Political Perspectives on the Policy Process: Pluralism and Beyond

Lecture 8: Political perspectives on the Policy Process – pluralism and its critics

Introducing Theories • Pluralism – how power is distributed • Elitism – how power is concentrated • Marxism – class conflict and economic power • Corporatism – the power of organised interests • Professionalism – the power of the professionals • Technocracy – the power of technical experts (Source: Parsons, 1995)

Pluralism Analysed Pluralist Theory – assumes that power is dispersed within society to the various interest groups which constitute that society, that political decisions (ie policy decisions) are the outcome of competition between many different groups representing many different interests and that government acts as a more or less neutral referee.

Pluralism Analysed • Groups provide a more effective means of representation than election. • Public policy is the outcome of group forces acting against one another. • No one group will dominate for every group there will be an equal and opposite. • The larger the group the more influence it will have • People with intense feelings on an issue will exert pressure than the apathetic, therefore countering the insensitivity in the one person one vote principle • Policies are the product of bargaining and compromise, will tend to be moderate , fair to all and conducive to social stability.

INSIDER GROUPS • Practically part of the establishment • Able to work closely with elected and appointed officials in central or local government. • Not always an advantage, since it is conferred upon those with largely compatible views to the government of the day. *Three Types: High profile; Low profile; Prisoner groups

OUTSIDER GROUPS • Outsider Groups: • Do not have easy access to politicians and civil servants. • Outside status a sign of weakness. • OR groups can choose to remain on outside so as not be be compromised . ‘Tunnelers’ – Manchester Airport, 1997

Groups – Good for Democracy? Yes – they strengthen representation by articulating interest/views that are often ignored by political parties. Yes – they promote debate and discussion, create a better informed, more educated electorate, and improve the quality of public policy Yes – they broaden the scope of public participation by providing an alterative to party political views, and an outlet for grassroots activism. Yes – they act as check and balance to government power, via a vigorous and healthy civil society.

Groups – Good for Democracy? No – they entrench political inequality by strengthening the voice of the wealthy and privileged. No – they are socially and politically divisive, in that they are concerned with the particular and not the general, and advance minority interests. No – they exercise non-legitimate power, since the leaders are not publicly accountable No – they tend to make the policy process closed and more secret since they are prone to exerting most influence through negotiations and deals, that are not subject to public scrutiny. No – they may make societies ungovernable, in that they create a vast array of vested interests that are able to block government initiatives and make policy unworkable.

Pluralist Critique • “The flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upperclass accent” (Schattschneider, 1960:p35) • Power is not dispersed • State is not equal

Elitism Analysed • There are many sources of elite power • Reinforces pluralist thinking-‘democratic elitism’. • Competition between different elites for election, participation by pressure group elites in between elections, interaction with bureaucratic elites, are regarded as the ways in which democracy operates in a modern state.

Elitism and Groups Distribution of power in society reflect the inequalities of wealth. Some groups have few resources, other have many. Some interests are unorganised; some rely on others to protect them; (minority groups, children, the homeless, mentally ill, poor) Groups fight their battles in a system which is systematically loaded in favour of middle and upper class interests, or financial interests. Organisations themselves are inherently oligarchic. A few leaders wield power, and are often un-elected and unaccountable to members.

Marxism Analysed “The simple idea is that the policy process, far from being a rational weighing up of alternatives, is driven by powerful socio-economic forces that set the agenda, structure decision-makers choices, constrain implementation and ensure that the interests of the most powerful (or of the system as a whole) determines the outputs and the outcomes of the political system” (Peter John, Analysing Public Policy, 1999. p.92)

Marxism Analysed • Functional Marxist argument is that the state’s function is to protect and reproduce capitalism. Public policies, thus, reflect the role of the state in trying to regulate the economy and ensure social and political stability. In other words, the state formulates and implements policy to reflect the interests of capitalism.

Marxist Critique State is not autonomous & elites are not unified. Doesn’t always explain the variation and complexity of public policy. Doesn’t allude to the variety of groups involved in formulating policy. Monocentric view of governments goals doesn’t acknowledge the multiplicity of social and political objectives expressed in the formulation of policy. Doesn’t seem to allow for unintended outcomes/ incorrect policy analysis.

From this review we can therefore distinguish three main perspectives on the distribution of power in society: • 1. pluralist, in which power is diffused widely amongst groups between which there is competition for political office through the electoral system, which is open to all. • 2. elitist, in which power is concentrated in leaders who may be elected or appointed, for whose posts there is little or no competition, entry to which is limited. • 3. marxist, in which power is distributed according to the accumulation of capital. Owners of capital operate behind the scene to manipulate the political process, and indoctrinate the mass of the working classes into accepting the unequal economic structure of society.

However during the 1970s and 1980s there was an increasing challenge to classic pluralism from those who argued that the power of corporate organisations severely restricted the range of policy choice in some areas, within which government dealt exclusively with a small number of powerful organisations. • Corporatism has elements of elitism in that competition is limited within sectors, although it is a variant of pluralism in that it operates within a competitive political environment.

Analysing Political models – How? • Interests • Whose interests are met through societal structures and government policy and why? • Groups • How are individuals organised to pursue their interests, and with what effects? • Power • How is power distributed throughout society, and why? What are the means of power, and how is it exercised? • State • What is the state, and what role does it play in society in relation to individuals, groups, etc?

Interests Pluralist • -preferences expressed by people, may be identified by survey, opinion polls etc. • Assumes people are free to know what their interests are. • Marxist • Class interests are paramount and underlie all social processes • Class exploitation is against the interests of the working class • Though little evidence in advanced capitalist society of revolution, this is due to false consciousness of real interests • Corporatist • Organisations are the focus, not individuals or classes • Organisations shape the interests of members, and come to represent the interests of non-members in society

Groups • Pluralist • Individuals sharing interests form groups which exert influence by deploying resources e.g. Membership, information, sanctions. • Groups are more or less powerful/influential in shaping policies • Marxist • Pressure groups are not significant – their activities are permitted by the capitalist class to screen the underlying power structure • Trade unions are a special form of group which along with a socialist political party have a role in raising working class consciousness • Corporatist • Groups form around socio-economic functions, and negotiate binding agreements on behalf of members. • Most important groups are class organisation of capital and labour, but power varies • Corporatist functions may co-exist with pluralism

Power • Pluralist • Power is dispersed widely, and is expressed in political and economic resources spread unequally throughout society, though there is not a permanent structure of inequality: it can alter with elections, redistribution of wealth etc. • Marxist • Economic power is paramount, and ownership of the means of production confers dominance on the capitalist class • Political or social change is superficial, and does not challenge economic structure • Corporatist • Organisations achieve power by monopoly representation of a functional interest e.g. Employer associations, unions, professions • By co-operation and consensus such organisations can achieve controlling power in functional areas e.g. Economic planning, agriculture • Power is therefore non-zero sum, not fixed as in pluralism and marxism

State • Pluralist • As represented by government, is apart from group interaction, and acts as arbiter between groups • Marxist • Operates to further the interests of capital through the actions (and inactions) of government and coercive forces • Will wither away and all public affairs will be governed collectively • Corporatist • State orders groups into sectoral categories and grants them a representational monopoly in exchange for controls on selection of leaders and articulation of interests

Theories Analysed How does pluralism aid our understanding of: • Incrementalism? • Implementation? • Networks? How does elitism aid our understanding of -Power dependency? -Decision-making?

Under New Labour • Examine the critique of the Policy Review Process in 1998 – ‘Government by Task Force: a review of the reviews’ http://www.catalystforum.org.uk/pdf/platt.pdf • Establishment of Strategy Unit with 4 main roles: • undertaking long-term strategic reviews of major areas of policy; • undertaking studies of cross-cutting policy issues; • working with departments to promote strategic thinking and improve policy making across Whitehall; and • provide strategic leadership to social research across government

Conclusions • Fragmentation of power in UK makes it difficult to talk about single system of decision-making or single model of power. • If distributions of power varies significantly then it is difficult to characterise British government and politics in terms of a single model – elitism, pluralism, bureaucracy or whatever.

Political Perspectives on the Policy Process: Pluralism and Beyond