The Networked Polity: Regional Development in Western Europe

Ansell, Christopher

doi:10.1111/0952-1895.00136

Cited by 252 publications

(150 citation statements)

References 129 publications

(74 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

135

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This differs remarkably from the liberal intergovernmental conception of European politics in which domestic interest groups rely entirely on their national governments for the pursuit of their EU related interests (Moravcsik 1998) because the national executives act as gatekeepers to European politics aggregating domestic interests. Some authors have therefore characterized the EU as a network polity (Ansell 2000) or as a system of network governance (Kohler-Koch and Eising 1999).…”

Section: Multilevel Governance and Interest Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interest groups in EU policy-making

Eising¹

2008

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a plethora of studies on interest groups in the European Union. While these studies have generated a wealth of insights, it is not actually clear what they have accomplished. This Living Review seeks to identify those areas of interest group studies in which our knowledge is fairly consolidated and in which major research gaps or major controversies can be noted. I argue that these research gaps and controversies stem from both the empirical variance in the interest group landscape and the theoretical segmentation of EU interest group studies. These have been shaped by influences from Comparative Politics, International Relations, Policy Analysis, and Democratic Theory. I suggest that future research should engage to a greater extent in cross-cutting theoretical debates in order to overcome the pronounced demarcation of research areas and in more rigorous theory testing than has sometimes been the case. The article starts by discussing the problem of conceptualizing interest groups before moving on to the fissured theoretical landscape. Thereafter, major research themes are discussed. First, I review the relation between EU institutions and interest groups. Here, I look both into multilevel governance and Europeanization studies that focus on the vertical interaction and into analyses that stress the horizontal segmentation of the EU system in different institutions and sectors. Second, I analyze core themes of EU and comparative interest group studies, namely the issue of collective action, the access of interest groups to policy-makers and their influence on EU policymaking. How to cite this articleOwing to the fact that a Living Reviews article can evolve over time, we recommend to cite the article as follows:Rainer Eising, "Interest groups in EU policy-making", Living Rev.

show abstract

Section: Multilevel Governance and Interest Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interest groups in EU policy-making

Eising¹

2008

Living Rev. Euro. Gov.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In more recent years there has been a recovery in support for public R&D, based on new evidence from country-level studies. Beginning with Chalmers Johnson 15 who studied the history of modern Japanese industrial policy, followed by various other scholars in the developmental state school, new theories on the role of the state in enabling economic development have been proposed [16][17][18][19][20][21] . In a recent contribution that builds on these theories, Breznitz 22 offers a model of how developing countries can achieve economic transformation through state-led interventions that promote rapid innovation-based industries.…”

Section: Research Development and Economic Growthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Universities are becoming major players in the national system of innovation

Walwyn¹,

Cloete²

2016

S. Afr. J. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on data from South Africa's research and development (R&D) surveys, the country's R&D expenditure has grown in real terms by 52% over the period 2001 to 2012. This growth has been driven by government funding, which rose from 34% of the total funding in 2003 to 45% by 2012. Much of the additional funding has been granted to universities, with government support of R&D in this sector rising 450% in nominal terms, or 250% in real terms, over the same period. This funding focus, indicative of a growing role for universities as R&D performers within the national system of innovation, follows a pattern set earlier in many developed countries and reflects a revision in the state's steering of knowledge creation. The R&D Survey also revealed a decline in the average cost of research, as expressed by expenditure per full-time equivalent researcher. This finding suggests that the researcher labour market is being better supplied and the constraints identified by earlier reviews are slowly being overcome. Both trends are highly positive for the research system. However, the 34% decline in business R&D expenditure since its peak in 2008 is a matter of concern and needs to be addressed. In particular, the level of state-industry embeddedness must be increased to encourage private investment and to overcome South Africa's present growth constraints in respect of developing competitive medium-to high-technology sectors. IntroductionIn South Africa, the Centre for Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators has undertaken and published a research and development (R&D) survey annually since 2003; other agencies undertook similar surveys at mostly biennial intervals over the period 1983 to 2001, apart from 1995, when no data were published.1,2 Such surveys are rich in data that can inform policy and improve the overall performance of the R&D system. However, the link between survey data and policy appears to be made only sporadically, despite a number of recent reviews on science and technology policy. [3][4][5] We attempt to stimulate a more regular policy discussion based on the results of the survey, especially the role of public-funded R&D in supporting the national system of innovation. We concentrate on three issues, namely the source and beneficiaries of the growth in South Africa's expenditure on R&D, changes in the R&D labour market, and the decline in business R&D expenditure. The trends are discussed within the context of previous studies on the R&D role of the state, including the need for a more focused and transformative innovation policy 3,4,6 , constraints in R&D human resources [6][7][8][9] , and business R&D performance 10 . The extent to which and the manner in which the state involves itself in R&D are important questions that can have significant consequences on overall economic performance. Facing multiple options and instruments, the state must act in a focused yet balanced fashion to address the key challenges, without disfavouring any particular sector.

show abstract

“…What's emerging is the networked polity (Ansell, 2000), networked government (Goldsmith and Eggers, 2004), network government (Atkinson, 2003;Kamarck, 2007), the network state (Castells, 1998(Castells, , 2008, the informational state (Braman, 2007), information government (Mayer-Schönberger and Lazer, 2007), or, to use other terms, the virtual state (Fountain, 2006), high-performance government (Klitgaard and Light, 2005), or the next government (Kettl, 2005). Also being created are new kinds of government networks (Slaughter, 2004;Slaughter and Zaring, 2006), public management networks for collaborarchy (Agranoff, 2007), and multisectoral networks (Benner, Reinicke, Lipnack and Stamps (1994), Castells (1996), Podolny andPage (1998), andBorgatti andFoster (2003).…”

Section: Emergence Of a "Social Sector" Alongside The Standard Publicmentioning

confidence: 99%