Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Review of Policy Research Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1111/ropr.12629
Jose Antonio Reyes‐Gonzalez, Filip Agneessens, Marc Esteve
{"title":"Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships","authors":"Jose Antonio Reyes‐Gonzalez, Filip Agneessens, Marc Esteve","doi":"10.1111/ropr.12629","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Information exchange is critical to the functionality of governance networks. Traditionally, it has been argued that actors within governance networks tend to engage in information exchange with others who share similar beliefs and motivations, as these are deemed catalysts for achieving collective objectives. An alternative viewpoint posits that actors may prioritize strategies aimed at minimizing transaction costs and maximizing returns when selecting their partners. This paper proposes that information exchange predominantly occurs with partners who are easily accessible (i.e., where transaction costs are low) and with partners who are perceived as influential (i.e., where benefits are high). To investigate these alternative propositions, we examine three distinct opportunity structures that actors may utilize, which are based on their preferences for (1) partners with similar participatory motivations, (2) partners who co‐participate in institutional committees, and (3) those perceived as influential. We empirically test these opportunity structures using unique survey data gathered from 10 anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships within the public infrastructure domain in countries of Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia. Results from Exponential Random Graph Models suggest that shared participatory motivations do not significantly impact information exchange within our context, whereas the perceived influence of a partner emerges as a critical predictor. In addition, co‐participation in institutional committees significantly facilitates information dissemination, particularly when those committees involve discussions on deliberating about strategies to communicate findings on public‐sector infrastructure discrepancies and formulating recommendations to governments on transparency and accountability. These findings prompt discussions on four network management strategies aimed at restructuring networks and fostering stakeholder involvement and inclusivity.","PeriodicalId":47408,"journal":{"name":"Review of Policy Research","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Policy Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12629","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Information exchange is critical to the functionality of governance networks. Traditionally, it has been argued that actors within governance networks tend to engage in information exchange with others who share similar beliefs and motivations, as these are deemed catalysts for achieving collective objectives. An alternative viewpoint posits that actors may prioritize strategies aimed at minimizing transaction costs and maximizing returns when selecting their partners. This paper proposes that information exchange predominantly occurs with partners who are easily accessible (i.e., where transaction costs are low) and with partners who are perceived as influential (i.e., where benefits are high). To investigate these alternative propositions, we examine three distinct opportunity structures that actors may utilize, which are based on their preferences for (1) partners with similar participatory motivations, (2) partners who co‐participate in institutional committees, and (3) those perceived as influential. We empirically test these opportunity structures using unique survey data gathered from 10 anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships within the public infrastructure domain in countries of Latin America, Africa, and Eurasia. Results from Exponential Random Graph Models suggest that shared participatory motivations do not significantly impact information exchange within our context, whereas the perceived influence of a partner emerges as a critical predictor. In addition, co‐participation in institutional committees significantly facilitates information dissemination, particularly when those committees involve discussions on deliberating about strategies to communicate findings on public‐sector infrastructure discrepancies and formulating recommendations to governments on transparency and accountability. These findings prompt discussions on four network management strategies aimed at restructuring networks and fostering stakeholder involvement and inclusivity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
揭示治理网络中的信息交流动态:反腐败多利益攸关方伙伴关系中的机会结构
信息交流对治理网络的功能至关重要。传统观点认为,治理网络中的行为者倾向于与具有相似信念和动机的人进行信息交流,因为这些人被认为是实现集体目标的催化剂。另一种观点则认为,行动者在选择合作伙伴时,可能会优先考虑交易成本最小化和回报最大化的战略。本文认为,信息交流主要发生在容易接触到的合作伙伴(即交易成本较低)和被认为有影响力的合作伙伴(即收益较高)身上。为了研究这些可供选择的命题,我们研究了行动者可能利用的三种不同的机会结构,这三种机会结构是基于行动者对(1)具有相似参与动机的合作伙伴、(2)共同参与机构委员会的合作伙伴以及(3)被认为具有影响力的合作伙伴的偏好。我们利用从拉丁美洲、非洲和欧亚大陆国家公共基础设施领域的 10 个反腐败多利益相关者合作关系中收集到的独特调查数据,对这些机会结构进行了实证检验。指数随机图模型的结果表明,共同参与的动机并不会对我们的信息交流产生重大影响,而合作伙伴的感知影响力则是一个关键的预测因素。此外,共同参与机构委员会极大地促进了信息传播,尤其是当这些委员会讨论如何商议策略,以传播公共部门基础设施差异的调查结果,并就透明度和问责制向政府提出建议时。这些发现促使人们讨论四种网络管理战略,旨在重组网络,促进利益相关者的参与和包容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
23.80%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: The Review of Policy Research (RPR) is an international peer-reviewed journal devoted to the publication of research and analysis examining the politics and policy of science and technology. These may include issues of science policy, environment, resource management, information networks, cultural industries, biotechnology, security and surveillance, privacy, globalization, education, research and innovation, development, intellectual property, health and demographics. The journal encompasses research and analysis on politics and the outcomes and consequences of policy change in domestic and comparative contexts.
期刊最新文献
Unraveling the dynamics of information exchange in governance networks: Opportunity structures in anti‐corruption multi‐stakeholder partnerships Information and expertise in public policy Embracing the politics of transformation: Policy action as “battle‐settlement events” Reputation management in turmoil—An analysis of the clashing narratives in the introduction of a “salmon tax” in Norway The narrative policy framework and institutions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1