You are on page 1of 7

There are many different approaches to the policy network.

The American literature


speaks about interest groups and describes it with Lowi’s (1969) famous “iron triangle”,
metaphor for a closed and powerful circle of control at sub-governmental level.
In the British literature Richardson and Jordan consider the prevalence of interpersonal
relationship over the structural relation inside a network. An interesting evolution has
Rhodes conceptualization on policy network: in 1981 Rhodes’ point of view was that the
structural relations between political institutions are prevalent over the interpersonal
ones. In 1992 Rhodes’ collaboration with Marsh results into a new insight presenting
what I would call an “ecological theory”, that takes into account both influences
exerted on policy outcomes by the sectoral and the sub-sectoral aspects of networks, in
other words: both the structure and the interpersonal relations.

Policy maker, policy making process and networks

The interaction and the bargaining process between the policy maker and the networks
can be more easily understood when we see them as two actors interdependently acting
on the same stage.
The policy maker has the power to access resources and to distribute them to various
needs expressed by networks. The networks have the power to attribute or to alter the
access of the policy maker to this privilege (of accessing and distributing the resources).
Here the bargaining power of each part comes into stage. The policy maker is looking for
a future where he can secure his privileges. The network is looking and asking for a
decision that has as effect a policy change that suits its own goals and agenda.
In a democratic society the policy maker secures its future privilege by assuring future re-
election. This re-election is reinforced by a positive public opinion that comes from
policies perceived as beneficial by society and by a political support from networks. Each
part of the equation is equally important, thus a policy maker must take both of them into
account. The only problem is that the interest of the two – public opinion and a specific
network agenda – could get into contradiction to each other. And here the policy maker
should deal with the eternal dilemma of running with the hare and hunting with the
hounds: to satisfy specific interests of networks and to keep the public electoral support
by satisfying social, public needs. Sometimes these two types of interests can differ and
thus compete for a decision on their favor under the principle of exclusion (only one of
two interests may get the favorable decision). A special type of network is the self-
governing community with varied public and private constituents. This type of network
enables the dialogue between state and citizens. From here emerges a new structure being
called by Rhodes (1997) with the term of “governance”. The main benefits of self-
governing networks is seen by Cohen and Rogers (1992) as “an important vector of
pluralism and civic culture” (cited in ed. McLaverty, 2002, p.103)

The traditional policy maker is expected, according to Vickers (1995, p.130) to know
how to balance and how to optimize. The policy decision must satisfy the existing needs
– that usually are so many and so diversified that we could consider them as infinite –
with limited resources: money, energy, skill and time.
In a governance structure the policy maker is no longer the authoritarian official that
distributes the resources. Kubler and Walti (2002) consider that “hierarchies are mostly
absent, when they are not the veto power of single actors and agencies are often
considerable. Hence, negotiation and compromise, or deliberation and consensus, appear
as the only ways of achieving agreements on the course of collective action in self-
governing networks” (ed. McLaverty, 2002, p.103)

Who or what exerts influence on policy maker? The answer is: everyone that could make
the policy maker dependent and by everything that could bring constraints to policy
maker’s activity. Among them are, according to Vickers: “the planner, those who execute
the plans, those who have the legal or practical power to veto them and those whose
confidence and concurrence is required in order to make the policy effective”. (Vickers,
1995, p.110).

Questions that should be answered by the policy network approach

There are some questions to which the policy network approach is asked to answer in
order to prove its utility. Some of these questions are related to the nature of network:
how is formed; what motivates the individuals to get together and work together for a
common negotiated agenda; how the differenced are negotiated; how does influence the
result of its action on cohesion and further development of the network?
Other questions deal with the double way inter-relation between the existing network
with the institution it tries to influence; how does the type of network determine the
outcomes; how does the outcome determine the future structure of the network (the
hierarchical/power structure)?
One of the most sought for answers in policy network approach is the predictability of the
influence efforts of network on policy maker’s decision: what factors modify the
influence of the network, how do they affect the policy outcomes.
In order to have a useful approach we need to understand the factors that influence the
change. A policy maker is by definition not a risk taker. Its own agenda (of securing
future privilege) prevents him from making adventurous decisions or controversial ones
for citizens. The networks’ activities imply the pursuing of own objectives. Their
objectives are an echo of the new evolving needs that come from the inner dynamic of
social life. This adaptation of network goals to real needs ask for changes, more or less
challenging for the policy maker.
This problem of the dynamic of networks and the dynamic of their relation with the
policy maker is one issue considered as weakness or policy network approach by some
authors. Peters (ed. Marsh, 1998, p.25) points out “the absence of more explicit linkage
between network models and models of the policy process”.

Answers and Different Opinions

In literature the change of the network is related to change in policy outcomes. The
outside factors affect policy networks. The perception of these factors, the way they are
interpreted and negotiated inside the network affect the outcomes.
Marsh and Rhodes (cited in Marsh ed, Comparing policy networks, 1998, p.53) consider
as main factors that modify the influence of the network the exchange relationships and
power dependence as well as the level – sectoral or subsectoral of the network.
How do the identified factors affect the policy outcomes? One weakness of the policy
network approach is, as seen by Daugbjberg “it has not developed a theoretical model for
explaining policy outcomes” (Ed Marsh, 1998, p.78)
Marsh and Rhodes (1992, cited in Ed Marsh, 1998) try as well to find a casual link
between the type of network and the policy outcomes.
They identify the tight network where the members share the same ideology and similar
values. The number of members is limited and their interaction frequent. There are little
or no dissensions among members. Generally the members have similar access to
resources thus their bargaining power is virtually equally important. This could be a
community network of business or professional type or even social based one, composed
by people that need their own political voice heard in a society where the access to
political system could be closed or restricted.
Another type of network is the loose network, or the issue network. These networks
accept large numbers of new members, whose involvement is usually not constant. The
members that get into an issue network usually have different access level to resources,
so their bargaining power inside the network is unequal. There is a core where the
decision is concentrated.
Marsh and Rhodes (1998) consider that the tight network produces continuity in policy
while the loose networks are responsible for unpredictable policy outcomes.

Dowding (1995) accepts the idea that networks matter but he considers the policy
network model is not able to explain policy outcomes in a scientific manner.

Even if the opinions of various authors regarding the usefulness of policy network are
split, there are practical efforts to find a methodology to use the policy network approach.
One interesting study resulted in the comparative analyze of the policy outcomes of
environmental policy in Danish and Swedish agriculture, Daugbjerg (ed. Marsh, 1998)
proves that networks type could determine the policy outcomes. Thus the Danish network
could get the Ministry of Agriculture’ s support due to its cohesion and the farmers
escaped the costs of Polluter Pays Principle and got it subsidized by state. The Swedish
network could not obtain the same policy result because the weak cohesion of the
network and weak influence on Ministry of agriculture. In the end the Swedish farmers
had accepted the Polluter Pays Principle. The author of the comparative study considers
that the degree of cohesion of a network determines the result, determines the decision.
This practical result of analyze is consistent with the previous theoretical supposition of
Marsh and Rhodes.

A weakness of the policy network approach is the manner in which the conflicts are
resolved. Peters appreciates Sartori’s efforts to explain policy change, by using the
“policy advocacy” model. But Peter’s points out that outcome of conflicts depend largely
on the method of solving them: one of these methods being synthesis, the second being
application of political power, while bargaining mechanism is the third method. As for
each method of conflict solving involves different outcomes, this equals to a low level of
predictability.

Another weakness identified by Peters is the linkage between policy network approach
and the agenda setting. According to him, Baumgartner and Jones (cited in ed. Marsh,
1998, p.31) introduce in literature the “punctuated equilibria” idea that considers that
“agenda in a policy area are relatively stable unless there is some event or political
change that upsets the equilibrium”.

A brilliant step forward in policy network approach is Compston's (2006) integrative


approach in discussing the factors that influence the policy outcomes. Using the policy
network theory and the Advocacy Coalition Framework of Sabatier, he identifies the
process that explains a major change in policy. The conceptual contribution from policy
network approach is spotting that “for major policy change to occur there must first be
preexisting changes in the views, bargaining strategies, power resources or coalition
possibilities of network members and these can only be brought about by external
factors of the model” (Compston, 2006, p.3). Compston considers that it is nearly
impossible “to predict the ways in which external events can influence public policy” and
this view shows, in my opinion, that Compston understands the human dimension of the
networks, an aspect previously neglected by theorists. Still he identifies some external
factors that can be predicted and he calls them “king trends” –“events that constitute
major long-term technological, economic environmental and social trends“, “significant
for people’s lives and expected by experts to continue for the next 20 years” (Compston,
2006, p.4). And this is a big advancement in the public policy predictability.

Policy network approach should be able to describe the evolution of each type of network
from inside (how it shapes, what needs has, what standards has, how negotiate the
agenda) and its relation with the external world and especially to policy maker (how the
network influences policy maker’s agenda; how network can persuade and controls
policy maker’s decision).

An important contribution on understanding the network dynamics is brought by Hay (ed.


Marsh, 1998, p.44). Hay’s research regarding the network formation, recruitment and
internal dynamics lights one of this “most sadly overlooked, least discussed, and yet
obviously crucial aspects of networking”. He describes schematically network formation,
where the first factor as importance for individuals to aggregate into a network is “the
recognition of the potential for mutual advantage through collective (as opposed to
individual) action.” Hay considers that the recruitment is a process by which the network
is renewed and accesses new resources.
For the network’s life, important is the coordination of different intentions, motivations,
and expectations of its constituents. Hay brings his contribution to the “network failure”
concept, where his opinion is that “network failure is almost entirely a matter of
perception” (ed. Marsh, 1998, p.50) and usually must be answered the question “failure
for whom” in order to understand its subtitle mechanism.

Human dimension of networks


While discussing the usefulness and weaknesses of the policy network approach we
should bear in mind that “all the networks are dominated by economic and government
interests” (ed. Marsh, 1998, p.188). The human dimension of the networks makes me
state that understanding the activity and the way a network negotiates its resources is not
a matter of strictly cause and effect. I doubt that in this social domain “what determines
what” can be so easily identified and more – precisely forecast. We deal in policy
network with a negotiation in two steps: the first one is the internal network negotiation
among its members. This result of the internal negotiation, which represents the
network’s agenda, gets into the second stage of negotiation, with the policy maker. The
negotiation in double steps is a totally psychological matter, where the result depends on
motivations, expectations and feelings. The fear of losing something, or the desire to
obtain something valuable, could be important drivers for sudden and unexpected human
actions and decisions. There is no general rule or patterns for a 100% success in all
negotiations. There is always a possibility for failure of the bargaining process; there are
always some actors on the stage that could change the results in the last moment. Even if
the literature identifies a possible direct relation between the type of state and the type of
networks, I consider that is too little attention granted to the cultural specific of each
country. The network has its specificity on each cultural region and this makes the
general rules impossible to be given.

Another weakness in my opinion is the fact that the authors do not pay too much attention
to the conflicts that arise when is negotiated an outcome between the policy maker and
more than one network. We need to understand if, when and how the networks with
similar interests negotiate between them, and then how do they influence the policy
maker’s agenda. For example: if we have two networks that militate for women rights,
one of the networks having as the first priority the equality of chances in career, the other
one fighting for the abortion legalization. It is interesting to find out what influences the
policy maker in his first choice for action: the issue, the public’s interest in issue, the
power of the network or common personal values to one of the choices. The interaction
between the networks competing for common resources is an important matter of both
policy networking and social dynamic.

Conclusions

In my opinion the policy network approach is an important instrument for future


theoretical advances that could help us understanding the new developments in
governance. The citizens’ participation, democracy and pluralism have as main tool the
network policy.
The network policy is the new type of governance in European Union (EU).
Benington and Harvey consider that “transnational network are now a key part of the
policy development process within the EU” (ed. Marsh, 1998, p.149). Marsh concludes
that networks are more and more perceived as a “new form of governance” (ed. Marsh,
1998, p.190).
EU is defined as “a hybrid intergovernmental and supranational organization” (CIA site,
2007). Its economic goals are to eliminate trade barriers, to adopt common currency and
to create common living standards. As an international agent, EU is aiming to develop
itself as a political and economic power.
But we must take into consideration the reality that the historic national disputes and the
difference in income among regions make EU to face difficulties in generating consensus
for common policies.

The definition for the concept of networks as stated by Hay (ed. Marsh, 1998, p.38):
“modes of coordination of collective action characterized and constituted through the
mutual recognition of common or complementary strategic agendas” makes me conclude
that EU is such a network from the moment it was conceived.

Another application that requires the contribution of policy network approach could be
the research on Public Private Partnerships. The modern policy making confronts a new
concept for executive level procurements: Public Private Partnership (PPP). This new
concept that aims for state public service decentralization has as main goal offering better
services to citizens by a close collaboration with private agents. This modern solution
found for improving the quality of public services has as main concept the network
policy. The transparency and accountability of the tendering and biding process are
important, but equal importance has the understanding of the networking process. With
the aim of better quality of its public services the executive policy maker has to learn to
resist to pressures, to avoid the traffic of influence and corrupt practices in awarding the
contracts. The policy maker aims for equal opportunity milieu where the only important
values to be decided by market mechanism. The policy network approach findings and
research could help in developing a fair and higher qualitative process for offering
citizens better services.

The policy network concepts help to understand what is happening and why in modern
world of policy making. Still the policy network approach needs to contribute on
clarifying many issues pointed out in the present paper.

Bibliography

CIA – “The World Factbook -- European Union”, 2007, [WWW].


15th March 2007, https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ee.html ,
(Accessed on 25th March 2007)

Compston, Hugh – King trends and the future of public policy, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006

Kubler, Daniel, Walti, Sonia – Metropolitan Governance and Democracy: How to


Evaluate New Tendencies, in McLaverty, Peter, editor – Public Participation and
Innovations in Community Governance, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002

Marsh, David, edited – Comparing policy networks, Open University Press, 1998
McLaverty, Peter, editor – Public Participation and Innovations in Community
Governance, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2002

Vickers, Geoffrey, Sir – The art of judgment: A study of policy making, Sage
Publications, 1995

You might also like