In this chapter we will draw together some of the main themes and issues addressed in the previous chapters and return to some key questions and difficulties signalled previously. In particular we seek to answer, or at least tackle, the very basic questions invested in the object of this analysis – network governance. That is, can we make a case for the shift from government to governance, at least in relation to education, and thus can we distinguish between networks and network governance (Parker, 2007, p 114)? Concomitantly, can we specify the work of network governance in relation to the examples presented? In other words, how does governance get done? Our research and analysis work has sought both to trace networks – their social morphology – and identify networking – the work within and of networks. Börzel (1997, p 1) says that that is what ‘a theoretically ambitious policy network approach’ must do. Crucially, as Parker suggests, ‘in order for networks to be regarded as a form of governance they must play a role in steering, setting directions and influencing behaviour’ (Parker, 2007, p 114). We believe that we have been able to offer plenty of evidence in our examples of all three (see below). Parker (p 115) goes on to elaborate the grounds for identifying ‘networked governance’ in Table 6.1.

Sharing, connectivity, reflexivity, density, breadth and trust are the key indicators here of functioning governance networks. We will discuss these and other factors in relation to the networks and social relations we have outlined. We will also return to the issue of the changing role and modalities of the state and changes in its steering capacity and think again about how ‘new’ all of this is. Finally, we argue here that a more nuanced and precise and analytically sophisticated representation of the specificities of network governance is offered by the concept of heterarchy.

Sharing, connectivity, reflexivity, density, breadth and Trust

In the final analysis it is you, the reader, who must decide whether we have made a plausible case for network governance. Nonetheless, we would assert that the existence of new, dynamic and evolving policy networks has been made clear enough.