Bringing Politics and Administration Together: for an Agonistic Policy Model
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by WestminsterResearch WestminsterResearch http://www.westminster.ac.uk/research/westminsterresearch Bringing politics and administration together: for an agonistic policy model Martin Francisco De Almeida Fortis Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities This is an electronic version of a PhD thesis awarded by the University of Westminster. © The Author, 2014. This is an exact reproduction of the paper copy held by the University of Westminster library. The WestminsterResearch online digital archive at the University of Westminster aims to make the research output of the University available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the authors and/or copyright owners. Users are permitted to download and/or print one copy for non-commercial private study or research. Further distribution and any use of material from within this archive for profit-making enterprises or for commercial gain is strictly forbidden. Whilst further distribution of specific materials from within this archive is forbidden, you may freely distribute the URL of WestminsterResearch: (http://westminsterresearch.wmin.ac.uk/). In case of abuse or copyright appearing without permission e-mail [email protected] BRINGING POLITICS AND ADMINISTRATION TOGETHER: FOR AN AGONISTIC POLICY MODEL MARTIN FRANCISCO DE ALMEIDA FORTIS A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Westminster for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2014 Abstract This thesis offers a new answer for an old question. Since the inception of public policy and administrative studies, the field has grappled with the problem of how to define the relationship between politics and administration. An examination of the policy literature suggests the existence of two major views: disjunctive and integrative. On one hand, those scholars who favour a disjunctive view construe politics and administration as mutually exclusive spheres. In this case, the study of policy and administration tends to emphasize the technical aspects and ignore the political factors. On the other hand, theorists who embrace an integrative view suggest that administration is fundamentally a political activity. Expanding the focus beyond managerial concerns, integrative scholars argue that public policies should not be confined to technocratic styles of policy-making that inhibit citizen engagement and depoliticize the public sphere. In spite of their commendable attention to politics, however, integrative theorists (particularly those embracing an interpretive orientation or a deliberative approach) have not yet been able to convincingly delineate a policy model that fully recognizes the political. The key argument of this thesis is that an agonistic vision has a strong potential to think politics and administration together that has not yet been considered by contemporary policy scholarship. Drawing on the work of Chantal Mouffe, the Agonistic Policy Model (APM) proposed here attempts to fill an important gap in the literature. Although agonistic theories have been widely recognized in the academic discipline of political science, they have not yet been translated into an implementable policy model. It is argued that an APM elucidates how politics and administration can be construed as interdependent spheres, thus offering a solution that helps to envisage how the political can be properly integrated into public policy and administration. In addition, besides an original interpretation of the policy process, the APM provides an innovative way of thinking how policy-making can contribute to deepen democratic values and institutions. Key words: agonism, Mouffe, public policy, conflict, democracy 2 List of Contents Abstract..............................................................................................................................2 List of Contents.................................................................................................................3 List of Tables and Figures..................................................................................................7 Dedication..........................................................................................................................8 Acknowledgements...........................................................................................................9 Declaration.......................................................................................................................11 Introduction.....................................................................................................................12 Chapter 1 – Early Public Administration (EPA): the rise and fall of the politics- administration dichotomy................................................................................................25 1.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................25 1.2 The historical context of EPA: the rise of the administrative state....................................27 1.3 The theoretical foundations of EPA: the emergence of public administration as a field of inquiry................................................................................................................37 1.3.1 Woodrow Wilson: the theorization of the politics-administration dichotomy...................37 1.3.2 Frederick Taylor and Luther Gulick: the operationalization of the politics- administration dichotomy............................................................................................................40 1.3.3 The entrenchment of the dichotomy: illustrations from EPA’s textbooks and classical studies............................................................................................................................46 1.4 The demise of EPA: the discredit of the politics-administration dichotomy.....................49 1.4.1 Questioning the scientificity of EPA: Simon’s devastating blow......................................49 1.4.2 Dahl’s critique: public administration as value-laden, contextual-based research............53 1.4.3 The discredit of the politics-administration dichotomy: Waldo’s view.............................55 Chapter 2 – Policy Analysis (PA): expertise as substitute for politics?...........................59 2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................59 2.2 The historical context of PA.............................................................................................62 3 2.3 The theoretical principles of PA.......................................................................................67 2.4 The limitations of PA........................................................................................................76 2.4.1 The limitations of PA (I): excessive reliance on expertise.................................................77 2.4.2 The limitations of PA (II): inaccurate description of the policy-making process..............81 2.4.3 The limitations of PA (III): impossible informational requirements..................................84 2.4.4 The limitations of PA (IV): empowering a technocratic elite............................................86 Chapter 3 – Interpretive Public Policy (IPP)...................................................................94 3.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................94 3.2 The emergence of the interpretive account as a critique of PA.........................................96 3.2.1 Majone’s critique of PA......................................................................................................99 3.2.2 From decisionism to argumentation: toward an interpretive orientation of public policy..........................................................................................................................102 3.3 A diachronic view of IPP................................................................................................105 3.4 What is IPP: the example of Narrative Policy Analysis (NPA).......................................109 3.5 The politicization of policy inquiry................................................................................115 3.5.1 Policy process as political manifestation..........................................................................116 3.5.2 The policy process as a confrontation of systems of meaning.........................................117 3.5.3 The contestability of public policies.................................................................................119 3.6 IPP in practice................................................................................................................121 3.7 The limits of IPP............................................................................................................126 Chapter 4 – The Deliberative Policy Approach (DPA)..................................................132 4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................132 4.2 Habermas: the philosophical foundations of DPA..........................................................134 4.2.1 The structural transformation of the public sphere: civil society in opposition to the state................................................................................................................136