Geology Reference
In-Depth Information
In policy monopoly, the bureaucratic agency is responsible for bringing proposals to the legislature that are based
on sound peer-evaluated science. The policies brought forward for legislative action are those perceived as needed
and desired by the agency
constituents, who often overlap considerably if not perfectly.
Proposals will gain strong support from those constituents who will benefit directly from the change in the policy
status quo. In the smoothest functioning form, policy monopoly will produce the classic textbook iron triangle
where there is universal agreement among the political actors, and competing policy proposals and ideas are
effectively blocked from consideration in the decision space (Berry, 1989). This nonpermeable subgovernment is
short lived because those constituents and clients blocked from meaningful participation can always change the
visibility of the issue by appealing to the public. Policy monopoly breaks down as competing alternatives are able
to change the political agenda and receive serious consideration in the discussions and negotiations involved in
shaping the final form of legislation in the subgovernment decision space.
'
s clients and legislators
'
“
”
During policy monopoly, scientists are free to
without concern for politics, because the overlapping
and interlocking clients and constituents will provide the requisite demand for the policy change. There is also a stable
consensus in all aspects of the subgovernment: the legislature, the constituency, and both civil service and political
appointees in the executive. In effect, the policy making in monopoly phase can proceed without concern for politics,
that is, determining who will benefit from the change to the status quo and who will pay the costs for the change,
because of the shared belief that these policies are the best options for the country. Policy monopoly does not guarantee
success for every proposal. It does however guarantee winning most of the time in a given Congress, and living to
return for the next and future Congresses as a serious contender in the deliberations that produce policy decisions.
do their science
Predictability in policy making is a valuable political commodity. Constituents can receive the programs they want
and politicians can spend minimal time and effort to produce maximum constituency benefits, which should pay
off for politicians at re-election time. While a policy monopoly is functioning, science has the luxury to specialize.
A stable electoral consensus that produces a policy monopoly allows scientists to be confident about what research
is considered relevant for policy makers, to plan according to predictable levels of funding for their work, and
enables them to choose what are likely to be fruitful lines of research in the policy process (Stokes, 1997).
Policy Phases Other than Monopoly
Policy monopolies are easily upset. The collapse is not immediate and neatly defined, but instead is marked by
diminished predictability in the policy process. Controversies arise in appropriations decisions, conflict, and
visibility in the policy arena increases. The phase of collapsing monopoly is fraught with unpleasant surprises as
bureaucratic proposals are rejected, new interest groups are able to demand significant compromises or concessions
in policy negotiations, and policy decisions become political footballs kicked around during subsequent election
campaigns. Legislative defeats initially increase in frequency for bureaucrats, then ultimately the nature of the
decision space changes.
Policy replacement occurs when a new policy consensus coalesces around a basic policy approach that is outside the
boundaries of the previous consensus. In essence, this is the beginning of a new policy cycle. As such, replacement
may be considered either as a separate policy phase, or it may be treated as a transition between policy monopoly
collapse and policy innovation, thereby completing the policy cycle. Policy replacement can last for 20
-
30 years, and
in comparison to the typical 5
15-year time frames in which policy studies are conducted, this is a significant time unit.
As such, I believe it deserves consideration as a separate but transitional phase.
-
Two phases in the policy cycle exist prior to the monopoly phase. Policy innovation occurs with a good idea for a
pressing policy problem being proposed to the legislature by a trusted agent with a prior record of success with
these particular legislators and who has a significant store of political capital to be spent on this issue at this time.
This good idea is proposed outside of existing policy structures and is made possible through personal contacts.
Politicians are educated about the good idea, as are their constituents. Policy innovation occurs when the economic
and demographic conditions have evolved such that the policy status quo is no longer tenable. The form that
innovation takes is dependent on the political conditions that produce it. This emerging policy does not necessarily
lead to monopoly. It can however develop into a monopoly if conditions are suitable. Monopoly formation would
require decades of electoral replacement and evolution in the legislature and bureaucracy. Much like policy
replacement, policy consolidation can be seen as a separate phase or a transition from innovation to a successful
monopoly. Again like the replacement phase, consolidation can last for 20
-
50 years, and also deserves to be
considered separately.
