Table 6.
Factors behind network emergence and effectivenessa
| Category | Factor | Role of factor in network emergence | Role of factor in network effectiveness |
|---|---|---|---|
| Network and actor features | Leadership | Individual champions helped to spark network formation by bringing together actors previously working in isolation (all six cases) | Strong individual leaders provided vision for networks, enabling them to flourish and to raise attention for the conditions they addressed (tobacco control; tuberculosis) |
| Governance | Formalized and centralized governance arrangements facilitated network collective action, although in some instances hampered their adaptability (tuberculosis; tobacco control) | ||
| Composition | Diverse membership—especially inclusion of political leaders outside the health sector—enhanced network influence (maternal survival; tuberculosis; tobacco control) | ||
| Framing strategies | Deficiencies of existing issue frames influenced decisions to organize a network and choices on initial framing (alcohol harm; maternal survival; tobacco control) | Cohesive frames—including clear problem definitions, coherent solutions and compelling reasons to act—unified networks and enhanced their effectiveness (tobacco control; maternal survival; tuberculosis) | |
| Policy environment | Allies and opponents | The existence of strong opponents inspired network mobilization (tobacco control; alcohol harm) | Industry counter-strategies obstructed network efforts (alcohol harm; tobacco control); Allied global movements brought additional attention and resources (tuberculosis—support from the AIDS movement) |
| Funding | Donor funding provided resources that facilitated network expansion (tuberculosis; tobacco control; maternal survival; newborn survival) | ||
| Norms | Existing expectations that states and other entities address the issue or related issues, catalysed network formation (maternal survival; tuberculosis; tobacco control) | Global normative expectations, particularly those advanced by the MDGs, catalysed network expansion and action (maternal survival) | |
| Issue characteristics | Severity | Evidence on the scope and neglect of a condition spurred network formation (all six cases) | Networks successfully developed and deployed evidence on severity to generate resources and attract allies (all six cases) |
| Tractability | New policy solutions or evidence that a problem was potentially surmountable facilitated network formation (tuberculosis; newborn survival; pneumonia) | Networks successfully developed and deployed evidence on solutions, resulting in augmented attention and resources (newborn survival; tuberculosis; tobacco control) | |
| Affected groups | Evidence of neglect of a particular population group spurred network formation (newborn survival; maternal survival; pneumonia) | Evidence of neglect of a particular population group facilitated network expansion (newborn survival; maternal survival) |
aCases where the factor worked in a decisively positive direction for the network or condition are in parentheses. An empty box does not imply that the factor is irrelevant. Rather, it indicates that we did not find strong evidence that it played a major causal role in the six cases we selected for investigation.