Friday, April 24, 2020

Pluralism and Public Choice free essay sample

Public Choice theory and Pluralism are both expressions of an attempt to critique political structures, analyse the processes that drive them and understand their relative effectiveness in achieving stated political or social goals. The disparate perspectives that can be obtained by application of each of these political ontologies are generated by fundamental differences in these assumed goals and underlying motivators. Pluralism can be defined in its broadest sense as an acceptance of diversity (Wikipedia contributors 2006). This philosophical concept has been used to describe tolerant theological positions, liberal social structures and a political approach that recognises and values diversity. A major proponent of Pluralist ideals as fundamental to defeating the more ignoble of human behaviour was Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997). In his last essay he wrote, â€Å"If pluralism is a valid view, and respect between systems of values which are not necessarily hostile to each other is possible, then toleration and liberal consequences follow†( Berlin 1998). We will write a custom essay sample on Pluralism and Public Choice or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page As such, Pluralism in any area of human endeavour is commonly regarded as a characteristic of a free society. When discussing politics, the term is generally used either as a fundamental principle which holds that peaceful coexistence of diverse groups is not only desirable but actually strengthens the democratic process, or to define an inclusive style or flavour of government that seeks to accommodate a range of constituencies and their interests, whether they be based upon morality, philosophy, religion or ethnicity(Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp. 7-48). Bob Jessop writes â€Å"democratic politics†¦ raises the question of formulating policies that will prove realistic in terms of the overall balance of forces and structural constraints confronting a party or coalition in office† (1990, p. 182). To achieve this pluralist ideal, societies and the governments they elect will develop political forms and structures which protect citizens from the tyranny of the majority. A discussion of political pluralism will often become an analysis of the effectiveness of these protections. This can be judged by a groups input into public debate, a fundamentally important part of the democratic process in successful Pluralist societies (Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp. 47-48). If an elected government is assumed to have garnered support for its policies from a broad range of constituencies it is expected to remain a neutral body mediating the sometimes conflicting interests of its constituents (Roskin et al. 1994, pp. 262-264). To do this relies on rule of law, independent judiciary and a legislative process constrained by a constitution. In a social democratic framework this pluralist approach might be expected to protect citizens from the worst excesses of a purely market driven economy and mitigate the homogenising effects of majority rule. It is the necessity that all groups participate fully in the public debate which often requires a lengthy process of whittling down government proposals by rejecting outcomes which may prove unfavourable to interest groups rather than simply proposing policy on the basis of the common good. Many theorists maintain that this process of conflict and dialogue is not only more effective in achieving successful outcomes than top down imposition of control, but is in fact inevitable. Discussing centrally controlled economic systems, Geoffrey Hodgson suggest that pluralism is a necessary part of all systems; even totalitarian communism inevitably incorporates a black market (1993 pp. 254-262). He writes about an â€Å"impurity principle† which holds that â€Å"there must always be a plurality of economic structures, so that the socio-economic formation as a whole has requisite variety to promote and cope with change† (Hodgson 1993 p. 55). Consequently â€Å"an over centralised economy does not simply threaten economic efficiency in the narrow sense but also political pluralism, local democracy and autonomy† (Hodgson 1993 p. 271). It would appear that many Pluralist thinkers are in agreement that diversity is a given in contemporary societies and the issue is one of garnering recognition for the consequences of the public debate (Grillo 1998). Pluralist theory then proposes the nature of our society requires government to seek to achieve the largest blocks of voters without permanently disenfranchising or alienating others. Governments and institutional bodies carefully frame the presentation of their decisions to be perceived by the widest range of interest groups and constituencies as positive and through this process outcomes are achieved for all society. While in practice the outcomes may remain the same, Public Choice theory examines this process with a very different set of assumptions surrounding the motives for the decisions made by stakeholders. Sometimes called rational choice theory, positive political theory or the private interest model, Public choice theory is fundamentally an economic theory that examines the behaiour of participants in political transactions and analyses the decision-making behavior using tools such as game theory. Though it can be used to make predictive statements about political outcomes it is probably more effective as an analysis tool. At the web page lt;http://www. pubchoicesoc. org/about_pc. htmlgt; one of the foremost public choice theorists, James Buchanan, regularly refers to Public Choice as a research program: rather than as a discipline or even a subdiscipline. A research program incorporates acceptance of a hard core of presuppositions that impose limits on the domain of scientific inquiry while, at the same time, insulating such inquiry from essentially irrelevant criticism. The hard core in public choice can be summarized in three presuppositions: (1) methodological individualism, (2) rational choice, and (3) politics-as-exchange. † (Buchanan 2003) Public Choice is a way of looking at the political process through the lens of social experience. It assumes that an individuals self interest will win out and the political process can be perverted to satisfy unrepresentative groups through this. In an effort to achieve rents or benefits from the government, particular interest groups or even powerful individuals can manipulate decision making processes for their own gain (Buchanan 1962). In short, â€Å"politicians maximise rewards and spells in power and voters maximise net benefits† (Hodgson 1993, p. 92). Importantly, Public choice theory proposes that not only do individuals in a government act out of self interest but so do governments as a whole. Government assistance to industry or support to other specific groups can be seen in this light as an example of governments trying to buy voting blocs. Privatisation of government owned enterprises can also be seen as economically justified moves that can deliver a boon to particular financial groups. Public choice theory contends that Government failure regularly contributes to market failure. Shaw writes: â€Å"public choice is sometimes viewed as a conservative or libertarian branch of economics, as opposed to more liberal (that is, interventionist) wings such as Keynesian economics. This is partly correct. The emergence of public choice economics reflects dissatisfaction with the implicit assumption, held by Keynesians, among others, that government effectively corrects market failures. † (2002) From this we can see it is vital in a pluralist decision making framework that all groups are heard or major discrepancies and the public debate may not achieve what Buchanan and Tullock have called workable unanimity(1999, par. 5. 1. 18). While it is easy to contrast Public Choice theory with the principle and ideals of pluralism, it is also possible to find significant common ground. If Pluralist theory tells us that stakeholders in any given issue will be diverse, Public Choice theory demonstrates that individuals in those groups and government will act in their own self interest. The challenge then is to ensure that the public debate directs the political self serving ends of government to satisfying as many stakeholders as possible and in a manner that does not exclude others. We are going to exist in a pluralist society but an understanding of how Public choice theory affects the way political decisions are made and implemented provides us with the tools we need to ensure that we get the best from it. Part B: Compare the federal and unitary systems of government and how they operate within the Parliamentary (Westminster) system. The Westminster system of democratic government is modelled on the parliament of the United Kingdom. A key aspect of Westminster based Parliaments is that much of the process and procedures are not explicitly specified by constitutional means but rather based on convention handed down from the UK system and refined through the recognition of precedent (Farnsworth 2006). In a Westminster system a democratically elected lower house of parliament forms government through the support of a majority of members. This may require coalition between political parties if one party cannot achieve an outright majority. An important part in successful Westminster systems is an effective opposition from minority parties to apply pressure and demand accountability from the government in the lower house. There is also often an upper house either elected or appointed by the lower house which acts as to give oversight and provide review of the lower house legislation (Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp. 11-116). As the executive branch is appointed from the legislature and is responsible to that house, this system is also known as responsible government (Farnsworth 2006). The executive, Cabinet and the Prime Minister, are accountable to the legislature. This can be contrasted to presidential systems that directly elect the executive. Even in the British system, where the chief executive is the British Monarch, the real political power lies with the Prime Minister and the cabinet, all members of the legislature. Galligan describes responsible government as â€Å"direct majoritarian practices and institutions entailed in executive dominance of a single popularly elected chamber that is legislatively superior† (1995, p. 47). Federal and Unitary systems of government are two common forms worldwide and Westminster systems have been adapted for both. The exact nature of the political system is generally a consequence of the nation building process that formed them. A number of independent nation states are more likely to become a Federation, while a more unified body of people might produce a nitary system of government that centralises power in one body (US Department of State 2006). Particularly common when several independent states are geographically joined, Federalism is a way of organising a nation so that regional sovereign states retain their identity within the greater national system. Effectively two or more levels of government have formal authority over the same area and the po pulace are citizens of both the region and the nation. In this way the federal government can act to minimise marginalisation of any region or group of citizens and share its resources evenly. Federation then is a consequence of the historical need to provide equal representation to sectarian or geographically, politically or even ethnically independent groups (Ryan, Parker and Brown 2003 pp. 111-116). The central or Federal government then has constitutional authority to discharge specific responsibilities and share divided power with regional governments. Most importantly these regional governments have real authority and responsibility to manage their own affairs (Galligan 1995 pp. 8-62). In the Australian example the states have responsibility for Health, Education and Local Government. History also shows us that federal systems can, with agreement, incorporate other states. Perhaps the best known Federal system, the USA, has been expanding since it was created with 13 initial states, most recently adding Alaska and Hawaii with suggestions that territories such as the Puerto Rico and nations such as Haiti and even Cuba could be contenders for future American statehood. In the Australian example it has been suggested the unitary system of New Zealand could be accommodated as perhaps two states of a larger Australasian Commonwealth (Catley, 2001). In contrast to a Federal system, a unitary government holds power in a national legislature. The British legislature for example, birthplace of the Westminster system, makes law without being beholden to regional governments. In practice however the centralised government will often make grants of power to more regional authorities. There has also been a trend in Britain over the last few decades towards more self government for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, a process that has been described as â€Å"a devolution to something approaching a federation of more autonomous regional governments† (US Depth. of State 2006). Richard Lucy writes that federations are sometimes classified on the assumption that they are â€Å"inherently unstable† and either moving towards a Unitary state or â€Å"drifting towards dissolution†. He identifies three stages of federalism: coordinate, cooperative and organic. In the first coordinated stage, the states are equipped with everything they need to maintain authority but stay within their own sphere. In the next, cooperative stage both national and regional authorities are powerful but share or cross over spheres, much like the current Australian system and in the third organic stage the lines of direct control and responsibility are so blurred Lucy suggest it is no longer really a Federation at all (pp. 291-311). From these examples it is possible to identify some convergence in the way the two democratic systems of Australia and Britain are evolving. While a federal style of autonomous regions is being trialled by the British, the Australian system has seen an inexorable move towards more responsibility for the Federal government at the expense of the states. Interestingly, it can be said that the Australian cooperative system is at odds with responsible government because the negotiations with the states make it much more difficult for the governments, federal and state, to pursue the policies they were elected on (Lucy 1993 p. 292). In Australia, much of the tension between Federal and state governments surrounds budgets and hence the ability to fund and implement programs. As the major source of funding from taxation, the federal government can fuel moves to redistribute power, usually in the direction of more central control. This â€Å"New Federalism† has been the hallmark of successive Federal governments of all political persuasions for generations (Galligan 1995 p. 203). It is usually in the form of tied grants; direct payments to state, regional or local authorities to achieve commonwealth goals. Most recently the Howard government has tied funding for state and tertiary education to the acceptance of industrial and workplace changes. Even before the macro-economic reforms of the Hawke government, there was constitutional recognition that the Federal government had Industrial Relations responsibilities based on the view that the nations performance as a whole is dependent on productivity and industrial peace. The current federal government claims to have a popular mandate to undertake a major push in this direction after going to an election fought ostensibly on IR laws in which it won a senate majority. Many states see this as a threat to their right to produce their own IR laws and the debate is yet to be settled in the Courts.