Untitled Flashcards Set

Public policy

Policy analysis – an introduction

-          Constantly evolving

-          Needs-driven

-          Traces of public policy in everyday life

-          We are not only referring to laws, polices implemented by government

-          We talk about all policies that have a public dimension

-          Policy is who gets what, where, when, and how (Lasswell 1936)

-          Public policy is about what governments do and don’t do

-          A course of action or inaction based on a goal or principle

-          Whatever governments choose to do or not to do (highlighting the actor: government as the main initiator)

-          Policy as: Aim (for instance, party manifestos), Ideas, Agendas, Content, Process, Decision (formal or informal), Outputs, Outcome

-          A web of decisions that allocate values

-          An interdisciplinary and methodologically-diverse field

-          Actors (incentives), institutions (the rules of the power game), interests, ideas (novel or recirculating ways of thinking) are the streams of leading factors that shape policy making

-          Policy cycle -) circular

-          2 types of policy analysis:

o   Analysis of policy (why some succeed, and others fail)

o   Analysis for policy (advice you give to policy makers, what can you do, practical)

Understanding Public Policy (Paul Cairney)

-          policy can refer to an aim, a decision or an outcome (it may refer to issues that policymakers do not to address), it is made and influenced by many actors who may or may not have formal authority

-          policymaking is a complex and far-reaching process that involves many individuals, groups and institutions

-          policymaking is a never-ending process rather than a single event

-          policy cycle: agenda-setting stage is followed by policy formulation, the legitimation of policy, the assignment of the budget, the implementation of policy and policy evaluation

-          policy= a label for a field of activity, an expression of intent, specific proposal, decisions of government and the formal authorization of decisions, programs, outputs, outcomes, process

-          public policy as the ‘sum total of government action

-          different types of public policy and the wide range of policy instruments available to, and used by, policymakers: Public expenditure, Economic penalties, Economic incentives, Linking government-controlled benefits to behaviour (The use of formal regulations or legislation to control behaviour, Voluntary regulations, Linking the provision of public services to behaviour, Legal penalties, Public education and advertising to highlight the risks to certain behaviours, Providing services and resources to help change behaviour, Providing resources to tackle illegal behaviour,  Funding organizations to influence Funding scientific research or advisory committee work, Organizational change, Providing services directly or via non-governmental organizations, Providing a single service or setting up quasi-markets

-          Our ability to analyse the policy environment will always be limited and we may have different ideas about which measures are the most important

-          theories of public policy that seek, primarily, to explain policy stability or continuity are reinforced by narratives highlighting incremental change but not by narratives highlighting radical policy change

-          policy cycle is the best known way to organize the study of policymaking

o   represents the ‘public face of public policies

-          stages in a policy cycle: identification of policymaker aims, the formulation of policies to achieve those aims, the selection and legitimation of policy measures, implementation and evaluation

o   Agenda setting. Identifying problems that require government attention, deciding which issues deserve the most attention and defining the nature of the problem.

o   Policy formulation. Setting objectives, identifying the cost and estimating the effect of solutions, choosing from a list of solutions and selecting policy instruments.

o   Legitimation. Ensuring that the chosen policy instruments have support. It can involve one or a combination of: legislative approval, executive approval, seeking consent through consultation with interest groups, and referenda.

o   Implementation. Establishing or employing an organization to take responsibility for implementation, ensuring that the organization has the resources (such as staffing, money and legal authority) to do so, and making sure that policy decisions are carried out as planned.

o   Evaluation. Assessing the extent to which the policy was successful or the policy decision was the correct one; if it was implemented correctly and, if so, had the desired effect.

o   Policy maintenance, succession or termination. Considering if the policy should be continued, modified or discontinued.

-          study of public policy does not end when an issue has been raised and a decision has been made

-          study of implementation is based on the simple point that decisions made by policymakers may not be carried out successfully. Instead, we can identify an implementation ‘gap’ which represents the difference between the expectations of policymakers and the actual policy outcome

o   explain why policies fail or achieve only partial success

-          policy change at the top will not necessarily translate to change at the bottom

o   bottom up= decisions made at the top as part of a bargaining process, with policy modified continuously as each actor involved in implementation, ‘attempts to negotiate to maximize its own interests and priorities’

-          Evaluation involves assessing the extent to which a policy was successful

o   how long we should wait before evaluating a policy, how much information there is, how we can separate the effects of this policy from others and what the benchmark should be

-          The notional final stage is when policymakers decide, on the basis of their evaluation, if the policy should be continued

o   The process reinforces the idea that ‘policy determines politics’ because new policies are often pursued largely to address the problems caused by the old

o   ‘the end is the beginning’, because government action results from the, ‘continuing application and evaluation of ongoing policies

-          Micro, macro, supra (EU) public policies and in-between (mezzo) 

-          Supra: seat regulation in public transportation (priority), all airports need to offer wheelchairs, privacy policy (GDPR)

-          Macro: accreditation policy, quality assurance, labor prediction policy, traffic regulations, media policy, noise regulation, TV tax, dress code (state level), immigration policy, shops closure, weapon control, prices at grocery stores, waste management, insurance policy

-          Mezzo: housing policy

-          Micro: course policy, dress code (university), attendance policy (also private/contractual law), public transportation policy (in Vienna), cleaning policy

-          HW: think about areas where you do not encounter public policy (sexual interactions?, international waters, the dessert where laws do not apply, Slab City is tucked away in the southeastern corner of California's Sonoran Desert, how much food/water am I allowed to consume)

-          Even culture interacts with public policy

Evidence and ethics in public policy

Policy analysis as puzzle solving

-          Christopher Winship, 2005

o   Professor of sociology at Harvard University, and principal of the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard. Contributions to quantitative methods in sociology

-          Traditional policy analysis focused on best means to achieve a specified end is insufficient when it comes to dealing with conflicting ends

o   Need for an alternative to instrumental rationality

-          Puzzling = trying to make some pieces fit, however, the puzzle might never be fully assembled

-          Searching for coherence = coherence is an achievement of a situation in which multiple and potentially conflicting ends are in fact compatible

o   Seeking coherence through analysis and evaluation at multiple levels

o   Finding areas of mutual agreement or potential compatibility as such that it is possible to have an overlapping consensus

o   Even blind action can lead to coherence

-          Solution is only achieved by changing the components of the problem

o   Discovering which options are possible, determining alternatives if there are

o   Flexibility and avoiding permanent commitment

Ethics

-          Shue 2008

-          Considering all touched by the public policy (future generation)

-          Ignoring marginal groups and future sometimes

-          Division of moral labor

-          Policy as Aim (for instance, party manifestos), Ideas, Agendas, Content, Process, Decision (formal or informal), Outputs, Outcome

-          Polity: “the institutional system or regime and its formal and informal rules, norms and standard operating procedures” =) not only formal rules = laws, also social norms =informal rules

-          Politics: “the way to establish power structures and order with societies; the interaction between actors involved” (Lasswell’s 1936 definition – “who gets what, when and how”) =) about power (formal= presidents, informal =bureaucrats, IGOs, domestic policy makers)

-          Stakeholders: actors in the policy process with interests in a specific policy area

o   Stakeholder analysis: what do they want, their interests, who they are

§  Invisible stakeholders (can be the most important) =) don’t meet the eye = neither formal nor visible

1.      Policy input: 1.”knowledge and evidence for solving problems= expertise; 2. resources (budget, personnel)= how much money and people you need; 3. demands and support for policy change”

o   =) what you put into the idea, all resources that will help design a policy

2.      Policy output: “activities carried out by implementing agencies”

o   Performed activities by agencies, what you do

3.      Policy outcome: “effect of policies on behavior of target population”

4.      Policy impact: overall effect of measures on policy problems

-          Policy instrument (or tool): “the type of policy intervention used to influence the target population to achieve desired policy objectives”

-          Program: “a concrete policy intervention, not necessarily, but often, relying on a combination of policy instruments”

-          General policy yardsticks:

o   Efficiency – providing minimum input for the desired outcome (spending the least amount of money to get the most gain)

o   Effectiveness – optimal outcome (ideal goal)

o   Equity – procedural fairness (all target groups benefiting equally from policy treatment)

o   Ethics – following a set of values, norms and judgements

-           

-          Types of evidence for policymakers (at different stages of the policy cycle)

o   Technical information on policy problem parameters classified by methodology used:

§  -quantitative

§  -qualitative

§  -observational

§  -experimental

o   Sources and hierarchies of technical information about a policy problem:

§  Technical experts

§  Academia

§  Policy experts

§  Policy entrepreneurs

§  Media

o   The most important aspects to be considered in public policy:

§  Metis: bottom-up, contextual, practical and flexible skills and knowledge -) not the technical evidence, but the traditional pre-existent knowledge (community knowledge)

§  Phronesis:  practical wisdom (wisdom of action) based on Aristotle’s “knowledge of what is good and what is bad for humans” – savoir faire, know how; “the ability to recognize patterns; flexibility; patience”

o   Stakeholder-specific policy positions and preferences (not always overlapping with evidence)

§  Positions come from:

·       Values

·       Opinions

·       Core beliefs

·       Secondary beliefs

·       Broad policy goals

o   Economic and policy analyses based on instrumental rationality, efficiency and common goal assumptions

§  CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis)

§  CEA (Cost-Effectiveness Analysis) =) what is the most effective path

§  IA (Impact Assessment)

§  Scenario analyses

§  ‘Coherence-seeking’ puzzle approaches for reconciling conflicting policy goals

o   Political economic analyses for understanding actor preferences:

§  SA (Stakeholder Analyses/stake holder matrix) =)

·       Plot all the stakeholders that matter

o   Citizens, silent stakeholders

o   Analyze the quadrants -) empty hh =) problem is not being solved

o   Plot the ties = connections between stakeholders

·       Power: as institutional hierarchies, financial, influential

§  ACF (Advocacy Coalition Framework)

o   Participatory policy analyses

§  Including the people the policy directly influences to calculate their own costs and benefits

§  Participatory CBA (Cost-Benefit Analysis)

§  Participatory problem assessment tools (i.e. Participatory Poverty Assessment, etc.)

-          Obstacles to evidence use:

o   Conflicting policy goals between stakeholders (the ‘Water Rights’ example)

o   Usefulness of various types of evidence

o   Difficulty in understanding and evaluating the credibility of different types of evidence

o   Cognitive biases (confirmation bias)

o   Political risks (many policymakers prefer instrumental selectivity in evidence incorporation)

-          Ethical assessments of policy alternatives consist in stipulating:

o   Normative values (‘right and wrong’) with respect to the policy process and impact on the target group

o   Equity and fairness among social groups and policy recipients (law making and law implementation)

o   Trade-offs between efficiency and equity (Covid vaccination campaigns – vaccinating people in urban areas first and then after a long time in rural)

o   Clarifying and designing policies based on dimensions of fairness and equity

o   Normative guidance on policy decisions (healthcare QUALY-based policies)

-          The ethical dimensions:

o   Trans-generational fairness/minimization( highly relevant for climate and energy policies) –the welfare of future humans

o   Trans-national fairness (highly relevant to development, foreign and security policies) – the welfare of others

o   Trans-species fairness (highly relevant for biodiversity preservation policies)

-          The fundamental ethical questions in public policy

o   Who’s who? Who is included? Who is excluded?

o   Who ‘matters’?

o   Who incurs the costs of a particular policy?

o   Who gains the benefits?

o   How can the ethical risk be mitigated?

o   All choices of public policy presume that some things matter, and other things do not, and that some matter a lot and others matter only a little (Shue 2008)

Actors, institutions, interests, ideas

-          Institutions are ‘the rules of the game’ (cannot be stakeholders, they draw the parameters of engagement for organizations and individuals)

-          Organizations are collections of individuals pursuing a common formal goal and they are actors in the policy-making process

-          Three dimensions of institutions relevant for the policy-making context (North 1990)

•       Formal rules (for instance, Constitutional arrangements, constitutions)

•       Informal rules (norms, diplomatic protocol, unwritten dress code)

•       Enforcement characteristics of both

•       The general rule (also called the ‘veto point theory’): the speed of policy-making and radicalism (including policy change) is higher in systems with fewer ‘veto points’ (Knill and Tosun 2020, 39)

•       The more rules the less the particular policies change and the longer it takes

•       Can be slowed down by referendum as well

•       High in federal systems -) regional bodies need to agree

-          Actors (stakeholders) are “individuals, collectives or corporations involved in the policy-making process, who seek to turn their preferences into public policy” (Knill and Tosun, 2020: 45)

•       Actor characteristics that matter for the policy process:

•       Actor type (private/public, purpose/resources)

•       Capabilities or resources (financial = money, staff, informational)

•       Perceptions of the policy problem

•       Policy preferences (the policy choice they make between alternatives, what do they want)

•       Intensity of policy preferences

•       Types of collective actors by resources and purpose

•       Association (collective purpose= public interest, collective resources) (AARP, ACLU) -) formal

•       Movement (collective purpose, separate resources) (examples: gilets jaunes, Extinction Rebellion, Black lives matter) -) a bit informal, less organized, not formalized, mobilized people

•       Club (separate purpose, collective resources) (examples: business associations, NRA-ILA and local chapters; Partnership for America’s Health Care Future) -) people that come together to lobby but do not necessarily have the same goals, lobbying on the same platform but have a slightly different interests/purposes  

•       The most powerful collective actors

•       Coalition (separate purpose, separate resources) (CPA – Coalition for a Prosperous America) -)looser more informal club

•       Public actors that matter in public policy process:

•       The Executive

•       The Legislature

•       The Judiciary

•       The Bureaucracy

•       Political parties

•       Private and public interest actors:

•       Interest groups = “organizations that make policy suggestions to governments in order to bring public policy in line with member interests” (Knill and Tosun 2020, 51)

•       Need to be officially registered

•       The interest for the public comes first not one of the interest group

•       Typology of interest groups:

•       -’Public interest’ groups

•       -Private

•       -International (i.e. WWF)

•       -National

•       social movements 

•       1) a group of individuals with a conflictual orientation towards an opposing group

•       2) with a collective identity and shared beliefs

•       3) who engages in repertoires of collective actions and non-institutionalized action

-          Lobbying in the policy process

•       Types of government –interest groups relations

•       Capture (the repeal of the 1993 Glass Steagall act on financial services in the US)

•       Cooperation (the UN Global Compact)

•       Epistemic actors

•       Policy experts

•       Media

•       Policy consultants/advisers

•       Citizens/taxpayers/consumers

•       Individuals who have an interest (or a stake) in the specific policy process

•       ‘Silent’ stakeholders

-          Stakeholder relations

•       Consultation and participation – inclusion, voice, claims (for instance, EU consultation systems)

•       Collaboration- clear purpose, organizational capacities and stable relationships with policy-maker (US Human Rights Campaign to prevent discrimination in the workplace)

•       Co-production (for instance, vocational education in Austria and Germany; PPP)

•       Delegation (to private entities) (ICANN for Internet regulation and ISO for global standards)

-          Stakeholder analysis

•       Stakeholders are “individuals, groups or organizations in a policy field who are affected by policy decisions and therefore have an interest or stake in that policy” (Hassel and Wegrich 2022, 194)

•       Stakeholder Analysis (SA) is one of the most important analytical tools used in public policy to:

•       -identify relevant actors who are for and against a certain policy

•       -map their capabilities, preferences and positional intensity

•       -craft coalitions

-          Policy-making is the result of an interaction between ideas and actor interest

Problem definition and agenda-setting

-          Problem definition = how stories are constructed

-          = A causal story (or narrative) consisting in four steps:

•       Harm identification (attributing blame to something -pandemic)

•       Cause of harm (blaming something, someone)

•       Blame attribution

•       Credit taking (when the solution is proposed)

-          It combines objective evidence and emotional appeals

-          It determines policy responses

-          The policy problems do not necessarily have a cognitive resolution of tension

-          The process of problem definition depends on:

•       Actors (or stakeholders) interests

•       Resources

•       Objective characteristics of the problem

•       Social construction of evidence (a gap between experts and the general public on most policy issues) (‘framing’)

•       the selective use of knowledge and information about a problem and the causal relationships surrounding it, to give meaning and render it manageable

•       factors influencing framing:

•       very subjective, emotional value

•       Causality (why? = battle of competing stories, Why are people poor? Because they are lazy.) = framing of the problem -) defines the kinds of solutions I have

•       Severity (is the policy issue severe/bad, the more severe the issue is the more likely will it be on agenda)

•       Proximity (how close is this problem from every day experience)

•       ‘Crisis’ character (framing it as a crisis makes it go on agenda, appealing to constituents)

•       Incidence (how big is the problem, who is affect, is the whole population affected)

•       Novelty (the newer topic the better, novel light)

•       Problem populations (framing the population directly affected by the issue in a positive light – hopeless victims)

•       First mover advantage is crucial! -) the person/coalition/group that says the first narrative has the immense control over the policy

-          Problem framing and ‘objective’ issue characteristics are often disconnected

•       Policy over-reaction (i.e. consumption of genetically modified plants) =) the way in which the problem was defined overblows the extent of the problem

•       Strategic obfuscation of policy problems (poverty in wealthy countries) =) the problem exists however it is not part of a governmental agenda, experts agree it is a big problem but did not make it because of the agenda setting

•       The way the problem is defined determines the policy response (i.e. vaccine hesitancy)

-          Types of actors involved in problem definition

•       The expander (the innovator/idea entrepreneurs who put an issue on the agenda)

•       The containers (a group adversely affected if the issue enters an agenda) -) trying to contain the issue in a certain area

•       Scope of conflict: two strategies – ‘privatization’ or ‘socialization’

-          Four basic types of problem under which most policies fall:

•       Morality (i.e. sex work, drug use, criminal justice) =) right and wrong, who should and shouldn’t play by the rules

•       Equity (for instance, basic income, inheritance tax, climate change) =) left out groups

•       General welfare (i.e. education, health, social insurance) =) problem affecting everybody, general importance  

•       Regulating the commons (i.e. pollution, climate change) =) problems that we all share (water, air, soil) but we all have individual incentives to consume which results into overconsumption

•       Veilance frames = sentiment of framing (positive, negative)

-          Policy implications regarding frames

•       Positive framing makes the people act more than if negatively framed

•       Focusing on the opportunities that arise through implementing climate policies is more effective at eliciting public support than emphasizing the threats of not implementing these policies. 

•       Messages that say it impacts on the world (a global framing) makes respondents more likely to support climate policies, while an individual framing—i.e. that climate change will affect ‘you personally’—makes respondents less likely to support these policies. 

•       There is greater likelihood of public support for climate policies when the focus in climate messaging is on immediate (now) and near-term (2030) impacts than when longer-term time horizons (2050) are used. 

-          Issue attention cycle

•       Pre-problem stage

•       Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm

•       Realization of the societal cost of the issue

•       Gradual decline of public interest

•       Post-problem stage

-          Agenda setting

•       Priority making, priority setting -) few making it on the agenda

•       Agenda-setting is the first step in the policy cycle and represents the ‘selection of problems demanding attention’ or a ‘priority-setting process’

•       Actors who control the agenda have significantly more chances to have their policy adopted!!!

•       Type of agenda setting:

•       Systemic agenda: “all issues that are commonly perceived as meriting public attention”

•       Institutional agenda: “the issues of concern to policy-makers”

•       Drafting agenda: “ a list of issues getting the attention of the government”

•       Decision agenda: “the issues that are forwarded to the relevant decision-making bodies’

•       Negative agendas: ‘issues suppressed from consideration’ (Hasse and Wegrich 2020, 64)

•       Formal versus informal agendas: navigation of formal rules and institutions versus informal access

•       Theoretical perspectives on agenda-setting:

•       1. Process perspective

•       Trying to trace the flow of the problem

•       The outside-initiative model = activists, NGOs, people being vocal about a certain issue -mobilizing public opinion making it go on the agenda even if it wasn’t here in the first place

•       The mobilization model = need of public support so I mobilize public opinion, campaigns, plant leaks

•       The insider-access model = in autocratic governments, not interested to appeal to wider groups but only choosing certain groups, not the public

•       2. Power distribution perspective

•       Actors in conflict over the definition and agenda of a problem

•       Who employ problem definition strategically (by expanding or containing) to achieve policy goals (Who in the government deals with the issue and how much stake they have in a particular policy issue)

•       Who construct policy images (empirical information + emotional/discursive communication)= competing stakeholders that battle to construct policy images (frames)

•       Policy venues are institutional arenas where decision-making takes place =) different levels and institutions to mobilize policy makers

•       Policy images are shared views of policy communities with respect to particular policy problems

•       3. Institutional perspective

•       Rules matter tremendously!

•       Actors who have the power to shape the decision rules are more likely to attain their preferences

•       Stakeholders are rational actors

•       Calculate cost and benefits

•       4. Contingency perspective

•       Actors are not rational and policy-making is a story of chance and lucky (or unlucky) encounters -) public does not want it or the policy makers they just appear

•       Garbarge Can Theory : Many policy problems and solutions float constantly in the policy space waiting for ‘coupling’. Sometimes solutions are in search of problems!

•       Multiple Streams Theory: Three independent streams (problems, proposals and politics) need to come together in order to open a ‘policy window’

•       Actors involved in agenda setting

•       The Executive

•       The Legislature

•       The Judiciary

•       Citizens

•       Epistemic actors (including media)

•       Policy change

•       happens when three aspects come together:

•       1) an exogenous (external) event (or a gradual shift in social norms and beliefs)

•       2) a competing coalition of actors that gains influence on a new issue

•       3) a window of opportunity

•       Strategic agenda-setting tips for policy entrepreneurs

•       Timing (decide when to mobilize strategically) (i.e. before major formal decisions, during open ‘windows of opportunity’)

•       Framing (attach a policy image to the problem)

•       Venue shopping (think about the selection of agenda-setting location) (i.e. subnational government or transnational bodies as alternative venues to national governments)

•       Understand and control (if possible) the decision rules

Decision making

-          Institutional agenda = decision making

-          Veto points are people and formal organizations that have formal power

-          The decision-making stage of the policy cycle consists in two stages:

•       1) proposal formulation (the stage where various alternatives or instruments are conceived, conceptualized and compared to each other, we see who has the initiative)

•       2) policy adoption (one of the alternatives becomes law). This is a stage that involves formal institutions (for instance, parliaments/legislatures, city councils..)

-          People and organizations that matter have formal power = the number of stakeholders declines 

-          Who formulates policy? = policy formulation

•       It differs according to country-specific electoral systems:

•       Executive plus legislative committees in presidential systems (elections both for president and pm, USA, France)

•       Executive in parliamentary systems (parliament elects pm, UK)

•       The important actors at this stage are:

•       Bureaucracies (ministries, bureaucratic experts, executive agencies, etc.) who have issue expertise (civil service, ministries, in depth knowledge about an issue) -) can frame certain proposal so politicians pass it

•       Independent experts who formulate substantive input for the proposal -) epistemic actors (tell them what policy alternatives make sense are feasible) 

•       Interest groups (that can exert positive and negative influences) -) can give information to policy makers, can shape policy constructively 

•       Members of the legislature (especially policy brokers) -) people who travel between bureaucracies, power holders that make policy possible 

•       International organizations (IMF, World Bank, European Union, WHO, etc.) -) important for policy and law formulation

•       Deliberative public assemblies -) smarter more participatory more inclusive ways to come up with policy ideas, formal -often organized by the government (ex. France, random lottery and you were invited to participate in discussion made to shape policy on climate change -) came up with their own policy proposal)

-          Three types of interest-group representation systems for policy formulation

•       Have both positive and negative influence

•       Pluralism (any organized group with resources a policy stakes can access policy-makers and provide input for policy proposals) = USA, no rule between the contact of policy makers and actors (no restrictive access) – free for all

•       Corporatism (society is organized in sector-specific associations who are consulted by the government on specific policy proposals) = organized society, actors approaching the policy makers in an organized way = Germany and Italy during fascism -) disciplined and obedient society (perfectly organized according to the government’s view) 

•       Neo-corporatism (or ‘tripartite’ arrangements) (the government convenes two leading associations representing businesses and workers before a policy proposal) several important umbrella parties, unions, employer associations … sit down with the government and formulate policies = most European countries, diluted interest power

•       Types of neo-corporatist arrangements

•       Tripartite (i.e. government – employers- unions)

•       Clientela (one monopolistic interest group – one ministry gained policy monopoly, government relies only on one interest group to create policy)

•       Parantela (access of interest groups to policy-making via the incumbent political party = about politicians)

-          Types of relations between the executive and bureaucracies

•       Independent civil service (UK + formal colonies) =) most desirable one, non-partizans nonpolitical = the bureaucrat has to be an expert on the policy issue

•       Politicized civil service (for top appointments) (Germany) =) top appointments are political

•       Politicized civil service with both executive and congressional oversight (the US)

•       Political patronage (political colonization of bureaucracies) =) lower income democracies and developing countries =completely political colonization of the bureaucracy (you need to support my party otherwise you don’t have a job) -) Trump is trying to do that now

•       Pre-bendalism (delegation of powers to extract informal rents in highly corrupt systems) =) systems with very weak bureaucracies (Sub-Saharan countries) = selling the position – you are free to extract bribes, I won’t pay you much, I don’t care what you do =) highly corrupt

-          The more interest groups the more complex a policy is

-          Job protection as a bureaucrats in most European countries, not very much in the US

-          Policy adoption

•       The number of actors decreases significantly at this stage

•       ‘Veto points’ become essential (a chain of formal decision links)

•       Veto points (institutional or partisan) are ‘individual or collective actors whose agreement is necessary to change the status quo’ (institutions, individuals) -) more veto points in democratic countries

•       Reform (or policy) champions are individual actors with high stakes in policy change (super high interest groups, not necessarily high power)

•       Policy gatekeepers are influential actors with sufficient power to block or at least delay policy change. Gatekeeper analysis is based on veto players theory but focuses more on the individuals empowered by their institutional position (need high institutional power)

•       Main institutional veto-players

•       The executive

•       The legislature

•       Courts

•       Subnational units in federal structures

•       The public (via referenda or other forms of binding consultations)

•       Three veto players characteristics determine the odds of a policy proposal being adopted

•       Numbers (the more veto players, the less likely the policy change)

•       Ideological distance (the more divergent their issue preferences are, the less likely that the proposal passes)

•       Cohesiveness (the less cohesive collective actors are, the less significant the veto power is – for instance, many parliamentary subgroups of different preferences)

-          Types of decision-making process

•       Bargaining/voting (in the legislature, city councils, or other decision-making bodies)

•       ‘Polder’ models (non-voting/consensus-building decision models) =) Netherlands = historical cooperation between people that does not require voting but uses persuasion to reach a consensus

•       Deliberative models of decision-making (for instance, climate assemblies, participatory budgeting, etc.)

•       In many systems, rules and procedures of legislative bargaining create additional gatekeepers and ‘veto points’

•       Filibuster procedures in many parliaments

•       Prolonging the procedure -) delaying and distorting the legislative agenda

-          Preferences considering agenda/policy 

•       Agenda setter calls the stages with different rules will still win and get their point

•       First come first serve

•       Agenda and rule setters

Policy instruments

-          Between the stages of policy formulation and policy adoption

-          Policy design

•       Consists in choosing:

•       1) a target population (a direct = immediate recipient of my policy treatment or indirect= general public target group) (for instance, regulating companies or final tobacco users?) =) who are the people/group I am trying to influence (different policy instrument = different target group)

•       2) a set of policy instruments and settings = how strong or weak I want to design a particular policy (weak or strong)

•       3) the specification of a chain of events linking the instrument to the outcome (the so-called ‘program theory’ or ‘theory of change’ = visually draw the chain of events) (how would the instrument impact the desirable outcome for various target groups?)

•       Theory of change:

•       Impacting behavior does not mean impacting the outcome

•       4) Unintended consequences of adopting the chosen instruments (including the interaction between the instrument effects and contextual/cultural/peer norms for behavioural interventions)

-          Policy instruments (treatments)

•       Policy instruments are concrete solutions to policy problems (for instance: how to reduce tobacco use, how to address climate change, how to engage the public during pandemics, etc.). They are also called the tools of government (Hood 1983).

•       The core problem is how to influence the target population to solicit target compliance

•       Policy design refers to finding the right combination of traditional and modern policy tools and settings to address a policy problem based on a theory of change (or a program theory)

•       Types of policy instruments:

•       Traditional tools (‘Carrots= things I give you/incentive/bonus, sticks = coercion/beating/I take, and sermons’ = preaching/public information campaigns/public awareness/appealing to the population (Hood 2008)

•       Regulation (a ban on tobacco advertising, mandatory disclosure of negative health effects – FOP labelling requirements= graphic images on the packaging, age restriction on drinking)

•       Incentives – positive= subsidy or negative= tax (i.e. tobacco taxes that increase the cost of smoking) =carrots

•       Information provision (information campaigns on health effects) = sermons

•       Direct provision of goods and services (for instance, free ‘stop smoking service’ clinics)

•       Modern policy instruments

•       Nudges (“choice architecture”) =) design policy instruments based on behavioural insights =I treat you based off what I know about psychology, the design of different ways in which choices can be presented to decision makers, and the impact of that presentation on decision-making

•       Norms & human bias​

•       Bounded rationality, cognitive and information constraints​

•       The “framing” effect​

•       Choice architecture that skews choice towards socially desirable outcomes​

•      

•       Policy makers as choice architects

•       Opting X Op out options -) most powerful nudge

•        

•       Nudging using automatic thinking

•      

•       Public-private partnerships

•       Social impact bonds  (SIBs) = I no longer as a government fund and invite others to invest in the program and if the program succeeds I pay them if not then no payment

•       Information age-technology including algorithmic government = catered sermons by algorithm

•       Interfering with traffic by algorithm to ensure the ambulance gets to the emergency room sooner

-          Types of target compliance

•       Even if I propose the instrument how do I make sure you comply with it

•       ‘Grudging’ compliance (I comply because of negative instrument, compliance with some sort of vocalization of anger or resentment)

•       Contested compliance (I comply but also push back, Schengen area – border control = contesting the EU laws)

•       Quasi-voluntary compliance (QVC) (Brautigam 2008; Levi, 1988)  (the best form of compliance, I as a policy maker design the best instrument and invite you in the decision making process so you comply because you understand it is good for you = public buy)

•        Symbolic compliance adopting international conventions, etc. (Batory, 2016) (I adopted it but never planned to implement it)

-          Non-compliance

•       The art of ‘non-compliance’ (resistance, disobedience, subversion) (Scott, 2009)

•       “(…) as professional educators, not immigration agents …. [w]e cannot, therefore, comply with any law or regulation that asks us to participate in the criminalization of our students or community” (Tsai 2015, 253)

•       Constructive noncompliance (Tsai, 2015)

•       China, some cities in the US during first Trump’s term

-          Four types of resources governments need to influence behaviour

•       Nodality (is the government central in information exchanges on a policy issue?)

•       Authority (does the government have authority in a certain policy area – for instance, imposing fines?)

•       Treasure (are there financial resources/budgets available for policy roll-out?)

•       Organization (are there capable implementation agencies?)

-          Guiding questions for instrument choice and design

•       Theory of change: Does the policy lead to target compliance? Any unintended consequences?

•       Government resources: Does the government have enough resources to design and implement the program?

•       Institutional fit: Does the policy instrument fit pre-existing rules and norms?

•       Policy context: How does the proposed instrument interact with pre-existing policies?

-          Policy transfer/learning

•       Most policies are not conceived from scratch, but rather adopted from existent blueprints, templates, diffusion patterns (via international organizations, for instance)

•       Policy transfer can be understood as a process by which ‘knowledge about how policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting’

•       Types of policy transfer:

•       Coercive (adopted under a set of constraints)

•       Non-coercive (adopted from other policy jurisdictions/countries because the policy instruments have been successful elsewhere)

•       Policy learning

•       The decision to borrow policy instruments from other jurisdictions/countries

•       ‘Best practices’

•       ‘Benchmarking’ policy reports

•       Actors involved in policy transfer and learning

•       Epistemic communities

•       Policy entrepreneurs

•       Governments

•       International organizations

Policy implementation

-          Also known as policy delivery

-          Policy has been decided on but needs to be put into practice

-          Implementation stage refers to:

•       Implementation structure (bureaucratic agencies, entire ecosystem of institutions that take policy and make it happen, all actors and agencies that form the core)

•       This is the stage of the cycle where the policy is put into effect by actors and agencies (Knill and Tosun 2020, 22)

•       The implementation structure (formal = written in the law organizational arrangements set-up for implementing policy) is centered around the bureaucracy (ministries, state agencies, regulatory agencies, etc.)

•       In many contexts, the implementing arm is informal (extrajudicial policy-making) or has informal components (not written in law, constitution but are consequential to how the policy is translated)

•       self-regulation (CSR) in the case of corporate governance; (social responsibility of corporations -) we use recycled materials)

•       social norms (peer-pressure) (can counteract the bureaucratic apparatus)

•       structures: extra-judicial repression (organizations, group of people separate of state, however, they implement what the state wants) in non-democratic contexts

•       customary norms (embedded structures predating the modern states) and forms of mediation in many Global South contexts

•       traditional structures (clans, tribal governance, community-based organizations (CBOs)

•       This structure should in principle be separated from political considerations (Weberian bureaucracy)

•       No political interference

•       Decision-making in (bureaucratic) agencies

•       Target group behavior (modifying the target group behavior)

-          Structural approaches to policy implementation

•       Fragmented (‘pillarized’) work (every ministry/organization/agencies minds its own agenda -) little to no collaboration between them) 

•       Whole-of-government approach (multi-agency implementation) -) collaboration across the board

•       National versus decentralized government (Germany, Switzerland -) autonomous sub-national government)

•       Quasi-autonomous and regulatory agencies (built specifically to be protected against political influence)

•       Hybrid governance (where public and private actors collaborate) -) collision

-          Types of policy implementation models

•       Top-down implementation (Millenium Development Goals -) only the governments decided did not consult the population and organizations, defined their own targets that they will implement)

•       Rationale:

•       Short implementation chains

•       Marginal changes and goal consensus among actors/stakeholders

•       Bottom-up implementation (Sustainable development goals-) consulted by populations, stakeholders, organizations)

•       Rationale:

•       Policy implementation is the result of bargaining between various actors involved in the policy roll-out (the role of street level bureaucrats in policy adaptation and innovation becomes essential =) The street level bureaucrats make the actual law (the personal encounter =) teachers, passport control)

•       Important for flexibility and adaptability to conditions on the ground

•       General goals achieved on the ground matter more than the initial impact benchmarks designed at the center

•       Types:

•       Participatory processes (social budgeting, social audits) = Co-formed and co-shaped policies, social consultation, can a be a form of direct participatory democracy

•       Street-level bureaucrats and policy adaptation

•       Hybrid implementation models (that combine elements of top-down and bottom-up) (example: SDGs) -) most countries nowadays

-         

-          Implementation success criteria:

•       Formal transposition: legal and administrative provisions for the transposition of requirements into the existing legal and administrative system (example: EU acquis- potential contextual misalignment, laws come from somewhere else and not from the country). Completeness of transposition is essential

•       Disagreements between the countries that have to adopt the law

•       Practical application: organizational and administrative structures and procedures (good instruments and monitoring)

•       If you have good instruments or not

•       Your ethnicity makes difference in how the bureaucrats behave

-          Determination of implementation success

•       Choice of policy instruments: depends on state capacity and the complexity of the policy environment

•       Clarity of policy design: depends on conflictual bargaining among stakeholders and the policy stock

•       Control structures: depends on the mechanisms of political oversight of the bureaucracy

•       Institutional design: depends on the adaptations of the institutional structures to accommodate policy change

•       Administrative capacity: depends on the accumulated policy stock and adequate resources (budgets, staff)

•       Social acceptance: depends on the target group ‘buy-in’ of the policy instrument

-          Policy instrument choices depend on the state’s capacity to implement

•       Need to adapt effective instruments to implement the policy

•       If the state capacity is high, then regulatory instruments are optimal (either directive or authoritative legal requirements enforced by bureaucratic agencies – labor laws, occupational safety, etc.)

•       If capacity is medium or low, then incentives (subsidies for renewable energy, for instance) or informational campaigns (i.e. anti-smoking) work better.

•       Implementation problems often stem from the choice of the wrong policy instrument