Policy community is a group of specialists (organizations and/or individuals) that are considered to be the key policy actors in a specific field of government activity or policy area from both through and outside of government (Pross 1985, p. 253; Kingdon 1984, p. 123). Power is the capacity to influence others’ behaviour and to prevent one’s own behaviour from being modified in an unwanted manner (Smith 1976, p. 16).
Some scholars in policy and politic
al and economic science have identified factors that determine power of policy community members. These are: the linkage to authority, control on economic resources, the stake in the political outcome, knowledge and expertise, the strength of policy network, capability to organize effective political influence, and the share in the dominance of 'mainstream' idea.This paper will argue that although power in policy making process is not equally distributed among the policy community members, the degree of power dispersion – is influenced by power determinants mentioned above – varies from one society to another depending on their social and political pattern.
Power Determinants
Policy community does not only exist in a pluralist country but also in an elitist country such as China. However, the influence of the leadership (authority) on policy community has diminished from time to time as the Chinese State structure has become more pluralist (Halpern 1989, p. 39). From this it could be concluded that power determinants that have more influence on authority, hereafter called "vertical determinants" are more important in an elitist society, while those which have more effect on horizontal actors i.e. other policy community members and public in general, hereafter called "horizontal determinants", are more significant in a pluralist society.
This typology will be used throughout this paper along with Colebatch’s two dimensions of policy; these are vertical and horizontal (Colebatch 2002, pp. 23-24).
Vertical power determinants:
• The linkage to authority
Public policy is a decision of public authority. Therefore, it highlights hierarchy. In terms of policy style, there are many variations in the way of doing policy. One of the styles was argued by Heclo and Wildavsky (1974, cited in Colebatch 2002, p. 14) in their study on Treasury control in Britain. They found that policy work rested on personal links and trust. The personal linkage to authority can result from the control of capital in the economy. Those who control capital have more opportunity to contribute financially to party funds (Smith 1976, p. 182).
• Control of economic resources.
In many cases, actors who control economic resources, particularly capital, are those who enjoy more power in policy community. This happens because it is a common perception that the business sector which controls capital is more representative of ‘national interest' than other actors such as labour groups (Smith 1976, p. 181). In addition, in rent-seeking economy, the business sector that controls capital can easily cooperate with authority to set and enforce certain policy economy to derive rent. Therefore, the business sector is a strong force in determining economic policy (Levaux, pp. 24-30)
• The stake in the political outcome
Policy instrument aims to achieve political outcome. The group with similar and strong interests in regard to certain policy issues will be more likely to organize themselves as well as contribute their resources to policy debate, particularly in relation to their influence to authority. Therefore, power of policy community is not determined by the number of members, rather it is determined by their per capita stakes (Komesar 1994, p. 55)
Horizontal power determinant:
• Knowledge and expertise
Colebatch argues that expert groups can claim responsibility for policy in any given area (Colebatch 2002, pp. 25-30). This is in line with other scholars’ arguments that knowledge is power in policy making (Richardson 2000, p. 1019; Haas 1992, p. 2; Smith 1976, p. 19). Epistemic community (expert network) has important role in defining and framing issues as well as advising policy makers of possible policy solutions. Moreover, epistemic community also has important role in international policy coordination because their new ideas and information can lead to new patterns of behaviour which is important in policy coordination (Haas 1992, pp. 2-3).
• The strength of policy network
Policy community works within a particular issue cluster. Each members may work with their own policy network consists of people and organizations with similar interests. The power of each member depends on the strength of their network. For example, policy makers and experts with centre-left political ideology manage an effective network facility in the form of an international thinktank called "policy network" -dedicated to promoting progressive policies and the renewal of social democracy (Policy Network n.d.). Whilst in U.S. foreign policy making, groups with a strong network, such as human rights groups, can dominate the policy making process (Hersman 2000, pp. 47-50).
• Capability to organize effective political influence
Members of policy community with capability to organize political influence (of those who are within and outside their network) have more power in policy making process (Komesar 1994, p. 56). The case of devaluation policy from Ghana in 1970s show that the negative reaction from public – which then triggered a military coup – resulted in failure of the policy (Grindle & Thomas 1990, p. 1168).
• The share in the dominance of 'mainstream' idea.
Colebatch argues that the powerful protect their interests through the dominance of 'mainstream' ideas and symbols (2002, p. 46). This dominance controls the policy agenda setting. Power is not only about deciding something, but also about ignoring something (Bachrach & Baratz 1962, p. 949). Members whose ideology is in line with the 'mainstream' will enjoy more power.
Those power determinants and their effect on power of policy community members confirm the argument of Parsons (1995, p. 125) and Davis et al (1993, p. 157) that power is not equaly distributed.
Conclusion
Those who have better links to authority, more control of economic resources, more stakes in political outcome, better knowledge and expertise, more capability to organize political influence, and are stronger in their policy network and better alignment to the mainstream will enjoy more power in policy community.
The distinction between vertical and horizontal determinants in relation to social and political pattern of a society made in this paper does not mean that any determinant is only relevant to its typology, but rather, indicates the tendency. For example, "the stake in the political outcome" works in both a pluralist and elitist society, but its influence is more significant in an elitist society. In other words, those in vertical dimension are more significant in influencing authority, while others in horizontal are more significant to horizontal actors.
References
Bachrach, P & Baratz, MS 1962, 'Two faces of power', The American Political Science Review, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 947-952.
Colebatch, HK 2002, Policy, 2nd edn, Open University Press, Philadephia.
Davis, G. et al. (eds) 1993, Public policy in Australia, 2nd edn, Allen & Unwin, Melbourne.
Grindle, MS & Thomas, JW 1990, ‘After the decision: implementing policy reforms in developing countries’, World Development, vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1163-1181.
Haas, PM 1992, 'Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination', International Organization, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 1-35.
Halapern, NP 1989, 'Policy communities in Leninist State: the case of the Chinese economic policy community', Governance, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 23-41.
Hersman, RKC 2000, Friends and foes: how Congress and the President really make foreign policy, The Bookings Institution, Washington DC.
Kingdon, JW 1984, Agendas, alternatives and public policies, Little, Brown & Company, Boston.
Komesar, NK 1994, Imperfect alternatives: choosing institutions in law, economics, and
Levaux, HP 1999, Commercial power centers in Indonesia: A new paradigm to analyse the role of business groups in policy making, RAND Graduate School, Washington DC.
Parsons, W 1995, Public policy, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham.
Policy Network n.d., 'About Policy Network', Policy Network.net, viewed 11 April 2010,
< id="56">
Pross, AP 1985, 'Parliamentary influence and the diffusion of power', Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 235-266.
Richardson, J 2000, ‘Government, interest groups and policy change’, Political Studies, vol. 48, pp. 1006-1025.
Smith, B 1976, Policy making in British Government: an analysis of power & rationality, Rowman and Littlefield, New Jersey.
