Policy Network Theories

The policy network theory will be more useful in this study since this theory consists of different conceptual frameworks that are applicable in policy analysis. The most crucial discussion for policy network theory is the extent to which it suggests the involvement of other institutions such as interest groups, civil societies and non- governmental organisations in policy making processes. This is seen as the shift from policy making that is dominated by government and market players. The policy network theory is based on the premise that large numbers of strong networks are capable of changing the policy positions so that it serve the best interests of everyone. Therefore, policy network theory appears to be the most useful theory in policy research. This theory proposes for the shift of power from influential political and economic factors to the network influence.

38

According to Adam and Kriesi (2007: 129), “the policy network is a more recent policy dynamic which was strongly influenced by inter-organisation theory.” The policy network theory came into existence since “the state contributes a special type of force of policy domain as they have access to particular resources; their decisions are binding in society and are backed by the legitimate use of force” (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 134). The other factor that led to rise of policy network theory includes the ineffectiveness of the government in coordination, implementation, incomplete attainment of legally prescribed goals and struggle over authority.

It is mentioned in Simeon (1976: 549) that politicians operate in a framework that is limited by the public administration mandates arising from ruling political parties. As a result of bureaucracy and administration, some policy designs struggles to balance their benefits to different social grouping and individuals (Ingram et al. 2007:94). The theoretical premise of the policy network theory is that different private and public actors are dependent on each other to achieve their goals. As a result, the policy networks involve actors such as political parties, interest groups and non- governmental organisation or social movement organisations (Adam and Kriesi, 2007:134).

Policy network is the new form of governance which encompasses the great scope of sectoralisation, decentralisation, fragmentation, and increasing importance of informational and transnationalisation of policy making (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 131– 132). Since the emergence of networks approach, political actors are no longer the most influential policy makers in the process of policy formation and implementation (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 132). As such, there is blurring of lines between the role public and private actors in the process of policy making. In weak government without resources and expertise, the process of policy making has been sourced to various networks and the state is only responsible for overseeing the process (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 132). The network theory believes that the plurality of networks will also increase the plurality of choices and options for an adequate solution to the problem (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 133).

39

Adam and Kriesi (2007: 103) have identified several contradicting approaches to policy making proposed by different actors in policy network theories. The first approach proposes the distinct, new governing structure which will resist government steering. This network will serve the coordination and organizing function between the private and public actors that are involved in joint negotiating and problem solving. While the second approach to policy network does constitute the new governing structure; however, it proposes to apply the theory generically through various interaction between public and private entities.

Policy network theories have been threatened by globalisation. Development over the past decades has led to the formation of “a system of multilevel government that encompasses a variety of authoritative institutions at supranational, regional and sub-national” (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 137). Due to globalisation and dominance of multinational factors in policy making, the policy network theories are extremely finding it difficult to analyse policy at the national context (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 137). With this in mind, one will need to take into consideration the international networks that play a role in policy making in order to locate the policy network (Adam and Kriesi, 2007: 137). As discussed in the previous section, the influence of global actors in communication policy making cannot be ignored due to globalisation.

The EU, for instance, is seen promoting harmonisation of policies between states through a number of initiatives such as economic incentives, voting rights structural funds and cohesion funds (Stone, 2004:553). On the other side, institutions such as the WTO also transfer their policies to their member states through lobbying, donors and aid. Dolowitz and Marsh (2000:6) also takes into consideration the power of communications systems which makes the transfer of ideas and knowledge as one of major drivers of policy transfers. The global institutions such as the ITU,

International Monetary Fund and the EU make use of powerful communication tool

like the internet to make their preferred policy agendas available to the policy-makers in individual countries. Through these measures, the less powerful states which rely on aid and donors have no choice than to succumb to international network. As a result, the capacity of nation state to frame their own agendas is decreasing due to harmonisation (Dolowitz and Marsh, 2000:6).

40

The political economy theorists are more concerned about the structural transfer of policy which is driven by industrialised and westernised countries (Stone, 2004:547). This transfer is driven by the agenda to force countries to adopt similar economic and social organisation. Nevertheless, Dolowitz and Marsh (2000: 17) acknowledge that not all policy transfer tends to be successful. A specific policy that made a success in one country cannot by default make a similar success in another country. This entails that borrowed policies are vulnerable to both success and failures when applied in different contexts.

Dolowitz and Marsh (2000: 17) identify three causes of policy failures. First, uninformed transfer is the extent to which the borrowing country lacks sufficient knowledge to implement the transferred policy. Secondly, incomplete transfer is the extent by which crucial element of which made the policies to successful in other countries were not followed. Thirdly, inappropriate transfer refers to the extent by which differences in terms of economic, political or social were not considered before the policy was implemented. In the local context, Berger (2011: 38) has argued that the best policy for one society may not be best for another society. Therefore, different factors need to be taken into consideration before replicating best practices from one context into another context.

While policy transfers at an international sphere are happening at an alarming rate, the nation-state still maintains its sovereignty. Therefore, the application of policy network theories at national level cannot be dismissed. Even in the European Union (EU), where all the states are harmonising their audio-visual policies, the differences in policies continue to prevail between countries. In Africa where the co-operation at regional level is not at an advanced level like the EU, the policy network will be quite applicable in the context of South African digital migration policies.