El desempeño de las redes de gobernanza para la promoción de la cultura cívica a nivel local. El caso de la Estrategia Nacional de Cultura Cívica (ENCCÍVICA) 2017-2023.

Felix Chamu Nicanor; Miguel Ángel Ramírez Hernández

doi:10.33110/inceptum.v17i33.424

Authors

Felix Chamu Nicanor UNIVERSIDAD MICHOACANA DE SAN NICOLÁS DE HIDALGO
Miguel Ángel Ramírez Hernández

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33110/inceptum.v17i33.424

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present an analytical framework for evaluating the performance of governance networks dedicated to the promotion of civic culture at the local level. The foregoing, based on the review and analysis of the literature on governance network management. The main findings suggest that governance networks emerged as a new public management paradigm to address complex problems, the governance network management approach establishes that network management strategies explain network performance, and the governance model network management can be applied to measuring the performance of policies to promote democratic culture such as the ENCCÍVICA (2017-2023) at the local level.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Agranoff, R. (2006). Inside Collaborative Networks: Ten Lessons of Public Managers. Public Administration Review, 66,56-65.

Bueren, E. M., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. F. (2003). Dealing with wicked problems in networks: Analyzing an enviromental debate from network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and eory, 13(2), 193-212.

CTS-ENCCÍVICA. (2021). Informe Anual de Actividades 2021.México : Comité Técnico de Seguimiento de la Estrategia Nacional de Cultura Cívica (CTS-ENCCÍVICA).

Dal Molin , M., & Masella , C. (2015). Networks in policy, management and governance: a comparative literature review to stimulate feture research avenues. e journal of management and governance, 20,823-849.

ENCCÍVICA. (2016). Estrategia Nacional de Cultura Cívica 2017-2023. México : Instituto Nacional Electoral (INE).

Fenger , M., & Bekkers, V. (2007). e governance concept in public administration. En Governance and the democratic decit. Assesing the democratic legitimacy of governance practices(págs. 13-33). England: Ashgate Publishing.

Heinrich, C. H. (2012). Measuring public sector performance and effectiveness. En Handbook of Public Administration (págs. 24-36). Londres: SAGE Publications.

Klijin, E. H., Van Meerjerk, I., & Edenlenbos, J. (2020). How do network characteristics inuence network managers choice of strategies? Public money & Management, 40(2), 149-159.

Klijn, E. H. (2008). Governance and governance networks in europe. Public Management Review, 10(4), 505-225.

Klijn, E. H. (2014). Political Leadership in networks. En e Oxford Handbook of Political Leadership (págs. 403-417). England : Oxford University Press.

Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Governance Networks in the Public Sector.New York : Routledge .

Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). e impact of network management strategies on the outcomes in governance networks. Public Administration,1063-1082.

Klijn, E. H., Ysa, T., Sierra , V., Berman, E., Edelenbos, J., & Chen, D. Y. (2015). e inuence of network management and complexity on network performance in Taiwan, Spain and the Netherlands. Public Management Review, 17 (5), 736-764.

Kline, R. B. (2016 ). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling.New York : e Guildford Press.

Kooiman, J. (1993). Governance and Governability: Using complexity, dynamics and diversity. En Modern Governance. New government-society interactions(págs. 35-48). 1993: SAGE Publications .

Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy. Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.

May, P. J., & Winter, S. C. (2007). Politicians, managers, and street-level bureoacrats: Inuences on policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and eory, 19,453-476.

O ́Toole , L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and Research-Based Agendas. Public Administration, 57(1), 45-52.

Osborne, S. P. (2006). e new public governance. Public Management Review, 8(3), 377-387.

Peters , B. G., & Pierre, J. (1998). Governance without government? Rethinking public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and eory, 8(2), 223-243.

Provan, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414-423.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (1992). Beyond Westminster and Whitehall. Sub-central governments of Britain. London : Routledge.

Rhodes, R. A. W. (2006). Policy Network Analysis. En e Oxford Handbook of Public Policy(págs. 425-447). New York : Oxford University Press.

Sandstrom, A., & Carlsson, L. (2008). Performance of Policy Networks: e Relation between Network Structure and Network Performance. e Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497-524.

Van Meerkerk, I., Edelenbos, J., & Klijn, E. H. (2015). Connective management and governance network performance: the mediating role of throughput legitimacy. FindingsfromsurveyresearchoncomplexwaterprojectsintheNetherlands. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 33(4), 1-24.

Vázquez, C. A. (2013). Redes de acción pública. Una sistematización de sus propiedades estructurales.México: Instituto Nacional de Administración Pública (INAP).