2005

Actor-centered theories:II. The role of the state

Lecture 5

Health Politics

Ana Rico

Room L4-46, rico@bmg.eur.nl

2005

OUTLINE OF THE SESSION

1. Introduction

A. Concepts

Actors, organizations, institutions

B. Actor-centred theories

Theses and arguments

Types of actor-centered theories

2. State-centred theories

Concepts: state, government, political system

Theses and arguments

Evidence

Criticisms

Policy implications

(3. State-society theories, L6)

2005

The word “actor” has two (slightly contradictory) connotations... 1. Capable of independent action. Actor, doer, worker

- A person who acts and gets things done;

- One who takes part; a participant

- Law. One, such as the manager of a business, who acts for another. 2. Playing a part or role as pre-specified in an script

Policy and political actors Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in

politics/policy-making

Distinguish between: State actors = those political actors who hold formal

(constitutional or legal = institutional) power to make, take and enforce decisions which affect the whole society (=policy)

Stakeholders/(challengers) = social and sociopolitical actors who try to influence policy by exerting pressure from outside

CONCEPTS (1): Actors

2005

The most important characteristics of actors are:

1. Preferences = interests

How are they defined (+/- democratic/centralized process)?

To what extent are they private (less inclusive, more short-term) or public (more inclusive, more long-term)?

2. Capacity=? amount of power (for) and other resources (money, knowledge, personnel)

Action: (independent or not) is supposed to be directly derived from each actor’s caracteristics

NOTE: Actor-centred theory defends that policy results from actors who have capacity (power for) to act independently; and so (=) able to impose their preferences on other actors (power over)

CONCEPTS (1): Actors

2005

In politics, collective actors are more relevant than individuals

A collective actor can be: An organization; elites represent members and act for them

An organization representing a social group: elites represent,

and act for, both members (inside) and supporters (outside)

A coalition of organizations and/or social groups, led by elites

A social group led by some elites (no organization)

Organizations are actors by the law: legal persons with

property rights over capital, knowledge and connections...

... However, other analytical traits of an “actor” can be missing: A collective who behaves as an individual (as army in battle)

Not all organizations can be considered a (unitary) actor

CONCEPTS (2): Organizations

2005

Organizations can be defined differently (depending on

authors and research goals):

Collective actors: Emphasis on similarities with individuals,

independent actors. MACRO – Rational choice, State-centred

Institutions: A set of institutional rules which determines the

behaviour of the members of the organization. MACRO -

Institutionalist

‘Political systems’: Set of internal coalitions (linked to outside

social groups) which struggle to influence organizational

decisions and rules. MESO – State-society theories, Power-

centred action theories

CONCEPTS (2): Organizations

NOTE: To define organizations as institutions confuses players with rules of the game, and involves determinism

2005

Organizations as collective actors

• Able to act outside the norms

• ... And to change the rules of the game...

• ...But subject to liability, accountable to shareholders and the courts: legal persons

• Governed by representatives often not subject to mandate...

2005

informal = cultural norms + social control

YES: Rules and norms

formal = laws & rules + courts & police

with special normative & symbolic features; or a long history

NO: = Organizations (they are also but not only institutional rules)

Which produce the rules and regulations (=with power to change

institutions by enacting new policy);

With special normative and simbolic features; or a long history

Organizations versus groups: weight of formal vs informal norms

CONCEPTS (3): Institutions

2005

The main functions of institutions in politics are:

- To allocate power (and money) across actors

- To regulate behaviour: what is allowed/forbidden

Two types of formal institutions are relevant:

- Political institutions: Constitutional distribution of powers across state actors. E.g.: Electoral system, Executive/Parliament power, Federal/Unitary

- Organizational rules and structures: Internal rules of operation in organizations which regulate the distribution of power within the organization + the behaviour of its members and elites

NOTE: Often the term “structures” is used as synonymous of institutions BUT confusion with socioeconomic structure

CONCEPTS (3): Institutions

2005

Organizations as institutions

• Sets of formal/informal rules of power & norms of behaviour...

• ... which structure social interaction within organizations

• ... and a broader regulatory environment

• Operating within a network of contracts with others....

... + pools of resources (= as organisms)

2005

ACTOR-CENTERED THEORIES Thesis: Policy change results from the capacity of the most powerful

political actors to be autonomous from social pressures

Research question: Are political actors (eg the state, political parties, public opinion, policy experts, the media) capable of independent action (from context & IGs) which advances citizens’ welfare?

Relevance: Ultimately a question about... Democracy Does the state represents citizens?; and

Autonomy of politics from society: Can politics advance the general interest, rather than reflect the private interests of priviledged social groups?

Different types of actor-centred theories focus on different actors:

1) State actors

2) Political parties

3) Policy experts

4) Public opinion

5) Mass media

6) Corporatist organizations

STATE-CENTRED

STATE-SOCIETY

2005

SOCIAL PRESSURES OLD INSTITUTIONALISM Formal political institutions

SOCIAL ACTORS (IGs: dependent on

social pressures)POLITICAL ACTORS (STATE: independent

of social pressures)

SOCIOP. ACTORS (STATE-SOCIETY: interdependent) NEW INSTITUTIONALISM

(state institutions & state/PPs/IGs’ organization)

POWER-CENTRED THEORIES (interactions among collective actors & social structure)

RATIONAL CHOICE (interactions among individuals

ACTOR-CENTERED INSTITUTIONALISM (interactions among institutions & elites)

1950s/60s: SOCIAL CONTEXT

1970s/1980s: ACTOR-CENTRED

1990s: INSTITUT-IONALISM (+state-society)

2000s: ACTION THEORIES

SOCIAL & POLITICAL THEORIES

L3

L5L2, L4

L6

L7

L9L4, L9

L7

L7, L9

2005

ACTOR-CENTRED THEORIES

ACTOR-CENTRED

CONTEXT

ACTION

State-Soc.

State-centred

IGs/PPs

INSTITUTIONALISM

2005

STATE-CENTRED THEORIES

I. Research questions

Are state actors capable of independent action which changes policy?; Do they respond to citizens (public interest) or private interest groups?

II. Main concepts - definitions

State, state actors, government, political system

III. Thesis and arguments

Policy change depends on the capacity of state actors, which make them autonomous from social pressures

IV. Antitheses & criticisms

V. Aplications – evidence

Accounting for American excepcionalism

VI. Policy implications

To foster policy change we should help develop state actors´capacity (=resources??), as this would increase their autonomy vis-a-vis IGs

2005

Political system (=regime): aggregate of actors & institutions: Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in politics Set of institutional rules which regulate rights, power and behaviour

State: Set of political organizations with the ultimate power to take collective

decisions which are binding for the whole of society; and to impose them upon it (through monopoly of the legitimate use of force)

Parliament + committees (deliberate, decide on rights, control gov.) Government (adopts policy) + Bureaucracy (designs/implements policy) Courts + Police (implements policy & guarantee compliance) Elected (PPs’ elites) vs appointed officials (civil servants and policy

experts)

Government: General: Activity of taking collective decisions Specific: Political organization, with a key role within the state, with

the power to take most policy decisions

CONCEPTS (4): The state

2005

SOCIAL CONTEXT: The state as a ‘transmission belt’ of social pressures

STATE-CENTRIC: The state as a unitary, independent actor with formal monopoly of (residual) power over policy-making

STATE-SOCIETY: The state as a set of political representatives and policy experts with preferences and action partly independent, and partly determined by a wide range of social actors’ pressures

INSTITUTIONALIST: The state as a set of political institutions; or as a set of elites with preferences and actions mainly determined by institutions

ACTION: As a set of political organizations which respond to context, sociopolitical actors and institutions; and which compete and cooperate (=interact) to make policy

CONCEPTS (4): The state

2005

STATE-CENTERED THEORY

MAIN THESIS: State autonomy is the main determinant of policy change,

and depends on the capacity of state actors vis-a-vis other policy actors

ARGUMENTS:

1) Policy experts and bureaucrats are the main state actors in the policy-

making; (+political parties), politicians just set policy goals

2) History (= Policy legacies) model the institutional structure & resources

of states, making some of them more capable (= independent) than others

3) Pro-state policies are the result of capable states weak states are

captured, as they have to rely on IGs to expand state intervention

4) Social/sociopolitical actors as well as citizens play only a minor role

under strong, capable states, because:

“the organizational structures of the state indirectly influence the meanings

and methods of politics for all groups in society”

2005

ANTECEDENTS (1)

Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (1)

Social context: Structuralism. Miliband 1969

- Politics is an unequal struggle between powerful capitalists (who directy rule the state), and a weak working class, unorganized and excluded from politics pro-rich, pro-market status-quo

- (Action) Policy only changes during crisis, as capitalists stop compiting and jointly use & expand the state to protect capitalism

Social actors: power resources theories. Fred Block 1977

- State actors depend for their fiscal resources on capitalists, so they will be against significant policy change

- Policy changes as a result of organized working class pressures of unions and socialists/SD parties on state actors

2005

ANTECEDENTS (2)

Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (2)

State-centred. Poulantzas 1973

- “The state is a relatively autonomous entity”, “capable of transcending the parrochial interests of specific capitalists and specific class factions”

- “The capitalist state best serves the interests of the capitalist class only when members of this class do not participate directly in the state aparatus”

- (Action) An organized and mobilized working class reinforces state autonomy

2005

ANTECEDENTS (3)

Old political institutionalism

• Formal centralization of decision-making power makes political regimes, states and organizations stronger & more efficient

• State powers are more centralized when:

Democratic Institutions: Majoritarian (vs proportional) electoral systems; Unitary (vs federal) states; Executive dominance (+/- = parliamentarism vs. presidentialism);

Sociopolitical organizations: Single-party (vs coalition) government; Corporatism (vs pluralism); Party discipline and organization

Social groups: Single (=class) vs multiple cleavages in the soc. struct. seen as causes of institutions

Single/multiple cleavages biparty/multiparty system single party/coalition gov. centralized democratic institutions

2005

CAUSAL MAPS

Government action/Policy change

Source: Orloff & Skocpol, 1984

State formation (bureaucratization, democratization

Socioeconomic & cultural changes

Changing class structure & new social needs

Proposals of politically active groups

How state organizations & parties operate

Changing group and social needs

What politically active groups propose

Government action/Policy change

Social context & social actors theories

State-centered theories

2005

ANTI-THESES

Policy is “a vector diagram in which a series of pressures are brought to

bear on the state which then moves in the direction it is pushed by the

strongest societal forces” (Hall, 1993)

SOCIAL CONTEXT 1) CONVERGENCE: as GDP grows (following industrialization),

democratic societies age, and the WS expands

2) CULTURAL THEORY: countries with liberal (anti-statist) national

cultures have underdeveloped WSs

3) STRUCTURAL THEORIES (Working class strength): “the WS is a

product of the growing strength of labour in civil society” (Stephens,

1979:89; quoted by Orloff & Skocpol, 1984)

SOCIAL ACTORS: When capitalists are strong/the working class weak, private IGs are strong/Unions & SD parties are weak, and the WS is weak

2005

CONCEPTS

- “The state at which we are now looking largely remains a black box” (Hall, 1993)

- Political parties considered as state actors, independent from society

ANALITYCAL

- It disregards society

- “The stark dichotomy between state & society... should be revised to allow a significant role to the political system defined as the complex of political parties and interest intermediaries that stand in the intersection between state and society in democratic politics” (Hall, 1993)

- It mixes actor-centred arguments with institutional (and policy-feedback) arguments without differenciatng

CRITICISMS (1)

2005

CRITICISMS (2)

EMPIRICAL “How it is that an state with an unchanging structure often seems to

be more autonomous from societal pressure at some times or in some fields than others?” (Hall, 1993)

US 1930s enacts WS pensions but HC reform fails

Deviant case & the comparative method:

In the UK (Jacobs, 1992), same anti-state policy legacies (culture) but NHI 1945 (due to public opinion changes)

In Canada (Maioni, 1997), weaker state than US but NHI:

- the WS historically weaker than in the US (policy legacies -),

- federalism was stronger (weak state institutions -),

BUT (against state-centred theory)

- universal NHI was approved in the 1960s (but failed in the US)

2005

Policy implications

NOTE: Radically different policy implications of social context, actor-centred theory (state-centred A.) and institutionalist theory (state-centred B.)

DIAGNOSIS:

* 1. SOCIAL CONTEXT: Weak WS due to unfavourable economic growth, social structure and national culture

* 2. STATE-CENTRED A.: Weak WS due to weak (=little resources, divided), captured (=corrupted) state actors and political parties

* 3. STATE-CENTRED B: Weak WS due to weak political institutions (Constitution) and policy legacies (history)

POLICY ADVICE:

* 1. Modify the social structure (eg through redistribution), and national cultures (through policy campaigns & improved state performance)

* 2. Strengthen the capacity of state actors and policy experts (eg research, training, recruitment, tax policies, party discipline)

* 3. Reform the Constitution difficult; + history unchangeable