Jurian Edelenbos

Trust in Complex Decision-Making Networks A Theoretical and Empirical Exploration

This article explores some theoretical notions of trust in complex interorganizational networks, especially public-private partnerships. The article begins with a theoretical exploration of the value of trust in complex interorganizational processes. Next, the role of trust in a public-private partnership “Sijtwende” is analyzed. The authors analyze the cooperation process and the organizational arrangements that have been used, as well as the outcomes thus far. They then trace the existence and development of trust in these processes and their influence on the process and outcomes. The authors close with some preliminary conclusions and hypotheses on the manageability of trust.

Trust in Governance Networks: Its Impacts on Outcomes

Governance networks are characterized by complex interaction and decision making, and much uncertainty. Surprisingly, there is very little research on the impact of trust in achieving results in governance networks. This article asks two questions: (a) Does trust influence the outcomes of environmental projects? and (b) Does active network management improve the level of trust in networks? The study is based on a Web-based survey of respondents involved in environmental projects. The results indicate that trust does matter for perceived outcomes and that network management strategies enhance the level of trust.

Why is joint knowledge production such a problem

Analysing knowledge use in policy processes around contested topics requires a new research approach. Traditional research on knowledge for policy assumes a one-to-one relationship (which is often imperfect) between science and policy as two separate worlds. Science, technology and society studies teach us that knowledge for policy is a joint construct of the research and the policy community and is not produced in isolated worlds. This article argues that the main problem for knowledge use lies in the subdivision between different competing ‘knowledge coalitions’ of researchers and policy-makers. Conflicting knowledge is the result. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Project Versus Process Management in Public-Private Partnership: Relation Between Management Style and Outcomes

ABSTRACT This article elaborates the relation between two management styles, project and process management, and perceived outcomes in public-private partnerships (PPPs). The research is based on an extensive face-to-face survey conducted with 32 managers of 18 large complex infrastructure projects. The managers were asked questions about management strategies and outcomes. Based on theoretical literature on process and project management we conceptualized and measured these two types of management and looked at which type of strategies contributed more to perceived outcomes. The results show that a process management style correlates to outcomes and that project management does not correlate to outcomes.

Evaluation in Multi-Actor Policy Processes Accountability, Learning and Co-operation

Two main functions of evaluation are enabling accountability and collective learning. Both of these – and their combination – run into diverse complications when applied in complex multi-actor policy processes. The article explores these complications and illustrates them with examples from the field of spatial policy. In doing so, a third function of evaluation in such contexts is identified, viz. evaluation as an instrument of co-operation. Next, a number of theoretical ideas, supported by empirical research, are proposed in order to understand better when, why and how evaluation contributes to complex multi-actor policy processes. Based on these insights, some principles are elaborated for the development of constructive evaluation arrangements. The authors suggest that co-operation is a precondition for the preservation of accountability and learning functions of evaluation in multi-actor settings.

Public – private partnership: on the edge of project and process management. Insights from Dutch practice: the Sijtwende spatial development project

The aim of this paper is to describe and analyze the management strategies of cooperation in public-private partnerships (PPPs) in spatial planning. We describe a specific case study: the Dutch location development project ‘Sijtwende’. We deal with the main question of what this case teaches us about the management of complex processes of cooperation between public and private partners. We will describe the difficulties in the cooperation. Furthermore, we will look for important breakthroughs in the process of collaborative development of the area. In this paper we combine theoretical thoughts on PPP models, and management and empirical insights from out in-depth case study, in order to find balances in using project and process management strategies for managing complex spatial planning processes.

Democratic Legitimacy of New Forms of Water Management in the Netherlands

Due to changes in the Dutch flood management paradigm, governance practices have been shifting from technocratic and state-oriented towards more collaborative governance approaches in which many governmental actors, together with private and societal actors, search out integral solutions. This shift has had an impact on how water management is legitimized. This paper evaluates two water governance processes that reflect the new management paradigm in different ways, and analyzes how these changing paradigms influence the democratic legitimacy of water governance. It is concluded that the extent to which the new paradigm is implemented influences the way in which democratic legitimacy is organized. It is also shown that new forms of democratic legitimacy do not replace existing ones but rather contribute to hybrid and contextualized forms of legitimacy.

Does Democratic Anchorage Matter? An Inquiry Into the Relation Between Democratic Anchorage and Outcome of Dutch Environmental Projects

Does democracy matter? This is an intriguing question. Not only as a normative question, democracy is a value in itself that can be cherished for that reason alone but also as a question of its impact on the outcomes of governance processes. In this article, the authors look at the question of to what degree citizens and politicians are involved in governance processes around environmental projects and what the effect is of these forms of democratic embedding on the outcomes of those projects. The research is based on a survey in 2006 that resulted in 337 respondents involved in spatial projects in the Netherlands. The analysis shows that, according to respondents, both stakeholders and political parties are well involved in the process (stakeholders slightly more than political actors). The authors also find that both democratic anchorage forms are related to perceived outcomes, but only stakeholder involvement has a strong significant effect on outcomes.

Meta-governance as Network Management

There have been countless publications that have attempted to conceptualise the trend towards governing through and in networks. In the analysis of public policy and management, this literature is distinctive because of its focus upon an entire network, rather than the actions of individual actors (Hanf & Sharpf 1978; Scharpf 1978; Milward & Wamsley 1985; Kaufman et al. 1986; Kooiman 1993; Kickert et al. 1997; Rhodes 1997a; Agranoff & McGuire 2001; Mandell 2001; Klijn & Koppenjan 2004a).

Self-organization in urban regeneration : A two-case comparative research

Urban regeneration processes in which local stakeholders take the lead are interesting for realizing tailor made and sustainable urban regeneration, but are also faced with serious difficulties. We use the concept of self-organization from complexity theory to examine the relationship between local stakeholders’ initiatives and vital urban regeneration processes. We conducted a two-case comparative research, Caterham Barracks and Broad Street Business Improvement Districts Birmingham (UK), in which local stakeholders take the lead. We analyse the evolution of these regeneration processes by using two different manifestations of self-organization: autopoietic and dissipative self-organization. We found that a balanced interplay between autopoietic and dissipative self-organization of local stakeholders is important for vital urban regeneration processes to establish. We elaborate four explanatory conditions for this interplay. These conditions provide at the one hand stability and identity development, but also the needed connections with established actors and institutions around urban regeneration and flexibility to adjust to evolving demands during the process of regeneration. However, consolidation of such initiatives does mean a challenge for existing structures for the government, market and society that will need to adapt and change their roles to new governance realities. In this way self-organizing processes become meaningful in the regeneration of urban areas.