A preliminary ordering of policy network labels

Abstract

Abstract. This introduction seeks to sketch out the relationship between a variety of terms that are used in contemporary discussion of the interaction between Government/State and interest groups. It starts with a short reflection on the main theories of interest intermediation — pluralism and corporatism — and argues for reserving the term policy network as a generic label embracing different types of network relationship. This piece thus attempts to record the variety of labels currently used to describe state/interest relations, to show the overlap between certain of these labels, and how they relate one to the other. The existing confusion of labels signal a greater variety than they deliver.

Heterarchial Networks for Global Corporations: Emerging Unstructured Complexity in Regulatory Landscape

“…The nation state is increasingly reconstituted in relation to regional, hemispheric and global institutions; the old North/South dichotomy is being replaced by a trichotomy of elite/contented/marginalized that cuts across the old North/South polarity (Held, McGrew, Goldblatt & Perraton, 1999). Jordan and Schubert (1992) considered the role of the pluralist state where authority and autonomy are diluted by the range of interest groups and individuals attempting to access the policy-making process. The state retains a role but reduced from the hierarchical, state-centred governance that characterizes the marketplace.…”

Networks : structure and action : steering in and steering by policy networks

“…Atkinson & Coleman, 1989;Jordan & Schubert, 1992;Marsh & Rhodes, 1992;Richardson & Jordan, 1979;Van Waarden, 1992). Others argued that policy networks more than just a platform that facilitate interactions between a collection of public and private stakeholders.…”

“…Secondly, the typologies attempt to grasp the extent to which the costs for actors are reduced due to increased access to information and the stimulation of cooperation in policy networks. A typology similar to that of Van Waarden was presented by Jordan and Schubert (1992). They distinguish between twelve types of policy networks.…”

“…Second, in line with Jordan and Schubert (1992) These resources could be tangible resources, but also intangible resources. The inclusion of policy resources besides power relates this third dimension to the first dimension (i.e.…”

“…In the 1980s and 1990s, these two distinct types of state-industry relationships were taken up by a number of scholars and generally redefined as two poles of a continuum of policy network types (e.g. Atkinson & Coleman, 1989;Jordan & Schubert, 1992;Marsh, 1998b;Marsh & Rhodes, 1992;Rhodes, 1997;Richardson & Jordan, 1979;Smith, 1993;Van Waarden, 1992). Based on these different types of policy networks, the approach developed that conceives policy networks as platforms of interest intermediation (Börzel, 1998).…”