Rational Choice, Pluralist and Marxist Theories’ Contributions to the Study of Public Policy Compare & Contrast Essay

Introduction

Making of Public policies can be theorised in a number of way among them rational theory, Marxists theory and pluralist theory. With regard to Cope and Goodship, the drafting of a public policy is not just a task of the government.

Instead, it should be viewed as a complicated process that requires the input of political leaders and the diverse society (1999, p.9). These forces have the capacity to impact and affect the outputs of policies.

Hills defines public policy as “the product of political influence, determining, and setting limits to what a state does” (1993, p.47). The definition broadly sets the guidelines for realising certain state-driven goals coupled with aspirations in the future (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.229).

Despite the presence of the many differing theories for explaining the process of making public policies, all of them use a similar definition of a policy. Public administrations scholars have both theorised and broadly described the process of making public policies.

For instance, Edward (1992) claims that public policy can be understood better by taking it as a set of interlinked process (p.39). The claim follows since policymaking requires the contributions of all sections of an organisation and not just one section or level that is mostly the top staff members (Gilliat 1984, p.345). Other public administration scholars see it as a single process that is defined by differing phases.

The purpose of this paper is to compare and contrast contributions of the rational theory, Marxists theory, and pluralist theory to the study of public policy. The paper is organised into two sections. The definition of theories is considered first under the description section followed by comparison and contrasting of the theories.

The question of how they contribute to the public policy study follows later in the analysis section. In conclusion, from the paradigms of rational theory, public policies are guided by mythological individualism and self-interested maximisation behaviours of people.

Description

Defining Rational Theory

Rational theory has its roots anchored in the work of Adams Smith, Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776. This work also forms the foundation of theory of neoclassical economics. As revealed by Smith, individuals who work to fulfil their personal desires can yield some collective gains to the community following some concealed forces (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.193).

For people to fully meet their egocentric interests, there must be a continuous state of competition, which often leads to production of goods of better quality, which would benefit everybody besides being sold at low prices in the end. In making of public policy, rational theory forms the basis of decision making in the sense that the most appropriate policies are the ones, which deliver more and higher quality public good.

Such a scenario cannot exist in an unregulated market. Frederickson et al. (2012) note that factors such as the egocentric party, rivalry witnessed in producers, and the unorganised markets are all indicative of neoclassical economics (p.183).

Since rational theory rests on the platforms of neoclassical economics, these elements are also definitive of rational choice theory. From this context, rational choice theory entangles a theoretical construct for modelling and understating various economic and social behaviours. In theory, the term rational is applied to refer to the behaviour of people to constantly want more as opposed to less of any public good.

Defining Marxism Theory

Marxism sees the process of making public policies as the interplay of political power and economic class. Marxist theory is composed of a number of doctrines. Marxist theory has been strongly upheld by many people based on the wide range of sentiments within an analytical model that undermines the ‘capitalist’ society (Burnham 1994, p.73).

From the paradigms of Marxist theory, policies are made to fulfil the function of the state. One function of the state is to make improvement of various conditions that foster accumulation of capital.

This means that the state makes policies that will ensure that industries are able to make optimal profits. The second function of the state encompasses legitimisation of the resulting capitalistic system. This is accomplished through the introduction of myriads of policies such as welfare policies, health services, and pension policies among others.

These policies are formulated such that people will not reject them and hence embrace the capitalist system (Hill 2005, p.23). Even if Marxist theory is supported by some public administration scholars as one of the mechanisms of effective allocation of limited public resources, it faces some drawbacks that are akin to the description of the concept of capitalism.

For instance, based on Bonefield’s (1996) findings, Marxist theory approach in making of public policies faces an objection since it depicts societal authority as one that has divisions with no specific ownership (p.115). It says that nations that uphold the wellbeing of their people do so out of their heart and will rather than mere pretence or forces of circumstances.

Another challenge is that the need to reflect the concepts of legitimisation and accumulation of capital in the public policies are contradictory. Often, the costs associated with the legitimisation process have the repercussion of creating a legitimisation crisis.

Defining Pluralism Theory

Classical pluralism theory for making public policies sees decision making in the formulation of public policies as being centrally located in the government’s frameworks although numerous nongovernmental groups utilise their resources to influence the process of making public policies. The main interrogative that is addressed by pluralism theory is how power is distributed across a political process of making public policies.

From the contexts of this theory, in making public polices, “lines of conflict are multiple and shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups” (Ackers 2002, p.8). While formulating public policies, inequalities are often created in terms of participation in the policy ideation process.

However, the inequalities are distributed and evened out through adoption of various mechanisms of resource distribution within the unequal population. The theory puts an emphasis that the power to make public policies does not amount to a physical entity, which people have or do not have. The power spreads from varying sources.

Analysis: Comparing and Contrasting the Three Theories

The development of differing theoretical paradigms that provide insights to the process of making public policies is owned to the contribution made by various theories among them being Marxist, Pluralist, and rational choice theory.

In this section, these theories are compared and contrasted in terms of the contribution they have made in guiding the manner in which public policymakers view the purpose and function of the polices they formulate and then later to be implemented by a bureaucratic system either from an approach of ‘top’ or ‘bottom’ or top-bottom

Marxist theory sees public polices as serving the purpose of creating conflicts between the economic classes in a society. These policies favour the Bourgeoisie, who is a composed person who owns all the production means (Konings 2010, p.175). In fact, the policies led to exploitation of the Proletariat, which is composed of the working class.

In particular, the Marxist analysis of the wellbeing of people focuses much on its connection with the people’s exercise of authority (Jessop 2002, p.105). From the paradigms of Marxist theory, this means that the state is an instrument of ruling people belonging to the capitalist class (Bourgeoisie) through formulation and implementation of appropriate public policies.

Alternatively, a state is a complicated combination of systems that reveal the many differences that the larger society has of which the state itself is a subset (Duncan & Goodwin 1982, p.158). Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy by introduction a theoretical paradigm for interpreting the process of making public policies by maintaining that policies that develop welfare to the society are the ones advocating for strengthening of the Proletariat via making them resist exploitation.

Opposed to Marxism theory, public policies under pluralism theory are not made to satisfy the quests of one principle group of people within a society.

Instead, it sees public policy making process as being well comprehended based on the extrapolation that authority is relatively wide and unevenly shared among the various more or less coordinated groups in the society that rival each other in an effort to get hold of public policy (Dowding 1995, p.143).

Some specific groups dominate in some arena or areas of public policy struggles while others are concerned with some different public policy areas.

The Marxism theory maintains that the capitalistic group is favoured by the policies so that it can continue to support the economy through increased productivity and hence profitability. Through such policies, the Bourgeoisie is able to influence the Proletariat.

Comparatively, the pluralism theory differs from this view by revealing how there is an insignificant intersection between the leaders who take part in a certain section of policy and the ones who take part in other sections of the same policy making process (Grillo1998, p.45).

The two theories are similar in that they present the process of making public policies as entangling friction between various parties. Some parties are composed of the policy makers while others are composed of those people to whom the policies will apply.

Somewhat different from the concerns of the both the above two theories in the making of public policies, rational theory holds that self interest among policy making stakeholders acts as the drive for determining the manner in which policies are formulated.

It upholds the notion that the key conduct hypothesis of the neoclassical economic image is cosmopolitan. It points out people’s decisions and conducts, for instance, buying a house, making elections decisions, and or deciding on what and when to budget for are controlled by their ego (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.194).

This means that public policies need to be made in a manner that fits the demands of the people to whom they should apply.

The producers of the public goods are required to competitively respond to the needs of consumers in a manner that is consistent with their self-interest. Hence, policies should be made in a manner that makes it possible for the organisations, which are guided by self-interest, to deliver services and public goods that satisfy the utility of the consumers.

For instance, in the healthcare setting, accessibility of quality healthcare is public good. From the paradigms of rational theory, organisations that are charged with the noble roles of ensuring the public has access to quality healthcare, for instance, a health insurance organisation must be favoured by the policies in the health care sector such that they will be able to deliver quality healthcare.

From the context of this example, rational theory differs from Marxist theory in the formulation of public policies because Marxism theory would call for a free operation of market forces to determine the delivery of quality healthcare.

It will not impose regulations to control the organisations such as the insurance companies in facilitation of delivery of quality healthcare as public good.

From the approach of pluralism theory, there will be people of diverse settings, scopes, and their mode or way of input to the larger community who are fighting for authority (Howlett 2002, p.237) to determine the appropriate mechanism of formulating a policy that will ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.

The government or the state would play only the roles of mediation by shifting and balancing the interests of various interest groups as opposed to playing active roles in imposition and active innovation of various policies that would ensure accessibility of quality healthcare.

Marxist theory suggests that persons whose voices are likely to be heard and taken into consideration in the formulation of public policies are those who are economically endowed, being also the people who control the factors of production.

This means that Marxism theory contributes to the study of public policy in that economic power has the potential to translate into political power because policy formulation and implementation are inseparable from political influences (Toke & Marsh 2003, p.234).

Therefore, the political power, which plays active roles in the process of making public policies, is a function of the economic power. Hence, the economic class is the one that makes policies indirectly. This argument forms the point of departure between the proponents of classical Marxism and neo Marxism.

Classical Marxism sees the government as serving the roles of ruling the economic class while neo-Marxism contends that the government has a proportional liberty from capital (McLellan 1999, p.83). It does not then principally serves as an economic class-ruling agent.

Pluralism approach to making of public policies sees power as not being centralised to the state. It views people as the carriers of power because they are in charge of most of the public resources (Ackers 2002, p.9). The resources are the tools that are used by people to compel others to do what they want them to.

Politicians are then able to push through the process of making public policies since they have the capacity of commanding various resources, which people feared, want, or even respect. There are two main important approaches to public policy from the paradigms of pluralism theory.

Firstly, one needs to view resources as being everywhere in the society (Ackers 2002, p.12). Secondly, all the resources are almost available to almost every person.

Since the degree to which people have accessibility of resources determines the extent to which people possess the power to influence the process of making public policies, making of public policies from the contexts of pluralism is a function of many actors.

This implies that power is also distributed across many actors with the state only taking passive roles in the making of the policies.

Policymaking is thus a procedure that is free and competitive (Dowding 1995, p.142). From the perspective of neo-pluralism, rather than power being distributed across all people, it is seen as only distributed in significant magnitudes across the key actors in the process of making public policies.

Such actors include professionals who evaluate the policies and the businesspersons who are often impacted by the policies in terms of performance of their business activities. Since these key actors are incorporated in policymaking process, policymaking with regard to the neo-pluralism theory is a negotiated and an interdependent process (Ackers 2002, p.17).

Pluralism is then a reflection of liberal thinking and contextualisation of democratic societal ideals for legitimisation of inequalities and power structures coupled with the contribution of the democratic society in influencing the process of formulation and implementation of public policies.

The pluralism theory reinforces societal collectivism with regard to public policies. This contrasts the concern of rational theory, which reinforces self-centred maximisation conduct (Frederickson et al. 2012, p.195) and methodological individualism.

A decision maker guided by rational theoretical paradigms while making policy encounters several chances and possibilities in the course of happenings (Ostrom & Ostrom 1971, p.205). However, a similar decision maker guided by pluralism will pursue possibility and opportunities that deliver societal good.

The difference between the two approaches is that the pluralism approach will not give rise to bureaucratic self-maximising individual in charge of making policies. Theorists who subscribe to rational theory as the best mechanism of making public policies consider the collective action advocated for by pluralism as problematic.

Often, they deploy game theory to illustrate these problems. They employ simplistic models to make sense of deployment of rational theory in making of policies. Some critics of this theory see it as inappropriate for making public policies that would influence well all the stakeholders.

However, in case a government utilises rational choices theory as the model for making public policies, the assumption made particularly with regard to human behaviours end up as being self-fulfilling.

Conclusion

Decisions taken by governments to resolve certain challenges that constitute social problems through deployment of specific strategies designed for planning and implementation of a proposed action make up a public policy.

Depending on the theory deployed in explaining the making of public policies, different scholars provide differing contribution to the advisement of the discipline of public policy administration.

From this perspective, the paper compared and contrasted rational choice, Marxist, and pluralism theories’ contributions in the study of public policy.

Marxist theory presents the process of making public policies as the interplay of the economic power and political power. The economic class is the owner of the factors of production. Policies made tend to favour this group of people as opposed to the working class.

From a different angle, rational theory sees the making of public policies as being guided by self-interested maximisation behaviour of people and methodological individualism. This often leads to bureaucratic systems for the formulation and implementation of public policies.

Lastly, the pluralism theory sees the procedure of making public policies as a process that is competitive and open to a variety of actors. The government or the state acts as the moderator that only plays passive roles.

References

Ackers, P 2002, ‘Reframing Employment Relations: The case for Neo-Pluralism’, Industrial Relations Journal, vol.33 no.1, pp. 2-19.

Bonefield, W 1996, ‘Reformulation of State Theory’, Capital and Class, vol.11 no. 3, pp. 96-127.

Burnham, P 1994, ‘The Organisational View of State’, Politics, vol. 154, no.4, pp. 59-86.

Cope, S & Goodship, J 1999, ‘Regulating Collaborative Government: Towards Joined-Up Government?’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no.2, pp. 3-16.

Dowding, K 1995, ‘Model or Metaphor? A Critical Review of the Policy Network Approach’, Political Studies, vol. 45 no.1, pp. 136-158.

Duncan, S & Goodwin, M 1982, ‘The local state and restructuring social relations’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, vol. 6 no.3, pp. 157-186.

Edward, C 1992, Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ. Frederickson, G et al. 2012, Public Administration Theory Primer, Westview Press, Boulder, Col.

Gilliat, S 1984, ‘Public Policy Analysis and Conceptual Conservatism’, Policy and Politics, vol.12 no.4, pp. 345-367.

Grillo, D 1998, Pluralism and the Politics of Difference, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hill, M 2005, The Public Policy Process, Policy Press, New York.

Hill, M 1993, The Policy Process: A Reader, Harvester Wheatsheaf, London.

Howlett, M 2002, ‘Do networks matter? Linking policy network structure to policy outcomes: evidence from four Canadian policy sectors 1990-2000’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, vol. 35 no.2, pp. 235-267.

Jessop, B 2002, The Future of the Capitalist State: Jessop State Theory 1990, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.

Konings, M 2010, ‘Renewing state theory’, Politics, vol. 30 no.3, pp. 174-182.

McLellan D 1999, Marx and Marxism Political Studies, SAGE, Beverly Hills, Calif.

Ostrom, V & Ostrom, E 1971, ‘Public choice: a different approach to the study of public administration’, Public Administration Review, vol. 31 no.2, pp. 203-216.

Toke, D & Marsh, D 2003, ‘Policy Networks and the GM Crop Issue: Assessing the Utility of Dialectical Model of Policy Networks’, Public Administration, vol. 81 no.2, pp. 229-251.