Public policy analysis week 820 October, 2009

Governmentality / governance,meta-theory and the governance of

problems

Willem Halffman & Rob HoppeFac. Management and Governance

Science, Technology, Health and Policy Studies (STePS)

w.halffman@utwente.nl

2

Agenda for today

1. Governance (Sending & Neumann)

2. Foucault & Governmentality

3. Meta-policy (Dror)

4. Governance of problems (Hoppe)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

3

Claims of ‘governance’

(global) governance literature:

1. governing as a process(rather than government as an institution)

2. nonstate actors at the expense of the state

3. political authority no longer only state

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

4

The governance shift

statestate +society

Reason

Power

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

5

1 Process

• Shared goals are still formulated(but not necessarily backed up by unequivocal state authority)

• (In)formal rules still coordinate action(but not necessarily made and upheld by the state)

• Organised by public and private actors, together

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

6

2 Power shift

Non-state actors challenge power and authority of the state

Focus on civil society, but also companies:

“carry out governance functions”= “shift” of governing

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

7

3 Authority shift

legitimate exercise of power no longer exclusive in the state

→ authority becomes dispersed

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

8

Problems with this view

• assumes the functions of governing remain unchanged(it’s just someone else performing them)

• focus remains on the state, even if negatively defined (any idea why?)

• maps actors, rather than investigates what is being governed how, and for what

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

9

Michel Foucault

Different perspective on the problem: “governmentality” (based on lecture 1978)

Michel Foucault (1926-1984)

• historian, philosopher, …

• power/knowledge

• historic shift of episteme

• (self) discipline

e.g. Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison (1977)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

10

Governmentality

The “functions of governing” are not the same in all time and place:Issues and actors get drawn into the domain that is perceived as requiring governing.

History of ‘governmentality’ is the birth and development of Public Administration and Policy Science

History/ies of “state science” (Cameralists, ‘police’= PUZZLING) as opposed to “doctrines of sovereignty” (like Machiavelli’s Advice to the Prince to hold on to territory+inhabitants = POWERING)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

11

Governmentality focus

• practices and techniques of governing(in stead of institutions)

• rationality that characterises/makes governing possible (= KNOWLEDGE, PUZZLING)

• how are people/processes submitted to optimisation: rational and economic assessment and control (= POWER/KNOWLEDGE)

• → the exercise of power through reason(and vice-versa) (POLICYMAKING AS PUZZLING+POWERING)

• Flyvbjerg: “Power has a rationality that rationality does not know.”

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

12The execution of Robert-François Damiens (1757)for the assassination attempt on Louis XV

13Model for a panopticon prisonJeremy Bentham, 1791

14Presidio modelo, Cuba 1930s

15

16

E.g.: civil society enters governance

• become “responsible”

• become active: take on public stance

• accountable– public funds: accountancy reports– annual reports and similar documentation

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

17

The new questions

• not shift of power, but how is this new power constituted and maintained?

• at what cost? (what disappears?)

• civil society not as opponent of the state, but an ‘ally’ in a particular governmentality

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

18

Example: history of “governance”

originates from industrial production:direct power over the workforce is counter-productive

→ involve workers in quality management

= not a “shift of power”, but a new and improved system of control, relying on self-monitoring

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

19

Int’l population policy

• international organisations and civil society organisations together: hierarchical

• western individuals as subjectsvs. developing world: objects(“not responsible”)

• deep involvement of (university) research in public health

• 80-00: new rationality “horizontal”“reproductive health and rights”

• subjects, but then constructed as responsible and ready to be “mobilised for governance”

• new forms of knowledge (policy!)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

20

Governmentality focus

Draws attention to:• how state and society get entangled in particular regimes of

governing(NOT co-opted!)

• away from the state (from etatisation of society to governmentalisation of the state)

• the role of knowledge (science, social science) in constituting these regimes(“reflexive” social science, historicised)

• change and disciplining: what is lost through “governance”

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

21

Weaknesses

• not instrumental for public policy(and when it does, it becomes cynical)

• hence: oppositional theorising, criticises and problematises

• does not always lead to clear action, not even for non-state actors

• underlying problem: tendency to fatalism (cf. “iron cage”, society as “Panopticon”)?

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

22

Meta-policy

The “opposite” strategy

• governmentality: show complexity of governing, undermine categories such as state/society, power/knowledge

• meta-governance: can we choose strategies to govern by using such categories?

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

23

Meta-policy

= “policy on how to make policy” (Dror)- as a way to get “above” policy fields- as an attempt to get “above” types and

approaches

in both cases: a wider repertoire for public policy, more reflexive policy making system

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

24

Contextual policy making

Under what conditions do we opt for what approach to policy?

Dror: feasibility of instruments under “changing political and social conditions” (and through careful interventions long lasting effects)

Hoppe: depending on dominant problem structuring

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

25

Intermezzo: Dror’s metapolicy

What is needed to get a policy making system that learns?1. systematic evaluation of policies2. future studies, “lookout organisations”3. creative thinking4. Improve one-person high level decision making5. Development/training of politicians6. “better preparation of the citizen for his roles in

policymaking”7. policy research organisations8. social experimentation9. encourage heresies (e.g. “genetic policies”!)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

26

Governance of problems

Premise: specifically limited rationality of people – and hence also policy makers

1. bounded rationality:limited capacity, time pressure (hence, heuristics, short-cuts; policymakers are ‘cognitive misers’)

2. ecological rationality:in relation to a concrete environment (hence contingent)

3. social rationality:in relations with other people (and hence complications of status, group pressure, group think, power)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

27

Result: acceptability

policy makers do not go for the optimal solution(no time to find it, too new, unpredictable)

Acceptability heuristic covered by their constituency (= known environment)

Hence: anticipate accountability issues

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

28

Accountability and problems

How is accountability framed?

1 are moral and ethical standards clear or not?

2 is there certainty on available and usable knowledge?

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

29

Four types of policy problems

tame problems, “puzzles”, e.g. daily medical practice

wicked problems, cloning, xenotransplantation

not clear how to bring shared goal about, e.g. obesitas

knowledge clear, but no shared goals, e.g. abortion US

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

30

Complications ofproblem structuring

1. hybrid forms

2. various policy actors classify different(problem definition varies between actors, and over time)

3. preference for presenting problems as (relatively) structured (= more governable)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

31

“problem structuring bias”

1. policy makers want to reduce complications

2. use existing policy tools and procedures3. stay within “politically correct” frames→ may treat a problem as structured, while

other stakeholders do not= ill-structured problem

leading to intractable policy controversies:“no agreement on what the disagreement is about”, or mis-match government versus other stakeholders’ problem conceptions

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

32

Problem structuration

Choosing to structure the problem as characterised by (relative) normative agreement, and (degree of) knowledge certainty

→ “problem structuration”• decompose an unstructured problem into

partial problems, some of which may be (moderately) structured

• but a structured problem can always be deconstructed to an unstructured one!

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

33

AIDS example

problem framed in different ways:

• find a cure: medical research scientists; “just give us the money…” (SP)

• Prevent/care– collective public health approach, using forced-treatment tools for

epidemics – optimism about cure…(some public health professionals: MSP-g)

– Voluntary, communicative approach: information on personal hygiene for responsible citizens – pessimistic about cure…

(MSP-g)

(variation between countries, over time, between the kinds of (candidate-)patients involved)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

34

Policy politics

= types of cognitive processes (puzzling) and styles of competitive interaction (powering) characteristic for problem processing in a particular policy domain

distinguished from ‘high politics’serial, restricted by agenda limitation, under political attention

domains: relatively autonomous, parallel processing

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

35

Contingent policy politics1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

36

1 closed, institutionalised: rule by epistemic community

closed nature: clear membership, possibly even “sub-government”

also cognitively structured: epistemic communities

= good at rational-analytic problem solving and hence handling structured problems

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

37

2 open, emergent/decay: ‘lead or learn’

Network in flux, unstable, fluid participation, e.g. around an issue

tend to focus on the political/adversarial, rather than cognitive

possibly creative, but unpredictable

= if social learning/deliberation can be injected, creative in problem structuring

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

38

Learning about unstructured

problems

moderatelystructured problems

(goals)

moderatelystructured problems

(means)

structuredproblems

Figure 1—3. Political judgment as learning about unstructured problems and as decomposition and sorting device

39

3 oligopolistic, half-open: advocacy coalition politics

open to new players, but they need to be recognised, certified

institutionalised policy domains, e.g. socio-economictypical: two or three advocacy coalitions, producing

incremental policies; assisted by specialised, problem-driven research institutions/consultants

= fit for moderately structured problems with some degree of normative agreement; debates and research on ‘best practice’

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

40

4 Designed networks: conflict management

Attempting to design discourse coalitions, e.g. trying to mitigate/manage/resolve (≠ solve) an ongoing conflict

requirement: out of political spotlight, hence somewhat closed off

focused on deliberation, learning, ideas for synthesis or compromise

= accomodation strategy when goals and values are not shared, differ sharply(e.g. Dutch pillarised society, ethics commissions)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

41

Contingent policy

= adapt policies to type of policy problem at hand

Analysis of case of strategic decision making: as much as 6 out of 10 mismatch (Paul Nutt 2002)

1 Governance

2 Foucault

3 Meta-policy

4 Gov. Problems

42

Close to agreement onnorms and values at stake

Far fromcertainty onrequired andavailableknowledge

UP

SP

MSP(g)

MSP(m)

Normal advocacy coalition politics, and/orproblem-driven search,in policy subsystems

Transformative discourse coalition politics, accommodation strategies, or conflict management in issue network(s)

Normal regulatory policy inprofessional/technical community

Agenda-changing populist politics, agonistic participation, crisis management; deliberation & learning in emergent network(s)

Close tocertainty

Far fromagreement

Contingent policy politics