PARADIGMS, POLICIES, AND PEOPLE: EXPLORING THE LINKAGES BETWEEN NORMATIVE BELIEFS, PUBLIC POLICIES AND UTILITY CONSUMER PAYMENT PROBLEMS

This article takes a step toward unifying normative and empirical policy analysis by examining the convergence of societal metatheories, public policy models, and empirical data on consumers. It begins with the premise that policies rest on a foundation of normative beliefs or metatheories that, in turn, put boundaries around the possible and give social meaning to the policies and programs that flow from them. The interaction of social metatheories about poverty and existing policies to deal with people with utility payment problems is examined. The article continues with the idea that good policy arguments are supported with empirical data and factual evidence. An empirical cluster analysis of a representative sample of consumers provides a basis for identifying the extent to which the empirical clusters conform to any or all of the metatheory‐policy linkages. The ultimate message is that theory and practice ought to demarcate where they are deductively metaphysical, based on beliefs about a subject, where they are inductively empirical, based on objective measurements relevant to the situation to which applied, and where a mixed approach is used. Linkage of the three types of information allows policy research to identify options in light of the values and metatheories on which they are based and the objective characteristics and effects on their objects of action. The implications are that when policies are based on beliefs that reflect only a part of empirical reality, implementation may fail or be inefficient and ineffective.     

Structuring the Debate on Consolidation: A Response to Leland and Thurmaier

In their essay "When Efficiency Is Unbelievable: Normative Lessons from 30 Years of City–County Consolidations," published in the July/August 2005 issue of PAR , Leland and Thurmaier make an important contribution to understanding how city–county consolidation occurs. They revise the widely accepted Rosenbaum and Kammerer model of consolidation and posit that "strong arguments" based on economic development, especially in the absence of organized opposition, led to victory for consolidation advocates. In this response, we argue that efforts to identify a set of arguments or charter provisions that will lead to successful consolidation are misguided. The real story in consolidation campaigns is how participants use heresthetical arguments in an effort to turn their opponents into political losers. What makes arguments strong or weak is not their substantive policy focus, but how they are structured.     

Opposition Policy Influence through Agenda‐setting: The Environment in Denmark, 1993–2009

This article addresses the opportunities that the opposition has to influence policy – a topic that has been neglected in existing party policy research. The idea that is developed is applied to a remarkable environmental policy development during the Danish right‐wing government in the 2000s. Contrary to its position when it took office in 2001, the right‐wing government turned green and adopted a series of green policy initiatives. It is argued in this article that vehement and persistent criticism from the left‐wing opposition provides an explanation for this turn. Taking media coverage, public opinion, carbon dioxide emissions and the government's approval ratings into account, the empirical estimation based on unique quarterly data shows that opposition criticism had a systematic impact on the government's pro‐environmental policy development. The implications for party policy research are important. If the aim is to understand how parties matter to policy, the opposition should be taken more seriously.     

“Ragged urchins play on marquetry floors”: The discourse of filtering is reconstructed, 1920s–1950s

The idea of filtering has played a key role in our understanding of housing markets and in framing federal policy. The origins of the idea, however, and of the term itself, are poorly understood. Drawing loosely on the approach of discourse analysis, this article clarifies both issues, arguing that language shapes how we think about housing policy, and indeed policy itself. The concept of filtering emerged in Great Britain in the late nineteenth century where, by 1900, it informed arguments in favor of municipal (public) housing. It became influential in the United States in the 1920s but in 1938 was still referred to in different ways, notably as “hand-me-down housing.” Here, it was understood more narrowly, as an alternative to public housing. After 1939, the Federal Housing Administration, though not its leading consultant Homer Hoyt, popularized the term “filtering.” The neutral connotations of this metaphorical term suited the agency's goal of developing an apparently objective discourse of housing markets and market analysis. The term was normalized by the early 1960s.     

Norwegian Politics of Abortion: Perspectives, Arguments, and Values

Grid-group cultural theory is applied to an empirical analysis of five debates on abortion in the Norwegian Parliament between 1992 and 1996. Policy arguments concerning selective abortion and abortion in general are compared. In the cultural–theoretical literature, restrictive policy arguments towards abortion have been connected to the hierarchical cultural bias, whereas permissive policy arguments have been associated with egalitarian and individualistic worldviews. The empirical analysis, however, shows that there are various different connections between abortion policy arguments and cultural biases. The possibly contradictory situation that arises when parties switch between cultural biases is discussed, and the article concludes that grid-group cultural theory proves useful in relating the various abortion policy arguments to broader worldviews that transcend this particular policy issue.     

Self-Regulation as Policy Process: The Multiple and Criss-Crossing Stages of Private Rule-Making

While there are many studies of self-regulation, they have not yet systematically analyzed the very process by which rules are developed and implemented. This article treats self-regulation as a process with sufficient autonomy and functional coherence to display identifiable stages, each of which deserves independent attention in turn. It draws from the literature on the stages of public policy processes and uses this as a template to identify and analyze the unique properties of private rule-making, while acknowledging the criticisms that have been made of excessive determinism and simplicity in some applications of the general idea of stages. The article shows that our understanding of self-regulation is significantly advanced by examining it as a process with stages but it emphasizes that the different stages of the self-regulatory policy process (agenda-setting, problem identification, decision, implementation and evaluation) are criss-crossed in numerous and interesting ways. It also shows that private rule-making often seeks to solve societal problems in domestic and international settings and is an important alternative to public regulation but self-regulation is rarely completely de-coupled from public authority. Instead, public authority is activated to solidify self-regulatory arrangements across the different stages of the policy process.     

Valence,Policy Ideas,and the Rise of Sustainability

This article introduces to policy studies the concept of valence, which we define as the emotional quality of an idea that makes it more or less attractive. We argue that valence explains why some ideas are more successful than others, sometimes gaining paradigmatic status. A policy idea is attractive when its valence matches the mood of a target population. Skilled policy entrepreneurs use ideas with high valence to frame policy issues and generate support for their policy proposals. The usefulness of the concept of valence is illustrated with the case of sustainability, an idea that has expanded from the realm of environmental policy to dominate discussions in such diverse policy areas as pension reform, public finance, labor markets, and energy security. As the valence of sustainability has increased, policy entrepreneurs have used the idea to reframe problems in these various policy areas and promote reforms.     

The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries

Abstract This paper addresses the arguments in favour of both the decentralization and centralization of public policy making. It points out that the same arguments are sometimes used to advance either claim and that in different countries opposite arguments are used to support the same claim. Clearly, the inherent features of centralization and decentralization are far from obvious. A closer look at the attention given to the issue by political parties at the national level in four European countries reveals that decentralization becomes an issue in these countries at different periods and as a cause of different arguments, which rather reflect the dominant values in the political culture than refer to inherent properties of decentralization itself. An analysis of opinions of local elites points at the relation between their opinion on decentralizing responsibilities in a specific field and the support for existing institutional arrangements, their own influence in the policy field and the predisposition towards decentralization tendencies. This results in the conclusion that the support for decentralization tendencies is more closely related to existing specific institutional arrangements, and to the degree to which it is expected to influence one's own position, than to its inherent merits.     

The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European countries

This paper addresses the arguments in favour of both the decentralization and centralization of public policy making. It points out that the same arguments are sometimes used to advance either claim and that in different countries opposite arguments are used to support the same claim. Clearly, the inherent features of centralization and decentralization are far from obvious. A closer look at the attention given to the issue by political parties at the national level in four European countries reveals that decentralization becomes an issue in these countries at different periods and as a cause of different arguments, which rather reflect the dominant values in the political culture than refer to inherent properties of decentralization itself. An analysis of opinions of local elites points at the relation between their opinion on decentralizing responsibilities in a specific field and the support for existing institutional arrangements, their own influence in the policy field and the predisposition towards decentralization tendencies. This results in the conclusion that the support for decentralization tendencies is more closely related to existing specific institutional arrangements, and to the degree to which it is expected to influence one's own position, than to its inherent merits.     

Do parties respond strategically to opinion polls? Evidence from campaign statements

This article investigates how parties respond to polling results on the campaign trail. I argue that parties use pre-election polls as mobilization and fine-tuning devices. Opinion surveys that exceed expectations can be exploited to mobilize the party base. Disappointing polls, in turn, are publicly downplayed and criticized. However, this information can be used to refine campaign strategies. Parties underperforming in the polls have incentives to emphasize their own policy positions and to attack other parties. These arguments are supported by evidence from 2140 campaign statements by Portuguese party leaders over two elections, combined with polling results. The findings suggest that parties carefully adjust their campaign rhetoric in response to public opinion signals. The study contributes to research on elite behavior and political representation. Moreover, it shows how research on campaign effects can benefit from a closer attention to the supply-side of campaigns.     

Party,policy – or both? Partisan-biased processing of policy arguments in direct democracy

How do party cues and policy information affect citizens’ political opinions? In direct democratic settings, this question is particularly relevant. Direct democratic campaigns are information-rich events which offer citizens the opportunity to learn detailed information about a policy. At the same time parties try to influence citizens’ decision procedure by publishing their own positions on the issue. The current debate on whether “party” or “policy” has more impact on political opinions has not yet yielded conclusive results. We examine the effect of policy arguments and party cues on vote intention in two Swiss referendum votes using panel survey data. To the simple dichotomous question of “party cues or policy information” we add an additional twist in asking how party cues affect the processing of policy information through processes of motivated reasoning. We find first that both, policy arguments and party cues, have an independent effect on vote intention. However, in a second part of the analysis, we find strong evidence for partisan-biased processing of policy arguments – that is, voters tend to align their arguments with their preferred party’s position. Our conclusions with regard to the democratic quality of these vote decisions are therefore ambivalent.     

Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies

Various strands of literature in comparative politics regard governments as the only noteworthy initiators and mainsprings of legislative policy making in parliamentary democracies. Opposition activity in policy making is more often associated with the intention to prevent, rather than to shape, policy. Does this perception reflect real‐life politics? To answer this question, this article discusses different arguments that link institutional and policy‐related characteristics to the incentives and constraints of different government and parliamentary actors to initiate or co‐sponsor legislative bills. More specifically, it relates policy‐, office‐ and vote‐related incentives, as well as institutional and resource constraints of legislative actors, to the likelihood that these actors will take the lead in legislative agenda‐setting. These arguments are confronted with original data on the universe of all legislative bills in four parliamentary systems over one and a half decades. The article concludes that opposition and, in particular, bipartisan agenda‐setting is indeed rare. Yet, in contrast to widely held maxims, it is neither absent nor spurious, but related to the allocation of power and the intensity of ideological conflict both within and between the (coalition) government and parliament.     

A New Era for Think Tanks in Public Policy? International Trends,Australian Realities

Although the powerful have always sought advice from the knowledgeable, it took the appeal of the policy sciences movement of the late 1940s and onward to build and consolidate a veritable industry of policy analysis and advice. ¹ One of the hallmarks of this development was the advent of institutes that were exclusively devoted to produce research‐based policy arguments and to inject these into the policy‐making process. These organisations were referred to as ‘think tanks’. Half a century later, the project of the policy sciences movement has been amply criticised, and has mutated into various philosophies of policy analysis, each harbouring distinct and often conflicting perspectives on the nature and role of (scientific) knowledge in the battle of arguments that is public policy‐making. The first wave of the policy sciences movement's privileging of science‐based policy has not disappeared. In fact it is currently experiencing a revival under the banner of ‘evidence‐based policy’. But it has to compete with other views of public policy‐making which deconstruct the authority claim of scientific knowledge, emphasising instead its contestability. Yet there are now more organisations that refer to themselves, or can be labelled, as ‘think tanks’ than ever before. Why? And what does it mean to be a ‘think tank’ in the post‐positivist era and in the increasingly boundary‐less, highly networked societies of today? This article first surveys recent developments in the world of think tanks as reported by the international literature on the subject, and then examines the implications for understanding the nature and role of Australian think tanks.     

In Defence of Politics

In this, my inaugural lecture, I wanted to sing out in praise of politics! This seemed such a good idea twelve months ago, but now in the wake of even more stories about MPs not declaring foreign trips and former ministers demanding ‘cash for access’ the idea of trying to defend politicians and praise politics suddenly seems like a very bad idea. And yet it is exactly because politics is held in such low esteem that the lecture is so important. Democratic politics matters because it achieves far more than we generally give it credit for. I want to rediscover the essence and arguments of Bernard Crick's classic book In Defence of Politics because its arguments are more appropriate today than when they were first published in 1962.     

Poverty — A Precarious Public Policy Idea

The mixed economy of the welfare state armed with the new science of public administration was going to eradicate poverty. But it hasn't and the policy influence of the idea of poverty has fallen away. I explain this by looking at the conditions under which good ideas are likely to make it to policy status. Good ideas tend to be simple to understand; resonate with people's experiences of life; have leadership and a policy community around them; fit into program and resource structures of governments and seem capable of solving immediate problems. The idea of eradicating poverty has lost these features. For example, for the past 20 years poverty ideas have been knocked off their perch by economic reform ideas. Not only are there these competing economic ideas (which are claimed to be a solution to poverty), there is also a raft of new social capital ideas making claims on policy resources. The idea of poverty has been obfuscated such that we can't agree what it means any more or how to measure it or who is responsible for tackling it. Which, of course, means no one can be held accountable. Out of the muddle I suggest a way forward to make the idea influential again. For example, having some national goals and agreeing some basic language and targets would be a good start.     

Why is the European Left Losing Elections?The Political Quarterly Annual Lecture

The argument of this lecture speaks directly to the history of The Political Quarterly and the London School of Economics. It is that the European left is losing elections on an unprecedented scale because it has lost control of the political agenda to a newly flexible right; but it is also losing key arguments about how to nurture human values in today's connected and competitive global village because it has not responded to changes in economy and society; and that to turn things round it needs to address both its deficit in ideas and organisation.     

Collaborative and adversarial analysis in environmental policy

This study examines two models of analysis used in attempts to resolve technically intensive policy disputes. In the adversarial form of analysis, groups opposing each other in a debate generate competing technical analyses to support their clashing policy arguments. In the collaborative form of analysis, all the groups involved in a debate work together to build a single, mutually acceptable technical analysis of the issues in question. The practical implications of these contrasting forms of analysis are explored in the context of two recent policy debates over the environmental management of the marine oil trade in Alaska. In the first case, adversarial analysis is found to cause a stalemate in the policy process. In the second case, collaborative analysis is found to facilitate the resolution of a policy dispute. In both cases, it is also found that analysis and politics interact in shaping the content of the final policy decisions.     

Judicial policy‐making in Germany: The federal constitutional court

The most powerful policy‐maker among German courts is the Constitutional Court. It is the thesis of this analysis that the danger of judicial review is a process of judicialisation of politics. More and more political questions are decided by the Constitutional Court and, thereby, political alternatives are reduced. Members of Parliament contribute to this development by carrying too far the consideration of legal arguments in legislation and judges by exceeding their competence in several cases. While it is an inadequate simplification of reality to claim that judicial review always serves the interests of the political elite, it is the growing influence of judicial review in policy‐making that sometimes prevents political reform.     

‘How we think they think’: thought styles in the management of international aid

Aid administration is characterised by high moral objectives and often frustratingly low achievements. This article explores the idea that the problem lies not in inadequate policy or instruments as such but in the thinking processes that emerge within policy circles, at delivery levels within aid administration and at the interface between donor and recipient, to which the trade likes to apply the notion of ‘partnership’. Cultural Theory identifies three distinct and often contradictory ways of thinking that reflect individualist, group and hierarchical value premises. It is adopted here to explore how these types of thinking apply within aid administration, finding that the policy process is a surprisingly ‘groupie’ kind of activity, emphasising the sharing of values and understandings within donor circles. Delivery agents (donor field offices) by contrast are under hierarchical pressure to turn the outcomes into packaged deliverables, whether the ‘good’ is packageable or not. Supported by NPM orthodoxies, these agents seek control through linear programming and performance monitoring. A third contradiction is revealed when the donor attempts to bring such packages into a partnership relationship with recipient governments. Partnership is about sharing and dealing. But what the recipient is offered is a package with Henry Ford type characteristics: ‘any colour you like (social aspiration), as long as it is black (PRSP formula)’. The article is biased; from the perspective of a consultant caught in the middle; but if there is truth in the findings it might just open the door to new styles of aid relationship and novel delivery vehicles. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.