Policy Styles PDF

POLICY STYLES A third prominent approach in the policy- analytical literature to understanding the nature of public policies has been represented by efforts to identify policy ‘styles’.  This research perspective is closely related...

POLICY STYLES A third prominent approach in the policy- analytical literature to understanding the nature of public policies has been represented by efforts to identify policy ‘styles’.  This research perspective is closely related with the classification schemes already presented, since the fundamental idea of policy styles is to establish similarities between different types of policymaking and the ways in which they are made.  Another similarity that the concept of policy styles shares with the typologies of Lowi and Wilson is that the main analytical interest centres on the politics dimension and the question of how public policies come about (Feick and Jann 1989).  With regard to public policies, the concept of policy styles refers to the ‘standard operating procedures’ of governments in the making and implementing of public policies (Richardson et al. 1982: 2). Put differently, policy styles relate to durable and systematic approaches to policy problems (Freeman 1985: 474).  Such persistent forms of interaction and behavioural patterns should be observed during the formulation and implementation of a policy. That stable patterns of policy implementation can also be seminally addressed by the concept of policy styles is demonstrated by Battaglini and Giraud (2003).  The authors show that the implementation of the federal law on unemployment insurance varies considerably across the Swiss cantons. Based on this analysis, they identify four components of implementation styles, including the scope and style of state intervention, coordination and interaction modes of social actors, and the main traits of the regional political culture.  While the term ‘policy style’ has been used most generally and widely for identifying such process patterns, some authors (in particular Vogel 1986; Vogel and Kagan 2004) refer to similar phenomena as ‘styles of regulation’. The findings of this strand of literature equally allow a better understanding of stable policy- making patterns, since ‘regulation’ just refers to a specific policy type.  While styles of regulation concentrate on a specific policy type, the concept of administrative styles developed by Knill (1998, 2001) explicitly focuses on traditional behaviour patterns of a specific player in the political administrative system, namely the public administration (see also Zysman 1994; Howlett 2002).  The concept of national policy styles was first introduced by Gustafsson and Richardson (1979, 1980), Richardson et al. (1982) and Richardson and Jordan (1983). As already explained, the central idea of this concept is that politics in countries have some persistent characteristics that predispose them to formulate and implement public policies in certain distinct ways, irrespective of the issue concerned or the policy sector they belong to (Bovens et al. 2001b: 15).  According to Richardson et al. (1982), there are two dimensions determining national policy styles. The first dimension relates to a government’s approach to problem solving, ranging from anticipatory/active to reactive. The second dimension is about a government’s relationship to other actors in the policy-making and implementing process, characterized by their inclination either to reach consensus with organized groups or to impose decisions on them. Based on these two axes, four ideal typical policy styles for (west) European countries are identified: (1) The rationalist consensus style in Germany; (2) the British negotiation style; (3) The French concerting style; and (4) the Dutch negotiation and conflict style  An alternative typology has been elaborated by Van Waarden (1992: 133), which is based on the degree to which interactions between public and private actors are formalized and whether societal interest groups participate in the formulation and implementation of public policies.  The combination of high formalization (i.e. strong state) and low participation (i.e. weak strength of societal interests) yields an étatist policy style (i.e. a state-centred model with top-down policy-making and implementation), as could be observed in France. Low formalization and low participation opportunities, by contrast, result in a pluralist policy style, such as associated with the United States.  High formalization and high participation options – as provided in Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden – favour social corporatist or meso-corporatist policy patterns, while low formalization and high participation opportunities correspond to clientelism as well as liberal corporatism – as can be found in Switzerland.  The empirical testing of the concept of national policy styles, however, has not provided much support. For example, the comparative volume edited by Richardson (1982) revealed that there is much more similarity in policy-making styles than anticipated. This induced him to conclude that there is indeed a common (west) European policy More precisely, the case studies showed that there was a common demise of anticipatory problem solving and a trend towards more consensus-oriented policy-making. The rise of a less hierarchical and consensual style of policy-making was also confirmed by the comparative volume edited by Bovens et al. (2001a).  Furthermore, this compilation underscores variations in policy styles within countries, which also concurs with more recent empirical studies. Cairney’s (2009: 671) analysis of the policy style regarding mental health policy in the United Kingdom suggests that there is ‘more than one picture of British styles’.  Despite the fact that the basic claim of Richardson et al. (1982) could not be supported empirically, this study, without question, paved the way for subsequent research endeavours. Highly influential in this regard was Vogel’s (1986) analysis of national styles of regulation which characterize environmental policy in the United Kingdom and the United States.  The study showed that, in the British case, patterns of regulation were characterized by consensual, pragmatic, informal and highly secretive relationships between the regulatory authorities and the industry, whereas the style of regulation in the United States was more adversarial, legalistic, formal and relied more heavily on transparent interactions (see also  In view of the inconclusive empirical testing, a focus on sectoral rather than national factors was advocated as a more promising and accurate way of identifying different policy styles (see e.g. Freeman 1985; Rüdig 1987). Apart from this criticism, however, no progress was made in identifying sector-specific policy styles beyond Lowi’s early classification. This general statement holds true notwithstanding the contribution of Howlett et al. (2009), who distinguish between different policy styles with regard to different stages of the policy cycle. For each stage, they identify different factors of explanatory relevance and also different process patterns. All in all, however, empirical evidence on sectoral policy styles is sparse.  To advance the conceptual debate, we suggest that a promising approach would lie in a more theoretically grounded analysis of potential determinants of policy styles; these factors would include national characteristics as well as characteristics of policy sectors. Depending on the specific practical constellation of these factors, policy styles might reflect either more national or more sectoral  In this way, it is conceivable that empirical findings will provide evidence for both country- and sector-specific influences. At the same time, these factors can be divided into variables that are relatively volatile or remain rather stable over time. Based on such a differentiated approach, we are able to account for the variation and change of policy styles across countries, sectors and  With regard to national factors, the socio-economic development of a country might influence patterns of policy-making. We can expect more conflictive and adversarial patterns, the less developed a country is. This mainly stems from the restrictions in the resources that can be (re) distributed by means of public policy. The extent to which this structural factor affects patterns of policy-making might at the same time be influenced by the current economic situation. In addition, dominant cultural orientations (e.g. with regard to accepted patterns of governmental intervention and relationships between state and society) might exert an influence on policy styles. These orientations are typically closely linked to the state and legal tradition of a country (Dyson 1980; Knill 2001), but can also be affected by current developments in public attitudes and opinions.  Patterns of national policy- making are moreover strongly affected by institutional arrangements which define the strategic opportunities and constraints that public and private actors face during the formulation and implementation of public policies.  These structures, for instance, strongly affect the extent to which policy styles reflect more consensual or more adversarial patterns (Lijphart 1994, 1999). Notwithstanding the stability of these structural aspects, short-term developments, in particular changes in government, might bring about changes in the strategic opportunities of the involved actors.  Finally, institutionally entrenched patterns of state– society relationships, such as more corporatist or pluralist patterns, leave their mark on national policy styles (van Waarden 1992, 1995). Again, the effects of these structures might vary as a result of context-specific interactions between public and private actors.  Turning to sector-specific factors, the nature of the policy problem, as well as short-term changes in the pressure of the problem, can have an impact on policy styles. For instance, it makes a difference whether the problem refers to the regulation of risks (such as nuclear plants or genetically modified organisms), of markets, or of social and environmental issues.  Depending on the problem type, different actors and conflicts of interest might be involved, implying different policy styles. At the same time, dominant policy paradigms – i.e. dominant perceptions of a problem and ideas of how the problem can be solved – influence which actors might have more or less influence in the policy process.  Previous policy developments (policy legacies) can create path dependencies, as changes in established policy patterns can induce high costs (both economically and in terms of institutional adjustment needs). This point is aptly illustrated by Myles and Pierson (2001), who demonstrate how much old-age pension systems are affected by path-dependent processes. Pensions in most countries correspond to a pay-as-you- go system: current workers pay contributions that finance the previous generation’s retirement.  Pay-as-you-go systems are highly resistant to radical reform as they generate unfunded pension commitments for the future retirees. Shifting to private pension arrangements would place an untenable burden on current workers as they have to finance the previous generation’s retirement while simultaneously saving for their own.  Thus, the best predictor of privatization outcomes of pension systems is the size of the unfunded pension commitments already in place. Finally, of course, policy-type cleavages will have an important impact on observable policy styles. This is basically the argument developed by Lowi (1964), who stated that distinctive policy types are characterized by distinctive process patterns. Thank you for your kind attention!!! GOD bless!!!