Malign Policies: Exploring the Dark Side of Policy-Making

Abstract

Policy studies, and critical policy studies in particular, has been premised on the assumption that the policy sciences are inseparable from democracy, by default committed to human dignity, human rights, and the general welfare, as Laswell proclaimed: “…the special emphasis is upon the policy sciences of democracy, in which the ultimate goal is the realization of human dignity in theory and fact.” Critical policy scholars have furnished this commitment with the values of participation, inclusion, emancipation and social justice. Yet, this definition of the policy sciences was based on another, more or less implicit, assumption, namely that public policy itself is by default benign and the state is in principle pursuing the common good, even if this may be interpreted differently. It is time to question these assumptions. They reflect the experiences of people living under conditions of relative stability, democracy, rule of law, and a belief in the persistence of natural resources, where progressive forces occupied relevant space in the public sphere. Today, it has become increasingly obvious that even democratic regimes do not necessarily use public policy to promote democracy, human rights and the general welfare. Once the equation erodes, additional questions come up: Have critical policy studies evolved too far away from critical state theory, for instance? Why have policy studies never bothered themselves with the modes, preconditions and processes of policy-making under autocratic regimes? Did we assume that autocratic policy-making was a contradiction in terms? How do we study and explain policies deliberately directed against democracy, inclusion, emancipation and social justice? For the purposes of this panel, we borrow the terms “malign policies” (Geoff Wilson) and ”sabotage” (Thorstein Veblen) to give a name to the phenomena under study. We will explore, for instance, the differences, commonalities and overlaps between strategies of silencing, policies of neglect in relation to vulnerable and/or racialized groups, of obstruction, e.g. regarding climate change, of deliberate destruction (e.g. Thatcher destroying the industrial sector in the UK) up to policies of deliberate ethnic cleansing or racial “purification”. The papers included will address the following questions: What are malign policies and what conditions support the development of malign policies in diverse political contexts? In which ways do malign policies rely on (social) media strategies? How do we distinguish different types of malign policies and their effects on democracy and related values such as inclusion, participation, emancipation and social justice? How do political and policy actors confront malign policies; do they find them resistant and if so, in what ways? What scholarly traditions can we build on (e.g. Piven Cloward, Bachrat and Baratz)? Our aim in raising these questions is to develop a more sophisticated critical vocabulary to allow more robust analysis and critique of malign policies. We also aim to develop critical concepts that may aid in disrupting malign policies. The field of critical policy studies – and the policy sciences more generally – has neglected to devote sufficient attention to these questions. Yet the current political climate warrants such an investigation.

Title	Details
Coming to Terms with Autocratic Policy: Nazi “Welfare” Policy and the Failure to Compensate its Victims	View Paper Details
Internet Blackout in Myanmar: A Critical Analysis of Discourses and Practices Relating to New Technologies in Armed Conflict	View Paper Details
Malign Policy: Conceptualising Ill-Will in Public Policy	View Paper Details
Policy Failure, Ignorance in Government and the Creation of a Hostile Environment for Health and Safety	View Paper Details
From Infamous Denial to Mundane Obstruction: Varieties of Sabotage in Climate Change Policy Making in Europe	View Paper Details