1. 2005 Actor-centered theories: II. The role of the state Lecture 5 Health Politics Ana Rico Room L4-46, rico@bmg.eur.nl

2. 2005 OUTLINE OF THE SESSION 1. Introduction A. Concepts  Actors, organizations, institutions B. Actor-centred theories  Theses and arguments  Types of actor-centered theories 2. State-centred theories  Concepts: state, government, political system  Theses and arguments  Evidence  Criticisms  Policy implications (3. State-society theories, L6)

3. 2005 The word “actor” has two (slightly contradictory) connotations...  1. Capable of independent action. Actor, doer, workerdoerworker - A person who acts and gets things done; - One who takes part; a participant - Law. One, such as the manager of a business, who acts for another.  2. Playing a part or role as pre-specified in an script Policy and political actors  Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in politics/policy-making Distinguish between:  State actors = those political actors who hold formal (constitutional or legal = institutional) power to make, take and enforce decisions which affect the whole society (=policy)  Stakeholders/(challengers) = social and sociopolitical actors who try to influence policy by exerting pressure from outside CONCEPTS (1): Actors

4. 2005 The most important characteristics of actors are:  1. Preferences = interests  How are they defined (+/- democratic/centralized process)?  To what extent are they private (less inclusive, more short-term) or public (more inclusive, more long-term)?  2. Capacity=? amount of power (for) and other resources (money, knowledge, personnel) Action: (independent or not) is supposed to be directly derived from each actor’s caracteristics NOTE: Actor-centred theory defends that policy results from actors who have capacity (power for) to act independently; and so (=) able to impose their preferences on other actors (power over) CONCEPTS (1): Actors

5. 2005 In politics, collective actors are more relevant than individuals  A collective actor can be: An organization; elites represent members and act for them An organization representing a social group: elites represent, and act for, both members (inside) and supporters (outside) A coalition of organizations and/or social groups, led by elites A social group led by some elites (no organization)  Organizations are actors by the law : legal persons with property rights over capital, knowledge and connections...... However, other analytical traits of an “actor” can be missing:  A collective who behaves as an individual (as army in battle)  Not all organizations can be considered a (unitary) actor CONCEPTS (2): Organizations

6. 2005  Organizations can be defined differently (depending on authors and research goals) :  Collective actors: Emphasis on similarities with individuals, independent actors. MACRO – Rational choice, State-centred  Institutions: A set of institutional rules which determines the behaviour of the members of the organization. MACRO - Institutionalist  ‘Political systems’: Set of internal coalitions (linked to outside social groups) which struggle to influence organizational decisions and rules. MESO – State-society theories, Power- centred action theories CONCEPTS (2): Organizations NOTE: To define organizations as institutions confuses players with rules of the game, and involves determinism

7. 2005 Organizations as collective actors Able to act outside the norms... And to change the rules of the game...... But subject to liability, accountable to shareholders and the courts: legal persons Governed by representatives often not subject to mandate...

8. 2005 informal = cultural norms + social control YES: Rules and norms formal = laws & rules + courts & police with special normative & symbolic features; or a long history NO: = Organizations (they are also but not only institutional rules)  Which produce the rules and regulations (=with power to change institutions by enacting new policy);  With special normative and simbolic features; or a long history  Organizations versus groups: weight of formal vs informal norms CONCEPTS (3): Institutions

9. 2005  The main functions of institutions in politics are: -To allocate power (and money) across actors -To regulate behaviour: what is allowed/forbidden  Two types of formal institutions are relevant: -Political institutions: Constitutional distribution of powers across state actors. E.g.: Electoral system, Executive/Parliament power, Federal/Unitary -Organizational rules and structures: Internal rules of operation in organizations which regulate the distribution of power within the organization + the behaviour of its members and elites NOTE: Often the term “structures” is used as synonymous of institutions  BUT confusion with socioeconomic structure CONCEPTS (3): Institutions

10. 2005 Organizations as institutions Sets of formal/informal rules of power & norms of behaviour...... which structure social interaction within organizations... and a broader regulatory environment Operating within a network of contracts with others....... + pools of resources (= as organisms)

11. 2005 ACTOR-CENTERED THEORIES  Thesis: Policy change results from the capacity of the most powerful political actors to be autonomous from social pressures  Research question: Are political actors (eg the state, political parties, public opinion, policy experts, the media) capable of independent action (from context & IGs) which advances citizens’ welfare?  Relevance: Ultimately a question about...  Democracy  Does the state represents citizens?; and  Autonomy of politics from society: Can politics advance the general interest, rather than reflect the private interests of priviledged social groups?  Different types of actor-centred theories focus on different actors:  1) State actors  2) Political parties  3) Policy experts  4) Public opinion  5) Mass media  6) Corporatist organizations STATE-CENTRED STATE-SOCIETY

12. 2005 SOCIAL PRESSURES OLD INSTITUTIONALISM Formal political institutions SOCIAL ACTORS (IGs: dependent on social pressures) POLITICAL ACTORS (STATE: independent of social pressures) SOCIOP. ACTORS (STATE-SOCIETY: interdependent) NEW INSTITUTIONALISM (state institutions & state/PPs/IGs’ organization) POWER-CENTRED THEORIES (interactions among collective actors & social structure) RATIONAL CHOICE (interactions among individuals ACTOR-CENTERED INSTITUTIONALISM (interactions among institutions & elites) 1950s/60s: SOCIAL CONTEXT 1970s/1980s: ACTOR- CENTRED 1990s: INSTITUT- IONALISM (+state-society) 2000s: ACTION THEORIES SOCIAL & POLITICAL THEORIES L3 L5 L2, L4 L6 L7 L9 L4, L9 L7 L7, L9

13. 2005 ACTOR-CENTRED THEORIES ACTOR-CENTRED CONTEXT ACTION State-Soc. State-centred IGs/PPs INSTITUTIONALISM

14. 2005 STATE-CENTRED THEORIES I. Research questions  Are state actors capable of independent action which changes policy?; Do they respond to citizens (public interest) or private interest groups? II. Main concepts - definitions  State, state actors, government, political system III. Thesis and arguments  Policy change depends on the capacity of state actors, which make them autonomous from social pressures IV. Antitheses & criticisms V. Aplications – evidence  Accounting for American excepcionalism VI. Policy implications  To foster policy change we should help develop state actors´capacity (=resources??), as this would increase their autonomy vis-a-vis IGs

15. 2005 Political system (=regime): aggregate of actors & institutions:  Organizations, groups and individuals who actively participate in politics  Set of institutional rules which regulate rights, power and behaviour State :  Set of political organizations with the ultimate power to take collective decisions which are binding for the whole of society; and to impose them upon it (through monopoly of the legitimate use of force)  Parliament + committees (deliberate, decide on rights, control gov.)  Government (adopts policy) + Bureaucracy (designs/implements policy)  Courts + Police (implements policy & guarantee compliance)  Elected (PPs’ elites) vs appointed officials (civil servants and policy experts) Government:  General: Activity of taking collective decisions  Specific: Political organization, with a key role within the state, with the power to take most policy decisions CONCEPTS (4): The state

16. 2005  SOCIAL CONTEXT: The state as a ‘transmission belt’ of social pressures  STATE-CENTRIC: The state as a unitary, independent actor with formal monopoly of (residual) power over policy-making  STATE-SOCIETY: The state as a set of political representatives and policy experts with preferences and action partly independent, and partly determined by a wide range of social actors’ pressures  INSTITUTIONALIST: The state as a set of political institutions; or as a set of elites with preferences and actions mainly determined by institutions  ACTION: As a set of political organizations which respond to context, sociopolitical actors and institutions; and which compete and cooperate (=interact) to make policy  CONCEPTS (4): The state

17. 2005 STATE-CENTERED THEORY  MAIN THESIS: State autonomy is the main determinant of policy change, and depends on the capacity of state actors vis-a-vis other policy actors  ARGUMENTS:  1) Policy experts and bureaucrats are the main state actors in the policy- making; (+political parties), politicians just set policy goals  2) History (= Policy legacies) model the institutional structure & resources of states, making some of them more capable (= independent) than others  3) Pro-state policies are the result of capable states  weak states are captured, as they have to rely on IGs to expand state intervention  4) Social/sociopolitical actors as well as citizens play only a minor role under strong, capable states, because:  “the organizational structures of the state indirectly influence the meanings and methods of politics for all groups in society”

18. 2005 ANTECEDENTS (1) Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (1) Social context: Structuralism. Miliband 1969 - Politics is an unequal struggle between powerful capitalists (who directy rule the state), and a weak working class, unorganized and excluded from politics  pro-rich, pro-market status-quo - (Action) Policy only changes during crisis, as capitalists stop compiting and jointly use & expand the state to protect capitalism Social actors: power resources theories. Fred Block 1977 - State actors depend for their fiscal resources on capitalists, so they will be against significant policy change - Policy changes as a result of organized working class pressures of unions and socialists/SD parties on state actors

19. 2005 ANTECEDENTS (2) Neo-marxist actor-centred theories (2) State-centred. Poulantzas 1973 - “The state is a relatively autonomous entity”, “capable of transcending the parrochial interests of specific capitalists and specific class factions” - “The capitalist state best serves the interests of the capitalist class only when members of this class do not participate directly in the state aparatus” - (Action) An organized and mobilized working class reinforces state autonomy

20. 2005 ANTECEDENTS (3) Old political institutionalism Formal centralization of decision-making power makes political regimes, states and organizations stronger & more efficient State powers are more centralized when: Democratic Institutions: Majoritarian (vs proportional) electoral systems; Unitary (vs federal) states; Executive dominance (+/- = parliamentarism vs. presidentialism); Sociopolitical organizations: Single-party (vs coalition) government; Corporatism (vs pluralism); Party discipline and organization Social groups: Single (=class) vs multiple cleavages in the soc. struct. seen as causes of institutions Single/multiple cleavages  biparty/multiparty system  single party/coalition gov.  centralized democratic institutions

21. 2005 CAUSAL MAPS Government action/Policy change Source: Orloff & Skocpol, 1984 State formation (bureaucratization, democratization Socioeconomic & cultural changes Changing class structure & new social needs Proposals of politically active groups How state organizations & parties operate Changing group and social needs What politically active groups propose Government action/Policy change Social context & social actors theories State-centered theories

22. 2005 ANTI-THESES Policy is “a vector diagram in which a series of pressures are brought to bear on the state which then moves in the direction it is pushed by the strongest societal forces” (Hall, 1993) SOCIAL CONTEXT  1) CONVERGENCE: as GDP grows (following industrialization), democratic societies age, and the WS expands  2) CULTURAL THEORY: countries with liberal (anti-statist) national cultures have underdeveloped WSs  3) STRUCTURAL THEORIES (Working class strength): “the WS is a product of the growing strength of labour in civil society” (Stephens, 1979:89; quoted by Orloff & Skocpol, 1984) SOCIAL ACTORS: When capitalists are strong/the working class weak, private IGs are strong/Unions & SD parties are weak, and the WS is weak

23. 2005 CONCEPTS - “The state at which we are now looking largely remains a black box” (Hall, 1993) - Political parties considered as state actors, independent from society ANALITYCAL - It disregards society - “The stark dichotomy between state & society... should be revised to allow a significant role to the political system defined as the complex of political parties and interest intermediaries that stand in the intersection between state and society in democratic politics” (Hall, 1993) - It mixes actor-centred arguments with institutional (and policy- feedback) arguments without differenciatng CRITICISMS (1)

24. 2005 CRITICISMS (2) EMPIRICAL  “How it is that an state with an unchanging structure often seems to be more autonomous from societal pressure at some times or in some fields than others?” (Hall, 1993)  US 1930s enacts WS pensions but HC reform fails  Deviant case & the comparative method:  In the UK (Jacobs, 1992), same anti-state policy legacies (culture) but NHI 1945 (due to public opinion changes)  In Canada (Maioni, 1997), weaker state than US but NHI: - the WS historically weaker than in the US (policy legacies -), - federalism was stronger (weak state institutions -), BUT (against state-centred theory)  - universal NHI was approved in the 1960s (but failed in the US)

25. 2005 Policy implications  NOTE: Radically different policy implications of social context, actor-centred theory (state-centred A.) and institutionalist theory (state-centred B.)  DIAGNOSIS:  * 1. SOCIAL CONTEXT: Weak WS due to unfavourable economic growth, social structure and national culture  * 2. STATE-CENTRED A.: Weak WS due to weak (=little resources, divided), captured (=corrupted) state actors and political parties  * 3. STATE-CENTRED B: Weak WS due to weak political institutions (Constitution) and policy legacies (history)  POLICY ADVICE:  * 1. Modify the social structure (eg through redistribution), and national cultures (through policy campaigns & improved state performance)  * 2. Strengthen the capacity of state actors and policy experts (eg research, training, recruitment, tax policies, party discipline)  * 3. Reform the Constitution  difficult; + history  unchangeable