POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2011 VOL 9, 297–308

doi: 10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00239.x

Policy Networks and Governance Networks:

Towards Greater Conceptual Clarity psr_239 297..308

Ismael Blanco Vivien Lowndes Lawrence Pratchett

Pompeu Fabra University University of Nottingham University of Canberra

Networks are central to both the practice and understanding of contemporary governance. But there is a tendency
to conflate and confuse different concepts. Concepts of ‘policy network’ (PN) and ‘governance network’ (GN) are
often used interchangeably, with an assumption that the latter has evolved from the former. Such indiscriminate
borrowing fails to recognise the different antecedents, and distinctive analytical offer, of specific network theories.
The article develops a systematic distinction between PN and GN theories, enabling those engaging with networks
to select from, and even combine, alternative perspectives as they confront a new wave of change in policy making
and governance. The more sceptical account provided by PN theory provides a valuable counterbalance to the
‘optimistic’ character of the GN literature, which tends to underestimate the continued hold of (albeit multi-sector)
elites on policy making, and overstate the extent to which networks represent a new ‘stage’ in the evolution of
governance.

Keywords: policy; networks; governance

The notion of ‘networks’ is now firmly embedded in our understanding of governance

and policy making. Concepts such as ‘policy network’ and ‘governance network’ are
part of a variety of theoretical developments stressing the importance of both formal
and informal interactions between participants in the policy process. The network
metaphor (Dowding, 1995) is a recurring theme in most attempts to analyse or
theorise contemporary governance. At the same time, as an empirical phenomenon,
networks are more observable than ever, both as a focus for research into policy
making and as a policy preference. Networks of actors focused around a parti-
cular territorial or policy issue are observable in a range of contexts, not just in Britain
but throughout Europe. Policy makers have supported the development of networks
as a response to complex problems, and as a way of levering in resources and exper-
tise from beyond government. Networks are predominant, both conceptually and
empirically.
Despite the centrality of networks to the understanding of contemporary governance,
there is a continuing tendency to conflate and confuse different concepts. In particular,
the concept of ‘policy network’ (PN) is often used interchangeably with that of ‘gover-
nance network’ (GN).There is also a frequent assumption that governance networks have
evolved from the earlier policy network concept. Indiscriminate borrowing of concepts
fails to recognise the different antecedents, and distinctive analytical offer, of specific
network theories. Indeed, some key authors have themselves moved between
the two concepts in ways that are not always clear (contrast Rhodes, 1985; 2007, for
example).
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
298 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

This article develops a systematic distinction between PN and GN theories, enabling

those engaging with networks to select from, and even combine, alternative perspectives.
GN is not so much the son, as the cousin, of PN theory. Although PN predates GN, it
is neither subsumed within it nor rendered redundant by more recent theoretical devel-
opments. In Britain, for instance, the PN approach gained ground as researchers sought to
make sense of the relative stability of policy outcomes in the face of state restructuring
under Thatcherism (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992a). In turn, GN theory flowered in the
academy as networks became the favoured policy-making paradigm of subsequent New
Labour governments (Glendinning et al., 2002; Stoker, 2004). At the same time, a ‘folk’
version of the theory (Bevir, 2010, p. 9) came to dominate policy discourse both inside
and outside government, with further feedback effects to the academic debate. But while
the theoretical and empirical are clearly interrelated, in the manner of Jeffrey Alexander’s
(1983) ‘scientific continuum’, there are no one-way, deterministic relationships at play.
Rather, the PN and GN perspectives should be seen as coexisting, offering distinctive
interpretations (and research strategies), resonant with – but not dependent upon – any
particular empirical context.
In a search for greater conceptual clarity, this article compares the PN and GN approaches
across eight sets of characteristics (see Table 1).

Historical Interpretation
Drawing on different traditions such as the ‘policy community’, ‘iron triangles’ and
‘issue networks’ approaches developed in the US and the UK from the 1960s, PN
reacts against the idea of a monolithic state that controls the process of policy making
alone. On the contrary, it claims that policy making takes place in policy domain-
specific subsystems consisting of a variable number of actors dealing with specific
policy issues. From this viewpoint, networks are not anything new, but a long-standing
feature of policy making. Networks are often represented as a metaphor to describe
how policies are really made. As Silke Adam and Hanspeter Kriesi (2007, p. 146) put it,
policy making is intrinsically ‘a process involving a diversity of actors who are mutually
interdependent’.
The GN literature, on the contrary, tends to present networks as an emerging policy
paradigm ‘framed within a wider set of changes in economy and society that have been
variously entitled as post-modernity, post-industrialism or post-fordism’ (Stoker, 2004, p.
9). It implies that such socio-economic transformations have paved the way for a ‘crisis’
in traditional bureaucratic government and the emergence of new ways of regulating
social conflict. As Eva Sørensen and Jacob Torfing (2008, p. 2) explain:
In the last decade, the heated ideological debate about whether to base social
governance on either state or market has been challenged by new developments
in societal governance. Hence, in order to compensate for the limits and failures
of both state regulation and market regulation new forms of negotiated
governance through the formation of public–private partnerships, strategic alli-
ances, dialogue groups, consultative committees and inter-organizational net-
works have mushroomed.
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 299

Table 1: Differences between Policy Network and Governance Network Approaches

Policy network (PN) Governance network (GN)

Historical interpretation Policy networks as a long- Governance networks as a new
standing feature of policy paradigm
government
Contextual determinants Focuses on cross-sectoral and
Past/present comparisons,
cross-national variations
e.g. the consequences of
globalisation, or post-
industrialism/modernism
Network composition and Highlights the existence of Emphasises the differences
dynamics different types of policy between networks,
network hierarchies and markets
Network focus Policy subsystems; national Networks with a territorial
level (and the EU); ‘traditional’ anchor (cross-sectoral);
policy areas multi-level networks;
emergent/‘wicked’ issues
Nature of exchanges Emphasis on the idea of ‘mutual Emphasis on notions such as
resource dependency’ trust, reciprocity and loyalty
Institutionalisation Informal relations; difficult to Formalised relations; more
manipulate ‘malleable’
Democratic impacts Policy networks as a source of Governance networks as a
policy stability and privilege source of policy innovation
and democratic renewal
Power and politics Hierarchical government Governance networks as a
subverted by the incorpora- paradigm shift away from
tion of non-governmental hierarchy towards more
elites plural modes of governing

GN, in this sense, is represented as part of a historical sequence, in which network forms
of governance come to replace, or at least challenge, both the hierarchical forms of
governance associated with social democratic welfare states and the market forms of
neo-liberal ‘new public management’. GN is influenced by sociological communitarian-
ism, expressed by Amitai Etzioni (1993) in the US and Anthony Giddens (1998) in the
UK, together with a neo-Keynesian perspective on how to deal with the costs of a global
market economy (Bevir and Gains, 2009, pp. 14–5). The proliferation of officially spon-
sored partnerships since the end of the 1990s is considered to be a reflection of the
increasing influence of the network paradigm (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Newman,
2001; Sullivan and Skelcher, 2002).

Contextual Determinants
GN seeks to account for the growing difficulties of traditional government and the
emergence of networks as an alternative governance paradigm. Commentators have
pointed out a number of factors, more or less directly linked to the socio-economic shifts
mentioned above:
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
300 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

• the growing complexity, dynamism and diversity of society (Kooiman, 1993) and the
resulting expansion of ‘wicked problems’ (Bevir, 2010; Christensen, 1999; Clarke and
Stewart, 1997; Rhodes, 1997);
• the search for more integration within an increasingly fragmented organisational
landscape stemming from the public sector reforms of the 1980s (Rhodes, 1997;
2007);
• the impact of continued constraint on public resources since the mid-1970s and the
resulting need to search out new sources of finance – such as public–private partner-
ships (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998; Mackintosh, 1992);
• changes in citizens’ political attitudes entailing a growing disenchantment with rep-
resentative forms of democracy and new demands for more voice in decision-making
processes (Dalton, 2005).
PN, on the other hand, is not concerned with past–present comparisons or, at least, tends
to be silent about the general impacts on modes of governance of phenomena such as
‘post-Fordism’, ‘post-industrialism’ or ‘postmodernity’. Rather than focusing on temporal
shifts, there is a strong comparative element, focusing on cross-national and cross-sectoral
variation (Adam and Kriesi, 2007, pp. 136–43). Contrasting patterns of power distribution
and types of interaction within policy subsystems are linked by PN theorists to both the
formal national institutional structure and the informal practices and procedures that
characterise different national contexts. At the same time, the PN literature stresses that,
even in the same country, networks might differ significantly from one policy sector to
another. As a consequence, domain-specific factors – such as the visibility or salience of
policy issues, the expectations they raise among different groups or the traceability of
policy effects – can have a significant influence on network configuration and dynamics.

Network Composition and Dynamics

In the PN literature, cross-national and cross-sectoral comparisons inform (and are
informed by) a number of network typologies underpinned by different analytical dimen-
sions such as their openness/closeness, the number of actors, the degree of diversity/
symmetry among actors, the power structure or the degree of consensus/conflict (Kriesi
et al., 2006; Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b; Scharpf, 1997). One of the most cited typologies
is that of David Marsh and Rod Rhodes (1992b), which differentiates between several
types of network of varying cohesiveness, ranging from large, diverse, unequal and
fluctuating issue networks to smaller, cohesive, equilibrated and stable policy communities. PN
aims to explain variations between networks, and to understand their consequences. In
this latter sense, a central concern is to link the impact of policy networks to the nature
of policy outcomes, and to the extent, speed and direction of policy change (Marsh and
Smith, 2000).
GN, on the contrary, tends to focus on general past–present comparisons, such as the
analysis of the shift ‘from government to governance’ (Rhodes, 1997; Stoker, 1998), and
the comparison between governance paradigms, such as markets, hierarchies and net-
works. As such, GN owes an intellectual debt to Oliver Williamson’s analysis of markets
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 301

and hierarchies as distinct modes of governance associated with particular transaction costs
on actors (Williamson, 1985), and to subsequent contributions that have added the
network category to Williamson’s formulation (Lowndes and Skelcher, 1998, p. 318;
Powell, 1991). This analytical focus has entailed a tendency to treat networks ‘as undif-
ferentiated forms, as if they all could be characterised in the same general way’ (Provan
and Kenis, 2008, p. 233).

Network Focus
The substantive and spatial focus of PN and GN approaches differs significantly. PN tends
to focus on traditional policy fields at the national level, like agricultural, industrial or
economic policy, which tend to correspond to the departmental boundaries of national
governments. By representing networks as policy subsystems linked to specific policy
domains, the literature has less to say about cross-sectoral policy-making relationships that
cut across traditional departmental boundaries (Peters, 1998, p. 23). However, it is recog-
nised that increasingly internationalised policy environments ‘may influence policy net-
works at the national level by redistributing resources, opening up new access points, and
creating new venues that allow for reopening matters previously settled at the national
level’ (Adam and Kriesi, 2007, p. 137). On this basis, PN has stressed the increasing
importance of the European Union both in shaping domestic policy networks and
through the proliferation of new transnational policy networks (Kaiser, 2009; Kriesi et al.,
2006).
GN is intrinsically oriented towards the analysis of innovation in modes of governance,
which leads it to concentrate on emergent policy areas such as ‘social inclusion’, ‘envi-
ronmental sustainability’ or ‘neighbourhood regeneration’. These are defined as ‘wicked
issues’ (Bevir, 2010; Clarke and Stewart, 1997) that can only be tackled by bringing
together the resources of a range of different providers and interest groups. Or, in Rhodes’
terms, these are ‘messy problems’ that demand the type of ‘messy solutions’ that only GN
can provide (Rhodes, 1997, p. xv). GN focuses upon networks that are based upon
collaborative relationships between actors from different sectors – the public, private and
‘Third Sector’ (Perri 6 et al., 2002). Such networks tend to revolve around complex policy
problems in a specific territory, usually a neighbourhood, a locality or a region. In other
terms, while PN usually focuses on networks having a functional or policy anchor, GN
tends to concentrate on network arrangements with a spatial or a territorial base.

Nature of Exchanges
Although PN recognises the existence of different types of network, Marsh and Rhodes’
definition of policy networks as ‘a limited number of participants, frequent interaction,
continuity, value consensus, resource dependence, positive-sum power games, and regu-
lation of members’ (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b, p. 23) is widely accepted. This definition
explicitly stresses the interdependence between actors and assumes a degree of instru-
mentality in their behaviour: because no actor has a monopoly of resources, actors enter
into mutually beneficial relationships in order to achieve their policy goals (Rhodes,
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
302 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

1985). At the same time, trust and reciprocity act as important lubricants of collective
action. As explained by Rhodes, if bureaucracies are characterised by rules and authority,
and markets by prices and competition, then trust and diplomacy are ‘the glue which
holds the complex set of relationships together’ (Rhodes, 2007, p. 1246). PN highlights,
in effect, the role of ‘bonding social capital’, which is ‘expressed through relatively closed
social networks and shared social identities’ (Lowndes and Pratchett, 2008, p. 680).
In contrast to the conception of networks as a metaphor to uncover hidden policy-
making relationships, GN tends to celebrate networks as innovative, inclusive and efficient
institutional arrangements. The link between networks and social capital theory is taken
a step further. The active promotion of networks and partnerships can be seen as ‘an
explicit attempt to cash in on the social capital that already exists in policy domains’
(Lowndes and Pratchett, 2008, p. 683). Bringing together actors from different sectors
with a view to pooling diverse resources and perspectives, the emphasis is on the role of
‘bridging social capital’ as a resource for innovation and flexibility. Governance networks
may also create social capital as new channels of cooperation over shared objectives
develop.

Institutionalisation
For PN, the process of network formation depends on a set of factors, including: the
actors’ perception that certain goals can be more easily reached through exchange rather
than acting alone; the similarity of actors’ preferences; and the extent to which the
institutional context favours such relations (König and Bräuninger, 1998). In PNs, patterns
of interaction between actors tend to be very informal. PNs are usually identified through
researching contacts reported by actors themselves, since they are not usually associated
with any formal institutional arrangement. Despite their informality, ties between actors
can be strong and long lasting, particularly in policy communities.The PN literature tends
to treat networks as a structure or independent variable (Marsh, 1998b).
The GN literature invites us to adopt a very different perspective (see, for instance,
Kickert et al., 1997; Koppenjan and Klijn, 2004). Governance networks are understood as
a phenomenon that can be managed, rather than as a structural underpinning for policy
making. More specifically, ‘network management’ is identified as an explicit strategy in
‘situations of interdependencies’. Network management is ‘aimed at coordinating strate-
gies of actors with different goals and preferences with regard to a certain problem or
policy measure within an existing network of inter-organizational relations’ (Kickert et al.,
1997, p. 10). Sørensen and Torfing prefer to adapt the concept of ‘metagovernance’ (Jessop,
2002; Kooiman, 2003), which they define as a ‘reflexive and response process through
which a range of legitimate and resourceful actors aim to combine, facilitate, shape and
direct particular forms of governance in accordance with specific rules, procedures and
standards embodying the hegemonic conception of what constitutes “Good Gover-
nance” ’ (Sørensen and Torfing, 2009, p. 245).
The conception of networks as a mode of governance that can be designed and promoted
to maximise efficiency and (a form of) democracy is typical of the GN approach. From
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 303

this perspective, networks are the result of institutional incentives specially designed to
promote collaborative activity – as happens, for instance, when the funding of a pro-
gramme is conditional upon the existence of a partnership (as has become common in
policy areas like urban regeneration, crime prevention, environmental management or
childcare). In this regard, governance networks usually adopt a formal institutional shape,
being more malleable than the kind of networks the PN literature has chosen to focus
upon.

Democratic Impacts
The PN and the GN approaches take different normative stances regarding the demo-
cratic implications of networks. Colin Hay (1998), for instance, muses over whether policy
networks are best considered as a harmonious alliance between plural actors to solve
collective problems, or rather as some sort of ‘Cosa Nostra’ reflecting the concentration of
power by a few (elite) actors. Hay identifies both stances as present within the literature.
The debate on network ‘performance’ has revolved around two main axes, relating to
efficiency and democratic quality. On efficiency, in spite of the fact that many authors
subscribe to the idea that ‘messy problems’ require ‘messy solutions’, others also remind us
that there is the possibility of (network) ‘governance failure’ (Jessop, 2003; Stoker, 1998).
As to the latter, literature debating the presence or absence (and prospects for) the
‘democratic anchorage’ of governance networks has proliferated in recent years (Bache
and Chapman, 2008; Mathur and Skelcher, 2007; Skelcher, 2005; Sørensen and Torfing,
2005; 2008; 2009; Wälti et al., 2004).
However, ‘optimistic’ and ‘pessimistic’ stances are not equally represented in the two
approaches under consideration. The PN literature tends to stress the negative conse-
quences of networks – their resistance to change and their democratic downside. As
Rhodes (2007, p. 1251) acknowledges:
Policy network analysis stresses how networks limit participation in the policy
process; decide which issues will be included and excluded from the policy
agenda; shape the behaviour of actors through the rules of the game; privilege
certain interests; and substitute private government for public accountability. It
is about stability, privilege and continuity.
As such, networks have been characterised as restrictive, closed, elitist, oriented towards
private interests, prone to corruption, illicit, non-accountable and essentially undemocratic
(Hay, 1998, p. 40). PNs have been identified as an important factor in explaining why
policy change and innovation are so difficult (Marsh and Rhodes, 1992b).
In contrast, the GN approach coincides with the normative rehabilitation of networks
within policy-making discourse and practice. Indeed, in its ‘folk’ version (Bevir, 2010,
p. 9), GN theory has contributed to the evolution and celebration of the network
paradigm. As Lowndes and Pratchett put it (2008, p. 681): ‘Rather than being shadow
arrangements (the dirty underbelly of the formal bureaucracy), networks are now cel-
ebrated as innovative, inclusive and efficient institutional arrangements’.The GN literature
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
304 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

conceives the spread of networks and partnerships as part of a strategy to open up

decision-making processes to interest groups and to citizens themselves. Models of
participatory governance prioritise the inclusion and involvement of ordinary citizens
within policy making and/or public service delivery. In this sense, there is a link between
the GN paradigm and normative models of direct democracy. As noted above, one of the
structural factors provoking the emergence of GN as a policy paradigm has been the
growing disenchantment with formal political processes exemplified by low electoral
turnouts, particularly among young people and excluded communities (Stoker, 1997). Not
all GN literature is unashamedly ‘boosterist’, however. A ‘critical governance’ perspective
is emerging that takes seriously the analytical claims of GN, but seeks to surface both the
unintended consequences of the partnership paradigm and ongoing processes of elite
capture, particularly via ‘managerialism’ (Davies, 2007; Diamond, 2004; Swyngedouw,
2005).

Power and Politics

What are the implicit conceptions of political power in the PN and GN approach? As
noted at the start, both approaches form part of a broader range of theories that call
into question the monopoly of state bodies over policy-making processes. Both per-
spectives conceive policy making as an interactive process involving different kinds of
actors. Both PN and GN stress notions of mutual dependence and the development of
trust and reciprocity as the basis for the development and maintenance of governance
networks. However, PN theory, premised as it is upon the power-dependence frame-
work, tends to conceive of networks as restrictive arrangements, limited to those actors
that have crucial resources for a given policy area. At the same time, the GN approach
highlights the openness of networks and their potential contribution to the enhance-
ment of democracy.

In short, the PN approach is very close to an elitist model of power, while the GN
literature is closer to the pluralist tradition. The former stresses the privileged access of
certain elite actors to spaces in which key policy decisions are taken, highlighting the
dense and stable nature of their interactions with government. Significantly, the PN
approach does not call into question the hierarchical mode of governance, but states
simply that the institutional monopoly of decision making is ‘subverted’ by the incorpo-
ration of non-governmental elite actors. Indeed, this subversion of the Weberian ideal type
actually strengthens the power of elites by cementing cross-cutting links between business,
professions and government (Daugbjerg and Fawcett, 2010).

The GN literature, in contrast, emphasises the fragmentation of political power between

a growing range of actors, and the permeability of public decision-making processes to
almost any kind of actor. As in pluralism more generally, it has both descriptive and
prescriptive dimensions, which are difficult to disentangle. As Michael Hill (2009, p. 28)
argues, GN may be seen to provide a ‘misleading optimistic picture of the way power is
organised in those societies described as pluralist’.
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 305

PN and GN Approaches in Practice

Having established the distinctiveness of the PN and GN approaches, we conclude that
both remain relevant. PN and GN are important elements of a broad theoretical reper-
toire upon which political scientists can draw in seeking to understand the ongoing
fragmentation and recombination of modes of governance and policy making. How
might this work in practice?
To take an example, in urban policy a PN approach could provoke questions about the
relationships and resource dependencies that link housing developers, construction com-
panies, banks and political parties (and tend to exclude environmental experts or local
community interests). It would focus research attention on multi-level relationships and
seek to explain patterns of stability and incremental change in policy outcomes. A GN
approach, on the other hand, could stimulate investigation into the workings of urban
regeneration partnerships, asking how far goals of multi-agency collaboration and com-
munity involvement had been met. Here, the research might have a territorial focus,
looking at whether networks are replacing traditional governing arrangements or existing
alongside them, and with what implications for inclusion and innovation.
The two projects could coexist within a larger programme of multi-theoretic research,
operating at different spatial scales and illuminating different aspects of related phenom-
ena. Or the projects could enable a test of competing hypotheses about the determinants
of specific urban outcomes (like changing employment levels or the pace of gentrifica-
tion). Alternatively, a researcher might choose between the PN and GN approaches on
epistemological grounds, depending on their particular view of what constitutes reliable
evidence or the best means to acquire knowledge. Methodologically, the PN approach
would probably look to historical and comparative case studies, making use of company
archives, parliamentary records, financial analyses and elite interviews. The GN approach
might adopt an action research methodology, using participant observation and stake-
holder surveys, seeking to combine academic analysis with intervention to support
problem solving on the ground.

Conclusion
Policy networks have not given way to governance networks, and governance networks
have not evolved from policy networks. Rather, the cultivation of networks by policy
makers as a preferred paradigm for governance has thrown up new phenomena for study.
GN theories have flourished in this context, as has research into networks and partner-
ships on the ground. Such research has enabled the further elaboration of GN theory,
while also showing the distance that exists between ideal-typical network models and
actually existing partnerships – in terms of their overall effectiveness and their democratic
implications. Sørensen and Torfing (2008) distinguish between first- and second-
generation GN theorists, with the former focusing on the contribution and characteristics
of networks, and the latter addressing causes of network failure, conditions for success and
approaches to network management (or ‘metagovernance’).
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
306 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT

At the same time, PN theories remain relevant to the study of policy making, particularly
for research into network variation and multi-level policy subsystems. The more sceptical
account associated with PNs provides a valuable counterbalance to the ‘optimistic’
character of the GN literature, which tends to underestimate the continued hold of (albeit
multi-sector) elites on policy making, and overstate the extent to which networks
represent a new ‘stage’ in the evolution of governance. Theoretically, the PN and GN
approaches are distinct, having different intellectual antecedents and making specific
claims about the origins, functioning and impact of network forms. While both types of
network may exist at one and the same time, to conflate them conceptually risks losing
much of the ‘epistemic gain’ which the application of competing theories can provide
(Calhoun, 2000, p. 538).
(Accepted: 1 March 2011)

About the Authors

Ismael Blanco is a Ramon y Cajal Research Fellow at the Department of Political and Social Sciences, Pompeu
Fabra University (Barcelona, Spain). His post-doctoral research focuses on the dynamics of network governance in
urban regeneration programmes in Europe and Latin America. He has published on local governance, public
participation, urban social exclusion and urban regeneration.
Ismael Blanco, Department of Political and Social Sciences, Pompeu Fabra University, 08002 Barcelona, Spain; email:
ismael.blanco@upf.edu
Vivien Lowndes is Professor of Public Policy and Head of School, School of Politics and International Relations,
University of Nottingham. She has published on local governance, partnerships, citizen participation and community
cohesion. She is currently engaged in action research on the local impact of spending cuts and the scope for service
redesign.
Vivien Lowndes, School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham, University Park,
Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK; email: vivien.lowndes@nottingham.ac.uk
Lawrence Pratchett is Dean of the Faculty of Business and Government, University of Canberra. He has published
widely on aspects of local government and governance in the UK, as well as undertaking comparative research on
local governance in Europe. He has worked particularly on issues around local democracy and political participation,
including electronic democracy.
Lawrence Pratchett, Faculty of Business and Government, University of Canberra, Kirinari Street, Bruce ACT 2601,
Australia; email: lawrence.pratchett@canberra.edu.au

Note
This work has benefited from three research grants awarded to Ismael Blanco: 2007 BP-A 0001 (AGAUR, Generalitat de
Catalunya); SEJ2007-6388/CPOL (Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain); and a Ramón y Cajal research
fellowship linked to the Pompeu Fabra University (Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain).

References
Adam, S. and Kriesi, H. (2007) ‘The Network Approach’, in P. A. Sabatier (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder CO:
Westview Press, pp. 129–54.
Alexander, J. (1983) Theoretical Logic in Sociology. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.
Bache, I. and Chapman, R. (2008) ‘Democracy through Multilevel Governance? The Implementation of Structural Funds
in South Yorkshire’, Governance, 21 (3), 397–418.
Bevir, M. (2010) Democratic Governance. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bevir, M. and Gains, F. (2009) ‘Governmentality after Neoliberalism’, Unpublished manuscript.
© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
POLICY NETWORKS AND GOVERNANCE NETWORKS 307
Calhoun, C. (2000) ‘Social Theory and the Public Sphere’, in B. Turner (ed.), The Blackwell Companion to Social Theory.
Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 505–44.
Christensen, K. (1999) Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions. London: Sage.
Clarke, M. and Stewart, J. (1997) Handling the Wicked Issues: A Challenge for Government. Birmingham: Institute of Local
Government Studies.
Dalton, R. J. (2005) Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices:The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Daugbjerg, C. and Fawcett, P. (2010) ‘Governance Theory and the Question of Power: Lesson Drawing from the
Governance Network and Policy Network Analysis Schools’. Paper presented to the Australian Political Science
Association Conference, Melbourne, 27–9 September.
Davies, J. (2007) ‘The Limits of Partnership: An Exit-Action Strategy for Local Democratic Inclusion’, Political Studies,
55 (4), 779–800.
Diamond, J. (2004) ‘Local Regeneration Initiatives and Capacity Building: Whose “Capacity” and “Building” for What?’,
Community Development Journal, 39 (2), 177–89.
Dowding, K. (1995) ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’, Political Studies, 45 (1),
136–58.
Etzioni, A. (1993) The Spirit of Community. New York: Crown.
Giddens, A. (1998) The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy. Oxford: Polity.
Glendinning, C., Powell, M. and Rummery, K. (eds) (2002) Partnerships, New Labour and The Governance of Welfare. Bristol:
Policy Press.
Hay, C. (1998) ‘The Tangled Webs We Weave: The Discourse, Strategy and Practice of Networking’, in D. Marsh (ed.),
Comparing Policy Networks. London: Open University Press, pp. 33–51.
Hill, M. (2009) The Policy Process, fifth edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Jessop, B. (2002) The Future of the Capitalist State. Cambridge: Polity.
Jessop, B. (2003) ‘Governance and Metagovernance: On Reflexivity, Requisite Variety and Requisit Irony’, in H. P. Bang
(ed.), Governance as Social and Political Communication. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 101–16.
Kaiser, W. (2009) ‘Introduction: Networks in European Union Governance’, Journal of Public Policy, 29 (2), 131–3.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E. and Koppenjan, J. (1997) ‘A Management Perspective on Policy Networks’, in W. Kickert, E. Klijn
and J. Koppenjan (eds), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector. London: Sage, pp. 1–13.
König, T. and Bräuninger, T. (1998) ‘The Formation of Policy Networks’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10 (4), 445–71.
Kooiman, J. (ed.) (1993) Modern Governance: New Government–Society Interactions. London: Sage.
Kooiman, J. (2003) Governing as Governance. London: Sage.
Koppenjan, J. and Klijn, E.-H. (2004) Managing Uncertainities in Networks. London: Routledge.
Kriesi, H., Adam, S. and Jochum, M. (2006) ‘Comparative Analysis of Policy Networks in Western Europe’, Journal of
European Public Policy, 13 (3), 341–61.
Lowndes, V. and Pratchett, L. (2008) ‘Public Policy and Social Capital: Creating, Redistributing or Liquidating?’, in
D. Castiglione, J. van Deth and G. Wolle (eds), The Handbook of Social Capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.
677–707.
Lowndes, V. and Skelcher, C. (1998) ‘The Dynamics of Multi-organizational Partnerships: An Analysis of Changing Modes
of Governance’, Public Administration, 76 (2), 313–33.
Mackintosh, M. (1992) ‘Partnership: Issues of Policy and Negotiation’, Local Economy, 7 (3), 210–24.
Marsh, D. (ed.) (1998a) Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Marsh, D. (1998b) ‘The Development of the Policy Network Approach’, in D. Marsh (ed.), Comparing Policy Networks.
Buckingham: Open University Press, pp. 3–20.
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) (1992a) Implementing Thatcherite Policies: Audit of an Era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R. (eds) (1992b) Policy Networks in British Government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marsh, D. and Smith, M. (2000) ‘Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach’, Political Studies, 48 (1),
4–21.

© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)
308 ISMAEL BLANCO, VIVIEN LOWNDES AND LAWRENCE PRATCHETT
Mathur, N. and Skelcher, C. (2007) ‘Evaluating Democratic Performance: Methodologies for Assessing the Relationship
between Network Governance and Citizens’, Public Administration Review, March/April, 228–37.
Newman, J. (2001) Modernising Governance: New Labour, Policy and Society. London: Sage.
Perri 6, Leat, D., Seltzer, K. and Stoker, G. (2002) Towards Holistic Governance:The New Reform Agenda. New York: Palgrave.
Peters, G. (1998) ‘Policy Networks: Myth, Metaphor and Reality’, in D. Marsh (ed.), Comparing Policy Networks. Bucking-
ham: Open University Press, pp. 21–32.
Powell, W. (1991) ‘Neither Market nor Hierarchy: Network Forms of Organisation’, in G. Thompson, J. Frances, R. Levacic
and J. Mitchell (eds), Markets, Hierarchies and Networks. London: Sage, pp. 265–76.
Provan, K. and Kenis, P. (2008) ‘Modes of Network Governance: Structure, Management, and Effectiveness’, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, 18 (2), 229–52.
Rhodes, R. (1985) ‘Power Dependence, Policy Communities and Intergovernmental Networks’, Public Administration
Bulletin, 49, 4–31.
Rhodes, R. (1997) ‘From Marketization to Diplomacy: It’s the Mix that Matters’, Public Policy and Administration, 12 (2),
31–50.
Rhodes, R. (2007) ‘Understanding Governance Ten Years On’, Organization Studies, 28 (8), 1243–64.
Scharpf, F. W. (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder CO: Westview Press.
Skelcher, C. (2005) ‘Jurisdictional Integrity, Polycentrism, and the Design of Democratic Governance’, Governance, 18 (1),
89–110.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2005) ‘The Democratic Anchorage of Governance Networks’, Scandinavian Political Studies,
28 (3), 195–218.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2008) Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York: Palgrave.
Sørensen, E. and Torfing, J. (2009) ‘Making Governance Networks Effective and Democratic through Metagovernance’,
Public Administration, 87 (2), 234–58.
Stoker, G. (1997) ‘Local Political Participation’, in R. Hambelton (ed.), New Perspectives on Local Governance. York: York
Publishing Services, pp. 157–96.
Stoker, G. (1998) ‘Governance as Theory: Five Propositions’, International Social Science Journal, 50 (155), 17–28.
Stoker, G. (2004) Transforming Local Governance: From Thatcherism to New Labour. New York: Palgrave.
Sullivan, H. and Skelcher, C. (2002) Working across Boundaries: Collaboration in Public Services. London: Palgrave.
Swyngedouw, E. (2005) ‘Governance Innovation and the Citizen: The Janus Face of Governance-beyond-the-State’, Urban
Studies, 42 (11), 1991–2006.
Wälti, S., Kübler, D. and Papadopoulos, Y. (2004) ‘How Democratic is “Governance”? Lessons from Swiss Drug Policy’,
Governance, 17 (1), 83–113.
Williamson, O. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.

© 2011 The Authors. Political Studies Review © 2011 Political Studies Association
Political Studies Review: 2011, 9(3)