Rachel Parker, in her article ‘Networked Governance or Just Networks?’ in this journal, has dealt with a very challenging question on the relevance of network interaction to governance outcomes. Her use of network concepts, however, appears to employ networks as a heuristic device. Her article employs terms that describe social network properties that are best contextualised with reference to the theoretical insights offered by formal Social Network Analysis (SNA). My suggestion in this brief review is that some of the theoretical assumptions made about concepts such as fluidity, density or trust imply specific network properties that cannot be ignored when attempting an analysis of policy outcomes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdamS.KriesiH. (2007) ‘The Network Approach’, in SabatierP. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, second edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 129–44.
2.
BorgattiS.FosterP. (2003) ‘The New Paradigm in Organizational Research: A Review and Typology’, Journal of Management, 29 (6), 991–1013.
3.
BorzelT. A. (1998) ‘Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks’, Public Administration, 76 (2), 253–73.
4.
BurtR. (2005) Brokerage and Closure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
BurtR. S. (1998) ‘The Gender of Social Capital’, Rationality and Society, 10 (1), 5–46.
6.
CarringtonP.ScottJ.WassermanS. (eds) (2005) Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
ChristopoulosD. (2006) ‘Relational Attributes of Political Entrepreneurs: A Network Perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13 (5), 757–78.
8.
ChristopoulosD.QuagliaL. (forthcoming) ‘EU Financial Services Regulation: National Brokerage Strategies’, in GehlerM.KaiserW.LeuchtB. (eds), Networks in European Multilevel Governance. From 1945 to the Present. Vienna: Böhlau.
9.
ColemanJ. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.
10.
ColemanJ. S. (1988) ‘Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital’, American Journal of Sociology, 94 (Supplement. Organizations and Institutions: Sociological and Economic Approaches to the Analysis of Social Structure), S95–S121.
11.
DianiM.McAdamD. (eds) (2003) Social Movements and Networks: Relational Approaches to Collective Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
DowdingK. (1995) ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’, Political Studies, 45 (1), 136–58.
13.
DowdingK. (2001) ‘There Must be End to Confusion: Policy Networks, Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British Universities’, Political Studies49 (1), 89–105.
14.
FreemanL. C. (2004) The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver: Empirical Press.
15.
GranovetterM. (1973) ‘The Strength of Weak Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–80.
16.
KnokeD.PappiF. U.BroadbentJ.TsujinakaY. (1996) Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
KrackhardtD. (1990) ‘Assessing the Political Landscape: Structure, Cognition, and Power in Organizations’, Administrative Science Quarterly35 (2), 342–69.
18.
LinN. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MarshD.SmithM. (2000) ‘Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach’, Political Studies, 48 (1), 4–21.
20.
MarshD.SmithM. (2001) ‘There is More than One Way to Do Political Science: On Different Ways to Study Policy Networks’, Political Studies, 49 (3), 528–41.
21.
PappiF.HenningC. (1998) ‘Policy Networks: More than a Metaphor?’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 36 (2), 257–81.
22.
ParkerR. (2007) ‘Networked Governance or Just Networks? Local Governance of the Knowledge Economy in Limerick (Ireland) and Karlskrona (Sweden)’, Political Studies, 55 (1), 113–32.
23.
PutnamR. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
24.
SabatierP. (1998) ‘The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5 (1), 98–130.
25.
SartoriG. (1970) ‘Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics’, American Political Science Review, 64 (December), 1033–53.
26.
ScottJ. (2000) Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, second edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
StokmanF. N.Van den BosJ. M. (1992) ‘A Two-Stage Model of Policy Making with an Empirical Test in the US Energy Policy Domain’, in MooreG.WhittA. (eds), The Political Consequences of Social Networks: Research in Politics and Society, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 219–53.
28.
StokmanF. N.ZeggelinkE. (1996) ‘Is Politics Power or Policy Oriented? A Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Access Models in Policy Networks’, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21 (1–2), 77–111.
29.
TokeD.MarshD. (2003) ‘Policy Networks and the GM Crops Issue: Assessing the Utility of a Dialectical Model of Policy Networks’, Public Administration, 81 (2), 229–51.
30.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
31.
ZachariadisN. (2007) ‘The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects’, in SabatierP. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, second edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press, pp. 65–92.
