Constructivist Theory, the importance of ideas

To understand why London continued to receive a disproportionately large share of rail infrastructure investment compared to the rest of the country, I used a theory called Constructivism. It argues that to understand how people act we need to understand the ideas that they possess, as this shapes how they understand the world and the actions they take. This meant that to understand why London received a better deal than the rest of the country in rail infrastructure investment, I analysed the ideas that policymakers possess, rather than just focusing on structural constraints. Although I applied this theory to the issue of rail infrastructure it can be applied to other transport issues. My hope is not only to increase the knowledge we have of how transport policy is decided, but to show that the ideas policymakers possess need to be given serious consideration when proposing new transport schemes.

To understand the role that ideas play in shaping policymakers’ decisions on where rail infrastructure investment should be allocated Hay’s (2006, pp.64) Constructivist Institutionalism approach was used. This approach seeks to explain why change or the lack of change occurs in institutions. His approach differs to other approaches that seek to explain institutions, because it focuses not just on structures, but on ideas as well. Hay (2006, pp.65) argues that institutions are built on ’ideational foundations which exert an independent path dependent effect on their subsequent development’. In practice this means that to understand why an institution, such as the UK Government acts in a certain way, it is not just the formal structural constraints (such as the appraisal method that civil servants use to allocate investment) that need to be considered, but also the ideas that actors within the institution hold. Ideas limit the autonomy of actors as they shape what is seen as being ‘feasible, legitimate, possible and desirable’ (Hay, 2006, pp.65). This means that to understand why there is an imbalance in rail infrastructure investment, the formal appraisal system not only has to be analysed, so do the ideas that shape what policymakers see as being a desirable proposal.

For Hay (2006, pp.62) ideas play a crucial role in explaining political outcomes because unlike rational choice approaches, actors are not seen as possessing complete and accurate information. Rather than being guided by the logic of consequences, where what is seen as being legitimate is acting to maximise the material interests of the actor. A Constructivist approach sees actors as being guided by the logic of appropriateness (Fierke, 2016, pp.164), this means that actors act according to what is seen as being a legitimate action, as determined by the idea an actor possesses. The “knowledge” that policymakers possess comes from the shared values and norms of an institution, and the past experiences of an actor (Hay, 2002, pp.209-211). This affects policy outcomes (see figure 1) because the ideas a policymaker holds, shapes how actors interpret material facts (Hay, 2002, pp.206). This means decisions on where to allocate rail infrastructure investment are the result of policymakers reading proposals and interpreting the case put before them, according to the ideas they hold.

Figure 1 - How ideas and material factors interact to produce policy outcomes

(Hay, 2002, pp.206)

Examining the ideas that policymakers hold is therefore key in understanding why Government action has failed to match their rhetoric. This is because as Hay (2006, pp.65) highlights ideas are path dependant, they become embedded and normalized into an institution. As ideas help determine what is seen as legitimate, it constrains the political autonomy of policymakers. This was confirmed in an interview with a former civil servant, who said that ‘normative values are a type of structure, they help sustain the existing way of working’. This means that for the imbalance in rail infrastructure investment to be addressed, there must first be a shift in the idea’s actors hold, then structural change can occur (Hay, 2006, pp.65). For this to happen, the existing ideas that policymakers hold need to be challenged, by highlighting the effects they have had.

To apply Hay’s (2006) Constructivist Institutionalism approach to the debate on rail infrastructure investment, Berry and Hay’s (2016) study which investigated why the Government has failed to meet its rhetoric on rebalancing the economy, was used. They applied the Constructivist Institutionalism approach ‘by offering a comprehensive assessment of the latest available evidence from official sources—a form of immanent critique, in effect’ (Berry and Hay, 2016, pp.5). This means that to identify the ideas that have shaped policymakers and their affects: Government speeches, press releases by the Department for Transport (since Chris Grayling was made Transport Secretary in 2016 to 2019) and Government policy documents on transport investment strategies and the Government’s industrial strategy were all analysed. Although I used their technique to analyse why the ideas that policymakers hold led them seeing investment in London as being the most desirable option, it can be applied to other policy issues. By doing this the barriers to change become apparent, as does the solution. First the dominant ideas and narratives need to be challenges, then structural change can occur.

References:

• Berry, C. and Hay, C. (2016) ‘The Great British “Rebalancing” Act: The Construction and Implementation of an Economic Imperative for Exceptional Times’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(1), pp.3-25

• Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave

• Hay, C. (2006) ‘Constructivist Institutionalism’, Binder, S.A., Rhodes, A.W. and Rockman, B.A. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions. Oxford: Oxford University Press

• Fierke, K, M. (2016) ‘Constructivism’, Dunne, T., Kurki, M. and Smith, S. (eds) International Relations Theories Discipline and Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press