Combining Text‐Based Institutional Network and Cost–Benefit Methods to Advance Policy Design Analysis: An Illustrative Application to Nonprofit Open‐Source Software Incubation.
Institutional arrangements that guide collective action between entities create benefits and burdens for collaborating entities and can encourage cooperation or create coordination dilemmas. There is an abundance of research in public policy, public administration, and nonprofit management on cross‐...
| Publicado en: | Policy Studies Journal Vol. 53; no. 3; pp. 618 - 637 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , , , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Wiley-Blackwell
Aug2025
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ssf&AN=187727048&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ssf uiTerm: 187727048 longDbName: Social Sciences Full Text (H.W. Wilson) uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 0190292X PSJ jtl: Policy Studies Journal issn: 0190292X maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Aug2025 vid: 53 iid: 3 pid: 480 pub: Wiley-Blackwell artinfo: ui: 187727048 10.1111/psj.70061 ppf: 618 ppct: 19 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: C – @attributes: type: P size: 967KB tig: atl: Combining Text‐Based Institutional Network and Cost–Benefit Methods to Advance Policy Design Analysis: An Illustrative Application to Nonprofit Open‐Source Software Incubation. aug: au: Virgüez‐Ruiz, Santiago Atkisson, Curtis Bushouse, Brenda Schweik, Charles affil: Department of Political Science, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst Massachusetts,, USA eScience Institute, University of Washington, Seattle Washington,, USA School of Public Policy, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst Massachusetts,, USA Department of Anthropology, University of Washington, Washington,, USA Department of Environmental Conservation, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst Massachusetts,, USA su: Government policy Nonprofit organizations Collective action Policy analysis Distribution costs sug: subj: Government policy Nonprofit organizations Collective action Policy analysis Other Social Advocacy Organizations Distribution costs keyword: cost–benefit analysis networks of prescribed interactions policy design análisis costo‐beneficio diseño de políticas Redes de interacciones prescritas 成本效益分析 政策设计 规定互动网络 cost–benefit analysis networks of prescribed interactions policy design análisis costo‐beneficio diseño de políticas Redes de interacciones prescritas 成本效益分析 政策设计 规定互动网络 ab: Institutional arrangements that guide collective action between entities create benefits and burdens for collaborating entities and can encourage cooperation or create coordination dilemmas. There is an abundance of research in public policy, public administration, and nonprofit management on cross‐sector alliances, co‐production, and collaborative networks. We contribute to advancing this research by introducing a methodological approach that combines two text‐based methods: institutional network analysis and cost–benefit analysis. We utilize the Institutional Grammar to code policy documents that govern relationships between actors. The coded text is then used to identify Networks of Prescribed Interactions to analyze institutional relationships between policy actors. We then utilize the coded text in a cost–benefit analysis to assess benefit and burden distributive effects. This integrated methodological framework provides researchers with a tool to elucidate both the institutional patterns of interaction and distributive implications embedded in policy documents, revealing insights that single‐method approaches cannot capture. We then utilize the coded text in a cost–benefit analysis to assess benefit and burden distributive effects. This integrated methodological framework provides researchers with a tool to elucidate both the institutional patterns of interaction and distributive implications embedded in policy documents, revealing insights that single‐method approaches cannot capture. To demonstrate the utility of this integrated approach, we examine the policy design of two nonprofit open‐source software (OSS) incubation programs with contrasting characteristics: the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) and the Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo). We select these cases because: (1) they are co‐production alliances and have policy documents that articulate support for collective action; (2) their policy documents and group discussions are open access, creating an opportunity to advance text‐based policy analysis methods; and (3) they represent juxtaposed examples of high and low risk for collaboration settings, thereby providing two illustrative cases of the combined network and cost–benefit text‐based methodological approach. The network analysis finds that ASF policies, as a high‐risk setting, emphasize bonding structures, particularly higher reciprocity, which creates a context for cooperation. OSGeo, a low‐risk setting, has policies creating a context for bridging structures, evident in high brokerage efficiency, to facilitate coordination. The cost–benefit analysis finds that ASF policies balance the distribution of costs and benefits between ASF and projects, while in OSGeo, projects bear both costs and benefits. These findings demonstrate that the combination of network and cost–benefit analysis is an effective tool for utilizing text to compare policy designs. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: N holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|