November 2005
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Editor Login


Convener in chief:


David Lazer
(Methodology, Networked Governance)

Editors:


Stanley Wasserman
(Current Trends, Methodology, Social Networks)
Guy Stuart
(Economic Sociology, Finance)
Allan Friedman
(Simulations)
Nathan Eagle
(Technology, Social Computing, Powerlaws, Current Trends)
Ben Waber
(Technology, Social Computing) Ines Mergel
(Knowledge Sharing, Social Computing, Social Software, Current Trends)
Maria Binz-Scharf
(Qualitative Methodology, Knowledge Sharing, eGovernment)
Alexander Schellong
(Admin, eGovernment, Citizen Relationship Management)

Categories

 

Archives

Recent Entries

Recent Comments



Notification

Enter e-mail to subscribe:
Powered by
Movable Type 4.21-en

Syndicate this site (XML)



Blog Directory & Search engine
Academics Blog Top Sites

globe_blogs.gif
Blog Flux Directory


Main | Adapting to different social circles: Are people changing their online personality depending on the social context? »

14 November 2005

Networked government

There is a recent and increasing literature on networks and government that makes a strong case that much of what government does actually involves a complex interlocking of government (and nongovernment) actors. A key question, as ideas around “networked government� are explored, is how to draw on the rich research vein on inter-organizational networks that currently exists, most/much of which focuses on the intersection of networks and markets (economic sociology)? In short, in what ways are intergovernmental networks different, in what ways are they the same? A few differences to begin with:

(1) Governmental entities often have a monopoly over their domain. Much of the economic sociology literature effectively relies on exit (the market) to make the network (pre-existing ties) powerful—I cease to do business with you because you behaved badly with me (relational embeddedness) or someone else I know (structural embeddedness).

(2) There is less flexibility to organizational boundaries—e.g., given high levels of interdependence and potential opportunism, in the market one firm can merge with another, which is often impossible in the governmental setting.

(3) There are often limits on exchange—e.g., often it is not possible for one agency to pay another to help it achieve its policy objectives.


See the slides from this talk, listen to the podcast or watch the Video (WMV 320x240).

Posted by David Lazer at November 14, 2005 10:01 AM