0
1 - 20      GIGAPP (Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy)           Instituto Universitario de I...
2 - 20What the audience should be expect on thispaper?• This a preliminary theory-development endeavor• This effort is mad...
3 - 20LPD approach: What is this about?• I propose here an approach for the study of policy stability &  change (called le...
4 - 20Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (1/2)• Legitimacy has historically been considered as a top subject of  study in ...
5 -20Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (2/2)• In traditional policy process literature (until 80’s) legitimacy and  legit...
6-20What’s new in public policy change literature?(1/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature ...
7What’s new in public policy change literature?(2/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature  ▫ ...
8 Why David Beetham’s legitimacy model? (1/2)• LPD is not the first endeavor in adapting D. Beetham model for the study of...
9Why David Beetham’s model? (2/2)• In political systems where institutional (input oriented) and performance’s  (output or...
10What previously needs to be taking intoaccount for LPD theory development?• The relevance and applicability of models th...
11LPD approach: assumptions (1/3)• Public policies are designs that configure a power relation and  hence may influence th...
12The legitimacy pattern, a system of rationales                                   Public debate                          ...
13LPD approach: assumptions (2/3)• For the actors of dominant political coalition, policy legitimation and  control over c...
Operational positions used to face potential policy change                                                                ...
15Subsystemic operational positions (1/2)• Putting this typology on the table, it is possible to propose tripartite   stra...
16Subsystemic operational positions (2/2)• The operational positions here identified have at least three common important ...
17LPD approach: assumptions (3/3)• At the micro-level, LPD approach is based on a bounded-rational model  of the individua...
18                          Analytical strategy proposed by LPDASSOCIATEDCAUSES OF                                        ...
19                        Legitimation and Policy dynamics LPD approachASSOCIATED                                         ...
20It seems great, but now what?• Is LPD logically coherent?• Do LPD have clear causal drivers and a sense of causal proces...
21Thank youGracias por su atencióncesar.cruz.rubio@gigapp.org César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio        @cesarncruz Calle Fortuny, ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach

1,869

Published on

Based on policy change literature and in an improved version of D. Beetham's (1991) model for legitimacy (Alagappa, 1994), I propose here an approach for the study of policy stability & change (called legitimation & policy dynamics). Oriented to explain policy change in political systems defined by its institutional fragility and persistent legitimacy deficits, LPD is an actor-centered perspective, in which legitimation of power through policy is assumed as an unavoidable task, and conforms as a causal-driver useful in explaining policy stability and change. LPD assumes that policy change can take two forms: as a reactive way or as a proactive logic. In both of these forms the actors of the dominant coalition will seek to maintain an active presence (and increase own’s influence and control capabilities if possible) over policy and its change processes. Institutionally conditioned, these actors may assume four differentiated operational positions (shock response, strategic improvement-based, thermostatic and change-contention) and in doing so they also configure narratives and send clear messages that influence all actor expectations during change process. The “legitimacy pattern” associated with a given policy design favors periods of stability based on perpetuation, the logic of adaptation and incremental changes or planned and long-time based processes of policy change. Focusing events, external shocks, innovation and diffusion processes, or endogenous dynamics are all forces that influence the policy subsystem and may lead to distortions (based on unconformity with rules, discrepancy with shared beliefs, withdrawal of consent or an inadequate policy performance) in the legitimacy pattern. Those distortions may force changes in the dominant coalition and in public policy, but it is only with a transformation of the legitimacy pattern when a major policy change occurs. Preliminary hypotheses are here proposed.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,869
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
23
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach"

  1. 1. 1 - 20 GIGAPP (Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy) Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset-Spain Legitimation and policy dynamics approach for the study of policy change: a proposalXXII World Congress in Political ScienceIPSA-AISP 8-12 July 2012 César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio @cesarncruz
  2. 2. 2 - 20What the audience should be expect on thispaper?• This a preliminary theory-development endeavor• This effort is made based on the “third scenario” in Paul A. Sabatier’s guidelines of theory development. (No inductive or in a deductive strategy. Instead, a dissatisfaction with existing conceptual framework or body of theories)• “The development (or elaboration) of theory needs to be distinguished from its verification” (Sabatier, 2007).• LPD is currently at the elaboration stage. All suggestions from you of course will be very welcome. Thank you in advance. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  3. 3. 3 - 20LPD approach: What is this about?• I propose here an approach for the study of policy stability & change (called legitimation & policy dynamics) LPD approach.• Oriented mainly (but not exclusively) to explain policy change in political systems defined by its institutional fragility and persistent legitimacy deficits, in which legitimation of power through policy is assumed as an unavoidable task.• LPD is an actor-centered perspective (subsystemic positions; a bounded rational model of individual, who may use all intelligence forms at disposal as well as organized hypocrisy as resources in managing conflict)• The legitimation of power in public policy and the control over potential change dynamics by the dominant political coalition conforms in LPD approach as the two causal-drivers in explaining policy stability and change. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  4. 4. 4 - 20Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (1/2)• Legitimacy has historically been considered as a top subject of study in political science,• However, in public policy studies- research, legitimacy (viewed as product based on “the belief” in the existence of a legitimate power relation) and the legitimation of power (viewed as a process of achieving and maintaining legitimacy) have not been historically assumed as relevant topics of study. (except Caldeira, Gibson)• The reason is very simple: regimes, political actors and institutions are all relevant subjects in the study of legitimacy. Public policies are viewed simply as products (or as an instruments for regime’s legitimation) that are part of a larger political system. So, policy legitimacy and policy legitimation is mainly dependent on a broader political system’s legitimacy. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  5. 5. 5 -20Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (2/2)• In traditional policy process literature (until 80’s) legitimacy and legitimation as an oriented activity has been played a small or peripheral role: ▫ Policy legitimation was identified as a stage of de policy cycle (C.O Jones, Palumbo) confined to the institutional approval made by the legislative o judicial bodies, then considering policy approval =policy legitimation ▫ Further decision-making policy literature considering legitimation as an activity potentially present in all stages of the policy process-cycle, because instead public policy as an instrument, what is necessary to legitimate are policy decisions (B. G.Peters) Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  6. 6. 6-20What’s new in public policy change literature?(1/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature ▫ Social construction and policy design theory (which assumes a substantive conception of public policy) identifies in rationales (legitimations and justifications) key constituent elements of policy design (Ingram, Schneider, & deLeon, 2007; Schneider & Ingram, 1997) ▫ a) C. Wilson model (Wilson, 2000, 2006) identifies the crisis of legitimacy as a key phase in explaining major policy regimes change ▫ b) E. Montpetit analysis (Montpetit, 2008), which shows that to obtain legitimacy (via expertise and citizen involvement) is a central task in the formulation of policy designs Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  7. 7. 7What’s new in public policy change literature?(2/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature ▫ c) J. Wallner (Wallner, 2008) that identified legitimacy as an additional criterion (along with effectiveness, efficiency and performance) for policy evaluation, and specifically in explaining policy failure. ▫ d) M. Macbeth et.al. (2007 -) policy narratives framework, that links literature on policy narratives and policy change and focus on the tactics and rhetorical devices used by policy advocates and interest groups (called ‘narrative strategies’) to understand how these strategies are used to issue contention or expansion, and thereby legitimize or delegitimize policy options and problem definitions. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  8. 8. 8 Why David Beetham’s legitimacy model? (1/2)• LPD is not the first endeavor in adapting D. Beetham model for the study of public policy (see Carrillo 1998, Simon Matti 2009)• All public policies configures a power relation that needs to be legitimate• Beetham (1991) model identifies four dimensions for the study legitimacy in social sciences (substantive view, in wich all dimensions are not optional) 1. legal conformity 2. justifiability of rules based on shared beliefs, 3. consent evidence and 4. adecquate performance (added by Alagappa 1995)• The emergency of non legitimate forms of power (ilegitimacy, legitimacy deficits and delegitimation) linked to public policy are all possible scenarios in policy dynamics, as well as possible objectives to achieve of political actors implicated in policy change processes. Here the use of narrative strategies and mechanisms of policy stability and change are important in doing so. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  9. 9. 9Why David Beetham’s model? (2/2)• In political systems where institutional (input oriented) and performance’s (output oriented) legitimacy is very difficult to achieve (or recurrently tends to disappear, erode or weaken) the legitimation of power as a causal-driver of policy development acquires all its analytical relevance, In those countries and regimes with persistent legitimacy deficits, Beetham model may help us in identifying and in determining the rationales structure linked to policy at a given time• A key distinguishing feature of systemic processes of policy making in less developed countries, where institutional fragility pervades and its government agencies - despite its power vis-à-vis their societies - have a limited room for maneuver, is a chronic legitimacy deficits that flows most of the time in a questioned legitimacy (see Horowitz, 1989)• Beetham’s model claims that the legitimation of power is a political priority for those in a power position in justifying a given power relation. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  10. 10. 10What previously needs to be taking intoaccount for LPD theory development?• The relevance and applicability of models theories of policy process and policy dynamics depend on 3 theoretical & methodological key questions• The way in which theoretical approaches are able to take into account regime’s institutional and structural constraints that influence policy formulation (ODonnell & Oszlak, 1976; Oszlak, 1980) and determines its dynamics (Cabrero Mendoza, 2000; Medellín Torres, 2004; Torgerson, 1985).• Its ability to consider and include all (or the majority of) causes associated with major policy change and the systemic possibilities beyond those traditionally undertaken within the current neoincremental-homeostatic orthodoxy (Howlett, 2007; Howlett & Cashore, 2009).• The dependent variable problem: Its ability to consider and include all (or the majority of) the components, dimensions or elements of public policy, and thus attend a methodological key question: what changes when policy change? (Howlett & Cashore, 2009) (for a typological integration proposal see also Cruz- Rubio, 2012) Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  11. 11. 11LPD approach: assumptions (1/3)• Public policies are designs that configure a power relation and hence may influence the “politics of policy change”.• Alterations in the “legitimacy pattern” define policy development. The specific configuration of rationales at a given time (and associated with a given policy design), defines what I call here the legitimacy pattern, conceived as the main category of analysis of LPD approach. Not all changes in rationales transform a legitimacy pattern. There is only with the transformation of the legitimacy pattern when major policy change takes place• A strong (or renewed) legitimacy pattern explains policy stasis and long-term planned changes (negotiated agreements and planned-paradigmatic policy change). Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  12. 12. 12The legitimacy pattern, a system of rationales Public debate Decision making process (outcome legitimacy) (process legitimacy) Political dimension ( predecisional) Administrative dimension (postdesional) Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  13. 13. 13LPD approach: assumptions (2/3)• For the actors of dominant political coalition, policy legitimation and control over change process are two imperative political activities• As we well know, policy change literature agree in the identification of two groups of “analytical grouping of entities” that are useful in studying political interaction in policy dynamics, namely: mechanisms of policy stability and change (at meso and macro levels) and the use of policy narratives that define (at meso level) and orient actors’ positions and discourses.• At the meso-level, to adopt a subsystemic operational position is a necessary task for those actors of the dominant coalition, and this dimension must be in included in any policy change analytical strategy• Changes forced by actors of minority coalitions over subsystemic operational positions favors policy change Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  14. 14. Operational positions used to face potential policy change 14 LPD: Subsystemic Operational positions used to face potential policy change Non- Reversible Reversible- accumulative systemic adaptative (operational and collective (institutional and action levels) collective action levels) Reactive a) Shock response d) Perpetuation and (policy change as based change contention an issue) Proactive (policy change as b) Strategic and c) Thermostatic a development improvement based calibrations process) Source: (C. Cruz-Rubio, 2011b) Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  15. 15. 15Subsystemic operational positions (1/2)• Putting this typology on the table, it is possible to propose tripartite strategy of analysis based on the three analytical devices (mechanisms, narrative strategies, and operational positions). In using this analytical strategy it is assumed that dominant coalition actors (and policy makers implicated) are forced:2. To define (if necessary) an individual position that is known by all political actors of coalitions he (she) belongs.3. To know, to support or to accept subsystemic (operational) position of the policy dominant coalition who belongs, and related.4. To adequately communicate and reflect adopted coalition’s position, based i.e. on an adequate use of narrative strategies, policy surrogates and the selective use or roles. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  16. 16. 16Subsystemic operational positions (2/2)• The operational positions here identified have at least three common important characteristics.• a) Useful in reducing controversy and uncertainty, a definition and adoption of a specific operational position by dominant coalition also allow all political actors implicated – including those of minority coalitions – to bound limits, to define their role and specific weight, as well as construct realistic expectations and strategic calculation about their possibilities and alternatives.• b) With an operational position adopted, a subsystemic modus operandi is projected, and in doing so all actors of dominant coalition must defend it and assume it as the valid one in facing potential change.• c) A deliberate switching on the operational position by the dominant coalition has no other purpose than to maintain control over the process of change. Changes in operational position may be calculated and decided by the dominant coalition (in a preventive or proative fashion), or it may be forced systemically. In this case the dominant coalition assumes a political failure that forces them to change its operational position that benefits to its political contenders. Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  17. 17. 17LPD approach: assumptions (3/3)• At the micro-level, LPD approach is based on a bounded-rational model of the individual (with time, information access and processing limitations) that accepts and take into account all intelligence forms at disposal as well as the use of ”organized hypocrisy” (Brunnson)• Actors may define position for or against substantive policy change or maintain an undefined base position based on negotiation process and its ​ results. Actors may act according to values (including conflicting values) (Stewart, 2006) opportunistically (self interested with no values implicated) or develop the so called “organized hypocrisy”, that is to say, a behavior characterized by inconsistencies, given a selective and differential position choices in discourse, decisions and actions, in order to manage (or to reflect adequately) conflict (Brunsson, 2002, 2006)• Actors may act in a coherent way with the subsystemic position adopted in potential change processes Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  18. 18. 18 Analytical strategy proposed by LPDASSOCIATEDCAUSES OF MECHANISMS OF POLICY MAJOR STABILITY AND CHANGE POLICY POLICY DYNAMICS CHANGE -Positive and negative SYSTEMIC Feedback POSSIBILITIES - Endogenus change Focusing - Issue expansion Incremental change events, elite - Exogenus shocks SUBSYSTEMIC (policy manteinance) turnover. OPERATIONAL POSITIONS No policy change External (policy stasis- -Shock response based Shocks perpetuation) -Strategic and improvement based Oriented Major policy -Thermostatic calibrations learning and change -Perpetuation and changelesson drawing contention processes NARRATIVE STRATEGIES Punctuated equilibriumInnovation anf difussion - Identifying winners and losers Policy oriented- tendencies - Construction of benefits and costs learning and lesson - Use of condesation symbols drawing -Policy surrogates -Scientific certanty and disagreement Strategic and - planned programatic change Gradual paradigmatic policy change Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  19. 19. 19 Legitimation and Policy dynamics LPD approachASSOCIATED Legitimacy Policy terminationCAUSES OF pattern dilution MAJOR POLICY POLICY DYNAMICS CHANGE Legitimacy SYSTEMIC Weaking deficits POSSIBILITIES legitimacy Focusing (no shared pattern Incremental change events, elite beliefs) (policy manteinance) turnover. Illegality Inadequate policy No policy change External LEGITIMACY (policy stasis- performance Shocks PATTERN perpetuation) Oriented Major policy learning and changelesson drawing Withdrawal of Enhanced processes consent legitimacy Punctuated pattern equilibriumInnovation anf difussion Policy oriented- tendencies learning and lesson drawing LEGITIMACY PATTERN Strategic and TRANSFORMATION planned programatic change Direct relation Gradual paradigmatic policy change Contributor relation Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  20. 20. 20It seems great, but now what?• Is LPD logically coherent?• Do LPD have clear causal drivers and a sense of causal process?• Are LPD mayor propositions may be empirically falsifiable?• Is the intended scope of theory clear and relatively broad?• Is LPD fertile?: May LPD give rise to non obvious implications and produce a realtively large number of interesting predictions per assumption• Testing LPD approach• Case study: how policy change in combating the threats of drug trafficking and organized crime in Mexico (2000-2012) (Cruz- Rubio)• Case study Innovation policy in Venezuela (Romero, 2011) Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  21. 21. 21Thank youGracias por su atencióncesar.cruz.rubio@gigapp.org César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio @cesarncruz Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×