Policy Networks And Communications Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

While there are several definitions of policy networks, there is widespread agreement among scholars that these networks are formed by the patter ns of relations between interdependent actors—most commonly identified as politicians, interest groups, public citizens, corporations, or foreign figures—involved in processes affecting the design or implementation of public policy. By definition, the interdependency characterizing these relationships requires actors to engage in communication exchanges with one another. Hence, the study of policy networks always goes hand in hand with the study of the communication processes occurring within those networks.

Earlier sociological studies on interorganizational theory produced in the 1940s and 1950s, as well as by the work of resource exchange theorists dating to the 1960s, influenced research on communication and policy networks. The underlying assumption in resource exchange theory is organizations or individuals do not have the totality of resources they need to guarantee their own survival or reach their political goals. As a result of such scarcity, organizations or individuals engage in exchanges with their peers, and attempt to acquire scarce resources in exchange for those they hold in abundance. The exchange of resources rests in the establishment of clear communication channels between the actors in the network.

Evaluating Social Networks And Coalitions

Despite its early roots, the first explicit efforts to systematically study communication in policy networks did not take place until the mid-1980s. Edward Laumann and David Knoke’s (1987) seminal study on the U.S. energy and health policy domains presented the first detailed exploration of how communication inside policy networks affect the behavior of the individual components of those networks. Furthermore, this study also evaluated how communication impacted the overall performance of these policy networks. Using social network analysis (SNA) techniques, the authors demonstrated how communication between parties unfolds, capturing the frequency and duration of such communication exchanges and then observing the effects on organizational behavior.

Through SNA, it was established that observed lengthy communication channels between parties can help identify potential coalition partners, and successful collective action depends on the trustworthy transmission of information from each party. Additionally, Laumann and Knoke reported the common finding that communication among some nodes in a network was only possible due to the mediating role of one or more central organizations that formed the core of the network. When considered together, these findings point to information flows affecting policy outcomes, and to the importance of certain actors in some circumstances as regulators, brokers, or managers of communication flows.

This research tradition impacted newer theories and frameworks that study policy processes. For example, the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith in 1993, proposes actors in policy subsystems form coalitions based on shared policy core beliefs that will translate to specific policy views. The establishment of clear communication channels among the members of a coalition is critical to maintain its stability, as well as its capacity to influence the policy-making process. However, communication does not happen inside coalitions alone. In fact, coalitions must remain informed about the policy positions and potential moves of their opponents, therefore communication between coalitions must also be secured.

Policy brokers are usually the ones in charge of securing such communication. In general, this proposition agrees with the empirical results obtained from the initial studies of policy domains. In addition, students of the ACF’s emphasis on brokers echoes other work in political science that has unearthed the importance of brokers in policy systems as the main facilitators of collaborative relationships among the actors that partake in policy networks.

Examining Specific Lines Of Communication

Communication in policy networks is also discussed in the realm of public management studies, which pay special attention to how communication in policy networks affects the performance of actors who are active in fragmented decision-making systems. However, despite the interest of scholars regarding communication processes in policy networks, it is not common to see precise descriptions of how such communication processes unfold. A notable exception from a conceptual standpoint is the 1997 work of L. Schaap and M. J. W. van Twist, which portrays communication as a complex double process, where exchange of information occurs between each individual actor and the network as a whole but also between actors on a dyadic level.

The former type of communication simply occurs when an actor makes its presence known to others in the policy domain. This facilitates the process of subjectification of the actor, or its recognition as a legitimate part of the network. The second type of communication between actor to actor is much more specific because it involves two parties. In this second variant of communication, actors expose each other to their frames of reference, or the cognitive filters used to process and understand reality. This exchange nurtures the building of coalitions and the construction of common identities. There are clear parallels between this proposition and the process of coalition building described by Sabatier and his colleagues.

Finally, researchers who explain the diffusion of policy innovation also make an important contribution to the study of communication in policy networks. For instance, Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari find policy entrepreneurs in the United States are highly active in policy networks and more likely to achieve their goal of promoting education reforms at the state level because their participation in the networks allows them to: (1) gather novel information about innovative policy responses to problems, and (2) communicate the need for such reforms more effectively to policy makers who can affect change. The role of communication channels on the diffusion of innovation has also been studied in other policy domains. For example, Jacqui True and Michael Mintrom found the transnational networking activities of nonstate actors is the primary force driving the diffusion of gender mainstreaming bureaucracies in many countries.

Despite the abundance of research studies on how communication unfolds in policy networks, the field still lacks a comprehensive theoretical structure. Further research needs to present precise hypothetical relationships linking communication structures in the networks to individual behavior and policy outcomes.This remains the task for the next generation of policy networks’ scholars.

Bibliography:

Agranoff, Robert, and Michael McGuire. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Governments. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2003.
Berardo, Ramiro, and John T. Scholz. “Self-organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection and Cooperation in Estuaries.” American Journal of Political Science (Forthcoming 2010).
Carpenter, Daniel P., Kevin M. Esterling, and David M. J. Lazer. “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity:Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?” The Journal of Politics 66, no. 1 (2004): 224–246.
Laumann, Edward O., and David Knoke. The Organizational State: A Perspective on National Energy and Health Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987.
Mintron, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. “Policy Networks and Innovation Diffusion: The Case of State Education Reforms.” The Journal of Politics 60, no. 1 (1998): 126–148.
Sabatier, Paul, and Hank Jenkins-Smith. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder:Westview Press, 1993.
Schaap, L., and M. J.W. van Twist. “The Dynamics of Closedness in Networks.” In Managing Complex Networks. Strategies for the Public Sector, edited by Walter J. M. Kickert, Erik-Hans Klijn, and Joop F. M. Koppenjan. London: Sage Publications, 1997.
True, Jacqui, and Michael Mintrom. “Transnational Networks and Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming.” International Studies Quarterly 45, no. 1 (2001): 27–57.
Weible, Christopher M., Paul A. Sabatier, and Kelly McQueen. “Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework.” Policy Studies Journal 37, no. 1 (2009): 121–140.

This example Policy Networks And Communications Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.