Policy network analysis

Last updated

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]

Contents

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 deduced 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 the combination of policy communities and issue networks with categories like professional network, intragovernmental network and producer network. [4] Other approaches identify categories based on distinct patterns of state-interest group relations. Patterns include corporatism and pluralism, iron triangles, subgovernment and clientelism while the differentiation is based on membership, stability and sectorality. [5]

Roles of policy network analysis

As the field of policy network analysis grew since the late 20th century, scholars developed competing descriptive, theoretical and prescriptive accounts. Each type gives different specific content for the term policy network and uses different research methodologies. [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, which 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 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 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 have succeeded in achieving this level of generality yet and some scholars doubt they ever will. Other debates are focusing on describing and theorizing change in policy networks. While some political scientists state that this might not be possible, [10] other scholars have 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

Related Research Articles

Political science, occasionally called politology, is the scientific study of politics. It is a social science dealing with systems of governance and power, and the analysis of political activities, political thoughts, political behavior, and associated constitutions and laws.

Public policy is a course of action created and/or enacted, typically by a government, in response to public, real-world problems. Beyond this broad definition, public policy has been conceptualized in a variety of ways.

Advocacy is an activity by an individual or group that aims to influence decisions within political, economic, and social institutions. Advocacy includes activities and publications to influence public policy, laws and budgets by using facts, their relationships, the media, and messaging to educate government officials and the public. Advocacy can include many activities that a person or organization undertakes including media campaigns, public speaking, commissioning and publishing research. Lobbying is a form of advocacy where a direct approach is made to legislators on a specific issue or specific piece of legislation. Research has started to address how advocacy groups in the United States and Canada are using social media to facilitate civic engagement and collective action.

New institutionalism or neo-institutionalism is an approach to the study of institutions that focuses on the constraining and enabling effects of formal and informal rules on the behavior of individuals and groups.

Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants, activists, and others to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the goals of laws and elected officials. The process is also used in the administration of large organizations with complex policies. It has been defined as the process of "determining which of various policies will achieve a given set of goals in light of the relations between the policies and the goals."

In sociology and organizational studies, institutional theory is a theory on the deeper and more resilient aspects of social structure. It considers the processes by which structures, including schemes, rules, norms, and routines, become established as authoritative guidelines for social behavior. Different components of institutional theory explain how these elements are created, diffused, adopted, and adapted over space and time; and how they fall into decline and disuse.

Evidence-based policy (EBP) is an idea in public policy proposing that policy decisions should be based on, or informed by, rigorously established objective evidence. The implied contrast here is with policymaking based on ideology or 'common sense'. It is also assumed that social goals are best served when scientific evidence is used rigorously and comprehensively to inform decisions, rather than in a piecemeal, manipulated, or cherry-picked manner. The move towards evidence-based policy has its roots in the larger movement towards evidence-based practice, which was prompted by the rise of evidence-based medicine in the 1980s. It is, nevertheless, a controversial idea.

Realism (international relations) International relations theory

Realism is one of the dominant schools of thought in international relations theory, theoretically formalising the Realpolitik statesmanship of early modern Europe. Although a highly diverse body of thought, it is unified by the belief that world politics is always and necessarily a field of conflict among actors pursuing power. The theories of realism are contrasted by the cooperative ideals of liberalism.

In the study of international relations, neoliberalism is a school of thought which believes that states are, or at least should be, concerned first and foremost with absolute gains rather than relative gains to other states. Neoliberalism is a revised version of liberalism. Alongside neorealism, neoliberalism is one of the two most influential contemporary approaches to international relations; the two perspectives have dominated international relations theory since the 1990s.

In international relations, institutionalism comprises a group of differing theories on international relations (IR). Functionalist and neofunctionalist approaches, regime theory, and state cartel theory have in common their focus on the role of formal and informal rules, norms, practices, and conventions for international politics.

Historical institutionalism (HI) is a new institutionalist social science approach that emphasizes how timing, sequences and path dependence affect institutions, and shape social, political, economic behavior and change. Unlike functionalist theories and some rational choice approaches, historical institutionalism tends to emphasize that many outcomes are possible, small events and flukes can have large consequences, actions are hard to reverse once they take place, and that outcomes may be inefficient. So-called "critical junctures" may set in motion events that are hard to reverse, because of issues related to path dependency. Historical institutionalists tend to focus on history to understand why specific events happen.

Foreign policy analysis (FPA) is a branch of political science dealing with theory development and empirical study regarding the processes and outcomes of foreign policy.

Institutionalist political economy, also known as institutional political economy or IPE, refers to a body of political economy, thought to stem from the works of institutionalists such as Thorstein Veblen, John Commons, Wesley Mitchell and John Dewey. It emphasizes the impact of historical and socio-political factors on the evolution of economic practices, often opposing more rational approaches. In the political sense, this implies the influences actors like the state have on socio-economic practices and the shaping of institutions via political decision-making.

Network governance is "interfirm coordination that is characterized by organic or informal social system, in contrast to bureaucratic structures within firms and formal relationships between them. The concepts of privatization, public private partnership, and contracting are defined in this context." Network governance constitutes a "distinct form of coordinating economic activity" which contrasts and competes with markets and hierarchies.

Vivien A. Schmidt

Vivien A. Schmidt is an American academic of political science and international relations. At Boston University, she is the Jean Monnet Chair of European Integration Professor of International Relations in the Pardee School of Global Studies, and Professor of Political Science. She is known for her work on political economy, policy analysis, democratic theory, and new institutionalism. She is a 2018 recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship and has been named a Chevalier in the French Legion of Honor.

The technological innovation system is a concept developed within the scientific field of innovation studies which serves to explain the nature and rate of technological change. A Technological Innovation System can be defined as ‘a dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilization of technology’.

R. A. W. Rhodes

Roderick Arthur William Rhodes, usually cited as R. A. W. Rhodes, is a British Professor of Political Science.

Rational Choice Institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical approach to the study of institutions arguing that actors use institutions to maximize their utility. However, actors face rule-based constraints provided by the institutional environment which influence their behaviour. Rational Choice Institutionalism arose initially from the study of congressional behaviour in the U.S. in the late 1970s. It employs analytical tools borrowed from neo-classical economics to explain how institutions are created, the behaviour of political actors within it, and the outcome of strategic interaction.

The term ‘hybrid institution’ is not yet well-established or clearly defined in academic literature. This article therefore begins by offering a definition of the term and a brief discussion of its origins. The article thereafter is structured as a series of examples which demonstrate some of the key characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of hybrid institutions. These examples are mostly limited to environmental issues, and have been selected for their value in introducing the concept of hybrid institutions, in that they encapsulate key themes. There remains a multitude of other examples, and contributions from both environmental and other fields are welcomed and encouraged.

Feminist institutionalism is a new institutionalist approach that looks at how gender norms operate within institutions and how institutional processes construct and maintain gender power dynamics. Feminist institutionalism focuses on how institutions are gendered and how their formal and informal rules play a part in shaping political life. It offers a new way of interpreting the formation of institutions that goes beyond traditional views by accounting for the gendered stigma and gendered outcomes that comes with institutions. As a result, feminist institutionalism is changing the face of various institutions by providing awareness into their very own dynamics of inclusion and exclusion.

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, Robert E. (eds.), 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 . 10 (4): 389–416. doi:10.1177/0951692898010004002. S2CID   154352938.
  3. ↑ Heclo, Hugh (1978), "Issue networks and the executive establishment", in King, Anthony (ed.), 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 . 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 . 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 . 48 (5): 1006–1025. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.00292. S2CID   144940211.
  11. ↑ Nedergaard, Peter (June 2008). "The reform of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy: an advocacy coalition explanation". Policy Studies. 29 (2): 179–195. doi:10.1080/01442870802033464. S2CID   154438310.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.