KEY POINTS
Politics is the human activity of making public and authoritive decisions
- Activity of acquiring the power of making decisions and exercising this power
- Conlict or competition for power and its use
Who decides what and how, is important for the life of societies
As a social science
CP is not experimental, requires diferent cases and systematic, explicit comparison
KEY POINTS
Comparative politics is one of the three main subields of political science, alongside
international relations and political theory
Empirical science that studies chiely domestic politics
The goals of CP are to describe diferences and similarities between political
systems and their features, to explain the diferenceand to predict which factors
may cause speciic outcomes
KEY POINTS
Not limited to the comparison of national political systems, but includes other units
such as sub-national and supra-national, single political actors, processes and
policies
With the widening of the number of ‘cases’ (new states or other regions) the need
for more general concepts that could ‘travel’ beyond Western countries led to a
focus on functions rather than institutions
- In the last two decades reaction against overely abstract analysis
- Led back to ‘grounded theories’ limited in space and time
As for the behavioural revolution: rational choice also aims at a general and uniied
theory of politics applicable in all times and places
- Paradigm was imported into political science from economics
- Stresses the rol of institutions
CP includes as a subject matter all features of political systems and has turned its
attention towards the interaction between them, approaching international relations
KEY POINTS
Comparative politics employs
- Statistical techniques when research designs include many cases and
quantitative indicators (variable-oriented large-N studies)
- Comparative methods when research designs include few cases and
qualitative indicators (case-oriented small-N studies)
- Case studies can also be carried out in a comparative perspective
The dimensions of comparison are multiple: spatial, temporal and functional
The purpose of comparative politics is descriptive, explanatory. and predictory
To this end research designs aim either at
- Selecting similar cases and explaining their diferent outcomes: Method of
Diference
- Selecting diferent cases and explain similar outcomes: Method of
Agreement
Comparative politics relies on diferent types of data
Conclusion
Comparative politics was born out of diversity and deals with divergence
No comparing without diference
But: globalization, interdependence…: how much divergence is left?
- Galton problem: interdependence of cases because of same inluence
- Indicators for ongoing divergence: role of religion, new-regionalism
Role of behavioural revolution for contemporary comparative politics
Approaches in CP
Introduction
Moving beyond the description of single countries
New approaches: useful across political systems
Political theories are the source of these approaches
KEY POINTS
Given the high complexity of political systems and the wide range of variation :
important to develop approaches that are useful across them all and not simply in
single countries
Political theories are the main source of such approaches
- The division between positivism and constructivism
- Being the more general distinction
Uses of theory
Theory is the best friend of comparative researcher
Necessary for interpreting and generating analytical insights
Provides scholars with puzzles to be adressed
KEY POINTS
Theory is necessary to guide empirical research in comparative politics
- To interpret the indings
- Provides the puzzles and the questions that motivate new research
Without theory, comparative politics would be a mere collection of information
- Would be no analytical perspective attempting to answering important
questions
- However, theories and approaches should never become blinders for the
researcher
- Ideally: investigate the same question from diferent angles
An important distinction concerns grand theories and middle-range theories
- Behavioural revolution: great emphasis on all-encompassing theories
Alternative perspectives
The ive I’s as main approaches
Diferent approaches to explain a political phenomenon
Key is to ind which approach works best in which case
- Institutions
- Interests
- Ideas
- Individuals
- International environment
Provide the means of understanding for almost any political issue
Institutions
Structures matter
Institutions shape behaviour of individuals: formal rules, networks, norms of
appropiateness
Institutional analysis: initial focus on central state institutions and constitutions: the
root of CP
Institutionalist approaches stress importance of initial structures and choices
(incrementalism)
Interests
Group intersts
States legitimize the role of groups in society and access to the state
- Connects back to institutions
- Recently more interest in networks
Corporatism: socio-political organisation by major interest groups on basis of
common interests
Organisations can inluence the desicion making: connects back to the institutional
approach
Ideas
Individuals
Individual level explanations can be focused on political elites or the mass level
Elite level
- Highlights importance of political biographies and diaries
- A prominent approach in political psychology
- Understand personality and background of political leaders
Mass level
- Sociological approaches stress the importance of social backgrounds: role of
personality
- Understand the political behaviour of the mass level
Orientation to Activity
politics Active Passive
Positive Bill Clinton George H. W. Bush
Tony Blair Jim Callaghan
Negative Richard Nixon Calvin Coolidge
Margaret Thatcher John Major
International environment
KEY POINTS
Comparative politics has institutional roots
- Stresses institutions in shaping and constraining the behaviour of individuals
- Weak in explaining change
Rational choice analysis assumes that individuals are self-interested utility
maximizers
- Engage in political action to receive beneits (and avoid costs)
- Approach: less relevant in comparative politics than in other ields
Although cultural explanations are often vague and residual: ideas matter and a
great deal of research investigates the impact of cultural traits (recent research
stresses factors as social capital and trust)
Single political systems are increasingly facing international inluences: integration
and globalization
10
KEY POINTS
Weak points of CP
- Focus on static elements of the political system
- Neglect of dynamic political processes
Greater attention to processes is comparative public policy analysis
The dependent variable in comparative politics varies according to approaches, but
the ultimate dependent variable is governance: establishing goals for society,
inding means to reach those goals, and then learning from the successes or failures
of their decisions
KEY POINTS
The proper use of correct application of methods essential in comparative politics
- Implies that the comparative method meets the standards set
- In terms of validity, reliability, and its use in a wider sense, i.e.
generalizability
The relationship between variables and cases in comparative research is crucial
- In order to reach empirically founded conclusions
- That will further knowledge in political science
11
Validity
Internal validity: whether inferences are correct for most cases under inspection
External validity: whether results are valid for other more or less similar cases not
included in research
Causality
Diicult to establish: depends on
- Whether variation in dependent variable is evidently and systematically
related to variaton in independent variables
- Whether this relationship makes theoretical sense
KEY POINTS
Theory comes before method and is expressed in its simplest form
- As the relationship between dependent Y and independent X variables
- Research method follows the research question in order to ind a proper
research answer
Research answers are tentative hypotheses
- Interpreted by means of descriptive inference on basis of comparative
evidence
- Possibly allowing for causal interpretation
Research design is the toolkit
- To systematically link empirical evidence to theoretical relationships
- By means of comparative methods enhancing the validity of the results
Case selection
Cases: units of observation comparable at certain levels of measurement
Micro, meso, macro
In data matrix: the variables are the columns and the cases are the rows
The number of variables and cases involved determines the research strategy
Intensive research strategy: few cases and many variables
Extensive research strategy: many cases and few variables
12
13
KEY POINTS
In comparative research case selection is a central concern for the research design
- Level of inquiry as derived from RQ related to type of system under
investigation
- The comparative variation across systems is empirically observed
- By means of indicators representing the variables that are in use
The balance between many or fewer cases and variable: important option for case
selection and the organization of the data set
The selection of cases depends on the RQ and the hypotheses that direct the RD:
the choice of cases can be limited due to lack of data and therefore can impair the
chosen research design
Method of Agreement
Uses the Most Diferent Systems Design (MDSD)
- Selection of cases that are dissimilar on many features
14
Method of Diference
Uses the Most Similar Systems Design (MSSD)
- Selection of cases that show similar features
- Which are not part of the X -> Y relation
Positive identiication of relevant variables
Similar cases with diferent outcomes: explaned by diferences between similar
cases
15
Conceptual stretching
Concept developed for one set of cases is extended to additional cases
To which features of concept do not apply in the same manner
- Inherent trade-of between internal and external validity: Sartori’s ladder of
generality
> General strategy to avoid conceptual stretching
> The fewer features or attributes that deine a concept, the more
cases it will cover
> The more identifying traits we attribute to a concept, the fewer cases
it will cover
> Scale of inverse variation relating the number of properties of a
concept and the number of cases it covers
- Conceptual travelling: risk of overstretching
Attempts to cope with conceptual stretching
- Family resemblance: extending the initial concept by adding features which
share some of the attributes of the original concepts: requires degree of
commonality
> Initial concept: A+B+C
> Add cases: A+B, A+C, B+C
- Radial categories: each step of extension is deined by a hierarchy of
attributes belonging to the initial concept: requires that the primary attribute
A is always included
> Initial concept: A+b+c
> Add cases: A+b, A+c
Interpreting results
Galton problem: interdependence of cases because of same inluence
Individual fallacy: data measured at the individual or group level as if represented
the whole
16
KEY POINTS
There are many hazards and pitfalls in comparative methods that ought to be taken
into account to link theory and evidence in a plausible fashion
Conceptual travelling is a sensitive instrument to widen the case selection
- As long as overstretching is avoided
- Radial categories and family resemblance: remedy by extending number of
cases
Interpretation problems are often due to biases
- Galton’s problem, over-determination and individual and ecological fallacies
- Avoiding these problems reduces the probability of drawing invalid
conclusions
Conclusion
The progress in comparative methods was an important factor for the succes of
CP
Debates in comparative methods were led in a productive way
More than endless debates among competing schools of thought
Advantages and disadvantages of the comparative method are widely
acknowledged
17
Democracies
Introduction
CP focused on classifying diferent regime-types
1970: less than one third of all independent states were democratic (27,5%)
- Democracies seen as a small homogenous group
- Little attention paid to comparison of democratic regimes
- Focus on diferences between institutions within democracies: political
parties
2005: many states are democratic but heterogenous group
- Variations among democracies have become more important for CP
KEY POINTS
Having constituted fewer than one in four of world regimes in the 1950s and 1960s
- Democracies now count for almost three in four
What had once been a small and homogenous group of democratic regimes
- Now become large and heterogeneous
- Typologies and classiication: important in understanding how democracy
function
Comparing democracies
New interest in comparing democracies
Comparison of regimes: majoritarian vs. consensus models (Lijphart)
The third wave of democratization: after the fall of the Berlin wall and Soviet Union
(S. Huntington)
Institutional engineering: the challenge of building democracies from scratch
Neo-institutionalism: institutions as independent variables that are shaping
behaviour of individuals
18
KEY POINTS
Democracy has developed in waves, with the ‘third wave’
- Coming in 1974 and reaching explosive proportions after 1989
Since the onset of the ‘third wave’, constitutional engineers have become especially
interested in why some systems appear to perform better
Since democracy has become ‘the only game in town’
- Scholarly research has tended to focus on the quality
- Rather than the quantity of democracy
Deining democracy
Two diferent approaches to deining democracy:
1. Procedural deinitions
More common
Speciies minimal electoral criteria
Free competition for a free vote: Schumpeter
Mostly focusses on the how question: How organize so that the people can
govern?
2. Substantive deinitions
Stresses the goals of a democratic regime: the common good
More about the content, the goals
- Not only elections, but democracy should be responsive to the people
- The result of democracy should be responsive to what the people
want
Diicult deinition to operationalize
19
Similar classiications
Populism (thin) vs liberalism (thick) (Riker, 1982)
- Populism voting: election to enact the general will
- Liberalism voting: mechanism to control as tool that citizens have to control
the people they have elected
Popular democracy (thin) vs constitutional democracy (thick) (Mény en Surel, 2002)
- Popular democracy: government by the people
- Constitutional democracy: government for the people
Electoral or illiberal (thin) vs liberal democracies (thick)
- Illiberal democracy: popular elections + limits on individual rights and
freedom + arbitrary executive power
- Liberal democracy: popular elections + civil rights
KEY POINTS
Democracies have a popular participatory pillar and a liberal constitutional pillar
- Procedural deinitions much more common than substantive deinitions
- Schumpeter speciies very minimal electoral criteria, whereas the thicker
deinition of polyarchy by Dahl identiies a long list of conditions
20
Developing democracy
Three milestones in development of democracies (Dahl, 166)
1. Incorporation of the masses: voting rights
2. Representation: rights to organise parties and their capacity to break into the
system
3. Organized opposition: right to appeal for votes against government
1. Incorporation
Extension of voting rights to all adult citizens
- Often gradual
- Restrictions on right to vote:
> Capacity voting: only people who had an education
> Census voting: linked to the level of wealth
> Race: distinctions in terms of race
- Plural voting systems
- Male sufrage ≠ female sufrage: the West no longer leads in
democratization
How universal is universal sufrage?
- Restricted in terms of age and nationality
- Actual proposal: family voting rights to minimiz efect on elderly votes
2. Representation
The right to be represented
- The right to organize parties
- Have these participate in parliament on equal terms with other parties
Shift from majoritarian voting systems to proportional systems
- Due to threat posed by new political parties
- Emerging with a strong mass base among new and previously
disenfranchised electorate
3. Organised opposition
Right of opposition to appeal for votes against government
- Executives fully responsible to legislature can be dismissed by majority in
parliament
- Social democratic parties accepted to government
Full executive turnover diicult in multi-party systems with coalition governments:
more frequent in two-party systems
Bipolarism more common in recent decades: when two dominant parties switch
powers (USA)
21
KEY NOTES
The three great milestones on the path to developing democracy have been those
of incorporation, representation and opposition
- The older and more established democracies reached these milestones one
by one, and over a longer period of time
- The newer democracies have reached these milestones simultaneously
Typologies of democracy
Only a few attempts to categorise democracies as whole systems:
Almond’s classiication of political systems in the world: focus on democracies’
political culture
Lijphart, 1984: diferentiate in a lot of dimensions (focus on executive-parties and
federal-unitary)
1. Majoritarian democracies: concentration of power in single-party cabinets
2. Consensus democracies: power-sharing in broad multiparty coalitions
Gerring et al, 2005: explaining cases that Lijphart cannot explain (broader typology)
1. Decentralist democracies: several core features with difusion of power
2. Centripetal democracies: strong and uniied government
22
KEY NOTES
Developing typologies of democracy as whole systems has always proved very
diicult
- The most important attempt to develop a comprehensive typology is seen in
Arend Lijphart’s distinction between majoritarian and consensus democracy
- The increasing transnational difusion of institutions and ideas tends to make
models of democracy less internally coherent and consistent
23
Audience democracy?
Democracy in danger?
Declining levels of conventional political participation: election turnout, party
membership
- Decreasing conidence in politics: in US, less in EU
- People become indiferent and passive
Audience democracy: people turn into an audience and withdraws from the politics:
only look at what is taking place, but are nog actively participating
Government legitimacy has taken a hit, but regime legitimacy (faith in democracy)
is as strong as ever
Alternatives
Pass decision-making down to citizens:
- Participatory democracy: referenda
- Deliberative democracy: G1000 in BE, We the Citizens in IRE
Pass decision-making up to non-political agencies:
- Non-political agencies and institutions
- Expert judgement and technocracy
KEY POINTS
Audience democracy: tended to replace representative democracy and party
democracy
Citizens have often withdrawn from political life
- More likely to distrust their democratically chosen leaders
- Decision-making procedures are now often depoliticized
24
Authoritarian Regimes
Introduction
Authoritarian regimes are all non-democratic political systems
They show a huge diversity of characteristics
System based on non-competitive elections
- Very strong central power of an organization or a person
- Limited political freedom
KEY NOTES
Until the nineteenth century: most of the world’s states were ruled by authoritarian
regimes which were mostly hereditary monarchies
During the nineteenth century: important new form of authoritarian regime emerged
- Modernized dictatorship by a military organization or a military leader
- With some however spurious claim to democratic legitimacy
In the twentieth century: there was a second phase in the modernization of
dictatorship
- With the emergence of the ideological one-party state
- Such as the communist and fascist regimes
In the third quarter of the twentieth century: the majority of the world’s state: ruled
by modernized dictatorships, including such new varieties as the African one-party
state
The inal quarter of the twentieth century
- Global wave of democratization
- Third phase in the modernizaton of dictatorship
> With the appearance of democratically disguised dictatorships
> Claiming the democratic legitimacy with ‘competitive’ multiparty
elections
Who rules?
25
Personal rule
Ruling or dictatorial monarchies: Louis XIV, Saudi Arabia
Presidential monarchies
1960: third world dictators institutionalised their rule in the monarchial
- Extensive presidential powers
- Many disappeared in 80-90
Monarchal element: presidential monarchs try to appoint a family member as their
successor
26
Organizational rule
Military rule
One-party rule
27
2. Partly disguised and vitually one-party state: coalition with one or more puppet
parties
3. Efectively one-party state: when all other parties are stopped from competing
properly
KEY POINTS
A ruling monarch is a
personal ruler, but a
reigning monarch is typically a democracy’s constitutional head of state
Dictatorship by an organization, such as the military or a party: transformed into
personal rule by the organization’s leader
Dictatorship can result from
- A military or revolutionary seizure of power
- A misappropriation of power by an elected party through self-coup
1. Religious claims
Constitution includes several public elements
New public oice for religious and political leader: constitutionally outranks the
president: Ayatollah
Islamic Republic of Iran: since 1979
2. Ideological claims
Replaced religious claims in 20e century
Needs social presence + inluence of religions: instruments to shape social presence
28
3. Democratic claims
Institutional: claims to be using or preparing democratic institutions such as an
elected parliament or presidency
Most dictatorships claim a form of democratic legitimacy
- By preparing the country for democracy
- By employing democratic institutions
But elections are non-competitive or semi-competitive
Hybrid regimes: competitive authoritarianism
KEY POINTS
Authoritarian regimes claim that they have legitimate authority, i.e. right to rule
Dictatorships claim to be a form of democracy or to be preparing the way for
democracy
Holding elections is a sign of shrewd dictatorship
- Rather than real democracy
- If these elections are non-competitive or semi-competitive
Totalitarianism
Seeks total extenal and internal control: private sphere, people at home
- No political pluralism: only one person rules the country
- Ideological indoctrination and leadership
Mass mobilisation, but only to support regime
Fascist totalitarian leaders: Mussolini in Fascist Italy, Hitler in Nazi Germany
Authoritarianism
Less extreme than totalitarianism
Limited political pluralism
- Absence of a regime-guiding ideology
- Absence of political mass-mobilization
Limited political leadership
KEY POINTS
Totalitarianism seeks total control including control of thought: historically rare way
of dictatorship
29
Conclusion
Two possible conclusions for authoritarian regimes:
1. Extinction scenario
2. Evolution scenario
1. Extinction scenario:
Authoritarian regimes are political dinosaurs
Non of the forms lourished for a long time
Democracy will prevail
2. Evolution scenario:
Authoritarian regimes have shown great ability to evolve and adapt: eras of
authoritarian comebacks
Double movement
- Global movement away from outdated forms
- Towards modern democratized forms
30
- State of nature: very messy, total anarchy, war of all against all, but total
liberty
- People will wilfully give up freedom and liberty in return for order en
protection: state
Leviathan is a creature made to create order: body is made of people
People have to be part of the state: you cannot have a state without people
KEY POINTS
Most contemporary political units (polities) share aspects which justify calling them
states
- To that extent, they all constitute present-day embodiments of a kind of
polity which irst developed in the modern West
- A sustained scholarly engagement with ‘comparative politics’ consider both
the constitutive features of that kind of polity and the major steps in its
development
A portrait
The ive most fundamental components of a state are:
1. Territoriality
2. Sovereignty
3. Monopoly of legitimate violence
4. Link with the people
5. Plurality of states
1. Territoriality
Area with clearly deined borders to which state lays claim: physical aspect of
state’s identity
State does not have a territory but is a territory
State defends its territory, guards borders, exploits own resources
2. Sovereignty
State is sole authority within its boundaries and the people residing in it: no higher
authority
Internal (within borders) and external (laws legally recognised by family of state)
sovereignty
- Internal sovereignty: sole authority within its borders: possibility to make
laws
- External sovereignty: legally recognized as the sole authority by fellow states
31
5. Plurality of states
Part of a system of states
Exist next to each other and accept each other
KEY POINTS
Internally, states possess a single centre of power that reserves for itself the faculty
of exercising or threatening legitimate violence
- A state does not respond to any other power for uses to which it puts that
faculty and others
- The state uses the faculty of violence to protect one portion of the Earth
which it considers its own territory
- Claims exclusive jurisdiction over the population inhabiting that territory
- Considers itself the guardian of its interests
Externally each state exists side by side with other states: all endowed with the
same characteristics and treats them as contenders, allies or neutral parties
Rule of law
Development of a public- and state-binding law replacing religious norms
State makes the law: but is also bounded by its law
Centralised organisation
State hierarchy: state as a pyramid
Hierarchy in legal sources
32
Democratic participation
Elimination of electoral restricitons
Only have democratic participation if you have a state: voting right only used within
a territory
KEY POINTS
States diferentiate between their political activities and those of the civil society
- Pursuit of private economic interests and the expression of personal beliefs
and values
- Articulate themselves through legal instruments (constitutions, statutes,
decrees, various kinds of rulings) into units operated by distinct bodies of
personnel
- Entrusted practices involving internal order and external defence to police
and military
In democratic state decisions over state policies are the products of peaceable
competition between
- Parties seeking to maximize their electoral support in order to occupy the top
positions
- To promote the interests of their supporters
Policies pursued by states since 1850 have sought to moderate inequalities by
assigning, individual members of the population civil, political and social rights –
citizenship
33
State devolopment
Patterns of state formation
1. By absolutist kingship which obtained independent power by building up armies and
bureaucracies solely responsible to monarchs: France, Prussia
2. Through kingship facing judges and representative bodies which developed
suicient strenght to become independent powers: England, Sweden
3. State formation from below through cofederation or federation, due to maintenance
of efective autonomy for the constituent states and a general emphasis on the
division of power within the centre through ‘checks and balances’: Switzerland, USA
4. State formation through conquest and uniication: Germany, Italy
5. State formation through independence: Ireland, Norway
34
KEY POINTS
One can distinguish, within the historical career of the modern state, three main
phases which diferent European states have illowed in somewhat varying
sequences.
- Consolidation of rule
> Within each larger part of the continent (beginning with its Western
parts) one particular centre of rule asserted its own superiority
> Generally by defeating others in war, subjecting the respective lands
to its control, and turning them into a uniied territory
- Rationalization of rule
> Each centre of rule increasingly relied on functionaries selected and
empowered by itself, expressly qualiied for their oices
> Forming hierarchically structured units, their careers within which
would depend on the reliability and efectiveness of their actions
- Expansion of rule
> States progressively took on broader sets of functions, in order both
to confront social needs generated by ongoing processes of economic
modernization, and to respond to demands for public regulation and
intervention from society
> Added new specialized administrative units and funded their activities
by increasing their ‘iscal take’ from the economy
35
Conclusion
Nation-state is a distinctive ‘Western and European story’
Transposed to the rest of the world
Become the dominant form of operation polities around the world
Difer considerably in the manner in which they are interpreted and implemented
KEY POINTS
The nation-state is the quintessentially modern form of political organization with
distinctive features of territorial organization
Claims that it is disappearing have been exaggerated
The classical distinction federal vs unitary states is giving way more complex forms
of the nation-state
36
Unity of the nation: important in unitary and federal systems, but not all nation-
states have succeeded in maintaining unity
Some failed in constructing an overarching national identity: Yugoslavia
Some have moved from unitary to federal states: Belgium
Some experience internal nationalism: Spain, France, UK
KEY POINTS
The diferent kinds of modern state resulted from three distinctive historical
‘moments’ in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
- The parliamentary and industrial revolutions in England (seventeenth
century)
- The American revolution in the US (1776)
- The French Revolution (1789)
Each of these revolutions produced distinctive kinds of modern states
- The union state in the UK
- The federal state in the US
- The ‘one and invisible’ Jacobin state in France
The modern nation-state gave rise to the ideology and political movement of
nationalism
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, nationalism has shaped the territorial
organization of modern states – breaking up the older empires and uniting disparate
territories into single states
Nationalism afected both federal and unitary states
Federal vs unitary
Traditional distinction between unitary and federal states
Diference in constitutional division of labour and in national and sub-national levels
of government
Federal state: principle of organization upon which a state is based of the division of
powers between distinct and co-ordinate governemts: certain powers are exercised
37
by the federal government and other powers by the regional govenrments of the
constituent states
Unitary state: governed as a single power in which the central government is
ultimately supreme and any administrative divisions exercise only powers that the
central government chooses to delegate
Federalism vs federation
Federalism: normative political ideology that advocates the application of federalist
principles in state organisation
Federation: state which fully applies these principles albeit in diferent forms leading
to a variety of types of federation
38
Decentralization
39
Regionalism
Bottom-up political ideology that advocates greater control over the region’s afairs
by its inhabitants
- Can go hand in hand with a regional identity
- Italy, Spain (reaction to strongly centralist state) and UK (devolution)
Regionalisation
Top-down process in which a central government develops a set of policies directed
toward regions
France: initial trigger in economic development and modernization
Role of EU: Europe of regions
- Administrative regions: Greece, Portugal, Ireland
- Administrative – political regions: Denmark, Finland, Sweden
40
KEY POINTS
There are great variety of systems of local government, which makes it diicult to
classify
A classical way of typologizing local government in Europe to distinguish between
- Systems in Northern Europe (legal localism)
- Systems in Southern Europe (political localism)
This simple division needs to be complemented by more complex typologies which
take into account the diferences within the two broad categories: the Anglo-Saxon,
Germanic, French-Napoleonic, and Scandinavian systems
There are trends towards greater local iscal autonomy, but this has recently been
somewhat tempered by the new iscal orthodoxy which makes central governments
responsible for their countries’ iscal rectitude (thus constraining local authorities)
41
Conclusion
The territorial dimension of governance is as important as ever
Traditional forms of governance of the nation-state are not abolished
But new territorial conigurations are introduced
Elections
People express their views about how a country should be governed by electing
representatives
Universal use in democracies
42
Referendums
People express their views by voting on speciic issues or policies to be approved or
rejected
Use of referendums not universal in democracies
KEY POINTS
Elections and referendums are the two main opportunities that people have to vote
- Elections are held to ill seats (representatives) in parliament or some other
institution
- Referendums are votes on a speciic issue to be approved or rejected
43
Majoritarian systems
1. Single-member plurality
First-past-the-post
Country divided in several districts
- Candidate with highest percentage of votes is elected
- Plurality: > %
USA, UK, Canada
2. Alternative vote
Voters rank other candidates
If one candidate receives majority of voters, he is elected
If no candidate receives majority
- Candidate with lowest number of votes is eliminated
- His ballot is redistributed according to voters’ 2e, 3e, 4e choice
- Until one candidate has received the majority
Australia
3. Two-round system
Majority of votes is necessary
- If no candidate wins a majority of votes in the irst round, a second round
takes place with only the top candidates
- In the second round, whoever wins the most votes is the winner
France
Proportional systems
Proportional representation
Each party more or less the same share of seats as it won of the votes
- Perfect proportionality: 20% votes is 20% seats
- Majoritarian system overall more disproportional
Size of constituencies
- National constituency: every voter receives same candidate list to choose
from, no matter where you live: Netherlands, Israel
- Smaller constituency: diferent candidate list for diferent constituency:
Belgium
1. List PR systems
44
Each party presents a list of candidates: voters vote for list or for candidates on that
list
Seats allocated to lists, then to candidates
Diferent methods of awarding seats proportionally within each constituency
- D’Hondt: tends to give larger parties a slightly larger portion of seats than
their votes
- Imperiali: designed to disfavor the smallest parties
2. Mixed systems
Voters cast two votes
- One for a party on a list
- One for a constituency candidate in a single member district
Germany, Hungary
1. Mixed member proportional system: compensatory
- Favours small parties
- Seats are allocated by the irst-past-the-post system, then you try to
compensate for the disproportional results
- Germany, Venezuela, New Zealand
2. Mixed member majoritarian system: parallel
- Favours bigger parties
- Mexico, Japan
45
KEY POINTS
The most basic distinction among electoral systems is between
- Those based on single-member constituencies (non-PR systems)
- Those based on PR in multi-member constituencies
Single-member constituency systems all give an advantage to the strongest party in
the constituency and leave supporters of other parties unrepresented
46
The main categories of PR systems are list systems, mixed systems and the single
transferable vote
- PR-systems can be made more proportional by using constituencies of larger
district magnitude and by lowering or removing the threshold
- PR systems vary in the degree of choice that they give voters to express a
choice among their party’s candidates. Non-PR systems do not give voters
any intra-party choice
- Non-PR electoral systems are more likely to engender a two-party system,
especially as regards the distribution of seats, while PR systems are more
likely to lead to a multiparty system, though the shape of the party system
also depends on other factors susch as the nature of the politicezed
cleavages in society
Referendums
Referendums: part of representative democracy
Mandatory or optional
Requested by a political institution or by voters (initiative)
Decision-promoting: plebiscitarian referendum for ratiication
Binding or advisory impact
47
KEY POINTS
Referendums take many forms, depenending on
- Whether or not people themselves can initiate a popular vote
- Wheter parliament has dicretion
- Wheter to decide a matter itself or put the issue to a referendum
- Whether the verdict of the people is binding or merely advisory
Supporters argue that referendums give people the chance to make important
decisions themselves and that being exposed to a referendum campaign increases
people’s information about the issue
Opponents maintain that referendums may discriminate against minorities and can
result in incoherent policy choices
The frequency of referendums is rising over time, though they are still rare events in
most countries
When people decide which way to vote in a referendum, their views on the issue at
stake are usually the most important factor, but they also take some account of
cues from parties and politicians
Despite the fears of opponents and the hopes of proponents, there is little irm
evidence to show that policy outcomes are afected greatly by the availability of
referendums
48
Political Parties
Introduction
Parties: central actors in politics
Governments of most countries are in hands of party leaders
Parties exist in democratic and non-democratic regimes
Parties seem to be in crisis
KEY NOTES
Political parties are the central actors in democratic politics, as well as many
authoritarian and totalitarian regimes
It is unlikely that social movements or governance networks will replace the parties’
many roles
Deinition of parties
Political party:
Autonomous group of citizens having the puropose of making nominations and
contesting elections in the hope of gaining control over governmental power
through the capture of public oices and the organization of government
KEY NOTES
Parties are ubiquitous in modern political systems
- The deinition of party is contentious because it speciies which cases
provide appropriate evidence for conirming or discontinuing empirical
theories
- Deinitons centring on the objectives and methods of party, and emphasizing
their role in political competition, relect value-laden assumptions about
proper functioning of politics
Origins of parties
KEY NOTES
Some parties originated within parliaments, while others originated outside
parliaments with the objective of getting in
The subsequent power relations of a party generally favour leaders whose positions
in public oice, or in external party organization, are analogous to the positions of
leaders who originally built the party
49
50
Functions of parties
Parties perform a number of central functions:
1. Coordination
2. Contesting elections
3. Recruitment and selection
4. Representation
1. Coordination
Within parliament and government
- Organise party groups: policy making and circulate information
- Maintaining discipline and communication within the parliament
- Coordinationg action of the parliament in support of or in opposition to the
cabinet
Within society
- Political events for citizen (information): get people acquainted
- Organizing the political activity of like-minded citizens
Between government and society:
- Translate what people want into policy
- Patterning linkage between representatives in public oice and organized
supporters
2. Contesting elections
Providing candidates: linking individual candidates to expectations of team-like
behaviour, histories and recognizable symbols
Devoloping policy programmes
Formulating policy positions
Supporting candidates: media training, inancial support
4. Representation
Spokespersons of their electorates: advocates of their interests, speaking for their
members and supporters sithin or in front of government agencies
Social groupings: class, religion, language
Being the organizational embodiment in political sphere of demographically or
ideologically deined categories of citizens
KEY NOTES
Political parties play a central role in coordinating among public oicials, among
citizens with common political preferences and between citizens and oicials
Political parties are generally the central participants in elections, responsible for
both the candidates and the issues among which voters will choose
Political parties are central participants in the recruitment of political personnel,
both for the elective and appointive oice
51
2. Mass parties
1950: after adoption universal sufrage: pool of actual voters increased
- Extra-parliament origin
- Development of ‘central party oice’ and ‘party on the ground’
Power in numbers: mobilise as many members as possible
- Developent of a very strong party on the ground: relied on heavily: get you
elected
- Large and homogenous membership
Extensive party network: often built on pre-existing organisations: trade unions
Extenisve organisation: dominated by the party’s elite and supported by large group
of volunteers
Primary resource base: fees from members and ancillary organizations
3. Catch-all parties
1950 – recent
Developed from transformation of mass parties
- Declining role of members and ‘party on the ground’
- Power shifts to ‘party in oice’ and professionals
Weaker ideological orientation
Weaker ties between parties and interest groups
Electoral strategy to appeal across group bounderies
- As any members as possible: heterogenous membership
- Main focus: being appealing for a larger public
- Primary resource base from contributions from interest groups and
individuals
52
4. Cartel party
1970 – recent
Evolution of existing parties
- Driven by societal and political evolutions: individualisation, decline party
membership, volality, crisis of democracy
- Parties become more agents of the state than of the people
Pressure on the catch-all model led to 5 changes
- Parties protect themselves: no electoral risks
- State inancing: agencies of the state rather than society: weaker ties with
organisations and the society: more problems representing them: more
government parties
- Increasing role on government
- Disempowering party activists
- Further privileging professional expertise: consultants
Distinction between member and supporter blurred: members seen as individuals
rather than as an organized body
State subsidies as a primary resource base
5. Anti-cartel party
Frustration with mainstream parties
Organized around an idea rather than a social grouping
New right parties: left-libertarian, green
6. Business-irm parties
1990 – recent
Extra-parliamentary initiative of political entrepreneurs
Initiative and hierarchical control by a fortuned (political) entrepreneur
- Light party: minimal formal organisation: members irrelevant
- Party on the ground mostly absent
- Corporate resources as a primary resource base
53
Party laws
Party laws to maintain democracy
Centrality to democracy
Power for special oversight and restrictions
Adminsitrative convenience
Regulations regarding inances
Partymembership
All modern parties claim to have membership organizations
Individual or ailiated membership: trade unions
Measuring membership
- Absolute number of members
- Ratio of party membership to size of electorate
Party membeship has been declining
54
KEY POINTS
Party organizational types have evolved over time as sufrage was expanded and
soicieties changed
Rather than reaching endpoint: organizations continue to evolve and new types
continue to develop
- Party membership, and involvement of citizens in party poitics more
generally, appears to be declining virtually throughout the democratic world
- Parties are increasingly the subject of legal regulation which, while justiied
in the name of fairness, may also contribute to the entrenchment of the
parties that currently are strong
Possible solutions:
Is there an alternative? No
Can parties adapt? Yes
- Rebranding: professional staf
- New digital ways of campaigning: cyber parties
- New ways of engaging citizens and voters: through direct communication,
transparency and increased responsiveness
KEY POINTS
Parties have played, and continue to play, a vital role in stabilizing democracy by
integrating new citizens into the existing political sytem
- Whether new because they have come of age, immigrated, or beneited from
expansion of the rights of citizenship
55
Party Systems
Introduction
Party system: constellation of parties in a political system
A lot of variation in number, size and ideological distance between parties
Shapes competition between parteis
KEY POINTS
Party systems are sets of parties that compete and cooperate with the aim of
increasing their power in controlling government
Interactions are determined by which parties exist, how many parties compose a
system and how large they are, the way in which they maximize votes
It is appropiate to speak of a party system only in democratic contexts in which
several parties compete for votes in open and plural elections
56
57
KEY POINTS
Party families originate from socio-economic and cultural cleavages created by
industrialization, urbanization and the formation of liberal states
The centralized and liberal state creates conlicts with the church and with
peripheral regions, leading to religious and regionalist parties. Industrialization
opposes liberal economic interests to the rural world as well to the working class,
leading to agrarian and labour parties
- Party constellations ‘froze’ and have remained stable until the present
- Examples of recent realignment are the generational cleavage over
postmaterialist values and globalization that led to new party families:
greens and neopopulist parties
58
3. Multi-party system
Several or many parties with none approaching 50% of votes and seats
- Parties of diferent sizes
- Partial alternation of power: alternation through coalition changes
Parties run for elections individually and form coalitions after elections
Coalition government
- Moderate: small ideological distance, several centre parties: centripetal
dynamic
- Polarized: larger ideological distance, anti-system parties, occupied centre,
centrifugal competition
4. Bipolar systems
Two large coalitions composed of several parties sharing together around 80% of
votes and seats, but non of them has a majority
Coalition government
- Coalitions are balanced (40-50% each)
- Coalitions are stable over time and run elections as electoral alliances
- Two large coalitions of several parties alternate in power
59
KEY POINTS
The morphology of party systems is important for the competition between parties:
it concerns the number of players and their size
- The main types are dominant-party, two-party, multiparty and bipolar
systems
- In two-party systems, moderate multi-party systems and bipolar systems
competition is centripetal and there is alternation in power
- In dominant-party systems and polarized multiparty systems there is no
alternation and competition is centrifugal
Measures of fragmentation are based on the number and size of parties: however,
small parties can also be important if they have coalition or blackmail potential
Format of party systems is inluenced by electoral systems: through mechanical and
psychological efects plurality tends towards two-party systems (large parties are
over-represented) and PR tends towards multiparty systems
60
Causal link?
Mechanical efects
- Refer to the formula used to translate votes into seats
- In single-member constituencies winning the seat is diicult: only the party
with the most votes gets the single seat (threshold is high)
- With PR on the contrary: in each multi-member constituency many seats are
allocated in proportion of votes
Psychological efects
- Refer to the behaviour of voters and parties
- On the demand side (voters)
> In electoral systems: in which only large parties have a chance to win
seats, voters tend to vote strategically to avoid wasting votes on
small parties with no chance
> With proportional representation: in which small parties can win seats,
voters vote sincerely on their irst preference because their vote is not
wasted
- On the supply side (parties)
> With plurality: small parties have an incentive to merge with others to
increase their chances of pasing the threshold, thus reducing the
number of parties
> With proportional representation: parties have no incentive to merge:
they can only survive on their own and small splinter parties are not
penalized
61
Manifesto items used to build economic and cultural dimensions of the left-right
scale
KEY POINTS
In the electoral market parties (the supply side) present platforms to appeal to
many voters whose vote is determined by the proximity of their preferences (the
demand side) to the parties’ ofer
- Voters are assumed to be rational, informed about alternative proposals and
able to choose the alternative closest to their top preferences
- Dynamics of party systems: determined by parties’ search for optimal
location on left-right axis
- Depending on the distribution of the electorate along the scale, parties move
to a position where the support is largest
The prediction of competition models is that parties converge towards the centre of
the left-right axis, as point where most votes concentrate, and as point where voters
are less rigidly ideologized
62
Legislatures
Introduction
Legislatures are a global phenomenon
Fulilling a central role in most political systems
But have large variations in their powers and structures
KEY POINTS
Legislatures are present throughout the world and play a central role in almost all
political systems
However, variations in their powers and structures are large
What is a legislature?
Legislature ≠ assembly, parliament or congress: diferent concepts that are not
interchangeable
Assembly: coming together of people for some purpose (most general term)
Legislature: an assembly with political purpose
- Two speciic types of legislatures: parliaments and congresses
KEY POINTS
The words ‘assembly’, ‘legislature’, ‘parliament’ and ‘congress’ are not
interchangeable and care should be taken to use the right one to avoid confusion
and a lack of precision
- Parliament exist in fused-powers (usually parliamentary) systems
- Congresses exist in seperation-of-powers (usually presidential) systems
63
Both parliaments and congresses are types of legislature, meaning that they are
political assemblies with some legislative tasks.
Role of legislatures
The activities of legislatures can be put into the following categories:
Linkage and representation: legislature as an agent
Oversight and control: legislature as a principal
Policy-making: legislature as legislator
3. Debating
Legislatures as important public forums of debate: diferent opinions are expressed
and confronted
Finding compromise between opposinggroups and interests within society
4. Legitimation
Ability of a legislature to create links between citizens and government by providing
an adequete representation to critical groups and minority interests
Fostering public debate will determine its institutional legitimacy and its ability to
provide legitimacy for the political system as a whole
6. Budget control
64
Legislative control over the power of the purse is the earliest historical funciton of
legislatures
Powerful: opportunity to inluence policy desings: after all few policy goals can be
achieved without some level of funding
7. Oversight over
Budgetary implications + timely and accurate implementation of policies
Oversight instruments
- Question-time: regularly scheduled opportunity for member of the legislature
to present oral and written questions to members of the government
- Hearings and special inquiries: organized to invesitgate speciic topics or
issues considered important by some legislators
- Investigative committees: more formailzed and tend to adress higher-order
issas and have a longer duration
8. Policy-making or policy-inluence
More important in SoP systems than in fused-power systems
Minimal function: consultation:
- Grants the legislature authority to present an opinion
- Opinion on legislation, general plan of action or a broad policy programe
Negative functions: delay, veto:
- Slowing down process by not providing positive input or substantive change
directly
- Veto as most extreme power of dely
Positive functions: amendement, initiation
- Ability to amend bills: allows legislature to change aspects of the executive
branch’s proposal to achieve an outcome in line with the preferences of a
majority of its members
- Indepedent power of initiative grants individuals or groups within the
legislature the right to introduce their own policy proposals independent of
the executive branch
- In some legislatures all proposals must formally be initiated by the
legislature (US), while in others the legislature has no formal ability to
initiate proposals independently (EU)
Measuring power of legislatures based on their relative ability to directly impact the
policy process:
- Arena type legislatures: low degree of direct policy-making inluence
- Transformative legislatures: higd degree of direct policy-making inluence
KEY POINTS
65
Legislatures: variety of tasks including providing a link between citizens and the
central government, representing citizen interests, executive oversight, and
participating in the policy-making process
- While most legislatures in democratic systems perform all of these roles to
some extent, the emphasis placed on the various roles and tasks will vary
between legislatures
- The very diferent character of the relationship between the executive
branch and the legislature in fused-powers and separation-of-powers
systems inluences which roles and tasks are emphasized by a legislature
There are a number of diferent tools that a legislature may employ within the
policy-making process, including consultation, delay, veto, amendment, and
initiation. While the powers of delay and veto are negative in that delay or block
policies, amendment and initiation are positive powers
Bicameral
Two chambers (Belgium, USA, Austria)
Diferent representative functions
- Lower house: representing the population
- Upper house: representing a socially or territorially deined group
Relationship between the two chambers
- Symmetric bicameral systems: equally shared powers or equally divided
powers
- Assymetric bicameral systems: unequally distributed powers
66
Committees
Almost without exception legislatures organize internally on the basis of committees
Indicators of their inluence:
- Permanent or ad hoc: ad hoc less eicient and member lack opportunity to
develop expertise
- High or low specialization: larger inluence if committees mirror organization
of executive branch: subcommittees and temporary committees allow more
specialization and lexibility
Inluence is largest when legislation is reviewed and amended in committees irst,
before being sent to the plenary meeting
KEY POINTS
67
1. Institutional autonomy
Fused powers
- Centralized legislative authority in the executive
- Hierarchy: voters -> legislature -> executive
- Legislature less inluence on policy-making process: partisan link between
legislative and executive branch
Separation of power
- Decentralized legislative authority increasing role of legislature
- Leader executive and legislature elected in separate elections
- Legislatures more inluence on policy-making
2. Member independence
Party organization
- Member autonomy decreases when their selection depends on party
leadership
- Member autonomy decreases in more centralized political parties
System characteristics
- Electoral system: parties are more imporant in PR-systems: individual
autonomy decreases
- Funding: members’ autonomy increases in systems with public (state)
funding of parties and candidates
68
KEY POINTS
The institutional autonomy of the legislature (from the executive branch) and the
individual autonomy of its members (from political parties) are the most
fundamental variables afecting the policy inluence of a legislature
Institutional autonomy is largely dependent on the formal political structures
- In fused-powers systems in which the legislature selects the executive the
two branches are mutually dpendent and the institutional autonomy of the
legislature is reduced
- In separation-of-powers systems the legislature and the executive are both
selected by the voters and the institutional autonomy of the legislature is
increased
69
Conclusion
There is no a priori ‘best type’ of legislature
However: the knowledge of the type of legislature allows to grasp key aspects of the
political process
- Eiciency
- Diferential focus: control or policy-making
- Policy outputs, policy change and policy innovation
KEY POINTS
Most common refers to the country’s central political executive
Governing means ruling, exercising overall control over a country: determining the
course it will take
Types of government
Common core
Notwithstanding the separation of power doctrine: state functions are not fully
separated
70
1. Presidentialism
Head of government as head of state
- Quasi-direct popular election of president for a ixed period
- President not politically accountable to legislature
President appoints member of government: mostly with consent of the legislature
USA + many Latin American countries
2. Parliamentarism
Head of government (ex. Prime Minister, Chancellor) not as head of state (ex.
Monarch, President)
- Head of government can be appointed by head of state or elected by
parliament
- Government can dissolve parliament
Government politically accountable to legislature: can be removed from oice by
vote of conidence
Many West-European countries
3. Semi-presidentialism
Quasi-direct election of president
- President appoints members of cabinet
- Cabinet is politically accountable to legislature: president is not
- President can dismiss cabinet and dissolve parliament
Majority of legislature and president can be from difent partis: cohabitation
Quasi mixture of the two former systems: Chirac-Jospin, Mitterand-Chirac
4. Directorial government
71
KEY POINTS
Today’s governments constitute what remains of absolute monarchs after splitting-
of judicial and legislative functions
- Notwithstanding the separation-of-powers doctrine, state functions are not
fully separated
- The government has retained important legislative powers, although
diferences exist between diferent regime types
- Diferent regime types also distinguish themselves by the deinition of
government
- Constitutionally one-person executives and collective bodies can be
distinguished
- Some governments include the head of state while others have a separate
head
72
KEY POINTS
Constitutions are silent about the internal working and decision-making of
government, leaving much to the political actors who adapt the government modes
to changing circumstances
- Presidential systems provide for presidential government (with its internal
variations)
- Parliamentary systems ofer a broader range of decision modes: cabinet
government, prime ministerial government, and ministerial government
Coalition governments in parliamentary systems have developed more complex
decision modes
Autonomy of government
Understanding governments
Requires exploring the autonomy of these layers have from other actores or
providers of essential resources without chich they would not be able to govern
Parties are essential for getting a government into oice and maintaining it there:
without permanent bureaucracy the government could not govern
Idea of bureacratic government rests on the assumption that a small group cannot
run the whole show and critically depends on the permanent bureaucracy
73
KEY POINTS
Party government means that government actions are strongly inluenced by the
values and policies of the government party or parties
Political parties control their teams in government by the means of party
programmes, the recruitment of party leaders into government oice and
permanent control of the government
- Empirical studies mostly demonstrate that parties have only a limited impact
on government
- Initial fusion of party and government often gives way to government
autonomy and occasionally party dependence on the government
Individual leaders tend to gain weight relative to the parties: presidentialization
74
Uniied government: president and Congress under control of the same party
Divided government: presiden’ts party has no majority in at least one chamber in
Congress
- Limited power of president: ex. Obama vs Repbulican Congress
- Government capacities constrained in divided governments: risk of gridlock
Presidential stragegies
- Imperial president: undertake unilateral action to push own policies
- Dominant president: dictates his terms in legislative initiative
- Coalition president: engages in legislative coalition-building
- Nationally oriented president: ofers large-scale patronage rather than policy
concessions
KEY POINTS
The political capacities of governments difer widely, depending on the
government’s support base in the political institutions and the society
- In presidential regimes, ‘uniied government’ suggests greater capacities
and ‘divided government’ requires the president to use institutional
prerogatives, bribe members of the legislature, or compromise with
legislative parties
- In parliamentary regimes single-party majority governments normally have
the greatest political capacity
Bureaucratic capacities
Key characteristics of bureaucratic organisation: Max Weber
Personnel: based on formal lifelong employment and promotion on the basis of
seniority
Organization: functional division with specialisation and hierarchy
Procedure: guided by impersonal general rules
Goal: rational and politically neutral organization
Problems of bureaucracy:
Excessive rules and complicated or rigid pocedures may lead to delay, ineiciency
and inertia
75
KEY POINTS
A government’s capacity to implement its decisions depends critically on the ability
and willingness of bureaucrats and the structures and processes of the public
administration
Classic bureaucracy aims at making the civil service a neutral instrument
In practice, the inclusion of individual political preferences by bureaucrats can lead
to agency loss; bureaucratic career concerns foster the growth of the state
The establishment of spoils systems and New Public Management methods can
provide governments with greater grip on their bureaucrats
Policy-making
Where does policy-making it in?
Polities
Democratic and authoritarian regimes
76
Politics
Legislatures and executives
Elections and referendums
Political parties and party systems
Policy
How are policies made?
How are polities governed?
KEY POINTS
Policies are the outputs of the political system: come along in diferent forms: laws,
regulations or rules
The policy analysis literature relies on policy typologies as ‘analytical shortcuts’ for
grasping the costs and beneits elated to a certain policy option
- Based on the respective magnitude of these two parameters expectations
about the likelihood of promulgating new policies and changing existing
policies are formulated
- By studying the policy-making process from a comparative politics
perspective, we gian a fuller understanding of the causes and consequences
of policy decisions
Policy-making
Policies
The set of interrelated decisions made by governments with the aim of steerdiing
public, social and economic life: outcomes
Designed to achieve deined goals and present solutions to societal problems
More precisely: policies are government statements of what it intends to do or not
to do: including laws, regulations, decisions or orders
Policy-making
Process of making those decisions
KEY POINTS
The conceptual models represent starting points for the analysis of policy-making
o The models vary regarding their perception of policy-actors as either fully or
partly rational
o The models also difer concerning their focus on either political institutions,
actors or both
Types of policies
77
Policy cycle
1. Agenda setting
How do issues become political relevant?
78
Initiation models:
Ouside initiation model: citizen groups put issue on agenda: try to win support from
government
Inside initiation model: pressure groups close to government put issue on agenda:
try to win support from government
- Belgium: corporate system: peak organisations close to government put
things on agenda and make sure that decisions are made
- Peak organisation: advocacy group, trade association or association of
industries with allied interests: established for the pruposes of developing
standard and processes or to act on behalf of all members when lobbying
goverment or promoting interests of the members
Mobilization model: government put issues on agenda: rallies support among
citizens
2. Policy formulation
Once a problem is on the agenda: struggle breaks loose to deine, elaborate and
propose solutions
Actors try to frame their solutions in such a way as to gain maximum support and
increase the chances of policy adoption
Ex. current problem of immigration: it creates crime, but it enriches our lives with
the human right issue
79
1. Rational model
Decision makers start from a clear blueprint: choose the policy with the best results
at the lowest cost
Assumptions: all information is available and cognitively processed: all efects
thorougly assessed
Problem: bounded rationality: idea that when individuals make decisions their
rationality is limited by available information, tractability of the decision problem
and cognitive limitations of their minds
2. Incremental model
Decision makers are prudent and conservative: trail and error with no clear aims or
means
Problem: better at explaining stability than change
Very applicable to Belgian politics: entire state reform as prime example of
incrementalism
3. Group model
Politics as process of distributing resources among diferent groups in society
Policies are responses to group pressures and relections of power distribution
between those groups
Ex. Belgian Group of 10: corporatism
4. Elite model
Policies are relections of the preferences of governing elites
Citizens are considered to be badly informed and play a minor role
To some extent applicable to EU politics
80
4. Policy implementation
Implementation: process of putting outputs and decisions into practice
Not an automatic process
Two directions:
- Top-down: ability of policy-makers to produce unequivocal policy objectives
and control the implementation process
- Bottom-up: local bureaucrats as the central actors in policy delivery and view
implementation as negotiation processes within networks
Central actors: bureaucracies for successful implementation: there must be an
entitiy able to translate the policy objectives into an operational framework
accountable for its actions
5. Policy evaluation
Once policies are implemented: efects have to be assessed and evaluated
If actual situation is intended situation: policy termination
If actual situation is not intended situation: policy feedback
- Types of evaluation: process, client statisfaction, outcome, cost-beneit…
KEY POINTS
In analytical terms: helpful to view policy-making as a series of political formulation,
policy adoption, implementation and evalution
- Number of actors involved decreases when we move from agenda setting to
implementation
- The evalution indings may lead to the modiication of existing policies
- Which may entail adjustments of varying degrees as well as complete policy
termination
81
Policy styles
Policy-making difers strongly among countries
Anticipatory versus reactive
Consensus-seeking versus imposing
KEY POINTS
Policy-making can be thought of as a strategy for resolving societal problems by
using institutions
Cognitive and normative frames fulill important functions during the policy-making
process and therefore complement the politics perspective
Similar to the policy cycle, the concept of national policy styles serves as a useful
heuristic tool for elaborating more speciic theoretical explanations
International factors
Countries often learn from each other:
Policy difusion: spread of policy ideas between countries
Policy transfer: application of policy insights from another country
- Copying: direct and complete transfer
- Emulating: transfer of the ideas behind the program
- Combining: mixture of diferent policies
- Inspiring: inal policy does not draw upon the original
Policy convergence: increasing policy similarity between countries
KEY POINTS
As internationalization is a complex pheomenon
- Useful to approach its underlying mechanisms via the concepts of policy
difusion, policy transfer and cross-national policy convergence
- Four main mechanisms: imposition, harmonization, regulatory competition
and transnational communication
82