Several scholarly works hold that ideas, argumentation, and discourse are important to explain policy stability and change, although it is not so clear how exactly. Attention to the ideational sphere, moreover, poses crucial methodological issues, including how can we access the subjective world of policy actors. This Q methodology study provides some evidence of the variety of ideas held by elected public officers on the regulation of local public services. Results indicate how ideas can be grouped into alternative and partially conflicting views. The findings bear some relevance for better understanding sources of stability and change of regulatory regimes of public services at the local level.

1. Conference on Regulatory Governance between Global and Local
ECPR Standing Group on Regulatory Governance
Barcelona, 25-27 June 2014
Exploring Ideas on the Regulation
of Local Public Services:
A Q-Methodology Study
of Elected Public Officers in Italy
Alberto Asquer
Lecturer of Public Policy and Management
Department of Financial and Management Studies
SOAS, University of London
aa144@soas.ac.uk

2. • Perceived limitations of new instititutionalist
approaches in explaining sources of policy
change
• Importance of ideas, argumentation, and
discourse in the policy process
• Importance of agency vis-à-vis structure
(structural-configurational features of the
policy system)
• Methodological issue(s): How can we
access the subjectivities of agents (in a
transparent and systematic way)?
1. Introduction

3. • Regulation of local public services is a
policy arena where stability and change of
regulatory regimes can be cast as an
explanandum
• See, instances of regulatory policy
reversals like the re-municipalisation of
water provision in Grenoble and Paris
• If ideas are relevant to help explaining
sources of policy stability and change, what
do elected public officers think about the
regulation of local public services?
1. Introduction

4. Q methodology (Stephenson 1953)
i) Definition of the topic (concourse)
ii) Construction of a set of statements about the
concourse
iii) Selection of a sample of statements (Q sample) (N:
30-60)
iv) Selection of a sample of individuals (P sample) (N:
25-75), who sort the statements (Q sorts)
v) Analysis of the Q sorts through a by-person factor
analysis and interpretation of the results
2. Methodology

5. In the present study:
i) Topic is regulation of local public services
ii) The concourse is described by about 120
statements, drawn from interviews and documents
iii) Q sample counts 30 sentences
iv) P sample counts 33 respondents from 584
invitations sent to elected public officers of 20
municipalities in Italy, who sorted the statements with
FlashQ software (Braehler and Hackert, 2007)
v) Analysis was conducted with PQ Method (Schmolck,
2012)
2. Methodology

6. The Q sample:
2. Methodology

7. The P sample:
2. Methodology

8. Online sorting:
2. Methodology

9. Factor matrix with defining sorts (in bold):
3. Analysis

10. Factor Q sort values for each statement
3. Analysis

11. Factor Q sort values for each statement:
3. Analysis

12. Factor 1 defining statements:
“Local public services should be provided by full public
ownership firms”
“Local public services should be managed according to
principles of solidarity and of protection of the most
vulnerable users”
“Tariffs of local public services should be kept under the
control of public authorities to ensure affordability”
“The attainment of profit bears negative effects on the
quality of local public services”
(“The hard-core state interventionist”)
4. Discussion

13. Factor 2 defining statements:
“Local public services provide an attractive opportunity
for private investors”
“Local public authorities tend to interfere in the
management of local utilities rather than supervising
and regulating their conduct”
“Local public authorities do not possess adequate
knowledge, competences, and capabilities to regulate
the conduct of local utilities”
“Local public authorities care more about protecting the
interests of local utilities than of the users”
(“The denigrative of the public”)
4. Discussion

14. Factor 3 defining statements:
“Tariffs of local public services should be kept under the
control of public authorities to ensure affordability”
“Local public services should be managed according to
principles of solidarity and of protection of the most
vulnerable users”
“Tariffs of local public services should cover full cost,
including a fair return to capital invested”
“Local public authorities do not adequately monitor
service quality of local utilities”
(“The pragmatist”)
4. Discussion

15. Factor 4 defining statements:
“Local infrastructure development should be primarily
financed by public funds”
“Local public services should be provided by full public
ownership firms”
“Local public services should be managed according to
principles of solidarity and of protection of the most
vulnerable users”
“Tariffs of local public services should be kept under the
control of public authorities to ensure affordability”
“Local public services should be provided by mixed
public-private ownership firms”
(“The cautious privatiser”)
4. Discussion

16. • Evidence of variety of ideas on the
regulation of local public services, but
generally cautious towards private
provision
• Still we need to understand whether and
how such variety of ideas matters in the
regulatory policy process
• Ideas need to be understood in relation to
the the historical and institutional context
where they originate
5. Conclusions

17. Thank you