Most of the research on cross-sectoral and multi-organizational networks in the delivery of public services has been conducted in the Western context. We know a great deal about the service implementation relational structure, network management/governance, and network outcomes. Yet we know little about how joint efforts of policy advocacy among public, nonprofit and for-profit service providers are organized in these networks, particularly when such networks are cultivated in different service arenas and in different institutional and cultural contexts. To fill this gap, we ask the following research question: How and what relational features are associated with the likelihood of joint policy advocacy in these networks? We will address this question through a comparative study of a US-based mental health service implementation network and a Chinese community-based elderly care service delivery network.

The US-based network is a centrally-governed mental health service implementation network, where a lead contractor subcontracts with service providers from the public, nonprofit and private sectors to meet the needs of adults with serious mental illness in the largest county of a Southwestern state. The Chinese community-based elderly service network emerged as an innovative policy response to the wicked problem of elderly care in the city of Shanghai.

Two network surveys were conducted—one was in the US and the other in China. We collected whole-network relational data from senior administrative or clinical leaders of each service providing organizations regarding joint policy advocacy, sharing information, resource sharing, and care coordination (through referrals in the US case and through formal service contracts in Chinese case respectively) from 28 out of 31 service providers in the US and 48 out of 48 service providers in Shanghai. Our surveys also include organizational demographics information: age, size, sector, etc.

To cope with the issue of interdependency in relational data, we will employ Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) multiple regression techniques in UCINET to estimate the correlations between joint policy advocacy (dependent variable) and service implementation relational structural variables (independent variables). The focus of our analysis is on the Simmelian ties, defined as dyadic relationships between two providers who both belong to the same clique. They are ties embedded in a clique.  Our independent variables include: (a) strength of Simmelian ties, measured by the number of cliques jointly involved two organizations; (b) multiplexity (having multiple types of Simmelian ties in a dyad). We will also examine whether the effects of Simmelian ties on the joint policy advocacy would vary across different relational contents, ranging from informal networks of exchanging intangible resources to formal networks of sharing tangible resources. Our analysis will control for the effects of similarities in size, resource dependence on public funding, and same sector. We will also compare the two cases using typical whole-network structural measures (density, network centralization).

We expect to find commonalities and/or differences in our analysis. Common findings across two networks will strengthen the robustness of our theoretical reasoning. Differences in findings will provide evidence of the contingent effects of governance and institutional contexts on networking for policy advocacy.