One of the issues of the network approach to policy concerns the influence of the network structure on the policy processes that are taking place within it. A central point is the concept of rules. The basic assumption is that actors in networks form communal rules during their interactions. This article shows the way in which these network rules influence policy processes. First, the rules of two local social housing networks are reconstructed. The author then shows how these rules differ (e.g., rules of conflict regulation and autonomy) between the two networks and how they influenced the decision making surrounding the rehabilitation and restructuring of postwar housing districts that took place within these networks. He looks at the extent to which these differences in the rule structures of the networks explain the differences in the development of the decision-making processes. The article concludes with a discussion of rules as a context for decision making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aldrich, H. A. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
2.
Allison, G. T. (1971). The essence of decision. Boston: Little, Brown.
3.
Axelrod, R. (1984). The evolution of cooperation. New York: Basic Books.
4.
Benson, J. K. (1982). A framework for policy analysis. In D. L. Rogers & D. A. Whetten (Eds.), Interorganizational coordination: Theory, research, and implementation (pp. 137-176). Ames: Iowa State University Press.
5.
Berger, L. , & Luckman, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin.
6.
Burns, T. R. , & Flam, H. (1987). The shaping of social organization: Social rules system theory with application. London: Sage.
7.
Cohen, I. J. (1989). Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life. Oxford, UK: St. Martin’s.
8.
Cohen, M. D. , March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 1-25.
9.
Crozier, M. , & Friedberg, E. (1980). Actors and systems: The politics of collective action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Duintjer, O. D. (1977). Rondom regels; wijsgerige gedachten omtrent regel-geleid gedrag [About rules: Philosophical thoughts about rule-guided behavior]. Amsterdam: Boom.
11.
Fisher, R. , & Ury, W. (1981). Getting to yes: Negotiating without giving in. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
12.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. London: Macmillan.
13.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.
14.
Kickert, W.J.M. , Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J.F.M. (Eds.). (1997). Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London: Sage.
15.
Klijn, E. H. (1996a). Analyzing and managing policy processes in complex networks: A theoretical examination of the concept policy networks and its problems. Administration & Society, 28, 90-119.
16.
Klijn, E. H. (1996b). Regels en sturing in netwerken; de invloed van netwerkregels op de herstructurering van naoorlogse wijken [Rules and governance in networks: The influence of network rules on the restructuring of postwar housing]. Delft, the Netherlands: Eburon.
17.
Lijphart, A. (1968/1992). Verzuiling, pacificatie en kentering in de Nederlandse politiek. Haarlem, the Netherlands: Becht.
18.
Lindblom, C. E. , & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
19.
March, J. G. , & Olsen, J. P. (1989). Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics. New York: Free Press.
20.
Marsh, D. , & Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992). Policy networks in British governments. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
21.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. London: Sage.
22.
Negandhi, A. R. (Ed.). (1975). Interorganization theory. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press.
23.
Ostrom, E. (1986). A method for institutional analysis. In F. X. Kaufman, G. Majone, & V. Ostrom (Eds.), Guidance, control and evaluation in the public sector: The Bielefeld interdisciplinary project. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
24.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research based agendas in public administration. Public Policies Review, 57(1), 43-57.
25.
Scharpf, F. W. (1978). Interorganizational policy studies: Issues, concepts and perspectives. In K. Hanf & F. W. Scharpf (Eds.), Interorganizational policy making (pp. 345-370). London: Sage.
26.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Boulder, CO: Westview.
27.
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis. London: Sage.
28.
Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
van der Doel, J. (1978). Democratie en welvaartstheorie [Democracy and welfare theory]. Alphen aan de Rijn: Samson.
30.
van Gunsteren, H. R. (1976). The quest for control. London: John Wiley.
31.
Wamsley, G. L. (1985). Political subsystems as a unit of analysis in implementation studies. In K. Hanf & T.A.J. Toonen (Eds.), Policy implementation in federal and unitary systems (pp. 71-103). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhof.
32.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.). New York: Random House.
33.
Williamson, O. E. (1979). Transaction cost economics: The governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics, 22(2), 233-261.
34.
Zijderveld, A. C. (1974). Institutionalisering; een studie over het methodologisch dilemma der sociale wetenschappen [Institutionalizing: A study on the methodological dilemma of social science]. Meppel, the Netherlands: Boom.
