Module: Making Policy

Assignment: Critically examine the usefulness and weaknesses of the policy network approach. Provide examples where it can provide useful insights.

‘Policymaking’ is a highly specialised area and it greatly influenced by the various players, inside and outside the policy making process. The ‘policy network approach’ is a model to explain these influences on the policy process. The present essay examines the efficacy of ‘policy network approach’ to interpret the policy making process. It aims to analyse the utility and shortcomings of this approach.

The policy network approach
‘Power does not reside in institutions, not even the state or large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure the society.’ (Castells, 2004)These networks exist everywhere around us. In the contemporary policy making process, most of the policy formation and implementation takes place outside the formal institutions of the government. The ‘Policy network’ is defined as ‘an organized arrangement to facilitate interaction between the state and the organized interests.’(Bogason and Toonen, 1998) The ‘Policy networks’ are thus the specific type of networks those, which are focused on the policy process. Policy networks approach is an ‘analytical tool for understanding institutional exchange relations between the state and the organisations of civil society.’ (Borzel, 1998) or a ‘tool for analyzing decision making and interest group influence on the government’ (Richardson and Jordon, 1979)

Policy Universe, Community and Network
The policy network approach analyses relationships that are ‘structural rather than personal.’ (Marsh 1998) The policy network approach defines the policy process through three sub-concepts and they are policy universe, policy community and policy networks. ‘Policy universe’ consists of ‘actors’ and ‘potential actors’ who share a common interest in the policy. They generally contribute to the policy process on a regular basis. ‘Policy community’ defines the system where these ‘players interact with each other’ and exchange resources to ‘optimize and balance mutual relationships.’ The ‘policy network’ is the ‘linking process, the outcome of those exchanges, within a policy community.’ (Wilks and Wright, 1987)

Government and Interest group interaction
The policy network approach helps to analyse the relationship between the government and the interest groups. It highlights that the government needs to ‘establish a relationship with interest groups to have information, support and legitimacy’ for its decisions. The interest groups in turn need to ‘protect and promote their interests by participating in the policy making process.’ (Daugbjerg, 1996) This was in evidence in France in 1990s. There was a need to reform the power structure of the French government by decentralizing more powers to the small cities and towns. However, the cities were not prepared for this transfer. In the French city of Rennes, the government and the urban elites deliberately encouraged the formation of policy networks. These networks were developed, institutionalized and instrumentalized. These then helped to implement the decentralization reforms. (Le Gales, 2001) However, ‘the policy network approach has become a dogma’. It is being applied to every field of government, politics, management and organisations. The ‘whole administrative world seems to consist of networks.’ (Bogason and Toonen, 1998) Thus, policy networks may be acting as a link for the government to formulate and implement policy, but they are being used to elucidate every correlation with the government.

Provides structural basis for policy outcomes
The policy network approach helps in understanding different outcomes of similar policies in different policy networks. Policy networks can be strongly connected more ‘permanent policy communities’ or weakly formed ‘short-term issue networks.’ (Rhodes, 1992) or these can be a continuum, ranging from the highly formalized ‘policy community’ to the loosely structured ‘issue network’. (Smith, 1997) We can see the roles of these different policy networks in the environmental policies outcomes of the Danish and Swedish governments. Sweden, with issue-based networks made policies that imposed heavy cost on the polluters by employing taxes and universal regulation. In Denmark, well-established policy communities existed and the polluters were able to influence them. The anti-pollution policies were soft on the polluters, gave them incentives, and created standards for individual polluters. (Daugbjerg, 1997) Thus, different types of networks lead to different policy outcomes in these countries.

Policy continuity
The policy networks are associated with policy continuity. They withstand any drastic changes to the existing structure. The networks provide inertia in the existing policy structure. They also lead to incrementalism and thereby maintain the status quo of existing balance of interests. As Marsh and Rhodes (1992) put it, ‘continuity is preserved because of the ability of the policy network to prevent introduction of radical changes.’
In India, an Indian female labourers’ civil society network, SEWA (Self Employed Women’s Association) was working with rural poor women. Although the government had committed considerable funds for poverty alleviation, projects were abandoned as wasteful or irrelevant. The involvement of this civil society as a network empowered the stakeholders to influence the continuation of the poverty alleviation programme. (Nanavaty, 1994) Thus, the network played a crucial role in linking and continuing the policy process to the experience of the poor women themselves.

Policy making as ‘Demand fulfillment’
The traditional policymaking was done by a well-defined, hierarchical and impersonal political administration. Policy network approach helps to look things from the ‘demand side’ of the policymaking. It helps to explain how policy is articulated, maneuvered, modified and framed keeping in view the opinions of various interest groups. (Miller, 1994) The policy networks also provide an important alternative for individuals and organisations trying to influence development policies. (Mendizabal, 2006) In India, the NGOs ‘Common Cause’ and ‘Parivartan’ were championing the cause of having free information. They held several awareness campaigns and helped build consciousness on the issue among the people. The Government of India set up a ‘working group’ of eminent lawyers, researchers, and heads of government agencies and the two NGOs, forming a policy network, which recommended a Freedom of Information Bill and this led to framing of Right to Information Act by the Parliament. (Saxena, 2004) Thus, policy networks played a vital role in formulation of ‘Right to Information Act.’ in India.

Role of different actors in the policy process
The ‘policy network framework’ identifies the multiplicity of the policy making processes and recognises the role of ‘actors’ within and outside the policy making process. It also provides a framework for analyzing as to who has access to and influence over the policy makers. (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992) We can examine this in the agencification process in UK. The networks varied according to the level of dependency operating between minister, department and agency and the degree of integration of the network. Certain agencies as Benefits agency, Child support agency and Prison agency, where high power dependency existed were able to influence their operational needs better, whereas the agency as Forensic science service which was at distance from the minister was able to its shape policies and policy outcomes better. (Gains, 2003) However, the network approach neglects of the role of ‘power’ in influencing the policy formulation. The network approach, especially network management, places too much emphasis on the role of co-operation and consensus and ignores conflict, power and power differences (Brans, 1997).Thus the network approach does not explain the outcomes where there are disapproving voices.

‘Meso Level’ concept
The policy network concept is a ‘meso-level concept’. The ‘meso-level analysis focuses on the relations between the government and the interest groups.’ (Rhodes and Marsh, 1992,) The case of Common Agricultural Reforms in European Union reflects the ‘meso level’ role of organized policy network in policy change. (Daugbjerg, 1999) After formation of EU, there was a strong pressure from the United States and WTO for radical agricultural reforms. The reforms aimed at ending protections to the farmers and allowing market forces to operate. However, the new agricultural policy, which finally emerged, ensured favourable commodity prices for farmers and the reforms were only moderate in nature. Daugbjerg (1999) found that because of the presence of strong agricultural policy network at the meso-level, had actually prevented radical reforms and fundamental changes from taking place in the EU reform agenda.
The meso level approach of the policy networks helps to understand and classify relationships between interest groups and governments. However, it does not explain ‘the interorganisational and interpersonal relationships.’ (Borzel, 1997) The other pitfall of ‘using meso-level approach in isolation from macro or micro-level limits the variables it can consider and hence limits the causal pathways it can establish.’ (Evans, 2001) This can be seen in Pakistan where a vast network of policy community such as international donors, political parties, business groups, military and bureaucracy exist. They are in constant interaction with the issue networks consisting of NGOs, civil society, media and the middle class. The Military and the landed elite watch their self-interest and do not care for the poor. The role of the government in having pro poor policies is non-existent. (Nadvi and Robinson, 2003) The policy network approach fails to explain the reasons of failure of positive outcome of interaction of the policy network and that how is one group of the policy community is able to influence the outcome despite an equally strong policy issue network. Thus, network approach ‘does not fully explain how the networks influence the policy outcomes and which interests dominate the policy networks.’ (Borzel, 1997)The network approach has a limited utility in such areas and to have a ‘complete understanding of these; we have to study policy networks in conjunction with theories of state to understand the policy processes and policy outcomes.’ (Borzel, 1997)

Analysis of governmental decision-making process
The ‘Policy network analysis’ approach has been a useful tool to analyse decision-making and interest group influence in the government decision making. ‘The policy outcomes are defined as a result of bargaining power of the actors in the network.’ (Toke, 2000) We can see this in operation in formulation of new ‘National Water Policy’ in India. ‘Tarun Bharat Sangh’, an NGO working on water conservation & water harvesting systems was involved in the drafting process of the national policy, but only few their recommendations were adopted. The NGO felt that the policy was discriminatory and did not do full justice to the cause of the regional states. The NGO through a national forum ‘Jal Biradari’ launched a nationwide movement to amend the national Water policy. However, the policy advocacy network has not been able to influence the government substantially on the National water policy. (Advocacy)
Using the policy network approach Smith (1997) contends that if networks wish to maintain a good relationship with the government they have to abide by certain ‘rules of the game.’ The networks have to ‘act constitutionally’ and accept the government's final decision. They have to show that the ‘can be trusted; and only make reasonable demands.’ Toke (2001) argues that policy network approach can thus be used to ‘describe the locus of decision- making exercise and it explains the degree on inclusion or exclusion of interest groups in policy making in various sectors and sub sectors of the government.’ However, several theorists have normative objections against policy networks and the role of public actors within them. De Bruijn and Ringeling (1997) argue that, ‘the network approach considers government organizations to be the same as any other organization, and neglects their role as guardian of the public interest.’ Other critics further contend that government strategies based on network theory can seriously jeopardize policy innovation, the pursuit of the common good and the primacy of politics. (Ripley and Franklin, 1987) As is apparent in the above illustration, the policy network approach does not explain the role of diverse undercurrents and politics in policymaking.

Relates membership to policy formulation
Policy network concept has gained currency in the intellectual world in terms of its utility and relevance to understand and explain how policies are made between government and interest groups. The network approach also suggests that the ‘networks affect outcomes because close networks shape agendas and because close networks mediate exogenous change.’(Wright, 1988) This substantiated further as, ‘understanding the membership and structure of the policy networks provides explanation for the policy outcomes.’ (Marsh and Smith, 2000) We see that in Ecuador, twice in the last 5 years, well-organized networks of indigenous peoples and peasants have played critical roles in removing highly questioned governments from power. In both cases, however, they have failed to bring about changes in the policies they opposed; and the new governments have maintained the status quo. Although it had a clear effect on politics, their organisation at the grassroots did not translate into the capacity to influence policies. (Eurofic, 2005).This example offers an interesting insight into the role of the policy network approach, which informs us that the ‘networks influence outcomes.’ The community networks, which were powerful enough to replace the governments, were unable to influence the same governments to change the oppressive policies. The major limitation of the policy networks approach is that they do not provide explanation to exact role of the policy networks. The policy network approach does not provide any linkage between the character of the network and its influence on the outcome of the policy. The approach is thus ‘limited in not being able to provide a model for policy explanations and outcomes.’ (Blom-Hansen, 1997)

A ‘Western concept’
Policy network approach has largely been developed in the Western literature. Policy networks are widely in existence in the developed countries of Europe US and Canada. It seems policy network approach has done little work in the South. However, the recent emphasis on empowering Southern civil society to participate more in the policy process has initiated interest in developing systems to be ‘used as informal and dynamic communications structures to offer a key tool to bridge the divide between policymakers and those at grassroots level.’ (Afford)The policy network approach used in Africa by creating policy networks as ‘Co-Govern’ (Co-govern) which is used for influencing policy and governance of natural resources. Similarly SEND the Social Enterprise Development Foundation of West Africa, sensitizes Ghanaian policy-makers on ways to harness the Ghanaian Diaspora’s resources to enable poverty reduction and development in Ghana. (Afford) The policy networks are also in operation in Peru some of these are ‘Foro Educativo’, the Educational network, ‘Foro Salud’ the health network, ‘CIES’ is the network for economic and social research. These networks interact with government at different levels and have become legitimate actors in the various policy processes. (Mendizabal, 2006) Thus, we find that although it is mainly a western concept and functioning mainly in the developed countries but, in recent years, its effective use has been seen in countries as India and in South America and Africa.

Policy network approach is a ‘metaphor’
The critics of the policy network approach as Dowding (1995), Howlett (2002) argue that it lacks explanatory power. It is highly descriptive and does not provide for the explanations of outcomes of policy processes ‘the policy network theory may be more of a metaphor than a model, useful more for descriptive purposes than for predicting or explaining specific patterns or propensities for policy change.’ (Dowding, 1995) He further argues that the, ‘notion of policy networks is a metaphorical term characterizing group-government relations.’ (Dowding, 1995) This criticism is because the characteristics of the policy network model have not been fully explored and the relations have not been rationalized in form of equations. The network approach ‘model needs to be examined in a more systematic and quantitative way so that causal relationships are established.’ (Howlett, 2002)

Network approach lacks evaluation criteria
Other critics as Borzel (1998) and Brans (1997), argue that, the policy network approach lacks theoretical foundations and clear concepts. The network approach is not based on a ‘solid theoretical body of knowledge because of which a coherent theoretical framework is lacking and its concepts are unclear’ (Borzel 1998). Although the policy network approach is useful to explain several areas of policymaking process, it seems that, the evaluation criteria it suggests are vague and lacking a substantive norm. The network approach ‘rejects the use of ex-ante formulated goals as evaluation criteria, and so the approach does not offer a clear framework for evaluation.’ Thus, the approach ‘insufficiently acknowledges the influence of the goals of governments’ (Brans, 1997).

Ascertaining precise role
The above discussion, and examples, of utility and disparagement, of the network approach leads us to a significant question of establishing the exact role of the policy network approach. Ascertaining the precise role the policy network analysis has both significant conceptual and practical implications. The policy networks can become a part of the policy design if they ‘affect outcomes’ in predictable ways, but ‘if the network approach is merely a metaphor to describe actor interrelationships, without any predictable impact on policy outcomes’, (Howlett, 2002) then the concept merely remains as a theoretical framework with no practical utility. As we have seen that, despite the scholarly and substantial work, the network approach is still not a widely accepted as a theory on which practitioners in the public sector base their actions. As Klijn and Koppenjan (2000) state that, ‘it is therefore not surprising that the descriptive and explanatory aspects of the theory until now have received more attention than its prescriptions.’

Conclusion
We can conclude that policy network approach is a relatively elaborate and recognizable theoretical framework, which can be used to analyse, explain and evaluate policy processes. This approach demonstrates the role of policy networks in the policy-making process and offers clues in creation and management of these networks. However, the relevance of the network approach and the policy networks for national policymaking process and policy outcome is unclear. Although the policy network can explain some processes of the policymaking, however the exact impact of policy networks on the policy formulation, policy implementation and policy change has still to be clearly established.

References
Advocacy, Influencing Water Policy: India, available online at: http://www.righttowater.org.uk/code/advocacy_4.asp (accessed 07 March 2007)

Afford, Influencing Africa, available online at: http://www.afford-uk.org/services/influencing/africa (accessed 07 March 2007)

Blom-Hansen, J., (1997) A ‘New Institutional’ perspective on Policy networks, Public Administration, 75, pp. 669-693

Bogason, P., and A.J. Theo, Toonen, (1998) Introduction: Networks in public administration, Public Administration, 76 (2), 205-227

Börzel, T., (1997) What's so special about policy networks? An exploration of the concept and its usefulness in studying European governance, European Integration online, Papers 1, no 16

Börzel, T., (1998) Organizing Babylon: On the different conceptions of policy networks, Public Administration, 76(2), pp. 253-273

Brans, M., (1997) Challenges to the Practice and Theory of Public Administration in Europe, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 9(3) pp389–415

Castells, M., (2004) The Network Society: A cross-cultural perspective. Castells, M., (Ed.), (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar)

Coleman, W.D. and A. Perl, (1999), Internationalized Policy Environments and Policy Network Analysis. Political Studies, Vol. XLVII, (4), pp. 691-709

Co-govern (2003) Promoting Common Property in Africa: Networks for Influencing Policy and Governance of Natural Resources, available online at: http://www.caledonia.org.uk/commonweal/docs/cogov2.pdf
(accessed 08 March, 2007)

Daugbjerg, C., (1997) Policy networks and agricultural policy reforms: Explaining de-regulation in Sweden and re-regulation in the European Community, Governance, 10 (2) pp. 123-142

Daugbjerg, C. (1999) Reforming the CAP: Policy Networks and Broader Institutional Structures, Journal of Common Market Studies, 37(3), pp. 407-28

De Bruijn, J. A. and A. B. Ringeling,(1997) Normative Notes Perspectives on Networks in W. J. M. Kickert, E. H. Klijn and J. F. M. Koppenjan (eds) Managing Complex Networks. (London: Sage)

Dowding K., (1995) Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network approach, Political Studies, 43, 136-58;

Evans, M., (2001) Understanding Dialectics in Policy Network Analysis, Political Studies, 49, (3), pp. 542-550

Eurofic Newsletter, May 2005, (2005) available online at:http://www.euforic.org/? (accessed 09 March 2007)

Gains, F., (2003) Executive Agencies in Government: The Impact of Bureaucratic Networks on Policy Outcomes, Journal of Public Policy, 23(1), pp. 55 – 79

Grantham, A., (2001) How networks explain unintended policy implementation outcomes: the case of UK rail privatization, Public administration, 79 (4). pp. 851-870

Howlett, M. (2002) Do Policy Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors:1990-2000,Canadian Journal of Political Science, 35, pp. 235-267.

Klijn, Eerik-Hans, J.F.M. Koppenjan, (2000) Policy Networks: Foundations of network approach to governance, Public Management, 2 (2), pp. 135-158

Le Galès, P., (2001) Urban Governance and Policy Networks; On the Urban Political Boundedness of Policy Networks: A French Case Study, Public Administration, 79 (1), pp.167–184.

Marsh, D. and R.A.W. Rhodes, (1992) Policy networks in British government. (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Marsh, D., (1998) Comparing policy networks, Marsh, D. (Ed.), (Buckingham: Open University Press)

Marsh, D. and M. Smith, (2000) Understanding policy networks: towards a dialectical approach, Political Studies, 48(1), pp. 4-21

Mendizabal E., (2006) Building effective research policy networks: Linking function and form, ODI Working Paper 276(ODI: UK)

Miller, H.T., (1994) Post-Progressive Public Administration: Lessons from Policy Networks, Public Administration Review, 54(4), pp. 378-386.

Nadvi, K., and M. Robinson, (2004) Pakistan Drivers of Change, Synthesis and Policy Implications, Synthesis study of the Drivers of Change exercise in Pakistan commissioned by the West Asia Department, (London: DFID)

Nanavaty, R. (1994) We can, we will: women’s empowerment and DWRCA programme, SEWA Academy, available online at: http://www.sewaresearch.org/pdf/researches/we_can_we_will.pdf
(accessed 07 March 2007)

Nunan, F., (1999) Policy network transformation: the implementation of the EC Directive on packaging and packaging waste, Public Administration, 77, pp. 621-638.

Paarlberg, R., (2005) Regional Policy Networks: IFPRI's experience with Decentral-ization, Assessment Discussion Paper No. 24. (Washington: IFPRI)

Parivartan, The NGO, online at: http://www.parivartan.com/home.asp (accessed 07 March 2007)

Rhodes, R.A.W., and. D. Marsh, (1992) New directions in the study of policy networks, European Journal of Political Research, 21, pp.181-205.

Rhodes, R.A.W., (1996) The new governance: Governing without government, Political Studies, 44 (4), 652-667.

Richardson, J., and A. Jordan, (1979) Governing under pressure: British democracy in post-parliamentary democracy, (Oxford: Martin Robertson)

Ripley, R. B. and G. Franklin, (1987) Congress, the Bureaucracy and Public Policy, (Homewood: Dorsey)

Saxena, N., (2004) Bridging Research with Policy: the Case of India, Development Studies Association, online at: http://www.devstud.org.uk/conference/saxena-bridging-research-policy-india.doc (accessed 08 March 2007)

Smith, M. J., (1997) in Michael Hill (Ed.), The Policy process: A reader, (London: Prentice Hall)

Toke, D., (2000) Policy network creation, Public Administration, 78(4), 839–54.

Wilks, S. and M. Wright, (1987) Comparative Government Industry Relations, (Oxford: Oxford University Press)