The Effects of Politics on Public Policy: The United Kingdom and Denmark - Essay Example

The Effects of Politics on Public Policy Case Study: The United Kingdom and Denmark Background The extent to which politics influences public policy and vice versa has been the cause of much debate in recent political theory (Caramani, 2008). Indeed, the capacity of a political system to embody the desires and preferences of the public in its policies has been a central issue of democratic accountability and theory. It is generally considered that a fully democratically accountable government should be able to respond to the needs of its citizens (Fukuda-Parr & Kumar, 2009). Whether this is actually the case in practice, however, is another issue; it is often suggested that in the UK, politicians must often balance both the needs of citizens as well as the preferences of their political parties (Knill & Tosun, 2008: 496-498). As well as having to choose between loyalty to either their political parties or to citizens, the majoritarian democratic system of Britain could have a considerable impact on the public policy programmes of the UK (Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000). The proportional democratic model of Denmark, on the other hand, poses different implications for public policy-making (Andersen, 2003). Aim of the Study This study will compare and analyse the relationship between politics and public policy in the democratic systems of Denmark and the UK, between the years 1975-2005. Such a broad time frame is necessary in order to carry out an effective comparison which cannot be adequately done over a shorter period. Comparative politics have greatly distinguished between the majoritarian and proportional democracies of the UK and Denmark, and this will be an important aspect to focus on when analysing the influence of politics on public policy (Jacobs & Shapiro, 2000). Beyond the type of democracy embodied by a particular government, its underlying main function (among others) is to promote human and economic development (Cypher & Diaz, 2009). However, despite this underlying function, the type of democracy a government embodies has an effect on the way in which politicians function (Hall & Taylor, 1996), because different democratic systems have different legislative and decision making processes (Mulligan et al, 2003). The nature of the rules within different democratic systems can greatly affect how much influence the opposition has, hence ensuring that political leaders from the ruling party do not abuse their majority advantage through the exercise of unfettered control, as is the case in many African democracies (Cartwright, 1983). In application to Denmark, the opposition has considerable influence over public policy which results from the nature of the proportionally designed committee. However, the situation is somewhat different in the UK, where the ruling party dominates Parliament and has great control over public policy with little influence from the opposition. This difference in the democratic systems of Denmark and the UK makes the examination of the influence of politics on public policy more effective and insightful. This paper will examine the extent to which politics affect public policy, depending on the political system of a country. The study will either confirm or refute the suggestion that politics have an influence on public policy. Significance of the Study This study is very important because it would help to throw more light on the complex question that is on many British lips today. Over the years, the British public has begun asking questions if the politicians elected into posts of responsibility are in office to work for the people or their political parties. The reason is that over the years, the level of inequality has continued to grow not just in Britain, but also in many other democracies. As such, this has led to a situation where less than twenty per cent of the population controls more than eighty per cent of the wealth in many countries. This problem has been raised in the UK, Denmark, Germany and the US. Unfortunately, many studies of this nature have not been conducted in this area. Literature Review A general consensus exists in existing literature which states that good governance is based on the response of government policies to public preferences (Burstein, 2003). Politicians make speeches and release manifestos promising to acknowledge and act upon the public’s concerns and desires, which they must arguably implement once they have been elected (Maskin & Tirole, 2004). Candidates meet with the public who voice their concerns and preferences, hoping that their electing of the candidate that has promised to act upon their concerns actually will do (Hall & Taylor, 1996). The general underlying theme of politics assumes that politicians who fail to act upon the concerns of the public will not make it through the next elections; the desire to be re-elected acts as a constant motivator for politicians (Hobolt & Klemmemsen, 2005). If one is to take this approach to public policy, it could be simply stated that public opinion largely influences public policy on a profound level. The aim of government thus becomes one not of controlling the public, but representing and facilitating its development (Schon, 1973). It is widely accepted that the “pretty central aspects of policy-making...[are]...people, power and politics (Parsons, 2002: 54). Does this necessarily lead to the conclusive statement that politics are directly influenced by public policy? Not necessarily; it is argued that the priorities of politicians change once they have taken up office (Laver, 2001). The interests of collective society thus come into conflict with the individual interests of the politician, particularly when the two do not correspond. This leads to the contention that “a central insight of policy agenda-setting research is that political attention affects policy” (Green-Pedersen & Wilkerson, 2006: 1039). There is little doubt that politics and public policy are thus inherently linked in some way, yet in what way? Do politics influence public policy or vice versa? Do politicians always vote against the interests of the public in order to further their personal interests? Such examples are evident in the voting of politicians in favour of the Iraq war, because they wanted to follow the wishes of Prime Minister Tony Blair; this is a clear example of politics affecting public policy (Hiebert, 2003). It thus appears that when the personal ambitions of politicians come into direct conflict with public preferences, the latter is at the mercy of the former, and it can be said that politics affect public policy to a large degree. The new institutionalism approach claims that governmental institutions are able to influence and shape the behaviour of political leaders, thus causing them to adopt different behaviour patterns once they enter political positions (Hall & Taylor, 1996). This causes certain political parties of the UK to become secular, thus attracting certain public groups to them; for example it is generally suggested that the UK Conservative party is favoured by high income, business oriented groups (Bale, 2010). The concept of public policy has suffered great difficulty, not only as a result of the elusiveness of defining it with any degree of clarity, but also as a result of criticisms that public policy is more a concept of confusion than actual social influence (Parsons, 2002: 43). More scientific approaches to public policy have sought to base government decisions on sound evidence (Blunkett, 2000), leading to the conclusion that “technical research can inform particular policy provisions; consistent findings from many studies over time can effectively transform ways of thinking about policy issues” (Rich, 2004: 2-3). If this is the case, then it can be suggested that politics do not influence public policy; rather statistics and societal research affect politics. Yet, if such statistics are based on society, it can be interpreted into public preferences which form those numbers; thus public policy affects politics. Indeed, it is considered that the content of governmental policy programs and the way in which they are implemented provides one with an insight of how the politics of any government are formed (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Indeed, the majority of literature argues that public issues and concerns provide the requirements for agenda-setting which shapes the politics of government (Baumgartner & Junes, 1993). It essentially depends, it seems, on the importance of the policy area being dealt with by the politician; those areas which are of great concern to the public are often unlikely to be influenced by politics, as politicians “have incentives to offer solutions, and will try to avoid blame for problems or inaction” (Weaver, 1986: 233). The study will attempt to answer the following questions: (1) Are government policies influenced by public opinion and preferences or vice versa? (2) Do the different democratic systems of Denmark and the UK provide different levels of influence in terms of public policy and politics? (3) What factors affect the level of influence of public opinion on politics and vice versa? Research Method This study shall be qualitative in nature. Data collected for this study shall be drawn from secondary sources. These would include books, journals and online publications. In order to assess how politics affects public policy, two salient issues shall be compared both in the UK and Denmark. The first issue that would be compared is the way in which the parliaments function when it comes to adopting new policies such social programmes. By comparing both systems, this study would help to explain who the political processes in both countries is affecting public policy. Secondly, a comparison shall be made between Britain and Denmark in terms of integrity of politicians. Are British politicians working more concerned about their private interests when compared to their counterparts in Denmark? Meanwhile, it is difficult to measure such data, a content analysis of the behavioural patterns of politicians in the Denmark and the UK would help to throw a little more light on the various ways through which politics can actually affect public policy. In order to ensure that the study gives comparative results, the study shall seek to compare the higher education structure and the health-care policy in Denmark and UK. As earlier mentioned in this proposal, many modern democracies are dominated by two major political movements: the liberal and the conservative political parties. However, in Denmark, the opposition has relative influence over public policy when compared to the UK where public policy is dominated by the ruling party. By comparing the higher education and health care in both countries, this study would be able to establish whether politics can help to achieve better development by using the Danish approach whereby everyone has a say, as opposed to the UK where the opposition has very little influence. This approach would enable this study to answer the research questions included in the literature review above. Results and Interpretations As has already been stated, Denmark has a proportional democracy, while the UK’s democracy is majoritarian. The two countries have distinct electoral systems: Denmark has adopted a system of proportional representation and the UK implements a plurality system. Each country also has a distinct set of rules which seek to govern its legislative process. It can be presumed that the UK system of plurality is more favourable than Denmark’s proportional system because the former serves to form a direct connection between the elected representative and the voter. Such a system ensures that not only does the government remain accountable to its voters, but also that constituencies are directly represented (Austen-Smith & Banks, 1988). This however does not ensure that voters are able to regulate the actions of members of parliament, save for their right to not vote for them at the next elections (Mitchell, 2000: 346). This point brings to light the fact that proportional democratic systems are somewhat better because a higher number of candidates exist in each electorate which increases their chances of satisfactory representation (Lijphart, 1999: 162). Because no seats in a proportional representation system are immune, incentives are ever-existent to prevent evasion of policy promises. Such systems are also able to allow a broader range of policy initiatives to be represented at any one time. The differences between the British and the Danish electoral systems means that the former need only satisfy the voters of the governing party, whereas the latter must consider the coalition as a whole. In Denmark, there is a generally high degree of accountability and transparency which is evident in the public’s reported satisfaction with government and its institutions. The parties adopt a co-operative technique of decision-making on many policy issues, which allows different interests and concerns to be represented and voiced. As a result, the focus on the efficiency of the public sector is extremely developed. As has already been noted, the UK and Denmark also differ in terms of their rules which govern the legislative process. This has important implications for policy decisions, because the legislative rules diminish or increase the influence of the opposition on policy considerations during decision-making. In Denmark, the opposition is given considerable influence over policy decisions and considerations, whereas governmental domination of parliamentary legislative bodies greatly reduces the influence of the opposition on policy considerations (Powell, 2000). It is thus conclusive that Denmark and the UK differ greatly in terms of the structures and functions of their governmental systems. The proportional system of Denmark is considerably weaker than the majoritarian system of the UK, because it consists of a multi-party coalition system in which all parties have some degree of influence over the final decisions of government. The majorities are small, which causes the government to be open to public influence in a bid to prevent being voted out in the following election. The call for accountability is much greater. The UK majoritarian system is much more powerful, on the other hand. The government is thus more resilient against public opinion and is thus less willing to accommodate public opinion in every policy it implements. The government is also under little threat as a result of the two-party system, rendering it less responsive to public concerns. Indeed, in such majoritarian systems it is often commented that “short-term political considerations are often the driving force behind the policy initiatives of national politicians” (Green-Pedersen & Wilkerson, 2006: 1040). On a ground level analysis, it can be seen that the health and labour policies of Denmark are oriented towards satisfying public opinion. Denmark’s labour policies in particular are favourable towards citizens, though Denmark faces future problems in relation to the aging of its workforce and the diversity of workers caused by immigration (Norstrand, 2010: 12). In terms of its healthcare system, Denmark has proven remarkably skilled at controlling costs while avoiding compromises to the health service (Green-Pedersen & Wilkersen, 2006: 1042). Health care in Denmark is decentralized, which arguably allows each constituency to take into account the public opinion of its area whilst managing its costs effectively. The fall of the Social Democrats in 2001 was due to public criticisms of its health care system, and the following governmental bodies promised to ease problems (Andersen, 2003). Despite the unveiling of healthcare scandals in the UK, attempts to update and reform its approach to healthcare have been consistently lacking (Davies et al, 2000: 111). While some argue that the lack of adequate policy in this area is due to the lack of funding given to research (Nutley, 2003), it is suggestible that the influence of the public is simply not strong enough to be prioritised over government spending. Others suggest, on the other hand that policy making simply needs to be implemented in practice, and UK policy recently “has tried to influence the wider/social determinants of health and has focused mainly on disparities in socioeconomic status and geography” (Exworthy et al, 2006: 78). Conclusion & Findings It is evident from the findings that the form of democracy which is implemented in a governmental system affects whether politics affect public policy or whether public policy affects politics. It also appears to depend on the importance of the policy issue which is being considered. The proportional system of Denmark is more vulnerable to public opinion, and it thus appears that public policy greatly guides politics in this system of democracy. On the other hand, the less penetrable majoritarian system of the UK renders public influence too ineffective, and the safety enjoyed by the two-party system causes policies to be subject to politics. Though governments are keen to show greater effort when the policy issue is considered to be important, as in healthcare, whether policies listen to public opinion is another matter (particularly in the UK). Although some question whether policy is able to decide what is best for the public (Coleman, 1972), this argument is beyond the scope of this paper; suffice it to say that the inherent differences in the systems of Denmark and the UK have different impacts on the link between public policy and politics. It can thus be concluded that public opinion is more influential in proportional systems, whereas politics appear to influence public policy in majoritarian systems. It would be interesting and certainly more enlightening if a greater study sample were to be used; perhaps the comparison of two different states under majoritarian systems against two different states under proportional systems would yield more illuminating results. A comparison of more important policy areas to less important policy areas could also provide greater evidence for the conclusion that policies of higher importance influence politics. References Andersen, JG 2003, ‘The Danish General Election 2001’. Electoral Studies, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 186–93. Austen-Smith, D & Banks, JS 1998, ‘Elections, Coalitions and Legislative Outcomes’, American Political Science Review, vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 405–22. Bale, T 2010, The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron. Cambridge: Polity Press. Baumgartner, FR & Jones, BD 1993, Agendas and Instabilities in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Blunkett, D 2000, Influence or Irrelevance: Can Social Science Improve Government? Swindon: Department for Education and Employment. Burstein, P 2003, ‘The Impact of Public Opinion on Public Policy: A review and an Agenda’ Political Research Quarterly, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 29-40. Caramani, D (ed.) 2008, Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cartwright, J 1983, Political Leadership in Africa. New York: St Martins Press. Coleman, JS 1972, Policy Research in the Social Sciences. Morristwon, NJ.: General Learning Press. Cypher, JM & Diaz, JL 2009, The Process of Economic Development. (3rd edn) London: Routledge. Davies, HT, Nutley, SM & Mannion, R 2000, ‘Organizational Culture and Quality of Healthcare’. Quality in Healthcare, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 111-119. Esping-Andersen, G 1979, ‘Comparative Social Policy and Political Conflict in Advanced Welfare States: Denmark and Sweden’ International Journal of Health Services, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 269-293. Esping-Andersen, G 1990, Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Exworthy, M, Bindman, A, Davies, H & Washington, AE 2006, ‘Evidence into Policy and Practice?: Measuring the Progress of U.S. and U.K. Policies to Tackle Disparities and Inequality in U.S. and U.K. Health and Health Care’. Millbank Quarterly, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 75-109. Fukuda-Parr, S & Kumar AK 2009, Handbook of Human Development: Concepts, Measures, and Policies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Green-Pedersen, C & Wilkerson, J 2006, ‘How Agenda-Setting Attributes Shape Politics: Basic Dilemmas, Problem Attention and Health Politics Developments in Denmark and the US’ Journal of European Public Policy, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 1039-1052. Hall, PA & Taylor, RCR 1996, ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’. Political Studies, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 936–57. Hiebert, RE 2003, ‘Public Relations and Propaganda in Framing the Iraq War: A Preliminary Review’. Public Relations Review, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 243-255. Hobolt, SB & Klemmemsen, R 2005, ‘Responsive Government? Public Opinion and Government Policy Preferences in Britain and Denmark’ Political Studies, vol. 53, pp. 379-402. Jacobs, LR & Shapiro, RY 2000, Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democracy. Chicago, Il.: University of Chicago Press. Knill, C & Tosun, J 2008, ‘Policy-Making’ in Caramani, D (ed.) 2008, Comparative Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Laver, M (ed.) 2001, Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge. Lijphart, A 1999, Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press. Maskin, E & Tirole, J 2004, ‘The Politician and the Judge: Accountability in Government’. American Economic Review, vol. 94, no. 4, pp. 1034-1054. Mitchell, P 2000, ‘Voters and their Representatives: Electoral Institutions and Delegation in Parliamentary Democracies’. European Journal of Political Research, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 335–51. Mulligan, CB, Gill, R & Sala-i-Martin, X 2003, Do Democracies Have Different Public Policies than Nondemocracies? Cambridge, Ma.: National Bureau of Economic Research. Norstrand, J 2010, ‘Denmark: Public Policy’ The Sloan Centre on Aging and Work. no. 14. Nutley, S 2003, ‘Bridging the Policy/Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from the UK’. Source: http://ia201119.eu.archive.org/tna/20060715135502/http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~ruru/Bridging%20Research%20Policy%20Divide.pdf. Accessed: 6-12-2011. Parsons, W 2002, ‘From Muddling Through to Muddling Up – Evidence Based Policy Making and the Modernisation of British Government’. Public Policy and Administration, vol. 17, no. 43, pp. 43-60. Powell, B 2000, Elections as Instruments of Democracy – Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, Ct.: Yale University Press. Rich, A 2004, Think Tanks, Public Policy, and the Politics of Expertise. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Schon, DA 1973, Beyond the Stable State: Public and Private Learning in a Changing Society. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Weaver, RK 1986, ‘The politics of blame avoidance’. Journal of Public Policy, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 371–98. Read More