EMERGING GOVERNANCES, DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon ABSTRACT Linking with the debate around new public management (NPM) and new public governance (NPG), the article studies different conceptual approaches for explaining dynamically changing systems that locally deliver integrated health and social care. To make our case, we analyse three health and social care ecosystems: London in England, Tampere in Finland, and West Lothian in Scotland. We argue (a) that network analysis is suited to NPM striving for efficiency, rather than NPGs seeking service effectiveness and innovation; (b) that classifying service systems as networks or ecosystem has important strategic and management implications; and (c) from examining three self-classified local public service ecosystems, that these distinctions are misunderstood in practice. Keywords - New Public Management, New Public Governance, eco-system, networks, health and social care. INTRODUCTION Using networks in public services is now ubiquitous (Rhodes 1990). More recently, the idea of self-organising ecosystems is chosen to represent local service systems; as Rhodes (2012) notes, both perspectives are encompassed by collaborative governances (see also Bommert, 2010). Recently Authors (2019) argued that differentiating network and ecosystem is important since local public service providers are increasingly characterising their service systems as ecosystems and we concluded, the network management approach is an inappropriate way of analysing ecosystems, since networks unlike ecosystems presume a central controller and rational agency. Our research links with debate, such as van Buuren et al. (2010) and Malbon et al (2019), around new public management (NPM) and new public governance (NPG) (see also Murdoch & Barber, 2017; Naidoo, 2015). This paper takes this argument further, arguing (a) that network analysis is suited to NPM striving for efficiency, rather than NPGs seeking service effectiveness and innovation; (b) that classifying service systems as networks or ecosystem has important strategic and management implications; and (c) from examining three self-classified local public service ecosystems, that these distinctions are misunderstood in practice. Our research question is which conceptual approach to public service Copyright: © 2021 Kinder, Six, Stenvall, Talonen and Memon. Copyright for this article is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the International Public Management Review (IPMR). All journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. By virtue of their appearance in this openaccess journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings. Corresponding Author: t.kinder@icloud.com IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 5 Emerging Governances, different perspectives delivery best explains what happens in dynamically changing systems that locally deliver integrated health and social care? These services are chosen for their importance and as an area where governances are dynamic. Like Malbon et al (2019) we are conscious NPG is likely to be ‘messier’ than NPM; involving users and new roles, relationships and responsibilities invariably limits neat solutions. We take Kooiman (2003) and Klijn and Koppenjan (2012) as representing network management. This Rotterdam School references service delivery, while others theorising network management such as Huxham (2003) focus on inter-organisational relations or like the Roskilde group (Torfing and Triantafillou 2012) concentrate on innovation rather than service delivery. Our research approach is to analyse three health and social care ecosystems, (London, England; Tampere, Finland and West Lothian in Scotland) following Longo and Notarnicola’s (2018) three-comparator approach. Taking street-level service delivery as the unit of analysis we classify each as ecosystem or network and then explore its implications of for strategic and service-level management. We find one of the self-declared ecosystems is a network system and best managed accordingly since it is pursuing NPM efficiency. Another is an ecosystem and is managed accordingly, pursuing NPG effectivenesses, while a third is transitioning from network to ecosystem. To add rigour to these arguments, we carefully trace the conceptual roots of the network and ecosystem approaches using the social learning and trust framework developed in Authors (2019) to structure analysis. The paper proceeds as follows. We begin by outlining the network management approach using Kooiman and Klijn and Koppenjan, commenting on its intellectual genealogy and its use in relation to ecosystems and then proceed similarly with our framework for analysing ecosystems. A methods sections indicates why and how data was gathered and then presented and analysed in each of the three illustrative cases. This is followed by a discussion and conclusions. WHAT DO WE KNOW? For conceptual clarity, here we recapitulate what constitutes an ecosystem, then the ecosystem position, concluding with a summary of the framework for analysing ecosystems developed by the authors. Complexity and ecosystems Network and ecosystem approaches to analysis are both rooted in systems thinking. At its simplest, Hargreaves and Podems (2012) note, an input-transformation-output model captures with varying degrees of certainty their causal relationships, system boundaries and predicted or foreseen outcomes. Chalmers (1994) emphasises that social science systems thinking is socially-constructed, in Stacey’s (2010) terms it unfolds what is already enfolded i.e. schematically representing reality. Since human agents populate systems dynamism is introduced by creating and/or using knowledge to alter input-output relationships. Since Checkland (1981) systems thinking has adopted the biological (evolutionary) IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 6 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon metaphor, acknowledging contextual influences (Emery and Trist 1981). Open systems draw-in and generate more knowledge than closed systems (Dyehouse et al 2009) becoming more dynamic (Merril et al 2013). Since systems are conceptual constructions, Box’s aphorism remains apposite: all models are wrong, but some are useful. Unpredictability arises from non-linearity and unforeseen outcomes, leading Isenberg (2014) to insist on grounded empirical justification of for all systems and (Beinhocker 2006) their changing environment. Complexity theory answers the question why do systems evolve? For Morin (1986; 2008) an acceptance of vagueness and plurality with process-oriented continuous change and stability. Holland (2014) points to self-organising, autonomous agents, each responding to events or information to strengthen themselves, the overall effect of which is the emergence of a more sustainable overall system. Rainforests and bee colonies are often given as natural examples (Gell-Mann 1995). Unlike physical systems, signals in agent systems Arthur (1994; 2009; 2010; 2015) argues, are cognitively and emotionally interpreted. Fanout (reach, scope) and hierarchic effects (between scales) derives from their non-additive, unpredictable nature not only of exogenous stimuli, but also of agent’s reactions to the stimuli. Put simply, the rainforest tree may react to global warming ontogengically (i.e. biological change), whereas the public service manager reacts as a result of reflexivity creating (potentially) emergences - more radical new patterns of action (Waldrop 1992). If the ecosystem’s boundaries, variables and causal relations are adequately conceptualised – a big ‘if’ as Allen and Holling (2008) note - the approach avoids a major challenge in systemic thinking: determinism i.e. events necessitated by antecedent events. Since complexity theory centres on interpretation and learning by cognitive, affective and autonomous agents. It assumes that context influences learning; as Wertsch et al (1995:25) says, everybody speaks from somewhere. For complexity theorists, emotions and subjective factors influence agent learning: there is no rational agency. This perspective therefore aligns closely with Vygotsky’s (1934) ideas on social learning; Whitehead’s (1929) process-relational philosophy (see Mesle 2008); and the ‘cultural turn’ in social theory formulated by Hampshire (1960) and Bernstein (2000). Network management and complexity ecosystems Rhodes’ (1997) decentred governance generalised the idea that in creating policy and marshalling resources, the role of Government, at national and local levels, alters from direct service provision towards coordinating activities that include non-state agents, such as private firms and the third-sector (3S). With NPM, the public sector adopted networking in the form of contractual public-private partnerships, competitively tendered services, or quasi-markets intended to transfer private sector ways of working (capital, techniques and managers) into the public sphere. Jessop (1991; 2013) regarded these processes as a hollowing out of the state; alternatively, Osborne and Grabler (1992) applauded an enabling model. Networking became de rigueur in public services and management of networks an important issue. Network management is variously framed. For example, Huxham’s (1993; 2003; 2010) work in Glasgow, focuses on inter-organisational relations between public agents and agents from the private and 3S. Alternatively, the Roskilde group, (Sørensen and Torfing IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 7 Emerging Governances, different perspectives 2005; Ansell et al 2010; Torfing and Triantafillou 2012; Hartley et al 2013; Torfing 2016) frame networks as diversity inducing innovation. Since our interest is in the design and delivery of localised, street level (Lipsky 1980) public services, the work of the Rotterdam group is most relevant. This major body of work includes Kooiman (1988; 1993; 1999; 2003); Kooiman et al (2005); Kooiman and Jentoft (2009); Klijn et al (1995); Klijn (1996; 1997; 2008); Klijn and Kippenjan (2012; 2014); and Jentoft et al (2018). From the Rotterdam School, five points are important for our argument. Firstly, often citing the Frankfurt School (Habermas 1986; Etzioni 1968), Kooiman envisages rational agency. Referring to ‘hard choices’ in Dutch Fisheries, Kooiman and Jentoft (2009) argue that dominant value rationality as much as instrumental rationality were imposed. He makes this assumption explicit in (1999:74) and (2003:200). Agents rationally coordinate interactions between levels of governance, for example, national policy on fishing, fishing networks and including individual boats and fleets. Ecosystems presume subjectivity and emotions in learning and responses. Secondly, networks require a Central Controller. According to Klijn and Koppenjan (2000), this is Government, since they argue it has both the legitimacy to coordinate and the resources to impose solutions. The Central Controller is the dominant actor, they argue (2000:135) is a role which means arranging and facilitating interaction processes within networks in such a way that problems of under or non-representation are properly addressed and interests are articulated and dealt with in an open, transparent and balanced manner. Self-organising ecosystems cannot have a Central Controller. Thirdly, interdependency between agents is the result of logics. Kooiman’s 249-page exposition (2003) and Klijn (2008) and Klijn and Koppenjan (2014) presents a logic for governance analysis based on management of networks, used in a 427-page study of fisheries governance (2005). Since Government (national or local) is the Central Controller, these logics revolve around NPM efficiency, which as Klijn (2008) argues offers simplicity. Ecosystems alternatively focus on new effectivenesses. Fourthly, several Rotterdam Group papers research refer explicitly to complexity and ecosystems including Kickert et al (1996; 1997; 2008) and Klijn and Koppenjan (2006). Klijn (2008:314) argues that complexity and resultant ecosystems are a special case, suitable for wicked problems: ecosystem are exceptional. He also argues (2008:305) that ecosystems result in balanced equilibriums like in complexity theory, contradicting complexity theory, which specifically denies any possibility of equilibrium in continually dynamic systems (Arthur 2010). Finally, Arthur (2015) and complexity theorists argue that variation and change in social complex ecosystems results from autonomous and cognitive interpreting and learning from external stimuli and the decisions/responses of other agents. This learning includes subjective and emotional responses. Learning then is central to explaining change from a complexity perspective. For Klijn and his colleagues this is absent: they explain change as resulting from Central Controller direction and rational agent responses i.e. without subjectivity and emotions. One aim of the social learning framework for analysing ecosystem dynamics outlined below, is to centrally feature active agent learning, including emotional and non-rational interpretations that give rise to new emergences. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 8 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon In summary, the network management approach to analysing collaborative governance in public services is seriously flawed as a conceptual tool with which to analyse ecosystemic ways of delivering public services: network management assumes a Central Controller, rational agency and fails to explain emergences as resulting from learning. Ecosystems and emergences resulting from learning: an analytical framework Authors (2019) suggest a new analytical framework for analysing stability and change in public service, street-level ecosystems. Genealogically, six intellectual traditions are synthetically interwoven in this framework. Firstly, complexity is formulated as complexity of complete experience in Whitehead’s (1929) process-relational philosophy, with Mesle (2008) challenging any idea that human agents can be separated from social context. These ideas are found in Mead’s (1934) idea that “I” as opposed to “Me” constitutes autonomous agency and influenced as Daniels (2001) insists by social context - the sociological underpinnings of Vygotsky’s social learning theory. An interesting moral perspective on complexity and ecosystems is given in Stacey (2001), Fonseca (2002) and Griffin (2002), which challenge bio-deterministic ‘logics.’ Secondly, our approach to street-level services, centrally features service users in services-as-a-system ‘pulling’ personalised service packages (Memon et al 2016), ignoring organisational boundaries; we adopt Weick’s (1979) idea that analysing organising rather than organisations as avoiding the obfuscations organisational analysis introduces, going as Polanyi (1958) suggested directly to human learning as explaining both change and stability. Thirdly, our framework draws heavily on Vygotsky’s (1934) social learning theory; that language and context mediate all learning (Engeström et al 1995; Hasan 2005) aligning closely with Bernstein’s (1960) cultural ‘turn’ in post-structural sociology, which as Daniels (2012) shows on Vygotsky. This connects naturally with our fourth intellectual strand: the logic-of-practice. Dewey’s (1939) phenomenological idea that it is from practice and its social meanings that deep learning and change occur. Bourdieu (1984) makes the point that practice both produces and reproduces human relations, including frameworks, metaphors and sense-making concepts. We use the logic-of-practice of practice and social learning to justify in Authors (2019) the relevance of Laclau’s (1990) governance-as-legitimacy arising from street-level practice creating ways of working and relating at an informal level, often at variance with topdown, formal managed network governances. Vygotsky (1934) is clear that learning is never rational and always references social context through the lens of emotions (Mahn and John-Steiner 2002; Levykh 2008). Since social learning is always relational, and in ecosystems occurs outside of transactional or command and control structures, trust is a particularly important emotion (Six 2005). Trust as Nooteboom and Six (2003) note, is an alternative to coercive power. Dialogical interactions based on trust can reach beyond existing framing of issues creating learned IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 9 Emerging Governances, different perspectives new solutions or emergences – as Senghaas et al (2019) found. Our framework draws on Weibel et al (2013; 2016) and Six’s (2018) work to explain how from a logic-of-practice in street level services, emergent new solutions in governance and service delivery arise. We note with Hanssen et al (2016) that new solutions may no longer occur face-to-face and that this too has implications for governances and accountabilities. Figure1 shows how each of these six intellectual strands, structured by social learning feature in our approach to analysing public service ecosystems. At the top-left of figure 1 individual cognitive agents, drawing on affect, especially trust to learn/unlearn. Figure 1: Social learning framework showing how learning from logic of practice and trust creates governance-as-legitimacy I n d ivid u al act ive ag en t s I NDI V I DUAL LEARNI NG * Emotional drivers * Cognitive capabilities * Moral predispositions * Ways-of-working * Relationalities * Learning style I DEN TI TI ES Emergent governanes as legitimacy * Legitimacy * Resource marshalling * Control-trust between and within organisations * Power distribution * Distributed learning * Heritage governances W O RKI NG PRACTI CE Co n t ext f o r em erg en t h yb rid g o vern an ce arran g em en t s * Supportive controls and trust * Embedded knowledge in services * National government regulation * Local government regulation Service syst em an d o ccu p at io n al cu lt u re Cu lt u ral set t in g o f em erg en t g o vern an ces PRACTICE AND LOGIC OF PRACTICE * Openness to ideas and innovation * Diversity of practice and experiences * Heritage of service equity, quality and access Source: Authors 2019. Top right in figure1 is organising services, the logic-of-practice in which using trust learning is distributed, power shift and new legitimacies reflect changes in resource deployment. Note how non-rational agents interact to create new individual and collective identities. The bottom of figure 1 shows the culture and context, which come together with the top triangle in the centre to create emergent new governance-as-legitimacy for ecosystems. Left-bottom represents ‘hard’ context: controls, embedded knowledge, regulations and standards and right-bottom, the ‘softer’ cultural (wider social, occupational and individual cultural capital) constituting mediation in creating and selecting learning. Context and culture constitute the logic-of-practice of practice in which new learning occurs in ecosystems. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 10 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon We have argued that ecosystems in complexity theorisations aligns closely with social learning theory creating a perspective sharply differentiated from the Rotterdam network management approach, reliant as it is on the role of Central Controller, assumed rationality and possibility of equilibria instead of constant learning, emergence and adaptation. Our literature review illustrates how an ecosystem approach based on social learning sits easily with Whitehead’s becoming, Weick’s idea of organising, Bourdieu’s logic-of-practice and the importance of trust and active agency. These strands from previous research are incorporated into the analytical framework we use below to explore governances and innovation in three self-declared local public service ecosystems. METHOD Having concluded that the new framework was useful in analysing Tampere’s local public service delivery ecosystem (Authors 2019), we decided to test the framework against two additional public service systems, also integrating health and social care and also describing themselves as ecosystems: London in England and West Lothian in Scotland met these criterion. They are also areas in which the authors have undertaken previous research and allowed the deep access necessary to explain change processes. Three cases allow iterative comparison and contrasts. While referencing quantitative data in background reports, our approach is essentially qualitative. The research question is: which conceptual approach to public service delivery best explains what happens in dynamically changing systems that locally deliver integrated health and social care? Using a cognitive conversation (Willis 1999) approach that allows respondents to choose vocabulary and sequencing when constructing their narratives.    Authors C and A conducted interviews with 24 local health and social care staff, chosen for their typicality and Managers in March-April 2018, resulting in 14 hours of transcribed interviews from Policy and planning (3); Organization & management of care (3); Clients (12); Care Delivery (4) and other stakeholders (2). Interviewees were six men and 18 women. Author-D selected sixteen middle and senior Managers in the WSL London healthcare partnership for interview in 2018, each with responsible for the organisation and management of integrated health services. Informed consent was given, interviews recorded, and transcribed with anonymity guaranteed. Since 2002 Author-A has studied local services in Scotland. Author-D has recently studied Scottish Community Health Partnerships. This work has resulted in published papers by Authors-A and D; for example, 2013; 2015; 2016; 2018. Data for the present paper is the result of interviews with twelve NHS middle managers by Author-D in 2016 and six interviews with managers and policymakers responsible for health and social care integration in central Scotland by Author-A during 2018. In all cases interviews were consented and transcribed. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 11 Emerging Governances, different perspectives Data presentation: case construction These three sets of interviews resulted in narratives describing the establishment and operation of locally integrated health and social care services in London, West Lothian and Tampere. Case construction began by adopting as themes for analysis the main variables from our framework (figure 1). Within these themes, each interviewee (or group) contributes how their experiences shapes the overall outcome space of emergent governances. Note that space permits only illustrative cases, i.e. not in-depth, detailed narratives. Analysis and validity Rather than revealing ‘truth,’ investigative research at best is validated as useful knowledge, that can afterwards be triangulated with previous research results and previous conceptual and causal categories (in our case, captured in the figure 1 framework). This pathway, recommended by Richardson (1999) and Bowden (2005), is followed here. As investigative research, we see value in iteratively foregrounding/discarding categories, preparing the way for further research, for cross-case contrasts and comparisons in relating to previous research. THREE ILLUSTRATIVE CASES OF HEALTHCARE COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCES WS London Partnership Case The WS London (WSL) Partnership comprises organisations providing health and social care in six boroughs working together in four local partnerships (NHS 2018). Serving 1.4 million people, it prioritises groups with long-term conditions, digital innovation supporting multi-disciplinary and inter-agency teams and improving hospital and primary care (NHS-England, 2018). WSL emphasises user-oriented design and delivery of services, citing bottom-up processes that cross organisational boundaries (NHS-STP, 2017) creating new ecosystems based on co-creation that involves users in a Patient and Public Engagement Steering Group (NHS, 2018). Emergent Governances WSL Partnership encourages professionals to create new provider arrangements heralding demand-led rather than supply-driven governances. General Manager of Oncology says, … we're more about codesign rather than coproducing. General Manager of Children’s Services accepts users are not involved in clinical pathways, and Operations Manager at Diabetes Services says, (co-production) is service dependent, unless users are involved in helping create new pathways, they need to accept things take a lot longer. Asked to point to bottom-up, localised governance initiatives, the Oncology Manager says, We have formal governance structures in place, but we have self-governing as well. The Business Planning Manager, notes that demand for service improvements requiring additional resources are assessed against a risk register, though in a weekly meeting pulls together operational staff who can informally agree changing processes, after which, everyone goes and does it informally. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 12 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon Trust in governance emergence Service managers identify and marshal various inter agency and service provider arrangements to deliver services meeting local needs, often outside of formal structures and based upon trust relations. Trust is especially important where agencies are both procurer and provider. The Children’s Services Manager points to a no overall system between agencies, We spend a lot of time managing at the boundaries… you couldn’t design a more complex, less clear-cut way of doing things, Speaking of co-governance, the Oncology Service Manager says agencies work sequentially, rather than in integrated fashion. For the Head of Nursing, fragmentation continues: I don’t think service managers do contribute to coproducing services… we get really senior people in the organisation to design a process and actually, they’ve got no idea about what truly happens on the ground and it’s the people on the ground with the service users who should be designing those processes, not general managers. (Head of Nursing) Social Learning in governance emergence While referencing national targets and legally instantiated structures, learning from practice constitutes new governances as practiced in care delivery systems centred on users. For the Oncology Services Manager, this means not hiding behind the governance structure as a wall between the effective movement of people and patients. She goes on to say that co-governing means having every agency there, freely exchanging information and linked together. Managers are then aware of what governance arrangements they want to emerge, however, as the Head of Business Planning says distribution of learning is limited; he reports: I think that NHS Trusts are very constrained in their actions. I think the centre in many respects has the power and authority but doesn’t necessarily have the answers. So, it’s a sort of unbalanced relationship. I don’t think they have any impact on learning, education or training at a local level. Regarding governance, to be honest all the centre is interested in is money and compliance. Outcome emergent local governance WSL interviewees emphasise the importance of evidence-based services; they also mention as importance accountability and audit trails. On emergent local governances, an Orthopaedics Service Manager comments, Whereas it doesn’t necessarily have to be a clear structure in place for it to be clear governance. It can be implied in certain processes. Its having that knowledge of “this is what’s related to this process”, this is the governance structure behind it, discussions that take place to allow something to happen… In similar vein, the Children’s Services Assistant General Manager speaks of Multidisciplinary teams were we all are expected to go to governance meetings for learning, sharing. The Oncology Services, Assistant General Manager) says, IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 13 Emerging Governances, different perspectives It generally feels that sometimes we forget…that actually sometimes you need to go back and spend a day on the floor and realise these are actual people and this is actually affecting them, it doesn’t affect us, but it affects them and how we run our service affects them. The City of Tampere Background and target problem 91% of Tampere’s 18,957 over-75 years citizens live at home; supported by an independent living ecosystem evolved over 25-years in a city of 230,000. Other senior citizens live in supported accommodation (often hub-and-spokes model) and 380 in residential care. Emergent governances Independent living is supported by a combination of public, 3S and private agencies, using a free care service palette with additional (paid-for) services available. Based on a care plan negotiated between clients and their families by client counsellors, a Care Delivery professional characterises the system as: There are two sides to it. What is doable, and what the client wants. This is where expenses also become an issue. Clients get information on services from City Internet sites, providers and client counsellors; clients configure personalised package suiting their needs. It is important that you get the answers and the services at one desk, centralized (Policy and planning). One challenge is that 3S services vary between areas of the city. The area in question has an active parish, and there are active organizations. There are apartment blocks with common rooms for club meetings...whereas there are areas where you have none of this (Policy & planning). Trust in governance emergence A coordinated and controlled service palette promotes trust from clients. Client councillors provide that security...this makes services appear to the client clearer, more secure and constant and trustworthy (Care Delivery). Trust from customer to counsellor is essential and arises from relationships maintained over time: You can trust the services much more if the worker is a professional, and not always some new trainee who needs to be instructed by the client (Client). Customer and family ‘pull’ the appropriate configuration of services, mediated by a counsellor trusted to create an appropriate service palette. Service providers worry that customers show too much deference and trust. Careful listening and respect are needed for equality in interactions: I often hear people say that they don’t understand what what’s being said (Client). Trust, based on equality, requires an organisational culture respecting each individual. When an elderly person starts receiving services, professionals often make an object of the client, and not so that it is he/she who’s the actor (Delivery carer). Tensions over resources can be a challenge, If there high pressures on time at the office and if there are problems in management the, perhaps, the doctor will not bother to interact with the IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 14 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon language and manner that you should (Client). Personal contact between client and service providers breeds trust that professions pursue the interests of customers, though some clients say service changes are too slow or unevenly distributed. Counsellors too develop trust, in their case with service providers and the City’s organisation, that customer needs will be met, whereas lack of information sharing, or ‘silo’ mentality can breed mistrust. An obvious problem is customer having to repeat information or explanations: We still have this culture, we have learned that information does not come automatically…there’s a transition phase (Client). Social learning in governance emergence Interactions between service providers and customers based on trust results in social learning: the clear appreciation of what service palette resolves the customer’s problems, even where customers inadequate articulate the problem. I feel that service users are discussing, sharing things, and taking part in each other’s experiences (Client). Learning from clients and logic-of-practice benefits from open governances. However, if the elderly are afraid to give criticizing feedback, the information is not reliable, and no learning will take place (Organisation & management care). It is also possible that the elderly are not accustomed to the idea that hopes and suggestions on correction could be channelled to create a political force, or a force that could take it into the machinery (Client). Listening and learning feedback loops appear strong. Prescribed service packages and established practice controls can restrict learning from customers, taking away the customer’s voice. You cannot have cut and dried solutions in services but to have a learning attitude (Client). Empathy and customer voice open the way to learning. For example, the City provides customers with videophones for arranging services. Not only do some customers find them difficult to use, others fear they will result in fewer personal visits or remote control; though often this is not articulated. Service providers are trained to recognise and quell such fears; shared training between City, private and volunteer staff usefully highlights the need for learning. Of course, staff turnover or change means such exercises need repeating and reinforcing. Outcome emergent local governances Instead of prescribed governances, the listening and learning approach, based on mutual trust, gives rise to flexible governance arrangements for services: governances crossing previous boundaries, aimed at meeting customer needs. Customers and street-level providers notice how flexible governances create better service solutions at the individual customer level: customers see only their own service, not the services-as-a-system. Good things over there, and good things over there, but not necessarily so that it could be seen in the operation of the system…if there are better services with the clients, they are in small droplets, but this does not exist as systemic phenomena (Client). Over time the City hopes customer culture based on equality in service provision will empower customers – building trust and enhancing learning. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 15 Emerging Governances, different perspectives Healthcare integration in Scotland Background and target problem In 1998, following local Council restructuring, West Lothian Council was created with a population of 160,000 and an area contiguous with a National Health Service Trust (NHS, chronic, primary and advanced care). The population contained some 1,200 people with dementia, 200 with severe mental health and 600 with severe learning difficulties. Many of these were accommodated in sheltered, very-sheltered or six (costly) residential care homes or long-stay and costly (bed-blocking) local hospitals (Kinder 2000). From discussions between the NHS and Council on reducing bed-blocking and replacing antiquated and ethically questionable residential homes, the idea of using smart housing emerged. Though numerous demonstration smart homes existed, at the time, there were no examples of people occupied. Since professionals and politicians from the NHS and Council worked closely, the idea of pooling budgets instead of battling over who invests and who saves, was accepted. The Council had an advance IT system, one-stop-shops and a technical partner (private company) ready to drive the smart homes project (Author-A 2002; 2003). It was agreed to pool budgets and transfer Council care and social work staff and NHS primary care staff, into a new entity the Community Health Care Partnership (CHCP). Early gains from integrating IT and HR systems were followed by joint training and the establishment of Groups of users, third-sector (3S) and private partners. In establishing new-build (hub-and-spokes design) and conversion smart homes, fitted with alert, alarm and assistive technologies, (freely provided), it became apparent as a Social Manager commented: the smartness is not in the technology, it’s in the service networks. Emergent Governances To ‘pull’ integrated services into smart homes, required major upheavals including multidisciplinary team-working, involving Doctors and social services. New clinical and ethics Committees were formed. Throughout, users were involved in co-design and usability testing the new home and service arrangements. Messy accountabilities and hybrid teams evolved into service delivery teams with devolved budgets, all referencing service improvement Groups that included users. Clients/patients now living in communities were supported in innumerable coproducing activities by friends and family. Instead of integrated data-gathering (for example, Home Care gathering trained to gather health data) resulting in less physical visits, community living resulted in more visits. Bed-blocking soon hit zero as Discharge Nurses and joined CHCP care planning teams, that included Social workers able to access thousands of care configurations to suit individual needs. Trust in governance emergence Trust between Council and NHS grew as the innovative arrangements successfully delivered improved care at lower costs. When ‘trouble’ hit in the form of central Government austerity measures, the trade unions cooperated with management to meet budget reductions, in ways that did not impact on services or staff security. Though some families IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 16 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon resisted replacing the old residential homes, happier and healthier senior citizens led families to trust the new model; now covering 8,500 homes. Continued use of Service Improvement Groups, involving users and professionals, has built trust and brought (previously reluctant) Doctors into design processes. Several offers to privatise the services have been resisted, gaining trust from trade unions that the new governance arrangements are long-term. Social learning in governance emergence Beginning as a technological-adoption project, smart housing has resulted in radical changes to all health and social care services. These emergences are the result of learning from practice, including the involvement of users in usability design. Joint training and development have proven a cauldron of innovative ideas, including integrated ways of working. Central services are now all co-located, providing important informal opportunities for information exchanges and learning (Authors D and A, 2016; and A, C and D, 2018). Involving family and friends in coproducing services is also proving a learning opportunity – for example, initiating interactive-TV and policing services. Outcome emergent local governances During this period West Lothian was accoladed UK Council of the Year (Author-A 2009). One social worker commented, Now I couldn’t work anywhere else, I’m so used to joined up working. All service delivery teams are now multidisciplinary and budget holding; all have improvement groups that include users. Amongst the unforeseen emergences has been the rising status of social workers as leaders in technologies and the willingness of Doctors to work with social care, as they see the benefits to patients (Authors D and A, 2015). While formally local authority and NHS structures remain separated in the UK, local governances at a formal and informal level have transformed. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Applying our framework, we consider how the cases might be classified and then consider how applicable network management or ecosystem tools are to their analysis. Summary of cases: evidence of networks or ecosystem An overall analysis of the cases, using the figure 1 ecosystems framework perspective is that Tampere is an emergent ecosystem, which because of bottom-up learning is adopting new governances and can be characterised as NPG, striving for more effective services. London is top-down centrally-directed, which though at street-level evidences cooperation can be characterised as NPM network, striving for efficiency under a Central Controller; a network not an ecosystem. The Scottish case is somewhere in-between since while autonomous individuals and teams are learning from practice and instigating new IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 17 Emerging Governances, different perspectives governances, senior management are enabling change; they retain central authority, if not control. Such an analysis would not do justice to the complexity perspective; each case is more nuanced and binary categorisation may sharpen debate without capturing reality. Using the main variables from the figure 1 ecosystems social learning framework, figure 2 summaries the main differences between cases. Figure 2: Case studies summary using framework variables Tampere, Finland Individual learning from logic-of-practice Organising: distributing learning, experimenting Context: positive in- West Lothian, Scotland  Widespread and systematic individual learning/unlearning from practice  Widespread individual learning/unlearning from practice  Independent living heritage  Experimenting encouraged  Autonomous teams  High levels of trust between agents e.g. training  Some colocation  Independent living heritage  Open innovation projects encouraged  Autonomous teams  High levels of trust between agents  Colocation  Improving customer service goals  Austerity: financial goals  High client expectations  Vibrant customer feedback  Empowered autonomous teams (budgets, experiments)  Client expectations rising  Customer feedback powerful in formal committees  Empowered autonomous teams (budgets, projects)  Service ecosystem predominates  Beyond network: emergent ecosystem London, England  Some individual learning from practice  Operations open to change, pathways set  Clinicians and top management acting as gatekeepers  Vestiges of supplypush structures  Independent living emergent  Trust at street level, transactional contracts  Austerity: financial goals fluence of learning Culture: enabling learning Governances: learned new arrangements Network or ecosys-  Client expectations low  Customer feedback emergent above street-level  Senior Management and clinicians retain central control  Localised governance-as-legitimacy  Many network characteristics tem? Tony Kinder is Professor at the Tampere University, Finland. E-mail: t.kinder@icloud.com Frédérique Six is Associate Professor at the Vrije University, Netherlands. E-mail: f.e.six@vu.nl Jari Stenvall is Professor at the Tampere University, Finland. E-mail: jari.stenvall@tuni.fi Antti Talonen is Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Helsinki. E-mail: antti.talonen@helsinki.fi Ally Memon is Senior Lecturer at the Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, UK. Email: ally.memon@northumbria.ac.uk IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 18 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon Though governance-as-legitimacy at street-level in London reflects movement towards an ecosystem, predominantly governance is network, featuring a Central Controller filtering radical service and governance changes and dictating top-down pseudo-rational objectives. Both Tampere and West Lothian tend toward being ecosystems: absence of Central Controller and prioritising top-down objectives. We detect however, more ecosystem characteristics in Finland than Scotland: the former encourages experimenting (unknown outcomes), the latter open-innovation projects (outcome preferences). Also, learning is more explicitly valued and distributed in Tampere; though West Lothian does have more colocation. On balance, both can be characterised as ecosystems, with Tampere somewhat more so. Complex complexity and transitioning Our answer to the research question which conceptual approach to public service delivery best explains what happens in dynamically changing systems that locally deliver integrated health and social care is that network management best explains network governances, such as London and the ecosystems framework best explains ecosystems or emergent ecosystems such as West Lothian and Tampere. Figure 2 suggests that ecosystem governance predominates in Tampere, is emergent in West Lothian and though present, subservient to network governance in London. It also suggests that none of the three are completely networks, none are completely ecosystems; all are dynamic. All three began life as ‘pushed’ local public services. Transitioning to network arrangements (involving users, private and 3S) occurred over (approximately) a ten-year period in Tampere and West Lothian and (perhaps) twenty-years in London. Transition from network to ecosystem continues to evolve with Tampere appearing to have travelled further in this direction a journey London has begun. These are long-term processes; there is no instant change from NPM to NPG, from publicly-pushed services, to networks and then to some form of ecosystems ‘pulling’ personalised services, organised without boundaries and searching for new service solutions. This is especially so in health and care services, which are highly regulated and risk-laden, given that the customers are vulnerable and (to varying degrees) dependent. Jorma Ollila, Nokia CEO 1992 to 2006, argued that structure is strategy; meaning that centrally directed networks of R&D partners led to flows of innovation. This echoed Williamson’s (1995) later argument against counterposing market and hierarchy and instead suggesting network governance, which as Czarniawska-Joerges (1992) noted meant a multiplicity of organisational forms. Our focus, following Weick (1979) is organising, rather than organisation. This mirrors Nokia’s failed strategy as structure, and Microsoft purchase. This lesson is embedded in Finnish culture, including its local government helping to explain why the Finnish ecosystem (experimentation, systematic individual learning) is somewhat more advanced that West Lothian. Focus on organising, in local public services, means constantly reexamining logic-of-practice and paying attention to customer feedback loops looking for incremental or radical improvements. Ecosystems then are best not seen as structures and instead (like Whitehead) as processual and relational: the roles, relationships and responsibilities delivering local services, rather than the organisational form. Invisible flows IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 19 Emerging Governances, different perspectives testing and carrying learning are the driver of ecosystems, not the organisational form (strategy as structure). Relationships between people, invariably informal, based on trust that others too are seeking process improvements. Our view is that it is not bureaucracy that is an ‘iron cage’ inevitably imitated isomorphically; instead focus on organisation distract attention from the learning content in relationships. In this sense, Managers cannot decide to adopt an ecosystem structure, instead from bottom-up relationships bound by trust and emotional commitment to each other and the services, ecosystems themselves emerge. What Managers can do is enable this by empowering autonomous teams and ceasing to act as central controllers. Unlike network management theorists, ecosystems pay more attention to how context and culture and learning and its distribution by non-rational agents influence governances. Kooiman et al (1999) ascribe governance to ‘logics’ rather than learning, at the behest of the Central Controller instead of active individual agents. Culture is an external abstraction in network management, unlike (as figure 1 illustrates) a key influence within the system along with ‘hard’ contextual influences. For Engeström (1999) and social learning theorists, context is everything: all learning is mediated by the context in which it occurs. Hence figure 1 is offered as a situated and contextually-specific toolkit, unlike network management theory which is presented as a universally-applicable approach to managing public service delivery. Conclusions: network management and ecosystems theory The cases illustrate a paradox. As networks Tampere and West Lothian are failures: without centrally-direct goals, care arrangements are evolving is diverse directions, incoherently and inconsistently featuring agents in different areas and without centrally-dictated standards by which progress is measured. However, as ecosystems both are successfully giving rise to new emergences in governance and services models, embedding learning in new arrangements and responding differently as opportunities vary within sub-areas. London is not as strong on these ecosystem characteristics, however, from a network perspective it has evolved clear transactional partnership arrangements, Senior management are leading change by integrating services led by clinicians as rationally-decreed success factors measure progress. Where networks transition into ecosystems the network management approach of Kooiman et al becomes less appropriate as an analytical tool. The assumption of rational agency, logics arising from structures and central controller are ones we cannot accept for any social analysis, including network governance, for ecosystem analysis these assumptions are shown in the cases to be irrelevant. Ecosystems evolve as a result of emergences resulting from learning by cognitive-affective autonomous agents, not central controllers, not rational agency and not logics embedded in structures. Our figure 1 social learning framework aims to capture these processes, highlighting the importance of trusts and shared emotional attachments in local public service design and delivery. Accepting the point that ecosystem building is always a process (the cases show evolution in Tampere and West Lothian over a twenty five-year period) not an event, the framework gives a snapshot of activities and relationships in these processes, which are never complete, never concluded. Generalisation of any framework always involves re- IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 20 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon contextualisation to the target particular social circumstances. In the case of ecosystems, characteristics, activities and relationships are shown in the difference between Tampere and West Lothian to alter over time. Care in recontextualisation is therefore essential in re-applying this framework to other ecosystems. Conclusions: practice Public services are a common good and the public value created effects everyone in an area, directly or indirectly. Choosing the social constructions to guide future development and to assess progress are therefore an important responsibility of opinion leaders. These include service users and citizens informally and in socially evaluating public value, as well as central or local Government officials formally evaluating service effectiveness and efficiency. Choices in how local public services are envisioned (organising, governance, impact etc) is made especially difficult where short-term political exigencies distort decision making, which is why the longer-term strategic outlook based on social values is important: public governances migrate the citizen’s values into public value. This supports Weaver’s (2019) conclusion that decentred service provision is accompanied by power redistribution. The ecosystems perspective should not be adopted lightly, since it entails active agency by service users and the citizenry in general: it is a democratic choice deciding that power to change and influence is not accumulated by Central Controllers, but instead distributed. Whereas network management aligns easily with NPM top-down targeting, financial success factors and transactional relationships, such an approach cannot coherently be adopted in an ecosystem, where governances and service models are the result of bottomup emergences based on learning from logic-of-practice – much closer to the NPG perspective. Further research This paper follows from Authors (2019) which argued that Kooiman’s network management approach based on rational agency and centrally-controlled structures is an inappropriate tool with which to analyse public service ecosystems. Further research may explore their differing epistemological basis and the roles accorded to active agency. Local public services have often benefited from visionary leadership, yet ecosystems thrive without a Central Controller; further research will explore the conundrum of leading with distributed leadership and how this might impact upon learning and experimenting by empowered teams. REFERENCES Allen CR and Holling CS (Eds.), 2008, Discontinuities in Ecosystems and other Complex Systems, Columbia University Press, NY. Ansell C and Torfing J, 2010, Handbook on Theories of Governance, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 21 Emerging Governances, different perspectives Arthur WB, 1994, Increasing Returns and Path Dependency in the Economy, University of Michigan Press, An Arbor, MI. Arthur WB, 2009, The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, Free Press, NY. Arthur WB, 2010, Complexity, the Santa Fe Approach, and Nonequilibrium Economics, History of Economic Ideas, 18:2, 149-166. Arthur WB, 2015, Complexity and the Economy, OUP, Oxford. Author-A, Author-B, Author-C and Author-D, 2019, Governance, trust and learning, submitted to International Review of Administrative Sciences, Tampere University, School of Management, Working Paper. Beinhocker ED, 2006, The Origins of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity and the Radical Remaking of Economics, Harvard Business School Press, Boston. Bernstein B, 2000, Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research Critique, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham. Bommert, B. (2010). Collaborative innovation in the public sector. International public management review, 11(1), 15-33. Chalmers AF, 1994, What Is This Thing Called Science? Open University Press, Milton Keynes. Czarniawska-Joerges B, 1992, Exploring Complex Organisations, Sage, London. Daniels H, 2001, Vygotsky and pedagogy, Routledge-Falmer, Abingdon. Daniels H, 2012, Vygotsky and Sociology, Routledge, London. Dennett D, 1991, Consciousness explained, Little, Brown Boston, MA. Dewey J, 1939, Freedom and Culture, Greenwood Press, NY. Engeström Y, Miettinen R and Punamaki RL, 1999, Perspectives on Activity Theory, CUP, Cambridge. Fonseca J, 2002, Complexity and Innovation in Organisations, Routledge, London. Freeman C, 1982, Economic of Industrial Innovation, (2nd Edition), Pinter, London. Gell-Mann M, 1995, The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex, Abacus, London. Griffin D, 2002, The Emergence of Leadership, Routledge, London. Hampshire S, 1960, Thought and Action, Chatto and Windus, London. Hansen H-t, Lundberg K and Syltevik LJ, 2016, Digitalization, Street-Level Bureaucracy and Welfare Users’ Experiences, Social Policy & Administration, 52, 67-90. Hartley J, Sørensen E and Torfing J, 2013, Collaborative innovation: A viable alternative to market-competition and organizational entrepreneurship, Public Administration Review, 73:6, 821–830. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 22 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon Hasan R, 2005, Semiotic mediation, language and society: three exotripic theories: Vygotsky, Halliday and Bernstein, in Webster JJ (Ed.), Language, society and consciousness, Equinox, London. Huxham C, 1993, Pursuing Collaborative Advantage, The Journal of Operational Research Society, 44:6, 599-611. Huxham C, 2003, Theorizing collaborative advantage, Public Management Review 5:3, 401-423. Huxham C, 2010, Collaborative Capacity: An intra-organisational perspective on collaborative advantage, Public Money & Management, July-Sept, 21-28. Jentoft S and Chuenpagdee R, From Poverty to Wellbeing in Small-Scale Fisheries: The Governability Challenge, in Johnson, D, Acott TG, Stacey N and Urquhart J, (Eds), 2018, Social Wellbeing and the Values of Small-scale Fisheries, Springer, London. Jessop B, 1991, Regulation Theory, Post-Fordism and the State, in Benefeld W and Holloway J (Eds.), 1991, Post-Fordism and Social Form, CSE, Macmillan, pg. 69-91. Jessop B, 2013, Hollowing Out the "Nation-State" and Multi-Level Governance, in Kennett (Ed), A Handbook of Comparative Social Policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pg.11-26. Klijn E-H and Kippenjan J, 2012, Governance network theory: past, present and future, Policy & Politics, 40:4, 587-606. Klijn E-H and Koppenjan JFM, 2014, Complexity in governance network theory, Complexity, Governance & Networks, 1:1, 61-70. Klijn E-H, 1996, Analysing and Managing Policy Processes in Complex Networks: A Theoretical Examination of the Concept Policy Network and its Problems, Administration and Society, 28:1 90–119. Klijn E-H, 1997, Policy Networks: An Overview, in Kickert WJM, Klijn E-H and Koppenjan JFM (Eds), Managing Complex Networks. Sage, London. Klijn E-H, 2008, Complexity theory and public administration: What’s new? Public Management Review, 10:3, 299-317. Kooiman J (Ed), 1993, Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions, Sage, London. Kooiman J and Jentoft S, 2009, Meta-governance: values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices, Public Administration, 87:4, 818-836. Kooiman J, 1999, Social-Political Governance, Public Management, Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory, 1:1, 67-92. Kooiman J, 2003, Governing as Governance, Sage, London. Kooiman J, Bavinck M, Jentoft S and Pullin R (Eds), 2005, Fish for Life: Interactive governance for Fisheries, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 23 Emerging Governances, different perspectives Kooiman J, van Vliet M and Jentoft S. (Eds.), 1999, Creative Governance: Opportunities for Fisheries in Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate. Levykh MG, 2008, The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development, Educational Theory, 58:1, 83-101. Lipsky M, 1980, Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in Public Services, Sage, NY. Longo F and Notarnicola E, 2018, Home care for the elderly in Sweden, Germany and Italy: A case of multi-level governance strategy-making, Social Policy & Administration, 52, 1303-1316. Mahn H and John-Steiner V (Eds.), The Gift of Confidence: A Vygotskian View of Emotions,’ in Wells G and Claxton G (Eds.), 2002, Learning for Life in the TwentyFirst Century: Sociocultural Perspectives on the Future of Education, Blackwell, Oxford. Malbon E, Carey G, and Reeders D, 2019, Mixed accountability within new public governance: The case of a personalized welfare scheme in early implementation, Social Policy & Administration, 53, 156-169. Mead GH, 1934 (1962), Mind, Self and Society, Works of GH Mead, Volume-1, (Edited Morris CS), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL. Mesle CR, 2008, Process-Relational Philosophy, Templeton Press, West Conshohocken, PA. Morin E, 1986, Method (accessed 210519) available at https://monoskop.org/images/a/ad/Morin_Edgar_Method_vol_1_The_Nature_of_Nature.pdf. Morin E, 2008, On Complexity, Hampton Press, NJ. Murdock, A., & Barber, S. (2017). IPMR AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT: THE NEXT 18 YEARS?. International Public Management Review, 18(1), 1-20. Naidoo, V. (2015). Changing Conceptions of Public ‘Management’and Public Sector Reform in South Africa. International Public Management Review, 16(1), 23-42. Nooteboom B and Six FE, 2003, The Trust Process in Organisations, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Osborne D and Gaebler T, 1993, Reinventing Government, Penguin, London. Osborne SP, 2010a, The (New) Public Governance: a suitable case for treatment, in Osborne SP, 2010, The New Public Governance? Routledge, London, Cpt. 1. Polanyi M, 1958, Personal Knowledge, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. Rhodes RAW, 1990, Policy Networks: A British Perspective, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2:3, 293-317. Rhodes RAW, 1992, New directions in the study of policy networks, European Journal of Political Research, 21:1-2, 181-205. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 24 Tony Kinder, Frédérique Six, Jari Stenvall, Antti Talonen and Ally Memon Rhodes RAW, 1997, Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability, OUP, Buckingham. Senghaas M, Freier C, Kupka P, 2019, Practices of activation in frontline interactions: Coercion, persuasion, and the role of trust in activation policies in Germany, Social Policy & Administration, 53, 613-626. Six FE, 2005, The Trouble with Trust – The Dynamics of Interpersonal Trust Building, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. Six FE, 2018, Trust in public professionals and their professions, in Sitkin, S., R. Searle and A.M. Nienaber, Compendium on Trust, Routledge, London. Sørensen E and Torfing J, 2005, The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks, Scandinavian Political Studies 28(3): 195–218. Stacey RD, 2001, Complex Responsive Processes in Organisations: Learning and knowledge creation, Routledge, London. Torfing J and Triantafillou P (Eds), 2012 Enhancing Public Innovation by Transforming Public Governance, CUP, Cambridge. Torfing J, 2016, Collaborative Governance in the Public Sector, Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC. Torfing J, Peters B, Pierre J and Sørensen E, 2014, Interactive Governance: Enhancing the Paradigm, OUP, Oxford. van Buuren, A., Buijs, J. M., & Slob, A. (2010). Consolidating Governance Capacity in Complex Networks: Changing Perceptions. International Public Management Review, 11(1), 34-51. Waldrop MM, 1992, Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos, Simon & Schuster, London. Weaver B, 2019, Coproduction, governance and practice: The dynamics and effects of User Voice Prison Councils, Social Policy & Administration, 53, 249-264. Weibel A and Six FE, 2013, Trust and control: the role of intrinsic motivation, in Bachmann R and Zaheer A (Eds.), Handbook of advances in trust research (pp. 57-81). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Weibel A, Den Hartog DN, Gillespie N, Searle R, Six FE and Skinner D, 2016, How do controls impact employee trust in the employer? Human Resource Management, 55:3, 437-462. Weick K, 1979, The Social Psychology of Organisations, Random House, New York. Wertsch JV, del Rio P and Alvarez A, 1995, Socio-cultural studies: history, action and mediation, in Wertsch JV, del Rio P and Alvarez A, Socio-cultural studies of the mind, CUP, Cambridge. Whitehead AN,1929 (1978), Process and Reality, (edited by Griffin DR and Sherburne DW), Free Press, NY. IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 25 Emerging Governances, different perspectives Williamson OE, 1995, Organization Theory: From Chester Barnard to the Present and Beyond, OUP, NY. About IPMR IPMR The International Public Management Review (IPMR) is the electronic journal of the International Public Management Network (IPMN). All work published in IPMR is double blind reviewed according to standard academic journal procedures. The purpose of the International Public Management Review is to publish manuscripts reporting original, creative research in the field of public management. Theoretical, empirical and applied work including case studies of individual nations and governments, and comparative studies are given equal weight for publication consideration. IPMN The mission of the International Public Management Network is to provide a forum for sharing ideas, concepts and results of research and practice in the field of public management, and to stimulate critical thinking about alternative approaches to problem solving and decision making in the public sector. IPMN includes over 1300 members representing about one hundred different countries, both practitioners and scholars, working in all aspects of public management. IPMN is a voluntary non-profit network and membership is free. ISSN 1662-1387 IPMR International Public Management Review www.ipmr.net Vol. 21, Iss. 1, 2021 26