Introduction to

Public Policy
Dr. Anne Marie
Brady
September 21,
2020 Actors, Policy,
and Stakeholders
Question of the Hour

• What is the relevance of the Atlantic Article Why It Matters That Politicians
Have No Experience of Poverty to today’s readings?
Stakeholders

• Stakeholder analysis: gain a better understanding of the interests and

resources of the important players in policy decision-making and
implementation.
• Generally, stakeholder analysis focuses on two key elements. Groups or
actors are analyzed in terms of (1) the interest they have in a particular
issue, and (2) the quantity and types of resources they can mobilize to
affect outcomes regarding that issue.
• How do we know when an actor’s interests should be given serious
consideration? (C. Wright Mills’ Sociological Imagination)
Stakeholders

• Three criteria used to determine the relative importance of a stakeholder:

• First, actor or group is in a position to damage or weaken the authority or political support for
decision-makers or their organizations.
• Second, group’s presence provides a net benefit, strengthens implementing agencies, and enhances
decision-makers’ authority (and capacity to secure compliance with decisions).
• Third, group is capable of influencing the direction or mix of implementing organizations’ activities.
• When should policy managers undertake stakeholder analysis?
• First, when the policy is being formulated---at the point when decisions are made that will influence
who will be a winner and who will be a loser.
• The second, in the formulation of a strategy for implementation. It is at this point that decisions
become critical in terms of assuring alliances and support.
Stakeholders
• Necessary
characteristics/tools for
stakeholders:
• Legitimacy
• Prestige or status of
stakeholder
• Coercive action
Groups

• Assumption: organizations exists to further the common interests of

groups of people.
• “There is no group without its interests” (Bentley) and “Every Group
has its interests” (Cattell).
• Group interests versus common interests and the role of the
competitive market.
Groups

• Olson (1971) rejects the assertion by social scientists that groups tend to further their interests. The idea
that groups of individuals with common interests tend to further those common interests does not hold
up to scrutiny for Olson.
• Members of a large group will not act to advance their common or group interests unless they are
coerced to do so or some sort of separate incentive, distinct from the achievement of the common or
group interest, is offered to the members of the group individually on the condition that they help bear
the costs or burdens involved in achievement of the group objectives.
• This holds true no matter the degree of unanimous agreement in a group about the common good and
the methods of achieving it.
• Not necessarily true in small groups; small groups may have some altruistic motivation, but this will
ultimately be squashed and manipulated by the large group.
Groups: Logic of Collective Action

• Individuals in a group (or groups in a coalition) face the following considerations:

• Transaction costs  time, effort, and resources to achieve a policy goal as part of
the group

• Conformity costs  compromise between political actor’s individual policy goal and
the group’s policy goal

• Uncertainty  lack of information of other political actors’ true policy goals or trust
of other political actors
• Large groups, compared to small groups, more
likely to experience collective action problem such
as free riding
Groups:
• Groups pursue benefits that benefit all individuals,
regardless of individual’s effort or membership Logic of
• In order for the group to prevent free riding, a
Collective
group can (1) require membership or dues, (2)
mimic small groups by linking individual action to
Action
outcome, or (3) provide selective benefits
• Interest groups should pursue policy goals with
concentrated benefits and diffuse costs
• Interest group (or coalition) with
concentrated policy goal more effective in
maximizing membership and resources
Groups:
Interest
• Interest group (or broader coalition) with more Group
resources are more likely to influence
institutional stakeholders to enact their policy Theory
goal
Individuals

• Who is responsible? The individual (individualist approach) or the organization (collectivist approach).
• An individual is morally responsible for an outcome insofar as 1. the individual’s actions or omissions are
a cause of the outcome (causal responsibility) and 2. the actions or omissions are not done in ignorance
or under compulsion (volitional responsibility)
• Individualist approach: to assign responsibility for an organizational outcome fairly and effectively, we
may have to identify individuals who knowingly and freely contributed to the outcome.
• Collectivist approach: advantage is we identify an agent that we can hold responsible without unfairly
blaming individuals; agent that has the greatest capacity to provide compensation and undertake
reforms.
• Under this approach, organization can be a moral agent. But can it?