Understanding the Realities of Collaborative Networks in the United States

  • Myrna P. Mandell


Networks have become such an accepted part of our understanding of how public programmes and policies can be achieved that we have almost taken them for granted. Although they have not replaced our bureaucratic institutions and hierarchical, authoritative ways of operation, they surely now stand alongside of them. Unfortunately, this general acceptance has often turned into an idealistic complacency, one in which our focus is more on the promises of networks, rather than the realities of them. The end result of this has been failures that could have been avoided, learning opportunities missed and an increasingly ‘bad name’ for networks. Of particular note are the problems that arise in collaborative networks.


Corporate Social Performance External Stakeholder Individual Organisation Collaborative Network Coordinative Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Agranoff, R. (2003) Leveraging Networks: A Guide for Public Managers Working Across Organizations, Arlington, VA, IBM Endowment for the Business of Government.Google Scholar
  2. Agranoff, R. (1990) ‘Managing Federalism Through Metropolitan Human Services Intergovernmental Bodies’, Publius, 20, 1–22.Google Scholar
  3. Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire (2003) Collaborative Public Management, Washington, DC, Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire (2001a) ‘American Federalism and the Search for Models of Management’, Public Administration Review, 61 (6), 671–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire (2001b) ‘After the Network is Formed: Process, Power, and Performance’, in Mandell, M. P. (ed.), Getting Results through Collaboration, Westport, CT, Quorum Books, pp. 11–29.Google Scholar
  6. Alter, C. and J. Hage (1993) Organizations Working Together, Sage Library of Social Research 191, London, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. The Annie E. Casey Foundation (undated) The Path of Most Resistance, report published by The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  8. Bardach, E. (1999) Getting Agencies to Work Together, Washington, DC, The Brookings Institute.Google Scholar
  9. Boorman, C. and G. Woolcock (2002) ‘The Goodna Service Integration Project: Government and Community Working Together for Community Well-Being in Goodna’, in Reddel, T. (ed.), Governing Local Communities: Building State and Community, occasional paper series no. 4, Brisbane, Australia,School of Social Work and Social Policy, University of Queensland, pp. 57–81Google Scholar
  10. Cordero-Guzman, H. R. (2001) ‘Interorganizational Networks among Community-Based Organizations’, unpublished manusript.Google Scholar
  11. Feyerherm, A. E. (1995) ‘Changing and Converging Mind-Sets of Participants During Collaborative Environmental Rule-Making: Two Negotiated Regulation Case Studies’, Research in Corporate Social Performance and Policy, Supplement 1, New York, JAI Press, pp. 231–57.Google Scholar
  12. Goes, J. B. and S. H. Park (1997) ‘Interorganizational Links and Innovation: The Case of Hospital Services’, Academy of Management Journal, 40 (3), 673–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gray, B. (1989) Collaborating, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  14. Hjern, B. and D. O. Porter (1981) ‘Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Analysis’, Organization Studies, 2/3, 211–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kamensky, J. and T. Burlin (eds) (2004) Collaboration: Using Networks and Partnerships, Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Keast, R. (2001) ‘Government Service Delivery Project: A New Governance Approach for Queensland’, Journal of Contemporary Issues in Business and Government, 7 (1), 51–8.Google Scholar
  17. Keast, R. and K. Brown (2002) ‘The Government Service Delivery Program: A Case Study of the Push and Pull of Central Government Coordination’, Public Management Review, 4 (3), 1–21.Google Scholar
  18. Keast, R., Mandell, M and K. Brown (2006) ‘Mixing State, Market and Network Governance Modes: The Role of Government in “Crowded” Policy Domains’, International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior, 9 (1), 27–50.Google Scholar
  19. Keast, R., Mandell, M. and K. Brown (2007) ‘Getting the Right Mix: Unpacking Integration Meanings and Strategies’, International Public Management Journal, 10 (1), 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keast, R., Mandell, M. P., Brown, K., and G. Woolcock (2004) ‘Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations’, Public Administration Review, 64 (3), 363–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kickert, W. J. M., Klijn, E.-H. and J. Koppenjan (1997J Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, London, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  22. Koppenjan, J. and E.-H. Klijn (2004) Managing Uncertainties in Networks, London, Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Lowndes, V. and C. Skelcher (1998) ‘The Dynamics of Multi-Organisational Partnerships: An Analysis of Change Modes in Government’, Public Administration, 76 (2), 313–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mandell, M. P. (ed.) (2001) Getting Results through Collaboration, Westport, CT, Quorum Books.Google Scholar
  25. Mandell, M. P. (ed.) (1994) ‘Managing Interdependencies Through Program Structures: A Revised Paradigm’, American Review of Public Administration, 24 (1), 99–121.Google Scholar
  26. Mandell, M. and T. Steelman (2003) ‘Understanding What Can Be Accomplished through Interorganizational Innovations: The Importance of Typologies, Context and Management’, Public Management Review, 5 (2), 197–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montgomery, C. (2004) ‘Learning Together: Collaborative Inquiry among Grantmakers and Grantees’, Grantcraft, Practical Wisdom for Grantmakers:
  28. Orwell, G. (1946) Animal Farm, New York, Harcourt Brace Janovich, Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Provan, K. G. and H. B. Milward (2001) ‘Do Networks Really Work?’ Public Administration Review, 61 (4), 414–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Provan, K. G. and H. B. Milward (1995) ‘Theory of Interorganizational Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Provan, K. G., Sebastian, J. G. and H. B. Milward (1996) ‘Interorganizational Cooperation in Community Mental Health: A Resource-Based Explanation of Referrals and Case coordination’, Medical Care Research and Review, 53 (1), 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Radin, B., Agranoff, R., Bowman, A. O. M., Buntz, G. C., Ott, S. J., Romzek, B. S. and R. H. Wilson (1996) New Governance for Rural America: Creating Intergovernmental Partnerships, Lawrence, KS, University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  33. Schimank, U. (1988) ‘The contribution of University Research to the German Economy: Societal Auto-Dynamic and Political Guidance’, Research Policy, 17, 329–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steelman, T. and J. Carmin (2002) ‘Community Watershed Remediation: Connecting Organizational R esources to Social and Substantive Outcomes’, in D. Rahm (ed.), Toxic Waste and Environmental Policy in the 21st Century United States, North Carolina, McFarland Publishers, pp. 195–208.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Myrna P. Mandell 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Myrna P. Mandell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations