Same Differences: Comparing Social Service Policy Networks in the US and Korea

Abstract

Though many polities have adopted collaborative approaches to policy decision processes, few cross-national comparative studies exist. To fill that gap the article presents a comparative study of the US and Korea, posing this question: to what extent are differences in the structure of Korean and US policy networks explained by differences in political-institutional and cultural contexts? A set of propositions regarding this question are generated through the analysis of two policy networks related to public service delivery: (1) an adult basic education (ABE) policy network in a US state, and (2) a transportation policy network in a major South Korean city. The analysis suggests that (1) public policy decision-making in the US and Korea is developing differentiated power and network structures, (2) structural differences may be traced to differences in the constitution of formal authority, and (3) culture seems to play a role in structuring organizational type-based collaborative patterns.

Notes

1. In particular, Daugbjerg and Marsh (1998) indicated that network studies have evolved without including macro-level characteristics (for example, broader state institutions and national culture) where policy networks under investigation nested. They attempted to suggest the utility of policy networks as a meso-level analysis, integrating a macro-and micro-level.

2. This section is derived from similar sections previously published (see Rethemeyer 2007b; Rethemeyer and Hatmaker 2008).

3. MIRs include money, employees, technical and experiential knowledge in substantive areas, state-sanctioned authority, political constituencies, and non-state sources of funding. As this suggests, some MIRs are inherent in the larger institutional structure (i.e. the governing constitutional and statutory framework). MIR endowments are critical to the exercise of power within a policy network; they create differentials in power that help to explain who gets what outcome and why.

4. This section adapted from Rethemeyer (2007b) and Rethemeyer and Hatmaker (2008).

5. First, we began by compiling a “naïve” universe of potential network members based on searches of the Internet and a review of recent newspaper reports on policy issues in substantive domains. Using knowledge gained during this scan, we then recruited three informants from the population of “presumptive” network members to make additions to the naïve list. Next, members of the network were asked to rate the members of the master lists in terms of their influence over policy. Finally, during each interview the informant was asked if any organizations were omitted from the list. This process yielded consensus network specifications with 47 actors in 2005.

6. In fact, we decided to conduct semi-structured interviews with 25 actors. This is because interviewing more than one informant for large organizations provides a more complete illustration of the network.

7. As we discussed in our theoretical section, social structural resources tend to be positively related to material institutional resources. Our indegree and outdegree analyses reflect the impact of formal authority which could broadly include financial influence or legal position on the structure of the network.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeongyoon Lee

Jeongyoon Lee is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College, University at Albany-SUNY. Her research interests include collaborative governance, comparative policy analysis, environmental policy and nonprofit management.

R. Karl Rethemeyer

R. Karl Rethemeyer is Associate Dean and Chair of the Department of Public Administration and Policy, Rockefeller College, University at Albany-SUNY. Rethemeyer’s primary research interest is in social networks, their impact on social, political, and policy processes, and the methods used to study such networks.