Introduction

Hierarchies, markets and networks are well-established ‘models of coordination’ or ‘governing structures’, with different coordinating mechanisms. “If it is price competition that is the central coordinating mechanism of the market and administrative orders that of hierarchies, then it is trust and cooperation that centrally articulates networks” (Thompson et al, 1991, p 15).

New Labour's main operating code rejects both state hierarchies, or the ‘command-and-control’ of Old Labour, and the market mechanisms of the last Conservative government, and favours instead a Third Way of ‘intermediate’ or ‘network’ forms of organisation (for example, Clarence and Painter, 1998; Exworthy et al, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1999; Powell, 1999a, 1999b; Rhodes, 2000). However, this is a rather stylised picture of markets, hierarchies and networks. The claim that the original post-war classic, and the Conservative restructured, welfare states can be seen as hierarchies and markets respectively, represents something of an oversimplification; ‘pure’ forms of hierarchy and market were rare (Exworthy et al, 1999). In a path-breaking account, Le Grand and Bartlett (1993) argued that much of Conservative social policy was more accurately seen in terms of ‘quasi-markets’ that differed from ‘real’ markets in a number of important respects. Exworthy et al (1999) followed this line in claiming that it is more accurate to talk in terms of ‘quasi-hierarchies’ and ‘quasi-networks’.

Sako (1992, pp 22-3) claims that networks, strategic alliances and other intermediate forms of organisation have become a fashionable topic, but also that this area of study has recently suffered from excessive neologism. Although New Labour rarely uses the term ‘network’, there have been many references to the key characteristics of networks (for example, Rhodes, 1997, 2000; Clarence and Painter, 1998). Many terms have been used by New Labour to characterise their ‘collaborative discourse’ (Clarence and Painter, 1998), such as partnership, inter-agency working, cooperation, coordination, ‘joined-up government’ and ‘seamless services’ (for example, DoH, 1997, 1998b, 1998c, 1998d, 1999, 2000; see also Hudson et al, 1999; Huxham, 2000; Ling, 2000; Balloch and Taylor, 2001a, 2001b). Cognate terms appear to include horizontal government (Peters, 1998), multi-organisational partnerships (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998), collaborative governance (Huxham, 2000), inter-agency collaboration (Hudson et al, 1999), networks (Kirkpatrick, 1999), and inter-organisational relationships and networks (Hage and Alter, 1997). Most writers, therefore, roughly equate a number of terms, including networks, with partnerships.