Policy Network Model by Rod Rhodes - Essay Example

This paper is trying to illustrate a network-of-problems as a determining factor resulting to what we call now as the policy network model.Moreover, we will be dealing on a policy model that is known to be one of the most influential models in these days in policy making. A policy network model by Rod Rhodes states that policy is prepared because of the interactions made between the pressure groups and the policy makers. What the network-of-problems try to substantiate is that, it is really essential for our society and government agencies to interact because the problems are also inter-related or there are corresponding consequences on the actions made by one of them to the other. In this case, we can expect too that solution can be best achieved through network of elucidation. NETWORK OF PROBLEMS: AN OVERVIEW OF POLICY NETWORK MODEL Introduction In our society today, there are many things in which we are trying to explain and identify why such things occurs. We also try to analyze situations or problems to come up with a solution that we thought to be a result of the observations. Well, this is the essence of being an analysts - This give us the right to be coined as analysts because we try to explain everything based on the content and what the other had perceived it to be and eventually lead us to create our own unique perception on that issue also with of course basis. In this part, we will be dealing on a policy model that is known to be one of the most influential models in these days in policy making. A policy network model by Rod Rhodes states that policy is prepared because of the interactions made between the pressure groups and the policy makers. We will be dealing here on the criticisms or the flaws that this model is perceived to be inevitable of, we must look at the model’s capacity in policy making also to further understand why is it fallible in some areas and to know what are the things that it overlooked in its assumptions or in its context as a whole. Moreover, we have defined this model and identify what it does in policy making to have clearer view on the policy itself. This is for us to adequately identify the deficiencies of the mentioned model, if there is any. Or what would be its benefits or its logical explanation as an individual policy analyst. Policy Network Model As it were discussed and stated in the lecture presentation about policy analysis made by Dr. Adam White entitled ‘Theories of the Policy Process’, he identified there that a policy network model focus on policy subsystems. Primarily it focuses on subsystems because the actors involved may not be in line with the hierarchical structure. Leader’s prerogative on matters of laws or policies and other matters which involved the state (individual level of analysis) is not the only source of policies as well as state laws because there are multiple actors involved in here. The players in this model are the groups that make the state work as a whole which is consist of the departments and bureaucracies as well as interests groups in the states. We can label them as the trans-governmental or transnational actors coined in the complex interdependence theory. The policy outcome is indeed made because of the departments and bureaucracies’ intermediations with each other together with the interest groups. These components are the main actors bounded by their beliefs and norms in the society in governance (Scharpf 1998, p.195). Furthermore, actors operate through interdependent relationships, with a view to achieve their personal goals by collaborating with each other (Bevir & Richards 2009, p.1). In a broader sense, what makes the policy are not because of the leaders’ ability alone to rule and create policy to make its country better but rather, it is a product of collective individual’s rational thinking ability shaped by their societal norms and its interactions to the government bureaus – their exchange of resources; and policy makers. “Policy network analysis stresses the importance of organizational rather than personal relationships and focuses on the extent to which there is continuity in the interactions of interest groups and government departments. . . Power is not seen as concentrated, but is distributed horizontally, as well as vertically. The policy networks approach requires recognition of the complexity of the interactions between different organizations involved in the policy-making arena” (p.4). Network Relationship Another factor which defines the policy network in the discussion made by Dr. White is the relationship being not randomized wherein there is still a pattern being followed in the network model which is composed of the following: policy community, an issue network, and a spectrum of integration. It is not randomized because it also entails a structure - Though it is not necessarily hierarchical or vertical relations but also of horizontal relations. This does not imply that a decentralization of power is needed to create a policy because the sectors involved are the ones in-charge to create their policies together with the departments concerned or affected by the policy created, thus interactions of resources as well as ideas to the particular proposed policy is a must to achieve their desirable outcome. Below is an example of how a policy network model works. Please be noted that the indicated government bureaucracies, departments and other political actors are just for example purposes only. Policy: Drug Law Reform Act of 2004 (A drug policy of the United States of America) Committee on Committee on Judiciary Codes Corrections Committee Protesters DRUG LAW REFORM ACT Executive Department Drug Policy Alliance Committee on Alcohol and Drug Social Service Public health Addiction Committee Committee The case example above is a real situation in United States of America to come up with an effective drug policy so to speak. We can see there a good example of the policy network model, wherein different government bureaus, departments, interest groups and the civilian citizens have a role in the said policy outcome. The Drug law reform act was created because of the uprising protest of the citizens because of the harsh that-time-existing Rockefeller Drug Law. As we can notice in the diagram above, there are mainly nine actors which acts on the said policy reform. We can notice the collaboration of different committees like the committee on codes, corrections, judiciary, public health, alcohol and drug addiction, social service; and the department of the Executive (Mayor’s Office), the interest group organization on drugs called Drug Policy Alliance and the protesters advocating drug law reforms. The situation on USA is a good example to explain the policy network model, we can see that each department may differ to from another but everyone takes a role in the policy outcome to create an alternative drug law. The arrow pointing to one bureau, department or interest group/organization to the another does not mean that the one it points is the only bureau, department or interest group/organization it interacts but it just implies the continuous collaboration between and among all the actors involved in the policy making process to produce an outcome to deal on effective drug penalties and offenders as well. We cannot say that the committee on codes interacts with the committee on corrections alone and this committee interacts with committee on justice and so on and so forth. It may be arranged in this manner but the flow of information is open to the entire parties involved and there is a continuous exchange of ideas and resources as well in the policy-making process until they have produced the perceived outcome. The thing that somehow convinced me about the efficacy of the policy Network model is the fact that problems are also inter-related in some aspects. That there are also networks-of-problem and that it needs a network groups to solve the predicaments. If we take a deeper look at the given diagram above, we can notice that the problem on alcohol and drug addiction can cause a problem on corrections because addiction penalties are raised and resulted to brutality because of the uncontrollable increasing drug cases in America, New York in particular. Because of this, it amended the policies on drug and abolishes the power of the Judge’s discretion on cases of drugs which mandates a uniformity of sentence regardless of the degree of the offense. In this matter, we can see that the judiciary committee is already affected in the said policy. Moreover, as this continues in its implementation, people perceived it to be inhumane and violate certain human and constitutional rights like the right to bail and alike which makes the committee on codes participates. Also, they thought that the Draconian Rockefeller Law is ineffective in dealing on matters regarding drugs because rather than incarcerating them, they believe that they should be involved into social services, services and education which they thought to be far more effective and less costly. Because of this, it makes the social committee partake in the said scenario. And as this phenomenon on drug penalties continues to occur, it leads the people to protest and demand for better and more effective drug policies to the government questioning now the capability of the leader (Executive Department) to implement better laws addressing the problems on drugs. With the organizations on drugs issues, the Drug Policy Alliance also shares its part in the making of the Drug Law Reform Act to solve the issue concerning primarily drug cases. Network of Problems We will be looking at Policy network model as a product of network of problems. In this case, we can see that problems too are interrelated too creating and resulting to other problems in the society also. MONOPOLY IN TRANSPOTATION BUSINESS LARGE POPULATION EXPANSION OF TRANS. BUSINESS LOW BUSINESS COMPETTIVENESS HIGHER RATE OF TRANSPORTATION DEMAND HIGH MOBILE ROAD DEPENDENCY CONGESTION ECONOMIC RECESSION OIL SCARCITY IN WORLD MARKET HIGH CO2 EMISSION/ AIR POLLUTION OIL PRICE HIKE DECLINE IN PRODUCTION GLOBAL WARMING INFLATIONS LOWER CONSUMPTION Above is an illustration on how a network-of-problems could look, this is perceived in the four large cities regarding Transport problems. This is a study made by Edwards and Smith on four large world cities, namely: New York, London, Paris and Tokyo entitled ‘Transport Problems Facing Large Cities’. We can notice that a problem on transportations can also lead to other problems which can probably affect other government departments and bureaus to problematize too because of its leading side-effects. If we can notice, there is a cause and effect relations between transportation problems to other economic, societal and environmental predicaments that will eventually lead to a political issue because primarily of government’s important role on every issue within its country. As we can see in the diagram above, the principal backer in the interlinked world problems would be the factor of high mobile dependency. A large population leads to a higher rate of transportation demand; this is very true especially in large cities wherein we can see that automobiles can be found at every corner of the place. With this information, we can conclude that there is a high mobile dependency on transportation. With this high amount of mobile in the country, it is in no doubt that road congestion occurs due the over demand of automobiles for transportation from one place to another. This factor can now be the cause of other problems like air pollution because of the large amount of carbon dioxide emitted in the atmosphere that causes now the world wide problem of global warming. On the other hand, because also of the dependency to these transport machines, oil resources is already depleting. Because oil is very important in our world today to make automobiles and other machines to work, producers of such product is taking advantage of this to make the price higher due to the fact that there is a scarcity of oil. Thus, oil price hike phenomenon is inevitable. As mentioned a while ago, there is a network-of-problems on the situation because as oil price become higher, and then prices of other goods are affected too because of the transportation cost in the production company to the market. If such happens, then economists would say that if products cost higher, then there would be lesser consumption (cetaris paribus). If there is lesser consumption, then producers cannot produce higher because the demand is low. Therefore, production of goods would be low that will eventually affect the country’s GDP and together with other several economic problems like debt and alike would lead to economic recession and so on and so forth. This is just one situation that depicts that there is a networking or interdependent of problems as well. As a matter of fact, there are lots of it and we can observe them during our school lectures. For example in the ecology, some would perceive that because of increasing population, people needs a bigger space, thus they have to cut trees or to cultivate lands or to make alterations of land domains that would fit their preferences of living. Because of this event, extinction of species occurs and another problem would arise as a result of the ecological disturbance. In a state level, the act of one department can affect also several departments or bureaus in the state, this is because there are interconnections of things that could certainly affects them in their decisions and problems as well. This implies that we are moving on a web-world that is connected to each other, interactions are done because the act of one can affect others. Because of this, our political community continues to interact and corroborate certain information and resources to have a policy that would also be beneficial for them in the end. What the network-of-problems try to substantiate is that, it is really essential for our society and government agencies to interact because the problems are also inter-related or there are corresponding consequences on the actions made by one of them to the other. In this case, we can expect too that solution can be best achieved through network of elucidation. We can, in least point equate this scenario to a human body. Wherein a single body is composed of different parts, systems and structures, thus, a state too is composed of different systems, structures and parts like the Executive department, Legislative department and Judiciary department. Under these essential parts of the state are subsystems like the commissions, bureaus, departments, etc. In our body system, the function of one part also affects all the other parts; thus, the actions taken by each part will be affecting the body as a whole. In the state level, every department has a different important role to make the state function properly, thus, if one department fails its duty, then probably it would affect the entire state too. If in our human body, a small illness is not cured immediately, then sooner or later it will infect other parts thus creating a more severe problem. Therefore, in our state, if they simply ignore the failures and shortcoming of one government department or alike, then it could create a bigger problem that could affect the whole state. So what could the body’s system do is it help and complement each other through other systems unique ability creating a homeostasis to complement in the goodness and the wellness of the entire body. In policy making, each department must also complement one another because the failure of one department or any other government actors could somehow also lead or at least contribute to the failure of other departments and thus, affecting the whole state. Another example for the network model effect on other actors, we will be using the bureau of Labor statistic whereas it makes studies regarding predicaments on employments, unemployment and/or underemployment and will suggest solution based on the facts it gathered. They made a study way back 1990 regarding expenditures on public transportation and come up with result about the issue on public transportation. In their report, they have distinguished what public transportation has the biggest allocation on the funds. According to their result, they found out that and identify which among the public utility vehicles spend most. In the report: “The proportion of total expenditures allocated to transportation ranged from 16 to 21 percent for different income groups. The proportion of total transportation expenditures allocated to public transportation ranged from 5 to 8 percent. Consumers in the highest income quintile (quintile 5) spent the most on public transportation, $911, which was more than twice the expenditure by consumers in the fourth income quintile, and almost six times the expenditure by those in the first quintile. Households in quintile 5 also allocated the highest share of transportation expenditures to public transportation (8 percent). This seeming anomaly is largely due to the fact that intercity travel is more expensive than intra-city travel, and consumer units in the fifth income quintile spent about five times as much on intercity travel as on intra-city travel. Those in the lowest income quintile spent less than twice as much on intercity travel as on intra-city travel. For intra-city travel, the allocation of public transportation expenditures was highest for mass transit across all income groups, with the lowest quintile making the largest allocation, 25 percent, and the highest making the smallest allocation, 10 percent. For intercity travel, all quintiles allocated the highest proportion of public transportation expenditures to air travel, and this allocation was progressive across income quintiles: consumers in the lowest income quintile allocated the least, about 50 percent; those in the highest allocated the most, 70 percent. As a proportion of public transportation expenditures, the two lowest income groups spent two to three times more on intercity bus fares than the higher income quintiles, as might be expected” (US department of Labor, Bureau Labor of Statistics, 2009). What could this imply is that, the problems on labor like budget deficiencies could be a by-product of another problem or situation, thus, it there are factors in which other department have also looked at. Or this could also lead to other problem because the study made could be also utilized by other government agencies like the office of Management and Budget or other related departments in support of their decisions or future policies implemented. What would be a delirious so to speak is if the facts mentioned could be inadequate or irrelevant which could also mislead those other political actors in making their decisions and/or policies especially if they will heavily rely on the study outcome. Thus, every department is moving in a networked society and is dependent, in some ways, to other state actors. Boosting Policy Network model What is good about the policy network model is the cooperation of each political actor within the state. Depending more on complex interdependence theory, transnational and trans-governmental actors avoids one of the rational theory’s critiques called “bounded rationality” wherein decisions are less intuitive in nature because there are number of perceptions indulged in the policy outcome. In this sense, there is a broad spectrum of ideas which will highly exclude discrepancies on suspicion-based solutions and ineffective policy outcomes due to individual’s bounded rationale and political perceptions. Furthermore, policy outcome could be achieved in a faster and more effective manner because solutions are expected to be delivered and analyzed by the ones who are specialized in that particular matter, thus, implementing a specific and more comprehensive policy. Through this model, it does not require military to solve all the issues within the state (realist theory) but rather, military will just focus on matters of state’s security and nonetheless. We do not expect them to deal problems on health and alike because there is a particular department specialized in that particular area. We have the US Department of Health and Human Services in predicaments and issues on health disparities; Department of Energy to deal on matters which include oil and electricity power; and so on and so forth. The policy network model defines a clearer picture on how the complex interdependence theory achieved its policy result and defies the realist perspective on hierarchy of issues. We could assume that in this model, hierarchy of issues rarely exist because primarily they are networked, therefore, it is no in vertical relations alone but also with horizontal relations too. What are good with this would be the actions as well as different solutions could be done and implemented at the same time. There is no main concern of issues because each and every problem could be prioritized. Critiques on Policy Network Model There are numerous of criticisms that this policy model is currently dealings. One of which is the one mentioned by Downing (1995) in his article ‘method or metaphor?’ Which he argues that the policy network is a metaphor rather than a model; this means that this just begins as metaphor and just become a theory as it will gradually be supported by sociological network analysis. Looking at the policy network model, it is true so to speak that rather than model, it is more of a metaphor in which it is highly dependent on the analysis attached to it. In the examples given above, we can notice that I mentioned on the things regarding the model as a product of the network of problems. Thus, it creates this a model because of the supplement that the problems had contributed. Therefore, I for one can say that the policy is not networked anymore if problem is not. In this sense, the department itself would just simply focus on itself or the department it includes and disregard anymore its consequences or maybe there is no consequence to other state actors. This could be their bi-laws or mission-visions in which it just focuses on its own department. There is no network in here anymore because there is no network of problems. Moreover, Downing believes that the result of the analysis is just a re-generated fact and not new information indeed. This “attempts to provide a 'meso-level' theory, to connect networks with state autonomy approaches, or to drive network analysis by introducing 'ideas' in the form of 'epistemic communities' or 'advocacy coalitions' will all fail to produce fundamental theories of the policy process. They fail because the driving force of explanation, the independent variables, are not network characteristic per se but rather characteristics of components . . . In other words, Dowding (1995) takes the position that network analysis simply identifies the features, functions and components of networks as entities. Network analysis does not, in this view, identify how policy is achieved, developed, modified, or otherwise addressed. In this essay, the literature will be employed to demonstrate that Dowding's (1995) argument is valid and that the network metaphor has somewhat limited value as an explanatory model for determination” (p.1). Another problem would be the institutions and their cultures are notoriously resistant to change, this is identified by Bevir and Richards in their article entitled ‘Decentring Policy Networks: A Theoretical Agenda’ (p.6). Wherein for them “there are three main approaches to network management: the instrumental, interactive, and institutional. The instrumental approach is a top-down form of steering. It concentrates on ways in which government can exercise its legitimate authority. As such, it typically presumes a governmental department to be the focal organization in a network. The task of the central state is then to devise and impose tools that foster integration in and between networks and so enable the state to better attain its objectives. One problem with this instrumental approach is, of course, that it relies on government being able to exercise effective control when the whole study of networks and governance has exposed the ever-present problem of control deficits. The interactive approach to network management moves away from hierarchic modes of control. It presumes the mutual dependence of actors in networks. Collective action depends on co-operation, with goals and strategies developing out of mutual learning. Management thus requires negotiation and diplomacy. There is a need to understand others’ objectives and build relations of trust with them. Chief executive officers in the public sector are urged to develop interpersonal, communication and listening skills. This interactive approach is often costly: cooperation is time-consuming; objectives can be blurred; and outcomes can be delayed. Finally, the institutional approach to network management focuses on the rules and structures against whose background the interactions take place. Management strategies seek to change relationships between actors, the distribution of resources, the rules of the game, and even values and perceptions. The aim is incremental changes in incentives and cultures (p.6). Also, another critique would say that the policy network model is a product of a game theory (0-sum game in particular) wherein, the bureaus or agencies are using other bureaus or agencies for their own profit. Thus, network is made because they are insufficient of resources and they need the other to gain and protect their interest. There is an interaction but not because they are community but because they want to out power the others and used their resources like information to boost their selves to the public - 0-sum game. Also this could now lead to an actor-centered scenario (p.5). Like in the given example above regarding the Rockefeller drug law, what could have best gained the benefit of the implemented law by those different political actors is the mayor’s office in which it was perceived by the people that it was all the idea of the mayor, thus, acquiring the sympathy of the people and boosting itself to the public that it can addressed the wants and needs of its people. This is also known to be most likely a product man’s rationality because he knows what would be best for him and how could he acquire things using his assets and other factors surrounding him. Conclusion Though there are lots of factors in which they could describe and criticized policy network models. Downing was true to assume that these are just re-generation of ideas and that no new knowledge was introduced because it is metaphorical it is dependent on the set of ideas that could complete the model. In this paper, the network of problems seems to be the determining factor of this network model wherein it strongly suggest the relationship of the problem and its nature to take the policy network in its efficacy. The idea on this could be easily observed around whereas problems are that could simply affect and result to other problems. Like simple road congestion is could be a result of another problem, thus, creating a complex structure intertwined with each other and can be viewed as a network. Furthermore, there are lots of examples illustrating the importance on the desired policy outcome to know whether what particular departments it is going to collaborate with. In this manner, we could see that a there are domino of effects on tings creating a new method of analysis in which one can focus with. References Atkinson , M.M. and W.D. Coleman 1992 ‘ Policy Networks, Policy Communities and the Problems of Governance ’ , Governance ,5 , 154 – 80 . Bang , H.P. and E. Sorensen 1999, ‘ The Everyday Maker: A New Challenge to Democratic Governance ’ , Administrative Theory and Praxis , 21 , 3 , 325 – 41 . Bevir , M . 2003, ‘ A Decentred Theory of Governance ’ in H. Bang ( ed .), Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester, Manchester University Press Borzel , T.J. 1998, ‘Organizing Babylon: On the Different Conceptions of Policy Networks ’ , Public Administration , 76 , 2 , 253 – 73. Canfield, D. 2009,Drug Law Reforms in Place. The Record. Retrieved from http://www.troyrecords.com/articles/2009/10/08/news/doc4acd51a65865d885789894.txt. Dowding , K . 1995, ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’ , Political Studies , 43 , 1 , 136 – 58. Edwards, T., & Smith, S. 2008, NSW Parliament Library Research Service. Transport Problems Facing Large Cities, 1, 19. Retrieved from http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/publications.nsf/key/TransportProblemsFacingLargeCities/$File/TransportFINALindex.pdf. Evans , M . 2001, ‘ Understanding Dialectics in Policy Network Analysis ’ , Political Studies , 49 , 3 , 542 – 50 . Geertz , C . 1973, The Interpretation of Cultures . New York, Basic Books . Jessop , B . 1997, ‘ The Governance of Complexity and the Complexity of Governance: Preliminary Remarks on some Problems and Limits of Economic Guidance ’ , in A. Amin and J. Hausner ( eds ), Beyond Market and Hierarchy: Interactive Governance and Social Complexity . Cheltenham, Edward Elgar . Kenis , P. and V. Schneider . 1991, ‘ Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox ’ , in B. Marin and R. Mayntz ( eds ), Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations . Frankfurt, Campus Verlag . Kickert , W.J.M., E.-H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan ( eds ) 1997, Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, London, Sage . Kooiman , J . ( ed .) 1993, Modern Governance . London, Sage . Lui, I. J. 2009, Paterson once arrested over Rockefeller drug law reform. Times Union. Retrieved from http://blogs.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/10410/paterson-once-arrester-over-rockefeller-drug-law-reform. Mark Bevir and David Richards 2009, “Decentring Policy Networks: A Theoretical Agenda”, Public Administration 87, 3-14. Rein , M . 1976, Social Science and Public Policy, Harmondsworth, Penguin Richards , D. and M.J. Smith . 2004, ‘ Interpreting the World of Political Elites ’ , Public Administration , 82 , 4 , 777 – 800 . Rhodes , R.A.W. 1990, ‘ Policy Networks: A British Perspective ’ , Journal of Theoretical Politics , 2 , 3 , 293 – 317 . Rhodes , R.A.W. 2006 , ‘ Policy Network Analysis ’ , in M. Moran , M. Rein and R. Goodin ( eds ), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy . Oxfor, Oxford University Press . Smith A, 2000, "Policy networks and advocacy coalitions: explaining policy change and stability in UK industrial pollution policy?" Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18(1) 95 – 114 Waarden , F. van . 1992, ‘ Dimensions and Types of Policy Networks ’ , European Journal of Political Research , 21 , 1 , 29 – 52 . Wilks , S. and M. Wright . 1987, Comparative Government-Industry Relations: Western Europe, the United States, and Japan . Oxford, The Clarendon Press. Bureau of Labor statistics official website, retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/pdf/opbils34.pdf Read More