Programme. It is important that we do not under-estimate the powers of the state but
also important that we do not in abstract over-estimate them nor treat the state as an
undifferentiated whole. The move to use forms of network governance in some areas
of state activity may involve a loss of power in some parts of the state, at the same
time as there are gains in other parts. If the gains are bigger than the losses (to use
power very crudely) then the state may overall have greater powers than before. Even
so, although we may want to argue about the overall significance of the deployment
of forms of network governance it is difficult to deny that the form and modalities of
the state have changed as a result of such deployments and that those changes need to
be mapped and understood. The overall task is to make sense of the particular ‘mix’
of governance strategies that is in play at any point in time.
The most important point to come out of all of these problems is that the complexities
involved in the analysis of heterarchical governance require that empirical research
and conceptual development be done together rather than separately. We need
conceptualizations of networks and network governance that can be properly
operationalised in research studies and a set of tools and techniques for network
analysis and representation that allow us to address those conceptualizations sensibly.
We certainly need more examples of the actual practices of policy networks and
network governance in different settings and in relation to different parts of the state.
References
Ball, S. J. (2008) ‘New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in
Education’, Political Studies, 56, (4), 747-765.
Ball, S. J. (2009) ‘Academies in context: Politics, business and philanthropy and
heterarchical governance’, Management in Education, 23, (3), 100-103
Goodwin, M. (2009) ‘Which networks matter in education governance?: A reply to
Ball’s “New Philanthropy, New Networks and New Governance in Education”’,
Political Studies, 57,