Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach

GIGAPP (Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy)Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset-Spain

Legitimation and policy dynamics approach for the study of policy change: a proposal

8-12 July 2012

XXII World Congress in Political ScienceIPSA-AISP

César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio

@cesarncruz

1 - 20

Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .

What the audience should be expect on this paper?• This a preliminary theory-development endeavor

• This effort is made based on the “third scenario” in Paul A. Sabatier’s guidelines of theory development. (No inductive or in a deductive strategy. Instead, a dissatisfaction with existing conceptual framework or body of theories)

• “The development (or elaboration) of theory needs to be distinguished from its verification” (Sabatier, 2007).

• LPD is currently at the elaboration stage. All suggestions from you of course will be very welcome. Thank you in advance.

2 - 20


LPD approach: What is this about?• I propose here an approach for the study of policy stability & change

(called legitimation & policy dynamics) LPD approach. • Oriented mainly (but not exclusively) to explain policy change in

political systems defined by its institutional fragility and persistent legitimacy deficits, in which legitimation of power through policy is assumed as an unavoidable task.

• LPD is an actor-centered perspective (subsystemic positions; a bounded rational model of individual, who may use all intelligence forms at disposal as well as organized hypocrisy as resources in managing conflict)

• The legitimation of power in public policy and the control over potential change dynamics by the dominant political coalition conforms in LPD approach as the two causal-drivers in explaining policy stability and change.

3 - 20


Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (1/2)• Legitimacy has historically been considered as a top subject of

study in political science, • However, in public policy studies- research, legitimacy (viewed as

product based on “the belief” in the existence of a legitimate power relation) and the legitimation of power (viewed as a process of achieving and maintaining legitimacy) have not been historically assumed as relevant topics of study. (except Caldeira, Gibson)

• The reason is very simple: regimes, political actors and institutions are all relevant subjects in the study of legitimacy. Public policies are viewed simply as products (or as an instruments for regime’s legitimation) that are part of a larger political system. So, policy legitimacy and policy legitimation is mainly dependent on a broader political system’s legitimacy.

4 - 20


Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (2/2)• In traditional policy process literature (until 80’s) legitimacy and

legitimation as an oriented activity has been played a small or peripheral role:▫ Policy legitimation was identified as a stage of de policy cycle

(C.O Jones, Palumbo) confined to the institutional approval made by the legislative o judicial bodies, then considering policy approval =policy legitimation

▫ Further decision-making policy literature considering legitimation as an activity potentially present in all stages of the policy process-cycle, because instead public policy as an instrument, what is necessary to legitimate are policy decisions (B. G.Peters)

5 -20


What’s new in public policy change literature? (1/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature

▫ Social construction and policy design theory (which assumes a substantive conception of public policy) identifies in rationales (legitimations and justifications) key constituent elements of policy design (Ingram, Schneider, & deLeon, 2007; Schneider & Ingram, 1997)

▫ a) C. Wilson model (Wilson, 2000, 2006) identifies the crisis of legitimacy as a key phase in explaining major policy regimes change

▫ b) E. Montpetit analysis (Montpetit, 2008), which shows that to obtain legitimacy (via expertise and citizen involvement) is a central task in the formulation of policy designs

6-20


What’s new in public policy change literature? (2/2)• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature

▫ c) J. Wallner (Wallner, 2008) that identified legitimacy as an additional criterion (along with effectiveness, efficiency and performance) for policy evaluation, and specifically in explaining policy failure.

▫ d) M. Macbeth et.al. (2007 -) policy narratives framework, that links literature on policy narratives and policy change and focus on the tactics and rhetorical devices used by policy advocates and interest groups (called ‘narrative strategies’) to understand how these strategies are used to issue contention or expansion, and thereby legitimize or delegitimize policy options and problem definitions.

7


Why David Beetham’s legitimacy model? (1/2)• LPD is not the first endeavor in adapting D. Beetham model for the study of

public policy (see Carrillo 1998, Simon Matti 2009)• All public policies configures a power relation that needs to be legitimate• Beetham (1991) model identifies four dimensions for the study legitimacy in

social sciences (substantive view, in wich all dimensions are not optional)1. legal conformity2. justifiability of rules based on shared beliefs, 3. consent evidence and 4. adecquate performance (added by Alagappa 1995)

• The emergency of non legitimate forms of power (ilegitimacy, legitimacy deficits and delegitimation) linked to public policy are all possible scenarios in policy dynamics, as well as possible objectives to achieve of political actors implicated in policy change processes. Here the use of narrative strategies and mechanisms of policy stability and change are important in doing so.

8


Why David Beetham’s model? (2/2)• In political systems where institutional (input oriented) and performance’s

(output oriented) legitimacy is very difficult to achieve (or recurrently tends to disappear, erode or weaken) the legitimation of power as a causal-driver of policy development acquires all its analytical relevance, In those countries and regimes with persistent legitimacy deficits, Beetham model may help us in identifying and in determining the rationales structure linked to policy at a given time

• A key distinguishing feature of systemic processes of policy making in less developed countries, where institutional fragility pervades and its government agencies - despite its power vis-à-vis their societies - have a limited room for maneuver, is a chronic legitimacy deficits that flows most of the time in a questioned legitimacy (see Horowitz, 1989)

• Beetham’s model claims that the legitimation of power is a political priority for those in a power position in justifying a given power relation.

9


What previously needs to be taking into account for LPD theory development?• The relevance and applicability of models theories of policy process and policy

dynamics depend on 3 theoretical & methodological key questions• The way in which theoretical approaches are able to take into account regime’s

institutional and structural constraints that influence policy formulation (O'Donnell & Oszlak, 1976; Oszlak, 1980) and determines its dynamics (Cabrero Mendoza, 2000; Medellín Torres, 2004; Torgerson, 1985).

• Its ability to consider and include all (or the majority of) causes associated with major policy change and the systemic possibilities beyond those traditionally undertaken within the current neoincremental-homeostatic orthodoxy (Howlett, 2007; Howlett & Cashore, 2009).

• The dependent variable problem: Its ability to consider and include all (or the majority of) the components, dimensions or elements of public policy, and thus attend a methodological key question: what changes when policy change? (Howlett & Cashore, 2009) (for a typological integration proposal see also Cruz-Rubio, 2012)

10


LPD approach: assumptions (1/3)• Public policies are designs that configure a power relation and

hence may influence the “politics of policy change”. • Alterations in the “legitimacy pattern” define policy

development. The specific configuration of rationales at a given time (and associated with a given policy design), defines what I call here the legitimacy pattern, conceived as the main category of analysis of LPD approach. Not all changes in rationales transform a legitimacy pattern. There is only with the transformation of the legitimacy pattern when major policy change takes place

• A strong (or renewed) legitimacy pattern explains policy stasis and long-term planned changes (negotiated agreements and planned-paradigmatic policy change).

11


Public debate(outcome legitimacy)

Decision making process(process legitimacy)

Po

litic

al d

ime

nsi

on

( p

red

eci

sio

na

l)A

dm

inis

tra

tive

dim

en

sio

n(p

ost

de

sio

na

l)

The legitimacy pattern, a system of rationales

12


LPD approach: assumptions (2/3)• For the actors of dominant political coalition, policy legitimation and

control over change process are two imperative political activities • As we well know, policy change literature agree in the identification of two

groups of “analytical grouping of entities” that are useful in studying political interaction in policy dynamics, namely: mechanisms of policy stability and change (at meso and macro levels) and the use of policy narratives that define (at meso level) and orient actors’ positions and discourses.

• At the meso-level, to adopt a subsystemic operational position is a necessary task for those actors of the dominant coalition, and this dimension must be in included in any policy change analytical strategy

• Changes forced by actors of minority coalitions over subsystemic operational positions favors policy change

13


LPD: Subsystemic Operational positions used to face potential policy change

Non- Reversiblesystemic adaptative

(institutional and collective action levels)

Reversible- accumulative (operational and collective

action levels)

Reactive(policy change as

an issue)

a) Shock response based

d) Perpetuation and change contention

Proactive (policy change as

a development process)

b) Strategic and improvement based

c) Thermostatic calibrations

Source: (C. Cruz-Rubio, 2011b)

Operational positions used to face potential policy change 14


Subsystemic operational positions (1/2)• Putting this typology on the table, it is possible to propose tripartite

strategy of analysis based on the three analytical devices (mechanisms, narrative strategies, and operational positions). In using this analytical strategy it is assumed that dominant coalition actors (and policy makers implicated) are forced:

1. To define (if necessary) an individual position that is known by all political actors of coalitions he (she) belongs.

2. To know, to support or to accept subsystemic (operational) position of the policy dominant coalition who belongs, and related.

3. To adequately communicate and reflect adopted coalition’s position, based i.e. on an adequate use of narrative strategies, policy surrogates and the selective use or roles.

15


Subsystemic operational positions (2/2)• The operational positions here identified have at least three common important

characteristics.• a) Useful in reducing controversy and uncertainty, a definition and adoption

of a specific operational position by dominant coalition also allow all political actors implicated – including those of minority coalitions – to bound limits, to define their role and specific weight, as well as construct realistic expectations and strategic calculation about their possibilities and alternatives.

• b) With an operational position adopted, a subsystemic modus operandi is projected, and in doing so all actors of dominant coalition must defend it and assume it as the valid one in facing potential change.

• c) A deliberate switching on the operational position by the dominant coalition has no other purpose than to maintain control over the process of change. Changes in operational position may be calculated and decided by the dominant coalition (in a preventive or proative fashion), or it may be forced systemically. In this case the dominant coalition assumes a political failure that forces them to change its operational position that benefits to its political contenders.

16


LPD approach: assumptions (3/3)• At the micro-level, LPD approach is based on a bounded-rational model

of the individual (with time, information access and processing limitations) that accepts and take into account all intelligence forms at disposal as well as the use of ”organized hypocrisy” (Brunnson)

• Actors may define position for or against substantive policy change or maintain an undefined base position based on negotiation process and its results. Actors may act according to values (including conflicting values) (Stewart, 2006) opportunistically (self interested with no values implicated) or develop the so called “organized hypocrisy”, that is to say, a behavior characterized by inconsistencies, given a selective and differential position choices in discourse, decisions and actions, in order to manage (or to reflect adequately) conflict (Brunsson, 2002, 2006)

• Actors may act in a coherent way with the subsystemic position adopted in potential change processes

17


POLICY DYNAMICS SYSTEMIC

POSSIBILITIES

Incremental change(policy manteinance)

No policy change(policy stasis- perpetuation)

Major policy change

Punctuated equilibrium

Policy oriented-learning and lesson

drawing

Strategic and planned programatic

change

Gradual paradigmatic policy change

Analytical strategy proposed by LPD

ASSOCIATED CAUSES OF

MAJOR POLICY

CHANGE

Focusing events, elite

turnover.

External Shocks

Oriented learning and

lesson drawing processes

Innovation anf difussion

tendencies

SUBSYSTEMIC OPERATIONAL POSITIONS

-Shock response based-Strategic and improvement

based-Thermostatic calibrations-Perpetuation and change

contention

MECHANISMS OF POLICY STABILITY AND CHANGE

-Positive and negative Feedback

- Endogenus change- Issue expansion

- Exogenus shocks

NARRATIVE STRATEGIES

- Identifying winners and losers- Construction of benefits and costs

- Use of condesation symbols-Policy surrogates

-Scientific certanty and disagreement-

18


POLICY DYNAMICS SYSTEMIC

POSSIBILITIES

Incremental change(policy manteinance)

No policy change(policy stasis- perpetuation)

Major policy change

Punctuated equilibrium

Policy oriented-learning and lesson

drawing

Strategic and planned programatic

change

Gradual paradigmatic policy change

Legitimacy deficits

(no shared beliefs)

Withdrawal of consent

Illegality Inadequate policy performance

Direct relation

Contributor relation

Legitimation and Policy dynamics LPD approach

LEGITIMACY PATTERN

Legitimacy pattern dilution

Weaking legitimacy

pattern

Enhanced legitimacy pattern

Policy termination

LEGITIMACY PATTERN

TRANSFORMATION

ASSOCIATED CAUSES OF

MAJOR POLICY

CHANGE

Focusing events, elite

turnover.

External Shocks

Oriented learning and

lesson drawing processes

Innovation anf difussion

tendencies

19


It seems great, but now what?• Is LPD logically coherent?• Do LPD have clear causal drivers and a sense of causal process?• Are LPD mayor propositions may be empirically falsifiable?• Is the intended scope of theory clear and relatively broad?• Is LPD fertile?: May LPD give rise to non obvious implications and

produce a realtively large number of interesting predictions per assumption

• Testing LPD approach• Case study: how policy change in combating the threats of drug

trafficking and organized crime in Mexico (2000-2012) (Cruz-Rubio)

• Case study Innovation policy in Venezuela (Romero, 2011)

20


Thank you Gracias por su atención

[email protected]

César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio

@cesarncruz

21

Education

Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach