is possible that different actors occupy different role
positions and carry different weights within networks.
The article wishes to answer seven metaquestions to address:
1.
Nature of network management tasks
2.
Group process in collaboration
3.
Flexibility of networks
4.
Self-responsibility and public agency accountability
5.
Cohesive factor of networks
6.
Power and its effect on group problem resolution
7.
Results of network management
Seven met questions
1)
What are the critical functional equivalents to traditional management processes in network management?
Activation includes the process of identifying participants for the network (Lipnack and Stamps 1994) and
stakeholders in the network (Gray 1989) as well as tapping the skills, knowledge, and resources of these persons.
Deactivation, rearranging network can also be necessary.

Framing involves establishing and influencing the operating rules of the network (Mandell, 1990; Klijn 1996; Gray
1989), influencing its prevailing values and norms (Kickert and Koppenjan 1997; O'Toole l997b), and altering the
perceptions of the network participants.
Mobilizing "requires a view of the strategic whole and an ability to develop and achieve a set of common objectives
based on this whole" (Mandell 1988, 33). Managers build support for the network by mobilizing organizations
(Mossberger and Hale 1999) and coalitions (Kickert and Koppenjan 1997), and by forging an agreement on the role
and scope of network operations.
Synthesizing the network by creating the environment and enhancing the conditions for favorable, productive
interaction among network participants. Synthesizing seeks to lower the cost of interaction, which can be substantial in
network settings
2)
Are the approached to groupware very different from those derived from the applied behavioural science
approaches that emanate from human relations research?
Groupware (that is, group development that reaches a mutual understanding and transcends the more immediate and
interactive bases of coordination and communication through hierarchy): describes interagency task group
development for reaching jointly arrived at solutions.
- In network management, empowerment is based on information rather than on authority.
- In network management, existing organizational structures are dependent variables for network systems.
- Fundamental components of groupware:
i.
Social capital (i.e. social cohesion, trust, ability to work together)
ii.
Shared learning (during the process itself)
iii.
Negotiation (collaboration is a matter of exhortation, explication, persuasion, give and take)
-Example of groupware: Iowa, Rural Policy Academy:
i.
Task force of governmental and non-govt leaders created a plan for rural development
ii.
Different groups were formed about mutually derived goals
iii.
Over time, each work group found that individual and organizational positions receded in favour of new group
understandings
3)
How do networks provide flexibility beyond rapid adaptation of procedural accommodation?
- Flexibility
i.
one of the biggest advantages of a network
ii.
networks make use of adaptive efficiency
1.
the need to adapt and respond to changes (i.e. in economic structure) often motivation to join networks
- Example given of urban regimes
i.
Agranoff refers to them as shadow government that gave circumvented cumbersome city hall bureaucratic
procedures, overcome public procurement rules, leveraged private capital with public dollars, and ignored political
criticism
1.
Also concedes public accountability problems with this
4)
In what ways do networks imply mutual self-responsibility, and does this substitute for the loss of public
agency accountability?
The question relates to the difficulty of establishing accountability in public management networks
a.
Accountability relationships in multiorganizational networks
i.
Very difficult to establish who is principal and who are the agent
ii.
No clear authority to steer the activities
1.
Therefore, everyone is somewhat responsible
2.
All participants appear to be accountable, but none is absolutely accountable
b.
Steps to make networks more accountable
i.
Collaborative processes should be supplemental not exclusive of normal decision making processes
ii.
Decisions should be reviewed by independent sources
iii.
Should try to achieve agreed-upon performance measures
c.
Ex post evaluation can measure how accountable a particular network has been to its stated goals
5)
What is the cohesion factor in networks that is equivalent to the legal-rational authority in organizations?
a.
Scholars usually state legal authority vested in hierarchy keeps people operating in a bureaucratic structure
b.
However, networks are not based on legal authority
i.
Networks are structures of interdependence
c.
Important factors in network cohesion
i.
Trust
1.
Linked to mutual obligation and expectation
ii.
Common purpose
1.
Based on shared beliefs
iii.
Mutual dependence
1.
Usually based on resource exchange
iv.
Resource availability

vi.
Catalytic actors
1.
Principles of soft guidance
2.
Elicits the trust, common goals, etc..
vii.
Managerial ability
6)
How does the often neglected or misunderstood role of organizational power in network management come
into play?
a.
Power concerns should be at core of network management
i.
Power either prevents of facilitates action
ii.
Power can be used in enabling way
1.
Or not, i.e. exclude certain actors or views,
iii.
Power to vs. Power over
1.
Power to being the willing collaboration of parties in a network to pool resources to get something done
2.
Power over involves controlling groups to do what the higher level wants them to (i.e. normal hierarchical
power structure)
b.
Important types of power
i.
during problem setting phase
1.
Power to organize
2.
Power to mobilize
ii.
Power to strategize
iii.
Control of information
iv.
Power exercise influence or authorize action
c.
Power issue should be researched more
i.
How much mutual dependency is there?
ii.
How can power be engaged successfully?
iii.
What are negative effects of unequal power?
7)
Do public management networks produce results that otherwise would not have occurred? (i.e. as opposed to
a single/ hierarchy organizations)
a.
World increasing complexity necessitates network management
i.
Power is dispersed, information age
ii.
People link across functions, organization and geographic boundaries
iii.
Problems increasingly complex
b.
Agranoff argues that network decision not more efficient but more effective
i.
Those involved not just steerers but become stakeholders
ii.
Multiple people suggest many alternatives for consideration
1.
Outcome is more rational
Agranoff ends with a conclusion saying we need more research on networks (he had also raised many further
research questions at the end of each of the sections). He especially thinks the issues of power in networks, and to
look at what networks actually produce (i.e. is it better) are important.

Teisman Strategies for improving policy results in a pluricentric society

The society is increasing in complexity growth of social demands and actors policy making becomes a very
difficult effort.
Paradox strategic management is not reducing complexity but sometimes increasing it because of the complex
network society it engages in.
In this network society nobody is in charge it cannot be organized from a central position
Step 1 make a complex pattern of interaction based upon a pluralist definition of the problem. make sure you
have a variety of potential solutions
Step 2 Organize the groups by sets of preferences.
Step 3 Organize critical reviews for the problem definitions

Public organizations are monopolist of nature and tend not to maximize their efficiency the way private organizations
do. Therefore, in order to generate public goods in a way that has more cost-benefits, strategic governance capacity is
needed. Strategic planning is seen as a way to achieve this goal. In network societies, there are many options to go
with, and the quality of these available options defines the governance capacity here.
In a case in The Netherlands, there was a strategic plan drafted (Structure scheme for traffic and transport). This plan
was mainly used if it supported the position of a particular actors relatively weak position to other more dominant
officials. In the implementation of the plan, 200 projects came to be implemented, of which only a 100 were mentioned
in the plan. This means the strategic plan only slightly influenced implementation. The initial goals of the plan (less car
use and more public transport) were not only deviated from, but also reversed.

Strategic plans can even distract public organizations from working efficiently. The future is unpredictable, so
governance activities should prepare these public organizations for it.
Specialization is needed in order to compete with low prices, but also makes organizations vulnerable to change. The
process of ongoing innovation must be geared towards the three concurrent developments in the network society.
1. Dynamics due to global interaction patterns.
2. Rising expectations and ambitions leading to complex goals and aims.
3. Structural fragmentation leading to network structures in which nobody is in charge.
Strategic management is a bit like strategic planning, as it also focuses on the environment in which an organization
has to act. This approach however does not use current conditions as points of departure. It rather defines aims and
opportunities and relies on a continuous flow of information about the environment and avoids the use of planning
cycles. Smith distinguishes eight features of strategic management:

Effective strategy formulation can be bottom-up and top-down. Strategy development is also very much about building
commitment between members of an organization and members of a joint venture. In this, interactive skills are
adequate if they contribute to or reflect on:

Three distinctions with regard to scientific frames of references:

1. Normative (what should be) and descriptive (what is) theoretical notions.
2. Individual deliberation and choice.
3. Decision making as an isolated (one simple problem) or a complicated activity (create a framework for the
future).

What is the relationship between problems and solutions in network societies?

Problems and solutions should be arranged in a parallel way, rather than in series. Solving one problem can create
several other problems. Problems should be intertwined in a complex problem flow, which constantly redefines itself.
This way you dont only come up with solutions that worked in the past but create solutions for the future.
The Relation between quick processes and the quality of results:
Instead of trying to find a quick solution for one problem, policy makers should look to combine several problems.
Make a related set of development processes and benchmark these. Projects need time to mature.
Citizens as sources of creativity or troublesome opponents:
Where citizens used to be viewed as troublesome opponents, because that was the only role that policy left for them,
they are viewed as sources of creativity in the interactive approach.
The relationship between cooperation (Interaction) and competition (problem solving):
If you let people compete with their ideas, it is not possible to combine the positives out of both ideas. Therefore, there
should be a R&D groups who could, combined, make up good and effective ideas.
Model for strategic management: