Policy Networks, Interests, and

Alliance Models
Numaira Obaid
13 May, 2014

Introduction
TA: Numaira Obaid
numaira.obaid@mail.utoronto.ca
Office: WB 120

Policies and Interests

Previously, people thought that policies were
based on careful technical information and
cost and benefit analysis.
However, policies are very strongly dependent
on interests of the different players involved

Policy Communities vs Networks

Policy Community: refers to a wide set of
actors who understand the ideas and
terminologies of the policy area and have
some level of interest in that area
Policy Network: subset of actors who have a
high level of interest and who interact with
one another

Policy Networks
Internal government agencies
Ministries

Different government levels

Municipal, Provincial, Federal

External parties known as Interest Groups

Have their own motivations, NGOs, businesses

International players
USA

Policy Networks
This idea of players lead to two main
questions:
How much do policy networks influence the
overall policy making process?
How are policy networks formed?

There is no clear answer, but only theories.

This interaction is quite complex

Non-Marxist Thinking
Marxist literature: grouping of people is based
on which class they belong to
Non-Marxist thinking is based on the idea of
interest group pluralism
If people shared common interests, they would
form groups.
If issues arose that affected these interests, these
groups would lobby and politicize government.
This stressed the importance of inter-group
politics

Interest Group Pluralism

Interest Intermediation:
interaction between societal interests and state
institutions are variable and unpredictable and are
dependent on the organization of interests and
institutions

Associational System:
refers to the patterns of groups and organizations,
i.e. the idea that small, medium and large groups
compete and cooperate based on the needs at the
time

Iron Triangle Theory

The next theory suggested that policy making
took place in the iron triangles rather than
purely legislative or executive branches. These
were sub-governmental groups that operated
according to different principles.
An alliance of people from three groups:
Elected Bodies
Interest Groups
Bureaucracy

Example of an Iron Triangle

Issue: Should a particular weapon system be
allowed?
Department of Defence: may want a new weapon
system approved
Armed Services Committee: may want to support
the release to look like they take defense seriously
Military suppliers: want to support the release to
make money

Is based on mutual interest

Iron Triangles
Several drawbacks
Does not include the influence of
public opinion
Does not account for media, experts,
researchers

Issue Networks
Helco suggested the idea of issue networks
as an alternative to the iron triangles.
The increasing complexity of policy issues
required participation from academics and
experts.
Rather than stable patterns, the actors
involved were quite fluid and moved around
based on the issue at hand.

Article

Visualizing Networks
So how can we try understanding the large
network of people involved in policy making?
Bubble diagram
Network Analysis
Advocacy Coalition Framework (beliefs)

Bubble Diagrams
These were suggested by Paul Pross
Policy communities are: groups of
government agencies, pressure groups, media
people, and individuals who have an interest
in a particular field and will attempt to
influence it

Comments on Bubble Diagrams

Subgovernments want to exclude the public
and outsiders, and push them away from the
center
This model does not apply to all scenarios
Fiscal policies are dominated by subgovernment
Others are heavily based on public pressures

Critique: very static, interactions are not welldescribed

Characteristic Patterns
There are two sets of players: government and
other actors (interests)
This is based on the principle that outcomes
are based on the degree of organization in
each
Organization: with regards to internal coherence

Organization of Interests
High
Low

Government Organization
Low
High

What makes a highly organized

interest sector?

Separate associations without competition

Single associations to represent each sector
High number of groups in each association
Larger groups leading their sector
Capacity to generate information for the
sector internally
Make deals with the government that also
stick with the members

Advocacy Coalition Framework

A different perspective on how networks are
formed
Advocacy coalitions are groups composed of
people from various government and private
organizations who often act together
Groups are formed based on beliefs
Deep Core
Near Core
Secondary Aspects

Deep Core
Fundamental ideas
about human nature,
justice
Very difficult to
change
Example:
prioritization of
human health

Near Core
Theories on policy, its scope and role
Beliefs about how power should be
distributed
Possible to change if evidence is clear

Secondary Aspects
Beliefs regarding:
Administration rules
Budgets
Interpretation of laws

Are easily shifted

ACF Hypotheses
Allies and opponents are stable for ~10 years
Consensus is based on core beliefs rather than
secondary aspects
Policy does not change if there is no change in
power within coalitions
Quantitative data results in more policy
learning than qualitative data
Increased participation from all sides results in
more learning

Recap
Interests influence policy
We need to understand them to predict, make
policy

Interests are manifested in networks

Interests and networks are messy
We have tools for conceptualizing interests
Bubble diagram
Network Analysis
Advocacy Coalition Framework (beliefs)