Evaluating collaborative institutions by segregation and homophily in policy networks
| Published date | 01 June 2023 |
| Author | Adam Douglas Henry |
| Date | 01 June 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12800 |
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluating collaborative institutions by
segregation and homophily in policy networks
Adam Douglas Henry
School of Government & Public Policy,
University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA
Correspondence
Adam Douglas Henry, School of
Government & Public Policy, University of
Arizona, P.O. Box 210027, Social Sciences
315, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Email: adhenry@arizona.edu
Abstract
Many policy systems are experimenting with collaborative
institutions to manage complex policy problems in the face
of persistent conflict and scientific uncertainty. Policy
networks are central to the theory of why collaborative
institutions are effective. While many policy systems natu-
rally become segregated, fragmented, or siloed due to
homophily, collaborative institutions are hypothesized to
create more integrated systems of organizational collabora-
tion. Collaborative institutions may, therefore, be evaluated
by the extent to which they reduce the tendency toward
homophily and increase the integration of policy networks.
This paper evaluates three collaborative institutions in
regional land-use planning and specifies a theory of the pro-
gram from two prominent frameworks: Institutional Collec-
tive Action and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Results
show that three forms of homophily are at work, and that in
some cases, collaborative institutions successfully reduce
the tendency toward network segregation.
1|INTRODUCTION
Collaborative governance has emerged as a prominent strategy to manage policy issues involving deep scientific
complexity, multiple functional domains, and wrenching ideological conflict. Collaborative governance institutions
are hypothesized to be effective due in part to the integrative effect they have on policy networks, a term that refers
to the various ways in which stakeholders to a policy process communicate, coordinate their actions, and, otherwise,
engage professionally with one another. Networks exist in any policy process (Victor et al. 2016), as policymaking is
fundamentally a collective action activity that requires the engagement and coordination of many different
Manuscript accepted for publication in Public Administration, October 2021.
Received: 11 February 2021 Revised: 20 August 2021 Accepted: 5 October 2021
DOI: 10.1111/padm.12800
604 © 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Public Admin. 2023;101:604–621.wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/padm
stakeholders (P. A. Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1993; Schneider et al. 2003). The patterns of interaction within a policy
network may be healthy or unhealthy, leading to better or worse outcomes, depending on the degree to which the
network structure enables participants to build social capital (Leach & Sabatier 2005), promote the effective flow of
information (Scholz et al. 2008), and mitigate risks of participating in collective decision-making (Berardo &
Scholz 2010).
It is widely believed that a diagnostic feature of unhealthy policy networks is network segregation, meaning that
the network tends to connect actors who are similar in one or more traits (Freeman 1978). Network segregation is
widely observed in the policy process, particularly in terms of belief systems, the functional domain of organizations,
and levels of political authority (Schneider et al. 2003). Network segregation is a key trait of “siloed”or “fragmented”
policy systems and hinders the coupling of diverse perspectives, resources, and authority that is widely believed to
be a necessary condition for effective management and policy learning (Hong & Page 2004; Vollan & Henry 2019).
Collaborative governance institutions, thus, become relevant, as they are primarily focused on bringing together
diverse stakeholders to work toward a common purpose. One hypothesized benefit of collaborative institutions is
that they tend to reshape existing networks within the policy process, lessening the tendency toward segregation
and increasing the tendency toward network integration.
1
Through the creation of more integrated networks, collabo-
rative institutions, thus, promote decision-making structures that are more conducive to the building of social capital,
successful collective action, and policy learning (Bidwell et al. 2013).
This article tests the proposition that collaborative institutions reduce network segregation. This proposition is
tested in the context of three collaborative land-use and transportation planning processes in California, USA. In
doing so, several key contributions are made to both the theory and practice of public administration:
1. Clarification of one theoretical pathway by which collaborative governance is intended to improve policy outcomes.
Collaborative governance is a tool that is used to achieve more desirable policy outcomes; however, this may
occur through a number of pathways. Viewing collaborative governance as a program, an important question is
not just whether collaborative governance is effective at improving policy outcomes, but why is it effective? In
other words, the theory of the program must be made explicit—this is a critical component of effective program
evaluation and enables us to not just evaluate programs, but also improve their design (Weiss 1972). Therefore, it
is important to provide a clear theoretical explanation of why collaborative institutions are expected to promote
more integrated networks, and why networks tend toward segregation in the absence of collaborative institu-
tions. Prominent theoretical frameworks used in the study of public administration and policy—Institutional Col-
lective Action (ICA) and the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)—provide clear and testable theoretical
explanations about these processes. They explain how networks are structured through homophily (creating ties
that enhance segregation), and how collaborative institutions are expected to mitigate this effect by reducing the
transaction costs of tie formation in networks.
2. Illustrate how programs may be evaluated in terms of network outcomes. While there is much interest in the system-
atic analysis of networks, skills to analyze and model network data are largely missing from public administration
curricula. This article provides a methodological example for the evaluation of a program using network analysis.
This is a useful approach for the evaluation of any program that is hypothesized to work through the mechanism
of networks—for instance, programs that are intended to enhance interorganizational coordination, promote the
efficient spread of information in a system, or ensure representative stakeholder participation in governance. Net-
work structures are often useful metrics for program success. It is hoped this research will motivate others to use
network analysis to evaluative programs, including but limited to collaborative governance institutions.
3. Empirically test the proposition that collaborative governance lessens the tendency toward network segregation.Itis
often assumed, but rarely tested, that collaborative institutions reduce segregation in policy networks, thereby
increasing network integration. Collaborative institutions will, of course, vary in their degree of success. However,
we lack comparative research across a variety of geographic and substantive contexts that tells us whether there
is a general trend toward integration within collaborative institutions. We must be in the business of
HENRY 605
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
