Scarica Modulo Mattei di PIS e più Appunti in PDF di Scienza Politica solo su Docsity!
POLITICA, ISTITUZIONI E SVILUPPO
Textbooks: “Understanding public policy” by Carray + “Comparative Politics” by Caramani How governments operate in western European countries? What do they exist? They regulate daily life, citizens delegate power to them. How public policies are designed? The approach is comparative because we look at multiple countries and places. The text refers to theories that come from UK and US -> we’ll consider European and international systems. When we compare, we learn about our own system. This course provides us with concepts that are based on theories so it’s an abstract subject. It’s conceptual and theoretical because it helps understanding the complexity of the society (there are many actors and interests involved) and so we need tools that help simplify our world and to analyse decision-making and production processes of public policies. In public policies there are always losers and winners because public actors have different interests and benefit from different policies. We’ll discuss about question raised by the debate on the analysis of public policies in the era of globalization: who should have access to a public education system? What services should be provided to refugees? Why do political reforms fail?... What is the STATE? And what are its historical origins? Why is it so important? The notion of the state in Europe is centuries old. It’s one of the most important actors in political science. The state does many things to support our well-being (education, school, sanity, tax collection agency…). How can DEMOCRACY be defined? Why do we need that? We think democratic values are consolidated, but there are countries where these values aren’t granted. The democratic consolidation after 2^WW has provided the opportunity to live in a peaceful society. What are the components of PUBLIC POLICIES? The activities governments do -> build infrastructure; try to control carbon emission; try to make this planet a more hospitable place to live in; provide services to the disabled, elderly; provide funds to associations; provide public care (not everywhere); “surveillance” (police duty, drones…); provide safety and order to citizens (military); protect biodiversity and focus on the environment; welfare and educational system… 06/04/ Public policy=the sum of government activities. Government are organization and institution that exist to design and produce public policies and policy programs (the main job that a government must do). Activities are practical and concrete because they must regulate the daily life of citizens. There are policies and programs that can affect the life of many people like the poor one: for the unemployed, minimum salary, universal childcare… Government take decision to introduce programs, they debate and decide what is the best option. Programs can be changed and adjusted. Ex. environmental politics and issues are important part of the so-called “recovery plan” in Italy -> one of the pilar is environmental sustainability -> it means that the government has decided that it is one of the most important parts of the plan for the future. When you chose to invest in one area it means that you invest public resources and the public budget in that area. The actors in the government are experts but are also human beings with limitations and they try to make the best decision. However, some of the decision can be affected by exogenous shocks. The quality of PP influences our daily life. Ex. Milan is one of the most polluted cities in Europe -> health problems. It’s in this situation because in the past government took decisions that lead to this situation. It’s the result of past decisions made in the past
20 years. Government made different decisions from other government so now we can see how PP can change life conditions. Governments have prioritized some areas rather than others. Ex. in Italy we invest very little in education, development, and research. On the other hand, France and Germany decided to invest a lot in this sector. Italian governments historically have invested more in public pensions -> it affects young generations -> governments have decided to prioritized sectors and their decisions have affected the citizens. Ex. Governments have managed differently the covid pandemic. PP are very important because they concretely affect the citizenship. Italy managed the emergency in a certain way and it’s important to compare how different countries managed the emergency and how their decisions affected the population. What can we do? We need to understand how policy makers think, what logic they follow. We are actors as citizens so we have to analyse and understand the government strategies and why some of their programs failed or how they can be ameliorated or implemented. THEORY =set of analytical principles designed to structure our observation and explanation of the world. We use them to answer the questions and to explain reality and phenomena. When we observe reality and events and people, we need to explain why the reality is like that. We live in a society where individuals have little time to reflect, but we are bombarded by information -> we use theories to organize the world outside which is complex. Theories are tools that we absorb and use to understand what’s going on. Not one single theory alone is able to explain complex policymaking -> there is a plurality of approaches and theories. We use theories to make sense of complexity -> we use frameworks, models (= a way to simplify reality and identify key features of a more complex reality, it doesn’t catch each situation or detail), concepts, theories. Theory=HEURISTIC TOOL=a tool used to guide our investigation -> it helps us to structure our observations of the policy world. It’s not a tool used to evaluate, but it’s a way to understand and explain the world as it is. Most of the theories come from the US and UK, and so they don’t always work in a political world completely different (ex. China). Ex. “why did so many governments decide to bail out banks?” (They saved the banks that failed, by using public money) Ex. The war in Ukraine -> we try to understand the reasons that lead Putin to attack Ukraine. Theories try to capture what individuals do and since PP are made by actors and individuals, theories help to understand their decisions. “decision-making” is at the heart of policymaking , so it’s essential to understand what their strategies and their goals or values are -> they can focus only on power and elections , or they can be driven by values and ethics … politics is extremely complex, and it’s formed by actors that make decisions constantly. Actors in PP theories can be INDIVIDUALS who decide arbitrarily and who might have a strong leadership. Ex. More resources will be allocated to defence and therefore other sectors will lose fundings. The government decided and now we will live with the consequences. Actors can also be ORGANIZATIONS : international organisations, lobbies… Theories try to capture the role of actors in given policy environments and contexts. Actors are the organizations or individuals or groups who take action. They have different understanding, interest and beliefs of policy problems -> they have different interest which can be in contrast, and they have different understanding in policy problems. Each decision will generate winners and losers. A world of public policy is a world where actors compete in the access of resource, power, attention, control… it’s important to understand how to operate and strategize to fulfil your goals.
Ex. Digital infrastructures in school improvement: has been on the agenda of the Italian government for the last 20 years. Reforms, laws, and legislation were decided. Founding and financial resources were found, but went nowhere, they weren’t even spent. Policy making is also composed by INACTION -> choosing to do nothing is a politic decision. Policymakers often ignore the solution presented by for example experts and competent people. Persuasion is normally used in liberal democracies -> to implement your public image and to make policies legitimate -> politicians talk to the population to actively persuade them, to explain to them the object of their decisions. In liberal democracies, politicians can’t put in jail people who disagree with them, so they have to convince them. Ex. Restriction for our freedom of movement during the pandemic: they were gradual to let population adjust. In some countries govs did not pursued restrictions because they anticipated that population wouldn’t have accepted them (for cultural reasons). Govs adopt different policies and decisions because they know how far their persuasion can go. Persuasions in Italy worked well. There are communication strategy unit whose fulltime job is to persuade population. It’s always safe to look at the data to find out if the public policies are reliable. Policy is also about arguing and bargaining -> everything can be contested and debatable. There is always someone who has a completely different views -> it’s one of the privileges to live in a democracy. Authority is based on expertise. Policy symbolism is an important aspect of persuasion: symbols evoke emotions, especially because people are often very attached to them. They can be used in a rational or emotional way. Ex Christian cross is a symbol for the family in Italy. Ex the American flag is part of their symbolic heritage. Ex the nation hymn. Ex the “z” used to represent the Russian army. There are actors and policymakers who master very well persuasion : ex Salvini, Trump -> they have great communication skills, they use simple language and accessible to everyone, people can see themselves in what they say, they have the ability of using social media channels, they built an image of an enemy (immigrants) that helped them to unify people. Populists excel in the art of using symbols. Normally when we hear populist talking to people, they never talk about substantive politics solutions to problems -> they don’t present actual and pragmatic solutions, but they use symbols and narratives to convince us to vote for them. A huge different is the use of political violence: Trump never took his distance from the attack at Capitol Hill (one of the symbols of democracy), on the other hand when people attacked the Tribunal in Rome, Salvini condemned that act of political violence -> there is a red line that sometimes populist politicians cross: political violence. This doesn’t happen in Europe. It’s important to distinguish the different type of democracies and politics. The aim of policy studies is to analyse and understand what policy is. Policy studies is a subfield of political science (study powers, elections, democratic institutions…). Politics is more art and craft than science, actually -> most of the times we can’t control social programs, policies, outcome of decisions… Definition of PUBLIC POLICY: it’s difficult to define it because we don’t live in a world of certainty. “THE SUM OF GOVERNMENTS’ ACTIVITIES” = “ whatever governments choose to do or not to do ” (cit. Dye and Birkland) -> “governments”: elected and unelected (bureaucracies and unelected); “choose”: deliberate decision, the result of a choice and a discussion of the actors, there are always different possibilities; “not to do”: inaction is included in PP. It includes government actions:
proposals decisions packages of legislation (when they are the result of a compromise, they represent different interests and ideas) outputs series of events expression of intent (political party manifesto/actors announce what they are going to do once they are elected) outcomes (the effect of the policy measure that are introduced) executive decreets 12/04/ THE POLICY PROCESS AND CYCLE Different steps of the progress of producing governments activities and policies. We usually see the outcome of the progress, the result (law, directive…), but that action has started months or even years before it’s published. Ideas are as important as actors -> they can be political, ideological, based on principals (sovereignty, equity, freedom), linked to the economic context (cost, efficiency…), existential (moral, ethics). What motivates us to act are ideas and interests. Ideas are driving forces for our action and inaction, and they often need institutions to embody them to help ideas survive and flourish. In a society where an idea is already settled, it might not need and actual institution behind it. Revolutionary ideas that shake the existing system need to challenge the institutions. Relationship between ideas, actors and institutions is not linear -> thinking at the world as characterized by order is not realistic. Actors decides for other people’s life -> it’s important to understand the process actors use and adopt when they have to act. What motivates them to take certain decisions? Sectors we’ll study: social policies, health care policy, education policy, welfare state reforms. MODEL of public policy: Stages:
- Formulation of a problem: define what the problem is and if it’s a problem that needs to be addressed, who is affected by the problem (losers/winners), what are the causes and the consequences. It’s important to look at the different points of view on the problem (financial concerns, human rights view, political urgency…) that can change according to the interests, beliefs, relationship with society… When it’s found a consensus -> attempt to push the problem on the government agenda, influencing to make sure to be heard -> Agenda setting. Lots of social movements have a very important work in influencing interests but can’t develop a very clear strategy for a reform program (no practical and concrete proposal). Policy memo: policy advisor proposes solutions to a problem that people address to the governments.
- Selection of criteria : individuals to make decisions use criteria. =judgments used to decide what is the better solution. !!! what are the criteria most suitable to solve the problem and what are the alternatives? Policy maker advisors always present options and alternatives and the advantages or disadvantages of each possibility. It’s important to be informed on the subject. The government then take a decision and has to respond to the consequences. Commonly used criteria: popularity, efficiency, equity (social policies and welfare state policies absorb lots of public funding but have equity purposes), effectiveness (do the policy really works as expected? Are the intentions translated into actions?), political feasibility (program is politically acceptable: will people support it? People=voters), social acceptability (regardless of the political use something can be socially unacceptable. Ex at a local level, lawyers are saying that the non- violent offenders should be let out of prison if there is an overcrowded situation: it’s hard for the
participation to this circle. But it is true that if you had committed a crime then you have the responsibility to pay in front of the society. DO NOTHING we have many other problems that are more important like the Ukrainian refugees crisis and the pandemic, we should invest money in public health and in the education. For the Ukrainian educational and psychological support because they are going to be our society. And why now? The previous govs didn't do anything, why should we do something now that we are in a double crisis? To prevent an increase of criminality from this refugee we have to provide plans that permit to integrate them, because if we do not act now for these two crises there will be a worst situation. Against: during the pandemic there have been so many problems of contagious in the prisons and this is because they were overcrowded and isolated Candidate answers that she is suggesting to invest in healthcare and this would help also healthcare system of prisons, they would have more doctors Candidate: we do not have much money so we have to decide where to invest them + the population is asking for protection from the virus and help for the refugees, we have been elected and we have to respond to their necessities. We could not solve this problem in the correct way because we do not have enough money + EU has asked us to solve this refugee crisis instead of solving the prisons problem (blame shifting strategy) She agrees with the principles but she is also very pragmatic!! RENT The cheapest solution: in this way we can invest in different sectors that people cares more about. We know that there is a problem but the solution is not to change, just to move. He suggests to send prisoners to Trentino, we would pay this region that has fewer criminal percentage and prisoners would be sent there just on a voluntary basis. This is not the main solution but it's the first step that we can do: instead of building new prisons, we just try to use the structures that we already have and invest money in making them more efficient. If this plan works then we can try to think to a different system but we should first try to use the one that we have in a correct way Against: putting people far from home can be a way to not helping them to integrate in the society? + they could not visit their relatives Candidate: taking for EX the mafiosi, it's something positive that they are in a different contest that is far away from their region BUILD Many structures are in bad conditions, giving them more space would help to have better hygiene conditions and justice conditions, there would be a better respect of human rights because you could organize more services for the prisons. There is a huge cost but we could reduce costs from the military sector or other sectors if we really want to face this problem! 21/04/ Consideration of political and organisational constraints: An alternative could be the best in terms of economic sufficiently, but it would not be politically supported -> POLITICAL SUPPORT is essential to evaluate the alternatives -> it’s important that an alternative is supported by voters (popularity!). Watch the presidential debate between Macron and LePen. Organisation feasibility: support from administration that will actuate the policy ( IMPLEMENTATION = once a policy option is voted, the administration will have to implement the policy: find the money, plan the resources and the organisational aspects. Administrative machinery is responsible with executing the policy). Politicians set the strategy, but than the service servant/administration/director general have to transform it into action. In many cases administration don’t have the resources to implement the policy the politicians have discussed -> they have to face the limits of the administration (these limits can be used to block the policy). Implications:
- Get people who are responsible in the implementation stage involved from the beginning -> make sure to hear what the problems are, to discuss problems with the organisation
- Who are the decision makers/policy makers? Administration/civil servants (expert in civil issues) might influence what politicians decide: they advise them with what they can do, can actuate.
- Implementation is INTEGRAL to the whole policy making process Implementation depends on political and organisational constraints + prospective evaluation -> it’s important to look at the future (LONG TERM STRATEGY and EVALUATION) POLICY CYCLE (chapter 2: pag 68-69) 26/04/ ADVOCACY COALITION FRAMEWORK (chapter 10) It’s a theory that criticize the sequential approach to the policy making process (it’s the opposite of the policy cycle). It’s a new approach. ACF was created by PAUL SABATIER, supported by WEIBLE, two scholars who wanted to propose a new framework that helps us understand how the policy world works. Idea: political system is a pluralistic and fragmented world -> it’s crowded by different groups and individuals who hold different interests and preferences, who hold different positions and values. Western democracies are based on pluralistic systems of interests, unlike other political systems. Pluralism entails a degree of conflict, which aim is the gain of power: individuals want to influence public policy, to change the world in which we live… People engage in politics to turn their beliefs into policy. ACF suggest that when people enter in public policy, they try to join groups who share similar views to them (you have a bigger impact) -> AC group is made of actors in a policy subsystem who share beliefs and preferences. It’s the central mechanism through which people engage in the public policy making process. ACG are in competition with each other to gain attention by governments and local administrations -> conflict to have a role in agenda setting. They propote their beliefs against others. POLICY SUBSYSTEM: network of groups and individuals operating in one policy area. Ex. Environmental, Health, Labour Market, Education, Foreign policies… Policy is not organized in a top-down way, there isn’t one centralized authority from which everything depends. Policy is organized in a multiple policy subsystem. In each we find 2/3 ACG in conflict to determine the outcome of policy making. On the short term, ACG are characterized by particular interests. Over the long term, ACG are driven by a system of BELIEFS and ideas that draw a pattern within the programs proposed and the interests defended. Ex. Labour Market policies: important ACG are trade unions (sindacati). Belief system: fair pay check, hour…), business association. ACG’s members are stable overtime: the network stays there; people don’t jump on and off. Stability of interests has implications: people know each other, they work together to promote the system of ideas and beliefs, they are committed. BELIEF SYSTEM= they mobilize interests and coalitions. They provide glue to hold actors together, cooperate and learn how to respond to new problems and new events. It includes:
- Basic values -> fundamental ways in which we see the world, they set value priorities and they characterize the whole life of a person/for long time. They are very hard to change. Ex. Commitment (to university/career…), solidarity, justice, freedom of information…
the “Buona Scuola” reform excluding all trade unions from the negotiation table -> they organized city action and street mobilisation. In the US the political system is based in a pluralistic win-lose situation where everyone has a voice. The Congress is a very productive parliament -> lots of regulations and laws and policies -> there are more open doors for groups to have influence. Interest groups and lobbies in Europe have a negative connotation, in US it’s not like that because it’s perceived as completely legitimate. Policy subsystem: network of coalition groups concerned about a series of policies and problems. Coalition A and B compete against each other to win power and influence. Each coalition has its own resources (fundings, technical expertise, knowledge…) and beliefs. Each coalition decide a strategy to propose to the government (also the local administration). There are procedures and institutional rules, regulations and mechanism that coordinate the relation within the actors of the policy subsystem. At the end of the process there are policy outputs=public policies legislation and laws adopted by parliament, ministries, communities + policy impacts. Policy brokers are individuals who are skilled in designing possible collaboration between coalition groups (they find a common position between them): if the system is too competitive than it could collapse because there is no compromise and solution. Relatively stable parameters:
- Basic attributes of the problem area (framing of the policy problem): once we define the policy problem, its attributes are going to last on the long time. When new issues get debated and policy attributes are designed and formulated, there are going to remain the same -> it’s important to participate in the debate at the beginning.
- Basic distribution of natural resources/financial resources: it’s not open to radical changes. If education receives 1.6% of public fundings it’s unlikely that this budget will be double the next year.
- Fundamental socio-cultural values and social structure don’t change over a short term.
- Basic constitutional structure (rules): constitutions are long term frameworks that regulate social, political, and economic relationships. They are policy outputs, they are compromises. They establish basic norms and ideas that represent the historical and social moment in which they were formed. It’s important this stability in a political system to operate and be efficient. How can we change something that isn’t working and that is unfair? What can introduce change in this system which is highly regulated by a fixed system of rules, actors, groups and beliefs? According to Sabatier change happens when there are external factors that pressure the policy subsystem. An exogenous event to the policy subsystem can be…
- changes in systemic governing coalition: ex. the election of a new president and prime minister, new parties... these elements change the agenda and leads to different policy outputs
- changes in socio-economic conditions: ex. Crisis, pandemic…
- changes in public opinion: ex. mobilization people who are favourable to one cause rather than another -> government are interested in the public opinion to maintain the public support they need
- policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems: ex. the Italian government has decided to implement the fundings of the military sector after the beginning of the Ukraine war -> cuts in other sectors QUESTIONS: -What types of beliefs are less susceptible to change? Core, policy or secondary? -If beliefs are sticky, how do we explain policy change? Is the change going to be short-term or long-term? 29/04/ To understand policy changes we need to look on the long-term (at least 10 years perspective) -> The ACF provides key insights to explaining changes over time. An effective way to introduce change is when policy making actors learn -> Learning allows adaptation processes to take place, and when you adapt to a new condition you can learn how to be resilient, or you
can clash. In Sabatier’s view, change happens when there is adaptation through learning (from mistakes and errors, from policy failure). Instead of approaching failure by punitive sanctions, it’s best to learn and move on -> coalition adapt their policy objectives to new information about policy and experience. Adaptation comes to new scientific and technical data (!!! role of scientific information in policy making: in some areas it’s important, in other scientific knowledge doesn’t have an impact. Ex. Environmental crisis) -> this leads to a less probability to do other errors. Other factors that lead to change are external and internal shocks -> affect the position of coalitions within subsystems. Dynamics of policy learning: crisis of confidence and internal adaptation/revision of policy positions: members of a coalition revisit their beliefs and start to question the motives of their coalition another competing coalition uses external shocks to challenge the predominant power of another coalition in the subsystem Case study of MARINE PROTECTED AREAS in California (protecting biodiversity: great whales, dolphins…) California Marine Life Protection Act was introduced in 1999. In 2000 the Department of Fish and Game starts the implementation program -> huge policy failure because opposition was very intense (street level demonstrations, rebellions…). ACG started to emerge and mobilize and support against this law -> fishing industry and business were against it because the law established a series of areas in which it was forbitten to fish all kind of species. Pro-MPAs: state government officials, environmentalists, researchers Anti-MPAs: commercial fishing industries, local governments, coastal business communities The environmentalist groups decided to go back to government and proposed another strategy (after a learning process) -> to establish 7 regional stakeholder working groups that can meet regularly to convince and engage with the Anti-MPAs, that was now involved in the process of policy making. The second attempt at implementation was successful. Weible studied this issue under the ACF lenses -> relationship between the two ACG was initially in conflict, but they were able to make a compromise when the beliefs system was brought together. Two ACG that compete can collaborate. 03/05/ Interest groups and AC groups -> AC groups are all interests groups, but interests groups are not all interests groups, because they mobilize to influence specific policy issues Why the left and right spectrum is considered deep core beliefs -> if I am a conservative ultra-catholic individual I would have very strong beliefs of what a family is and what is not, if there was a reform about gender family, I would have some problems about it because of the spectrum Left wing deep core beliefs Case study of education reforms in the UK over long-time Public schooling performed some functions in society -> they have a purpose, more than one Parties deep core beliefs are attached to education Some countries think that the education system should be elitist -> students should be educated to be unequal, a way to reproduce inequality, reproduce social classes -> we see this in the UK, but also in France In UK private schools have a really important role -> not everyone should be educated in the same way -> the system is elitist Deep core beliefs here come out clearly In England 50% of students attend private schools -> each student's parent pay a fee, a lot of money 50% of students go to private schools and they take loan as well for their children The system is very different than the Italian system In Sweden -> they have an education system like Italy until 10 years ago -> then they thought that the standards of the Sweden students was going really down, because students didn't learn and they didn't
Policy changes in the UK: introduction of high-stakes texts as an indicator of the quality of the educational system -> opposition to this evaluating system, other are favorable. The idea of the texts comes from the influence of other countries. Education subsystem: Actors:
- Pupils and students (represented by parents in the primary school)
- Teachers and unions (single largest professional group in European labor force)
- Schools
- Government and bureaucrats that decide action and strategies Main goals of education:
- Life course approach (health care and wellbeing; soft skills…)
- Economic goal (job market) -> direct positive correlation between education and job opportunities
- Political
- Equity (chance of social mobility)
- Personal interest
- Form social capital People have different ideas on this subject according to their core beliefs. Reforms of schooling in the world (how to improve the quality and efficiency of the educational system): UK – policy goals of reforms since 1970s Educational subsystem was shaken by a dramatic change -> it was the same as it is in Italy today (important to study to know that could happen). At the beginning of the 70s, the UK entered in an economic recession. The conservative party started to blame education because students and schools were underperforming -> studies about the result at the end of primary schools (from 1960-65: 48% of pupils in Wales ended primary school without being able to read; at the end of high schools: 50% terrible at maths). New data and studies became available to the conservative party -> Margaret Thatcher became the ministry of education: necessary: complete reform and a major policy change if the country wanted to recover from the economic crisis. She formed an ADG with experts and scientists: goal to improve educational standards (exam results of students in basic skills: reading, writing, numeracy). She pointed her finger at teachers because they were unprofessional and were hiding behind the trade unions. 1970s: public perception of the crisis. Not only the conservative but also the labor party set up a system to improve standards and schooling results. 1980s: Conservative government reforms: Thatcher pushed the educational problem in the agenda, defining it as if the only way out of the economic recession was to completely change the system. 1980: Education Act -> radical reform -> policy output which has left deep consequences today still.
- Introduction of the “choice” given to parents to decide in which schools they wanted to send their children, not according to where they lived (catchment area: administrative territory related to where you are resident) -> financial consequences: schools were funded according to the number of students enrolled. Funding system called “follow the choice”. Parents wanted their children to be socially safe and to have a good education and they could choose the school thanks to the money the government gave directly to the school + thanks to “assisted places scheme” (private schools received state support for poor kids)/school vouchers (government gave money to families to send their children to private schools).
- Competition similar to the private market -> parents chose on the basis of the info they got -> each school had to publish the exam results of students, so parents could use this info to decide which school was the best -> competitive pressures to bear upon state schools to raise standards and responsiveness + they compete with private schools to gain children. The policy was implemented in 10 years, with opposition from the trade unions and also parents because they feared the raise of inequality and segregation.
1992: Education schools Act -> establishes that exam results had to be published. Aim:
- Monitor pupils’ learning and achievements and identify learning needs and problems
- Monitor performance of schools -> puts a lot of pressure on the school heads and teachers. Summary: Greater emphasis on basic standards Greater emphasis on economic goals of education Less emphasis on equity and more on choice Improvements in standards but spread of achievement remained much wider in UK than other countries =changes in the deep core beliefs of the society. High-stakes testing Testing which bares direct consequences for pupils and/or schools Consequences attached to the results of testing Certificates at the end of compulsory education Streaming of pupils -> stream the best of pupils into university and the rest in the job market or polytechnic schools ADG in favor of HST ADG against HST Economic : Measure effectiveness of the system through measurable outputs (objective score instead of long subjective comments by teachers on pupils that could be biased) Educationalists/pedagogists : Identify learning needs of students + assess learning processes Political : Information and data analysis used for policy reforms -> huge political power Dysfunctional effects : pressure on children, psychologically not helpful Narrow the curriculum : incentive of focus on children who are able to perform well, and teachers don’t help those who don’t seem particularly smart (educational system in France focuses on the 5% at the top and the rest is abandoned) Cream-skimming : selection in schools is based on those who already perform well and that will raise the standard of the school Focus on pupils on the margins of success (low achievers’ “tail”) Devaluing professional ethos : teaching becomes a strategic instrument of the system to get good scores even if there is no actual learning QUESTIONS:
- Is high stakes testing the most appropriate tool for the purpose of public accountability? Can you think of others?
- Does HST produce the most meaningful type of information for the actors in the subsystem?
- How do actors use information available to them? 10/05/ MULTIPLE STREAMS APPROACH formulated by John Kingdon -> framework very popular in the policy world to explain policy change, in particular, how new ideas get on the government’s agenda. Theory of attention allocation: theory that explain how some ideas get a lot of attention while others are ignored. Traditional model of public policy is the ACF, the public cycle… Kingdon is very critical to these models. Limitations:
- Public cycle: linearity is too rational; it should always be confronted with the unexpected (bounded rationality) and the real world Traditional model of decision making: it has a stable vision of problem -> rationality is the basis of the analysis (data, statistics, details…) and then people analyse the problem and think about it rationally, think
Assumptions: The world of policy making in governments and private organizations is characterized by unclear and changing technology -> it changes rapidly, and policy makers need to keep up with these changes. Laws and legislations implemented are implemented in certain time frames, but technology is faster. The implementation of a policy needs to consider that technology changes rapidly. Preferences are unclear and inconsistent and can change rapidly according to exogenous events (financial cuts, crisis…). There are different preferences that change. GCM signal policy makers that they need to be flexible and receptive to adapt. We live in a country with an administrative system that is similar to an elephant, really slow and difficult to adapt. “Garbage can” because all is mixed up -> in this theory it’s the policy problems and the definition of the solution that is mixed up, so much that sometimes we can’t even understand which is the solution and which is the problem. As you are defining the problem, you are already thinking about the solution -> it’s a problematic way of thinking: the risk is that you redefine problem not so much according to the needs of the people but just in terms of solutions. GCM is a model of attention seeking and allocation: it explains how ideas and solutions get on the agenda, but that doesn’t mean necessary that they are going to be adopted and implemented. It just explains how some ideas get the attention and why others don’t. The model isn’t interested in understanding the implementation of the solutions. Public and private organization announce and present to the public solutions, ideas, new methods which have nothing to do with the original problem. It’s a risk: if you come up with solutions that have nothing to do with the problem, it means that the problem is not solved. Political parties or interest groups or government institutions announce solutions, laws, reforms that they have discussed and adopted that have nothing to do with the real problem. Ex during the electoral campaign we hear about solutions to problems and then the solution might just become a new problem or are simply chosen between a random group of solutions taken from the “garbage can”. The solution serves other interests than solving the problem -> it’s not guided by data, but other logic. Solutions are expensive: founding a solution means to invest public money and resources on it and founding out after years that it wasn’t the right one and even that the problem has gotten worse: waste of money + loss of trust in the political party that has presented the solution. Model has been redesigned and redefined. GCM is the foundation of the KINGDON APPROACH -> They share the same assumptions. Assumption behind Kingdon theory: there is no stability in the policy world, policy making process is continuously changing, it’s not characterized by paralysis and inertia and then sudden changes. It’s not a frozen world with few radical reforms. The world of policy making is continuously changing: outputs, reforms, methods of delivery… Kingdon has based his theory (in 1990) on the model of the US political and administrative system, particularly in climate issues. Change is introduced often and quickly. Kingdon thinks about ideas as element floating around in an unstable way, in a “primeval soup” (= it’s the original system in which one could not precisely identify each element), we don’t know where they are going. He’s objecting the rational logic of the policy cycle. It is a dynamic approach, it’s a world of idea travelling around: not only at a national level, but even global. Power structures and relationships between actors are not frozen and forever fixed in a certain way, but they vary and change -> ideas change power structure and relationships. Ideas have an unsettling power. N.b. not all ideas have the power to get the attention of medias, politicians… Ex idea: privatization of schools would lead to a better level of education -> it has revolutionized the educational system, the relationship between state-teachers and teachers-parents…
In Sabatier, ideas and beliefs were used to explain stability. In Kingdon, ideas bring change in society and in the political system. To explain in a theory his view and assumptions, Kingdon created the “MULTIPLE STREAMS APPROACH” -> it explains when and how ideas are given the power of changing structures and institutions and to lead to new policies and reforms. Governments are not primeval soup, they are structured and ideas enter in them and propose changes. 13/05/ MULTIPLE STREAMS APPROACH Developed by Kingdon. It’s a theory of attention seeking, where public media and mass media play a huge role in diffusing ideas. Agenda setting is not a decision process, but it’s how ideas flow and develop in the policy cycle. Theory not interested in the implementation and evaluation and development of policies. The theory is composed of 5 elements (building blocks): 3 streams -> problem stream, policy stream, politics stream (independent to each other) + the window of opportunity + policy entrepreneurs. PROBLEM STREAM (change of perceptions) Aspect when social, economic, political problem are defined and redefined. Most of the time it’s made of perceptions that citizens, users of the service, people have about a certain event. Ex. Hurricane Katrina, artificial intelligence to manage the pandemic… Kingdon suggests that people change their perception according to each event. Hurricane Katrina was a natural disaster which according to the policy analysis, was a failure: the local emergency unit failed to manage the disaster -> it changed the perception that people had on the local emergency service. Public trust collapsed. Covid pandemic: public trust went down because we saw the flows of the sanitary system and the government decisions but at the same time people sook for answers about what to do and how to behave in the politic actors. Chernobyl disaster changed people existing view on some issues like the nuclear energy. Events change people perception and level of trust towards governments. POLICY STREAM (proposal and alternatives for change) Part of the process in which alternatives are formulated to solve a problem. Policy experts who have the knowledge and the experience design alternatives to solve the problem. It keeps in mind the feasibility, the public reaction, the public acceptability, and popularity. It takes place within the policy community. Ex Covid pandemic: experts got together and formed collegial bodies (Comitato Tecnico Scientifico) and discussed alternatives and reported them to the minister of health. Experts don’t participate in the decision process, but they simply present the different alternatives, models, data, proposals… POLITICS STREAM (elections, public opinion, competition for power) It’s made of political conflict and power game -> actors are interested in politics as power and influence and manipulation of the process to the personal advantage, it’s not necessarily arguing about solutions and decisions. It is made of elections (administrative, European, or national or local level…) -> crucial moment of the stream. Change is introduced when there is an election. If elections don’t bring change and there is just one political party for 20 years than there is not a healthy democratic system (es Venezuela, Russia, China…) so you can’t apply this theory. Public opinion can shift really quickly. Ex attack of Capitol Hill (violent attack of a democratic institution) -> changed public opinion very strongly against the republican party and Trump, and even within the republican party itself. WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY There are moments in time, critical junctions, in which there is a window open for introducing change. It’s possible to introduce policy change only when there is the opportunity to do so. Windows open up but also close very quickly. This is way policy reforms take place only in some moments and not all time. Mainly after the elections when there is a swift in the government. Change can be introduced only in some
Create reliable legal structure -> courts Build streets, bridges, infrastructures Maintain pension system -> Italian welfare state is particularly focused on pensioners Enter wars and sign peace treaties, international treaties… In other part of the world, access to these services is more restricted. FOUR DIMENSIONS of the modern state which have developed (analytic explanation, but each state is set up in different ways):
- Resources -> it has increased control over material resources within its territory:
- Control of the use of force: state has managed to have the monopoly of force within its territory. Ex. France gendarmery can’t pass the border and start arresting people, because Italy has the monopoly of force in its territory -> it would be a declaration of war.
- Power of taxation and extracting revenues: state forces on people taxes because it needs to maintain the public services it provides. Founding through general taxation.
- Law -> one of the major developments has been the establishment of the “rule of law” or constitutional state: state controls the resources and performs its function within a clear and limited framework. Constitution is the fundamental framework within the state operates. Organizational power is not arbitrary anymore, but it’s regulated by the constitutional power.
- Restrict power of rulers and tyranny
- Legitimate use of force -> citizens have accepted and delegated the state to do that.
- National constitutional courts -> created to make sure that constitutional principles are always respected not only by citizens but by the government too
- Separation of powers (executive, legislative, judiciary) = guarantee of the independent role of each power. Montesquieu.
- Includes jurisdiction, courts
- Legitimacy -> state’s activities, operations, decisions are accepted by its citizens/subjects -> acceptance of the political rules, which are shared and accepted. The rules of the game are especially the elections.
- Welfare -> facilitation of economic growth and social equality and redistribution of resources. State is responsible for the wellbeing of citizens = it includes healthcare, education, unemployment benefits, pensions... It was institutionalized after the 2^WW. There is not one model or ideal type of the welfare state. It is one of the major achievements of the European modern states -> beyond the “laissez-faire economy” of Adam Smith. Before there were social policies and services available to citizens, employees in particularly in factories. This legislation was narrow and focus on the health and hygiene aspects -> safe of workers -> not out of solidarity, but industrials wanted the work to be efficient. Early legislation fund in UK, Italy, France and Germany included the sanitation of places in towns (regarding the hygiene and sanitation of social housing). XIX-XX sec. first attempt of an education policy. Welfare state as we know it was born after the 2^WW. Not one ideal welfare state in Europe (according to the importance of welfare providers/ requirements for access and payments / levels of support and models of financing): a. Conservative: continental Europe b. Social-democratic: Scandinavia -> state is the main provider of services. Access to services is free and universal c. Liberal: USA, Canada and UK (with reservation, in UK there is a national welfare system similar to the social-democratic: free access and universal) -> market is the main actor d. Latin Rim (it has been added on by Maurizio Ferrera): southern Europe (Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece…) -> important role of family European states have seen the rise of the democratic nation state -> power of the people thanks to the representative system. Building democratic modern state takes time, democracy needs to be consolidated and legitimately -> citizens accept the rules. American and French revolution have taught us: monopoly on the use of force is contingent on democratic constitutionalizing of the polity.
Role that the state plays as an independent actor (from citizens, organizations, lobbyists, political parties…) in policymaking? Dimensions of state power? Pressure on the modern state? Challenges it’s facing nowadays? State is an old institution, but it has transformed because of the pressures it’s facing Problem of the “Hollow state” -> it’s retreating from the responsibilities it’s had in the last decades -> new actors. This doesn’t mean that the State has less power: where it retreats because it has not enough founding, it still regulates the private market, it gives licenses on how to do that. ACCOUNTABILITY: democratic concept: state needs to have a certain standard of accountability and transparence to answer its citizens. 20/05/ State: organizational construct of different institutions. Multi-functional: territorial state (it’s a national organization: it has a monopoly of force and control in his borders) + rule of law + democratic state (power of the rulers is not arbitrary but legitimated) + intervention state (state intervenes in economic and market structure to correct market failure. Welfare). Modern state has been under pressure challenge -> scholars and pollical scientists are suggesting that the state is losing control of many areas of public policy (“Hollow state”). What are the forces that are challenging the state?
- GLOBALIZATION=defined as an increasing financial and economic interconnection in the world: global financial markets are pressuring on national states. Businesses elude political control -> transborder activities. “Global consumer paradise” is something that all of us have enjoyed during our life. It has limited a national state autonomy in economic and financial market
- EUROPEANIZATION= creation of organizations and institutions that regulate daily life activities and production have taken away the state autonomy. Ex. Primacy of European law over national law. !!! no coercive action: state gives up autonomy voluntarily
- DECENTRALIZATION= national states are unitary states= not federalist states. In federalist states, there are different regional governments which have autonomy and responsibility in certain aspects. Ex. In Italy, Spain, UK: regions are gaining autonomy in healthcare policy sector: it is organized in different ways in each region -> central government has delegated power, resources and fundings. Regional governments know better what the needs of the local population are. Worries: “Post code Lottery”: what you get in terms of welfare services depends on where you live: different access and treatments.
- State is delegating its responsibilities -> “PUBLIC MANAGEMENT REVOLUTION” -> private companies manage public services with public fundings. Now the state shares more responsibilities with other actors, which can be private or not-for-profit actors or social groups/civil society. Political scientists have argued that the modern state is transforming itself: in some cases, the state keeps providing services directly, in other the state facilitates the delivery -> it is “in the shadow”, and regulates, controls and scrutinizes private actors -> it doesn’t manage and run the service, but it still regulates and gives the parameters/framework in which the private actors can move. From “provider” to “enabler” state: regulatory role increasing + from hierarchy to network. Differences: GOVERNANCE= political process in which state shares responsibilities with other actors so the boundaries between public and private is blurry. It is orienting toward network and not hierarchy: not a “command and control” type of authority (it dictated and decided how things were managed), but it set up network of
