Introduction

Network governance is an increasingly common approach to managing complex problems, including in the context of water and environmental management (Kettl, 2006; Sabatier et al, 2005). One of the most important reasons for this is that networks offer greater capacity to support learning and innovative solutions than do hierarchical approaches (Newig et al, 2010; Innes and Booher, 2010). In understanding how networks function to promote learning, researchers have paid considerable attention to the role of network managers in structuring dialogue and exchange of knowledge among network participants so as to build a shared understanding of problems (Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004; Weber and Khademian, 2008). However, only limited research has been conducted on how network management is affected by the larger institutional context. Hierarchy continues to play an important role in governance arrangements today, and top-down, formal requirements imposed upon networks can constrain informal dynamics that are so crucial for learning (Currie and Suhomlinova, 2006; Lejano and Ingram, 2009).

Network managers may play an important role in facilitating the interface between hierarchy and collaboration. In this chapter, I compare how network managers have supported learning in two water planning networks that are part of a statewide programme in California to promote regional-scale collaboration among water stakeholders. I find that within a centralised network structure, network managers can help establish conditions for learning while also complying with state requirements. I identify three specific ways in which a trusted, central entity can support learning in the context of hierarchy: 1) brokering across state interests and the needs of stakeholders in the region; 2) developing processes that transform external requirements into learning opportunities; and 3) supporting the development of informal dynamics in addition to ensuring stability through rule compliance.

Understanding these dynamics is important for building better knowledge of how collaborative governance operates at multiple scales. Collaboration at a watershed scale is now common as a way to generate more integrated, holistic water management strategies (Gerlak, 2008). However, water systems are often interconnected at larger scales, where hierarchical public agencies continue to play a central role. In order to ‘scale up’ collaborative governance in such settings, we need to better understand how collaboration interfaces with hierarchy, allowing for vertical as well as horizontal coordination (Newig and Fritsch, 2009; Cash et al, 2006).