Lecture 5
Health Politics
Ana Rico
Room L4-46, rico@bmg.eur.nl
2005
Actor-centered theories:
II. The role of the state
OUTLINE OF THE SESSION
1. Introduction
A. Concepts
Actors, organizations, institutions
B. Actor-centred theories

Theses and arguments

Types of actor-centered theories
2. State-centred theories

Concepts: state, government, political system

Theses and arguments

Evidence

Criticisms

Policy implications
(3. State-society theories, L6)
2005

CONCEPTS (1): Actors
The word “actor” has two (slightly contradictory) connotations...
Policy and political actors

Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in
politics/policy-making
Distinguish between:


State actors = those political actors who hold formal
(constitutional or legal = institutional) power to make, take and
enforce decisions which affect the whole society (=policy)
Stakeholders/(challengers) = social and sociopolitical actors
who try to influence policy by exerting pressure from outside
2005

1. Capable of independent action. Actor, doer, worker
- A person who acts and gets things done;
- One who takes part; a participant
- Law. One, such as the manager of a business, who acts for another.

2. Playing a part or role as pre-specified in an script
CONCEPTS (1): Actors
The most important characteristics of actors are:

1. Preferences = interests
 To what extent are they private (less inclusive, more short-term)
or public (more inclusive, more long-term)?

2. Capacity=? amount of power (for) and other resources
(money, knowledge, personnel)
Action: (independent or not) is supposed to be directly derived
from each actor’s caracteristics
NOTE: Actor-centred theory defends that policy results from actors who
have capacity (power for) to act independently; and so (=) able
to impose their preferences on other actors (power over)
2005
 How are they defined (+/- democratic/centralized process)?
CONCEPTS (2): Organizations
In politics, collective actors are more relevant than individuals


An organization; elites represent members and act for them

An organization representing a social group: elites represent,
and act for, both members (inside) and supporters (outside)

A coalition of organizations and/or social groups, led by elites

A social group led by some elites (no organization)
Organizations are actors by the law: legal persons with
property rights over capital, knowledge and connections...
... However, other analytical traits of an “actor” can be missing:

A collective who behaves as an individual (as army in battle) 
Not all organizations can be considered a (unitary) actor
2005

A collective actor can be:
CONCEPTS (2): Organizations

Organizations can be defined differently (depending on
authors and research goals):
Collective actors: Emphasis on similarities with individuals,
independent actors. MACRO – Rational choice, State-centred

Institutions: A set of institutional rules which determines the
behaviour of the members of the organization. MACRO Institutionalist

‘Political systems’: Set of internal coalitions (linked to outside
social groups) which struggle to influence organizational
decisions and rules. MESO – State-society theories, Powercentred action theories
NOTE: To define organizations as institutions confuses players
with rules of the game, and involves determinism
2005

Organizations as collective actors
• Able to act
representatives
often not subject to
mandate...
outside the norms
• ... And to
change the rules
of the game...
• ...But subject to liability, accountable to shareholders and the courts:
legal persons
2005
• Governed by
CONCEPTS (3): Institutions
informal = cultural norms + social control

YES: Rules and norms
with special normative & symbolic features; or a long history

NO: = Organizations (they are also but not only institutional rules)

Which produce the rules and regulations (=with power to
change institutions by enacting new policy);

With special normative and simbolic features; or a long history
 Organizations versus groups: weight of formal vs informal norms
2005
formal = laws & rules + courts & police
CONCEPTS (3): Institutions

The main functions of institutions in politics are:
To allocate power (and money) across actors
-
To regulate behaviour: what is allowed/forbidden

Two types of formal institutions are relevant:
-
Political institutions: Constitutional distribution of powers across
state actors. E.g.: Electoral system, Executive/Parliament power,
Federal/Unitary
-
Organizational rules and structures: Internal rules of operation
in organizations which regulate the distribution of power within
the organization + the behaviour of its members and elites
NOTE: Often the term “structures” is used as synonymous of
institutions  BUT confusion with socioeconomic structure
2005
-
Organizations as institutions
• Sets of formal/informal rules
of power & norms of
behaviour...
• ... which structure social
interaction within
organizations
... + pools of resources
(= as organisms)
2005
• Operating within a network of contracts with others....
• ... and a broader regulatory environment
ACTOR-CENTERED THEORIES
Thesis: Policy change results from the capacity of the most powerful
political actors to be autonomous from social pressures

Research question: Are political actors (eg the state, political parties,
public opinion, policy experts, the media) capable of independent action
(from context & IGs) which advances citizens’ welfare?

Relevance: Ultimately a question about...

Democracy  Does the state represents citizens?; and

Autonomy of politics from society: Can politics advance the general interest,
rather than reflect the private interests of priviledged social groups?

Different types of actor-centred theories focus on different actors:

1) State actors

2) Political parties

3) Policy experts

4) Public opinion

5) Mass media

6) Corporatist organizations
STATE-CENTRED
STATE-SOCIETY
2005

SOCIAL & POLITICAL THEORIES
1950s/60s:
SOCIAL
CONTEXT
SOCIAL PRESSURES
L7
OLD INSTITUTIONALISM
Formal political institutions
L2, L4
SOCIAL ACTORS
(IGs: dependent on
social pressures)
L5
POLITICAL ACTORS
(STATE: independent
of social pressures)
L6
1990s:
INSTITUTIONALISM
(+state-society)
SOCIOP. ACTORS
(STATE-SOCIETY:
interdependent)
L9
2000s:
ACTION
THEORIES
POWER-CENTRED
THEORIES
(interactions among
collective actors &
social structure)
L7
NEW INSTITUTIONALISM
(state institutions &
state/PPs/IGs’ organization)
L4, L9
RATIONAL
CHOICE
(interactions
among
individuals
L7, L9
ACTOR-CENTERED
INSTITUTIONALISM
(interactions among
institutions & elites)
2005
1970s/1980s:
ACTORCENTRED
L3
ACTOR-CENTRED THEORIES
2005
CONTEXT
IGs/PPs
ACTOR-CENTRED
State-centred
State-Soc.
ACTION
INSTITUTIONALISM
STATE-CENTRED THEORIES
I. Research questions

II. Main concepts - definitions

State, state actors, government, political system
III. Thesis and arguments

Policy change depends on the capacity of state actors, which
make them autonomous from social pressures
IV. Antitheses & criticisms
V. Aplications – evidence

Accounting for American excepcionalism
VI. Policy implications

To foster policy change we should help develop state
actors´capacity (=resources??), as this would increase their
autonomy vis-a-vis IGs
2005
Are state actors capable of independent action which changes
policy?; Do they respond to citizens (public interest) or private
interest groups?
CONCEPTS (4): The state
Political system (=regime): aggregate of actors & institutions:
Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in politics
Set of institutional rules which regulate rights, power and behaviour
State:





Set of political organizations with the ultimate power to take collective
decisions which are binding for the whole of society; and to impose them
upon it (through monopoly of the legitimate use of force)
Parliament + committees (deliberate, decide on rights, control gov.)
Government (adopts policy) + Bureaucracy (designs/implements policy)
Courts + Police (implements policy & guarantee compliance)
Elected (PPs’ elites) vs appointed officials (civil servants and policy
experts)
Government:


General: Activity of taking collective decisions
Specific: Political organization, with a key role within the state, with
the power to take most policy decisions
2005


CONCEPTS (4): The state
 SOCIAL CONTEXT: The state as a ‘transmission belt’ of social pressures
 STATE-SOCIETY: The state as a set of political representatives and policy
experts with preferences and action partly independent, and partly
determined by a wide range of social actors’ pressures
 INSTITUTIONALIST: The state as a set of political institutions; or as a set of
elites with preferences and actions mainly determined by institutions
 ACTION: As a set of political organizations which respond to context,
sociopolitical actors and institutions; and which compete and cooperate
(=interact) to make policy

2005
 STATE-CENTRIC: The state as a unitary, independent actor with formal
monopoly of (residual) power over policy-making
STATE-CENTERED THEORY
 MAIN THESIS: State autonomy is the main determinant of policy change,
and depends on the capacity of state actors vis-a-vis other policy actors
 1) Policy experts and bureaucrats are the main state actors in the policymaking; (+political parties), politicians just set policy goals
 2) History (= Policy legacies) model the institutional structure & resources
of states, making some of them more capable (= independent) than others
 3) Pro-state policies are the result of capable states  weak states are
captured, as they have to rely on IGs to expand state intervention
 4) Social/sociopolitical actors as well as citizens play only a minor role
under strong, capable states, because:
 “the organizational structures of the state indirectly influence the meanings
and methods of politics for all groups in society”
2005
 ARGUMENTS:
ANTECEDENTS (1)
Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (1)
- Politics is an unequal struggle between powerful capitalists
(who directy rule the state), and a weak working class,
unorganized and excluded from politics  pro-rich, pro-market
status-quo
- (Action) Policy only changes during crisis, as capitalists stop
compiting and jointly use & expand the state to protect capitalism
Social actors: power resources theories. Fred Block 1977
- State actors depend for their fiscal resources on capitalists,
so they will be against significant policy change
- Policy changes as a result of organized working class
pressures of unions and socialists/SD parties on state actors
2005
Social context: Structuralism. Miliband 1969
ANTECEDENTS (2)
Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (2)
- “The state is a relatively autonomous entity”, “capable of
transcending the parrochial interests of specific capitalists
and specific class factions”
- “The capitalist state best serves the interests of the capitalist
class only when members of this class do not participate
directly in the state aparatus”
- (Action) An organized and mobilized working class
reinforces state autonomy
2005
State-centred. Poulantzas 1973
ANTECEDENTS (3)
Old political institutionalism
• Formal centralization of decision-making power makes political
• State powers are more centralized when:
Democratic Institutions: Majoritarian (vs proportional)
electoral systems; Unitary (vs federal) states; Executive
dominance (+/- = parliamentarism vs. presidentialism);
Sociopolitical organizations: Single-party (vs coalition)
government; Corporatism (vs pluralism); Party discipline and
organization
Social groups: Single (=class) vs multiple cleavages in the
soc. struct. seen as causes of institutions
Single/multiple cleavages  biparty/multiparty system  single
party/coalition gov.  centralized democratic institutions
2005
regimes, states and organizations stronger & more efficient
CAUSAL MAPS
Social context & social actors theories
Proposals of
politically
active groups
2005
Socioeconomic
& cultural
changes
Changing class
structure &
new social
needs
Government
action/Policy
change
State-centered theories
State formation
(bureaucratization,
democratization
Changing group and
social needs
How state
organizations &
parties operate
Government
action/Policy
change
What politically
active groups
propose
Source: Orloff & Skocpol, 1984
ANTI-THESES
Policy is “a vector diagram in which a series of pressures are brought to
bear on the state which then moves in the direction it is pushed by the
SOCIAL CONTEXT
 1) CONVERGENCE: as GDP grows (following industrialization),
democratic societies age, and the WS expands
 2) CULTURAL THEORY: countries with liberal (anti-statist) national
cultures have underdeveloped WSs
 3) STRUCTURAL THEORIES (Working class strength): “the WS is a
product of the growing strength of labour in civil society” (Stephens,
1979:89; quoted by Orloff & Skocpol, 1984)
SOCIAL ACTORS: When capitalists are strong/the working class weak,
private IGs are strong/Unions & SD parties are weak, and the WS is weak
2005
strongest societal forces” (Hall, 1993)
CRITICISMS (1)
CONCEPTS
- Political parties considered as state actors, independent from
society
ANALITYCAL
- It disregards society
- “The stark dichotomy between state & society... should be
revised to allow a significant role to the political system defined
as the complex of political parties and interest intermediaries that
stand in the intersection between state and society in democratic
politics” (Hall, 1993)
- It mixes actor-centred arguments with institutional (and policyfeedback) arguments without differenciatng
2005
- “The state at which we are now looking largely remains a black
box” (Hall, 1993)
CRITICISMS (2)
EMPIRICAL
 US 1930s enacts WS pensions but HC reform fails
 Deviant case & the comparative method:
 In the UK (Jacobs, 1992), same anti-state policy legacies
(culture) but NHI 1945 (due to public opinion changes)
 In Canada (Maioni, 1997), weaker state than US but NHI:
- the WS historically weaker than in the US (policy legacies -),
- federalism was stronger (weak state institutions -),
BUT (against state-centred theory) 
- universal NHI was approved in the 1960s (but failed in the US)
2005
 “How it is that an state with an unchanging structure often seems to
be more autonomous from societal pressure at some times or in some
fields than others?” (Hall, 1993)
Policy implications
 NOTE: Radically different policy implications of social context, actor-centred
theory (state-centred A.) and institutionalist theory (state-centred B.)
 * 1. SOCIAL CONTEXT: Weak WS due to unfavourable economic growth,
social structure and national culture
 * 2. STATE-CENTRED A.: Weak WS due to weak (=little resources, divided),
captured (=corrupted) state actors and political parties
 * 3. STATE-CENTRED B: Weak WS due to weak political institutions
(Constitution) and policy legacies (history)
 POLICY ADVICE:
 * 1. Modify the social structure (eg through redistribution), and national
cultures (through policy campaigns & improved state performance)
 * 2. Strengthen the capacity of state actors and policy experts (eg research,
training, recruitment, tax policies, party discipline)
 * 3. Reform the Constitution  difficult; + history  unchangeable
2005
 DIAGNOSIS: