In the British literature the development of policy networks is drawn upon literature on interorganisational theory (Rhodes, 1999:45) and is used to explore and discuss the shift from government to governance.
A typology on networks could be argued to be the development of specific types and characteristics of networks into a framework that researchers apply in studying state/central relationships. British researchers have developed certain typologies of policy network.
Typologies of network found in the literature “share a common understanding of policy networks as power dependency relationships between the government and interested groups” whereas resources are exchanged. Yet they differ from each other “according to the dimensions based on which the different types of networks are distinguished” (Borzel, 1997:256).
3.6.1 The Rhodes typology
Rhodes (1981 quoted in Rhodes, 1999:36) developed his typology for the study of British central-local relations. His framework was based on a theory of power-dependence which contains five propositions:
53
(a) Anyorganisation is dependent upon otherorganisation for resources.
(b) In order to achieve their goals, theorganisations have to exchange resources.
(c) Although decision-making within theorganisations is constrained by other organisations, the dominant coalition retains some discretion. The appreciative system of the dominant coalition influences which relationships are seen as a problem and which resources will be sought.
(d) The dominant coalition employs strategies within known rules of the game to regulate the process of exchange
(e) Variation in the degree of discretion is a product of the goals and the relative power potential of interactiveorganisations. This relative power potential is the product of the resources of eachorganisation, of the rules of the game and of the process of exchange betweenorganisations (Rhodes, 1981:98 quoted in Rhodes, 1999:36).
Rhodes, because of the intrinsic weakness of the corporatism literature and its imprecise use, revised his model (Rhodes, 1986a; 1986b in Rhodes 1999:37 Marsh and Rhodes, 1992a; Rhodes and Marsh, 1994, Marsh and Smith, 1995 quoted in Rhodes, 1999:45), so in his later work, he distinguishes the three level of analysis. “The macro-level of analysis of intergovernmental relations requires the involvement of an account of the changing characteristics of British government during the post-war period. The meso-level of analysis puts an emphasis on the variety of linkages between the centre and the range of sub-central political and governmental organisations. The concept of policy networks is apt for this level of analysis. The micro-level of analysis stresses the behaviour of particular actors, be it individuals ororganisations”.
54
resources between actors in a specific network remains fundamental to any explanation of the distribution of power in that network. Similarly, the different pattern both of resources and their distribution between the several actors, in networks explains partly the differences between networks. The macro-level of analysis complements power-dependence by focusing for example, on the origins of the rules of a game between actors and why some actors control more resources than others. Possibly, the main “significant weakness of the power dependence model is its failure to distinguish clearly between micro-, meso-, and macro- levels of analysis; so the links between them is adequately explored” (March, 1983:1 quoted in Rhodes, 1999:37).
3.6. 2 The Wilks and Wright typology
Wilks and Wright (1987 in Rhodes 1999:40) adopt a societal-centred approach and emphasise interpersonal, rather than structural relations. “There are three major ways in which their typology differs from Rhodes. First, it emphasises the disaggregated nature of policy networks in the industrial policy sector, and indeed, suggests that such desegregation exists in all policy sectors”. Second, Wilks and Wright (1987:298) placed considerable emphasis on interpersonal relations as a key aspect of all policy networks; and third major difference between the two models is that is not amenable to empirical investigation and presents more problems.
Wilks and Wright use an idiosyncratic distinction between policy universe, policy communities and policy networks not used elsewhere. “The policy universe consists of the large population of actors and potential actors sharing a common interest in industrial policy, and may contribute to the policy process on a regular basis. The term policy community is reserved for a more disaggregated system involving those actors, who potentially share an
55
interest in a particular industry and who interact with one another, exchanging resources in order to balance and optimize their mutual relationships. The policy network, to Wilks and Wright becomes a linking process, the outcome of those exchanges within a policy community or between a number of policy communities” (Wright 1988a/: 606; Wilks and Wright 1987:299 quoted in Rhodes 1999:41).
Wilks and Wright argue that their new approach has several advantages over other models which distinguish between networks and communities according to the closeness of the relationships involved. In particular, they argue that it allows them both to recognize that not all the same policy issues in the same policy sub-sector are handled in the same network; and that the members of a same policy network may be drawn from different policy communities within the same policy area, or even from different policy areas (Wilks and Wright 1987:306- 307).
3.6.3 The Marsh and Rhodes Typology
Rhodes (1988:77-8 quoted in Rhodes, 1999:43) identified four dimensions along which networks vary – interests, membership, interdependence (vertical and horizontal) and resources. Marsh and Rhodes “typology builds on these points, treating, policy communities, policy networks and issue networks as types of relationships between interest groups and government. They are meso-level concepts which leave whole variety of important questions open as matters for empirical analysis. Their typology treats networks as a generic term”.