Page - (000335) - in Knowledge and Networks

333 same county. Informal personal connections seem to be the main channel through which municipalities learn from one another. The high degree of clustering in the municipal learning networks prompted us to examine whether the global network met the criteria for a small-world network, and we have shown that it does. This is important because it suggests that ideas, knowl- edge, and best practices may diffuse through the network of Swedish municipalities despite the relatively parochial learning patterns of many municipalities. One pos- sible mechanism of integration might be regional agglomeration of networks. Using Markov clustering, we found two very large regions in the global network—a north- ern coast-Stockholm region and a southern east–west region. These regions extend the pattern of local clustering to the regional level and may be an important basis for nonparochial learning. Another important mechanism for national integration of municipal learning net- works is the role of important network hubs—key transit points in the flow of knowledge. We found that the county seats play this transit-point role for knowledge diffusion. County seats are comparatively well networked outside the county and most of the county seats are linked to one another on a national basis. Hence, although the high clustering of a small-world network is explained by geographic proximity and county, the global integration of this small world works through county seats to a substantial extent. Using county seats as transit points in order to spread best practices more rapidly might therefore be a promising avenue to improve policies. Interviews suggested that municipalities were quite aware that they learned from geographically proximate neighbors, especially from municipalities within their own county. There may be several reasons why learning is structured this way. Spatially proximate governments often share certain policy-relevant problems, con- ditions and experiences (Karch, 2007). It is also probably easier to develop a closer relationship with neighboring municipalities; the costs of searching for information from these governments might be lower than looking for information elsewhere (Lundin et al., 2015). Anecdotal evidence from our interviews indicates that munic- ipal bureaucrats tend to circulate between positions in municipalities within coun- ties. This could make it easier to establish the necessary personal connections that, according to our findings, are so important for intermunicipal learning. There are also other potential explanations for the distinct county pattern that emerges in our analysis. A first possibility is that the role of counties reflects a deep historical legacy. The counties are very close to the old Swedish provinces, whose history reaches back to the seventeenth century. These provinces had a fair degree of political and cultural autonomy and this historical legacy may have structured long-term patterns of intermunicipal interaction. Moreover, in each county, there is a national government authority (Länstyrelsen) acting as a representative of national government to help align local and national policy. Länstyrelsen are also charged with promoting cooperation and working in the interest of the municipalities within the county. This role presumably requires them to work closely with the municipali- ties in the county. The tendency of municipalities to learn from other municipalities in the same county might be a reflection of the Länstyrelsen’s coordinating role. 15 Learning Networks Among Swedish Municipalities: Is Sweden a Small World?