Policy Style

More than two decades ago, Arnold Heidenheimer posed a fundamental question to comparative policy analysts. He noted that there are many discrete differences in the way in which nations handle the various challenges facing them, but asked to what extent can these habits and experiences be subsumed under consistent national models of policy making (and) are these models applied similarly in most policy areas or do the various sectors develop their own policymaking characteristics? These questions address the issues raised in Theodore J. Lowi's still-seminal 1964 article in which he suggested that different types of policy promote different types of political activity. He maintained that the link between policy and politics is clear and that distributive policies are patronage policies that produce a dependence relationship between the agency and clients. Regulatory policies and redistributive policies produce politics that are a great deal more conflictual and tend much more to encourage an autonomous, aggressive, and healthily competitive relationship between government and the individual.

Countries tend to regulate, say pollution, in much the same way (style) as they regulate other policy sectors. Lennart Lundqvist noted the differing regulatory styles of pollution control in the United States and Sweden, arguing that undisturbed by citizens' suits and court orders, the Swedish administrators could engage in negotiations with polluters to find an acceptable formula for policy implementation. France also differs from the United States in its regulatory style; what appears highly suspect in the United States because of susceptibility to undue influence is viewed in France as the unavoidable integration of relevant interests in the formulation of results.

These observations suggest that there is indeed a French, a German, or a British “way of doing things” that can override differences in policies.