Mammotsa Makhene
Efficiency of Pluralist Policies
In Power and Achieving Structural Change In the Polis, Sandoval asserts that models, including those belonging to the public choice theory, cannot only focus on considerations of state capture by a single interest group. She goes on to say that even so, the relationship between interest groups and powerful individuals cannot be discounted in terms of its impact and influence on the political process. Pluralists would agree with this idea as they place emphasis on the important role of interest groups in policy making for democracies. How does the pluralist view, regarding interest groups, measure up to the efficiency standards that Stone talks about?
According to Stone, efficiency can basically be defined as getting the most out of any particular input at the lowest cost. Pluralists believe that government produces policies and makes decisions which reflect the demands of the electorate, resolve conflicts and ensure stability. They see few flaws, if any, and believe that democracy makes decisions for the collective and is “for the people, by the people”. Pluralists are also in favor of fragmentation, believing that this helps keep the balance of power. Admitting that government, in some situations, may be better poised because of the power they hold, to accomplish a lot in terms of policies and carrying out mandates. However stating that they believe this power can lead to dictatorship and infringement of human liberties and thus implying that in some cases government should not have the power to carry out certain policies or mandates, even if they are the most able. According to Stone, this would be considered inefficient as we would not be using the resources at hand, namely government, in the most efficient, cost effective and productive way.
The importance placed on public interest groups by pluralists, provides a good example of some of the paradox regarding efficiency that Stone talks about. For pluralists, citizens preferences can be found in varying political parties, interest groups and other intermediate groups. Here, no group ever always gets its way as it has to compete with various other interest groups. They point to gains made in past decades by women, people of color and the disabled. Interest groups are considered crucial and hold the government accountable. Who gets the benefit of the policies put forward by different interest groups and how do we assess the value and cost of the policies? Those interest groups and their members get the benefit while the value of the policy will obviously be high for those who benefitted and not so high for those whose policies were not addressed. This highlights part of the paradox of efficiency that Stone talks about. Depending on what you value and how you value it, the policies addressed by government, because of a particular interest group, may not represent the most efficient or the most beneficial policy available as believed by pluralists.
As there is so much choice in terms of interpreting policy values and thus costs, it is hard to be sure of which policies are the most efficient. At any time, a policy which may benefit some or many, will either have undesirable consequences for some or will just not be their preference.
Depending on preferences and how these are valued, it would seem that as long as a policy negatively affects people or is not their preference, it is not efficient to them. This is in stark contrast to what pluralists believe.
---------
Works Cited
Efficiency of Pluralist Policies
In Power and Achieving Structural Change In the Polis, Sandoval asserts that models, including those belonging to the public choice theory, cannot only focus on considerations of state capture by a single interest group. She goes on to say that even so, the relationship between interest groups and powerful individuals cannot be discounted in terms of its impact and influence on the political process. Pluralists would agree with this idea as they place emphasis on the important role of interest groups in policy making for democracies. How does the pluralist view, regarding interest groups, measure up to the efficiency standards that Stone talks about?
According to Stone, efficiency can basically be defined as getting the most out of any particular input at the lowest cost. Pluralists believe that government produces policies and makes decisions which reflect the demands of the electorate, resolve conflicts and ensure stability. They see few flaws, if any, and believe that democracy makes decisions for the collective and is “for the people, by the people”. Pluralists are also in favor of fragmentation, believing that this helps keep the balance of power. Admitting that government, in some situations, may be better poised because of the power they hold, to accomplish a lot in terms of policies and carrying out mandates. However stating that they believe this power can lead to dictatorship and infringement of human liberties and thus implying that in some cases government should not have the power to carry out certain policies or mandates, even if they are the most able. According to Stone, this would be considered inefficient as we would not be using the resources at hand, namely government, in the most efficient, cost effective and productive way.
The importance placed on public interest groups by pluralists, provides a good example of some of the paradox regarding efficiency that Stone talks about. For pluralists, citizens preferences can be found in varying political parties, interest groups and other intermediate groups. Here, no group ever always gets its way as it has to compete with various other interest groups. They point to gains made in past decades by women, people of color and the disabled. Interest groups are considered crucial and hold the government accountable. Who gets the benefit of the policies put forward by different interest groups and how do we assess the value and cost of the policies? Those interest groups and their members get the benefit while the value of the policy will obviously be high for those who benefitted and not so high for those whose policies were not addressed. This highlights part of the paradox of efficiency that Stone talks about. Depending on what you value and how you value it, the policies addressed by government, because of a particular interest group, may not represent the most efficient or the most beneficial policy available as believed by pluralists.
As there is so much choice in terms of interpreting policy values and thus costs, it is hard to be sure of which policies are the most efficient. At any time, a policy which may benefit some or many, will either have undesirable consequences for some or will just not be their preference.
Depending on preferences and how these are valued, it would seem that as long as a policy negatively affects people or is not their preference, it is not efficient to them. This is in stark contrast to what pluralists believe.
---------
Works Cited
- Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram, Chapter 2: “A Pluralist View of Public Policy” in 7 Policy Design for Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 1997.
- Stone,Deborah. Policy Paradox; The Art of Political Decision Making. 1997.