Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T03:05:07.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dealing with bad guys: actor- and process-level determinants of the “devil shift” in policy making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Manuel Fischer ,
Karin Ingold ,
Pascal Sciarini  and
Frédéric Varone
Manuel Fischer
Affiliation:
Swiss Federal Institute for Aquatic Research and Technology Eawag and University of Berne, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Karin Ingold
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Pascal Sciarini
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Frédéric Varone
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and International Relations, University of Geneva, Switzerland E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Policy actors tend to misinterpret and distrust opponents in policy processes. This phenomenon, known as the “devil shift”, consists of the following two dimensions: actors perceive opponents as more powerful and as more evil than they really are. Analysing nine policy processes in Switzerland, this article highlights the drivers of the devil shift at two levels. On the actor level, interest groups, political parties and powerful actors suffer more from the devil shift than state actors and powerless actors. On the process level, the devil shift is stronger in policy processes dealing with socio-economic issues as compared with other issues. Finally, and in line with previous studies, there is less empirical evidence of the power dimension of the devil shift phenomenon than of its evilness dimension.

Keywords

conflictdevil shiftpolicy processpower
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 309 - 334
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahler, D. J. (2014) Self-Fulfilling Misperceptions of Public Polarization. The Journal of Politics 76(3): 607–620.Google Scholar
Ansell, C. and Gash, A. (2008) Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18(4): 543–571.Google Scholar
Batagelj, V. and Mrvar, A. (1996) PAJEK – Program for Large Network Analysis.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1991) Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems. The Journal of Politics 53(4): 1044–1074.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R. and Jones, B. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Berardo, R. (2009) Generalized Trust in Multi-Organizational Policy Arenas: Studying its Emergence from a Network Perspective. Political Research Quarterly 62(1): 178–189.Google Scholar
Berardo, R. (2013) The Coevolution of Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Link Formation in Self-Organizing Policy Networks. The Journal of Politics 75(3): 686–700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besley, T. and Case, A. (1995) Does Electoral Accountability Affect Economic Policy Choices? Evidence from Gubernatorial Term Limits. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 110(3): 769–798.Google Scholar
Beyers, J. and Braun, C. (2014) Ties that Count. Explaining Interest Group Access to Policymakers. Journal of Public Policy 34(1): 93–121.Google Scholar
Bliese, P. D. (2012) Multilevel Modeling in R (2.4). A Brief Introduction to R, the Multilevel Package and the NLME Package. Working paper (http://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Bliese_Multilevel.pdf).Google Scholar
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G. and Freeman, L. C. (2002) Ucinet for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
Culpepper, P. D. (2011) Business Power and Democratic Politics. In Culpepper P. D. (ed.), Quiet Politics and Business Power. Cambridge and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 177–198.Google Scholar
de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A. and Batagelj, V. (2005) Exploratory Social Network Analysis with Pajek. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doreian, P. and Mrvar, A. (2009) Partitioning Signed Social Networks. Social Networks 31: 1–11.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. (2014) Institutions and Coalitions in Policy Processes: A Cross-Sectoral Comparison. Journal of Public Policy, first published online 16 June 2014, doi:10.1017/S0143814X14000166.Google Scholar
Fischer, M., Fischer, A. and Sciarini, P. (2009) Power and Conflict in the Swiss Political Elite: An Aggregation of Existing Network Analyses. Swiss Political Science Review 15(1): 31–62.Google Scholar
Gelman, A. and Hill, J. (2006) Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heaney, M. (2014) Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model. Social Networks 36: 66–81.Google Scholar
Henry, A. D. (2011) Ideology, Power, and the Structure of Policy Networks. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 361–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hojnacki, M. (1998) Organized Interests’ Advocacy Behavior in Alliances. Political Research Quarterly 51(2): 437–459.Google Scholar
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. (2009) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. (2011) Network Structures Within Policy Processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3): 435–459.Google Scholar
Ingold, K. and Fischer, M. (2014) Drivers of Collaboration to Mitigate Climate Change: An Illustration of Swiss Climate Policy Over 15 Years. Global Environmental Change 24: 88–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, K. and Varone, F. (2012) Treating Policy Brokers Seriously: Evidence from the Climate Policy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22: 319–346.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and Sabatier, P. A. (1994) Evaluating the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Journal of Public Policy 14(2): 175–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahnemann, D. and Tversky, A. (1984) Choices, Values, and Frames. American Psychologist 39(4): 341–350.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, P. (1985) Small States in World Markets. Cornell: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. (2003) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed. New York and London: Longman.Google Scholar
Knill, C. and Tosun, J. (2012) Public Policy: A New Introduction. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Knoke, D. (1993) Networks of Elite Structure and Decision Making. Sociological Methods & Research 22(1): 22–45.Google Scholar
Knoke, D., Pappi, F. U., Broadbent, J. and Tsujinaka, Y. (1996) Comparing Policy Networks – Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H. (1980) Entscheidungsstrukturen und Entscheidungsprozesse in der Schweizer Politik. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Adam, S. and Jochum, M. (2006a) Comparative Analysis of Policy Networks in Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 13(3): 341–361.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2006b) Globalization and the Transformation of the National Political Space: Six European Countries Compared. European Journal of Political Research 45: 921–956.Google Scholar
Leach, W. D. and Sabatier, P. A. (2005) To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of Collaborative Policymaking. American Political Science Review 99(4): 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leifeld, P. and Schneider, V. (2012) Information Exchange in Policy Networks. American Journal of Political Science 53(3): 731–744.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1964) American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory. World Politics 16(4): 677–715.Google Scholar
Lubell, M. (2007) Familiarity Breeds Trust: Collective Action in a Policy Domain. Journal of Politics 69: 237–250.Google Scholar
Maas, C. J. M. and Hox, J. J. (2004) The Influence of Violations of Assumptions on Multilevel Parameter Estimates and Their Standard Errors. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis 46: 427–440.Google Scholar
Maas, C. J. M. and Hox, J. J. (2005) Sufficient Sample Sizes for Multilevel Modeling. Methodology 1(3): 86–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintrom, M. and Vergari, S. (1996) Advocacy Coalitions, Policy Entrepreneurs, and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 24(3): 420–434.Google Scholar
Moe, T. (1980) The Organization of Interests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. and Ingold, K. (2011) Venue Access and Policy Conflict: Belief System Alignement in Swiss and Swedish Energy Policy Subsystems. Paper presented at MPSA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL, March 31 – April 3, 2011.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (1990) Governing the Commons. The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Actors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005) Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pralle, S. B. (2006) Branching Out, Digging In: Environmental Advocacy and Agenda Setting. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1987) Knowledge, Policy-Oriented Learning, and Policy Change: An Advocacy Coalition Framework. Science Communication 8: 649–692.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1998) The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Revisions and Relevance for Europe. Journal of European Public Policy 5(1): 98–130.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (2007) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A., Hunter, S. and McLaughlin, S. (1987) The Devil Shift: Perceptions and Misperceptions of Opponents. Political Research Quarterly 40: 449–476.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Jenkins-Smith, H. (eds.) (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. and Weible, C. M. (2007) The Advocacy Coalition Framework. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 189–222.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. W. (1997) Games Real Actors Play: Actor-Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder, CO and Oxford: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. C. (1995) Policy Making and Collective Action: Defining Coalitions Within the Advocacy Coalition Framework. Policy Sciences 28: 243–270.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. C. and Streeck, W. (1999) The Organization of Business Interests. MPIfG Discussion Paper 99(1).Google Scholar
Sciarini, P. (2014) Eppure si Muove: The Changing Nature of the Swiss Consensus Democracy. Journal of European Public Policy 21(1): 116–132.Google Scholar
Steenbergen, M. R. and Jones, B. S. (2002) Modeling Multilevel Data Structures. American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 218–237.Google Scholar
Stokman, F. N. and Zeggelink, E. P. H. (1996) Is Politics Power or Policy Oriented? A Comparative Analysis of Dynamic Access Models in Policy Networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21(1–2): 77–111.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, D. Z. (2006) Do Interest Groups Represent the Disadvantaged? Advocacy at the Intersections of Race, Class, and Gender. The Journal of Politics 68(4): 894–910.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002) Veto Players – How Political Institutions Work. New York, NY and Princeton, NJ: Russell Sage Foundation and Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis. Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weible, C. M. and Sabatier, P. A. (2005) Comparing Policy Networks: Marine Protected Areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal 33(2): 181–201.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A. and McQueen, K. (2009) Themes and Variations: Taking Stock of the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121–140.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P. A., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D. and DeLeon, P. (2011a) A Quarter Century of the Advocacy Coalition Framework: Introduction to the Special Issue. The Policy Studies Journal 39: 349–360.Google Scholar
Weible, C. M., Siddiki, S. N. and Pierce, J. J. (2011b) Foes to Friends: Changing Contexts and Changing Intergroup Perceptions. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice 13(5): 499–525.Google Scholar
Weiss, U. (1996) Macht. In Nohlen D. and Schultze R. O. (eds.), Lexikon der Politik – Politische Theorien. Frankfurt am Main: Büchergilde Gutenberg, 305–315.Google Scholar