Critically assess Rhodes' (1997) argument that 'Policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British policy process.'

Richard Swann

Critically assess Rhodes’ (1997) argument that ‘Policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British policy process.’

Policy networks first emerged in the early 1980’s. The origins of the theory were constructed by Richardson and Jordan however it was the work of Professor Rod Rhodes that moved the theory and our understanding of it on. Rhodes (1997) argument that, “policy networks of resource dependent organisations are a characteristic of the British political system,” was one of his core themes in his book Understanding Governance. Despite the fact that Rhodes has written extensively on this area it is still debatable to what extent this statement is true. In an effort to assess Rhodes argument as well as considering the usefulness of the policy network approach I will examine it in the context of a policy area. My chosen case study is the internal market in health focusing on the G.P. fund holding scheme. For the purpose of looking at the relevance of Rhodes argument in the contexts of the policy process in this area I will evaluate policy networks activities from the 1991 Conservative reforms till the present New Labour government.

The policy process in Britain in resent years can best be described as complex and hard to define. In British politics policy is not constructed in one single area, the policy process is not the same for every issues and with decisions being made at so many levels outside Westminster (especially through devolution), it is not always easy see how and what policy actors are involved. The terms policy networks for political observers can summarise many feature of the current policy process. They are a way of bringing to life and analyzing the interactions between sections of government and pressure groups in the formation of policy. Marsh has stated that

The network idea captures neatly the phenomenon of shared decision making and the way in which organisations exchange resources to achieve their goals. (Marsh 1998, p.132)

The relationships formed between organisations and people are the basic idea of what a network is. Policy networks examine particular policy areas and do not have the same structure, actors and characteristics in every policy area. For example a policy network in health would not be the same as in agriculture. A policy network includes political actors such as ministers, civil servants, specialist advisers, pressure group representatives and bureaucrats who share common interest in terms of policy. It is this shared interest that results in interactions and exchanges of resources as these actors work together to achieve a common goal. Rhodes (1997) work on policy networks shows that these actors can be from the public and private sector and can have a number of different interests to other actors both of which vary in different networks. Networks can also have different levels of independence from higher levels of government and different access to resources.

The policy network approach is not accepted or interoperated in the same way by all political observers. Unlike Rhodes some authors such as Jordan and Richardson see the policy network approach as just a metaphor. Others ask questions about how much relevance they actually have in the production and implementation of policy. Rhodes policy network approach has been criticized for its failure to recognise the change of networks over time, the formation of policy networks and how they emerge. One author that is extensively critical of Rhodes is Keith Dowding. Dowding (1995 p.137) argues that Rhodes claims to theorise about policy networks at the ‘meso-level’ when in actual fact the explanatory work is largely done at the ‘micro-level.’ He also expresses ideas that although the Rhodes policy network approach has the potential to contribute to political science, when viewed as a theory, it fails as it only give an account of components of the networks that are being explained and does not actually explain the characteristics of the actual network process. Policy networks do play a role in the policy process however according to Wistow (1995 sited in Downing 1995 p.144) despite policy communities close links with the government and involvement in the policy process the government still has the legitimacy to ignore the network and try and peruse what ever policy it like. This expresses the idea that although they have influence on certain policy they do not determine policy outcomes and can be excluded. Critics of Rhodes work (including Dowding) saw the policy network model as “lacking explanatory theory of power because it does not have a modelling of the bargaining process” (Rhodes 1997 p10). This view sees the model being incomplete as it does not explain how policy actors in policy networks interact to a full extent. Rhodes (1997) argues the power-dependency model answers these criticisms and that it is a central feature of policy networks.

The interaction between participants in the policy process is the main concept of the policy network approach. How this is done is part of the distinction between the different types of policy networks. Network classification is based on features such as who is part of the network and the type of relations there are between participants.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Rhodes (1997) suggests there are five main types of networks with policy communities being at one end of the spectrum and issue networks at the other end. This attempt to categorise network into certain groups has been criticised by some authors as the structure of networks does not always determine the interests of them. However policy communities and issue networks are simplified categories of the complex relationships between actors in the production and implementation of policy.

One of the main features that can distinguish a policy community from other types of networks is the existence of trust between actors. In Rhodes power dependency theory one of his key points was

The dominant coalition employs strategies within the known ‘rules of the game’ to regulate ‘the process of exchange.’ (Rhodes 1997 p37)

This is a key part of the structure of policy communities which are a clear example of the ideas expressed in the power dependency theory. The way Policy communities work can be talked about in a sense as a ‘game’. In a policy community actors bring their resources (for example specialist knowledge) for exchange with other actors. According to Rhodes (1997) these exchanges are done by actors with the sense of trust that other actors, in the network will do the same while still not having to rely on each other so they can retain their independence. Observing these ‘rules of the game’ retains trust between the actors and is what makes a policy community stable. One of the main features that can distinguish policy communities from other types of networks is the existence of trust between actors. In issue networks the lack of trust between actor’s results in instability in the network.

The roles Policy Networks play in the formation of policy vary in different policy areas and over time. The Policy networks in Health since the early 1990’s are a clear example of the changes, roles and influence networks can have over time. The Nation Health Service (NHS) since its establishment in 1948 has become one of the largest institutions that Britain has seen and a focal point of political debate and activity. The Conservative government in the 1990’s following the white paper ‘Working for patients’ decided to introduce some elements of a market allocation system into the NHS. It was aimed to create incentives for NHS hospitals to improve quality and effectiveness of the services they provided. This became known as the internal market in health.

The internal market separated the roles of the purchase and the provision of health care. The Tory government health care providers consisted of NHS Trusts and primary health care professionals which included general practitioners (GP’s), dentists, pharmacists and opticians. The 1991 reforms also created two types of purchasers, District health authorities (DHA’s) and General Practice Fund-holders. The introduction of GP fund-holders was the most dramatic change that the legislation brought in. GP’s had previously been providers of health care but through the 1991 reforms some GP’s were given the chance to set up budgets through which they could purchase non-emergency secondary health care services for their patients rather than having their funds controlled by a local health authority.

The policy networks in health before the Conservative reforms of the early 1990’s can best be best described as policy communities with the exclusions other actors being common and a strong stable consensus within the networks. Smith (1993, p165 sited in Kay 2001) viewed the relationship between the post war governments and medical profession as a “closed policy network.” However with the professional emphasis of the NHS, which was also present in the networks, through Rhodes five categories of networks model they may be better described as professional networks. Professional networks are very similar to a policy communities the main difference being professional networks have only one profession within the network and through the network they serve the interests of the profession.

The British Medical Association (BMA) is a pressure group that enjoyed insider status and was the main policy actor alongside the government in the post war policy communities that dealt with health policy. The main reason for their close involvement was because of the specialist knowledge and experience of practice the medical profession can give to the formation of health policy, while still remaining political neutral. According to the BMA official website () the BMA is the professional association for doctors and represents all branches of medicine all over the UK and is ‘the voice of the profession.’ The vast majority of doctors are members of the BMA.

The Department of health, BMA and Royal colleges representing consultants were the main policy actors in the policy communities in health. In Margaret Thatcher’s period in office the government tried to end consultation with interest groups to show that the government was competent and didn’t need such policy actors. In the late 1980 and 1990’s the conservative governments formation and pursuit of internal market policies was not only radical but was also executed without proper consultation with policy actors. According to Klein and Day (1992 sited in Kay 2001) the review committee that produced ‘working for patients’ did not include the BMA or the Royal Colleges. Headed by the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and with only a few ministers, advisors and civil servants the review and more importantly the government had abandoned consulting the medical profession in the formation of this policy. Thatcher in her time in office saw policy networks as having too much influence in the policy process and brought doubt over their role. Through the governments actions of excluding the BMA the ‘rules of the game’ were broken this saw trust between the government and the BMA break down which was the key factor in sustaining the policy community. Trust was also broken when the BMA publicly against the government about their lack of involvement and in doing so breaking their political neutrality something which Thatcher thought they had already done anyway prior to the governments actions. The introduction of these policies saw the central role of the medical profession in the heart of the policy process being brought into question. There was no negotiation between the government and the BMA over the introduction or implementation of the scheme and by the actions of Thatcher it was not a policy community that produced the internal market and GP fund-holding policy. As Smith (1993 p179 sited in Kay) puts it, “Doctors were no longer an essential partner in the development of health policy but a vested interest that had to be challenged.”

Policy communities in health after the reforms were largely non existent. The implications for the policies that were introduced such as GP fund-holding were there was no advice or evaluation of the schemes relayed to the government by the medical profession. Reviews and decisions were subsequently made in relation to the GP fund-holding scheme without sufficient evidence. This meant the evaluations done were mainly on assumptions during this period. The lack of specialist information resulted in implementation of policy having problems as the various groups affected, by the types of legislation introduced had not been consulted properly. If the existence of policy communities has been sustained the evidence given may have been better informed and substantiated. This shows the importance of policy network to the policy process and how the absents of them can have effects on the implementation of policy.

In opposition the New Labour party was committed to the abolishment of the internal market and for filled their promises after their election in 1997. One of the major changes they brought in was the introduction of Primary Care Groups (PCG’s) in April 1999 to replace aspects of the internal market. Labours abolishment of the internal market in health and especially GP fund holding can be seen as efforts to rebuild trust between the government and policy actors such as the BMA. Ham (1999) and Webster (1998 sited in Kay) recognise Labour’s change in style and see their increased co-operation with medical professional’s and “commitment to not change PCG structures for at least 10 years as, an attempt to re-establish trust with the medical profession.”

The Westminster model is a concept that has been extensively used by political observers to describe the situation of government in Britain. It depicts the executive as being, the strong dominant power concentrated in the central government known as Westminster or Whitehall. Despite its extensive use this model is see by some authors as out of date to describe aspects of the political system over the last couple of decades and believe new models better describe the current situation. The differentiated polity is an alternative model by Rhodes to the Westminster model.

The differential polity show aspects of the eroding of the centralisation of government. It expresses ideas of how actors from outside the core executive (in areas such as policy networks) are involved in the policy and administration process. The way policy actors have been involved in the policy process in recent times show the existence of a differentiated polity. Civil servants are policy actors that have had a large influence on the policy process in post war governments. They are seen by the government as experts in certain policy areas. As ministers come and go form departments and office civil servants can have in-depth knowledge of a policy area over a large period of time that can be needed to formulate policy. The way in which consultation between Civil Servants and pressure groups is now a key part of the policy process is clear example of movements away from the Westminster model. Policy networks are considered to be a major challenge to the gatekeeper role of the British government. Their existence highlights the importance of informal processes and relationships in policy-making, and particularly in policy initiation.

Hollowing-out is part of the of the differentiated polity model. According to Rhodes (1997) “the phrase ‘the hollowing out of the state’ summarises many of the changes which, have taken and are taking place in British government.” The term is used when talking of how the powers of central government (which is conveyed in the Westminster model) have been lost to other levels. These include higher levels such as the European Union (EU), outwards through privatisation and downwards to organisations out side Whitehall to quangos/non departmental bodies. The actions of the Thatcher period of government through privatisation of public services reduced the size of the public services and fragmented it. Rhodes (1997) argues that the controls over the implementation of policy were reduced through this fragmentation. However it has been argued that the powers of central government have been retained through the creation of regulatory bodies over privatisation. Part of the role of central government is to be accountable to the public. As political structure moves towards a differentiated polity, through areas like policy networks decisions are being made by members of public and private sector and not just by Westminster, which results in decisions in areas that can not be accountable to the public. The Conservatives fragmentation of the system that delivers public services resulted in changes in policy networks. These included the creation of new networks and through the use of both the private and voluntary sector new member’s of networks both which resulted in changes in implementation of policy.

In conclusion policy networks of resource dependent organisations are characteristic of the British policy process. The network perspective is a useful tool for looking at how actors interact in the policy process and simplify the complex relations and interchanges that take place. Although parts of Rhodes policy network approach can be seen as incomplete with lack of theory on the formation and change of networks through his power dependency model the way policy actors interact is brought to life. As was shown in the case study of the internal market in health without policy networks the British policy process is less informed and lacks legitimacy. Policy networks are part of the move away from the Westminster model towards a differentiated polity. They show how public and private organisations away from central government contribute to the creation and implementation of policy.

The Thatcher period of government abandoned proper consultation and negotiation between policy actors and the government through methods such as policy networks. This resulted in implementation problems which were shown in the GP fund-holding scheme and shows why policy networks are an important part of the British policy process. However although there is a clear use of policy networks in the policy process elected government does have the final say and can alienate and exclude the use of networks and policy actors at all stages of the policy process.

Bibliography

Bevir, M. and Rhodes, R.A.W (2003) Interpreting British Governance, London : Routledge.

Dowding, K (1995) ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’ Political Studies vol. 43 pp.136-58

Ellison, N. and Pierson, C. (2003) Development in British Social Policy 2. Palgrave : Macmillan.

Kay, A. (2001) ‘Beyond Policy Community : The Case of GP Fundholding Scheme’ Public Administration vol. 79 no.3 pp.561-577

Marsh, D. (1998). Comparing Policy Networks. Buckingham : Open University Press.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992) Implementing Thatcherite Policies, Buckingham : Open University Press.

Marsh, D. and Rhodes, R.A.W. (1992) Policy Networks In British Government, Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Rhodes, R.A.W. (1997) Understanding Governance, Buckingham : Open University Press.

Richards, and D. Smith, M..J. (2002) Governance and Public Policy in the UK, Oxford : Oxford University Press.

The British Medical Association,

12/11/2004.

Teacher Reviews

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

Grace Thomas

26th of Mar 2012

3/5 This essay is too waffly. It comes across that the author has struggled to fill the required word count and has therefore padded it with unnecessary repetition. It is far better to be concise and under the word limit than to try to hit the limit with irrelevance. This essay is also a lesson in why spellcheck is not enough! You need to proof read your work. This is littered with errors that wouldn't be picked up by spellcheck (sited/cited, peruse/pursue, and all sorts of misplaced apostrophes, incorrect tenses, etc). it is sloppy and lazy. If you can't be bothered to read your work, why should the marker? Structurally it is quite weak. There do appear to be themes within the essay (description of Rhodes model, case study, models of the state, etc) but there isn't enough internal linkages to make it clear what purpose each serves. For an essay this length, subheadings can be useful, and as a minimum a clear introduction spelling out the sequence of the essay is a necessity. The essay also relies very strongly on Rhodes (1997). Although this is part of the title, a more sophisticated understanding would discuss Rhodes' other work and how his theories might potentially have changed. There is also not much consideration of the counter-factual. A stronger section outlining and discussing the Rhodes model, with critiques, would have allowed for a deeper case study. As it is, the case study presents no alternative readings of the structure of health governance, thus perpetuating the exact critique Dowding makes of Rhodes, that the policy network approach is just a narrative with no real testability.

Did you find this review helpful? Join our team of reviewers and help other students learn