Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California

While most of the network literature focuses on information and advice networks, there is increasing interest—particularly among Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) scholars—on ally networks and coordination networks. This article asks two basic questions: First, do information, ally, and coordination networks overlap with each other? Second, and drawing from the ACF, do policy core beliefs structure the interactions in ally, coordination, and advice/information networks? We pursue these research questions in the context of the California Marine Life Protection Act process. We find that ally and coordination networks overlap slightly more than information/advice networks and that policy core beliefs do a better job of predicting ally and coordination networks than advice/information networks. Thus, we show that ally networks can provide a useful proxy for coordination networks to identify advocacy coalitions.

[1]  Christopher M. Weible,et al.  Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Conflict: An Advocacy Coalition Approach to Policy Networks , 2005 .

[2]  C. Weible,et al.  A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top‐Down Approach to the Use of Science in Policy: Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California , 2004 .

[3]  David Lazer,et al.  Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics? , 2004, The Journal of Politics.

[4]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Short‐Term Versus Long‐Term Coalitions in the Policy Process: Automotive Pollution Control, 1963–1989 , 2004 .

[5]  P. John,et al.  Is There Life After Policy Streams, Advocacy Coalitions, and Punctuations: Using Evolutionary Theory to Explain Policy Change? , 2003 .

[6]  Michael Howlett,et al.  Do Networks Matter? Linking Policy Network Structure to Policy Outcomes: Evidence from Four Canadian Policy Sectors 1990-2000 , 2002, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[7]  K. Dowding.  There Must Be End to Confusion: Policy Networks, Intellectual Fatigue, and the Need for Political Science Methods Courses in British Universities , 2001 .

[8]  Lars Carlsson,et al.  Policy Networks as Collective Action , 2000 .

[9]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems , 1998 .

[10]  David Lazer,et al.  The Strength of Weak Ties in Lobbying Networks , 1998 .

[11]  M. Thatcher,et al.  The Development of Policy Network Analyses , 1998 .

[12]  D. Knoke.  Who Steals my Purse Steals Trash , 1998 .

[13]  F. Glover,et al.  Tabu Search , 1997 .

[14]  M. R. Greenwood.  Raiders of the Last Bastion? , 1997, Science.

[15]  Edella Schlager,et al.  A Comparison of Three Emerging Theories of the Policy Process , 1996 .

[16]  Gerald R. Salancik,et al.  Organizational Discretion in Responding to Institutional Practices: Hospitals and Cesarean Births , 1996 .

[17]  D. Knoke,et al.  Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan , 1996 .

[18]  Edella Schlager,et al.  Policy making and collective action: Defining coalitions within the advocacy coalition framework , 1995 .

[19]  K. Provan,et al.  A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems , 1995 .

[20]  P. Sabatier,et al.  Policy Change And Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach , 1993 .

[21]  Donald Chisholm,et al.  Coordination Without Hierarchy: Informal Structures in Multiorganizational Systems , 1992 .

[22]  B. Woods,et al.  Explaining Change in Policy Subsystems: Analysis of Coalition Stability and Defection over Time , 1991 .

[23]  A. Tversky,et al.  Contrasting Rational and Psychological Analyses of Political Choice , 1988, American Political Science Review.

[24]  P. Sabatier.  An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein , 1988 .

[25]  John Scott.  Social Network Analysis , 1988 .

[26]  E. Laumann,et al.  Who Works with Whom? Interest Group Alliances and Opposition , 1987, American Political Science Review.

[27]  Paul A. Sabatier,et al.  The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents , 1987 .

[28]  E. Laumann,et al.  An Organizational Approach to State Policy Formation: A Comparative Study of Energy and Health Domains , 1985 .

[29]  D. Knoke.  Organization sponsorship and influence reputation of social influence associations. , 1983, Social forces; a scientific medium of social study and interpretation.

[30]  L. Ross,et al.  Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence , 1979 .

[31]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[32]  H. Kaufman,et al.  Emerging Conflicts in the Doctrines of Public Administration , 1956, American Political Science Review.

[33]  Mark Schneider,et al.  Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program , 2003 .

[34]  Steelhead Trout.  California ’ s Living Marine Resources : A Status Report Steelhead Rainbow Trout History of the Fishery , 2002 .

[35]  R. Hanneman.  Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[36]  K. Provan,et al.  Measuring Network Structure , 1998 .

[37]  L. O'toole.  Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based agendas in public administration , 1997 .

[38]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[39]  R. Eccles,et al.  Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action , 1992 .

[40]  Peter J. Rousseeuw,et al.  Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis , 1990 .

[41]  John W. Kingdon.  Agendas, alternatives, and public policies , 1984 .