Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:24:19.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Behind the Veil of Vagueness: Success and Failure in Institutional Reforms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2010

PETER MUNK CHRISTIANSEN  and
MICHAEL BAGGESEN KLITGAARD
PETER MUNK CHRISTIANSEN
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Bartholins Allé 7, DK-8000 Århus C,Denmark e-mail: [email protected]
MICHAEL BAGGESEN KLITGAARD
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M,Denmark, e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The difficulties of implementing large institutional reforms are legendary. Reform programs may face strong resistance from designated losers, falter at successive veto points, or stall when multiple decision makers have diverse goals. Institutional theories have successfully accounted for failure of reform in many settings, but scholars have paid less attention to how the strategic design of a reform process can have a positive effect on reform initiatives. We seek to fill this gap by studying the impact of planned ambiguity in reform processes. We hypothesize that reform proposals are more likely to succeed when policy entrepreneurs strategically hide the cost-benefit profile of a reform proposal behind a veil of vagueness until the final stages of the process. Designated losers with limited information about the impact of proposed reforms are less likely to succeed in thwarting the reform. We test the theory on four institutional reforms or reform attempts in Denmark.

Keywords

institutional reformpolicy ambiguitylocal governmentlabor market policyDenmark
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , August 2010 , pp. 183 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Bendor, J., Moe, T. M. and Shotts, K. W. (2001) Recycling the Garbage Can: An Assessment of the research Program, American Political Science Review, 95, 1, 169–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom-Hansen, J. and Laursen, S. W. (1999) Økonomisk politik: Organisationerne uden for døren?, in Blom-Hansen, J. & Daugbjerg, C. (eds.) Magtens organisering. Aarhus: Systime.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2001) Political Institutions, Veto Points, and the Process of Welfare State Adaptation, in Pierson, P. (ed.) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bruun, F. (1995) Dilemmas of Size: The Rise and Fall of the Greater Copenhagen Council, in Sharpe, J. J. (ed.) The Government of World Cities. Chicester: Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Bruun, F. (2002) Fra råd til råd: Et lærestykke om kommunalpolitiske interesser, in Blom-Hansen, J., Bruun, F. & Pallesen, T. (eds.) Kommunale patologier. Aarhus: Systime.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P. M. and Klitgaard, M. B. (2008) Den utænkelige reform. Strukturreformens tilblivelse 2002–2005. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P. M. and Nørgaard, A. S. (2003) Positionel magt – om at slutte fra at være (til stede) til at have og til at gøre, in Christiansen, P.M. & Togeby, L. (eds.) På sporet af magten. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Christiansen, P. M., Nørgaard, A. S. and Sidenius, N. C. (2004) Hvem skriver lovene? Interesseorganisationer og politiske beslutninger. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1997) Procedure and Substance in Deliberative Democracy, in Bohmann, J. & Rehg, W. (eds.) Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
DA, LO, FTF, Lederne & SALA (2003) Fremtidens arbejdsmarkedsservice. Copenhagen: Dansk Arbejdsgiverforening.Google Scholar
Gibson, D. and Goodin, R. E. (1999) The Veil of Vagueness: A Model of Institutional Design, in Egeberg, M. & Lægreid, P. (eds.) Organizing Political Institutions. Essays for Johan P. Olsen. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
Goodin, R. E. (1988) Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Government & Danish People's Party (2004) Aftale om strukturreform. Juni 2004. Copenhagen: Regeringen og Dansk Folkeparti.Google Scholar
Government (2004) Det nye Danmark. En enkel offentlig sektor tæt på borgeren. Copenhagen: Regeringen.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2001) Welfare State Retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands 1982–1998: The Role of Party Competition and Party Consensus, Comparative Political Studies, 34, 9, 963–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Immergut, E. (1992) The Rules of the Game: The Logic of Health Policy-making in France, Switzerland and Sweden, in Steinmo, S., Thelen, K. & Longstreth, F. (eds.) Structuring Politics. Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics.Google Scholar
Jones, L. R., Guthrie, J. and Steane, P. (2001) Learning from International Public Management Reform Experience, in Jones, L.R., Guthrie, J. and Steane, P. (eds.) Learning from International Management Reform. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decisions under Risk, Econometrica, 47, 2, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, J. T. S. (1993) Opening the Window for Reform, Comparative Political Studies, 25, 4, 433–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (2003) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Klitgaard, M. B. (2007) Social Democracy and Market-Oriented Welfare State Reforms, West European Politics, 30, 1, 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klitgaard, M. B. (2008) School Vouchers and the New Politics of the Welfare State, Governance, 21, 4, 479–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J. (1992) Institutions and Social Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, C. A. and Goul Andersen, J. (2004) Magten på borgen. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, M. and Shepsle, K. A. (1991) Divided Government: America is Not “Exceptional”, Governance, 4, 3, pp. 250–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M. and Stoker, L. (2000) Political Trust and Trustworthiness, Annual Review of Political Science, 3, pp. 475–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftager, J. (2004) Politisk offentlighed og demokrati i Danmark. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Mahoney, J. and Goertz, G. (2004) The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Comparative Research, American Political Science Review, 98, 4, 633–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, T. M. (1990) Political Institutions – the Neglected Side of the Story, Journal of Law, Economics & Institutions, 6, Special Issue, 213–253.Google Scholar
Mouritzen, P. E. (2008) Danish Local Government, in Albæk, E., Eliason, L.C., Nørgaard, A.S. & Schwartz, H.S. (eds.) Crisis, Miracles, and Beyond: Negotiated Adaptation of the Danish Welfare State. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, G. (1996) Delegative Democracy, in Diamond, L. & Plattner, M.F. (eds.) The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2009) Territorial Review Copenhagen. OECD: Paris.Google Scholar
Offe, C. (1996) Designing Institutions in Eastern European Transitions, in Goodin, R. (ed.) The Theory of Institutional Design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pallesen, T. (2004) Den vellykkede kommunalreform og decentraliseringen af den politiske magt i Danmark. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996) The New Politics of the Welfare State, World Politics, 48, 2, 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000) Increasing Returns, Path-dependence, and the Study of Politics, American Political Science Review, 94, 2, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T. (2002) Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science, in Katznelson, I. & Milner, H.V. (eds.) Political Science. State of the Discipline. New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Politiken, daily newspaper.Google Scholar
Recommendation 1307 (1995) Betænkning fra Hovedstadskommissionen om hovedstadsområdets fremtidige struktur. Copenhagen: Ministry of Interior. English summary: Report of the Copenhagen Metropolitan Commission on the future structure of the Copenhagen metropolitan area. http://www.statensnet.dk/pligtarkiv/fremvis.pl?vaerkid=782&reprid=0&iarkiv.Google Scholar
Recommendation 1434 (2004) Strukturkommissionens betænkning. Copenhagen: Strukturkommissionen. English summary: Recommendation of the Commission on Administratie Structure. http://www.im.dk/publikationer/struktur_uk/index.html.Google Scholar
Rothstein, B. (1992) Den korporative staten. Stockholm: Nordstedts.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F. and Schmidt, V. (eds.) (2000) Welfare and Work in the Open Economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitter, P. (1996) Dangers and Dilemmas of Democracy, in Diamond, L. & Plattner, M.F. (eds.) The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2002) The Ghent System and Union Membership in Europe, 1970–1996, Political Research Quarterly, 55, 2, 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Social Democrats (2004) Udkast til aftale på beskæftigelsesområdet. Policy paper without date.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S. and Watts, J. (1995) It's the institutions – stupid. Why Comprehensive National Health Insurance Always Fails in America, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 20, 2: 329–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strøm, K., Müller, W. C. and Bergman, T. (2006) Challenges to Parliamentary Democracy, in Strøm, K., Müller, W.C. & Bergman, T. (eds.) Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (1995) ‘Decision Making in Political Systems: Veto Players in Presidentialism, Parliamentarism, Multicameralism and Multipartism’, British Journal of Political Science, 25, 289–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vis, Barbara and van Kersbergen, K. (2007) Why and How do Political Actors Pursue Risky Reforms?, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19, 2, 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. (1996) Deliberative democracy and Authority, American Political Science review, 90(1):46–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver, R. K. and Rockman, B. A. (1993) Assessing the Effects of Institutions, in Weaver, K.R. & Rockman, B.A. (eds.) Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the U.S. and Abroad. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1986) The Politics of Blame Avoidance, Journal of Public Policy, 6, 4, 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1973) Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wilson, J. Q. (1980) The Politics of Regulation, in Wilson, J.Q. (ed.) The Politics of Regulation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar