THEORIES OF THE POLICY PROCESS Sabatier, Paul A. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Chapter 1: The Need for Better Theories by Paul Sabatier I. Simplifying a Complex world with theories and frameworks The policy process is enormously complex: 1) involving 100s of actors 2) sometimes spanning decades 3) involving dozens of different programs in any specific policy domain (i.e., pollution) over multiple levels of government (local, state, federal) 4) involving policy debates that are often quite technical 5) involving deeply held values and interests A policy analyst must find a way to simplify the process if there is ever a hope to understand it. How is this done? Through a set of presuppositions (that later can be described as conceptual frameworks or theories). These set of presuppositions help in 1) figuring out what to look for and 2) how to classify or categorize the information For example, institutional rational choice tells us to look at institutions, individual actors and how they strategically maneuver institutional rules to pursue self-interested goals. How do we develop these presuppositions? 1) common sense: via experience we can set up assumptions and expectations 2) science: developing a set of propositions and relationships via a public method of deata collection and analysis and clearly defining the concepts and logically connecting them. The scientific method is considered superior because it is more open and provides a method that produces propositions that are “clear enough to be proven wrong” (note key term: empirically falsifiable) and is designed to be self-consciously, error seeking, and thus self-correcting. Terminology: Conceptual Framework: a set of variables and description of how they are related used to account for a phenomena. Theory: A theory provides a “denser” and more logically coherent set of relationships. Model: A representation of a specific situation. It is usually much more narrower in scope than a theory but more precise in its assuptions. What is a good theory: 1) scientific (open, clear, well-defined, give rise to falsifiable hypotheses); 2) should be subject to recent use and empirical testing; 3) be a positive theory (explain something), not just normative (judging something); 4) should address a broad range of factors considered important to political scientists. II. Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process The book discusses 7 conceptual frameworks: 1. The Stages Heuristic: divides the policy process into stages (agenda setting, policy formation, legitimation, implementation, evaluation, etc.). Popular in the 1970s and early 80s, but is now considered to lack a causal theoretical bases and overly simplistic and even inaccurate. 2. Institutional Rational Choice: how institutional rules alter the behavior of rational and strategic actors pursuing self-interested goals. Arguably the most developed and most widely used in the U.S. 3. The Multiple-Streams Framework: Views the policy process as composed of three streams of actors and processes: a problem stream (consisting of problems and their proponents); a policy stream (containing a variety of policy solutions and their proponents); and a politics stream (consisting of public officials and elections). These streams often operate independently except during “windows of opportunities” when some or all of the streams may intersect (and cause substantial policy change). 4. Punctuated-Equilibrium: policy process tends to feature long periods of incremental change punctuated by brief periods of major policy change. The latter come about when opponents manage to fashion a new “policy image or images” and exploit the multiple policy venues of the U.S. (courts, legislatures, executives at the local ,state and federal level. 5. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: focuses on the interaction of advocacy coalitions (each consisting of actors from a variety of institutions who share a set of policy beliefs). Policy change is a product of the competition and interaction between these coalitions. 6. Policy Diffusion Framework: developed to explain variation in the adoption of specific policy innovations, such as the lottery, across political jurisdictions. 7. The Funnel of Causality and other Frameworks in Large-N Comparative Studies: Describes a set of studies that use a variety of variables (institutional, socioeconomic, public opinion) to explain variation in policy outcomes across a large number of states. III. Omitted Frameworks 1. Arenas of Power: Developed by Lowi (1964, 1972), describes 3 or 4 policy types (regulatory; distributive; redistributive) and describes the different political dynamics and actors that each type has. Recently there has been little interest in this framework. 2. Cultural Theory: policy outcomes influenced by four different general ideologies (individualism; hierarchicalism; egalitarianism; fatalism. Critical concepts remain ambiguous. 3. Constructivist Framework: focuses on the “social construction” of policy problems, policy belief systems, and frames of references. Tends to be more popular in Europe than in U.S. True aspects of our reality are socially constructed but they are also connected to real phenomenon (socioeconomic conditions, political institutions and rules, etc.). 4. Policy Domain Framework: a rather complex set of concepts for guiding network analysis. It argues that within a given policy domain/subsystem, organizations with an interest in a given policy area develop patterns of resource exchange and seek to influence policy events. Chapter 2: Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework by Elinor Ostrom I. INTRODUCTION The author suggests that institutional rational choice is too big for one person to summarize, especially in just a small chapter in an edited book. So instead, Ostrom focuses on institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework. This is a framework that began to be developed in the 1980s to help integrate a broad range of work undertaken by political scientist, economists, sociologists, lawyers, anthropologists, geographers, social psychologists and others interested in how institutions affect the incentives confronting individuals and their resultant behavior. II. THE CHALLENGES OF STUDYING INSTITUTIONS. Ostrom discusses 6: 1. The term institutions refers to a broad type of entities 2. institutions are invisible 3. because there are many types of institutions, one needs input from a wide range of disciplines (economics, political science, sociology, psychology, etc). 4. Multiple disciplines means multiple languages/terms/concepts 5. rules (institutions) are created at multiple levels (global, federal, state, local, neighborhood, family) and so an analysis must be multi-level 6. combinations of rules are configural rather than additive. a. Multiple definitions There are multiple definitions so one of the first tasks a framework must do is pick one. "Rules, norms, and strategies adopted by individual operating within or across organizations." "Referring to the shared concepts used by humans in repetitive situations organized by rules, norms and strategies." b. Invisibility of Institutions Because institutions are fundamentally shared concepts, they exist in the minds of the participants and sometimes are shared as implicit knowledge rather than in an explicit and written form. Examples: Property-rights systems that farmers have constructed over time. c. Multiple Disciplines—Multiple Languages Scholars within different fields (history, political science, law, etc.) learn separate languages. One reason for developing IAD was to develop a common set of linguistic elements that can be used to analyze a wide diversity of problems. d. Multiple Levels of Analysis The nested structure of rules within rules, within further rules is a particularly difficulty analytical problem to solve for those interested in the study of institutions. Those who study institutions at the macro level may examine the constitutional structure. These affect collective choice decisions the micro level. Example voter turnout in Belgium and the United States, why is Belgium much higher? Constitutional factors, local political structures, individual socialization (individualism vs. communitarianism). e. Configural relationships Rules are not independent or additive. When rules are adopted they my interact with other rules in complex ways. Examples: Campaign finance with Constitutional protections of freedom of speech, Affirmative action with norms of fairness and equality, welfare in a capitalistic, free market system. A quorum rule requiring a high proportion of membership and a simple majority rule may be more restrictive than the pairing of a 2/3 majority combined with a quorum rule specifying a low proportion of membership attendance. III. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS, THEORIES, AND MODELS Research should be conducted at three levels: frameworks; theories, and models. The development and use of a framework helps identify the elements and relationships that need to be considered for institutional analysis (i.e. a general list of variables) Theories enable the analyst to specify which elements of the framework are particularly relevant to certain kinds of questions. A model makes precise assumptions about a smaller set of parameters and variables. Ostrom wants one common framework that will help organize a large and diverse discipline in analyzing institutions. Within that framework there will be a family of theories and within those theories models can be tailored to particular problems at hand. For policymakers and scholars interested in issues related to how different governance systems enable individuals to solve problems democratically, the IAD framework helps to organize diagnostic, analytical, and prescriptive capabilities. It also aids in the accumulation of knowledge from empirical studies and in the assessment of past efforts at reforms. IV. THE IAD FRAMEWORK One part of the framework is the identification of an action arena and the resulting patters of interactions and outcomes and the evaluation of these outcomes. The first step in analyzing a problem is to identify a conceptual unit—called an action arena— that can be utilized to analyze, predict, and explain behavior within institutional arrangements. An action situation can be characterized by seven clusters of variables: 1) participants; 2) positions; 3) outcomes; 4) action-outcome linkages, 5) the control that participants exercise; 6) information; 7) the cost and benefits assigned to outcomes All of these variables define the structure of the action area. Analysis proceeds toward the prediction of the likely behavior of individuals in such a structure. V. DIAGNOSIS & EXPLANATION WITHIN THE FRAME OF AN ACTION ARENA a. An action situation – overharvesting from a common-pool resource Where to start?: 1. the participants: who and how many individuals withdraw resources from this resources system 2. Positions: members of an irrigation association, chair of a committee, enforcement officers 3. Set of allowable actions: what harvesting technologies exist and/or allowed 4. Potential outcomes: what geographic region and what events in that region are affected by participants in these positions? What chain of events links actions to outcomes 5. the level of control over choice: do appropriators take the above actions on their own initiative, or do they confer with others (permits required, etc.). 6. the information available: how much information do uses have about the condition of the resources, about other actors costs and benefits, and about the costs of cumulative joint actions. 7. Cost and benefits of actions and outcomes: how costly are various actions to each type of actor, what kinds of benefits can be achieved as a result of various group outcomes. b. The Actor: Theories and Models of the Individual The IAD approach adopts the homo economicus assumptions of human behavior. 1. people have well-ordered preferences 2. complete information 3. maximize the net value of expected returns to themselves Sid note – it also assumes 1. Human behavior is purposive (Utility Maximizing) 2. People’s behavior is shaped by incentives and constraints (rational) 3. People are intelligent and creative (strategic) These assumptions can be tweaked: i.e. fallible learners, people make mistakes but certain institutional incentives may encourage them to learn from their mistakes. The most fully developed, explicit theories of individual choice compatible with the IAD framework are game theory and neoclassical economic theory. These theories, and the assumptions they hold, may not always be practical in certain settings. Therefore less strict assumptions may be adopted such as the assumption of bounded rationality-that persons are intendedly rational but only limitedly so—for the assumptions of perfect information and utility maximization (frequent example in judges in criminal justice). c. Predicting Outcomes within an Action Area Not easy. In some cases modeling behavior have made very accurate predictions (common-pool resource use – race to consume), but changing rules, adaptations, and learning often complicate prediction d. Evaluating outcomes 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Economic Efficiency (cost/benefit ratio) Fiscal Equivalence (those who benefit from a service should bear the cost) Redistributional Equity (it may be important to redistribute resources to the needy) Accountability (in a democratic polity accountability is critical) Conformance to General Morality (reduce cheating, bribes, ethical behavior being rewarded) 6. Adaptability (ability to adapt to unique or changing circumstances) VI EXPLANATION: VIEWING ACTION AREAS AS DEPENDENT VARIABLES Underlying the way analysts conceptualize action arenas are implicit assumptions about the rules individuals use to order their relationships, about attribute of states of the world and their transformations, and about the attributes of the community a. Rules - where rules originate - what is required, prohibited, or permitted - how rules are changed - types of rules, working rule, social habit, written rules, informal/formal - stability or fluctuation of a rule/ - share mean of a rule or multiple definitions of a rule b. Rule Configuration What are the rules in use that help structure an action situation? 1. Entry and Exit rules (residency, race, age, gender, etc.) 2. 3. 4. 5. Position rules (how to move from member to a higher position) Scope rules (rule that expand or limit the domain of an action) Authority rules (what actions can authorities take) Aggregation rules (Do certain actions require prior permission from, or agreement of, others?) 6. Information rules (what information must be held secret, what must be public) 7. Payoff rules (how big can sanctions be, how is conformance to rules monitored, who is responsible for sanctioning nonconformers, how systematic/reliable are sanctions imposed, are there positive rewards) c. Attributes of States of the World: Physical and Material Conditions What actions are physically possible? What are the physical attributes of the world?: size of the legislature how one can address the legislature (one at a time) when and where elections are held d. Excludability and the Free-Rider Problem Is it difficult or impossible to exclude an individual from a good (clean air, fire protection, etc.) This is critical in understanding actor behavior and policy/solution options. e. Subtractability of the flow rivalrous or nonrivalrous consumption. Does my use interfere with your use. Traffic congestion, over fishing, vs. national defense. This is important because it determines how we can distribute, regulate or even charge for certain services. Nonexcludable and rivalrous goods like a common pool resource like Cod require carefully crafted, detailed and fair rules to regulated and protect the good. Providing adequate roads, which are excludable and nonrivalrous, but with congestion is less complicated and requires less complicated mechanisms. f. Attributes of the Community Homogeneity or heterogeneity of the preferences of those living in the community. The term culture is often applied to this bundle of variables. Language, customs, trust, word of honor, etc. VII LINKING ACTION ARENAS Understanding that most of social reality is composed of multiple arenas linked sequentially or simultaneously. VIII MULTIPLE LEVELS OF ANALYSI Three levels of rules that cumulatively affect actions taken and outcomes obtained in any setting. 1. Operational rules directly affect day-to-day decisions made by the participants in any setting. 2. Collective-choice rules affect operational activities and results through their effects in determining who is eligible and the specific rules to be used in changing operational rules. 3. Constitutional-choice rules affect operational activities and their effects in determining who is elegible and the rules to be used in crafting the set of collective-choice rules that in turn affect the set of operational rules IX USES OF THE IAD FRAMEWORK Wide variety of uses: Used to study policy service delivery in metropolitan areas Common-pool resources Irrigation systems International Forestry Resources Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, 1999. [No longer a chapter in New Edition] The Stages Approach to the Policy Process, What has it done? Where is it going? Peter deLeon In his 1951 paper “The Policy Orientation”, Harold Laswell detailed the first formal usage of the policy sciences concept. Here, Laswell operationalized ideas about improving governance by improving the quality of information provided government. He focused his attention on policy process, i.e. the functional stages any given government policy goes through during its policy life. His approach was process oriented. Laswell emphasized what he termed “knowledge of the policy process”. He created a conceptual map or image of the major phases of collective acts, and proposed 7 stages of what he would later call the decision process; intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application, termination, and appraisal. This idea of a delineated-sequential process framework was much admired and advocated by numerous authors and academics. His policy process model directed an entire generation of research by policy scholars. Nevertheless, his approach of performing analyses of individual stages had a downside in that it oriented scholars toward looking at just one stage at a time thereby neglecting the entire process. Policy researchers came to view the process in one of three ways. First, they were viewed as a sharply differentiated set of activities. Second, as disjointed episodic processes rather than a more ongoing continuous one, or three, as a policy phenomenon that appeared to transpire in a short period of time, more like the typical policy maker’s fast paced working schedule than the real life span of a given policy. In the 1980’s academics such as Nakamura, Sabatier, and Jenkins-Smith proposed that the Laswell’s heuristic had serious limitations in that it neglected the role of ideas, particularly ideas involving the relatively technical aspects of policy debates. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith listed six complaints. 1) The stages model is not really a causal model and does not lend itself to prediction. 2) It does not provide a clear basis for empirical hypotheses testing. 3) It suffers from descriptive inaccuracy. 4) It suffers from a built-in legalistic top-down focus. 5) It emphasizes the policy cycle as the temporal unit of analysis. 6) It fails to provide a good vehicle for integrating learning throughout the process. Counter arguments supporting Laswell suggested that Sabatier’s and Jenkins-Smith’s six criticisms were overly narrow and overlooked the presence of what Laswell called a central theory that integrated policy events, and that the purpose of the seven steps was not prediction. Laswell had never suggested a theoretic model. Peter deLeon suggests that the stages process still has value in policy research. He argues that we must recognize that it is not a model in the formal sense of the word. It has strengths as a means for categorizing policy actions as they vary from stage to stage. The policy process framework can be useful in moving the policy sciences toward a set of policy oriented theories. Chapter 3 Multiple Streams Lens/approach (terms used interchangeably according to Zachariadis) Explains how policies are made o Specifically in its ability to explain policy formation such as agenda setting or decision making According to Multiple Streams (MS) lens, it offers three answers to the three following questions o How is the attention of the policy makers rationed? o How are the issued formed? o How and where is the search for solutions and problems conducted o Level and Unit of Analysis The MS lens is considered to be at the systemic level The unit of analysis of MS is the incorporation of the entire system MS focuses on the process of converting inputs into outputs, and subsequently pays great attention to the complexity of possible outputs rather than viewing it as a linear approach Ambiguity As previously mentioned, MS explains policy formation. But also only under conditions of ambiguity Definition o State of having may ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena As a result, it may create an environment of vagueness, confusion, or stress Ambiguity differs from uncertainty o The inability to accurately predict an event Temporal sorting Why MS is useful? o Theories that are grounded in rational behavior tend to not apply in these cases due to Problems and preferences aren’t fully known They are vague and constantly shifting Often difficult to determine if it is relevant or irrelevant Additionally paradoxical State agency told to strengthen oversight however budget is halved o Therefore time is a commodity that decision makers utilize and this framework of MS emphasizes the management of time rather than specific tasks Kingdon’s 3 Streams Problems Policies Politics o These streams are independent of one another, and in certain situations the streams are coupled with policy entrepreneurs o Moreover, sometimes the streams do converge and the development of policy formation is greatly enhanced st 1 Stream: Problems o Given various conditions that exist, policy makers further define those conditions as problems by the following criteria Indicators such as statistics are used to determine the importance of that condition i.e. # of highway deaths over x amount of years infant mortality rates dramatic events or crises may prompt more scrutiny to the condition feeding of current programs in place may warrant additional attention to the condition not all conditions become problems some conditions are views as problems due to the individual’s perception and how they choose to interpret the condition. Their evaluation may categorize it as a problem or leave it as a condition nd 2 Stream: Policies o Policies are ideas generated by various groups (think tanks, bureaucrats, congressional staff, academia) o There are a large number of ideas in the policy arena however only a small percentage are considered due to technical feasibility and value acceptability rd 3 Stream: Politics o consists of: national mood overall sentiment of a country at any given time which may or may not change pressure group campaigns the consensus of the interest group is indicative of the political arena administrative or legislative turnover new administrative staff is likely to create an environment of change o national mood and administrative change are most important in having an effect on agendas Coupling o An important aspect in Kingdon’s argument o During critical moments in time, there are opportunities when a stream may converge with another. At this time, which is defined as a “policy window” there opportunities for advocates to push their pet solutions o It is during these times that great policy change is made o If the opportunities pass and the policy maker refuses to invest the time, money, or energy, then they must usually wait until another policy window presents itself Differences between Kingdon and Zahariadis Z uses MS to explain full policy formation whereas Kingodn applied it to a pre-decision process Z’s interpretation of MS may be used at the comparative study of policy May shift the unit of analysis due to interpretation o Kingdon – entire national government o Z may be framed in privatization Specific issues and concerns Are streams independent? o Some argue that no they are not Changes in one stream may trigger change in another; therefore, the concept of coupling is less “fortutitous and more purposive and strategic” o Independent streams allow researchers to uncover rather than assume rationality What is the precise role of the policy window in coupling? o Kingdon defines 2 areas in which policy windows open Problems streams i.e. airplane crash Politics stream Outcome of an election o When these two streams converge, there is a greater possibility for policy change Do solutions always follow an incremental evolution in the policy stream? o Critics see MS as ahistorical and does not place enough emphasis on previous solutions to current situations Future Research MS needs to generate more falsifiable hypotheses Further research may question as to why some decisions tend to become garbage cans There is the need to anchor the framework within specific institutional contexts There is a need for a theory of action o A method for this to be applicable in real world situations How do policy makers cope with an ambiguous world The MS approach may link various stages of the policy making process under a single lens Chapter 3 Multiple Streams Framework Structure, Limitations, Prospects Nikolaos Zahariadis A good theory of choice provides answers to three questions 1) How is attention rationed? 2) How and where is the search for alternatives conducted? 3) How is selection biased? Definition – Multiple Streams (MS) - is a lens, perspective, or framework (may be used interchangeably) – that explains how policies are made by national governments under conditions of ambiguity. – Examined here only in its capacity to explain policy formation (Agenda setting and decision making) Theorizes at the systemic level, and it incorporates an entire system or a separate decision as the unit of analysis. In the tradition of the garbage can model of organizational choice. Collective choice is not merely the derivative of individual efforts aggregated in some fashion, but rather the combined result of structural forces and cognitive and affective processes that are highly context dependent. Definition – ambiguity – a state of having many ways of thinking about the same circumstances or phenomena. These ways may not be reconcilable, creating vagueness, confusion, and stress. Problems with ambiguity within organizations or governments : 1) Participation is fluid – turnover is high and participants drift form one decision to the next, and non-governmental actors exercise significant influence over the form certain decisions will take. 2) People often do not know what they want 3) Technology – an organizations process that turns input into products is unclear – participants may know their parts but not the “big picture” Choice is the collective output formulated by the push and pull of several factors. MS achieves this by assuming a temporal order – adoption of specific alternatives depends on when policies are made – and by proposing a theory of political manipulation. “Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a unique, irreplaceable resource, whose supply is totally inelastic” – because a primary concern of decision makers is to manage time effectively rather to manage tasks, it is reasonable to pursue a lens that accords significance to time rather than rationality. Assumptions 1) Individual attention or processing is serial, systemic attention or processing is parallel. – Individual can only attend one issue at a time. Creates small number that a policy maker can actually consider/ however division of labor allows for more issues to be attended to simultaneously A. the sequence in which solutions are considered strongly affects the decision outcome B. Parallel processing – the ability within political systems with many subsystems that facilitate attention to many issues simultaneously 2) Policy Makers operate under significant time restraints –suggests a sense of urgency in addressing them. Time constrains limit the range and number of alternative to which attention is given 3) The Streams flowing through the system are independent – if systems can do in parallel, then each element or stream may be conceived as having a life of its own Manipulation is the attempt to control ambiguity. Including the generation of facts to change people’s minds Three streams are identified as flowing through the policy system 1) Problems – various conditions that policy makers and citizens want addressed – Policy makers find out about them through Indicators, focusing events, and feedback 2) Policies – a “soup” of ideas that compete to win acceptance in policy networks. Ideas are generated by specialists in policy communities and are considered in various forums and forms. – Only a few ideas will ever receive serious consideration on the basis of technical feasibility and value acceptability 3) Politics – A. National mood – the notion that a large number of individuals in a given country tend to think along common lines and that the mood swings from time to time B. pressure group campaigns C. Administrative or legislative turnover Each is conceptualized as separate form the others at critical points in time, termed policy windows, the streams are coupled by policy entrepreneurs. The combination of all three streams into a single package dramatically enhances the chances that a specific policy will be adopted by policy makers. 1) Policy Windows - choices are made when the three streams are coupled or joined together at critical moments in time – “fleeting opportunities for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems” Can be opened by a compelling problem or by events in the political stream. 2) Policy Entrepreneurs – individuals or corporate actors who attempt to couple the three streams. They are more than mere advocates of a particular solution, they are power brokers and manipulators of problematic preferences and unclear technology. Definition – coupling – attaching problems to their solutions and find politicians receptive to their ideas – a policy’s chances of being adopted dramatically increase when all 3 streams are coupled in a single package. Processes – combination of the elements to produce choice 1) Attention – policy makers need to ration their attention among a limited number of issues. – MS argues this is resolved by institutional structure, the type of policy window that opens, and they symbols used to attract attention. Attention to particular issues is a function of opportunity, bias, formal position in an organization or government, and the number of issues competing for policy maker attention. 2) Search - the search for solutions and their availability are heavily influenced by the structure of policy networks within which the search is taking place – where policy makers search for solutions and how ideas germinate depends on the degree of integration of the policy communities 3) Selection – biased by the manipulating strategies and skills of policy entrepreneurs. Strategies include framing, affect priming, salami tactics, and the use of symbols. Not merely a function of perception but a question of skill at coupling. Limitations – General Concerns – 1) 2) 3) 4) Something fundamentally wrong with the underlying structure and logic Paradigmatic problems Empirically based rather than assumption driven? Problem may not be with the lens itself but with diffusion of knowledge of works in the field of policy studies. Specific Concerns – 1) Are the streams really independent? 2) Can hypotheses generated by MS be statistically tested? 3) While MS provides the better overall explanations because it explains more accurately a greater number of occurrences, it systematically under-explains cooperative policy Prospects – broader than the original application of only agenda –setting in a single national setting. It constitutes a lens of the policy process that is useful in a single case or in comparative applications across time, countries, issues, and policy domains. Implications – 1) MS amends arguments concerning the study of public policy developed explicitly by reference to narrow policy communities 2) The lens address the issues of ideas in public policy – solutions are developed not simply on the basis of efficiency or power, but also on the basis of equity. Political ideology is a good heuristic in an ambiguous and rapidly changing world 3) MS subscribes to the notion that institutions make things possible, but people make things happen While MS provides the better overall explanations because it explains more accurately a greater number of occurrences, it systematically under-explains cooperative policy Chapter 5: “The Network Approach.” Silke Adam and Hanspeter Kriesi. Main Topics What is a policy network? Clusters of actors, each with an interest, or stake in a given policy, and the capacity to determine policy success or failure. Governmental organizations are no longer the central steering actors in the policy process. Networks are self-organizing – they are autonomous and self-governing and they resist governmental influences. Network Management: a form of public management consisting of coordinating strategies from different participants with varied goals and preferences in regards to a problem/policy measure within an interorganizational network. o Success depends on: Number of actors involved, Complexity of policy networks, Degree that network is self-referential, Absence of conflicts of interest, and the Cost involved. Arguments Two-dimensional typology: Networks are characterized by two types of variables – composition variables (actors’ attributes) and structural variables (types of ties between actors). 1st dimension: aspect of capabilities and distribution of power. Is power concentrated in the hands of one dominant actor or a coalition of actors or whether it is shared between actors or coalitions of actors (fragmented). 2nd dimension: degree of cooperation among actors and actor coalitions (conflict/competition, bargaining/negotiation, cooperation). By combining the two dimensions (distribution of power & type of interaction) 6 types of policy networks can be derived. Type of Interaction Conflict Bargaining Cooperation Asymmetric Hierarchical Concentration Dominance bargaining cooperation Symmetric Horizontal Fragmentation Competition bargaining cooperation Dominance: where a dominant coalition with a policy monopoly is challenged by a minority coalition. Competition: where the power differential between the challengers and the dominant coalitions is less pronounced. Horizontal Cooperation: cooperation on equal terms between countries/institutions. Hierarchical Cooperation: tiered cooperation, not equal. Asymmetric bargaining: Unbalanced, disproportionate bargaining Symmetric bargaining: Equal, proportionate bargaining Actors are regarded as mutually interlinked. The type of interaction within a policy network determines the form of policy change. Type of Interaction Distribution of Power Conflict Bargaining Cooperation Low to Moderate moderate potential for potential for Low potential for rapid (serial) incremental change- maintenance Concentration shift change of status quo Distribution of Power Fragmentation Moderate to high potential High potential for for rapid incremental (serial) shift change Low to moderate potential for changemaintenance of status quo Findings The same policy means different things to different countries There is not a single determinant of policy networks, rather a complex combination of factors needs to be taken into account to understand variation in policy networks. Policy networks are connected to policy outcomes and also the type of change that creates these outcomes. Policy Recommendations Adam and Kriesi suggest that future research delve into showing whether and how network analysis improves our understanding of policy outcomes and change. Future hypotheses need to account for complex interactions of transnational, national and policy-domain specific context. With that being said, future research should not Since the network approach is not exactly a theory, it draws upon hypotheses and models from other theories. There is a risk of relying on factors that are arbitrarily included. One must be careful when linking approaches in order to create information that will increase the potential of network approaches. Future research should no longer aim at national-level generalizations across all domains, but needs to look at the combined impact of different types of determinants. CHAPTER 5: The Network Approach Policy network analyses attempts to explain policy development by examining networks of actors concerned with a given policy problem across public and private sectors and throughout different levels of governance. The policy network concept is strongly influenced by interorganizational theory, which stresses actors are dependent on each other because they need each other’s resources to achieve their goals. Some premises include: o Regular communication and frequent exchange of information lead to the establishment of stable relationships between actors and the coordination of their mutual interests. o Governmental organizations are no longer the central steering actors in the policy process. o Networks are self-organizing – they are autonomous and self-governing and they resist governmental influences. There are three main approaches to using the network concept: 1. Policy networks as a specific form of governance. 2. Typologies of network structure in a policy subsystem. 3. Formal network analysis. 1. Policy networks as a specific form of governance. o Policy networks constitute a new form of governance characterized by informal, decentralized, and horizontal relationships. o It emphasizes that the policy process is not completely and exclusively structured by formal institutional arrangements. o There seems to be a blurring of boundaries between the public and private spheres. Points to the possibility that actors who were formally responsible for political decisions are not even the most influential decision makers in policy formation and implementation. o Network management – form of public management that consists of coordinating strategies of actors with different goals and preferences with regard to a certain problem or policy measure within an existing network of interorganizational relations. o Success of network management depends on : 1. The number of actors – the fewer the actors, the easier it becomes to reach an agreement 2. The complexity of the network – an increase in diversity and numbers make the network more complex. 3. The degree to which networks are self-referential. If highly referential there may be opportunities for intervention from the outside will be limited. 4. Absence of sharp conflicts of interest. 5. Costs. The higher the costs involved, the less likely actors will take up the task of network management. 2. Typologies of networks. o Policy networks are characterized by 2 types of variables: Composition of variables – actor’s attributes. o Mostly concerned with the specific capabilities actors have and the distribution of these capabilities over the set of actors o Power structure within a policy subsystem. o Concerned with whether power is concentrated in one dominant actor or coalition of actors or shared between actors or coalition of actors. o Distinguish between state actors and 3 types of actors in the system of interest intermediation ( Political parties, interest groups, and Nongovernmental organizations/social movement organization) in coalitions. Structural variables –specific types of ties between actors. o Concerned with the degree of cooperation among actors and actors coalition – 3 forms: 1. (Predominance of) bargaining/negotiation. 2. (Predominance of) conflict/competition. 3. (Predominance of) cooperation. Difficulty establishing connections between particular configuration of policy networks and policy dynamics. o Combining the two dimensions you can get 6 types of policy networks that can determine the potential for, and type of policy change. Type of Interaction Conflict Bargaining Cooperation Asymmetric Hierarchical Concentration Dominance bargaining cooperation Symmetric Horizontal Fragmentation Competition bargaining cooperation Dominance: where a dominant coalition with a policy monopoly is challenged by a minority coalition. Competition: where the power differential between the challengers and the dominant coalitions is less pronounced. Horizontal Cooperation: cooperation on equal terms between countries/institutions. Hierarchical Cooperation: tiered cooperation, not equal. Asymmetric bargaining: Unbalanced, disproportionate bargaining Symmetric bargaining: Equal, proportionate bargaining Distribution of Power 3. Formal Network Analysis. o Variable based approach. o Standard procedures to analyze network structures. Recognize networks constitute a system of actors. Determine the set of relevant actors belonging to the system – formal organizations or corporate actors and their individual actors. Collect data for the attributes of the actors and relationships obtained between them. Standard questions in interviews can be used. Distributions of power data can be collected by reputational, positional, or participation-based indicators. Interactions can be operationalized by interview data and involvement in specific policy areas. 2 techniques are used for identifying coalition structures: Structural equivalence – 2 or more actors jointly occupy a structurally equivelant position. To the extent that they have similar patterns and ties with other actors. Subgroup cohesion – aggregates actors who maintain dense mutual interactions s “cliques.” o Generative approach – Agent based approach. Does not prespecify the interaction system. Instead specifies the mechanisms responsible for generating the interactions between the agents and then simulates the construction of the interaction system based on theoretical assumptions about the generative mechanisms. o Findings: The same policy means different things to different countries There is not a single determinant of policy networks, rather a complex combination of factors needs to be taken into account to understand variation in policy networks. Policy networks are connected to policy outcomes and also the type of change that creates these outcomes. Policy networks can be linked to policy change. The extent and speed of change is clearly influenced by a networks capacity to mediate, and often often minimize, the effect of change. Policy networks clearly show network structures are connected to specific policy outcomes and type of change that creates these outcomes. o The type of interaction within the policy networks determines the form of policy change. o The degree of concentration of power is expected to determine the potential for change. The potential is highest in fragmented power. Distribution of Power Conflict Type of Interaction Bargaining Cooperation Concentration Low to Moderate moderate potential for potential for rapid (serial) incremental shift change Moderate to high potential High potential for for rapid incremental (serial) shift change Fragmentation o o o o Policy Recommendations Low potential for change- maintenance of status quo Low to moderate potential for changemaintenance of status quo Adam and Kriesi suggest that future research delve into showing whether and how network analysis improves our understanding of policy outcomes and change. Future hypotheses need to account for complex interactions of transnational, national and policy-domain specific context. With that being said, future research should not Since the network approach is not exactly a theory, it draws upon hypotheses and models from other theories. There is a risk of relying on factors that are arbitrarily included. One must be careful when linking approaches in order to create information that will increase the potential of network approaches. Future research should no longer aim at national-level generalizations across all domains, but needs to look at the combined impact of different types of determinants Chapter 7: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF): An Assessment by Paul Saatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith The ACF emerged out of 1) a search for an alternative to the stages approach, 2) a desire to synthesize the best features of the top-down and bottom-up approaches, 3) a commitment to incorporate technical information into a more prominent role in the policy process. The Initial Version of ACF Based o n5 premises 1) need to address the role played by technical information (the role of the media, think tanks, etc.) 2) requires a time perspective of at least a decade so that information can be disseminated, absorbed, and evaluated. 3) the most useful unit of analysis is the policy subsystem (or domain) rather than any particular political institution or organization. 4) conception of coalitions needs to break the traditional ideas of iron triangles and include 1) journalists, researchers and policy analysts and 2) actors at all levels of government (local, state, international). 5) public policies/programs incorporate implicit theories about how to achieve their objectives and can be conceptualized in much the same way as belief systems. Structural Overview of ACF OUTSIDE THE POLICY SUBSYSTEM Two set of variables: 1. Relative Stable Parameters – constitution, sociocultural values, natural resources 2. External (system) Events – socioeconomic changes, realigning elections, policy decisions from other subsystems. These influence the constraints and resources of subsystem actors INSIDE THE POLICY SUBSYSTEM The belief system made up of three components: 1. deep core – basic normative beliefs such as the relative valuation of individual freedom versus social equality. 2. policy core – basic normative commitments and causal perception across an entire domain or subsystem (e.g., relative importance of economic development versus environmental protection). 3. secondary aspects – a set of narrower beliefs regarding specific attributes of a policy Policy-Oriented Learning and Policy Change Changes in beliefs, attitudes, policy preferences, strategies, behavior due to new information. Note: 1. members of a coalition may resist new information if it contradicts core beliefs. 2. accumulation of technical information may influence policy even if no cross-policy learning or belief change occurs simply because other important actors, judge, agency head, president, etc. learns something. Hypotheses: 1. lineup of allies and opponents tends to be stable 2. actors within a coalition will have substantial consensus on issue pertaining to the policy core 3. will admit to defects in secondary aspects of belief system but unlikely to admit policy core errors 4. Policy remains stable as long as the coalition structure remains the same 5. Policy core attributes of a governmental program are unlikely to change in the absence of significant external changes. 6. Policy learning across coalitions will more likely occur if the coalition has the technical resources to engage in an informed debate and if the debate is not simply about deep core beliefs 7. Quantitative date facilitates policy learning than qualitative learning 8. Problems dealing with natural systems are more conducive to policy-oriented learning than problems involving purely social or political systems. 9. Learning I more likely if there is a professional forum with both sides participating Empirical Studies of ACF and what they tell us 1. ACF is well tested and investigated, but unfortunately most of the research does not systematically gather data on actors’ beliefs. 2. Empirical studies generally support most of the hypotheses with a few minor revisions, such as that it 1) applies best to “mature” policy subsystems; 2) government agencies generally are more moderate than interest groups (even if in the same coalition). 3. Assumes individuals in coalitions are rational but relies more heavily on the research and literature on cognitive and social psychology (i.e. biases and constraints in processing information). Preexisting beliefs constitute a lens through which actors perceive the world. 4. consistent with “prospect theory”, where actors weigh losses more heavily than gains. 5. Defining and measuring Policy core beliefs was ambiguous and is beginning to be specified. 6. for example: defining a set of topics under the policy core beliefs: a. basic cause of the problem b. method of financing the policy solution c. participation of the public vs. experts vs. elected officials d. policy core policy preferences (not just secondary aspects). 7. New hypothesis is needed: Different coalitions have different levels of cohesion depending on the type of policy goal (symbolic, social or political goal vs. material goals) 8. ACF needs to address organizational needs and maintenance (solving collective action problems). 9. How to map a policy subsystem and also apply it to more specific policy domains (rather than a larger subsystem). 10. What about nascent vs. mature subsystems. Subsystems may appear from new problems or definitions of problems. A new subsystem might be more open ore permeable while older ones more exclusive. Strategies may differ due to experience, collective action problems may be less in older coalitions. Solving the collective action problem of forming a coalition 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. sharing policy beliefs repeated interactions benefits and who gets them are clearly identified benefits are distributed fairly (equal to share costs) some type of monitoring of members members see opponents as powerful Strategies of Coalitions 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. lobbying legislature about funding issues influencing elections affect public opinion coalitions venue shop, looking for sympathetic actors strategies may differ depending on venue (level of government) Predicting Major policy change 1. major policy change is predicted to be infrequent 2. disturbances in the external variables (socioeconomic conditions, etc.), are necessary but not sufficient 3. institutional rules make policy change more difficult 4. Levels of change may differ depending on the level of government 5. Policy change occurs via coalition competition; different factors will dictate weather the change in power between coalitions is a quick or slow process. 6. Or when all major coalitions view a continuation of the status quo unacceptable. Chapter 7: The Advocacy Coalition Framework – Innovations and Clarifications By Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher M. Weible Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) was developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith arising from their interest in understanding the role that technical information plays in the policy process. ACF is interested in policy change over a decade or more. This framework was an attempt to address problems involving: Substantial goals conflicts Important technical disputes Multiple actors from various levels of government ACF starts with three “foundation stones”: 1. Macro-level 2. Micro-level 3. Meso-level These foundation stones affect our belief and policy change through two critical paths: 1. Policy Subsystem – Consisted of participants who routinely look to influence policy within a policy subsystem: including the traditional “iron triangle” (legislators, agency officials, and interest group leaders), researchers (assumed to be the central player in a policy process), and journalists. 2. External Factors – The behavior of policy participants are affected by two set of exogenous factors: Fairly Stable Factors rarely change within periods of a decade or so and therefore rarely providing the impetus for behavioral or policy change within a policy subsystem. Dynamic External Factors include changes in socioeconomic conditions, changes in the governing coalition, and policy decisions from other subsystems. Their ability to change substantially over periods of a decade or so make them critical factors in affecting major policy change. The ACF argues that: Policy participants strive to translate components of their belief system into actual policy before their opponents can do the same, which can lead to “devil shift.” Policy participants will seek allies with people who hold similar policy core beliefs. Advocacy coalitions provide the most useful tool for aggregating the behavior of the hundreds of organizations and individuals involved in a policy system over periods of a decade or more. The ACF conceptualizes a three-tiered hierarchical structure: 1. Deep core – basic normative belief such as the relative valuation of individual freedom versus social equality. 2. Policy core – basic normative commitments and causal perception across an entire domain or subsystem (e.g., relative importance of economic development versus environmental protection). 3. Secondary aspects – a set of narrower beliefs regarding specific attributes of a policy. One criticism of ACF is that it provides insufficient justification that actors with similar policy core beliefs actually coordinate their behaviors into coalitions. Three important additions to the ACF since 1999 are: 1. The context within which coalitions operate. In addition to the existing two sets of variables external to the policy subsystem (stable system parameters and external events), a new category of variables was created known as “coalition opportunity structures” to mediate between stable system parameters and the subsystem. 2. A typology of coalition resources Policy-relevant resources that policy participants can use in their attempt to influence public policy (e.g., public opinion, information, skillful leadership). 3. Two new paths to major policy change (Internal Shocks and Negotiated Agreements) The new revision to the ACF acknowledges that major internal shocks can also occur from within a policy subsystem and can lead to major policy change. For ACF to be relevant to the study of collaborative institutions and corporatist regimes, modifications were necessary. The basic principles of the ACF have not changed since its inception but they have been expanded and clarified: 1. The model of the individual has remained rooted in social psychology. 2. The focus of policymaking has always been the policy subsystem. 3. The key political actor has always been the advocacy coalition held together by common beliefs. 4. The concern with the role of science in policy – the core stimulus for developing the ACF in the first place – has remained, but there’s better use of professional forums to facilitate learning across coaltions. Theories of the Policy Process: Chapter 8 Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research Frances Stokes Berry and William D. Berry Focus of the chapter: The chapter focuses on two models of policy research on the state level, innovation and diffusion. Berry and Berry focus on explaining and identifying the flaws in existing quantitative models that are commonly used in policy research. They go on to present a new model that they feel is more comprehensive and useful to the field and discuss new directions that they feel researchers should move in so as to improve policy studies research. This chapter deals with policy innovation not invention and uses individual U.S. states as the unit of analysis. Two primary models: Internal Determinants o Internal state developments determine whether or not policy will be implemented and when a policy will be put in place o Political events, constituent pressure, internal economics, social characteristics of a state population and other unique state level measures are the key to policy decisions o States are considered to be independent, unique, and unmoved by outside forces o Dimensions of the Model The Dependent Variable Interval level – year of adoption Ordinal level – rank of the state ordered by year of adoption Dichotomous variable indicating adoption and date Recent studies have used the probability of adoption as the dependent variable o Can change over time o Defined for each state at one point o Can focus on one policy or a set of policies Hypotheses States that are bigger, more economically advanced, have better resources, and have more political/institutional structure will be more likely to enact policies States need a motivation to innovate and the ability to put those innovations into practice Data on the population and characteristics of the state will be needed to determine the preferences of lawmakers and the state Other factors will also be influential, timing of policy in relation to elections is an example of this o If politicians are single minded-seekers of reelection then they won’t increase taxes in an election year o The electorate has a short memory so unpopular policy will be passed early in a term Assumptions Outside actors or interactions with other states or the federal government have not effect on policy within a state o Testing Internal determinates: Cross-sectional regression (probit or logit) Causes problems with independent variables due to timing issues and the ability to capture the true picture of characteristics within a state when policies are adopted Can not definitively determine if a states actions are a cause of internal characteristics or diffusion States that are near each other tend to be very similar and have policies that address similar issues Policy Diffusion o Several different types of diffusion models National Interaction State leaders communicate with other leaders in similar positions from other states and share information and policy ideas Heavy emphasis on the assumption of learning (discussed below) Model is based on a linear equation that, when graphed based on time, shows an S-shaped pattern of policy adoption o Assumes that all states that do not have a given policy are equally likely to adopt it o The dependent variable (the proportion of new states adopting a policy in a given time period) limits the depth of analysis Ignores state characteristics and outside actions by other states Regional Diffusion Geographically arranged blocks of states influence each other Testing is reliable in identifying regional diffusion when it happens but does not provide any evidence that would distinguish regional diffusion from the neighbor model Neighbor Model Closely related to regional diffusion – assumes that policy is a result of interaction with states that share a border with the state being studied Leader-Laggard Some states are leaders in policy implementation while others are followers Leaders should tend to share certain characteristics (economic affluence, strong bureaucratic apparatus, professional legislature) o Discussed by Collier and Messick – hierarchical model o Problems included a failure to identify leader states, an inability to predict the order of adoption among followers, and no accounting of internal changes as a factor Vertical Influence States emulate federal policies o Grants and funding incentives push state policies o Federal mandates o Assumptions of Diffusion Models States learn from one another – they will enact policies that they perceive to be working in other places States compete with each other for resources and prestige Seek advantages over other states Seek to avoid being placed at a disadvantage Public pressure created by media coverage of policies in other states that make the citizenry of a given state desire a certain policy o Testing Diffusion Models Testing: Time series regression Can not tell the difference between national interaction, regional diffusion (neighbor or regional) and internal impetus of policy innovation Tests can give ample evidence that there has been some type of diffusion but how and why this takes place is unclear and often give false positive results Proposed Changes (A New Model using History Analysis) o Unit of analysis: American state eligible to adopt a policy o Dependent variable: probability that state (i) will adopt at time (t) o Independent variables: behavior of other states at (t) in regard to policy; motivation of public officials (public opinion, election cycle, incentives, etc.); Resources/obstacles that will aid/hinder the policy implementation and the presence or absence of other policies in a state that would effect their likelihood to adopt the policy in question o 4 anticipated outcomes Independent: the policy being adopted is independent of all other actions Complementary: one policy increases the chance of another policy being adopted Contingent: one policy will not be adopted without the adoption of another policy (B will not be enacted if A is not enacted) Substitute: a policy is enacted as a substitute for a similar but less attractive policy (cigarette tax instead of making cigarettes illegal; passing the tax makes it less likely that the ban will be passed) The benefit is that, while still testing diffusion, this model takes into consideration internal factors that affect the decisions of policymakers o Testing: Event History Analysis Logit or probit maximum likelihood techniques Create a set of states for a given policy that could, conceivably, adopt the policy in a given year Uses independent variables to assess the likelihood of adoption and the change in the probability of adoption caused a shift in one of the independent variables (in this case you would hold all other variables constant) o Problems: One major problem is the vast amount of data that would be needed to do this on a large scale While this model allows for testing of several different ideas about policy innovation at one time it does not account for situations in which there is a large struggle over a policy, the policy fails, and then is out of play for a period of time after the let down In this model, it would appear to be equally likely or more likely to pass the next year then it was the year before, but this is not true o Conclusion: Previous ways of studying policy innovation do not create accurate or realistic test situations These models all tested theories in isolation which is almost never present The theories themselves were valid and useful they just needed to be tested differently Event history analysis is a positive step toward a more realistic simulation of policy innovation when applied to specific policies (not useful in looking at policy sets) Data requirements may limit the scope of research In many cases researchers will have to choose between a large sample size and in-depth analysis However, more work will need to be done in order to account to certain aspects of the policy process that are still left out (i.e.: institutional memory) Chapter 9: The Policy Process and Large-N Comparative Studies by William Blomquest Early political science simply described institutions. The examination of the policy process was a much later event. The comparative policy studies occurred even later (1960s – i.e., Thomas Dye). They generally used an approach to examine similarities and differences in the operation and elements of a system in a large number of governmental units and how it influenced policy outcomes (referred to as DSH approach). 1. A focus on the U.S. States. Why? 2. a debate of which is important: external (environmental) or internal (political) factors 3. early studies suggested environmental factors dominated 4. until new methods were used to fish out the importance of political factors 5. Much of the studies follow a Systems theory approach (David Easton) where inputs are translated by a “black box” into policy outputs. 6. There have been attempts to open up the black box, or at least elaborate on the process of inputs and outputs (e.g., Hofferbert’s funnel). Critiques of the DSH approach 1. often examines variation in public expenditure levels. Why is this problematic? 2. Alternatively, the approach may look at a single policy event. Why is this a problem? 3. Often cross-sectional, with only limited examination of long term processes, therefore it cannot explain policy trends over time. 4. the variable oriented approach does tell us much about why these variables matter. 5. therefore DSH is more of a model then a theory or conceptual framework. 6. What is the unit of analysis? The state? Who is Nevada? Who is Florida? 7. What about local politics and federal politics (federalism). 8. Although the systems theory approach examines “demands and supports”, it neglects where those demands and supports come from and the role of beliefs, ideas, and information in the process. 9. Inductive and data driven Merits of the DSH approach 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. it has dominated much of the public policy literature an attempt to look at macrolevel factors actors are constrained by larger environmental constraints identified enduring patterns which can help in theory development While many scholar argue that policy change over time is limited, the DSH comparative approaches found variation between units and used that variation as the phenomenon to study. CHAPTER 9 THE POLICY PROCESS AND LARGE N COMPARATIVE STUDIES I. Comparative Policy Studies (1960’s, Behavioral Revolution) Shift from focus on institutions to an analysis of their products (policy) o Examination of similarities/differences that offer clues about how policy is generated/changed o Large N studies w/sophisticated data analysis techniques were employed Richard Dawson & James Robinson (1963)- “Inter-Party Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States” o Do environmental or political variables matter more? II. Dye, Sharkansky, and Hofferbert (DSH) Approach Exploration of cross-systems differences in a host of independant variables to see which are/not associated w/differences in policy indicators Basic Approach o Specify IV hypothesized to differentiate cases from one another with respect to some policy, including: Socioeconomic factors Economic measures Demographic indicators Mass political behavior o o Governmental institutions Political culture/ Regionalism DV = policy “outputs” Analyze w/statistical methods III. Reasons Why DSH has failed to provide a theory of Policy Analysis Policy output typically depicted as public expenditure (a troublesome yet unavoidable measure) o Doesn’t account for cost/price variation among localities, nor spending efficiency, nor corruption Policy measured as an event o Which policy-adoption event should be selected? Every single bill, court decision, and administrative regulation? o Context of the policy (ie OSHA) Primary, if not exclusive, focus on policy formation and adoption o Data-selection bias of initial policy adoptions limit study of policy change over time o Others contend most policy change occurs after in a category called policy modification or policy replacement, also policy abandonment Under-Described Political Systems o Failure to incorporate existence of multi-organizational governments, multi-governmental systems, and possibility of joint/sequential action among multiple actors o “Black Box” criticism- and idealized, single, abstracted decisionmaker Lack of Human Agency o Outputs presented as automatic (incorrect explanations of variables) o Level of Action fixed (no account for additional levels of structure or institutional framework) o Scope of Conflict fixed (no account for policy proponent to maneuver policy through different channels) o Tendency to neglect the importance of belief, ideas, and information; individuals treated as statistical cyphers IV. Merits of DSH Approach Early pioneer in shifting attention from only institutions and political actors in policy analysis Showed that economic development, region, and culture matter Yielded some empirical base, reliable patterns in policy studies Chapter 10: A Comparison of Frameworks, Theories, and Models of Policy Processes by Edella Schlager How do we compare, distinguish, and evaluate the following models, frameworks, and theories presented in this volume? Frameworks: bound inquiry and direct the attention of the analyst to critical features of the social and physical landscape. It organizes inquiry but does not provide explanations. Frameworks may vary by: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. type of actors variable development – identifying a general class of factors Units of analysis level of analysis scope Theories: Theories place values (or weights) on some of the variables identified as important in a framework, posit relationships among variables, and make predictions. Theories may vary or be compared on the following traits: 1. model of the individual – how individuals behavior, are motivated, organized, etc. (bounded rationality) 2. collective action – policy change occurs as a result of collective action 3. Institutions 4. Policy change – some focus on major policy change, some single events, laws, regulations, etc. 5. Boundaries and scope of inquiry Models According to Ostrom “Models make precise assumptions about a limited set of parameters and variables.” Models allow for a test of specific aspects of a theory. But models can sometimes be created outside a specific or well-developed theory (example?) Chapter 11: Fostering the Development of Policy Theory by Paul Sabatier Scientific theory development should be: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. logical clear causal drives empirically falsifiable scope should be clear but also broad should be “fertile”, not obvious and lead to interesting predictions Present status of policy theory? Lots of mountains, some with trails connecting them. Most impressive mountain? The Origins and Development of Theories Inductive v. Deductive From modest frameworks to more extensive frameworks and/or theories 1. be clear enough to be proven wrong 2. start with concepts as abstract as possible 3. think causal process 4. develop a coherent model of the individual 5. work on internal inconsistencies and interconnections 6. develop a long-term research program involving both theoretical elaboration and empirical testing among a network of scholars. 7. Use multiple theories Chapter 11: FOSTERING THE DEVELOPMENT OF POLICY THEORY Main Point: After a brief review of the current status of policy theory, Paul Sabatier suggests several guidelines to for improving it even further. He asserts that most of the frameworks discussed need to be developed into more logically coherent and denser theoretical frameworks, and eventually into fully developed theories. His strategy is to use the most developed frameworks to date, IAD and ACF, in an effort to discern the most productive guidelines for theoretical development. Findings: The guidelines establishing what a theory must consist of are that it should be: 1. Logically Coherent- major terms clearly defined, and major relationships logically coherent. Without both the implications of a set of propositions is unclear. 2. Have clear causal drivers and a sense of causal process- identify critical causal drivers (major moving events within the system), and how those drivers affect other variables. 3. Some of the major propositions must be falsifiable- the validity of untested aspects of the theory can be assessed. 4. The intended scope should be clear and relatively broad. 5. The theory should be worthy to produce a large number of interesting predictions per assumption and give rise to nonobvious implications. Sabatier believes logical coherence is the most important of the guidelines, as the others rely heavily on it. He suggests some authors such as (Hill, 1997) completely miss it. However, he holds the opinion that based on the body of work he has studied, most Political Science studies or literature, sets out only models (a representation of a specific situation) and frameworks (sets of variables and relationships that should be examined in order to explain a set of phenomena). A theory provides a denser and more logically coherent set of relationships, that self consciously seek to explain a set of phenomena. Most theoretical constructs would constitute a framework or a model, by definition. For Example: Principal-agent literature in PoliSci can be seen as a rather minimal conceptual framework, identifying the relationship between principals and agents in institutional settings as its scope. There are numerous models of the effects of specific interventions by principals on the behavior of a specific set of agents. But there is nothing yet resembling a theory. Such a theory would have to identify the goal structure, the information assumptions, and other resources available to the principals and agents, as well as identify other variables, and to provide a hypothesis about what strategies a principal would find effective, null, and counterproductive. Currently, the closest body of work to resemble a theory is Institutional Analysis and Development and Advocacy Coalition Framework. Both research programs are used by a diverse and large body of scholars, and seem to be increasing in coherence and scope. They should provide clues as to how to move from simple frameworks to developed frameworks and theories, because Sabatier said so. He later elaborates and suggests that IAD and the ACF have been so successful and elaborated on so much, because they are both such clearly established frameworks (concepts and propositions), whereas other more vague frameworks such as Kingdons multiplestreams framework (1984), have attracted much less elaboration and empirical testing. Recommendations: Traditionally there are 2 processes of theory development: inductive and deductive. Inductive being an accumulation of "facts" from empirical studies, and deductive the author begins with a set of fundamental axioms and definitions and logically derives from them a more elaborate set of propositions, some of which are falsifiable. Sabatier believes inductive is not a complete form of theory of development because the theory starts from a positivist view of perception that assumes we can observe facts unmediated by prior beliefs or presuppositions. Deductive seems to error in that it assumes theories are developed in a vacuum, unconstrained by perceived regularities in portions of the phenomena of interest. Sabatier suggests a third scenario in theory development, which entails a scholar becoming dissatisfied with an existing conceptual framework or body of theory, develops an alternative framework to address its shortcomings, and then progressively elaborates that framework until it becomes a more fully developed theory over time. He believes IAD and ACF serve as a general guideline, as they set out the clearest frameworks, and are able to be added upon and reworked because of this. Clear, explicit hypotheses attract serious scrutiny by other scholars. However, the concepts within the theory should be abstract, because broader propositions are more likely to be falsified in some situations, and confirmed in others. That, in turn, should lead to identifying intervening variables or conditional relationships that is to an elaboration of a theory. Another modification to the current theory developing process would be to think in terms of causal process. That is, identifying the mechanisms by which A affects B, which, in turn, affects C, and so on. Next, a coherent model of the individual must be developed. Such a model should include the goals or rules fundamentally driving the actor's capacity to acquire and process information, their decision rules, and their politically relevant resources. Once a framework and model are set up correctly, it should be an important goal to work out internal inconsistencies and interconnections. Here is another fundamental task in developing minimum frameworks into much denser, internally consistent frameworks and theories. This process usually involves both empirical work that identifies inconsistencies and anomalies and then logically thinking about how to resolve them. It seems the best way to work out inconsistencies and interconnections would be to develop a long-term research program involving both theoretical elaboration and empirical testing among a network of scholars. This may be the most important guideline. This should stimulate revision and elaboration of the theory, although this may take some time--at least a decade! Finally, it is likely advantageous to use multiple theories. First, this guideline provides some guarantee against assuming that a particular theory is the valid one. Second, it leads to an appreciation that different theories may have comparative advantages in different setting. Third, knowing other theories should make one much more sensitive to some of the implicit assumptions in one's favored theory. As a side note, funding and publication, as institutional incentives, would have to be integral in the development of more dense theories.