Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
The structure and performance of policy administration networks
Community and government organisations can, if they work together, leverage their own resources and expertise by drawing from other organisations in the network, thus resulting in much more effectiveness in the delivery of services (Chisholm, Provan & Milward in Provan, Veazie, Staten & Teufel-Shone, 2005:603). In spite of the advantages of multiorganisational networks, these are difficult to establish let alone sustain (Wandersman, Goodman & Butterfoss, Weiner & Alexander in Provan et al., 2005:604).
Some of the problems cited with respect to establishing and sustaining networks are: inadequate financial support, coupled with the requirement to spend scarce resources, which are critical for sustaining the activities of the organisation (Shermerhorn, 1975:850); perceptions of erosion of managerial or decision-making autonomy (Shermerhorn, 1975:849); conflicting stakeholder interests; and corrosion of organisational identity and strategic role and position (Shermerhorn, 1975:849).
According to Berry et al. (2004:546), the developing literature on public management networks discusses two broad questions, namely: How the structure of networks (e.g. questions of network density, as well as network actor centrality in relation to other network partners) affects effective delivery of services. Density, which has attributes of high and low density, is a term used in social network analysis to describe the extent to which network members are interconnected, and is considered as the ratio of the number of ties that exist between members of a network in relation to the number of ties that are possible within a network should all members be connected to one another (Huang & Provan, 2006:442; Rowley, 1997:896). Centrality refers to the position of an actor within a network in relation to others, and which position has the potential to assign the actor the positional status of being more or less powerful in relation to other actors (Rowley, 1997:898). According to Rowley (1997:898- 899), centrality has three components, namely: o Degree centrality, which is the measure of the number of ties a network actor has with others within the network (Huang & Provan, 2006:441). It is assumed that the more ties a network actor has, the more access he has to alternative sources of information and resources. According to the resource dependence theory as discussed above, the ability of an organisation to have alternative sources of resources is critical not only for internal stability, but also for it to support the administration of programmes for which it is jointly responsible and/or accountable. o Closeness centrality, which measures the extent to which a network actor can access independently all the network actors with whom he/she has ties, i.e. the ability to access other network actors through the least number of intermediaries. It is assumed that a network actor with a high network centrality, i.e. with the least number of intermediaries, is less dependent on others to secure critical resources, and is also able to communicate information quickly thus influencing the network. An organisation, that is jointly administering the LRAD programme, will be constrained if it has to rely on an intermediary to secure from its source, critical resources on which it is dependent. Where an organisation does not have to rely on intermediaries for the supply of critical resources, as well as for communication of information to network members, such an organisation will be in a much more powerful position to influence the activities of the network co-ordinating the administration of the LRAD programme.
o Betweenness centrality, which measures the extent to which a network actor serves as an intermediary between pairs of other network actors. It is assumed that network actors with a high network centrality (serving as an intermediary for a great number of network pairs) enjoy positional advantage since other actors must go through it to communicate information or exchange resources. Such actors are capable of influencing the behaviour of other network actors, thus impacting on the extent of achievement of outputs and outcomes by the network coordinating the administration of the LRAD programme.
Multiplexity measures the strength of the relationship an organisation establishes and maintains with other organisations in a network (Provan, Fish & Sydow, 2007:484), and is a measure of trust (Isset Provan, 2005:158). This is determined by measuring the number and types of links, e.g. service delivery programmes, research programmes, client referrals and shared personnel an organisation has with other organisations within a network (Provan et al., 2007:484). An organisation that has multiple links with another organisation can sustain ties with that organisation even when one of the links gets broken (Provan, et al., 2007:484). In the context of the LRAD programme, the DACE and NWPLRO can, on the basis of the multiple links they have for example managed to establish, sustain the administration of the LRAD programme even when one of the links has been severed.
ackground to land redistribution in Latin America
The history of problems regarding disparities in land ownership as well as land reforms in Latin America can be traced back to the period of colonisation, a phenomenon which brought about an unequal and exclusionary agrarian socio-economic system (Kay, 2001:742). Latin American countries were colonised by Iberian people, who displaced indigenous people from their ancestral land and in the process secured large parcels of fertile land for themselves (Kay, 2001:743). Much of the displaced peasant communities were largely confined to marginal areas. Large landed estates (latifundia, hacienda, estancia or plantations) were reserved for the colonising landlords who, as a result, established servile social relations of tenant and labourer between peasants and landlords, where forced labour and slavery were common features during the early colonial period (Kay, 2001:743; Sauer, 2006:2). Peasants were given access to some of the cultivable land or pastures of the large estates, but had to pay rent to the landlord through unpaid labour services, produce, or even money (Kay, 2001:744).
The dominance of the repressive landed estates was further given impetus by a new wave of opportunities and demand created by the export market in the second half of the nineteenth century for some of the crops produced by the estates (Kay, 2001:744). In an attempt to take advantage of the lucrative market created by the demand for export crops, the landlords engaged in further processes of dispossession by either extending the boundaries of their estates into land owned by peasants, or converting some of the independent peasants into tenants (Kay, 2001:744; Sauer, 2006:3). These and other repressive measures were met with protests from peasants, who pressed their demands for change to be brought about to solve their problems of high rents, reduction of free labour services, better wages, less onerous sharecropping arrangements, and better working conditions in general (Kay, 2001:744). However, the majority of Latin American countries have not been successful at implementing land reform programmes due to the power and influence of landed elites in the affairs of the state (De Janvry & Sadoulet, 1989:1399; Kay, 2002:1088-1091).
CHAPTER 1: RESEARCH PROBLEM AND RESEARCH DESIGN
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Research into Public Administration
1.3 Definition of terms
1.4 Postulates of the quantitative and qualitative research paradigms
1.5 Choice of research approach and methods
1.6 Qualitative research methods
1.7 Motivation for the study
1.8 Objectives of the study
1.9 Limitations
1.10 Statement of the problem
1.11 Research question
1.12 Data collection methodology
1.13 Conclusion
CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND TO THE LAND PROBLEM IN SOUTH AFRICA
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Land policy in colonial South Africa
2.3 The land policy of the new democratic South Africa
2.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 3: PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: CLARIFICATION FOR RESEARCH
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Defining Public Administration
3.3 Effective administration of public institutions
3.4 The study of Public Administration
3.5 Public policy
3.6 Organising for policy administration
3.7 Financing the administration of government policy
3.8 Staffing public institutions
3.9 Work methods and procedures
3.10 Public accountability, control and policy evaluation
3.11 Conclusion
CHAPTER 4: LAND REFORM APPROACHES: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
4.1 Introduction
4.2 The imperatives for land reform
4.3 Redistributive land reform
4.4 Land reform case studies
4.5 Conclusion
CHAPTER 5: LAND REDISTRIBUTION IN SOUTH AFRICA
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Administrative policies relevant to LRAD programme administration
5.3 Land reform policy in South Africa
5.4 Conclusion
CHAPTER 6: Land Redistribution for Agricultural Development in the North West Province
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Brief description of the North West Province
6.3 Institutions administering the LRAD programme
6.4 Roles in terms of LRAD programme administration
6.5 Responsibilities created by the LRAD programme
6.6 Roles of LRAD administering institutions as perceived by respondents
6.7 Strategic planning for the LRAD programme
6.8 Performance outputs in terms of the LRAD programme
6.9 Organising
6.10 Financial administration
6.11 Staffing of public organisations
6.12 Work methods and procedures for LRAD programme administration
6.13 Control and accountability in LRAD programme administration
6.14 Summary and synthesis
6.15 Conclusion
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Effectiveness of LRAD programme administration
7.2 Administrative incapacity of the DACE
7.3 Ineffective integration of government policy
7.4 Action/interaction strategies
7.5 Consequences
7.6 Recommendations
References
Appendices
