Analyzing policy subsystem maturity by comparing discourse networks across policy arenas

Even though scholars agree that the formation of policy subsystems is an important topic, research on policy subsystems has only started to understand the dynamics of such emerging, or 'nascent', subsystems (e.g. Beverijk, Goedegebuure & Huisman, 2008; Stritch, 2015; Ingold, Fischer & Cairney, 2017). Specifically, previous work demonstrates how actors in nascent subsystems form coalitions to support and oppose policy change (e.g. Stritch, 2015; Ingold, Fischer & Cairney, 2017). Yet, unless proven to be stable over time, these actor coalitions can only be considered 'coalitions of convenience' (Weible et al., 2019). We contribute to the literature in arguing that the comparison of discourse networks across policy arenas allows us to analyze the maturity of policy subsystems. We hold that if the politicization of the subsystem issue is coherent across policy arenas, the maturity of a policy subsystem is higher. Specifically, we expect that in mature policy subsystems patterns of politicization, i.e. actor- and issue-configurations, should be similar across policy arenas. Contrariwise, if these configurations diverge across arenas, the policy subsystem is less mature. To illustrate our argument, we present the results of an original Discourse Network Analysis (DNA) (e.g. Leifeld, 2013) on Artificial Intelligence (AI) policy in Germany over three different policy arenas, the newspaper discourse, parliamentary debates and a government consultation of interest groups. Overall, this article contributes to the literature by proposing a conceptual and methodological approach to grasp policy subsystem maturity.