Although network research typically examines whole networks, interorganizational networks are not isolated entities. This study focuses on overlapping regional networks that emerge as an unintentional result of an amalgamation of central governmental projects. We use archival, interview, and social network data and visualize the normally imperceptible meta-networks. Large and centralized meta-networks are found to stimulate goal attainment, while smaller, decentralized meta-networks have higher-quality relations. Both funders and network members who co-implement public projects should make good use of regional meta-networks. Therefore, future research on the determinants of successful decentralized projects should include the dynamics and effects of meta-networks.
AnsellC., & GashA. (2007). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
2.
AxelrodR. (1981). The emergence of cooperation among egoists. The American Political Science Review, 75(2), 306–318.
3.
BakkerR. M.CambréB., & ProvanK. G. (2009). The resource dilemma of temporary organizations: A dynamic perspective on temporal embeddedness and resource discretion. In KenisP. N.Janowicz-PanjaitanM. K., & CambréB. (Eds.), Temporary organizations: Prevalence, logic and effectiveness (pp. 201–219). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
4.
BoogersM.DentersS., & SandersM. (2015). Effecten van regionaal bestuur: Quick scan van de effectiviteit en democratische kwaliteit van regionaal bestuur.Unpublished research paper. Enschede, Netherlands: University of Twente.
5.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G., & FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET for Windows: Software for social network analysis (pp. 417–433) (Version 6). Boston, MA.
6.
BorgattiS. P., & HalginD. (2011). Analyzing affiliation networks. In CarringtonP., & ScottJ. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis.London, England: Sage Publications.
7.
BurtR. S. (1983). Corporate profits and cooptation: Networks of market constraints and directorate ties in the American economy.New York, NY: Academic Press.
8.
BrysonJ. M.CrosbyB. C., & Middleton-StoneM. (2006). The design and implementation of cross-sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public Administration Review, 66, 44–55.
9.
DasT. K., & TengB. S. (1998). Between trust and control: Developing confidence in partner cooperation in alliances. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 491–512.
10.
EcclesR. (1981). The quasifirm in the construction industry. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 2, 335–357.
11.
EmersonK.NabatchiT., & BaloghS. (2011). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
12.
FaulknerR. R., & AndersonA. B. (1987). Short-term projects and emergent careers: Evidence from Hollywood. American Journal of Sociology, 92(4), 879–909.
13.
FeiockR. (2007). Rational choice and regional governance. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(1), 47–63.
14.
GergiuloM., & ErtugG. (2006). The dark side of trust. In BachmannR., & ZaheerA. (Eds.), Handbook of trust research (pp. 165–186). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
15.
GulatiR., & GargiuloM. (1999). Where do interorganizational networks come from?American Journal of Sociology, 104(5), 1439–1493.
16.
GulatiR., & WestphalJ. D. (1999). Cooperative or controlling? The effects of CEO-board relations and the content of interlocks on the formation of joint ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 473–506.
17.
HamiltonK. (2002). Regimes and regional governance: The case of Chicago. Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(4), 203–223.
18.
Janowicz-PanjaitanM. K.KenisP. N., & VermeulenP. A. M. (2009). The atemporality of temporary organizations: Implications for goal attainment and legitimacy. In KenisP. N.Janowicz-PanjaitanM. K., & CambréB. (Eds.), Temporary organizations: Prevalence, logic and effectiveness (pp. 56–85). Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar Publishing.
19.
KoenigT.GogelR., & SonquistJ. (1979). Models of the significance of interlocking corporate directorates. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 38(2), 173–186.
20.
KrepsD. M., & WilsonR. (1982). Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 253–279.
21.
LukeR. D.BegunJ. W., & PointerD. D. (1989). Quasi-firms: Strategic interorganizational forms in the health care industry. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 9–19.
22.
MacLeodG. (2001). New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and the remaking of political economic space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(4), 804–829.
23.
ManningS., & SydowJ. (2008). Projects, paths, and practices: Generating continuity in project network relationships. Paper presented at the EGOS Colloquium, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
24.
MilesM. B. (1964). On temporary systems. In MilesM. B. (Ed.), Innovation in education (pp. 437–490). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
25.
MillerG. J. (1992). Managerial dilemmas: The political economy of hierarchy.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Ministry of Internal Affairs (2011, September 15). Regioatlas. Retrieved from https://www.regioatlas.nl/
27.
MitchellS. M., & ShortellS. M. (2000). The governance and management of effective community health partnerships: A typology for research, policy and practice. Milbank Quarterly, 78(2), 241–289.
28.
MizruchiM. S. (1996). What do interlocks do? An analysis, critique, and assessment of research on interlocking directorates. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 271–298.
29.
OlsonM. (1965). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
31.
OstromE. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
PetersonR. A., & WhiteH. (1981). Elements of simplex structure. Urban Life, 10(1), 3–24.
33.
PowellW. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organizing. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
34.
PorterM. E. (1998). On competition.Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
35.
ProvanK. G., & MilwardH. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganisational effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–33.
36.
RethemeyerR. K., & HatmakerD. M. (2008). Mobile trust, enacted relationships: Social capital in a state-level policy network. International Public Management Journal, 11(4), 426–462.
37.
SchlüßlerE.DeckerC., & LerchF. (2013). Networks of clusters: A governance perspective. Industry and Innovation, 20(4), 3357–3377.
38.
UzziB. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(2), 35–67.
39.
WassermanS., & FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WeberE., & KhademianA. M. (2008). Managing collaborative processes: Common practices, uncommon circumstances. Administration & Society, 40(5), 431–464.
41.
WindelerA., & SydowJ. (2001). Project networks and changing industry practices: Collaborative content production in the German television industry. Organisation Studies, 22(6), 1035–1060.
42.
YangJ., & LeskovecJ. (2014). Overlapping communities explain core–periphery organization of networks. Proceedings of the IEEE, 102(12), 1892–1902.
43.
YsaT.CurtóF., & EsteveM. (2010). Networks never walk alone: The management of network portfolios. Paper presented at the International Public Management Conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
