European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 207

European Policy Analysis

Also in their reflections on the problem
stream, most alpha testers were curious
how changes in problem framing and
perception would impact
I. on reconfigurations of the
problem network (e.g., would they
come closer to central actors?); and
II. on their capacity and capability of
reconfiguring the policy and politics
streams.
Answers to such questions would
be theory-informed, but relatively
speculative until we have accumulated
enough data to develop an algorithm that
might suggest such outcomes.

Third, we were interested in
the question whether the nodes in our
network visualizations should be seen as
individuals-operating-in-organizations
or as actors-representing-institutions.
Although we feel that this issue can
ultimately only be resolved empirically
(when, over time, large amounts of data
have been input into a range of policy
domain IMPolS instances, and changes
in policy have been mapped onto the
resulting network configurations), our
alpha testers felt that the tool would
work at both levels: individuals engaging
in policy change “a la Kingdon,” but
also institutional actors assessing their
positions in network configurations.

Reflection

W

e set out to find Kingdon’s
“policy entrepreneurs” and
did not find any (Hoeijmakers
et al. 2007). We also identified, in our own
research and elsewhere, “policy inertia” or
“a stagnant policy environment.” Whether

or not the policy inertia was a consequence
of the absence of entrepreneurs could not
unequivocally be ascertained. However,
our alpha testing of IMPolS suggested that
participants in this policy domain may
have been connected and activated to the
problems, politics and policies discourse
if they would have had insight in their
own and others” network positions. The
question whether this would have led to
stronger policy entrepreneurial activity,
although speculative, seems to have to
be answered in the affirmative. Further
theoretical thinking about network
governance may shed light on this.

Provan and Kenis (2008)
and Kenis and Provan (2009) have
proposed some interesting theory-based
postulates on network performance and
effectiveness. This is not the place to reflect
comprehensively on their material, but in
light of our quest for policy entrepreneurs
in networks we find that the views on
“network management” are valuable. Are
policy entrepreneurs network managers?
If they are, what are the conditions for
them to operate effectively, and do they
have the ability to create those conditions
when absent? Ultimately—what would
be the tools they need to play such roles
affectively?

Based on the postulates by Provan
and Kenis we could suggest theoretical
and empirical—and tentative practical—
approaches that would enhance the
functionality of IMPolS. The two network
scholars suggest the following typology
(see Table 1) for predictors of forms of
network governance (Provan and Kenis
2008, 237).
Network
governance
in
complex policy environments (such
as the health field), according to this
typology, requires a collective “Network

207