Creative Coercion in Post-Katrina New Orleans: a Neighborhood Strategy to Address Conflict in Networks

Main Article Content

Stephen Danley


The study of relationships within networks has traditionally focused on concepts such as cooperation, collaboration and other forms of partnership (Brown & Keast 2003). The assumption has been that actors in a network have shared vision and are working together. This study tests that idea by using mixed methods and ethnography to examine 15 neighborhood associations in post-Katrina New Orleans, and 71 of their relationships within policy networks. Contrary to our typical understanding of networks, neighborhood associations engage not just in partnership, but also in power struggles. When excluded from policy networks, neighborhood associations use creative coercion to ensure their voice is heard. Facing a power deficit, these associations look for informal levers to assert themselves into policy negotiation. The result is creative and coercive measures, such as co-opting elections, bribery, blackmail and what one neighborhood activist calls ‘guerrilla warfare.’ These conflicts force a reconsideration of networks. Networks are not solely homes of collaborative action; they are also the location of sharp power struggles over priorities.


Article Details

Articles (refereed)
Author Biography

Stephen Danley, Rutgers-Camden University

Assistant Professor, Department of Public Policy and Administration, Rutgers-Camden University


• Ahlers, D. & Hummel, R., (2007) ‘How a Community can Spearhead Successful Disaster Recovery.’ Available: [2009, 3/6/2009] .

• Alinsky, S.D. (1971) Rules for radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals, Vintage, New York, New York.

• Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge.

• Arnold, J.L. (1979) ‘The Neighborhood and City Hall’, Journal of Urban History, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 3-30.

• Bingham, L.B., Nabatchi, T. & O'Leary, R. (2005) ‘The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government’, Public Administration Review, vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 547-558.

• Blumler, J.G. & Kavanagh, D. (1999) ‘The third age of political communication: Influences and features’, Political Communication, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 209-230.

• Blyth, M. & Katz, R. (2005) ‘From catch-all politics to cartelisation: The political economy of the cartel party’, West European Politics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 33-60.

• Bogason, P. & Musso, J.A. (2006) "The democratic prospects of network governance", The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3-18.

• Brown, K.A. & Keast, R.L. (2003) ‘Citizen-government engagement: community connection through networked arrangements’, Asian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 107-132.

• Castells, M. (1996) Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 1 No. 996, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

• Chamlee-Wright, E. (2008) ‘Signaling effects of commercial and civil society in post-Katrina reconstruction’, International Journal of Social Economics, vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 615-626.

• Cigler, B. (2001) ‘Multiorganizational, multisector, and multicommunity organizations: setting the research agenda’, in Mandell, M. (ed) Getting Results through Collaboration: Networks and Network Structures for Public Policy and Management. Quorum Books, Westport, CT, pp. 71-85.

• Crozier, M. (2008) ‘Listening, Learning, Steering: New Governance, Communication and Interactive Policy Formation’, Policy & Politics, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 3-19.

• Dahl, R.A. (1961) Who governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

• Daka-Mulwanda, V., Thornburg, K.R., Filbert, L. & Klein, T. (1995) ‘Collaboration of Services for Children and Families: A Synthesis of Recent Research and Recommendations’, Family Relations, pp. 219-223.

• De Tocqueville, A. (1835) Democracy in America. Gateways Edition, Regenery Publishing, Washington DC.

• Forrest, J.B. (2003) ‘Networks in the Policy Process: An International Perspective’, International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 591-608.

• Foucault, M., (1978). The history of sexuality. New York: Pantheon Books.

• Gaventa, J. (2003) ‘Power after Lukes: an overview of theories of power since Lukes and their application to development’,Brighton: Participation Group, Institute of Development Studies.

• Goldsmith, S. & Eggers, W.D. (2004) Governing by Network: The new shape of the public sector, Brookings Inst Press, Washington DC.

• Gray, B., (1989) ‘Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-Party Problems’, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

• Hogue, T. (1993) ‘Community-based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied’, Oregon State University, Oregon Center for Community Leadership, .

• Hunter, F. (1969) Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers, University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.

• Jones, C., Hesterly, W.S. & Borgatti, S.P. (1997) ‘A general theory of network governance: Exchange conditions and social mechanisms’, The Academy of Management Review, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 911-945.

• Katz, R.S. & Mair, P. (1995) ‘Changing Models of Party Organization and Party Democracy’, Party politics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 5-28.

• Kooiman, J. (1993) Modern Governance: New Government-society Interactions, SAGE Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA.

• Lawson, H. (2002) "Improving Conceptual Clarity, Accuracy, and Precision and Facilitating More Coherent Institutional Designs", in The Contribution of Interprofessional Collaboration and Comprehensive Services to Teaching and Learning, The National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, pp. 30-45.

• Litterer, J.A. (1973) The Analysis of Organizations, Wiley Press, Chichester, New York..

• Lukes, S. (1974) Power: A Radical View, McMillan Press, London.

• Mandell, M. & Steelman, T. (2003) ‘Understanding what can be accomplished through interorganizational innovations The importance of typologies, context and management strategies’, Public Management Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 197-224.

• Mayhew, D.R. (2002) America's Congress: Actions in the Public Sphere, James Madison through Newt Gingrich, Yale University Press, New Haven.

• Melaville, A.I. & Blank, M.J. (1991) What It Takes: Structuring Interagency Partnerships to Connect Children and Families with Comprehensive Services, Education and Human Services Consortium, Washington DC.

• Mulford, C.L. & Rogers, D.L. (1982) ‘Definitions and models’, in Rogers, D., & Whetten, D. (ed) Interorganizational coordination: Theory, Research and Implementation, pp. 9-31.

• Ornstein, N.J. & Mann, T.E. (2000) The Permanent Campaign and its Future, American Enterprise Institur\te Press.

• Provan, K.G. & Kenis, P. (2008) ‘Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness’, Journal of public administration research and theory, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 229-252.

• Rhodes, R. A., W., (1996) ‘The New Governance: Governing without Government’, Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 4, pp. 652-667.

• Scott, J. C. (1985). Weapons of the weak everyday forms of peasant resistance. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• Sørensen, E. & Torfing, J. (2005) ‘The democratic anchorage of governance networks’, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 195.

• Stablein, (1996) Handbook of Organization Studies, Sage Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA.

• Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as theory: five propositions’, International Social Science Journal, vol. 50, no. 155, pp. 17-28.

• Torfing, J. (2005) ‘Governance network theory: towards a second Generation’, European Political Science, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 305-315.

• Winer, M. & Ray, K. (1994) Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustaining, and Enjoying the Journey. Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, St. Paul, MN.