Network Analysis & Policymaking

Keith Dowding (1995) made the case almost ten years ago that the policy network analysis model, then the dominant paradigm used in the study of the British policymaking process, was unlikely to result in any findings or results of substance. Indeed, Dowding (1995) believed that the end result of this approach to assessing and analyzing the policymaking process tends to generate redescription rather than any new information. Dowding (1995) put is this way:

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 within the

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 determining

. . .
y networks or communities is a useful task which can be beneficial to social scientists and to public administrators. Even simple description provides new knowledge and insight into the ways in which policies are formed and changed over time. That being the case, however, it is not unrealistic to expect that an analytic model will do more and provide more in-depth information. It is this kind of deficit which Dowding (1995) sees as virtually inescapable within the network analysis model or metaphor. At the same time it must be recognized that many others, including Marsh and Smith (2001) as well as Richardson (2000) and Rhodes (1998) believe strongly that network analysis has thus far provided a wealth of valuable information and insight into the policymaking process. Such information has, in the view of these researchers, assisted analysts in determining what kinds of networks or affiliations are most likely to be positively associated with policy changes or developments. The question is, then, is this enough to render the network analysis model acceptable? Dowding's (1995) response to such a question is a simple and straightforward, "no." An explanatory model must do more than simply describe itself. One could argue
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Marsh Smith, Peter John, Horton Farnham, United Kingdom, Summary Conclusion, Critique Dowding, According Rhodes, European Union, Indeed Dowding, Geoffrey Dudley, policy networks, network analysis, dowding 1995, farnham 1999, public sector, horton farnham 1999, policy network, horton farnham, united kingdom, peterson 2003, john 1998, marsh smith 2001, bevir o'brien 2001, policy network analysis, tony blair labour,
Approximate Word count = 5842
Approximate Pages = 23 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Network Analysis & Policymaking