Borders and the nation-state model are increasingly under stress. This article demonstrates how networks and network structures are currently holding the nation-state model together while some as-yet-unknown future model of collective action develops. Networks are particularly useful at helping to overcome three acute problems associated with the nation state: (1) the internal clash of interests, (2) system externalities, and (3) synergy dysfunction. In keeping with a quantum, holistic view of reality, borders are best viewed as dotted lines on our maps. Another way to state this argument is that networks and network structures may now be viewed as constructs to help societies maintain the belief that national borders are still meaningful although for numerous specific policies these borders mutated or even disappeared long ago.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
B.C. Office of the Premier (1997). “B.C. Ends Seabed Lease for Nanoose Torpedo Range in Response to U.S. Intransigence on Salmon Talks.”Press Release. Victoria, British Columbia: 2.
2.
BarnardChester I. (1938). The Functions of the Executive.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
BehnRobert D. (1998). “What Right Do Public Managers Have to Lead?”Public Administration Review58 (3): 209–224.
4.
BlauPeter M. and ScottW. Richard (1962). Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing.
5.
BluechelAlan (1991). “Reaping Profit from a New World Order.”The Journal of State Government64 (1): 18–21.
6.
BoeckelmanKeith (1996). “Federal Systems in the Global Economy: Research Issues.”Publius: The Journal of Federalism26 (1): 1–10.
7.
BohmDavid, Ed. (1994). Thought as a System.London: Routledge.
8.
BrownR. Philip (1997). “Foundations from Quantum Physics for a Normative Theory of Administration and Governance.”Public Voices3 (2): 35–67.
9.
CapraFritjof (1982). The Turning Point: Science, Society, and the Rising Culture.Toronto: Bantam Books.
10.
CastiJohn L (1994). Complexification.New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
11.
ConsidineMark and JennyM. Lewis (1999). “Governance at Ground Level: The Frontline Bureaucrat in the Age of Markets and Networks.”Public Administration Review59 (6): 467–480.
12.
CP (1999). Protests Heard by WTO?Seattle Riot Shocks Delegates. Toronto Sun.Toronto, ON: 1.
13.
DuchacekIvo D. (1990). “Perforated Sovereignties: Towards a Typology of New Actors in International Relations.”In Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units.MichelmannH. J. and SoldatosP., eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 1–33.
14.
ElazarDaniel J. (1987). “Federalism, Intergovernmental Relations, and Changing Models of the Polity.”In Subnational Politics in the 1980s: Organization, Reorganization, and Economic Development.PicardL. A. and ZariskiR., eds. New York: Praeger: 5–20.
15.
ElliottEuel W. and KielL. Douglas, Eds. (1996). Chaos Theory in the Social Sciences: Foundations and Applications.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
16.
ElliottEuel W. and KielL. Douglas, Eds. (1999). Nonlinear Dynamics, Complexity and Public Policy.Commack, NY: Nova Sciences Publishers.
17.
FarazmandAli (1999). “Globalization and Public Administration.”Public Administration Review59 (6): 509–522.
18.
FoxCharles J. (1980). “The Existential Phenomenological Alternative to Dichotomous Thought.”The Western Political Quarterly33 (3): 356–379.
19.
FoxCharles J. and HughT. Miller (1996). Postmodern Public Administration: Toward Discourse.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
FreudmannAviva (1999). “Border Clearance a Top Priority.”Journal of Comme RCE. (December 8): 1.
21.
FryEarl H. (1993). “The U.S. States and Foreign Economic Policy: Federalism in the 'New World Order'.”In Foreign Relations and Federal States.HockingB., ed. London: Leicester University Press: 122–139.
22.
GabrielYiannis and HowardS. Schwartz (1999). “Organizations, From Concepts to Constructs: Psychoanalytic Theories of Character and the Meaning of Organization.”Administrative Theory and Praxis21 (2): 176–192.
23.
GoswamiAmit (1993). The Self-Aware Universe: How Consciousness Creates the Material World.New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher.
24.
GrimaldiJames V. (1999). “Clinton Seeks Seat for Critics at WTO.”Seattle Times.Seattle, WA: C1.
HockingBrian (1993). “Introduction.”In Foreign Relations and Federal States.HockingB., ed. London: Leicester University Press: 1–8.
27.
HockingBrian (1993). “Managing Foreign Relations in Federal States: Linking Central and Non-Central International Interests.”In Foreign Relations and Federal States.HockingB., ed. London: Leicester University Press: 68–89.
28.
HutPiet (1996). “Structuring Reality: The Role of Limits.”In Boundaries and Barriers. On the Limits to Scientific Knowledge.CastiJ. L. and KarlqvistA., eds. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: 148–187.
29.
IngramHelen, LenardMilich and RobertG. Varady (1994). “Managing Transboundary Resources: Lessons from Ambos Nogales.”Environment36 (4): 6–39.
30.
KaplanRobert D. (1998). “Travels Into America's Future.”The Atlantic Monthly.282: 37–61.
31.
KatzDaniel and RobertL. Kahn (1966). The Social Psychology of Organizations.New York: John Wiley and Sons.
32.
KellySusanne and MaryAnn Allison (1999). The Complexity Advantage: How the Science of Complexity Can Help Your Business Achieve Peak Performance.New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
KielL. Douglas (1994). Managing Chaos and Complexity in Government: A New Paradigm for Managaing Change, Innovation, and Organizational Renewal.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
34.
KingCheryl Simrell and CamillaStivers, Eds. (1998). Government is Us: Public Administration in an Anti-Government Era.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
35.
LubinMartin (1993). “The Routinization of Cross-Border Interactions: An Overview of NEG/ECP Structures and Activities.”In States and Provinces in the International Economy.BrownD. M. and FryE. H., eds. Berkeley: Institute of Government Studies Press: 145–166.
36.
MandellMyrna P. (1999). “The Impact of Collaborative Efforts: Changing the Face of Public Policy Through Networks and Network Structures.”Policy Studies Review16 (1): 4–17.
37.
MingusMatthew S. (1999). Comparative Network Theory: An Interpretive Study of the Canada-United States Pacific Salmon Treaty.Graduate School of Public Affairs.Denver: University of Colorado at Denver.
38.
MingusMatthew S. (2000). “Relational Holism and the Possibility of Quantum Administration: Farfetched Ideas or an Ascendent Worldview?” In New Sciences for Public Administration and Policy: Connections and Reflections.MorcolG. and DennardL. F., eds. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press: 243–263.
39.
MingusMatthew S. (2001). “From Subnet to Supranet. A Proposal for a Comparative Network Framework to Examine Network Interactions Across Borders.”In Getting Results Through Collaboration. Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management.MandellM. P., ed. Westport, CT: Quorum Books, Greenwood Publishing Group: 30–48.
40.
MorcolGoktug (2000). “New Sciences for Public Administration and Policy.”In New Sciences for Public Administration and Policy. Connections and Reflections.MorcolG. and DennardL., eds. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press: 1–44.
41.
MorganGareth (1998). Images of Organization.Executive Edition. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
42.
O'TooleLaurence J.Jr. (1997). “The Implications for Democracy in a Networked Bureaucratic World.”Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory7 (3): 443–459.
43.
PoggiGianfranco (1978). The Development of the Modern State: A Sociological Introduction.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
44.
RedheadMichael and PaulTeller (1991). “Particles, Particle Labels, and Quanta: The Toll of Unacknowledged Metaphysics.”Foundations of Physics21 (1): 43–62.
45.
Reuters (1997). “B.C. Sued for Threatening U.S. Facility: Canada Acts to Block Provincial Closure of Torpedo Test Range.”Seattle Post-Intelligencer.Seattle, WA: A2.
46.
RosenbloomDavid H. (1999). “Administrative Reform in the New Global Millennium: Diagnosis, Prescription, and the Limits of Transferability.” Administrative Theory and Praxis21 (4): 491–496.
47.
SengePeter M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization.New York: Currency Doubleday.
48.
SkolimowskiHenryk (1994). The Participatory Mind: A New Theory of Knowledge and of the Universe.London: Penguin Books.
49.
SoldatosPanayotis (1990). “An Explanatory Framework for the Study of Federated States as Foreign-policy Actors.”In Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units.MichelmannH. J. and SoldatosP., eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 34–53.
50.
StaffReporter (1999). “Canada, U.S. Renew Nanoose Bay Test Range Deal.”Ottawa Citizen.Ottawa, ON: A5.
51.
StillmanRichardII, (1998). Preface to Public Administration: A Search for Themes and Direction.Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
TellerPaul (1986). “Relational Holism and Quantum Mechanics.”British Journal for the Philosophy of Science37(1)71–81.
54.
WheatleyMargaret J. (1992). Leadership and the New Science: Learning about Organization from an Orderly Universe.San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
55.
WilsonWoodrow (1887). “The Study of Administration.”Political Science Quarterly2 (June): 197–222.
56.
ZoharDanah (1990). The Quantum Self: Human Nature and Consciousness Defined by the New Physics.New York: Quill/William Morrow.
