Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:46:52.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Penetrability of Policy Systems in a Developing Context

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Richard I. Hofferbert  and
Ustun Erguder
Richard I. Hofferbert
Affiliation:
State University of New York – Binghamton
Ustun Erguder
Affiliation:
Bogazici University, Istanbul
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing primarily from the Turkish example, this essay examines the fit of the input-output policy model, widely used in West, to less developed countries (LDCs). Three hypotheses are explored. In LDCs, compared to the West: (1) Policy patterns are more subject to political penetration; (2) once implemented, policies have a higher probability of penetrating social conditions; and (3) implementation structures and practices are less penetrable by policy directives.

The major bottleneck to innovative policy formation and delivery in LDCs is the implementation process. Bureaucratic resistance and hesitancy to innovate are due to a control rather than service orientation, stemming from the peculiar sequencing of development of state apparatuses vis-a-vis the marketplace. These historical-institutional peculiarities do not appear to detract from the input-output model's ability to spot targets of opportunity for useful policy inquiry in LDCs.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 87 - 105
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

REFERENCES

Ahmad, F. (1981) The political economy of Kemalism. In Kazancigil, A. and Ozbudun, E. (eds.), Ataturk: founder of a modem state. London: C. Hurst & Co, Ltd.Google Scholar
Alber, J. (1981) Government responses to the challenge of unemployment: the development of unemployment insurance in Western Europe. In P. Flora and A. Heidenheimer (1981a).Google Scholar
Atav, S. (1984) The distribution of health services in a developing country: the case of Turkey. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Savannah, Ga., November, 1984.Google Scholar
Boratav, K. (1981). Kemalist economic policies and etatism. In Kazancigil and Ozbudun, op. cit.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (1978) The Expansion of the political economy, American political science review, 72, 1243–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F. (1982) Politics, public expenditures and welfare. In Castles, F. (ed.) Does politics matter?. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Cingranelli, D., Hofferbert, R., Huff-Redman, L., and Pasquarello, T. (1981) The national nutrition program for the elderly. Binghamton, NY: Center for Social Analysis.Google Scholar
Cutright, P. (1963) National political development: measurement and analysis, American sociological review, 28, 253–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutright, P. (1967) Political structure, economic development, and national social security programs, American journal of sociology, 30, 537–50.Google Scholar
Dawson, R. and Robinson, J. (1963) Inter-party competition, economic variables, and welfare policies in the American states, Journal of Politics, 25, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1974) The successes and failures of federal housing policy, The Public Interest, 34, 124–45.Google Scholar
Erguder, U. (1980a) Internal migration, politics and integration: Turkey. In Rivlin, H. and Helmer, K. (eds.), The changing middle eastern city. Binghamton, NY: Center for Social Analysis and Program in Southwest Asian and North African Studies.Google Scholar
Erguder, U. (1980b) Politics of agricultural price policy in Turkey. In Ozbudun, E. and Ulasan, A. (eds.), The political economy of income distribution in Turkey. New York: Holmes and Meier Publishers, Inc.Google Scholar
Erguder, U. and Hofferbert, R. (1984) Restoration of democracy in Turkey? Political reforms and the election of 1983. Prepared for delivery to the 18th annual meeting of the Middle East Studies Association, San Francisco, Cal., November, 1984.Google Scholar
Flora, P. and Alber, J. (1981) Modernization, democratization, and the development of welfare states in Western Europe. In Flora and Heidenheimer, op. cit.Google Scholar
Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. (eds.) (1981a) The development of the welfare state in Europe and North America. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Freeman, H., Rossi, P., and Wright, S. (1979) Evaluating social projects in developing countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Grumm, J. (1973) A paradigm for the study of legislative systems. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Hancock, M. D. (1982) Comparing public policy: an assessment. Paper delivered to the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Denver, September.Google Scholar
Hedlund, R. and Nachmias, C. (1980) The impact of CETA on work orientations. In Nachmias, D. (ed.) The practice of policy evaluation. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Heper, M., Kim, C. L., and Pai, S. (1980) The role of bureaucracy and regime types, Administration and society, 12, 137–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbs, D. (1978) Political parties and macroeconomic policy, American political science review, 73,44–50Google Scholar
Holferbert, R. (1982) Differential program impact as a function of target need – or why some good policies often seem to fail, Policy studies review, 3.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, R. (1981) Communication, American political science review, 75, 722–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferbert, R. (1972) State and community output studies: A review of comparative input-output analyses. In Robinson, J. (ed.) Political science annual, III. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, R., and Erguder, U. (1982) Policy'analysis and political science: the Turkish experience. Paper delivered to the XIIth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Rio de Janeiro, August.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, R. and Sande, T. (1976) The malleability of the policy process: strategies for more useful comparative analysis. Paper delivered to the Annual Joint Workshops, European Consortium for Political Research, Louvain la Neuve, Belgium, April.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, R. and Schaefer, Guenther F. (1982) The application of general systems methodology to the comparative study of public policy, International Journal of General Systems, 8.Google Scholar
Inalcik, H. (1964) the nature of traditional society: Turkey. In Ward, R. and Rustow, D. (eds.) Political modernisation in Japan and Turkey. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhnle, S. (1981) The growth of social insurance programs in Scandinavia: outside influences and internal forces. In Flora and Heidenheimer (1981).Google Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M. (1977) The relative importance of socioeconomic and political variables for public policy, American political science review, 71, 559–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, J. (ed.) (1978) The breakdown of democratic regimes: crisis, breakdown, and re-equilibration. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mardin, S. (1969) Power, civil society, and culture in the Ottoman Empire, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 12.Google Scholar
Mardin, S. (1971) Ideology and religion in the Turkish revolution, International journal of Middle East studies, 2.Google Scholar
Mardin, S. (1973) Center-periphery relations: a key to Turkish politics, Daedulus, 102.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, D. and Sabatier, P. (1980) A multi-variate model of public policy-making, American Journal of Political Science, 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrone, D. and Hardy, R. (1978) Civil rights policies and the achievement of racial economic equality; 1948–75, American journal of political science, 22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Donnell, G. (1973) Modernization and bureaucratic authoritarianism. Berkeley: University of California Institute of International Studies.Google Scholar
Palumbo, D. and Sharp, E. (1980) Process versus impact evaluation of community corrections. In D. Nachmias, op. cit.Google Scholar
Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Rees, A. (1974) An overview of the labor-supply results, Journal of human resources, 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riggs, F. W. (1966) Thailand. Honolulu: East-West Center Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rustow, D. (1968) Ataturk as a founder of a state, Daedulus, 97.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. and Mazmanian, D. (1980) The implementation of public policy: a framework of analysis, Policy studies journal, 8, special issue #2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, M. (1982) Wohlfahrtstaatliche politik unter buergerlichen und sozial demokratischen regierungen (Frankfurt: Campus).Google Scholar
Sharkansky, I. and Hofferbert, R. (1969) Dimensions of state politics, economics, and public policy, American political science review, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunar, I. (1974) State and society in the politics of Turkey's development. Ankara: Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University.Google Scholar
Sunar, I. (1981) Consolidation of democracy as a problem and prospect in Turkey: an agenda for research. Paper presented at the Berliner Institute fuer Vergleichende Sozialforschung, December.Google Scholar
Walker, J. (1969) The diffusion of innovations among the American states, American political science review, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, H. (1975) The welfare state and equality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
World Bank (1982) World Development report: 1981. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yumer, R. (1980) Influence du status socio-economique sur la morbidite' palundeene: un essai de mesure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universite des Science Sociale de Grenoble.Google Scholar