Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and the Policy Network Analysis School

Paul FAWCETT, Carsten Daugbjerg

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    36 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)195-207
    Number of pages13
    JournalPolitical Studies Review
    Volume10
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2012

    Fingerprint

    network analysis
    epistemology
    governance
    school
    representation of interests
    macro level
    typology
    legitimacy
    Society

    Cite this

    @article{73e7fc00a77043829bfb1d08877339a8,
    title = "Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and the Policy Network Analysis School",
    abstract = "This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed",
    author = "Paul FAWCETT and Carsten Daugbjerg",
    year = "2012",
    doi = "10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00257.x",
    language = "English",
    volume = "10",
    pages = "195--207",
    journal = "Political Studies Review",
    issn = "1478-9299",
    publisher = "SAGE Publications Ltd",
    number = "2",

    }

    Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and the Policy Network Analysis School. / FAWCETT, Paul; Daugbjerg, Carsten.

    In: Political Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2012, p. 195-207.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Explaining Governance Outcomes: Epistemology, Network Governance and the Policy Network Analysis School

    AU - FAWCETT, Paul

    AU - Daugbjerg, Carsten

    PY - 2012

    Y1 - 2012

    N2 - This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed

    AB - This article focuses on two sets of literature that have developed out of a shared concern with networks: the network governance school, which has been engaged in a set of macro-level questions about the extent to which networks are changing the nature of state-society relations; and the policy network analysis school, which has focused on the relationship between processes of interest intermediation and their impact on policy-making outcomes. We examine how each school is underpinned by important epistemological differences between positivist, interpretivist and critical realist approaches. We argue that these differences complicate and make contestable what would otherwise seem to be an intuitively attractive argument in favour of combining these two schools. In seeking to understand better how these two schools might be combined, we adopt a critical realist approach and make a distinction between vertical coordination on the state-society axis and horizontal coordination on the interest integration axis. This produces a typology of governance arrangements, which are evaluated according to the level of input and output legitimacy that they are likely to generate, two criteria that are taken as overarching measures of how governance outcomes vary between different governance arrangements. This provides the basis for a broader discussion of how these outcomes are conditioned by both a network's structural characteristics and the way in which it is managed

    U2 - 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00257.x

    DO - 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2012.00257.x

    M3 - Article

    VL - 10

    SP - 195

    EP - 207

    JO - Political Studies Review

    JF - Political Studies Review

    SN - 1478-9299

    IS - 2

    ER -