Abstract

Information and collaboration patterns embedded in social networks play key roles in multilevel and polycentric modes of governance. However, modeling the dynamics of such social networks in multilevel settings has been seldom addressed in the literature. Here we use an adaptive social network model to elaborate the interplay between a central and a local government in order to maintain a polycentric governance. More specifically, our analysis explores in what ways specific policy choices made by a central agent affect the features of an emerging social network composed of local organizations and local users. Using two types of stylized policies, adaptive co-management and adaptive one-level management, we focus on the benefits of multi-level adaptive cooperation for network management. Our analysis uses viability theory to explore and to quantify the ability of these policies to achieve specific network properties. Viability theory gives the family of policies that enables maintaining the polycentric governance unlike optimal control that gives a unique blueprint. We found that the viability of the policies can change dramatically depending on the goals and features of the social network. For some social networks, we also found a very large difference between the viability of the adaptive one-level management and adaptive co-management policies. However, results also show that adaptive co-management doesn’t always provide benefits. Hence, we argue that applying viability theory to governance networks can help policy design by analyzing the trade-off between the costs of adaptive co-management and the benefits associated with its ability to maintain desirable social network properties in a polycentric governance framework.

Highlights

  • In what ways does the interplay between central and local governments affect the features of multilevel social networks? As we will elaborate below, this is one of the most crucial questions in current discussions about the benefits and drawbacks of polycentric governance (Giest and Howlett 2014; Schoon et al 2015).Ostrom et al (1961) pioneered the theoretical concept of polycentric governance for addressing the issues of organizing co-operation among multiple levels of government

  • We argue that viability theory (Aubin 1991; Rougé et al 2013) is relevant to understand how stylized policies can result in “acceptable” ranges of social network properties rather than an “optimal” and vulnerable social network

  • The interest of having such aggregated model is that 1) it captures the results of an ABM [i.e. we will have the same results with an ABM, see for instance (Bonté et al 2012)] and 2) it clearly highlights the dynamical parameters in the aggregated equation; 3) there is no stochasticity because it represents a mean field approximation of an ABM

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In what ways does the interplay between central and local governments affect the features of multilevel social networks? As we will elaborate below, this is one of the most crucial questions in current discussions about the benefits and drawbacks of polycentric governance (Giest and Howlett 2014; Schoon et al 2015). The aim is to address these issues in a qualitative way (as done by many studies in the literature) and in a quantitative way with our formal model by using a simple social network model For this purpose, we use the conceptual framework on decentralized resource governance from a polycentric view described by Andersson and Ostrom (2008) and Ostrom (2009) (see Figure 1). We express the polycentricity of the governance system as acceptable boundaries represented by acceptable densities of nodes and links: we seek to manage our polycentric system within these acceptable boundaries instead of optimizing the polycentric properties of the governance system For this purpose, we argue that viability theory (Aubin 1991; Rougé et al 2013) is relevant to understand how stylized policies can result in “acceptable” ranges of social network properties rather than an “optimal” and vulnerable social network. We present the results in the second section before discussing implications for network management for maintaining a polycentric governance in a last section

Theoretical framework for maintaining polycentric governance
Network structure of the local social system
Maintaining a polycentric governance: a viability problem
Changing adaptive network structure
The cost of network management
Modeling stylized policies
Results
How do network parameters affect the viability of the policies?
Adaptive co-management is not always necessary
Investing in network monitoring for reactive decision-making
Getting flexibility for mitigating exogenous drivers
Literature cited
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call