Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T20:54:52.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Analyzing Multi-Actor, Multi-Round Public Policy Decision-Making Processes in Government: Findings from Five Canadian Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2007

Michael Howlett
Michael Howlett
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This paper begins the analysis of complex multi-actor, multi-round decision-making processes in Canadian public policy formation. After setting out the notion of a decision-making style and its constitutive elements, the paper identifies research into complex multi-actor, multi-round decisions as a serious lacuna in the literature on public policy decision-making, despite the fact that this type of decision-making is very common in public policy-making circumstances. The paper advances research in this area through the analysis of several hypotheses raised in recent European studies concerning the conditions under which such processes are likely to successfully conclude in a decision, rather than an impasse. These hypotheses are tested against evidence taken from five cases of multi-round decision-making in Canada over the period 1995–2005: amendments to the Indian Act, the creation of Species-at-risk legislation, alterations to the Bank Act, the extension of Privacy legislation to the private sector and efforts to develop a Free Trade of the Americas Agreement (FTAA). Data on actor interactions in these five areas gleaned from on-line newspaper and media index services reveals that Canadian results do not match those arrived at in European studies, showing both different patterns of government and non-governmental activity and less volatility in actor behaviour as rounds evolve over time.

Résumé. Cet article amorce l'analyse des processus complexes des prises de décisions comportant des acteurs et des séries multiples dans l'élaboration des politiques publiques canadiennes. Après avoir établi la notion d'un style de processus décisionnel et ses éléments constitutifs, l'article avance que le manque de recherche sur les décisions complexes à acteurs et séries multiples est une sérieuse lacune dans la littérature sur le processus décisionnel des politiques publiques, alors que ce type de processus décisionnel est pratique courante dans les situations de prises de décisions en politiques publiques. L'article contribue à la recherche dans ce domaine par l'analyse de plusieurs hypothèses proposées dans de récentes études européennes concernant les conditions dans lesquelles de tels processus ont des chances d'aboutir à une décision, plutôt qu'à une impasse. Ces hypothèses ont été testées dans cinq études de cas de processus décisionnels à séries multiples au Canada entre 1995 et 2005 : les amendements de la Loi sur les Indiens, la création de la législation sur les espèces en péril, les modifications de la Loi sur les banques, l'extension au secteur privé de la législation relative à la protection de la vie privée et la conception de l'accord sur la Zone de libre-échange des Amériques (ZLEA). Les données sur les interactions des acteurs dans ces cinq domaines - données obtenues de services de journaux en ligne et de sommaires médiatiques - révèlent que les résultats canadiens ne correspondent pas à ceux des études européennes : elles montrent à la fois des différences dans les formats d'action gouvernementale et non-gouvernementale et moins d'instabilité dans les comportements des acteurs à mesure que les séries évoluent avec le temps.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 659 - 684
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire. 2003. “Inside the Matrix: Integrating the Paradigms of Intergovernmental and Network Management.” International Journal of Public Administration 26(12): 1401–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Graham. 1969. “Conceptual Models and the Cuban Missile Crisis.” American Political Science Review 63(no. 3): 689–718.Google Scholar
Allison, Graham. 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little Brown.
Allison, Graham T. and Morton H. Halperin. 1972. “Bureaucratic Politics: A Paradigm and Some Policy Implications.” World Politics 24(supplement): 40–79.Google Scholar
Bache, I. and M. Flinders, eds. 2004. Multi-level Governance. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bendor, Jonathan and Thomas H. Hammond. 1992. “Re-Thinking Allison's Models.” American Political Science Review 86(2): 301–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, Terry M. Moe and Kenneth W. Shotts. 2001. “Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment of the Research Program.” American Political Science Review 95(1): 169–90.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan. 1995. “A Model of Muddling Through.” American Political Science Review 89(4): 819–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, William T. 1990. “The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept.” Journal of Politics 52: 167–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billings, Robert S. and Charles F. Hermann. 1998. “Problem Identification in Sequential Policy Decision Making: The Re-representation of Problems.” In Problem Representation in Foreign Policy Decision Making, ed. D. A. Sylvan and J. F. Voss. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cahill, Anthony G. and E. Sam Overman. 1990. “The Evolution of Rationality in Policy Analysis.” In Policy Theory and Policy Evaluation: Concepts, Knowledge, Causes, and Norms, ed. S. S. Nagel. New York: Greenwood Press.
Carley, Michael. 1980. Rational Techniques in Policy Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Cohen, Michael, James March and Johan Olsen. 1979. “People, Problems, Solutions, and the Ambiguity of Relevance.” In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, ed. James March and Johan Olsen. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
de Bruijn, Hans and Ernst ten Heuvelhof. 2002. “Conflicting Interests: Policy Analysis and Decision Making in a Network: How to Improve the Quality of Analysis and the Impact on Decision Making.” Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 20(4): 232–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bruijn, Hans and Ernst ten Heuvelhof. 2000. Networks and Decision-Making. Utrecht: Lemma Publishers.
Eckstein, Harry. 1975. “Case Study and Theory in Political Science.” In Handbook of Political Science, vol. VII, ed. F.I. Greenstein and N.W. Polsby. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Forester, John. 1984. “Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review 44(1): 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
From, Johan. 2002. “Decision Making in a Complex Environment: A Sociological Institutionalist Analysis of Competition Policy Decision Making in the European Commission.” Journal of European Public Policy 9(2): 219–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
George, Alexander L. 1979. “Case Studies and Theory Development: The Method of Structured, Focused Comparison.” In Diplomacy: New Approaches in History, Theory and Policy, ed. Paul Gordon Lauren. New York: Free Press.
Grande, E. 1996. “The State and Interest Groups in a Framework of Multi-Level Decision Making: the Case of the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 3: 313–38.Google Scholar
Hall, Thad E. and Laurence J. O'Toole. 2004. “Shaping Formal Networks through the Regulatory Process.” Administration & Society 36(2): 186–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayes, Michael T. 1992. Incrementalism and Public Policy. New York: Longmans.
Heikkila, Tanya and Kimberley Roussin Isett. 2004. “Modeling Operational Decision Making in Public Organizations: An Integration of Two Institutional Theories.” American Review of Public Administration 34(1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L. and G. Marks. 2003. “Unraveling the Central State, but How? Types of Multi-Level Governance.” American Political Science Review 97(2): 233–43.Google Scholar
Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh. 2003. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Howlett, Michael. 1999. “Federalism and Public Policy.” In Canadian Politics, ed. J. Bickerton and A. Gagnon. 3rd ed., Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Jones, Bryan D., James L. True and Frank R. Baumgartner. 1997. “Does Incrementalism Stem from Political Consensus or from Institutional Gridlock?” American Journal of Political Science 41(4): 1319–39.Google Scholar
Jones, B. D. 1994. Reconceiving Decision Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jones, B. D. 2002. “Bounded Rationality and Public Policy: Herbert A. Simon and the Decisional Foundation of Collective Choice.” Policy Sciences 35: 269–84.Google Scholar
Koppenjan, J. and E.-H. Klijn. 2004. Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making. London: Routledge.
Lindblom, Charles E. 1959. “The Science of Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review 19(2): 79–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustick, Ian. 1980. “Explaining the Variable Utility of Disjointed Incrementalism: Four Propositions.” American Political Science Review 74: 342–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, James and Johan Olsen. 1979. “Organizational Choice under Ambiguity.” In Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations, ed. James March and Johan Olsen. 2nd ed. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
Michaud, N. 2002. “Bureaucratic Politics and the Shaping of Policies: Can We Measure Pulling and Hauling Games?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 35(2): 269–300.Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex and Nehemia Geva. 1997. “The Poliheuristic Theory of Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Decision-Making in War and Peace: The Cognitive-Rational Debate, ed. N. Geva and A. Mintz. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Mintz, Alex. 2005. “Applied Decision Analysis: Utilizing Poliheuristic Theory to Explain and Predict Foreign Policy and National Security Decisions.” International Studies Perspectives 6(1): 94–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Alex. 1997. “Foreign Policy Decision Making: Bridging the Gap between the Cognitive Psychological and Rational Actor ‘Schools.’” In Decision Making in War and Peace, ed. N. Geva and A. Mintz. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
Morgan, M. G. and M. Henrion. 1990. Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Quantitative Risk and Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mucciaroni, Gary. 1992. “The Garbage Can Model and the Study of Policy Making: A Critique.” Polity 24(3): 460–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, Johan P. 2001. “Garbage Cans, New Institutionalism, and the Study of Politics.” American Political Science Review 95(1): 191–98.Google Scholar
Payne, J. W., J. R. Bettman and E. J. Johnson. 1993. The Adaptive Decision Maker. London: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, B. Guy and Jon Pierre. 2001. “Developments in Intergovernmental Relations: Towards Multi-Level Governance.” Policy & Politics 29(2): 131–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pross, A. P., I. Christie and J. A. Yogis, eds. 1990. Commissions of Inquiry. Toronto: Carswell.
Richardson, Jeremy. 1999. “Interest Groups, Multi-Arena Politics and Policy Change.” In The Policy Process, ed. S. S. Nagel. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Salter, Liora. 1981. Public Inquiries in Canada. Ottawa: Science Council of Canada.
Sanderson, I. 2002. “Evaluation, Policy Learning and Evidence-Based Policy Making.” Public Administration 80(1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. 1994. “Community and Autonomy: Multilevel Policy-Making in the European Union.” Journal of European Public Policy 1: 219–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. 1991. “Political Institutions, Decision Styles, and Policy Choices.” In Political Choice: Institutions, Rules and the Limits of Rationality, ed. R. M. Czada and A. Windhoff-Heritier. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.
Serdult, Uwe and Christian Hirschi. 2004. “From Process to Structure: Developing a Reliable and Valid Tool for Policy Network Comparison.” Swiss Political Science Review 10(2): 137–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, Herbert A. 1991. “Bounded Rationality and Organizational Learning.” Organization Science 2(1): 125–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steunenberg, Bernard and Dieter Schmidtchen. 2000. “The Comitology Game: European Policymaking with Parliamentary Involvement.” In Governance in Modern Society: Effects, Change and Formation of Government Institutions, ed. Oskar van Heffen, Walter J. M. Kickert and Jacques J.A. Thomassen. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Teisman, Geert R. 2000. “Models for Research into Decision-Making Processes: On Phases, Streams and Decision-Making Rounds.” Public Administration 78(4): 937–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Robert, Frans Stokman and Rene Tornvlied. 2003. “Models of Collective Decision Making: Introduction.” Rationality and Society 15(1): 5–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tsebelis, G. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
van Bueren, E.M., E.H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan. 2001. “Network Management as a Coupling Mechanism in Complex Decision and Implementation Processes: Facilitating Interaction and Learning Processes Regarding a Complex Environmental Problem.” Paper for the Fifth International Research Symposium in Public Management, IRSPMV University of Barcelona, 9–11 April.
van Bueren, E.M., E.H. Klijn and J.F.M. Koppenjan. 2003. “Dealing with Wicked Problems in Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from a Network Perspective.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(2): 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Merode, Frits et al. 2004. “Analyzing the Dynamics in Multilateral Negotiations.” Social Networks 26: 141–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhoest, Koen et al. 2004. “The Study of Organisational Autonomy: A Conceptual Review.” Public Administration and Development 24: 101–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weirich, Paul. 2004. Realistic Decision Theory: Rules for Nonideal Agents in Nonideal Circumstances. New York: Oxford University Press.
Weiss, Andrew and Edward Woodhouse. 1992. “Reframing Incrementalism: A Constructive Response to Critics.” Policy Sciences 25(3): 255–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Carol H. 1980. “Knowledge Creep and Decision Accretion.” Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization 1(3): 381–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 2004. “Governance and Sustainability: An Investigation of the Role of Policy Mediators in the European Union Policy Process.” Policy & Politics 32(1): 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar