Rationalism and public policy: Mode of analysis or symbolic politics?

Abstract

ABSTRACT:This article takes up the distinction between incremental analysis and incremental politics as elaborated by Lindblom in his 1979 article. We argue that while rationalism as a mode of analysis has lost much of its prominence, rationalism as symbolic politics is still very much alive and might even be more present today than it was back when Lindblom wrote his famous 1959 article. The recent shift to new modes of governance whereby elected officials are increasingly delegating decision-making powers to independent bureaucracies -what Majone calls the "regulatory state" or what the British describe as "agencification" or quangoisation" -has created an important legitimacy deficit for those non-majoritarian institutions that exercise political authority without enjoying any direct link to the electoral process. In such a context -and in addition to growing public distrust towards partisan politics -rationalist politics is likely to become more rampant as independent bureaucracies lack the legitimacy to publicly recognize the fundamentally incrementalist -and thus values-laden -nature of their decision-making processes. To develop these ideas, the article looks at the case of "supreme audit institutions". We argue that rationalist politics is a mean for SAIs to legitimize their shift from classical financial auditing to performance auditing. In comparison to other independent bureaucracies, they are particularly prone to rationalist politics not just because of their institutional independence, but also because of the tradition of financial auditing and the rise of new public management.

The “Isms” of Regional Integration: What Do Underlying Interstate Preferences Hold for the ECOWAS Union?

“…Since then, classical theories of international cooperation and integration are rationalist and state‐centered, stressing the difference between regional integration and regional cooperation (Søren 2010). Realist theory argues that international institutions are unable to mitigate anarchy's constraining effects on interstate cooperation as a fundamental pillar of international politics (Copeland 2011; Grieco 1988; Saint‐Martin and Allison 2011). Theories of regional cooperation and integration, such as “new regionalism” (Sahakyan 2016; Söderbaum 2012; Söderbaum and Sbragia 2010; Söderbaum and Shaw 2003) and “non‐Western approaches” (Acharya and Buzan 2017; Acharya and Johnston 2007), focus on states as the main drivers of regionalism that develops through the processes of formal institution building at the regional level.…”

“…The underlying national preferences for joining regional organizations are either economic or geopolitical interests (Moravcsik 1998). Laursen (2008, 4) defined rationalism as “a process that leads to a certain state of affair and as the attainment, within a territory, of a ‘sense of community’ and of institutions and practices strong enough and widespread enough to assure, for a ‘long’ time, dependable expectations of ‘peaceful change’ among its population.” Joseph Grieco (1990, 35) buttresses that position, stating that “neo‐liberalism essentially expects states to calculate costs and benefits of alternative courses of action in order to maximize their utility because of [their own] preferences.” Arguably, while rationalism as a mode of analysis has lost much of its prominence, rationalism as symbolic politics is still very much alive and is still the most powerful theory of international politics (Copeland 2011; Saint‐Martin and Allison 2011).…”

From Inconsistencies to Contingencies -Understanding Policy Complexity of Novi Sad 2021 European Capital of Culture

“…As Belfiore and Bennett observe, "the policy-making process in reality is more complicated than the [rational-comprehensive] model presumes" (original emphasis, 2010: 135). The rationalistcomprehensive policy model (Leoveanu 2013;Saint-Martin and Rothmayr 2011;Everett 2003) whole created through the clear cycle of decision-making, which presupposes thorough research, deliberation of values, and diverse policy alternatives, as well as consideration of input-output effectiveness. Despite the theoretical and symbolic dominance of a rational-comprehensive model as a sort of policy-making ideal and norm, doubts have been expressed since the 1950s on the possibility of exercising this model in real-life policy processes (Lindblom 1959).…”

Using a Triangulated Theoretical Framework and Mixed Methods: Frame, Institutional and Network Analyses

“…As Saint-Martin & Allison (2011) argue, this kind of synoptic model of public policy is not mobilised because of its empirical robustness, but because of its symbolic properties; symbolic of our ability to measure, control and manage 'problems' with rational, almost perfunctory approaches.…”