Politics: Do Politics determine Policies? Or do Policies determine Politics? PDF

Preview

Summary

Lowi, Theodore J....

Description

Politics: Do Politics determine Policies? Or do Policies determine Politics?

Background of Policy Research Policies follow a specific intention: „they are designed to achieve defined goals and present solutions to societal problems.“ (Knill und Tosun 2011, S. 373–374) ▪ ▪ ▪

„Policies are government statements of what it intends to do or not to do, including laws, regulations, decisions, or orders.“ (Knill und Tosun 2011, S. 373–374) Public policy covers a range of actions to solve societal issues. (Public) policies can be perceived as the key output of political systems. (vgl. Knill und Tosun 2011, S. 373–374)

Theodor J. Lowi (1964) distinguishes between: 1. „distributive policies relating to measures which affect the distribution of resources from the government to particular recipients 2. redistributive policies which are based on the transfer of resources from one societal group to another 3. regulatory policies which specify conditions and constraints for individual or collective behaviour and 4. constituent policies which create or modify the states’ institutions.“ (Knill und Tosun 2011, S. 374) ➔ These four types of policy are each associated with a different degree of cost and potential resistance as governments try to reshape the status quo. Policies determine politics ▪ ▪ ▪

The interaction between politics and policy was presented as linear and causal -> „politics determine policies“. (vgl. Smith und Larimer 2009) Lowi (1972, S. 299) argued for the reverse „policies determine politics“. Public policy tries to influence the behaviour of individuals -> „government coerces“ (Lowi 1972, S. 299)

Types of Coercion, Types of Policy and Types of Politics ▪

▪

▪ ▪

▪

Lowi wants to classify policies as a foundation for a better understanding of the structure of different political interests and their impact on the policy making process. (vgl. Lowi 1972, S. 300) Lowi has created an overview of government coercion based on its target (individual versus environment) and likelihood of actually being employed (immediate versus remote) (vgl. Lowi 1972, S. 300). Types of coercion: Remote, Immediate, Individual Conduct, Environment of Conduct. Coercion is applicable to the individual -> politics are more decentralized. Coercion is applicable to the environment -> politics are more centralized. Likelihood of Coercion is more remote -> politics are less conflictual. Types of Politics: Decentralized, Centralized, Party, Group

1

➔ Lowi developed this system matrix to provide a typology that divides all policies into one of four classifications: distributive policy, regulatory policy, redistributive policy, and constituent policy

Effectiveness and degree of coercion ▪

Political protagonists will apply coercive policy instruments to societal communities from which they do not expect support. ➔ If groups have a strong position in society and are able to resist or withdraw support, political actors will prefer less coercive policy instruments. (vgl. Bähr 2013, S. 40) ▪

▪

Coercive measures can force Figure 1 (Lowi 1972, S.300) reluctant actors of political control to comply, but can also provoke the resistance of influential stakeholders. The use of voluntary instruments can encourage stakeholders to comply with the procedures and standards adopted, but they can also remain unheard if stakeholders have no intention of compliance. (vgl. Bähr 2013, S. 40–41)

Critical Reflection ▪

▪

▪

▪

Lowi’s classification has been criticised for its ambiguity. Political stakeholders have different perceptions of the costs and benefits they expect from a particular type of policy. (vgl. Bähr 2013, S. 40) The same policy may be perceived differently by different stakeholders „and that the perception of policies may change due to changed conditions under which political decisions are taken.“ (Bähr 2013, S. 41) Due to a lack of experience and information, newly adopted policies may be more susceptible. „Policies cannot always be broken into their unidimensional components (…). Lowi's scheme works best when it is applied to unidimensional policies. “ (Heckathorn und Maser 1990, S. 1120–1121) -> However, multidimensional policies can‘t always be decomposed.

Literature Bähr, Holger (2013): The Politics of Means and Ends: Policy Instruments in the European Union: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Heckathorn, Douglas D.; Maser, Steven M. (1990): The Contractual Architecture of Public Policy: A Critical Reconst ruction of Lowi's Typology. In: The Journal of Politics 52 (4), S. 1101–1123. DOI: 10.2307/2131684. Knill, Christoph; Tosun, Jale (2011): Policy-making. In: Daniele Caramani (Hg.): Comparative politics. 2. ed. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, S. 373–388. Online verfügbar unter https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/handle/123456789/18533/knill_tosun.pdf?sequence=1, zuletzt geprüft am 15.11.2019. Lowi, Theodore J. (1964): American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory. In: World Pol. 16 (4), S. 677–715. DOI: 10.2307/2009452. Lowi, Theodore J. (1972): Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice. In: Public Administration Review 32 (4), S. 298. DOI: 10.2307/974990. Smith, Kevin B.; Larimer, Christopher Wesley (2009): The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Online verfügbar unter http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10271884, zuletzt geprüft am 17.11.2019.

2...