A New Model of Governance 227
organization, and structure its relationships with external actors. Th e second
is the study of networks. Th e research literature on networks emphasizes “the
role of multiple social actors in arrays of negotiation, implementation and ser-
vice delivery” (O’Toole 2000, 276). Given these underpinnings, it is unsurprising
that many of the elements of governance as described by Lynn et al. resemble
elements of traditional public administration. But governance is a broader idea
that synthesizes and pushes forward key ideas from the institutional and network
literatures while also drawing on several other theoretical traditions familiar to
public administration scholars.
Like network theory, Lynn et al.’s concept of governance operates on at least
three distinct levels: the institutional, the organizational, and the technical. At
the institutional level, there are stable formal and informal rules, hierarchies,
boundaries, procedures, regime values, and authority. Understanding institu-
tions draws on several bodies of thought, including public choice, theories con-
cerning the control of the bureaucracy, and the broader theories or philosophies
of government. Th e institutional level of governance is aimed at understanding
the formation, adoption, and implementation of public policy (especially the
latter). At the organizational, or managerial, level of governance are the hier-
archical bureaus, departments, commissions, all the other executive agencies,
and various nongovernmental organizations linked to public authority by con-
tract or by other incentives or mandates. Understanding this level of governance
draws on agency theory, theories of leadership, and network theory. Th e primary
concern at this level is understanding incentives, administrative discretion, per-
formance measures, and civil service (or nongovernmental agency) functioning.
Th e technical level of governance represents the task environment, where public
policy is carried out at the street level. Issues of professionalism, technical com-
petence, motivation, accountability, and performance are the main interests at
the technical level, which draws on analytical techniques (and theories) of effi -
ciency, management, organizational leadership, accountability, incentives, and
performance measurement.
Although their concept and model are obviously not axiomatic theory, Lynn
et al.’s approach to governance immediately clarifi es some important issues for
governance research. Critically, their approach highlights the multilevel nature
of governance, something that is not particularly well refl ected in scholarly re-
search or completely recognized by the advocates of decentralization. Th e out-
come of any large-scale reform, be it good or bad, depends on the decisions
made at various levels of administration and the context in which these deci-
sions are carried out. Th ese implications are clear in Lynn et al.’s presentation of
governance, though they are largely ignored by the architects of reform. Lynn et
al. are calling for studies that attend to the hierarchical system of government or-
ganizations, that use data from multiple sources and multiple levels of analysis,
and that employ methodologies capable of employing these multiple data inputs
(Roderick, Jacob, and Bryk 2000).