The Role of Ideas in Policy Change - Essay Example

In the realm of policy-making, a number of scholars1 in recent years have re-opened the doors towards understanding the role of ideas in policy change. Building upon the inadequacies of rational choice and institutional approaches, these theories emphasise that ideas play an important role in contributing to policy change. However, as Kurt Jacobsen (1995) observes, while most proponents of this view have successfully illustrated that "the ideas approach is always a valuable supplement to interest-based, rational actor models," these authors have yet to make a strong case for the "power of ideas", as independent and active forces in policy making.2 If this is the case, the usefulness of studying ideas in explaining policy change is therefore questioned, that as students of policy we are compelled to ask whether its study has value in our field. Thus, this essay will argue that ideas affect policy change only indirectly, as paradigms frames and determinants of interest, such that its importance in understanding policy change is only secondary to other approaches. To better understand the importance of a study of ideas in policy change, it is first necessary to understand what ideas are. Ideas are shared beliefs held by individuals. However, a distinction must be made between two categories of shared beliefs, particularly "consensual beliefs" and "economic ideas", where although not mutually exclusive differ in their relation to policy. As Jacobsen explains, the difference lies between those of "means" to "ends", where consensual beliefs "shape the legitimate ends of economic activity"; economic ideas are the means to reach these ends. 3 Taking this definition of ideas, the importance of a study of ideas in policy change can be summarised in their roles as paradigms, roadmaps, or ideational frames. Comparing policy change to scientific revolutions, Hall (1989) places emphasis on the role of ideas through "policy paradigms", or "roadmaps" as Goldstein and Keohane (1993) calls them, where ideas guide policies by determining the "tracks" of policymaking and setting constraints in the policy process4. As Hall argues, policy paradigms, determine policy change in acting as "a framework that specifies the goals of policy and the kind of instruments that can be used to attain them", as well as the "nature of the problems they are meant to be addressing."5 Campbell's (1998) and Beland's (2005) ideational frames or programmes also echoes Hall's concept of paradigms, varying only in the manner that ideas are presented and implemented in the policy process. Within this strand of literature, the failures of policies to achieve economic goals are seen as the impetus for policymakers to search for alternative ideas that pave the way for new policy paradigms to be accepted. Hence, in times of uncertainty marked with "exogenous shocks, demographic changes [or] the perception of failed policy", new ideas emerge as either roadmaps or focal points that reduce uncertainty and provide alternatives.6 The policy shift during the first Thatcher government can therefore be explained as the result of a shift in policy paradigms; replacing Keynesian ideas with monetarist ideas (Hall, 1993). Looking at the first Thatcher government, it is evident that the policy shift coincided with an ideational shift from Keynesian to monetarist where Keynesian policies were perceived to have failed in resolving rising inflation (Walsh, 2000). In this respect, one cannot deny that monetary policies are more effective in affecting inflation. Monetarism, despite its normative value, however, did not immediately lead to policy changes. On one hand, the change was only made possible by the change in administration. Had Labour remained in power and controlled the relevant policy instruments, there is no assurance that they will implement the same policies despite ideational changes, given that policymakers were largely divided in their interests and monetary policy preferences (Walsh, 2000). In this respect, monetarist ideas affected the shift in policies only insofar as policymakers accepted them and have enough political power to effect the policy change. Thus, concluding that ideational change lead to the shift in policies neglects the role that power and interests have played in the policy change. Hence, ideas have a role in policy change. As illustrated, by serving as paradigms, roadmaps, or ideational frames, ideas constrain and set the limits of the policy process by presenting alternatives that are concise, understandable, and easy to implement. However, as Goldstein and Keohane (1993) argue, justifying a study of ideas in the context of policy requires illustrating a causal mechanism to relate ideational changes and policy shifts, independent of "the interests and actors who defend them".7 Thus, within the context of policy change, normative ideas therefore hold no relevance, such that as Walsh (2000) notes, regardless if they are Pareto-optimal, what matters is that the idea in question can define the problem at hand, and device a plausible solution to achieve the policy goals. It is important to illustrate that when applied to a particular policy change, the underlying ideas "exert influence untainted by the interests that they interpenetrate"8 to illustrate a strong case on the material power of ideas. Within the context of paradigms, ideational frames, and roadmaps, however, this causal mechanism is not achieved, such that their effects are always dependent on the manner that these ideas are accepted or rejected. In the words of Hansen and King (2001), ideas must be "seized upon by [actors] and through this process find an entry point into [the legislative arena]."9 Thus, as Goldstein and Keohane notes, a study of ideas must always be preceded by rationalist models. Furthermore, while the shift in policy paradigm provides a plausible explanation for the shift in the policy, this explanation cannot stand alone. On one hand, the focus on uncertainties and policy failure, as prerequisites for ideational shift illustrates the weakness of ideas to take into account those policy changes that take place during a status quo. On the other hand, ideas are also dependent on current circumstances. As Peter Haas argue, if ideas cannot be linked to the needs of epistemic communities, then their usefulness could not be realized.10 Thus, economic ideas do not have material power, independent of other variables to effect change, illustrating weaknesses in their causal mechanisms. This passivity therefore weakens the material power of ideas to independently effect change and merit an independent study. Thus, although ideas play a role in policy change, their ability to independently affect policy is limited. Understood as paradigms, ideational frames, or roadmaps, its effects are subordinated to the dynamic relationship between the actors whose interests can be shaped by ideas and the ideas whose effectiveness depends on the way they impact on the actor. Hence, ideas are not all encompassing to solely explain policy change. Ideational explanations lack the necessary causal mechanisms needed to merit a study of ideas separate from rationalist or institutional approaches. Ideas, therefore only merit investigation, insofar as they supplement institutional or rationalist approaches. However, this should not mean that policy relevant studies of ideas should be abandoned. As Jacobsen claims, it is important to consider the "material power of ideas even only to dismiss it."11 References Beland, D. (2005). Ideas and social policy: An institutionalist perspective. In Social Policy and Administration, 39(1), 1-18. Campbell, J. (1998). Institutional analysis and the role of ideas in political economy. In Theory and Society, 27, 377-409. Goldstein, J. (1993). Ideas, institutions, and the politics of protectionism. In J. Goldstein (Ed.), Ideas, interests, and American trade policy, (pp.1-22). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and foreign policy: An analytical framework. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy (pp. 3-30). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Goldstein, J., & Keohane, R. O. (1993). Ideas and American foreign policy. In J. Goldstein & R. O. Keohane (Eds.), Ideas and foreign policy (pp. 237-259). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. In International Organisation, 46(1), 1-35. Hall, P. (1989). Conclusion: The politics of Keynesian ideas. In P. Hall (Ed.), The political power of economic ideas: Keynesianism across nations (pp. 361-391). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hall, P. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. In Comparative Politics, 29, 275-296. Jacobsen, K. (1995). Much ado about ideas: The cognitive factor of economic policy. In World Politics, 47(2), 283-310. Walsh, J. (2000). When do ideas matter. In Comparative Political Studies, 33(4) Read More