Component -I Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Subject Coordinator Prof. I. Ramabrahmam University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Manoj Dixit University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Content Writer Dr. Roopinder Oberoi Kirori Mal College Delhi
Content Reviewer Prof. A Prasanna Kumar Andhra University, Vishakapatnam
Language Editor Prof G Sreenivasreddy Kakatiya University,Warangal

Component-II Description of Module

Subject Name Public Administration

Paper Name Public Administration: An Introduction
Module Name/ Title 6. Policy Actors and Institutions
Module Id
Pre-requisites

Component-III
Module Introduction:
This module outlines the key actors in the policy process and the web of relationships
between them, which are understood variably as policy communities and policy
networks. The chapter considers the processes by which groups work to elevate
issues on the agenda, or the process by which they seek to deny other groups the
opportunity to place issues. This chapter is designed to enable development of a
conceptual "tool-kit" for the explanation of public policy making. It outlines the key
actors in the policy process and the web of relationships between them, which are
understood variably as policy communities and policy networks.. This suggests that at
times the choice of instrument is a function of the sort of policy that actors, or a
coalition of actors, is seeking to change. It also reviews the literature on policy
network analysis. The roots of policy network analysis lies in the analysis of the
sharing of power and enforcing influence between public and private actors.

Key words:

Policy actors, Policy networks, Policy space, Extra-governmental actors.

Section 1: Introduction
Politics and policy making are predominantly matters of persuasion. Decide, choose,
legislate as they will, policy makers must carry people with them, if they want to have
the full force of policy. Not only is the practice of public policy making largely a
matter of persuasion but also the discipline of studying policy making is aptly
described as itself being a ‘‘persuasion’’ (Reich 1988; Majone 1989). It is a mood
more than a science, a loosely organized body of precepts and positions rather than a
tightly integrated body of systematic knowledge, more art and craft than genuine
‘‘science’’ (Wildavsky 1979; Goodsell 1992). Policy analysts are never mere
‘‘handmaidens to power.’’ It is part of their job, and a role that the best of them play

1
well, to advocate the policies that they think right (Majone 1989). The job of the
policy analyst is to ‘‘speak truth to power’’ (Wildavsky 1979), where the truths
involved embrace not only the hard facts of positivist science but also the reflexive
self-understandings of the community both writ large (the polity) and writ small (the
policy community, the community of analysts).

Public policies are all those decisions taken by government authorities, in executive,
legislative or judicial branches, which provide specific solutions for managing public
affairs. Policy is in fact made through a set of complex interactions between state and
non-state actors. Institutions and processes also play an important role in creating the
sorts of policy sub-systems (Howlett & Ramesh 2003) within which individuals have
the potential to drive, delay, prevent or modify the passage of a policy from idea to
implementation. Policy influencers and actors may be understood as a part of a
process through which citizens, and social, economic and institutional actors
participate in or have an influence in the definition, management and evaluation of
general or sectoral public policies, at the local, regional, national or international
level. Such participation or influence implies creating, modifying, enforcing and/or
repealing public policies (ASOCAM; 2007).

There is a general consensus that the most appropriate, relevant and effective public
policies are those whose development is participatory and inclusive, since they are
based on the exercise of rights and duties. This form of the development of public
policies is not confined to the creation of normative, institutional and organisational
conditions, but also contributes to the transformation of asymmetric power relations
between different social actors, thus which creates the possibility of having public
policies that are inclusive and based on a vision of equitable development.

Government is not monolithic and frequently acts as a contradictory multiple actors,

at times in alliance with extra-governmental actors. Public policy influence is a
‘relational process’ among multiple actors, such as social organizations, private
institutions, entrepreneurs, and politicians, with public authorities, including the
government, parliament, judiciary and public institutions responsible for auditing and
monitoring. Policy Making is therefore an extremely political process in which
various interests and power relations come into play. However, the political nature of
these processes, the formulation, budgeting, management and evaluation of public
policies, also require criteria and contributions of a technical nature. But, essentially
all "eyes and ears" are on parliaments and government buildings and NGOs almost
invariably direct their policy lobbying efforts at these decision-makers.

1. Policy Actors

Policy is ‘made’, ‘shaped’ and operationalised by a large number of individuals often

referred to as policy actors. Mark Considine defines policy actors as ‘any individual
or group able to take action on a public problem or issue’ (1994). The very breadth of
this definition makes it important to attempt to classify those who play an important
role in the policy process in order to identify consistent patterns of behaviour, if not
consistent policy processes.

Policy actors are those individuals and groups, both formal and informal, that seek to
sway the creation and implementation of these public solutions. The policy process is

2
considerably more subtle than many appreciate. While the Constitution provides for a
legislature that makes laws, an executive that enforces laws, and a judiciary that
interprets laws, the policy process has developed into a puzzling web of state and
central departments, agencies, and committees that make up the policy. In addition,
the vast network of organized citizen groups (parties, interest groups), as well as the
rise of the electronic media, political consultants, and other image making
professionals, further complicates the process.

Policy actors interact in a myriad of formal and informal ways described variously as
policy subsystems (Howlett & Ramesh 2003), policy networks (Rhodes 1992, 2006),
policy communities, (Richardson 1982), and advocacy coalitions (Sabatier 1988,
1991; Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith 1993). These concepts have evolved over time,
keeping pace with both intellectual developments in the field as well as real-world
developments in national and international policy arenas. Theoretical developments
that attempt to explain the interactions of policy actors are driven by the goal of
explaining both how policy is made and why it proceeds as it does (Skogstad 2005).
One significant premise that underpins much of the literature in this area is that
governments cannot make policy effectively without the involvement of non-state
actors.

Actors are situated in these webs and spirals of continuing interaction with each other,
which is expressed through communication of one type or another. According to
Morisi, policy actors are: "determined protagonists...who intervene to draw attention
to, define, redefine, transform, articulate, fragment, and aggregate the terms of the
problem in question, through the thousand possible eventualities and unforeseen
circumstances - desired or undesired - which mark the development of policies and
mean that its later implementation is always open to possible reformulation." (Morisi,
1990; 232).

Policies are made by policy subsystems consisting of actors dealing with public
problems. The term “actor” includes both state and societal actors, some of whom are
intimately involved in the policy process while others are only marginally so. Policy
subsystems are forums where actors discuss policy issues, persuade and bargain in
pursuit of their interests. During the course of their interaction with the other actors,
they often give up or modify their objectives in return for concessions from other
members of the subsystem. These interactions, however, occur in the context of
various institutional arrangements surrounding the policy process and affecting how
the actors pursue their interests and the extent to which their effort succeed.

3
 Figure1: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems

Source: Hewlett, M. (1995), Studying Public Policy – Policy Cycles and Policy
Subsystems, Oxford University Press. p.51

The actors involved in a particular policy area can be referred to collectively as a '
policy subsystem'. The policy actors come both from machinery of the state and from
the society at large.

For the sake of overview, policy actors may be divided into the subsequent four
categories: elected officials, interest groups, research organizations, and the mass
media. The first two reside within the state, the latter two in the society; collectively
they form the principal basics from which members of specific policy subsystems are
drawn.

The institutions can be defined narrowly as the structures and the organization of the
state, society, and the international system. Institutions shape actors' behaviour by
conditioning the latter's perception of their interests and affecting the probability of
their realization by constraining some choices and facilitating the others. Even more
significantly, some institutional arrangements are believed to be more conducive to
effective policy-making and implementation than the others. While not monolithic,
omnipresent, or immutable, institutions cannot be avoided, modified, or replaced
without considerable effort.

Government has political legitimacy, control over decision-making mechanisms and

the resources necessary to carry out or to contract public action, as well as control
over the apparatus to respond to protest or opposition. In the long run, all other actors
must accumulate the power to mobilize the legitimacy and the resources which are
normally monopolized by government. As a result, in the majority of contexts and
commentaries on the political process, "actor" mostly refers to government-
institutional participants, and there is a tendency -- at times surprising, given the
policy being researched -- to ignore the role of extra-governmental actors.

Notwithstanding the bias towards governmental actors in policy making process, it is

generally established that there has been a diversification and growth in the number of
4
actors -- both institutional and extra institutional -- in the last decades due to the
growth of the public sector, the professionalization of government employees, the
privatization of public services, and the growth of lobbies and other extra-
governmental organizations active involvement. These actors link up parts of the
bureaucracy and government with the private sector, donors and actors in civil society
– such as journalists, researchers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs). The
role each actor plays, and the relationship between actors, is what establishes policy
products. Public policies must be appropriately prepared and sustained, and must take
into consideration the diverse interests and values in society, ensuring the
participation of dissimilar social groups – the idea behind deliberative democracy.

However, the policy relationship between NGOs and government is not inevitably
adversarial, but can also be viewed as symbiotic, with administrations at times relying
on NGOs for technical input, for political support and as contractors for policy
implementation. Nor is the relationship between NGOs and the administration
necessarily direct; NGO influence efforts can be aggregated through coalitions with
other actors and can also be filtered through other political structures such as parties
and unions. Figure 2 is a graphical representation of public policy influence.

Figure 2: Policy Making Process and Policy Actors and Influencers.

Source: Developed by: the 9th ASOCAM Latin American Seminar

So the actors who participate in processes of policy influence are all those institutions
that are involved in the drafting, implementation and monitoring of a public policy on
a specific topic.

For instance, these actors may be:

• Public authorities, such as the national government, municipal council, national
parliament
• Civil servants and technical staff of government institutions
• Grassroots organizations and intermediary institutions
• Social movements
• Public parties
• Non-profit civil society groups
• Private sector (entrepreneurs)
• Religious organizations

5
• Academic or professional centres of research and expertise
• Mass media (television channels, newspapers, radio programs, web pages)
• NGOs and international cooperation projects, and others

The extent of an actor’s involvement in a process influencing public policy may

fluctuate in intensity and depth. An actor can only provide relevant information about
a topic, be aware of the legal and political framework of the existing and proposed
rules and plans under development. At a higher level, actors may be invited to express
their views and demands regarding a public action and the proposals being drafted, to
express their opinion by participating in public policy decision making (by means of
referendum, by voting, etc.), and to be co-responsible for its implementation and
monitoring

1.2. Policy Networks and Communities

Theoretically the policy network is seen as a tool for actors to advance their goals in
order to ensure that the policy decisions correspond as closely as possible with their
own policy preferences. A policy network is a group of individuals and organisations
that share similar belief systems, codes of conduct and established patterns of
behaviour. A policy network is one of a cluster of concepts focusing on government
links with, and dependence on, other state and societal actors. In this chapter the term
"policy network" refers to the patterns of interaction among organisational actors in a
policy domain. The main idea is that the policy network is seen as a tool for actors to
convey information, preferred political stands, support or resources from actor to
actor in the domain. Thus, the policy network is a social structure that is needed for
the policy process to work effectively. The analysis of policy networks attempts to
explain the development of policy through the examination of networks of policy
actors located across the public and private spheres, throughout different levels of
government, and along the spectrum of policy roles and occupations

Thus, relations in the policy network can be seen mainly as attempts to create a
reasonable level of trust (or “political capital”) among pairs of actors. These notions
include issue networks (Heclo 1978), iron triangles (Ripley and Franklin 1981),
policy sub-systems or sub-governments (Freeman and Stevens, 1987), policy
communities (Richardson and Jordan 1979) and epistemic communities (Haas 1992).
It is an open and flexible system of relationships. The roots of the idea of a policy
network lie, in part, in American pluralism and the literature on sub-governments. For
example, Ripley and Franklin (1981, 8-9) define sub-governments are ‘clusters of
individuals that effectively make most of the routine decisions in a given substantive
area of policy’. They are composed of ‘members of the House and/or Senate,
members of Congressional staffs, a few bureaucrats and representatives of private
groups and organizations interested in the policy area’. There is much debate about
the distinction between policy networks and epistemic/policy communities in the
political science literature:

Rod Rhodes (inter alia) defines some distinct differences between a policy community
and a policy network. In one definition (Rhodes, quoted in Atkinson and Coleman
1992), a policy community is defined as a stable, tightly-knit group of relationships,
with more restrictive membership and greater insulation from other institutions than a
policy network. In this definition, a policy network is a broader system of

6
relationships, which are less stable and less restrictive. To some extent, policy
networks are everything that policy communities are not. Marsh and Rhodes (1992)
define policy networks as a meso-level concept that links the micro-level of analysis,
dealing with the role of interests and government in particular policy decisions, and
the macro-level of analysis, which is concerned with broader questions about the
distribution of power in modern society. Networks can vary along a continuum
according to the closeness of the relationships in them. But while networks are
characterised by their breadth and the informality of relationships, they must be
underpinned by some sense of common identity or purpose. Policy communities are at
one end of the continuum and involve close relationships; issue networks are at the
other end and involve loose relationships (and on the influence of this approach see
Börzel 1998, Dowding 1995, LeGales and Thatcher 1995, Richardson 1999).

The proliferation of policy networks and communities, and the growth in scholarly
research that has theorised and documented their activities has also contributed to the
notion that their very existence contributes to a particular type of reform in the public
sector. ‘Whole of government’ reform, or a focus on ‘joined-up government’,
represents the efforts of governments to harness and coordinate the work of policy
networks. These approaches raise questions about whether policy networks and
communities function as informally coordinated systems or are orchestrated ‘from
above’ (Hill 2005). The reality is that both scenarios describe the relationship among
and between policy actors at different times and in different institutional contexts,
suggesting the need for ongoing analysis rather than assumptions about the ways in
which they operate.

The actors in the policy network can be divided into two groups: political decision
makers and actors trying to influence the decisions these political decision-makers are
contemplating. A policy community can therefore be seen as a subset of a policy
network. In a second definition (Atkinson and Coleman 1992), policy communities
are broader, a group of actors who share an interest in the same policy area and
succeed in influencing policy over time. In this definition a policy network refers to
the system of relationships that links the community together. So, a policy or
epistemic community is a more tightly-knit group of elite experts who have access to
certain information and knowledge, which excludes those who do not have such
access.

1.3. The impact of institutional design on policy actors:

Maddison and Denniss (2009) elaborate on the relative importance of formal and
informal relationships between policies actors will, to a significant extent, be
determined by the institutional structures that exist to either facilitate or inhibit such
communication. Howlett and Ramesh suggest that actors and institutions exist in a
‘mutually defining relationship’ (2003: 53) and outline a range of institutions that they
see as key to this relationship, including:
• Social structures, including political economic structures, business actors and labour
• Political structures, including ‘the public’, think tanks and research organisations,
political parties, interest groups and the media
• International institutions, such as the international trade, finance and production
regimes, and international organisations such as the United Nations, the World Bank,
the OECD, the International Labor Organization and the World Health Organization

7
• Domestic state systems, including governments, elected politicians, and the
bureaucracy (2003: 53–85).

From the ‘policy universe’ containing all policy actors and institutions are drawn
policy subsystems that provide ‘space where relevant actors discuss policy issues and
persuade and bargain in pursuit of their objectives’ (Howlett & Ramesh 2003: 53).
Policy actors are not passive in the institutional design process. Policy actors have, for
example, been successful in calling for the requirement for some policy decisions to
be accompanied by environmental impact statements.

Public action is the result of negotiation between various actors. As Subirats (1990)
summarizes, "the decision-making process is the result of multiple inter-actions in
which diverse actors participate." These interactions are governed by "rules of the
game" resulting from the number of actors involved and the relative power of each of
them. The impact which the actors might have depends on the political power which
they bring to, or accumulate in, the process. (Casey, John; 1998).

Policy networks and communities are important concepts which have been useful for
developing understanding about the role of interest groups in the policy process. They
provide a mechanism whereby narratives and political interests can be brought
together in policy development. Epistemic communities may express strong opinions
about the way policy decisions should be made, and if politicians agree with these
positions, they may invite the experts into the circles of power, providing an
opportunity for such communities to have a substantial influence on the policy
process. (Casey, John; 1998).

Thus the existence of actor networks can make for pluralist policy-making involving a
range of different stakeholders or actors. Processes of negotiating and bargaining
between competing interest groups are central to policy-making. Policies rise and fall
in prominence as a result of the changing effectiveness of different networks of actors
in the debate. Networks can gradually change narratives as well as reinforcing them –
as they bring people together who exchange ideas and strategise. Actor networks
occur across different scales and national borders. Networks and connections link
global and local sites.

Section 2: Politics and Interests

Perhaps it seems obvious that policy is inherently political and contested. But the
conventional view of policy, in which fact and value are separated, denies this.
Politics shape policy processes in several important ways:

a) The political context is moulded by the interests of particular regime

authorities to remain in power. Competition also exists between groups in
society, based on their differing interests with regard to allocation of
resources, for example, or social concerns.
b) The policy process is influenced by a range of interest groups that exert power
and authority over policy-making. These influences affect each stage of the
process, from agenda setting, to the identification of alternatives, weighing up
the options, choosing the most favourable and implementing it. The vested
interests of various actors in policy – government agents, officials of donor

8
 organisations, and independent ‘experts’ – might be served by the perpetuation
of certain narratives.
c) Policy is set out as objective, neutral, value-free, and is often termed in legal
or scientific language, which emphasises its rationality. In this way, the
political nature of the policy is hidden by the use of technical language, which
emphasises rationality and objectivity. But the technical is always in some
way political.
d) Bureaucrats are not simply neutral executors of policy; they have their own
personal and political agendas to negotiate. Bureaucratic politics, such as
battles within ministries for control over policy arenas, are relevant.

2.1. Policy Spaces

The concept of ‘policy space’ relates to the extent to which a policy-maker is

restricted in decision-making by forces such as the opinions of a dominant actor
network or narrative. If there are strong pressures to adopt a particular strategy, a
decision-maker may not have much room to consider a wider set of options. On the
other hand, there may be times when an individual has a substantial amount of
leverage over the process, and is able to assert his or her own preferences and
significantly mould the way policy choices are considered.

The politics/interests frame allows a view behind policy consensus, making apparent
networks and trajectories. If the agendas behind that consensus are so disparate that
they cannot be held together, they will not last. A genuinely negotiated consensus will
have better prospects.

In coming to a consensus it is seldom possible to please all parties and perspectives

and there are inevitably trade-offs and disagreements. Understanding policy processes
through an examination of knowledge/narratives, actors/ networks and
politics/interests can help with identifying policy spaces. For example, the articulation
of alternative narratives is possible where there is a weakness in the articulation of the
dominant narrative. This in turn requires the identification of spaces within networks
(spaces to join the network, or key actors who can be enrolled into an alternative
network). A deeper examination of strategies for changing and influencing policy can
be achieved by looking at ‘policy space’. Depending on the policy issue, there may be
important interactions between such spaces–from the very local, to the regional,
national and global.

2.2. Policy Space, Policy Actors and Room for Manoeuvre

The room within which a policy maker has to manoeuvre relates to the extent to
which a policy maker is restricted in decision making by forces such as the opinions
of a dominant epistemic community or narrative. If there are strong pressures to adopt
a particular strategy a decision maker may not have much room to consider a wider
set of options. There may be times, on the other hand, when an individual has a
substantial amount of leverage over the process, able to assert his or her own
preferences and mould the way policy choices are considered fairly considerably.

9
In most cases, the policy agenda is set by two broad types of actors: 1) State Actors
and 2) Non State Actors.

Elected Public Officials, e.g. the president, the parliament, the ministries and courts,
are the most obvious agenda builders since their position enables them not only to
make policies, but also to place certain issues on the agenda. Public authorities are
the target group of advocacy initiatives, due to their power for decision-making. Of
particular relevance are the government (executive branch) and parliament (legislative
branch) at local, 1 national k34Cw and even, due to its influence in the context of
globalization, international levels. As long as they can persuade their colleagues to
vote with them in parliament, and as long as they are proposing legislation that is
constitutional, politicians are relatively unconstrained in their capacity to introduce
new policy, at least until the next election. Politicians most commonly perform the
roles of policy promoters and they are the ultimate policy gatekeepers (Maddison and
Denniss; 2009). These actors utilize the wherewithal granted to them by the political
system to achieve their objectives, both those constant with implementing policies
according to their ideological stances and the functional objective of maintaining their
own power.

Many Statist theorists are inclined to characterise to the state machinery an sovereign
interest at the service of a general ideological orientation, in addition to the interests
derived from a assembly of experts well versed in the technical-professional aspects
of the question at hand. These writers uphold that government has its own welfare and
the apparatus for translating their interests into policy (Smith, 1993). G.K. Wilson
(1990) maintains we should look not only at the way interest groups attempt to
influence states but also the ways in which states influence interest groups and the
way in which they exercise the power over access and influence of extra-
governmental actors. (Casey, John; 1998).

In the pluralist sense that the choices are the product of the fine equilibrium of
influence among the varied social agents or is the convergence of interests between
elites and government, or possibly some form of political and technical gestalt, which
makes government an independent actor with its own interests. Other writers claim
that extra-governmental interests may cancel each other out and leave the way clear
for government professionals to push their own interests (J.Q. Wilson in McFarland,
1987: 135).

Maddison and Denniss (2009) state that while members of opposition and minor
parties and independent members of parliament have significantly less influence over
the policy process than members of the government, their roles as policy promoters
and policy gatekeepers should not be neglected, especially when the government of
the day does not enjoy a majority in both houses of parliament. Non-government
members of parliament have the ability to influence policy in a number of ways. For
example, they can:
• Vote on legislation, which in upper houses can often be essential for the passage or
defeat of a Bill
• introduce amendments to legislation
• participate in parliamentary committee and inquiry processes
• influence public opinion.

10
However, actual agenda-setting is related to the larger political game in terms of
power and the intensity of ideological conflict both within and between the (coalition)
government and parliament. In this context, it must be highlighted that there is a high
degree of variation of rules and practices of agenda building in parliaments (Döring
1995: 224; 2001).

Another aspect of policy formulation refers to the impact of policy advisers and
scientific knowledge (Martin and Richards 1995). In this regard, it is an interesting
research question how this division of tasks between policymakers and advisory
organs affects policy outcomes, which might be modelled in game theoretical terms.
Their functioning is related to ideas about policy networks, epistemic communities
and policy learning (Marin and Mayntz 1991; Haas 1992; Meseguer Yebra 2003,
2006). Advisers play an important role in helping politicians to analyse, interpret and
prioritise the policy analysis and advice that is presented by the public service, interest
groups and the electorate more generally. That is, they work predominantly in the
roles of policy gatekeepers, policy researchers and sometimes policy designers. They
can, for example:
• conduct their own research and provide direct advice to key decision makers
• influence the policy and political context in which the advice of others is considered
• influence, or even determine, the individuals or organisations that are given the
opportunity to provide advice to key decision makers
• influence the priorities attached to policy proposals, and
• actively participate in negotiations with other politicians from all political parties.
For being able to influence policies, think tanks can only rely on the generation of
ideas to policy problems. Thus, in contrast to interest groups that also offer resources,
think tank merely operates by using communication (Stone 2005).

In the literature on policy making and power there is a fundamental agreement that
bureaucracies influence policy making equally at the planning and implementation
stage (cf. Hammond 1986). Nevertheless, topical studies have revealed that
administrators too have the capacity to influence the political agenda. Like political
advisers, public servants perform a multifaceted function in the policy process. Their
tasks range from conducting original research and generating policy options to
developing the forms that citizens need to fill-in to access a service. Importantly,
while the parliament may make policy in the sense that it passes legislation, some
public servants, such as statutory officers, may also be involved in explicit policy
making under some form of delegated authority from the parliament. In this context,
Schnapp (2000) demonstrates that bureaucracies can ‘fill in’ as an effective agenda
setters under clearly identified circumstances, i.e. if no political actors put forward a
proposal on a certain problem, and therefore chances exist for the bureaucracy to
increase its utility by advancing a policy proposal, and if the minister is willing to
sponsor the bureaucratic proposal into the political process of decision making.

The influence of the courts in interpreting laws has an equally significant impact on
policy. The policy role of the judiciary is not universally appreciated. The current
debate over judicial activism and judicial restraint is only the most recent in a long
discourse. Some argues that judicial activism infringes on democratic policy
institutions, and that an activist court erodes the respect and trust people hold for the

11
judiciary. Still, whether a court is active or passive, there are significant policy
implications.

Equally importantly, government administration and its institutions are in themselves

contested political arenas, separate from the legislative process, with a number of
well-defined fracture points. The ability of groups—acting singly or, more often, in
coalition with other groups—to influence policy is not simply a function of who
makes the most persuasive argument, either from a rhetorical or empirical
perspective. We know intuitively that some groups are more powerful than others, in
the sense that they are better able to influence the outcomes of policy debates. There
are often contradictions in the interests of the distinct parts of an administration. The
interests of the industrial development arm of an administration, for example, can
easily clash with those of the environmental protection ministry, and the interest of
the internal security function may clash with human rights. In addition, many
administrations establish structures such as ombudspersons or advocates to act as
institutionalized political-administrative oversight a mechanism which, at times, acts
like an opposition.

The relation between the political dimension and the administrative dimension is
another area of conflict. According to the traditional view, politicians decide and civil
servants implement; but in reality, public servants can accumulate significant power
through their professional knowledge and their time commitment spent on the issues
within their responsibility. Cobb, Ross and Ross (in Regonini, 1990: 73; see also
Rourke, 1986) speak of "bureaucratic government" to describe the key role that public
sector managers can play, both in their contribution to the decision making process
and in their level of control over implementation. Lower-level workers can also
exercise discretion in their manner of implementing the policies imposed on them, in
effect "creating" policies, or creating a climate for reformulating them.

Section 3: Extra-Governmental Actors

Extra-governmental actors are the entities and individuals not directly connected with
the state and who function with independence in respect to government agencies
(Casey, John; 1998). The line between governmental and extra-governmental,
between inside and outside is difficult to draw, and a number of factors serve to blur
the distinction between the two:

 The formation of government corporations, quasi-non-governmental

organizations and private enterprises with government capital find it
increasingly difficult to identify the legal and political frontiers (Casey, John;
1998).
 There is steady association of people linking the two worlds: many officials
move in and out of government, alternating periods as public sector employees
with those as consultants, professional lobbyists or just "names about
town"(Casey, John; 1998).
 Strong corporatist relationships can bestow privileged, quasi-governmental
status of legitimating, credibility and participation. The organizations that
benefit from this status vary according to the society and the policy areas in
which they work, but characteristically embrace unions, employer

12
 organizations, the church in religious societies and non-government
associations particularly important in their areas of influence.
 The relations created by contracting and consultation as well as the vertical
integration between political parties and other organizations prejudice the
possibility of independent action of even the most clearly legally separate
organizations. (Casey, John; 1998).

Regardless of these boundary difficulties, there remains the reality of diverse actors
who act from outside government seeking to influence policy decisions. These actors
include the following:

a) Interest groups are a fundamental partner in policy making. The term ‘interest
group’ is used here to describe organisations whose role it is to represent the
interests of their membership. Interest groups include, for example, community
organisations, business groups, unions and professional associations. Interest groups
can provide services ranging from the provision of information and training to
members to issuing indemnity insurance and monitoring regulatory compliance. At
times, interest groups are also likely to be involved in the development of policy that
has the potential to affect their membership (Warhurst 2006). Interest groups are
most commonly involved in the role of policy promotion, but depending on their
resources and strategy may also be involved in policy research and policy design.

While interest groups are, by definition, motivated by the interests of their members,
their participation in the public policy process is often much broader than would be
predicted from a simple model of self-interested behaviour. For example, an interest
group concerned with increasing the accountability of government, reducing climate
change or increasing expenditure on foreign aid is unlikely to deliver significant
benefits to its members, except in the broadest sense – that individuals derive benefit
from the pursuit of their passions or beliefs.

Citizens participate in the policy process through communication with policy

makers. Such communication takes place individually (e.g., letters to elected
representatives) and collectively. Interest groups facilitate collective communication.
James Madison acknowledged the predisposition for individuals to factionalize in an
effort to maximize political influence (Madison, 1961). Robert Dahl advances this
investigation of Madisonian democracy, arguing that in an open society all persons
have the right to push their interests (Dhal, 1961). To the degree others also similar
allocate interests; combined pressure may permit larger policy pressure. The interest
group dynamics, nonetheless, is not so straightforward. Although it may be accurate
that numerous salient concerns have interest group representation, the potency of
that depiction is not coupled with the strength of the issue’s salience. Additionally,
the salience itself may be an outcome of interest group act. When learning about
policy outcomes, it is essential to categorize the policy actors and the political
resources they employ. Capitalizing on policy outcome requires clear political
resources. The most common resources include bureaucratic knowledge, a network
of contacts, citizen backing (size of constituency), an ability to make political
contributions, and an ability to mount a public relations (media) campaign. Clearly,
no group utilizes all of these resources. But, the ability of an organized group to
utilize one or more of these resources is critical for policy influence. The pluralist
model of counterbalancing elites mediating interests is inadequate. The theoretical

13
 work done by Mills and empirical work done by Schattschneider, Domhoff, and
Presthus, among others, suggest that rather than competing, the interests of
economic elites tend to cohere in key policy areas.

a)Lobbyists: Professional lobbyists who work on behalf of clients are the extra
governmental actors "par excellence". Many work as private business and seek to
pursue the specific economic interests of their clients, while others use non-profit
organizational frameworks either to pursue economic interests or to pressure for
public goods. In recognition of the access that these organizations have to the political
process, many countries attempt to regulate their activities and their employment of
former government administrators.

b)Political Parties: Political parties are distinctive from other citizen organizations.
Instead of attempting to manipulate existing policy makers, parties try to get their
own members elected to policy-making positions. While interest groups seek power
on precise policy issues, parties look for sway on a extensive spectrum of policy
issues. Parties build on issue platforms, draft candidates, campaign on behalf of
candidates, and work to get out the vote. In a nutshell, parties work to bring together
citizens under a common banner. While most people may think of parties only
during election cycles, their policy influence extends beyond campaigns.

c) NGOs: NGOs are concerned with social economic policy and policy analysis,
albeit usually indirectly. At each step in the social policy process (as
summarized by Tropman, 1987), social workers and their professional
organizations may be involved in assembling information relevant to these
policy processes and in attempting to influence the course of events. Non-
government, non-profit organizations that express a broad assortment of
interests, but principally those connected to public goods. They can be element
of social movements or other interest groups, formed purposely to mediate in the
policy process; but, at the same time, all NGOs can potentially participate in
lobby activities even though they have not been constituted directly for this
purpose. NGOs can persuade policy in their roles as policy experts, researchers,
advocates, lobbyists, managers, community organizers etc. Some of these
organisations add to the rising interdisciplinary field; others work on developing
a unique social work approach to social policy and policy analysis, referred to as
“policy practice” (Jansson,1994) The decision to restrict their activities
specifically to service delivery or, on the contrary, to play a more political role
depends on the internal tendencies of the organization. (Casey, John; 1998).

d) Powerful individuals, experts and opinion makers: In many societies there

are powerful individuals who have accumulated economic power or social status that
they can parlay into influence over policy decisions, often working behind the
scenes. At the same time other individuals influence not with economic clout but
with expertise (Casey, John; 1998). In many policy areas there are individuals --
usually academics, researchers and consultants -- who have expert understanding of
the issues, which they use to exercise influence in the policy process. A think tank is
a research organisation whose objective is to influence the policy process through
the provision of information and ideas, either directly to government or by
informing the community more generally. Normally, they work in the framework of
universities, the press, or research institutions, some of which are created

14
specifically to give a false impression of independence, despite their recognizable
political affiliation (Casey, John; 1998). Measuring and understanding the impact of
think tanks is difficult, however, as Ian Marsh has suggested: [t]he complexity of the
policy-making process and the absence of clear benchmarks for effectiveness
complicates the task of assessment. Think tanks are one institutional actor in a
complex system made up of a variety of organisations and processes. It is no easy
task to determine the contribution of particular actors to particular outcomes or to
judge the adequacy of a whole system. (1994: 191)

The existence of think tanks can be seen as evidence of a non-linear policy process.
That is, rather than specialising in a particular element of the policy cycle, think
tanks generally bring together a combination of skills, especially research skills,
communication skills and advocacy skills, with the objective of producing research
and policy materials that will influence the outcomes of policy debates.

e) Potential Actors. In addition to actors identifiable as organizations or

individuals, there also exist "conceptual actors" who exercise influence through their
potential participation. These "unorganized interests" (Smith, 1990: 304) wield
collective, direct influence because of their perceived potential to organize, their
future vote and the symbolic value of their interests. "Public opinion" (Kingdon,
1995: 67) or the "silent majority" essentially invoked as expressions of the dominant
ideology are the common popular designations of these actors, increasingly
expressed in opinion polls and other survey research, which confer influence beyond
that expressed by the occasional visit to the ballot box. "What will the voters say?"
or "the polls indicate that” often have as much power over public actions as the
outcome of organized lobbying efforts. Above all they have the legitimation of
allegedly representing majority interests in the face of minority lobbying and they
can direct governments to act, or constrain them from doing so. (Casey, John; 1998).

f) The Media: According to some, the media functions merely to channel and
communicate the interests of other actors, particularly that of the dominant
ideologies reflected by the rich, powerful and increasingly few who control the
media. However, others consider the media as having its own dynamic and role
separate from the expressions of others. The view that the media has the power to
have a major influence over what individuals think is known as ‘Cultivation Theory’
(Gerbner et al., 1980 and Infante, Rancer & Womack 1997). Alternatively, Agenda
Setting Theory (see Dearing & Rogers 1996; Cohen 1963) proposes that while the
media lacks the ability to determine how people think, it does have considerable
ability to independently set the policy agenda. Cohen argues that ‘the press may not
be successful much of the time in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly
successful in telling its readers what to think about’ (Cohen 1963: 13).

The media play a significant role in policy outcomes because they facilitate describe
social reality. Graber argues that the way people process information makes them
especially vulnerable to media influence. The scrutiny to which they subject public
figures and their ability to select and influence what they consider to be news can
significantly influence the agenda of public policies. At the same time, other
commentators see the media as less influential than experts or lobby groups, because
of the short-term attention they give to any one issue, which the policy community
"rides above" (Kingdon 1995).

15
The participation of extra-governmental actors in the policy process is not always
well-received and attitudes towards it vary according to social and economic
conditions. Extra-governmental actors have been seen either as: peripheral to a strong
governmental system; essential and desirable players in a pluralist distribution of
power; a threat to democracy (the system captive to "special interests" or distorted by
the "excess of democracy"); or the legitimate future of democracy.

However it is viewed, the intervention of extra-governmental actors as policy actors

must be founded upon a solid base of political and cognitive legitimacy; i.e., they
must have the capacity to demonstrate that they have a broad political base and that
they are experts in the theory and practice of the policy in question. They must also
have the ability to "play" the game of participation.

Participation is usually either through institutionalized channel of cooperation or

through more confrontational tactics which create lobbying pressures. Cooperation is
articulated through commissions, advisory boards and other formal channels of
liaison, consultation and oversight as well as other mechanisms, such as public
hearings, which allow actors to comment formally on legislative and administrative
proposals.

The alternative to cooperation is confrontation. The legal system and other

institutionalized channels, such as ombudspersons, allow for some level of
confrontation "within the system." At the same time, there are a whole range of non-
institutionalized tactics for confrontation, both those aimed directly at legislatures or
administrations and those which have the intention of creating a social climate in
favour of one view or another.

Today it is not enough that public policies are the result of technical work and are
based on decisions made by democratically elected authorities (representative
democracy) Any social organization and institution that has a specific identity and
interests regarding an issue –with regards to which it adopts a position, conducts
activities and creates social and power relations- is considered to be an actor of policy
advocacy.

Section 4: Policy Influences and Policy Influencers

Becoming a social actor is the result of a gradual process of empowerment that leads
to marginalised social actors having greater access to information, and developing
their vision, identity and political will, so as to identify and implement initiatives to
influence public policies and negotiate a more favourable situation according to their
needs. Effectively influencing governance requires and promotes a proactive attitude,
as well as the strengthening of organizations and leaderships, in the formulation of
clear objectives and the development of capacities to take a position with regards to
public opinion and external forces.

The ability to influence policy depends on the power that the group commands, and
on its capacities for using this power, which are related to its internal and external
strength. As Schattschneider explains ‘All forms of political organization have a bias
in favour of the exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the suppression of others

16
because organization is the mobilization of bias. Some issues are organized into
politics while others are organized out’. (Schattschneider 1960/1975, 71) Once
concrete results have been achieved, the social actor can either “disappear” or prevail
in time, considering that there are higher goals to achieve. In the latter case, the social
actor can continue implementing policy initiatives so as to build a strong identity
grounded on outstanding results.

E. E. Schattschneider’s theories of group mobilization and participation in agenda

setting rest on his oft-cited contention those issues are more likely to be elevated to
agenda status if the scope of conflict is broadened. There are two key ways in which
traditionally disadvantaged (losing) groups expand the scope of conflict. First, groups
go public with a problem by using symbols and images to induce greater media and
public sympathy for their cause. Environmental groups dramatize their causes by
pointing to symbols and images of allegedly wilful or negligent humanly caused
environmental damage. Second, groups that lose in the first stage of a political
conflict can appeal to a higher decision-making level, such as when losing parties
appeal to state and then federal institutions for an opportunity to be heard, hoping that
in the process they will attract others who agree with them and their cause.
Conversely, dominant groups work to contain conflict to ensure that it does not spread
out of control.

International cooperation agencies often support those sectors that have been
traditionally excluded from public issues so that they can become key policy actors
and ensure that their needs, interests and requests are taken into account within policy
influence processes. Consequently, international cooperation agencies can favour
processes promoted by actors who are fully acknowledged by society and have
become autonomous. As well, agencies can support the systematisation of
experiences, diffuse valuable information and strengthen coordination among the state
and social actors.

In order to strengthen social actors, they should be fully informed about technical,
economic and legal issues, have knowledge about the public sector’s structure and
procedures , learn about media strategies, as well as lobbying and negotiation
activities.

As an answer to the introductory question of the paper we can say that both actors and
institutions play a crucial role in the policy process. Individuals, groups, classes, and
the state participating in the policy process uncouthly have their own interests and the
outcomes of their efforts are shaped by institutional factors. However, there is no way
of predicting in advance which one is more important at a particular moment.

In all the models of the policy process presented earlier, the dominant actor is the
collection of entities and individuals which make up the government administration:
the formal institutions designated by the political system to develop and implement
policies. Government has political legitimacy, control over decision-making
mechanisms and the resources necessary to carry out or to contract public action, as
well as control over the apparatus to respond to protest or opposition.

While policy actors compete to attract attention towards (or away from) specific
problems, to succeed in reshaping policy they must also develop, and promote,

17
effective policy instruments for tackling the policy problem at hand. That is, in
addition to identifying the nature and extent of a problem, successful policy actors
must also propose a politically, legally and economically acceptable solution. Further,
different policy actors are likely to exhibit an explicit or implicit bias for some policy
instruments over others. In the long run, all other actors must accumulate the power to
mobilize the legitimacy and the resources which are normally monopolized by
government. As a result, in the majority of contexts and commentaries on the political
process, "actor" mostly refers to government-institutional participants, and there is a
tendency -- at times surprising, given the policy being researched -- to ignore the role
of extra-governmental actors.

Notwithstanding this bias towards governmental actors, it is generally accepted that

there has been a diversification and growth in the number of actors -- both
institutional and extra institutional -- in the last decades due to the growth of the
public sector, the professionalization of government employees, the privatization of
public services, and the growth of lobbies and other extra-governmental
organizations.

Specifically, researchers increasingly conceptualize of actors and institutions as being

mutually constitutive of one another. Actors may be ‘rule makers’, but take existing
rules as a starting point for defining their own identities and interests. Conversely,
actors may also be ‘rule takes’, but nonetheless modify or even overturn those rules
from time to time. Institutional rules must be ‘enacted’ by actors, but institutions
themselves are produced and reproduced through these actions. Institutionally defined
situations influence the interests and even identities of actors within the boundaries of
an institutions, and conversely institutions are rules defined in relation to stable
configurations of actors with particular (institutionally defined) identities and
interests. In sum, a constitutive approach conceptualizes actors and institutions as
being mutually interdependent and reflexively intertwined with one another. As
discussed earlier, different sets of actors inhabit these systems, such as political
parties, interests groups and associations, social movements, the media and so on.

To understand actor and institution in policy framework, one must look at both the
rules and the players, seeing each as an interdependent context for the other. One
important implication is that actors and institutions also change over time in a
recursive or dialectical fashion. Actors may be socialized by or consciously adapt to
institutions, but actors may also deviate from or reinterpret institutions in ways that
change those institutions. These organizations are themselves made up of other
organizations or individuals, which may be important additional level of analysis in
understanding the orientation and capacity for action. Actors’ identities and interests
are shaped by the broader institutional environment, and should not be considered as
fixed or exogenous. Likewise, institutional analysis of policy making must take
seriously the constellations of actors within a given institutional domain, and their
interactions.

Section5: Summing Up
Public policies are all those decisions taken by government authorities, in executive,
legislative or judicial branches, which provide specific solutions for managing public
affairs. The most appropriate, relevant and effective public policies are those whose
development is participatory and inclusive, since they are based on the exercise of

18
rights and duties. Public policy influence is a ‘relational process’ among multiple
actors, such as social organizations, private institutions, entrepreneurs, and politicians,
with public authorities, including the government, parliament, judiciary and public
institutions responsible for auditing and monitoring. Policy m
aking is therefore an extremely political process in which various interests and power
relations come into play. The actors who participate in processes of policy influence
are all those institutions that are involved in the drafting, implementation and
monitoring of a public policy on a specific topic. The extent of an actor’s involvement
in a process influencing public policy may fluctuate in intensity and depth. Relations
in the policy network can be seen mainly as attempts to create a reasonable level of
trust (or “political capital”) among pairs of actors. The actors in the policy network
can be divided into two groups: political decision makers and actors trying to
influence the decisions these political decision-makers are contemplating. A policy
community can therefore be seen as a subset of a policy network. Public action is the
result of negotiation between various actors. The existence of actor networks can
make for pluralist policy-making involving a range of different stakeholders or actors.
Processes of negotiating and bargaining between competing interest groups are central
to policy-making. To understand actor and institution in policy framework, one must
look at both the rules and the players, seeing each as an interdependent context for the
other.

19