Policy Network Creation: The Case of Energy Efficiency
| Date | 01 December 2000 |
| Published date | 01 December 2000 |
| Author | David Toke |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00233 |
POLICY NETWORK CREATION: THE CASE OF
ENERGY EFFICIENCY
DAVE TOKE
What can broadly be described as a policy community has been established with
the central purpose of co-ordinating policy implementation in the field of energy
efficiency in domestic buildings. A complete understanding of the processes of pol-
icy network formation cannot be achieved in this case without a thorough analysis
of the construction of cognitive structures which influence the behaviour of actors
and underpin the policy network. Discourse analysis is an effective means of study-
ing cognitive structures. An understanding of the creative and unpredictable role
of agents such as ministers is also important, suggesting that the study of policy
network formation can be enlightened by a historical institutionalist approach that
involves a role for agency as well as structural influences. The formation of the
energy efficiency policy network is studied in the context of a critique of an earlier
‘economic’ institutionalist case study of policy network formation.
INTRODUCTION
The aim of this paper is twofold. First, to develop explanations of policy
network creation and persistence. Second, to throw light on the formation
of a policy network in the case of energy efficiency policy, a topic that has
been heavily influenced by environmental concerns. In pursuing the first
aim I shall criticise an ‘economic’ institutionalist explanation of the forma-
tion and persistence of policy networks as put forward by Blom-Hansen
(1997). I also try to elaborate an alternative explanation using what might
be called a historical institutionalist outlook. In doing so I shall use dis-
course analysis techniques. The utility of this explanation and these tech-
niques will be illustrated in the context of the case study of the formation
and operation of what I call the energy efficiency in buildings policy net-
work.
The importance of study of network formation is emphasized by Hay
who comments that it is ‘sadly overlooked’. He continues:
The assumption seems to pervade the existing literature%that networks
are always present, always already pre-constituted. The question of their
formation is thus persistently deferred. This is unfortunate. For if distinc-
tive aspects of network formation and structure are to be explained (as
opposed to merely elucidated, detailed and described), an understanding
of the legacy and hence the very process of network formation is essen-
Dave Toke is a Lecturer in Politics in the Department of Political Science and International Studies
at the University of Birmingham.
Public Administration Vol. 78 No. 4, 2000 (835–854)
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
836 DAVE TOKE
tial. Although networks are dynamic and adaptive strategic alliances,
this evolution is nonetheless path dependent (Hay 1998, p. 45).
The article will proceed from a brief discussion of the uses and perceived
limitations of policy network analysis to an explanation of the Blom-Hansen
study of network formation. There will then be an elaboration of an alterna-
tive analytical strategy. This strategy will be used to analyse the formation
and operation of the energy efficiency in buildings policy network. Finally,
conclusions will be drawn concerning how policy network analysis can be
used and developed.
POLICY NETWORK ANALYSIS AND ITS USES
Ever since work by Richardson and Jordan (1979), policy network analysis
has proved to be a popular tool for analysing decision making and interest
group influence in government. There is a broad consensus among political
scientists that the tool is useful, at least, in the sense that it can be used to
describe the locus of decision making and the degree of inclusion or
exclusion of interest groups in policy making in defined sub-sectors of
government (Marsh and Rhodes 1992; Marsh 1998). Daugbjerg (1998a) has
argued, using examples drawn from the field of environmental policy, that
the type of policy network can influence the type of policy that emerges.
Using the Marsh and Rhodes model (1992) as a starting point, Daugbjerg
(1998b) has developed his own model of the differences between policy
communities and issue networks (see table 1).
However, there is controversy over the usefulness of network theory in
explaining network change. This controversy has frequently featured
environmental policy, an important area of policy change in recent years
in fields such as transport where ‘outsider’ environmental groups have
appeared to overcome policy communities (Dudley and Richardson 1998)
and agriculture where change has been more incremental in character
(Smith 1990, 1993; Winter 1996).
Nicholas Ridley’s decision to postpone water privatization and set up an
independent National Rivers Authority in contrast to his original proposal
TABLE 1 Extremes on the policy network continuum
Dimensions Policy community Issue network
Membership Very limited number of members. Large number of members.
Narrow range of interest Wide range of interests
represented represented
Integration Bargaining and negotiation Consultation. Unstable pattern
Frequent interaction of integration
Institutionalization Consensus on policy, principles and Conflict over policy principles
procedures to approach policy and procedures to approach
problems policy problems
Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 2000
To continue reading
Request your trial