In the traditional view of political science, policy-making was often depicted as a “conveyor belt”: a government department identifies a problem, drafts a law, and sends it down the line to be implemented. However, in our globalized, hyper-connected world, this model is no longer accurate. Today, policy is made within a “web”—a series of interconnected nodes including private corporations, NGOs, international bodies, and state actors.

1. The Structural Map: R.A.W. Rhodes and “Power-Dependence”
   In 1997, R.A.W. Rhodes published Understanding Governance, a book that changed how we view the state. Rhodes argued that the central government was being “hollowed out.” Power was moving upwards to international organizations (like the EU or OECD), downwards to local regions, and outwards to the private sector.
   Rhodes defined policy networks through Resource Dependency. The logic is simple:

• No single actor has all the resources (money, expertise, or legal authority) to solve a problem.
• Therefore, they must exchange these resources to achieve their goals.
• This creates a “game” where actors are interdependent.
  In this model, the government is no longer the “commander.” It is a “player” in a self-organizing network that it cannot fully control.

1. The Manager’s Toolkit: Kickert and the “Dutch School”
   While Rhodes was mapping the structure of these networks in the UK, Walter Kickert and his colleagues (1997) in the Netherlands were focusing on the management of these networks.
   Kickert argued that modern policy problems—such as climate change or education reform—are “wicked problems.” They are too complex for any one organization to grasp. Because every actor in a network has a different “perception” of the problem, the goal of policy-making is not just to pass a law, but to manage the complexity of interaction.
   Kickert’s framework suggests two main strategies:

• Game Management: Acting as a mediator to help different groups talk to each other and build trust.
• Network Structuring: Changing the “rules of the game” or bringing new voices into the network to break a stalemate.
  For Kickert, policy is not a document; it is an agreement reached through negotiation.

1. The Human Element: Removing Policy from the Pedestal
   Even with the structural view of Rhodes and the managerial view of Kickert, something was missing: the people. Scholars like Sutton and Levinson (2001) argued that we need to “take policy off the pedestal.”
   When policy is on a pedestal, it is viewed as a sacred, static text. By removing it, we see policy as a Social Practice. This theory argues that policy doesn’t just “happen” to people; people “do” policy.

• Appropriation: This is the process where local actors (like teachers, doctors, or police officers) take a high-level policy and interpret it through their own cultural lens.
• Resistance and Adaptation: A policy might look perfect in a government office, but by the time it reaches the “street level,” it has been reshaped, ignored, or improved by the people who actually have to live with it.

1. Synthesis: How They Work Together
   To truly understand a policy network, you need all three lenses:

• Rhodes tells you who has the money and the power (The Structure).
• Kickert tells you how they negotiate and manage their differences (The Process).
• “Off the Pedestal” tells you how the policy is actually lived by real people (The Practice).
  | Theory | Focus | View of the State |
  |—|—|—|
  | Rhodes (1997) | Resource Exchange | One player among many; “Hollowed out.” |
  | Kickert (1997) | Complexity Management | A facilitator or mediator. |
  | “Off the Pedestal” | Local Appropriation | A distant author whose text is rewritten by users. |
  Conclusion: Why it Matters
  Understanding policy networks is not just an academic exercise. It explains why a global health initiative might succeed in one country but fail in another, or why education reforms are often transformed by the time they reach the classroom.
  By viewing policy as a network of resources, a managed interaction, and a lived practice, we move away from the “pedestal” and closer to the messy, fascinating reality of how our world is actually governed.
  Would you like me to focus more on the “Street-Level Bureaucracy” aspect of these theories, or perhaps find examples of how these networks operate in a specific country?