Abstract
Amidst processes of ICT enabled globalization and localization, the state is forging alternative governance arrangements that are distinctly different from the state-led hierarchical modes of governance, and the more recent market-led ‘entrepreneurial governance’ arrangements like public–private partnerships (PPPs). Network forms of governance or heterarchies are one such arrangement. Based on the premise that no single actor, private or public, has the capacity to tackle problems unilaterally, heterarchies are collaborations between public, private and civil society actors, each of which constitutes a node in the heterarchy. Whereas hierarchies are based on substantive rationality and operate through administrative fiat and routine, markets are based on procedural rationality and operate through contracts, and heterarchies are based on reflexive rationality and rely on negotiation and dialogue. Within these arrangements, the state is argued to be a central node, responsible for operationalizing reflexive rationality. Yet, questions on how this centrality manifests to render heterarchies effective alternatives to hierarchies and markets remain unanswered. This paper uses the Municipal Reforms Programme in India to demonstrate ‘what kind’ (as against ‘how much’) of a role the state should play to operationalize reflexive rationality such that heterarchies emerge as effective alternatives. This shift in the role of the state, this chapter argues, opens up opportunities for the state to move beyond the much criticized neoliberal policy framework of entrepreneurial governance arrangements like PPPs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Within the development discourse, Osborne and Gaebler (1992) conceptualized the role of the state in terms of rowing and steering a boat. When the state is providing services, it is rowing the boat. However, they argued that the state should not provide services, rather should ensure these are provided. Here the role of the state is akin to that of one who is steering the boat. In conceptualizing the role of the state as steering the boat, Osborne and Gaebler distinguish a new ‘entrepreneurial form of government’.
- 2.
The World Development Report (2000) defines globalization as the progressive integration of the world’s economies which requires national and international partners to work together and manage changes relating to international trade, finance and global environmental issues. Localization is the desire of people for a say in their government. It requires national governments to decentralize political power to sub-national levels, to manage growth patterns, such as the movement of population and economic energy towards urban areas, and to provide essential public services.
- 3.
Rittel and Webber (1973, 160) describe problems of social policy as wicked problems. These are wicked, as they are ill-defined and evade solutions—At best these can be resolved—over and over again.
- 4.
Heterarchies have long been used as coordination mechanisms intermediating between the state and the markets as the ‘socially necessary minimum’ (Jessop 1998: 32). With the rapid proliferation of ICTs, and their capacity to facilitate networking, coordination and communication across and within networks, these networks are becoming increasingly visible.
- 5.
- 6.
Heterarchies are also a form of governance. Jessop (1998) argues that many practices, including heterarchies, now understood as ‘governance’, have been examined under other rubrics. These include ‘public–private partnerships, industrial districts, trade associations, statecraft, diplomacy, interest in ‘police’ (Polizei), policy communities and international regimes’. Since all these involve aspects of what is now termed ‘governance’ (Jessop 1998: 31), the concept has definite precursors.
- 7.
Jones and Bird (1999) discuss ‘networking’ and its relevance in setting up Education Action Zones (EAZs) in England. In doing so, they describe in detail the patterns of governance, and the relationship they involve between 'public' and 'private' partners.
- 8.
- 9.
The main functions of municipalities include provision of basic services such as water supply, solid waste management, street lights, provision and maintenance of roads, and administration. The reforms also aim to strengthen the ULBs financially by enabling them to raise their own revenues to perform these functions.
- 10.
In addition, the DMA, from time to time, roped in private sector organisations such as the Infrastructure Professionals Enterprise (IPE), Microsoft, and Infrastructure Development Corporation (Karnataka) Limited (iDeCK). However, these were not part of the core team that conceived and designed the MRP. Given their relatively shorter involvement, these are not a part of the collaboration, hence are not discussed.
- 11.
All municipalities in the state have an IT cell that is responsible for implementing e-governance reforms. The IT cell is staffed by programmers and data entry operators.
- 12.
The demand for new applications is attributed to a new policy thrust of the national government, advocating e-governance reforms in municipalities across the country, although the prescribed basket of reforms was much larger than those implemented as part of the Programme in Karnataka.
- 13.
In January 2013, the Reforms Cell was yet to deploy Aasthi in Gulbarga, claiming that the ULB had not digitized the back-end data. Yet, a visit to Gulbarga revealed that the IT cell in the ULB had procured a rudimentary tool locally. Data of all properties filing their taxes with the ULB were being digitized with this tool. Consequently, the property database with Gulbarga was an updated version of the database of the Reforms Cell which was based on the GIS survey done in 2007–2008.
References
Ansell, C. (2000). The networked polity: Regional development in Western Europe. Governance, 13(2), 279–291.
Bevir, M., & Rhodes, R. A. W. (2004). Interpreting British Governance. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6, 130–136.
Börzel, T. A. (1998). Organizing Babylon—On the different conceptions of policy networks. Public Administration, 76(2), 253–273.
Börzel, T. A., & Risse, T. (2005). Public-private partnerships: Effective and legitimate tools of international governance. In E. Grande & L. W. Pauly (Eds.), Complex sovereignty: Reconstructing political authority in the twenty first century (pp. 195–216). Accessed May 12, 2012. http://userpage.fuberlin.de/atasp/texte/021015_ppp_risse_boerzel.pdf
Bovaird, T. (2004). Public–private partnerships: From contested concepts to prevalent practice. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 70(2), 199–215.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public–private partnerships: Perspectives on purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 2–14.
Burns, T. E., & Stalker, G. M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.
Castells, M. (1998). End of millennium. The information age: Economy, society and culture vol. III. Cambridge & Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M. Preface in Evans, P. B. (Ed.). (2002). Livable cities? Urban struggles for livelihood and sustainability. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
City Managers Association, Karnataka. (2006). “City Manager”, 10 (1). Accessed May 12, 2012. http://www.cmak.com/docs/Newsletter/vol10.pdf
City Managers Association, Karnataka. (2007). City Manager 10 (2). Accessed May 12 2012. http://www.cmakarnataka.com/docs/Newsletter/vol10.pdf.
Cristofoli, D., Mandell, M., & Meneguzzo, M. (2011). “Public networks” say Americans, “public networks” reply Europeans, but are they talking about the same issue? In Paper for the Public Management Research Association Conference.
Dunleavy, P., Margetts, H., Bastow, S., & Tinkler, J. (2006). New public management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(3), 467–494.
Escobar, A. (2011). Encountering development: The making and unmaking of the Third World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fountain, J. E. (2001). Building the virtual state: Information technology and institutional change. Brookings Institution Press.
Haque, M. S. (2004). New public management: Origins, dimensions, and critical implications. Public Administration and Public Policy, 1, 126.
Heeks, R. (1999). Reinventing Government in the information age—International practice in the IT-enabled public sector reform. London: Routledge.
Hodge, G. A., & Greve, C. (2009). PPPs: The passage of time permits a sober reflection. Economic Affairs, 29(1), 33–39.
Jessop, B. (1998). The rise of governance and the risks of failure: The case of economic development. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 29–45.
Jessop, B. (2003). Governance and meta-governance: On reflexivity, requisite variety and requisite irony. Governance as social and political communication (pp. 101–16). Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Jones, K., & Bird, K. (1999). Partnership as strategy: Public–private relations in education action zones. British Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 491–506.
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamics of multi-organizational partnerships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administration, 76(2), 313–333.
Malhotra, P. (2002). From Hyderabad to “Cyeberabad”: Technological visions and the everyday bureaucracy. Unpublished Bachelor of Arts Thesis, Harvard College.
McGuire, M. (2003). Is it really so strange? A critical look at the “network management is different from hierarchical management” perspective. In Public Management Research Association Conference, Washington, DC (pp. 9–11). Accessed January 13, 2015. http://pmranet.org/conferences/georgetownpapers/McGuire.pdf
McMillan, J. (2002). Reinventing the Bazaar: A natural history of markets. New York: W.W Norton and Company, Inc.
Miraftab, F. (2004). Public-private partnerships the Trojan Horse of neoliberal development? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), 89–101.
Mohan, A. K., Cutrell, E., & Parthasarathy, B. (2013, December). Instituting credibility, accountability and transparency in local service delivery?: Helpline and Aasthi in Karnataka, India. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development: Full Papers-Volume 1 (pp. 238–247). ACM.
Osborne, D., & Gaebler, T. (1992). Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming government. Reading Mass. Adison Wesley Public Comp.
O’Toole, L. J, Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 47–52.
OECD Handout. (2011). From lessons to principles for the use of public-private partnerships. Accessed June 19, 2013. http://www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/48144872.pdf
Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. M. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 57–76.
Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy. Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
Raab, J. and Kenis, P. (2006) Taking Stock of Policy networks - Do they Matter?. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller & M. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics, and methods (pp. 187–200), New York: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Rhodes, R. (2007). Understanding governance: Ten years on. Organisation Studies, 28, 1243–1264.
Rittel, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Sassen, S. (2006). Territory, authority, rights: From medieval to global assemblages (Vol. 7). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Shrank, A., & Whitford, J. (2011). The anatomy of network failure sociological theory, 29(3), 151–177.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2005). The democratic anchorage of governance networks. Scandinavian Political Studies, 28(3), 195–218.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: Five propositions. International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management a new narrative for networked governance? The American Review of Public Administration, 36(1), 41–57.
The World Bank. (2000). World development report reshaping economic geography, Washington D.C.
Watts, M. (1994). Progress in human geography—Development II: The privatisation of everything? Progress Human Geography, 18, 371–384.
Wolf, C. (1993). Markets or Governments. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yin, R. (1994). Discovering the future of the case study method. Evaluation Practice, 15(3), 283–290.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media Singapore
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mohan, A.K. (2017). From Hierarchy to Heterarchy: Moving Beyond Entrepreneurial Governance. Municipal Reforms Programme in Karnataka. In: Smitha, K. (eds) Entrepreneurial Urbanism in India. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2236-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2236-4_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2235-7
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2236-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)