Pluralist model of public policy

Pre-electionparty policy

Think tanks

Public opinion

Interest groups

Lobbyists

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy

Pre-electionparty policy

Public oinion

Interest groups

Lobbyists

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy

Pre-electionparty policy

Interest groups

Lobbyists

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy

Pre-electionparty policy

Interest groups

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy

Pre-electionparty policy

Interest groups

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy

Interest groups

Post electiongovernment policy Public policy

Civil servants

Traditional model of executive power

Prime minister (directs overall policy)

Cabinet (directs individual departmental policy)

Civil service (implements policy)

The Core Executive(Taken from Peter Dorey, Policy Making in Britain, Figure 3.1, p. 50)

Core executive relations1. Actors possess resources legal constitutional political hierarchical technical informational

2. Bargaining between actors involves exchange of resources

3. Power is based on dependency – no one can act without support from other actors

4. Structural and institutional constraints apply to actors

5. Dependency varies with circumstances

Further reading: M. J. Smith, The Core Executive in Britain (Palgrave, 1999),

ch. 4

Interest groups and policy networks

Origin of policy network theory:

‘Iron triangles’ of US policy making – 1960s Based on resource exchange Dependencies between actors Degree of dependence of each actor can

vary with circumstances

Policy communities & issue networks (1)(D. Marsh and R A W Rhodes, ‘Policy networks in British politics’, in Marsh and

Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)

Policy community:

Limited number of participants Close links between members based on

resource exchange Shared values Balanced power between members

e.g. NFU/Ministry of Agriculture

Policy communities & issue networks (2)(D. Marsh and R A W Rhodes, ‘Policy networks in British politics’, in Marsh and

Rhodes (eds), Policy Networks in British Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992)

Issue network:

Large number of participants Diverse values Based on consultation, not resource exchange Unequal power

e.g. fox hunting

Criticism of network theory

Problem of identifying actors Descriptive, not analytic Artificial patterns? (e.g., is the NFU-Ministry of Agriculture relationship really

comparable to the relationship between the pro- and anti-fox-hunting lobbies?)