TRANSGOVERNMENTAL POLICY NETWORKS IN THE ANGLOSPHERE
| Published date | 01 December 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12198 |
| Date | 01 December 2015 |
| Author | TIM LEGRAND |
doi: 10.1111/padm.12198
TRANSGOVERNMENTAL POLICY NETWORKS
IN THE ANGLOSPHERE
TIM LEGRAND
Recent scholarship in public administration has drawn attention to the proliferation of transnational
policy-making processes and administrative practices. Although policy transfer and transgovern-
mental scholars have recognized the inuence of these practices on domestic policy outcomes, little
is known about how distinctive congurations of cross-jurisdictional policy networks form. This
article addresses this issue by exploring three novel transgovernmental policy networks situated
in the Anglosphere: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Drawing on constructivist perspectives, the article holds culture, values and norms as critical to
the coalescence of Anglosphere policy networks and an important additional explanation of how
transnational policy communities emerge. These hitherto unreported networks facilitate, rst, the
transfer of policy ideas to resolve domestic policy problems and, second, collaborative mechanisms
to resolve transnational challenges. Consideration of these novel public sector ‘assemblages’ deepens
our empirical and theoretical knowledge of the new spaces of transnational administration.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, scholars of both public administration and international relations prov-
enance have turned their attention to what is, ostensibly, the no-man’s land of transna-
tionalism; the messy periphery where state and international policy-making intersect. In
this largely uncharted terrain, new ‘transnational policy spaces where global public poli-
cies occur’ (Stone 2008, p. 19) have opened up, playing host to a mire of international
organizations, domestic institutions, non-government agencies and policy entrepreneurs
that interact in a process of ‘global governance’ to resolve common policy challenges.
Many authors have commented on the rising legitimacy concerns associated with the
emergence of these new spaces of global governance (Zürn 2004), while others have
indicated that the dominant global governance approach represents a ‘nebulous rubric’
(Vucetic 2011, p. 457). Although much of this uncertain global terrain is uncharted,
literatures on transgovernmentalism and policy transfer have enhanced conceptual and
empirical knowledge on where, how and with what consequence processes of global
policy occur, specically between domestic institutions acting in transgovernmental
policy networks of their own making. Both literatures have yet to determine, however,
why certain patterns emerge in transgovernmental networks – what I term the ‘network
coalescence’ question.
This article sets out to address the question of network coalescence in these literatures
on the transnational policy terrain by exploring one of the oldest, most active and per-
haps most resilient of transgovernmental alliances active in the global governance space,
although it is relatively unknown to the political science literature: the ‘Anglosphere’ coun-
tries of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States. At
the heart of this alliance is a manifest historical, cultural and political afnity,which plays
out in a complex raft of social, economic and policy relationships among and between the
Anglosphere states.
Tim Legrand is at the National Security College in the Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National
University,Canberra, Australia.
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 4, 2015 (973–991)
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
974 TIM LEGRAND
The article commences with a critical review of the global governance terrain, drawing
attention to the importance of unpacking the changing processes of policy-making within
and beyond the state. The second section sets out the contribution that the policy transfer
and transgovernmentalism literatures have made to our conceptual understanding of the
policy interplay of state and non-state actors. It argues that although both literatures have
yet to adequately explain why certain congurations of transnational policy relationships
emerge, a reconciliation of both frameworks can generate stronger insights into global gov-
ernance policy processes. The article then goes on to present empirical research pertaining
to the proliferation of Anglosphere transgovernmental networks. Here the article posits
that by virtue of a common set of historical, institutional and policy characteristics, Anglo-
sphere countries have begun to carve out a new transgovernmental policy architecture
across several portfolios that facilitates, rst, the exchange of policy ideas, information and
evidence to resolve domestic policy problems and, second, collaborative mechanisms to
resolve transnational policy challenges. The nal section concludes by arguing that the role
of culture, values and norms is critical to the coalescence of Anglosphere policy networks,
which represents an important additional explanation of how global policy communities
emerge.
TRANSGOVERNMENTALISM IN GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE
The study of how government institutions network with one another at an international
level – transgovernmentalism – is a relatively recent frame for scholars of public policy
and international relations (IR). It is driven, naturally enough, by a concern to keep pace
with the structures, processes and agents of policy-making as they evolve. To widen
this observation: systematic policy learning and collaboration provokes some signicant
‘goods’ for public policy ofcials, such as enhancing domestic policy capacity, improving
the use of evidence and delivering joined-up solutions to common problems. For example,
the case study considered herein spans considerable engagement across almost every
portfolio of Anglosphere governments, indicating that models of the policy process in each
of these countries are incomplete without considering the transgovernmental dimension,
especially at the elite level. Yet the networks discussed below also raise accountability
concerns. With few exceptions, the networks are populated by the most senior echelons
of public services, and we might wonder whether the obscurity cloaking the networks
militates against transparency and accountability for democratic decision-making:
The image of national regulators coming together of their own volition and regularizing their interactions
either as a network or a networked organization raises the specter of agencies on the loose, unrestrained by
democratic accountability.(Slaughter 2004, p. 48)
Studying these networks also affords an opportunity to overcome some domestic and
international theoretical silos and rene our available concepts. Although the public
administration discipline places overwhelming emphasis on state-based explanations of
policy outcomes, the domestic/international distinction is nothing more than an ana-
lytical artice, or a ‘convenience of the mind’, as Cox puts it (1981, p. 126). Developing
interdisciplinary frameworks can promote the valuable endeavour of political science to
burrow beneath the often opaque facade of government policy-making to reveal the latent
structures, processes, priorities, agents, institutions, imperatives and encumbrances that,
together or separately, constitute the state: ‘If our existing map of our institutions and
how they work is faulty, we mislead citizens and undermine representative democracy’
(Rhodes et al. 2003 p. 160).
Public Administration Vol.93, No. 4, 2015 (973–991)
© 2015 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial