Network Management and Political Engagement: Rethinking Managerial Roles in Policy Implementation

Network governance has emerged as a central theme in public management and policy imple-mentation research over recent decades. Within this literature, network management is widely regarded as a critical determinant of successful collaborative policy implementation. Accordingly, numerous scholars have conceptualized the tasks performed by network managers and devel-oped typologies of management strategies. Among the most influential contributions, Agranoff and McGuire (2001) categorize network management tasks into four core activities – activating, mobilizing, framing, and synthesizing – while Klijn et al. (2010) distinguish between institutional design strategies and process management strategies, such as connecting and arranging ac-tors. These typologies primarily emphasize the management of interactions among policy im-plementers across sectors (i.e., public administration and non-state actors), including the estab-lishment of rules and procedures that structure collaboration. However, research on policy implementation suggests that policy success also depends on ef-fective and professional interactions between policy implementers and the political level, namely politicians. This dimension has received limited attention in the network management literature. In this context, the concept of political capacity highlights the competencies of policy implement-ers to actively manage their relationship with politicians (Stauffer & Hadorn, 2025). More specifi-cally, political capacity “helps to obtain and sustain political support for policy actions” (Wu et al., 2015, p. 168). Despite its relevance, this aspect remains underexplored in existing network management typologies. Drawing on empirical insights from the Swiss national network on mental health, this paper ad-dresses this gap by proposing an extension of established network management frameworks. It argues that network managers play a crucial role not only in coordinating interactions within governance networks but also in consolidating the needs and interests of network members and strategically leveraging them in the political arena. By explicitly integrating political capacity into network management typologies, the paper contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the activities required for effective policy implementation in complex governance settings. References: Agranoff, R., & McGuire, M. (2001). Big questions in public network management rese-arch. Journal of public administration research and theory, 11(3), 295-326. Klijn, E. H., Steijn, B., & Edelenbos, J. (2010). The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public administration, 88(4), 1063-1082. Stauffer, B., & Hadorn, S. (2025). Political involvement in street‐level policy implementation as a two‐way relationship—The effect of policy capacity. Australian Journal of Public Administra-tion, 84(4), 628-645. Wu, X., Ramesh, M., & Howlett, M. (2015). Policy capacity: A conceptual framework for under-standing policy competences and capabilities. Policy and society, 34(3-4), 165-171. Note: Assignment to Panel "Collaborative Governance: Policymaking and Cooperation in a Complex World"