Coalition Policy-Making under Constraints: Examining the Role of Preferences and Institutions

While much has been written about the formation and termination of coalitions, comparatively little attention has been paid to the policy output of multiparty governments. The present study attempts to narrow this research gap by analysing policy-making in three Austrian coalition governments between 1999 and 2008. Drawing on the party mandate literature, a manually coded textual analysis of election manifestos is conducted that yields a dataset containing over 1,100 pledges. The fulfilment of these pledges is taken as the dependent variable in a multivariate analysis. The results indicate that institutional determinants (adoption in the coalition agreement, ministerial control, and policy status quo) significantly influence the chances of pledge fulfilment and thus present a powerful predictor of coalition policy output. By contrast, factors related to parties’ preferences (consensus between parties, policy distance, pledge saliency, and majority support in parliament) do not have an impact.     

Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making

In recent years there has been a growing body of literature within political science and international studies that directly and indirectly uses, discusses and analyzes the processes involved in lesson-drawing, policy convergence, policy diffusion and policy transfer. While the terminology and focus often vary, all of these studies are concerned with a similar process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting (past or present) is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting.
Given that this is a growing phenomenon, it is something that anyone studying public policy needs to consider. As such, this article is divided into four major sections. The first section briefly considers the extent of, and reasons for, the growth of policy transfer. The second section then outlines a framework for the analysis of transfer. From here a third section presents a continuum for distinguishing between different types of policy transfer. Finally, the last section addresses the relationship between policy transfer and policy "failure."     

Regulating Assisted Reproduction in Canada,Switzerland, and the USA: Comparing the Judicialization of Policy-Making

This article analyses the extent to which courts shape policies for assisted reproduction. While the USA is considered to be the most litigious country, Canada has observed a growing involvement of the courts from the 1980s onward, and Switzerland is characterized by a modest degree of judicialization. Based on national patterns, we would expect litigation and court impact to vary across these three countries. As the empirical analysis reveals, policy-process-specific variables such as the novelty of regulation, self-regulation by key stakeholders, and the policies in place better explain the variation in the judicialization of policy-making.     

Grass-roots Influence: Pressure Groups within the Liberal Democrats

This article examines the self-perceived influence of the specified associated organisations and associated organisations within the Liberal Democrats. The analysis is set within the wider theoretical context of political party construction and the dichotomy between the elite and grassroots activists. The article tests the thesis that there is a hierarchical structure of ancillary organisations within the party and that this determines which organisations feel that they have any real influence. It takes a fresh look at the role of the Liberal Democrat ancillary organisations and questions whether or not their party-sanctioned status restricts their ability and willingness to influence the party.     

Metaphysics Postponed: Liberalism, Pluralism, and Neutrality

Many recent liberal theorists have argued that state neutrality is supported by a metaphysical thesis about value, namely pluralism , which asserts that there are some conceptions of the good life which neither form a hierarchy nor represent versions of a single good. It is however doubtful whether neutrality is supported by pluralism; indeed, it may in some cases be precluded by it. Arguments for pluralism can, in many cases, be reconciled with a monistic metaphysics of value, and pluralism itself fails to support neutrality. This is particularly true of traditional liberal policy positions such as religious toleration and opposition to censorship, where attention to diverse conceptions of the good may favour, or demand, non–neutral policies. The political problems which neutrality addresses arise before we accept the metaphysical 'truth' of pluralism, and often remain even if the parties to a political conflict have false conceptions of value. A sharp question for the pluralist neutralist is why conflicting conceptions of the political cannot themselves feature in plural conceptions of the good life. Dispensing with pluralism may not, however, be enough to rescue neutrality, since the disputes which neutrality was designed to deal with may not be resolvable neutrally; and more particularly, some of the traditional liberal policies may be incapable of neutral justification. If so, liberals may find a more traditional form of non–neutral liberalism more attractive.     

Reinventing Pluralism: Consensus,Hegemony, and the Politics of Affirmation

As inequalities in the United States have intensified in recent decades, Washington, DC’s advocacy system has thrived. Why has this proliferation of interest groups failed to deliver more substantive equality? The dominant response to this question typically cites the advocacy realm’s “upper-class accent,” portraying interest group representation as imbalanced and unresponsive to a broad range of voices. Yet this prevailing account—which I term “post- pluralist”—does not sufficiently explore the inegalitarian ways that neoliberalism shapes contemporary political advocacy. To this end, this article builds upon post-pluralist and post-Marxist insights to outline the advocacy system’s “politics of affirmation.” Using recent antigay legislation to explore this concept, I argue that today’s political advocacy circumscribes, rather than enlivens, prevailing standards of democratic participation by mobilizing hegemonic, neoliberal expressions of democratic citizenship. The article concludes by outlining how groups might pursue a transformative politics in order to destabilize neoliberalism’s hegemony.     

Modernity,Pluralism, and Catholicism

Over the past century and a quarter, the Catholic Church has passed through four phases in its response to modernity: rejection; the search for a modus vivendi; accommodation; and a critique of modernity from within. The net result of this development has been the recovery of the Church’s understanding of itself as an evangelical or missionary enterprise.     

Pluralism,corporatism and perception of corruption

When people know who is influencing the elected politicians and they may ‘put the rascals out’ in case they feel that the incumbents are corrupt, ceteris paribus, their perception of the level of corruption should not be affected by lobbying. If on the other hand people are not sure which or how many actors are influencing public policy and they are not able to hold the government truly accountable as interest group influence is constant with different governments, people will be more likely to perceive the government as corrupted. The former system is a characteristic of corporatism and the latter of pluralism. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that interest groups with resources such as business groups or firms in pluralist systems are more influential than groups with few resources. Thus, people may perceive pluralist policy‐making system as more corrupt than corporatist policy‐making system where fewer visible actors have more or less equal weight in the policy‐making process. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Biopolitics of Policy-Making: Medical Activism in the Century of the Brain

This article argues that advances in biotechnology and the life sciences, particularly the ongoing neuro-revolution, have changed the relationship between science and politics. Since the “Decade of the Brain” project of the 1990s, new neuroscientific terms and biological understandings of the self have given rise to what Paul Rabinow refers to as “biosociality,” that is, groups that organize around, and identify with, a specific disease or disability to lobby for recognition, better treatment options, access to resources, and, in some cases, equal rights. This biopolitical relationship between citizens and scientific experts in the policy-making process can be seen in the current debate between the neurodiversity movement and anti-autism groups over the needs of autistic people. However, this article shows that within policy discussions, both groups have been (re)constructed by competing medical discourses and illness narratives in a way that has limited their ability to voice their needs and effectively evoke policy change.