Networks in modern public administration: configurations and coordination mechanisms

The article reveals the specifics of policy networks in the public administration system, examines in detail the basic characteristics of networks, as well as the features of the configuration and coordination mechanisms inherent in various types of network coalitions. The author examines networks in the context of their positive and negative impact on the quality of public administration, drawing attention to the conditions for the degeneration of network associations that allow the state, together with non-state actors, to solve socially significant problems into structures that threaten the integrity of the political system. In the context of the author's definition of networks in public administration, the article examines their structural components, reveals the features of the position of network actors, describes the operational functions of networks (exchange of information, financial resources and dissemination of knowledge), emphasizes the importance of the problem of closeness for their functioning. Particular attention is paid to the positioning of state institutions in networks, the author reveals the reasons for their use of a predominantly principal-agent mechanism for coordinating interaction with nongovernment participants, which reduces the degree of their freedom in the network, but at the same time guarantees the observance of socially significant interest in the implementation of programs and projects. The article also discusses in detail the configurations of networks and the specifics of their activities at all stages of decision-making and implementation, emphasizes the opportunities and threats associated with the activities of certain types of network alliances. The author emphasizes that the negative potential of network structures is manifested in a situation of divergence of political and managerial orientations of power and society's expectations against the background of weak institutions and lack of public control over political players, which leads to the gradual replacement of public administration by the rule of latent network groups.

1. Agranoff R. Crossing boundaries for intergovernmental management. Washington, DC : Georgetown university press, 2017, 312 p.

2. Bovaird T. Public Governance: balancing stakeholder power in a network society. International review of administrative science. 2005, Vol. 70, N 2, P. 217–228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852305053881

3. Christopoulos D., Ingold K. Distinguishing between political brokerage and political entrepreneurship. Procedia – social and behavioral science. 2011, Vol. 10, P. 36–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.01.006

4. Dunlop C.A. Epistemic communities. In: Araral E., Fritzen S., Howlett M., Ramesh M., Wu X. (eds). Handbook of public policy. London : Routledge, 2013, P. 229–243.

5. Granovetter M. The strength of weak ties. The American journal of sociology. 1973, Vol. 78, N 6, P. 1360–1380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/225469

6. Haas P.M. Epistemic communities. In: Badie B., Berg-Schlosser D., Morlino L. (eds). IPSA encyclopedia of political science. New York, NY : SAGE, 2011, P. 787–791.

7. Jordan G. ‘Sub-governments, policy communities and networks: reflecting the old bottles? Journal of theoretical politics. 1990, Vol. 2, N 3, P. 319–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0951692890002003004

8. Knill C., Lehmkuhl D. Private actors and the state: internationalization and changing patterns of governance. Governance: an international journal of policy, administration, and institutions. 2002, Vol. 15, N 1, P. 41–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0491.00179

9. Lowi T.J. Legislative politics, U.S.A. Boston : Little Brown, 1962, 224 p.

10. Lowi T.J. The end of liberalism ideology, policy, and the crisis of public authority. New York : W.W. Norton, 1969, 322 p.

11. Mentrom M. Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: governing human embryonic stem cell research. Journal of European public policy. 2013, Vol. 20, N 3, P. 442–457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2012.761514

12. Mikhaylova O. Network actors in public policy. In: Kyros R., Lott M. (eds). Public policy and social change. perspectives, challenges and future directions. New York : Nova Science Pub Inc, 2018, P. 117–145.

13. Newig J., Gunter D., Pahl-Wostl C. Synapses in the network: learning in governance networks in the context of environmental management. Ecology and society. 2010, Vol. 15, N 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5751/es-03713-150424

14. Ostrom E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. New York: Cambridge university press, 1990, 280 p.

15. Rhodes R. Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham : Open university press, 1997, 255 p.

16. Sabatier P. An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences. 1988, Vol. 21, N 2–3, P. 129–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00136406

17. Sandstrom A., Carlesson L. The performance of policy networks: the relation between network structure and network performance. The policy studies journal. 2008, Vol. 36, N 4, P. 497–524. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00281.x

18. Scharpf F.W. Interorganisational policy studies: issues, concepts and perspectives. In: Hanf K.I., Scharpf F.W. (eds). Interorganisational policy making: limits to coordination and central control. London ; Beverly Hills : Sage Publications, 1978, P. 354–370.

19. Solovyov A.I. The state as manufacturer of policy. Polis. Political studies. 2016, N 2, P. 90–108. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2016.02.08 (In Russ.)

20. Solovyov A.I. Latent structures of the state rule, or the play of shadows upon the face of the authority. Polis. Political studies. 2011, N 5, P. 70–98. (In Russ.)

21. Zavershinckiy K.F. «Political trust» as a symbolic source of change in political networks. Political expertise: POLITEX. 2012, N 3, P. 63–75. (In Russ.)