Punctuated Equilibrium

This blog looks at the obscure term ‘punctuated equilibrium’ and its possible relevance to politics and policymaking today.

The features of punctuated equilibrium
 
‘Punctuated equilibrium’ is said to be characteristic of the American system of government. It refers to the difficulty of getting policy change when the control of the two Houses of Congress is divided between two different political parties holding very different views on policy, or, to a similar division between the party occupying the White House and the party controlling Congress. Policy change comes in bursts only when this logjam is broken. The examples usually cited as the moments of punctuation when a burst of significant policy change becomes possible are Roosevelt’s measures for the New Deal in the 1930s, Lyndon Johnson’s programme for ‘the Great Society’ in the mid 60s and more recently in connection with the passing of Obamacare.
 
In between these moments of great change in policy direction there is an impasse in policy making where only gradual change is possible, or there is complete stasis. The difficulty Congress has had in the recent past in funding the federal budget is an example of stasis.
 
The UK example
 
Punctuated equilibrium is not unique to the US or to the separation of powers. The UK experiences the same pattern even though it is usually given as an example where powers are fused rather than separated because the Prime Minister leads the party with majority control in the House of Commons. In this model of punctuated equilibrium, the party with a majority introduces significant policy change that breaks with the past. When the party responsible for the change loses its electoral majority, the incoming government accepts the changes that have been made. For example, the post war Labour party introduced the welfare state, subsequently accepted by the Conservatives and Margaret Thatcher introduced privatisation, subsequently accepted by the Labour party. Brexit was approved under the recent period of Conservative party government and it appears that the new Labour government will not attempt to reopen the decision.
 
Questions
 
There are two main questions about this pattern of political change in current circumstances. The first is about how far the pattern itself can it be characterised as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ or simply an inevitable reflection of the swings of party sentiment. The second is whether there are features of the present situation that are changing the way it operates.
 
Good or bad or inevitable
 
The case that punctuated equilibrium is a benign feature of policy making rests quite heavily on the character of the intervening period between major changes of ‘equilibrium’. A period of equilibrium allows for major change to be absorbed and embedded, is still consistent with gradual step by step change in the policy process and gives time for a new political consensus to emerge on where any new major changes are next required. For example, the Thatcher wave of privatisations brought with it the need for sector regulation of the privatised entities and the new regulatory system had to be established and bedded down.
 
The less favourable view occurs when ‘equilibrium’ ceases to allow for gradual change. Instead, policy change of any significant kind, even small steps, becomes impossible. In this case ‘equilibrium’ stands for policy stasis.
 
While the difference between gradualism and stasis may seem to be one simply of perception, the underlying issue is important for democracies. We rely on political parties and political processes to encourage accommodation between citizens holding different views about the thrust of public policy making. If change becomes impossible this role of facilitating accommodation breaks down. In order to justify the impasse, and to attempt to break out of it, political parties are incentivised to appeal to the extremes of their party support.
 
The current impasse
 
In the current situation the pattern of punctuated equilibrium appears on the surface to be continuing. In the UK the new Labour government has adopted a centrist position consistent with a program of gradual change. In the US a Kamala Harris victory in November along with possible control of Congress would also likely initiate a programme of centrist reforms. On the other hand, if Trump were to win the Presidency all bets are off since he would attack the separation of powers itself.
 
Leaving aside the disaster facing American democracy if Trump was to win the Presidency there are features of the present situation that still present a problem for the model of punctuated equilibrium.
 
The first problem facing both the US and UK governments and that stands in the way of achieving change, small or large, centres on the size of the government debt. In the US the debt to GDP ratio stands at 124 % and in the UK at 100%. Essentially what this does is to remove additional government spending as a tool of government and instrument for policy change.
 
The second problem facing the model is that the growth of ‘identity’ politics effects the willingness and ability of political parties to find routes to accommodation and gradual change. The impasse facing agreement on the federal budget within Congress has reflected conflicts within the republican party over who they stand for as much as or more than party divisions with the democrats within Congress. Any UK government will be reluctant to stir the identity issues around reopening Brexit.
 
What this means is that not only does major change look to be beyond the reach of politics in the US and UK but even gradual change may be difficult. In these circumstances reform-minded or change-minded governments on both sides of the Atlantic will look at alternative avenues to achieve policy change.
 
Alternatives for achieving policy change
 
There are three main alternative ways for change-minded governments to achieve reforms in present circumstances. First, they can look for new sources of funding as the way out of the debt overhang. Secondly, they can look to increased regulation as the main alternative tool of government to tax and spend. Thirdly, they can look to the private sector as the source and driver of change.
 
New sources of funding
 
New sources of funding involve either raising taxes on high earners and on wealth or, in the UK, in charging for services previously delivered free. In the UK this would mean introducing charges for education and for the use of the NHS. The growth in income and wealth inequalities makes the first option attractive. However, without an agreement among the G7 or OECD, it would likely lead to a mass take-up of residencies in tax havens.
 
Regulation as alternative tool
 
A Kamala Harris administration is likely to turn to regulation as a means of getting change. In the light of the US Supreme Court ruling (Loper Bright) overturning the Chevron precedent this would mean clarifying the powers delegated to EPA, FDA and OSHA. A Trump administration would take an axe to regulation and the regulators. Under either approach to regulation, whether it takes the form of a growth in the use of regulation or a culling of regulation, courts are likely to play a larger role in relation to both elected politicians and the experts in regulatory bodies.
 
Turn to private sector
 
A third alternative would be to look more to the private sector. In the case of the UK there already seems to be a turn to private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS and this kind of trend would be allowed to continue or encouraged. Education is already turning more to private provision with the use by students of online sources of information and instruction. Fields such as defence and security are also likely to be increasingly permeated with private provision as illustrated by the use of Starlink in the Ukraine.
 
Conclusion
 
Punctuated equilibrium stands for a policy process where bursts of major change are preceded and followed by periods of slow and gradual change. This can be seen as a benign feature of both US Federal government and the UK’s system of government. Its justification is that this pattern has been consistent with achieving accommodation between opposing political viewpoints where the goal of accommodation is one of the main aims of democratic politics. This model is now facing challenges. Regulation will once again be the focus of policy change while more tasks are likely to devolve to private providers in domestic, foreign and security policy.