Download
1 / 166
1.66k likes | 1.67k Views
Models -. Models are of central importance in many scientific contexts. The centrality of models such as the billiard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of the atom, the double helix model of DNA.
E N D
Models are of central importance in many scientific contexts. • The centrality of models such as the billiard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of the atom, the double helix model of DNA
The phrase ‘it's just a model’ indicates that the hypothesis at stake is asserted only tentatively or is even known to be false, while something is awarded the label ‘theory’ if it has acquired some degree of general acceptance.
A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the real world. • It may be an actual physical representation – a model airplane e.g.. • Or a model may be a diagram – a road map, or a flow chart that political scientist use. Models for Policy Analysis
Group 1 Early environment and upbringing Group 1 Hereditary Group 3 Criminal Personality Group 6 Crisis and events Gets into trouble Group 5 Current Living Circumstance Group4 Socio-Economic Status Vandal Act Group 8 Persons Cognitive and Perception eg. Low risk of being caught Group 7 Situation E.g. poorly lit lamps, no police
Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy • Identify important aspects of policy problems • Helps us communicate with each other by focusing on essential Uses of Models
Institutions are the arena within which policy-making takes place. • They include the political organisations, laws and rules that are central to every political system and they constrain how decision-makers behave.
Institutions divide powers and responsibilities between the organisations of the state, they confer rights on individuals and groups; they impose obligations on state officials to consult and to deliberate. • The include and exclude actors. such as interest groups, NGOs in public decision making.
Not only do institutions affect the distribution of power institutions make political life manageable by formulating rules and norms of behaviour. • Political systems usually develop procedures to determine the manner in which decisions take place. • It is a force of continuity, they express the values underpinning a political system.
It is in view of this that institutions have been given a central position in Political Science. • Classics in Political Theory have emphasised on institutions. • Till behavioural revolution empirical and normative aspects were combined. So federalism used to be inseparable from the discussion of liberty and balanced government.
Reaction against institutionalism partly because of the arid and sterile character of institutional studies. It was • Descriptive • Obsessed with administrative details and • Formal procedures. The public policy scholars stressed the importance of rational planning, role of groups etc.
Legislatures Representation • Executives Policy Formulation • Bureaucracies Implementation • Judiciaries Adjudication The Demise of Functionalism
This idea that there are distinct political tasks that need to be carried out by separate institutions has been the staple of political analysts since Plato, Machiavelli and Montesquieu. • Separation of powers and checks and balance.
Institutions presented in this functionalist from do not seem to count as an independent factor in policy making. • Institutions process demands from the political system and turn them into outputs (policies) (Easton) • They are neutral transmission belt political actions that being in society. Mysterious black box.
Institutions create a forum within which pressure groups can legitimately argue their point of view, and they are a means to reconcile the conflicting interests in society. • Very few would now commit themselves to such a strong functionalist approach. • Functionalism ceased to be a coherent theory of politics largely because there is no reason why political systems should automatically perform in the said manner.
While the structure of the modern state is similar in most economically developed countries, and complex industrial societies typically face comparable policy problems, the focus of the institutional approach is the uniqueness of the institutions. • Institutions embody cultures and past political decisions. State Traditions and Institutional Structures
The approach to public policy is subtle because institutions are not static. • Some writers believe institutions have an intelligence in the way they respond to fast changing, social and economic environments that is built up from their capacity to learn, to store collective experience and to create ‘guidance mechanisms’ to help decision makers • Others think of institutions as potentially dysfunctional
Some institutionalists believe formal procedures define the policy process. • Not only do institutions set constraints on action, they define the norms of the political systems. • Institutions routinise the values of the political system. • Institutions have ‘standard operating procedures that process decisions.
Even though the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty in the UK appears to give unlimited power to the executive, norms or conventions constrain the exercise of that power, such as the accountability of ministers to parliament. • Similarly, the power of the US Supreme Court to determine policy matters derives both from the US constitution and from the way the court developed and enhanced its role through elite and public acceptance of its decisions.
Institutionalists believe that formal arrangements often affect policy through their capacity to influence the coordination of public decisions. • Some institutional arrangements promote good coordination; others have negative effects.
Heidenheimer argues that European states, with their strong bureaucracies and weak legislatures impose a more uniform pattern of decision making across policy areas than the US • The importance of national style of policy making – suggests that national differences are as important as differences between policy sectors.
Weaver and Rockman’s survey of the effect of institutions on policy making (Do Institutions Matter?) draws on the contrast Parliamentary Systems Strong Parties, Strong Executives Presidential Systems Weak Parties, Weak Executive
Institutions have a direct effect on political behaviour by creating veto points in a political systems. • Institutional rules which may vary greatly across political systems, allow interest groups to block and to modify policy decisions.
Yet Weaver and Rockman do qualify their argument- • Political Culture • Economic Development • Variations within a country between regions and between policy sectors
Policy makers goals • Past policy choices • Levels of cohesion between elites and types of access of interest groups are different depending what policy is being examined.
Feigenbaum, Samuels and Weaver’s comparison of energy policies between the USA, Canada, France, Germany and Japan Separation or fusion of executive and legislative power does not make much difference to policy making On the other hand, the presence of federalism, the type of bureaucracy and the power of constitutional courts do have an impact.
Research on the impact of the structure of US Government on policy making reaches certain conclusions Different parties control Republic (Democrat) The result is deadlock or gridlock- due to system of check and balance.
Mayhew however challenges this version. Believes that the systems works just as well when different parties occupy different offices. Different Presidents could make a difference. Jones argues that the process of government works just as well when the government is divided mainly because of the administrative, executive and legislative interaction with little presidential oversight.
Edwards et.al disagrees and suggests that divided government does stop legislation getting through. • Presidents oppose more often and that much more important legislation fails to pass under divided governments.
Instead of being an object of study in themselves, institutions and elite values structure the constraints and opportunities of decision makers and affect, but do not determine, how policy sector operates. • In this way it is possible to understand decisions in their institutional context, when policies are examined comparatively. • Policy sector interacts with the culture and institutional framework of each to produce policy variations and change.
