Overseas Development Institute

Oxfam Novib, 2020

The world is a global village where small organizations can feel increasingly insignificant. Local communities are connected to a globalized economy that is driven by global flows of goods, services, capital, workers and knowledge. Within this global order, states, citizens, flora and fauna are impacted by the actions of international organizations, multinational corporations and global finance. To tackle local problems, local and national communities need networks to share knowledge, share resources and amplify their voice. When united in networks, Civil Society Organizations are better able to increase their influence, take a stand, find solutions and shape policy. Formal and informal networks of like-minded people and organizations provide civil society with the resources needed to overcome the status quo and advocate for positive change in the global economy. There is no single path to develop a networked mindset -we need to learn from our experiences, failures, dilemmas and solutions. The cases in this publication provide insights into strategies to establish (start-up) networks, coalitions and alliances. We also emphasize the importance of defining clear common goals as well as identifying the achievements of the networks (and the organizations within them) and the short-and long-term benefits for the cause. The cases stress the importance of ensuring effective communication within networks as well as acknowledging differences among members. These differences represent assets that require the network to allocate specialist roles to the participants. These cases provide insight into how to mobilize communities, citizens and actors and ensure coordinated action. Effective coordination and communication are key to network success. The cases show that technology plays a key role in coordination and communication, both inside and outside networks. Furthermore, networks can have a transformative effect on their members. Network growth requires adjustments by members, for example, in terms of targeting, collaboration, learning and the degree of formalization. The collection of stories presented in this publication shows hope for citizens' power and action, especially when combined across the globe in networks, regardless of whether these are global, northern, southern or other types of networks. Of course, how a network is portrayed is highly dependent upon the writer's perspective. Most cases in this publication are written from the perspective of the initiator, coordinator, co-convener or funder. This may result in some bias. However, as you can read, the authors succeeded in providing us with a glimpse behind the scenes, allowing us to reflect upon their work. The great value of this publication lies in the fact that these networks not only provide insight into their functioning but also their thinking, and the dilemmas they face. These insights into the dilemmas make this publication essential reading for influencing practitioners around the globe.

Global Civil Society, 2004

Abstract The proliferation of civil society organisations (CSOs) and the emergence of civil society activism across various issues has been evident in South-east Asia (SEA) over the past few decades. In Indonesia, CSOs have been playing a pivotal role in society, both as development institutions and as advocacy groups.

At A Distance: Precursors to Internet Art and Activism, 2005

There is no question that networks have become a central focus and conceptual metaphor of activity in the late twentieth century. The interesting question is why this is so, and why it has happened now. In many senses, networks have become typical, even emblematic, of many kinds of processes in the world. These processes are often hailed as a step toward democracy, equality of opportunity, access to resources, and appropriate governance of the world’s resources. All of these characterizations are reasonable. Nevertheless, networks offer no simple solutions to the world’s problems. In the course of solving some problems, networks introduce challenges and problems of their own. The network society is an overlay wrapped around different kinds of societies and cultures, linking them and connecting them. The network society reshapes older societies, sometimes destroying them.

Promethee Working Papers. Paris: Project Promethee, May.

Dialogues in Human Geography

Every historical period has its master concepts, key principles governing political, economic and social life. In conventional accounts of postwar history we have been through three phases, each inspired by a different way of living and governing: societies of ordered hierarchies, competitive markets and, now, self-governing networks. Like most worldviews, the idea of the 'network society' is complex and contested. But, at its heart lie some simple claims. First, modern societies are too complex, fragmented and disordered for effective command management. Second, and relatedly, universal education enables us to challenge power, undermining traditional commitments to family, faith, flag and fraternity. At the same time, thirdly, the universal welfare state and rising prosperity liberate us from narrow and selfish economic concerns, creating conditions in which a more thoughtful, sociable and trusting personality can flourish. Finally, developments in communications technology-most notably the internet and the mobile phone-provide the infrastructure for savvy, prosperous and sociable people from all walks of life to connect with one another in pursuit of their myriad, ever-changing life-goals. These basic concepts are the building-blocks of what is often called 'horizontalism'; the belief that we live in a world of networks, that to network is a good thing and that we can only understand the world if we apply network-theoretical concepts. Horizontalism has

Global Policy, 2015

Many scholars, policy makers and practitioners associate new, networked, forms of collaboration and governance with positive attributes such as speed, flexibility, adaptability, and 'flatness'. This article contrasts the assumptions that networks essentially moderate or reflect external asymmetries of power with the network theoretical view that networks may amplify exogenous power differences. The case study network explored supports the network theoretical view that power relations exogenous to the network may be augmented. In order to overcome the network mechanisms that amplify existing power relations, in the conclusion I introduce the practice of network rewiring. Further research is required that adds more case study evidence in order to raise (and begin to answer) questions that will give a wider view of the social structuring of power in networks of global governance.

Networked Governance

Governance refers to the multitude of ways, mechanisms, and processes in which individuals, companies, organizations, societies, states, and supranational forms of organization arrive at and implement decisions. Governance in this abstract sense describes patterns of rules and mechanisms of social coordination and decision making in which a group of actors regulates its collective issues and interests (Mayntz 2009: 9). As a less abstract concept, governance is not just any mode of steering but a particular one, something done cooperatively in a network structure. The terms governance and network(ed) governance refer to a mechanism of reaching and implementing decisions whereby, instead of hierarchy and command or markets and prices, networks and cooperation are at work. Whereas government always entails a hierarchical component, governance does not even need to involve government or state actors (Fuster 1998: 68). Governance research today faces ever more complex organizational forms that consist of different types of actors (e.g., individuals, states, IGOs, economic entities, NGOs), instruments (e.g., law, administrative decree, recommendations), and arenas from the local up to the global level. This increasingly questions theoretical models that focus primarily on markets and hierarchies as modes of

2004

There is a growing need for innovative methods of dealing with complex, social problems. New types of collaborative efforts have emerged as a result of the inability of more traditional bureau-cratic hierarchical arrangements such as departmental programs to resolve these problems. Net-work structures are one such arrangement that is at the forefront of this movement. Although collaboration through network structures establishes an innovative response to dealing with social issues, there remains an expectation that outcomes and processes are based on traditional ways of working. It is necessary for practitioners and policy makers alike to begin to understand the realities of what can be expected from network structures in order to maximize the benefits of these unique mechanisms. There is a growing realization that one of the biggest challenges for contemporary governments centers on re-solving highly complex and intractable social problems, such as poverty, unemployment, homelessne...

EDAIS conference, 2003

Abstract In this paper I argue the case for the use of a network perspective in representing and evaluating aid interventions. How we represent the intentions of aid activities has implications for how their progress and impact can be assessed. Because our representations are by necessary selective simplifications of reality they will emphasise some aspects of change and discourage attention to others. The benchmark alternative here is by default the Logical Framework, the single most commonly used device for representing what an aid project or programme is trying to do. Five main arguments are put forward in favour of a network perspective as the better alternative, along with some examples of their use. Firstly, social network analysis is about social relationships, and that is what much of development aid is about. Not abstract and disembodied processes of change. Secondly, there is wide range of methods for measuring and visualising network structures. These provide a similarly wide range of methods of describing expected outcomes of interventions in network terms. Thirdly, there is also a wide range of theories about social and other networks. They can stimulate thinking about the likely effects of development interventions. Fourthly, network representations are very scalable, from very local developments to the very global, and they can include both formal and informal structures. They are relevant to recent developments in the delivery of development aid. Fifthly, network models of change can incorporate mutual and circular processes of influence, as well as simple linear processes of change. This enables them to represent systems of relationships exhibiting varying degrees of order, complexity and chaos. Following this argument I outline some work-in-progress, including ways in which the conference participants may themselves get involved. Finally I link this paper into its own wider web of intellectual influences and history.