Cited by 493Public Policy and Administration ResearchCoastal and Marine ManagementPolicy Transfer and Learning

Building Consensual Institutions: Networks and the National Estuary Program

Open access
Schneider, Mark, Scholz, John, Lubell, Mark, Mindruta, Denisa, Edwardsen, Matthew·2003·American Journal of Political Science

Abstract

Currently, many approaches to solving policy problems seek to create community-based, less coercive solutions that are creating the conditions for the birth of new regional governmental institutions. We argue that networks form the core of these emergent structures and that federal programs can play a positive role in developing local networks. Our empirical work compares networks in estuaries included in National Estuary Program with networks in comparable estuaries that were not. We find that the networks in NEP areas span more levels of government, integrate more experts into policy discussions, nurture stronger interpersonal ties between stakeholders, and create greater faith in the procedural fairness of local policy, thus laying the foundation for a new form of cooperative governance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/1540-5907.00010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A leader's willingness to absorb high transaction costs may help reinforce the collaborative endeavor.

    “In addition, the willingness of a leader to absorb the high (and potentially constraining) transaction costs of initiating a collaborative effort, for example, by providing staffing, technologies, and other resources may help reinforce the endeavor (e.g., Schneider et al. 2003).”

    From An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance (2012) · cites this paper as Schneider et al. 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schneider, M., Scholz, J., Lubell, M., Mindruta, D., & Edwardsen, M.
Affiliations
Florida State University (US)
Venue
American Journal of Political Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2003-01
Volume
47
Issue
1
Pages
143-158
ISSN
  • 0092-5853 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5907
OpenAlex
W2082808961
Cited by
493
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 42 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 33 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 39
FWCI
40.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
American Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (9815473)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Coastal and Marine Management
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policy Transfer and Learning
Keywords
National Estuary Program, estuary management, policy networks, cooperative governance, intergovernmental networks, federal programs, stakeholder networks, procedural justice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review