Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T04:15:24.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Swift, brokered and broad-based information exchange: how network structure facilitates stakeholders monitoring EU policy implementation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2018

Reini Schrama Open the ORCID record for Reini Schrama [Opens in a new window]
Reini Schrama*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Monitoring the implementation process in domestic settings of multi-level policies like the EU gender directives is dependent on interactions among a diverse set of policy stakeholders. However, there is no clear understanding of which factors determine the structure of these monitoring networks and what benefits effective exchange. Drawing on insights from social network theory, literature on information politics in transnational networks and policy network analysis, this study analyses what drives information exchange among actors in the monitoring network of women’s groups in the Netherlands. Using Exponential Random Graph Models, the analysis reveals distinctive structural features facilitating efficient information exchange and significant brokerage in the monitoring network. Moreover, the results demonstrate that interactions that serve the purpose of monitoring EU policy implementation occur among a diverse set of actors in a multi-level structure. These findings indicate that effective monitoring requires resourceful and broad-based information exchange to increase transparency in the implementation process.

Keywords

EU policy implementation – gender equalityexponential random graph modelsinformation exchangemonitoring networksocial network analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 39 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 565 - 585
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Cite this article: Schrama R. 2019. Swift, brokered and broad-based information exchange: how network structure facilitates stakeholders monitoring EU policy implementation. Journal of Public Policy 39: 565–585, doi:10.1017/S0143814X1800017X

References

Ammer, M, Crowley, N, Liegl, B, Holzleithner, E, Wladasch, K Yesilkagit, K (2010) Study on Equality Bodies set up under Directives 2000/43/EC, 2004/113/EC and 2006/54/EC. Human European Consultancy in Partnership with the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Human Rights.Google Scholar
Ansell, C Gash, A (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.Google Scholar
Bala, V Goyal, S (2000) A Noncooperative Model of Network Formation. Econometrica 68(5): 1181–1229.Google Scholar
Beetham, G Popovic, N (2009) Putting Policy into Practice: Monitoring the Implementation of UN Security Council Resolutions on Women, Peace and Security. A FOKUS and UN-INSTRAW Conference Background Paper, Oslo.Google Scholar
Berardo, R Scholz, JT (2010) Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 632–649.Google Scholar
Börzel, TA (2000) Why There Is No ‘Southern Problem’: On Environmental Leaders and Laggards in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 7(1): 141–162.Google Scholar
Brambilla, P (2001) Gender and Monitoring: A Review of Practical Experiences. London: BRIDGE, Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex.Google Scholar
Burri, S Van Eijken, H (2015) Gender Equality Law in 33 European Countries: How are EU Rules Transposed Into National Law in 2014? Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Burt, RS (2000) The network structure of social capital. Research in organizational behavior 22, 345–423.Google Scholar
Carpenter, DP, Esterling, KM Lazer, DM (2004) Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics? Journal of Politics 66(1): 224–246.Google Scholar
Csardi, G Nepusz, T (2006) The Igraph Software Package for Complex Network Research. InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695. http://igraph.org.Google Scholar
Freeman, LC (1977) A Set of Measures of Centrality Based on Betweenness. Sociometry 40(1): 35–41.Google Scholar
Gould, RV Fernandez, RM (1989) Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks. Sociological Methodology 19, 89–126.Google Scholar
Granovetter, MS (1973) The Strength of Weak Ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Handcock, M, Hunter, D, Butts, C, Goodreau, S Morris, M (2003) STATNET: Software tools for the Statistical Modelling of Network Data, http://statnetproject.org.Google Scholar
Handcock, M, Hunter, D, Butts, C, Goodreau, S, Krivitsky, P Morris, M (2016) ERGM: Fit, Simulate and Diagnose Exponential-Family Models for Networks. The Statnet Project, http://www.statnet.org.Google Scholar
Heclo, H (1978) Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases 413, 46–57.Google Scholar
Ingold, K (2011) Network Structures Within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.Google Scholar
Jensen, CB (2007) Implementing Europe A Question of Oversight. European Union Politics 8(4): 451–477.Google Scholar
Keck, M Sikkink, K (1998) Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kenis, P Schneider, V (1991) Policy Networks and Policy Analysis: Scrutinizing a New Analytical Toolbox. In Marin B and Mayntz R (eds.), Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag, 25–59.Google Scholar
Klüver, H (2012) Biasing politics? Interest group participation in EU policy-making. West European Politics 35(5): 1114–1133.Google Scholar
Knoke, D (1996) Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the US, Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kollman, K (1997) Inviting Friends to Lobby: Interest Groups, Ideological Bias, and Congressional Committees. American Journal of Political Science 41(2): 519–544.Google Scholar
König, T Bräuninger, T (1998) The Formation of Policy Networks: Preferences, Institutions and Actors’ Choice of Information and Exchange Relations. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 445–471.Google Scholar
Koskinen, J Snijders, TAB (2012) Simulation, Estimation, and Goodness of Fit. In Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G (eds.), Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 130–140.Google Scholar
Krivitsky, PN, Handcock, MS Morris, M (2011) Adjusting for network size and composition effects in exponential-family random graph models. Statistical methodology 8(4): 319–339.Google Scholar
Lang, S (2009) Assessing Advocacy: European Transnational Women’s Networks and Gender Mainstreaming. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 16(3): 327–357.Google Scholar
Laumann, EO Knoke, D (1987) The Organizational State: Social Choice in National Policy Domains. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Leifeld, P Schneider, V (2012) Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 731–744.Google Scholar
Lubbers, MJ, Molina, JL, Lerner, J, Brandes, U, Ávila, J McCarty, C (2010) Longitudinal Analysis of Personal Networks. The case of Argentinean Migrants in Spain. Social Networks 32(1): 91–104.Google Scholar
McCarty, C (2003) Egonet. Personal Network Software.Google Scholar
McCubbins, MD Schwartz, T (1984) Congressional Oversight Overlooked: Police Patrols Versus Fire Alarms. American Journal of Political Science 28(1): 165–179.Google Scholar
Nerbonne, JF Nelson, KC (2008) Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring: Tensions among group goals, data quality, and outcomes. Environmental Management 42(3): 470–479.Google Scholar
Newig, J Koontz, TM (2014) Multi-Level Governance, Policy Implementation and Participation: The EU’s Mandated Participatory Planning Approach to Implementing Environmental Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 21(2): 248–267.Google Scholar
O’Toole, LJ (2011) The EDA in Oakland: A Case That Catalyzed a Field. Public Administration Review 71(1): 116–120.Google Scholar
Pleines, H (2010) Is this the way to Brussels? CEE civil society involvement in EU governance. Acta Politica 45(1-2): 229–246.Google Scholar
Provan, KG Milward, HB (1995) A Preliminary Theory of Interorganizational Network Effectiveness: A Comparative Study of Four Community Mental Health Systems. Administrative Science Quarterly 40(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
Rhodes, RA (2006) Policy Network Analysis. Oxford: The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy.Google Scholar
Robins, G Lusher, D (2012) A Simplified Account of ERGM as a Statistical Model. In Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G (eds.), Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Application. New York: Cambridge University Press, 16–28.Google Scholar
Robins, G, Pattison, P, Kalish, Y Lusher, D (2007) An Introduction to Exponential Random Graph (p*) Models for Social Networks. Social Networks 29(2): 173–191.Google Scholar
Saetren, H (2005) Facts and Myths About Research on Public Policy Implementation: Out‐of‐Fashion, Allegedly Dead, But Still Very Much Alive and Relevant. Policy Studies Journal 33(4): 559–582.Google Scholar
Sandström, A Carlsson, L (2008) The Performance of Policy Networks: The Relation Between Network Structure and Network Performance. Policy Studies Journal 36(4): 497–524.Google Scholar
Scharpf, FW (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. New York: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, M, Scholz, J, Lubell, M, Mindruta, D Edwardsen, M (2003) Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 143–158.Google Scholar
Scholz, JT, Berardo, R Kile, B (2008) Do Networks Solve Collective Action Problems? Credibility, Search, and Collaboration. The Journal of Politics 70(2): 393–406.Google Scholar
Simpson, CR (2015) Multiplexity and Strategic Alliances: The Relational Embeddedness of Coalitions in Social Movement Organisational Fields. Social Networks 42, 42–59.Google Scholar
Snijders, TA, Pattison, PE, Robins, GL Handcock, MS (2006) New Specifications for Exponential Random Graph Models. Sociological Methodology 36(1): 99–153.Google Scholar
Stokman, FN Zeggelink, EP (1996) Is Politics Power Or Policy Oriented? A Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Access Models in Policy Networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21(1–2): 77–111.Google Scholar
Stokman, FN Berveling, J (1998) Dynamic Modeling of Policy Networks in Amsterdam. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 577–601.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J (2002) Paths to Compliance: Enforcement, Management, and the European Union. International Organization 56(3): 609–643.Google Scholar
Thatcher, M (1998) The Development of Policy Network Analyses: From Modest Origins To Overarching Frameworks. Journal of Theoretical Politics 10(4): 389–416.Google Scholar
Timmer, ASH Senden, LAJ (2016) A comparative analysis of gender equality law in Europe 2016: A comparative analysis of the implementation of EU gender equality law in the EU Member States, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, Norway, Serbia and Turkey. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Ulibarri, N Scott, TA (2016) Linking Network Structure to Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27(1): 163–181.Google Scholar
Weible, CM (2005) Beliefs and Perceived Influence in a Natural Resource Conflict: An Advocacy Coalition Approach To Policy Networks. Political Research Quarterly 58(3): 461–475.Google Scholar
Zhelyazkova, A, Kaya, C Schrama, R (2016) Decoupling Practical and Legal Compliance: Analysis of Member States’ Implementation of EU Policy. European Journal of Political Research 55(4): 827–846.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Schrama supplementary material 1

Schrama supplementary material

Download Schrama supplementary material 1(File)
File 14.3 KB