Change in Service Provision Networks: The Case of Animal Welfare Services

• Author: Xiaomeng Li,Laura A. Reese
• Published date: 01 March 2021
• Date: 01 March 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X211009285
• Subject Matter: Research Articles

Research Article

Change in Service Provision

Networks: The Case of

Animal Welfare Services

Laura A. Reese

1

and Xiaomeng Li

2

Abstract

This research focuses on change within informal service provision networks, specifically examining

the impact that changes within a key organization can have on the larger network. Employing a

before and after survey design with a treatment at the midpoint and participant observation, it asks:

What is the impact of a major change within one organization on the larger external network? What

is the nature of the organizational ties? and, How do political factors exogenous to the network

impact the network evolution process? The findings suggest that internal change within a focal actor

can have ripple effects throughout the network increasing density. Public service provision at the

local level can be enhanced through an increase in partnerships between the public and nonprofit

sectors. However, network evolution can be limited by the larger political environment and lack of a

coordinating role on the part of local government.

Keywords

service provision networks, network change

Under conditions of environmental stress ties in

informal service networks are likely to be in

flux (Paarlberg and Varda 2009; Doerfel,

Chewning, and Lai 2013) and thus may be more

open to changes between partners as the result

of changes within partners. Few studies have

explored the evolution of networks focusing

specifically on the impact of internal changes

within a key organization or actor on larger

network ties (Padgett and Powell 2012; for

exceptions see Stadtfeld et al. 2016; Amati

et al. 2019). However, there is reason to believe

that changes at the micro level can lead to

changes at the macro level in a process that has

been referred to as multilevel closure (Easley

and Kleinburg 2010; Stadtfeld et al. 2016).

Network change can take a variety of forms

and can be related to both external system

shocks such as natural disasters or changes in

the regulatory environment (Fisher et al.

2012), as well as those occurring within mem-

ber organizations. While dense networks of

organizations with shared identities can be

quite stable over time (Provan, Isett, and Mil-

ward 2004), change within a key organization

1

Urban and Regional Planning, Global Urban Studies, and

Political Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing,

MI, USA

2

Geography and Global Urban Studies, Michigan State

University, East Lansing, MI, USA

Corresponding Author:

Laura A. Reese, Urban and Regional Planning, Global Urban

Studies, and Political Science, Michigan State University,

208A Human Ecology, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.

Email: reesela@msu.edu

State and Local GovernmentReview

2021, Vol. 53(1) 14-42

ªThe Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0160323X211009285

journals.sagepub.com/home/slg

in the network can lead to alterations in the pat-

terns of connections within the larger netwo rk

(Stadtfeld et al. 2016; Amati et al. 2019).

In other words, there is the potential for,

“co-evolution of interorganizational networks

and internal organizational strategies” (Amati

et al. 2019, 3).

It is unclear under what circumstances an

internal change in one network actor will affect

the larger informal network, however. It may

be that greater formalization through a network

manager or orchestrator is required to cement

network change or that “soft” mechanisms of

coordination—trust, goodwill, personal rela-

tionships—will be enough to hold the network

together (Cristofoli, Meneguzzo, and Ricc ucci

2017; Mandell, Keast, and Chamberlain

2017). Barriers within the larger political envi-

ronment may limit the extent to which informal

networks can become more formalized over

time or that organizations from different sectors

will cooperate (Cinar, Trott, and Simms 2019).

This research adds to knowledge about these

multilevel dynamics by exploring the impact of

significant structural and procedural changes

within a city agency on the larger network of

municipal and nonprofit providers of animal

welfare services. It employs a before (2013)

and after (2017) survey design with a treatment

(significant internal organizational change in a

key actor) at the midpoint along with qualita-

tive information gleaned through participant

observation. It addresses the following three

research questions: i) What is the impact of a

major change within one organization on the

larger external network? ii) What is the nature

of the organizational ties? How important are

personal relationships in the evolution of an

informal or self-organizing network? Does the

evolution process affect the nature of ties

between municipal and nonprofit entities?

iii) How do political factors exogenous to the

network impact the network evolution process?

The findings suggest that internal change

within a focal actor can have ripple effects

throughout the network increasing density.

Public service provision at the local level can

be enhanced through an increase in partner-

ships between the public and nonprofit sectors.

However, network evolution can be limited by

the larger political environment and lack of

a coordinating role on the part of local

government.

Service Provision Networks

and Network Change

Membership in service provision networks

extends beyond local government to encompass

interactions between the public, private, and

nonprofit sectors (Agranoff and McGuire

1998; McGuire 2006; Ansell and Gash 2007).

The resources necessary to address critical

urban issues are assumed to be dispersed across

a range of actors, thus, networks form around a

common goal that cannot be achieved by a sin-

gle organization such as a local government

(Koliba et al. 2017; Kapucu, Hu, and Khosa

2017); nonprofits are critical participants in

many public service provision networks.

Research on public service provision networks

has grown exponentially creating “the age of

networks and collaboration” (McGuire 2006,

34). There have been recent and consistent calls

in the literature for a greater focus on network

formation and, in particular, change or evolu-

tion (Robinson et al. 2013; Stadtfeld et al.

2016; Reese and Ye 2017; Tenbensel 2018).

While self-organizing networks can include

both informal policy networks and those with

formal contractual mechanisms (Hawkins, Hu,

and Feiock 2016, 643), informal networks arise

among members in the absence of central plan-

ning. Thus, they allow both public and nonpro-

fit participants to maintain autonomy and enter

and leave the network at will, due to lower

transaction costs (Schneider et al. 2003; Feiock

2013). As a result, they may be more open to

and affected by changes occurring within indi-

vidual organizations. Informal networks can be

attractive because they reduce the risks associ-

ated with more formal agreements and can lead

to the building of social capital and trust among

network members that can serve as the basis for

more formal arrangements over time (Feiock

and Scholz 2009; LeRoux, Brandenburger, and

Pandey 2010; Hawkins, Hu, and Feiock 2016).

The nature of the problem at hand can affect

Reese and Li 15