Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Actor Models for Policy Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Public Policy Analysis

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 179))

Abstract

Systems analysis and systems theory have proven a fruitful basis on which to develop the discipline of policy analysis. However, since the inception of policy analysis in the second half of the twentieth century, the world has changed, new insights have emerged, and thus new challenges have arisen for policy analysts. One of the most prominent changes in this regard is posed by the increasing awareness of the importance of actors, actor networks, and actor systems. This calls not only for different, more actor oriented, styles of policy analysis, but it also calls for models and methods that support the analysis and understanding of multi-actor systems and processes, making them more amenable to the contributions of policy analysts. These models are the subject of this chapter.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

Notes

  1. 1.

    An expanded discussion of the concepts in this section can be found in Hermans (2005) and in Hermans and Thissen (2009), which also discusses some of the modeling approaches discussed in this chapter.

  2. 2.

    See for instance Ostrom et al. (1994), p. 49, the overview book edited by Sabatier (2007), and the related debate on theories of the policy process in the Journal of European Public Policy (Dudley et al. 2000).

  3. 3.

    Although the labels differ, these dimensions are identified by many authors and theories. The advocacy coalitions framework includes policy subsystems, consisting of coalitions of actors who hold different belief systems, consisting of normative and causal beliefs (cf. values and perceptions), and resources (Sabatier 1988). Jobert identifies three dimensions of policymaking: cognitive, instrumental, and normative (Jobert 1989). The actor-centered institutionalism framework recognizes actor constellations in a specific institutional setting, in which interaction takes place among actors, who are characterized by specific capabilities, specific perceptions, and specific preferences (Scharpf 1997). In the Institutional Analysis and Development framework, actors interact in action arenas, based on certain ‘rules-in-use’, while each actor can be understood by variables in relation to its resources, valuation, knowledge contingencies, and information and processes for selecting a certain course of action (Ostrom 1999).

  4. 4.

    For instance, van der Lei and Thissen (2009) discuss some of the methods contained in Sect. 8.5 as ‘problem structuring methods', emphasizing their use for problem formulation and substantive analysis more than their use for process management.

  5. 5.

    Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis, which is a popular tool for analysts, managers, and decisionmakers as an organizing framework for intuitive information (Jacobs et al. 1998).

References

  • Axelrod R (ed) (1976) Structure of decision: the cognitive maps of political elites. Princeton University Press, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreteau O (2003) Our companion modelling approach. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 6(2) <http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/1.html>

  • Barreteau O, Le Page C, Perez P (2007) Contribution of simulation and gaming to natural resource management issues: an introduction. Simul Gaming 38(2):185–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bekebrede G (2010) Experiencing complexity: a gaming approach for understanding infrastructure systems. NGInfra PhD thesis series on infrastructures no. 39. Next generation infrastructures foundation Delft, the Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P (1998) Confrontation analysis as a diagnostic tool. Eur J Oper Res 109:465–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P, Cropper S, Huxham C (1989) Modelling interactive decisions: the hypergame focus. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett P, Bryant J, Howard N (2001) Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 225–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Bots P, van Daalen E (2007) Functional design of games to support natural resource management policy development. Simul Gaming 38(4):512–532

    Google Scholar 

  • Bots PWG, van Twist MJW, van Duin JHR (2000) Automatic pattern detection in stakeholder networks. In: Proceedings of HICSS-33, Nunamaker JF and Sprague RH (eds) IEEE Press, Los Alamitos

    Google Scholar 

  • Bougon MG, Baird N, Komocar JM, Ross W (1990) Identifying Strategic Loops: The self-Q interviews. In: Huff AS (ed) mapping strategic thought. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plann 15(3):239–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM (2004) Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations. (especially Resource A: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques). 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns TR, Baumgartner T, DeVille P (1985) Man, decisions, society: the theory of actor-system dynamics for social scientists. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Montreux

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) (2005) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Carton LJ (2007) Map making and map use in a multi-actor context: spatial visualizations and frame conflicts in regional policymaking in the Netherlands. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1964) Introduction to mathematical sociology. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Crozier M, Friedberg E (1980) Actors and systems. The politics of collective action. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • De Bruijn JA, ten Heuvelhof EF (2000) Networks and decisionmaking. Lemma, Utrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorogovtsev SN, Mendes JFF (2002) Evolution of networks. Advances Phy 51(4): 1079–1187 doi:10.1080/00018730110112519

    Google Scholar 

  • Dudley G, Parsons W, Radaelli CM, Sabatier P (2000) Symposium: theories of the policy process. J Eur Public Policy 7(1):122–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duijn M, Immers LH, Waaldijk FA, Stoelhorst HJ (2003) Gaming approach route 26: a combination of computer simulation, design tools and social interaction. J Artif Soc Soc Simul, vol 6, no 3 <http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/3/7.html>

  • Dunn WN (1993) Policy reforms as arguments. In: Fischer F, Forester J (eds) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. UCL Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1989) Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison G, Fudenberg D (1995) Word of mouth communication and social learning. Quart J Econ 110(1):93–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Enserink B, Mayer IS (2002) Improving the strategic impact of policymaking for diffuse water pollution through interactive inferred mapping of complex actor networks: the case of Utrecht. In: Proceedings of 6th International conference on diffuse pollution. IWA/NVA, Amsterdam, pp 420–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang L, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (1993) Interactive decisionmaking the graph model for conflict resolution. Wiley series in systems engineering. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F, Forester J (eds) (1993) The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. UCL Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox MS, Barbuceanu M, Teigen R (2000) Agent-oriented supply-chain management. Int J Flex Manuf 12(2–3):165–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser NM, Hipel KW (1984) Conflict analysis: models and resolutions. North-Holland, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management a stakeholder approach. Pitman Publishing Inc, Marshfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimble R, Chan M-K (1995) Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective. Nat Resour Forum 19(2):113–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55(2):173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gurung TR, Bousquet F, Trebuil G (2006) Companion modeling, conflict resolution, and institution building: sharing irrigation water in the lingmuteychu watershed, bhutan. Ecol Soc 11(2):36

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyot P, Honiden S (2006) Agent-based participatory simulations: merging multi-agent systems and role-playing games. J Artif Soc Soc Simul 9(4):8

    Google Scholar 

  • Harteveld C (2011) Triadic game design. Balancing reality, meaning and play. Springer, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi J (1967) Games with incomplete information played by ‘bayesian’ players, I: the basic model. Manage Sci 14(3):159–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi J (1968a) Games with incomplete information played by ‘bayesian’ players, II: bayesian equilibrium points. Manage Sci 14(7):320–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harsanyi J (1968b) Games with incomplete information played by ‘bayesian’ players, III: the basic probability distribution of the game. Manage Sci 14(7):486–502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hermans LM, Bots PWG (2002) Metagames: Exploring participatory stakeholder analysis for water management in Egypt. In: Mayer I, Veeneman W (eds) Games in a World of Infrastructures. Simulation-games for research, learning and intervention. Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft, pp. 205–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans LM (2005) Actor analysis for water resources management. Putting the promise into practice. Eburon Publishers, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermans LM, Thissen WAH (2009) Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts. Eur J Oper Res 196(2):808–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1971) Paradoxes of rationality: theory of metagames and political behavior. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard N (1989) The manager as politician and general: the metagame approach to analysing cooperation and conflict. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs T, Shepherd J, Johnson G (1998) Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analyses. In: Ambrosini V, Johnson G, Scholes K (eds) Exploring techniques of analysis and evaluation in strategic management. Prentice Hall Europe Pearson Education Ltd, Harlow, pp 122–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins M (1992) A methodology for creating and comparing strategic causal maps. Cranfield School of Management Working Paper Series, SWP 2/94, Cranfield University, Cranfield

    Google Scholar 

  • Jobert B (1989) The normative frameworks of public policy. Polit Stud 37:376–386

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson G, Scholes K, Whittington R (2005) Exploring corporate strategy. Prentice Hall—Financial Times, Harlow, p 635

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenis P, Schneider V (1991) Policy networks and policy analysis: scrutinizing a new analytical toolbox. In: Marin B, Mayntz R (eds) Policy networks. Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Westview Press, Colorado

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2005) The graph model for conflict resolution: past, present, and future. Group Decis Negot 14(6):441–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klijn E-H, van Bueren EM, Koppenjan JFM (2000) Spelen met onzekerheid: over diffuse besluitvorming in beleidsnetwerken en mogelijkheden voor management. [Playing with uncertainty: on diffuse policymaking in policy networks and possibilities for management, in Dutch]. Eburon, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuit M, Mayer IS, De Jong M (2005) The infrastratego game: an evaluation of strategic behavior and regulatory regimes in liberalizing electricity markets. Simul Gaming 36(1):58–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer I, Veeneman W (eds) (2002) Games in a world of infrastructures. Eburon Academic Publishers, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer IS, van Bueren EM, Bots PWG, van der Voort H, Seijdel R (2005) Collaborative decisionmaking for sustainable urban renewal projects: a simulation—gaming approach. Environ Plann B: Plann Des 32:403–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeown B, Thomas D (1988) Q-Methodology. Series: quantitative applications in the social sciences, SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, pp 07–066

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitroff I (1983) Stakeholders of the organizational mind. Toward a new view of organizational policymaking. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bennett J, Blamey R (1999) Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modeling. Water Resour Res 35(9):2805–2814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nikolic I, Dijkema GPJ (2006) Shaping regional industry-infrastructure networks, an agent based modelling framework. IEEE conference on systems, man and cybernetics, Taipei, 8–11 Oct 2006

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus WD, Yang ZL (1996) A regional dynamic general-equilibrium model of alternative climate change. Am Econ Rev 86(4):741–765

    Google Scholar 

  • Obeidi A, Hipel KW, Kilgour DM (2002) Canadian bulk water exports: analyzing the sun belt conflict using the graph model for conflict resolution. Knowl Technol Policy 14(4):145–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Theoretical lenses on public policy. Westview Press, Colorado pp 35–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2000) Collective action and the evolution of social norms. J Econ Perspect 14(3):137–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Google Scholar 

  • Pappi FU, Knoke D (1991) Political exchange in the german and american labor policy domains. In: Marin B, Mayntz R (eds) Policy networks. Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes RAW, Marsh D (1992) New directions in the study of policy networks. Eur J Polit Res 21:181–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roe E (1994) Narrative policy analysis: theory and practice. Duke University Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21:129–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA (ed) (2007) Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Saelensminde K (1999) Stated choice valuation of urban traffic, air pollution and noise. Transp Res Part D—Transp Environ 4(1):13–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play. Actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Shoam Y (1993) Agent-based programming. Artif Intell 60(1):51–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokman FN (1994) Besluitvormingsmodellen binnen beleidsnetwerken [Decisionmaking models in policy networks, in Dutch]. In: Huberts LWJC, Kleinnijenhuis J (eds) Methoden van Invloedsanalyse. [Methods for Influence Analysis, in Dutch]. Uitgeverij Boom, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisman GR (2000) Models for research into decisionmaking processes: on phases, streams and decisionmaking rounds. Public Administration 78(4): 937–956.

    Google Scholar 

  • Termeer CJAM (1993) Dynamiek en inertie rondom mestbeleid. Een studie naar veranderingsprocessen in het varkenshouderijnetwerk. [Dynamics and stagnation in manure policy. A study on the processes of change in the agricultural network]. VUGA, Den Haag (in Dutch)

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson R, Stokman F, Torenvliet R (2003) Models of collective decisionmaking: introduction. Rationality Soc 15(1):5–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans JS (2004) Purposive interaction in multi-actor decisionmaking. Eburon Publishers, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermans JS, Beroggi GEG (2000) Conflict resolution in sustainable infrastructure management. Saf Sci 35(1–3):175–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Valente TW (2005) Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations. In: Carrington PJ, Scott J, Wasserman S (eds) Models and methods in social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 98–116

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • van der Lei TE (2009) Relating actor analysis methods to policy problems. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Lei TE, Thissen WAH (2009) Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications. J Oper Res Soc 60(9):1198–1206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG (2001) Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. J Policy Anal Manage 20(3):391–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG (2006) Narrative policy analysis. In: Fischer F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, methods, and politics. Taylor & Francis CRC Press, London, pp 251–269

    Google Scholar 

  • van Eeten MJG, Loucks DP, Roe E (2002) Bringing actors together around large-scale water systems: participatory modeling and other innovations. Knowl Technol Policy 14(4):94–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Neumann J, Morgenstern O (1944) Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson D, Lankford B (2007) Metaphor in natural resource gaming: Insights from the RIVER BASIN GAME. Simul Gaming 38(3):421–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A (1992) Speaking truth to power. The art and craft of policy analysis. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Witteveen L, Enserink B (2007) Visual problem appraisal—Kerala's Coast: A simulation for social learning about integrated coastal zone management. Simul Gaming 38(2):278–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Yücel G (2010) Analyzing transition dynamics. The actor-option framework for modelling socio-technical systems. Ph.D. thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA, Delft, The Netherlands

    Leon M. Hermans & Scott W. Cunningham

Authors
  1. Leon M. Hermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott W. Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Technology, Policy and Man, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box, Delft, 2600 GA, Netherlands

    Wil A. H. Thissen

  2. , Department of Technology, Policy and Man, Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, Delft, 2600 GA, Netherlands

    Warren E. Walker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hermans, L.M., Cunningham, S.W. (2013). Actor Models for Policy Analysis . In: Thissen, W., Walker, W. (eds) Public Policy Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 179. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4602-6_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation