The Role of Theories in Policy Studies and Policy Work
It generates an instrumental account of the policy process as the pursuit of clear , authoritatively chosen goals . It underlies the survey volumes on “ the x ( name of political leader ) government and public policy ”, which present governing as the framing and pursuit of the objectives of political leaders , who delegate instrumental problem solving to bureaucrats and scientists-as-advisers .
The second major account highlights the production of coordinated collective action as the result of inclusion or exclusion of policy actors , engaged in strategic associations that generate a continuous flow of negotiations and other types of transactions in order to influence the direction , resources , and results of collective action . Attention is drawn to different degrees and modes of structured interaction or ongoing interactive involvement in policy-related networks by “ proximate policymakers ”, mid-level and street-level bureaucrats , and all kinds of interest groups and other relevant players with at least some “ standing at the policy table ”. Policymaking practices tend to be stabilized through mutual familiarity , trust , and a commitment to managing . The focus is largely on policy activities as problem solving through organizational formation of habits or standard operating procedures , routinization , institutionalization , or standardization . But , distinct from both alternative accounts , the more agonistic aspects of policymaking also come into view as power struggles , hard bargaining , and other forms of public strife between networks of allies and antagonists .
A third account of policy and policymaking zooms in on analyticalcum-political processes of contested problematization and joint meaningmaking around problematic situations , norms , and practices . Major concerns are critical deliberation , persuasion strategies , and the political struggle for enrolment of actors in competing policyrelated networks . Different from the other two , there are no stable focal actors ; policymaking is a “ dance ” of plurivocality and pluralism between all previously mentioned actors , plus ordinary but activist citizens , ( transnational ) nongovernmental organizations , civil society associations , faith-based organizations , think tanks , academics , specialized journalists and social media , and so on — all those who as collective or individual somehow substantively influence the mentalities , frames , discourses , narratives , and identities that inform policies from which governing practices and regimes emerge . The focus of this set of accounts is on policy as a continuing sociopolitical construction by people managing the problematic in an alternating and oscillating process of puzzling , powering , and shifting participation ( Hoppe 2010 ).
In the next subsections , we will briefly elaborate on each of the three “ branches ” of this “ family tree ” of accounts of policy and policymaking .
Policy ( making ) as Authoritative Choice Shored up by Expertise
Since the Enlightenment and the French and American revolutions , most states appeal to doctrines of legitimacy , that is , state power recognized as legitimate and justified by both ruler and ruled . Usually this has taken the shape of rational legal authority , in which both democratically agreed laws and rational expertise certified by
126