Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

The paper presents a four stage life-cycle model.  Each stage represents a cluster of developmental challenges related to sustaining the health and useful life of a governance network.  The activation stage is the turbulent period of network formation.  The collectivity stage is exemplified by high member cohesion and reliable network processes.  The institutionalization stage marks the solidification of network processes.  The final stage is stability, decline, re-orientation, or re-creation, which recognizes the various paths mature networks follow.  The model’s central feature is the convergence on a configuration of rules (formal and informal) that create the social architecture that structures network processes. 

The analysis identifies three interrelated sets of rules that interact to form this social architecture by building on the work of Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues. Some rules are crafted deliberately.  Others emerge as members confront developmental challenges or get imposed upon the network by funders, government agencies, or legislators.  Two sets of boundary rules are particularly important – member rules and strategy rules.  Decision rules create the processes members use to make decisions and include rules related to preference aggregation, distribution of power, distribution of roles or responsibilities, and the distribution of participation in decision making.  As networks evolve, coordination rules can emerge to specify resource exchanges, monitor behavior, enforce agreements, and resolve disputes. 

The social architecture is important because governance networks, like other organizational forms, are a functional enterprise with a useful life.  The social architecture provides coordination, direction and shared purpose to network processes.  However, once established, it can be costly and difficult to change.  Similarly, once the network’s useful life has passed, it is time to disband, re-orient, or re-create the network to allow their resources to be redeployed in more productive public purposes.  Accordingly, framework presented in the paper identifies important design choices that members should carefully consider during the development of a wide range of governance networks.