| Recent work in Peru, Bolivia and
Argentina has highlighted another key aspect of the functions of networks.
After discussing the 6 functions with
various networks and their members it has become apparent that not
all research and policy networks are oriented towards an active and
direct effort to change policies. While some are, in fact, key agents
of that change, others merely provide their members with the necessary
support they need to pursue their own research policy strategies.
So it is probably easier to think of the previously mentioned research
and policy network's functions within two supra-functions: Agency
and Support. These functions would describe their raison
d'être.
Click on the links below
An Agency supra function
 The
Agency supra function denotes a network that is charged by its members
to become the main agent of the change they aim to achieve. Hence,
research and communications are networked or centralised; but in
any case, coordinated. Members may pay a fee to the network (joining
and/or annual), provide it with funds to execute agreed projects
(such as a campaign), or allocate a portion of their programme or
project budget to the running of the network. The Make Poverty History
campaign is an example of an Agency network in which individual
members have charged the campaign with the overall responsibility
to lead on one particular issue without renouncing to their policy
advocacy on others. In other cases, such as in CIES,
the network has the capacity to raise funds which allow it to run
the coordinated programmes or projects.
So in these types of networks, members provide (directly or indirectly)
resources to the network secretariat (or the network as an entity)
which in turn is charged with influencing the policy process. In
the diagram, the members empower the network secretariat to influence
the policy process. But, independently, they can continue to influence
their own policy processes.
A Support supra function
The Support supra function, on the other hand, works on the opposite
direction. In this case, the network itself (as an independent entity
or the secretariat) is not the agent of change. Rather, it supplies
the network members with the resources (goods and services) it needs
to carryout their own research and policy advocacy. The IFRTDAL,
for instance, is a network or researchers and practitioners linked
by their interest in the field of rural transport. Not all of them,
however, work on rural transport it self. Some are labour practitioners,
others and road safety researchers, and others transport experts.
The network provides them with research, tools and contacts on one
of the many themes that they work on. 
Unlike an Agency network, a Support network lacks the capacity
(or the will) to influence policy; that responsibility resting on
individual members or coalitions within the network. The diagram
below shows how members withdraw resources form the network to influence
their own policy processes.
Within each supra function it is possible to observe all the other
functions mentioned before. IFRTDAL, for instance, filters information
and amplifies among its members. It brings together very different
groups of actors (policymakers, researchers, academics, practitioners)
with different thematic expertise, it has helped create a community
of practice in Latin America and, when it can, it provides the members
with funds, mostly for research. However, although the secretariat
carries out a good job at running the network but does not have
the capacity, or the mandate, to act towards achieving a policy
change.
And as with the 6 functions, it is possible for a network to have
both supra functions. An Agency network can also offer a support
function. However, a support network cannot provide an Agency function;
at least not as easily.
Back to Networks Study index
|
