Information or Credibility? Policy Networks and the Evolution of Cooperation

本研究考察了政策网络结构对政策参与者合作行为的影响，重点研究了由两个或两个以上政府机构和相关群体承担的联合项目中参与者的合作行为。研究人员提出并验证了两个相互竞争的假设，即政策共同体和问题网络的观点，并将它们分别应用于政策过程的实施和设计阶段。可信度聚类假设强调紧密、联系、集群的网络对于限制搭便车和为合作提供可信支持的重要性。由于联合项目的执行阶段涉及到不履行项目义务的人搭便车的更大风险，因此，网络位置更密集的组织和项目有望实现更高水平的合作和业绩。信息桥接假说强调广泛的桥接网络对于发现联合企业的潜在优势的重要性，表明具有广泛桥接网络的组织有更高的可能性参与联合项目。研究人员使用一个小组设计来测试这些假设的多个版本，该小组设计测量了坦帕湾河口100多个联合项目中参与者的网络和合作表现。除了利用1999年和2002年的现有调查结果外，他们在2005年和2007年进行了更广泛的访谈，以更准确地衡量网络特征和结果。为了为这些测试提供坚实的基础，研究人员利用进化博弈论和动态网络模拟模型来澄清假设，并确定每个假设最合适的网络度量。智力优势：政策网络在理解复杂的政治系统方面发挥着越来越重要的作用，但分析主要集中在网络在决定谁控制政策领域方面的作用。本项目扩展了政策网络分析的基础，从进化博弈论、图论和经验网络分析中开发适当的工具，并应用它们来理解政策网络在解决我们支离破碎的联邦制所带来的集体行动问题方面的作用。更广泛的影响：研究人员研究联合项目，因为它们在解决碎片化问题方面变得越来越重要，特别是在环境政策方面，多个机构监督单个生态系统的相互关联的方面。本研究考察了提高这些联合项目绩效的因素，特别是项目参与者之间的关系以及促进合作利益的更广泛的政治行为者之间的关系。研究人员希望监督至少七篇与这项研究有关的论文，并产生一份高级文本，作为培训其他研究人员研究这一重要问题的基础。此外，他们将向国家专业会议和我们研究项目的当地监督者展示他们的研究结果。他们希望批评目前倾向于广泛参与和全面规划的观点，这种观点会带来相当大的成本，并通过培养更适合联合项目设计和实施阶段遇到的不同类型问题的参与模式，为改进联合项目提供更细致入微的战略。这应该引起决策者的极大兴趣。

This research investigates the impact of policy network structure on the cooperative behavior of policy participants, focusing specifically on cooperative behavior among participants in joint projects undertaken by two or more government agencies and related constituencies. The researchers develop and test two competing hypotheses associated with the policy community and the issue network perspectives, and apply them respectively to the implementation and design phases of the policy process. The credibility-clustering hypothesis emphasizes the importance of tightly, linked, clustered networks to constrain free-riding and provide credible support for cooperation. Since the implementation phase of joint projects involved a greater risk of free-riding by those who do not meet project obligations, organizations and projects with more tightly-clustered network positions are expected to achieve higher levels of cooperation and performance. The information-bridging hypothesis emphasizes the importance of extensive, bridging networks to discover the potential advantages of joint undertakings, suggesting that organizations with extensive bridging networks have a higher probability of participating in joint projects. The investigators test multiple versions of these hypotheses using a panel design that measures networks and cooperative performance of participants in more than 100 joint projects in the Tampa Bay Estuaries. In addition to utilizing existing survey results from 1999 and 2002, they conduct more extensive interviews in 2005 and 2007 to measure network characteristics and outcomes more precisely. To provide a solid foundation for these tests, the researchers utilize evolutionary game theory and dynamic network simulation models to clarify the hypotheses and determine the most appropriate network measures for each hypothesis. Intellectual Merit: Policy networks play an increasingly important role in understanding complex political systems, but analysis has primarily focused on the role of networks in determining who controls policy arenas. This project extends the foundations of policy network analysis by developing appropriate tools from evolutionary game theory, graph theory, and empirical network analysis and applying them to understand the role of policy networks in resolving the collective action problems imposed by our fragmentary federalist system.Broader Impacts: The investigators study joint projects because they are becoming increasingly important for resolving fragmentation problems, particularly for environmental policies in which multiple agencies oversee interconnected aspects of a single ecosystem. This study examines factors that enhance the performance of these joint projects, particularly in terms of relationships between project participants and among the broader set of political actors that enhance the benefits of cooperation. The researchers expect to oversee at least seven dissertations relating to this research and to produce an advanced text as a basis for training other researchers to study this important problem. In addition, they will present their findings to national professional conferences and to the local overseers of the projects we study. They expect to critique the current perspective that favors extensive participation and comprehensive planning that imposes considerable costs, and to offer a more nuanced strategy for improving joint projects through cultivating patterns of participation more appropriate for different types of problems encountered in the design and implementation phases of joint projects. This should be of considerable interest to decision makers.