Juggling Multiple Networks in Multiple Streams
looked at the question whether social or policy entrepreneurs were present in the complex health environment , and if so , what they did in order to open windows of opportunity for local health policy development . Similar research in the health promotion domain has been published more recently ( Harting et al . 2010 ). A key finding of this work was that the very nature of the health domain dictates a very dense network , and that effective entrepreneurs need to have the tools to engage in shaping nodes and connections in it . Laumann and Knoke in their seminal “ The Organisational State ” ( 1987 ) mapped healthcare and energy domains in the United States , finding that the most effective policy operators allocate substantive resources to monitor communicative actions of the other actors in the network . Similarly , from our work some initial lessons could be gleaned for the development of policy for health ( and , perhaps , the entrepreneurship of those engaged in policy development and health promotion ). First , stakeholders may be assisted in structuring and aiming their health promotion ( policy making ) actions by acquiring insight into their position in these networks relative to the positions of others . Second , stakeholders would be supported in their actions if these were tactically and strategically informed by appropriate knowledge of actions of others in the network .
Networking for Health , and Policy
Network Conceptualisations
Policy network theory is a rich , fast proliferating , yet developing field . Policy network theoreticians and analysts have been challenged to “ deliver ” and to show the — theoretical or practical — benefits of a network perspective to policy development . Börzel ( 1998 ) described two perspectives : an American / Anglo-Saxon one where networks are being mapped on particular policy issues ( such as “ health ” or “ energy ”), and a German / North- European one where policy networks are used as theoretical models describing new forms of governance . Neither , Börzel claims , has the potential to demonstrate its relevance to “ on the ground ” policymaking . In other words , in 1998 she claimed ( and a good body of the current literature sustains that view , for example , Lecy , Mergel , and Schmitz 2014 ) that the current state of play in both policy network perspectives yields explanatory yet no predictive power . Our findings challenge that view .
Further theoretical advances have been offered to generate policymaking relevance . Kenis and Raab ( 2003 ) proposed a course of action to develop a sound policy network theory . Howlett ( 2002 ) found that further theorizing on the nature of the policy problem and characteristics of network participants would yield demonstrable insight into the impact of network configurations on policy outcomes . Hill and Hupe ( 2006 ) argued that mapping interaction capabilities of actors across different types and levels of governance parameters would enhance policy implementation potential .
Empirical Application
Anticipating these new insights , we responded through a project which we carried out in a group of small municipalities in the southern province of Limburg , in The Netherlands
200