Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Interagency collaboration helps governments to better resolve various complex societal problems. This contribution examines the mechanisms underlying the collaboration of disparate national government agencies engaged in Chinese environmental protection. We test three dominant mechanisms, namely, the institutionalization of collaborative networks, resource interdependence and exchange, and preferential attachment. It is concluded that a collaborative network over time becomes cohesive, that national government agencies prefer to collaborate with popular agencies and tend to collaborate with those whose resources are different from their own, and that popular agencies tend to maintain their core positions over time. Our study enriches the current governance and policy literature through adding building blocks for the evolution of collaborative network and network partner selection.

Keywords

China collaborative network dynamic evolution environmental protection exponential random graph model social network analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbasi

Hossain

Leydesdorff

(2012) Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. Journal of Informetrics 6(3): 403–412.

Agranoff

(2012) Collaborating to Manage. A Primer for the Public Sector. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Andrew

Carr

(2013) Mitigating uncertainty and risk in planning for regional preparedness: The role of bonding and bridging relationships. Urban Studies 50(4): 709–724.

Bardach

(2001) Development dynamics: Interagency collaboration as an emergent phenomenon. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 11(2): 149–164.

Barabasi A and Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286(5439): 509.

Berardo R (2014) Bridging and bonding capital in two-mode collaboration networks. Policy Studies Journal 42(2): 197–225.

Berardo

Scholz

(2010) Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632–649.

Blom-Hansen

(1997) A new institutional perspective on policy networks. Public Administration 75(4): 669–693.

Bouckaert

Peters

Verhoest

(2010) The Coordination of Public Sector Organizations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

10.

Busuioc

(2015) Friend or foe? Inter-agency coordination, organizational reputation, and turf. Public Administration 94(1): 40–56.

11.

Daley

(2009) Interdisciplinary problems and agency boundaries: Exploring effective cross-agency collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 19(3): 477–493.

12.

Erridge

Greer

(2000) Policy network analysis of UK Central government civil procurement. Public Policy and Administration 15(4): 25–48.

13.

Feiock RC (2013) The Institutional Collective Action Framework. Policy Studies Journal 41(3): 397–425.

14.

Freeman

(1979) Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1(3): 215–239.

15.

Howlett

Mukherjee

Koppenjan

(2017) Policy learning and policy networks in theory and practice: The role of policy brokers in the Indonesian biodiesel policy network. Policy and Society 36(2): 233–250.

16.

Jung K, Minsun S and Hyung JP (2019) “The Dynamics of an Interorganizational Emergency Management Network: Interdependent and Independent Risk Hypotheses.” Public Administration Review 79(2): 225–35.

17.

Klijn EH (1996) Analyzing and managing processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy networks and its problems. Administration & Society 28(1): 90–119.

18.

Klijn EH and Koppenjan JFM (2000) Public management and policy networks: Foundations of a network approach to governance. Public Management 2(2): 135–158.

19.

Klijn

Koppenjan

JFM

(2016) Governance Networks in Public Sectors. Oxon: Routledge.

20.

Klijn

Steijn

Edelenbos

(2010) The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration 88(4): 1063–1082.

21.

Lee

Feiock

(2012) Interorganizational collaborative networks in economic development policy: An exponential random graph model analysis. Policy Studies Journal 40(3): 547–573.

22.

(2018) Governing Environmental Conflicts in China. Oxon: Routledge.

23.

Lieberthal

Lampton

(1992) Bureaucracy, Politics, and Decision Making in Post-Mao China. Berkeley: University of California Press.

24.

Liu

, et al. (2016) A governance network perspective on environmental conflicts in China: Findings from the Dalian paraxylene conflict. Policy Studies 37(4): 314–331.

25.

(2019) Cross-sector collaboration in times of crisis: Findings from the Funing tornado case in China. Local Government Studies 46(3): 459–482.

26.

Molenveld

Voets

Verhoest

, et al. (2019) Images of coordination: How implementing organizations perceive coordination arrangements. Public Administration Review 80(1): 9–22.

27.

de Jong

Koppenjan

(2018) Assessing and explaining interagency collaboration performance: A comparative case study of local governments in China. Public Management Review 21(4): 581–605.

28.

North

(1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29.

Peters

(1998) Managing horizontal government: The politics of co-ordination. Public Administration 76(2): 295–311.

30.

Robins

Pattison

Wang

(2009) Closure, connectivity, and degree distributions: Exponential random graph (P*) models for directed social networks. Social Networks 31(2): 105–117.

31.

Scharpf

(1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

32.

Snijders

(2002) Markov chain monte Carlo estimation of exponential random graph models. Journal of Social Structure 3(2): 1–40.

33.

Sun YT and Liu K (2016) Proximity effect, preferential attachment and path dependence in inter-regional network: A case of China’s technology transaction. Scientometrics 108: 201–220.

34.

Sun Y and Cong C (2018) The evolving relations between government agencies of innovation policymaking in emerging economies: a policy network approach and its application to the chinese case. Research Policy 47(3): 592–605.

35.

Teets

(2018) The power of policy networks in authoritarian regimes: Changing environmental policy in China. Governance 31(1): 125–141.

36.

Wasserman

Faust

(1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.52 MB

0.16 MB

The evolution of collaborative networks: A social network analysis of Chinese environmental protection policy

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material