Despite the importance of social network analysis (SNA) in public administration, comprehensive reviews on this topic are rare. This study aims to fill this gap by focusing on the application of SNA in network research within public administration. This research analyzes 144 empirical papers from top public administration journals (January 1997–January 2022), utilizing bibliometric and content analyses. The study identifies social capital, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), the ecology of games framework, and resource dependence theory as the predominant theoretical foundations of SNA. The primary focus of these works is on collective action problems and public service delivery, with a trend towards the integration and comparison of theories. Through content analysis, we find a notable shift in SNA application from descriptive analysis to network inference, predominantly using Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs). It also reveals the growing significance of network visualization in SNA. The study concludes with potential future directions for SNA in public administration, highlighting its evolving role and significance.
AgarwalR.AudretschD.SarkarM. B. (2007). The process of creative construction: Knowledge spillovers, entrepreneurship, and economic growth. Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal, 1(3-4), 263–286.
2.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2001). Big questions in public network management research. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(3), 295–326.
3.
AgranoffR.McGuireM. (2003). Inside the matrix: Integrating the paradigms of intergovernmental and network management. International Journal of Public Administration, 26(12), 1401–1422.
4.
AngstM.HirschiC. (2017). Network dynamics in natural resource governance: A case study of swiss landscape management. Policy Studies Journal, 45(2), 315–336.
5.
AnsellC.GashA. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.
BaumgartnerF. R.JonesB. D. (2010). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
8.
BerardoR. (2014). Bridging and bonding capital in two-mode collaboration networks. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 197–225.
9.
BerardoR.LubellM. (2016). Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Administration Review, 76(5), 738–751. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12532
10.
BerardoR.ScholzJ. T. (2010). Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 632–649.
11.
BerryF. S.BrowerR. S.ChoiS. O.GoaW. X.JangH.KwonM.WordJ. (2004). Three traditions of network research: What the public management research agenda can learn from other research communities. Public Administration Review, 64(5), 539–552.
BodinÖ.CronaB. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374.
14.
BogasonP.ToonenT. A. (1998). Introduction: Networks in public administration. Public Administration, 76(2), 205–227.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). Ucinet for windows: Software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, 6, 12–15.
17.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Sage Publications.
18.
BrandenbergerL.IngoldK.FischerM.SchläpferI.LeifeldP. (2022). Boundary spanning through engagement of policy actors in multiple issues. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 35–64.
19.
BurtR. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press.
20.
BurtR. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.
21.
BurtR. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. OUP Oxford.
22.
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.
23.
CarringtonP.ScottJ. (2011). Introduction. In The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 1–8). Sage Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446294413
24.
CasillasJ.AcedoF. (2007). Evolution of the intellectual structure of family business literature: A bibliometric study of FBR. Family Business Review, 20(2), 141–162.
25.
ChabowskiB. R.MenaJ. A.Gonzalez-PadronT. L. (2011). The structure of sustainability research in marketing, 1958–2008: A basis for future research opportunities. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 55–70.
26.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
27.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A. (2011). Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Political Analysis, 19(1), 66–86.
28.
CranmerS. J.DesmaraisB. A.MorganJ. W. (2020). Inferential network analysis. Cambridge University Press.
29.
CulnanM. J.O’Reilly IIIC. A.ChatmanJ. A. (1990). Intellectual structure of research in organizational behavior, 1972–1984: A cocitation analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6), 453–458.
30.
DesmaraisB. A.CranmerS. J. (2012). Micro-level interpretation of exponential random graph models with application to estuary networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 402–434.
31.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
32.
DowdingK. (1995). Model or metaphor? A critical review of the policy network approach. Political Studies, 43(1), 136–158.
33.
D’SouzaC.TaghianM.KhoslaR. (2007). Examination of environmental beliefs and its impact on the influence of price, quality and demographic characteristics with respect to green purchase intention. Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 15, 69–78.
34.
EllegaardO.WallinJ. A. (2015). The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: How great is the impact?Scientometrics, 105, 1809–1831.
35.
EmersonK.NabatchiT.BaloghS. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.
36.
FeiockR. C. (2009). Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review, 44(3), 356–377.
37.
FeiockR. C.ScholzJ. T. (Eds.). (2009). Self-organizing federalism: Collaborative mechanisms to mitigate institutional collective action dilemmas. Cambridge University Press.
38.
FeiockR. C.SteinackerA.ParkH. J. (2009). Institutional collective action and economic development joint ventures. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 256–270.
39.
FeiockR. C.InW. L.HyungJ. P.LeeK.-H. (2010). Collaboration networks among local elected officials: Information, commitment, and risk aversion. Urban Affairs Review, 46(2), 241–262.
40.
FeiockR. C. (2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 397–425.
41.
FredericksonH. G. (1999). The repositioning of American public administration. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32(4), 701–712.
42.
FreemanL. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
43.
FreemanL. C. (2011). The development of social network analysis–with an emphasis on recent events. The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, 21(3), 26–39.
44.
GarfieldE. (1979). Is citation analysis a legitimate evaluation tool?Scientometrics, 1, 359–375.
45.
GerberE. R.HenryA. D.LubellM. (2013). Political homophily and collaboration in regional planning networks. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 598–610.
46.
GmürM. (2003). Co-citation analysis and the search for invisible colleges: A methodological evaluation. Scientometrics, 57(1), 27–57.
47.
GoodreauS. M.KittsJ. A.MorrisM. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46(1), 103–125.
48.
GranovetterM. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.
49.
GranovetterM. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
50.
GumusS.BellibasM. S.EsenM.GumusE. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25–48.
51.
HannemanR. A.RiddleM. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. University of California Riverside.
52.
HayesA. L.ScottT. A. (2018). Multiplex network analysis for complex governance systems using surveys and online behavior. Policy Studies Journal, 46(2), 327–353.
53.
HecloH. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In KingA (ed.) The new American political system (pp. 87–124). American Enterprise Institute.
54.
HenryA. D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361–383.
55.
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.
56.
HerzogL.IngoldK.SchlagerE. (2022). Prescribed by law and therefore realized? Analyzing rules and their implied actor interactions as networks. Policy Studies Journal, 50(2), 366–386.
57.
HopkinsF. (1984). New causal theory and ethnomethodology: Cocitation patterns across a decade. Scientometrics, 6(1), 33–53.
58.
HuQ.KhosaS.KapucuN. (2016). The intellectual structure of empirical network research in public administration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(4), 593–612.
59.
HuheN.ThomsonR.ArreguiJ.NaurinD. (2022). Intergovernmental cooperation networks, national policy positions and partisan ideologies: Longitudinal evidence from the Council of the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 29(1), 78–96.
60.
HunterD. R. (2007). Curved exponential family models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 216–230.
61.
HunterD. R.HandcockM. S.ButtsC. T.GoodreauS. M.MorrisM. (2008). Ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(3), nihpa54860.
62.
IngoldK. (2011). Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.
63.
IngoldK.LeifeldP. (2016). Structural and institutional determinants of influence reputation: A comparison of collaborative and adversarial policy networks in decision making and implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 1–18.
64.
IngoldK.FischerM.CairneyP. (2017). Drivers for policy agreement in nascent subsystems: An application of the advocacy coalition framework to fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 442–463.
65.
IngoldK.VaroneF. (2012). Treating policy brokers seriously: Evidence from the climate policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346.
66.
IsettK. R.MergelI. A.LeRouxK.MischenP. A.RethemeyerR. K. (2011). Networks in public administration scholarship: Understanding where we are and where we need to go. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(suppl_1), i157–i173.
67.
Jenkins-SmithH. C.SabatierP. A. (1994). Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy, 14(2), 175–203.
68.
KapucuN. (2015). Introduction: Social network analysis applications in complex governance networks. Complexity, Governance & Networks, 2(1), 1–4.
69.
KapucuN.DemirozF. (2011). Measuring performance for collaborative public management using network analysis methods and tools. Public Performance & Management Review, 34(4), 549–579. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576340406
70.
KapucuN.GarayevV. (2013). Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(3), 312–330.
71.
KapucuN.GarayevV.WangX. (2013). Sustaining networks in emergency management. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(1), 104–133.
72.
KapucuN.HuQ.KhosaS. (2017). The state of network research in public administration. Administration & Society, 49(8), 1087–1120.
73.
KnokeD.PappiF. U.BroadbentJ.TsujinakaY. (1996). Comparing policy networks: Labor politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. Cambridge University Press.
74.
KoppenjanJ. F. M.KlijnE.-H. (2004). Managing uncertainties in networks: A network approach to problem solving and decision making. Psychology Press.
75.
LaumannE. O.KnokeD. (1987). The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains. Univ of Wisconsin Press.
76.
LecyJ. D.MergelI. A.SchmitzH. P. (2014). Networks in public administration: Current scholarship in review. Public Management Review, 16(5), 643–665.
77.
LecyJ. D.SchmitzH. P.SwedlundH. (2012). Non-governmental and not-for-profit organizational effectiveness: A modern synthesis. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(2), 434–457.
78.
LeifeldP. (2013). Reconceptualizing major policy change in the advocacy coalition framework: A discourse network analysis of German pension politics: Reconceptualizing major policy change in the ACF. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 169–198.
79.
LeifeldP.SchneiderV. (2012). Information exchange in policy networks. American Journal of Political Science, 56(3), 731–744.
80.
LubellM. (2013). Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 537–559.
81.
LubellM.HenryA. D.McCoyM. (2010). Collaborative institutions in an ecology of games. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 287–300.
82.
LubellM.RobbinsM. (2022). Adapting to sea-level rise: Centralization or decentralization in polycentric governance systems?Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 143–175.
83.
LubellM.RobinsG.WangP. (2014). Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecology and Society, 19(4).
84.
LubellM.SchneiderM.ScholzJ. T.MeteM. (2002). Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 148–163.
85.
LubellM.ScholzJ.BerardoR.RobinsG. (2012). Testing policy theory with statistical models of networks. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 351–374.
86.
LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press.
87.
MarinA.WellmanB. (2011). Social network analysis: An introduction. In ScottJ.CarringtonP. J. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 11–25). Sage Publications.
88.
McCainK. (1983). The author cocitation structure of macroeconomics. Scientometrics, 5(5), 277–289.
89.
McCainK. W. (1990). Mapping authors in intellectual space: A technical overview. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998), 41(6), 433.
90.
McLaughlinD. M.MewhirterJ. M.LubellM. (2022). Conflict contagion: How interdependence shapes patterns of conflict and cooperation in polycentric systems. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(3), 543–560.
91.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
92.
MeierK. J.O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2003). Public management and educational performance: The impact of managerial networking. Public Administration Review, 63(6), 689–699.
93.
MorrisM.HandcockM. S.HunterD. R. (2008). Specification of exponential-family random graph models: Terms and computational aspects. Journal of Statistical Software, 24(4), 1548.
94.
O’learyR.VijN. (2012). Collaborative public management: Where have we been and where are we going?The American Review of Public Administration, 42(5), 507–522.
95.
OlivierT.BerardoR. (2022). Birds of a feather fight together: Forum involvement in a weakly institutionalized ecology of policy games. Policy Studies Journal, 50(1), 176–198.
96.
OstromE. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
97.
OstromE. (2005). Doing institutional analysis digging deeper than markets and hierarchies. In MenardC.ShirleyM. M. (Eds.), Handbook of new institutional economics (pp. 819–848). Springer.
98.
O’TooleL. J.Jr. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57, 45–52.
99.
O’TooleL. J.Jr. (2015). Networks and networking: The public administrative agendas. Public Administration Review, 75(3), 361–371.
100.
PfefferJ.SalancikG. R. (1978). The external control of organizations: A resource dependence perspective. Stanford Business Books.
101.
PowellW. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organization / W.W. Powell. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
102.
ProvanK. G.FishA.SydowJ. (2007). Interorganizational networks at the network level: A review of the empirical literature on whole networks. Journal of Management, 33(3), 479–516.
103.
ProvanK. G.KenisP. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252.
104.
ProvanK. G.MilwardH. B. (2001). Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review, 61(4), 414–423.
105.
ProvanK.MilwardH. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganizational network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community mental health systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(1), 1–33.
106.
PutnamR. D.LeonardiR.NanettiR. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
107.
Ramos-RodríguezA. R.Ruíz-NavarroJ. (2004). Changes in the intellectual structure of strategic management research: A bibliometric study of the Strategic Management Journal, 1980–2000. Strategic Management Journal, 25(10), 981–1004.
108.
RennkampB. (2019). Power, coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy. Climate Policy, 19(6), 756–770.
109.
RethemeyerR. K. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring collaborative networks. Public Administration Review, 65(1), 117–121.
110.
RethemeyerR. K.HatmakerD. M. (2008). Network management reconsidered: An inquiry into management of network structures in public sector service provision. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 617–646.
111.
RhodesR. A. W. (1996). The new governance: Governing without government. Political Studies, 44(4), 652–667.
112.
RittelH. W.WebberM. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
113.
RobinsG.PattisonP.KalishY.LusherD. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29(2), 173–191.
114.
RobinsonS. E. (2006). A decade of treating networks seriously. Policy Studies Journal, 34(4), 589–598.
SabatierP. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2–3), 129–168.
117.
SabatierP. A. (1998). The advocacy coalition framework: Revisions and relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 98–130.
118.
SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C. (1993). Policy change over a decade or more. The nation’s health (pp. 143–174). Westview.
119.
SandströmA.CarlssonL. (2008). The performance of policy networks: The relation between network structure and network performance. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 497–524.
120.
ScharpfF. (1997). Games real actors play: Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research.
121.
SchneiderM.ScholzJ.LubellM.MindrutaD.EdwardsenM. (2003). Building consensual institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 143–158.
122.
ScholzJ. T.BerardoR.KileB. (2008). Do networks solve collective action problems? Credibility, search, and collaboration. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 393–406.
123.
ScottJ. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
124.
ScottJ. (2013). Social network analysis: A handbook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
125.
ScottT. A. (2016). Analyzing policy networks using valued exponential random graph models: Do government-sponsored collaborative groups enhance organizational networks?Policy Studies Journal, 44(2), 215–244.
126.
ScottT. A.UlibarriN. (2019). Taking network analysis seriously: Methodological improvements for governance network scholarship. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 2(2), 89–101.
127.
SicilianoM. D.CarrJ. B.HuggV. G. (2021). Analyzing the effectiveness of networks for addressing public problems: Evidence from a Longitudinal Study. Public Administration Review, 81(5), 895–910.
128.
SmallH. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 24(4), 265–269.
129.
SmallH. (1997). Update on science mapping: Creating large document spaces. Scientometrics, 38, 275–293.
130.
SmallH. (1980). Co-citation context analysis and the structure of paradigms. Journal of Documentation, 36(3), 183–196.
131.
SmallH. (2003). Paradigms, citations, and maps of science: A personal history. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(5), 394–399.
132.
SnijdersT. A.PattisonP. E.RobinsG. L.HandcockM. S. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36(1), 99–153.
133.
SnijdersT. A.Van de BuntG. G.SteglichC. E. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60.
134.
St. ClairR.HicksD.IsettK. R. (2017). An investigation into the characteristics of papers with high scholarly citations in public administration: The relativity of theory and method. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 37(3), 323–350.
135.
SurwaseG.SagarA.KademaniB. S.BhanumurthyK. (2011, September16–17). Co-citation analysis: An overview. In National Conference on Beyond Librarianship (NCBL-2011), Mumbai (India), pp. 196–206.
136.
van den OordS.VanlaerN.MarynissenH.BrugghemansB.Van RoeyJ.AlbersS.CambréB.KenisP. (2020). Network of networks: preliminary lessons from the antwerp port authority on crisis management and network governance to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Administration Review, 80(5), 880–894.
137.
VantaggiatoF. P. (2019). Networking for resources: How regulators use networks to compensate for lower staff levels. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(10), 1540–1559.
138.
VilladsenA. R. (2011). Structural embeddedness of political top executives as explanation of policy isomorphism. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(4), 573–599.
139.
WachhausA. (2009). Networks in contemporary public administration: A discourse analysis. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 31(1), 59–77.
140.
WangW. (2016). Exploring the determinants of network effectiveness: The case of neighborhood governance networks in Beijing. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(2), 375–388.
141.
WassermanS. (1994). Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.
142.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. APA.
143.
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.
144.
WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: Marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 33(2), 181–201.
145.
WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A.Jenkins-SmithH. C.NohrstedtD.HenryA. D.DeLeonP. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: An introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 349–360.
146.
WeibleC. M.SabatierP. A.McQueenK. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.
147.
YiH.ScholzJ. T. (2016). Policy networks in complex governance subsystems: Observing and comparing hyperlink, media, and partnership networks. Policy Studies Journal, 44(3), 248–279.
148.
ZhangW.ZhangM.YuanL.FanF. (2023). Social network analysis and public policy: What’s new?Journal of Asian Public Policy, 16(2), 115–145.
