Conference Agenda

Governments increasingly rely on self-organizing governance arrangements—particularly collaborative networks—to address complex and cross-sectoral policy challenges. Meta-governance—often defined as the soft steering of these arrangements, or the governance of governance—has emerged as a key concept in both practice and scholarship. Yet it remains analytically fuzzy and inconsistently used across the literature, especially at the intersection of network governance and public policy.

This paper responds to that challenge by clarifying what meta-governance is—and what it is not. We reposition meta-governance as a design practice within complex governance systems, focusing on how public actors shape the institutional conditions under which f.e. collaborative networks operate and evolve.

Building on the “who-what-how-why” framework (Gjaltema et al., 2020), we propose three extensions:

1) A new archetype: multilevel meta-governance of multiplicity, to account for situations where multiple authorities engage in parallel steering of overlapping arrangements;

2) A fifth dimension: "when", emphasizing the importance of timing and sequencing in shaping governance trajectories (e.g. network maturity, policy phase,...)

3) A clearer focus on intended outcomes, embedding meta-governance in strategic management.

By sharpening the conceptual boundaries and proposing a structured vocabulary, this paper aims to reduce confusion and enable more systematic analysis and comparison of meta-governance practices across self-steering contexts. We frame meta-governance not as a fixed structure or instrument menu, but as a dynamic, adaptive, and context-sensitive process—rooted in institutional complexity and actor diversity.

In doing so, this contribution seeks to connect network governance theory and policy design thinking, and to support future empirical and comparative research into how meta-governance is exercised and experienced in practice. We invite feedback on the practical use of this framework and, in particular, its application to the temporal dimension of soft steering.

This paper investigates the interplay between contextual factors and network leadership strategies within Scotland's innovative Health and Social Care Integration (H&SCI) governance framework. Through rigorous qualitative case-study research—combining thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with local political leaders (councillors) and senior officials (planners and chief officers), alongside content analysis of policy documents from eleven Integration Joint Boards (IJBs)—the study examines how economic constraints, partisan politics, geographical variations, workforce expectations, and political-administrative relationships shape collaborative leadership approaches.

The findings demonstrate that these contextual factors significantly influence the adoption and effectiveness of leadership styles (transformational, democratic, facilitative, servant, laissez-faire, situational) within IJBs. Leaders strategically adapt their approaches to navigate local contingencies, manage political-administrative tensions, and foster stakeholder collaboration. Geographical factors, particularly the urban-rural divide, distinctly influence resource allocation strategies and community engagement practices. Meanwhile, economic pressures and workforce expectations drive leaders towards more inclusive and adaptive governance models to preserve public value despite resource limitations.

The research reveals a critical insight: even within the same policy framework, leadership practices vary substantially due to localised institutional capacities and political cultures. This variation necessitates what we term "contextually-adaptive leadership"—where leaders consciously modulate their styles in response to specific environmental factors. The study advances network governance theory by empirically demonstrating that situational leadership flexibility, explicitly tailored to local contextual dynamics, is essential for effective collaborative governance and sustainable innovation in public services.

These findings offer significant theoretical contributions to understanding the contextual embeddedness of leadership in networked public governance while providing practical insights for policymakers and public managers seeking to enhance collaborative outcomes in integrated service delivery arrangements.

Collaboration is increasingly recognized as a practical and effective approach to addressing complex policy challenges, surpassing the limitations of traditional single-organization frameworks (Ansell & Gash, 2012). In the education sector in South Korea, where educational and general administration operate independently, collaborative governance has become vital for advancing education, fostering regional development, and enhancing the nation’s future competitiveness. The growing demand for educational welfare programs and ongoing discussions on constitutional amendments for local autonomy and decentralization in South Korea highlight the critical importance of collaboration between school districts and local governments. However, despite its significance, empirical studies on these collaborative efforts remain limited.

This study aims to fill this gap by investigating collaborative networks formed through joint projects between school districts and partner organizations, including local governments, across South Korea. Specifically, the study seeks to: (1) examine the key characteristics and temporal trends of these collaborative networks, and (2) explore how factors such as collaboration structures, financial elements, project domains, and regional characteristics influence the sustainability of these initiatives. Particular attention is given to the role of budget allocation processes in shaping and sustaining collaborative efforts, an area that remains under-researched (Ohl, Kim, & Nabatchi., 2023)

Using data from over 3,000 joint projects in the education sector conducted between 2018 and 2024, this research provides valuable empirical insights into the dynamics of collaborative networks in education policy. The findings aim to establish a robust empirical foundation for understanding collaborative governance in education and offer actionable strategies for fostering effective and sustainable educational collaborations.

Network governance has become a prevalent mode of public policy implementation, involving interdependent actors from public, private, and civil society sectors (Maron & Benish, 2022; Wang & Ran, 2023). Within this framework, our research explores the dynamics of network building under conditions of unstable political leadership. Drawing on a longitudinal qualitative study (2016–2022), we investigate the implementation of Impact Bonds (IBs) in France, focusing on the interplay between political actors, public managers, and other stakeholders in the development of a policy-oriented governance network.

While classical models of network modes of governance distinguish between shared governance, lead organization, and network administrative organization (Provan & Kenis, 2008), they often overlook the nuanced roles of public authorities, particularly the distinction between political leadership and public managers. Our study responds to recent calls to better understand network building in practice (van der Woerd et al., 2024) and examines how metagovernance—defined as the governance of governance (Kooiman, 1993) or “the organization of self-organisation” (Sørensen & Torfing, 2009)—develops in contexts where political leadership is unstable.

Empirically, we analyzed a unique case of the French IBs policy through a triangulated qualitative dataset: seven years of participatory observation, 28 semi-structured interviews, and 57 documentary sources. Our findings reveal two distinct phases in the network-building process: (1) an emergent, bottom-up dynamic (2016–2019), and (2) a shift toward more structured and centralized governance (2019–2022). Despite this evolution, a fully centralized Network Administrative Organization was never achieved.

Political instability—frequent changes in political leadership—posed significant constraints to network stabilization. However, these effects were partially mitigated by the development of hybrid instruments that supported coordination and provided continuity. Our analysis highlights the crucial role of such instruments in network building despite institutional volatility.

This study contributes to a practice-based understanding of network building, emphasizing its embeddedness in temporal and political contexts. It also advances the conceptualization of metagovernance by clarifying the differentiated roles of political leaders and public managers, and by showing how governance instruments can serve as stabilizing mechanisms. Ultimately, we argue for a dynamic and context-sensitive approach to network formation and steering, especially in times of political flux