Contains definitions of terms used in eGovPoliNet partly based on DCMI Metadata Terms.

Organizational Networks have been widely recognized by both scholars and practitioners as an important form of multi-organisational governance. By network functioning we refer to the process by which certain network conditions lead to various network-level outcomes. There are some definitions about the network are available, according to Raab and Kenis networks are “consciously created groups of three or more autonomous but interdependent organisations that strive to achieve a common goal and jointly produce an output” (Raab & Kenis, 2009).
Brass et al. (2004) define a network in a very general way as “a set of nodes and the set of ties representing some relationship, or lack of relationship, between the nodes.” They point out that the content of the relationships between nodes is “limited only by a researcher’s imagination” (p. 795). Brass provide an overarching look at organizational network research at the interpersonal, inter unit, and inter organizational levels of analysis (Brass et al., 2004). They take a very broad approach to studying the phenomenon of social networks, focusing in particular on the antecedents and the consequences of networks at each of these levels.
Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47(No. 6), pp. 795-817.
Raab, J., & Kenis, P. (2009). Heading Toward a Society of Networks. Journal of Management Inquiry, 18(3), 198-210. doi: 10.1177/1056492609337493
 Network Governance School (NWG)
The network governance school has primarily been concerned with a set of macro-level examinations of the changing role of the state and state-society relationships (Chhotray & Stoker, 2009; Pierre & Peters, 2000; Rhodes, 2007; Sorenson & Torfing, 2007). Marinetto has argued that networks have become the dominant mode of governance and that the powers of states have been diminished upwards by international organisations, downwards by the marketisation of the public sector and sideways by the creation of arm’s length agencies (Marinetto, 2003). However, Jessop claims that although states may have become less hierarchical over time, this trend does not necessarily ‘exclude a continuing and central political role for nation states’ in establishing the ground rules and contexts within which governance occurs (Jessop, 2007). This phenomenon implies that the activities of self-regulating networks may be negotiated under hierarchical conditions; under these conditions, the state may explicitly or implicitly threaten to impose certain binding rules or laws on private actors to change the behaviours of these private actors (Hamza, 2013).
Networks thus emerge as the key space for policy interaction. In these networks, interaction does not take a hierarchic (vertical) form, but emerges horizontally or organically.
The network governance (NWG) school and the policy network analysis (PNA) school mainly focus on network governance, these two schools share a common interest in networks; however different to the NWG school, the PNA school has been more concerned with micro-level examinations about the relationships among policy-making outcomes, the structure of a network and the inclusion or exclusion of certain individuals or groups from the network in question (Fawcett & Daugbjerg, 2012).
Related terms: Network, Network theory, Networked Governance, Policy Governance, Policy Network Analysis (PNA), Public Governance

- References:
Chhotray, V. & Stoker, G., 2009. Governance Theory and Practice: A Cross Disciplinary Approach. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Fawcett, P. & Daugbjerg, C., 2012. Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and Policy Network Analysis. Political Studies Review, 10(2), p.195–208.
Jessop, B., 2007. State Power: A Strategic-Relational Approach. Cambridge: Polity
Hamza, K., 2013. The Impact of Social Media and Network Governance on State Stability in Time of Turbulences: Egypt After 2011 Revolution. PhD Thesis. Brussels: Vrije Universiteit Brussel Institute for European Studies.
Pierre, J. & Peters, B., 2000. Governance, politics and the state. New York: Martin's Press.
Marinetto, M., 2003. Governing beyond the Centre: A Critique of the Anglo-Governance School. Public Administration, 51(3), pp.592-608.
Rhodes, R.A.W., 2007. Understanding Governance: Ten Years On. Organization Studies, 28(8), pp.1243-64.
Sorenson, E. & Torfing, J., 2007. Theories of democratic network governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
 Network theory
Network theory is an area of applied mathematics and part of graph theory. Network theory is explored by many scholars such as (Granovetter, 1973, Burt, 2009)  and (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011) and have gained renewed attention for analysing social networks on the Internet. Network theory uses graphs as a representation of symmetric or asymmetric relationships between actors. Network theory offers a structured way of conceptualising and measuring ties between actors and their impact (Borgatti & Halgin, 2011). Ties may spring from individual group members or from the group as a whole. Network theory looks at the network variables, such as how many ties are in place or the centrality of an actor (Brass, 2002).
References :
Borgatti, S. P., & Halgin, D. S. (2011), On network theory. Organization Science, 22(5), p. 1168-1181.
Brass, D. J. (2002), Social networks in organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Unpublished manuscript.
Burt, R. S. (2009), Structural holes: The social structure of competition: Harvard University Press.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973), The strength of weak ties. American journal of sociology, p. 1360-1380.
 Networked Governance
Networked governance is a common term in governance studies. Such networks comprise a wide variety of state actors or non-state actors with common interests in a specific political environment. (Political) Networks vary considerably regarding their degree of coherence or capability to alliance for specific issue. Networks may facilitate coordination of state and non-state actors interests and resources; in that respect sometimes these networks can enhance efficiency in the implementation of public policy. The state always has a form of interests exchange with key non-state actors in specific networks. But sometimes these networks may become sufficiently concerted and cohesive to resist or even challenge the state powers; and become self-regulatory structures within their political environment (Marsh & Smith, 2000; Rhodes, 1996; Rhodes 2000).
The relationship between the networks and the state could be described as one of mutual dependence. From the point of view of the state, networks can provide considerable expertise and interest representation and hence are potentially valuable components in the policy process. However, networks are held together by common interests that may challenge the interests of the state.
Networked governance is characterized by 1) interdependence between organizations, which sees governance as broader than government. 2) a reduction in the role of the formal institutions and agencies of the state and a greater role for non-state institutions. 3) continuing interactions between network members, caused by the need to exchange resources and negotiate shared purposes or interests, and 4) a significant degree of autonomy from the state, since these networks are not accountable to the state but they are more toward self-organizing (Rhodes, 1997; cf. Dijk & Winters-van Beek, 2009).
There have been a lot of studies focusing on networks governance in recent decades, and two main schools in this subject were identified, which are (1) The Network Governance School (NWG), and (2) The Policy Network Analysis School (PNA). Whereas NWG has been engaged in a set of macro level focus about the changing nature of state–society relations, PNA has been more concerned with a set of micro level focus about the relationship between policy making outcomes, the structure of a network and the inclusion or exclusion of certain individuals or groups from within that network (Fawcett & Daugbjerg, 2012).
Related terms: Network Governance School (NWG), Policy Network Analysis School (PNA), Governance, Hierarchic Governance, Network, Network Theory, Social Network Analysis
Dijk, J. & Winters-van Beek, A., 2009. The Perspective of Network Government: The Struggle Between Hierarchies, Markets and Networks as Modes of Governance in Contemporary Government. Innovation and the Public Sector, 14, pp.235-55.
Fawcett, P. & Daugbjerg, C., 2012. Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and Policy Network Analysis. POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW, 10, p.195–207.
Marsh, D. & Smith, M., 2000. Understanding policy networks: towards a dialectical approach. Political Studies, 48(1), p.4–21.
Rhodes, R.A.W., 1996. The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), pp.652-67.
Rhodes, R.A.W., 1997. Understanding governance: Policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Rhodes, R.A.W., 2000. Governance and public administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press. In Debating governance: Authority, steering and democracy.
 New Public Management (NPM)
The New Public Management (NPM) approach to public service production and delivery runs counter to the old ('traditional') bureaucratic approaches that were born with the emergence of the modern states systems across most of the Western world. It rejects the idea of a specific culture for public organizations and typically argues that such organizations should be managed in the same way as any private sector organization (Osborne & Gaebler, 1992; Hood, 1995; Page, 2005; Riccucci, 2001, see also Dunleavy, Margetts, Bastow and Tinkler, 2006)). Discussions around NPM have been driven by two principle features that emerged in the 1980s during the era of politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. First, NPM advocates a different role for elected officials when compared to traditional systems of government. Politicians are left primarily with a goal-setting role: anything relating to service production and delivery in the public sector should be conducted in a 'market'; the logic being that such an arrangement would ensure increased efficiency and lower costs to the government, and ultimately the taxpayer. Second, New Public Management advocates less input control but emphasises the evaluation of impact and thus performance. This, in turn, requires organisational models that prioritise 'management' in an economic sense rather than in terms of societal needs (Schedler, & Proeller, 2000).
Although this view had many advocates across many (particularly Anglo-Saxon) countries in the world, it was also criticised for its view of public administrations as places where democracy could be 'managed' through accountability mechanisms set up to render civil services accountable to the public, and to effectively 'de-politicise' the process of service delivery. This dominant view that was in practice in many public administrations across the world has now been complemented by discussions on Public Value Management.
Related terms: Public Governance, Policy Analysis, Public Policy
Behn, Robert D. 1998. “The New Public Management Paradigm and the Search for Democratic Accountability.” International Public Management Journal 1 (2): 131–164.
Dunleavy, Patrick, Helen Margetts, Simon Bastow, and Jane Tinkler. 2006. “New Public Management Is Dead-Long Live Digital-Era Governance.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16 (3): 467–494. doi:10.1093/jopart/mui057.
Hood, Christopher. 1995. “The ‘New Public Management’ in the 1980s: Variations on a Theme.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 20 (2-3) (February): 93–109. doi:10.1016/0361-36820361-3682 (93)E0001-W.
Osborne, D. & Gaebler, T., 1992. Reinventing Government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Wokingham: Addison-Wesley.
Page, Stephen. 2005. “What's New About the New Public Management? Administrative Change in the Human Services.” Public Administration Review 65 (6): 713–727.
Riccucci, Norma. 2001. “The "Old" Public Management Versus the ‘New’ Public Management: Where Does Public Administration Fit in?.” Public Administration Review 61 (2): 172–175.
Schedler, K. & Proeller, I., 2000. New Public Management. Stuttgart: UTB.

Call Send SMS Add to Skype You'll need Skype CreditFree via Skype
 Normative Model
A normative model explains what is going on and what will happen in optimal conditions for a research object. This is a type of perspective model. Normative models allow to describe current roles and functions, understand the biases and develop new knowledge about further models (Baron, 2004).
For example, Vroom created a normative model of decision-making to demonstrate the effectiveness of a decision-making process (Vroom, 2007).
Victor H. Vroom (2007), Normative Models of Decision Making and Leadership.  In S. Rogelberg (Ed.), Encyclopedia of industrial and organizational psychology. (pp. 522-524). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. In D. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making, pp. 19-36, London: Blackwell,2004