The development of the policy network is discussed in parallel with other concepts which describe analogous phenomena such as the policy sector, the policy domain, the policy (actor) system, the policy community, the policy game and policy arena; (Benson, 1982; Laumann and Knoke, 1987; Sabatier, 1987; Jordan and Richardson, 1983; all quoted in Kenis and Schneider, 1991:32).
Nevertheless, the network concept and all other policy concepts are alternatives of one core issue: “the idea of public policies which are not explained by the intentions of one or two
central actors but which are generated within multiple actors sets in which the individual actors are interrelated in a more or less systematic way” (Kenis and Schneider, 1991:32-33).
The policy network metaphor did not come about by coincidence but it is related to at least three more general transformations: -
45
making. The need for changes in the “political governance of modern democracies” was expressed through the development of theoretical trends to analyze policy making process, such as the emergence oforganised society and “the increase in the importance oforganised collectivities in social and political life” (Kenis and Schneider, 1991:34). Societal differentiation and policy growth lead to political overload and pressure for governments, which were unable to arrange significant policy resources within their own domain and, hence, they become dependent upon the cooperation of policy actors outside their hierarchical control. Policy networks should therefore be understood as the relatively stable and ongoing relationships which activate dispersed resources so that parallel action by various actors can be coordinated toward the solution of a common policy problem.
2. Transformations in conceptual and theoretical developments in the political sciences and in policy analysis in particular. Apparent changes in the political structures lead political scientists to adjusting their theoretical viewing. “Policy research had to expand its narrow focus from public policies to societal governance” (Kenis and Schneider, 1991:38). Liberal policy analysts have observed a change from a central form of governing view of political and social process to a different one, less state -centred. Policy analysis thus needed to broaden its analytical focus and include whole societal domains and dimensions of policy making.
3. The third transformation within policy analysis is the development of a “methodological apparatus” (Kenis and Schneider, 1991:39); of a set of functional processes by means of which a systematized activity such as structural analysis is carried out ([online] available from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/apparatus [accessed 1/12/2015]). The development of “methodological” tools refers to the development of concepts and approaches such “resources and power dependency” or the “interorganisational relations:” and in parallel the application of mathematics and statistical procedures by social scientists.
46
Those methods, concepts and techniques enabled the studying of complex structures in the policy making process and the development of a methodological framework for structural analysis (Kenis and Schneider, 1991:39).
There are many discussions on policy networks and their utility or applicability in studying policy making and governance especially in Europe. According to Borzel (1997:1) there is „a Babylonian‟ variety of policy network concepts and applications to be found in the literature. Whilst there is general agreement that policy networks exist and are more than an analytical tool for studying policy making (Borzel, 1997; Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan, 1998; Marin and Mayntz (eds.), 1991), there is neither a common understanding of them nor has it been agreed whether they constitute a metaphor or a method or a theory (Borzel, 1997:1). So while policy networks exist and are operating as links between actors within a particular policy domain, it seems that there is much less agreement as to the explanatory utility of the concept or the broader significance of the growth of networks (Marsh and Smith, 2000:4).
The policy network metaphor has been defined and used in different ways. Kenis and Schneider (1991: 25, 34) argue that the term network has become the „new paradigm for the architecture of complexity” and trace the discussion on policy networks metaphor to the end of the 1970s, when it became the metaphor for discussing the “critical changes in the political governance of modern democracies”.
All approaches to policy networks and within the different disciplines vary; but according to Borzel (1997:2), they all share a “common understanding”: of being a “set of relatively stable relationships which are of a non-hierarchical and interdependent nature linking a variety of actors, who share common interests with regard to a policy and who exchange resources to pursue these shared interests acknowledging that co-operation is the best way to achieve common goals”.
47
Borzel (1997:253) identifies two “schools” of policy networks in the field of public policy. The „interest intermediation school‟, where the English/American literature mainly focuses, interprets policy networks as a generic term for different forms of relationships between different interest groups and the state. The basic assumption is that the existence of policy networks, which reflect the relative status of power of particular interests in a policy area, influences (though it does not determine) policy outcomes. In this approach, the term „policy network‟ emphasizes: regular contacts between individuals within interest groups, bureaucratic agencies and government, which provide the basis of a sub-government and concentrates upon, especially in the American literature, the micro-level, dealing with personal rather than structural relations between institutions (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992; Marsh, 1998).
On the other hand there is the „governance school‟, where the German literature focuses. It conceives policy networks as a specific form of governance, as a mechanism to mobilise political resources in situations where these resources are widely dispersed between public and private actors (Borzel, 1997:253). Policy networks are an emerging form of governance because neither hierarchy nor markets are appropriate forms of governance. In this approach, networks, as a mode of governance, are contrasted with hierarchy and markets.
Hierarchy as a mode of governance is characterized by a very close structural coupling between public-privateorganisations and central co-ordination, and thus control. On the contrary, markets as a form of governance involve no structural coupling and outcomes result from the market driven interplay between a plurality of autonomous agents drawn from the public and the private spheres; there is no central co-ordination (Borzel, 1997).
The policy network model offers a more realistic and indeed democratic alternative (Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjan, 1998:9-10). The government is no longer seen as a superior, directive
48
element, but as one actor among many with roughly equal power. Policy networks are involved in a loose structural coupling; interaction within networks and between autonomous actors produces a negotiated consensus, which provides the basis for co-ordination. The key to effective governance is the effective management of the network (Marsh, 1998:8).
In Britain the discussion on policy networks, according to Marsh and Smith (2000), emphasisesthe structural aspects of networks and the role that policy networks play in the development and implementation of policy. The approaches to policy networks vary in the British literature as well. However, there is also a “common ground; that all authors see policy networks as a key feature of modern policies” (Marsh, 1998:10; Daugberjerg and Marsh, 1998).