The following chapter will discuss the main implications of this research. It will be comprised of two parts, the first being a conclusion of the main theoretical and practical implications and the main research question. The second part features a discussion, where the results from the conclusions will be interpreted and the limitations of the research will be discussed.
To recap the main research question, “What factors influence the (effectiveness of) network activities
of mayors in the Netherlands and to what level are their activities effective?”, it can be concluded that
a number of factors has an influence on the (effectiveness of) network activities. Factors that influence the network activities of mayors are the type of challenge the mayor has selected as his most
important.
The first hypothesis has been rejected as the measured difference between the difference of ‘internal’ and ‘external’ challenges on the level of network activities was not significant, a reason for this can be that when considering the ‘internal’ challenge the mayor still needs to cooperate a lot with other stakeholders. The data analysis does however show that mayors who selected the development of social policies as most important challenge on their policy agenda to be significantly less invested in the level of network activities. The reason given in chapter 4.0 analysis is that development of social policies is in the Netherlands typically a case that is handled by one of the Aldermen, whereas other challenges like securing public safety are a case that is almost exclusively handled by mayors
(Karsten, 2014b, p.60). Therefore, it can be assumed that mayors who select the development of social policies as most important challenge on their policy agenda do not pursue as much network activities themselves for that challenge as mayors who select more mayoral-related tasks such as securing public safety or addressing politico-administrative issues. Interesting is that when compared to Europe this does not seem to be the case as became clear in the previous chapter, as the European scores of the level of network activities are almost the same level as the mean score (Denters et al., 2018, p.283). Another aspect that according to one of the mayors has an influence on the type of network activities the mayors pursue is the region the municipality is located in. One of the mayors namely indicated that the region his municipality is located in has an influence on one of the types of network activities, as the usage of the mayoral position to break deadlocks between organisations is something that very rarely happens. However, if located in another region in the Netherlands this might happen more, due to the manner or regional organisation. Moving to what influences the effectiveness of network activities, a multiple linear regression has been done with SPSS to test the second and third
hypotheses. For the second hypothesis, it appears that an increase in the level of network activities has a significantly positive influence on the effectiveness of those activities.
Therefore, the second hypothesis can be confirmed. The reason given in the analysis chapter is that when mayors network more, they are more visible, by that have more goodwill, which in turn could have a positive influence on the effectiveness.
The visibility of a mayor for partners is seen as important by the mayors, as it delivers goodwill, which it is seen as a large factor in public administration. However, one of the mayors also noted that the effect has its limits. A ceiling effect, where something does not get more effective, can occur when a mayor tries to put too much influence on a certain aspect of their network activities.
The third hypothesis that covered the relation between dependencies on partners and the effectiveness of network activities has been rejected. It was discovered through the multiple linear regression that only the internal dependency had a significant relationship with the effectiveness, but this relationship was a positive one. The hypothesis stated that a negative relationship would occur, as a multitude of partners would decrease the effectiveness. However, the opposite seems to be true, as the internal dependency shows a positive relationship with the effectiveness of network activities. It is unclear why only the internal dependency shows a significant positive relation with the effectiveness of network activities. One option might be that complex and varied networks with a range of different actors might offer complimentary sources and partners. This would look at the effectiveness of
dependency from the side that it complements what the mayor cannot do himself. This leaves room for future research, as this was not in the scope of this research.
Lastly, the effectiveness of the network activities. Here, the results from the two interviews were combined with data analysis of the POLLEADER II-survey with the results from the two interviews. It appears that these overlap, as both the results show that the mayors are overwhelmingly positive about the effectiveness of their network activities. Both the mayors in the interviews thought that their network activities were effective. Mayor A thought this as he is more oriented on the network itself and not as much oriented on specific goals he wants to achieve through that network. Mayor B sees that the effectivity of network activities in his municipality has increased over the years, mainly due to being more visible for other actors. The mayors that answered the POLLEADER II-survey were also positive, as the mean score was above the average, indicating that they were above average positive on the effectiveness of their network activities. That the mayors are positive about the effectiveness of their network activities in both the interviews and in the Dutch part of the POLLEADER II-survey also follows the positive attitude found by Denters et al. in their research (2018, p.289).
Discussing the impact of this study, weak and strong points can be identified. As only interviews with two mayors are incorporated, the results produced from those interviews can be considered as very
and qualitative data allows for a more nuanced view, while still holding conclusive views provided by a rich data set. However, an even richer data set would provide a better understanding of the factors that influence network activities pursued by Dutch mayors as the answers of a limited number of mayors are featured in this research. The research and survey done by Karsten et al. (2014) is in that respect already an improvement as it features the answers of more mayors. However, it will remain an ideal to get all of the mayors to fill in a large survey about their work, as they have other tasks to fulfil during a regular week.
A positive thing to note about the mayors in this research is that they are equally spread over the total amount of mayors in terms of municipal size and can thus on that respect being seen as representative. Moreover, this research is to date one of the few that specifically looks at the network activities of Dutch mayors. Other researchers have included Dutch mayors in a European setting or have included networking activities in a wider subject like the state of the mayoral office, almost none have specifically looked exclusively at the state of Dutch mayoral networking activities. Ideas for future research on this topic, even with the same data-set, are plentiful. Other within-country analyses like this research may shed a light on the mayoral network activities in other countries. Of special interest for such a follow- up are the bigger European countries or those with a variety of constitutional settings within their borders, like Germany.
To conclude, the role of ‘connector’ is one that best describes the Dutch mayor. They can be seen everywhere working with stakeholders and partners, which is mandatory in the (social) networked society of today. By their network activities the mayor is of value to all of us living in a municipality:
“The importance you have (as a mayor) is also the relevance that you have for others. In the past, you
had authority due to your hierarchical position and I now increasingly feel to what extent you can help others creates your position.”