Validating the Comparative Network Framework in a Canada/United States Context

Abstract

The comparative network framework (CNF) has been proposed to move network theory from discussions based largely on understanding local and national systems toward discussions of increasingly common cross-border relationships. Cross-border forms of public organization, such as the Canada/United States Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC), are increasingly utilized to help manage complex regional policy and implementation issues. This article presents the results of survey research designed to test the validity of the CNF within the PSC network structure. The main suggestion is that knowledge of existing subnational, regional and/or national networks (i.e., subnets) can help nations design less contentious cross-border networks (i.e., supranets).

Notes

Figure 1 was developed through archival research and extensive qualitative interviews with treaty negotiation team members from all jurisdictions in 1998. This qualitative process was iterative so that after I developed narrative and visual descriptions of the PSC supranet, I sent them back to the interviewees for additional comments and a further round of revisions. Figures and descriptions of the subnets were developed in this same manner, only ceasing the iterative process once I was comfortable that the descriptions were reasonably complete and accurate.

The extensive maze of existing terms and models used in the network theory literature represents a problem for developing a field of comparative network theory. Policy networks, network management, intergovernmental networks, inter-organizational networks and network structures, and issue networks are the five leading network models, although they frequently cross paths in the literature (Mingus 2001). Identical terms are frequently used to describe different concepts and the same concepts are described in different ways because of the interdisciplinary nature of this work. This, in and of itself, is part of the justification for work on potentially useful typologies in this field of study. These approaches in the literature represent the field of inter-organizational theory (Hanf and Scharpf 1978; Mandell 1988), evolved interest group theories (Heclo 1978; Jordan and Maloney 1997; McFarland 1987), and an expanded view of the actors in policy development (Blom-Hansen 1997; Klijn 1997; Marsh 1998; Peters 1998).

Much of the literature on network management (Agranoff and McGuire 1999; Klijn et al. 1995; Kickert et al. 1997), intergovernmental networks (Gage and Mandell 1990; Agranoff and McGuire 1998; Mandell 1988), and inter-organizational networks (Chisholm 1998; Hanf and Scharpf 1978) has a focus on administrative issues or implementation. Policy networks (Peters 1998; Marsh 1998; Miller 1994), policy issue networks (Skok 1995) and the MRT, on the other hand, tend to focus at a much higher level of abstraction (i.e., the policy-making process).

In hindsight, corollary questions should have been asked about British Columbia having the first chance to catch numerous salmon stocks from Oregon and Washington, and Washington having the first chance to catch some British Columbia and Oregon salmon stocks.