by the institutional framework of corporatism (e.g., in Germany, Austria or Belgium). In contrast, the second one prevails in societies/economies with a strong concentration of decision-making power, associated often with a majority electoral system (e.g., United Kingdom, USA). Political decision-making is often done “behind closed doors” and the communication of changes and political goals in order to gain political support is oriented towards the general public. Discursive institutionalism criticizes other institutionalist theories for their static perception of institutional framework (historical institutionalism), or of the environment in which the actors interact and which promotes their interests (rational institutionalism).52 In discursive institutionalism, institutions are not perceived as external variables. So not only do the institutions form the structure of the environment in which actors interact, but, at the same time, the institutions themselves are an element which actors have created and potentially also change. This means that actors have the ability to think critically about the institutions and to change the way we think about these institutions themselves or their surroundings – and in that case it is even right to change them, whether individually or collectively. This ability explains why unexpected institutional changes are sometimes effected. Institutions determine and limit actors, but institutions themselves are subjects on which actors operate. One can either substitute them with other institutional forms, or use them in a different way than originally intended. Although discursive institutionalism has brought about new possibilities to explain institutional changes, it is still necessary to remember the risks that are associated with its application. Schmidt (2008) states that traditions and culture will always influence the presentation of ideas and guide the debate. Thus, for empirical research it is always a challenge to identify when, where and why ideas and discourses bring about institutional change and when they do not. STUDY TIP: Refer to Chapter B2 for a case study which applies the Theory of discursive institutionalism.
APPLICATION OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS – HARMONY, DISHARMONY, IMPROVISATION? Let me once again use the – somewhat schematic – metaphor of policy instruments as parts of the “social organism” (see table above in this chapter). Just as no human body can function if its organs fail to cooperate with one another, so no policy action can achieve the desired goals unless it relies on a harmonic, coordinated application of different policy instruments. 52 Compare the theory of historical institutionalism in Chapter A2 or rational choice theory in Chapter A9.
– 98 –
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS240065
A policy design represents a way of harmonizing and applying selected instruments in a way that best promotes the defined policy goal(s). It involves the engagement of different actors, it guides the preparation of different actions and coordinates both the activities of actors involved and the application of different instruments. Problems arise if different policy instruments are applied irrespective of one another.
EXAMPLE: In the past, ideology often fueled a policy struggle against “excessive government.” In the name of fiscal responsibility or austerity, the budgetary allocations of all government departments were cut down by a certain flat percentage every year. This was, however, not supported by an analysis of the potential consequences of the cuts on the public roles performed by each department. As a result, most of the burden of austerity was borne not only by departments with responsibilities for an extensive range of entitlement-based public services (and in turn by the eligible individual beneficiaries), but also by a number of longer-term projects, no matter if they were promising and already approved.
PUBLIC POLICIES The workings of contemporary societies are highly complex, relying on a wide range of interrelated, interdependent, synergic or contradictory policies that exist in evolving external and internal environments. Indeed, there is no such public policy that could be implemented irrespective of others. And the situation is even more complicated with regard to the overlaps between and hierarchies of public policies.
EXAMPLE: Employment policy falls under the economic, social and education policies. There may be other overlaps as well, for example with migration, environmental and foreign policies. Therefore, a level of simplification is necessary for any attempt to categorize public policies at the national level systematically. The following proposal distinguishes between five categories of related policies. See Table A5.2. A number of analysts have paid attention to instances of disagreement or even contradiction between different public policies. There are two types of efforts to reconcile public policies with one another: functional A5 PUBLIC POLICY INSTRUMENTS – 99 –
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS240065
harmonization (between different public policies at the same level of governance) and territorial harmonization (between the same policies of different jurisdictions).
EXAMPLE: The European Union strives for territorial harmonization of member states’ public policies in instances where the decision-making responsibilities still lie within national political representations; but, the logic of European integration requires harmonization of taxation, social security systems, regulations, etc. Table A5.2 Categorizing national-level policies Policy category
Policy areas
Economic policies
Monetary policy Fiscal policy Industrial policy Agricultural policy Natural resource policy
Social policies
Social security policy (including pension policy) Policies against poverty and social exclusion Family policy Employment policy Housing policy Equal opportunities policy
Human development policies
Population policy Education policy Health policy Cultural policy Physical education and sports policy
Infrastructural policies
Policy of public administration Transport policy Energy policy Research, development and innovation (RDI) policy Telecommunications policy Media policy Environmental policy
Foreign, security and human rights policies
Foreign policy Policy of country’s actualization in international organizations Defence policy Homeland security policy Human rights policy Migration policy (including asylum policy)
Source: Author.
– 100 –
Ukázka elektronické knihy, UID: KOS240065