Information or Credibility? Policy Networks and the Evolution of Cooperation

本研究以两个或两个以上政府机构和相关团体共同实施的项目为对象，考察政策网络结构对政策参与者合作行为的影响。研究人员开发和测试两个相互竞争的假设与政策社区和问题网络的观点，并分别将它们应用到政策过程的实施和设计阶段。能力集群假说强调了紧密联系的集群网络对限制搭便车和为合作提供可靠支持的重要性。由于联合项目的执行阶段涉及不履行项目义务者搭便车的更大风险，网络位置更紧密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项目的潜在优势的重要性，这表明具有广泛桥接网络的组织参与联合项目的可能性更大。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，他们还在2005年和2007年进行了更广泛的访谈，以更准确地衡量网络的特点和成果。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阐明假设，并为每个假设确定最合适的网络措施。智力优势：政策网络在理解复杂的政治体系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。本项目通过从进化博弈论、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中的作用，从而扩展了政策网络分析的基础。调查人员研究联合项目，因为它们对解决分裂问题越来越重要，特别是对于多个机构监督单个生态系统相互关联方面的环境政策。本研究报告审查了提高这些联合项目绩效的因素，特别是项目参与方之间的关系以及提高合作效益的更广泛的政治行为体之间的关系。研究人员预计将监督至少七篇与本研究有关的论文，并编写一份高级文本，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员介绍他们的研究结果。他们希望批评目前的观点，赞成广泛参与和全面规划，造成相当大的成本，并提供一个更细致的战略，通过培养更适合于不同类型的问题，在设计和实施阶段的联合项目中遇到的参与模式，以改善联合项目。 决策者应该对此非常感兴趣。

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.