A “Power and Influence” political archetype: the dynamics of public support

Abstract

Systems archetypes are effective in communicating complex behaviour with relatively simple structures, across a wide range of topics. The “power dynamics” between different power holders are critically important in decision making when it comes to formulating and implementing policies. This topic was explored at a four‐day Australasian systems workshop run in New Zealand. A synthesis approach was combined with analytical procedures from system dynamics (SD). Building on Rahn's “Fear and Greed” political archetype, a conceptual “Power and Influence” political archetype was developed. This political archetype shows the impact of public support. It is used to analyse a crowdfunding story in New Zealand. A small SD concept model was subsequently constructed to test this story and evaluate alternative public support scenarios. A library of political archetypes and concept models would be an asset for the field of SD and provide a means of synthesising insights from case studies and social theory. © 2019 System Dynamics Society

A “system dynamics perspective” of bioenergy governance and local, sustainable development

“…The comparison builds on the findings of the within‐case analysis (Cavicchi, ; Cavicchi, ; Cavicchi et al, ; Cavicchi et al, ; Cavicchi & Ely, ), the governance dimensions and interrelations between them highlighted in the pathways approach and power in transitions approach (Leach et al, ; Byrne et al, ; Cavicchi & Ely, ; Leach et al, 2010a; Stirling, ; Avelino & Wittmayer, ; Avelino, ; Avelino, ), and the system archetypes (Braun, ; Cavicchi, ; Kim, ; Senge et al, ; Wolstenholme, ; Cavana et al, ). The three governance dimensions are actors' framings, rules of the game, and power relations (Smith & Stirling, ; Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, ).…”

“…Although archetypes may be theoretically weak, they are useful analytical tools that represent the results of qualitative and quantitative systems research (Wolstenholme, ). In this study, the archetypes show causal links between events and the overarching governance structure that influence the policy process pathway over time (Cavana et al, ; Wolstenholme, ; Wolstenholme, ; Leach et al 2010b; Cavicchi & Ely, ). The rationale for identifying the governance structure is that behind each process, there are rules, power relations, and actors' understandings that shape the way the processes unfold (e.g., Cavana et al, ).…”

“…In this study, the archetypes show causal links between events and the overarching governance structure that influence the policy process pathway over time (Cavana et al, ; Wolstenholme, ; Wolstenholme, ; Leach et al 2010b; Cavicchi & Ely, ). The rationale for identifying the governance structure is that behind each process, there are rules, power relations, and actors' understandings that shape the way the processes unfold (e.g., Cavana et al, ). For instance, in the Emilia Romagna case, behind sugar production, there are big‐industrial farmers, whereas behind biogas production, there are both big‐ and small‐scale farmers and other kinds of entrepreneurs.…”

“…This study relies on systems thinking and system dynamics (Checkland, 1981;Senge, 1990;Lane, 2001a;Cavana et al, 2019;Wolstenholme, 1999Wolstenholme, , 2003Lane & Kopainsky, 2017;Lane, 2000;Lane, Munro, & Husemann, 2016), and the pathways approach (Leach, Scoones, & Stirling, 2010a;Leach, Stirling, & Scoones 2010b;Scoones et al 2007;Cavicchi & Ely, 2016;Lamine, 2011;Byrne et al, 2011) to study the policy feedback process and how the governance structure influence its dynamics. The policy feedback process field explains that the policy designs are influenced by, often dominant actors, and implemented by a combination of these and other marginal actors.…”

“…To conclude, the study refers to the system archetypes as conceptual tools to explain how the governance structure influenced the policy process and local, sustainable development (Senge 1990; Senge et al, ; Cavana et al, ). The study considers the archetypes as patterns of behavior or mental models in the sense of the ideal type of Weber.…”