312
R. Mahon and P. McConney
From a holistic perspective, taking a network approach that involves network
metrics such as density and centrality facilitates addressing questions such as:
Do some network characteristics promote good governance through
•
Sharing of principles? Such as the communication of values in dense
–
networks;
Responsive institutions? For example, within modular networks that self–
organize;
Effective actions? i.e. where a central powerful actor can mobilize resources.
–
How do metrics such as density and different types of centrality relate to gover•
nance performance in key areas such as, responsiveness, adaptive capacity, resilience, transparency, accountability and tradeoffs among these characteristics?
The evolving realm of dynamic network models has much potential to offer
insight into changing relationships.
Can action arenas (Ostrom
•
2005 ) , within which targeted interventions will most
likely be successful, be identi fi ed by examining networks? Shown as network
hubs, cliques, etc.
Do we have any expectations about network structure? E.g. normative versus
•
actual linkages.
Are there network characteristics that make the networks that possess them more
•
adaptive or resilient? For example, the levels of redundancy required to achieve
resilience but without rigidity.
Answering these questions will require a combination of conceptual development and analysis of empirical studies. The former, while progressing on several
fronts, is mainly developed in connection with ideas of resilience (e.g. Carlsson and
Sandström 2008). The latter are increasing in number to the extent that reviews and
syntheses such as the one by Bodin and Crona ( 2009 ) can be attempted. Their review
indicates that network structure can be related to several important features of natural
resource governance and that the network approach to assessing governability may
have considerable potential. They conclude that signi fi cant differences in governance
processes and outcomes can be expected among networks experiencing structural
differences in terms of the density of relations, degree of cohesiveness, subgroup
interconnectivity and degree of network centralization. They observe a need to
develop a body of empirical work on governance networks as a basis for further
analyses of the relationship between network structure and governance.
Bodin and Prell ( 2011 ) build on this by emphasizing that network analysis is
important for adding relational dimensions to existing social theories, such as those
that underpin many aspects of governability, and for developing entirely new interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks and theories. One of the most prominent examples of a social theory to which network analysis could contribute is the dynamics
of power. They also identify social learning, social movements and social arrangements such as adaptive co-management as being very amenable to elaboration from
network perspectives.
We conclude that a network perspective of the interactive governance approach
offers the opportunity to analyze fi sheries and other social ecological systems using
R. Mahon and P. McConney
From a holistic perspective, taking a network approach that involves network
metrics such as density and centrality facilitates addressing questions such as:
Do some network characteristics promote good governance through
•
Sharing of principles? Such as the communication of values in dense
–
networks;
Responsive institutions? For example, within modular networks that self–
organize;
Effective actions? i.e. where a central powerful actor can mobilize resources.
–
How do metrics such as density and different types of centrality relate to gover•
nance performance in key areas such as, responsiveness, adaptive capacity, resilience, transparency, accountability and tradeoffs among these characteristics?
The evolving realm of dynamic network models has much potential to offer
insight into changing relationships.
Can action arenas (Ostrom
•
2005 ) , within which targeted interventions will most
likely be successful, be identi fi ed by examining networks? Shown as network
hubs, cliques, etc.
Do we have any expectations about network structure? E.g. normative versus
•
actual linkages.
Are there network characteristics that make the networks that possess them more
•
adaptive or resilient? For example, the levels of redundancy required to achieve
resilience but without rigidity.
Answering these questions will require a combination of conceptual development and analysis of empirical studies. The former, while progressing on several
fronts, is mainly developed in connection with ideas of resilience (e.g. Carlsson and
Sandström 2008). The latter are increasing in number to the extent that reviews and
syntheses such as the one by Bodin and Crona ( 2009 ) can be attempted. Their review
indicates that network structure can be related to several important features of natural
resource governance and that the network approach to assessing governability may
have considerable potential. They conclude that signi fi cant differences in governance
processes and outcomes can be expected among networks experiencing structural
differences in terms of the density of relations, degree of cohesiveness, subgroup
interconnectivity and degree of network centralization. They observe a need to
develop a body of empirical work on governance networks as a basis for further
analyses of the relationship between network structure and governance.
Bodin and Prell ( 2011 ) build on this by emphasizing that network analysis is
important for adding relational dimensions to existing social theories, such as those
that underpin many aspects of governability, and for developing entirely new interdisciplinary conceptual frameworks and theories. One of the most prominent examples of a social theory to which network analysis could contribute is the dynamics
of power. They also identify social learning, social movements and social arrangements such as adaptive co-management as being very amenable to elaboration from
network perspectives.
We conclude that a network perspective of the interactive governance approach
offers the opportunity to analyze fi sheries and other social ecological systems using