Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Subsystems and Crucial Actors in Water Governance: Analysis of Bipartite Actor—Issue Networks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Networks in Water Governance

  • 383 Accesses

Abstract

Water governance, as many other governance sectors, involves important trade-offs between different issues related to a specific challenge. In this chapter, we conceive of water governance as an almost infinite set of interconnected actors that potentially deal with an almost infinite set of interconnected issues. We use the case of Swiss water governance to demonstrate how a bipartite network representation of a large governance system can be used to inductively identify a) subsystems and b) crucial actors with specific roles within and between these subsystems. Crucial actors are defined as those that are central within a subsystem (“within-subsystem connectors”), and those that are brokers between subsystems (“between-subsystem connectors”).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Olesen et al. (2007) suggest z-values of above 2.5 and c-values of above 0.62 as cutoff criterions to classify nodes into these categories. These values are marked in Fig. 5.3 to give a rough overview, but their applicability to bipartite networks, as well as their statistical foundation in general, are questionable.

References

  • Angst, M. (2020). Bottom-Up Identification of Subsystems in Complex Governance Systems. Policy Studies Journal. Online First (see https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/psj.12301).

  • Angst, M., Widmer, A., Fischer, M., & Ingold, K. (2018). Connectors and Coordinators in Natural Resource Governance: Insights from Swiss Water Supply. Ecology and Society, 23(2), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckett, S. J. (2016). Improved Community Detection in Weighted Bipartite Networks. Royal Society Open Science, 3, 140536.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardo, R. (2014). Bridging and Bonding Capital in Two-Mode Collaboration Networks. Policy Studies Journal, 42(2), 197–225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berardo, R., & Lubell, M. (2019). The Ecology of Games as a Theory of Polycentricity: Recent Advances and Future Challenges. Policy Studies Journal, 47(1), 6–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö. (2017). Collaborative Environmental Governance: Achieving Collective Action in Social-ecological Systems. Science, 357(6352), eaan1114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodin, Ö., & Crona, B. I. (2009). The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change, 19(3), 366–374, ISSN 0959-3780, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378009000405

  • Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (Eds.). (2014). The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandenberger, L., Ingold, K., Fischer, M. Schläpfer, I., & Leifeld, P. (2020). Overlapping Network Structures: Why Actors Engage in Diverse Policy Issues. Policy Studies Journal. Submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The Network Structure of Social Capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22(0), 345–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christopoulos, D., & Ingold, K. (2015). Exceptional or Just Well Connected? Political Entrepreneurs and Brokers in Policy Making. European Political Science Review, 7(3), 475–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dormann, C. F., Gruber, B., & Fruend, J. (2008). Introducing the Bipartite Package: Analysing Ecological Networks. R News, 8(2), 8–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, W. H., Schneider, V., & Vedel, T. (2012). Ecologies of Games Shaping Large Technical Systems: Cases from Telecommunications to the Internet. In J. Bauer, A. Lang, & V. Schneider (Eds.), Innovation Policy and Governance in High-tech Industries (pp. 49–75). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Everett, M. G., & Valente, T. W. (2016). Bridging, Brokerage and Betweenness. Social Networks, 44, 202–208.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M. (2015). Institutions and Coalitions in Policy Processes: A Cross-sectoral Comparison. Journal of Public Policy, 35(2), 245–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., Angst, M., & Maag, S. (2019). Co-participation in the Swiss Water Forum Network. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 35(3), 446–464.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., & Sciarini, P. (2015). Unpacking Reputational Power: Intended and Unintended Determinants of the Assessment of Actors’ Power. Social Networks, 42, 60–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., & Sciarini, P. (2016). Drivers of Collaboration in Political Decision Making: A Cross-sector Perspective. The Journal of Politics, 78(1), 63–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, M., Sciarini, P., & Traber, D. (2010). The Silent Reform of Swiss Federalism: The New Constitutional Articles on Education. Swiss Political Science Review, 16(4), 747–771.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortunato, S. (2010). Community Detection in Graphs. Physics Reports, 486(3–5), 75–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1978). Centrality in Social Networks Conceptual Clarification. Social Networks, 1(3), 215–239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, R. V., & Fernandez, R. M. (1989). Structures of Mediation: A Formal Approach to Brokerage in Transaction Networks. Sociological Methodology, 19, 89–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guimerà, R., & Nunes Amaral, L. (2005). Functional Cartography of Complex Metabolic Networks. Nature, 433, 895–900, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature03288.

  • Henning, C. (2009). Networks of Power in the CAP System of the EU-15 and EU-27. Journal of Public Policy, 29(2), 153–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hering, J. G., & Ingold, K. (2012). Water Resources Management: What Should Be Integrated? Science, 336(6086), 1234–1235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschi, C. (2010). Strengthening Regional Cohesion: Collaborative Networks and Sustainable Development in Swiss Rural Areas. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoberg, G., & Morawski, E. (1997). Policy Change Through Sector Intersection: Forest and Aboriginal Policy in Clayoquot Sound. Canadian Public Administration, 40(3), 387–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & Perl, A. (2009). Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (Vol. 3). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K. (2011). Network Structures Within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 435–459.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K. (2014). How Involved are They Really? A Comparative Network Analysis of the Institutional Drivers of Local Actor Inclusion. Land Use Policy, 39, 376–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K., Fischer, M., & Cairney, P. (2017). Drivers for Policy Agreement in Nascent Subsystems: An Application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Fracking Policy in Switzerland and the UK. Policy Studies Journal, 45(3), 442–463.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K., Fischer, M., de Boer, C., & Mollinga, P. P. (2016). Water Management Across Borders, Scales and Sectors: Recent Developments and Future Challenges in Water Policy Analysis. Environmental Policy and Governance, 26(4), 223–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K., & Gschwend, M. (2014). Science in Policy-making: Neutral Experts or Strategic Policy-makers? West European Politics, 37(5), 993–1018.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingold, K., & Varone, F. (2011). Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(2), 319–346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaramillo, F., Desormeaux, A., Hedlund, J., Jawitz, J. W., Clerici, N., Piemontese, L., Celi, J., et al. (2019). Priorities and Interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with Focus on Wetlands. Water, 11(3), 619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasny, L., & Lubell, M. (2015). Two-Mode Brokerage in Policy Networks. Social Networks, 41, 36–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H., Weible, C. M., Nohrstedt, D., & Ingold, K. (2017). The Advocacy Coalition Framework—An Overview of the Research Program. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the Policy Process (4th ed., pp. 135–172). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, M. D., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2009). Trans-subsystem Dynamics: Policy Topography, Mass Opinion, and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 37–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A., & Lenschow, A. (2010). Environmental Policy Integration: A State of the Art Review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20(3), 147–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimmich, C. (2013). Linking Action Situations: Coordination, Conflicts, and Evolution in Electricity Provision for Irrigation in Andhra Pradesh, India. Ecological Economics, 90, 150–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kriesi, H., & Trechsel, A. H. (2008). The Politics of Switzerland: Continuity and Change in a Consensus Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafferty, W., & Hovden, E. (2003). Environmental Policy Integration: Towards an Analytical Framework. Environmental Politics, 12(3), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, W., & Vatter, A. (2001). Institutions and Outcomes of Swiss Federalism: The Role of the Cantons in Swiss Politics. West European Politics, 24(2), 95–122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M. (2013). Governing Institutional Complexity: The Ecology of Games Framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 537–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubell, M., & Edelenbos, J. (2013). Integrated Water Resources Management: A Comparative Laboratory for Water Governance. International Journal of Water Governance, 1(3–4), 177–196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauch, C., & Reynard, E. (2004). The Evolution of the Water Regime in Switzerland. In I. Kissling-Näf & S. Kuks (Eds.), The Evolution of National Water Regimes in Europe. Environment and Policy (Vol. 40, pp. 293–328). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • McAllister, R. R., Taylor, B. M., & Harman, B. P. (2015). Partnership Networks for Urban Development: How Structure is Shaped by Risk. Policy Studies Journal, 43(3), 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2006). Modularity and Community Structure in Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103(23), 8577–8582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olesen, J. M., Bascompte, J., Dupont, Y. L., & Jordano, P. (2007). The Modularity of Pollination Networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(50), 19891–19896.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sciarini, P., Fischer, M., & Traber, D. (2015). Political Decision-making in Switzerland: The Consensus Model under Pressure. Springer Nature EN and Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, T. A., & Thomas, C. W. (2017). Winners and Losers in the Ecology of Games: Network Position, Connectivity, and the Benefits of Collaborative Governance Regimes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 27(4), 647–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 840–857.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosun, J., & Lang, A. (2017). Policy Integration: Mapping the Different Concepts. Policy Studies, 38(6), 553–570, https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2017.1339239.

  • Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). Why Advocacy Coalitions Matter and Practical Insights about Them. Policy and Politics, 46(2), 325–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., & Pattison, A. (2010). Harnessing Expert-Based Information for Learning and the Sustainable Management of Complex Socio-ecological Systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 522–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. A. (1998). Shared Beliefs and Imposed Interdependencies as Determinants of Ally Networks in Overlapping Subsystems. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10(4), 473–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, J.-H. (1992). Issue Competition and Attention Distraction: A Zero-Sum Theory of Agenda-Setting. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 29(4), 825–836.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research WSL, Davos Dorf, Switzerland

    Mario Angst

  2. University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Mario Angst

  3. Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Manuel Fischer

  4. University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Manuel Fischer

Authors
  1. Mario Angst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manuel Fischer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mario Angst .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Social Sciences, Eawag, Dübendorf, Switzerland

    Manuel Fischer

  2. Institute of Political Sciences, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Karin Ingold

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Angst, M., Fischer, M. (2020). Identifying Subsystems and Crucial Actors in Water Governance: Analysis of Bipartite Actor—Issue Networks. In: Fischer, M., Ingold, K. (eds) Networks in Water Governance. Palgrave Studies in Water Governance: Policy and Practice. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46769-2_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46769-2_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-46768-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-46769-2

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation