Crozier - Rethinking Systems Configurations of Politics and Policy in Contemporary Governance - Administration & Society - 2010

7/27/2019 Crozier - Rethinking Systems Configurations of Politics and Policy in Contemporary Governance - Administration & Society - 2010

1/23

http://aas.sagepub.com/

Administration & Society

http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/00953997103774432010 42: 504 originally published online 16 July 2010Administration & Society

Michael P. CrozierContemporary Governance

Rethinking Systems : Configurations of Politics and Policy in

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Administration & SocietyAdditional services and information for

http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504.refs.htmlCitations:

by Hugo Cadenas on September 10, 2010aas.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504http://www.sagepublications.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504.refs.htmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504.refs.htmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504.refs.htmlhttp://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504.refs.htmlhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://aas.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://aas.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/content/42/5/504http://aas.sagepub.com/


2/23

Administration & Society42(5) 504525

2010 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0095399710377443

http://aas.sagepub.com

Rethinking Systems:

Configurations of

Politics and Policy

in Contemporary

Governance

Michael P. Crozier1

Abstract

New governance patterns in Western democracies pose challenges to politicalanalysis. Key here is the relationship of politics and policy. This article examineshow this relationship is changing in terms of a communication systems shift.

From this perspective, the adequacy of current frameworks of political analysisis called into question. The article applies this critical review to the rise ofpolicy-politics modes of behavior as distinct from older politics-policy forms.This contrast draws attention to the emergent qualities of interactive policyprocesses and asks how open generative modes of organization operate influid conditions while nonetheless exercising political authority.

Keywords

governance, organization, communication, information dynamics, complexity,systems theory

Introduction

New patterns and modes of political action have emerged in Western democ-

racies that present challenges for organizational political analysis. From one

1University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Corresponding Author:

Michael P. Crozier, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria

3010, Australia

Email: [email protected]

7443AAS

http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/


3/23

Crozier 505

perspective, this situation is often approached, at least in the first instance,

with a sense of despair in regard to political participation and democratic

vibrancy. The ominous illustrations usually rallied in this frame include thedecline of mass party membership combined with the rise of highly profes-

sionalized party machines; the proliferation of sophisticated strategic com-

munication techniques accompanied by the dumbing down of mainstream

broadcasting and the balkanizing effects of narrowcasting; and the fading of

older stable forms of civic association alongside the appearance of more fluid

individuated forms of social connectivity (e.g., Bennett & Manheim, 2006;

Blyth & Katz, 2005; Fox & Miller, 1997; Katz & Mair, 1995; Macedo et al.,

2005; Putnam, 2000; Sennett, 2006). From another perspective, new patterns

of political life are often approached in a more positive register. Here there is

a sense that although things may be changing, there are opportunities open-

ing up that have the potential to reinvigorate democratic practice. The case

material cited in this perspective ranges from the deliberative democracy

experiments in citizens juries and the growth of a consultative imperative

across all areas through to interactive network arrangements and interdepen-

dencies in the generation of policy and program delivery (e.g., Campbell,

2005; Dalton, 2008; L. DeLeon & DeLeon, 2002; Fung, 2006; Goodin &

Dryzek, 2006; Hajer, 2005; Hendriks, Dryzek, & Hunold, 2007; Innes &Booher, 2003; Wagenaar, 2007).

Although these various prognoses may be at odds, there appears to be an

underlying common framework of analysis at work. Each emphasizes differ-

ing shifts in the current calibration of democratic practice, yet many use the

same diagnostics to try and understand these shifts. For example, approaches

that highlight how a civic malaise is undermining democratic debate and par-

ticipation demonstrate an underlying concern with the input side of political

decision-making processes. Equally, approaches that are enthusiastic aboutthe possibilities of more inclusive public debate and more intensive forms of

democratic participation also exhibit a primary concern with political input

dynamics. The shared assumption here is that wide-ranging robust input is

good for the democratic vitality of the system and its citizens, ensuring bind-

ing political decisions that may then be operationalized through the manage-

ment and delivery of policy back into society. A key metric investigated by

both approaches is how well the system negotiates difference into binding

political decisions, whether at the traditional level of political competition orin contemporary forms of mini-publics or via newer network organizational

policy formation processes. In other words, these varying approaches implic-

itly at least all use a diagnostic that privileges input in the evaluation of the

political system that is otherwise cast in terms of an inputoutput model.



4/23

506 Administration&Society42(5)

However, what of the analytical adequacy of this type of inputoutput

model? Are the diagnostics that rely on this type of model up to the task of

changing circumstances? Often missing in these analytical approaches is theissue of how the relationship between politics and policy is reconfigured and

reoriented in the new governance patterns that have emerged. To redress this

gap, this article broaches the issue in terms of a communication systems shift.

A systems theoretical approach is used to introduce a level of abstraction on

two levels. The first is at a meta-theoretical level to enable a critical interro-

gation of the underlying framework of analysis in inputoutput models, the

informational dynamics assumed, and how analysis may be reoriented. The

second level draws this critical review into a theoretical investigation of con-

ceptualizations of politics and policy and how they may be being reconfig-

ured in practice amid changing informational dynamics. This is examined

with a focus on new policy-politics modes of behavior that have emerged in

recent decades that are distinct from older politics-policy forms (Bang,

2007). This contrast draws attention to the emergent qualities of interactive

policy processes, thus sensitizing political analysis to questions of how open

generative modes of organization operate in fluid conditions while nonethe-

less authoritatively allocating value (Easton, 1965b, p. 21).

The first step in this argument is to introduce a sociological frame attunedto the contemporary societal developments and transformations in which

new patterns of governance and forms of political action are embedded. One

way to get a handle on recent societal trends is to focus on the changing char-

acter of information and communication in social processes, organization,

and coordination. On the macro scale, this is sometimes referred to as a para-

digm shift from industrial to informational or network society (Castells,

1996). Of immediate interest is how this paradigm shift is described in terms

of a transformation in information dynamics.

Information Dynamics

In the older industrial paradigm, the value of information resided in the

capacity to operationalize knowledge into material processes. For instance in

the realm of bureaucratic processing, raw data is systematically sourced and

gathered, then classified and encoded into information to become a body of

knowledge that can convey a sense of a situation or entity and how it can beacted upon. Equally in industrial production, bodies of information as knowl-

edge are brought to bear on mechanical processes that transform human and

material resources into something new and tangible. In each case, informa-

tion enables progression of a process, and its communication oils, so to

http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/http://aas.sagepub.com/


5/23

Crozier 507

speak, the organization involved, whether that be a bureaucracy or a factory.

Nonetheless, in this industrial paradigm, information remains a means to

transform resources into something else according to a linear sequencing oftasks.

In the informational era, by contrast, information is no longer just a means

or an instrument but also becomes a special type of resource. This is not sim-

ply about the exponential growth in information facilitated by new informa-

tion and communication technologies. More importantly, it relates to the new

capacities of information to work on itself. Indeed, one of the critical features

of contemporary information dynamics is that the creation and circulation of

information has become an end in itself. In this sense, information is now a

key productive resource in which the processing and production of informa-

tion has become a prime task rather than simply activity for exogenous pur-

poses (see Kallinikos, 2006b; Shiller, 2003; Sunstein, 2006). As Kallinikos

(2006a, p. 99) notes, information and its new sustaining technologies operate

in such a way that the one reinforces the other in an iterative cycle of inter-

active sequences. This type of information dynamic is more recursive than

linear for as information works on itself, what is cause and what is effect

becomes transformative and difficult to differentiate. Information here is

both resource and process. The oversight of information processing thusbecomes less about controlling inputs and outputs and more about managing

information flow-puts as they work on themselves (Crozier, 2007; Hansen,

Langer, & Salskov-Iversen, 2001).

In organizational terms, this means that the relationship between informa-

tion and communication is less susceptible to descriptions versed only in

terms of quantum and transmission. In the industrial paradigm, communica-

tion was understood to facilitate the operations of the organization by trans-

mitting information (knowledge and command) unilaterally through theorganizational entity according to distinct steps and along clearly demarcated

lines. By contrast, in the informational era, organization itself is more and

more encountered as communication per se. This is organization as informa-

tion processing, and not just how it goes about its tasks. In this situation,

coordination is less about keeping pre-given processes on track and more

about ensuring that communication is happening multilaterally. Indeed the

functionality of informational organization rests on its ability to keep talk-

ing with itself and thus constitute itself. In this regard, information flowsbecome as crucial to the organizations ongoing iteration as they are to its

productivity (see Espejo, 1999, 2004; Fairhurst & Putnam, 2004; Holstrm,

2005; Leydesdorff, 2003; Taylor & Van Every, 2000). This centrality of

information flows thus appears to signal the emergence of a new kind of



6/23


7/23

Crozier 509

strategic goals may need to be pursued by a series of changing tactical goals

in order to circumvent intermediate blockages and obstacles. In each of these

instances, suitable feedback processes are needed for the system to processits relation to its environment, that is, to receive the information regarding the

position of the target goal and then to instigate the corresponding maneuver

in the goal-seeking behavior of the system (Deutsch, 1966, p. 188). Deutsch

also notes that feedback can generate a change in a goal itself whether through

drift in the patterns of behavior of some parts of the system or more purpo-

sively through feedback processes themselves designed to move beyond

given threshold values thus triggering a rearrangement of some elements of

the communication system toward a different goal. However, according to

Deutsch, examples of goal-changing behavior in politics are isolated. Other-

wise where there are changes in major goals, this involves a major change

in over-all function and behavior, as well as major structural rearrangements

of the political decision system, and usually of the rest of society (Deutsch,

1966, p. 199).

Deutsch thus proposes a communications model in which the relationship

between the political system and its environments is open and sustained by

feedback mechanisms. Information processing plays a critical role in this

model not only in terms of systems functionality but also in regard to itslearning capacity and political creativity. Nonetheless, Deutschs inputout-

put model remains a very control-oriented approach with a prime focus on

systems maintenance and goal-seeking (Deutsch, 1966, p. 191; see Monge &

Contractor, 2003, pp. 82-83). Feedback loops may provide streams of infor-

mation for system adjustment but information processingper se remains lin-

ear in this model.

Systems Flow Modeling

Deutschs model is a good example of the types of information streams

involved in industrial processing, especially in terms of line management

tasks with set targets. But it says very little on how decision makers reach

decisions on goals and objectives in the first place or how decision makers

decide to modify, recast, or reject initial goals in the light of feedback. In this

sense, Deutschs model tends to leave the political system as a black box

that steers society. However, if we attempt to open up this black box then allsorts of questions arise about the politics of a political system and not just

its response capacities vis--vis its allocation of resources and value. This

pushes a communications understanding of the political system beyond the

limitations of control-oriented models.



8/23


One way to begin to retheorize this is to draw on David Eastons mid-

1960s research (1965a, 1965b). In this regard, I will highlight some key

themes in Eastons work to develop the wider argument. Like Deutsch,Easton was interested in investigating the political system in terms of an

inputoutput model. However Deutsch was concerned primarily with the

response capacities of the system with its environment. Easton, by contrast,

was interested in far more than this, especially the internal behavior of politi-

cal systems. According to Easton (1965b), political systems accumulate

large repertoires of mechanisms through which they may seek to cope with

their environments. Through these [mechanisms] they may regulate their

own behavior, transform their internal structure, and even go so far as to

remodel their fundamental goals (Easton, p. 19). Eastons more intense

focus includes a very precise specification of political system. In Deutschs

model, government is more or less a particular case of the more general

cybernetic problematic of communication as control. According to Easton

(1965a, p. 36) all social systems are made up of interactions among persons

and it is these interactions that are the basic unit of such systems. Nonethe-

less, he identifies the political system as analytically distinct. He differenti-

ates the political system from other social systems according to a very

specific set of interactions: What distinguishes political interactions from allother social interactions is that they are predominately oriented toward the

authoritative allocation of values for a society (Easton, 1965a, p. 50).

Key here is Eastons notion of political authority. In his formulation political

authority is attached to specialized roles. The role of political authorities in

Eastons rendition is about a political division of labor, not an opposition

between authorities and laypeople. Political authorities are normally seen by lay

members of the system as responsible for the systematic articulation and

addressing of the everyday affairs of the political system (Easton, 1965b, p.212). The capacity to rule is dependent on the widespread belief in or accep-

tance of the legitimacy of these roles by the lay members, at least for most of the

time. Easton maintains that any political system, hierarchical or heterarchical,

absolutist or democratic requires this legitimacy of role to secure the support for

political authority. Legitimacy is a limiting factor on the occupants of authority

roles just as much as it is an expectation of lay members of the political system

in how binding decisions are made and implemented. In this sense, Eastons

conception of political authority is about a type of power that is constraining butalso enabling, coercive but also requesting, commanding but also facilitating

(1965b, pp. 205-208). This sets up a power analytic that is interactional yet

without preempting the specific mode of interaction that may be involved in any

one instance, whether that is hierarchical, heterarchical, or whatever.



9/23

Crozier 511

A central puzzle for Eastons systems analysis is not on who gets what,

when and how but on what is assumed as a constant in such questioning,

namely, the persistence of a political system in the context of stability andchange (Easton, 1965b, pp. 464-465). Easton approaches the issue by linking

the political system to its environment in an inputoutput relationship. Inputs

refer to that in the environment which is pertinent to political stimulation or

stress. While there are large amounts of environmental activity that may

affect the system in some way, Easton presses for the need for analytical

efficacy, identifying demands and support as the two major inputs weighing

on political life. Effects in the environment are transmitted to the political

system through fluctuations in these inputs with consequences for the opera-

tions of the system. Equally, Eastons notion of outputs is concerned with

the consequences flowing from the behavior of the members of the system

rather than from actions in the environment (Easton, 1965b, p. 27). The

emphasis here is on the systems behavior regarding incoming demands and

support, and the effects of these inputs as political outputs. Easton (1965b,

pp. 351-352) specifies these outputs as the decisions and actions of the

authorities, distinguishing them explicitly from outcomes in the environ-

ment that may follow on from these types of outputs. The analytical aim of

this focus is to make it possible to map out the consequences of behaviorwithin a political system for the system itself and not just for its environment.

While outputs influence events in the wider society, they also play an impor-

tant part in subsequent rounds of political inputs. Easton proposes that this

looping of inputs with outputs enables us to investigate how a system copes

in a dynamic manner with the challenges of environmental stimuli.

Indeed, feedback is crucial to Eastons approach to the question of persis-

tence though formulated in a far more systemic manner than in Deutschs

model. Easton notes that in political systems as in other large-scale systems,there are usually a diversity and multiplicity of feedback loops. Deutschs

cybernetic preoccupation with response capacities means that he treats feed-

back simply as a mechanism that informs decision makers on the degree of

deviation from their preferred course of action in pursuit of their goals.

Eastons approach is far more nuanced. He is not concerned with the ways

that a system can best organize itself in order to achieve its goals. Rather

Easton (1965b) is interested in structures for goal attainment only to the

extent that success or failure to achieve a goal reacts back on the input ofsupport (p. 380).

This leads Easton to zero in on what he calls the systemic feedback loop.

This feedback loop is not restricted to the output side and the relationships

between authorities and their specific goals but also includes those



10/23


politically relevant members in a system upon whose support the system

must depend for its persistence over time (Easton, 1965b, p. 380). This is a

communication loop that feeds the whole system so to speak, connectingoutputauthoritative decisions and actionswith inputsupport and

demands. Unlike Deutschs feedback mechanism, this looping is not simply

a servant of a control center for monitoring and adjusting goal-seeking activi-

ties in the environment. According to Easton, systemic feedback flows from

the system as a whole and may return through the system to its starting point,

dispersing its effects in the system via the chains of feedback loops within the

system. This is portrayed by Easton (1965b, pp. 28-29, 381) as a continuous

never-ending process. He thus describes his approach as a flow model of the

political system in which political processes need to be understood as a

continuous and interlinked flow of behaviour (Easton, 1965b, p. 29).

Politics-Policy Model

Eastons flow model of inputs and outputs haunts political analysis to this

day even if his systems approach has never really been embraced by the

mainstream (Bang, 1998). The general idea of the political system as a pro-

cess that links inputs of demands and support with outputs of authoritativedecisions and actions still informs, implicitly at least, much political research.

However what tends to be neglected is Eastons attention to the functioning

of the system as political system and the significance of flows within it. A key

point here is his nuancing of the output side as more than simply a technical

pursuit of settled goals. He sensitizes the output aspect to its political

effects inside the system and not just to outcomes in society. Nonetheless,

this aspect of Eastons model is generally overlooked. As a consequence, in

mainstream analysis the political has been more or less restricted to theinput side, with the output side portrayed with features not unlike those

detailed in Deutschs communications control model.

In a manner, Deutschs model still echoes in some corners of policy stud-

ies, especially in the way that the administration and management of policy

and programs are understood to operate in ideal type terms (see P. DeLeon,

1994). Indeed, without Eastons focus on the internal behavior of the system,

inputoutput models tend to project an image of the political system as a kind

of Parsonian machine that converts societal demands and preferences intoauthoritative action back into society. The general idea of the inputoutput

model that seems to prevail is very much a conversion machine: The political

system takes in supports and demands, aims to churn these into binding polit-

ical decisions, and then, once settled, these decisions are enacted in policy,



11/23

Crozier 513

operationalized, implemented, monitored and adjusted as the case may be

back in society.

This kind of inputoutput conception of the political system has beendescribed by Henrik Bang (2007; Bang & Joergensen, 2007) as thepolitics-

policy model of representative government. Bang observes that this model

privileges the input side of political processes. Its prime focus is on the way

competing interests and identities attempt to gain access and recognition in

representative and deliberative forums in which collectively binding deci-

sions are discussed and negotiated. Policy is subordinate to this input side

and cast as a means to emphasize and realize abstract input principles such as

effective participation, equality of opportunity and public accountability.

On the empirical level, new governance patterns would seem to test the

analytical efficacy of thispolitics-policy model. The proliferation of policy

networks, partnerships, collaborations, and other multiactor interdependen-

cies relating to public decision making and joint action provide very real

examples of experiments that appear to defy the linear relationships set out in

this model (see, e.g., Carlsson & Berkes, 2005; Friedrich, 2006; Imperial,

2005; Jordan, Wurzel, & Zito, 2005; Marinetto, 2003; Schout & Jordan,

2005; Skelcher, Mathur, & Smith, 2005; Smith, Mathur, & Skelcher, 2006;

Stoker, 2006; Teisman & Klijn, 2002; Williams, 2004). Many of these experi-ments illustrate how policy itself can be opened up as an interactive field of

communication among an array of diverse actors and agencies in defiance of

the set delineation of political contestation and policy instrumentation in the

politics-policy model.

This type of delineation of politics and policy has also come under scru-

tiny in the critical policy literature over recent decades (see, e.g., Dryzek,

1990; Fischer, 2003; Fischer & Forester, 1993; Hajer, 1995; Hajer & Wage-

naar, 2003; Kelly, 2004; Yanow, 1993). Here, the idea that policy is a realmof technocratic expertise and action serving political decision-making pro-

cesses in a neutral and impartial manner has been questioned. This research

challenges the fundamental Weberian distinction between political decision

making and rational administration (legitimate domination). A major strain in

this critical literature is associated with a growth in interest in discursive

approaches to policy analysis (and practice) that place argumentative and

deliberative processes at the core of policy processes. In these approaches,

there is the understanding that policy is a discursive construct embedded inlinguistically constituted worlds of meanings and narratives, some pervasive,

others contested. As such policy and administrative practice are thus seen to

involve considerations of meaning at all stages from formulation to imple-

mentation. In this sense, what is entailed in these practices is a need to



12/23


13/23

Crozier 515

What is at issue here involves distinguishing between analytical and nor-

mative levels. Eastons notion of political interaction, or more precisely

political communication, is analytically open to diverse modes of communi-cation that are nonetheless enacted authoritatively, that is, with widespread

acceptance as legitimate. In the example of Fischer, communication is cast

in very specific normative terms as the meaningful participation in decision

making and the proper access to policy information of the governed. To use

Habermasian language, the set of criteria in play in this approach works on

the basis of breaking down the distinction between communicatively gener-

ated power (political decision making) and administratively used power

(instrumental action) by submitting the latter to the former in a generalization

of a set of deliberative criteria (Kelly, 2004). The initial analytical question in

this approach is thus how well do competing discourses and identities in

society access, and find recognition in, the communicative contexts of pol-

icy-making processes? This maneuver revisits the linear staging of thepoli-

tics-policy model but in the policy field itself. Policy is again subordinated to

abstract input principles though sourced from a deliberative rather than a

pluralist conception of democracy. In the deliberative case, these input prin-

ciples include argumentative reasoning (rather than bargaining between com-

peting interests), deliberative encounters as reflexive participation (ratherthan the expression of interests and demands), and open deliberation in the

formation of public agreement (rather than the aggregation and integration of

private preferences) (Parkinson, 2004). In this view, policy processes are cast

simply as sites, potential or otherwise, for the enactment of deliberative dem-

ocratic principles (see Campbell, 2005; Farmer et al., 2002). In a manner, this

flips the Habermasian concern with the propensity of the rational administra-

tive state (legitimate domination) to colonize the life-world and overwhelm

its communicative rationality. Rather than the state impinging on civil soci-ety, the reverse is projected. What remains here is a categorical opposition

between political authority and lay people. Lay people are cast as the source

of sovereignty yet exempted from the structuring of political authority. By

contrast, Eastons alternative conception of political authority alerts analysis

to consider how communication and interaction inside policy processes

themselves may be structuring behavior and goals, and with what effects.

The deliberative turn in policy analysis thus reengages with the linear log-

ics of the politics-policy model of representative government albeit in adeliberative democratic register. After critically unpacking policy processes

to reveal a discursive politics of policy, this approach then reverts to the

input side in search of principles by which to critically evaluate this policy

politics. However, if we approach this discursive politics of policy from a



14/23


systems perspective rather than a normative horizon, then the analytical

question is what are the consequences of this behavior within the political

system for the system itself? As the empirical case material on new gover-nance patterns highlights, the politics of policy is about communicative

interaction but how this structures behavior and goals in the political system

is an open question. Linear models tend to close down this question by privi-

leging the input side over the output side, thus precluding issues of produc-

tive feedbackwithin the system.

Remodeling

Contemporary information dynamics pose significant challenges for linear

inputoutput models and the sequencing they entail. In Deutschs model, for

example, information flows are critical to the functioning of a political sys-

tem albeit as a control mechanism. But as we have seen, he delineates these

in terms of a series of phases or steps such that information flows are treated

as more or less linear circulating between system and society. This tells us

nothing about the internal dynamics of the political system itself. Easton by

contrast alerts us to systemic effects of feedback looping within the political

system itself. This type of looping hints at the more complex patterns nowdetectable in contemporary modes of communication.

Indeed, in current conditions information flows tend to circulate in more

recursive and nonlinear ways. In these circumstances, information is not just

processed, transmitted, and exchanged but is also generative as it works on

itself and on agents and their interactions. Industrial approaches to causation

become befuddled by the new informational logics that this generative

dynamic introduces into information flows. Processes involving these new

logics are not susceptible to linear causation with its capacities to retrace andcheck what are causes and what are effects. Rather, a kind of recursive causa-

tion comes into play in which each step of a process feeds back into the pro-

cess itself such that effects are also causes. This process can thus generate

emergent properties through interaction that are not able to be factored out

and dealt with sequentially or through traditional forms of (Weberian) spe-

cialization. These emergent properties are not accountable or open to instru-

mental manipulation or reconstruction simply in terms of the individual

elements or actions involved. In essence, this points to the creativity andproductivity of positive information loops. This type of looping continually

generates new starting conditions as it goes through its various iterations and

thus the sense of environment can change across time, making the environ-

ment more fluid (Crozier, 2007; Morin, 1986, 1996; Sandri, 2009).



15/23

Crozier 517

This has profound implications for how we may now characterize the polit-

ical system as a communications system. The generative effects of contempo-

rary information processing introduce new levels of complexity well beyondthe linear dynamics of the industrial paradigm. Political information flows

themselves and feedback circuits are now multiple, diverse, and multilateral,

and thus the ability to select becomes highly fraught (and often irresolvable by

recourse to argumentative reasoning). One consequence of this is that the

problem of selection tends now to elicit the use of agile strategies of risk man-

agement (see Kallinikos, 2005; Luhmann, 1998, 2005). In these informational

conditions, goal setting itself becomes complex as does goal-seeking behav-

ior. Boundary quandaries arise as the system and environment enter into more

fluid interactions where jurisdiction and domain can become blurred (Consi-

dine, 2006). In this scenario, the relationship of decision and action can tend

to become less linear and more mutually covariant. The ability to evaluate

actions on the output side of the system is increasingly difficult as cause and

effect become inextricable. Equally, input activity now appears to happen at

all sorts of different points along the older politics-policy linear chain even at

the output stage. This generates conundrums for analytical frameworks that

remain underpinned, implicitly or explicitly, with a notion of the political sys-

tem as more or less a conversion machine that transforms societal demandsand preferences into authoritative action back into society. A range of contem-

porary practice tends to elude the analytical grasp of these approaches and to

confound their understanding of politics and policy.

Eastons theorization can offer some help beyond these analytical dilem-

mas and in particular his consideration of the internalbehavior of the politi-

cal system. What is of critical interest is Eastons idea of feedback looping.

In Deutschs model, feedback information loops enable the control center to

keep its goal-seeking action on course in the environment. In Eastons case,however, the systemic feedback loop is how the political system itself

endeavors to persist, that is, function as apoliticalsystem in its environment.

The multiplicity of feedback loops within the system is seen as part of this as

they feed into the core systemic feedback loop. What Easton has in mind is

not some form of societal conversion or control mechanism but a living

dynamic system capable of adapting and evolving as such:

A political system is a goal-setting, self transforming and creativelyadaptive system. It consists of human beings who are capable of antic-

ipating, evaluating, and acting constructively to prevent disturbances in

the systems environment. . . . Members of the system are not passive

transmitters of things taken into the system, digesting them in some



16/23


sluggish way, and sending them along as outputs that influence other

social systems or the political system itself. They are able to regulate,

control, direct, modify, and innovate with respect to all aspects andparts of the processes involved. (Easton, 1965a, pp. 132-133)

This is an understanding of political system as a productive entity capable

of self-transformation. Given the critical importance of information flows

within the political system, it is slightly misleading to describe Eastons

account of the system as an inputoutput model as it is equally concerned

about flow-put within the system (see Crozier, 2007, p. 8). Among other

things, this emphasis on flow-put offers a way to circumvent the analytical

myopia of older inputoutput models in regard to the location and relation-

ship of political interaction and policy formation. For instance, as we have

seen above, Easton does not quarantine support to the domain of inputs

but also situates it analytically in the consideration of outputs. In this sense,

Easton identifies policy as political and not just as an instrument of input

political interaction and decision making.

Bang (2007; Bang & Joergensen, 2007) has brought this insight to bear on

new governance patterns to explain how the relationship between politics

and policy is now being reconfigured. The crucial question here is what is theendogenous character of the political in these policy processes? In this regard,

Bang observes that policy formation itself is increasingly a site of political

interaction that can include processes of goal searching. The communicative

interaction in policy formation thus appears to be shaping more and more the

political interaction in decision-making processes. He describes this new

configuration as a policy-politics model. In olderpolitics-policy models,

policy is cast as an instrument or as a site (as in the deliberative policy turn)

to emphasize and enact abstract input principles. By contrast, thepolicy-pol-itics model deals in concrete policy values, that is, values relevant to getting

the job done on the output side. Bang describes how this involves new types

of policy-oriented norms that engender innovation in resource and learning

capacities as well as enabling the development of new political identities and

novel forms of action. These types of norms can be seen in operation in new

governance patterns of policy networks, partnerships, and other multiactor

interdependencies where there is collaboration in policy development and

delivery. For instance, a kind of ethic of policy participation licenses context-sensitive deliberation in both policy formation and management in much of

the case material. The key here is how people can be engaged, not repre-

sented or as citizens per se, in order to develop and deliver solutions to soci-

etys concrete and immediate policy conundrums.



17/23

Crozier 519

The recursive dynamics of this type ofpolicy-politics activity stand in

stark contrast to the politics-policy chain of democratic government even

though both still operate alongside each other. However, the politics-policychain has become increasingly confounded by informational and communi-

cation blockages and dilemmas in the face of growing complexity such that

its capacity to get things done in society has diminished markedly. Newpol-

icy-politics approaches attuned to contemporary information dynamics have

emerged in the wake of this shortfall. In this mode, diverse actors and agen-

cies, governmental and nongovernmental, business and civil society organi-

zations, are engaged in setting agendas on what needs to be done for society

and executing these in and through the political system. These are ventures in

joint action that nonetheless operate with political authority. This suggests

that there is a reconfiguring of the divisions of labor associated with political

authority going on here (see, e.g., Bang, 2009).

The identification and analysis of the patterns of power involved in these

new modes can thus be perplexing to approaches that rely on constructs that

assume the continuing predominance of older institutional and organizational

arrangements. However, if these new modes are examined in terms of the

informational dynamics concerned, then analytical attention is drawn to

capacities to nurture and coordinate intensive information flows. The criticalpower question here does not ask whether these practices enhance or dimin-

ish democratic participation, whether arguments are reasoned or not, or

whether the communication context is more or less distorted. Rather the

informational power problematic poses questions about who and/or what is

cultivating, managing, and participating in information flows, and where are

they located in these recursive networks of communication. Along with cre-

ativity and productivity, power is generated in the flows of information pro-

cessing itself as it works on and through the links and nodes of these networks.This is communicatively generated power that may or may not operate sym-

metrically or democratically but nonetheless arises out of communicative

interaction. The emergence of policy-politics practices can thus be under-

stood as a case of a political system creatively adapting itself in and through

new modes of communication.

Conclusion

The increasing levels of social complexity and reflexivity associated with

contemporary information dynamics have generated a range of challenges to

prevailing analytical approaches to political life. In the past, model construc-

tion supplied a way to transform multifaceted phenomenon into manageable



18/23


and understandable patterns, at least for analytical purposes. In terms of

architecture, these models could range from the quite simple to highly

abstract. Nonetheless, the purpose of the model was to gain some descriptiveif not instrumental purchase over the phenomenon at hand. In the case of

inputoutput models, these could be extremely useful in describing and con-

trolling processes involving industrial logics. There are still situations where

these types of models remain effective. However, they are unable to deal with

processes operating according to the new informational logics now prolifer-

ating. In a way, the recursive and emergent aspects of these new logics sug-

gest that model building in the old sense is losing its broad efficacy. Indeed,

the extremely powerful methodologies that have been developed to deal with

complex phenomena are centered on nonlinear dynamics rather than on

architectonics (see, e.g., Miller & Page, 2007; Monge & Contractor, 2003).

Moreover, in a number of the social sciences, complexity theory including

theories of emergence and self-organizing systems is being explored to deal

with these types of research challenges where older analytical models are

faltering (see, e.g., Blume & Durlauf, 2006; Butler & Allen, 2008; Harrison,

2006; Jervis, 1997; Macintosh, 2006; Sawer, 2005; Teisman & Klijn, 2008;

Wagenaar, 2007).

In this light, what Bang has described as a policy-politics model may bebetter grasped as a mode that works with immediacy and emergence. The

logics underpinning thepolitics-policy model were more or less linear, which

was matched by the sequencing of a chain from political interaction and deci-

sion to policy instrumentation. What Bang is describing as policy-politics is

not a reversal of the sequencing in thepolitics-policy model but rather some-

thing quite different to sequencing per se. What appears to be happening is a

dynamic configuration that emerges in new policy processes as any one spe-

cific policy communication event (Crozier, 2008) or possibility space(Butler & Allen, 2008) unfolds. For instance, actors involved in a policy

communication event may very well be unencumbered by any sense of role

imposed by a preset model of behavior, thus leading them to engage in some

form of improvisation, perhaps both procedurally and substantively. The

novel thing about this scenario in modern constitutional democracies is that

this sort of open license to get things done can in many cases also carry the

public imprimatur of authoritatively allocating value (cf. Papadopoulos &

Warin, 2007; Vibert, 2007). New patterns of governance and interactive pol-icy networks seem to engage in this modal type of behavior in all sorts of

different ways. These may be inclusive or very exclusive but all nonetheless

usually require degrees of interactivity through information flows. The

blockages and conundrums thrown up by growing complexity are attended to



19/23

Crozier 521

by encouraging information flows to flourish so as to tap potentials for cre-

ativity and productivity (and new power opportunities). This may be good

governance unleashed but it does make us wonder how the political systemmay be evolving and adapting in order to continue communicating with

itself. It certainly begs for ongoing research on how political divisions of

labor may be shifting and shuffling in the contemporary informational age.

Authors Note

I would like to thank Mark Considine, Adrian Little, and the twoA&Sreviewers for

their constructive comments and suggestions.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no conflicts of interests with respect to the authorship and/or

publication of this article.

Funding

Research for this study was funded by the Australian Research Council (#DP0450924).

References

Bang, H. P. (1998). David Eastons postmodern images.Political Theory, 26, 281-316.Bang, H. P. (2007). Critical theory in a swing: Political consumerism between poli-

tics and policy. In M. Bevir & F. Trentman (Eds.), Governance, consumers and

citizens: Agency and resistance in contemporary politics(pp. 191-230). London,

UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bang, H. P. (2009). Yes we can: Identity politics and project politics for a late-

modern world. Urban Research & Practice, 2, 117-137.

Bang, H. P., & Joergensen, S. K. (2007). Expert citizens in celebrity publics. In

H. P. Bang & A. Esmark (Eds.),New publics with/out democracy (pp. 177-212).Frederiksberg, Denmark: Safundslitteratur Press.

Bennett, W. L., & Manheim, J. B. (2006). The one step flow of communication.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 608, 213-232.

Blume, L. E., & Durlauf, S. N. (Eds.). (2006). The economy as an evolving complex

system, III: Current perspectives and future directions. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

Blyth, M., & Katz, R. S. (2005). From catch-all politics to cartelisation: The political

economy of the cartel party. West European Politics, 28, 33-60.Butler, M. J. R., & Allen, P. M. (2008). Understanding policy implementation pro-

cesses as self-organizing systems.Public Management Review, 10, 421-440.

Campbell, K. B. (2005). Theorizing the authentic: Identity, engagement and public

space.Administration & Society, 36, 688-705.



20/23


Carlsson, L., & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological

implications.Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65-76.

Castells, M. (1996). The rise of network society. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Considine, M. (2006). Theorizing the university as a cultural system: Distinctions,

identities, emergencies.Educational Theory, 56, 255-270.

Crozier, M. (2007). Recursive governance: Contemporary political communication

and public policy.Political Communication, 24, 1-18.

Crozier, M. (2008). Listening, learning, steering: New governance patterns, commu-

nication and interactive policy formation.Policy & Politics, 36, 3-19.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation.

Political Studies, 56, 76-98.

DeLeon, L., & DeLeon, P. (2002). The democratic ethos and public management.

Administration & Society, 34, 229-250.

DeLeon, P. (1994). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning.Policy

Studies Journal, 22, 176-185.

Deutsch, K. W. (1966). The nerves of government: Models of political communication

and control. New York, NY: Free Press.

Dryzek, J. (1990).Discursive democracy: Politics, policy and political science. Cam-

bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Easton, D. (1965a).A framework for political analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Pren-

tice Hall.

Easton, D. (1965b).A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Espejo, R. (1999). Aspects of identity, cohesion, citizenship and performance in

recursive organizations.Kybernetes, 29, 640-658.

Espejo, R. (2004). The footprint of complexity: The embodiment of social systems.

Kybernetes, 33, 671-700.

Fairhurst, G. T., & Putnam, L. (2004). Organization as discursive constructions.Com-munication Theory, 14, 5-26.

Farmer, D. J., McLaurin, M., Stivers, C., Hummel, R., King, C. S., & Kensen, S.

(2002). Constructing civil space: A dialogue. Administration & Society, 34,

87-129.

Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing public policy: Discursive politics and deliberative

practices. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (Eds.). (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis

and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Fox, C. J., & Miller, H. T. (1997). The depreciating public policy discourse.American

Behavioral Scientist, 41, 64-89.

Friedrich, D. (2006). Policy process, governance and democracy in the EU: The case

of the Open Method of Coordination on social inclusion in Germany.Policy &

Politics, 34, 367-383.



21/23

Crozier 523

Fung, A. (2006). Varieties of participation in complex governance.Public Adminis-

tration Review, 66(Suppl. 1), 66-75.

Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political

uptake of mini-publics.Politics & Society, 34, 219-244.

Hansen, H. K., Langer, R., & Salskov-Iversen, D. (2001). Managing political com-

munication. Corporate Reputation Review, 4, 167-184.

Harrison, N. E. (Ed.). (2006). Complexity in world politics. Albany, NY: State Uni-

versity of New York Press.

Hajer, M. A. (1995). The politics of environmental discourse: Ecological moderniza-

tion and the policy process. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Hajer, M. A. (2005). Setting the stage: A dramaturgy of policy deliberation.Adminis-

tration & Society, 36, 624-647.

Hajer, M. A., & Wagenaar, H. (Eds.). (2003).Deliberative policy analysis: Understand-

ing governance in the network society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hendriks, C. M., Dryzek, J. S., & Hunold, C. (2007). Turning up the heat: Partisan-

ship in deliberative innovation.Political Studies, 55, 362-383.

Holstrm, S. (2005). Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective para-

digm for organizational legitimation.Public Relations Review, 31, 497-504.

Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from

six watershed management programs.Administration & Society, 37, 281-320.Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2003). Collaborative policymaking: Governance

through dialogue. In M. Hajer & H. Wagenaar (Eds.),Deliberative policy analy-

sis: Understanding governance in the network society (pp. 33-59). Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press.

Jervis, R. (1997). System effects: Complexity in political and social life. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jordan, A., Wurzel, R. K. W., & Zito, A. (2005). The rise of new policy instru-

ments in comparative perspective: Has governance eclipsed government?Politi-cal Studies, 53, 477-496.

Kallinikos, J. (2005). The order of technology: Complexity and control in a connected

world.Information and Organization, 15, 185-202.

Kallinikos, J. (2006a). Information out of information: On the self-referential dynam-

ics of information growth.Information Technology & People, 19, 98-115.

Kallinikos, J. (2006b). The consequences of information: Institutional implications of

technological change. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Katz, R. S., & Mair, P. (1995). Changing models of party organization and partydemocracy: The emergence of the cartel party.Party Politics, 1, 5-28.

Kelly, T. (2004). Unlocking the iron cage: Public administration in the deliberative

democratic theory of Jrgen Habermas.Administration & Society, 36, 38-61.

Lash, S. (2002). Critique of information. London, UK: Sage.



22/23


23/23

Crozier 525

Skelcher, C., Mathur, N., & Smith, M. (2005). The public governance of collaborative

spaces: Discourse, design and democracy.Public Administration, 83, 573-596.

Smith, M., Mathur, N., & Skelcher, C. (2006). Corporate governance in a collab-

orative environment: What happens when government, business and civil society

work together? Corporate Governance: An International Review, 14, 159-171.

Stoker, G. (2006). Public value management: A new narrative for networked gover-

nance?American Review of Public Administration, 36, 41-57.

Sunstein, C. R. (2006).Infotopia: How many minds produce knowledge. Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press.

Taylor, J. R., & Van Every, E. J. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication

as its site and surface. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhet-

oric or governance scheme?Public Administration Review, 62, 197-205.

Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2008). Complexity theory and public management.

Public Management Review, 10, 287-297.

Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Van Dijk, J. (2006). The network society: Social aspects of new media (2nd ed.).

London, UK: Sage.

Vibert, F. (2007). The rise of the unelected: Democracy and the new separation of

powers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Wagenaar, H. (2007). Governance, complexity, and democratic participation: How

citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighborhood decline.

American Review of Public Administration, 37, 17-50.

Williams, A. (2004). Governance and sustainability: An investigation of the role of

policy mediators in the European Union policy process.Policy & Politics, 32,

95-110.

Yanow, D. (1993). The communication of policy meanings: Implementation as inter-

pretation and text.Policy Sciences, 26, 41-61.

Bio

Michael P. Crozier is a political scientist in the School of Social and Political

Sciences at the University of Melbourne. His current research includes political sys-

tems analysis, theorizing new governance patterns, and communication analysis in

political science.

Documents

Crozier - Rethinking Systems Configurations of Politics and Policy in Contemporary Governance - Administration & Society - 2010