Networks that form policy: the case of pension reform

2018

Government intervention in the public sphere has undergone a great transformation throughout its history. The concept of " governance networks " encompasses one of the latest efforts from political sciences to understand the process of creating and implementing public policies. This document aims to clarify the theoretical and practical implications of the concept of " governance networks " in regards to future research agendas around it. The conceptual debate suggests the need to analyze its democratic implications.

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2012

This article investigates the role of resource dependence in explaining the social structure of policy networks while controlling for the effects of microstructure, such as the tendency for networks to display reciprocity and/or transitive closure. While previous studies have analyzed resource dependence as a factor in decision making in policy networks, surprisingly little is known about the effects of these social factors on the structure of policy networks due, in part, to the statistical challenges in modeling them precisely. However, the recent development of the exponential random graph model technique, a stochastic method for studying social structure, has made it possible to overcome the statistical hurdles. This study draws on longitudinal data collected from an adult basic education policy network during 1998 and 2005 in a state to which we gave the pseudonym "Newstatia. " The findings suggest that decreased resource munificence may cause network segmentation and change the composition and nature of relationships among policy network members. These findings confirm our prior expectation that policy network activity and structure is animated by a desire to control resources. In addition, the observed policy network structure is greatly influenced by balancing operations undertaken by resource holders (e.g., legislators and state agencies) and resource seekers (e.g., service providers) and the generic social pressures for reciprocity and transitivity. INTroDuCTIoN For decades, scholars have recognized that public organizations with an enduring interest in a particular substantive policy area and their senior public managers are enmeshed in informal webs of relationships. More recently termed "policy networks," these webs are an alternate forum for policy deliberation and policy making. Policy networks provide a structure within which senior public managers play a role in guiding decision processes. Numerous studies on policy networks have suggested that resource We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Deneen M. Hatmaker (University of Connecticut) to the original collection and collation of the data used for this study. An abridged, early version of the paper was published in the 2009 Academy of Management Annual Meeting Proceedings. We also would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of JPART for their invaluable comments.

Political Studies, 2000

This article has two aims. First, we develop a dialectical model of the role that policy networks play in any explanation of policy outcomes. Our model is based upon a critique of existing approaches and emphasizes that the relationship between networks and outcomes is not a simple, unidimensional one. Rather, we argue that there are three interactive or dialectical relationships involved between: the structure of the network and the agents operating within them; the network and the context within which it operates; and the network and the policy outcome. Second, we use this model to help analyse and understand continuity and change in British agricultural policy since the 1930s. Obviously, one case is not sufficient to establish the utility of the model, but the case does illustrate both that policy networks can, and do, affect policy outcomes and that, in order to understand how that happens, we need to appreciate the role played by the three dialectical relationships highlighted in our model.

Journal of Public Policy, 2009

Given its complex multilevel governance structures, the European Union (EU) is an obvious focus for studying policy networks as informal coordination mechanisms between state and non-state or public and private actors. The importance of this research field has increased exponentially with the EU's spatial expansion, its institutional deepening, its forays into new policy areas and its growing role as an international actor. Research on policy networks at first focussed on analysing changes in national political systems and policy-making in particular policy fields. This approach is now being applied more systematically and comprehensively to understanding the transformation of EU governance during the last decade. Concurrently, the widespread belief until well into the s that European integration was a system of policy-making 'sui generis' that could not be fruitfully compared to anything else no longer has much support. The EU is increasingly contrasted and compared vertically, to national political systems and forms of governance in its member-states, especially federal states such as Germany. At the same time, new research is developing that compares the EU and its policy-making to the United States. However, as the articles in this special issue demonstrate, crucial dimensions of the role of policy networks in EU governance are distinctive. Thus, as Tanja Börzel and Karen Heard-Lauréote show, EU actors have become increasingly preoccupied with the EU's alleged 'democratic deficit'. In the wake of the Commission crisis of  and the failed referendums in France and the Netherlands in  and Ireland in , this has induced the Commission to invest great hopes in policy networks as means of enhanced input legitimacy through increased participation of civil society organisations in policy-making. Originally, policy networks were thought to contribute to output legitimacy by improving the quality of policies through expert input and the involvement of economic actors. They had never been expected to enhance the democratic input quality of governance at the national level. Indeed, as Börzel and Heard-Lauréote argue, they might not be able to do so at EU level, or only to a limited extent and possibly, at the expense of efficiency and output legitimacy.

European Journal of Political Research, 1992

In this study the formation of policy networks is analysed. Theoretically the policy network is seen as a tool for actors to advance their goals in order to ensure that the policy decisions correspond as closely as possible with their own policy preferences. The possession of information has a major role in this process. The empirical analysis shows that the tendency towards mutual relations in the policy network is strong. Network ties are also more likely to be directed to those actors with similar overall policy preferences. Thus, relations in the policy network can be seen mainly as attempts to create a reasonable level of trust (or "political capital") among pairs of actors. Once the trust relationship is established influence is used in specific instances when the two actors disagree. On the whole, political decision-makers are more willing to accept "one-sided" incoming information contacts. However, they are also likely to engage in "bolstering" i.e. listening mostly to information from actors sharing the decisionmakers' own preferences.

2003

The title was inspired by Salancik (1995) who in a short review essay ("Wanted: A Good Network Theory of Organization") formulated the need for a network theory of organizations, i.e. a theory that explains the characteristics of organizations by the characteristics of the networks they are embedded in.

Health policy and planning, 2016

Policy researchers have used various categories of variables to explain why policies change, including those related to institutions, interests and ideas. Recent research has paid growing attention to the role of policy networks-the actors involved in policy-making, their relationships with each other, and the structure formed by those relationships-in policy reform across settings and issues; however, this literature has largely ignored the theoretical integration of networks with other policy theories, including the '3Is' of institutions, interests and ideas. This article proposes a conceptual framework integrating these variables and tests it on three cases of policy change in Burkina Faso, addressing the need for theoretical integration with networks as well as the broader aim of theory-driven health policy analysis research in low- and middle-income countries. We use historical process tracing, a type of comparative case study, to interpret and compare documents and in-...

Political Studies, 2001

Our recent article in this journal has provoked a series of responses to which we reply here. However, these responses are very different in tone and content and this is reflected in the balance of this reply. Dowding attacks our work in the context of a claim that, essentially, there is only one way to do social science. This critique is so fundamental that it is the focus of the first section of this reply. In contrast, Raab is mainly concerned to argue that he and McPherson cannot be classified as taking an anthropological approach to networks; indeed, he claims that their work adopts a position which has similarities with our own. Finally, Evans attempts to build upon our article, using the work of Benson, to develop what he regards as a more adequate dialectical approach. We shall deal with both of these contributions in the second section of this reply, in which we consider Dowding's more specific criticisms of our work.

The main aim of this paper is to answer and discuss whether policy analysis is still relevant in the age of complex governance networks. This paper also proposes an ideal typical definition of policy analysis, which is that a government can solve society’s problems based on the good advice provided by expert policy analysts and can measure the impacts of its policies. This paper argues that policy analysis and policymaking processes are more complex than the ideal type suggested by policy analysis and that governance is a better term than policy to capture this complexity and better reflect the realities of our times. To make the case for these arguments, this article first traces the history of policy analysis then cites the observations of governance: that in today’s world governments are not unified actors that can make cohesive decisions, let alone their decisions being implemented as intended, and that governmental actors do not necessarily represent the “public interest” or the collective will of the society. This paper further argues that the primary role of governmental actors should be to enhance the capacities of governmental and non-governmental actors to self-organize in order to generate desired outcomes.