LIST OF WORKSHOPS

Overall objective

This workshop will aim to tackle three main topics. The first one is the perception of the role of actors in the main theories or approaches for the study of public policy. The second one is related to the several dimensions involved in the role of actors in policy processes as compared to other factors, for instance institutions or junctures. The third issue is the methodology for the analysis of policy actors. The overall objective is to set off a more systematic and coherent research agenda which could lead to the further theoretical clarification and empirical support of the role of actors in the policy process and politics in general.

Context, state of the art and scientific relevance

Although by no means the only perspective, in the last decades the neo-institutionalist approach (in its three versions, sociologic, historic and rational choice) has exerted a great influence in the study of social and political processes. In turn, the comparison of dominant theories of the policy process (Sabatier and Weible 2017) shows that they mainly focus on the systemic level of analysis. Even if these theories take into account individual actors (for instance policy entrepreneurs in the multiple stream framework or policy brokers in the advocacy coalition approach) or collective agents (for instance interest groups and administrations in the punctuated equilibrium theory), they don’t directly address the role of actors in the policy processes as compared to other factors, such as institutions or junctures.

After more than two decades in which structural-centered approaches brought a great deal of the attention in social sciences, more recently the importance of actors has started to emerge, for instance in revised neo-institutionalist perspectives (Scharpf 1997; Mahoney and Thelen 2010) as well as studies on political leadership (Edwards 2009; Helms 2012), neopopulist leaders (Moffit 2016) or public policy (Knoepfel, Larrue, Varone and Hill 2011)

In fact, it can be said that there is in the social sciences a long theoretical tradition stressing the importance of agents´ strategic action. Although it goes back to Machiavelli and Weber, this perspective started to slowly reemerge in various fields after Arrow showed the instability of social choice, for instance in political science (Schattschneider 1961; Riker 1986) or the sociology of organizations (Crozier and Friedberg 1980).

As it can be seen, since some time ago several authors have made important contributions for the development of an actor-centered approach. However, we believe that such contributions still do not offer a precise enough set of traits of agents´ action as to allow for a systematic comparison of cases in order to develop a clearer actor-centered framework for the understanding of policy processes. This workshop aims at discussing the ways in which such framework can be better developed; thus, we expect it will make a key contribution to the study of public policy processes and political processes more generally.

Main hypotheses

The hypotheses this workshop wants to explore are related to the idea that actors are key factors for the adequate explanation of policy processes. The main tenant we start from is that although institutions are no doubt key factors for the understanding of political or policy equilibrium, such equilibrium is not self-sustaining; in other words, it is also kept by the strategic moves of its upholders against its opponents. Likewise, institutional decline may encourage but cannot directly produce policy change, which requires the intervention of actors. In turn, ideas may be floating around but it is actors who choose them (or not) to define the direction and intensity of change. Therefore, it is expected that the workshop shows how within institutional or ideological settings agents enjoy important “degrees of freedom” (Archer 1995), based on the accumulation of specific resources, and in which ways their decisions are crucial for policy outcomes. In short, instead of conflating structure and agency and falling into one or other determinism, the actor-centered perspective argues that institutions, ideologies, junctures, etc. are important because they frame agent´s perceptions and strategies, but such contextual factors do not determine specific courses of action: agents still have to choose among different options and the specific way (strategic or not) they do so is a key factor precipitating or precluding certain policy outcomes.

Organization of the workshop

The workshop will be organized around three topics, corresponding to three workshop´s sessions:

1.     Actors in approaches of the policy process.

In this session the aim is to discuss the role assigned to actors in dominant theories of the policy process, such as neo-institutionalism, advocacy coalition framework, policy narratives, multiple stream framework, etc. The session would address the following questions: What kind of actors (individual/collective, informal/organized, local/national/international) are taken into account in the theories of the policy process? How are they defined and analyzed? Are actors considered as an explaining factor of policy change (or continuity)?

2. Characteristics and role of actors in the policy process.

This session is focused on the empirical study of the role of specific kinds of actors in the policy process: individual actors (policy brokers, policy entrepreneurs, political leaders) and/or collective actors (parties, interest groups, networks), in relation to the following questions: How far can policy actors be considered as an explaining factor of the policy process (or part of it)? What are we referring to when focusing on agents, i.e. ideas, interests, strategies, resources or capacities? To what extent does their role depend on context? What should be considered as an actor: individuals, networks, groups? What is their relationship with stability and change? How is it possible to explain the role of these actors in the policy process (holding of specific resources, strategic capacities, institutional positions, policy learning, policy discourses, etc.)?

3.     Methods for the analysis of policy actors.

The core questions of this session are: What methodologies better help to identify, characterize and understand the role of actors in the policy process? Is it possible to combine them? An analysis of policy actors supposes to rely on methods able to analyze topics such as the trajectories and resources of individual actors in order to understand their involvement in the policy process; the relations between actors, especially personal links and shared policy conceptions and discourses; organized actors, especially their functioning and internal relations; and the involvement of policy actors at different stages of the policy process.

Type of papers, dynamics of sessions and expected result

Given the above mentioned three sessions of the workshop, the kind of papers that we expect to receive are theoretical, empirical and methodological. The dynamics of the sessions would be organized around several sets of papers within each session, followed by short reactions by one discussant and the rest of the participants within each set; each session will be concluded by a general discussion. In the months following the workshop, the chairs will follow-up on the development of the drafts presented, so that a collective book “bringing back” actors in the study of the policy process can be presented to a publishing house in 2019.

Possible participants (to be confirmed)

First session

1.     Actors and neo-institutional approaches (Raul Pacheco-Vega, Center for Economic Research, Aguascalientes, Mexico)

2.     Actors and ideational/cognitive perspectives on the policy process (Melina Rocha, Getulio Vargas Foundation, Rio de Janeiro)

3.     Actors and interpretative approaches on the policy process (Jennifer Dodge, State University of New York-Albany)

4.     Actors and the multiple stream approach (Ana Diaz, Center for Economic Research, Mexico City)

5.     Actors and the policy instruments perspective (Michael Howlett, John Fraser University, Vancouver)

Second session

1.     Actors as veto-players (Larry Brown, Columbia University)

2.     Transnational networks of actors (Osmany Porto de Oliveira, Federal University of Sao-Paulo)

3.     Intermediary role of actors and political work (Andy Smith, Sciences Po Bordeaux, France)

4.     Actors and strategic interaction (Jose-Luis Mendez, El Colegio de Mexico)

Third session

1.     Sociology of elites methods and the analysis of programmatic actors (William Genieys, University of Montpellier and Patrick Hassenteufel, University of Versailles, France)

2.     Integrating psychological dimensions in the empirical analysis of policy actors (Nils Bandelow and Johanna Hornung, University of Braunschweig, Germany)

3.     Methodologies for the analysis of actor’s policy learning (Stéphane Moyson, Catholic University of Leuwen, Belgium)

References

Archer, M., 1995, Realist Social Theory. The Morphogenetic Approach. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Crozier, M. and E. Friedberg, 1980, Actors and Systems. Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Edwards, G., The Strategic President. Princeton, Princeton University Press.

Helms, L., 2012, Comparative Political Leadership. London, Palgrave.

Knoepfel, P.  C. Larrue, F. Varone and M. Hill, 2011, Public Policy Analysis. Bristol, Policy Press.

Mahoney, J. and K. Thelen (eds.) 2010, Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

Moffit, B., 2016, The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford, Cal., Stanford University Press.

Riker, W., 1986, The Art of Political Manipulation. New Heaven, Yale University Press.

Sabatier, P. and C. Weible, 2017, Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, Westview.

Scharpf, F., 1997, Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, Westview.

Schattschneider, E.E., 1961, The semi-sovereign people. New York, Rinehart and Winston.

The comparison of dominant theories of the policy process (Sabatier/Weible 2017) shows that they mainly focus on the systemic level of analysis. Even if they take into account individual actors (for instance policy entrepreneurs in the multiple stream framework or policy brokers in the advocacy coalition approach) or collective agents (for instance interest groups and administrations in the punctuated equilibrium theory), they don’t directly address two main issues this workshop would aim to tackle. The first one is the role of policy actors in the policy processes as compared to other factors, for instance institutions or junctures. In this regard, the workshop would address some questions rather neglected in the policy field, such as: What is the role of actors in the various theories of the policy process? What is the specific relevance of policy actors in policy-making? What are we referring to when focusing on actors, i.e. ideas, interests, strategies, resources or capacities? To what extent does their role depend on specific contexts? What should be considered as an actor: individuals, networks, groups? What is their relationship with stability and change? The second issue is the methodology for the analysis of policy actors, as the methodologies proposed by the main theories of the policy process do not aim directly at the analysis of agents: for instance the coding of hearings (advocacy coalition framework), of discourses (policy narrative approach) or of the content of policy agendas (punctuated equilibrium framework). A key question in this regard is therefore: What methodologies help to identify, characterize and understand the role of actors in the policy process?

The workshop will be organized around three topics:

1. Actors in approaches of the policy process. In this session we are interested in papers discussing the role assigned to actors in dominant theories of the policy process: neo-institutionalism, advocacy coalition framework, policy narratives, multiple stream framework, constructivism, punctuated equilibrium framework, etc., and/or proposing new frameworks based on policy actors.
2. Characteristics and role of actors in the policy process. For this more empirical session we are looking for contributions comparing different policy fields and taking into account the multi-level dimensions of the policy process and focused on the empirical study of the role of specific kind of actors in the policy actors: individual actors (policy brokers, policy entrepreneurs, political leaders, etc.) and/or collective actors (organized and institutionalized or more loosely structured around shared ideas, discourses and/or informal interpersonal links) in relation to the following questions: Are these actors involved in the whole policy process or only part of it? How is it possible to explain the role of these actors in the policy process? Are these actors favoring or limiting policy change? How far can policy actors be considered as an explaining factor of the policy process (or part of it)?
3. Methods for the analysis of policy actors. For this session we are interested in papers presenting and discussing the methods allowing to characterize and assess of the role of specific actors in the policy process.

The comparison of dominant theories of the policy process (Sabatier/Weible 2015) shows that they mainly focus on the systemic level of analysis. Even if they take into account individual actors (for instance policy entrepreneurs in the multiple stream framework or policy brokers in the advocacy coalition approach) or collective agents (for instance interest groups and administrations in the punctuated equilibrium theory), they don’t directly address two main issues this workshop will aim to tackle. The first one is the role of policy actors in the policy processes as compared to other factors, for instance institutions or junctures. In this regard, the workshop would address some questions rather neglected in the policy field, such as: What is the relevance of actors in the policy process? What are we referring to when focusing on agents, i.e. ideas, interests, strategies, resources or capacities? To what extent does their role depend on specific contexts? What should be considered as an actor: individuals, networks, groups? What is their relationship with stability and change? The second issue is the methodology for the analysis of policy actors, as the methodologies proposed by the main theories of the policy process do not aim directly at the analysis of agents: for instance the coding of hearings (advocacy coalition framework), of discourses (policy narrative approach) or of the content of policy agendas (punctuated equilibrium framework). A key question in this regard is therefore: What methodologies help to identify, characterize and understand the role of actors in the policy process? According to the previous discussion, the workshop will be organized around three topics, corresponding to the three workshop´s sessions: 1) The role of actors in approaches of the policy process. 2) Characteristics and role of agents in the policy process. And 3) Methods for the analysis of policy actors.

Jose-Luis Mendez. He is Research-Professor at El Colegio de Mexico, in Mexico City, and Level III National Researcher of the National Council of Science and Technology. He is a member of the College of the International Public Policy Association. His main research interests are the evolution of the policy field, policy change and actor-centered approaches for the study of policy. Some of his recent publications are “Presidents’ Strategic Action and Policy Change in Mexico: A Comparison of the Hydrocarbon Policy Reforms of Enrique Peña and Felipe Calderon”, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice, 2017; “Policy Analysis and Bureaucratic Capacity” (co-author with M. Dussauge), in M. Brans, I. Geva-May and M. Howlett (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis. Routledge, 2017; Policy Analysis in Mexico (coeditor with Mauricio Dussauge). Bristol, The Policy Press, 2017; "Implementing Developed Countries Administrative Reforms in Developing Countries: The Case of Mexico", in J. Pierre and P. Ingraham (eds.), Public Sector Administrative Reform and the Challenges of Effective Change. Ottawa. McGill University Press, 2010; "Toward More Balanced Approaches in the Reform of the State", in J. Dominguez and A. Jones (eds.), The Construction of Democracy. Lessons from Practice & Research. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007.

Patrick Hassenteufel. He is Professor of political science at the University of Versailles-Paris Saclay and researcher at Printemps (CNRS research center). His main research interests are actor-centered approaches for the comparative study of policy changes, mainly in the fields of health, social security and economic policies. Some of his recent publications are “From Policy Analytical Styles to Policy Making Styles” (co-authored with P. Zittoun), in M. Brans, I. Geva-May and M. Howlett (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Comparative Policy Analysis, Routledge, 2017; Policy Analysis in France (coedited with C. Halpern and P. Zittoun), Bristol, The Policy Press, 2017; “The shaping of New State Elites. Healthcare policy making since 1981” (co-authored with W. Genieys), Comparative Politics, 2015; “Still the sound of Silence? Towards a new phase in the Europeanisation of Welfare State policies in France” (co-authored with B. Palier), Comparative European Politics, 2015. He is the co-editor in chief of Gouvernement et action publique and member of the board of the French Political Science Association (AFSP).