I have some questions for the participants in the on-going discussion of policy communities, subgovernments, and policy networks, especially since the discussion has turned to the role of ideas and the role of interests. Briefly, my question concerns the relationship between the ideological focus of an issue or the material focus of an issue and the likelihood of its becoming politicized.
Since my question draws from some of the work of Dr. Campbell and Dr. Schoppa (two recent contributors), I would like to engage them if possible.
In the interest of clarity, I will define my terms and explain my question in a little more detail. I will consider a policy universe to be an entire policy sector or issue area like education (following Maurice Wright's 1988 usage)
Wright, following the lead of scholars such as Gary Freeman, Richard Rose and R.A.W. Rhodes, calls for research to be done at the subsystemic level or at the level of policy communities. Wright also points out that there will be several policy communities within a policy universe. For the purposes of this discussion it seems okay to consider a policy community and a policy network as equivalent although there are important differences in this literature.
About my question. Dr. Schoppa has written an excellent article on Education Zoku in which he stresses that when the LDP becomes involved in an issue area, they outrepresent the ministry. In other words they side with the societal interests that a bureaucracy regulates, giving those interests more than the bureaucracy was willing to do. This seems to parallel Rosenbluth's thesis in Financial Politics that bureaucrats like to keep societal interests happy in order to keep the LDP from becoming involved. Similarly, in his 1989 Governance article, Dr. Campbell talks about the politicization of policy communities using a two-dimensional framework: the extent to which politicians are involved, and the extent to which there is conflict. And he specifically cites the education policy area as one of the few cases where we find heavy LDP participation without an important interest group alliance. "In much of the education policy area, the motive is ideology." The problem with this typology, however, is that one side may be a function of the other. The extent of LDP involvement (or politician involvement generally) may be a direct result of the amount of conflict -- for when interest groups agree with the bureaucracy there is little need for either to side with the politicians and no need for the politicians to get involved unless their positions are different from both societal groups and the bureaucracy (which should happen more often in the aftermath of conservative party dominance).
So my question, again: When do policy areas or universes, if you will, become politicized. Specifically, is there a relationship between ideology and politicization and or material incentive and politicization?
To kick off the discussion, it would seem logical that conflict is important.
Politicians become involved more when there is either ideological or material conflict in an issue area. And conflict is likely in those policy areas where there is joint- jurisdiction among several ministries. But can we distinguish between ideological and material conflict or is this even a useful line of reasoning. Is there a better way to try to divide up policy (say along the lines of Lowi's 1964 three-way typology of policies: distributive, redistributive, and regulatory)?

Comments, criticisms, questions, suggestions of further readings, etc are encouraged. Best to all,

Stephen Frank
Duke University
Political Science Dept
214 Perkins Library
Durham, NC 27709
E-mail sbf1[atx]acpub.duke.edu
hm phone (919)490-6301