Modeling the Evolution of a Policy Network ... - Wiley Online Library

FAMILY AND 10.1177/1077727X04263840 McGregor / NETWORK CONSUMER ANAL SCIENCES YSIS RESEARCH JOURNAL

Modeling the Evolution of a Policy Network Using Network Analysis Sue L. T. McGregor Mount Saint Vincent University A six-stage model was developed to conceptualize the evolutionary process for policy networks, using the 20-year evolution of the Canadian Electronic Funds Transfer System/Point Of Sale (EFTS/POS) policy network as an example. A content analysis of 231 policy documents was used to create individual case studies of 16 stakeholders. These cases were vetted with respective stakeholders and then amalgamated into one large, chronological case study. These attribute data were converted to relational data, in the form of 51 matrices and four sets of sociograms, and then analyzed using network analysis. The results (a) show that, with some variation, the model provides a reliable map of the evolution of policy networks and (b) confirm that network analysis captures the attributes and properties of the relational dynamics inherent in stakeholder interactions during the development of policy. This augments the traditional approach of capturing the properties of actors, organizations or policy. Keywords:

modeling policy networks; policy communities; consumer; EFTS; Canada

It bears repeating that family and consumer scientists (FCS) have an obligation to influence policy with respect to individual and family well-being (McGregor, 1989). A recent approach to understanding relationships in the policy arena is that of sociometric or network analysis. The study of policy networks is emerging as a major branch of research in the social sciences (König & Bräuninger, 1998). The new dynamics of policy networks are redefining contemporary forms of governance (Pal, 1997b). However, systematic knowledge about public policy networks in the family and consumer sciences discipline is scant at best. This knowledge gap is unfortunate, because networks serve as a venue for relationships between actors from various sectors as they interact to influence policy related to issues germane to their self-interest. The purpose of this article is to share results from a study designed to model the actual evolution of a policy network instead of assuming, as do König and Bräuninger (1998) and others, that there are stable relationships between policy actors over time. Possession of Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, June 2004 382-407 DOI: 10.1177/1077727X04263840 © 2004 American Association of Family and Consumer Sciences

382

McGregor / NETWORK ANALYSIS

383

a model of the evolution of policy networks provides a better understanding of the reality of relationship building and maintenance during the policy process. The network perspective, often called a structural perspective, evolves from Helco’s (1978) concept of issues networks and assumes that policy does not happen in a vacuum but in a continually changing context replete with changing actors, degrees of interaction, and patterns of relationships (Pross, 1990). Aldrich and Whetten (1981) discussed action sets and networks. Later, Milward and Walmsley (1984) combined their concept of policy subsystems with Cater’s (1964) writings on iron triangles (influential subgovernment composed of three parties: executive-level bureaucrats, interest group leaders, and congressional committees). Building on this theoretical innovation, networks recently have been linked with the concept of policy communities. In this context, networks, a smaller component of a policy community, are understood to include many interconnected actors, each of which draws on particular resources to influence the way public and private policies are formulated and implemented (Heaney, in press; Hojnacki, 1997; Marin & Mayntz, 1991). The widely accepted definition of a policy community is that it “include[s] all actors or potential actors with a direct or indirect interest in a policy area or function who share a common ‘policy focus,’ and who, with varying degrees of influence shape policy outcomes over the long run” (Coleman & Skogstad, 1990, p. 25). In contrast, a policy network is distinguished from a community in that “the properties [of the network] characterize the relationships among the particular set of actors that form around an issue of importance to the policy community” (p. 26); that is, The concept of the policy network is reserved for the linking process that brings together different members of the community for resolution of a given issue or development of a programme [or other policy instrument]. The structure (make-up) of these networks will vary depending on a host of circumstances and factors. (Coleman, 1990, p. 99)

Different scholars bring various approaches to viewing policy from a structural perspective. Pross (1990) and Coleman and Skogstad (1990) focused on, among other things, the centrality of the role of the state versus the associational system defined by such things as analytical capacity, access to information, ability to act unilaterally, coordination, and reactive or proactive approach to policy.

384

FAMILY AND CONSUMER SCIENCES RESEARCH JOURNAL

Coleman and Skogstad (1990) and Lindquist (1992) tendered a detailed discussion of a matrix of policy network categories based on the degree of organization of government versus interest groups: pressure pluralism, clientele pluralism, state directed, corporatism, and concertation. Sabatier (1993) introduced the advocacy coalition framework (ACF) that focuses on the role of ideas, values, and belief systems in the policy process. All of those in an advocacy coalition participate in the policy process to use the government machinery to pursue their self-serving goals (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995). Pal (1997a) advanced the idea that policy networks are frequently becoming international in nature, not just domestic. These various approaches to policy networks contribute to our ability to map actors, understand their relationships, and possibly, make predictions about the policy process. This article contributes to this momentum by sharing insights into the evolutionary process involved in bringing a policy network to life, tracking its formation and eventual demise or progress in a new direction. This will be grounded in social network or structural theory just as the policy community and network perspectives have been. Other scholars in the field of policy development and analysis have turned to social network theory to understand relationships that develop during policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Knoke’s (1990) work on political networks provided a means of understanding contemporary political life from a network (structural) perspective; that is, viewing political systems as social networks rather than a series of discrete, one-time exchanges. He discussed six different facets of political behavior from a relationship and power perspective: voting and political participation, social movements, organizational power, community power structures, elites in a nation-state, and international relations. From a social network perspective, he was able to understand how network participants (actors) are connected to one another in the overall structural configuration. On the premise that the basic units in any complex political system are not the individuals but their role or position in relation to others, the political system as a whole can be investigated through the properties of the links or relationships between actors and properties of the web or network of relationships that develops as they develop and analyze policy. Similar to Knoke (1990), Coleman and Skogstad (1990) concluded that public policy making does occur within policy communities in which actors interact to shape the policy over time. The structural per-


385

spective enables one to identify central actors at the core of the policy process as well as periphery actors. It enables one to map these various policy communities and to focus on the relationships between the public and private sectors that form around particular issues. They agreed that the ability to explain the phenomena of policy development and implementation is enhanced by examining, closely, the interaction between state and societal actors. Many analyses related to policy communities and networks assume that the network already existed and agree that policy networks do evolve over time (Coleman, 1990) with members moving in and out of the network (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995). Heaney (in press) suggested that the relevant empirical question is no longer whether groups are likely to form alliances in a network but with whom and why. However, little research centers on how the network actually comes to life, lives and ends, or transforms around a particular issue. The current research strives to bring clarity and structure to this aspect of conceptualizing policy networks. It focuses on the coalescence of actors into a network that then evolves and reconfigures over time as various interests are accommodated in the policy process. MODEL DEVELOPED TO PROFILE THE EVOLUTION OF POLICY NETWORK

This article offers an explanation of the process involved in the birth of a policy network, characterized by an unfolding history and changing structure as relationships emerge, develop, and conclude. This research is based on the premise that there is an evolutionary process involved in the life of a policy, within which this complex set of relationships and interactions occur. Not all networks coalesce instantaneously, although this is a distinct possibility for some issues and for some existing, solid relationships (Heaney, in press). In view of lack of guidance from the literature in consumer policy and policy networks, as to theoretical or conceptual frameworks to explain how a network of relationships and interactions for a policy issue emerges, I set out to develop such a model. To that end, I read deeply in selective network analysis, family relationship, and just-intime marketing relationship literature, especially Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh (1987), Frazier (1983), Hakansson (1987), Knoke and Kuklinski (1982), Mattsson (1985), and Mitchell (1969). As I came across a concept that provided insights into relationship initiation, development,

386


Commitment to triadic relationship

Expansion into Multidyadic relationships

Exploration and entry into dyadic relationships

Awareness of potential relationships

Internal policy analysis

Dissolution of, or less active, policy network

Time frame

Figure 1: Modeling the evolution of a policy network.

maintenance and dissolution, I used or adapted it to provide insights into the evolution of a policy network. A detailed description of this process is set out in McGregor (1992). The result is the model in Figure 1. What is significant is that this research conceptualizes the process to understand the evolution of policy networks, something not explicitly available before. Succinctly, this model assumes that a policy network will evolve over time, passing sequentially through six stages (see Figure 1): (a) internal policy activity for each actor, (b) awareness of others’ activities and interest, (c) exploration of possible links with others, (d) expansion and development of these links, (e) commitment to the policy network in a triadic network, and (f) an eventual dissolution of the network (or many of the dyadic relationships between two of constituent stakeholders) when the issue has been dealt with. Although dealing with a particular issue, policy network members will continue to interact among themselves within the boundaries of the new network while simultaneously relating to the broader segments they represent in the larger policy community and probably with members of competing policy networks for other issues (Coleman, 1990;


387

McGregor, 1992). The next section provides a much more detailed account of these six stages. In more detail, the model proposes that in-house internal analysis of the issue will occur as a result of a perception that there has been a change in the larger policy environment that will affect the stakeholder’s interest. The process of developing an initial position on the issue will occur prior to initiating contact with other stakeholders. The length of time devoted to this internal activity will vary for each stakeholder. Prior to entering into other two-way relationships, each individual stakeholder will form internal bodies to deal with the policy issue. The awareness stage involves becoming aware of, and considering, potential links or exchanges with other stakeholders. The need to seek information and interact with other stakeholders to develop an informed position on the policy issue will prompt each stakeholder to seek possible relationships with another stakeholder(s), to advance either their cause or stave off resistance to their position. The exploration stage accommodates the search-and-trial phase of developing initial dyadic relations that are deemed to serve the actor’s interests. In this model, dyads can refer to either a relationship between two constituents, such as a specific consumer association and a specific business association, or a relationship at an aggregate level of consumer/business, consumer/government, business/government, business/business, government/government or consumer/consumer. This stage will involve dynamic reconfiguration of this collection of relationships until the relevant dyads are initiated and fostered. When stakeholders move from internal activity to external activity with specific stakeholders, they will then, for a while, move from dyad to dyad (dealing with one other constituent) rather than move into multidyadic relationships (dealing with several other constituents in separate arrangements). Stakeholders will not return to solely internal activity subsequent to engaging into dyadic activity with other interest groups and government agencies. Some stakeholders will remain isolates during the evolutionary development of the policy network. When a stakeholder moves into dyadic relationship with more than one other stakeholder, the network will then move into multiple relationships (expansion stage). When multidyads are formed with a multitude of other interests, the policy network will evolve via expansion and contraction as the years pass by. After moving into this configuration, the network will predominately comprise multidyadic

388


relationships. These dyadic links will dynamically form, evolve, dissolve, lapse, and sometimes re-emerge, that is, be cyclical in nature. The stakeholders will form interorganizational bodies to facilitate dialogue and collective policy development, and the contact person for each stakeholder will change during this expansion stage of the policy network. During the expansion phase, there is a continual increase in the range and depth of developing relationships. Commitment to the policy network corresponds with purposive maintenance of relationships. The policy network will ultimately evolve into a network of three aggregate stakeholders—consumer, business, and government. This model conceptualized this formation as a triadic network to account for the relationships between the three major players in the marketplace—consumers, businesses, and government. The idea of an express desire for a triadic policy network will exist but will vary with stakeholders; some will want it and others will not because of varying positions and interests. Eventually, one aggregate stakeholder (business, government, or consumer) will take the initiative to pull the constituent stakeholders into a triadic policy network. When this initiative is undertaken, the other stakeholders in the policy network will join the triad to ensure their interests are represented. As the triadic policy network solidifies, and membership becomes more committed, the dyadic activity between two constituent stakeholders will be less necessary and will decline. Finally, the dissolution of established dyadic relationships is proposed after the triadic activity occurs, resulting in disengagement. It is proposed that, when the issue is resolved, the policy network will not persist as an entity. The alliances formed become passive, or less active, with the stakeholders returning to the respective broader constituencies they represent in the policy community as they engage in the triadic network. When, and if, the relationships dissolve, the actors either disengage or decrease the level of interaction. Dyadic and multidyadic activity in the policy network will decline because it is replaced by managed triadic activity. When the work of the policy network is complete, stakeholders will review and evaluate the dyadic relationships they developed during the life of the policy network. They will then adopt one of several tactics: (a) cease maintenance of relationships and return to the broader constituent they represent in the consumer policy community; (b) maintain minimal (passive) contact with all or select stakeholders at the same time that they return to the broader constituent they represent in the consumer policy community; or (c) continue a strong liaison with all or a select


389

number of stakeholders at the same time that they return to the broader constituent they represent in the larger policy community. It is also possible that, when the work of the policy network is complete, stakeholders will not review and evaluate relationships; nonetheless, they will adopt one of several tactics just identified. The tactics used to maintain relationships will vary with constituents. NETWORK ANALYSIS OF CANADIAN EFTS CONSUMER POLICY

This article shares a network analysis of Electronic Fund Transfer System (EFTS) policy in Canada between 1972 and 1992, analyzed using this model of evolution. There appears to be a knowledge gap in the literature about bringing a policy community and network perspective to understand consumer policy. Coleman and Skogstad (1990) shared case studies of nine Canadian policy communities from the structural perspective, including labor, fisheries, agriculture, banking, forestry, poverty, occupational health, women’s interest groups, and the poverty policy community. However, FCSs are functioning more and more in a consumer policy climate characterized by fiscal and resource constraints necessitating alliances, managed partnerships, coalitions, and mergers. The roles of the key market players—consumer, business, and government—are changing (Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada, 1992). With these changes come new relationships. Given this reality, it seems prudent to study the attributes of the relationships between stakeholders as they collectively develop marketplace and consumer policy to serve respective interests, especially over time (McGregor, 1996). EFTS was chosen as a consumer issue for several reasons. The consumer protection legislative framework regulating the paper-based payment system (checks, cash, money orders, credit cards) was, and is, challenged by the introduction of technological innovations (cash dispensers, automated teller machines, debit cards, smart cards, computerized stock markets, preauthorized debits and payments, home teleshopping and home banking). Knoke (1990) convincingly argued that a technological innovation is a valid stimulus for imposing a network perspective on any policy process. From a microeconomic perspective, there are market failures in the social, economic, legal, and informational arenas for EFTS. Because the marketplace structure and the relationships between consumers, businesses (financial insti-

390


tutions and retailers), and governments have changed, owing to the computerization of the payment system, it is important to appreciate the development of a policy to deal with this challenge to market behavior and integrity from a relational perspective. Knoke (1990) acknowledged that the imperatives of interest maximization (an economic principle) compel stakeholders to construct dyadic exchange relations. Networks are initially unintended consequences of these purposive self-interest actions. However when a relatively stable configuration emerges, this network is a fact of political life and must be taken into account because each stakeholder has a position in the network, even though they likely do not see themselves in a network. Coleman (1990) presented a case study of the Canadian financial community from a policy community perspective. His main argument was that a distinct banking policy community does exist in Canada, and its focus is policy dealing with means of payment and prudent management of depositors’ funds. He shared a brief history explaining that the policy community evolved from a situation in which a private interest group (the Canadian Banking Association [CBA]) virtually ran the payment system to a network run by the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Payment Association (CPA) (state agencies). His analysis did not target any other stakeholders, nor did he discuss how the policy network emerged then evolved around the issue of automated banking machines and debit cards. He did recognize that the CPA is involved with EFT and EFTS/POS (point of sale) but did not elaborate except to note that it has been criticized by “some users communities” (p. 111) as slow to adapt to the new electronic world. Except for the Treasury Management Association of Canada (TMAC), these critics are not identified. Coleman (1990) also recognized a range of actors composing the banking policy community but did not relate their actions to the evolution of the payments system, nor did he elaborate on how they came to be a collection of actors in a policy network dealing with the EFTS/ POS. He said the general banking policy community expanded over time by drawing new members from civil society and the state but he made no reference to the EFTS policy network nor to the dynamics of this expansion. Coleman did state that “different policy networks may form within the same policy community” (p. 113), thereby accommodating the possibility of an EFTS issue-specific policy network at the same time that the financial sector was undergoing deregulation, a process involving many of the same stakeholders.


391

METHOD

The remainder of the article shares results of a network analysis of the 20-year developmental process for EFTS policy in Canada, employing the model described in Figure 1. The methodology combined content analysis of secondary data followed by the creation of two different forms of primary data, case studies, and relational data. The result was a combination of attribute data and relational data. Attribute data are properties, qualities, traits, features, or characteristics of individuals or groups, analyzed using variable statistical analysis. Each key informant in the network was profiled using attribute data. On the other hand, relational data are the contacts, ties, and connections, the group attachments and meetings, and so on, which relate one key informant to another. These data cannot be reduced to the properties of the individual agents themselves but have to be analyzed using network analysis. The process is described in the following text. Using a snowball sampling technique, the researcher identified 16 stakeholders lobbying for their interest relative to EFTS: a consumer organization, eight government departments/agencies, and seven financial/retail associations (see Table 1). Subsequent tracking of the issue revealed three other stakeholders who were involved with the issue but not identified by those in Table 1 as key players in the network. Because they were not identified in the sampling process, their role in the evolution of the policy network, up to 1992, was not accounted for. These actors included the Treasury Management Association of Canada (TMAC), several Québec consumer groups, and the Confederation des Caisses Populaires et d’Economie Desjardins (an organization of cooperatives and credit unions/financial institutions in Québec). These stakeholders emerged as key players when the network coalesced into a policy network coordinated by the federal government in 1992, suggesting that the government bureaucrats at that time (totally different from any bureaucrats that had been involved before) must have been aware of their work with EFTS and so invited them to be part of the policy process. Each stakeholder was asked to share documents that contained information about their role in the EFTS policy issue. I also scanned the environment and literature to gain other documents. The following types of documents were collected for analysis: speeches; published letters; internal and public newsletters and journals; confer-

392


TABLE 1: Sixteen Stakeholders (Constituents) Involved in the Evolution of the Canadian Electronic Funds Transfer System Policy Network Between 1972 and 1992

Consumer Consumers Association a of Canada (CAC)

Business Canadian Bankers Association (CBA) Trust Companies Association of Canada (TCAC) Canadian Cooperative Credit Society (CCCS) Payments Alternative Communications Exchange (PACE) Interac Association Retail Council of Canada (RCC) Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB)

Government Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada (CCAC) (now Industry Canada) Department of Finance (DOF) Department of Justice (DOJ) Canadian Payments Association (CPA) Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions (OSFI) Law Reform Commission (LRC) Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) Provincial and territorial governments

a. Although the Québec consumer organization was a central player in the development of the voluntary code, it was not perceived as a central player by the other actors in this network between 1972 and 1992.

ence, seminar, or workshop proceedings; committee reports and transcripts; government documents (elected and bureaucratic); Parliamentary reports; and House and Senate records. Other primary public sources included in-house draft documents, consultancy reports, articles published by organizations, special government publications, policy position papers, books, press releases, and yearly or annual reports: 231 policy-related documents were collected. This collection of documents was then read repeatedly using an iterative content analysis methodology. The content analysis coded for first- and second-order communications between stakeholders. Specific coding instructions for first-order and second-order communications are set out in the Appendix, using full paragraphs, sentences, and phrases. First-order communications were taken to be any


393

reference to a face-to-face or direct contact or communication between stakeholders. Second-order communications were taken to be any comments indicative of an awareness of the presence of other stakeholders in the policy community as well as awareness of their past, current, or future activities within the policy community. More than 1,000 direct contacts between, and referrals to, network actors were coded and used to develop a case study for each stakeholder, using case study protocols developed by Yin (1984). When a case study was developed for each of the 16 constituents, it was sent to the key informant who vetted and approved their respective case and confirmed that the case accurately reflected their involvement in the policy process, at that time. These 16 constituent case studies were then reread and rearranged, using the cut-andpaste feature of a word processing program, to create a separate case study for each year of the life of the policy network, one case for 1972, 1973, 1974, and so on. These yearly cases were amalgamated into one large chronological case study that captured the evolution of the network from 1972 to 1992. This final collection of yearly accounts was then analyzed from a network perspective (McGregor, 1992, 1996). Network Analysis Methodology

A network analysis of the relational data allows the researcher to examine text for evidence of interactions in the form of the existence, strength, duration, and intensity of relationships; the content, regularity, frequency, and flow of communications or exchange of resources (first- and second-order communications); and the identity of the actors in the relationships. A network analysis also enables one to look for evidence of the evolving structure of the network and the changing positions of actors relative to each other: who started the network and when, how many and who were in the network as time evolved, how connected they were to each other, and how aware they were of each other’s positions, interests and perceptions. One can also examine the text for evidence of cohesiveness and stability of membership as well as power structures, centrality of positions, and overlap between membership of different organizations (see McGregor, 1996, for a detailed account of this facet of the larger research agenda). A network analysis identifies the communication structure (form and content) of the network system using the interpersonal relationship as the unit of analysis; that is, it examines the regularities and nuances of patterns of relationships among actors in the network.

394


Figure 2: Sample matrix to illustrate how to display relational data.

To do this, the written data in the case were converted into relational data in the form of matrices and sociograms. The coding instructions set out in the Appendix were again used to identify communications between stakeholders from the one large case study to facilitate the creation of the relational data. If there is a relationship, a 1 is placed in the cell of the matrix or a line is drawn between two actors in a sociogram. A 0, or absence of a line, indicates no relationship. Arrows are used to indicate the direction of the communication in a sociogram. Broken lines can also be used to share different attributes of the communication or relationship. Within the matrix, the rows represent the sender, and the columns the receiver of the relation or communication. In a valued matrix, instead of a 1 or 0, other preestablished codes can be used to indicate characteristics of the relationship or communication (Barnes, 1969; Hakansson, 1987; Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982; Mitchell, 1969). The final relational data sample comprised 51 matrices and four sets of multiple sociograms, each corresponding to a set of propositions designed to profile the expected evolutionary process of the network over time (available in McGregor, 1992). As an example, Figure 2 is a matrix created to determine if frequency (regularity) of contact and communication between stakeholders varies during the evolution of the policy community.


395

RESULTS

The relational data were then analyzed in such a way that I was able to provide evidence of the formation, development, management, and dissolution of relationships in the policy network. Each of the 51 matrices and sociograms were examined and interpreted to determine if the policy network unfolded as proposed in the model. The six stages of the model of the evolution of a policy network will be used to organize the discussion of the results of this network analysis for the three aggregate stakeholders—business, government, and consumer. Specific details for each of the 16 constituent’s case studies are available from the author. It is very encouraging that these results reflect Knoke’s (in press) finding that policy network structures are fluid and continually changing rather than being rigid and monolithic. The following text profiles the results relevant to each stage of the evolutionary process in more detail. Internal Policy Activity

Although the model proposed that stakeholders would work inhouse before making overtures to other actors, this pattern did not occur. Instead, stakeholders concurrently developed their individual positions on EFTS while interacting with the other stakeholders via internal analysis, direct communications, and referrals to the work of others. Businesses engaged in all three activities 76% of the time, government, 67% of the time, and consumers, 50% of the time. All three stakeholders still remained engaged in internal policy activity even while they were taking part in dyadic and multidyadic relations with the other stakeholders. The time involved with internal activity did vary from one stakeholder to another, as proposed. To illustrate, the network, as a whole, generated internal documents 95% of the time (rather than documents for external consumption): business generated 114 of the 185 internal documents (62%), government generated 59 (32%), and the consumer organization generated 12 (6%). Each stakeholder did create an intraorganizational body, however it was after they entered into dyadic or multidyadic relations, not before, as proposed. The network, as a whole, formed 16 intraorganizational bodies: government formed 9 (spread over five agencies), business developed 6 (spread over five constituents), and the one consumer organization formed 1 internal vehicle for policy analysis. More interesting, when one stakeholder formed an internal policy

396


vehicle so did another with government and business paralleling each other’s initiatives. This pattern suggests that a lot of monitoring was going on in the network. Awareness/Consideration of Potential Links

The model proposed that the actors would strive to become aware of, and consider, potential links or exchanges with other stakeholders as they sought information to develop an informed internal position on the policy issue; however, they would not initiate contact at this stage. This policy network did not exhibit this pattern. Evidence did not suggest that each actor pondered on who to link with, when, why, and in what sequence. Instead, the policy network actors concurrently developed their individual positions on EFTS while interacting with the other stakeholders (discussed above). To reiterate, all three stakeholders still remained engaged in internal policy activity while they were forming and taking part in dyadic and multidyadic relations with the other stakeholders. Exploration

It was proposed that each network actor would gradually, and incrementally, form dyads with others and move from one dyad to another rather than forming multidyadic relationships simultaneously. This proposition held for some stakeholders but not for all. Evidence of a link between stakeholders was taken to be either direct communication or referral to (awareness of) others’ works/positions; that is, they were aware of each other but not communicating directly to each other. Businesses always moved into dyadic links incrementally (one at a time), and they did not end the previous ones. Meanwhile, consumers and government tended to make simultaneous links (initiate several at once while maintaining the earlier ones). When communicating directly, consumer and business moved incrementally into dyadic links while government moved immediately into multidyadic links. Indirect links (awareness but no direct contact) had a different pattern. The consumer stakeholder made reference to (linked with) business and government simultaneously (meaning it formed multidyadic links consisting of monitoring of activities with no direct contact), whereas business and government initially moved into dyadic links before moving onto multidyadic links; that is, they did so


397

incrementally. When the consumer organization was in only a dyadic link, it was linked with government, not business. When business was engaged in only dyadic links, it was with government, not the consumer organization. When government was in only a dyadic link, it was always with business and not with the consumer. No stakeholder remained an isolate for the duration of the evolution of the policy network. Expansion

It is during this stage that stakeholders were expected to engage in a search-and-trial basis as they decided which other stakeholders to network with on the policy issue. It was proposed that, when multidyads were formed with a multitude of other interests, the policy network would evolve via expansion and contraction as the years passed by. This pattern did emerge. When the multidyadic links were formed and managed, stakeholders tended to move from one year to the next in multidyadic relationships. Over a 21-year time frame, government maintained multidyadic relationships 81% of the time, businesses 57% of the time, and consumers 52% of the time. During the first one half of the life of the policy network, the network configuration remained predominately as dynamic, multidyadic relationships, two thirds of the time. During the latter one half, the network exhibited a multidyadic profile 82% of the time. In addition, in the second one half of the life of the policy network (after 1982), the predominant link in the policy community was between business associations. Government departments and business associations also linked with consumers much more frequently after 1982 than before. In the first one half of the life span of the policy network, people were more likely to refer to someone else than to communicate directly with them. In the latter half, stakeholders were more likely to directly communicate with each other. Government departments did not exchange documents with the other government departments they referred to in a given year. The same holds for business-to-business association exchanges. As well, during the expansion stage, it was proposed that these links would dynamically form, evolve, dissolve, lapse, and sometimes reemerge; that is, be cyclical in nature. This pattern also emerged. Each major dyadic link (c-b, b-g, g-c) appeared, lapsed, and reappeared over the life of the network but not to the extent expected and not in similar profiles. The consumer-government dyad (6 con-

398


tacts per year) connected every year after 1972 with frequent turnover of government departments. The consumer-business relationship (4 contacts per year) began in 1975, formed, and lapsed three times with an average of 1.3 years between contacts. One business stakeholder joined with the consumer stakeholder at a time. The governmentbusiness links (12 contacts per year) were in existence every year after 1972 with considerable change in identity of constituents. In addition, it was expected that the stakeholders would form interorganizational bodies to facilitate dialogue and collective policy development. This pattern emerged as well. The actors in the EFTS policy network formed 17 interorganizational bodies. More than one half the time, they were initiated by government. Business did create interorganizational bodies, specifically the Payments Alternative Communications Exchange (PACE) and Interac. However, these vehicles were established to deal with the technical policies germane to EFTS rather than for consumer policy. Consumers did not create, or initiate, any of these bodies, but they did join some, and they did recommend that two be established (they never were). Stakeholders were as likely to recommend interorganizational as intraorganizational bodies. Furthermore, government was most likely to recommend and establish either type of vehicle. Coincidentally, there were almost identical instances of intraorganizational bodies (16) and interorganizational bodies (17) formed, with these initiatives occurring in the same years (1975, 1979, 1987, and 1989). Finally, at this stage, the model proposed that the contact person would change over time. This pattern definitely emerged, however each aggregate stakeholder had a different profile. The majority of the time, business and government organizations had the same contact person (38%). In some business organizations and government departments, the contact person and position changed and then became consistent (31%). In other instances, the position stayed the same, but the person changed (25%). With the consumer organization, the same people rotated as contact person and from one position to another (6%) (totals 100%). In general, the longer the constituent was in the policy network, the more likely the constituent was to have changing contact persons and positions. Conversely, those constituents who entered the policy network halfway through its life span seemed more likely to have a consistent contact position but a changing contact person.


399

Commitment to the Network in the Form of a Triadic Arrangement

The model proposed that purposive maintenance of relationships would occur, ultimately evolving into a triadic network of aggregate stakeholders (e.g., consumer, business, and government). Although this event did eventually happen in 1992, there were only two instances of stakeholders making a statement indicating an explicit desire for the stakeholders to make the transition into a network of three interdependent stakeholders. There were 52 comments referring to a desire to work together and to a preferred policy direction. All stakeholders were most apt to make such a statement during the latter one half of the life of the policy network. Before 1991, they were making comments alluding to the need for cooperation; after the EFTS Working Group was formed a year later, in 1992, the comments made by the stakeholders expressly stated that the trend was toward cooperation and an open approach. In 1989, the government took the initiative to begin to pull the EFTS Working Group together. The other stakeholders finally accepted Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada’s invitation to take part in the group, which began work in 1992. Another way to gauge the stakeholders’ inclination to work collectively to deal with policy issues is to measure their references to preferred policy directions. It was proposed that agreement on policy direction could be an indicator of a predisposition to work collectively to achieve goals. This level of agreement did seem to be a useful indicator. There was little agreement on preferred policy agreement over the life span of the network, and it was not until they all capitulated to the voluntary code approach that the triad emerged. The consumer organization consistently advocated for a legislative approach, finally settling on a voluntary code, as a second-best strategy. Businesses consistently advocated for a market-based approach, finally agreeing to a voluntary code approach to avoid legislation. The many different government departments waffled between (a) legislative/ market, (b) leave it to the market, (c) legislative/voluntary, and finally, (d) a voluntary approach because relying on market forces had not worked for banking machines and debit cards. This finding reflects predictions of Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s (1993) Advocacy Coalition Framework—competing positions will emerge, each pressuring for different levels of action and intervention.

400


Dissolution of the Dyadic Relationships Formed Over the Life of Network

The model proposed that a dissolution of relationships would occur after the triadic activity, resulting in disengagement or decrease in dyadic interaction. It was proposed that, when the issue was resolved, the policy network would not persist as an entity. The alliances formed would become passive, or less active, with the stakeholders returning to the respective broader constituencies they represented in the policy community. As a caveat, in an event beyond my control, the policy process became proprietary near the end so it was not possible to collect data to determine if the final evolutionary stage unfolded as proposed by the model—a dissolution of, or less active, policy network. Although it was found, as proposed, that the number of active dyads declined by 50% when the triadic (b-g-c) network formed, data were not available to determine if any of the 16 individual constituents reviewed and evaluated the dyadic relationships they personally developed during the life of the policy network. It was not known, when the study was concluded, whether the stakeholders adopted any of the three proposed tactics: (a) cease maintenance of relationships and return to the broader constituent they represent in the consumer policy community; (b) maintain minimal (passive) contact with all or select stakeholders at the same time that they return to the broader constituent they represent in the consumer policy community; or (c) continue a strong liaison with all, or a select number of, stakeholders at the same time that they return to broader constituents they represent in the larger policy community. By way of discussion, many of the key players concerned with the evolution of the payment system are still involved in 2004 but for different reasons and in different combinations. In addition, new alliances have formed, and old ones have dissolved, are continuing with a new focus, or have been put on the back burner for a while. Some examples of new initiatives and new partnerships germane to this Canadian payment system policy community include: (a) the nationwide launch of Interac Direct Payment (debit cards); (b) the emergence of the Advanced Card Technology Association of Canada (ACT Canada; smart cards); (c) the Task Force on the Future of the Canadian Financial Sector; (d) financial transactions and electronic banking services on the Internet (virtual banking); (e) the recent discussion paper on consumer issues in new electronic payments from the Office of Consumer Affairs, Industry Canada, replacing Consumer and Cor-


401

porate Affairs Canada (CCAC); and (f) the emerging roles of the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association and the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation in the payment system (McGregor, 1997). DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The current study shows that a policy network did emerge for EFTS/POS, and it did have a unique character of its own. The model that was developed to pattern the evolution of policy networks reflected the EFTS consumer policy reality except for some variation in the beginning of the life span of the network. Stages 1, 2, and 3 seemed to meld together for this particular network instead of remaining distinct stages as proposed in Figure 1. In summary, this network was characterized by: • in-house development of position on EFTS policy (via in-house committees designed specifically for this issue) while exploring and initiating links with other actors (mostly incrementally dyadic in nature [one by one] but some were simultaneous multidyads); • cyclical expansion, contraction, and development of these links via inter-sectoral EFTS committees and working groups, often with changing contact people; • continual commitment to the policy network when it evolved into an aggregate triadic network at the government’s initiative; • an eventual dissolution of the EFTS policy network (or many of the dyadic relationships) when the issue was dealt with in the form of a voluntary code to which all were signatories (determined subsequent to the completion of the research).

It was the initial stages of the formation of the network that this model was least able to accommodate. These data were collected in the late 80s and early 90s. Since then, Heaney (in press) provided detailed insights into what factors contribute to why alliances between interest groups form. His work may be able to inform why the formation aspect of the model used in this research was not as predictive as desired. This stage of network formation seems to be very complex, and future efforts to apply this model to other policy issues could benefit from Heaney’s work. He found that predispositions to enter an alliance around a policy issue are influenced by (a) knowledge of potential allies and adversaries, (b) roles that a group chooses to play, (c) the perceived importance of one’s reputation, (d)

402


availability of scarce resources, (e) ability to increase one’s efficacy, (f) perceived loss of autonomy, (g) potential loss of one’s distinct identity as a policy actor and interest group, (h) size of potential partners (large or small number), (i) amount of information one has about other actors, (j) scope of one’s policy agenda and one’s ability to pay attention to an expanding array of policy issues, and (k) degree of actual interest in allying with another actor(s). As well, future researchers can gain insights from König and Bräuninger’s (1998) study on policy network formation. They, too, limited their work to determining how actors choose whom to ally with in the network. They found that actors form information and exchange contacts because of how similar their respective preferences or positions are on political events. The more similar their preferences, the more likely they are to form dyadic ties. In addition, actors are more likely to align with someone in government if the respective public servant has formal voting power. Another person’s position on a policy issue, and his or her level of interest in political events, also come into play when an actor is deciding whether to form an alliance with another. Actors also are more likely to form alliances with actors from their own sector (e.g., business with business) and less likely to form inter-sectoral relationships. Konig and Bräuninger also found that forming an alliance with someone else hinged on whether the relationship was for the purpose of transferring information or exchanging resources. Actors are more likely to form an alliance to transfer information than to exchange resources, especially government actors. Finally, belonging to a corporatist network before the specific policy network begins to form makes someone more likely to initiate alliances with those actors. A corporatist network is made up of two or more organized interests representing conflicting groups (e.g., business vs. consumer) working with the state to formulate and implement policy (Coleman & Skogstad, 1990). Recommendations for Future Research Using This Model

As Heaney (in press) suggested, the results of this research show that the evolution of a network can be portrayed as the product of interactions between relationships formed among dyads of groups in an issue network. For the first time, scholars now have a complete model of this process. Indeed, this research represents a response to Heaney’s challenge that network analysts move toward a theory that explains the propensity of dyads to form alliances for the purpose of


403

achieving joint ends. The model is intended to stimulate other FCS scholars to apply it to other policy networks to increase our understanding of relationships that develop during policy development, implementation, and evaluation. Given the relative rarity of network dynamic research, it is recommended that family and consumer scientists use the network perspective (and this model) to investigate other policy issues that are related to family well-being: health, housing, transportation and energy, education, employment and job security, immigration, welfare, food, clothing and textiles, and family policy, to name the obvious. In this spirit, it is recommended that others apply this same model to more policy networks to see if the six stages unfold as predicted or if, again, a slightly different process emerges. The results shared in this article suggest that future scholars pay attention to several key elements of the evolutionary process. Here are some suggestions, presented is such a way that the readers gain a sense of major findings from the study as well the implications on their efforts to use the model. Will other policy networks do internal work first or engage in internal and external searches concurrently, as in this case? Will they tend to focus on generating only documents intended for internal use (similar to this network) or will they share more openly? Will other stakeholders, such as business in this network, first form a collection of separate dyadic relationships to see if they are viable or, similar to government and consumer organizations, simultaneously enter into a number of dyadic links? Will the pattern hold that government is the actor most inclined to manage a collection of many links more so than business or consumer organizations? Will there be isolates in other policy networks, unlike this one in which all stakeholders were in some relationship with someone? Will other policy networks have different profiles in the first one half of their life span than in their second, as this network did? Will the demarcation points also be (a) an increase in links between business organizations, (b) a marked increase in more direct communication (instead of just awareness/monitoring), (c) a prolific increase in the number of multidyadic relationships (almost 85%), (d) a marked increase in business and government linking with consumer organizations, and, (e) a shift from statements such as “we need to work together” to “there is a trend for us to work together and partner?” (McGregor, 1996).

404


The policy issue network for EFTS did comprise a large number of constantly changing participants, moving in and out of the network on a continual basis. Initially, actors were not united, nor was anyone in control of the policies or issues, until the very end of the life of the policy network. In the early 90s, a state agency, Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada (now Industry Canada), took the leadership role and created a Working Group. Will government always be the actor who takes the final initiative to form the triadic network, as in this case? Will disagreement on preferred policy direction stall the formation of a triadic arrangement between consumer, business, and government, as was the case with EFTS policy? Will statements about preferred policy direction be useful indicators of a propensity to work together, as in this case? Will other policy networks include such rapid and continual change in the identity of government agencies, and reflect businesses joining the network one at a time, instead of all together? Will the dyadic relationships developed earlier in the policy network begin to dissolve when the triadic, aggregate network is formed? As mentioned previously, many of the key players concerned with the evolution of the payment system are still involved in 2004, but for different reasons and in different combinations, and there are new actors as well. CONCLUSION

The research reported in this article demonstrates Baumgartner and Leech’s (1998) projection that network analysis offers the possibility of expanding our understanding of how actors relate to each other within established networks by providing insights into how actors relate to each other as the network evolves. The model shared in this article conceptualizes the evolutionary process for policy networks, something not explicitly available to scholars before. The social network perspective • validates the existence of a policy network, • affords a new way to mentally and tactically perceive the policy process, • reduces ambiguity and adds an element of certainty to the policy process, • confirms the necessity of managing relationships as policy develops, • substantiates the requirement of a consortium of tactics and strategies to deal with changing actors over time,


405

• provides respect for the divergent nature of the major policy dyadic links, • empowers stakeholders as regards their influence in the policy process, and • builds foundations for future collective actions to develop policy for other issues or as follow-up for the issue at hand.

The past 25 years have been marked by an explosion of interestgroup participation in policy making at the state and national level in the United States (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). Many calls have been made for FCS to be among those interest groups. Through serious inquiry, some of it using the network analysis perspective to profile the evolution of policy networks, FCS can hope to gain deeper insights into relationships that will form between aggregate stakeholders and their constituents and what patterns these links follow as actors, mobilized around an issue, wrestle with complex policy issues that affect their members, their interests, and the public good. APPENDIX Coding Instructions for First- and Second-Order Communications Coding instructions for first-order communications • reference to access to other stakeholders’ policy process • reference to one-on-one communication with another stakeholder • reference to organized interaction with other stakeholders at conferences, semi• • • • • • •

nars, workshops, etc. reference to invitations from another stakeholder reference to inviting another stakeholder to their events reference to scheduled, ongoing meetings with other actors reference to inviting the opinions of another stakeholder reference to presenting at another stakeholder meeting reference to dialogue with another stakeholder reference to meetings with other actors

Coding instructions for second-order communications • • • • • • • •

reference to other stakeholders’ involvement with policy process specific mention of other stakeholder(s) reference to documents generated by other stakeholder(s) reference in those documents of that stakeholder’s accounts of activities of another stakeholder references in those documents of the perception of other stakeholders of them reference to other stakeholder’s reference to their documents comments on quality of contents of the documents reference to nature of the documents

406


• • • • • • • • • •

reporting of research done by another stakeholder reference to knowledge of the formation of other stakeholders’ internal groups reference to expected or anticipated role of other stakeholders with the issue reference to a criticism of another’s role in the policy process specific mention of another stakeholder in an internal document reference to documents generated by another stakeholder reference to accounts of the activities of another stakeholder references of other stakeholders’ perceptions of them reference of a stakeholder’s reference of their documents reporting of activities of another stakeholder

REFERENCES Aldrich, H., & Whetten, D. A. (1981). Organization-sets, action-sets, and networks: Making the most of simplicity. In P. C. Nystrom & W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 1, pp. 385-408). London: Oxford University Press. Barnes, J. A. (1969). Graph theory and social networks: A technical comment on connectedness and connectivity. Sociology, 3, 215-232. Baumgartner, F., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Baumgartner, F., & Leech, B. (1998). Basic interests. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Cater, D. (1964). Power in Washington. New York: Random House. Coleman, W. (1990). The banking policy community and financial change. In W. Coleman & G. Skogstad (Eds.), Policy communities and public policy in Canada: A structural approach (pp. 91-117). Toronto, Canada: Copp Clark Pitman. Coleman, W. D., & Skogstad, G. (Eds.). (1990). Policy communities and public policy in Canada: A structural approach. Toronto, Canada: Copp Clark Pitman. Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada. (1992). The marketplace in transition: Changing roles for consumers, business and government? (Cat No. RG 23-93/1992E). Ottawa, Canada: Author. Dwyer, F. R., Schurr, P. H., & Oh, S. (1987, April). Developing buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27. Frazier, G. L. (1983, Fall). Interorganizational exchange behaviour in marketing channels: A broadened perspective. Journal of Marketing, 47, 68-78. Hakansson, H. (Ed.). (1987). Industrial technological development: A network approach. London: Croom Helm. Heaney, M. T. (in press). Issue networks, information, and interest-group alliances. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 4(3). Retrieved January 8, 2004, from http:// home.uchicago.edu/%7Emtheaney/IG_Alliances.pdf Helco, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87-124). Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. Hojnacki, M. (1997, January). Interest groups’ decisions to join alliances or work alone. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 61-87.


407

Howlett, M., & Ramesh, M. (1995). Studying public policy: Policy cycles and policy subsystems. Toronto, Canada: Oxford University Press. Knoke, D. (1990). Political networks: The structural perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Knoke, D. (in press). The sociopolitical construction of national policy domains. In C. H. C. A. Henning & C. Melbeck (Eds.), Interdisziplinääre Sozialforschung: Theorie und empirische Anwendungen. Oxford, UK: Polity Press. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from http://www.soc.umn.edu/~knoke/pages/Knoke_Constructing_National_ Policy_ Domains.pdf Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis. London: Sage. König, T., & Bräuninger, T. (1998). The formation of policy networks. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 445-471. Available at www.tbraeuninger.de/pub_eng/ Fornation.PDF Lindquist, E. A. (1992). Public managers and policy communities: Learning to meet new challenges. Canadian Public Administration, 35(2), 127-159. Mattsson, L-G. (1985). An application of a network approach to marketing. Defending and changing market positions. In N. Dholakia & J. Arndt (Eds.), Changing the course of marketing: Alternative paradigms for widening marketing theory (pp. 263-288). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Marin, B., & Mayntz, R. (1991). Policy networks. Wein, Germany: European Center Publications. McGregor, S. L. T. (1989). A model to facilitate involvement of home economists in the public policy process. Canadian Home Economics Journal, 39(2), 61-63. McGregor, S. L. T. (1992). Consumer policy—A network/political economy perspective. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland. McGregor, S. L. T. (1996). New directions for the consumer policy arena: A social network perspective. Consumer Interests Annual, 42, 127-134. McGregor, S. L. T. (1997, June 15-17). Casting the net. Paper presented at the Canadian Payments Association Conference (no proceedings), Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Milward, H. B., & Walmsley, G. (1984). Policy subsystems, networks and the tools of public management. In R. Eyestone (Ed.), Public policy formation (pp. 3-25). Greenwich, CT: JAI. Mitchell, J. C. (1969). Social networks in urban situations. Manchester, UK: University of Manchester Press. Pal, L. A. (1997a). Beyond policy analysis. Scarborough, Canada: ITP Nelson. Pal, L. A. (1997b, June). Virtual policy networks: The Internet as a model of contemporary governance? Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Internet Society Conference, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Retrieved January 8, 2004, from www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/ G7/G7_1.HTM Pross, P. (1990). Pressure groups: Talking chameleons. In M. S. Whittington & G. Williams (Eds.), Canadian politics in the 1990s (pp. 252-275). Toronto, Canada: Nelson. Sabatier, P. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview. Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (Eds.). (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview. Walsh, A. (1990). Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Harper & Row. Yin, R. (1984). Case study research design and methods. London: Sage.