Public Policy (1): Agenda Setting

This table above sums up the key dimensions along which accounts of the policy process differ. Two dimensions are used: the distribution of power and the extent to which it is structured.

The optimistic pluralism of the early work of Dahl and his followers has been succeeded by a recognition of the salience of power inequalities:

1. The institutions of government are important, but must be regarded with scepticism. The discourses and ideologies that surround them may be more important than their formal characteristics.

2. There is extensive competition between groups of Influence government and this is likely to be organised in networks in which the interests of those inside government will be Involved as well as those outside.

3. Power is distributed unequally both inside and outside government, having an impact as much upon what is on the agenda and the context in which decisions are taken as on the decision process itself.

4. There is a great deal of confusion and incoherence in the policy process, but nevertheless we can identify choices made by actors, who are influenced by Ideas and may be able to learn from earlier events and choices.

Benz and Papadopoulos (2006) identify the following major traits of governance as a new mode of policy making. The non-hierarchical, boundary-spanning and flexible character of governance does not imply that government is totally irrelevant, as governance relies on the interplay of both formal and informal institutions. However, the governance dynamics raises important questions for the democratic accountability of (state) actors involved in fragmented policy networks.

1. Plurality of actors: participation of elected officials and state administration, but also inclusion of experts, interest groups, NGOs and private firms;

2. Polycentric networks: absence of a clear hierarchy between various decision centres;

3. Functional boundaries: structures of decisions are defined according to the frontiers of the problem to be solved, instead of the existing territorial or institutional boundaries;

4. Negotiation as mode of coordination: mutual adjustment and accommodation of interests is more frequent than unilateral decision.

Forms of Accountability

Political	direct accountability to elected representatives (recognising that these arrangements may be complex since often there are alternatives - presidents and parliaments, central and local governments, etc.)
Hierarchical	accountability to the 'head' of an organisation, a version of accountability that is often embodied in the political concept of accountability; but since the one does not logically embrace the other this should not be taken for granted
Direct democratic	direct accountability to the public (complicated by issues about who the public are in particular cases: patients, parents, pupils, tenants, etc. or everyone, and by the fact that these will be in specifically defined geographical areas)
Legal	forms of accountability that may be secured through the courts; this may be a reinforcement to political accountability but there will be situations in which legal legitimacy overrides political legitimacy
Professional	governed by profession-related principles which, like some legal ones, may be considered to override political accountability
Bureaucratic	normally a derivative from political, hierarchical or legal accountability but may be seen in some cases to involve overriding 'responsibilities' similar to those embodied in some versions of professional accountability

Source: Developed from Pollitt's Typology (2003)

Title: The Public Policy Process (7th Edition)

Author: Michael Hill, Frédéric Varone

Year: 2016

Region: UK

Publisher: Routledge

Genre: Politics, Social Sciences

Score: 6.5/10