The Issue of Network Concepts - Case Study Example

Survey on Issue Networks Over the years, representatives in each policy area have focused on developing interest groups that interact witheach other and government officials regularly. This paper seeks to define the interaction and its ability to produce conflict and cooperation. The individuals sharing expertise within policy domains and with frequent interactions constitute issue networks. All issue networks involve groups of individuals from various interests that are involved in various aspects of public policy and policy expertise as the common denominator in the network. Issue networks are policy network types characterized by a wide range of fluctuations in the level of agreement, affected interests, contacts, and access. The networks also show elements of unequal resource distribution together with variable abilities in delivering member support, as well as unequal power distribution for group members. The concept is different from the consolidated policy communities. The issue network concepts are used in characterizing various political practices adding to and intervening in representative national democracies politics characteristic as well as in the international systems. The perception of described issue and lifestyle politics is pursued by grassroots individuals and organizations to mobilize around affairs affecting people in daily lives. This is fetched from environments of gender issues and media ownership (Koliba, Meek & Zia, 2010). The Issue networks term is applied to professionalized practices called NGOs, and that have notable aspects of advocacy. The notion serves as a highlight of open-ended alliances developed through non-governmental organizations working to common social, humanitarian and environmental issues. This is an attempt of putting the issues on the political institutions agenda. The contemporary application of issue networks is a representation of respects of radical breaks based on the classic definition. In modern political environments, this concept is considered as an affirmative as it is a denotation of political organizations that are compatible with liberal democracy. However, the American political scientists observed inconsistencies with criticism on new politics of issues that NGOs engaged. The brand of politics caused a weakened democracy while the relevance considered the notion of origin as an issue network. This is a reminder that the focus deals with a political intervention mode (Wilson & Petersilia, 2011). Issue niche theory observes that segments that refrain from forming alliances with subsequent groups in areas that can avoid due to trends that blur distinct identities have increased opportunities for failure. Forming alliances with competing groups within a given issue niche tends to make groups less established from other advocates within the niche. While the groups have a relative issue niche are policy allies in relation to the groups on each side of the issue. Like-minded individuals are potential competitors for financial backing and membership support (Stillman, 2009). The extent to which groups develop an explicit alliance determines the levels that the choice of partnership is a preference for partnership along different issue niches. The minimized niche overlaps are consequential among groups signaling that alliances are intended to promote short-term political interests. This is not a reflection of long-term change in the focus of the group. Most political frontiers operate on issue niches that overlap through percentages of the joint issue involvements while adorning issue niches from groups of dyads. Greater overlaps lead to the lower likelihood of alliance formation. Alternative explanations can be considered in decision-making. Groups with more likelihood of working together in sharing common ideological perspectives have probabilities of heightening possibilities of alliances expecting to increase ideological distances between the shrinks. Groups that have greater capacities, as illustrated in the lobbying budget are likely to work in lone distances. Groups with diminished lobbying budgets turn to alliances for purposes of leveraging the needed and limited resources. More politicized groups such as advocacy are opposed to the direct provision of members’ services. This involves exposure to the formation of alliances alongside other groups (Milakovich & Gordon, 2008). While the organizations focus on advocacy, the constant workings towards policymaking process are accustomed to the advocacy norms while including cooperation for alliances. Interest groups are focused based on service provision and public education while participating in policymaking processes prior episodically making comfortable and familiar union strategies. Alliance formation is influenced by internal decision-making processes of a group’s (Kingdon, 2011). Groups are requiring internal deliberation prior taking extensive public policy positions, unlike groups that central authorities make require unilateral policy decisions. This involves broadening the appeals of the positions involved in resolving intra-organizational conflicts. Broadened Perspectives for which resultant efforts come from deliberations serve groups through appealing to the potential alliance partners and enhance the probabilities of alliance formation (Gilpin, 2008). Issue networks are defined as alliances of distinct interest individuals and groups uniting towards promoting one issue on government policy. The issue networks are either international or domestic in scope and application while most of them have active domains on the Internet. Issue networks call for changes in the levels of policy in government bureaucracy. The illustration includes a broad scope of network of environmental individuals and groups pushing for environmental regulation through government policy (Birkland, 2014). Subsequent issue networks are revolving around controversial issues such as gun ownership rights, drug laws, and abortion. In various areas, various parties in issue networks include the career bureaucrats, political executives, policy consultants and management, foundation officers, journalists, academic researchers, and presidential aides. Alliances are basic partnerships established by the interest groups with the goal of working in togetherness to achieve advocacy arena while achieving mutual objectives (Vedung, 2008). The typical inclusion is based on alliances that are not established through legal arrangements and are based on negotiated and informal groups. The alliances are be created to plan strategy, meet jointly with the legislative staff, fund political advertising or develop intelligence and research. The central proposition is that the theorized policy communities and networks are propelled by objectives of providing empirical lenses to governance and rationale of the proceedings. Analysts of the policy network take the presumption that all policy networks have regard for legitimate and efficient governing (Peters, 2012). Despite the context and structures of policy having diversified over time, it is imperative that the governance structures remain active and legitimate. For democratic politics, the substantive decision-making outcomes and procedures should have broad perception of consistent and appropriate norms and values within the overall political community (Heclo, 1978). Further, governments make efforts towards effectiveness and are measured on their citizens and their capacity for addressing issues that confront political communities in timely and cost effective ways. The policy networks linkage to imperatives of effective and legitimate governing allow for contribution that enhances alternative and undermined empirical and theoretical inquiry based on policy communities and networks (Miller & McTavish, 2013). This continues to substantiate strong investigation rationales. Efforts of tracing policy community and conceptual development allow for networks to establish opening caveat. No single policy network technique works for all public policy environments. Policy networks divide the major strands into the need to conceive networks through interpersonal relationships while dominating public policy analysts and political scientists (Schmidt & Shelley, 2009). The conceptualized networks allow for structural linkages for corporate public as well as the private actors. The strands are allowed for the epistemological and methodological pluralism. Scholars have extensive reliance on the qualitative methods while mapping out policy communities and networks and others have dominance in quantitative methods (Sabatier, & Weible, 2007). Alliances always involve confidential information exchange about the upcoming political events. Particular alliances focus on single events or issues including blocking the passage of certain bills and other issues having mutual group interests (Moran, Rein & Goodin, 2008). Alliances are ad hoc while short-term arrangements persist with time with reference to the mutual interests developed along parties involved. Interest groups are faced with opportunities of decision making in relation to the groups that are proposed along the alliances and in coping with various information problems. The groups have minimal access to information on potential alliance partners makes them require decision-making process within uncertainty conditions. The information remains asymmetric as each group is in possession of private information regarding how it acts in alliance situations. Lack of information on the manner in which potential partners behaves makes the approach a complex approach in developing decisions within the conditions as risky. In conclusion, network theories on human behavior span the elements of the rational actor, constructivist, and institutionalist approaches. Overviews of the concentrates are based on structural and interpersonal approaches to policy networks dominating governance of public policy. However, the structural approach does not rely on consensus towards meanings of key concepts and policy community as well as policy network. The conceptual diversity is a common agreement point while adhering to the policy community and network approach. References Birkland, T. A 2014. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy Making. New York: Routledge. Gilpin, D. R. 2008. Organically Grown: Emergent Power and Influence in Complex Issue Networks. New York: ProQuest. Heclo, Hugh, 1978. Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment from King, A. ed., The New American Political System pp.87-124, Washington,: American Enterprise Institute Kingdon, John, 2011. The Policy Primeval Soup from Kingdon, John, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Longman), p.116-144. Koliba, C., Meek, J., Zia, A. 2010. Governance Networks in Public Administration and Public Policy. New York: CRC Press. Milakovich, M., Gordon, G., 2008. Public Administration in America. New York: Cengage Learning. Miller, K. J., McTavish, D., 2013. Making and Managing Public Policy. New York: Routledge. Moran, M., Rein, M., Goodin, R. E., 2008. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Oxford Handbooks Online. Peters, B. G. 2012. American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 9th Edition. New York: CQ Press. Sabatier, P. A. & Weible, C. M., 2007. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Innovations and Clarifications from Sabatier, P. A. ed., Theories of the policy process pp.189-220, Boulder, Colo,: Westview Press Schmidt, S., Shelley, M., 2009. American Government and Politics Today - Texas Edition, 2009-2010. New York: Cengage Learning. Stillman, R., 2009. Public Administration: Concepts and Cases. New York: Cengage Learning. Vedung, E. 2008. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New York: Transaction Publishers. Wilson, J. Q., Petersilia, J., 2011. Crime and Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press. Read More