Modernist and postmodernist metaphors of the policy process: Control and stability vs. chaos and reflexive understanding

Abstract

The complexity of the policy process is such that analysts often resort to metaphorical representations of its most salient aspects. Sometimes these metaphors are used deliberately but, in most cases, they are implicitly built into their theoretical frameworks. This article argues that commonly used metaphors based on the paradigmatic notion of 'control' have ceased to be relevant to the analysis of contemporary policy dilemmas. Two new conceptions of the policy process have emerged from the new sciences of complexity. Both chaos theory and models based on the concept of ,organizational closure' clearly reveal the self-organizing logic inherent in the problems confronting managers and policy-makers today. The main focus here is on examining the rationales for, and the potentials of, metaphors derived from these paradigmatic innovations -innovations which can be situated within an emerging postmodern culture insofar as they emphasize indeterminacy and the role played by social actors in constructing the social situations in which they find themselves. It is also argued, however, that within very specific contexts the notion of control may still be valid.Neither policy analysts, nor social theorists, nor ordinary mortals can avoid using metaphors -sometimes called 'models' -when talking about public affairs. Metaphors are more than superficial analogies used merely for stylistic purposes; they serve to transfer certain relationships from one level to another where such relationships rev.eal logical connections that had remained unnoticed (Black, 1979). This intrusion of rhetoric in the policy sciences is sometimes viewed as an unfortunate obstacle to the articulation of a truly 'scientific' language. But, as it is becoming more widely recognized, rhetoric and policy analysis are inseparable (Majone, 1989;Throgmorton, 1991).This being granted, two problems arise: First, how do we know the metaphors we are using are adequate. Second, how do we guard against the risk of confusing images of an elusive reality with that reality itself; in other words, how can we avoid what A. N. Whitehead called 'the fallacy of misplaced concreteness?' This paper examines the development and relevance of metaphorical construction in systems-theoretic approaches to policy analysis and draws several inferences from this particular case for the use of metaphors in the policy sciences as a whole.During the last two to three decades, systems theory and cybernetics have proven to be a fertile source of ideas for the many disciplines that are constitutive of the policy sciences, e.g., organization theory and information management, institutional design, strategic planning, budgeting and policy * The author wishes to thank Michael Howlett for his helpful comments on an earlier draft.

Policy Change and Discourse in Europe: Conceptual and Methodological Issues

“…Thick learning effects lead to what has been described in various guises as reflexive understanding (Dobuzinskis 1992), deutero learning (Bateson 1973), or institutional development (Laird 1999).…”

Sustainability and Reflexive Government: Introduction

“…Only unambiguous and confined problems can be 'solved' in a deliberative manner. Second-order governance consists of a procedural approach towards reflecting the interdependencies, understanding aggregate effects of specialised concepts and strategies, and engaging in the modulation of ongoing societal developments by establishing links and organising problem-oriented communication and interaction among distributed steering activities (for related ideas about steering see for example Rip 1998;Beck 1993;Dobuzinskis 1992).…”

“…Inadequate problem constructions thus return in the form of unexpected consequences when strategies are implemented in the real world (Böhret 1990). This means that for processes of socio-ecological transformation, we face fundamental uncertainty about the effects of policy interventions or management decisions (see Dobuzinskis 1992;Stacey 1996).…”

Historical and epistemological trends in public administration

“…The public administration and public sector management literatures contain diverging interpretations of the challenges posed by the new socio-economic, political and cultural contexts. In spite of this diversity, there is agreement on the two following points: (a) objective analysis of policy problems, and the management of complex organizations by unbiased technical "experts" has largely failed [49][50][51][52][53]; and (b) hierarchical structures and top-down approaches to policy implementation no longer constitute adequate responses to problem situations faced by policymakers [54][55][56][57][58]. (The next two subsections provide more details.…”