%JCRVGT

Public Policy, Power,

and Decision

.GCTPKPI 1DLGEVKXGU
9.1 Differentiate among the types of public policy and outline the stages of
public policy.
9.2 Identify three major approaches that explain public policymaking.
9.3 Characterize the elite approach.
9.4 Characterize the class approach.
9.5 Characterize the pluralist approach.
9.6 Evaluate the similarities, differences, and usefulness of the three major
approaches to public policymaking.

“Mapuche”—their name means “people of the land.” This indigenous people of

Chile has sustained its nation-based identity for many centuries. They fought the Inca
Empire to a standstill in the 1400s, and drove back the Spanish conquistadores from
their land in the 1500s. But in the late nineteenth century, a substantial part of the land
claimed by the Mapuche in southern Chile was acquired by outsiders, especially large
agricultural barons, small farmers, and multinational logging companies.
Since the middle of the twentieth century, the Mapuche have persistently urged
the Chilean government to enact policies that respond to their claims regarding
their land rights, the protection of their cultural identity, and their desire for greater
political autonomy. The Mapuche do have some resources for influencing govern-
ment policy. With 800,000 people, they hold some electoral clout. Chile is one of
only 22 countries that have ratified the United Nations’ Indigenous and Tribal
Peoples Convention (1989), which pledges to promote the rights of groups like the
Mapuche. Also, the center-left coalition that dominated Chilean politics from 1988 to
2010 expressed some sympathy for the Mapuche claims. And in 1998, the Mapuche

231
232 Chapter 9

Outside Chile’s Supreme Court, police arrest a Mapuche woman protesting the long sentences imposed
on four Mapuche activists who had attacked police while asserting their land rights on a settler’s farm.

established Coordinadora Arauco-Malleco (CAM), an interest group to coordinate

their political actions.
However, the political forces lined up against the goals of the Mapuche are formi-
dable. There are some elites in Chile who are directly opposed to the Mapuche’s land
claims. In particular, the wealthy landowners and multinational logging interests who
currently hold Mapuche lands have considerable influence with key elected political
leaders in the executive and legislative branches and with senior appointed officials in
the administration. More broadly, the general Chilean population is not particularly
sympathetic to the Mapuche claims that the national government should grant them
political autonomy. Although they are a sizeable subgroup, the Mapuche constitute
only 5 percent of the Chilean population, and most of them are poor, landless peasants
who lack political skills or the will to mobilize into political action.
Thus, proposed legislation to expropriate land and return it to the Mapuche
generated substantial opposition and was defeated in the legislature. Chile’s
president, who initially supported their claim, dropped his advocacy. As a conces-
sion, the government did purchase a small amount of land (20,000 acres), which was
distributed to the Mapuche, but not the one million acres the Mapuche claim as their
native lands. And the redistribution program was very limited, because most land-
owners demanded high prices to sell their land to the Mapuche and the government
was unwilling to pay that amount or to force them to lower their price. Similarly, the
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 233

government allocated only a modest amount of funds to support the maintenance of

Mapuche cultural traditions.
Then in 2010, the coalition that gained a majority of the seats in the national leg-
islature shifted to include several conservative groups, including Alianza por Chile,
that promote a single national identity for all Chileans and insist that the government
should aggressively punish the illegal activities of the Mapuche. Thus, the Mapuche
remained frustrated by their lack of success in persuading government to respond
favorably to their policy agenda. Since their policy demands have not been achieved
through normal political channels, some of their activists continue to engage in uncon-
ventional political actions (Carruthers and Rodriguez 2009). This has included hunger
strikes, demonstrations, and some violence. For example, a group of Mapuche occupied
a farm that was being minimally used. When they refused to leave, the government
was pressured by local landowners to intervene, and its security forces were dispatched
to reclaim the property. The confrontation became violent, and an unarmed 22-year-
old Mapuche student was shot in the back by the police. Between 2009 and 2013, the
reported acts of violence in this conflict have increased tenfold (Henao 2013).
The center-left Chilean government elected in 2013 has attempted to calm the vola-
tile situation. It has appointed special commissions to investigate the issues, proposed
new policy initiatives, and returned a small amount of land. The government has
made such decisions to satisfy the policy agendas of both the Mapuche and those who
oppose their demands. But the Mapuche simply do not have as much political clout as
their opponents. Thus, the political goals pursued by the “people of the land” remain
largely unfulfilled and unpromising.
Recall from Chapter 1 that the core definitions of politics focus on the competition
among individuals and groups who utilize power and influence to pursue their interests
on issues controlled by public authorities. The attempts by the Mapuche to regain their
lands and preserve their cultural autonomy are clearly within the domain of res publica
in Chile. As the Mapuche engaged in politics, other groups that had a competing agenda
also mobilized. Policy decisions were made by the government. The Mapuche got some
of what they sought, but not much. Other groups seem to have been more successful.
Considering the story of the Mapuche raises one of the most obvious yet fascinat-
ing general questions in political science: How does politics actually work? That is, how
does a political system handle the incredibly difficult and complicated issues and the
competing demands that are the stuff of politics? How and why do actors in the politi-
cal system decide to deal in one way or another on issues like these? Who has political
power and influence, and how are they exercised?
If someone from another country asked you how major public policy decisions are
made in your country, what would you say? What key points would you emphasize?
Presumably, your response would include a discussion of certain important actors and
how they utilize power and influence within the context of the key political institu-
tions that make such public policy decisions.
Earlier chapters introduced many of these actors and institutions—political
activists, interest groups, executives, legislatures, legal systems, and so on. And they
characterized concepts such as power and analytic models such as the political system
234 Chapter 9

framework. This chapter expands the discussion by focusing explicitly on several

fundamental approaches for analyzing public policy and the exercise of political
power. Initially, the chapter explicates the concept of public policy, with a consideration
of taxonomies and frameworks that characterize the public policy process. It then
describes three basic theories (elite, class, and pluralist) that provide alternative expla-
nations of how public policy decisions are made and how the distribution of power
shapes that decision process.

Public Policy
9.1 Differentiate among the types of public policy and outline the stages of
public policy.
A public policy is any decision or action by a governmental authority that results in the
allocation of something that is valued. Earlier chapters indicated that each political system
establishes how extensively and in what forms its public policies will define res publica
and impact its environment. These public policy decisions range enormously: in
substantive area, in scale, in significance, in the number of people affected, and in the
role of the policymakers. A national government can decide to declare war on a rival
country or to commend a victorious sports team. A local government employee can
decide to fill a pothole or to issue a building permit to a homeowner. The government
representatives of many countries can hammer out a joint treaty to limit greenhouse
gases. A security unit can arrest a suspected terrorist. A government can pass a law
making sex between certain consenting adults illegal. The Chilean government can
decide to allocate some land to the Mapuche or to use force to drive them off some-
one’s private property. Each of these actions is an example of a public policy.
Table 9.1 and Compare in 9 offer some representative examples of current public
policy decisions made by seven national political systems. The Compare claims that
there is considerable policy variation across these countries. Do you agree? Beyond
these kinds of direct comparisons of public policies, there are several other approaches
to the study of public policy. One approach is to classify and compare various types
of public policies by means of a taxonomy. A second approach analyzes the various
stages of the policy process and attempts to explain the dynamics at each stage. A third
approach studies the impacts of a particular public policy because what matters, ulti-
mately, is how (if at all) the policy makes a difference in the lives of individuals and
groups. Finally, a fourth general approach is more prescriptive, evaluating what public
policy ought to be implemented, given existing goals, conditions, and resources. We
can start by considering the types of public policies.

Types of Public Policies

Several criteria are used to classify different types of public policies. For example, a
straightforward classification of policies is based on the functional area that is served,
such as education, health, transportation, trade, public safety, the environment, or
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 235

6CDNG Selected Public Policies in Seven National Political Systems

30
26.9

25
21.9
20.6
20
Percentage

17.3
16.4
15.7
15.0
15 13.7
13.1
12.5
11.8
10.5 10.4 10.1
10
8.2
7.6
7.0
5.8 5.6
4.7
5 3.9 3.3 3.9 4.1 3.7
2.5 2.5 2.9 2.9
2.0 1.5 1.9
1.4 1.3 1.2

0
General Government Tax revenue to Public spending on Public spending on Public spending
Spending, % GDP government, % GDP military, % GDP education, % GDP on health, % of GDP
Brazil China D.R. Congo India Russia Sweden United States
Countries

United
Brazil China D.R. Congo India Russia Sweden States
Policy on Only to save Yes, on mul- Only to save Yes, on Yes, on Yes, on Yes, on
abortion life or after tiple grounds life multiple multiple multiple multiple
rape grounds grounds grounds grounds;
varies by
state
Policy on No, since Yes, for Yes, but only Yes, but Yes, for 30 No, since Yes, in 32 of
death penalty 1889 60 crimes, 2 since 1995 only 3 since crimes, 1921 50 states,
~2,000/year 1995 ~10/year ~16/year
Mandatory Yes Yes, but not No No Yes No No
military enforced
service

Sources: World Bank (2013);

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/abortion/doc/unitedstates.doc;
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicdeclarations.htm.
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/03/india_is_a_death_penalty_country_again

defense. Alternatively, policies can be distinguished by the broad objective of the policy:
(1) Distributive policies provide particular goods and services (e.g., the building and
maintenance of a system of streets and highways); (2) redistributive policies explicitly
transfer values from one group to another group (e.g., a policy that provides subsi-
dized housing to those with limited financial resources); (3) regulatory policies limit
actions (e.g., a policy that prohibits a woman from having an abortion); (4) extractive
policies take resources from some actors (e.g., a sales tax on purchases); and (5) symbolic
policies confer honor or disrepute on certain actors (e.g., a medal awarded to a soldier
for bravery).
236 Chapter 9
Compare in 9
Selected Public Policies in Seven Countries
Over time, do different political systems make
substantially different public policy decisions? To
explore this briefly, Table 9.1 provides examples
of broad public policy decisions made by seven
national political systems. The expenditure data
are reported as the percentage of each coun-
try’s total GDP (gross domestic product) that is
allocated to a policy domain by all levels of govern-
ment. This is an indicator of policy effort, given the
country’s overall wealth. The tax revenue measure
is an extractive policy, while the other expenditure
measures are distributive policies. The three non-
monetary policies are regulatory, regarding certain
rights and freedoms of individuals relative to state
power.
The broadest conclusion from these data is that
there are considerable differences in public policy
decisions across the seven countries. On every
specific policy domain, the country with the high-
est proportion allocates at least three times as much
as the lowest. Each country has developed its own
distinctive pattern of public policies, which are par-
ticularly grounded in the country’s needs, wealth,
and dominant political ideologies. For example,
Sweden is a wealthy country that has a long tradi-
tion of democratic socialism and the provision of
social welfare goods to its population (see Compare
in 13). Thus, Sweden allocates a substantially higher
proportion of its societal wealth through govern-
ment spending than any of the other countries, with
a particular focus on education and health care. To
pay for all these public services, Sweden also col-
lects the highest proportion of taxes. Sweden has
progressive policies on abortion and capital punish-
ment and stopped requiring military (or community)
service in 2010.
It is also interesting to compare Brazil, Russia,
India, and China, four of the five BRICS countries
that are advancing toward global power status (see
Chapter 15). Although each is attempting to project
its power within its region and globally, the policy
choices vary. Russia, which aims to reassert its
military might, allocates far more of its total societal
wealth to the military than the others. Brazil’s gov-
ernment, in contrast, has decided to direct more
national wealth to education and health spending
than the other three countries.
The level of funds allocated is one way to
compare policy decisions. It is also important to
consider how the money is spent. For example,
what are the key targets of health care spending
(e.g., disease prevention, infant health, medical
training, care for HIV-positive people, hospitals)? Is
public spending on education emphasizing teach-
ers’ salaries or student-teacher ratios or educa-
tional technologies or . . . ? The manner in which a
public policy is implemented is also significant for
policies that are not primarily measurable in terms
of money. For instance, the Chinese government
not only allows abortion, it has also aggressively
encouraged and facilitated abortion in an attempt
to control population growth. In contrast, legal
abortion is severely limited in nominally Catholic
Brazil and is a deeply controversial policy domain
in the United States.
And while comparing policy outputs is mean-
ingful, the most important comparisons might be of
the impacts of policies. That is, what is the effect
of public spending on health care on indicators
such as life expectancy and infant mortality rates?
Does an increased level of military spending seem
to increase a country’s security? Which groups
carry the burden of taxes and which do not? Does
spending in one policy area (e.g., health care)
provide indirect benefits to another policy area
(e.g., education)? What is the effect of the policy
of capital punishment on crime if it is rarely used
(as in India)? Table 9.1 and these kinds of ques-
tions should help you to see the rich and complex
considerations that are relevant when you attempt
to compare public policies within and across politi-
cal systems.
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 237

Further Questions
1. On what public policy do you think it would be
most interesting to study crossnational differ-
ences in policy implementation? Why? What
might you learn?
2. Which two countries in Table 9.1 seem to
have the most similar configuration of policy
allocations?

Analysis of the Stages of the Policy Process

A different approach to policy analysis examines the stages of the policy process—the
sequence of actions from the inception of an idea for policy to the point at which the policy
ceases to exist. A policy can be analyzed at each stage: what actors participate, how they
interact, how the policy is defined, and so on. Such an analysis might emphasize the
generally rational weighing of evidence and arguments to reach a reasoned decision,
or it might focus on the complex interactions among different actors who engage in a
process of competition and compromise to reach a more political decision (Stone 2011).
Many public policy analyses focus on one specific stage and explore the dynamics of
that stage of policymaking in detail (Andersen 2011; Bardach 2011). Six stages are usu-
ally distinguished, as characterized in Figure 9.1 and described below. And to provide

(KIWTG The Stages of the Public Policy Process

Problem Problem
identification definition

Policy
continuation/ Specification
modification/ of alternative
termination responses
(based on evaluation)

Policy
Policy
selection and
evaluation
enactment
Policy
implementation
238 Chapter 9

6CDNG An Example of Each Stage of the Policy Process: Reading Skills of Children

Stage Action
Problem identification Data indicate reading scores of children are too low.
Problem definition Set goal: Raise mean reading scores of sixth-grade children by 10 percent in three years.
Reading scores decline steadily from national average in grades 2–5.
Low reading scores are especially associated with families in which English is not the first language.
Lowest average reading scores are in seven schools where more than 20 percent of students come
from such families.
Specification of Target seven lowest-scoring schools or apply programs to all schools?
alternatives Policy options:
Intensive reading instruction in grades 3–5.
Provide teachers with training in reading pedagogy.
Provide reading specialist teachers.
Provide computer-aided learning software.
Require an extra 30 minutes of reading instruction per day.
Or . . .
Policy selection Local school board decides:
Focus only on seven lowest-scoring schools.
Provide three new reading specialists to work with students.
Allocate funds to seven target schools for computer-based reading instruction software.
Implementation School superintendent meets with principals of target schools and they decide how to distribute the time
of the reading specialists across the schools and classrooms.
Committee of principals will select and hire specialists.
Interschool technology committee trains teachers to use reading software, principals require teachers to
develop a plan for its use, and teachers implement it in the classrooms.
Evaluation Changes in reading scores will be analyzed by district staff in each of the next three years.
Teachers will provide written report on the effects of the new initiatives on the classroom.
Continuation of the two policies will be reevaluated at end of year 3.

a concrete example of the policy process, Table 9.2 indicates how the issue of poor
reading scores in a school district might evolve during the policy process.

1. Issue identification. Some actor decides that a condition in the environment

requires a public policy response. For example, the national legislature decides
that personal income taxes are too high, a group of residents complains to the
county board of supervisors that traffic congestion has become a serious problem
in their neighborhood, or the defense department gets secret intelligence that a
rival state is developing a new nuclear weapons system. If important policymakers
push forward the policy issue at this point, it becomes part of the agenda for possi-
ble action. Alternatively, policymakers might decide to drop the issue at this stage.
2. Problem definition. Next, there is an attempt to explain why the problem exists,
to determine what seem to be the causes of the problem, and to define desired out-
comes. Expert staff as well as interested stakeholders with knowledge of the policy
domain can have a major role at this stage, which emphasizes research and analysis.
3. Specification of alternatives. Policy analysts develop policy proposals that
seem to respond to the problem, given the causes, the preferred outcome, and
the likely obstacles. In addition, the resources necessary to implement each policy
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 239

alternative are identified. The costs (e.g., financial, political, organizational) of

each alternative policy must be estimated, as well as the level of expected benefits.
4. Policy selection. Decision makers study the alternatives, trying to assess the
possible costs and benefits from the options. At this stage, the process will be some
mix of political, financial, and technical considerations. The decision might be
to enact a particular policy, to delay, or to do nothing and see if the policy issue
disappears from the public agenda. Considerable negotiations, lobbying, compro-
mises, and adjustments to the proposed policy might occur during this stage.
5. Implementation. The policy is now interpreted and applied in specific contexts.
Those in relevant administrative positions typically take the lead role, determin-
ing how to translate the new policy into actual programs and activities, organize
the necessary resources, and then deliver those programs.
6. Evaluation. After some period of time (or never), new information is gathered to
ascertain whether the policy has had any of the anticipated impacts, whether con-
ditions (related to the policy domain or the political situation) have changed, and
whether any unintended effects of the policy must be considered.

At any stage, but especially after implementation or evaluation, the policy might
be continued, modified, or terminated. This is best understood as a variation of stage
4, since it is a version of policy enactment rather than a distinct stage. It is also pos-
sible that the circumstances might trigger another cycle of the policy process outlined
above, possibly beginning with a new stage of problem identification.

Policy Impact Analysis

The last stage of the policy process described above, evaluation, is an especially signifi-
cant mode of policy analysis. As noted in the Compare in 9, a crucial question is: What
difference did the policy make? This can be considered in different ways. What have
been the direct effects of the policy? Have there also been notable indirect effects? Who
benefits and who experiences negative effects from this policy? What are the nature and
extent of those benefits and burdens? What have been the actual costs compared with the
anticipated costs? On balance, has the policy improved the overall situation? These ques-
tions about the impacts of a policy might be addressed by policymakers and their staffs
or by various other actors, such as interest groups, affected publics, and political rivals.

Policy Prescription
Every public policy affects someone’s interests. Thus, there are always actors (stake-
holders) trying to influence and shape public policy decisions at every stage and to
influence policymakers to make some decisions and not others. As actors define and
then pursue a policy goal, they are also engaged in policy prescription. Their policy goal
might be based on careful policy analysis and policy impact studies, derived from
ideological principles, or influenced by an agent of political socialization or an author-
ity source such as a political party or political leader (recall Chapters 2– 4). Whatever
the basis of their policy prescriptions, policy advocates propose what public policies
should be adopted and how policy should be implemented: The Chilean government
240 Chapter 9

should respond to the land claims of the Mapuche by policy A; the U.S. government
should implement policy B to respond to job losses; the government of India should
adopt policy C to improve the health of its millions of rural poor.
A key analytic question regarding the public policy process is: How does the process
lead to certain decisions and not others? The next section explores this question from
three very different perspectives that attempt to explain how political power is distrib-
uted and wielded by various groups who participate in the policymaking process.

Explaining Public Policy

Decision Making
9.2 Identify three major approaches that explain public policymaking.
The first part of this chapter described analytic concepts that specify the stages in
the public policy process. This section details three political explanations of the pub-
lic policy process: (1) the elite approach; (2) the class approach; and (3) the pluralist
approach. Each approach provides a different explanation of how politics works, how
influence is exercised, and what forces seem to shape the decisions that result in pub-
lic policy. Each focuses on the interactions among aggregations of individuals who
use the political system to pursue their own particular interests. No actual country or
political system is likely to operate exactly like any of these three approaches. Rather,
each approach is a rich illustration of a pattern of power and decision making that is
prevalent in some systems. Our discussion begins with the elite approach.

The Elite Approach

9.3 Characterize the elite approach.

Key Concepts
Two key concepts are central to the elite approach. First, politics is defined as the strug-
gle for power to control policy. Second, the political world is characterized by political
stratification; that is, the population is segmented into separate groups that are in layers (or
“strata”) with higher or lower amounts of power. In the elite approach, there are only two
major strata. The stratum that does more of what there is to do (in the public policy pro-
cess) and that gets more of what there is to get (in valued impacts from policy decisions)
is called the political elite. The stratum that does less and gets less is called the mass.
Elite theory can be visually represented by a power pyramid, as shown in
Figure 9.2. Such a depiction emphasizes that the elite is composed of a relatively
small number of individuals who are in a dominant position on top of the large
mass. Notice that there is a third stratum between the elite and the mass. This is the
political understructure, composed of political officials and administrators who carry
out the elite’s policy directives.
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 241

(KIWTG Characterization of an Elite System

Ruling
elite

Understructure
(government)

Mass

Major Theorists
The elite approach is particularly grounded in the writings of European political
theorists of the late nineteenth century, especially the Italians Roberto Michels, Wilfredo
Pareto, and Gaetano Mosca. In The Ruling Class (1896/2011), Mosca analyzes the
political histories of a variety of political systems and concludes that they all have two
strata: the political class (the elite) and the nonpolitical class (the mass). The political
class controls all political functions, holds almost all political power, and dominates
the public policy process. The basis of elite power has varied across time and location,
but Mosca identifies broad historical stages during which the primary basis of elite
domination has been military power, then religious control, then economic power, and
most recently, technical knowledge. According to Mosca, the major role of the political
system is as an instrument of the political class, serving the elite’s interests in making
and implementing public policies.
A well-known U.S. application of the elite approach is The Power Elite (2000) by
C. Wright Mills. Mills concludes that the power elite in U.S. society is composed
of those who control society’s most powerful institutions: (1) the “warlords” in the
military establishment; (2) the “corporation chieftains” in the economic sector; and
(3) the “political directorate” in the top positions in the political system. Mills observes
that the members of the elite share crucial values about how society in general, and the
political system in particular, ought to operate. The members of the elite tend to come
from similar social and educational backgrounds, to circulate among major positions
in each of the three key institutional structures, and to have long-standing personal
relationships with one another. Like other elite theorists, Mills does not claim that
242 Chapter 9

the elite operates as a conspiracy that continually plots to retain control. But some of
its active members do meet periodically to discuss common interests, and most of its
members act in concert to protect their shared interests during times of crisis (see also
Domhoff 2005, 2013).
Most elite theorists focus on the elite itself—the identity and socialization of
elite members—and on how the elite maintains its domination through a variety of
techniques, such as the manipulation of symbols, the strategic distribution of resources
to various groups, the control of the state, and the use of force. There is a normative
element in the discussions of many elite theorists, indicating their disapproval of a
system in which there is such a high concentration of political power serving only
a small minority within society. But others respond that elite theory merely reveals
the inevitable tendency for a few people to take control of and dominate the political
order, while those in the mass willingly subordinate themselves to the few who are
capable of giving coherence to political society.

The Public Policy Process

The process through which values are allocated is explained primarily in terms of
the elite’s actions. Some members of the elite decide that a particular public policy
decision is in the elite’s interest. They then discuss whether this policy should be
enacted and how it should be implemented. When there is general consensus among
those members of the elite who are concerned about the decision, representatives of
the elite instruct the relevant members of the understructure (the government) to
perform the policymaking and policy-implementation activities that serve the elite’s
interests.
In the elite explanation of the policy process, the active elites are subject to very
little direct influence from the mass or even from the understructure of governmental
officials. The mass is politically apathetic and impotent, and this large proportion of
the population passively accepts whatever policies are imposed upon them. The mem-
bers of the understructure follow the elite’s directives because they believe that their
survival in positions of authority depends on the power and support of the elite.

The Prevalence of Elite-Based Political Systems

How many countries have elitist political systems? More than half of the countries
have nondemocratic systems (Economist Intelligence Unit 2013, and recall Chapter 7).
It seems reasonable to infer that most of these systems are dominated by an elite in the
manner described by the elite approach.
However, the issue might be more complicated. Is it true that all the key condi-
tions of elitism are met in every nondemocratic country? This empirical question could
be examined in specific political systems (e.g., Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Zimbabwe) by
assessing these kinds of analytic questions:

Does the political leadership act with unanimity on all major issues?
Is there active and effective political participation by nonelite groups?
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 243

Focus in 9
Elite Politics in Swaziland
A contemporary example of elite politics is Swaziland,
a small African country between Mozambique and
South Africa. While Swaziland was a British colonial
protectorate (1902–1968), a local king (Sobhuza II)
became a hero of his people by leading the move-
ment for independence (starting in 1921). After
independence in 1968, Sobhuza became the ruling
monarch of the new country. A British-style parlia-
ment with competing parties was installed. Parties
competed in three parliamentary elections, although
the king’s party dominated in each election.
In 1973, the king banned all opposition groups
and declared that European government forms were
“un-Swazi.” The king personally appoints two-thirds
of the members of the Senate and one-fourth of
the members of the House. Indeed, according to
Swaziland’s official publications, even the method
for selecting the next king is “a secret,” except it
is stipulated that he must be a young, unmarried A day after being called back from high school in
prince. When Sobhuza II died in 1982, the private England and being crowned as the ruler of Swaziland,
power struggle among members of the royal fam- King Mswati III attends a party in the palace. The
ily and the king’s council resulted in the selection of 18-year-old king moved quickly to establish rule under
King Mswati III. He has been termed “the world’s last his personal control.
absolute monarch,” and although a few concessions Most of the benefits of policy are enjoyed by
to opposition activities were made in recent years, this elite, a second key criterion of an elite system.
political parties are still essentially banned and the The richest 10 percent of the Swazi population have
nonpartisan parliament essentially affirms the king’s one of the world’s highest shares of total income (40
decisions. percent), and the country has a high level of income
Everyone in Swaziland (population 1.4 million) inequality (recall Figure 8.4). In contrast, 69 percent
has always understood that real political power of the Swazi population is below the poverty line and
is concentrated in the king and his elite group of 40 percent of adults are unemployed. Swaziland has
advisers, known as the National Council. Young the world’s highest incidence (one in four) of adults
King Mswati III quickly removed many of his rivals with HIV/AIDS, and the average life expectancy
from positions of authority and elevated his own is only 50 years, among the bottom five among all
set of trusted advisers to positions of decision- countries (CIA 2014).
making power. Under King Mswati III, as under King
Sobhuza, both policymaking and the major sectors
of the economy (the mines and most farmlands) are
Further Focus
directly controlled by a king’s council. Thus, one key 1. Is inequality or nondemocracy likely to be a
criterion of elite politics is clearly met: Almost all more serious problem for maintaining stability in
major political decisions are made by a small group, Swaziland?
and the mass of people in Swaziland have little 2. Are there any reasons why a country might be
direct impact on the policies or politics of the state. better off if it is governed by a small elite?
244 Chapter 9

Are some major political decisions responsive to nonelite demands, even when
the decisions are contrary to the elite’s interests?
Is there dramatic inequality in the distribution of resources between the elite and
the mass?

While definitive answers to these questions are difficult, our knowledge of politi-
cal systems suggests that many contemporary states are generally characterized by
elite rule. (Consider the brief description of Swaziland in Focus in 9). The power to
make crucial political decisions and most of the benefits from those decisions seem
predominantly concentrated in the hands of a small elite.
It is also possible to ask whether a country classified as a democracy is actually
run by an elite. That is, even if a political system meets the basic criteria of democracy
such as a limited mandate and freedom to criticize and oppose the leadership (recall
Chapter 7), does this necessarily mean that the system is not elitist?
This question underlies a fierce debate among analysts regarding whether the elite
approach best describes politics, even in many democratic political systems. Some, such
as C. Wright Mills (2000; see also Parenti 2010), provide arguments and evidence that
there is elite rule even in most democracies. In this view, a small proportion of the popula-
tion dominates most significant political decisions and enjoys a hugely disproportionate
share of the benefits from the truly important policy decisions made by the government.
Such empirical assessments of the elite approach, whether for a single city or an
entire country, are highly controversial and ideologically charged because they repre-
sent a direct attack on whether the place is a democracy. Conclusive verification of the
elite approach in most political systems would be a massive undertaking, requiring
the documentation of systematic elite dominance on a large number of key decisions
across a variety of issue areas.

The Class Approach

9.4 Characterize the class approach.
The class approach shares certain fundamental concepts with the elite approach, but it
offers a very different explanation of the continuing dynamic processes of politics. The
most important shared concept is stratification, the basic fact of structured inequality in
the distribution of values in society.
The strata identified in the class approach are called classes, the second key concept.
Class denotes a large group of individuals who are similar in their possession of or control over
some fundamental value. The most fundamental value that distinguishes classes differs
for different class theorists. Karl Marx (1818–1883), the best-known class theorist, dif-
ferentiates classes primarily on the basis of a group’s relationship to the major factors of
production in the economic system (Marx 1867/1981: Ch. 52). At the simplest level, Marx
divides society into two classes: (1) the capitalist class, which includes those who own
significant amounts of the major factors of production (especially financial resources,
raw materials, and capital—the elements to produce goods and accumulate wealth); and
(2) the proletariat class, which includes those who own little more than their own labor.
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 245

Some contemporary analysts suggest various modifications to Marx’s ideas about

class. First, most class theorists identify more than two major class strata, with each
class characterized by its particular levels of social, political, and economic power.
Second, some argue that it is control (rather than ownership) of the means of produc-
tion that is most important. Third, others observe that in certain social systems, the key
elements that distinguish different class strata are status, kinship, ethnicity, religion,
or tradition-based authority (rather than ownership of the means of production). And
fourth, still others posit that possession of information resources and knowledge has
become the crucial resource distinguishing classes in postindustrial, high-tech soci-
eties (Castells 2009). In general, these analysts assert that there is strong empirical
evidence for the continuing prevalence of class politics, even in developed countries
and even in the twenty-first century (see, for example, Poulantzas 1973; Wright 2005;
Wright and Rogers 2010).
Figure 9.3 provides two models characterizing class systems. Part A shows a char-
acterization similar to the elite approach in its hierarchical and pyramidal form, and
it emphasizes a clear separation between multiple classes. Alternatively, part B high-
lights the overlap among classes. Here the boundaries between classes are permeable
rather than distinct, there is more interdependence among classes, and some members
of a “lower” class have as much or even more political power than those in the class

(KIWTG Two Different Characterizations of Class Structures

SOURCE: Based on Bill and Hardgrave 1981: 181.

Upper class

Middle class

Lower middle class

Lower class

Poverty class

A. Hierarchical Class Structure

Upper class

Middle class

Lower class

Poverty class
B. Overlapping Class Structure
246 Chapter 9

above them. However, class domination continues to be the basic form of political and
social relations (see Lenski 1984).
The third crucial concept of the class approach is class conflict. It is assumed that
classes lower in the class system can increase their share of key values only at the
expense of the classes above them. Given the fundamental inequalities in the distribu-
tion of values, struggle between classes is inevitable. The higher classes employ vari-
ous strategies, and ultimately coercion, to prevent a significant loss of values (and of
relative advantage) to the classes below them. Lower classes find that only violence
enables their class to increase its relative share of values. Thus, class conflict is sys-
tematic and ubiquitous, although its most visible and violent manifestations (such
as strikes, riots, and rebellion) might be suppressed for periods of time if the higher
classes are effective in the ways they distribute benefits and use coercion.

The Public Policy Process

Most class analysts do not explain in detail how policy decisions are actually made.
They assume that the common interests shared by members of a class will result in
general consensus within that class regarding what public policy decisions should be
enacted. Like elite theorists, class analysts view the political system as a set of struc-
tures that are subordinate to the dominant class. Thus, members of this dominant class
either hold key positions of governing authority or directly control those who do.
The interests of this class are well understood by those who can enact public policy.
Consequently, the policies and actions of the state serve the interests of the dominant
class, which attempts to maintain its domination and preserve the existing distribution
of values.
Rather than focusing on the policy process, the class approach centers its analytic
attention on the tactics of class domination and the dynamics of the class struggle.
Not every public policy decision by the state is coercive or of direct benefit to only
the dominant class. The state might implement policies to shorten the length of the
working day or to increase health care benefits to the middle classes. Such policies
either ameliorate the worst conditions that might provoke violence or provide certain
classes with advantages over classes below them. The goals of such public policies are
strategic: to provide benefits to some classes in an effort to buy their support or their
acquiescence, or at least to dampen their propensity for conflict.
Despite such strategies, the systematic inequalities in fundamental values gen-
erate continuing conflict between classes in the society. Periodically, this conflict
explodes into class violence. In one of these episodes of class war, a lower class suc-
ceeds in overthrowing the highest class. At this point, a new class gains dominance in
the system, including control over the government and most of the benefits from pub-
lic policies. In the view of Marx and many other class theorists, major class conflict
will end only when the elimination of dominant classes reduces the system to a single
class, and hence society becomes classless. The state’s policies then serve everyone
equally, and in the absence of class inequalities, there is no cause for further conflict
among groups.
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 247

The Pluralist Approach

9.5 Characterize the pluralist approach.
Pluralism offers a very different account of the political process, in which multiple
groups compete actively in the pursuit of their political interests. The pluralist approach is
grounded in the concept of the group, which is defined as any aggregate of individuals
who interact to pursue a common interest. A political group, as an analytic concept, exists
whenever individuals have a shared interest regarding some allocation of values by
the political system.
The pluralist explanation of politics as a complex web of group interactions has
many historical roots but is particularly identified with American social scientists, espe-
cially political scientists Arthur Bentley (1908/1967), David Truman (1951), and Robert
Dahl (1961, 1971, 1991), who is most strongly associated with the development and
defense of pluralism (which is also sometimes termed polyarchy or the group approach).
Pluralism begins with the assumption that an individual’s group memberships are
multiple and nonoverlapping. That is, any particular individual can belong to many dif-
ferent groups. Individuals are not stratified into large, permanent groups as described
by the elite and class approaches because the aggregation of people who share a com-
mon identity on one political interest is not the same as the people who are part of
groups formed for other political interests. Table 9.3 shows six hypothetical people
whose group memberships overlap in different ways, depending on the issue.
The second important assumption is that many different political resources might
influence those who make public policy decisions. As discussed in Chapter 3, the kinds
of resources that might be used to influence political stratification include money,
numbers of supporters/voters, monopoly of expertise, political skill, access to infor-
mation, legal rights, and status. It is also assumed that every individual (and hence
every political group) has some political resources with which he can attempt to influ-
ence policy decisions.

6CDNG Group Memberships of Six Hypothetical Individuals in the United States*

Individuals

Groups Person 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6

Democratic Party ✓ ✓
Republican Party ✓ ✓
AFL-CIO union ✓
Family Research Council ✓ ✓
Mothers Against Drunk Driving ✓ ✓ ✓
NARAL Pro-Choice America ✓ ✓
National Rifle Association ✓ ✓
Parent-Teacher Association ✓ ✓
*Each checkmark indicates a group with which the individual is affiliated. This distribution supports the concept of nonoverlapping (nonreinforcing) group
memberships. An individual shares membership with different people across various groups and policy domains.
248 Chapter 9

In pluralism, politics can be understood as the interaction among groups that are
pursuing their political interests. The role of the government is to manage the interac-
tions within this giant system of interacting groups. Thus, public policy is defined as
the balance point of the competition among groups on an issue at the time when government
makes a policy decision.

The Policymaking Process

Figure 9.4 provides a visual model of how a policy decision is made according to
pluralism, using health care policy in a country such as the United States as the exam-
ple. There is a continuum of possible policies, ranging from free state provision of all
health care services to every citizen at one extreme to total private provision based on
fee-for-service to each recipient of health care at the other extreme.
The analytic framework of the policy process in pluralism can be summarized in
five major steps:
1. Identify the key groups that have an active interest in decisions in this policy area.
2. On a continuum of possible policy outcomes, locate the preferred policy decision
of each group.
3. Estimate the level of political resources each group employs to influence the deci-
sion regarding this policy (represented as a “weight” on the continuum, based on
the total impact of the political resources that the group utilizes).
4. The government establishes the equilibrium point that balances the “weights” of
the political resources mobilized by all groups.
5. This equilibrium point on the policy continuum is authorized by government as a
public policy decision.

(KIWTG A Group Approach Model of the Policy Process: A Hypothetical Policy

Decision
Managed care
providers
Health insurance
providers Private doctors

Medical supplies
The elderly industry
The Conservative
poor “think tanks”

TOTAL TOTAL
STATE PRIVATE
PROVISION PROVISION,
Public policy NO REGULATION

Government

Symbols:
= Continuum of possible public policies regarding health care policy
= Interest group mobilized on this issue, with volume of triangle representing the group's
political resources applied to the issue
= Government, which determines the equilibrium point and ratifies that point as public policy
= Public policy position, which is the equilibrium point in the competition among groups, given
each group's political resources
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 249

In the pluralist model, the

particular functions of the gov-
ernment are to (1) establish rules
of the game for the group strug-
gle; (2) determine the interests of
competing groups and the levels
of political resources mobilized
by those groups; (3) find a public
policy that approximately bal-
ances the positions of all active
groups in terms of their interests
and resources; (4) enact these
balance points as public policy
decisions; and (5) implement the
resulting policy. Government,
as an analytic construct in plu-
ralism, is best understood as a
referee (a neutral arbiter) in the
Can we talk?: In many societies, local policy decisions are made through
competition among groups. discussion and group voting, as in this jirga (tribal meeting) in southeastern
In a more realistic interpreta- Afghanistan.
tion, however, government is not
merely an automatic weighing machine that totals the value of each group’s influ-
ence resources. The government might have an ideological position and thus place
greater emphasis on some objectives rather than others. For example, the government
might enforce rules that help or hinder some groups in using their political resources,
it might value some political resources more substantially than others, it might allow
certain groups greater access to important information, or it might be more or less
willing to find the financial resources necessary to implement a certain policy. In
addition, certain elected and career governmental actors have their own personal and
institutional interests (e.g., for political support, growth of their unit’s power, personal
wealth). When such interests are relevant, these actors can become active as groups
that participate in the decision process (with obvious advantages because they are
inside “the system”).
Like all models, Figure 9.4 substantially simplifies reality. But it should help you
understand the logic of pluralism. A policy decision can change at any time if a different
distribution of group interests is mobilized and the issue is taken up by policymakers.
Pluralism explicitly rejects the notion that a small elite or a single class dominates the
public policy process. Rather, many different groups become active in politics, but only
on the narrow range of issues relevant to their interests. Mobilized groups use their
political resources to affect the decision. While a group might not always win, its par-
ticipation can affect the policy decisions on which it is active. In the case that opened
the chapter, for example, it seems that although the Mapuche only got a small part of
what they wanted, they did utilize their political resources and the Chilean government
did grant them some land rights. And, pluralist theorists would argue, the Mapuche
250 Chapter 9

achieved some success against strong opponents (including major political parties) and
will have more opportunities to pursue their goals at the next round of policymaking.
Critics of pluralism argue that some groups are likely to win almost every time
they play the game of politics because they have a huge advantage in their political
resources, such as wealth, access to decision makers, and political skill. Further, some
challenge the pluralist assumption that no one resource always dominates, arguing
that money trumps all other resources. This argument is the subject of the Debate in 9.
The critics also claim that the government/state, far from being neutral, is guided by
a strong ideology and is almost always responsive to those upper-strata groups with
most economic and social power in the society. Thus, even though “the little people”
might occasionally win a particular episode, the powerful groups in the system are
persistent winners, and big winners, and the system perpetuates very substantial
inequalities in the distribution of benefits (Bachrach and Baratz 1962; Parenti 2010).
While the relatively poor Mapuche were appeased with a small amount of land, the big
winners were the rich and powerful landowners and logging companies, who contin-
ued to profit from land that should have been returned to its original owners.

The Debate in 9
Does Money Dominate the Policymaking Process?
Some are convinced that money dominates poli-
tics, even in the most properly run democracies.
Class theory is particularly pointed in its arguments
that the power and actions of the dominant eco-
nomic class ensure that government and policy
decisions serve its interests (Domhoff 2013). In
contrast, pluralist theory argues that while money
is one important resource that can influence the
policy process, no one resource dominates. Other
key political resources that can shape policy deci-
sions include large numbers of people who can
use their votes, the media, and the legal system.
Everyone can form interest groups to promote their
political goals. Everyone can win in the competition
over policy decisions (at least some of the time),
and the wealthy do not get everything they want
(Dahl 1961, 1991). If we consider the country cel-
ebrated as the inspiration and model of pluralist
democracy, the United States, does money domi-
nate policymaking?
Money Dominates Policymaking
Most of those in positions of substantial power
in the government, whether in the executive,
legislative or judicial branch, are among the
wealthiest 3 percent of the society. Government
cannot be understood as a neutral referee in the
policy process when so many of those who make
policy decisions are from and share the interests
of the monied class (Parenti 2010: 197–200).
Politicians at all levels depend on increasingly
large amounts of money to finance their (re)elec-
tion campaigns. Those who contribute signifi-
cant funds to elected officials have the greatest
access to elected officials and can make suc-
cessful demands on their decisions.
Corporations and wealthy individuals far out-
spend others in society in hiring lobbyists,
funding policy advocates, sponsoring think
tanks, and purchasing media content that both
promote their interests and influence the beliefs
and actions of government officials and voters
(Bagdikian 2004; Phillips 2003).
The ultimate test of public policy is: Who benefits
most? Whenever financial considerations are a
key factor in a policy debate, it is almost always
the wealthy who enjoy the greatest benefits from
the enacted policy. For example, between 1979

and 2007, the richest 10 percent of Americans
gained 91 percent of all income growth, and
favorable government tax policies are a key to
this disproportionate distribution of benefits
(Economic Policy Institute 2011).
Justice might seem blind, but seeking justice is
not free. Most legal disputes on matters of public
policy involve interpretation of laws and discre-
tionary decision making. The balance is typically
weighted in favor of those who can afford the
best legal representation (Parenti 2010: Ch. 9).
Money Does Not Dominate Policymaking
In a pluralist democracy, votes and elections
count (Dahl 1961). As median voter theory posits,
the policies of government officials will generally
be responsive to the interests of those with suf-
ficient votes to determine their electoral success.
And it is voting coalitions of the numerous citizens
from the middle and lower classes that determine
the outcome of elections, not the votes of the rel-
atively small number of rich people (Stone 1989).
Prolific spending in a campaign or in lobbying the
government does not guarantee victory. There
are a significant number of instances in every
electoral cycle in which a candidate or a ballot
proposition is victorious despite being outspent
during the campaign. Similarly, heavy spend-
ing by interest groups is not always correlated
with policy success (Baumgartner et al. 2009;
Edwards, Wattenberg, and Lineberry 2014).
There are many political interest groups that
are composed largely of members who are
The Three Approaches Compared
9.6 Evaluate the similarities, differences, and usefulness of the three major
approaches to public policymaking.
Which Approach Is Correct?
The three approaches offer compelling answers to the basic political questions of who
gets what, why, when, and how. Which of these three approaches is correct? Is one
the most accurate explanation of politics for all political systems? For most political
Public Policy, Power, and Decision 251
not part of the wealthiest 10–20 percent. But
these groups organize, aggregate their political
resources, and prevail on policy issues of major
importance (e.g., education, equality, abortion,
immigration, workers’ rights, and social welfare
programs) (Dahl 1991).
Many powerful elected and appointed policymak-
ers, including seven of the last nine U.S. presi-
dents, are from modest backgrounds. Some of
them, as well as some political leaders with con-
siderable wealth, have been powerful advocates
for those with limited wealth and social standing
(e.g., Bill Clinton, L. B. Johnson, the Kennedys,
Barack Obama).
In the U.S. legal system, justice is “money blind.”
The interpretation of law is based on the princi-
ples of justice and fairness. If an actor has legality
on his side, he will usually prevail in protecting his
interests, regardless of his economic situation.
Litigation often protects the less advantaged
against those with “deep pockets” in numerous
policy domains (e.g., civil rights, environmental
protection) (Robinson 2009; Schmalleger 2011).
More questions…
1. Can you think of compelling examples of policy
decisions in which, as pluralist theory posits,
groups utilize other political resources to defeat
groups who deploy substantially more financial
resources?
2. Is there any potent political resource that money
can’t buy?
252 Chapter 9

systems at a given historical moment? Do different approaches best account for the
politics of particular systems? For particular types of issues?
Advocates of each position offer both theoretical and empirical evidence to show
that the politics of actual systems correspond to the description provided in their
approach. As an indirect method of providing support for their approach, advocates also
cite considerable evidence indicating the inaccuracies and contradictions of the other
approaches. As you might suspect, the debate has been most acrimonious between sup-
porters of pluralism and supporters of the elite and class approaches, which both assume
persistent stratification and deep inequality. Some scholars contend that almost all politi-
cal systems, even democratic ones, are elitist in the sense that the policy process is guided
by and generally supports the interests of a dominant elite (Domhoff 2013). In the United
States, the debate has been most intense among those who study power at the local level,
prompted by the dispute five decades ago between “elitists” such as sociologist Floyd
Hunter (1953) and “pluralists” such as political scientist Robert Dahl (1961).
Political scientists and other social scientists have yet to establish a critical test that
reveals which of the approaches best describes or explains politics. After hundreds
of studies in various political systems at the local, regional, and national levels, the
disagreements among the advocates of the three approaches remain as deep as ever.
To decide which approach provides the greatest insight into the politics of a particular
political system, you might consider numerous conceptual and empirical questions, a
few of which follow:
For the elite approach, look for: evidence of actual collaboration among the elite in the
formulation of public policy; the frequency with which the elite seems to lose on pol-
icy decisions of significance to its members; whether there really is a mass of citizens
who are uninformed, politically inactive, and impotent regarding policy choices.
For the class approach, analyze: whether the state almost always operates to serve
the interests of one dominant class group; whether most people’s interests and
behaviors can be defined in class terms; whether most significant social changes
are attributable to violence grounded in class conflict.
And for pluralism, assess: whether there are persistent winners and persistent
losers on policy decisions; whether the state applies rules and policies fairly and
equally to all groups; whether competition among groups can be fair if there are
huge inequalities in the levels of political resources available to different individu-
als and groups.

Essential Similarities and Differences

The elite and class approaches share certain crucial premises. For both approaches,
the fundamental feature of society is stratification—the unequal distribution of values
across distinct groups. Also in both approaches, the government is one of the key
mechanisms controlled by the dominant group, and the government’s policy decisions
are intended to maintain that group’s domination.
But the elite and class approaches differ in their conceptions of the nature of the
groups and of group interactions. For the elite approach, there are two broad groups:
 Public Policy, Power, and Decision 253

the elite and the mass. Elite theorists mainly focus on the elite—its membership, the
basis of elite domination, and the strategies employed by the elite to maintain its
control. The mass is assumed to be inactive politically and is rarely analyzed in detail.
In contrast, most class theorists identify more than two distinct class groups and
emphasize the dynamic interactions among the classes. There is substantial politi-
cal energy inherent in the lower classes, who are the active agents of major political
change. The class approach attempts to explain why class conflict is inevitable, how
it manifests itself, and how it produces transformations in the sociopolitical system.
In short, the elite approach tends to provide a top-down perspective in a two-group
system, whereas the class approach often takes a bottom-up perspective that empha-
sizes the dynamic processes of conflict and change among multiple groups.
Pluralism differs fundamentally from both the elite and class approaches,
beginning with its rejection of the notion of social stratification. It conceptualizes a
sociopolitical world composed of many groups, with each individual belonging to
a variety of groups. Different groups emerge on each particular political issue, and
each group has an array of resources that it can organize to influence decisions on that
issue. As groups compete to shape a public policy decision, the government is a rela-
tively neutral referee that ensures the competition is fair; it is not the instrument of any
particular group or class. There is a dispersion of power, resources, and benefits from
policy decisions, not a pattern of structured inequality. Everyone wins some and loses
some, but the losers can always win on the next issue.
Vigorous and often hostile debate has persisted among the advocates of these three
conceptions of how politics works. This debate is deep and serious because it reflects
fundamental disagreements about the very nature of society and politics. The elite and
class approaches are based on a coercive view of society. Conflict is a fundamental fea-
ture of the relations among groups. Social coherence is maintained by means of power
and constraint, evident in domination by the most powerful class and its agent, the
state. In contrast, pluralism reflects an integrative view of society. Society is essentially
stable and harmonious in the sense that there is a moving equilibrium maintained by a
“fair” competitive game, refereed by the state and played by many groups who accept
the rules and the outcomes. Social coherence is grounded in cooperation and consen-
sus (see Dahrendorf 1959).
The analytic taxonomies and stage model presented in the first part of this chapter
offer a different way of understanding the public policy process. Those approaches
tend to focus on providing an in-depth, empirical account of the dynamics during
a particular stage of the process (e.g., implementation of health care policy) or the
analysis of a specific policy domain (e.g., the impacts of tax policy, the case for
military action in a particular setting). There is an attempt to define how political
institutions shape the process and to explore the behavior and interactions among
various stakeholders.
The various approaches to public policy analysis presented in this chapter
provide you with a rich set of alternatives for responding to Harold Lasswell’s (1960)
classic question about politics: Who gets what, when, how, (and why)? Public policy
analysis provides some additional useful tools in the political science quest to better
254 Chapter 9

understand the actions of any particular political system, its power structure, and its
decision-making processes. Policy analysis can also be employed to determine the
most desirable response to a given problem, providing a prescriptive policy recom-
mendation. These descriptive, explanatory, and prescriptive insights about the public
policy process will be helpful as we consider countries’ pursuit of prosperity, stability,
and security in the remaining chapters of this book.

Key Concepts
class, p. 244 mass, p. 240 political understructure, p. 240
class approach, p. 244 pluralism, p. 247 politics, p. 248
class conflict, p. 246 political elite, p. 240 public policy, p. 248
elite approach, p. 240 political resources, p. 247 stages of the policy process,
group, p. 247 political stratification, p. 240 p. 237

For Further Consideration

1. What do you think is the single most impor-
tant flaw in the assumptions or knowledge
claims of the elite approach? The class
approach? Pluralism?
2. How might someone who embraces the
class approach and someone who accepts
the pluralist approach debate the pub-
lic policy decisions associated with the
Mapuche presented in the chapter-opening
case? How might the pluralist approach
account for a case like Swaziland, described
in Focus in 9?
3. In a sense, all political systems are elit-
ist because a few govern and many are
governed. Does this observation seem accu-
rate? Is it a persuasive basis for confirming
the validity of the elite approach?
4. List six groups that have a political agenda
and with which you have a membership or
a strong identity. Ask a variety of friends to
provide you with a similar list. How much
overlap is there in your group affiliations?
Does this seem to support the pluralist tenet
of nonoverlapping memberships? (To under-
take a more complete test, you would need
to survey many individuals from a variety
of backgrounds.)

For Further Reading

Allison, Graham, and Philip Zelikow. (1999).
The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban
Missile Crisis. 2nd ed. New York: Longman.
This revised edition of Allison’s seminal case
study of the Cuban missile crisis in 1961 offers
a superb presentation of three important mod-
els of the policy decision process that differ
from those described in this chapter. These
models emphasize: (1) “rational choice” by
decision makers who engage in a dispassion-
ate cost–benefit analysis of the expected utili-
ties of different actions (see the Appendix);
(2) “organizational processes” by which insti-
tutional routines shape policy due to actors’
adherence to simple problem-solving strate-
gies and standard operating procedures; and

(3) “bureaucratic politics,” whereby stakehold-
ers’ behaviors and choices are based on their
personal values and the imperatives of their
particular roles.
Anderson, James E. (2015). Public Policymaking:
An Introduction. 8th ed. Kentucky: Cengage. A
solid text introducing the field of public policy
analysis, with chapters focusing on the stages
of the policy analysis framework presented in
the first part of this chapter.
Balulis, Joseph, and Vickie Sullivan, eds. (1996).
Shakespeare’s Political Pageant: Essays
in Politics and Literature. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield. These articles offer
a rich exploration of how the interplay of
politics, power, and human nature is illumi-
nated in the extraordinary plays of William
Shakespeare.
Burki, Shahid J. (1991). Pakistan Under the
Military: Eleven Years of Zia ul-Haq. Boulder,
CO: Westview. A detailed description of elite
rule in Pakistan under an authoritarian regime.
Castles, Francis. (1999). Comparative Public
Policy: Patterns of Post-war Transformation.
Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishers.
A careful comparison of the development of
12 key public policy domains in many of the
advanced democracies, spanning 30 years.
Chadwick, Andrew, and Philip Howard, eds.
(2008). The Routledge Handbook of Internet
Politics. New York: Routledge. An excellent
selection of analyses regarding the interplay
between politics and the Internet, considering
the links of the Internet to political behavior,
government institutions, public policy, and
the law.
Dahl, Robert. (1961). Who Governs?: Democracy
in an American City. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press. This remains the classic
theoretical and empirical statement of plural-
ism as an explanation of politics and the policy
process.
Domhoff, G. William. (2013). Who Rules
America?: The Triumph of the Corporate Rich.
Public Policy, Power, and Decision 255
7th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill. The author
updates Mills’s The Power Elite, using more
data and an elaborated theoretical base and
reaching similar conclusions that an elite
governs the United States. See also his inter-
esting Web site at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/
whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Evans, Geoffrey, ed. (1999). The End of Class
Politics?: Class Voting in Comparative
Context. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
In a series of revealing country-based studies,
the contributors to this volume present a data-
based case, grounded particularly in analyses
of elections, that class politics continues to be a
powerful force in certain developed countries
and postcommunist developed countries.
Glazer, Amihai, and Lawrence S. Rothenberg.
(2005). Why Government Succeeds and Why
It Fails. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press. This readable analysis emphasizes the
economic conditions that influence public
policy in domains such as the regulation of
personal behavior, welfare policy, and eco-
nomic growth.
Ibsen, Henrik. (1882/1964). Enemy of the
People. In Six Plays by Ibsen. Trans. Eva Le
Gallienne. New York: Random House. A
classic Norwegian play revealing the politi-
cal processes by which self-interest and greed
overwhelm the efforts of a good citizen to
prevent his town from making a policy deci-
sion that will result in grave environmental
damage and a risk to public health.
Kingdon, John. (2010). Agendas, Alternatives,
and Public Policies. Update edition with
Epilogue on Health Care. 2nd ed. New York:
Pearson. The classic work that most fully
explains the idea of agenda setting: how an
issue emerges from many and becomes an
important item drawing attention and action
in the policy process.
Moran, Michael, Martin Rein, and Robert
Goodin, eds. (2006). The Oxford Handbook of
Public Policy. New York: Oxford University
256 Chapter 9
Press. A comprehensive (780 pages) treatment
of public policy analysis, including all the
major analytic approaches and all stages of the
policy process.
Rothkopf, David. (2009). Superclass: The Global
Power Elite and the World They Are Making.
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. In a
supercharged version of elite theory, this lively
book identifies the 6,000 members of the global
elite and explains how they exercise enormous
power and control over the economic and
political systems of the contemporary world.
Stone, Deborah. (2011). Policy Paradox: The Art of
Political Decision Making. 3rd ed. New York:
Norton. A readable and insightful description of
the nuances and complex interaction of multiple
On the Web
http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/strat.html
This site provides a comprehensive look at the
study of social inequality and contains links to
many lively Web sites on inequality as well as
information on related topics such as gender
stratification and homelessness.
www.mapuche-nation.org
This site highlights the culture, history, and
political plight of the Mapuche Nation.
http://www.marxist.com
In Defense of Marxism is a comprehensive site
that argues for the relevance of class theory
and Marxism in the contemporary world, with
essays and research on many political topics.
http://www.ncpa.org
The conservative National Center for Policy
Analysis provides material, blogs, and links to
many current policy issues on its Web site.
http://www.urban.org
The Urban Institute describes itself as a non-
partisan economic and social policy research
perspectives and agendas, in combination with
a more analytic approach, in the policymaking
process, using the United States as context.
Wildavsky, Aaron. (1979). Speaking Truth to
Power. Boston: Little, Brown. One of the most
perceptive scholars of the public policy process,
the late Aaron Wildavsky offers many insights
in this exploration of policymaking and policy
analysis.
Yang, Benjamin. (1997). Deng: A Political Biogra-
phy. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe. A compelling
characterization of Deng Xiaoping, the shrewd
leader who followed Mao Zedong to power in
China. This book also provides an intriguing
and illuminating account of an elite political
system in action.
organization that focuses on policy analyses in
domains such as education, health, crime, the
economy, and international affairs.
http://www.care2.com/causes/politics
The Care 2 Make a Difference Policy Network
offers numerous links to ideologically pro-
gressive material, think tanks, and blogs that
address current policy issues.
http://www.angelfire.com/or/sociologyshop/
CWM.html
This site offers a variety of links that explore
the works and theories of elite theorist
C. Wright Mills.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com
Details of current public policy issues in the
United States, including current polls regard-
ing proposed legislation and candidates.
http://www.ifpa.org
From the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis,
a nonpartisan group, this site focuses on for-
eign policy issues.