IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v54y2010i3p632-649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries

Author

Listed:
  • Ramiro Berardo
  • John T. Scholz

Abstract

Policy actors seek network contacts to improve individual payoffs in the institutional collective action dilemmas endemic to fragmented policy arenas. The risk hypothesis argues that actors seek bridging relationships (well‐connected, popular partners that maximize their access to information) when cooperation involves low risks, but seek bonding relationships (transitive, reciprocal relationships that maximize credibility) when risks of defection increase. We test this hypothesis in newly developing policy arenas expected to favor relationships that resolve low‐risk dilemmas. A stochastic actor‐based model for network evolution estimated with survey data from 1999 and 2001 in 10 U.S. estuaries finds that actors do tend to select popular actors as partners, which presumably creates a centralized bridging structure capable of efficient information transmission for coordinating policies even without any government mandate. Actors also seek reciprocal bonding relationships supportive of small joint projects and quickly learn whether or not to trust their partners.

Suggested Citation

  • Ramiro Berardo & John T. Scholz, 2010. "Self‐Organizing Policy Networks: Risk, Partner Selection, and Cooperation in Estuaries," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 632-649, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:3:p:632-649
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hill, Kim Quaile & Matsubayashi, Tetsuya, 2005. "Civic Engagement and Mass–Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in American Communities," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(2), pages 215-224, May.
    2. Mark Schneider & John Scholz & Mark Lubell & Denisa Mindruta & Matthew Edwardsen, 2003. "Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(1), pages 143-158, January.
    3. John T. Scholz & Cheng‐Lung Wang, 2006. "Cooptation or Transformation? Local Policy Networks and Federal Regulatory Enforcement," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(1), pages 81-97, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John T. Scholz & Cheng‐Lung Wang, 2009. "Learning to Cooperate: Learning Networks and the Problem of Altruism," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(3), pages 572-587, July.
    2. Brown, Philip & Roper, Simon, 2017. "Innovation and networks in New Zealand farming," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 61(3), July.
    3. William D. Berry & Jacqueline H. R. DeMeritt & Justin Esarey, 2010. "Testing for Interaction in Binary Logit and Probit Models: Is a Product Term Essential?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(1), pages 248-266, January.
    4. Christopher Cvitanovic & Marie F Löf & Albert V Norström & Mark S Reed, 2018. "Building university-based boundary organisations that facilitate impacts on environmental policy and practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    5. Kim Quaile Hill & Tetsuya Matsubayashi, 2008. "Church Engagement, Religious Values, and Mass‐Elite Policy Agenda Agreement in Local Communities," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(3), pages 570-584, July.
    6. Quadri Olatunbosun Taiwo & Vivek Shandas, 2025. "Towards an Explicit Understanding of Network Governance in Urban Forestry Management: A Case Study of Portland (OR), USA," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(9), pages 1-23, April.
    7. Goedkoop, F. & Dijkstra, J. & Flache, A., 2022. "A social network perspective on involvement in community energy initiatives: The role of direct and extended social ties to initiators," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0222434 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Michal Hrivnák & Peter Moritz & Katarína Melichová & Oľga Roháčiková & Lucia Pospišová, 2021. "Designing the Participation on Local Development Planning: From Literature Review to Adaptive Framework for Practice," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-25, March.
    10. Sarah E. Anderson & Andrew J. Plantinga & Matthew Wibbenmeyer, 2022. "Unequal Treatments: Federal Wildfire Fuels Projects and Socioeconomic Status of Nearby Communities," NBER Chapters, in: Environmental and Energy Policy and the Economy, volume 4, pages 177-201, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Ibrahim, Abdul-Salam & Akanbang, Bernard A.A. & Nunbogu, Abraham Marshall & Kuusaana, Elias Danyi & Ahmed, Abubakari, 2020. "Collaborative customary land governance: Motivations and challenges of forming land management committees (LMCs) in the upper west region of Ghana," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    12. Elizabeth A. Koebele, 2021. "When multiple streams make a river: analyzing collaborative policymaking institutions using the multiple streams framework," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 609-628, September.
    13. Martin, Lawrence, 2014. "The use of ecosystem services information by the U.S. national estuary programs," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 139-154.
    14. Robert Hrelja & Fredrik Pettersson & Stig Westerdahl, 2016. "The Qualities Needed for a Successful Collaboration: A Contribution to the Conceptual Understanding of Collaboration for Efficient Public Transport," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    15. Calin E. HINTEA & Bogdana NEAMTU & Viorel STANICA, 2019. "Metropolitan Areas In Romania – The Shift From Forced Cooperation To Collaborative Governance. A Case Study," TAD 14 The disciplines and the study of Public Administration: Transatlantic perspectives in the margin of the 14th Administration and Public Management International Conference, Bucharest, June 6-18 3, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania.
    16. Matthew L. Hamilton & Mark Lubell, 2019. "Climate change adaptation, social capital, and the performance of polycentric governance institutions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(3), pages 307-326, March.
    17. Wibbenmeyer, Matthew & Anderson, Sarah & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2020. "Inequality in Agency Responsiveness: Evidence from Salient Wildfire Events," RFF Working Paper Series 20-22, Resources for the Future.
    18. Hyunsang Ha & In Won Lee & Richard C. Feiock, 2016. "Organizational Network Activities for Local Economic Development," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 30(1), pages 15-31, February.
    19. Kuzdas, Christopher & Wiek, Arnim & Warner, Benjamin & Vignola, Raffaele & Morataya, Ricardo, 2015. "Integrated and Participatory Analysis of Water Governance Regimes: The Case of the Costa Rican Dry Tropics," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 254-268.
    20. Malte Möck, 2021. "Patterns of Policy Networks at the Local Level in Germany," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(4), pages 454-477, July.
    21. Federico Holm & Ramiro Berardo, 2020. "Coalitional Architecture of Climate Change Litigation Networks in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 797-822, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:54:y:2010:i:3:p:632-649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.