РОЛЬ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ПРЕДПРИНИМАТЕЛЕЙ И ПРАВОЗАЩИТНЫХ СЕТЕВЫХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЙ В ПУБЛИЧНОЙ ПОЛИТИКЕ: УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ВОДНЫМИ РЕСУРСАМИ В БРАЗИЛИИ
Кулакова Т.А.1, Коверзнева С.А.2
1Доктор политических наук, 2Кандидат политических наук, 1Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, 2РАНХиГС
РОЛЬ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИХ ПРЕДПРИНИМАТЕЛЕЙ И ПРАВОЗАЩИТНЫХ СЕТЕВЫХ ОРГАНИЗАЦИЙ В ПУБЛИЧНОЙ ПОЛИТИКЕ: УПРАВЛЕНИЕ ВОДНЫМИ РЕСУРСАМИ В БРАЗИЛИИ
Аннотация
В статье рассмотрены роли и основные функции политических предпринимателей и различных общественных групп на примере реформы управления водными ресурсами Бразилии. В качестве теоретического основания рассматриваются концепт политических предпринимателей Джона Кингдона и теория адвокатских сетей Маргарет Кек и Кэтрин Сиккинк.
Ключевые слова: управление, политические предприниматели, НКО.
Kulakova T.A.1, Koverzneva S.A.2
1Doctor of Political Science, 2Candidate of Political Science, Saint-1Petersburg State University, 2RANEPA
THE ROLE OF POLICY ENTREPRENEURS AND ADVOCACY NETWORKS IN PUBLIC POLICY PROCESS (STUDY CASE OF BRAZIL WATER POLICY REFORM)
Abstract
The diversity in social demands does expand the quantity of possible alternative policies and requires the changes in public governance. New strategy of governance involves dialogue among stakeholders. Various social and professional networks, united shared values, interests and beliefs could have more motivational potential for innovations, than traditional administrative approach. Key question is the role of informal advocacy groups and policy entrepreneurs in such shift. The paper examines key characteristics and functions of such groups, basing on political entrepreneur’s concept by John Kingdon and advocacy network theory by scholars Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink. Theoretical concepts are tested on a case study of Brazil water policy reform.
Keywords: governance, policy entrepreneurs, advocacy networks, water policy reforms
In 21 century the pace of global integration has been increased. Money, products, ideas and people are moving more freely across national borders. Unprecedented changes in technologies, communications and transportation impact the daily life of ordinary people as well as nations.
World has became more integrated, the globalisation process has tied national states together into interdependent system.
International organisations are playing significant role in the spread of ideas, standards and institutions around the Globe. These organisations influence national policy-makers directly, through mandatory prescriptions and loan conditions, and indirectly, through patterns and samples[1]. During the past two decades, significant number of scholars have considered how international organisations and “epistemic communities” have been influencing national policies and have contributed to the international diffusion of ideas and best practices transfer (D. Stone, 1999, 2013; David P. Dolowitz and David Marsh,1996, 2000, D. Stone, 2013, M. Keck and K. Sikkink , L.Pal, 2012).
Increasing subjectivity of modern society predetermined transformation the decision making process from hierarchical, administrative top-down structure toward horizontal network model. The key question is about the role of informal advocacy groups and policy entrepreneurs in such transition. It is possible to refer them as advocacy networks after scholars Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink or policy entrepreneurs. They do contribute to the reforming process by the constant seeking new strategies for setting policy agenda, building coalitions, implementing and evaluating new policies. Such social and professional networks, sharing the same values and interests, and providing high quality expertise sometimes have even greater impact on reforming, than traditional governmental agencies. Who could participates in advocacy networks, what roles do they play in the cross - national policy-making process and where and when their influence could be the most significant? Diverse NGOs, local social movements, religious organisations, trade unions and consumer organisations, intellectuals and scholars could form the international advocacy network[2] .The advocacy coalitions usually are motivated by self interest and act as organisers of the changes and can be regarded also as policy entrepreneurs, possessing an opportunity to prepare the public “mind” to accept and support the reforms.
Using the advocacy as a political resource for setting the policy problem and at the same time the attracting international experience in best practices makes the position of transnational advocacy networks as political actors unique. It allows them to create a diffuse pro-reform coalition and get the social support and recognition of the legitimacy of their decisions. To expand their influence, transnational advocacy network collaborate with NGO, professional communities, international organisations and as a result get high quality of expertise deliverables. Global policy entrepreneur’s networks have became important players of the global regime. The ‘soft’ transfer of ideas and information via knowledge networks creates complex relationships between international researchers and local policy makers and helps to enhance the effectiveness of analysing, risk evaluation and implementation of reforms. It is possible just in case of constant and systematic work on policy issues, that contains a comprehensive program with a set of proactive and mitigative measures, based on comparing the international experience and policy transfer. Perception as apolitical actors play for the benefit of the international non-state organisations as a mediator between bureaucracy and society in solving the governance issues.
What motivates national governments and non-state actors to involve international formal and informal organisations into internal public policy making process, voluntarily depriving themselves some part of autonomy, and what stays behind the readiness of policy entrepreneurs to invest their resources in return for the future changes they favour.
First of all, for natural willingness to learn how a common problem is solved in other countries or according internationally admitted rules. David P. Dolowitz and David Marsh define the policy transfer as a process in which knowledge about policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in one political setting is used in the development of policies, administrative arrangements, institutions and ideas in another political setting and have stressed that cross-national policy transfers might take place for several reasons including coercion[3] . In fact, policy transfer and diffusion processes have resulted from national policymakers’ efforts to learn from abroad. The second reason is becoming a part of cross state community, adjusting the domestic issues to the international standards and agreements. The third - to be enough competitive among international players to attract investors and capital. The forth - to receive not only policy advice, but also quite material assistance, that required to adopt the comprehensive system of modernising reforms through coercive policy transfer.
On the other hand, many pressing international problems result from states disability to establish relevant legislation, efficient state institutions and provide basic social services independently. Public policy reform in the past was mostly believed to be a domestic issue, but increasing demand for greater global cohesion and greater accountability made international development organisations such as the World Bank et cetera show more interest in reforming national state institutions. Providing the relevant solutions is the key function of international experts, motivated by not only political benefits, but rather by true and objective concerns.
INGOs exist for a variety of reasons, usually to promote the political or social goals of their members or funders. As Ann Florini describes it: “INGOs are just a piece of a larger phenomenon: the cross-border ties among groups that are neither governmental bodies nor primarily profit-seeking business. Some are amorphous networks, able to mobilise thousands or millions of citizens [4]. Not the last reason behind the actions of international organisations is maintain the global order and provide the predictability by spreading unified norms and standards setting that promote policy convergence among national members. Key component of the unified international architecture is a set of rules and standards on human and social rights, social protection measures, environmental, fiscal, monetary and financial policy, banking supervision, targeting the national dimension of that cross boundary issues.
Increasing subjectivity of modern society is forcing to consider the governance not as the predominantly top-down decision making, but as the interaction of network actors for policy making. This new type of coordination, based on soft, horizontal bounds, allows to reveal informal relations and provides broader legitimacy for decisions made. Coordination as a process of harmonisation different social interests and expectations could be a powerful tool in promotion of national state competitiveness, as far as traditional institutions are losing legitimacy in modern societies with widely represented pluralism in viewpoints and interests. New strategy of governance involves dialogue among stakeholders. Various social and professional networks, united shared values, interests and beliefs could have more motivational potential for innovations, than traditional administrative approach.
Advocacy NGO’s defend or promote specific values and norms. These organisations eager to raise awareness, acceptance and knowledge among key stakeholders. It is possible to refer them as an transnational civil society (TCS), the term employed by Ann Florine, or advocacy networks after scholars Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink, network model of informal advocacy groups and international NGO. To expand their influence, transnational advocacy network collaborate with NGO, professional communities, international organisations; networks often involve scholars and experts as well as the concerned local community, that allows to gather and present relevant information and build collective action. Cooperation between international researchers and local policy makers helps to enhance the effectiveness of reforms. Transnational advocacy networks are open network among committed actors (individuals and organisations). These network goes beyond nation-state boundaries and exist to change international policy as well as make these changes visible for ordinary people on local level. Their goal is to give a voice in domestic and international lawmaking to the marginal and disorganised social groups. The networks target “neglected” or hidden issues in the agendas of national governments, intergovernmental organisations and corporations. Governmental and business sectors find themselves under constant pressure from human, consumer rights and environmental groups. They are articulating new social demand for responsibilities states and corporations bear and outlining boundaries in methods, that governments can pursue goals or corporations can seek profits.
International advocacy activists reframe public policy issues and open the door to alternative point of view. By mobilising public opinion, advocating for rights of vulnerable groups, putting a moral and emotional pressure, advocacy networks have given rightless populations a place in international policy making process.
And once new issue is on the agenda, transnational coalitions are able to initiate public discussions, shape the agreements and stakeholder alliances, monitor whether and how well the agreement conditions are performed and provide government-like services and public goods where states fail. These policy entrepreneurs contribute by the constant process of seeking new strategies for setting policy agenda, preparing a solution, building coalitions, implementing and evaluating new policy.
To define main characteristics, their role and functions, we could refer to the work on policy making process by John Kingdon. He defines the concept of policy entrepreneurs through following question: who could be policy entrepreneurs and how it affects their action. What roles do they assume in the process of policy-making? John Kingdon describes the policy entrepreneurs as the “hidden participants”. He names academics, researches, consultants, bureaucrats as potential entrepreneurs. But, in general, they are the «people willing to invest their resources in return for the future policies they favour»[5]. All of them should posses following characteristics: they should have the authority to be heard, they should have political bounds, negotiating skills and they should be persistent.
Policy entrepreneurs could be influential players in a policy making process who set policy agendas, promote particular solutions to address policy issues, take part in implementation phases and evaluation of final results. Kingdon defines a key role of political entrepreneurs in bringing together various “political streams” to grasp the “window of opportunity”, that opens from time to time in the policy process, using the term “political stream” for describing the carousel of policy problems and it’s solution as decisions made by politicians for political reasons. Policy entrepreneurs work on framing issues and developing solutions to policy problems, identification of policy alternatives and preparing the public opinion for acceptance of coming reforms. As far as the period of “open windows of opportunity” is short, it is critically important to have ready and viable package of problem to be solved and appropriate solution, therefore to be first in forming the “field of alternatives”. And if the setting agenda is the prerogative of ruling political power, outlining the alternatives is the the key function of experts, motivated by not only political reasons.
It is necessary to highlight the essential role of policy oriented experts in shift from crisis response of government to the preventive and risk-mitigation policy strategy.
But indirect participants, political entrepreneurs, who are not always possessing direct political power, are forced to interact with society and experts community to seek their support. To expand their influence, policy entrepreneurs collaborate with NGO, professional communities, international organisations and as a result get high quality of expertise deliverables. Coordinated approach helps to enhance the effectiveness of monitoring, prediction, articulating, risk evaluation and implementation. It is possible just in case of constant and systematic work on policy problem. It is not one-time reaction to a crisis, that helps the politicians to save their reputation, but a comprehensive program with a set of proactive and mitigative measures. So, even acting in their own interests, political entrepreneurs could significantly improve the quality of policy making process. Preventing the narrowing of the long-run horizon of planning to the short-run list of electoral preferences is one of the key function of political entrepreneurs.
To examine possible role of advocacy networks and policy entrepreneurs in the policy articulation and implementation it would be explored the case of water policy reform in Brazil. Shift toward new decentralised and wide participatory model of water management gives an opportunity for active policy entrepreneurs to contribute to the policy making process. A growing need for innovation in water management was increasingly recognized within governmental agencies and scholars community, but the types of innovation and changes being considered or undertaken remain unclear. The case study demonstrates that reforms has not been caused neither by certain political interests or opinion of citizens, or by any economical, social or environmental crisis. This fact confirmed the role of external influential advocacy experts groups in changing type of policy reaction - from strong crisis oriented to the constant, incremental improvement of challenging, but not critical situation. Although there were no strong political or social pressure, throughout the 1980 in different Brazilian states various kinds of experts started to design new models of resource management. Having possessed full information, proved by data, experts have defined potential problems, predicted the future crisis and were ready for immediate reaction, when the policy problem surfaced. So, having acted as a “knowledge brokers” and used the knowledge (not only scientific one, but also managerial) recourse for gaining political and social support for certain policy proposal, the experts become indispensable for achieving sustainable results. As G. Ricardo wrote, “experts play a central role, especially in those area in which specialised information is crucial to policy formulation and implementation[6]”. On the other hand, during long-lasting prevenient period they have an opportunity to prepare the public opinion to support coming reforms. In Ceara reform process the policy entrepreneurs were in their majority a university professors and private consultants. Most of them had the technical education with knowledge in water resource management and work experience for the National Department for Anti-Drought Works. They promoted new management approach according to their concepts on chronic problem with water scarcity in the region and dissatisfaction with current management model. In the Rio Grande reform group of local civil service officials (“technicos") prevailed with multilevel interconnections to various NGO and community representers, formed advocacy coalition. It provides a wide bureaucratic and social (community was engaged into discussions from the very beginning of the process) support, moreover the policy problem was the poor quality of water. In Parana case the initiative was from the consultants of World Bank, acted as a presenters of global development community. In all three cases the most critical point was to get the initiative political support and set into current political agenda the water management policy.
In Ceara case experts used their private and party connections, to push their policy into legislative scope and get important “chairs” in the Government. They managed to include the new water management model into the program of ruling party as an important tool to attract private investments and get strong support from the Governor. Rio Grande advocacy group used wider interconnections not only with government, but also with local NGO. This allowed them to create a diffuse pro-reform coalition and get the social support and recognition of the legitimacy of their decisions. Although the policy problem were supported by the public opinion, it failed to find a true political interest, that reflected in a weak government support and long-lasting legislating process. Government invests lower resources because they do not see a strong political benefits from the process. In Parana case the unique position of local consultants, policy entrepreneurs, as a mediator between all parts of negotiations: international organisation, federal agencies and state government made the changes possible. The reform was set into the “programmatic agenda”, gets the World Bank funds and was expected to be implemented. But the party turnover dramatically changed the reform’s perspective and became an obstacle for its full implementation. While the strong government support provided more rapid way of reform initiation, it made the reform results more vulnerable to party turnovers, the ‘slow road” through the fostering the pro-reform coalition and building strong and broad social support was more useful for consensual implementation.
Each scenario required certain behavioral pattern of advocacy expert groups: different accents on importance of reform for program agenda of ruling party or for quality of life of local community, different model of interconnections - core direction of ruling party or broad multilevel advocacy network of different interest groups.
Interesting, but still open question is about the role of experts in the policy making process - is it crucial for reform success or bringing the optimal alternative to the implementation step is the matter of chance. Is the chosen mode of public policy reform a deliberate choice of political entrepreneurs or conditions and features of implementation are no more than coincidence.
Policy success are not necessary secured once policy was adopted. Full policy convergence is quite unlikely and sometimes policy transfer produces negative lessons or results in ‘dysfunctional transfers’[7].
Across time, through a series of successes and failures policymakers learn how to combine international learning and knowledge from policies abroad; and how to better fit policies to their national prerequisites, while also keeping them in accordance with international policy practices.
International organisations, NGOs, knowledge and advocacy communities, diverse foundations play active roles in spreading policy and promoting values and universal standards of good governance. There are several factors enduing transnational civil society’s group such a capacity to shape the global and national agendas. First of all, their ability to develop connections across borders among like-minded groups around policies, coping with social, environmental and economic dimensions of sustainable development. Expansion of public sphere increases impact of the communicative process in formulating, developing, adopting, distributing and maintaining different policy reforms. In practice it means that increasingly non-state actors could have an impartial access to the decision making process.
While the global world has been and continue to be transformed by new modes of new relationships in realm of security, economic, social, cultural issues, and international and supranational institutions, as well as NGO and private sector exercise more influence and power, the capacity of national government to frame their own agendas is diminished. Governing the public policy now takes place on a global level equally as on national one. Some governments hesitate to encourage NGO’s to be an active part of the public space and demonstrate quite hostile attitudes to international NGOs. There are particular reasons that explain such an attitude. Sometimes it is hard to define the true role of INGOs in democratic political processes and legitimacy of their right to take decisions on behalf of national society.
International organisations, NGOs, knowledge and advocacy communities, foundations play active roles in spreading policy and promoting values and universal standards of good governance, human rights and environmental issues, monitoring the actions of states and transnational companies. If the state or corporation does not strong in its commitment, transnational civil society could change their attitude through public condemnation. The IGOs and INGOs particularly incentivise the sovereign governments to be more responsible and more accountable for their actions - the cost of bad decisions in open world, with various opportunities and instant reactions, is much higher, than in isolated system.
The spread of democratic institutions allows citizens to directly participate in shaping policy agenda, including and protecting the interests of different social groups. The government should provide legal and organisational mechanisms of social integration, that could decrease the social tension, maintain social order and create a mutual responsibility of the state and the citizens for political decisions taken. The incorporation of citizens, based on three main principles: decentralisation, participation, integration, into policy spaces can improve the efficiency of governance and maintain stability of institutional values. Integration of participating institutions into political and public life could be one of the key elements for the sustainable development principles. The ruling power should capture, accumulate and articulate those public initiative that have integrative and innovative potential. The state posses the largest resource for coordination function that does not violate the possibilities for individual initiatives of policy entrepreneurs. New strategy of governance, when the boundaries between state agencies, private organisations and individuals are vanishing, establishes interdependent relationships between governmental and non-governmental organisations, increasing role of mediators (policy entrepreneurs). Less isolated position of bureaucracy toward effective mechanisms for coordination of public interactions - openness, transparency and accountability, could contribute to the broader agenda-setting and inherence the policy making process.
[1] David P. Dolowitz, David Marsh. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making // Governance -2000. Vol. 13. Issue 1. – P. 11 [2] Keck, Margaret E., Kathryn Sikkink . Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics // Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1998. – P.[3] David P. Dolowitz, David Marsh. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making // Governance -2000. Vol. 13. Issue 1. – P. 7
[4] Ann Florini. The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society // Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Japan Center for International Exchange. – 2001. – P. 15
[5] Kingdom John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies//Second Edition. -2003. - New York: Addison-Wesley. P. 163
[6] Gutierrez Ricardo. When experts do politics: introducing water policy reform in Brazil// Governance – 2010. Vol. 23, No.1 - P. 68
[7] David P. Dolowitz, David Marsh. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making // Governance -2000. Vol. 13. Issue 1. – P. 17References
- Ann Florini. The Third Force: The Rise of Transnational Civil Society // Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Japan Center for International Exchange. – - P. 675
- David P. Dolowitz, David Marsh. Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making // Governance -2000. Vol. 13. Issue 1. – P. 5–23
- Keck, Margaret E., Kathryn Sikkink . Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics // Ithaca: Cornell University Press 1998. – P. 228
- Kingdom John. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies//Second Edition. -2003. - New York: Addison-Wesley. P. 253
- Gutierrez Ricardo. When experts do politics: introducing water policy reform in Brazil// Governance – Vol. 23, No.1 - P. 59-88