| This study examines factors that explain the structure of a regulatory policy with a particular focus on how distrust plays a role in shaping the structure of a regulatory policy network. Understanding the mechanisms that explain the structure of policy networks has been an important subject in the era of collaboration. However, previous research have almost exclusively studied network structures in the context of social service policies. Little is known about what factors explain network structures in the context of regulatory policies where policy decision-making processes end up being challenged in court or the competing groups tend to manipulate scientific information to gain an advantage in regulatory policymaking debates.;Using a local fracking policy network in NYS (pseudonymed "Brownsville") as a representative case of a regulatory policy network, quantitative social network analysis identifies the following factors that help determine the structure of a regulatory policy network: (1) scientific, technical, and technological knowledge exchange, (2) differences in policy goal (i.e. policy goal heterophily), and (3) distrust. This study conceptualizes distrust as a distinct concept from the absence of trust, and further explores the underlying sources of distrust and the reasons for staying connected with distrusted actors in the network through coding qualitative interview data with 18 key fracking policy actors in Brownsville. The qualitative findings suggest nine causes of distrust in the regulatory policy network: self-serving attitudes, closed-mindedness, misrepresentation, fearmongering, disturbance, deprivation, violation, lack of information sharing, and differences. Qualitative findings also present six meanings that network actors give to the interactions derived by distrust in the network, which include monitoring, comparing, confirming, balancing, convincing, and discouraging processes. Based on these findings, this study highlights distrust as a triggering mechanism that allows us to reconsider our acceptability of the distrusted actors' viewpoints, intentions, strategies, or behaviors in the regulatory policy network. This study concludes with a series of theoretical implications to network managements and policy networks as well as practical recommendations for public and nonprofit managers. |
