DECENTRING POLICY NETWORKS: LESSONS AND PROSPECTS

doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2008.01739.x DECENTRING POLICY NETWORKS: LESSONS AND PROSPECTS MARK BEVIR AND DAVID RICHARDS This Conclusion reﬂects on the contributions the various articles in this special issue have made to decentred studies of policy networks. It concentrates on three areas: the role of meaning in action in shaping networks; new research agendas that have been potentially opened; and key theoretical debates. In considering the theoretical debates, this Conclusion considers vari- ous criticisms of the decentred approach to exploring policy networks, before offering some suggestions for those who want to undertake decentred studies of policy networks. INTRODUCTION As we saw in the Introduction, a decentred approach provides an alternative to the pres- ent literature on policy networks and network governance. Much of the existing literature offers macro-accounts of how networks operate, and it attempts to reach comprehensive theories or typologies of networks. The decentred approach challenges these state-centric or ‘top-down’ accounts. It treats networks as the product of individuals acting on their beliefs and the stories they tell one another. It thus emphasizes the diversity of the actions and practices that emerge from the various beliefs and traditions that inspire agents. This emphasis on diversity may cast more light on the ways in which policy networks change over time. In particular, the decentred approach challenges the existing literature on policy networks close up (1) rejecting the notion that it is possible to have a comprehensive theory of networks; (2) arguing that structures do not determine the nature of networks; and (3) refuting the view that networks can be deﬁned by any essential properties. How does the decentred approach help redeﬁne our understanding of policy networks and network governance? First, it provides a bottom-up rather than a top-down perspective. Network behaviour is understood as rooted in the beliefs and preferences of individual actors, and it is explained using the aggregate concepts of tradition and dilemma. Second, the decentred approach offers the possibility of opening up new or alternative research agendas: it poses different questions from those addressed in the existing literature, and it introduces alternative techniques from much of the existing literature to address these questions. Third, the decentred approach identiﬁes key theoretical issues that confront the understanding of networks. It claims to offer policy-makers distinctive stories about the governance environment in which they operate and, in so doing, it challenges both the language associated with New Public Management and the predictive claims made by a number of existing accounts of networks. To explore such claims, the contributors to this special issue were asked to employ a framework that: used textual and/or ethnographic analysis to explore the meanings that inform a policy arena; where appropriate, to highlight competing or otherwise diverse sets of meaning within that policy arena; and ﬁnally explain the relevant sets of meanings by appealing to historical traditions. In this Conclusion, we reﬂect on the extent to which Mark Bevir is Professor of Political Science, University of California, Berkeley. David Richards is a Reader in the Department of Politics, University of Shefﬁeld. Public Administration Vol. 87, No. 1, 2009 (132–141) © 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2009 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.