Policy network analysis

Policy network analysis is a field of research in political science focusing on the links and interdependence between government's sections and other societal actors, aiming to understand the policy-making process and public policy outcomes.[1]

Definition of policy networks

Although the number of definitions is almost as large as the number of approaches of analysis, Rhodes[1]:426 aims to offer a minimally exclusive starting point: "Policy networks are sets of formal institutional and informal linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared if endlessly negotiated beliefs and interests in public policy making and implementation."

Possible typologies of policy networks

As Thatcher[2]:391 notes, policy network approaches initially aimed to model specific forms of state-interest group relations, without giving exhaustive typologies.

Policy communities vs. Issue networks

The most widely used paradigm of the 1970s and 1980s only analyzed two specific types of policy networks: policy communities and issue networks. Justifications of the usage of these concepts were deducted from empirical case studies.[2]

Policy Communities in which you refer to relatively slowly changing networks defining the context of policy-making in specific policy segments. The network links are generally perceived as the relational ties between bureaucrats, politicians and interest groups. The main characteristic of policy communities – compared to issue networks – is that the boundaries of the networks are more stable and more clearly defined. This concept was studied in the context of policy-making in the United Kingdom.[2]

In contrast, issue networks – a concept established in literature about United States government - refer to a looser system, where a relatively large number of stakeholders are involved. Non-government actors in these networks usually include not only interest group representatives but also professional or academic experts. An important characteristic of issue network is that membership is constantly changing, interdependence is often asymmetric and – compared to policy communities – it is harder to identify dominant actors.[3]

Other possible typologies

New typological approaches appeared in the early 1990s and late 1980s with the aim of grouping policy networks into a system of mutually exclusive and commonly exhaustive categories.[2] One possible logic of typology is based on the degree of integration, membership size and distribution of resources in the network. This categorization - perhaps most importantly represented by R. A. W. Rhodes - allows to complement policy communities and issue networks with categories like professional network, intragovernmental network and producer network.[4] Other approaches identify categories based distinct patterns of state-interest group relations. Patterns include corporatism and pluralism, iron triangles, subgovernment and clientelism while the differentiation is based membership, stability and sectorality.[5]

Roles of policy network analysis

As the field of policy network analysis grew since the late 20th century, scholar developed competing descriptive, theoretical and prescriptive accounts - each type gives different specific content for the term policy network and uses different research methodologies as well.[1]

Descriptive usage

For several authors, policy networks describe specific forms of government policy-making. The three most important forms are interest intermediation, interorganizational analysis and governance.[1]

Interest intermediation

An approach developed from the literature on US pluralism, policy networks are often analyzed in order to identify the most important actors influencing governmental decision-making. From this perspective, a network-based assessment is useful to describe power positions, the structure of oligopoly in political markets and the institutions of interest negotiation.[1]

Interorganizational analysis

Another branch of descriptive literature – emerged from the study of European politics – aims to understand the interdependency in decision-making between formal political institutions and the corresponding organizational structures. This viewpoint emphasizes the importance of overlapping organizational responsibilities and the distribution of power in shaping specific policy outcomes.[6]

Governance

A third direction of descriptive scholarship is to describe general patterns of policy-making – the formal institutions of power-sharing between government, independent state bodies and the representatives of employer and labor interests.[7][8]

Theoretical usage

The two most important theoretical approaches aiming to understand and explain actor's behavior in policy networks are the following: power dependence and rational choice.[1]

Power dependence

In power dependence models, policy networks are understood as mechanism of exchanging resources between organizations in the networks. The dynamic of exchange is determined by the comparative value of resources (f.e. legal, political or financial in nature) and individual capacities to deploy them in order create better bargaining positions and achieve higher degrees of autonomy.[1]

Rational Choice

In policy network analysis, theorists complement standard rational choice arguments with the insights of new institutionalism. This "actor-centered institutionalism" is used to describe policy networks as structural arrangements between relatively stable sets of public and private players. Rational choice theorists identify links between network actors as channels to exchange multiple goods (f.e. knowledge, resources and information).[1]

Prescriptive usage

The prescriptive literature on policy networks focuses on the phenomenon's role in constraining or enabling certain governmental action. From this viewpoint, networks are seen as central elements to of the realm of policy-making at least partially defining the desirability of status quo – thus a possible target of reform initiatives.[1] The three most common network management approaches are the following: instrumental (a focus on altering dependency relation), institutional (a focus on rules, incentives and culture) and interactive (a focus on communication and negotiation).[9]

New directions and debates

As Rhodes[1] points it out, there is a long-lasting debate in the field about general theories predicting the emergence of specific networks and corresponding policy outcomes depending on specific conditions. No theories succeeded in achieving this level of generality yet and some scholars even doubt the possibility of it. Other debates are focusing on describing and theorizing change in policy network. While some political scientists state that this might not be possible,[10] some scholars made efforts towards the understanding of policy network dynamics. One example is the advocacy coalition framework which aims to analyze the effect of commonly represented beliefs (in coalitions) on policy outcomes.[1][11]

See also

Further reading

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Rhodes, R.A.W. (2008), "Policy network analysis", in Moran, Michael; Rein, Martin; Goodin, editor-Robert E., The Oxford handbook of public policy, Oxford New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 425–443, ISBN 9780199548453. Preview.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Thatcher, Mark (October 1998). "The development of policy network analyses: from modest origins to overarching frameworks". Journal of Theoretical Politics. Sage. 10 (4): 389–416. doi:10.1177/0951692898010004002.
  3. ↑ Heclo, Hugh (1978), "Issue networks and the executive establishment", in King, Anthony, The new American political system, Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, pp. 87–124, ISBN 9780844733159.
  4. ↑ Marsh, David; Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992). Policy networks in British government. Oxford Oxford New York: Clarendon Press Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780198278528.
  5. ↑ Jordan, Grant; Schubert, Klaus (February 1992). "A preliminary ordering of policy network labels". European Journal of Political Research. Wiley. 21 (1–2): 7–27. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00286.x.
  6. ↑ Rhodes, R.A.W. (1999). Control and power in central-local government relations (revised ed.). Aldershot, Hants, England Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate. ISBN 9781840147780.
  7. ↑ Nielsen, Klaus; Pedersen, Ove K. (June 1998). "The negotiated economy: ideal and history". Scandinavian Political Studies. Wiley. 11 (2): 101. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9477.1988.tb00361.x. Text.
  8. ↑ Hall, Peter A.; Soskice, David W. (2001). Varieties of capitalism : the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford England New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199247752.
  9. ↑ Kickert, Walter J.M.; Klijn, Erik-Hans; Koppenjan, Joop F.M. (1997). Managing complex networks strategies for the public sector. London Thousand Oaks, California: Sage. ISBN 9781446217658.
  10. ↑ Richardson, Jeremy (December 2000). "Government, interest groups and policy change". Political Studies. Wiley. 48 (5): 1006–1025. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00292.
  11. ↑ Nedergaard, Peter (June 2008). "The reform of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy: an advocacy coalition explanation". Policy Studies. Taylor and Francis. 29 (2): 179–195. doi:10.1080/01442870802033464.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 3/28/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.