Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach
| Author | Keith Dowding |
| Published date | 01 March 1995 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1995.tb01705.x |
| Date | 01 March 1995 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Sfudies
(1995),
XLIII,
136158
Model or Metaphor?
A
Critical
Review
of
the
Policy
Network
Approach
KEITH
DOWDING’
London School
of
Economics and Political Science
’every science must start with metaphor and end with algebra.”
‘I
am sorry to say that the subject
I
most disliked was mathematics.
I
have thought
about it.
I
think the reason was that mathematics leaves no room for arg~ment.’~
1.
Introduction
Policy network analysis has become the dominant paradigm for the study of
the policy-making process in British political science and has assumed great
importance in Europe and America. Recently both
Governance
and
European
Journal
of
Political Research
have had special issues on policy networks: whilst
Policy
Sciences
and
International Organization
have each devoted one issue to
the related concept of ‘advocacy coalitions’ and ‘epistemic comm~nities’.~ Two
British Social Science Research Council
(SSRC)
Initiatives were theoretically
driven by the network approach and policy networks were a core theme of the
1994
Political Studies Association conference.6 It is time to take stock: to see
how much we have learned about policy-making from this approach, to judge
whether it can develop into a genuine and fruitful theory of the policy process
or whether a more fundamental theory is required. In this review
I
argue that
whilst we have learned much about the policy process by cataloguing the policy
world into different types of network, the approach will not, alone, take
us
much further. Policy network analysis began as a metaphor, and may only
become a theory by developing along the lines of sociological network analysis.
’
This paper was written whilst the author was Hallsworth Fellow at Manchester University.
I
would like to thank the Department of Government
for
providing such a congenial atmosphere
in which
to
conduct research.
I
would like to thank Anne Gelling, Peter John, Grant Jordan, Joni
Lovenduski, Helen Margetts, Jeremy Richardson and Rod Rhodes for their comments
on
an earlier
version of this and similar papers.
*
Max Black,
Models and Metaphors
(Ithaca
NY,
Cornell University Press, 1962), p. 242.
Malcolm
X,
The Autobiography of Malcolm
X
[with Alex Haley] (New York, Grove, 1964),
Governance,
2,
I.
(1989);
European Journal of Political Research,
21,
1,
(1992).
Policy Sciences,
21,
2, (1988);
International Organization,
46, (1992).
SSRC,
Central-Local Government Relationships
(London, SSRC, 1979); SSRC,
Government and
Industry Relationships: a Framework for Analysis
(London, SSRC, 1981). See R. A.
W.
Rhodes,
‘Policy networks: A British perspective’,
Journaf
of
Theoretical Politics,
2
(1990), 293-317,
for
a
brief discussion of these initiatives.
p.
29.
,C
Political Studies Association
1995
Published
by Blackwell Publishers.
108
Cowley
Road.
Oxford
OX4
IJF.
UK
and
238
Main
Strat.
Cambridge.
MA
02142.
USA.
Review Article
137
Attempts to provide a ‘meso-level’ theory,’ to connect networks with state
autonomy approaches,’ or to drive network analysis by introducing ‘ideas’ in
the form of ‘epistemic communities’ or ‘advocacy
coalition^'^
will all fail to
produce fundamental
theories
of the policy process. They fail because the
driving force of explanation, the independent variables, are not network
characteristics
per se
but rather characteristics of components within the
networks. These components explain both the nature of the network
and
the
nature of the policy process. General theory may be developed by concentrating
upon those characteristics. Theory building in this case will be reductionist. In
order
to
produce
a
network
theory; where the properties of the network rather
than the properties of its members drives explanation, political science must
utilize the sociological network tradition, borrowing and modifying its alge-
braic methods. This
I
argue is of limited potential.”
2.
The
Descriptive
Approach
From Metaphor
The origin
of
the terms ‘policy community’ and ‘policy network’
is
essentially
metaphorical. Early metaphors characterizing group-government relations
include ‘whirlpool’” ‘sub-governments’,’2 ‘triangle’,I3 ‘sloppy hexagon’,I4
’David Marsh and R. A. W. Rhodes, ‘Policy communities and issue networks: beyond typology’
in David Marsh and
R.
A. W. Rhodes (eds),
Po/icy Networks in British Government
(Oxford,
Oxford University Press, 1992).
Michael M. Atkinson and William D. Coleman, ‘Strong states and weak states: sectoral policy
networks in advanced capitalist economies’,
British Journal
of
Political Science,
19
(1989), 47- 67;
Michael M. Atkinson and William D. Coleman, ‘Policy networks, policy communities and the
problems of governance’,
Governance,
5
(1992), 15440; William D. Coleman, ‘State traditions and
comprehensive business associations: a comparative structural analysis’,
Political Studies,
38
(1990), 231-52; William
D.
Coleman and Grace Skogstad, ‘Policy communities and policy
networks: a structural approach’, in William D. Coleman and Grace Skogstad (eds),
Policy
Communities and Public Policy in Canada
(Toronto, Copp Clark Pitman, 1990), Martin Smith,
Pressure Power and Policy: State Autonomy and Policy Networks
in
Britain and the United States
(Heme1 Hempstead, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993).
Paul A. Sabatier, ‘Knowledge, policy-oriented learning, and policy change: an advocacy
coalition framework’,
Knowledge, Creation, Diffusion, Utilization,
8
(1987), 648-92; Paul A.
Sabatier, ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy-change and the role of policy-oriented
learning therein’,
Policy Sciences,
21 (1988), 129-68; Paul A. Sabatier and Neil Pelkey, ‘Incorpo-
rating multiple actors and guidance instruments into models of regulatory policy-making: an
advocacy coalition framework’,
Administration and Society,
19 (1987), 236-63 and Paul
A.
Sabatier
and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (eds),
Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach
(Boulder, Westview 1993). For ‘epistemic communities’ see the essays in
International Organization,
46, 1 (1992) [special issue Peter
M.
Haas (ed.),
Knowledge, Power and International Policy
Coordination
1.
lo
Due to misunderstanding of an earlier paper, Keith Dowding, ‘Policy networks: don’t stretch
a good idea too far’, in Patrick Dunleavy and Jeffrey Stanyer (eds),
Contemporary Political Studies,
1994
vol.
I
(Belfast, The Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, 1994), where
I
was
taken to be lauding sociological network analysis
I
wish to reinforce this point. Sociological
network analysis does constitute a reasonable model since network characteristics do stand as
independent variables. How
useful
a model it will prove to be is, logically, a separate issue.
I’
Ernest
S.
Griffiths,
The Impasse
of
Democracy
(New York, Harrison-Wilton, 1939).
’*
David Truman,
The Governmental Process
(New York, Knopf, 2nd ed., 1971); Douglas Cater,
Power in Washington
(New York, Random House, 1964);
J.
Leiper Freeman,
The Political Process
(New York, Random House, 1965).
”
Cater,
Power in Washington.
l4
Charles
0.
Jones, ‘American politics and the organization
of
energy decision-making’,
Annual
Review
of
Energy,
4 (1979), 99-121.
$‘
Political
Studies Association,
1995
To continue reading
Request your trial