Morality Policies in Europe

Concepts, Theories and Empirical Evidence

Christoph Knill

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• eBook ISBN: 9781351557948
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The regulation of issues like abortion, euthanasia, gun control, same-sex unions, pornography, prostitution, drugs, or gambling is commonly referred to a special class of so called morality policies. The distinctive feature of these policies is that politics are shaped by conflicts over first principle: When does life end? When does it begin? Is gambling, drug consumption or prostitution inherently malignant? The regulation of these value conflicts entails decisions about "right" or "wrong" and hence the "validation of a particular set of basic values". Yet there is still a remarkable lack of scholarly attention on morality policies, in particular with regard to general implications for the study of public policy. To stimulate further research in this area, this book focuses on different concepts and theories of morality policy change in European countries. It is based on a broad and comparative empirical perspective on different morality issues, including, for instance, the regulation of prostitution, abortion, euthanasia, gambling, drugs, as well as gun controls.This book was published as a special issue of the Journal of European Public Policy.

The study of morality policy: analytical implications from a public policy perspective

Christoph Knill

ABSTRACT Morality policies generally refer to issues in which political conflicts are shaped by debates over first principle; i.e., value conflicts are more important than instrumental considerations of policy design. Yet there is still a remarkable lack of scholarly attention on morality policies, in particular with regard to general implications for the study of public policy. To stimulate further research in this area, the article discusses different concepts of morality policy and suggests a distinction between different morality policy types. Moreover, distinctive features of morality policy content and effects are discussed. The article concludes with sketching out promising areas of future research in this field of inquiry.

INTRODUCTION

The regulation of issues like abortion, euthanasia, gun control, same-sex unions, pornography, prostitution, drugs or gambling is commonly referred to as a special class of so-called morality policies. The distinctive feature of these policies is that politics are shaped by conflicts over first principle: when does life end? When does it begin? Is gambling, drug consumption or prostitution inherently malignant? The regulation of these value conflicts entails decisions about ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ and hence the ‘validation of a particular set of basic values’ (Mooney 1999: 675).

Yet there is still a remarkable lack of scholarly attention on morality policies. Comparative assessments of developments across countries or different morality policy subfields are rare. Research has been restricted to a small number of countries, with a strong geographical bias towards the United States of America (USA) (Meier 1994; Mooney 2001; Smith and Tatalovich 2003). It is only more recently that individual studies systematically have compared policy developments across a broader number of countries and over time, albeit often focusing on individual subfields (e.g., Banchoff 2011; Fink 2008; Schiffino et al. 2009).

Moreover, potential theoretical challenges emerging from the analysis of morality policies for the study of public policy in general have only been partially recognized and addressed. First, there is a still unsettled debate on the extent to which morality policy can be subsumed under existing policy typologies. Second, only a few attempts have been made to differentiate analytically between various types of morality policy. Third, distinctive features of morality policy contents and effects have not been investigated in a systematic way yet. In the following, each of these issues will be addressed in more detail, with the basic purpose of highlighting issues of particular theoretical interest and stimulating further research.

CONCEPTS OF MORALITY POLICY

When taking a closer look at the literature on morality policies, we can analytically distinguish between three different policy conceptions that either emphasize politics, framing or policy substance.

Policies determine politics: morality policy as policy type

With the emergence of morality policies on the research agenda, the central question was not so much on the explanation of policy variation and change, but on the politics of morality policy. Especially in the US context, research concentrated on the extent to which morality policies are characterized by typical process patterns and the question of whether morality policy constitutes a genuine policy type. More specifically, it was argued that morality policies share a number of process patterns that reach beyond existing policy typologies based on economic and class interests, like the distribution and redistribution of wealth or the regulation of economic activities.

The process patterns that have been identified to delineate morality from nonmorality issues first of all relate to the presence of conflicts over first principle, typically entailing clashes of values that cannot be resolved by argument (Mooney 1999). Political conflicts centre on the question of which basic values a polity ought to acknowledge rather than questions of effective policy designs in order to achieve certain objectives. Second, given the dominance of principle rather than instrumental conflicts, morality policies are assumed to be technically less complex, hence favouring broader public participation in the policy process. Third, higher public participation and technical simplicity favour high political salience of morality policies (Mooney 2001). In view of these characteristics, Tatalovich and Daynes (2011) argued that morality policies constitute a new policy type of social regulatory policy that reflects highly conflictive and salient process patterns of redistributive policies, while defining regulatory rules governing social interaction and hence being regulatory in nature.

The use of this classification, however, can be questioned on several grounds. First, we can generally ask whether the distinction of policy types is actually the most promising way to improve our understanding of policy variation and policy change. To what extent do policy types explain differences and change of policy contents across countries and policy areas? Second, the perceived need to define a new policy type might simply emerge as a result of analytical inconsistencies in Lowi’s (2011) typology. While his distinction between redistributive and distributive policies is based on different policy effects, i.e., the (re-)distribution of resources, Lowi emphasizes the regulation of human behaviour as the central criterion of the regulatory policy type. This creates the false impression that regulatory policies have no distributive or redistributive effects (Knill and Tosun 2012: 17).

Morality policy as frame

Departing from Lowi’s (2011) suggestion of distinguishing between morality and instrumentally rational policies rather than trying to squeeze morality policy in his older categories, Mucciaroni (2011) argues that morality policies do not exist per se, but constitute a strategic approach to framing public policy issues. Rather than being inherently moral in substance, policies might be framed as moral issues. The basic feature of morality frames is that those who frame the issues place adherence to moral principles above instrumental considerations. Non-morality frames, by contrast, emphasize a rational instrumental view, in which policies are evaluated in light of their potential to achieve certain objectives.

Frames may vary in the extent to which competing advocacy coalitions define issues in moralistic or non-moralistic terms, with fully morality policies implying that all actors stick to morality frames and fully instrumental policies imply that all actors advocate non-morality frames. In hybrid constellations, by contrast, one side frames an issue using moral principles and the other uses instrumentally rational criteria. At the same time, morality frames might differ in the target of moral judgment; i.e., the extent to which they focus on the morality of private, social or governmental behaviour (Mucciaroni 2011: 193–4).

According to this conception, morality policies are not necessarily linked to specific policy fields. Rather their emergence, regardless of the policy area in question, depends on the extent to which advocates are willing and able to use moral principles to frame issues. This also implies that the prevalence of morality policies might vary over time, across countries and issues.

Policy content: fields of morality policy

Rather than conceiving of morality policy as a specific policy type or specific way of framing policy issues, the policy-based approach differentiates between morality and non-morality policies by focusing on policy contents (Heichel et al. 2013). Policies are considered as morality policies if their regulatory substance is closely related to public decisions over societal values, although the manifestation of this linkage might vary over time and across policies and countries. The policy-based approach avoids the problematic assumption inherent in the politics-based perspective that assumes distinctive process patterns, regardless of the political system in question (Engeli et al. 2013).

Which issues should then count as morality policies when taking this point of departure? In the literature we find long lists as well as various attempts of categorization (Mooney 2001). Basically, different morality subfields can be distinguished: (1) issues of ‘life and death’ (including abortion, euthanasia, artificial insemination, stem cell research and capital punishment); (2) issues of sexual behaviour (e.g., homosexuality, prostitution, pornography); (3) issues related to addictive behaviour (e.g., gambling, drug regulation); and (4) issues referring to basic decisions over the relationship between individual freedoms and collective values (e.g., religious education, gun control).

The existence of different lists, however, also indicates difficulties in clearly delineating morality and non-morality issues. While value conflicts reflect an obvious feature of the ‘life and death category’, their prevalence is less pronounced in the other subfields. The extent to which these differences can be taken into account by specifying different types of morality policies is addressed in the following section.

TYPES OF MORALITY POLICY

The above discussion indicates conceptual problems of defining morality policy in terms of a genuine policy type or distinctive policy fields. At the same time, the conception as policy frame remains indeterminate insofar as it hardly allows for ex ante identifying issues, countries or periods in which morality frames are particularly prevalent or not. To address these difficulties, the following distinction of types of morality policy takes an alternative point of departure. Based on the underlying interest constellations, a distinction is drawn between manifest and latent morality policies.

Manifest morality policies

Manifest morality policies refer to issues in which value conflicts constitute the standard mode of political decision-making. Economic costs and benefits are dispersed broadly across different societal groups; i.e., material gains and losses are of minor importance. Individual values and beliefs, by contrast, play a central role. On the one hand, they are inherently relevant, constituting the basic criterion that determines individual preferences. On the other hand, values are relevant as instrument of social and political power. Different actors and groups (e.g., liberals, conservatives or churches) may gain or lose power if certain values prevail or change.

As a result of this constellation, even minor issues referring to instrument choices or the calibration of instruments (e.g., shifts in the time frame after fertilization in which abortions are still considered legal) are very likely to trigger fundamental value conflicts. Typical cases are so-called ‘life and death’ issues, matters of family and sexuality or religious education. Often, these issues are closely related to religious orientations, also implying that conflicts refer to beliefs rather than scientific evidence.

Table 1 Types of morality policy

Policy feature	Manifest morality policy	Latent morality policy	Non-morality policy
Cultural opportunity structures	Favorable	Favorable	Restrictive
Relevance of economic costs/benefits	Low	High	High or low
Relevance of values	Inherent (as such); instrumental to political power	Instrumental to political power; instrumental to economic gains	No relevance

Latent morality policies

Latent morality policies, by contrast, refer to issues in which value conflicts are not the order of the day, but – under certain conditions – might break out. Similar to volcano eruptions, there is a potential that policy debates are framed as moral conflict. These issues are typically characterized by the combination of concentrated economic benefits and highly dispersed costs, hence implying an important economic dimension for certain groups. This constellation favours that political debates are framed as instrumental, focusing on the design of effective solutions to existing problems. At the same time, however, the regulatory matter contains elements that can easily be ‘morally exploited’. Competing advocacy coalitions might try to shift the political debate from an instrumental one towards a value conflict in order to achieve their economic or political objectives. Actors opposing this strategy, by contrast, may seek to de-moralize political debates, e.g., by emphasizing health issues or economic matters.

Typical fields in which such constellations prevail refer to gambling, pornography, gun control or drug regulation. While values as such are of minor importance, they might be used instrumentally. As value conflicts are hardly accessible to compromise solutions, their activation might be an important strategy to block unpleasant reform initiatives. Gun producers, the tobacco industry or casinos, for instance, may resort to individual freedoms in order to fend off attempts of stricter regulation. At the same time, public interest groups might rely upon value frames as instruments of societal mobilization to get certain issues on the political agenda. Depending on actor preferences, policy moralization may either be used to increase the chances of decision gridlock for issues already on the agenda, or to get topics on the agenda in the first place.

Non-morality policies

Latent morality policies might either be framed as morality or non-morality issues, depending on the underlying constellation of interest. This does not mean, however, that each non-morality issue can easily become a morality policy. What distinguishes both manifest and latent morality policies from non-morality policies is their connectivity to value issues, or what I would refer to as cultural opportunity structures.

Cultural opportunity structures can be understood as specific configurations of cultural value dispositions and their institutional representation (via established interest groups, social movements, religious organizations, the institutional relationship between state and churches, the existence of confessional parties) that define issue- or country-specific resources for social mobilization. These resources can be considered high for both manifest and latent morality policies, but low for non-morality issues, like technical standardization or administrative reform policies. Hence, the existence of non-morality policies does not necessarily presuppose the p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• 1. The study of morality policy: analytical implications from a public policy perspective
• 2. Public policy meets morality: conceptual and theoretical challenges in the analysis of morality policy change
• 3. The puzzle of permissiveness: understanding policy processes concerning morality issues
• 4. Is morality policy different? Institutional explanations for post-war Western Europe
• 5. From ‘morality’ policy to ‘normal’ policy: framing of drug consumption and gambling in Germany and the Netherlands and their regulatory consequences
• 6. Framing and policy change after shooting rampages: a comparative analysis of discourse networks
• 7. Diverging against all odds? Regulatory paths in embryonic stem cell research across Western Europe
• 8. Regulating prostitution and same-sex marriage in Italy and Spain: the interplay of political and societal veto players in two catholic societies
• 9. Policy entrepreneurs and controversial science: governing human embryonic stem cell research
• Index