Public Policy Decisions
There is considerable discussion in the literature as to whether politicians or bureaucrats dominate the decision process. The work of political scientist, T.J. Lowi, is instructive in this respect (Lowi 1972). Quiggin (1987, p.16) identifies Olson's (1965) work as originating serious study of concentration and interest groups. Lowi emphasises that the nature of a proposed policy determines which group is dominant Some policies benefit a few and the costs are shared by the many. Others may impose costs on a small group for the general benefit of many. Another case is where the costs fall on a small group at the expense of another small group. As the groups involved get smaller, up to a point, the scope for conflict increases; as the scope for conflict increases, the more likely decisions are made at a political level and the less at the bureaucratic level. Lowi thus emphasises the distributive aspects of policies where those with widely spread costs arouse little conflict but those with a narrow base are the opposite.
In New Zealand, Kellow (1989) has examined four public policies from this point of view. A power station project (Marsden B) promised local benefits and would be paid for by all electricity consumers. Bureaucrats dominated the policy process. The objective of clean air legislation (1972) would impose costs on industry to benefit the public generally. Industry groups negotiated with bureaucrats in this case. The aim of water and soil legislation (1967) was to benefit the public generally, but involved choices among property owners especially with regard to water rights. Here political resolution was important. Finally, a proposal to build a PVC plant (at Marsden Point) started as an industry benefit with dispersed costs, then became a 'public' issue when concern arose over cancer risk, then reverted to a 'private' issue as the monopoly powers of the industry were examined, and ended up as a 'public' issue when the trade aspects were examined within the political decision process. In this example, resolution could only be achieved at the political level.
Important factors are the amount of conflict likely to be aroused and the number of players involved (Kellow 1989, p.150):
'A regulatory policy might see the clients and interests of different departments involved, and the politicians are more likely to be involved in clearing the resulting jam. Redistributive policies are more likely to have their origins in party manifestos and are much more likely to closely interest Ministers; it is to such issues that Ministers are likely to devote one of their scarcest resources - time'.
| © MAF 1994 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
