used network approaches to model how social inXuence processes work through
networks. Friedkin ( 1998 ) provides a powerful approach for modeling these inXu-
ence processes. In political science, network processes are also understood as a way
to model ‘‘contextual eVects’’ precisely. Political scientists have used these network
models to analyze the inXuence of neighbors on political attitudes towards candi-
dates (Huckfeldt and Sprague 1987 ).
In addition to studying cognition and social inXuence, network approaches have
also been applied to studying political culture. Examples include Mohr and
Duquenne’s ( 1997 ) network analysis of the historical evolution of social welfare
categories in New York City and Ansell’s ( 1997 ) study of how institutional networks
and symbols interacted to produce a signiWcant realignment of French working
class institutions.
9 Critique and Progress
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
The work cited above is by no means exhaustive and many more speciWc domains
of application could be reviewed. In fact, the network approach remains more a
diverse set of overlapping discussions than a single uniWed approach to under-
standing institutions. Although the usefulness of the network approach has been
proven across a range of disciplines, two basic types of criticism are often leveled
against it. TheWrst is that the network approach tends to produce a static and
overly structural view of the world not suYciently sensitive to process, agency, and
meaning. Emirbayer and Goodwin ( 1994 ) forcefully made this critique of social
network analysis and Bevir and Rhodes ( 2003 ) have made it of policy networks.
These authors agree that network language tends to slip easily into the kind of
structuralism that treats networks as objects. In particular, they suggest that
network approaches must be more attentive to the cultural or interpretive elements
of relationships. Just as network institutionalism criticizes the reiWcation of groups,
it must avoid a similar reiWcation of networks. Padgett’s ( 2001 ) recent work
provides a good example of eVorts to overcome the tensions between structure,
culture, and agency in network institutionalism.
A second related critique is that the network approach is primarily a framework
for description rather than explanation. It is good at describing economic, political,
or social complexity, but less useful for deriving testable causal arguments. There is
truth in this criticism: the network approach lends itself more easily to description
than to explanation. The obvious retort is that a good description is the necessary
foundation of a good explanation. But that response sells short the explanatory
network institutionalism 85