Complex System Behavior In Democratic Policy Theory
in orientation ( Givel , 2015 ). This , in turn , does not reflect how complex human and policy interactions emerge and are adopted . Another criticism is that modern policy theories , due to nature of their attempts to be empiricist and technocratic , have become not only linear , but also hyper-specialized in areas such as housing or energy policy . They also no longer focus on democratic governance and ideals as advocated by Harold Lasswell ( deLeon , 1997 ; Fischer , 2003 ; Hodgson & Irving , 2007 ).
A key issue in the modern age has been the impact and influence of powerful interest groups , elites , and social classes in influencing complex public policy decision making 1 related to bolstering corporate markets and profits . This happened while undermining the democratic influence by others who are perceived to have an agenda contrary to business interests ( Jorgensen , 2011 ; Gilens & Page , 2014 ; Page et al ., 2013 ; Ferguson et al ., 2015 ). Additionally , given the fragmented and insular silo nature of current US public policy theories , we are at even a further disadvantage to now describe and predict with an overarching and definitive policy theory how this universal question of how economic wealth and political power is exercised in complex policy systems .
The U . S . policies utilized in this paper are from the authoritative book , Theories of the Policy Process , Third Edition published in 2014 and from Policy Studies Journal ’ s August 2013 edition and compendium of articles labeled : “ New
Theories of the Policy Process ” ( Cairney & Heikkila , 2014 ). In this paper , I assess and analyze whether or how a consolidated policy model might be able to account for democratic policy based in complex system behavior .
Literature Review
Preeminent political scientist , Harold D . Lasswell ’ s theory of democracy first began in the late 1920s into the 1930s with several publications related to the role of propaganda in governing a democratic society ( Lasswell , 1927a ; Lasswell , 1927b ; Lasswell , 1934a ; Lasswell , 1935 ; Lasswell , 1939 ; Lasswell , 1950 ). The purpose of propaganda in governance in a democratic society is to increase and control mass emotional feelings toward positive governance and public policy outcomes ( Lasswell , 1935 ). For example , in a military conflict a propagandist uses targeted appeals to the mass population to depict an enemy combatant as foreboding and treacherous . This is accomplished by employing public relations and advertising symbols designed to arouse the emotions of a mass public ( Lasswell , 1934b ).
The emergence of Lasswell ’ s policy sciences of democracy in the 1950s was grounded in part in his earlier consulting work and analyses related to propaganda during WW I with the Office of War Information , Office of Strategic Services , Foreign Broadcast Information Service , Psychological Warfare Division , Office
1
One prominent example of the insular and silo nature of modern US policy theory is embodied in the robust defense of punctuated equilibrium theory by Prindle ( 2012 ) in which he asserted that punctuation in national tobacco policy making occurred and was much longer than the 1980s to the present time period Givel indicated was the case in four separate scholarly publications for U . S . state tobacco policy making that did not include federal tobacco policy making . Moreover , in the review of mobilization by Givel ( 2006b ) in U . S . states tobacco policy-making policy was based on careful scholarly historical analyses of
historical trends for state tobacco policymaking that did not occur from 1964 to the 1980s .
68