Policy Networks Deregulation Case Study to explain current Canadian Issues

As the public policy practices changed from the 1980s, the theoretical field of public policy and the frameworks associated with it, evolved. Public policy frameworks continue to change to link with the current policy practices. In Canada, the policy networks framework can explain some of the recent measures to avoid a recession.

Changes in policy practices since the 1980s have made it difficult for public policy theories to simplify a complex world (Sabatier, 2007). First, there are more actors from the Canadian legislature, interest groups, bureaucracy, and media. Second, the timeline for most policy cycles is a decade or more. Third, there have been technical disputes and debates among actors which involve “deeply held values and interests” (Sabatier, 2007, p.4).  According to Sabatier, “over the past twenty years a number of new theoretical frameworks of the policy process have been either developed or extensively modified” (Sabatier, 2007, p.7).

Sabatier’s four criteria for public policy frameworks successfully analyze and explain the linkages to public policy practices since the 1980s. All five theoretical frameworks must, first, identify causal drivers, meet the criteria of a scientific theory, and be broad in scope. Second, each framework must have a conceptual development and/or empirical testing, “a number of currently active policy scholars must view it as a viable way of understanding the policy process” (Sabatier, 2007, p.8). Third, each theory must explain most of the policy process and contain normative elements. Fourth, each theory must look into broad aspects of public policymaking that have been essential—such as conflicting interests, and values, information flows, and variation in the socioeconomic environment (Sabatier, 2007). 

Canadian Case Studies

The origins of policy networks began with iron triangles and issue networks. The simplification and bargaining tendencies of the iron triangle between congress, bureaucracy, and interest groups led to “issue network,” Heclo (1978) recast these informal exchanges as places where political values, intellectual discourse, and human feelings might be expressed” (Miller & Demir, 2007, p.139). More than a decade later, in the 1990’s, policy networks emerged based on five characteristics: 1) involvement at multiple levels, 2) network design, 3) appropriate governance, 4) building and maintaining legitimacy and 5) stability (Provan & Lemaire, 2012). Policy domain-specific subsystems are where policy making is occurring. Numerous actors are within these policy subsystems that work on specific policies. The interaction between public and private actors dictates the political processes and the actors depend on each other’s resources (Adam & Kriesi, 2007). Most recently, policy communities emerged primarily focusing on problem-solving projects (Miller & Demir, 2007). 

Howlett (2002) examined whether the structures of networks “affect the articulation of ideas and interests in public policy making” (Howlett, 2002, p.237). The case studies included four federal sectors in Canada that were primarily involved in policy making from 1990 through 2000: 1) Transport (airline deregulation), 2) Trade (continental free trade), 3) Education (post-secondary funding) and 4) Banking (bank deregulation). In transport, the subsystem decreased from 68 members to 55 members. In trade, there was a decrease from 85 to 46 members. In education, there was an increase from 22 to 102 members. Finally, in banking, there was an increase from 11 to 137 members. 

Policy changes were defined by either policy goals, and program specifications or instrument type and components. There were no policy goals and program specifications for transport and trade, however, education had two and banking had three. Alternatively, there were fifteen changes in instrument types and components in the transport subsystem and five in trade. The education subsystem had nine changes and banking had six. The sectors that experienced decreases in the size of their subsystem changed in instrument types and components. However, the sectors that experienced increases in the size of their subsystem changed their policy goals and program specifications. Howlett concluded that “subsystem structure was correlated with specific types of policy change” (Howlett, 2002, p.359).

In the Canadian case study example, there was causality, use of empirical evidence, further explanation of the policy process, and competing interests. Howlett explained causality between topics that were salient at the time such as banking deregulation to the increase in network and policy goals/program specifications. He also used empirical evidence from secondary data sources of subsystem membership and output changes. Howlett also explained different aspects of the policy process as he stated, “a model that explains policy change as dependent upon the effects of the articulation of ideas and interests in public policy processes” (Howlett, 2002, p.237). These competing ideas and interests were represented in the different subsystems.

Conclusion

Policy practices have recently changed in Canada due to COVID-19, where there have been issues ranging from real estate lack of affordable housing, rising rents, and inflation. Policy networks can help explain current policy practices by identifying causal drivers, have a conceptual development and/or empirical testing, explain most of the policy process and contain normative elements and look into broad aspects of public policymaking that have been essential.

References:

Adam, S. and Kriesi, H. (2007) The Network Approach. In: Sabatier, P.A., Ed., Theories of the Policy Process, West Press, Colorado.

Heclo, H. (1978). “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” Pp. 87–124 

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, 35(2), p.235-267.

Miller, H.T. & Demir, T. (2007). Policy Communities. In Fischer, F., Handbook of Public Policy Analysis. Routledge.

Provan, K.G. & Lemaire, R. (2012). Core Concepts and Key Ideas for Understanding Public Sector Organizational Networks: Using Research to Inform Scholarship and Practice. Public Administration Review, September/October, p.638-648.

Sabatier, P.A. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press.