PPG Notes PDF

**Public Policy and Governance** Bloc 2 **1a.** **The policy cycle :** Framework for understanding of the policy process, including stages of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. **Heuristic :** The model's use as a simplified conceptual tool, to help understand and analyse the policymaking process. Not a prec...

**Public Policy and Governance** Bloc 2 **1a.** **The policy cycle :** Framework for understanding of the policy process, including stages of 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. **Heuristic :** The model's use as a simplified conceptual tool, to help understand and analyse the policymaking process. Not a precise description of how things are actually made **Decision-making influences** **Structure :** Pre-existing organisation of governance (institutions, policies legacy...) Established framework within which any new policy must be situated **Agency :** Capacity of actors to make decisions according to their own will, values, ideals and responsibilities. Ability of policymakers to exercise choice. **Policy actors** **Government officials** **Bureaucrats :** Civil servants providing expertise in policy implementation. In-depth knowledge of policy areas and administrative processes. They draft policy proposals, conduct analysis and oversee implementations. **Appointed officials :** Bridge the gap between elected politicians and career bureaucrats. Bring specific policy agendas aligned with the current administration. Setting policy direction and priorities. **Politicians** **Legislators :** Members of parliament or congress. They propose, debate and vote on laws. Represent interests and ideological positions. **Executive leaders :** Presidents, ministers or governors. Significant influence in prioritising issues and direct ressources. Proposing budgets, issuing orders and lead initiatives **Interest groups** They influence policies through **lobbying**, by providing **expert testimony** during hearings, mobilising **public opinion** through campaigns and sometimes **Business associations :** Represent industry interests **Labour unions :** Advocate for worker's rights and benefits **NGOs and Advocacy Groups :** Supports social, environmental or economic causes **Media** They influence policy by **selecting** which issue receives coverage, **framing** them in a way that influences public perception, **investigating** and reporting, providing a **platform** for various actors to voice their opinions. **Traditional :** Newspapers, television and radio **New :** Online news platforms, social medias and blogs **Citizens** Influence policy through **voting**, especially during direct activism. **Public opinion** can shape policies and priorities. They can also participate in **policy implementation** through community-based programs. **Challenges in Policy management** **Complexity :** Issues are often interconnected and multi-faceted, requiring a holistic approach and expertise **Uncertainty :** Information can be incomplete **Resource constraints :** Policy workers must work within a set budget and with time limitations **Political pressures :** Balancing political interests with evidence-based decision-making **Policy tools and instruments** **Regulations :** Rules or directives made and maintained by an authority, such as environmental protection laws or financial sector regulations. They provide clear standards, effective for addressing urgent issues but require effective enforcement **Incentives :** Tools encouraging certain behaviours or actions through rewards or penalties. Includes subsidies or fines. They can influence behaviour while preserving choices and stimulate innovations. They can however be costly and often have unintended consequences. **Information campaigns :** Involves the spread of information to influence public behaviour or opinion. They are cost effective, respect autonomy and provide long-term changes. They however are often insufficient on critical issues as effectiveness depends on trust of the public. **Direct government provisions :** Goods or services directly provided. Includes public services, infrastructure development and social welfare. They address market failures and allow for direct control over distribution of resources. They are however costly and lead to debates around the appropriate role of the government. **1b.** **Definitions** **Polity :** Overall political system of a society, with its institution, processes making up the governing arrangement. Includes formal government bodies and informal power structures. Polity shapes the decision-making processes and power distribution **Institutions :** Rules, norms and structures within political, economic and social relations. Can be formal (laws) or informal (customs, conventions). Provides the 'rule of the game' that shapes behaviours. **Bureaucracy :** Administrative apparatus of governments, staffed by non-elected professional officials. Implements public policies on behalf of elected representatives. **Orientations of Democratic Republics** **Unitary system :** Power centralised in national government, can create or abolish subnational units which only have the power it was granted. Central government can impose policy nation-wide. Uniform policy-making across the country, less duplication so more efficient. However, it can be less responsive to local needs. Examples : Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand **Federal system :** Power is constitutionally divided between national and subnational governments. Both levels have their own areas of jurisdictions, and neither can unilaterally change the powers of the other. Allows diversity between regions, and can be well responsive to local preferences. However it can lead to inconsistencies, and requires more intergovernmental coordination. Example : Australia, USA, Germany, India **Confederal system :** Units keep their primary sovereignty and the central government has limited powers delegated by units. Constituent units can nullify the action of the central government. Allows maximum regional autonomy. However coordinated actions can be difficult, and known in history as unstable. The EU has some aspects of it. **The Enlightenment** **Hobbes** (1588-1679) : Without governments, humans would live in a **state of nature** with constant war and conflicts. To escape this, people agree to the **social contract,** they give up some of their natural rights to a sovereign authority in exchange for protection and order. He argued for a **strong centralised government** to prevent chaos. Viewed human behaviour as determined by **self-interest** and **physical laws.** **Locke** (1632-1704) **:** Individuals inherently have **natural rights** simply by being alive. He saw the **social contract** as such, governments are given trust by the people, who can overthrow it if it fails to protect their natural rights. He advocated for **separation of powers.** **Voltaire** (1694-1778) **:** Argued for clear **separation of church and state** but was still **tolerant of religions.** Passionate advocate of **freedom of speech**, while advocating for **social reforms** such as the end of slavery. **Conceptualising liberal democracy** **Social contract theory :** Legitimate political authority comes from the consent of the people, giving up some of their natural rights to the government for protection and social order. Associated with Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau **Duality of Freedom** - - **Representative government :** Should reflect the will of the people, regular elections ensure ongoing consent of the governed **Right to revolution :** If governments fail to represent the people, violating social contract **The *Trias Politica*** - Separation of power and horizontal accountability - - - **Liberty :** Comprised in two types - - They are then transposed into **Human Rights**, protected by the rule of law. It includes **freedom of speech**, of **faith**, of **property** and **ownership** - - **Equality in Justice :** All individuals are equal in front of the law. Laws are applied impartially without discriminations based on race or socioeconomic status. The justice system is made to ensure fairness. Rawls introduces the imaginary scenario of the **veil of ignorance**, under which individuals are asked to design a society's principle without knowing their position within it. It encourages the creation of laws that don\'t favour any group, promoting impartiality. **The market model** Rooted in classical economic theory and liberal political philosophy - - - - **The polis model** Recognises the complexities of decision-making - - - - **The Policy Paradox :** Policy issues can be defined in contradictory ways creating paradoxes. The same policy can be seen as both **beneficial** and **harmful**. Individuals can hold **conflicting views** simultaneously. Policy **outcomes** can be assessed as both **successful** and **unsuccessful** **The rise of bureaucracy** **Before mid-19^th^ century :** Based on feudalism, but the industrial revolution brought changes that needed more technical support **Weberian Bureaucracy :** Named after Max Weber. Developed in the early 20th century, to create an efficient and rational system. Characterised by **hierarchy** and clear chain of command, **specialisation** and division of labour on expertise, **formal rules** and standardised operations, **impersonality** and **merit-based** employment **Policymaking as public administration :** Focus on effective implementation rather than policy formulation. Focus on the **rule of law,** where administration is central. Politics is **irrational** while administrations are **rational,** bureaucrats are neutral and non-political **New Public Management** (NPM) **:** Emerged in the 80s and 90s as an attempt to reform public sector management. - - - - **Quangos :** Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisations. Perform governmental functions without being a part of traditional government departments. Funded by the government but works with some degree of independence. Criticised for lack of democratic accountability. Includes advisory committees or regulatory bodies. **Territorial synchrony :** Alignment between a sovereign state's borders and other elements of its territory. - - - **Example -** The Rhine River Bassin It crosses 9 European states creating transboundary challenges (flood risk management, water pollution, ecosystem management) **Loss of territorial synchrony :** Occurs when elements are no longer aligned with the state boundaries. - - - **Global public policy** - GPP Governing arrangement addressing policy issues that transcend national borders. - - - **Political authority in global governance** **State-centric model :** Political authority is traditionally associated with sovereign states. They had exclusive authority within their territories and were the primary actors in IR **De Jure authority :** Legally recognised authority, derived from law, treaties and regulations. An example can be the UNSC resolutions. **De Facto authority :** Practical influence recognised and respected even without formal legal status. Often based on expertise, resources or moral standing. An example can be the influence of NGOs in environmental policy. **Hybrid authority :** Many global governance arrangements involve a mix of both. Reflecting the complex reality of global policy-making. An example can be the Paris Agreement on climate change as it combines formal state commitment with informal influence of non-state actors. **Sources of political authority in GPP** **Delegation :** States granting authorities to IOs. This transfer of authority is often formalised through treaties or agreements. Example : States delegating authority to the WHO during Covid-19 **Self-authorisation :** NSAs claim authority based on their expertise, moral standing or representation, often seen in technical areas. Example : Scientific bodies assert authority in climate change policy based on their expertise **Recognition :** Authority established through acceptance by other actors. Can be formal (UN recognition) or informal (widespread trust in an NGO's influence). It can easily evolve overtime. **Legitimacy in Global Governance** **Input Legitimacy :** Focuses on the nature of the participation and representation of decision-making processes. Concerned with who is involved and how they are selected. Focuses on inclusiveness, transparency and accountability. Example : Efforts to increase developing country representation in international financial institutions. **Output Legitimacy :** Based on the effectiveness of policy outcomes. Evaluates whether global governance arrangements deliver desired results. Example : Assessing the effectiveness of global health initiatives in recusing disease burdens. **Throughput Legitimacy :** Concentrates the quality and fairness of processes. Examines how decisions are made, not who makes them and what they achieve. Example : Evaluating the consultation and negotiation processes in international climate change conferences. **Challenges to State Authority** - - - **New forms of authority** **Epistemic :** Based on expertise and specialised knowledge. Scientific bodies, think tanks and academic institutions challenge traditional political authority with technocratic approaches **Market :** Influence of the private sector, where corporations and financial institutions shape policies through economic leverage. Market-based solutions are preferred over state-led interventions **Moral :** Influence based on ethical or normative claims, appealing to universal values and overriding state sovereignty concerns. Examples : NGOs, religious leaders or social movements. **Accountability in Global Governance** - - - **Democratic Legitimacy** - - - **2a.** **What is decision-making ?** Task in policy-making involving selection of a course of action. Decisions can be **'positive'** when they select something new, or **'negative'** when choosing not to alter an already existing policy. In general it consists of - - - - The process varies according to the nature of decision-makers involved, the source of their authority, their background, values etc. **Actors in decision-making** Policy decisions **more technical than political** are not only driven by political considerations, as it needs to consider factors such as potential long term effectiveness, often requiring technical expertise. While elites play a major roles, many actors play in formal decision-making : - - - - **Decision-making models :** Used to capture its dynamics. Categorised into three types **Comprehensive rationality :** Idealised view of how decisions should be made. Seeks to maximise efficiency and effectiveness. Based on **logical** thinking and **evidence.** Decision-makers choose options that help them achieve goals aligned with their values. It provides a clear and logical framework for decision making, encouraging analysis and aims for optimal solutions rather than satisfying. It however assumes that perfect information is available, can be unrealistic due to time and resource constraints **Bounded rationality :** The limitations on human decision-making due to cognitive constraints, limited information and time pressures. **Incremental :** Realistic view oh how policies are made in practice Process in which **time** and **information** are limited, and where various decision-makers find a **compromise**. New ideas will be made by **comparing** new ideas to the results of **earlier decisions.** This leads to small, or 'incremental' changes. Final decisions are about what **satisfies** the differing interests (politically possible) rather than what is technically best. It also has **limitations :** Preference for the status quo, and thus not able to solve problems caused by the status quo perpetuating existing inefficiencies. Leads to conservatism and resistance to necessary large-scale changes **Three orders of policy change** - Hall 1989 - - - **Garbage can :** When decision makers are **numerous** and **unsure** about what causes problems and how to solve them. Policy outcomes then **make little sense** and reflect what decision makers want at the moment. Decision reflects desires of the most influential. The idea of best possible choice (rational) or making small improvements (incremental) is given up. Decision-makers will just try to **reach** the set goals, it\'s the **'satisficing'** principle. When policy makers look for a solution they'll stop as soon as they find something good enough, and never explore what might work better. **Limitations :** Lack of clarity over policy, multiple irreconcilable ways of thinking about a problem, implies that organisations are political coalitions **Lindblom -\>** Believes that policy decisions usually don\'t change much because, first it is politically easier to follow the order rather than changing it, and second the governmental procedures favour small changes over big ones. **Hobson's choice -\>** A strategy to make one's preferred outcome appear as the only possible alternative. During issue framing, one may suggest an attractive alternative amongst less attractive ones. It is used to popularise and gain legitimacy for actions taken. Obama used it in his speech to announce the invasion of Qadaffi's Libya. **Controlling the Political Meanings of Alternatives -\>** Labelling and use of certain language to define policy shapes its impacts and visions. Thinkers believe it distorts rational thinking. Politicians are often worried about how a policy will be perceived, for electoral reasons (comparison table rational model vs polis model, see policy paradox page 260) **Policy selection :** Decision makers include, Members of **bureaucracy** acting according to legal rights, whose authority is granted by legislatures. They often focus on legality and mandates, and decisions are often made according to budget efficiency **Legislatures** and executives issuing legal acts and rules. Decisions of governments can be made for electoral and clientelistic reasons. Members of political executives (ministers and their staff) also play a big role, **What influences a leader's decisions** - - - Members of the **judiciary** who can overturn rules and order to replace them with their own ruling in the name of constitutional mandates. Selections are made by legal experts based on past precedents, on their interpretations of the constitution and on their assessment of facts and evidence used by others to support their decisions. The issue of **time** in decision-making is important. The process can be quick, in case of emergencies such as wars and invasions but the passage of a bill into a law can take years. Obamacare is an example of a lengthy decision-making process. **Challenges in decision-making** - - - **Poor outcomes** often come from **precipitated** decisions, made by **small, isolated groups** of decision-makers without attention to their practicality, leading to the gap between policy design and interpretation. Another factor is the **ability of decision-makers to learn from their mistakes**, as their reputation may be affected. They need to be able to reassess and adjust a decision. **Strategies for effective decision-making** Capacity to handle **surprises** is a critical element of success. Policy decisions are dominated by imperatives and made without consideration for their long-term impacts. (The Great Leap Forward in Mao's China which led to severe famines was motivated by his unrealistic approaches). The **ideological** conviction that free market principles would improve situations led to precipitated privatisation and failure in developing countries, often pushed by institutions (IMF) or policy makers. - - - - - **Ethical decisions :** Thinkers like **Ascomb** bring ethical considerations. She wrote that sometimes consequences aren\'t all that matters, sometimes people decide on principles rather than on calculation. - - **Leadership in decision-making** **What influences a leader's decisions ?** - - - **Approaches to expertise in decision-making** **Decisionism :** Decisions not determined by law should be made by **political representatives**. Politicians then chose evidence that aligns with their interests and ideologies. Politics "on top", experts "on tap". It maintains democratic principles. However, decisions are influenced by **ideology** rather than knowledge, there is a risk of ignoring relevant expert knowledge. **Technocracy :** Decisions can be made by **technical analysis,** removing the need for politicians. Experts should hold power. It is potentially more efficient as decisions are guided by knowledge. However, It lacks democratic accountability, and can overlook non-technical factors. **Pragmatism :** A midway point. Discussion and **compromise** between **experts and politicians.** **Case study** **The EU Common Agricultural Policy** Established in **1962,** aiming to increase **agricultural productivity,** ensure stable food **supply** and maintain decent **standards of living** for farmers. It was one of the EU's largest (and most problematic) budgetary commitments. **Incrementalism** since priorities were different for all **2b.** **Analytical knowledge** Decision making often involves **technical analysi**s such as economic measurement or assessment in order to **maximise** effectiveness and efficiency of **choices**. **Rationality project :** Belief that decision-making can be purely objective based on rational evidence **Critique of the Rationality project :** Stone challenges the belief that policy analysis can be purely objective. She believes that **policy choices** as well as the **framing** of problems are inherently political decisions as they involve value judgement. There is a limited use of **scientific methods** in resolving policy paradoxes. **Cost-benefit analysis :** Weighing the negative and positive consequences of an action to see whether it will or not be a loss. It subtly pushes analysts to ignore what they can\'t monetise. They sometimes do the extreme opposite and monetise unpriceable things like human lives. They also use market prices to determine - - **Cost-effectiveness analysis :** When goals can be **quantified** but **not monetized,** used to clarify strengths and weaknesses of decision alternatives. What provides the **most benefits** with a certain **budget**. Not all goals can be quantified not monetised, that is why both quantitative and qualitative are often combined **Risk :** Combination of likelihood and consequences of an event Many **biases** can affect decision making - - - - **Decision matrix :** A way to access the outcome of different alternatives according to set criteria.Research evidence, **Authority in governance** (Hajer) **:** Seen as the capacity to issue communications that can be rationally justified and elaborated upon. Emphasis on ability to provide reasoned arguments and explanations for decisions. Is not inherent in titles but comes from interaction, is a quality of communication rather than fixed attribute. Can be gained and lost through quality of communication. **Classical modernist governance** Associated with the nation-state system. - - - - - - - - - **Challenges to classical-modernist governance** **Implementation deficit :** Difficulty in translating policies into effective action. **Learning deficit :** Struggle to adapt and learn from past experiences **Legitimacy deficit :** Decreasing trust in traditional governing institutions **Network governance :** Involvement of NSAs to address transboundary issues **Media in politics :** Increased role as they shape public opinions and agendas. **Uncertainty :** Commonly considered in terms of risk, vulnerability, and opportunities and threats. - - - **The precautionary principle :** If there is a possibility of harm in a situation it requires intervention **Decision-making failure** - - - **Hierarchical government :** Characterised by **top-down** and **centralised** decision-making, in which power is concentrated at **top levels**. Relies on vertical chains of command, **rigid** in responding to complex problems as it follows formal rules and **procedures**. **Networked governance :** Involves **decentralised** and distributed decision-making with **multiple actors**, both private and public, in which power and authority are shared between stakeholders. Emphasis on collaboration and **horizontal** relationships. More **flexible** in addressing complex changing issues - - **Models of network coordination** - - - **Multi-level governance networks** **Type 1** - Non intersecting Hierarchical governments, described with the **Russian doll** model. Levels include Supranational - National - Regional - Local. Examples : Federal systems like USA or Germany **Type 2** - Functionally specific Task specific jurisdictions that operate at various territorial scales. **3a.** **Agenda setting :** Process by which issues come to receive attention from policymakers and may become subject of policy action. Involves identification of problems, framing of policy issues and getting them to the government\'s formal agenda. - - - **Phases in agenda setting** 1. 2. 3. 4. **Challenges :** The information **overload** created competition for **attention.** There is difficulty in **defining** complex interconnected problems. There is often **resistance** from those **benefiting** from the status quo. **Agenda-setting capacity of global policy networks :** Can promote new understanding of issues at global scale. Their effectiveness depends on their ability to produce information and indicators, capacity to quantify issue magnitude and consequence of inaction, and skill in taking advantage of preference shifts. **Policy windows** - - - - **Social mobilisation agenda-setting :** Process of bringing together various actors to raise awareness and demand action on an issue. Bottom-up approach to agenda setting. **Venue-shopping :** Strategy seeking out the most favourable institutional venue to advance a policy goal. Appealing to different decision-making levels depending on where one believes it can achieve the most success **Silent action agenda-setting :** Model emphasising on the almost invisible role played by interest groups in shaping agendas. Groups promote policy preferences for their own interests, avoiding publicity to prevent mobilisation. Even in pluralist systems, the upper-classes have significant influence. **Kingdon\'s multiple-streams framework :** Explains how policies are formulated, and how certain issues take more importance. - - - **Policy windows :** Kingdon argues that these three streams must be aligned for the policy window to open. **Policy entrepreneurs :** Individuals or groups advocating for solutions within the framework. They often use their resources and networks to influence decision-makers and mobilise support. **Critiques :** Can be said to be an oversimplification of the complexity that is policy-making. Does not adequately represent power dynamics, or roles of institutional structures. **3b.** **Causal theories** Assign responsibility and blame. Stone describes multiple types, used in policy discourse - - - **Problem definition process** **Public problem :** Realisation that a situation is not normal and could be improved or acted upon, matter of collective responsibility. - - **---\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\--** **Lecture 2A** **Public policy decision making** **Objectives** **Accountability** **Decision criteria** **Decision making process** **Resources and constraints** **Stakeholder involvement** **Measuring success** **What does it mean to be "rational"?** **Rationality requires 4 ingredients** **A decision making principle ie maximise benefits for the greatest number of people** **Good evidence -- to enhance our understanding of problems, objectives and potential solutions** **A coherent objective** **Some form of logic -- deduction, induction, abduction** **Decision making principles** **Consequentialism/ utilitarianism -- action is morally right if the results of that action are good** **Deontology- an action is morally right or wrong in and of itself, regardless of the intended consequences of that action** **Do the ends justify the means? What are the risks?** **Can u think of examples ie death penalty** **Normative approach** **Leadership in decision making** **Factors in influencing a leaders decision** **What are their policy priorities** **What issues will they personally persue** **What issues are thy happy to leave to others** **What can they get away with in light of other actors, who else has power** **To what extent will they have to compromise** **Do they have constitutional remit and institutional support to ake an executive decision?** **Will they have to present a bill to parliament and will the decision be approved** **Will their decisions have the support of the beaucracy example of Trump** **Politically motivated decisions** **Policy -- substance of political action** **Politics- power dynamics** **Polity- formal and informal institutions shaping state- society relations** **Goals and possible solutions often benefit from ambiguity as it allows decisions to be changed and easier consensus and legitmicay? Eases the transition** **Analysis and evaluation of options may be influenced by the ideals, values and priorities of politicians and bureaucratic actors ie consultation of experts but they will be chosen as ones who support their existing ideals** **Is options listing a form of issue framing ie hobsons choice if u present 3 solutions make the other two unappealing so that yours is chosen** **Expertise in decision making** **Decisionism- decisions that are not determined by the law should be made by political representatives where necessary informed by good evidence** **Decision making authorities choose whether and which evidence is used** **Authorities on top and experts on tap** **Opponents politicians choose experts and evidence that aligns with politics** **Technocracy -- decisions can be reduced to technical analysis thus removing the need for politics** **Experts should therefore hold political power** **Opponents claim its undemocratic, research not objective** **Pragmatism in the middle as discussion and compromise between experts and political authority** **Ie climate change- scientists chose what is the norm temp and climate for us one could argue** **Comprehensive rationality** **Peruses the policy cycle as prescription** **Assumes clarification of values and objectives, seeks means-ends analyses and a comprehensive review of every relevant factor** **Policy makers must consider compatibility with existing policies so cr is not always possible** **Policy is rarely made by just one rational actor** **Clarity of problems goals and solutions but this results in uncertainty and complexity ie abortion debate is irresolvable people have different ideas of goals and solutions** **Assumes institutional capability but not necessarily the case, old institutions and methods trying to solve modern problems** **Opponent say its consequentialist just doing what they can to get to their target, impossible to persue as institutional capacity lacks and hard to find solution** **Bounded rationality** **There are inevitable limits to the capabilities of policy actors** **Analutical knowledge is limited thus limited problem solving** **Limited operational knowledge -- not all policies can be feasible institutionally** **Limited political knowledge -- what solutions may be most acceptable and effective** **Optimal solutions may often be unattainable and unrealistic** **The incremental model** **Policy as the result of interaction between various actors each possessing different ypes of information and different interests** **In the contect of time and information constraints there will often by conflict and a need for bargaining and inevitable compromise** **Solution is successive limited comparisons between options that are easily adjusted resulting in incremental change- only small steps at a time in the direction we want to go** **Means less need for analytical knowledge as making small steps** **Less likely to get egg on ur face, things less likely to go wrong** **More politically achievable** **Technically/ institutionally easier to implement** **Limitations** **Preferences the status quo more of the same just slightly different** **Inadequate for addressing problems caused by the status quo or need of a paradigm shift** **Ie NHS all incremental changes and tweaks to it as taking an axe to it could end ur political career** **Three orders of policy change- incremental (minor incremental changes to existing policy tools without altering overall policy goals or instruments), change of policy instruments ( a shift in tools or instruments used to achieve policy goals while the overall objectives remain the same) , systemic ( a fundamental transformation in the overarching goals assumptions and frameworks of a policy)** **Incremental changes in the EU common agricultural policy (CAP)** **Established in 1962** **Increased agricultural productivity** **Ensure a stable supply of affordable food** **Maintain fair living standards for farmers** **Eu largest and most problematic budgetary commitments such as price guarantees and subsides created over production changed to quotas to prevent gross excesses then got rid of both entirely in favour of direct payments and sustainable design has remained elusive but in exchange for the direct payments introduced sustainable policies to follow** **Why incrementalism- hugely conflicting priorities among member states -- consensus unlikely** **Heavy influence from farming lobbies legitimacy for sweeping reforms unlikely** **Bounded rationality -- complexity of agricultural policy- optimal solutions unlikely** **Comprehensive rationality was neither predictable nor desriable** **Complex policy legacy -- abrupt reforms at risk of destabilizing agricultural mrkets and rural economies** **Garbage can model** **High complexity and uncertainty** **Many actors with influence** **No consensus on problems/ objectives/ solutions** **Decisions reflect desres of those with most influence** **Satisficy -- satisfy + suffice** **Solutions only need to be satisfying temporarily or acceptable but not optimal as it can be too complex, alternatives are not fully explored if a satisficing solution is not available** **Most policy maing involves it** **Challenges/ limitations -- ambiguity and lack of clarity over policy solutions and objectives** **Evidence as a signal of competence and symbol of reaffirming social values -- in garbage can shield against criticism in eyes of a technocratic or as a sword against political oponents as itsvgiid** **Three ps model when politics policy and problems arise then action can be taken** **Mutlple often irreconcil** **Case study** **Eu emissions trading scheme** **Problems: 2000 climate change had risen to the top of the global agenda thoigh not on most nationl and subnational agendas** **Policies :But decision had to be made what sort of policy will address the commitments of the EU -- carbon tax? Emissions trading scheme? Sector regulation?** **Emissions trading has been successful in the US to curb sulphur dioxide for acid rain t** **Politics: policy was needed but strongly diverging views on how that was to be achieved** **Member state preferences were vague** **Strong international pressure to act yet no US ratification of kytoto and poor commitments from other mature democracies** **Lecture 3A** **Concepts and definitions** **"Agenda setting is a label for the process by which governments decide which issues need their attention and prioritize amongst them"** **competition for limited attention and resources - because no capacity to address all** **deeply political → the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument of power, meaning controlling which issues are considered and how they are presented is a powerful tool** **not always an issue that needs to be solved - sometimes it's about the putting forward of certain policies and attaching them to an issue** **Agenda - list of issues to which the public, the media, governmental officials and others in the policy community are paying some serious attention at any given time and that are sometimes acted upon** **The Agenda universe: includes all ideas that could arise and be discussed in society/ political system** **Systemic agenda: contains ideas or problems that could be realistically considered by actors in the policy system → different from the universe through the cultural acceptability of ideas** **Institutional agenda: list of items that are explicitly up for discussion for serious considerations by decision-makers → exist and are considered by a governmental institution** **Decision agenda: issues that are about to be acted upon by a governmental institution** **Phases in agenda-setting** **Issue Initiation** **Issue Expansion** **Agenda Entrance** **Issues initiation** **the moment when an issue is being problematised** **the first demands for gov action are being formulated** **being framed as an issue that might need government attention** **Issue expansion** **broadening the appeal of urgency of an issue** **mobilizing others around it** **Agenda entrance** **has gained enough attention and support to be formally acknowledged by policy makers and on the governmental agenda** **Timing and types of 'policy windows' (opportunities to get something on the agenda)** **Routinised - planned procedural events: budget cycles (when budget is set), state of the union (annual address) speeches, elections** **Discretionary - situations where individual interests are what dictates what enter the agenda, they may open the windows** **Random - crisis, protest, new indicators = "focusing events" highlight problems and create urgency** **Spill-over - transfer of issue from other sectors/field ie environmental into energy** **How do issues reach the agenda?** **Politics- who gets what, when and how? (describes distribution of resources power and benefits in society)** **Power as:** **(the ability to pursue one's own goals, to get access to certain resources etc)** **domination and decision (Dahl)** **controlling the parameters of discussion (Bachrach and Baratz)** **creating the social structure within which preferences are shaped (Lukes)** **Groups and power in agenda-setting** **resources: money (funding campaigns ect), information (persuasion/ better know how)** **legitimacy: moral/principled authority (align with widely accepted values, size of membership/representativeness large are perceived as more legitimate** **proximity: geographic those who are directly affected by an issue may have more influence in pushing it onto the agenda, networks and connections with key decision- makers ect** **congruence: with prevailing ideas and values in society more likely to gain attention** **Groups and models of agenda setting** **Bottom-up:** **problems are identified within society which then pushes for change** **social mobilization and media driven** **Top-down:** **party driven, state driven, silent action ( subtle often indirect ways that powerful actors influence the policy agenda without overt public involvement ie policy framing), international** **Social mobilisation agenda setting:** **issues as a result of collective action within society which create pressure -- organized groups, social movements** **reflects the ideal view on democracies - that gov decision reflect what society wants** **agenda setting driven by actors outside of the state** **efforts that need to be backed by extensive and time-consuming campaigns to raise awareness, win over public opinion to initiate policy changed** **actions - through the use of disruption, strikes, demonstrations, symbolic action, petitions - to draw media attention and gain sympathy for their cause** **use of ambassadors or public figures to draw attention - used by outside actors** **venue shopping: if you fail to get your issue on the agenda of your gov, you turn towards other organisations (potentially international) - appealing to different decision-making levels** **Media driven agenda setting:** **the media DOES have an effect on the political agenda. how?** **Primarily affects the political agenda (what politicians talk about) rather than directly dictating the policy agenda (what policies are enacted)** **Type of issue matters -- media influence more plausible for "sensational" issues (scandalous issues or emotionally charged ones) in comparison to prominent issues ie unemployment, reoccurring issues which are more often driven by institutional agendas** **Mass media is a diffuser of concerns than an initiator of concerns and demands, therefore access to media matters and who influences it matters** **But emergence of new strategies by media suggests that's journalists also have their own agenda** **impact on symbolic politics (issues being present in discourse but not necessarily acting on it)** **issues such as corruption - scandals are published in the media therefore contributing to them being on the agenda** **emergence of new strategies reflect that media has its own agenda and concerns: data journalism (using data analysis to report on issues ), transnational cooperation (collaborations across borders or media outlet) reflect the medias growing role in influencing public discourse and concerns** **Party driven agenda setting:** **Based on the assumption that parties are the cornerstone of political life in liberal democracies as they organize political life, frame policy debates and represent various segments of society** **Parties do not just respond to social demands, they have their own preferences based on values, ideologies and strategic goals** **The influence of political parties relate to their functions - they contribute in selecting political personnel and shaping electoral competition, organizing campaigns ect** **resources: information, organisation (networks) , political support and money** **the influence depends on the political system they are more influential in parliamentary systems because they control government formation and can more directly shape policy outcomes in presidential systems more limited** **State driven agenda setting:** **This model awards crucial importance to administrative actors (ie Bureaucrats) and public authorities (like government agencies) who are not only recipients of social demands but have their own preferences** **Limited public controversies, no visible actions, low mediatisation (or only after policy has been formulated) happens behind closed doors with limited media coverage** **Resources: target presentation of information (how issues are framed and presented to public), possibility to launch commissions and consultations ( can initiate experts sto study issues and make recommendations guiding in the desired direction) , insider knowledge about process and privileged position within the state ( allowing influence of the agenda with minimal public input)** **state formulates its own problem and seeks to solve it** **officials can place issues on the agenda without public pressure for that matter to be formulated - often times happens strategically, to not attract media attention, low visible action (or only after policy has been formulated)** **Silent action agenda setting:** **discrete role of interest groups, businesses and experts in trying to put issues on the agenda, or moreso preventing issues from being further regulated** **closed to gov circles, prefer not having media coverage** **defend their own interests and deliberately seek to avoid publicization** **avoid the emergence of an issue on the agenda or avoid visibility or to promote their preferred policies quietly to avoid opposition** **resources: organisation, money- lobbying, research and influence, expertise -- credibility , network and access to decision makers** **the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper class accent schattschneider** **Internationally-driven agenda-setting** **Multiplication of policy venues (international organisations, negotiations, summits) with an impact on national agenda norm/standard setting, compliance mechanism, conditionality (requiring countries to adopt certain policies to receive aid or support)** **Shared issue jurisdiction across levels of governance possibility of venue shopping** **Issues can be put on the national agenda due to international pressure varying levels of coercion soft to stronger forms ie sanctions** **At the global level the creation of information and indicators (indexes to set benchmarks and accountability), framing strategies and political transformation shape the capacity fo actors to shape the agenda** **the international venues have multiplied** **issues are increasingly put on national agendas due to pressures from international organisations --** **Directive and regulations in the EU** **directive sets a goal that all Eu countries must achive but each country can decide how to reach it, requiring national law to be adapted or created** **regulation- immediately binding in all EU countries applies unifmormly and does not require national laws for implementation** **Structures matter** **influence of categories of actors varies across jurisdictions and over time and depend on:** **social, economic and political context -- changes in societal values, economic conditions or political climate can impower or not actors** **administrative and political systems (interest aggregation systems ( ways in which societies organise channel and reconocile interests into more unified set of priorities or policies), government openness ( transparency increases societies influence), type of public administration (powerful or less powerful civil servants), media freedom and market, civic space)** **long periods of policy stability are interrupted by few moments of change** **Conclusion** **agenda setting as a process is:** **non linear (solutions might exist before the problem)** **located in a complex network of state and non state ectors voicing their concerns and promotin their preferences** **agency of groups is influenced by structure** **political as well as technical attempting to raise an issue on the agenda requires analyticall operational and political capacities** **framing - the process by which, people develop a particular conceptualisation of an issue, and reorient their thinking about an issue'** **Definitions:** **Global policy networks - are institutional arrangements made up by a diverse set of public and private organizations that exchange information and other resources on a more or less regular basis with the aim of impacting the policy making process at the national and supranational levels.** **Lecture 4A** **Policy formulation:** **The process of generating a set of plausible policy choices capable of addressing problems identified during agenda setting.** **Policy design:** **A deliberate, systemic approach to policy formulation** **Systemic policy design generally occurs when there is clarity or consensus on:** **Problem definition** **Policy goal** **Usable Evidence** **Politically legitimate solutions** **Institutional capacity for analysis and design activities** **Institutional and political limitations arising from existing priorities, ideals and polic regimes** **Knowledge for policy making** **Technical (analytical) knowledge:** **Expert advice and consultancy** **Research evidence** **Policy analysis (internally or externally generated)** **Institutional (operational) knowledge** **Bureaucratic norms and practices** **Existing policies** **Policy implementation challenges/ opportunities** **Bureaucratic relations** **Political knowledge** **Cabinet politics** **Legislative politics** **Executive disposition/preferences/ priorities** **How do we acquire this knowledge?** **Policy analysis for policy design** **Problem analysis -- what is the problem and why is it a problem?** **Needs analysis -- is new policy needed?** **Policy process analysis- is the policy making process likely to be effective? What adjustments to institutional structure and agency may be needed?** **Policy theory analysis- what "theory of change" should underpin policy design** **Options analysis -- what are our options? What are their strengths and weaknesses?** **Decisions analysis -- which option is the best?** **Using these methods to find out:** **Cost benefit- compares the cost and benefits** **Cost effectiveness -- do the perceived benefits outweigh the costs** **Regulatory impact analysis -- asses the impact of regulations** **Multi criteria decision analysis -- used when decisions need to account for multiple conflicting criteria combining qualitative and quantitative factors** **Impact analysis- examines the broader effects, both intended and unintended consequences** **Risk analysis- probability and consequences** **Research, evidence and policy analysis** **What's the difference?** **Research seeks to provide facts** **But the facts take time to emerge and rarely (if ever) speak for themselves they need some political interpretation which evidence and analysis provide** **1st order research produced via the scientific method- generating what is true** **2nd order evidence and policy analysis -- interpretation, application of the facts -- what to do with the truth** **Three orientations to policy analysis** **Scientific** **Claims to be impartial/ independent** **Develops/ applies a theory that relates policy actions to effects** **Tests hypotheses and theories using the scientific method ( eg intervention research (tests how effective, practical and sustainable interventions are in real world settings), systemic reviews and randomised control trials)** **Aims to generate objective, evidence based insights about policy effectiveness** **Professional** **Analyses policy alternatives and their ability to solve public problems** **Synthesis research and theory to understand potential outcomes** **Evaluates current programs and their effectiveness in their political/ institutional contexts** **Aims to provide practical advice for policy makers to implement effective solutions** **Political** **Advocates for preferred policies explicitly and purposefully** **Evaluates current programs and their effectiveness in their political/ institutional contexts** **Apply legal, economic and political arguments to support a preferred option** **Use research findings and data to the extent they support their preferred option** **Social construction of populations through policy analysis** **Policy advisory systems** **Consultants -- external professional hired for specific expertise** **In house analysts -- government employees who analyze and develop policy options** **Expert advisors - specialists** **Academic experts -- researchers from university** **Non- academic experts -- policy focused organisations like think tanks** **"special" advisors (individuals bought in for their unique insights or connections)-- sit at the right hand side and whisper ie Dominic Cummings, not a member of any ministry bought in with Boris** **Loads of opportunities to get advice from internal and external advisors competition between them for the attention of political elite. Tell the what they want to hear?** **Goal to influence decision making in favor of their policy preferences** **Case study- migration policy in the EU** **Germany:** **Open borders policy under Merkel government -- allowing a large number of regugees** **A need to collaborate with other states -- emphasized need to collaborate with other states** **Policy analysis challenge** **Rapid inflows needing both short- term housing/welfare and long term integration** **Diverse migrant profiles -- various needs based on origin** **Rapid inflows caused political backlash -- domestic opposition** **Municipalities carried out much of the implementation responsibility with varying resources and capacity** **Greece:** **Mediterranean location means Greece has "first- responder" status -- primary entry point for many migrants crossing the mediterranean** **2008 economic crisis limtis the capabilities of the bureaucracy to handle this** **Policy analysis challenge** **Affordability and administrative capacity -- financial and bureaucratic inefficiency failed to deal with it** **High variability of migrant flows and ports of entry -- inconsistent arrival patterns and many ports of entry hard to police** **Compliance with EU regulations is challenging** **Dublin regulation- asylum claims must be processed locally in the country of arrival, placing a disproportionate burden on Greece and its resources** **Hungary** **Preference for deterrence, closed borders, national sovereignty and cultural cohesion** **Policy analysis challenges:** **Hungary rejects Eu solidarity and burden sharing policies, can analysts frame policy options without aggravating EU relations? This complicated collective efforts to address the migration crisis** **A narrative of cultural and security threats and anti-immigrant sentiment by Orbans cabinet. "Rational" analysis likely to be rejected in favour of populist messaging** **Detainment of asylum seekers and closed borders can analysis address humanitarian concerns** **Design capacity** **Nodality- government is at the centre of social and informational networks, giving them access to data, knowledge and communication channels to influence or guide behaviour** **Authority- governments have legitimate legal power to command or prohibit action ensuring compliance with policy goals** **Treasure- government has financial resources to design and implement problem solutions, allocate design, funding ie budgets, subsidies, grants** **Organisation government possess a stock of people skills land building and technology. (skilled personnel, infrastructure, technology and administrative systems) to implement and manage policy** **NATO acronym** **Might form basis of exam question! KNOW THIS!!!** **Can combine policy design with the NATO framework** **Instruments used for policy design ( to wield these NATO capabilities )** **Incentives ( carrots ) -- rewards or benefits designed to encourage specific behaviours ie tax breaks, subsidies, grants** **Dis-incentives ( sticks ) -- penalties or punishments used to discourage (fines, taxes, regulations)** **information/communication ( sermons ) -- efforts to educate, inform or persuade the public through campaigns, guidelines or public messaging to influence attitudes and behaviours** **Decision-steering through behavioural cues ( nudges ) -- subtle interventions that shape behaviour without restricting choices often by altering the way options are presented (ie setting default options like organ donation)** **NATO framework combined with this list can create a list of policy options** **Case study: Singapore's Transport Policy** **Applied technocratic approach after independence.** **Design challenges:** **Land scarcity -- very small amount of space** **Rising population -- increasing demand and less space** **Economic development -- must support their economic growth** **Environmental sustainability ( air pollution ) -- policies aim to minimize pollution and align sustainability goals** **Transport policy goals:** **Economic efficiency** **Environmental sustainability** **Equity and accessibility -- access for all** **Design principle:** **Integration of multiple policy goals into a coherent, flexible, responsive policy framework -- balances competing priorities and evolves based on outcomes and feedback** **Command and control: certificate of entitlement ( COE ) for car ownership, dispensed via competitive auction -- utilizes authority and is a stick that deters overuse** **Combined use of different policy instruments ( carrot, stick etc )** **Market-based instruments: Electronic Road Pricing ( ERP ) that charges vehicles for using roads with high traffic ( charges vary in real time ) -- leverages treasure and nodality (data from traffic systems) to implement dynamic pricing , combines sticks (charges) with nudges (encouraging off peak travel)** **Persuasion and information: information campaigns promoting mass public transport, draws on nodality to disseminate information and influence behaviour and relates to a sermon** **Carrot of efficient public transpot** **Learning and feedback:** **COE and ERP policies have evolved over time through incremental adjustments, reflecting organization by relying on skilled administration** **Policy Design Instruments** **Substantive instruments: aimed at the delivery of certain goods and services to society** **Effecting instruments: policies that seek to effect direct changes , e.g advice, training** **Detecting instruments: policies that garner information to help direct change, e.g reporting, registration** **( Nato model )** **Procedural instruments: techniques aimed at adjusting institutional procedures to enhance support for and participation of government networks** **incentivising /promoting - positive, e.g education information** **dis-centivising /inhibiting - negative, e.g information suppression** **Policy Design Instruments, specifically Procedural Instruments, which are methods aimed at adjusting institutional procedures to enhance support for and participation in government networks. Procedural instruments can be positive (incentivizing or promoting desired behaviors) or negative (dis-incentivizing or inhibiting undesirable behaviors).** **Positive Instruments:** **These aim to encourage or promote desired actions or behaviors.** **Nodality (Education, Information, Nudges):** **Using the government\'s central position in information networks to educate the public, disseminate information, or use behavioral \"nudges\" (subtle prompts) to guide behavior in a desired direction.** **Authority (Treaties, Political Agreements, Advisory Committees):** **Leveraging formal agreements, advisory bodies, or political negotiations to build consensus and enhance institutional cooperation.** **Treasure (Interest Group Formation, Research Funding):** **Providing financial resources to support interest groups or fund research, ensuring the promotion of desired goals through collaboration.** **Organisation (Institutional Reform, Judicial Review):** **Structuring government organizations or reforming institutions to align them better with procedural goals, ensuring compliance and fostering trust.** **Negative Instruments:** **These are designed to deter or inhibit undesirable actions or behaviors.** **Nodality (Information Suppression):** **Restricting the flow of information or limiting access to it as a way to inhibit certain behaviors or control narratives.** **Authority (Banning Groups or Associations):** **Using legal power to prohibit the functioning of specific groups or associations deemed undesirable.** **Treasure (Eliminating Funding):** **Cutting off financial support or resources to discourage certain actions or dismantle unwanted initiatives.** **Organisation (Purposeful Administrative Delay):** **Deliberately slowing administrative processes to hinder or obstruct undesirable behaviors or actions.** **Complexity in Policy Design** **Politics, institutional legacies and power structures can influence policy design** **
** **Trade-offs, compromises and bargaining... Satisficing, settling for a solution that is good enough** **The layering of new policies on top of old; will new policies be compatible** **The constraints of preceding institutional practices and policies on design... path dependence, limit future policy options as they create a framework that is difficult to break away from** **Case-study: UvA's outdoor smoking ban** **Current policy involves elaborate signage and reminders in university newsletters** **Policy failure: students ignore the signs and, in the end of night, some people have been vandalising and stealing the signs** **Summary** **If policy problems are socially constructed, then so too are policy analyses used to understand those probles, before, during and after agenda setting processes** **Policy analysis falls in three categories** **Scientific seeking to apply theory to understand how policy interventions resulted in desired outcomes** **Professional analyses and evaluates policy options in their political and institutional contexts while also drawing on research/ theory** **Political deliberately promotes a particular policy proposal/ priority/ ideology with the economic/legal/politcla arguments** **All analysis requite political significant value judgements and contribute to the social construction of publics and problems** **Governments posess NATO** **Polic design is a comprehensively rational form of policy formulation that can deploy 2 types of instrument -- procedural instruments and substantive instruments** **Policy design is often limited by institutional and political realilties associated with satisfycing, layering and path dependence** **Policy formation through non-design** **Comprehensive or compromised design** **Patching -- only incremental changes to existing policy regimes are desirable, necessary or possible -- uncontroversial, not much technical/ analytical analysis needed** **Drift- past failures to update or revise policies leave a legacy that must be accommodated to meet new realities -- often constrains hopes/ efforts** **Stretching- some policies in a policy mix get extended to cover issues, publics or geographic areas they were not originally designed to cover** **Layering- new policies are added to a policy mix, without removing or adjusting older policies (the legitimacy is often not their to scrab the slate clean)** **Packaging- the pure design, ideal that we can create something that is fit for the time we can develop something from scratch but then affected by the above factors plus institutional pressures very political very quickly** **Policy non- design** **Policy making occurs but heavily influenced by institutional pressures ect suboptimal** **Legislative bargaining -- compromises between government and legislator that may be suboptimal or ineffective due to competing ideologies and priorities** **Clientelism- policies developed to benefit special interest groups in exchange for political support** **Promotion for electoral advantage- policies developed with the specific intent of winning electoral advantage, ie to build coalitions or cutting off opponents** **Bureaucratic politics- policies are developed in ways that ease competition or tension between government departments/ organisation leading to poor policy outcomes -- suboptimal in appearance** **Budget maximization- policies formulated to maximise a department/ organisation budget allocation, develop a policy with which they can ask the treasury for more money** **Leader experiences/preferences- personal experiences, preferences or ideologies of political leaders** **Case- study Brexit** **The referendum:** **Motivated by internal party politics, electoral advantage and bargaining power with the EU** **Agenda- setting:** **The leave campaign national sovereignty, immigration control, economic independence** **Mis/disinformation about pros and cons** **Cameron didn't think we would vote to leave but he didn't understand the power of social media and miss information** **Non-design** **Lack of foresight- government had no plan if the public voted to leave and what it would look like if they left, thus policy formulation was reactive and rushed a design approach not possible? Eu policies were well integrated, unprepared to go into negotiations** **Fragmented and non-strategic approach- lack of institutional/political knowledge of how Brexit would integrate with existing policies (led to lots stretching and layering)** **Ie good Friday agreement with northern Ireland possibility of united republic of island and EU policing of boarder and soft boarder of good Friday agreement, what trade agreements would be possible, immigration controls** **Legislative and internal party bargaining -- no consensus on best negotiating position with EU and little understanding of past negotiations** **This shows how non- design orientation can easily occur** **Limitations to policy design** **Arise from complex political interactions, unanticipated or emergent consequences and lack of foresight** **Power dynamics often mean that policymakers must compromise or follow ideological priorities instead of seeking comprehensive design (satiscficing)** **Complexity and emergent outcomes (things that could not have been anticipated)- complex societal problems lead to emergent, unplanned outcomes/consequences for which problem definitions and policy options may be difficult to derive or solutions may be challenging to evaluate in an evidence based way in time to allow for adequate response** **Path dependence- institutional structures, networks and practices may limit the ability to design clear, coherent policies, may feel compelled to follow the same path** **Public participation** **The direct involvement of citizens and civil society in the formulation, decision making and implementation of public policy** **Why participation matters** **Enhances legitimacy, accountability and responsiveness of public policy** **Provides decision makers with diverse perspectives and expertise** **Empowers citizens and fosters democratic engagement** **Participation in policy making** **Until late 1960s in may countries gov conventionally operated under relative secrecy** **Government arrived with completed policies in hand** **Communities were only told what they needed to know- freedom of information legislation did not arrive until 70s/ 80s/90s** **The idea of public consultation did not really enter the process** **Certain trust assumed** **Stakeholder consultation** **Today stakeholders assume that policy development will, at a minimum be aired to the public before finalisation- some lib dems r better than others at participation** **Stakeholders can have some input even if it is simply to formally register their agreement or disagreement** **The extent to which stakeholders can influence policy-making varies** **What factors might affect the extent to which government is willing to listen to the public** **Legislative bargaining ect may limit how much the public are consulted** **Benefits of public participation** **Improved policy outcome-** **More informed decisions that better reflect public needs and preferences** **Access to local knowledge and expertise** **Increased legitimacy and trust** **Engaging the public increases trust in government institutions and their decisions** **Democratic empowerment** **Citizens feel empowered when they can actively contribute to policy decisions** **Challenges and limitations for participation** **Participation inequality** **Marginalised groups underrepresented in participatory process, leading to unequal influence** **Risk of tokenism** **Public engagement can be symbolic rather than substantive, with little actual impact on decision-making** **Complexity of policy issues:** **Some issues may be too technical or complex for non-expert citizens to engage meaningfully ( climate change science** **Participation emphasise complexity/uncertainty that further constrains comprehensive policy design** **Time and resource constraints:** **Public participation can slow down decision-making and require significant resources for implementation** **Arnstein's ladder of citizen participation** **Can categorise levels of political participation through degrees of governments' intent. Only some have credibility as meaningful participation process.** **Manipulation: participation in "advisory committees" with no influence: a public relations ruse** **Therapy: participation as a means to treat the perceived mental illness of a particular group ( government must cure or educate the masses )** **Informing: one way communication ( listening but not hearing; tokenism )** **Consultation: two-way communication but no mechanism to effect/influence change** **Placation: participation in a powerful forum, but with no real power** **At top level: government negotiates, collaborates or cedes control entirely.** **Case study: UK Climate Change Act 2008** **Designed to circumvent electoral politics ( had lots of bipartisan support so support from both party ). Climate change seen as opportunity for UK to maintain status as major world power due to its dash for gas** **Unavoidable greenhouse gas reduction targets for every party regardless of their stance ( independent committee oversight )** **5 yearly national risk assessments to maintain this to put in influence National Adaptation Plan ( NAP )** **Stakeholder engagement? Substantial participatory approach was attempted, but challenging because participants didn't understand the science.** **Difficult to impartially assess risk** **Heavily skewed by bureaucratic political interference; corrections made to the risk assessment for fear of compromising existing policy portfolios. Consultants forced to restart the process. Bureaucrats under duress during process.** **Final draft largely disconnected from NAP. Gap between policy analysis, public participation and policy** **Contemporary models of public participation** **Deliberative democracy:** **Structured dialogue to deliberate on policy issues, seek consensus or compromise and advise policymakers. Focus on reasoned discussion rather than simply voting.** **E.g focus groups- small groups on specific policies, citizen assemblies -- randomly selection groups** **Policy co-production/participatory democracy:** **Active collaboration between government and citizens in policy design and implementation. Gives citizens a direct role in shaping outcomes.** **E.g. participation budgeting -- citizens participate in where the funds are allocated, citizen juries -- review a specific policy issue and provide recommendations after considering evidence and expert testimony( Australia nuclear waste repository )** **Digital democracy:** **Using technology and online social media to facilitate public engagement and democratic decision-making for policy. Allows broader participation** **E.g consultation via online platforms , vote trading** **Attempts to use social media for greater good** **Policy transfer** **The process by which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions, or ideas about one political system is used in the development of polices in another system** **Transfer may be voluntary or coerced (international organizations, economic agreements, diplomatic pressure)** **Transfer is often deliberate even if involuntary ie to avoid sanctions, gain access to resourced** **Transfer is often promoted by transnational governance organisations** **Case study: Dutch delta management** **After 1953 floods, water management in NL changed radically:** **Infrastructure works** **Integrated water management** **Risk management** **Space for water ( ruimte voor de rivier )** **Policy transfer:** **Delta works; jakarta coastal defense project, Bangladesh delta management plan;** **Integrated water management: EU water framework directive; Mekong river basin management plan; Australia's murray-darling river basin management plan** **Space for water; floodplain restoration in vietnam's mekong delta, UK "village blue" initiative** **Risk management: UK's Thames Estuary 2100 project** **Good ideas tend to spread to other parts of the world. Policy transfer can be considered a net good; can't directly transfer policies to different contexts without tailoring to local context, but transferring policies that work is good overall.** **Causes of policy transfer** **globalisation : world economic structures, international corporations and institutions ( e.g IMF, world bank ) are increasingly influential. Governments have less capacity to frame and design their own agendas.** **Loss of territorial synchrony: policy problems and publics increasingly extend beyond bounds of any one jurisdiction. Governments must increasingly collaborate with each other to address policy issues** **Digital communication: speed of exchange of ideas and knowledge increasing. Cultural influence of stronger nations increasing.** **Influences on policy transfer** **Policy and institutional similarities: between the borrowing and lending country makes transfer more likely ( e.g similar political, economic, bureaucratic or cultural contexts )** **External pressure: international agreements, foreign aid conditionality** **Domestic factors: political will, civil society pressure and public opinion does it align with these** **Networks: the role of think tanks, transnational network and global knowledge sharing** **Mechanisms of transfer** **copying/emulation: direct copying or imitating models** **learning/adaptation: borrowing policy elements seen as successful and/or modifying a borrowed policy to fit local context** **Imposition: international organisations or powerful states force policies on weaker nations** **Voluntary or coerced?** **Continuum from lesson drawing ( comprehensive rationality ) to coercive transfer ( direct imposition under thereat of sanctions or military assault )** **Includes** **Lesson drawing** **Voluntary but driven by perceived necessity ie greenhouse gas caps** **Conditionality ( loan conditions, membership conditions ) agree to a benefit in exchange for policy transfer** **Obligatory ( treaty obligations )** **Coercive transfer** **Summary** **Policy design important for policy formulation, but hindered by practical realities:** **Institutional and political pressures** **Problem complexity** **Existing policy legacies** **Policy non-design is a more likely outcome of the policy formulation process.** **Public participation is considered a vital component of policy formulation process but in practice, governments conduct participatory processes in ways that are unsatisfactory** **Policy transfer is also a vital component of policy formulation. The importance of policy transfer has become increasingly important in a globalized world.** **Key points of readings:** **Lecture 5A** **Concepts and definitions** **Implementation is what determines citizens' experience of policy decisions** **One of the causes of policy failure** **Policies formulated in broad, vague language; unsustainable in implementation phase** **Unforeseen consequences in implementation phase** **Policy implementation = the activity in the policy process in which actors attempt to concert policy intentions and resources into actions resulting in specific policy output, and ultimately in the achievement ( or not ) of intended policy outcomes.** **
** **Previously neglected phase by political scientists** **Progressively more interest in implementation due to its political nature** **Conflicts and controversies arise in this stage** **Decision making continues in implementation stage; fundamental and technical elements** **Renegotiation** **Political because actors are biased ( interests and ideologies ).** **Winners and losers become apparent** **Case study: toeslagenschandaal** **Why so complex?** **Most difficult/critical stage of policymaking process** **Many actors and organisations involved ( different interests and values )** **Deficiencies in design become clear: vague goals, layering/overlap of policies (decisions layered on top of older decisions which may have conflicting elements to each other) not clear what is being implemented** **Vague goals cannot be sustained; not clear what is being implemented** **Failure to anticipate implementation problems or lack of understanding of implementation process** **Ambiguity is now lost as it is implemented** **Optimism that it will work by policy designers** **Who is involved?** **ministry/central department -- defining political decisions** **Public services providers -- delivering ie police** **Lower-level governments -- delivering the policy** **Public utilities -- maintain/ deliver public services ie water management** **Non-state actors** **Tribunals commission** **Private companies -- privatising** **Arm's length bodies ( increasingly used by governments )** **Civil society NGOs- may be in charge delivering certain things** **Structural transformations that impact policy implementation** **From public administration towards public governance** **Decentralisation** **Digitalisation** **Democratic backsliding and populism** **trans nationalization /Europeanisation** **Governance reforms in structural organisation: move from** **public administration ( bureaucracy, hierarchy, neutrality, rules procedure, decisions at the top, stick to the process )** **( new ) public management ( efficiency, market orientated, greater managerial autonomy and logic, performance, indicators, decentralization)** **to public governance ( more emphasis on network between actors, involving multiple stakeholders, diversification of actors )** **Decentralisation** **Transfer of powers, responsibilities and resources from the central government to authorities at subnational level** **Different types of decentralisation:** **(territorial) Political, administrative and/or fiscal, ( distribution of political power like decision making powers, reorganisation of tasks/functions/ responsibilities, delegating taxation responsibilities spending decisions to local authorities ) -- increase democratic feel and cheapen, claims for autonomy at lower levels which can be partly justified, can make them more efficient and transparent** **Territorial (applies to geographic areas ie from state to provinces)or functional (to specific sectors or functions ie health/transport often involving specialised agencies or public bodies)** **Trend towards decentralisation but degrees of public sector decentralisation vary greatly** **Creates more transparency and reduces power of central state** **Non-traditional form of decentralisation:** **Transfer of power to actors outside the state** **Administrative, political, territorial, functional** **Lower levels asked to do things but not given the resources** **Top Left: Political-Territorial (Devolution)** **Devolution involves transferring decision-making authority from a central government to lower territorial levels, such as regions, states, or municipalities.** **Characteristics:** **Politically driven.** **Aimed at granting autonomy to specific geographic areas.** **Often seen in federal systems or in decentralized governance structures.** **2. Top Right: Political-Functional (Interest Group Representation)** **In this quadrant, decision-making authority is shared with or influenced by specific functional interest groups, such as trade unions, business associations, or advocacy groups.** **Characteristics:** **Politically oriented.** **Involves stakeholder engagement in functional or sectoral areas (e.g., education, health).** **3. Bottom Left: Administrative-Territorial (Deconcentration)** **Deconcentration refers to delegating administrative authority to territorial subunits of the central government, such as regional offices or local branches.** **Characteristics:** **Administratively driven.** **Focuses on improving efficiency in service delivery without granting political autonomy.** **4. Bottom Right: Administrative-Functional (Arm's Length Bodies, Public-Private Partnerships)** **This quadrant reflects the delegation of administrative functions to semi-independent or non-governmental entities, such as regulatory agencies, public-private partnerships, or specialized organizations.** **Characteristics:** **Administratively oriented.** **Focuses on specific tasks or sectors (e.g., infrastructure, transportation).** **Key Insights:** **The vertical axis differentiates between political (decision-making) and administrative (implementation)dimensions.** **The horizontal axis distinguishes between territorial (geographic focus) and functional (sector-specific focus)delegation.** **Digitalisation** **Government digitalisation is becoming a mainstream of governance reforms** **High expectations in terms of efficiency and effectiveness, interactions with stakeholders/ citizcens and quality of public services ie digital self service systems** **Governments still struggle to integrate digital tools and to tackle related complexity** **Digital means of structuring citizen interaction with the state** **Changing public bureaucracies** **Actors within bureaucracy may lack relevant knowledge and ensuring accessibility hard** **Democratic backsliding and populism** **Populist governments generally undermine administrative institutions and weaken the existing institutions of the state thus affecting implementation** **Though negative narratives and bashing administrative institutions as elitists and ineffective** **Restructuring governance to match goals through capturing, reforming, dismantling, or sabotaging the state bureaucracy** **Choice of public managers based on loyalty not ability** **EU** **Highly integrated** **Exclusive competences -- only what EU is in charge of** **Shared competences -- with member states** **Support actions -- help member states to coordinate implementation** **EC- supranational, proposes legislation, EP amending the proposing** **E council -- intergovernmental** **Key principles** **Primacy of EU law: where a conflict arises between an aspect of EU law and an aspect of national law, EU law will prevail** **Subsidiarity: EU may act only if objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member state. Who can make decisions?** **Principle of proportionality: EU action shall not exceed what is necessary to achieve the objectives of the treaties. What is the nature of the action?** **Policy implementation** **Putting into practice diverse policies coming out of EU legislative process: both directly and indirectly applicable, binding regulations and directives, as well as voluntary "soft policies", targets and economic instruments** **Regulations = immediately imposed EU law, binding and directly applicable in all member states without requiring national legislation ( not passed through national legislative process )** **Directive: binding objectives but require member states to adopt national laws to achieve the objectives outlined in the directive( objectives set out for EU countries but method devised at national level** **Regulations and directives both binding** **Direct implementation by Eu institutions ie EC** **Indirect implementation by member states through national administrations and legal systems** **Tools like subsidies and grants** **Soft policies: non-binding measures ie recommondenations or guidligns / targets** **1. Transposition (formal outputs)** **This is the process of incorporating EU law into the national judicial and administrative systems.** **Key Elements:** **Translating EU directives into domestic legal frameworks.** **Ensuring the completeness and timeliness of the incorporation process.** **Actors:** **Legislators and policymakers (with potential veto powers).** **Administrative entities that operationalize the regulations.** **2. Administrative Implementation (practical outputs)** **After transposition, the national and subnational administrative units work on implementing the new legal rules within their jurisdictions.** **Key Focus Areas:** **Regulatory styles and administrative structures.** **Monitoring and enforcement of laws.** **Actors:** **National and subnational administrative units.** **Street-level bureaucrats who directly interact with the system.** **3. Practical Application (practical outcomes)** **This is the stage where the laws are applied and lead to actual behavioral changes in citizens and service providers.** **Key Focus Areas:** **Ensuring compliance with legal obligations.** **Problem-solving and citizen engagement.** **Actors:** **Service providers, organizations, and frontline officials.** **Citizens and other stakeholders affected by the laws.** **Bottom Section:** **Each section also outlines specific criteria for success:** **For Transposition: Timeliness, completeness, and accurate integration into the regulatory framework.** **For Administrative Implementation: Correct application and consistent enforcement of the legal framework.** **For Practical Application: Behavioral change among addressees and effective compliance.** **In essence, the diagram illustrates the multi-step process of translating EU directives into action at the national level, starting from legal transposition to practical effects on citizens and service providers.** **Stages of policy implementation** **Transposition ( formal outputs ): legal and bureaucratic measures for transposing EU law into national judicial and administrative system.** **Actors: legislators, parliaments, interest groups, veto players, administration.** **Administrative implementation ( practical outputs )** **National regulatory parctice** **Regulatory styles, organisational and administrative structures** **Actors: national and subnational administrative units. Agences, street-level bureaucrats** **Practical application** **Infringement can lead to use of article 7** **Usually leads to monetary sanctions** **If it comes to common values then article 7- suspension of rights ie voting rights** **Requires unanimous decision in council** **Withholding of funds used since 2021** **Rule of law report since 2020; no specific consequences** **Compliance and differentiated implementation** **Three theoretical approaches to explain variation in states' compliance with EU policy:** **Management approach: lack of capacity and resources, expertise** **Enforcement approach: intentional non-compliance as result of govt preferences (conflicts with national identity or ideology)** **Normative approach: importance of bottom-up pressure, socialisation and learning like civil society or public opinion drive compliance with EU norms** **Differentiated policy implementation: member states may choose different, yet equally EU law-abiding policies, and combine policies with different procedural rules or informal practices; customisation of EU policy to fit domestic context and preferences.** **
** **Current shift from normative view to understanding how member states adapt policy on the ground** **Understanding implementation complexity** **Bottom-up vs top-down** **( analytical perspectives to understand how policy is implemented )** **Top down:** **The top-down approach is a way of studying implementation that considers the goal of the highest level policy makers and traces the design and implementation of the policy through the lowest- level implementers** **Perspective of policy makers from top** **Tracing decisions down to lower level outcomes** **Assumes clear articulation of intended policy ( clear goals from which results can be inferred )** **Assumes there is an implementation chain starting from the top** **Failures come from difficulty in communication or poor performance of implementers** **"Implementation gaps can be corrected through better control mechanisms** **Assumes that problem can be solved if people at bottom do their job better** **Bottom-up** **Considers the abilities and motivations of implementers and tracks implementation from that level up** **Assumes policy implementation is difficult, it is an impossible task and implementers make do as best they can** **Impossible for bureaucrats to realise decision made at higher level without making alterations** **Considers abilities and motivations of policy implementers and tracks implementation from that level up** **Main assumptions: implementers face impossible task and "make do" as best they can** **Policy ambiguity ( no single statute, vague goals ), limited resources and time pressure** **Looks at challenges that arise from resource groups, institutional environments, self-perception of implementers** **Case study: open data policies** **Summary:** **The outcomes of a policy cannot be mechanically deduced from the way it was formulated** **It is not always clear what is implemented (unclear goals or not actual decision)** **Great number of actors involved with different ideas, interests, routines etc** **Problem and solutions are continuously reformulated to adapt to changing circumstances** **A concern for implementation should be built into all phases of the policy process** **Policy actors need to understand the political and administrative contexts in which it is made** **his top-down school, which dominates Europeanization research,
is primarily interested in comparing the intended and actually achieved outcomes of implementation,
where the degree of the goal attainment serves as an indicator for implementation success. \[\...\]
Alternatively, 'performance implementation' denotes whether a policy achieves outcomes that resolve
the original policy problem at stake** **Lecture 5B** **Top down failures** **Lack of resources** **Vague language** **Resistance** **Who/ what is a street level bureaucrat?** **Employees of the government who:** **Interact with the public regularly** **Have independence in decision making** **Potentially have extensive impact on users** **Carry out tasks for which they are trained** **Ie police officers, social workers, teachers** **They are affected by** **Scarcity of resources** **Ambiguous (sometimes contradictory) role expectations** **This creates tension and pressure** **Abuse from public** **Lipsky's core propositions** **Policy is indeterminate construct that continues to evolve, public policies are not fixed or predetermined rather flexible and open to interpretation during the implementation phases** **Discretionary actions of street level bureaucrats become policy -- way in which policy is implemented is also considered policy -- broadens conception of what public policy is** **Discretion is structured by factors that influence SLB's behaviour in systemic ways -- how does the environment in which they work effect their decisionsie limited resources or rules, societal pressures** **Policy implementation is politically significant, not only bc their actions can modify the policy but also because they are the first interaction between citizens and the state so can really influence a citizens perspective of the state** **What is discretion and do we want it?** **Discretion can be seen as the extent of freedom SLBs can exercise in a specific context to make a choice among possible courses of action or inaction** **For street level theory- discretion is necessary since goals are often unclear or contradictory if there at all decisions need to be made** **Discretion is also necessary to be responsive to individual circumstances in accordance with bottom up** **Top down perspective views discretion something that needs to be controlled as it harming users due to self interest or the bureaucrats, prioritizes uniformity** **Discretion gives slbs significant power of citizcens- lack of resources ect means they have a lot of power in deciding what the policies look like and how they are experienced** **Factors at micro level- personal preference** **Relevance at meso level- resources, funding , attribute resources, training** **Adaptation to meso and macro conditions** **Faced with resource limitations and time pressure to mange their job, slb may** **Develop coping mechanisms -- routinising, modifying goals and rationing services** **Rationalize problematic practices** **From this theoretical perspective the coping mechanism is a way to act rationally within the constraints they have therefore being functional for the organisations due to the resource limitations but not necessarily for society** **From this theoretical perspective, the logic of street -level work is both ration and at times functional for the organisation, even if it may be dysfunction in terms of responsiveness to needs** **Such practices should be understood as adaptations to conditions of work rather than SLBs personal preferences, training ect** **SLB as citizen agents and citizen entrepreneurs** **SLBs see themselves as "citizcen agents " their decisions are based on judgements on individual situation rather than self interest only, temepered by pragmatism (practical problem solving as well as relationships in addition to rules) to balance formal policies with human factors** **Their discretion may improve the policies making them more adapted to the region** **See themselves as citizen agents and accountable to the citizens they work for driven by individual situation judgements and by pramagtism (influenced byt the relationship they have with the community as well as the rules)** **Civic entrepreneurship -- endeavour to build relationships with the community in order to overcome policy shortcomings** **Civic entrepreneurship to describe the role that public sector staff can play in the wider revitalisation of the public sector, by their endeavours to form relationships fostering engagement, collaboration and community improvement** **Policy entrepreneurs try to influence policy design making use of social acuity (awareness of social dynamics), problem knowledge and building networks, refusing to comply thus making the policy change, to address issues creatively and advocate for changes in policies based on their frontline experience** **"inside story" of governance transformation** **Changing nature of street level organisations which were mainly public which can be public but increasingly also private (not for or for profit) or mixed (public private partnerships), involving external actors beyond the government** **Public sector bureaucracies thus SLBS are now also managers, contracting out and overseeing policy delivery by external organisations -- thus new skills required rather than just implementers. They need to coordinat3e and ensure accountability in outsourced or decentralized policy delivery.** **Importing managerial strategies from private sector, policy delivery is re-shaped by changing organisational forms and evolving managerial strategies which affect how discretion is exercised by SLBs (through contracting (through delegating tasks to external entities), management by performance (using targets and metric to monitor and control service delivery)etc)** **This affects how discretion is exercised as SLBS may be constrained by performance indicators or contractual obligations, limiting their flexibility to respond to individual cases** **Digitalisation and "screen level bureaucrats"** **In digitalized bureaucracies, frontline workers tasks are highly programmed if not completely automated in discretion in assessing cases** **Increasing use of tec in state, effecting in some instances the discretion of street level b in assessing cases decrease in discretion as highly programmed if not completely automated** **Risks of digitalisation -- discrimination in access to services (ie for vulnerable publics that lack digital literacy) and automated discrimination (ie dutch childcare benefits scandal)** **Slb develop new forms of expertise to act as digital mediators (helping people navigate digital services), detectors of system errors and data producers (contributing to the collection and analysis of data that feeds into decision making processes)** **Public bureaucracies increasingly rely on the expertise of IT professionals and data scientists** **Democratic backsliding** **Research on slb in authoritarian contexts show common features to try to control them** **Upward accountability and political loyalty -- politicising bureaucracies, loyalty over needs of citizens, actions primarily guides by their accountability to political leaders** **Prioritizing state stability over responsiveness to citizens/clients -- implementing to align with political goals than addressing concerns** **Variation of client treatment (users/citizcens) to fulfil political goals ie favouring supporters of the regime or margenilizing opposition** **Cant always blame the bureaucrats as elites (populism) so govs find other ways to influence ie hiring loyal people or creating alternative agencies** **Governments might seek to politicise the bureaucracies to control implementation through patronage of loyal people or create para bureaucracy (parallel systems loyal to the regime), undermine the expertise/authority of SLB by devaluing professional knowledge and reducing authority, cut their resources of neutral or independent bureaucracies** **Dynamic and reciprocal relation- backsliding forces SLB to take side either resist or be loyal but slb response affects the extent to which illiberal/populist policies can be implemented as it can hinder the illiberal implementation or facilitate it** **The role of users and target populations** **Target populations are specific subsets or segments with the larger population that are the primary focus of a policy implementation -- beneficiaries, or behaviour intended to be changed** **Target populations are shaped by the value judgements that policy makers express when justifying their agendas to legislatures and the public , affects prioirities and narratives ie one group may be framed as deserving or undeserving** **Target populations linked to a public policy perceived by how policy makers construct them while making policy** **Street -- level organisations act as intermediaries between policy and the target populations they influence how social status and identity of target populations are recognized valued or stigmatized ie may reinforce or challenge stereotypes** **Compliance of target population** **Aim of most public policy is to provoke behavioural in the targets change either by changing incentive structures, sanctioning compliance** **Policies often developed with rudimentary knowledge about how targets are likely to react - assumes that policy targets are rational self maximisers meaning they will respond logically to incentives or penalties to align their behaviour with policy objective but this overlooks complex social, emotional or contextual factors** **Weaver enumerates barriers to compliance** **Incentives and sanctions -- if they are too weak or irrelevant to their priorities ie minor fines** **Monitoring -- lack of adequate monitoring or enforcement mechanism can reduce compliance** **Resources -- targets may lack the financial, information or physical resources to comply even if they are will Ie low income with cost