The Interactive State: Democratisation from Above?

The work of Robert Putnam has provoked a lively debate on the democratic importance of a robust civil society. Criticism of his work concentrates on the fact that his concept of social capital conceives of the relationship between civil society and government predominantly as a one-way affair – a strong civil society is good for politics. Taking up this line of argument, an appreciation of political factors is promoted to explain varying patterns of civic engagement. Now that Western governments increasingly initiate and stimulate citizens' participation in policy-making, it is becoming even more important to assess the role of the state. Drawing on recent empirical research on local practices in the Netherlands, we examine a Dutch variant of such top-down participatory arrangements – so-called 'interactive policy-making'. We ask whether, and under what conditions, democratic advances can be expected from top-down state initiatives. And we develop a theoretical framework for assessing the democratic effects of top-down participatory initiatives. Squaring the main theoretical criteria with the empirical reality of interactive policy-making, we conclude that an active state does not necessarily corrode civil society.     

Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void

How should policy analysis respond to the changing context of policy making? This article examines three aspects of policy analysis in this changing context: polity, knowledge and intervention. It argues that policy making now often takes place in an ‘institutional void’ where there are no generally accepted rules and norms according to which politics is to be conducted and policy measures are to be agreed upon. More than before, solutions for pressing problems transgress the sovereignty of specific polities. Furthermore, the role of knowledge changes as the relationship between science and society has changed: scientific expertise is now negotiated rather than simply accepted. And, with the weakening of the state, it is far less obvious that the government is the sole actor to intervene in policy making. This article calls for a reconsideration of the analysis of policy making in the light of this changing context. Based on a contextual perspective it calls for a revitalization of the commitments of Harold Lasswell toward a policy science of democracy by proposing a new ‘deliberative’ policy analysis.

     

The National Governance and Policy Context of Social Impact Bond Emergence: A Comparative Analysis of Leaders and Skeptics

Abstract

Proponents of the Social Impact Bond (SIB) model put forward a value-for-money case for SIBs based on new resources, efficiency enhancements and innovation for social service delivery, suggesting broad potential for SIB uptake in varying national contexts. SIB use has however been concentrated in Anglo-Saxon liberal market economies. This paper analyses the possibility that SIBs are proceeding given their alignment with particular governance and policy regimes, as opposed to any universal superiority from a cost-effectiveness or efficiency perspective. A comparative analysis is undertaken of the United Kingdom and the United States, leaders in SIB implementation, with France and Germany. A range of indicators representing the adoption of neoliberal governance approaches are reviewed and linked to their complementarity with the SIB model. Policy implications for SIB governance are then explored.