No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Characterizing agricultural policy-making
Public Administration
Abstract
This article examines the contemporary agricultural policy-making environment in Britain and suggests that the growing complexity of interest articulation and policy making has eroded NFU dominance as a peak association. We would suggest that it is this clientelistic attitude to agriculture rather than a specific relationship with one interest group (however influential) that shapes the agricultural agenda. This article rejects a version of events which sees policy outputs as being the result of exclusive MAFF/NFU interactions as exaggerating policy-making closure, and the exclusion of environmental and other externality interests. It portrays the policy sector as fragmented and competitive, with a wide cast list of pressure participants all vying for policy influence. It identifies flexible policy communities operating at the sub-sectoral level, and within such arrangements the NFU often has to defer to the specialist or niche expertise of single commodity groups or agricultural processing companies.
... Although US in nature, this discussion has been highly influential in shaping international scholarly expectations as to how the policy map might look. Not unexpectedly, this kind of debate over how to characterise the policy map has a corollary of sorts in the British literature (indeed, the US debate is cited within the British conversation; see Jordan et al. 1994). ...
... Marsh et al. (2009, 635-636, italics added) argue that although the "bottom-up" approach of Jordan et al. is essentially right to emphasise "proliferation of subsectors and thus of policy networks" that "we also need to acknowledge the overlaps between networks and the presence of some groups, we might call them critical groups, in a broad raft of different, but connected, networks", and that "we also need to acknowledge network overlap, multiple network membership and the presence of particularly powerful, critical, groups across a broad span of policy areas". In broadly accepting the Jordan et al. (1994) map, the argument being made here by Marsh et al. is to be attentive to the degree of interlinking of subsectors and to the multiple memberships of "critical groups" across such subsectors. ...
... For instance, Marsh et al. (2009, 635) argue the "need to acknowledge the overlaps between networks", whereas Jordan et al. (1994, 507) suggest that policymaking is characterised by "overlapping subsectoral policy communities". Given the mixed nature of expectations in terms of more or less balkanisation, we take the Jordan et al. (1994) line as our point of departure delivering the following hypothesis: H1: The policy map has become less balkanised over time. ...
Scholars have hotly debated the structure of group engagement in policymaking. Two aspects of this conversation are examined here. First, some claim that the “explosion” of organised interests brings with it increasing fragmentation but also policy “balkanisation”. Others suggest increasing fragmentation, but with overlap between subsectors. A second area of this debate concerns the existence and number of “central” or “core” groups. Although existing studies show that, in aggregate, there is no more policy specialisation among United Kingdom organised interests, we do not know whether this means that there are fewer or more central groups. In this article, we utilise public policy consultations in Scotland over a continuous 25-year period, and the tools of network analysis, to examine the above propositions. We find that the expanding system of policy consultation is not associated with more balkanisation or with a decline of central policy actors that span policy communities.
... Here, our focus is on the utility of Marsh and Rhodes' classification of networks and whether different types of networks have more, or less, influence over policy. As such, we first explore critiques of the Marsh and Rhodes classification of types of networks by Jordan et al. (1994) and, earlier, by Read (1992). Jordan et al. (1994) raised the question of the relationship between the networks involved in policy sectors and related sub-sectors, focusing on UK agricultural policy. ...
... As such, we first explore critiques of the Marsh and Rhodes classification of types of networks by Jordan et al. (1994) and, earlier, by Read (1992). Jordan et al. (1994) raised the question of the relationship between the networks involved in policy sectors and related sub-sectors, focusing on UK agricultural policy. They emphasized the increasing fragmentation of the agricultural policy sector, arguing that the creation of policy niches, or sub-sectoral policy areas, in which specialized interests predominated, together with the growing role of retail and consumer interests, had undermined the role of the existing policy community dominated by the then Ministry of Agricultural Food and Fisheries (MAFF) and the National Farmers Union (NFU). ...
... There are a number of 'teams' in each DEFRA Directorate which have close contacts with interest groups in a series of policy networks. As such, Jordan et al. (1994) are clearly right in stating that there is a proliferation of policy networks in the areas with which DEFRA is concerned. An example of a network taken from our own interviews, the network linked to the Common Agricultural Policy Unit in the Sustainable Farming and Food Directorate, illustrates some of the processes involved. ...
Unsurprisingly, a great deal has been written about the role of interest groups in contemporary societies. Here, we focus on two sets of concepts that have had influence in the UK literature: the distinction between ‘insider’ and ‘outsider’ groups originally developed by Grant (1978, 2000); and the classification of policy networks developed by Marsh and Rhodes (1992; see also Marsh and Smith 2000). We have two aims in this article. First, we use these concepts to consider the role of the Countryside Alliance (CA) in the UK, which, at least in terms of membership numbers and media exposure, is one of the most interesting phenomena on the contemporary interest group scene. Second, we use the case study of the CA to cast light on the utility of these two sets of concepts and consider how they might be integrated. As such, this article is divided into two substantive sections. First, we identify the issues raised in the literature on, first, insider and outsider groups and, then, policy networks. In the second section we examine the role of the CA.
... When ministries are re-designed by either adding or subtracting policy domains from their portfolios, their relationships with interest groups also change. When environmental policy is added to the portfolio of an agriculture ministry, the previously closed interest group structure (see Jordan et al. 1994;Grant 1994;Skogstad 1998) opens up and 'post-exceptionalist' agrifood policy becomes more likely (see Daugbjerg and Feindt 1997). This expectation was evaluated by Greer (2017), who reported that the actor constellation in the policy process related to the recent CAP reform was broader than it had previously been. ...
... Indeed, quite the contrary. Empirical studies have shown for example that political parties hold different positions when it comes to agricultural policy (see Tosun 2017), and political parties not only affect policy-making by means of their different positions but also the manner in which they collaborate with interest groups (see Jordan et al. 1994). ...
... Policy communities' studies suggest that decision-making influence extends to relatively low levels of government. This point prompted mild debate about the relative influence of policymaking in 'sectors' and 'subsectors' (Jordan et al. 1994;Cavanagh et al. 1995). MLG studies suggest that there may be multiple centres of authority spread across levels and/ or types of government, while contemporary studies of street level bureaucracy emphasise the extent to which policy may be made as it is delivered (Durose 2011). ...
In the first article of British Politics, Kerr and Kettell (2006) describe the ‘governance thesis’, not the ‘Westminster model’ (WM), as the dominant way to study or understand UK policymaking. However, the WM remains the dominant way for politicians and commentators to tell a simple story of how British politics is and should be made. In contrast, most people studying UK policymaking would struggle to tell you what exactly the governance thesis is or should be, or how to act accordingly. In that context, my contribution is to improve the clarity of the governance thesis. I narrate this dominant academic alternative to the WM to make it accessible to more observers and support the search for clarity among its supporters and critics. To illustrate this governance story, I focus on one aspect that may seem puzzling to the casual observer: governance stories explain why the WM story is inaccurate and misleading, yet the WM endures in political life, which means that the WM must remain central to our governance story.
... The role of advisory bodies and the interest groups (farmers' organisations) is also quite crucial in this endeavour. Jordan et al (1994) argue this extensively. They state, "Extensive consultation is an integral part of the management of pressure. ...
... In Kingdon's phrase, this floating occurs in a thick brew of 'policy primeval soup' where ideas 'soften' and are subject to modification and refinement by policy community members. The ideas come 'from anywhere', and may be, to borrow the language of a different model of policy change, developed by advocacy coalitions, pressure participants, or social movements (Jordan et al 1994;Sabatier 1997). The solutions that are ladled from this soup are those which have been 'narrowed down to a subset of ostensibly feasible options' (Beland and Howlett 2016, p. 222). ...
The Co-operative Party, which represents the interests and ideas of the co-operative movement in British politics, has been the sister party of UK Labour since 1927. Largely ignored by scholarship, it has been on occasion the third-largest party grouping in the House of Commons and represents a social movement with formal members numbering in the millions. The unusual Labour/Co-operative relationship was tested during the New Labour period, with the Co-operative Party gradually establishing itself as a trusted sidekick and a source of policy ideas, despite some initial tensions. This article examines two historical instances where the party proved decisive in influencing public policy; the “Thomas Bill” in 2001–2002, and the creation of Co-operative Schools during the 2007–2010 Brown premiership. In each case, the activities of Co-operative Party-linked ‘policy entrepreneurs’ were key in the manufacture and exploitation of ‘windows of opportunity’ for policy change. The paper makes two core conclusions, one empirical: that the Co-operative Party was able to influence New Labour’s public policy direction in keeping with its founding objectives. The second is theoretical: that recent trends in Multiple Streams Analysis are reinforced, and that in smaller policy ‘subsystems’, skilled policy entrepreneurs can play a greater role in the creation of windows of opportunity for policy change than the original theory implies.
... In terms of policymaking, the agriculture sector therefore long benefitted from special treatment, or 'agricultural exceptionalism' (Cox et al., 1985;Grant, 1995;Skogstad, 1998), where farmers were viewed as the sole legitimate 'custodians of the countryside', and a relatively closed network of farm ministries and farm groups were traditionally responsible for developing agriculture policies (Clunies-Ross et al., 1994;Daugbjerg and Swinbank, 2012;Daugbjerg and Feindt, 2017). Historically-close ties between the agriculture sectorfarmers' unions in particularand government prevailed (Jordan et al., 1994;Woods, 2005). While other groups such as suppliers of agricultural inputs, financial institutions and food processors benefitted from this policy approach, the intention was to support agricultural producers (Clunies-Ross et al., 1994). ...
Governance is well recognized as shifting boundaries of responsibilities for doing things among key partners. What is less clear is how exactly power relations are altered and where power is concentrated as new forms of governance emerge. In our article we use the concept of policy post-exceptionalism to critically assess ‘Going for Growth’, a strategic action plan that, until the recent past, underpinned the Northern Ireland agri-food industry. The agri-food sector has an important and prominent role in the Northern Ireland economy. The Going for Growth strategy illustrates how particular interests within the sector are supported by government, as demonstrated through the Renewable Heat Initiative and a scheme promoting anaerobic digestors. Using policy post-exceptionalism to scrutinize the strategy, our research shows what can go wrong when a transition to post-exceptionalism occurs. While Going for Growth purported to represent the wider interests that one might expect to find in a post-exceptionalist approach to agri-food governance, in fact the concentration of power with corporate actors left little space for the inclusion of wider interests. We conclude that this strategy represented a move towards tense post-exceptionalism, creating at least one political scandal, raising questions of legitimacy and transparency and fundamentally undermining political viability of wider government. It is an extreme case of what can happen when post-exceptionalist policymaking goes wrong.
... Consequently, these studies have contributed to theoretical developments in the policy and political sciences within a number of research fields that were concerned with the explanation of policy outcome, policy stability and change. These include: interest groups (e.g., Lowi 1969;Olson 1965;Sheingate 2003), government-interest group relations (e.g., Browne 1988;Jordan et al. 1994;Marsh and Smith 2000;Smith 1993), the role of ideas and paradigms in explaining policy change and stability (Coleman et al. 1996;Feindt 2010;Skogstad 1998), policy feedback and path dependency (Coleman and Grant 1998;Daugbjerg 2003;Hooghe and Oser 2016;Kay 2003;Zhu and Lipsmeyer 2015) and more recently, policy layering (Chou 2012;Daugbjerg and Swinbank 2016;Feindt and Flynn 2009;Jackson and Deeg 2012) and internationalization of public policy (Daugbjerg andSwinbank 2009, 2015;Skogstad 2008). Indeed, some of the classic studies on these concepts were grounded in agricultural policy, and often examples were drawn from this area to illustrate theoretical points (see Daugbjerg and Swinbank [2012] for a review of the literature). ...
... Stärker politökonomisch angeregte Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die bestehende Agrarpolitik von den Gruppen, die von ihr in erheblichem Maße profitieren, mit großem Aufwand verteidigt wird. Die agrarpolitischen Netzwerke, die sich in den Mitgliedstaaten sowie erst in der EWG, dann in der EG und schließlich in der EU etablierten und sich wechselseitig mit den institutionellen Strukturen stabilisieren, gelten als eng geknüpft und relativ geschlossen (Jordan et al. 1994;Daugbjerg 1997Daugbjerg , 1999. Seit Mitte der 1990er-Jahre wird zwar vielfach ein Verlust des exklusiv agrarischen Charakters der agrarpolitischen Netzwerke beobachtet, was auch als ein Erklärungsfaktor für die Verschiebung der agrarpolitischen Paradigmen vorgeschlagen wird (Coleman et al. 1997). ...
Zusammenfassung
Dieses Kapitel zeigt auf, dass eine institutionelle Pfadabhängigkeit der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der Europäischen Union zu einer historisch verfestigten Sonderstellung des Agrarsektors geführt hat. In der Folge dominieren einkommenspolitische Ziele die Agrarpolitik. Natur- und Umweltschutzanliegen bleiben randständig und müssen vorwiegend mit ordnungsrechtlichen Mitteln durchgesetzt werden. Dabei bestehen Regelungs- und Implementationsdefizite, oft infolge von Ausnahmeregelungen für die Landwirtschaft. Handlungsdruck könnte sich jedoch aus drei neueren Entwicklungen des Rechtsrahmens ergeben: der Einbeziehung der bislang separaten Agrarmarktordnungen in die allgemeinen Regelungen des EU-Binnenmarkts, den haftungsrechtlichen Folgen der Verbraucherschutzstandards entlang der Wertschöpfungsketten sowie aus transnationalen privatrechtlichen Standards. Anregungen für eine Weiterentwicklung der Governance-Ansätze geben neue Konzepte wie Resilienz und adaptives Management sowie verhaltenswissenschaftliche Ansätze.
... Stärker politökonomisch angeregte Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die bestehende Agrarpolitik von den Gruppen, die von ihr in erheblichem Maße profitieren, mit großem Aufwand verteidigt wird. Die agrarpolitischen Netzwerke, die sich in den Mitgliedstaaten sowie erst in der EWG, dann in der EG und schließlich in der EU etablierten und sich wechselseitig mit den institutionellen Strukturen stabilisieren, gelten als eng geknüpft und relativ geschlossen (Jordan et al. 1994;Daugbjerg 1997Daugbjerg , 1999. Seit Mitte der 1990er-Jahre wird zwar vielfach ein Verlust des exklusiv agrarischen Charakters der agrarpolitischen Netzwerke beobachtet, was auch als ein Erklärungsfaktor für die Verschiebung der agrarpolitischen Paradigmen vorgeschlagen wird (Coleman et al. 1997). ...
Zusammenfassung
Dieses Kapitel stellt eine Analyse der Stärken, Schwächen, Chancen und Risiken der gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der EU aus Sicht des Natur- und Umweltschutzes vor. Das Ergebnis ist ambivalent: Einerseits bildet die Gemeinsame Agrarpolitik einen stabilen institutionellen Rahmen mit guter Finanzausstattung und vielen umweltpolitischen Instrumenten. Andererseits führen die Dominanz agrarpolitischer Akteure, Status-quo-Denken und geringe Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten zur systematischen Schwächung der natur- und umweltpolitischen Ansätze, zu Regelungs- und Vollzugsdefiziten, mangelnder Datenlage sowie geringer Effektivität und Effizienz. Chancen entstehen aus der Etablierung von Tierwohl, Natur-, Umwelt- und Verbraucherschutz als Legitimationsgrundlage für die Agrarzahlungen, aus europarechtlichen Anforderungen an ein hohes Schutzniveau im Binnenmarkt, aus einem erheblichen öffentlichen Mobilisierungspotenzial sowie aus technischen Entwicklungen. Finanzpolitische und internationale Verteilungskämpfe, politische Polarisierung und Radikalisierung sowie nachteilige Veränderungen der Agrarökosysteme, nicht zuletzt durch menschliche Einwirkung, sind wichtige Risiken.
... Stärker politökonomisch angeregte Untersuchungen zeigen, dass die bestehende Agrarpolitik von den Gruppen, die von ihr in erheblichem Maße profitieren, mit großem Aufwand verteidigt wird. Die agrarpolitischen Netzwerke, die sich in den Mitgliedstaaten sowie erst in der EWG, dann in der EG und schließlich in der EU etablierten und sich wechselseitig mit den institutionellen Strukturen stabilisieren, gelten als eng geknüpft und relativ geschlossen (Jordan et al. 1994;Daugbjerg 1997Daugbjerg , 1999. Seit Mitte der 1990er-Jahre wird zwar vielfach ein Verlust des exklusiv agrarischen Charakters der agrarpolitischen Netzwerke beobachtet, was auch als ein Erklärungsfaktor für die Verschiebung der agrarpolitischen Paradigmen vorgeschlagen wird (Coleman et al. 1997). ...
Zusammenfassung
Dieses Kapitel diskutiert die verschiedenen Instrumente der Agrarpolitik im Hinblick auf ihren Beitrag zur Realisierung des Leitbilds einer multifunktionalen, natur- und umweltverträglichen Landwirtschaft: Ordnungsrecht und gesetzliche Mindeststandards für die landwirtschaftliche Praxis, Budgetausstattung und -aufteilung, flächenbezogene Direktzahlungen, regional und standörtlich ausgerichtete Zahlungen, Zusammenspiel mit nicht-staatlichen Standards und öffentlich-privater Ko-Regulierung, Monitoring- und Sanktionssysteme, sowie unterstützende Elemente wie Beratung und verbraucherorientierte Maßnahmen. Die Analyse zeigt, dass bei jedem Element der Agrarpolitik verschiedene Instrumenten-Varianten mehr oder weniger zur Verwirklichung des Leitbildes beitragen. Nur eine Kombination aller Bausteine kann die verschiedenen agrarpolitischen Problemkomplexe lösen. Ein guter Politikansatz erfordert dabei sowohl ein überzeugendes Gesamtkonzept als auch eine geeignete Ausgestaltung der einzelnen Instrumente.
... While for analytical purposes, it is very helpful to distinguishing between these five sets of actors and to distinguish among specific relations (Fig. 2), we are aware that actors are often hybrids (Ilbery and Maye, 2005) and that the relations between them vary. For example, while we distinguish between the State and mainstream farmer unions, in many countries agricultural policy tends to be heavily influenced by the interests of these farmers union (Jordan et al., 1994), so that their interests and rhetoric might be quite similar. Figure 3 thus illustrates the intricacy, complexity and hybridity of the relations among the actors in the field. ...
Despite a common legal framework at EU-level, organic farming has developed differently in Member States. Previous analyses showed the influence of various factors on the development of the organic sector, including public policies, discourses, and marketing channels. Building on a relational perspective, we propose a conceptual framework that provides a situated understanding of national trajectories. We argue that the organic sector emerges based on relations between organic actors, policymakers, mainstream farmers associations, advocacy groups, and actors along the food chain. Based on these relations, we analyse the development of the organic sector in Austria, Italy, and France. We show that its dynamics result from a complex and evolving intertwining of relations over time. These dynamics are unpredictable, as they depend on whether and how actors can build and maintain relations between organic agriculture and broader issues in the agrifood system, such as the maintenance of family farms, environmental protection, gastronomic heritage, fairness in the food chain, or export promotion. The relational perspective highlights the historicity of relations, as well as the extent to which relations are influenced by the temporal and the spatial context. By framing the agrifood system as an ensemble of emergent social practices rather than a field of invariant logic and automatic unfoldings, the relational perspective emphasises the importance of seizing windows of opportunity, and the role of creativity in actions.
... Expand the Atmospheric Particle Source Analysis, to Identify the Culmination of the Formation of Haze. The analysis of atmospheric particulate matter is the qualitative or quantitative relationship between the establishment of pollution sources and ambient air quality to determine the priority order of air pollution control targets [7]. It is the basis of scientific decision-making. ...
... Consequently, these studies have contributed to theoretical developments in the policy and political sciences within a number of research fields that were concerned with the explanation of policy outcome, policy stability and change. These include: interest groups (e.g., Lowi 1969;Olson 1965;Sheingate 2003), government-interest group relations (e.g., Browne 1988;Jordan et al. 1994;Marsh and Smith 2000;Smith 1993), the role of ideas and paradigms in explaining policy change and stability (Coleman et al. 1996;Feindt 2010;Skogstad 1998), policy feedback and path dependency (Coleman and Grant 1998;Daugbjerg 2003;Hooghe and Oser 2016;Kay 2003;Zhu and Lipsmeyer 2015) and more recently, policy layering (Chou 2012;Daugbjerg and Swinbank 2016;Feindt and Flynn 2009;Jackson and Deeg 2012) and internationalization of public policy (Daugbjerg andSwinbank 2009, 2015;Skogstad 2008). Indeed, some of the classic studies on these concepts were grounded in agricultural policy, and often examples were drawn from this area to illustrate theoretical points (see Daugbjerg and Swinbank [2012] for a review of the literature). ...
Framing the special issue on the transformation of Food and Agricultural Policy, this article introduces the concept of post-exceptionalism in public policies. The analysis of change in agri-food policy serves as a generative example to conceptualize current transformations in sectoral policy arrangements in democratic welfare states. Often these arrangements have been characterized by an exceptionalist ideational framework that legitimizes a sector’s special treatment through compartmentalized, exclusive and producer-centered policies and politics. In times of internationalization of policy-making, increasing interlinkage of policy areas and trends towards self-regulation, liberalization and performance-based policies, policy exceptionalism is under pressure to either transform or give way to (neo-)liberal policy arrangements. Post-exceptionalism denotes a partial transformation of exceptionalist ideas, institutions, interest constellations and policy instruments. It reflects the more complex, open, contested and fluid nature of contemporary policy fields that nevertheless still maintain their policy heritage. Discussing stability, the authors distinguish between complementary and tense post-exceptionalism.
... This is as opposed to issues that are 'humdrum', involving policy communities making decisions on policy details with civil servants discussing these details with the relevant interest groups. Such research builds on earlier studies, such as Jordan et al (1994), Jordan and Schubert (1992) and Jordan and Richardson (1982). Cairney and Jordan (2013) emphasise such conclusions and argue against the idea of British 'exceptionalism'. ...
There is a discussion among political scientists about the extent to which there are differences in policy styles between western European states, including in particular whether they share common means of consulting and deciding policy through policy networks. This article studies the differences in policy consultation approaches between Denmark and the United Kingdom in the case of renewable energy. It further examines whether consultation patterns differ in the policy formation and policy implementation phases. It is found that while in both Danish and British cases there is decision making through policy communities, there are still some clear differences in the ways in which consultation takes place and decisions are made at the levels of both policy formation and policy implementation.
... The conceptual development of network analysis benefitted from the insights obtained from studying agricultural policy-making. Several studies demonstrated that the policy network concept was useful in analysing agricultural policy making in Britain (Jordan, Maloney, & McLaughlin, 1994;Smith, 1990), Denmark (Daugbjerg, 1998), France (Epstein, 1997), Ireland (Adshead, 1996), Northern Ireland (Greer, 1994), the EU (Daugbjerg, 1999;Pappi & Henning, 1999), Australia ( Botterill, 2005), Canada and the United States ( Coleman et al., 1997) and in crossnational studies of policy networks in the dairy sector (Grant, 1992), the agricultural credit sector (Grant & McNamara, 1995) and the organic farm sector (Greer, 2002;Tomlinson, 2010). Critiquing the neo-corporatist literature for its predominately macro-level focus on public policy making, network analysts disaggregate the analysis to the meso-level, arguing that macro-level analysis misses the significant variance in policy-making arrangements across policy sectors. ...
The agricultural policy agenda has been broadened with farm policy issues now interlinking with other policy domains (food safety, energy supplies, environmental protection, development aid, etc.). New actors promoting values which sometimes conflict, or which are not always easily reconcilable, with those previously guiding agricultural policy have entered the broader agricultural and food policy domain. The studies of various new policy issues inter-linking with the agricultural policy domain included in this special issue show that value conflicts are addressed in different ways and thus result in inter-institutional coordination and conflict unfolding differently. Studies of inter-institutional policy making in the agricultural policy sector have the potential to contribute to theoretical developments in public policy analysis in much the same way as agricultural policy studies did in the past.
... However, while agricultural policy has been the focus of a number of network analyses (see e.g. Smith, 1992; Jordan et al., 1994;), this analytical tool has rarely been used in organic farming policy analysis. For example, Greer (2002) examines policy change in the Irish and the British organic sector through a network analytical perspective. ...
... However, while agricultural policy has been the focus of a number of network analyses (see e.g. Smith, 1992;Jordan et al., 1994;Adshead, 1996), this analytical tool has rarely been used in organic farming policy analysis. For example, Greer (2002) examines policy change in the Irish and the British organic sector through a network analytical perspective. ...
Despite most having developed under the umbrella of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), national-level organic farming policy networks in Europe vary. The aim of this paper is to explore the reasons for this variation. Quantitative network analyses were carried out in five ‘old’ and five ‘new’ EU member states and in Switzerland. To examine the patterns of influence on these 11 policy networks, the cases are compared in two stages. First, we examine the factors co-varying with the size and density of the networks and then we apply a most similar system – most different outcome research design. We identify the political environment as the main factor affecting size and density of organic farming policy networks in Europe. The distribution of power between organic farming organizations and agricultural ministries is influenced by state involvement and by the resources available to organic farming policy actors.
... There are difficulties in defining a "sector" but for our purpose we refer to "pesticides" as a sector and "biopesticides" as a subsector. ii Jordan et al (1994) argue that agricultural policy making in Britain is characterized by sub-sectoral policy communities. Cavanagh et al (1995, 627), meanwhile, write that only empirical analysis can establish whether sectoral or sub-sectoral policy networks are the most important in a policy sector. ...
Loosely integrated and incomplete policy networks have been neglected in the literature. They are important to consider in terms of understanding network underperformance. The effective delivery and formulation of policy requires networks that are not incomplete or underperforming. The biopesticides policy network in the United Kingdom is considered and its components identified with an emphasis on the lack of integration of retailers and environmental groups. The nature of the network constrains the actions of its agents and frustrates the achievement of policy goals. A study of this relatively immature policy network also allows for a focus on network formation. The state, via an external central government department, has been a key factor in the development of the network. Therefore, it is important to incorporate such factors more systematically into understandings of network formation. Feedback efforts from policy have increased interactions between productionist actors but the sphere of consumption remains insufficiently articulated.
Vor fast 30 Jahren untersuchte Marian Döhler (1995) „architektonische Aktivitäten“, die die Ministerialverwaltung gegenüber Interessengruppen einsetzt, um deren Einfluss auf Regierungspolitik mitzugestalten. Darauf aufbauend wird in diesem Beitrag untersucht, inwiefern die Verbändelandschaft ebenso „architektonisch“ wirkt, indem sie zur (Um-)Gestaltung der Aufbauorganisation der Ministerialverwaltung und somit zu den Beziehungen zwischen Exekutive und Interessengruppen beiträgt. Der Artikel untersucht diese Zusammenhänge für die Bundesebene von 1980 bis 2021 und nutzt und aktualisiert Daten zu registrierten Interessengruppen (Klüver, 2020) und zu Strukturveränderungen in und zwischen Bundesministerien (Fleischer et al., 2018). Die empirische Überlebensanalyse zeigt den signifikanten Einfluss von Dynamiken in den Interessenpopulationen auf die strukturelle Stabilität der ministeriellen Organisationseinheiten, auch unter Berücksichtigung alternativer Erklärungen mit Bezug zum Parteienwettbewerb. Abschließend werden künftige Forschungsperspektiven skizziert, umder Relevanz struktureller Dynamiken in der Exekutive für die Einflussnahme organisierter Interessen weiter nachzuspüren.
In Chap. 7, we go further away from self-actionalism, by deepening the grasp of contingency in the theories of the policy process. We look at attempts at bringing an understanding of the political constitution of policy problems back into the theories of the policy process, by looking at different understandings of policy implementation ranging from the concepts of “street-level bureaucrats” to those of “backward mapping.” Then we move to four basic patterns in theorizing policy as a contingent process: the theory of policy streams; the theory of advocacy coalitions; “thick” institutionalism in rational choice theory; and the theory of “attention shifts.” This provides the basis for making sense of the emergence of the theories of policy networks and the notion of governance as governing through networks. We discuss various additional roots of the notion of governance, such as new-institutionalism, new public management, organization studies and political science, and multi-level governance and/as network governance.
This chapter introduces the question of effective governance designs of food safety regulation. It presents reasons why the new scholarly attention to food regulation constitutes an opportunity to investigate a number of broader issues that have concerned regulatory governance scholars, including effectiveness of regulation, the interplay between monitoring and enforcement (and their consequences), quality of regulatory designs, and the effects of policy capacity on regulatory outcomes. In doing so, it introduces the main argument of the book, which is the complementarity of policy capacity theories with regulatory governance theories in explaining successes and failures. By using food safety regulation as an illustrative case, it identifies gaps in the literature, and it frames the present contribution in the landscape of comparative public policy.
The New Labor government put at the heart of its agricultural policy the concept of public good, a policy frame defined to tackle problems exacerbated by the Common Agricultural Policy. Understanding this policy shift implies analyzing the circulation of the policy frame between the national and the European scales, leading to its enshrinement in law by English and European authorities. Empirical findings give credit to a structural perspective, highlighting two basic social conditions on which the “yo-yo” trajectory of the policy frame depended: first, the high degree of fit between the social attributes of those who held the frame in London and in Brussels; second, the high degree of fit of their positions in the field which produces farming policy in which they are involved. The analysis not only grasps the symbolic struggles behind the “yo-yo trajectory” but also the social conditions that lead agents to engage in those struggles.
Policymaking in India falls in the category of responsive policies than cleanly deliberated telescopic long-run policies. The science and art of policymaking was never taken seriously by administrators or academicians. The universities and the administrators are not even aware of the theory behind policymaking, and therefore, we often end up in firefighting approach and riverine policies. This paper analyses the art and science of policymaking taking important examples on a difficult terrain. We elaborately deal with the theory of policymaking and bring forth the science behind the process. It is essential that the administrators follow the science of policymaking and employ the exquisite art of policymaking while arriving at solutions for difficult problems. Our illustration is set in the agricultural sector, where many uncertainties prevail and decision-making is one of the difficult tasks. We chose the region of Deccan Plateau purposively as this region poses significant challenges and has been the bedrock of agrarian distress in the recent past. The states of Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat pose typical challenges for policymaking. Our information base is from the very region for which we are planning the policies and hence our policies are rooted in the soil of the region. This illustration will certainly prove useful for many.
A core claim about agricultural policy making is that it is ‘compartmentalized’ and ‘exceptional’. In this picture, the policy process is insulated from other policy concerns, has a distinctive system of actors and institutional structures, and is rooted in extensive governmental intervention in the market and the redistribution of resources from taxpayers to food producers. Recently there have been suggestions that a ‘post-exceptional’ agricultural politics has emerged, which is more market-driven, has reduced state intervention, and where policies reflect influences relating to non-food issues such as the environment. This contribution discusses the concepts of compartmentalization and exceptionalism and then applies ‘indicators of change’ to a case study of the 2013 reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It concludes that the reform provides evidence for ‘shallow’ post-exceptionalism where a historically persistent agricultural policy subsystem has opened up to new actors, incorporated some programme change but left the ideational framework largely intact.
The basic premise of this book is that counting populations of organized interests is a worthwhile activity. The opening chapter – not to mention many of the contributions – provides numerous persuasive reasons. In this chapter, all this is taken for granted, and it pursues some of the challenges inherent in actually counting populations. It starts with what seems at face value to be a single perfectly reasonable and achievable aspiration in relation to data on organized interest populations – namely, to be able to say something authoritative about the basic size and composition of the politically active organized interest system. This is a deceptively difficult task.
The central paradox in reviewing the contribution of British political scientists to the understanding of these intermediary institutions is that both the number of scholars and the output have been considerable, yet the international impact has been relatively modest. Two explanations seem plausible. First, with a few notable exceptions, the centre of gravity of these studies has coincided with the centre of gravity of British political science as a whole -it is largely atheoretical in its research style. A second possible explanation is that studies in these fields have tended to focus on activities (of groups and social movements) or on office-holding (parties) and have been much less interested in power as a concept. Relatively little is known about the effects that this activity has on outcomes in terms of public policy or the distribution of power in society.
How is Britain governed? Have we entered a new era of governance? Can traditional approaches to governance help us to interpret 21st century Britain? This book develops the argument that we can understand political practices only by grasping the beliefs on which people act. It offers a governance narrative as a challenge to the Westminster model of British government and searches for a more accurate and open way of speaking about British government.
In a recent contribution to this journal, Jordan and Cairney have helped focus attention on the concept of policy style. Here, we examine their arguments critically to make four points. First, their treatment of the extant policy networks literature is problematic in various ways. Second, the policy styles literature needs to engage more directly with the governance literature. Third, while the literature on governance suggests that there are three modes of governance-hierarchy, markets and networks-it is generally the 'mix that matters'. Consequently, there are both similarities and differences between countries' policy styles. Fourth, the policy styles literature, like the network governance literature, plays down the importance of the role that citizens, as distinct from experts, can, and to an extent do, play in policymaking.
Native forests in Chile are subject to an ongoing process of degradation and destruction. In 1992, the Chilean government proposed a new law aimed at the recovery and sustainable management of native forests. However, the proposal, although amended several times has not yet been transformed into law. Powerful private interest groups such as the forest industry and environmental organisations have successfully advocated against one or more of the different proposals. Notwithstanding, recent developments suggest that the worst of the process might be over and a new law may be passed in the near future. Drawing on concepts from policy sciences (advocacy coalition framework, critical sub-sector model), the present work attempts to explain the dynamics in the policy formation process as a result of the clash of fundamentally opposing policy beliefs evident in a critical issue niche or critical sub-sector that blocked changes in the overall policy sub-system for years. However, the increasing availability of private policy instruments (e.g. forest certification) allowed for the removal of this issue from the discussion about statutory policy options and thus relieved the process from a long-standing deadlock.
This article argues that political scientists should spend more time observing policy networks, using ethnographic tools to capture the meaning of everyday activities. The first section reviews briefly the literature on policy networks, arguing for an ethnographic approach. To show how individual actors construct networks, the second section looks at the experience of consumers, managers and permanent secretaries of living and working in networks. The final section comments on what the fieldwork tells us about both network theory and ethnographic methods.
This paper discusses the UK response to Agri‐environment Regulation 2078/92/EEC, which recognized the need for increased emphasis to be placed on the landscape and environmental value of agriculture. It is argued that the UK has been a reluctant participant in the Regulation and that it has largely failed to put into place an innovative and far‐sighted policy package when opportunities were offered in the early 1990s. Four specific reasons are discussed that help explain the reluctance to expand substantially the UK agri‐environmental programme. Top‐down policy‐making structures have hindered the incorporation of ideas from the grassroots level; a predominance of productivist thinking amongst policy makers has reduced the urge for comprehensive, holistic and well‐funded agri‐environmental schemes; an historically strong emphasis on targeted habitat protection has hampered the introduction of horizontal agri‐environmental measures; and the changing role of pressure groups within the agri‐environmental policy bargaining process has resulted in policy incrementalism rather than reform. The paper concludes by arguing that state and non‐state policy makers in the UK need to rethink their agri‐environmental policy approaches if more sustainable and effective policies are to be implemented in the future.
The greater complexity of decision making produced by local governance presents researchers with the challenge of explaining how policy is made in local networks of key actors. This process is even more complex when examined cross-nationally between Britain and France. Policy network theory is a useful tool for describing these relationships, but is less able to explain them. A more fruitful approach is to use the tools of network analysis to indicate the structure of networks and apply models of how power is exercised in them. The advantage of this method is that it can analyse the nature of networks comparatively, taking into account the different traditions and institutions of British and French sub-national politics. Six models can explain how new networked relationships in localities operate: pluralism, neo-pluralism, policy advocacy coalition theory, new institutionalism, the bureaucratic politics model and the local effect. To reflect the variety of practices between policy sectors and countries, a multitheoretic framework is offered. Though the article sees networks as largely epiphenomenal, networks can affect policy outcomes through the emergence of trust through personal contacts and the intersection of political and social networks.
Important articles in this Journal by Nownes in 2004 and Nownes and Lipinksi in 2005 demonstrate that ‘population ecology’ approaches are now central to interest group studies. Partly at least this move to study at population level is a consequence of the numbers of such organizations. Party scholars typically deal with far fewer cases and sui generis discussion is more defensible. Ecology seems to offer a ‘handle’ on the thousands of cases that exist in the interest group field. Nownes and Lipinski stressed the importance of environmental factors in determining group populations, and challenged group scholars to address the dynamics among interest group populations. This article argues that animal-based population ecology may be an imperfect analogy to use in making sense of group circumstances. It considers the way groups respond to opportunities and constraints.
Global warming from anthropogenic emissions of ‘greenhouse gases’ is expected to become apparent and this will impact upon existing agricultural production and farm management systems. At the same time, farm businesses are becoming increasingly integrated into a food production system whereby on-farm production is, in the case of some agricultural products, greatly influenced by external agencies such as food processing companies. This article uses a study of both farmers and agencies in Lincolnshire and Humberside who are involved with vining pea production for the frozen pea market to explore the nature of the farmer-processor relationship and to examine the implications of this for the adaptation of vining pea production to the imposition of global warming. It is concluded that change at the farm level will be largely externally driven, that die attitudes of powerful individuals within external agencies will strongly influence the direction of change, and that the attitudes of farmers towards global warming and change are of less relevance in die case of adjustment in vining pea production. This has implications for die management of change, not just in response to global warning but also in response to other types of change which are long term and uncertain.
Policy network analysis has been criticized for failing to adopt a sufficiently dynamic approach to the study of policy-making processes. There have been, however, a number of studies illustrating how policy networks change, recognizing that they are not static entities but respond to changes in the policy environment. This article applies policy network analysis to the negotiation of plans to implement the 1994 EC Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive in the UK and provides a further contribution to the literature on the formation and transformation of policy networks. The analysis reveals significant changes in the structure and operation of the policy network during the period studied. The reasons for such changes confirm those put forward by other policy network analysts, such as the power of the actors involved and conflicts between them. Other reasons include the role of the government and the tight schedule laid out by the directive.
This paper takes a comparative case–study approach, located within the literature on policy networks, to organic agriculture policy in the United Kingdom and Ireland since the late 1980s. An examination of policy development for the organic sector focuses primarily on regulatory arrangements. The core of the analysis applies some prominent themes in the policy network literature to the organic sector: the debate about sectoral and sub–sectoral networks, the relationship between networks, context and outcomes, and the role of the state and ideas in promoting policy change.
This paper examines the case that farmers need new skills and knowledge if environmentally sustainable agriculture is to be achieved. The first part of the paper looks at policy transition in agriculture in England, examining the extent to which agricultural policy is now environmentally driven. Secondly, the nature of knowledge is subject to examination. This section is more speculative and suggestive leading to the third element in this paper—the need to bring farmers back into the analysis. In both policy analysis and the literature of technology transfer there is a danger that farmers are seen merely as passive recipients and not active participants. The importance of farmers’ own knowledge is stressed in a call for fresh research and a fundamental re‐orientation of the current debate on technology transfer in agriculture.
In diesem Artikel wird herausgearbeitet, daß Landwirte neue Fähigkeiten und Kenntnisse benötigen, wenn eine ökologisch nachhaltige Landwirtschaft erreicht werden soll. Im ersten Teil des Beitrags wird der Wandel in der Landwirtschaftspolitik in England daraufhin betrachtet, in welchem Ausmaß die Agrarpolitik heute durch Umweltbelange bestimmt wird. Sodann wird die Struktur des Wissens untersucht. Dieser Abschnitt hat eher spekulativen und heuristischen Charakter. Er leitet über zu dem dritten Teil des Artikels, nämlich die Notwendigkeit, Landwirte wider in die Analyse miteinzubeziehen. Sowohl in der politikanalyse als auch in der Literatur zum Technologietransfer besteht die Gefahr, daß Landwirte lediglich als passive Empfänger und nicht als aktive Teilnehmer gesehen werden. Der Bedeutung des Erfahrungswissens der Landwirte wird dadurch Nachdruck verliehen, daß neue Untersuchungen und eine grundlegende Umorientierung in der gegenwärtigen Debatte über den Technologietransfer in der Landwirtschaft eingefordert werden.
In this paper we identify and seek to resolve a certain paradox in the existing litera-ture on networks and networking. Whilst earlier policy network perspectives have tended to emphasize the structural character of networks as durable, dense and relatively static organization forms, the more recent strategic network literature emphasizes the flexible, adaptive and dynamic quality of networking as a social and political practice. However, neither perspective has yet developed a theory of network formation, evolution, transformation and termination. In this paper, we seek to rectify this omission, advancing a ‘strategic relational’ theory of network dynamics based on a rethinking of the concept of network itself. We illustrate this perspective with respect to the policy process centred in and around Westminster and Whitehall, drawing on a series of semi-structured interviews with ministers and officials from four departments.
Policy analysis has usually been organized around the concept of the policy sector, which has served as the fundamental unit for analyzing policy change. The emergence of well-defined and institutionalized issue subsectors, however, has called the utility of a purely sectoral analysis of policy dynamics into question. Utilizing evidence from a case study of forest policy development in British Columbia, Canada, in the 1990s, this article suggests that understanding policy change in complex sectors such as forestry requires a more nuanced conceptualization and analysis of sector–subsectoral relationships than exists in the present literature. The article develops the notion of critical subsectors, capable of blocking or enabling overall levels and directions of sectoral policy change, as an essential tool required to understand policy dynamics.
For the past decade, the policy community/issue network typology of pressure group interaction has been used to explain policy outcomes and the policy-making process. To re-examine the validity of this typology, the paper focuses on the UK government's response to the 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) crisis, and in particular the decision to pursue contiguous culling rather than vaccination to overcome the epidemic. Rather than illustrating the emergence of an issue network in agricultural policy, the decision-making process of the FMD outbreak demonstrates continuity with prior crises. In addition, the politicization of scientific expertise is identified as an emerging trend in crisis management. Policy framing is used to explain the impetus behind the contiguous cull decision, concluding that the legacy of previous policy choices conditioned the crisis response to a far greater degree than contemporaneous pressure group action.
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Birmingham, 1998.
The term ‘policy style’ simply means the way that governments make and implement policy. Yet, the term ‘British policy style’ may be confusing since it has the potential to relate to British exceptionalism or European convergence. Lijphart's important contribution identifies the former. It sets up a simple distinction between policy styles in majoritarian and consensual democracies and portrays British policy-making as top down and different from a consensual European approach. In contrast, Richardson identifies a common ‘European policy style’. This suggests that although the political structures of each country vary, they share a ‘standard operating procedure’ based on two factors — an incremental approach to policy and an attempt to reach a consensus with interest groups rather than impose decisions. This article extends these arguments to British politics since devolution. It questions the assumption that policy styles are diverging within Britain. Although consultation in the devolved territories may appear to be more consensual, they are often contrasted with a caricature of the UK process based on atypical examples of top-down policy-making. While there may be a different ‘feel’ to participation in Scotland and Wales, a similar logic of consultation and bureaucratic accommodation exists in the UK. This suggests that, although devolution has made a difference, a British (or European) policy style can still be identified.British Politics (2008) 3, 350–372. doi:10.1057/bp.2008.15
The role of institutional arrangements is analyzed through the case of farm protest in France. Whereas farm protest has often been attributed to local and national dynamics, its connections to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy and international trade negotiations have been manifest on several occasions. Simultaneously, protest raises the issue of change and continuity in farm politics in France. Farm politics represents an exception in the pattern of interest intermediation in France. While comparativists have often singled out France as a peculiarly resilient case of interest group pluralism, farm politics is organized along distinctly corporatist features: it is an exception in the exception. The questions arising are thus the following. Does farm protest represent a critique or the popular arm of agricultural corporatism? And to what extent are changes in the role of protest related to dynamics of Europeanisation and/or globalization?
Nuffield European Studies Series editors: Joachim Jens Hesse and Vincent Wright This series provides students and teachers in the social sciences and related disciplines with interdisciplinary and comparative works dealing with significant political, economic, legal, and social problems confronting European nation-states and the European Community. It will comprise both research monographs and the edited proceedings of conferences organized by the Centre for European Studies at Nuffield College, Oxford. The role of interest groups in the formulation of EC policy is a central aspect of the development of the European Community. This book is unique in providing both an academic analysis of the system and an insider's view of how lobbying actually works. The first part examines the consequences of the increasing transference of power to Brussels in terms of the EC policy process, the activities of the Commission of the EC as an `adolescent' bureaucracy, and the behaviour of interest associations at national and European level. Subsequent chapters look in detail at the wide range of interest groups involved in lobbying, including business, industry, the financial sector, and voluntary organizations. The combination of contributions from academic specialists and practitioners, including Commission officials and interest group leaders, will make this book uniquely interesting as a study of a key area of the evolving European policy process. Contributors: Lynn Collie, Martin Donnelly, Dick Eberlie, Wyn Grant, Brian Harvey, Robert Hull, Grant Jordan, Jeffrey Knight, Andrew McLaughlin, James Mitchell, Jean-Pierre Peckstadt, Jane Sargent.
Contemporary analysis of British government suggests that in most sectors of industrial, economic and social policy there exists a ‘policy community’ in which key interest groups enjoy a more or less close partnership with the relevant government departments and statutory bodies in the formulation and implementation of policy. As a result even Parliament itself may play little direct role in the policy process (Jordan 1981, Jordan and Richardson 1982). Moreover analysis suggests that, taken together, a number of factors have meant that over the past decade or so most of these policy communities have faced growing external pressures.
What we focus upon here is essentially the politics of policy making in a political system divided into numerous interests and with a governmental structure that is institutionally and organizationally quite complex. We shall attempt an eclectic examination of some concepts and theories in the literature of ‘subsystem’ politics. By the term ‘subsystem’ we mean political relations among people in special policy areas coming from different institutions and organizations in the larger system. The politics of subsystems consists of relations between the system and the subsystem, as well as relations within the subsystem itself.
This paper examines the closest and best known of the ‘insider’ pressure groups-the National Farmers' Union. The Parliamentary Director of the NFU stresses that there is nothing to be taken for granted from the NFU's point of view. Influence varies issue by issue and progress in the pursuit, of NFU goals depends on political skill, perseverance-and simple luck.
This article discusses the relationship between the new British literature on policy communities and the older US sub-government approach. It notes the importance of the difference between stable and ad hoc networks, and points to the need to develop further a range of types of policy-making structures.
Policy is not made in the electoral arena or in the gladiatorial confrontations of Parliament, but in the netherworld of committees, civil servants, professions, and interest groups. This collection explores the private world of public policy. It provides a survey of the literature on the concept of policy networks and demonstrates its importance for understanding specific policy areas. The case studies cover policy-making in agriculture, civil nuclear power, youth employment, smoking, heart disease, sea defences, information technology, and exchange rate policy. Finally the editors attempt an overall assessment of the utility of the concept, focusing on such questions as why networks change, which interests dominate and benefit from networks, and the consequences of the present system for representative democracy. To describe policy networks is not to condone political oligopoly. Britain has witnessed the substitution of private government for public accountability. The analysis of policy networks draws attention to this erosion of representative democracy and exposes the private government of Britain to public gaze.
In recent years, a new conventional wisdom has arisen concerning the role of interest groups in the legislative process, one that minimizes their importance, regarding them as little more than service bureaus to be used or ignored by Congressmen at will. As a consequence, research on interest groups, at least among political scientists, has come to a virtual halt. However, case studies of the legislative process continue to provide at least occasional examples of successful lobbying efforts, suggesting that the new conventional wisdom is not universal in applicability. At the same time, a variety of political scientists have attempted to develop policy typologies that might, among other things, distinguish those processes for which groups are irrelevant from those in which they wield great power.
This paper examines three distinct images of the policy process. Iron triangles emphasiże stable relations among a limited number of participants in a relatively closed policy area. Issue networks are fragmented, open and extraordinarily complex and are ill-structured for resolving conflicts and reaching authoritative decisions. The neo-corporatist literature posits a mechanistic interpretation of society: hierarchy, discipline, command and stability, though organized through sectors. These three images can be contrasted with an image of cabinet government which stresses the integrative capacities of central government. The United States can be seen to have moved to some degree from a pattern more closely captured by the iron triangle image to a looser, more complex one resembling features of the issue network image. In Britain, it is possible to detect some movement towards the complexity of the issue network approach. Despite some superficial plausibility, the corporatist image does not apply to Britain, which is best described by drawing on elements of the iron triangle and cabinet government images and some of the complexity of the issue network image. Finally, limits to the fragmentation implied by the issue network image are noted.
This paper examines the place of groups in the consultative process in British policymaking. It stresses the importance of consultation even under the Thatcher government and distinguishes between consultation, bargaining and negotiation. The paper identifies the important divide between the relatively few groups with privileged status and the greater number of groups who find themselves consigned to less influential positions. The discussion revisits the insider/outsider typology often used to differentiate interest group strategies and status in policy development. It suggests that the insider group term is associated with a particular style of policy making, and offers amendments to the existing use of the terms to avoid the difficulties which occur from the conflation of group strategy and group status.
In practice many descriptions of the policy process appear to be more or less related to two main features of policymaking and implementing systems. (1) A government's approach to problem solving in terms of either an anticipatory or a reactive approach. (2) A government's relationship to other actors in the policymaking and implementing process. The interaction between these two features is defined as policy style. In the British case, the policy style is best characterized as bureaucratic accommodation, with five overlapping features - sectorization, clientelism, consultation and negotiation, the institutionalization of compromise, and the development of exchange relationships. This policy style, which is typical of much of Western Europe, leads to the overcrowding of the policy process and makes policy change more difficult.
Government and the chemical industry
- W Grant
- W Patemn
- C Whitson
Food law: Brussels, Whitehall and town hall
- D Coates
The National Farmers Union: the classic case of incorporation?
- Wyn Grant
The politics of agricultural support in Britain
- M J Smith
Regulating the interface betrueen agriculture and the environment in the United Kingdom
- P Wathern
- D Baldock
Speciul interests and policy making
- G Wilson
Storing. 1962. n t e state and the funner
- P Self
Governing under pressure
- J J Richardson
- A G Jordan