Policy Networks and Governance Networks: Towards Greater Conceptual Clarity

Policy Networks and Governance Networks:Towards Greater Conceptual Claritypsr_239 297..308

Ismael Blanco Vivien Lowndes Lawrence PratchettPompeu Fabra University University of Nottingham University of Canberra

Networks are central to both the practice and understanding of contemporary governance. But there is a tendencyto conflate and confuse different concepts. Concepts of ‘policy network’ (PN) and ‘governance network’ (GN) areoften used interchangeably, with an assumption that the latter has evolved from the former. Such indiscriminateborrowing fails to recognise the different antecedents, and distinctive analytical offer, of specific network theories.The article develops a systematic distinction between PN and GN theories, enabling those engaging with networksto select from, and even combine, alternative perspectives as they confront a new wave of change in policy makingand governance. The more sceptical account provided by PN theory provides a valuable counterbalance to the‘optimistic’ character of the GN literature, which tends to underestimate the continued hold of (albeit multi-sector)elites on policy making, and overstate the extent to which networks represent a new ‘stage’ in the evolution ofgovernance.

Keywords: policy; networks; governance

The notion of ‘networks’ is now firmly embedded in our understanding of governanceand policy making. Concepts such as ‘policy network’ and ‘governance network’ arepart of a variety of theoretical developments stressing the importance of both formaland informal interactions between participants in the policy process. The networkmetaphor (Dowding, 1995) is a recurring theme in most attempts to analyse ortheorise contemporary governance. At the same time, as an empirical phenomenon,networks are more observable than ever, both as a focus for research into policymaking and as a policy preference. Networks of actors focused around a parti-cular territorial or policy issue are observable in a range of contexts, not just in Britainbut throughout Europe. Policy makers have supported the development of networksas a response to complex problems, and as a way of levering in resources and exper-tise from beyond government. Networks are predominant, both conceptually andempirically.

Despite the centrality of networks to the understanding of contemporary governance,there is a continuing tendency to conflate and confuse different concepts. In particular,the concept of ‘policy network’ (PN) is often used interchangeably with that of ‘gover-nance network’ (GN).There is also a frequent assumption that governance networks haveevolved from the earlier policy network concept. Indiscriminate borrowing of conceptsfails to recognise the different antecedents, and distinctive analytical offer, of specificnetwork theories. Indeed, some key authors have themselves moved betweenthe two concepts in ways that are not always clear (contrast Rhodes, 1985; 2007, forexample).

POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2011 VOL 9, 297–308

doi: 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00239.x

© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association

This article develops a systematic distinction between PN and GN theories, enablingthose engaging with networks to select from, and even combine, alternative perspectives.GN is not so much the son, as the cousin, of PN theory. Although PN predates GN, itis neither subsumed within it nor rendered redundant by more recent theoretical devel-opments. In Britain, for instance, the PN approach gained ground as researchers sought tomake sense of the relative stability of policy outcomes in the face of state restructuringunder Thatcherism (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992a). In turn, GN theory flowered in theacademy as networks became the favoured policy-making paradigm of subsequent NewLabour governments (Glendinning et al., 2002; Stoker, 2004). At the same time, a ‘folk’version of the theory (Bevir, 2010, p. 9) came to dominate policy discourse both insideand outside government, with further feedback effects to the academic debate. But whilethe theoretical and empirical are clearly interrelated, in the manner of Jeffrey Alexander’s(1983) ‘scientific continuum’, there are no one-way, deterministic relationships at play.Rather, the PN and GN perspectives should be seen as coexisting, offering distinctiveinterpretations (and research strategies), resonant with – but not dependent upon – anyparticular empirical context.

In a search for greater conceptual clarity, this article compares the PN and GN approachesacross eight sets of characteristics (see Table 1).

Historical Interpretation

Drawing on different traditions such as the ‘policy community’, ‘iron triangles’ and‘issue networks’ approaches developed in the US and the UK from the 1960s, PNreacts against the idea of a monolithic state that controls the process of policy makingalone. On the contrary, it claims that policy making takes place in policy domain-specific subsystems consisting of a variable number of actors dealing with specificpolicy issues. From this viewpoint, networks are not anything new, but a long-standingfeature of policy making. Networks are often represented as a metaphor to describehow policies are really made. As Silke Adam and Hanspeter Kriesi (2007, p. 146) put it,policy making is intrinsically ‘a process involving a diversity of actors who are mutuallyinterdependent’.

The GN literature, on the contrary, tends to present networks as an emerging policyparadigm ‘framed within a wider set of changes in economy and society that have beenvariously entitled as post-modernity, post-industrialism or post-fordism’ (Stoker, 2004, p.9). It implies that such socio-economic transformations have paved the way for a ‘crisis’in traditional bureaucratic government and the emergence of new ways of regulatingsocial conflict. As Eva Sørensen and Jacob Torfing (2008, p. 2) explain:

In the last decade, the heated ideological debate about whether to base socialgovernance on either state or market has been challenged by new developmentsin societal governance. Hence, in order to compensate for the limits and failuresof both state regulation and market regulation new forms of negotiatedgovernance through the formation of public–private partnerships, strategic alli-ances, dialogue groups, consultative committees and inter-organizational net-works have mushroomed.

298 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies AssociationPolitical Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)

GN, in this sense, is represented as part of a historical sequence, in which network formsof governance come to replace, or at least challenge, both the hierarchical forms ofgovernance associated with social democratic welfare states and the market forms ofneo-liberal ‘new public management’. GN is influenced by sociological communitarian-ism, expressed by Amitai Etzioni (1993) in the US and Anthony Giddens (1998) in theUK, together with a neo-Keynesian perspective on how to deal with the costs of a globalmarket economy (Bevir and Gains, 2009, pp. 14–5). The proliferation of officially spon-sored partnerships since the end of the 1990s is considered to be a reflection of theincreasing influence of the network paradigm (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Newman,2001; Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002).

Contextual Determinants

GN seeks to account for the growing difficulties of traditional government and theemergence of networks as an alternative governance paradigm. Commentators havepointed out a number of factors, more or less directly linked to the socio-economic shiftsmentioned above:

Table 1: Differences between Policy Network and Governance Network Approaches

Policy network (PN) Governance network (GN)

Historical interpretation Policy networks as a long-standing feature ofgovernment

Governance networks as a newpolicy paradigm

Contextual determinants Focuses on cross-sectoral andcross-national variations

Past/present comparisons,e.g. the consequences ofglobalisation, or post-industrialism/modernism

Network composition anddynamics

Highlights the existence ofdifferent types of policynetwork

Emphasises the differencesbetween networks,hierarchies and markets

Network focus Policy subsystems; nationallevel (and the EU); ‘traditional’policy areas

Networks with a territorialanchor (cross-sectoral);multi-level networks;emergent/‘wicked’ issues

Nature of exchanges Emphasis on the idea of ‘mutualresource dependency’

Emphasis on notions such astrust, reciprocity and loyalty

Institutionalisation Informal relations; difficult tomanipulate

Formalised relations; more‘malleable’

Democratic impacts Policy networks as a source ofpolicy stability and privilege

Governance networks as asource of policy innovationand democratic renewal

Power and politics Hierarchical governmentsubverted by the incorpora-tion of non-governmentalelites

Governance networks as aparadigm shift away fromhierarchy towards moreplural modes of governing

POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 299


• the growing complexity, dynamism and diversity of society (Kooiman, 1993) and theresulting expansion of ‘wicked problems’ (Bevir, 2010; Christensen, 1999; Clarke andStewart, 1997; Rhodes, 1997);

• the search for more integration within an increasingly fragmented organisationallandscape stemming from the public sector reforms of the 1980s (Rhodes, 1997;2007);

• the impact of continued constraint on public resources since the mid-1970s and theresulting need to search out new sources of finance – such as public–private partner-ships (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Mackintosh, 1992);

• changes in citizens’ political attitudes entailing a growing disenchantment with rep-resentative forms of democracy and new demands for more voice in decision-makingprocesses (Dalton, 2005).

PN, on the other hand, is not concerned with past–present comparisons or, at least, tendsto be silent about the general impacts on modes of governance of phenomena such as‘post-Fordism’, ‘post-industrialism’ or ‘postmodernity’. Rather than focusing on temporalshifts, there is a strong comparative element, focusing on cross-national and cross-sectoralvariation (Adam and Kriesi, 2007, pp. 136–43). Contrasting patterns of power distributionand types of interaction within policy subsystems are linked by PN theorists to both theformal national institutional structure and the informal practices and procedures thatcharacterise different national contexts. At the same time, the PN literature stresses that,even in the same country, networks might differ significantly from one policy sector toanother. As a consequence, domain-specific factors – such as the visibility or salience ofpolicy issues, the expectations they raise among different groups or the traceability ofpolicy effects – can have a significant influence on network configuration and dynamics.

Network Composition and Dynamics

In the PN literature, cross-national and cross-sectoral comparisons inform (and areinformed by) a number of network typologies underpinned by different analytical dimen-sions such as their openness/closeness, the number of actors, the degree of diversity/symmetry among actors, the power structure or the degree of consensus/conflict (Kriesiet al., 2006; Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b; Scharpf, 1997). One of the most cited typologiesis that of David Marsh and Rod Rhodes (1992b), which differentiates between severaltypes of network of varying cohesiveness, ranging from large, diverse, unequal andfluctuating issue networks to smaller, cohesive, equilibrated and stable policy communities. PNaims to explain variations between networks, and to understand their consequences. Inthis latter sense, a central concern is to link the impact of policy networks to the natureof policy outcomes, and to the extent, speed and direction of policy change (Marsh andSmith, 2000).

GN, on the contrary, tends to focus on general past–present comparisons, such as theanalysis of the shift ‘from government to governance’ (Rhodes, 1997; Stoker, 1998), andthe comparison between governance paradigms, such as markets, hierarchies and net-works. As such, GN owes an intellectual debt to Oliver Williamson’s analysis of markets



and hierarchies as distinct modes of governance associated with particular transaction costson actors (Williamson, 1985), and to subsequent contributions that have added thenetwork category to Williamson’s formulation (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998, p. 318;Powell, 1991). This analytical focus has entailed a tendency to treat networks ‘as undif-ferentiated forms, as if they all could be characterised in the same general way’ (Provanand Kenis, 2008, p. 233).

Network Focus

The substantive and spatial focus of PN and GN approaches differs significantly. PN tendsto focus on traditional policy fields at the national level, like agricultural, industrial oreconomic policy, which tend to correspond to the departmental boundaries of nationalgovernments. By representing networks as policy subsystems linked to specific policydomains, the literature has less to say about cross-sectoral policy-making relationships thatcut across traditional departmental boundaries (Peters, 1998, p. 23). However, it is recog-nised that increasingly internationalised policy environments ‘may influence policy net-works at the national level by redistributing resources, opening up new access points, andcreating new venues that allow for reopening matters previously settled at the nationallevel’ (Adam and Kriesi, 2007, p. 137). On this basis, PN has stressed the increasingimportance of the European Union both in shaping domestic policy networks andthrough the proliferation of new transnational policy networks (Kaiser, 2009; Kriesi et al.,2006).

GN is intrinsically oriented towards the analysis of innovation in modes of governance,which leads it to concentrate on emergent policy areas such as ‘social inclusion’, ‘envi-ronmental sustainability’ or ‘neighbourhood regeneration’. These are defined as ‘wickedissues’ (Bevir, 2010; Clarke and Stewart, 1997) that can only be tackled by bringingtogether the resources of a range of different providers and interest groups. Or, in Rhodes’terms, these are ‘messy problems’ that demand the type of ‘messy solutions’ that only GNcan provide (Rhodes, 1997, p. xv). GN focuses upon networks that are based uponcollaborative relationships between actors from different sectors – the public, private and‘Third Sector’ (Perri 6 et al., 2002). Such networks tend to revolve around complex policyproblems in a specific territory, usually a neighbourhood, a locality or a region. In otherterms, while PN usually focuses on networks having a functional or policy anchor, GNtends to concentrate on network arrangements with a spatial or a territorial base.

Nature of Exchanges

Although PN recognises the existence of different types of network, Marsh and Rhodes’definition of policy networks as ‘a limited number of participants, frequent interaction,continuity, value consensus, resource dependence, positive-sum power games, and regu-lation of members’ (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b, p. 23) is widely accepted.This definitionexplicitly stresses the interdependence between actors and assumes a degree of instru-mentality in their behaviour: because no actor has a monopoly of resources, actors enterinto mutually beneficial relationships in order to achieve their policy goals (Rhodes,



1985). At the same time, trust and reciprocity act as important lubricants of collectiveaction. As explained by Rhodes, if bureaucracies are characterised by rules and authority,and markets by prices and competition, then trust and diplomacy are ‘the glue whichholds the complex set of relationships together’ (Rhodes, 2007, p. 1246). PN highlights,in effect, the role of ‘bonding social capital’, which is ‘expressed through relatively closedsocial networks and shared social identities’ (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2008, p. 680).

In contrast to the conception of networks as a metaphor to uncover hidden policy-making relationships, GN tends to celebrate networks as innovative, inclusive and efficientinstitutional arrangements. The link between networks and social capital theory is takena step further. The active promotion of networks and partnerships can be seen as ‘anexplicit attempt to cash in on the social capital that already exists in policy domains’(Lowndes and Pratchett, 2008, p. 683). Bringing together actors from different sectorswith a view to pooling diverse resources and perspectives, the emphasis is on the role of‘bridging social capital’ as a resource for innovation and flexibility. Governance networksmay also create social capital as new channels of cooperation over shared objectivesdevelop.

Institutionalisation

For PN, the process of network formation depends on a set of factors, including: theactors’ perception that certain goals can be more easily reached through exchange ratherthan acting alone; the similarity of actors’ preferences; and the extent to which theinstitutional context favours such relations (König and Bräuninger, 1998). In PNs, patternsof interaction between actors tend to be very informal. PNs are usually identified throughresearching contacts reported by actors themselves, since they are not usually associatedwith any formal institutional arrangement. Despite their informality, ties between actorscan be strong and long lasting, particularly in policy communities.The PN literature tendsto treat networks as a structure or independent variable (Marsh, 1998b).

The GN literature invites us to adopt a very different perspective (see, for instance,Kickert et al., 1997; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). Governance networks are understood asa phenomenon that can be managed, rather than as a structural underpinning for policymaking. More specifically, ‘network management’ is identified as an explicit strategy in‘situations of interdependencies’. Network management is ‘aimed at coordinating strate-gies of actors with different goals and preferences with regard to a certain problem orpolicy measure within an existing network of inter-organizational relations’ (Kickert et al.,1997, p. 10). Sørensen and Torfing prefer to adapt the concept of ‘metagovernance’ (Jessop,2002; Kooiman, 2003), which they define as a ‘reflexive and response process throughwhich a range of legitimate and resourceful actors aim to combine, facilitate, shape anddirect particular forms of governance in accordance with specific rules, procedures andstandards embodying the hegemonic conception of what constitutes “Good Gover-nance” ’ (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p. 245).

The conception of networks as a mode of governance that can be designed and promotedto maximise efficiency and (a form of) democracy is typical of the GN approach. From



this perspective, networks are the result of institutional incentives specially designed topromote collaborative activity – as happens, for instance, when the funding of a pro-gramme is conditional upon the existence of a partnership (as has become common inpolicy areas like urban regeneration, crime prevention, environmental management orchildcare). In this regard, governance networks usually adopt a formal institutional shape,being more malleable than the kind of networks the PN literature has chosen to focusupon.

Democratic Impacts

The PN and the GN approaches take different normative stances regarding the demo-cratic implications of networks. Colin Hay (1998), for instance, muses over whether policynetworks are best considered as a harmonious alliance between plural actors to solvecollective problems, or rather as some sort of ‘Cosa Nostra’ reflecting the concentration ofpower by a few (elite) actors. Hay identifies both stances as present within the literature.The debate on network ‘performance’ has revolved around two main axes, relating toefficiency and democratic quality. On efficiency, in spite of the fact that many authorssubscribe to the idea that ‘messy problems’ require ‘messy solutions’, others also remind usthat there is the possibility of (network) ‘governance failure’ (Jessop, 2003; Stoker, 1998).As to the latter, literature debating the presence or absence (and prospects for) the‘democratic anchorage’ of governance networks has proliferated in recent years (Bacheand Chapman, 2008; Mathur and Skelcher, 2007; Skelcher, 2005; Sørensen and Torfing,2005; 2008; 2009; Wälti et al., 2004).

However, ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ stances are not equally represented in the twoapproaches under consideration. The PN literature tends to stress the negative conse-quences of networks – their resistance to change and their democratic downside. AsRhodes (2007, p. 1251) acknowledges:

Policy network analysis stresses how networks limit participation in the policyprocess; decide which issues will be included and excluded from the policyagenda; shape the behaviour of actors through the rules of the game; privilegecertain interests; and substitute private government for public accountability. Itis about stability, privilege and continuity.

As such, networks have been characterised as restrictive, closed, elitist, oriented towardsprivate interests, prone to corruption, illicit, non-accountable and essentially undemocratic(Hay, 1998, p. 40). PNs have been identified as an important factor in explaining whypolicy change and innovation are so difficult (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b).

In contrast, the GN approach coincides with the normative rehabilitation of networkswithin policy-making discourse and practice. Indeed, in its ‘folk’ version (Bevir, 2010,p. 9), GN theory has contributed to the evolution and celebration of the networkparadigm. As Lowndes and Pratchett put it (2008, p. 681): ‘Rather than being shadowarrangements (the dirty underbelly of the formal bureaucracy), networks are now cel-ebrated as innovative, inclusive and efficient institutional arrangements’.The GN literature



conceives the spread of networks and partnerships as part of a strategy to open updecision-making processes to interest groups and to citizens themselves. Models ofparticipatory governance prioritise the inclusion and involvement of ordinary citizenswithin policy making and/or public service delivery. In this sense, there is a link betweenthe GN paradigm and normative models of direct democracy. As noted above, one of thestructural factors provoking the emergence of GN as a policy paradigm has been thegrowing disenchantment with formal political processes exemplified by low electoralturnouts, particularly among young people and excluded communities (Stoker, 1997). Notall GN literature is unashamedly ‘boosterist’, however. A ‘critical governance’ perspectiveis emerging that takes seriously the analytical claims of GN, but seeks to surface both theunintended consequences of the partnership paradigm and ongoing processes of elitecapture, particularly via ‘managerialism’ (Davies, 2007; Diamond, 2004; Swyngedouw,2005).

Power and Politics

What are the implicit conceptions of political power in the PN and GN approach? Asnoted at the start, both approaches form part of a broader range of theories that callinto question the monopoly of state bodies over policy-making processes. Both per-spectives conceive policy making as an interactive process involving different kinds ofactors. Both PN and GN stress notions of mutual dependence and the development oftrust and reciprocity as the basis for the development and maintenance of governancenetworks. However, PN theory, premised as it is upon the power-dependence frame-work, tends to conceive of networks as restrictive arrangements, limited to those actorsthat have crucial resources for a given policy area. At the same time, the GN approachhighlights the openness of networks and their potential contribution to the enhance-ment of democracy.

In short, the PN approach is very close to an elitist model of power, while the GNliterature is closer to the pluralist tradition. The former stresses the privileged access ofcertain elite actors to spaces in which key policy decisions are taken, highlighting thedense and stable nature of their interactions with government. Significantly, the PNapproach does not call into question the hierarchical mode of governance, but statessimply that the institutional monopoly of decision making is ‘subverted’ by the incorpo-ration of non-governmental elite actors. Indeed, this subversion of the Weberian ideal typeactually strengthens the power of elites by cementing cross-cutting links between business,professions and government (Daugbjerg and Fawcett, 2010).

The GN literature, in contrast, emphasises the fragmentation of political power betweena growing range of actors, and the permeability of public decision-making processes toalmost any kind of actor. As in pluralism more generally, it has both descriptive andprescriptive dimensions, which are difficult to disentangle. As Michael Hill (2009, p. 28)argues, GN may be seen to provide a ‘misleading optimistic picture of the way power isorganised in those societies described as pluralist’.



PN and GN Approaches in Practice

Having established the distinctiveness of the PN and GN approaches, we conclude thatboth remain relevant. PN and GN are important elements of a broad theoretical reper-toire upon which political scientists can draw in seeking to understand the ongoingfragmentation and recombination of modes of governance and policy making. Howmight this work in practice?

To take an example, in urban policy a PN approach could provoke questions about therelationships and resource dependencies that link housing developers, construction com-panies, banks and political parties (and tend to exclude environmental experts or localcommunity interests). It would focus research attention on multi-level relationships andseek to explain patterns of stability and incremental change in policy outcomes. A GNapproach, on the other hand, could stimulate investigation into the workings of urbanregeneration partnerships, asking how far goals of multi-agency collaboration and com-munity involvement had been met. Here, the research might have a territorial focus,looking at whether networks are replacing traditional governing arrangements or existingalongside them, and with what implications for inclusion and innovation.

The two projects could coexist within a larger programme of multi-theoretic research,operating at different spatial scales and illuminating different aspects of related phenom-ena. Or the projects could enable a test of competing hypotheses about the determinantsof specific urban outcomes (like changing employment levels or the pace of gentrifica-tion). Alternatively, a researcher might choose between the PN and GN approaches onepistemological grounds, depending on their particular view of what constitutes reliableevidence or the best means to acquire knowledge. Methodologically, the PN approachwould probably look to historical and comparative case studies, making use of companyarchives, parliamentary records, financial analyses and elite interviews. The GN approachmight adopt an action research methodology, using participant observation and stake-holder surveys, seeking to combine academic analysis with intervention to supportproblem solving on the ground.

Conclusion

Policy networks have not given way to governance networks, and governance networkshave not evolved from policy networks. Rather, the cultivation of networks by policymakers as a preferred paradigm for governance has thrown up new phenomena for study.GN theories have flourished in this context, as has research into networks and partner-ships on the ground. Such research has enabled the further elaboration of GN theory,while also showing the distance that exists between ideal-typical network models andactually existing partnerships – in terms of their overall effectiveness and their democraticimplications. Sørensen and Torfing (2008) distinguish between first- and second-generation GN theorists, with the former focusing on the contribution and characteristicsof networks, and the latter addressing causes of network failure, conditions for success andapproaches to network management (or ‘metagovernance’).



At the same time, PN theories remain relevant to the study of policy making, particularlyfor research into network variation and multi-level policy subsystems.The more scepticalaccount associated with PNs provides a valuable counterbalance to the ‘optimistic’character of the GN literature, which tends to underestimate the continued hold of (albeitmulti-sector) elites on policy making, and overstate the extent to which networksrepresent a new ‘stage’ in the evolution of governance. Theoretically, the PN and GNapproaches are distinct, having different intellectual antecedents and making specificclaims about the origins, functioning and impact of network forms.While both types ofnetwork may exist at one and the same time, to conflate them conceptually risks losingmuch of the ‘epistemic gain’ which the application of competing theories can provide(Calhoun, 2000, p. 538).

(Accepted: 1 March 2011)

About the AuthorsIsmael Blanco is a Ramon y Cajal Research Fellow at the Department of Political and Social Sciences, PompeuFabra University (Barcelona, Spain). His post-doctoral research focuses on the dynamics of network governance inurban regeneration programmes in Europe and Latin America. He has published on local governance, publicparticipation, urban social exclusion and urban regeneration.

Ismael Blanco, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Pompeu Fabra University, 08002 Barcelona, Spain; email:[email protected]

Vivien Lowndes is Professor of Public Policy and Head of School, School of Politics and International Relations,University of Nottingham. She has published on local governance, partnerships, citizen participation and communitycohesion. She is currently engaged in action research on the local impact of spending cuts and the scope for serviceredesign.

Vivien Lowndes, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, University Park,Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; email: [email protected]

Lawrence Pratchett is Dean of the Faculty of Business and Government, University of Canberra. He has publishedwidely on aspects of local government and governance in the UK, as well as undertaking comparative research onlocal governance in Europe. He has worked particularly on issues around local democracy and political participation,including electronic democracy.

Lawrence Pratchett, Faculty of Business and Government, University of Canberra, Kirinari Street, Bruce ACT 2601,Australia; email: [email protected]

NoteThis work has benefited from three research grants awarded to Ismael Blanco: 2007 BP-A 0001 (AGAUR, Generalitat deCatalunya); SEJ2007-6388/CPOL (Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain); and a Ramón y Cajal researchfellowship linked to the Pompeu Fabra University (Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain).

ReferencesAdam, S. and Kriesi, H. (2007) ‘The Network Approach’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder CO:

Westview Press, pp. 129–54.

Alexander, J. (1983) Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.

Bache, I. and Chapman, R. (2008) ‘Democracy through Multilevel Governance? The Implementation of Structural Fundsin South Yorkshire’, Governance, 21 (3), 397–418.

Bevir, M. (2010) Democratic Governance. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Bevir, M. and Gains, F. (2009) ‘Governmentality after Neoliberalism’, Unpublished manuscript.



Calhoun, C. (2000) ‘Social Theory and the Public Sphere’, in B. Turner (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory.Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 505–44.

Christensen, K. (1999) Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions. London: Sage.

Clarke, M. and Stewart, J. (1997) Handling the Wicked Issues: A Challenge for Government. Birmingham: Institute of LocalGovernment Studies.

Dalton, R. J. (2005) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices:The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Daugbjerg, C. and Fawcett, P. (2010) ‘Governance Theory and the Question of Power: Lesson Drawing from theGovernance Network and Policy Network Analysis Schools’. Paper presented to the Australian Political ScienceAssociation Conference, Melbourne, 27–9 September.

Davies, J. (2007) ‘The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion’, Political Studies,55 (4), 779–800.

Diamond, J. (2004) ‘Local Regeneration Initiatives and Capacity Building: Whose “Capacity” and “Building” for What?’,Community Development Journal, 39 (2), 177–89.

Dowding, K. (1995) ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’, Political Studies, 45 (1),136–58.

Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit of Community. New York: Crown.

Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Oxford: Polity.

Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds) (2002) Partnerships, New Labour and The Governance of Welfare. Bristol:Policy Press.

Hay, C. (1998) ‘The Tangled Webs We Weave: The Discourse, Strategy and Practice of Networking’, in D. Marsh (ed.),Comparing Policy Networks. London: Open University Press, pp. 33–51.

Hill, M. (2009) The Policy Process, fifth edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.

Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.

Jessop, B. (2003) ‘Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety and Requisit Irony’, in H. P. Bang(ed.), Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 101–16.

Kaiser, W. (2009) ‘Introduction: Networks in European Union Governance’, Journal of Public Policy, 29 (2), 131–3.

Kickert, W., Klijn, E. and Koppenjan, J. (1997) ‘A Management Perspective on Policy Networks’, in W. Kickert, E. Klijnand J. Koppenjan (eds), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage, pp. 1–13.

König, T. and Bräuninger, T. (1998) ‘The Formation of Policy Networks’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10 (4), 445–71.

Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions. London: Sage.

Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. London: Sage.

Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E.-H. (2004) Managing Uncertainities in Networks. London: Routledge.

Kriesi, H., Adam, S. and Jochum, M. (2006) ‘Comparative Analysis of Policy Networks in Western Europe’, Journal ofEuropean Public Policy, 13 (3), 341–61.

Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L. (2008) ‘Public Policy and Social Capital: Creating, Redistributing or Liquidating?’, inD. Castiglione, J. van Deth and G. Wolle (eds), The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.677–707.

Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) ‘The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: An Analysis of Changing Modesof Governance’, Public Administration, 76 (2), 313–33.

Mackintosh, M. (1992) ‘Partnership: Issues of Policy and Negotiation’, Local Economy, 7 (3), 210–24.

Marsh, D. (ed.) (1998a) Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Marsh, D. (1998b) ‘The Development of the Policy Network Approach’, in D. Marsh (ed.), Comparing Policy Networks.Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 3–20.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) (1992a) Implementing Thatcherite Policies: Audit of an Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) (1992b) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Marsh, D. and Smith, M. (2000) ‘Understanding Policy Networks:Towards a Dialectical Approach’, Political Studies, 48 (1),4–21.



Mathur, N. and Skelcher, C. (2007) ‘Evaluating Democratic Performance: Methodologies for Assessing the Relationshipbetween Network Governance and Citizens’, Public Administration Review, March/April, 228–37.

Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.

Perri 6, Leat, D., Seltzer, K. and Stoker, G. (2002) Towards Holistic Governance:The New Reform Agenda. New York: Palgrave.

Peters, G. (1998) ‘Policy Networks: Myth, Metaphor and Reality’, in D. Marsh (ed.), Comparing Policy Networks. Bucking-ham: Open University Press, pp. 21–32.

Powell, W. (1991) ‘Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation’, in G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacicand J. Mitchell (eds), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. London: Sage, pp. 265–76.

Provan, K. and Kenis, P. (2008) ‘Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness’, Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–52.

Rhodes, R. (1985) ‘Power Dependence, Policy Communities and Intergovernmental Networks’, Public AdministrationBulletin, 49, 4–31.

Rhodes, R. (1997) ‘From Marketization to Diplomacy: It’s the Mix that Matters’, Public Policy and Administration, 12 (2),31–50.

Rhodes, R. (2007) ‘Understanding Governance Ten Years On’, Organization Studies, 28 (8), 1243–64.

Scharpf, F. W. (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder CO: Westview Press.

Skelcher, C. (2005) ‘Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance’, Governance, 18 (1),89–110.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2005) ‘The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks’, Scandinavian Political Studies,28 (3), 195–218.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2008) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave.

Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Metagovernance’,Public Administration, 87 (2), 234–58.

Stoker, G. (1997) ‘Local Political Participation’, in R. Hambelton (ed.), New Perspectives on Local Governance. York: YorkPublishing Services, pp. 157–96.

Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 17–28.

Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour. New York: Palgrave.

Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002) Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. London: Palgrave.

Swyngedouw, E. (2005) ‘Governance Innovation and the Citizen:The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State’, UrbanStudies, 42 (11), 1991–2006.

Wälti, S., Kübler, D. and Papadopoulos, Y. (2004) ‘How Democratic is “Governance”? Lessons from Swiss Drug Policy’,Governance, 17 (1), 83–113.

Williamson, O. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.



Policy Networks and Governance Networks: Towards Greater Conceptual Clarity

Documents