Politics is inherently a strategic endeavor. Political actors – whether individuals, groups, or institutions – must make careful calculations to advance their interests and achieve their goals within the complex landscape of the political arena. Strategic models provide conceptual frameworks for understanding and analyzing this calculated, goal-oriented nature of politics.
Strategic models view politics as a game with players, rules, resources, interdependence, and outcomes. They examine how political actors make decisions, leverage power and resources, bargain and negotiate, form coalitions, use rhetoric and framing, and otherwise strategize to influence the policymaking process and its results. Strategic models draw on game theory, rational choice theory, social choice theory, and other methodological approaches from economics and political science.
This article provides an overview of major strategic models that shed light on the competitive and cooperative elements of politics. It analyzes how these models conceptualize the incentives, constraints, and strategic interactions between political actors. The models discussed include multiplayer social choice models, spatial models, advocacy coalition frameworks, punctuated equilibrium theory, multiple streams theory, and theories of strategic political communication. For each model, the article explains its key components, mechanisms, and insights about political strategy. It also considers critiques and limitations of these models. Overall, examining politics through the lens of strategic models illuminates the calculated efforts by political players to mobilize power and influence to advance preferred policies and interests.
Social Choice Models
Social choice theory provides a strategic perspective on collective decision-making processes in politics. Developed by important scholars such as Arrow, Black, Downs, Riker, Shepsle, Tullock, and others, social choice models treat policy as an output resulting from the strategic interactions of self-interested individuals and groups. Different models in this tradition make various assumptions about the incentives and constraints facing political actors as they bargain, vote, form coalitions, and otherwise compete to shape policy outcomes.
Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem
Kenneth Arrow’s seminal work on social choice – most famously his impossibility theorem – lays foundations for strategic analysis of collective decision-making. Arrow identifies conditions for rational democratic processes of aggregating individual preferences into collective decisions. He proves that no voting system can simultaneously satisfy basic fairness criteria like non-dictatorship and Pareto efficiency when there are at least three possible choices. This “impossibility theorem” implies paradoxes and cycling majorities that strategically sophisticated actors can exploit via agenda manipulation and sophisticated voting tactics to influence collective outcomes. Arrow’s theorem points to deep strategic complexities in mapping individual preferences to social welfare.
Spatial Models
Spatial models provide a vivid metaphor for strategic political competition and coalition-building. These models envision policy alternatives or voter preferences arrayed along one or more ideological dimensions. The spatial location of political actors represents their policy preferences or voting positions. Proximity between positions implies shared interests. Spatial models examine how political actors strategically choose positions to appeal to voters and each other, form advantageous coalitions, and craft compromises. Anthony Downs applied spatial modeling to electoral competition, showing how candidates strategically converge on the median voter’s position. Other scholars added dimensions like multiple issue spaces and multicandidate dynamics. Spatial models effectively illustrate the strategic logic of policy positioning, bargaining, and coalition formation in politics.
Coalitional & Procedural Models
William Riker and other scholars built on social choice theory to develop strategic perspectives on coalition formation and manipulation of political procedures. Riker emphasized political actors’ rational pursuit of advantage through tactics like vote trading, logrolling, and strategic exploitation of institutions. For instance, actors may strategically cooperate across issues to build minimum winning coalitions that obtain their preferred outcomes. Scholars like Shepsle critique simple majoritarian models, arguing that complex institutional arrangements like committee vetoes and amendment rules fundamentally shape strategic political behavior. Coalescing and procedurally sophisticated models enrich perspectives on how political actors strategically coordinate and compete within given institutional settings.
Advocacy Coalition Frameworks
Developed by Sabatier, Jenkins-Smith, and Weible, advocacy coalition frameworks provide a strategic lens on policy change over long time horizons. This model envisions policy subsystems with competing advocacy coalitions pushing beliefs about problem causes and solutions. Coalitions strategically use resources and access points to policymaking venues to shift policy in their favor. They seek allies, identify ways to reframe issues, wait for key events creating openings for change, and otherwise maneuver to advance their position. The framework sheds light on coalition strategies for navigating complex, long-term policy landscapes. It strategic logic helps explain incremental vs. punctuated policy change.
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
Frank Baumgartner, Bryan Jones, and others developed punctuated equilibrium theory as a strategic model of policy dynamics. The theory conceives policy as alternating between long periods of stability and periodic disruptive punctuations catalyzing major change. Policy monopolies powerful interest groups block major changes until some crisis or shift destabilizes the existing equilibrium. Strategic policy entrepreneurs then advocate new ideas and build coalitions to enact major reforms during the opening. Punctuated equilibrium theory strategically explains both policy stability and moments of rapid, nonlinear change in politics. It highlights dynamics of disruption, issue framing, policy entrepreneurship, and shifting power balances underpinning transformative policy shifts.
Multiple Streams Theory
John Kingdon’s influential multiple streams theory offers a strategic perspective on policy agenda setting and change. This model views policy change as requiring the convergence of three process streams – problem recognition, formulation of policy proposals, and shifts in politics. Policy entrepreneurs strategically couple these streams to open policy windows for major reforms. Kingdon examines how actors leverage focusing events, framing strategies, and shifting political dynamics to strategically gain advantage. His model provides insights into strategic generation, selection, and promotion of policy ideas for political action. It reveals how policy actors maneuver within complex policy systems and fluid political environments to strategically couple the policy, problem, and politics streams to enact desired changes.
Theories of Strategic Political Communication
Scholars have developed various theories examining the strategic logic of political communication. These theories see communication choices as rationally aimed at mobilizing support, attracting votes, framing policy debates, attacking opponents, and otherwise gaining strategic advantage. For instance, populism can be viewed as a strategic communication style invoking a virtuous people against corrupt elites. Other work examines strategies of negative advertising, issue framing, shifting positions, using code words, going public, and otherwise strategically communicating to shape perceptions and influence policy. Such theories reveal intricacies of strategic political communication including rhetorical tactics, audience targeting, and exploitation of mediums like social media for advantage.
Critiques & Limitations
While offering key insights, strategic models have limitations. Critics argue they oversimplify complex realities of politics and psychology. Assumptions of fixed preferences and rationality are debatable. Strategic models often downplay bounded rationality, norms, learning, and change over time. Power dynamics enabling some actors to define the “game” get overlooked. Models tend to leave out language, meaning, and culture shaping politics in interpretive ways. Additionally, some scholars critique the metaphor of politics as a competitive game, arguing for more cooperative perspectives. Integrating strategic modeling with other approaches provides a richer understanding of the complex, multifaceted nature of politics. Used carefully and critically, strategic models provide one useful angle – but not the only angle – for analysis.
Conclusion
Strategic models illuminate core competitive and cooperative dynamics underpinning politics. Despite limitations, they provide powerful conceptual tools for breaking down political phenomena into key elements of strategic political action. Spatial modeling clarifies policy positioning and coalition-building. Social choice theory reveals complexities of collective decisions. Advocacy coalition frameworks, punctuated equilibrium theory, and multiple streams models shed light on policy change strategy over time. Models of strategic communication elucidate rhetorical tactics and issue framing. Moving forward, developing synthesized models integrating strengths of different approaches represents a promising path for future research. Political strategy inheres in the DNA of politics, and strategic models will continue providing leverage for analysis.
References
Arrow, K. J. (1951). Social choice and individual values (Vol. 12). Yale university press.
Austen-Smith, D., & Banks, J. S. (1988). Elections, coalitions, and legislative outcomes. American Political Science Review, 82(2), 405-422.
Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and instability in American politics. University of Chicago Press.
Black, D. (1948). On the rationale of group decision-making. Journal of political economy, 56(1), 23-34.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135-150.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., & Sabatier, P. A. (1993). The study of public policy processes. Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, 1-9.
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (Vol. 45). Boston: Little, Brown.
Moe, T. M. (1980). The organization of interests: Incentives and the internal dynamics of political interest groups. University of Chicago Press.
Mueller, D. C. (2003). Public choice III. Cambridge University Press.
Punctuated-equilibrium theory – American Political Science Association. (n.d.). https://www.apsanet.org/punctuatedequilibriumtheory
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. Yale University Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy sciences, 21(2), 129-168.
Shepsle, K. A. (1979). Institutional arrangements and equilibrium in multidimensional voting models. American journal of political science, 23(1), 27-59.
Tullock, G. (1967). Toward a mathematics of politics. University of Michigan Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
