Network Structure, Strength of Relationships, and Communities’ Success in Project Implementation

• Published date: 01 March 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12787
• Date: 01 March 2018

284 Public Administration Review • March | April 2018

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 2, pp. 284–294. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12787.

Manoj K. Shrestha is associate

professor in the Department of Politics

and Philosophy at the University of

Idaho. His research focuses on network

governance and network effectiveness in

the management of local public goods and

water resources.

E-mail: mks@uidaho.edu

Abstract : Studies of network effectiveness in the collaborative public program setting commonly have found that actors

with more organizational partners, more indirect (bridging) ties to other partners, and more cohesive relationships

among partners have greater success in implementing projects. This article contributes to this literature by develop-

ing and testing hypotheses about how strength of relationships, measured by frequency of contacts, moderates these

results. In the context of community water supply projects in Nepal, the article shows that greater frequency of contacts

between communities and organizational partners enhances the impact of having more partners and more cohesive

relationships among partners but decreases the impact of having more indirect connections. For practitioners and

network theorists, these findings highlight the importance of strength of relationships in the link between networks and

performance.

Evidence for Practice

• More frequent contacts with a greater number of partner organizations enhance communities’ success in

mobilizing project funding.

• More frequent contacts with bridging partners increase information sharing among the communities that the

partners serve, thereby diminishing the comparative advantage of the information to any one community in

the competition for funding.

• More frequent contacts between a community and a cohesive group of partners tend to encourage bilateral

(interpersonal) coordination at the expense of cohesion among the group of partners.

• More frequent contacts not only improve the value of having more partners but also increase the sacrifice

of bridging advantage for partner cohesion, suggesting that communities face complex choices in striking a

balance between adding more partners and maintaining frequent contacts with existing partners.

Manoj K. Shrestha

University of Idaho

Network Structure, Strength of Relationships, and

Communities’ Success in Project Implementation

S ince Provan and Milward ’ s ( 1995 ) early work on

service delivery networks in mental health, public

administration has experienced a significant shift

from the study of hierarchies to network management of

public programs (O ’ Toole 1997 , 2015 ). Subsequently,

scholars began to study collaborative networks and

their effect on outcomes in various program settings,

including local economic development (Agranoff and

McGuire 2003 ; Feiock, Steinacker, and Park 2009 ),

watershed partnerships (Lubell et al. 2002 ), and

collaborative public programs (Berardo 2009 ; Shrestha

2013 ). O ’ Toole defined networks as “structures of

interdependence involving multiple organizations

or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the

formal subordinate of the others in some larger

hierarchical arrangement” (1997, 45). Networks enable

interdependent actors to mobilize resources, share

information, build trust, and prevent defection, all of

which are essential to achieving goals (e.g., Agranoff

and McGuire 2003 ; Ansell and Gash 2007 ; Lubell et al.

2002 ; McGuire 2006 ; Thomson and Perry 2006 ).

Much progress has been made in understanding the

independent effects of network structures and strength

of relationships, or frequency of contacts between

pairs of actors, on program outcomes. For example,

Provan, Milward, and colleagues have studied the

impact of network structure (e.g., network centrality)

on the effectiveness of mental health service delivery

(e.g., Provan, Huang, and Milward 2009 ; Provan

and Milward 1995 ). Others have focused on the link

between frequency of contacts and outcomes such

as improved trust or performance (e.g., Lubell and

Fulton 2007 ; O ’ Toole and Meier 2004 ). However,

little is known about how frequency of contacts

moderates the effect of network structures on

outcomes, especially when building networks and

maintaining contacts with partners are integral aspects

of the networking behavior of actors.

Actors, whether they be communities (villages) or

organizations, are hardly self-sufficient. They depend

on external resources and support such as information