KAY 386: Public Policy

Lecture 5 Readings: Parsons, 1995: 110-131, 461-473 & Bonser at al., Chapter 6.

AGENDA

   The first installment of the Journal Assignment due on the Midterm Exam date.

Reminding the selected readings for After Midterm Period Today’s Subjects   Public Opinion & Public Policy Public Policy Implementation  Globalization

READINGS AFTER MIDTERM (Five Subjects for Five Weeks)

     Right to Die  Will be analyzed in class together Factory Farms Gun Control Debates Organ Donations Stopping Genocide

Public Opinion & Public Policy

 Observations on the character and importance of the public voice from ancient times:   “Vox populi, vox dei” (Alcuin) “Publica Voce” (Machiavelli)

What is Public Opinion?

 Although it is an old concept, it is first defined in the 18th Century Britain as: An identifiable body of views held by a defined group to whose opinions government attached a standing and significance.

Public Opinion & Public Policy

  Which comes first?  Public policy or public opinion?

Policy agenda is set by the interplay of public opinion and public power.

  How is public opinion shaped by power?

Shaping of public concerns, priorities and attitudes

Interplay between the Media and Agenda (Mayer)

Which comes first? (Chicken-egg?)   Unidirectional  Media influencing the public agenda Multidirectional  The policy agenda of the government influencing media coverage and public opinion

Public Opinion & Public Policy

  In a democracy, public policy is a function of public opinion.

 Policy demand determines policy supply Public opinion is to the political market what consumer demand is to the economic market.

What is Public Opinion?

 In the Post-Second World War Era, the introduction of techniques to make empirical, quasi-scientific measurements of public opinion on issues... led to the analysis of the impact of opinion on the political agenda.

Agenda Setting (McCombs & Shaw)

  The media has a key role in agenda setting, that is, in the power to determine what topics are discussed.

The more attention that is given to an issue, the more does the public regard it as being a high agenda item.

The Impact of Media Attention on the Public Agenda High Media attention on issues Low Issues considered less important by the public Source: Parsons, 1995: 113.

Issues considered more important by the public

Factors Determining Response

 Policy makers’ response to new stories/media coverage is influenced by:     The relationship of journalists to policy making elites and vice versa The timing of the publication Interest group pressures Costs and benefits of problems and solutions, etc.

2. Alarmed Discovery Euphoric Enthusiasm 3. Realizing costs of significant progress 1. Pre-problem stage Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle Source: Parsons, 1995: 115 4. Gradual decline of public interest 5. Post-problem stage Issues as having highs and lows, ons and offs...

Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle

1.Pre-Problem Stage: Experts and policy-makers may be aware of the problem, and knowledge may have been produced, but there is negligible public interest.

Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle

2. Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric (Joyful) Enthusiasm Stage: The issue is recognized as a problem, prompted by a disaster and event, which focuses concern and leads to demands for government action

Downs’ Issue Attention Cycle

3.Counting the Costs and Benefits Stage: Policy makers and the public become aware of what progress will cost.

4.Decline of public interest in issue 5.Post-Problem Stage: The issue slips down the public agenda. New issues replace the environment in public opinion and policy agendas.

Types of Policy Agendas (Rogers and Dearing)

   Agenda-setting is an interactive process It may be intentional or unintentional The basic types are:    Media agenda Public agenda Policy Agenda

Systemic and Institutional Agenda (Cobb & Elder)

  Transformation of an issue into an (institutional) agenda item Expansion of an issue from a specifically concerned attention group to a wider interested or attentive public

Systemic and Institutional Agenda (Cobb & Elder)

 Systemic Agenda  All issues commonly perceived by members of a political community as meriting public attention of public authorities  Shared concern of a sizeable portion of the public  Institutional Agenda   Explicitly up for active and serious consideration by decision-makers May be an old item which is up for regular review or is of periodic concern; or it may be a new item.

Factors that Affect Transfer

     Degree of specificity (-)  The more ambiguous the issue, the easier it will be exposed to a larger population Scope of social significance (+) Temporal relevance (+)  The higher the long-term relevance, the easier it will be exposed to a larger population Degree of complexity (-)  The more non-technical the issue, the easier it will be exposed to a larger population Categorical precedence (-)  The more an issue lacks a clear precedence, the easier it will be exposed to a larger population

Issues & Institutions

  The key to understand agenda formation is the relationship between issues and institutions.

An issue only begins to become important when an institution within the political system becomes associated with it.

Policy Marketing & Policy Making

 The worlds of advertising & public opinion research overlap in theory & practice.

   Issues & policies are increasingly approached from a marketing point of view.

Policy actors are interested in what the voter thinks and wants.

The idea of analyzing the policy agenda as if the voter was a consumer and policies are products.

Theories of Agenda Control

  The pluralist perspective:  Definition of problems & setting of policy agendas is essentially the outcome of a process of competition between different groups.

Critics:  Power and influence are not equally distributed   The policy-making process is not open and neutral The dominant players establish their own priorities.

Theories of Agenda Control

  The definition of issues is a fundamental form of political power.

The definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power.

Issue Triggers (Cobb & Elder)

 Internal Triggers  Natural catastrophes     Unanticipated human events Technological changes Imbalance or bias in the distribution of resources Ecological change  External Triggers  Act of war    Innovations in weapons technology International conflict Patterns of world alignment

Summary

 The politics of agenda setting is a process in which issues and priorities are defined through the regulation of conflict.

Policy Implementation

Source: Parsons, 1995: 461-473.

Implementation: Definitions

 Studying implementation is studying change    How does change occur?

Study of the political system inside and outside the organization What motivates implementors?

Source: Davis, “Influencing PP through Research”

Implementation

 An important stage in the policy process  Task of translating policy intentions into outcomes  Involves participation by a number of stakeholders  Reflects intention of governments to act

Policy

Electricity available to all citizens Cleaner water

Examples of policy implementation

Possible implementation scenarios

1. Creation of a public enterprise (direct provision) 2. State regulation of private companies 1. Ban of using certain products (regulation) 2. Possibility to buy the “right” to pollute (market creation) Prevention of heart disease 1. Advertising in the media 2. More hours for physical activities in schools (standard-setting)

Implementation: Definitions

 Policy-making does not come to an end once a policy is set out or approved.

 Policy is being made as it is being administered and administered as it is being made.

  Black-Box Model   What is happening between input and output?

Problems of implementation were rarely analyzed.

Bureaucrats are not just neutral public servants

Development of Implementation Studies

    The analysis of failure (Early 1970s) Rational (top-down models) Bottom-up critiques of the top-down model Hybrid Theories: Implementation as:  Evolution    Mutual adaptation Learning, exploration Inter-organizational analysis, etc.

Perfect implementation Preconditions (Gunn)

 no constraint from external environment  availability of adequate time and sufficient resources  direct relationship between cause and effect

Perfect implementation Preconditions (Gunn)

 single implementation agency, not dependent upon other agencies  complete understanding of, and agreement upon, objectives  specified tasks to be performed by each participant

Perfect implementation Preconditions (Gunn)

 perfect communication among, and coordination of, various elements in the program  perfect obedience demanded and obtained by those in authority

Example: Village Towns (Köykent) in Turkey (Marın, 2005)

   Objective  The establishment of towns with industrial and agricultural functions across rural Turkey.

A policy intervention that facilitates changes in the socioeconomic structure and cultural values of the rural population.  Agents in this transformation Politicians have similarly been obsessed with the idea of rural socioeconomic development  emphasizing the role of small urban centers in this process

Evaluating Failure in Village Towns

  None of the Village Town projects produced desired outcomes. There are a number of factors that caused this outcome:   an unstable political environment of some 20 years, ignorance of the socioeconomic structures in project areas,   impractical program design failures to accurately evaluate the importance of local citizen participation for the success. As a result most of the projects failed as soon as they began.

Rational (Top-down model)

 Effective implementation is required    Getting people to do what they are told  Deliberately excluding all emotions and motivations A good chain of command A healthy system of control and communications   A system of resources to do the job Minimizing conflict and degeneration   But “everything degenerates in the hands of men” When do things go right?

Criticisms to the Rational Model

    Implementation is not a perfect line of causation (x causes y) There is too much emphasis on the definition of goals from the top (rather than role of workers on the line) This model excludes any consideration of how real people actually behave Implementors make policy as well (discreation)  The interaction of bureaucrats with their “clients” at street level  Is it right for teachers and police to make policy?

 Interpretation of rules

Michael Lipsky

’

s street-level bureaucracy model

 Lipsky

’

s book entitled Street-level Bureaucrats (1980) has been viewed as the leading challenge to the top down model of policy implementation models and the starting point of bottom-up model.

Michael Lipsky

’

s street-level bureaucracy model

 Lipsky

“

argue(s) that public policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top-floor suites of high ranking administrators, because in important ways it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounters in street-level workers.

”

 And

“

the street-level bureaucrats, the routines they establish, and the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressures, effectively become the public policies they carry out.

”

(Lipsky, 1993, p. 382)



Michael Lipsky

’

s street-level bureaucracy model

Lipsky underlines that in implementing policy at street level, front-line workers are confronted with conflict and ambiguities . These may include   Inadequate resource and unsatisfactory working condition , e.g. large classes for teachers, huge caseloads for social workers, dangerous and hostile neighborhood for police officers.

Unpredictable, uncooperative, skeptical clients  Unclear and ambiguous job specification and guidelines .

Michael Lipsky

’

s street-level bureaucracy model

  Confronted with these inadequacies and uncertainties, street-level bureaucrats derive coping strategies or even survival strategies to deal with the unaccommodating working situations. Lipsky point out that in daily

“

client-processing

”

routines , street-level bureaucrats in fact have considerable amount of powers and discretions at their disposal, which may lead to substantial deviations from, if not complete alterations of, official and top-down policy specifications.

Alternative Models (Elmore)

  Forward Mapping (top-down)    Control over people and resources are not enough for successful implementation is only a myth Not the nature of the implementation process Backward Mapping (bottom-up)    What really important is the relationship between policy makers and policy deliverers Begin at the phase when the policy reaches its end-point Then analyze and organize policy by taking into account organizational and political environments

Policy-action continuum Problems

 conflicts over values, issues, and preferences  network of activities and actors  negotiations, bargaining, and compromise

Policy-action continuum Problems

 values and belief systems as well as professionalism of actors  policies may deliberately be made ambiguous

Implementation failure Causes

 different values, perspectives and priority of organizations  policies altered through process of delivery  best bargainers (negotiators) get what they want

Implementation failure Causes

 hierarchical control difficult to obtain  lack of capacity to mobilize target population  powerlessness of government  underestimation of complexity and difficulty of coordination



Implementation failure Causes

resistance from bureaucrats and officials  gap or breakdown between tasks and agencies  changes in the environment beyond the direct control of policy makers



Synthesis

The top-down and bottom-up synthesis approach: It characterizes theoretical orientations perceiving implementation as process of constituting coalition, structuration, networking, learning or institutionalization, within which various parties in a specific policy domain/area strive to realize a policy, program or project.

Implementation as a Political Game

    Conflict is not dysfunctional  On the contrary, it is essential in acquiring and maintaining power Deal-making is acceptable   Bargaining and persuasion under conditions of uncertainty Actors are trying to win as much control as possible Groups and individuals seek to maximize their power and influence during implementation   Self-interested people playing games Bardach, “The Implementation Game” Book (1977) Blurring of boundaries between politics and bureaucracy

Implementation as Evolution

   Top-down and bottom-up models oversimplify complexity  Implementation is constrained by the institutional context and the world around the institution It is an iterative bargaining process between policy enacters and resource controllers  Emphasis on power and dependence, interests, motivations and behavior Policy is something which evolves and unfolds over time

"you can't take politics out of analysis.“ (Deborah Stone) „What works…is about what works when, where, how, and from whom.“ (Wayne Parsons) “Policy implementation is the social construction of reality: through interpretation Dvora Yanow) .” ( it is a process of meaning making Source: H. Gottweis - SoSe 2oo8

PUBLIC POLICY AND GLOBALIZATION

Source: Bonser et al., 2000.

Chapter 6

Globalization

  A process of integration and interdependence Old wine in new bottles?   Merchants, crusades, explorers, colonialism?

Wider embrace of democracy and free markets   Changes in transportation and communication technologies Fragmentation of the production processes

CONQUESTS OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT, 334-323 BC

Marco Polo’s Travels, 1271-1297

Route of Marco Polo, Circa 1271-1297 CE

Globalization

    The next step after nation-states?

 Regional trading blocks and alliances  EU, NAFTA, Pacific Rim (ASEAN) Free Trade/ Easier flow of people and capital? Better quality with less prices?

Increased competition and restructuring

From the European Economic Community

… to the European Union …

Joined 1972

Denmark, Ireland, UK

EEC Core Group 1957

Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Luxembourg

Joined 1986

Portugal, Spain

Joined 1995

Austria, Finland, Sweden

Joined 1981

Greece

Joining 2004

Cyprus, Czech Rep., Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Malta, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia

Joining after 2006

Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey

Global Institutions

   Economical:  WB, IMF, WTO Political:  International Court of Human Rights, etc.

Social:  Global brands: Similar consumption patterns?

How opening up new markets affects people's lives here and abroad?

Critics charge that:  Globalization only benefits corporations that relocate factories in countries with cheap labor and weak environmental laws    Worsening working conditions abroad Polluting the environment Threatening American jobs Proponents say:     Transformation of the manufacturing industry Free trade is the key to improving living and working conditions in developing countries Creating high-paying jobs in the U.S. Protecting the global environment.

Upcoming Global Issues

       Productive vs. Speculative Capital  Global Financial Crisis Nation-less multinational corporations Global warming International Criminal Court Controlling population growth Global Organized Crime and Terrorism One global language?

Global comparisons

  http://www.eurunion.org/profile/EUUSS tats.htm

http://www.eurunion.org/profile/facts.h

tm

500 400 300 200 100 0

Population in 2003 (millions)

454.56

380.36

306.70

293.03

127.62

EU25 EU15 Euro Zone US Japan 15,000 10,000 5,000

GDP in 2003 (USD billions)

11,017 11,000 10,522 8,209 4,301 0 EU25 US EU15 Euro Zone Japan

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0

Area in 2003 (1000 kmsq)

9,631 3,893 3,154 2,456 US EU25 378 EU15 Euro Zone Japan 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

2.1

Inflation in 2003

2.0

2.0

Euro Zone EU25 EU15 1.6

US -0.2

Japan

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0

4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2,848

Foreign Trade in 2003 (USD billions)

3,025 1,047 477 1,250 597 22.9

Total imports Total exports

World Trade Share in 2003 (Percentage, %)

14.0

13.8

13.1

6.8

8.5

World import share World export share US EU25 Japan US EU25 Japan