Damon Alexander

Partnerships in primary care in Australia: network structure, dynamics and sustainability

Partnerships represent a prescriptive form of network governance, based on the idea of cooperation. This article has four aims. The first is to describe why network governance and partnerships are important now, and what one particular example - Primary Care Partnerships - is addressing. The second is to analyse the network structure of two of these partnerships, and the third is to examine network dynamics. The fourth aim is to explore relationships and sustainability over the longer term. Two government-funded and steered partnerships, which were established to increase coordination between primary care services in Victoria, Australia, were examined. Annual interviews at three points in time between 2002 and 2005 were used to explore relationships between organizations within these two partnerships. The structure of two different communication networks, based on contacts for work and contacts for strategic information, were examined using social network analysis. Tracing network structures over time highlighted partnership dynamics. The network structures changed over the three years of the study, but an important constant was the continuing centrality of the independent staff employed to manage the partnerships. Over the longer term, it seems to be more important to fund independent partnership staff, rather than people who connect partnerships to the funding agency. If partnerships are seen as valuable in improving service coordination and health outcomes, then long term rather than just start-up funding support is required.

Innovation inside government: the importance of networks

This chapter delves into networks and their relationship to innovation inside government. The concept of ‘networks’ is investigated, and an analytical framework is established through which the role of networks in the innovation process can be explored. It is argued that there is value in adopting a network approach for the study of innovation inside government, since networks offer a novel approach to understanding issues of power as well as issues of innovation.

Crossing Boundaries: Action Networks, Amalgamation and Inter-Community Trust in a Small Rural Shire

Abstract Local government reforms introduced throughout the mid-1990s radically altered the face, institutional form and structure of local government in the state of Victoria, Australia. In rural areas, where shire boundaries often reflected deeply ingrained notions of communal interest and identity, the forced merger of previously independent and fiercely parochial councils into larger unified political and administrative units was particularly contentious. Drawing on a survey of 649 residents from the rural Shire of Buloke, this paper examines attitudes towards local government amalgamation, levels of inter-community trust and reciprocity, and how these vary across different parts of the municipality. Social network analysis is then used to explore the relationship between these attitudes and trust levels and the structure and orientation of respondents’ inter-community networks. The paper finds that despite the passage of more than a decade, significant residual resentment surrounding the impact of the forced amalgamations remains evident across most communities in Buloke Shire. There is a widespread perception that the reforms have undermined rather than improved the operation of local government across the municipality, and that post-amalgamation political structures have largely failed to effectively reconcile the diverse and sometimes disparate interests of Bulokes constituent towns and communities. The network analysis also suggests that much work remains to be done to develop a meaningful sense of community based on the new administrative boundaries, with very little evidence of cross-community cooperation, coalition building or issue-based interaction detected.

Innovation and Public Policy

The past two decades have witnessed a fundamental transformation in the nature, role, and responsibilities of the public sector in most modern liberal democracies. Mounting community demands for better, more responsive and more efficient service delivery, coupled with a desire to restrain spending, have placed increasing pressure on public service agencies not only ‘to do more with less’, but to do so more transparently and with greater consultation with local communities. These pressures have dramatically transformed not only the kinds of services traditionally provided by government, but also the manner in which they are delivered. City government has been at the forefront of this reform agenda. The sector’s subordinate position and subsequent vulnerability to cost shifting from the levels of government above it has resulted in an increasing range of services and responsibilities being transferred downwards from stronger central governments as revenue pressures on all levels of government have increased. At the same time, a greater focus on the principle of subsidiarity in governance circles has led to the devolution of both policy development and service delivery functions to the local community level, significantly broadening local government’s traditional role.

It’s not what you know it’s who you know: Political connectedness and political engagement at the local level

Drawing on a survey of households across a small rural community in north central Victoria, Australia, this article uses social network analysis to examine the embedded political resources citizens draw on and mobilize in order to effect change at the local level. The article uses a name generator to map the structure, size and composition of citizens’ political support networks and to identify key actors or ‘nodes’ they rely upon to get action on local issues. More traditional quantitative measures are then used to examine how being more or less ‘politically connected’ impacts upon levels of political engagement. The findings confirm that ‘who you know’ is important, with both the level of political connectedness and breadth of contact types important predictors of increased participation in political activities.

Who are the Innovators Inside Government

We now come to the point where we draw together all our previous examinations of innovation norms and procedures, our various explorations of networking activities and network structures, to make some coherent claims about innovation inside government. As the last four chapters have demonstrated, the key innovators in our four city governments occupy certain network positions and are located at particular levels in the hierarchy. We have also seen that there are some interesting variations across governments in regard to who the innovators are, what counts as innovation, and the degree of fit between the internal (politicians and bureaucrats) and the external (community leaders) view of what innovations are significant. The remaining question is: Who are the innovators inside government?

Networks and Key Actors

Up until now we have focused on the networking that politicians and bureaucrats do outside their organizations, through three measures of external interactivity — a contact matrix, conference attendance and membership of associations. This demonstrated that there are substantial differences in the way these governments deal with their environments, and some differences in the way those in different roles interact.

Networks as Interactions and Structures

The previous chapter showed the importance of innovation norms and procedures in our city governments, and provided some clues on local innovation culture and variations across roles and positions. To better understand the way governments create innovations we now shift our attention to the role played by a certain class of objects called embedded resources. Such resources are produced within the work-based social networks of politicians, bureaucrats and key community leaders. There is a long tradition in innovation research which shows that these forms of connectedness and exchange inside networks shape the way ideas are communicated and influence the way new products and methods are distributed. Much of this research points to the critical role which networks play in the diffusion of innovation. Rogers (1995:5) provides the classic formulation of this approach; ‘Diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among members of a social system’.

Introduction to Innovation Cases

The first part of our study has thrown light on the normative aspects of innovation inside government and has laid the groundwork for a better understanding of the role of procedures such as elections and statutory meetings in helping and hindering innovation. We have shown that different governments are more introverted or extroverted in their connections. We have also been able to describe some of the more informal architecture of networks built around information and advice seeking between actors within governments. Moving towards a more finely grained understanding of how innovation is framed and takes place in local government, an understanding that allows the contribution of individual actors and network structures to be examined, requires building greater depth in a smaller number of cases. Part II of this book is directed towards developing this depth.

City of Parkside — Big Bang meets Executive Coordination

The City of Parkside is located on the shore of the bay that sits immediately south of Melbourne’s CBD in Victoria and is home to over 80,000 residents. It is one of the oldest areas of European settlement in the state having been first settled in 1855, although the existing city government was only formed in 1994 following the forced and unpopular amalgamation of three existing municipalities by the conservative state government.