Introduction
Policy network is a globally recognized model that was first developed in the United States of America. It is a long term avenue for implementing various policies formulated in different fields (Fukuyama 1989). The aim here is to promote long term ideas based on democratization. To this end, policy network models hold that global challenges should be addressed using a long lasting solution.
These are challenges such as global warming, economic meltdown and political instability among others. As a result of this, it is noted that policy network models are used by democratic governments throughout the world. They manifest themselves through activities such as political activism and the implementation of policies and strategies that will induce development (Przeworkski 1991).
This has resulted in the formation of a centre-left strategy which is referred to as the political spectrum of the organization. This is especially so for different organizations which have common goals to achieve (Jefferess 2008).
The ideology behind this model is meant to address the issues covered by a centrist movement in a particular country. The main agenda of the centre- left debate is to put into practice social processes such as liberalism and democracy as well as the progression of any given country.
Some areas may touch on green politics which involve the formulation of an international democracy with local roots. The concept of green politics emerged in the early 1970s and has spread to most parts of the world (Jefferess 2008).
The group advocates for economic prosperity from both the public and private sector platforms. Some of these sectors include global health care, child care and so on. The reason behind this is to acquire better services for all citizens.
A good example of network policy model is the strategy proposed by the United States’ first black President Barrack Obama to have a global health care system.
This idea is good on paper, but its implementation becomes a little treacherous on the part of both the government and the American citizens. For example, one such challenge is the lack of cooperation by some of the stakeholders in a given network. This issue will be covered in detail later in this paper.
Barrack Obama calls this system a social security program (O’Neil 2010). In promoting this strategy, the president assures members of the public that in case of any constraints on their part, the national insurance fund will be available to help them out. These are constraints such as unemployment and medical conditions.
In order to achieve this, various actors and stakeholders need to cooperate and distribute resources so as to have a balanced system.
These are stakeholders such as hospitals, insurance companies, government agencies among others. This is given the fact that it is not possible for one actor such as the government to implement the strategy fully. Certain services such as medical attention can only be offered effectively by a health organization.
However, it is important to note at this juncture that despite the efforts made by the various stakeholders to effectively implement the policy, imbalances are wont to manifest. When this happens, some actors tend to withdraw from the system citing frustration and dissatisfaction.
For example, private hospitals may refuse to cooperate with the government in providing health care services to patients under the medical policy program. Withdrawal by one or more actors is perhaps one of the worst case scenarios that may occur as far as implementation of such a policy is concerned. This is given the fact that replacing an actor in the system is very expensive. This aspect will also be addressed later in the paper.
Policy Network Models
It is important to look at policy network model at this juncture. Various scholars have defined this concept variously depending on their academic and professional orientations. However, there are some commonalities apparent in these different definitions.
Most scholars agree that policy network models are concepts used to describe policy structures and power distribution in different institutions. Policy network model postulates that activities perceived to be informal are more important to the organization than constitutions and other related formal structures (Frank 2000).
A major characteristic a policy network is the fact that it has fewer participants. Regardless of this, they are part of major agreements between various stakeholders resulting into what Hay (2007) refers to as a policy output.
There are various forms of networks that are to be found within any given social organization. These are for example community or social networks. According to Dhavan et al. (2007), issue network is another form of such a social arrangement in a given organization or institution.
Another characteristic of a network is internal and external conflicts. Internal conflicts may be as a result of failure to arrive at a common agreement. Scholars have made efforts to show differences among various forms of networks.
This for example comparing issue networks to community networks. It is noted that issue networks are larger as compared to the community networks. As a result of this, disagreements among the network models are inevitable (Robert 1971).
A policy network model is the force that strengthens existing policies as well as enacting new ones in the system. In other words, a policy network model may be used to sustain existing policies while supporting the implementation of new ones. To this end, some authors have argued that government inefficiencies results into inadequate implementation of the policies in their systems.
Several theories have been formulated to further support this argument. The theories are also put in place to evaluate the performance of different actors and interaction between them in a given network (Klijn & Koppenjan 1995). This is given the fact that interaction is an important factor among the actors. It informs and determines the quality of the work they put in implementing the policies.
If these factors are examined critically, general conclusions can be drawn regarding policy network models. This is especially so as far as the level of various institutions as well as frameworks put in place are concerned. Conclusions can also be drawn on structural and individual differences (Kooiman 1993).
To this end, policy network models will be appropriate only in situations where stability and equality is exercised by the various institutions in private and public sectors.
Network and Governance
Various scholars have argued that the government is not the sole proprietor of the sectors it governs. This statement supports that made earlier in this paper to the effect that governments need the input of external stakeholders in implementing most of the policies. This is issue is a controversial one.
This is given the fact that many policies are seen as having being formulated and implemented by few individuals both in the private and public sector.
This being the case, it is noted that there is need for different governance strategies that will be applicable even to the public (Wilks 1979). This has led to reforms in different sectors of the society. These are reforms such as increased democratization, enhanced delivery of public services among others.
It is noted that the government controls almost all the processes taking place in the society. These are for example economic processes such as exchange of goods and services, social processes such as the provision of education among others.
It is important to note that some of these processes are very complex and hard to comprehend for most people. This is especially those processes that arise from the private sector (Charlton 1996).
The discourse above points out to a major aspect or characteristic of governance as a process. For example, it is noted that governance has different concepts that define its cause (Ashcraft 1991).
There are many concepts that describe governance as a process in the society. However, this author is going to tackle only two of these concepts. These are as analyzed below:
Governance as Government
To begin with, governance can be conceptualized as government in itself given the fact that the two share some similarities (Huntington 1991). Policy network model postulates that governance is only used theoretically as opposed to being used practically to address issues in the society.
Governance has been used to identify interrelations between public and private actors in a given society (Marine & Mayentz 1991). To this end, governance is described as a network that is solely organized by the processes taking place within it (Robert 1971).
Different Perspectives of Public Governance
Policy network model contends that different people or different actors view public governance variously. This is especially so when it comes to the role that is played by the government in any given society (Marsh & Rhodes 1992). There are those who are of the view that the government plays a very critical role in the society.
This view is especially bandied around by proponents of the government including the regime that is in power at any given time. On the extreme end, there are those who are of the view that the role of the government is minimal as far as processes taking place in the society are concerned. Still, others are of the view that the government should play a more central role as far as governance is concerned.
This school of thought argues that the government as it is now is underutilized as far as the various institutions are concerned. This school of thought is countered by those who argue that government should play minor role in the society. These are for example those who are in favour of privatization as an economic policy.
These people are of the view that the government should only play a supportive role rather than a central role in the society (Sternberger 1968).
Governance and Legitimacy
Overview
In the field of political science, political legitimacy is a very crucial aspect of any given form of governance. Political legitimacy is widely used to describe laws that are used in governance (Kooiman 1993). Governments have to take into consideration the issue of legitimacy in trying to rule a given class of people.
In government, authority occupies a central role in the process of controlling and regulating processes in the society. On the other hand, legitimacy becomes a system of government. Consequently, the government influence other institutions in the society. These are institutions such as the family, the economy among others (Knight 1992).
According to Posusney (2005), a government that tries to rule its subjects without legitimacy will not be able to operate smoothly. This is given the fact that people will oppose the regime and in the end become difficult to control.
This is what happens in countries where citizens hold demonstrations demanding for the resignation of a dictator. It is noted that a government operating without political legitimacy will eventually collapse. It will be brought down by the subjects who have refused to be controlled or regulated by such a government.
However, it is important to note that there are instances where governments without legitimacy reign (Robert 1971). This is for example an interim government that has been selected to fill the vacuum left by a dictator who has been ousted out of power. There are various reasons why such a government reigns despite the fact that the citizens or the subjects are not satisfied.
According to William (1995), such a government may continue to be in power because it is regarded as legitimate by a small group of people. This means that the ‘illegitimate’ government is drawing support from a section of the society. This is a government supported by the minority.
In this case, this supportive minority may wield substantial power and influence which is enough to counter the demonstrations by the disgruntled majority. This is how the colonial government was able to rule Africa for a very long time despite the fact that Africans were not satisfied with it. The minority whites had so much power and influence such that it became hard to oust the government they were supporting (Hay 2007).
In the 18th century, a group of influential people in Europe came together after realising the importance of human thought and science. It is important to note that this society was characterised by strong religious beliefs. This movement tried to counter the religious tide that was sweeping over the society.
One of the intellectuals was John Locke who remains an influential figure in the political and other fields today (Barzikii 2003). John Locke postulated that political legitimacy arose from a clearly and undirected consent on the part of the subjects.
His arguments are contained in various books and essays he wrote during his time. One such piece of work is the Second Treaties where he argues that a government will only appear legitimate if it is characterised by the consent of the governed (Carothers 2010).
Locke’s influence on political philosophy cannot be downplayed. The influence has extended to modern liberalism (Carothers 2010). A great deal of his influence emanates from the arguments he made regarding liberty as well as social contract. Various authors and scholars cited John Locke in their works. These include the founding fathers of the United States of America.
This is illustrated by the fact that during independence, the Americans used a passage from The Second Treaties as a declaration of their self- governance and freedom (Seymour 1959). As a result of this, John Locke has been referred to as the trigger of the modern conception in many circles. Most libertarians are associated with John Locke’s works (Almond 1991).
Still on legitimacy, a German philosopher categorically stated that without legitimacy the government is powerless. This is what defines the government as far as its governance is concerned. It is noted that all these concepts should be put to work consciously.
Forms of Legitimacy
There are three forms of legitimacy that are popularly known. The three are analysed below:
Traditional Legitimacy
Traditional legitimacy is recognized as a continuation of history to the present (Almond 1991). Many agree that this form of legitimacy is obtained from societal customs and the way the society carries itself throughout history towards the future (Brans 1997).
Charismatic Legitimacy
Charismatic legitimacy is different from traditional legitimacy in that it is obtained from a particular leader who has unique ideas and personality (Huntington 1968). Such a leader is said to be charismatic.
This kind of government experiences some forms of weaknesses that are different from those of other forms of governance. This is especially so in the absence of that charismatic leader. This legitimacy does not last for long especially if the leader does not have a successor (Seymour 1959).
Rational- Legal Legitimacy
This form of legitimacy emanates from procedures guided by institutions (Schattschneider 1960). The government in this case establishes laws for the good of the people.
Members of the public trust the government fully because they believe that it will abide to the laws that have being established. The legitimacy emanates from such established laws. This is the reason why it is referred to as a rational- legal form of legitimacy.
Democratization
Overview
Democratization can be conceptualised as how a country moves from one regime or one form of government to another. Democratisation is transition in terms of politics. The transition may be from an authoritarian regime to a complete democracy as in the case of the United Kingdom. Democratization is influenced by various factors in the society.
These are factors like the economy, history of the country and so forth (Sternberger 1998). In some cases, democratization has experienced setbacks such as apathy on the part of the governed and external influence among others. This has made it decline considerably (Charlton 1996).
Causes of Democratization
There are quite a number of causal agents connected to democratization. They may limit the process of democratisation or increase it. This is considered as the final form of government (Fukuyama 1989). In some cases, democracy is considered to be a weapon that is used to control or meet the needs of the international market. Some of the factors leading to or affecting democratisation are listed below:
Wealth
It is believed that wealth increases democracy (O’Neil 2010). For example wealthy nations are characterised by democratic governments as opposed to economically challenged nations.
It is however noted that democracy was not experienced during the industrial revolution (Posusney 2005). Modernization theory claims that a developed economy has higher chances of embracing democracy as compared to an undeveloped economy (Fukuyama 1989).
Education
Education is another contributor to democratization (Ashcraft 1991). In this case, intellectuals are more liberal and are themselves products of democratization as compared to the illiterate. The latter tend to elect politicians who turn out to be dictators even after fair elections (Schmitter & Lynne 1993).
Market Economy
Another driver of democracy is market economy (Kooiman 1993). The market leads to factors such as individualism and respect of law among others. This in turn may lead to equality and other factors that will result to modernization.
Culture
Culture affects democratisation both negatively and positively (Dhavan et al. 2007). Cultures vary from one place and from one time to the other. This variation is referred to as ethnocentricity (Dhavan et al. 2007). For example, the western culture is said to be the best for democracy.
Although there are other non-western cultures within which democracy exists, western culture is seen to accommodate democratization with a lot of ease than the others (Fukuyama 1989).
Civil Society
Civil society is not left behind in the democratization process. This is whereby different organizations come together to establish a common ground for all people. These organizations tend to educate people on their rights by building a social network that guarantees civil rights all people. To this end, the civil societies challenge the state as far as horizontal planning and power distribution are concerned.
In the long run, trust is established in all institutions and hence democracy is achieved (Fukuyama 1989). This is what most states have done in the recent past to achieve democracy.
For example the establishment of civil unions, non-governmental organizations and institutions of higher learning was a prerequisite for democratization. Citizens participated in the civil unions which made them understand their rights and the importance of equality in achieving a common goal (Moore 1966).
Human Development
Human development is a powerful mode of democratization. This is where culture is expected to change together with democracy. To this end, people are empowered through three processes. These are modernization, emancipative freedom as well as democratization.
Through modernization people are able to acquire and own resources giving them an opportunity which is also referred to as capability. Capability gives people a chance to engage in activities which define freedom. Emancipative freedom on the other hand gives people a chance to express themselves.
Through this, people are motivated and empowered to uphold freedom. The last category of human empowerment is democratization. This is based on the fact that people are legally motivated to practice freedom.
Social Equality
This is another factor that may lead to democratisation and sustain it in the long run. Many scholars are of the view that the link between social equality and democratisation is a complex one (Jefferess 2008). History shows that egalitarian societies are characterised by few revolts on the part of the citizens or no revolts at all. For example, Singapore is regarded as one of the most egalitarian countries in the world.
Such a society with reduced political activities tends to experience little or no democratisation. This is given that people have nothing to fight about. The social classes in such a society are more or less the same.
It is also noted that democratisation is also not likely to take place in highly unequal nations of the world. Scholars such as O’Neil (2010) cite countries such as South Africa under apartheid as some of the highly unequal societies in political history.
In such cases, those in power (in this case the minority) will go to great lengths to ensure that democratisation does not take place. This is given the fact that they realise democratisation will be a threat to their well-being.
This being the case, democratisation is seen to take place in countries that lie somewhere in the middle of the highly unequal and egalitarian continuum. In such a society, those in power are likely to accommodate the cry for democratisation from the masses for various reasons.
One of such reasons is the fact that they are very much aware of the ability of the masses to create a revolution. Additionally, the elites do not have to pay a high price for democratisation unlike their counterparts in the highly unequal societies.
Homogenous Populations
Scholars such as Fukuyama (1989) are of the view that the level of homogeneity in a given society greatly influences the development and sustenance of democratisation. It is observed that societies which are deeply divided are unable to sustain a democratic system of governance (Inayatullah & Davids 2004). Such divisions may be as a result of different ethnic groups, religious organisations among others.
The reason why such societies find it hard to establish a working democracy is the fact that the various groups advance their own interests as opposed to furthering the interests of the larger society. Each of these groups is interested in taking over power and ruling over the other groups.
Most of the groups are not willing to share power or resources with the others. A case in point is most of the African countries which are characterised by ethnicity and tribalism. Members of a given ethnic group want to ascend to power and share the resources amongst themselves while alienating other groups. This creates a tension between the various groups.
Intervention from External Forces
It has been established that most democracies in the world are either established or supported by external forces. For example, the incursion of American forces in Iraq was an effort by the Bush administration and later that of Obama’s to establish democracy in this country.
It has also been shown that western nations support democratic governments in Africa and other countries in the developing world. This is through financial aid to support democratic elections, supporting political parties among others.
It is important to look at some criticisms of network models at this juncture. This will help us understand the importance of the network models by exploring some of the perceived weaknesses.
Network Models Approach: A Critique
The Critique
It has been argued that network model approach lacks a strong foundation on which to base its concepts. This is with regard to proposed theories. Similarly, some of the model’s realms lack clear concepts (Moore 1966). The knowledge organised in the theories of this model is not enough to offer the network’s approach adequate theoretical foundations in implementing policies.
It is also argued that the network model lacks a clear conceptualisation of power. This gives rise to challenges in enacting some of the policies formulated (Inayatullah & Davids 2004). Consequently, the role of power is ignored as the theory focuses so much on co-operation among actors rather than on what power can achieve. This is what is referred to as network management (Klijn & Koppenjan 1995).
The networks’ model lacks a clear avenue or path that can be used in evaluating it (Brans 1997). Though there is an evaluation procedure, it does not provide normative substantial grounds. This is seen clearly when the role of the public actors among themselves is different from their role inside (Brans 1997).
This is due to the fact that they view government from a perspective similar to that of other organizations. The public strongly believes that a government with network models discourages the enactment of policies, pursuit of social welfare and robust politics (Brans 1997).
Responding to the Critics
In order to clear any doubts and misconceptions as far as network models are concerned, this paper is going to address the stated criticisms and make suggestions for a better network and public policy as well. Some criticisms are factual but I will only address the controversial ones.
I will first show how the foundations of the network model are based on theoretical history and have well established concepts. I will dwell on the importance of theoretical network models and what it can offer.
Foundations of the Network Models
In the arguments presented above, critics state that the network models do not have solid historical foundations. This is not true; as a matter of fact, networks approach is based on theoretical grounds which make it strong. The use of this approach started long time ago especially during the John Locke’s era. The concept is widely used to show relationships between different institutions.
This is made clear if we examine various authors and their arguments regarding the network models. For example, Seymour (1959) postulates that policy is a relationship between many actors. These actors existed in the traditional legitimacy hence the continuity of the strong foundations as far as the network models are concerned is evident.
Network theories give rise to many organisations which depend on each other. An organization in the environmental sector will use resources from an organization in another sector resulting into what is referred to as interdependence. To this end, actors who have dependent relationships emerge creating a theory of inter-organizational concept (Seymour 1959).
The network models initiate a self theoretical framework (Seymour 1959) where it is assumed that a policy is created through ambiguous relationships between several actors within the networks. The networks are characterised by actors who depend on each other (Klijn and Koppenjan 1995). This means that policy will only be formed as a result of cooperation among the actors.
Up to this point we can state that policy network models are indeed a conceptualisation of interactions. This is true because actors in a given system cannot meet their goals without acquiring resources from other actors. For example, the president of the United States of America has initiated the universal health care program.
To support this initiative, the president will call on resources from different nations in the world and not the United States alone. This policy will only work if all actors agree to contribute resources to meet the Obama’s objective. This is because some actors in the policy making process have fewer resources compared to others.
Interaction of network models will be achieved fully if rules are enacted to guide the process. These rules govern factors that initiate policy making and most important the distribution of resources through the network (Klijn and Koppenjan 1995).
The more interaction continues, the more it becomes firmly attached to the rules and regulations established. In some cases, the rules are altered leading to a confrontational strategy that is referred to as democracy. These processes that revolve around the policy making process are what Seymour (1959) referred to as game of play.
By conceptualising the process as a game, players will take strategic positions in the policy making so as to boost their own objectives. The policies are therefore viewed as a multiplicity of games among different actors. The actors adopt strategic plans to win the game and the end results are due to the interaction of different participants in the game.
Network Management
In the network models we see that the actors need to cooperate so as to accomplish the envisaged outcomes. In many cases, this is not achieved due to the fact that the sharing of costs and benefits does not satisfy some of the actors. There may be a lasting dependency but this may not guarantee that conflicts will be avoided. During the conflicts, tension dominates and this affects the actors as well their goals and interests.
If the tension is expected to emerge, the enacted rules are put into action to regulate it. In this case, management of any network is necessary so as to improve the relationship between the actors (Knight 1992). Network management is a neutral variable in developing the policies.
Management network is an important strategy since it creates an environment which is conducive for the interaction between the actors. Lack of management will result into ambiguity of policies halting all activities involved in policy making as well as the network models approach.
Management becomes an autonomous factor when solving problems in different organizations trying to achieve a common goal. Through this, an actor cannot choose a strategy on behalf of another actor (Ashcraft 1991).
An important aspect in the management of the network models is choosing an appropriate actor and activating the same actor so as to be competent in matters that pertains to policy implementations.
When the implementation process is taking place, the actor adopts different perspectives in dealing with a particular problem or issue and most importantly the final solution which must bring all the other actors together. Each actor has a different way of solving a particular problem. Management in this case must minimise restraints on the actions of the key players so as to ease the policy making process (William 1995).
There is also another form of management referred to as constitutional management. In this case, the management is involved in the adoption of changes for the network models. Although some aspects of the model are difficult to incorporate in the constitutional network due to the fact that they are time consuming, it is important in positioning actors as well as creating new actors in the network systems (William 1995).
As a result of these changes, it becomes easier to constitutionally manage the network. This is rather than working on the initial policies that are time consuming (Ashcraft 1991). New leaders brought on board will have different and new ideas for the different organizations. Due to increased democracy, people tend to chose leaders that are seen as likely to bring about changes (O’Neil 2010).
As we have seen, cooperation is very important in that it facilitate interdependency among actors throughout the system. This is important because policies will be enacted only after actors agree on sharing their resources. The success or failure of meeting the objectives of given policies will depend on the magnitude of the cooperation between the actors. Strong cooperation will result into successful policies (Ashcraft 1991).
The actors may decide not to participate in the interaction by withdrawing resources to the system. This makes it difficult to attain the objectives especially if the system is unable to obtain resources from other sources to make it complete. As stated earlier in this paper, accessing resources from other sources is difficult due to the fact that the process is time consuming and expensive.
Pluralism
At this juncture, it is important to extend our exploration of network models to touch on another aspect of the model referred to as pluralism. The author will try to put into perspective the relationship between pluralism and network model approach.
Pluralism is a political theory that explains the phenomenon of diversity in the society. In this case, government is viewed as formulating policies and playing politics based on how it understands the whole process.
On the other hand, the other institutions such as non-governmental organizations exploit their own resources to further their influence. An important argument on how the influence and power goes together emerges (Huntington 1991). Actors at this point tend to increase their interests and as already indicated in this paper, each actor in a given network wishes to meet their objectives.
This will result to conflicts as the horizontal bargaining for power is experienced. Inequalities are distributed equally throughout the system such that none of the participants in the system is favoured than the other. Instead, all receive equal proportions of resources depending on availability (Schattschneider 1960).
At this stage, people tend to be more democratic than they were before. They appear as “veto” groups fighting for their rights (William 1995).
At a progressive stage, equilibrium is reached where everyone is fighting for similar interests. This is very important and individual goals are attained. Pluralism undermines the involvement of certain actors in the governing process.
In this case, freedom to express their opinions is challenged and this leads to reduced participation in such activities. The most affected are members of the public who turns out to be mere bystanders (Barzikii 2003).
Conception of Power
Pluralists postulate that power is not a physical requirement for one to rule. It is acquired from many sources. On the other hand people become so powerful as a result of resources which they can access. A powerful person can force another to do what they want simply because they have control over them (Charlton 1996).
This applies to politicians. For example, President Obama may achieve his desire for a global health facility due to the fact that he has command over huge resources.
On the other hand, resources can be transformed into power such that one can use their skills to influence people. Money as a resource is not enough to manipulate people since it will depend on how one uses it.
For example a skilled person will use it wisely as opposed to a clumsy person who may not be able to influence people despite their wealth (Knight 1992). No individual has the power or ability to control everything. One may be strong and influential in a given realm but at the same time weaker in another area.
Conclusion
In this paper, the author addressed several aspects of the policy network model. From the analysis, the author feels that policy network has become a strong empirical theoretical framework. As a result of this, the process of formulating and implementing policies can be initiated and evaluated by adopting an appropriate methodology. Management and the use of structured ideas as far as the policy network model is concerned are mandatory.
Contemporary societies are faced with challenging tasks which must be tackled to improve the wellbeing of the members of such societies. This applies to many Asian and European countries. A good example is Prime Minister Cameron’s pension plan. Contemporary governments have no choice but to enter into mutual contracts with other parties (Wilks 1979).
By doing this, network management criteria will become part and parcel of their operations. These criteria have been tested and have worked in several nations such as the Netherlands (Klijn & Koppenjan 1995).
The idea is to develop policies that will accommodate members of the public, politicians, other leaders and players in the private sector. By disregarding this recommendation, marginalization and inequality may emerge (Marsh & Rhodes 1992).
References
Almond, G 1991, Capitalism and democracy. Available from: <https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/420091.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents>. [28 January 2012].
Ashcraft, R 1991, John Locke: Critical assessments, London, Routledge.
Barzikii, G 2003, Communities and law polities and culture of legal identities, Michigan, Michigan Press.
Brans, M 1997, Challenges to the practice and theory of public administration in Europe, London, Sage.
Carothers, D 2010, Aiding democracy abroad: The learning curve, Washington DC., Carnegie.
Charlton, R 1996, Political realities: Comparative government, London, Longman Press.
Dhavan, S et al. 2007, The politics of consumption/ consumption of politics. New York, Oxford.
Frank, T 2000, One market under God: Extreme capitalism, market populism, and the end of economic democracy, New York, Anchor Books.
Fukuyama, F 1989, The End of History? The national interest, London, Sage.
Hay, C 2007, Why we hate politics, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Huntington, P 1991, Democratization in the late twentieth century, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press.
Huntington, S 1968, Political order in the changing societies, New Haven, Yale University Press.
Inayatullah, N & Davids, B 2004, IR and the inner life of modernization theory, New York, Routledge.
Jefferess, D 2008, Postcolonial resistance: Culture, liberation and transformation, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.
Klijn EH & Koppenjan, J 1995, Managing policy networks in the public, London, Sage.
Knight, J 1992, Institutions and social conflicts, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Kooiman, J 1993, Modern governance: New government society interactions, London, Sage.
Marine, B & Mayentz, R 1991, Policy networks: Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, New York, Free Press.
Marsh, D & Rhodes, R 1992, Policy network in British government, Clarendon, Oxford.
Moore, B 1966, Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world, Boston, Beacon Press.
O’Neil , P 2010, Essentials of comparative politics, New York, Norton and Company.
Posusney, M 2005, Authoritarianism in the Middle East: Regime and resistance, New York, Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Przeworkski, A 1991, Democracy and the market, New York, New York University Press.
Robert A, 1971, Polyarchy: Participation and opposition, London, Yale University Press.
Schattschneider, E 1960, The semi-sovereign people, Oxford Press.
Schmitter, P & Lynne, K 1993, What democracy is …and is not, Baltimore, The John Hopkins University Press.
Seymour, ML 1959, Some social requisite of democracy: Economic development and political legitimacy, London, Thimble.
Sternberger, D 1968, Legitimacy, New York, Macmillan.
Wilks, S 1979, Comparative government industry relations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
William, E 1995, Ethics of pluralizations, Minnesota, University of Minnesota Press.