Structural and Institutional Determinants of Influence Reputation: A Comparison of Collaborative and Adversarial Policy Networks in Decision Making and Implementation

The central assumption in the literature on collaborative networks and policy networks is that political outcomes are affected by a variety of state and nonstate actors. Some of these actors are more powerful than others and can therefore have a considerable effect on decision making. In this article, we seek to provide a structural and institutional explanation for these power differentials in policy networks and support the explanation with empirical evidence. We use a dyadic measure of influence reputation as a proxy for power, and posit that influence reputation over the political outcome is related to vertical integration into the political system by means of formal decision-making authority, and to horizontal integration by means of being well embedded into the policy network. Hence, we argue that actors are perceived as influential because of two complementary factors: (a) their institutional roles and (b) their structural positions in the policy network. Based on temporal and cross-sectional exponential random graph models, we compare five cases about climate, telecommunications, flood prevention, and toxic chemicals politics in Switzerland and Germany. The five networks cover national and local networks at different stages of the policy cycle. The results confirm that institutional and structural drivers seem to have a crucial impact on how an actor is perceived in decision making and implementation and, therefore, their ability to significantly shape outputs and service delivery.

A high-resolution map of direct and indirect connectivity of erosion risk areas to surface waters in Switzerland: A risk assessment tool for planning and policy-making

Off-site effects of soil erosion are becoming increasingly important, particularly the pollution of surface waters. In order to develop environmentally efficient and cost effective mitigation options it is essential to identify areas that bear both a high erosion risk and high connectivity to surface waters. This paper introduces a simple risk assessment tool that allows the delineation of potential critical source areas (CSA) of sediment input into surface waters concerning the agricultural areas of Switzerland. The basis are the erosion risk map with a 2 m resolution (ERM2) and the drainage network, which is extended by drained roads, farm tracks, and slope depressions. The probability of hydrological and sedimentological connectivity is assessed by combining soil erosion risk and extended drainage network with flow distance calculation. A GIS-environment with multiple-flow accumulation algorithms is used for routing runoff generation and flow pathways. The result is a high resolution connectivity map of the agricultural area of Switzerland (888,050 ha). Fifty-five percent of the computed agricultural area is potentially connected with surface waters, 45% is not connected. Surprisingly, the larger part of 34% (62% of the connected area) is indirectly connected with surface waters through drained roads, and only 21% are directly connected. The reason is the topographic complexity and patchiness of the landscape due to a dense road and drainage network. A total of 24% of the connected area and 13% of the computed agricultural area, respectively, are rated with a high connectivity probability. On these CSA an adapted land use is recommended, supported by vegetated buffer strips preventing sediment load. Even areas that are far away from open water bodies can be indirectly connected and need to be included in planning of mitigation measures. Thus, the connectivity map presented is an important decision-making tool for policy-makers and extension services. The map is published on the web and thus available for application.

Labor participation in corporate policy-making decisions: West Germany's experience with codetermination

If workers are wealth maximizers, codetermination should lead to less risky investments, smaller dividends, reduced firm leverage, higher and more stable salaries, and more capital-intensive production processes. Unless codetermination also increases productivity by raising wokers' morale and satisfaction or reduces information asymmetries within the firm, shareholder wealth and firm value will decline. An analysis of West Germany's case, however, indicates that codetermination has little, if any, effect on corporate operations and performance.

The direct-democratic challenge to evidence-based policy making: Questioning the governmental PISA narrative in Swiss school policy

The democratic deficit of evidence-based policymaking and the little attention the approach pays to values and norms have repeatedly been criticized. This article argues that direct-democratic campaigns may provide an arena for citizens and stakeholders to debate the belief systems inherent to evidence. The study is based on a narrative analysis of Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) reports, as well as of newspaper coverage and governmental information referring to PISA in Swiss direct-democratic campaigns on a variety of school policy issues. The findings show that PISA reports are discursive instruments rather than ‘objective evidence’. The reports promote a narrative of economic progress through educational evidence that is adopted without scrutiny by governmental coalitions in direct-democratic campaigns to justify school policy reforms. Yet, the dominant PISA narrative is contested in two counter-narratives, one endorsed by numerous citizens, the other by a group of experts. These counter-narratives question how PISA is used by an ‘expertocracy’ to prescribe reforms, as well as the performance ideology inherent to. Overall, these findings suggest that direct-democratic campaigns may make more transparent how evidence is produced and used according to existing belief systems. Evidence, on the other hand, may be a stimulus for democratic discourse by feeding the debate with potential policy problems and solution. Thus, direct-democratic debates may reconcile normative positions of citizens with the desire to base decisions on empirical evidence.