Governments around the world increasingly adopt network-based approaches to improve problem-solving effectiveness, although this often risks compromising network legitimacy. This study explores how the interplay between two structural features—network size and heterogeneity—and two key network mechanisms—accountability and transparency—affects both network effectiveness and legitimacy. The findings suggest that these two outcomes can indeed coexist. In particular, a combination of smaller network size and the presence of strong accountability mechanisms promotes both effectiveness and legitimacy. By shedding light on the structural and institutional conditions that foster optimal network performance, this study makes a contribution to the governance network literature.
AnsellCGashA (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(4): 543–571.
2.
BrownMMO’TooleLJBrudneyJL (1998) Implementing information technology in government: an empirical assessment of the role of local partnerships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory8(4): 499–525.
3.
CepikuD (2014) Network performance: toward a dynamic multidimensional model. In: KeastRLMandellMPAgranoffR (eds) Network Theory in the Public Sector. New York, NY: Routledge, 188–204.
4.
CepikuDGiordanoFMastrodascioM, et al. (2021) What drives network effectiveness? A configurational approach. Public Management Review23(10): 1479–1503.
5.
CristofoliDMarkovicJ (2016) How to make public networks really work: a qualitative comparative analysis. Public Administration94(1): 89–110.
6.
CristofoliDDouglasSTorfingJ, et al. (2022) Having it all: can collaborative governance be both legitimate and accountable?Public Management Review24: 704–728. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2021.1960736.
7.
CristofoliDMaccioLPedrazziL (2015) Structure, mechanisms, and managers in successful networks. Public Management Review17(4): 489–516.
8.
De BoerNEshuisJKlijnE (2018) Does disclosing performance information influence street-level enforcement? A quantitative study on the effect on enforcement style of inspectors. Public Administration Review78(5): 694–704.
9.
DouglasSAnsellCParkerCF, et al. (2020a) Understanding collaboration: introducing the collaborative governance case databank. Policy and Society39(4): 495–509.
10.
DouglasSBerthodOGroenleerM, et al. (2020b) Pathways to collaborative performance: examining the different combinations of conditions under which collaborations are successful. Policy and Society39(4): 638–658.
11.
EdelenbosJ (2005) Institutional implications of interactive governance: insights from Dutch practice. Governance18(1): 111–134.
12.
EdelenbosJSteijnBKlijnEH (2010) Does democratic anchorage matter? An inquiry into the relation between democratic anchorage and outcome of Dutch environmental projects. The American Review of Public Administration40(1): 46–63.
13.
EmersonKNabatchiT (2015) Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance Regimes: A Performance Matrix. Public Performance & Management Review38(4): 717–747.
14.
GraddyEAChenB (2006) Influences on the size and scope of networks for social service delivery. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(4): 533–552.
15.
GrimmelikhuijsenSG (2012) Transparency and Trust: An Experimental Study of Online Disclosure and Trust in Government. Utrecht: Utrecht University. Doctoral dissertation.
16.
Hasnain-WyniaRSofaerSBazzoliGJ, et al. (2003) Members’ perceptions of community care network partnerships’ effectiveness. Medical Care Research and Review60(4): 40S–62S.
17.
HeadBWAlfordJ (2013) Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society47(6): 711–739.
18.
KlijnEHKoppenjanJFM (2016) Governance Networks in Public Sector. Oxon: Routledge.
19.
LiYW (2021) A framework in analysing the strategies for governing innovation networks for public innovation. Policy Studies42(2): 193–209.
20.
LiYWChenC (2022) What makes networks innovative? A configurational analysis of 18 collaborative innovation cases. International Public Management Journal27(2): 143–164.
21.
LiYWMaL (2019) What drives the governance of ridesharing? A fuzzy-set QCA of local regulations in China. Policy Sciences52: 601–624.
22.
LiYWKoppenjanJVerweijS (2016) Governing environmental conflicts in China: under what conditions do local government compromise?Public Administration94(3): 806–822.
23.
LucidarmeSCardonGWilliemA (2016) A comparative study of health promotion networks. Public Management Review18(8): 1163–1217.
24.
MitchellREFlorinPStevensonJF (2002) Supporting community-based prevention and health promotion initiatives: developing effective technical assistance systems. Health Education & Behavior29(5): 620–639.
25.
MosleyJWongJ (2021) Decision-making in collaborative governance networks: pathways to input and throughput legitimacy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(2): 328–345.
26.
OanaI-ESchneiderCQThomannE (2021) Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) Using R: A Beginner’s Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
OvermanSSchillemansT (2022) Toward a public administration theory of felt accountability. Public Administration Review82: 12–22. DOI: 10.1111/puar.13417.
28.
O’TooleLJMeierKJ (2004) Public management in intergovernmental networks: matching structural networks and managerial networking. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13(1): 43–64.
29.
PageS (2003) Entrepreneurial strategies for managing interagency collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory13(3): 311–339.
30.
ParentMMHarveyJ (2009) Towards a management model for sport and physical activity community-based partnerships. European Sport Management Quarterly9(1): 23–45.
31.
ProvanKGKenisP (2008) Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory18(2): 229–252.
32.
ProvanKGMilwardHB (2001) Do network really work? A framework for evaluating public sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review61(4): 414–423.
33.
RaabJMannakRSCambreB (2013) Combining structure, governance, and context: a configurational approach to network effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory25(2): 479–511.
34.
RaginCC (2008) Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
SchneiderCQWagemannC (2012) Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
SorensenETorfingJ (2009) Making governance network effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Administration87(2): 234–258.
37.
TorfingJCristofoliDGloorPA, et al. (2020) Taming the snake in paradise: combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation. Policy and Society39(4): 592–616.
38.
TurriniACristofoliDFrosiniF, et al. (2010) Networking literature about determinants of network effectiveness. Public Administration88(2): 528–550.
39.
Van de WalleSRobertsA (2008) Publishing performance information: an illusion of control?Performance Information in the Public Sector. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 211–226.
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.
