Samenvatting Netwerkorganisaties
Inhoudsopgave
Van Engers et al. (2011) - Policy Making: How rational is it? ...................................................................................................... 2
H2 Barabasi (2016) - Network Science ................................................................................................................................................. 4
H4 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science ...................................................................................................... 6
Sterman (2001) - System Dynamics Modeling ................................................................................................................................... 7
Van der Zwet (2022) - Promises and pitfalls of computational modelling for insurgency conflicts .......................... 9
H2 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science .................................................................................................... 16
Vennix (1999) - Group model-building tackling messy problems .......................................................................................... 18
H1 Barabasi (2016) - Network Science ............................................................................................................................................... 21
H1 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science .................................................................................................... 23
,Van Engers et al. (2011) - Policy Making: How rational is it?
• We can categorize these tools as Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSs).
• The question relevant for us is in how far GDSS supported decision-making contributes to
effective decision-making, more specifically effective policy-making.
• Enabling participation by electronic means, particularly using Internet technology, is
expected to increase such citizens’ participation.
• This way governments hope to build support for their policies and hence increase legitimacy
of the legislation created to effectuate these policies.
• Policy-making
• In this paper we define policy-making as the process that leads from identifying a
problem to the formulation of a policy to solve it.
• A policy is a statement of intent or a commitment for those that adhere to the policy.
• The aim of a policy-making process is to produce a solution to that problem, which
requires construction of such theory and specifically the formulation of possible
actions and selecting the appropriate ones, given certain selection criteria.
• We separate the policy theory in a ‘policy field theory’ and a ‘policy effects theory’
• A policy field theory has to give answers on questions like: which actors and
factors do create problems and possibilities in a certain policy field, which
require the attention of the policy makers.
• A policy effects theory describes the effects of possible actions that are
assumed to provide a solution to the problem at hand.
• Four perspectives, rationalities: political, legal, economical and
technical/scientific.
• The heart of policy-making is therefore the construction of the causal
component of the policy field and making an inventory of the wishes and
desires playing a role in the normative component.
• Consequently, we can construct a policy effects theory describing possible
measures and interventions and their assumed effects on the causal
components described in the policy field theory.
• The question is if it is possible to design GDSSs that can assist in disentangling the
various rationalities that need to be analyzed in order to understand the problem at
hand, and support the deliberation on the possible solutions to that problem based on
the pros and cons thereof.
• One recently developed tool that is aiming to support policy-makers is Parmenides
• The developers of Parmenides focus on the consultation aspect and the
structuring support of the various elements of policy-making and consequently
refer to their tool as a structured consultation tool (SCT) rather than a GDSS.
• A policy-making example
• The central problem to solve is road congestion.
• From a policy field theory perspective this problem is a result of a growing need for
transport influenced by the technical, economical and demographical developments.
• Increasing road capacity, or decreasing car use, specifically during rush hour.
• Most traffic economists consider road pricing a sustainable way to solve it.
• The alternative would be to increase the supply by building extra lanes and
roads, but this would be costly and eventually insufficient.
, •
• The choice for the road pricing instrument will lead to fewer kilometers driven.
For the environment this results in less emission of CO2 and of particle matter,
serving the environmental policy value.
• As far as road congestion is concerned this will generally be reduced, and so
will be the amount of vehicle loss hours, thus serving this policy value.
• Finally, road pricing will lead to an increase of income for the government
because every kilometer driven will have to be paid for. Compensation can be
found in the decrease of sales tax on cars, in order to achieve the desired
Government budget neutrality.
• A structured consultation tool; Parmenides
• The Parmenides e-participation forum is a tool grounded upon a model of argument,
that structures proposals for political action, to allow the results to be computationally
analyzed.
• The policy effect theory, describing possible actions are input for Parmenides.
• Each proposal invites the community addressed to comment.
• In these comments the effects of the actions on the policy field theory (does the action
serve this policy value(s)) will be scrutinized.
• However, Parmenides can also be used for confronting the proposal separately with
focus groups or specialists like jurists, economists and technical experts, each within
their own realm. In that case various sessions can be run, each with its own focus on
the rationality applied.
• Conclusions
• The respective policy field theory and policy effects theory are hindered by taking a
policy proposal, i.e. an instrumental view, as a starting point.
• This might have people focus on the wrong problems or lead to neglecting
alternative solutions.
• Despite this Parmenides is a promising development, and future extensions could help
to turn this in an applicable tool in actual policy-making processes.
Inhoudsopgave
Van Engers et al. (2011) - Policy Making: How rational is it? ...................................................................................................... 2
H2 Barabasi (2016) - Network Science ................................................................................................................................................. 4
H4 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science ...................................................................................................... 6
Sterman (2001) - System Dynamics Modeling ................................................................................................................................... 7
Van der Zwet (2022) - Promises and pitfalls of computational modelling for insurgency conflicts .......................... 9
H2 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science .................................................................................................... 16
Vennix (1999) - Group model-building tackling messy problems .......................................................................................... 18
H1 Barabasi (2016) - Network Science ............................................................................................................................................... 21
H1 Menczer et al. (2020) A First Course in Network Science .................................................................................................... 23
,Van Engers et al. (2011) - Policy Making: How rational is it?
• We can categorize these tools as Group Decision Support Systems (GDSSs).
• The question relevant for us is in how far GDSS supported decision-making contributes to
effective decision-making, more specifically effective policy-making.
• Enabling participation by electronic means, particularly using Internet technology, is
expected to increase such citizens’ participation.
• This way governments hope to build support for their policies and hence increase legitimacy
of the legislation created to effectuate these policies.
• Policy-making
• In this paper we define policy-making as the process that leads from identifying a
problem to the formulation of a policy to solve it.
• A policy is a statement of intent or a commitment for those that adhere to the policy.
• The aim of a policy-making process is to produce a solution to that problem, which
requires construction of such theory and specifically the formulation of possible
actions and selecting the appropriate ones, given certain selection criteria.
• We separate the policy theory in a ‘policy field theory’ and a ‘policy effects theory’
• A policy field theory has to give answers on questions like: which actors and
factors do create problems and possibilities in a certain policy field, which
require the attention of the policy makers.
• A policy effects theory describes the effects of possible actions that are
assumed to provide a solution to the problem at hand.
• Four perspectives, rationalities: political, legal, economical and
technical/scientific.
• The heart of policy-making is therefore the construction of the causal
component of the policy field and making an inventory of the wishes and
desires playing a role in the normative component.
• Consequently, we can construct a policy effects theory describing possible
measures and interventions and their assumed effects on the causal
components described in the policy field theory.
• The question is if it is possible to design GDSSs that can assist in disentangling the
various rationalities that need to be analyzed in order to understand the problem at
hand, and support the deliberation on the possible solutions to that problem based on
the pros and cons thereof.
• One recently developed tool that is aiming to support policy-makers is Parmenides
• The developers of Parmenides focus on the consultation aspect and the
structuring support of the various elements of policy-making and consequently
refer to their tool as a structured consultation tool (SCT) rather than a GDSS.
• A policy-making example
• The central problem to solve is road congestion.
• From a policy field theory perspective this problem is a result of a growing need for
transport influenced by the technical, economical and demographical developments.
• Increasing road capacity, or decreasing car use, specifically during rush hour.
• Most traffic economists consider road pricing a sustainable way to solve it.
• The alternative would be to increase the supply by building extra lanes and
roads, but this would be costly and eventually insufficient.
, •
• The choice for the road pricing instrument will lead to fewer kilometers driven.
For the environment this results in less emission of CO2 and of particle matter,
serving the environmental policy value.
• As far as road congestion is concerned this will generally be reduced, and so
will be the amount of vehicle loss hours, thus serving this policy value.
• Finally, road pricing will lead to an increase of income for the government
because every kilometer driven will have to be paid for. Compensation can be
found in the decrease of sales tax on cars, in order to achieve the desired
Government budget neutrality.
• A structured consultation tool; Parmenides
• The Parmenides e-participation forum is a tool grounded upon a model of argument,
that structures proposals for political action, to allow the results to be computationally
analyzed.
• The policy effect theory, describing possible actions are input for Parmenides.
• Each proposal invites the community addressed to comment.
• In these comments the effects of the actions on the policy field theory (does the action
serve this policy value(s)) will be scrutinized.
• However, Parmenides can also be used for confronting the proposal separately with
focus groups or specialists like jurists, economists and technical experts, each within
their own realm. In that case various sessions can be run, each with its own focus on
the rationality applied.
• Conclusions
• The respective policy field theory and policy effects theory are hindered by taking a
policy proposal, i.e. an instrumental view, as a starting point.
• This might have people focus on the wrong problems or lead to neglecting
alternative solutions.
• Despite this Parmenides is a promising development, and future extensions could help
to turn this in an applicable tool in actual policy-making processes.
