European Policy Analysis Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2016 | Page 139

European Policy Analysis

it. Contrary to policy entrepreneurs
who, constructively, try to push issues
on the governmental agenda, Cobb and
Ross (1997) showed that there were
also “policy saboteurs” who designed
political strategies to deny or derail issues.
Following up on Proctor and Schiebinger’s
(2008) book about “agnotology”, that is,
the cultural production and the deliberate
mobilization and exploitation of political
ignorance, Oreskes and Conway (2011)
showed that there exists an entire policy
analytic industry that exploits scientists’
honest reporting of uncertainties in
research, on, for example, smoking and
climate change, to block or hinder those
in favor of policy change on these issues.
It might be argued that what Riker (1986)
calls the art of heresthetics and political
manipulation, or treatises on coalition
building and consensus formation, and
the art of negotiation (Fisher and Ury
1981/1991; Raiffa 1982) and contemporary
power politics (BuenoDe Mesquita and
Smith 2013), all pay sufficient attention to
powering in policymaking. Yet, there are
very few systematic efforts to describe and
analyze the strategies and required skills of
policy workers in this continuous struggle
to support and oppose, raise or suppress
issues, and foster or block political
participation in collective (in)action for
public policy change. One of the sparse
efforts we are aware of is in Mahoney and
Thelen (2010, 28–31). They argue that,
depending on the goals of actors (abrupt
or gradual policy change), characteristics
in political contexts (strong or weak veto
possibilities), and the institutional target
(low or high levels of discretion in rule
interpretation/enforcement), particular
actor types and power strategies emerge
(subversives, insurrectionaries, parasitic
symbionts, and opportunists).

All in all, much less than in the
frame of policy analytic skills, efforts in
the performation of policy as association
and structured interaction is a relatively
neglected field of research. It is perhaps
more difficult to study the power clustering
and agonistic aspects of policymaking
processes, but there is a clear need for
this type of research effort in the study of
public policy.
Performation of Policy as Problematization

The performative link (downward
arrow in Figure 1) between theories of
managing the problematic and policy
work may be designated as the practice of
reflective practitionership (Schön 1983),
or prudence, or political wisdom ( Hoppe
1983; Loeber 2004): the art and craft of
selecting from “theory” those elements
which, adapted and transformed in the light
of a decision situation or policy practice,
deliver a pragmatic way forward out of a
problematic situation. It may be negatively
described as rejection of well-known,
“purified,” or “essentialized” framings of
policy work as (1) mere puzzling/analysis,
following a logic of consequences or as
(2) institutionalization/routinization, by
applying the logic of appropriateness,
or as (3) powering, using the logic of
hegemony and domination (depicted
as the horizontal upper line in Figure
2). Perhaps the best characterization
of
reflective
practitionership
in
problematizing modes of policymaking is
mediation between relevant stakeholders
in such a way that problematic situations
and events may gradually be turned into
less or un-problematic routines and
institutionalized practices (Depicted as
the vertical middle line in Figure 2).

139