190 likes | 566 Views
Pluralist model of public policy. Think tanks. Interest groups. Pre-election party policy. Post election government policy. Public policy. Civil servants. Public opinion. Lobbyists. Pluralist model of public policy. Interest groups. Pre-election party policy. Post election
E N D
Pluralist model of public policy Think tanks Interest groups Pre-election party policy Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants Public opinion Lobbyists
Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Pre-election party policy Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants Public oinion Lobbyists
Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Pre-election party policy Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants Lobbyists
Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Pre-election party policy Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants
Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Pre-election party policy Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants
Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants
Prime minister (directs overall policy) Cabinet (directs individual departmental policy) Civil service (implements policy) Traditional model of executive power
The Core Executive(Taken from Peter Dorey, Policy Making in Britain, Figure 3.1, p. 50)
1. Actors possess resources legal constitutional political hierarchical technical informational 2. Bargaining between actors involves exchange of resources 3. Power is based on dependency – no one can act without support from other actors 4. Structural and institutional constraints apply to actors 5. Dependency varies with circumstances Further reading: M. J. Smith, The Core Executive in Britain (Palgrave, 1999), ch. 4 Core executive relations
Interest groups and policy networks • Origin of policy network theory: ‘Iron triangles’ of US policy making – 1960s • Based on resource exchange • Dependencies between actors • Degree of dependence of each actor can vary with circumstances
Policy communities & issue networks (1)(D. Marsh and R A W Rhodes, ‘Policy networks in British politics’, in Marsh and Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) Policy community: • Limited number of participants • Close links between members based on resource exchange • Shared values • Balanced power between members e.g. NFU/Ministry of Agriculture
Policy communities & issue networks (2)(D. Marsh and R A W Rhodes, ‘Policy networks in British politics’, in Marsh and Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992) Issue network: • Large number of participants • Diverse values • Based on consultation, not resource exchange • Unequal power e.g. fox hunting
Criticism of network theory • Problem of identifying actors • Descriptive, not analytic • Artificial patterns? (e.g., is the NFU-Ministry of Agriculture relationship really comparable to the relationship between the pro- and anti-fox-hunting lobbies?)