Scholars of policy networks consistently find that agreement on policy explains network ties, but inconsistent results on the importance of strategic considerations, such as the influence of potential partners. We use original data on communications between bureaucrats and lobbyists on pending Medicaid legislation to distinguish network ties (contacts) from bureaucrats’ use of those ties to attempt to advance their policy goals (requests for lobbying help). We find that policy agreement explains both the strength of network ties and bureaucrats’ requests for advocacy from their partners, but that interest group influence and unified partisan control of government explain only the latter.
BoehmkeF. J.GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2013). Business as usual: Interest group access and representation across policy-making venues. Journal of Public Policy, 33(1), 3–33.
6.
BradleyK. W. V.HaselswerdtJ. (2018). Who lobbies the lobbyists? State Medicaid bureaucrats’ engagement in the legislative process. Journal of Public Policy, 38(1), 83–111.
CalanniJ. C.SiddikiS. N.WeibleC. M.LeachW. D. (2015). Explaining coordination in collaborative partnerships and clarifying the scope of the belief homophily hypothesis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 901–927.
9.
CarpenterD. P. (2000). State building through reputation building: Policy innovation and coalitions of esteem at the post office, 1883-1912. Studies in American Political Development, 14(2), 121–155.
10.
CarpenterD. P. (2001). The forging of bureaucratic autonomy: Reputations, networks, and policy innovation in executive agencies, 1862-1928. Princeton University Press.
11.
CarpenterD. P.EsterlingK. M.LazerD. M. J. (2004). Friends, brokers and transitivity: Who informs whom in Washington politics?Journal of Politics, 66(1), 224–246.
12.
GerberE. R.HenryA. D.LubellM. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598–610.
13.
GoldenM. M. (1998). Interest groups in the rule-making process: Who participates? Whose voices get heard?Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 245–270.
14.
GrayV.LoweryD.BenzJ. K. (2013). Interest groups and health care reform across the United States. Georgetown University Press.
15.
HaederS. F.YackeeS. W. (2015). Influence and the administrative process: Lobbying the President’s Office of Management and Budget. American Political Science Review, 109(3), 507–522.
16.
HallR. L.DeardorffA. V. (2006). Lobbying as legislative subsidy. American Political Science Review, 100(01), 69–84.
17.
HecloH. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In KingA. (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–107). American Enterprise Institute.
18.
HeinmillerT. B.PirakK. (2017). Advocacy coalitions in Ontario land use policy development. Review of Policy Research, 34(2), 168–185.
19.
HenryA. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.
20.
HenryA. D.LubellM.McCoyM. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 419–444.
21.
HolyokeT. (2003). Choosing battlegrounds: Interest group lobbying across multiple venues. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 325–336.
22.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.NohrstedtD.WeibleC. M.IngoldK. (2017). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (4th ed., pp. 135–171). Westview Press.
23.
KaltonG.AndersonD. W. (1986). Sampling rare populations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A: General, 149(1), 65–82.
24.
KrupnikovY.ShipanC. (2012). Measuring gubernatorial budgetary power: A new approach. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 12(4), 438–455.
25.
KukkonenA.Ylä-AnttilaT.BroadbentJ. (2017). Advocacy coalitions, beliefs and climate change policy in the United States. Public Administration, 95(3), 713–729.
26.
MattiS.SandströmA. (2011). The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: Examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 385–410.
27.
MattiS.SandströmA. (2013). The defining elements of advocacy coalitions: Continuing the search for explanations for coordination and coalition structures. Review of Policy Research, 30(2), 240–257.
28.
McCoolD. (1990). Subgovernments as determinants of political viability. Political Science Quarterly, 105(2), 269–293.
29.
McKayA. M. (2011). The decision to lobby bureaucrats. Public Choice, 147(1), 123–138.
30.
Nicholson-CrottyJ.MillerS. M. (2012). Bureaucratic effectiveness and influence in the legislature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 347–371.
31.
Nicholson-CrottyS. (2009). Politics and management: Revisiting the politics/administration dichotomy in order to build a more complete understanding of public management. Public Performance and Management Review, 32, 610–617.
32.
PfefferJ.SalancikG.R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Harper & Row
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
35.
SongM.ParkH. J.JungK. (2018). Do political similarities facilitate interlocal collaboration?Public Administration Review, 78(2), 261–269.
36.
SquireP. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(2), 211–227.
37.
WalkerJ. L.Jr. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. University of Michigan Press.
38.
WeibleC. M. (2005). Beliefs and perceived influence in a natural resource conflict: An advocacy coalition approach to policy networks. Political Research Quarterly, 58(3), 461–475.
39.
WeibleC. M.Tanya HeikkilaT.PierceJ. (2018). Understanding rationales for collaboration in high-intensity policy conflicts. Journal of Public Policy, 38(1), 1–25.
40.
YackeeJ. W.YackeeS. W. (2006). A bias towards business? Assessing interest group influence on the U.S. bureaucracy. The Journal of Politics, 68(1), 128–139.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
