phenomena are explained in terms of the attributes of individuals, groups, or
organizations. Network institutionalism, by contrast, emphasizes relationships—
which are not reducible to individual attributes—as the basic unit of explanation.
A second meta-principle is a presumption ofcomplexity. Relationships that connect
individuals, groups, and organizations are assumed to be complex, in the sense that
linkages between them are overlapping and cross-cutting. Groups and organizations
are not neatly bounded, certainly not unitary, and are often interpenetrating. The
third meta-principle of network institutionalism is that networks are bothresources
andconstraintson behavior. As resources, they are channels of information and aid
mobilized in the pursuit of certain gains; as constraints, they are structures of social
inXuence and control that limit action. TheWnal meta-principle is that networks
mobilize information, social inXuence, resources, and social capital in highlydiVer-
entiatedways. Not only is the social world complex, but also highly biased. Networks
provide variegated access to resources, information, and support.
Although this chapter aims to provide a broad interdisciplinary overview of net-
work institutionalism, it is worth brieXy describing how the network approach is
congenial to political science. 2 First, political scientists have long been fascinated by the
ways in which power and inXuence work through channels of personal connections—
the proverbial ‘‘old boys network.’’ Network institutionalism oVers an approach that
systematizes this fascination. Second, many problems in political science involve
complex bargaining and coordinating relationships between interest groups, public
agencies, or nations. While it may be suYcient to describe these relationships as
‘‘coalitions,’’ ‘‘factions,’’ or ‘‘alliances,’’ network institutionalism suggests that precise
patterns of connection matter for explaining political outcomes. Third, network
institutionalism rejects any simple dichotomy between individualist and group-
oriented explanation. It insists that individual behavior must be understood context-
ually, but rejects the assumption of unitary groups—a salutary perspective given the
tensions in political science between individualistic and group-oriented approaches.
The remainder of the chapter clariWes the meaning of the term ‘‘network,’’
provides a brief survey of techniques used to analyze networks, and then focuses
onWve substantive domains in which network institutionalism has been prominent:
(a) policy networks; (b) organizations; (c) markets; (d) political mobilization and
social movements; and (e) social inXuence, social psychology, and political culture.
2WhatisaNetwork?
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
A network is a set of relationships between individuals, groups, or organizations. A
relationship, for example, might be a friendship between two Members of Parlia-
2 See Knoke 1994 for a more comprehensive account of network approaches to politics.76 christopher ansell