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.
The Legislative Administration of the House of Representatives (LA-HOR)virgilio gundayao
LA-HOR: The Legislative Administration of the House of Representatives is a quick reference presentation for this nth Congress under the Speakership of Hon. Feliciano "Sunny" Belmonte.
While there are voices to abolish the Legislature, this branch of the Government is constitutionally created and cannot just be drastically abolished under the same 1987 Philippine Constitution...
The 2010 World Public Sector Report brings to the fore a very critical issue - how to reconstruct public administration in post-conflict situations so as to enable it to promote peace and development in countries that have been affected by civil war and destruction. It is a question that has remained unresolved for decades and has brought poverty, despair, and death to people in many corners of the world.
The Legislative Administration of the House of Representatives (LA-HOR)virgilio gundayao
LA-HOR: The Legislative Administration of the House of Representatives is a quick reference presentation for this nth Congress under the Speakership of Hon. Feliciano "Sunny" Belmonte.
While there are voices to abolish the Legislature, this branch of the Government is constitutionally created and cannot just be drastically abolished under the same 1987 Philippine Constitution...
The 2010 World Public Sector Report brings to the fore a very critical issue - how to reconstruct public administration in post-conflict situations so as to enable it to promote peace and development in countries that have been affected by civil war and destruction. It is a question that has remained unresolved for decades and has brought poverty, despair, and death to people in many corners of the world.
Day 1 keynote address: John Thompson, Future Agricultures Consortium and Institute of Development Studies, UK: “Analyzing and Understanding Agricultural Policy Processes in Africa”
Workshop on Approaches and Methods for Policy Process Research, co-sponsored by the CGIAR Research Programs on Policies, Institutions and Markets (PIM) and Agriculture for Nutrition and Health (A4NH) at IFPRI-Washington DC, November 18-20, 2013.
Chapter 8 Policy Entrepreneurs and Morality Politics Lea.docxmccormicknadine86
Chapter 8
Policy Entrepreneurs and Morality Politics: Learning
from Failure and Success
Michael Mintrom
Introduction
In this volume, political entrepreneurs are viewed as special actors, embedded in the socio-
political fabric, who are alert to the emergence of entrepreneurial opportunities and act upon them
(see Petridou, Narbutaité Aflaki and Miles, this volume). During the past two decades, I have
devoted considerable attention to observing and understanding the actions of a subset of political
entrepreneurs that have come to be called policy entrepreneurs (Mintrom, 1997, 2000; Mintrom
and Norman, 2009; Mintrom and Vergari, 1996, 1998). Following Kingdon (1984) and Roberts
and King (1996), I have employed the working definition of policy entrepreneurs as political actors
who seek policy changes that shift the status quo in given areas of public policy.
This chapter documents how policy entrepreneurs have conducted themselves in the face of
intense opposition from groups which disagree with the moral positions embodied in their policy
objectives. While the chapter considers instances of policy entrepreneurship in three distinctive
jurisdictions, each case involves efforts to secure government funding and permissive regulation
of human embryonic stem cell research. Such research promises future therapies that could
both extend lives and improve their quality. It also invites serious discussion of the meaning of
life (Beckmann, 2004; Hauskeller, 2004; Banchoff, 2005; Fukuyama, 2005; Mintrom, 2009;
Karch, 2012).
Human embryonic stem cell research has deep symbolic significance and opens up moral
disagreement. Some governments have found effective ways to support this research despite
its controversial nature; others have strongly opposed it. Through case studies of policy
entrepreneurship and human embryonic stem cell research in California, the United Kingdom, and
Italy, the chapter shows how policy entrepreneurs have sought to promote more funding and less
restrictive regulation for this controversial area of contemporary science. In each case, the policy
entrepreneurs involved met with significant opposition due to the morality issues at stake.
By placing policy entrepreneurship in a broader political context, this chapter makes four
contributions. First, it shows how policy entrepreneurs pursue their goals in the face of intense
morality politics. Second, it shows how the work of policy entrepreneurs can be both supported
and inhibited by ideas, institutions, and interest-groups in the polis. Third, it demonstrates how, by
adapting to their contexts and adjusting their strategies, policy entrepreneurs can learn from failures
and take new runs at securing policy change. Finally, in making these points, this chapter assists
in identifying what makes policy entrepreneurship a distinctive form of political work. Policy
entrepreneurship is presented here as a crucial subset of the broader set of activiti ...
Why and how does the regulation of emerging technologies occurAraz Taeihagh
Why and how the regulation of emerging technologies occurs is not clear in the literature. In this study, we adapt the multiple streams framework – often used for explaining agenda‐setting and policy adoption – to examine the phenomenon. We hypothesize how technological change affects policy‐making and identify conditions under which the streams can be (de‐)coupled. We trace the formulation of the General Data Protection Regulation to show that the regulation occupied the legislative agenda when a policy window was exploited through policy entrepreneurship to frame technological change as a problem for data privacy and legislative harmonization within the European Union. Although constituencies interested in promoting internet technologies made every effort to stall the regulation, various actors, activities, and events helped the streams remain coupled, eventually leading to its adoption. We conclude that the alignment of problem, policy, politics, and technology – through policy entrepreneurship – influences the timing and design of technology regulation.
Chapter Five Policy Entrepreneurship and the Common GoodThe qui.docxchristinemaritza
Chapter Five Policy Entrepreneurship and the Common Good
The quintessential problem of politics [is] how to judge rightly the lesser evil, the relatively best, the ends that justify the means and the means themselves….
Mary Dietz
The common good … is good human life of the multitude, of a multitude of persons; it is their communion in good living.
Jacques Maritain
We now turn to policy entrepreneurship, or coordination of leadership tasks over the course of a policy change cycle. Leaders who are policy entrepreneurs—such as Marcus Conant, Stephan Schmidheiny, Gary Cunningham, Jan Hively, and many of their colleagues—are catalysts of systemic change (Roberts and King, 1996). Policy entrepreneurs “introduce, translate, and implement an innovative idea into public practice” (1996, p. 10). Like entrepreneurs in the business realm, they are inventive, energetic, and persistent in overcoming systemic barriers. They can work inside or outside government organizations; unlike Nancy Roberts and Paula King (1996), we do not reserve the term policy entrepreneur for nongovernmental leaders.
The essential requirements of policy entrepreneurship are a systemic understanding of policy change and a focus on enacting the common good. This chapter offers an overview of these two requirements; subsequent chapters are devoted to individual phases of the policy change cycle.
Before going further, we should note that public policy has both substantive and symbolic aspects. It can be defined as substantive decisions, commitments, and implementing actions by those who have governance responsibilities (including, but going beyond government), as interpreted by various stakeholders. Thus public policy is what the affected people think it is, and based on what the substantive content symbolizes to them. Public policies may be called policies, plans, programs, projects, decisions, actions, budgets, rules, or regulations. Moreover, they may emerge deliberately or as the result of mutual adjustment among partisans (Lindblom, 1959; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985). Exhibit 5.1 presents brief definitions of public policy and other key terms in this chapter.
Understanding Policy Change
The policy change process can be described as a seven-phase cycle (Figure 5.1), in which a shifting set of change advocates work in multiple forums, arenas, and courts to remedy a public problem. The phases are interconnected and build on each other, but policy entrepreneurs are seldom able to march through them in an orderly, sequential fashion. In the case of a highly complex public problem such as AIDS or global warming, the cycle (and “re-cycling”) may extend over decades. The effort to enact solutions for less complex problems, such as homelessness in a particular city, may be successful in a much shorter period. No matter what, the same set of leaders and constituents who began a change effort may not be able to see the effort all the way through the cycle. Moreover, new leaders and constitue ...
Public admisistration1introductiontopa 120114190930-phpapp02Sartajbhat158
it is an introduction in public administration which will give the basic idea of public administration to the learners...it will develop interest in public administration of the students
Similar to Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach (20)
INSTITUCIONES INFORMALES Y REFORMA DEL ESTADO: Análisis del proceso de descen...GIGAPP
En el presente estudio, que parte de la investigación realizada para nuestra tesis doctoral, buscamos en primera medida realizar un acercamiento al proceso de descentralización latinoamericano en su conjunto para observar sus avances y sus dificultades más visibles, remarcando la importancia de la institucionalidad (tanto formal como informal) en los niveles de éxito o fracaso de dichas reformas. A punto seguido, tomamos el caso colombiano para realizar una revisión a dos bandas: en primer lugar, observamos el diseño de las instituciones que enmarcan dicha transferencia de competencias, para luego,por medio de un estudio de caso, señalar puntos de importancia dentro de los contextos locales que marcan la prevalencia (y en ocasiones fortalecimiento) de mecanismos no democráticos después de las reformas de descentralización. Terminamos este trabajo enfatizando la necesidad de revisar no solo las cuestiones formales que implica un nuevo protagonismo de la esfera local, sino también las cuestiones informales trazadas por las concepciones sociales alrededor de lo público, del papel de los organismos estatales, y de la propia ciudadanía en la definición de objetivos y en la implementación de mecanismos que permita alcanzarlos de manera conjunta en pos del bien común.
The French Revolution, which began in 1789, was a period of radical social and political upheaval in France. It marked the decline of absolute monarchies, the rise of secular and democratic republics, and the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte. This revolutionary period is crucial in understanding the transition from feudalism to modernity in Europe.
For more information, visit-www.vavaclasses.com
Instructions for Submissions thorugh G- Classroom.pptxJheel Barad
This presentation provides a briefing on how to upload submissions and documents in Google Classroom. It was prepared as part of an orientation for new Sainik School in-service teacher trainees. As a training officer, my goal is to ensure that you are comfortable and proficient with this essential tool for managing assignments and fostering student engagement.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
The Roman Empire A Historical Colossus.pdfkaushalkr1407
The Roman Empire, a vast and enduring power, stands as one of history's most remarkable civilizations, leaving an indelible imprint on the world. It emerged from the Roman Republic, transitioning into an imperial powerhouse under the leadership of Augustus Caesar in 27 BCE. This transformation marked the beginning of an era defined by unprecedented territorial expansion, architectural marvels, and profound cultural influence.
The empire's roots lie in the city of Rome, founded, according to legend, by Romulus in 753 BCE. Over centuries, Rome evolved from a small settlement to a formidable republic, characterized by a complex political system with elected officials and checks on power. However, internal strife, class conflicts, and military ambitions paved the way for the end of the Republic. Julius Caesar’s dictatorship and subsequent assassination in 44 BCE created a power vacuum, leading to a civil war. Octavian, later Augustus, emerged victorious, heralding the Roman Empire’s birth.
Under Augustus, the empire experienced the Pax Romana, a 200-year period of relative peace and stability. Augustus reformed the military, established efficient administrative systems, and initiated grand construction projects. The empire's borders expanded, encompassing territories from Britain to Egypt and from Spain to the Euphrates. Roman legions, renowned for their discipline and engineering prowess, secured and maintained these vast territories, building roads, fortifications, and cities that facilitated control and integration.
The Roman Empire’s society was hierarchical, with a rigid class system. At the top were the patricians, wealthy elites who held significant political power. Below them were the plebeians, free citizens with limited political influence, and the vast numbers of slaves who formed the backbone of the economy. The family unit was central, governed by the paterfamilias, the male head who held absolute authority.
Culturally, the Romans were eclectic, absorbing and adapting elements from the civilizations they encountered, particularly the Greeks. Roman art, literature, and philosophy reflected this synthesis, creating a rich cultural tapestry. Latin, the Roman language, became the lingua franca of the Western world, influencing numerous modern languages.
Roman architecture and engineering achievements were monumental. They perfected the arch, vault, and dome, constructing enduring structures like the Colosseum, Pantheon, and aqueducts. These engineering marvels not only showcased Roman ingenuity but also served practical purposes, from public entertainment to water supply.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
Embracing GenAI - A Strategic ImperativePeter Windle
Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies such as Generative AI, Image Generators and Large Language Models have had a dramatic impact on teaching, learning and assessment over the past 18 months. The most immediate threat AI posed was to Academic Integrity with Higher Education Institutes (HEIs) focusing their efforts on combating the use of GenAI in assessment. Guidelines were developed for staff and students, policies put in place too. Innovative educators have forged paths in the use of Generative AI for teaching, learning and assessments leading to pockets of transformation springing up across HEIs, often with little or no top-down guidance, support or direction.
This Gasta posits a strategic approach to integrating AI into HEIs to prepare staff, students and the curriculum for an evolving world and workplace. We will highlight the advantages of working with these technologies beyond the realm of teaching, learning and assessment by considering prompt engineering skills, industry impact, curriculum changes, and the need for staff upskilling. In contrast, not engaging strategically with Generative AI poses risks, including falling behind peers, missed opportunities and failing to ensure our graduates remain employable. The rapid evolution of AI technologies necessitates a proactive and strategic approach if we are to remain relevant.
Welcome to TechSoup New Member Orientation and Q&A (May 2024).pdfTechSoup
In this webinar you will learn how your organization can access TechSoup's wide variety of product discount and donation programs. From hardware to software, we'll give you a tour of the tools available to help your nonprofit with productivity, collaboration, financial management, donor tracking, security, and more.
Read| The latest issue of The Challenger is here! We are thrilled to announce that our school paper has qualified for the NATIONAL SCHOOLS PRESS CONFERENCE (NSPC) 2024. Thank you for your unwavering support and trust. Dive into the stories that made us stand out!
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
proposal
XXII World Congress in Political Science
IPSA-AISP
8-12 July 2012
César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio
@cesarncruz
2. 2 - 20
What the audience should be expect on this
paper?
• 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 - 20
LPD 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 - 20
Policy 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 -20
Policy 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. 6-20
What’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
What’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
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
Why 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
What previously needs to be taking into
account 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 (O'Donnell &
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
LPD 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
The 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
LPD 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. 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
Subsystemic 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
Subsystemic 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
LPD 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
Analytical strategy proposed by LPD
ASSOCIATED
CAUSES 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 change
lesson drawing
contention
processes NARRATIVE STRATEGIES Punctuated
equilibrium
Innovation 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
Legitimation and Policy dynamics LPD approach
ASSOCIATED Legitimacy
Policy termination
CAUSES 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 change
lesson drawing Withdrawal of Enhanced
processes consent legitimacy
Punctuated
pattern equilibrium
Innovation 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
It 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
Thank you
Gracias por su atención
cesar.cruz.rubio@gigapp.org
César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio
@cesarncruz
Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .