"Governance is the process whereby societies and institutions make their important decisions, determine who they involve in making those decisions and how they render account." From: Institute on Governance Policy Brief No. 15.
Mark Halle talks about the need for greater government accountability on environmental issues.
(Flash Video - 1:59 min)
Networked governance can be defined as the interconnectedness of independent units of authority and power, whether individual, community, state, or corporate. Networked governance moves from vertical to horizontal approaches to decision making and is characterized by systems of communications, knowledge exchange and dialogue. We are working to operationalize the concept of “networked governance”: breaking down institutional silos and creating horizontal channels for knowledge exchange and collaboration, that lead to better informed decision making and more effective implementation. Tad Homer Dixon describes this as “open architecture democracy.”
IISD’s experts suggest that the new information society will be governed through networks of networks, each of which has its own internal logic (such as national governments and their public–private partnerships), but which are all interconnected by a common set of governance protocols. The idea, in other words, is that the architecture of global governance in the future could mirror the architecture of the Internet, and its layers of horizontal communications protocols.
The Frontiers of Networked Governance
The paper suggests that a combination of stakeholder analysis and social network analysis can be useful in assessing the network structures and practices that may facilitate a networked governance process. We explain the efficacy of networked governance as a factor of both problem complexity (network heterogeneity) and social capital. For problems harbouring a given level of complexity, the higher the level of social capital within an identified governance network, the more autonomy and self-organization may be conducive to achieving problem solving functions, and thus governance goals. To safeguard social capital and help ensure an effective process, it is important to select networked governance strategies based on the level of self-steering or active steering that they imply. Where social capital is incommensurate with problem complexity, it may be necessary to employ governance strategies that are more highly modulated by governance authorities situated within a centralized problem solving process. We also describe the methods by which network participants may experience the creation of social capital through collaborative visioning and creating shared value, two parallel and intertwined processes that foster shared visions and strategic alignment within the group, and thus enhance the ability of the group to achieve collectively desirable outcomes.
Developing Social Capital in Networked Governance Initiatives: A lock-step approach (2012)
Globally, there is an increasing recognition that technocratic approaches have limitations, especially when it comes to solving complex problems that span numerous administrative boundaries and fragmented institutions. Where policy problems exceed a certain level of complexity and significance, and where existing institutions are too weak to manage these problems, empirical evidence suggests that polycentric arrangements, such as networked governance initiatives, emerge to produce solutions that are more beneficial. By integrating distributed capacities for collective problem solving, governance networks allow diverse actors to work collaboratively towards mutually beneficial outcomes. However, only with an adequate level of social capital can a governance network create shared value and engage in processes of reflexive governance. This paper elaborates on three methods with regards to their potential to enhance social capital in governance networks: institutional brokering, knowledge sharing and social learning, and collaborative visioning.
The authors describe a lock-step approach to creating the organizational conditions that enable effective networked governance. At the crux of this approach is the notion that cognitive elements mediate the relationship between the development of networked governance and the maintenance and enhancement of social capital. They identify four stages of networked governance (network architecture, preparing the grounds, collaborative visioning and reflexive governance), and discuss their importance with regards to creating the organizational conditions of social capital and collective cognition that are instrumental for policy and governance innovation.
Social Networking and Governance for Sustainable Development (2009)
Communications technology has enabled new approaches to governance in which stakeholders across sectors and jurisdictions are engaged in consensus building and implementation processes. This paper explores some mechanisms through which online social networking may impact on governance for sustainable development. Are social networking sites driving the transformation of the governance landscape, or are they merely diverting vast amounts of time from addressing the difficult sustainable development challenges at hand? And if they are useful tools for sustainable development, how can we ensure that they live up to their potential?
How to Support an L14 in Breaking Global Deadlocks: Do we need a formal network of institutions or an open source system of experts? (2007) (DOC)
How could a network of think tanks support a global leaders initiative to resolve global deadlocks on climate change, HIV AIDs, and other crises? This paper explores what such a network might look like in 2015, suggesting that think tanks themselves are changing to more open, social networks of experts.
Governance and Multistakeholder Processes (2004) (PDF - 756 kb)
Research from IISD's Sustainable Commodities Initiative, exploring the concepts of governance and institutions in the context of non-state, cross-sectoral initiatives: Who gives them policy making authority?; How is legitimacy obtained?; and What is the duration of authority and legitimacy?
 Don Maclean, IISD Associate