DRAFT paper by Carolyn Johns Department of Politics and Public Administration Ryerson University

Transcription

1 Conceptualizing and Assessing Governance and Policy Capacity in the North American Great Lakes Region: The Case for Integrating Network Analysis and Policy Capacity DRAFT paper by Carolyn Johns Department of Politics and Public Administration Ryerson University Paper for presentation at the 23 rd World Congress of the International Political Science Association Montreal, Quebec July 21, 2014 ROUGH DRAFT please do not reference without contacting the author.

2 Introduction Governance theory has almost become orthodoxy in conceptualizing and analyzing policy processes on various scales in public policy and administration. The importance of good governance, good public policy and effective implementation is broadly accepted. The central argument presented in this paper is that the concept of policy capacity needs to be conceptualized to reflect the reality that governments alone are no longer the only, and some cases main, policy actors in a wide range of policy domains engaged in policy work. If researchers are interested in questions related to the significance and role of policy capacity in policy processes, outcomes or policy change, the conceptualization of policy capacity must be extended. By integrating the concept of policy capacity with governance theory and network theory and methods new frontiers of research are possible. Broadly under the umbrella of governance theory, network theory in public policy and administration includes the fundamental assumption that constellations of government and non-government institutions and actors matter. The central argument presented in this paper is that the policy capacity of such networks also matters. Although policy capacity has primarily been conceptualized as an endowment of resources that enable governments, particularly bureaucracies, to perform policy functions, the concept needs to evolve to reflect new governance arrangements in which governments share policy implementation with other governments and a range of other private and nongovernment actors. The concept of policy capacity needs to be defined in this context, its constituent components identified and frameworks for assessing it developed as policy processes, particularly implementation, increasingly occur in networked governance arrangements. This paper uses the Great Lakes case to illustrate the need for more multi-level, multijurisdictional conceptualizations of policy capacity grounded in governance and network theory. Although existing policy research focused on the Great Lakes has contributed significantly to our understanding of the policy challenges in this complex policy system, there is a need for new approaches to research that brings together the theory and methods from the policy network and policy capacity literatures. The literature on transboundary water governance has recognized this complexity for some time but a focus on policy networks, policy capacity and Social Network Analysis methods offer the potential to explore new research questions and advance our understanding of both policy networks and policy capacity. Although there are significant theoretical and methodological challenges, the central argument is that a new approach combining the policy network and policy capacity literatures hold significant promise for evaluating implementation capacities in this case and other complex policy systems. Using this approach, policy capacity can be conceptualized as an endowment of resources that enable networks to perform policy functions and achieve outcomes. The paper is divided into three main sections. Section I introduces the enduring 1

3 governance issues in the Great Lakes case, provides a brief overview of the policy research to date and outlines the need for a new policy research approach. Section II outlines how integrating the governance, policy network and policy capacity literatures offers significant potential to advance our understanding of environmental governance in the Great Lakes case and other complex, multi-jurisdictional policy systems. The final section outlines the contours of a current research agenda using this approach and revisits how the Great Lakes case illustrates the potential for using this approach and Social Network Analysis methods to advance theory and research of other complex policy systems. The Great Lakes Governance Challenge & Policy Research to Date The Great Lakes St.Lawrence is the largest freshwater basin on earth. The region contains 18 percent of the worlds freshwater and is a natural resource that supports multiple uses and 42 million inhabitants. In addition to being a significant natural resource, the region is home to a complex, multi-level set of governance actors and arrangements that have evolved over the past 100 years. However, despite the existence of long-standing institutions and agreements between Canada and the US and the claim that the transboundary institutions to manage this valuable natural resource are a model for multilevel governance and management, evidence of progress is limited and significant governance and implementation challenges remain. Pollution and degradation remain significant environmental problems in the basin and it is clear from both scientific and policy research to date that bilateral and transboundary efforts to date are resulting in only limited success. The history of pollution in the Great Lakes and the policy responses by governments in Canada and the US are both well documented (Calder 1975; Sproule Jones 2002; Botts and Muldoon 2005; Johns 2009; Krantzberg and Manno 2010). 1 Government efforts began in the 1970s with joint fact-finding led by the International Joint Commission (IJC) under the broad scope of the 1909 Canada-US Boundary Waters Treaty. The signing of the first Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between Canada and the United States in 1972 as a non-binding, good-faith agreement between the two levels of government (McCulloch and Muldoon 1999) was the first step in developing a transboundary environmental governance regime. Implementation fell to domestic governments who committed to building the required national and subnational policy capacity in the form of new laws, regulations, bureaucracies and policy implementation efforts. In 1987 the two national governments renewed the agreement with a more focused approach on 43 Areas of Concern (AOCs) that had been identified by the IJC as particularly problematic watersheds with serious pollution and governance challenges (see Figure 1). The result was targeted efforts and capacity building in AOCs which took the form of staff, resources and multi-stakeholder engagement efforts. 1 For a detailed history and recent summary of policy action and institutions related to environmental challenges in the Great Lakes please see Johns 2013; Johns

4 E K A I L I Figure 1. Map of Great Lakes Areas of Concern Great Lakes Basin Boundary Thunder Bay Nipigon Bay Jackfish Bay Peninsula Harbour Great Lakes Areas of Concern St. Louis River and Bay MINNESOTA UPDATED: FEBRUARY 15, 2013 L A K E S U P E R I O R WISCONSIN Torch Lake Deer Lake MICHIGAN Manistique River Menominee River Fox River/ Southern Green Bay Sheboygan River Milwaukee Estuary Waukegan Harbor ILLINOIS H C M G A N CANADA USA White Lake Muskegon Lake Kalamazoo River Grand Calumet River INDIANA MICHIGAN Saginaw River and Bay St. Clair River Clinton River Detroit River Rouge River River Raisin Maumee River ONTARIO St. Marys River Spanish River Mouth LAKE HURON USA CANADA Wheatley Harbour L A K E Black River OHIO Collingwood Harbour Metro Toronto Cuyahoga River Hamilton Harbour Niagara River E R I E Severn Sound Port Hope CANADA USA Bay of Quinte LAKE ONTARIO St. Lawrence River Oswego River Rochester Embayment Eighteenmile Creek Buffalo River Presque Isle Bay Ashtabula River PENNSYLVANIA CANADA USA NEW YORK Legend U.S. AOCs Binational AOCs Canadian AOCs Areas of Concern in recovery stage Delisted Canadian AOCs Delisted U. S. AOCs Source: US. EPA Despite these important transboundary policy accomplishments, the IJC under the GLWQA has evolved to have a permanent watchdog role in the Great Lakes through its boards and reporting mechanisms (Schwartz 2005). The AOC approach gradually resulted in a shift in focus from IJC-level efforts in the 1970s and 80s to a more decentralized approach related to identifying problems and implementation of Remedial Action Plans in the 1990s. Watersheds became the natural boundaries around which networks of state and societal stakeholders come together to address environmental problems in the 43 AOCs. The involvement of stakeholders from all levels of government, scientists, industrial and agricultural users, local environmental groups, water system professionals and local citizens is well documented (Sproule-Jones 2002a and 2002b; Botts and Muldoon 2005; Johns 2009; Krantzberg and Manno 2010; Greitens et.al. 2011). However engagement and policy capacity have ebbed and flowed over time. Although the early 1990s saw some increased activity by industry associations, particularly related to the toxic chemicals and the debate about virtual elimination, in many AOCs, private sector users were not active participants (Sproule-Jones 2002) and a lack of industry attention reflect(ed) the sector s limited participation in the Great Lakes community in the first two decades of the agreement s history (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 101). Although there were clearly some success stories such as reductions in acid rain, the return of species on the brink of extinction, the reduction of 3

5 toxic chemicals and some improvements as a result of point source controls (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 137) by the mid-1990s, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began to scientifically document that non-point sources constituted the major causes of water pollution in many watersheds (US EPA 1995a). At the same time a policy shift away from point source regulatory instruments to market-based instruments became evident (Johns 2000). By the late 1990s the Great Lakes fell off the agendas of governments in Canada and the US, public indifference was evident and the general sense of community between stakeholder groups in the Great Lakes began to decline (Botts and Muldoon 2005, 161). In Canada, the longstanding Canada-Ontario intergovernmental agreements related to implementation were suspended and seriously underfunded (Botts and Muldoon 2005; Johns 2009). Not surprisingly this was the same period when governments were focused on shifting away from state-centred policy efforts and policy capacity declined. Even significant water pollution events, such as those in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 1993, and Walkerton, Ontario in 2000, where people died from drinking water pollution did not generate a public or policy response in connection with broader water quality issues in the Great Lakes (Johns 2009, 2014). Transboundary and domestic efforts and policy capacity waned. This decline has been primarily documented through case studies incorporating some analysis of national and subnational budget and personnel data (Botts and Muldoon 2005; Johns 2009). The lack of transboundary and domestic policy effort has been particularly evident in the slow progress cleaning up the most polluted sites on the Great Lakes (Sproule-Jones 2002b). More than 25 years after various policy initiatives, only five AOCs have been delisted, and two are currently designated as areas in recovery (see Figure 1). The progress in the remaining AOCs and many other watersheds in the Great Lakes remains slow and pollution continues. An increasing number and imbalance of water uses continue to have negative impacts on water quality and many of the indicators of ecological health are mixed, uncertain or deteriorating (Solec 2007, IJC 2011). Pollution continues to increase along with population growth and the increasing uses of water in the basin. Many new and re-emerging issues have surfaced in the Great Lakes, including new evidence of pharmaceutical chemicals; the enduring problem of the importation of invasive species (Sanders and Stoett 2006); the plateaued progress in addressing the dead zone in Lake Erie (US EPA 2002), pollution from shale gas fracking and increasing concern about climate change and water levels. Some 40 years after the first GLWQA, and the implementation of various policy initiatives in the US and Canada, basic water quality objectives of swimmable, drinkable, fishable waters have not been met. It wasn t until the mid-2000s that the Great Lakes were placed back on the policy agenda. The US Great Lakes Legacy Act, the IJC s 100 th anniversary and the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) introduced after the election of President Obama created some momentum for state and societal actors to re-engage in Great Lakes efforts. Following President Obama s announcement to invest $475 million from to address environmental problems in the region, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary 4

6 Clinton and Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lawrence Cannon announced in 2009 that the US and Canada would renegotiate the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement last signed in After three years of renegotiation the new GLWQA was signed in 2012 renewing interest in policy efforts and policy capacity. Yet, 40 years after the previous agreement, the policy capacity to achieve wellarticulated goals remains a significant challenge. Although the governance arrangements to implement the new agreement remained largely the same, emphasis has been placed on the capacity of existing multi-stakeholder and partnership arrangements to produce results. Like other regions and multilevel governance systems, implementation of environmental policy depends increasingly on policy capacity beyond governments in networked governance arrangements involving domestic and international, state and non-state actors. Policy Research To Date and the Need for a New Approach As outlined in the section above, policy research has made significant contributions to our knowledge about transboundary environmental governance in the Great Lakes region. Scholarly research to date indicates that despite some capacity to produce policy goals and agreements, and the proliferation of transboundary and domestic institutions with mandates to implement these agreements, policy capacity to implement such agreements has been limited, varies comparatively and across levels of government and also varies by issue area. Policy research to date has clearly outlined that despite the fact that the Great Lakes constitute a shared basin with shared policy goals and transboundary governance institutions, two distinct domestic policy regimes have evolved to address water pollution and one cannot fully assess the policy response at the transboundary level without also understanding the policy regimes and capacity at the national and subnational levels in Canada and the United States. Comparative research indicates that the two countries have distinct approaches and different policy styles when it comes to environmental policy more broadly (Hoberg 1992, Howlett 1994). Comparatively, environmental policy and water policy in the US federal system has been more centralized and concerted (Hoberg 1993; Rabe 1999; Johns 2000; Montpetit 2002; Johns 2009, 2010). Although both policy regimes have been influenced by the economic cycles and political mandates of different governments, efforts and capacity in the US in terms of legislation and programs have been comparatively high. US governments have exerted more effort and developed substantial capacity in the area of scientific capacity, measurement and reporting on water quality (Johns 2000). This policy and technical expertise from the US EPA is shared and collaborative with subnational governments in the intergovernmental context. Some attribute this to more adversarial policymaking focused on best-available technologies and reporting and a demand for scientific information by non-governmental actors (Bocking 2006). In Canada, the federal government, while officially adopting similar goals for the Great 5

7 Lakes, does not have any hard law devoted to articulating goals and resources related to transboundary efforts and the GLWQA. Federal involvement has been comparatively low in the past two decades (McClaughlin and Krantzberg 2011). In comparison to the EPA, Environment Canada s policy and technical capacity is more limited and the federal government s capacity to report on the state of waters in Canada has declined (SOLEC 2011). Although there have consistently been intergovernmental agreements in place between the federal government and province of Ontario related to implementation, the capacity and outcomes flowing from these agreements has been low for the past 15 years. The sustained engagement and capacity of Canadian environmental groups in Great Lakes efforts is also comparatively low (Botts and Muldoon 2005) and the challenge of environmental organizations forming effective cross-border alliances (Alper 1997) is still evident. In addition to analyzing how economic and political asymmetries relate to Great Lakes policies and outcomes, policy scholarship has focused on evaluating the central role of institutions, international soft law, legislation in both jurisdictions, federalism and policy implementation arrangements in both countries as key factors in explaining how the state of domestic water policy partially explains transboundary outcomes and environmental performance in the Great Lakes (Hoberg 1992; Hartig and Zarrell 1992; Rabe and Zimmerman 1995; Rabe 1997, 1999; Sproule-Jones 2002a, 2002b; Botts and Muldoon 2005; Hill 2006; Heinmiller 2007; Johns 2002, 2009, 2010).This institutional approach is mirrored in the environmental law scholarship that focuses on shared constitutional jurisdiction in both countries, asymmetrical responsibility, decentralization of environmental policy in the past two decades, how national and subnational efforts relate to international levels (Lovecraft 2007; Friedman and Foster 2011) and the increasing role of subnational and local governments (Valiante 2003, 2007; Hall 2007). Although there is some general evidence that policy capacity and efforts are comparatively higher in the US than in Canada, most Great Lakes watersheds in the United States are still not meeting water quality objectives (US, EPA 2006b) and progress on both sides of the border in de-listing AOCs and addressing water pollution has been slow. An IJC report focusing on a 25-year assessment of scientific and ecosystem indicators highlights some successes but many outstanding challenges (IJC 2011). In addition, the report highlights that a consistent monitoring and reporting on policy efforts and capacity has not been front and centre in evaluations of progress in the basin. Although the IJC is currently working to address this under the new GLWQA (IJC 2014), policy research to date indicates that a number of factors are important in explaining the enduring challenges in the Great Lakes. Reflecting the reality that both state and non-state actors are central to transboundary governance in the Great Lakes, most policy research now includes a focus on both state and societal actors and their role in transboundary water governance. The focus is now more explicitly on coordination issues and the implementation deficit that exists despite the existence of numerous institutions with policy mandates in the Great Lakes (McClaughlin and Krantzberg 2011). Policy research indicates leadership and policy capacity at the subnational level also partially explains the plateauing and declining 6

8 levels of progress in water policy and Great Lakes progress in the past two decades (Rabe 1999; Botts and Muldoon 2005; Johns 2009 and 2010), despite evidence that subnational actors are increasingly engaged in transboundary environmental policy networks and cross-border regional activities (LePreste and Stoett 2006; VanNijnatten 2006; Rabe and Brooks 2010; Friedman 2011). Policy research to date has clearly demonstrated the significance of institutional theory and the focus on the role of institutions, both formal (international law and agreements, domestic laws, regulations, and political and bureaucratic organizations) and informal (norms, relationships and networks between individuals) (Ingraham et al. 2008), and how they influence the behaviour of actors within and beyond them (Peters 2005, 165). Using this approach we have gained considerable knowledge about the limitations of existing institutional arrangements. The overall message from this literature is that institutions and institutional capacity are implicated in governance failures in the Great Lakes. However in order to move beyond the focus on institutional arrangements at the national and AOC levels and focus on capacities at multiple levels there is a need to look to new theories, pose new research questions and use new policy research methods to improve our understanding of transboundary water governance and improve outcomes related to implementation of the new GLWQA and other policies. The 2012 GLWQA reflects a bi-national consensus that existing institutions are sufficient and that the focus needs to be on improving the capacity and performance of existing transboundary and watershed-based institutions to improve outcomes. While there is recognition that implementation is still primarily a domestic responsibility and there will be variation in US and Canadian approaches, there is a new emphasis on transboundary outcomes, comparative monitoring of policy efforts and more of a binational systems approach to improving the governance of this regional natural resource. It is not the lack of clear policy goals, laws and policies and institutional arrangements with mandates for implementation, the central focus is on the capacity of those institutional arrangements to improve outcomes. The focus is on making the existing institutions at all levels work better and increasing stakeholder and public engagement as policy makers realize that governments alone do not have the capacity to collectively manage this complex system. There is a new emphasis on governance capacity and governance indicators (IJC 2014). The critical challenge in the Great Lakes to improve policy efforts and outcomes on multiple scales starts with a recognition that collective action involving complex governance arrangements between a number of jurisdictions and government and nongovernment actors and institutions requires some assessment of current governance capacity or policy capacity. While historically the policy and organizational complexity makes the overall structure and functioning of Great Lakes governance difficult to fully comprehend (Francis 1987; Caldwell 1994), new research approaches, tools and technologies related to network analysis and policy capacity make this kind of research more feasible. The next section reviews three bodies of literature that together offer a new approach to conceptualizing and researching policy capacity in complex governance systems like the Great Lakes region. 7

9 Governance Theory & Policy Capacity Governance theory is broad and has been influenced by many different disciplines and subfields in political science (Frederickson and Smith 2012). As a result there are many definitions of governance and a significant body of scholarly and practitioner literature. For purposes of this paper, particular emphasis is place on the scholarship that defines governance primarily as networks (Rhodes 1996, 1997; O Toole 1997) and those who focus on state and policy capacity. Bevir s description is useful and embodies many of the features that underpin definitions of governance as networks. Governance can refer abstractly to all processes of governing. It supplements a focus on the formal institutions of government with recognition of more diverse activities that blur the boundary of state and society. It draws attention to the complex processes and interactions involved in governing. Governance can also refer, more concretely, to the rise of new processes of governing that are hybrid and multi-jurisdictional with plural stakeholders working together in networks (Bevir 2012, 5). Based on these features and definitions of governance, some have declared that we are in the era of newly acknowledged interdependence (Hay 2010, 9) and an orthodoxy has emerged related to network governance theory that views network governance not just as an accurate description of reality but a normative set of assumptions related to the value of networks in overcoming the limitations of markets and hierarchies (Davies 2011). While there are critics of governance theory, particularly in terms of its neoliberal underpinnings (Davies 2011) and in terms of serious concerns about loss of state capacity, there are many who view this new world order (Slaughter 2004) as critical to politics and policy from the global to local scales. For purposes of this paper, there are several important concepts that flow from governance theory including older concepts like state autonomy and more recent concepts like state capacity and meta-governance. The meta-governance literature focuses on state autonomy and control in new governance arrangements and recent research on meta-governance has documented the state is still very present and central in network governance (Sorensen and Torfing 2007; Doberstein 2013). In these new governance and network contexts the state has reasserted its capacity to govern by regulating the mix of governing structures and by deploying indirect instruments of control (Bevir 2012, 76). State capacity is particularly relevant here in the context of the nation state and comparatively (Painter and Pierre 2006). Fukuyama (2013) and others (Dror 2001) have focused on defining state capacity and governance capacity in the international context starting with measures such as the fundamental capacity of the state to extract taxes and including other measures like the level of education and professionalization of government officials and bureaucratic autonomy as indicators of basic state capacity. Not surprisingly, those who focus on state capacity adopt very state-centered definitions. As noted by Painter and Pierre, the governance theoretical perspective 8

10 sees the state and its institutions as they key source of policy capacity, although recognizing that considerable policy capacity rests outside the domain of the state and has to be mobilized in the pursuit of collective interests (Painter and Pierre 2005, 12). If governance is used to describe practices of consultation, coordination and bargaining across boundaries, then it is here where we should look for sources of policy capacity (Painter and Pierre 2005, 10). Governance theory also focuses on multilevel governance features yet when combined with a focus on capacity focuses the institutional structures and terrains at the intersection of civil society and the state but also on the strategic capacity of agents (Jayasuriya 2005, 32). Thus, network governance theory includes a focus on state organizations and actors but also on non-state organizations and actors in a given policy system. It focuses primarily on policy capacity within the state apparatus but also beyond it. As the following sections outline, when combined with policy network and policy capacity research there is much common ground that is fertile for theoretical development and empirical research. Network Theory, Network Analysis and Policy Capacity Similar to governance theory, network theory has been influential across many social science disciplines with many scholars moving well beyond the metaphorical and descriptive use of networks to analyze social phenomenon. Both public policy and public administration have focused on policy network theory and research for some time. The proliferation of theoretical and empirical works under the big tent of network research in public policy and public administration has demonstrated the value of a network approach for understanding and potentially improving policy and public administration outcomes in many policy areas and jurisdictions. This theoretical diversity and research approach is well-documented (Keast, Mandell and Agranoff 2014). Although there are various intellectual foundations, researchers using this theoretical approach in both public policy and public administration research share a common grounding in governance theory and institutional theory (Frederickson and Smith 2012) whether they are interested in managerial or democratic research questions related to networks. For many analysts, policy networks are conceptualized broadly as institutional arrangements under new institutionalism. Building on foundational variants of institutional theory that emphasizes formal and informal institutional arrangements (Ingraham et al. 2008) and how institutions influence the behaviour of actors within and beyond them (Peters 2005, 165), many network researchers are quite comfortable in the institutional tent. Depending on the researcher, networks can be conceptualized as rules constraining the actions of participating actors (Blom-Hansen 1997, 669; McGinnis 2011) or more sociological variants of institutionalism that emphasize group and organizational interactions of state and non-state actors (Peters 1999). Building on the common foundation that institutions serve as the chief interface between state and society (Painter and Pierre 2005, 9), the network institutionalism approach is based on the 9

11 assumption that network characteristics and capacities have causes and consequences for policy action, inaction and outcomes (Ansell 2006). Just like governance, there are numerous definitions of policy networks in the public policy and public administration literature. Rhodes defines networks as sets of formal institutional and informal linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared if endlessly negotiated beliefs and interests in public policymaking and implementation. These actors are interdependent and policy emerges from the interactions between them (Rhodes 1997, and 2006, 424). O Toole s definition of policy networks as structures of interdependence involving multiple organizations or parts thereof, where one unit is not merely the formal subordinate of others in some hierarchical arrangement (O Toole 1997, 45). Provan and Kenis definition of networks as legally autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a collective goal (Provan and Kenis 2007, 231) is also relevant here. All of these definitions highlight that network analysts include an emphasis on structured organizational relationships and individual relationships between policy actors within structured organizational relationships that are both formal and informal and the structures of the networks are thought to influence both the policy process and policy outcomes (Marsh and Rhodes 1992). There is an emphasis on share authority, knowledge and resources. The public policy literature for some time as distinguished a wide variety of networks and typologies using state-centred/societal-centred continuum; democratic features; power and resource asymmetries and other distinguishing features (Rhodes 1986; Rhodes and Marsh 1992; Atkinson and Coleman 1989; Coleman and Skogstad 1990;). Thinking about policy making as involving more-or-less fluid sets of state and societal actors linked by specific interest and resource relationships has been the basis of significant research about the relationship between network structures, functions and policy outcomes (Howlett 2002, 235-6). The underlying premise of the policy network approach is that networks matter and that it is in these decentralized interactions between state and societal actors that policy making and implementation unfolds (Skogstad 2005). While early network theory was informed by inter-organizational theory, tended to focus on formal institutional arrangements and neglected interpersonal relations (Borzel 2011, 58), network approaches now included informal relations and a focus on actors as well. There has also been a consistent emphasis on shared authority, knowledge and resources (Marsh and Rhodes 1992, 251). Others outline that conceptually the policy network literature can be divided into two strands: one focuses on networks as interpersonal relationships and the other as structural linkages between state and non-state actors (Skogstad 2005, 2). A challenge is to determine if it is the attributes of network itself or of the actors in the network that are the primary focus. Some recognition must be given to the agency of the individual actors in the network yet also the network structure itself and the contextual factors related to the interaction (Skogstad 2005). Yet, there is clearly interplay between structure and agency and thus a need to integrate micro-level explanations of human behaviour with macro level accounts of the state and political economy (Skogstad 10

12 2005, 7). Rhodes more recent scholarship on networks has also incorporated an emphasis on ideas, by including an analysis of individuals and their ideas and beliefs (Rhodes 2007) thus focusing on both structure and agency. Isett et.al. make a useful distinction between policy networks for policy making, collaborative networks that are focused on service provision and governance networks defined as entities that fuse collaborative public goods and service provision and focus on the coordination of organizations towards a common goal rather than the policies or products that networks actually produce (Isett et.al. 2011, i158). These authors note that the term network is used in different ways by public policy and public administration scholars. In public administration the fascination with networks has been informed by new governance realities flowing from the New Public Management era to the point that networks are the analytical heart of the notion of governance in the study of public administration (Rhodes 2000, 60). Some have argued that governance network theory has indeed developed into a full-fledged theory that has gained prominence in public administration (Klijn and Koopenjan 2012). The focus on power is less front and center and the focus is more on policy implementation, program implementation, service delivery and effectiveness of outcomes (Kickert, Klijn and Koppenjam 1997; O Toole 1997; Mandell 2001; Agranoff and McGuire 2003; Milward and Provan 2003; Goldsmith and Eggers 2004). Analysis of scholarship published on networks in public administration journals confirms that scholars in the field have taken O Toole s (1997) call to treat networks seriously to heart (Hwang and Moon 2009; Lecy et.al. 2014). Whether one focuses on networks in public policy or public administration, critics have argued this approach has serious limitations in causation and explanation (Dowding 1995, 2001). Borzel (1998) and others have argued that lack of definitional clarity has limited the usefulness of network concepts. Other critics have argued that the literature is concerned mainly with the question of whether collaboration exists and on what scale, and not with whether the collaboration is productive (Bardach 1998, 23). Causal links between network structures and policy outcomes has been limited and moving beyond description toward explanation has been a serious challenge. These limitations of network analysis are now recognized and theoretical and empirical analysis, whether focused on description or explanation has evolved and scholarly diversity has advanced research on policy networks significantly (Keast et.al 2014). Both the public policy and public administration literatures have come to reflect the reality that governments have become increasingly dependent on cooperation and joint resource mobilization of policy actors outside their hierarchical control (Borzel 2011, 51). Governance networks embody power relationships since networks operate in the shadow of hierarchy cast by governments (Scharpf 1994; and Rhodes 2007, 1253) and governments past and present set the rules of the game (Ostrom 1990). Yet there is still some debate about how central state actors are in conceptualization of networks. Despite early theorizing of networks as alternatives to hierarchies and markets in a post-new Public Management context where government institutions and actors became less central (Rhodes 1997) there is mounting evidence that government 11

13 actors remain central in governance arrangements and networks operate in the shadow of hierarchy cast by governments (Scharpf 1994; 38-40; Olsen 2006; Rhodes 2007, 1253). Related research on meta-governance is confirming that governments remain central (Sorensen and Torfing 2007; Klijn and Koppenjan 2012; Doberstein 2013). Overall, what network institutionalism necessitates is description in the early stages of the research (conceptualizing, mapping and analyzing relationships) and then focusing on explanation of policy consequences (Ansell 2006). In keeping with network theory there are three empirical agendas: (1) determine what networks exist, (2) examine the historical dimension of network formation and development, and (3) explore the array of networks in a broadly comparative perspective (O Toole 1997, 48). Most of this research focuses on characteristics of networks in order to better understand why some networks perform well and others do not and what consequences the structural form of a network has for what the network can achieve (Kenis and Provan 2009). In federal countries like Canada and the US, they are associated with collaborative federalism (Cameron and Simeon 2002), intergovernmental networks (Agranoff and McGuire 2003), networked federalism (Stein 2006) and attempts to move toward whole network analysis (Provan, Fish and Sydow 2007, 482). The approach taken here falls into Isett et.al. s category of governance networks and the focus is on both actors and organizations. When combined with the governance approach and network analysis methods it is not only the organization and actors in the network that can be the focus of analysis but the patterns of linkages and interactions between the actors and organizations that are of interest (Borzel 2011, 51). However, this approach also requires researchers to deal with the theoretical and methodological challenges of boundary specification. This stems from the fact that in network analysis the focus can be on whole networks, subsystems or substructures. This is a tall order, particularly in federal countries like Canada and the US where network theory also includes intergovernmental networks (Agranoff and McGuire 2003) and attempts to move toward whole network analysis are particularly challenging (Provan, Fish and Sydow 2007, 482). There are still very few studies that include an analysis of whole networks in relationship to their parts (Isett et.al. 2011, i161-2). Those analysts who focus on the inter-organizational level highlight the challenges of policy networks within states, not to mention the added challenges in transnational governance networks. Given that networks involve public sector, private sector and nonprofit sector organizations there is a multi-sectoral challenge as well (Herranz 2008). Just as there are differences between various government organizations and actors, there is heterogeneity among non-profit organizations (Boris and Steuerle 1999; Frumkin 2002; Herranz 2008) and private sector actors. In addition to these challenges, the specification of the network as the unit of analysis must also be dynamic as the network may not be known at the time research is initiated and changes over time. Thus there is a need for longitudinal and comparative research on formal and informal networks and the range of functions that networks fulfill (Isett et.al.2011, i162). To some degree these limitations can be overcome by undertaking preliminary research about the network s evolution and composition and using research methods and tools 12

14 that have been used in other fields to analyze networks (Berry et.al. 2004). Using methods and tools from Social Network Analysis (SNA) combined with qualitative methods offer significant potential for furthering our knowledge of networks in public policy and administration (Fischer 2011) and extending the conceptualization of policy capacity. SNA has primarily found its home in sociology but in the past decade it has used increasingly in a growing number of social science disciplines including political science, public policy and public administration (Yamasaki and Spreitzer 2006). SNA is a research method for analyzing networks, the relationships among social entities and the patterns and implications of these relationships (Wasserman and Faust 1994, 3). Regular patterns in these relationships among actors are referred to as structure and relational ties as linkages (ibid). There are several key concepts at the heart of SNA including actors, relational ties, subgroups and relations. SNA focuses on the use of measures such as centrality (the number of connections an actor has to others in the network), density (proportion of actual connections to total possible connections in a network), cohesion (the ability of a network to survive the removal of any number of connections), and betweenness (the extent to an actor falls on the shortest path between any two other actors) (Wasserman and Faust 1994). These measures can be used for descriptive analysis and statistical analyses and modeling. SNA data collection methods and relational measures can be used to study complete, incomplete, and partial networks, complete networks with subgroups, and large and small networks. They have been used to analyze social, economic, criminal, professional, political and policy networks. While SNA theory and methods have existed for some time, and are particularly well developed in sociology, a recent study of the network literature in public administration found very little use of these measures and SNA in the public administration literature (Waschhus 2008). In the past few years however the use of network analysis methods and SNA has been growing. Lecy et.al. (2014) in a more recent study found that very few authors in public administration clearly define the network under study, its boundary or other important properties (2014, 643) and that very few articles in their citation analysis use SNA. They found that those studies that do use SNA use basic measures such as centrality and visualization and, with the exception of Milward and Provan (1995), none of the studies use large-scale network data collection and analysis. However, there is significant potential to advance policy network scholarship on formal and informal networks by using these methods, particularly if the focus is placed on the policy capacity of networks. Several network researchers in public administration have already conceptualized networks with both formal and informal dimensions where networks have been analyzed related to information sharing, capacity building, problem solving and service delivery (Provan and Milward 2001, Agranoff 2007; Isett et.al. 2011). There are others who have documented that there is some tendency for informal networks to formalize over time thereby increasing the capacity of the network and moving it beyond personal relationships (Imperial 2005). However, it is unclear whether the mutual resource dependency of government and non-government actors actually leads to a net increase in the problem-solving capacity of governments (Borzel 13

15 2011, 56). For these types of research questions the policy capacity literature offers some value in furthering our understanding of complex policy networks. Extending the Conceptualization of Policy Capacity Institutional capacity, governance capacity, state capacity and policy capacity and capacity-building are all concepts used in a wide range of disciplines. The international development and comparative politics literatures have for sometime been concerned with state capacity and institutional capacity (Skocpol & Finegold 1982). The transboundary water resource governance literature is full of language about governance capacity that is, or should be, adaptive, integrated and focused on human and ecological systems yet very little conceptual work connects this to the growing literature in policy studies related to policy capacity. For example, adaptive capacity is a concept that has been used to assess the ability of a governance system to first alter processes and, if required, transform structural elements in order to better cope with changes in society or the natural environment (Pahl-Wostl 2010, 572). As outlined above these concepts are also not new in public policy and public administration literature. Like the policy network literature, the policy capacity literature is firmly grounded in the neo-institutionalist tradition. It emphasizes the institutional roots of and remedies for policy incapacity of the modern state (Painter and Pierre 2005, 8). The roots of conceptualizing governance and policy capacity stem from the practitioner and scholarly concern since the late 1990s that governments at all levels were no longer as capable of formulating, implementing and evaluating policy as they were a decade or two earlier (Dror 2001). Early observers suggested that the policy capabilities of governments had eroded and the decline in policy capacity had been the result of a more ideological and politicized style of policy making (Aucoin 1988). Still others argued that declining policy capacity reflected the increasingly difficult fiscal position of governments and the lack of funds for policy initiatives and implementation (Lightman and Irving 1991). Changes to the policy process and the shifts in sources of policy advice to non-state actors were also identified as important contributing factors (Anderson 1996; Peters 1996). An early, and broad, definition by B.Guy Peters conceptualized policy capacity as being able to work across conventional boundaries and functional definitions of policies (Peters 1996). His early work on this concept focused on policy-making and the ability of policy actors to overcome barriers to achieve policy outcomes. Based on barriers to effective policy making adopted and adapted from Rose (1974), the barriers Peters discusses are i) command of sufficient expertise, ii) skills necessary to manage large, complex organizations and iii) that all parts of the system work in harmony to implement the policy (Peters 1996, 15-16). Peters elaborated on this third barrier by discussing the role of leadership and the capacity to promote cooperation across the range of organizations that have an interest in the policy area (ibid). Peters and others influenced some empirical work on this subject by the Canadian federal government. A group of senior executives concerned with the state of policy capacity, focused on measuring policy capacity more directly related to the policy 14

16 research and analysis function in the federal government (Canadian Centre for Management Development 1996, 1-5; Canada Policy Research Secretariat 1999). This early Canadian research also made connections to human resources and public sector recruitment (Lindquist and Desveaux 1998) and included the intellectual dimension of governance, that is, the capacity of the system to think through the challenges it faces" (Bakvis 2000, 3). However, after an early focus on understanding and explaining the loss of policy capacity due to public sector reform and downsizing, by the early 2000s there was an emphasis on the prospect of rebuilding lost capacity in the context of budget surpluses (Bakvis 2000), paying particular attention to the concrete supports needed to think strategically and anticipate challenges in the formulation of policy (Savoie 2003) and the institutional ability to conduct policy analysis and implement results effectively and efficiently" (Pal 2006, 35). Beyond the Canadian context, Polidano in the UK developed an index to measure public sector capacity that included policy capacity, implementation capacity and operational capacity that was focused on conceptualization and measures in the international development context. Drawing primarily on the state capacity literature, his index focused on the capacity of the permanent administrative machinery, not the state as a whole (Polidano 1999, 6). Another significant contribution to conceptualizing policy capacity in both the domestic and international context came from Painter, Pierre and collaborators in their book Challenges to State Policy Capacity (Painter and Pierre 2005). They define policy capacity as the ability to marshal the necessary resources to make intelligent collective choices about and set strategic directions for the allocation of scare resources to public ends (Painter and Pierre 2005, 2) and as the ability of a government to make intelligent policy choices and muster the resources needed to execute those choices (2005, 255). They argue that governing capacity is made up of policy capacity, administrative capacity and state capacity while highlighting that the concept of capacity draws attention to the structural characteristics and resource stocks of a governing system (Painter and Pierre 2005, 3). According to Painter and Pierre: In an institutionalist perspective, policy capacity is created and sustained in two ways. One is endogenous to government and comprising the development of a system of government that is capable of formulating and implementing policy. The more specific building blocks in this process are policy expertise, a professional staff, financial resources and some degree of organizational continuity. The other aspect relates to the state-society exchange. Policy capacity in this perspective is the result of the creation of institutions that do not become captive to parochial political interests (Painter and Pierre 2005, 10). Quoting Peter Hall they note that the capacity of the state to govern society depends on the configuration of society as much as on the configuration of the state (Hall 1986, 17 in Painter and Pierre 2005, 10) and some degree of state autonomy. They broadened the application of the concept of policy capacity by identifying a number of endogenous and exogenous variables related to policy capacity. Endogenous variables include such variables as policy expertise, financial resources, role of non-governmental 15