Networks and Policy Processes in International Development: a literature review

"Power does not reside in institutions, not even the state or large corporations. It is located in the networks that structure society." (Manuel Castells)
"Citizen networks will become a more and more significant development mechanism to link, to provide communal direction, to learn together and to gradually dissipate the considerable constraints from several structural problems which work against the poor." (Somsook Boonyabancha)
"We are some way from being able to structure public and organisational power in ways which really harness network potential." (McCarthy, Miller and Skidmore)

From the realm of the Group of Eight (G8), to anti-globalisation protests, to Al Qaeda, 'networks' is the latest buzzword. We hear that networks represent the most effective organisational model. So too in the field of international development: researchers on social capital, organisational management and globalisation all talk of networks. Practitioners are setting up numerous networks and showing that they can improve policymaking processes - and particularly the use of information in them.

Networks are structures that link individuals or organisations who share a common interest on a specific issue or a general set of values. When they work, networks are particularly good at fulfilling some key functions - the three 'Cs':

• Communication: across both horizontal and vertical dimensions;
  
• Creativity: owing to free and interactive communication amongst diverse actors;
  
• Consensus: like-minded actors identifying each other and rallying around a common issue.

There is a considerable body of evidence suggesting that networks can help improve policy processes through better information use. They may, for example, help marshal evidence and increase the influence of good-quality evidence in the policy process. They can foster links between researchers and policymakers; bypass formal barriers to consensus; bring resources and expertise to policymaking; and broaden the pro-poor impact of a policy.

A good example is the Huairou Commisison. Until the mid 1990s, grassroots women's groups were kept out of discussions at global level. In less than 10 years, the Huairou Commission has evolved from an informal, loose coalition into a global network of more than 11,000 grassroots women's groups. The results of the Huairou Commission have been deeper collaborations and the provision for grassroots women's groups of a platform that they can call their own.

But some networks don't work. Access can be varied, interaction meagre, influence marginal and sustainability problematic There still remains limited systematic understanding of when, why and how they function best for policy impact in international development.

In this paper, we are especially interested in the ways that networks can provide links among research, policy and practice - and the opportunities and challenges therein. We are also particularly interested in civil society - and the way non-state actors use evidence to influence policy processes (in the public interest). And we are principally interested in developing countries - where resources are scarce, political contexts are often more troubled, capacities weaker and our understanding much more limited.

Based on a literature review of over 100 texts, this paper has three main objectives. First, it outlines why networks matter. Secondly, it identifies how networks can influence policy - focusing on their impact on four key components of policy processes: agenda setting; policy formulation; implementation; and monitoring and evaluation. Thirdly, the paper identifies lessons - for capacity building, communications and policy influence activities - as well as areas for further study.

What impact can civil society networks have on policy processes in international development? Rather than follow the usual approach and focus on types of network themselves, this paper reassesses the literature, taking policy processes as the starting point. In each stage of the policy process, there are a number of ways in which networks can help.

Influencing policy is rarely straightforward, but we are getting to know more and more about what works. We identify 10 commonly cited 'keys to success', which provides a basic checklist of ways in which networks may overcome their numerous associated problems and capitalise upon their potential to influence policy:

• Clear governance agreements: setting objectives, identifying functions, defining membership structures, making decisions and resolving conflicts.
  
• Strength in numbers: the larger the numbers involved the greater the political weight.
  
• Representativeness is a key source of legitimacy and thereby influence.
  
• Quality of evidence affects both credibility and legitimacy.
  
• Packaging of evidence is crucial to effective communication.
  
• Sustainability is vital, since persistence over a period of time is often required for policy influence.
  
• Key individuals can facilitate policy influence.
  
• Informal links can be critical in achieving objectives.
  
• Complementing of official structures rather than duplication makes networks more valuable.
  
• ICT: New information and communication technologies are increasingly vital for networking.

While not changing the basic rules of economics, politics or human nature, networks do deserve some of the recent hype. However, network functioning is much less effective than it could be. And although many gaps remain, we do now know much more about when, why and how they work best in influencing policy in international development.