Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach

1 - 20
GIGAPP (Research Group in Government, Administration and Public Policy)
Instituto Universitario de Investigación Ortega y Gasset-Spain

Legitimation and policy
dynamics approach for the
study of policy change: a
proposal
XXII World Congress in Political Science
IPSA-AISP

8-12 July 2012

César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio
@cesarncruz

2 - 20

What the audience should be expect on this
paper?
• This a preliminary theory-development endeavor

• This effort is made based on the “third scenario” in Paul A.
Sabatier’s guidelines of theory development. (No inductive or in a
deductive strategy. Instead, a dissatisfaction with existing
conceptual framework or body of theories)

• “The development (or elaboration) of theory needs to be
distinguished from its verification” (Sabatier, 2007).

• LPD is currently at the elaboration stage. All suggestions from you
of course will be very welcome. Thank you in advance.

Calle Fortuny, 53. 28010 Madrid. (España). http://www.gigapp.org .

3 - 20

LPD approach: What is this about?
• I propose here an approach for the study of policy stability &
change (called legitimation & policy dynamics) LPD approach.
• Oriented mainly (but not exclusively) to explain policy change in
political systems defined by its institutional fragility and persistent
legitimacy deficits, in which legitimation of power through policy is
assumed as an unavoidable task.
• LPD is an actor-centered perspective (subsystemic positions; a
bounded rational model of individual, who may use all intelligence
forms at disposal as well as organized hypocrisy as resources in
managing conflict)
• The legitimation of power in public policy and the control over
potential change dynamics by the dominant political coalition
conforms in LPD approach as the two causal-drivers in explaining
policy stability and change.

4 - 20

Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (1/2)
• Legitimacy has historically been considered as a top subject of
study in political science,
• However, in public policy studies- research, legitimacy (viewed as
product based on “the belief” in the existence of a legitimate
power relation) and the legitimation of power (viewed as a
process of achieving and maintaining legitimacy) have not been
historically assumed as relevant topics of study. (except Caldeira,
Gibson)
• The reason is very simple: regimes, political actors and
institutions are all relevant subjects in the study of legitimacy.
Public policies are viewed simply as products (or as an
instruments for regime’s legitimation) that are part of a larger
political system. So, policy legitimacy and policy legitimation is
mainly dependent on a broader political system’s legitimacy.

5 -20

Policy Legitimacy and legitimation (2/2)
• In traditional policy process literature (until 80’s) legitimacy and
legitimation as an oriented activity has been played a small or
peripheral role:
▫ Policy legitimation was identified as a stage of de policy cycle
(C.O Jones, Palumbo) confined to the institutional approval
made by the legislative o judicial bodies, then considering
policy approval =policy legitimation
▫ Further decision-making policy literature considering
legitimation as an activity potentially present in all stages of the
policy process-cycle, because instead public policy as an
instrument, what is necessary to legitimate are policy decisions
(B. G.Peters)


6-20

What’s new in public policy change literature?
(1/2)
• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature
▫ Social construction and policy design theory (which assumes a
substantive conception of public policy) identifies in rationales
(legitimations and justifications) key constituent elements of policy
design (Ingram, Schneider, & deLeon, 2007; Schneider & Ingram,
1997)
▫ a) C. Wilson model (Wilson, 2000, 2006) identifies the crisis of
legitimacy as a key phase in explaining major policy regimes change
▫ b) E. Montpetit analysis (Montpetit, 2008), which shows that to obtain
legitimacy (via expertise and citizen involvement) is a central task in
the formulation of policy designs


7

What’s new in public policy change literature?
(2/2)
• Relatively new studies recues legitimacy as an important feature
▫ c) J. Wallner (Wallner, 2008) that identified legitimacy as an additional
criterion (along with effectiveness, efficiency and performance) for
policy evaluation, and specifically in explaining policy failure.
▫ d) M. Macbeth et.al. (2007 -) policy narratives framework, that links
literature on policy narratives and policy change and focus on the
tactics and rhetorical devices used by policy advocates and interest
groups (called ‘narrative strategies’) to understand how these
strategies are used to issue contention or expansion, and thereby
legitimize or delegitimize policy options and problem definitions.


8

Why David Beetham’s legitimacy model? (1/2)
• LPD is not the first endeavor in adapting D. Beetham model for the study of
public policy (see Carrillo 1998, Simon Matti 2009)
• All public policies configures a power relation that needs to be legitimate
• Beetham (1991) model identifies four dimensions for the study legitimacy in
social sciences (substantive view, in wich all dimensions are not optional)
1. legal conformity
2. justifiability of rules based on shared beliefs,
3. consent evidence and
4. adecquate performance (added by Alagappa 1995)
• The emergency of non legitimate forms of power (ilegitimacy, legitimacy
deficits and delegitimation) linked to public policy are all possible scenarios
in policy dynamics, as well as possible objectives to achieve of political
actors implicated in policy change processes. Here the use of narrative
strategies and mechanisms of policy stability and change are important in
doing so.

9

Why David Beetham’s model? (2/2)
• In political systems where institutional (input oriented) and performance’s
(output oriented) legitimacy is very difficult to achieve (or recurrently
tends to disappear, erode or weaken) the legitimation of power as a
causal-driver of policy development acquires all its analytical relevance,
In those countries and regimes with persistent legitimacy deficits,
Beetham model may help us in identifying and in determining the
rationales structure linked to policy at a given time
• A key distinguishing feature of systemic processes of policy making in
less developed countries, where institutional fragility pervades and its
government agencies - despite its power vis-à-vis their societies - have a
limited room for maneuver, is a chronic legitimacy deficits that flows most
of the time in a questioned legitimacy (see Horowitz, 1989)
• Beetham’s model claims that the legitimation of power is a political priority
for those in a power position in justifying a given power relation.


10

What previously needs to be taking into
account for LPD theory development?
• The relevance and applicability of models theories of policy process and policy
dynamics depend on 3 theoretical & methodological key questions
• The way in which theoretical approaches are able to take into account regime’s
institutional and structural constraints that influence policy formulation (O'Donnell &
Oszlak, 1976; Oszlak, 1980) and determines its dynamics (Cabrero Mendoza,
2000; Medellín Torres, 2004; Torgerson, 1985).
• Its ability to consider and include all (or the majority of) causes associated with
major policy change and the systemic possibilities beyond those traditionally
undertaken within the current neoincremental-homeostatic orthodoxy (Howlett,
2007; Howlett & Cashore, 2009).
• The dependent variable problem: Its ability to consider and include all (or the
majority of) the components, dimensions or elements of public policy, and thus
attend a methodological key question: what changes when policy change?
(Howlett & Cashore, 2009) (for a typological integration proposal see also Cruz-
Rubio, 2012)


11

LPD approach: assumptions (1/3)
• Public policies are designs that configure a power relation and
hence may influence the “politics of policy change”.
• Alterations in the “legitimacy pattern” define policy
development. The specific configuration of rationales at a given
time (and associated with a given policy design), defines what I
call here the legitimacy pattern, conceived as the main category
of analysis of LPD approach. Not all changes in rationales
transform a legitimacy pattern. There is only with the
transformation of the legitimacy pattern when major policy change
takes place
• A strong (or renewed) legitimacy pattern explains policy stasis
and long-term planned changes (negotiated agreements and
planned-paradigmatic policy change).

12
The legitimacy pattern, a system of rationales
Public debate Decision making process
(outcome legitimacy) (process legitimacy)
Political dimension
( predecisional)
Administrative dimension
(postdesional)


13

• For the actors of dominant political coalition, policy legitimation and
control over change process are two imperative political activities
• As we well know, policy change literature agree in the identification of two
groups of “analytical grouping of entities” that are useful in studying
political interaction in policy dynamics, namely: mechanisms of policy
stability and change (at meso and macro levels) and the use of policy
narratives that define (at meso level) and orient actors’ positions and
discourses.
• At the meso-level, to adopt a subsystemic operational position is a
necessary task for those actors of the dominant coalition, and this
dimension must be in included in any policy change analytical strategy
• Changes forced by actors of minority coalitions over subsystemic
operational positions favors policy change


Operational positions used to face potential policy change 14

LPD: Subsystemic Operational positions used to face potential
policy change

Non- Reversible Reversible- accumulative
systemic adaptative (operational and collective
(institutional and action levels)
collective action levels)
Reactive
a) Shock response d) Perpetuation and
(policy change as
based change contention
an issue)
Proactive
(policy change as b) Strategic and c) Thermostatic
a development improvement based calibrations
process)
Source: (C. Cruz-Rubio, 2011b)


15

Subsystemic operational positions (1/2)
• Putting this typology on the table, it is possible to propose tripartite
strategy of analysis based on the three analytical devices (mechanisms,
narrative strategies, and operational positions). In using this analytical
strategy it is assumed that dominant coalition actors (and policy makers
implicated) are forced:
2. To define (if necessary) an individual position that is known by all political
actors of coalitions he (she) belongs.
3. To know, to support or to accept subsystemic (operational) position of the
policy dominant coalition who belongs, and related.
4. To adequately communicate and reflect adopted coalition’s position,
based i.e. on an adequate use of narrative strategies, policy surrogates
and the selective use or roles.


16

Subsystemic operational positions (2/2)
• The operational positions here identified have at least three common important
characteristics.
• a) Useful in reducing controversy and uncertainty, a definition and adoption of a
specific operational position by dominant coalition also allow all political actors
implicated – including those of minority coalitions – to bound limits, to define their
role and specific weight, as well as construct realistic expectations and strategic
calculation about their possibilities and alternatives.
• b) With an operational position adopted, a subsystemic modus operandi is
projected, and in doing so all actors of dominant coalition must defend it and
assume it as the valid one in facing potential change.
• c) A deliberate switching on the operational position by the dominant coalition has
no other purpose than to maintain control over the process of change. Changes in
operational position may be calculated and decided by the dominant coalition (in a
preventive or proative fashion), or it may be forced systemically. In this case the
dominant coalition assumes a political failure that forces them to change its
operational position that benefits to its political contenders.


17

• At the micro-level, LPD approach is based on a bounded-rational model
of the individual (with time, information access and processing limitations)
that accepts and take into account all intelligence forms at disposal as
well as the use of ”organized hypocrisy” (Brunnson)
• Actors may define position for or against substantive policy change or
maintain an undefined base position based on negotiation process and its

results. Actors may act according to values (including conflicting values)
(Stewart, 2006) opportunistically (self interested with no values
implicated) or develop the so called “organized hypocrisy”, that is to say,
a behavior characterized by inconsistencies, given a selective and
differential position choices in discourse, decisions and actions, in order
to manage (or to reflect adequately) conflict (Brunsson, 2002, 2006)
• Actors may act in a coherent way with the subsystemic position adopted
in potential change processes


18

Analytical strategy proposed by LPD

ASSOCIATED
CAUSES OF MECHANISMS OF POLICY
MAJOR STABILITY AND CHANGE
POLICY POLICY DYNAMICS
CHANGE -Positive and negative SYSTEMIC
Feedback POSSIBILITIES
- Endogenus change
Focusing - Issue expansion Incremental change
events, elite - Exogenus shocks
SUBSYSTEMIC (policy manteinance)
turnover.
OPERATIONAL POSITIONS
No policy change
External (policy stasis-
-Shock response based
Shocks perpetuation)
-Strategic and improvement
based
Oriented Major policy
-Thermostatic calibrations
learning and change
-Perpetuation and change
lesson drawing
contention
processes NARRATIVE STRATEGIES Punctuated
equilibrium
Innovation anf
difussion - Identifying winners and losers Policy oriented-
tendencies - Construction of benefits and costs learning and lesson
- Use of condesation symbols drawing
-Policy surrogates
-Scientific certanty and disagreement Strategic and
- planned programatic
change

Gradual paradigmatic
policy change


19

Legitimation and Policy dynamics LPD approach

ASSOCIATED Legitimacy
Policy termination
CAUSES OF pattern dilution
MAJOR
POLICY
POLICY DYNAMICS
CHANGE
Legitimacy SYSTEMIC
Weaking
deficits POSSIBILITIES
legitimacy
Focusing (no shared pattern Incremental change
events, elite beliefs)
(policy manteinance)
turnover.
Illegality Inadequate policy No policy change
External LEGITIMACY (policy stasis-
performance
Shocks PATTERN perpetuation)
Oriented Major policy
learning and change
lesson drawing Withdrawal of Enhanced
processes consent legitimacy
Punctuated
pattern equilibrium
Innovation anf
difussion Policy oriented-
tendencies learning and lesson
drawing
LEGITIMACY
PATTERN Strategic and
TRANSFORMATION planned programatic
change
Direct relation
Gradual paradigmatic
policy change
Contributor relation

20

It seems great, but now what?
• Is LPD logically coherent?
• Do LPD have clear causal drivers and a sense of causal process?
• Are LPD mayor propositions may be empirically falsifiable?
• Is the intended scope of theory clear and relatively broad?
• Is LPD fertile?: May LPD give rise to non obvious implications and
produce a realtively large number of interesting predictions per
assumption
• Testing LPD approach
• Case study: how policy change in combating the threats of drug
trafficking and organized crime in Mexico (2000-2012) (Cruz-
Rubio)
• Case study Innovation policy in Venezuela (Romero, 2011)


21

Thank you
Gracias por su atención

cesar.cruz.rubio@gigapp.org

César Nicandro Cruz-Rubio
@cesarncruz


Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (20)

Similar a Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach

Similar a Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach (20)

Más de GIGAPP

Más de GIGAPP (13)

Último

Último (20)

Legitimation and Policy Dynamics Approach