Pluralist model of public policy Pre-election party policy Think tanks Public opinion Interest groups Lobbyists Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy Pre-election party policy Public oinion Interest groups Lobbyists Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy Pre-election party policy Interest groups Lobbyists Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy Pre-election party policy Interest groups Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy Pre-election party policy Interest groups Post election government policy Public policy Civil servants

Pluralist model of public policy Interest groups Post election government 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 relations 1. 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?)