Belief Systems and Social Capital as Drivers of Policy Network Structure: The Case of California Regional Planning

Henry, Adam Douglas; Lubell, Mark; McCoy, Michael

doi:10.1093/jopart/muq042

Cited by 280 publications

(253 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

240

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These models are estimated using the Markov Chain Monte Carlo Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MCMC MLE). For seminal political science applications, see Desmarais (2011), Henry, Lubell, andMcCoy (2011), Leifeld and Schneider (2012), and Park and Rethemeyer (2012).…”

Section: Datasets and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In some applications-mainly concerning natural resource management-the boundaries between the two are blurred by analyzing decision making in local policy networks as a common good (Bodin and Crona 2009;Calanni et al 2014;Henry, Lubell, and McCoy 2011;Ingold, Balsiger, and Hirschi 2010;Lubell and Scholz 2001;Scholz and Wang 2006). The empirical analysis presented below takes into account this diversity of settings and logics and includes networks operating at different scales (national, regional, and local), at different stages of the policy cycle (decision making versus implementation) and with different rationales of actors (collaboration versus adversarial lobbying).…”

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decisionmaking authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

show abstract

Section: Datasets and Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Structural Powermentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Ingold

Leifeld

2014

JOPART

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is the kind of expertise carried by members of the policy system. We have several pools of literature studying this kind of expertise, notably the sophisticated literature on the commons (66-68) and on the advocacy coalition framework, as well as other literature on policy networks (53,69,70).…”

Section: Why Scientifically Informed Deliberation Is Difficultmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

Dietz

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

382

314

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Decisions always involve both facts and values, whereas most science communication focuses only on facts. If science communication is intended to inform decisions, it must be competent with regard to both facts and values. Public participation inevitably involves both facts and values. Research on public participation suggests that linking scientific analysis to public deliberation in an iterative process can help decision making deal effectively with both facts and values. Thus, linked analysis and deliberation can be an effective tool for science communication. However, challenges remain in conducting such process at the national and global scales, in enhancing trust, and in reconciling diverse values.

show abstract

“…Whereas heuristics are about allocating attention, emotions are about ''feelings,'' such as fear and trust. Fear of opponents, for example, may be an underlying factor in forming coalitions (Henry et al 2011;Sabatier et al 1987). Trust may be the driving force for cooperation and overcoming collective action problems (Ostrom 2005).…”

Section: Individuals and Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding and influencing the policy process

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay translates some of the underlying logic of existing research of policy processes into a set of strategies for shaping policy agendas and influencing policy development and change. The argument builds from a synthesized model of the individual and a simplified depiction of the political system. Three overarching strategies are introduced that operate at the policy subsystem level: developing deep knowledge; building networks; and participating for extended periods of time. The essay then considers how a democratic ethic can inform these strategies. Ultimately, the success or failure of influencing the policy process is a matter of odds, but these odds could be changed favorably if individuals employ the three strategies consistently over time. The conclusion contextualizes the arguments and interprets the strategies offered as a meta-theoretical argument of political influence.

show abstract

Belief Systems and Social Capital as Drivers of Policy Network Structure: The Case of California Regional Planning

Cited by 280 publications

References 41 publications

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

Bringing values and deliberation to science communication

Understanding and influencing the policy process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About