Information exchange in policy networks is usually attributed to preference similarity, influence reputation, social trust and institutional actor roles. We suggest that political opportunity structures and transaction costs play another crucial role and estimate a rich statistical network model on tie formation in the German toxic chemicals policy domain. The results indicate that the effect of preference similarity is absorbed by institutional, relational and social opportunity structures. Political actors choose contacts that minimize transaction costs while maximizing outreach and information. We also find that different types of information exchange operate in complementary, but not necessarily congruent, ways. Keywords: Policy Networks, ERGM, Information Exchange, Transaction Cost Theory, Interest GroupsThe policy network approach assumes that policy-making is affected by a variety of organized governmental and non-governmental actors (Adam and Kriesi 2007), who maintain relations like information or resource exchange, influence attribution, or common group membership. Policy networks are usually supported by "polycentric" institutional arrangements (Ostrom 2010) facilitating collaboration and information exchange in a long-term pespective as a kind of "2 nd order economization" (Williamson 2000). The question how policy networks operate has provoked a substantial number of policy network studies over the course of the last 30 years. Some of the more recent analyses have tried to assess the reasons why political actors establish contacts to some actors but not to others.

How does major policy change come about? This article identifies and rectifies weaknesses in the conceptualization of innovative policy change in the Advocacy Coalition Framework. In a case study of policy belief change preceding an innovative reform in the German subsystem of old-age security, important new aspects of major policy change are carved out. In particular, the analysis traces a transition from one single hegemonic advocacy coalition to another stable coalition with a transition phase between the two equilibria. The transition phase is characterized (a) by a bipolarization of policy beliefs in the subsystem and (b) by state actors with shifting coalition memberships due to policy learning across coalitions or due to executive turnover. Apparently, there are subsystems with specific characteristics (presumably redistributive rather than regulative subsystems) in which one hegemonic coalition is the default, or the "normal state". In these subsystems, polarization and shifting coalition memberships seem to interact to produce coalition turnover and major policy change. The case study is based on discourse network analysis, a combination of qualitative content analysis and social network analysis, which provides an intertemporal measurement of advocacy coalition realignment at the level of policy beliefs in a subsystem.

No abstract

Abstract:Policy forums are issue-based intermediary organizations where diverse types of political and societal actors repeatedly interact. Policy forums are important elements of modern governance systems as they allow actors to learn, negotiate, or build trust. They can vary in composition, size, membership logic, and other distinct features. This article lays the foundation of a theory of policy forums based on three interrelated elements: First, it discusses conditions for the formation of a forum and describes the logic of these organizations as one of an asymmetric multipartite exchange. Second, it enumerates the potential set of goals and motivations of participating actors that are fed into this exchange. Third, it proposes eight different dimensions on which policy forums differ and which affect the exchange mechanisms among actors. We claim that empirical work on policy forums should systematically take these elements into account and propose elements of a research agenda.

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

In 2005, the European Parliament rejected the directive 'on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions', which had been drafted and supported by the European Commission, the Council and well-organised industrial interests, with an overwhelming majority. In this unusual case, a coalition of opponents of software patents prevailed over a strong industry-led coalition. We develop an explanation based on political discourse and show that two stable and distinct discourse coalitions can be identified and measured over time. The apparently weak coalition of software patent opponents shows typical properties of a hegemonic discourse coalition. It presents itself as being more coherent, employs a better-integrated set of frames and dominates key economic arguments, while the proponents of software patents are not as well-organised. This configuration of the discourse gave leeway for an alternative course of political action by the European Parliament. We operationalise the notion of discourse coalitions and related structural features of the discourse by drawing on social network analysis. More specifically, we introduce discourse network analysis as a new methodology for the study of policy debates. The approach is capable of measuring empirical discourses both statically and in a longitudinal way and is compatible with the policy network approach.

The xergm package is an implementation of extensions to the exponential random graph model (ERGM). It acts as a meta-package for multiple constituent packages. One of these packages is btergm, which implements bootstrap methods for the temporal ERGM estimated by maximum pseudolikelihood. Here, we illustrate the temporal exponential random graph model and its implementation in the package btergm using data on international alliances and a longitudinally observed friendship network in a Dutch school.

Political discourse is the verbal interaction among political actors, who make normative claims about policies conditional on each other, rendering discourse a dynamic network phenomenon. The structure and dynamics of policy debates can be analyzed by combining content and dynamic network analysis. After annotating statements of actors in text sources, networks can be created from these structured data, such as congruence or conflict networks at the actor or concept level, affiliation networks of actors and concept stances, and longitudinal versions of these networks. The resulting network data reveal important properties, such as the structure of advocacy coalitions or discourse coalitions; polarization and consensus formation; and underlying endogenous processes like popularity, reciprocity, or social balance. The advantage of discourse network analysis over survey-based policy network research is that policy processes can be analyzed from a longitudinal perspective. Inferential techniques for understanding the micro-level processes governing political discourse are being developed.