ABSTRACT
Existing research on public network effectiveness has largely overlooked the issue of performance stratification in hierarchical systems, failing to adequately answer the critical question, “effective for whom?” Focusing on China’s business environment governance (BEG) networks (2016–2022), this study employs panel fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (Panel fsQCA) to identify which governance configurations—composed of formalized management strategies, network structure, and resource carrying capacity—differentially drive client-level and network-level effectiveness. The findings reveal a stark divergence between two logics: client-level effectiveness is highly dependent on a supportive network structure (especially a large-scale network), whereas network-level effectiveness relies more on active management strategies and resource support (especially performance-based incentives and resource carrying capacity). This disparity provides clear configurational evidence for the performance tensions inherent in hybrid governance systems and demonstrates that the effect of formalization is highly contingent on the effectiveness goal being pursued. We therefore emphasize that understanding network effectiveness requires a multi-level, dynamic analytical framework. It also calls for vigilance against the risk of goal displacement, whereby networks satisfy their superiors while failing to serve their external clients.
ABSTRACT
关于公共网络有效性的既有研究，在很大程度上忽视了等级体制中绩效分层的问题，未能充分回答“对谁有效?”这一关键追问。本研究聚焦中国营商环境治理网络 （2016–2022年），采用面板模糊集定性比较分析方法 （Panel fsQCA），识别由正式化管理策略、网络结构与资源承载力构成的治理组态如何差异性地驱动客户层面有效性与网络层面有效性。研究发现，两种有效性背后存在显著的逻辑分野：客户层面有效性高度依赖于支撑性的网络结构 （尤其是较大的网络规模），而网络层面有效性则更多依赖于积极的管理策略与资源支持 （尤其是绩效激励机制与资源承载力）。这一差异为理解混合治理体系中内在的绩效张力提供了清晰的组态证据，并表明正式化的效果高度取决于所追求的有效性目标。因此，本研究强调，理解网络有效性需要一个多层次、动态的分析框架，同时应警惕目标置换的风险，即网络在满足上级要求的同时，却未能有效服务其外部客户 。