Transactional Politics

This blog looks at what is implied or involved in the term ‘transactional politics’

Introduction
 
It is sometimes alleged that former President Trump is mainly interested in ‘transactional politics’. The term implies that the politician, in this case Trump, is mainly interested in using his authority for getting things done and being able to show results rather than sitting back and simply enjoying the prestige that comes with high office. 
 
One analogy is with transactions in the market where exchanges are commonplace. It implies that politics can also can be seen mainly in terms of an exchange. Politician A puts forward policy A. Politician B puts forward policy B. In order to get what each wants they agree to an exchange. Politicians B agrees to policy A but in exchange requires that Politician A accepts policy B. The limitation is that the exchange cannot involve an obvious contradiction. Politics in the form of exchange is not new and sometimes goes under the name of ‘logrolling’. It is common in the EU between member states in the European Council where a member agrees to a change they do not want to see in return for a change they do want. A recent example is alleged to have occurred with the admission of Bulgaria and Romania to the Schengen area in exchange for their not opposing EU aid to the Ukraine.
 
However, the term transactions politics is not confined to exchange or to policy actions requiring an exchange. Things may get done for other reasons such as a willingness to override objections, or to take risks, or because those in authority evaluate the costs and benefits of action in a different way.
 
Benefits
 
There are two main benefits claimed for this way of conducting politics. First it is seen as a form of pragmatism. Party ideology is left behind in favour of a practical approach to the use of authority and making deals. Secondly, it is seen as a way of breaking logjams. The deal where each side gains something of what they want, or where greater risk-taking is seen as acceptable, is viewed as better than a world of no deals, excessive caution and policy blockage. It provides a moment of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. However, against these benefits there are also potential negatives.
 
Potential costs
 
The first potential cost to transaction-oriented politics is that the bigger political picture may be lost from sight. There may have been good reason for caution and against entering into a deal. For example, the movement of people smugglers and drugs across the Romanian and Bulgarian borders to other Schengen countries may now be even more difficult to police. 
 
The second potential cost to politics that is entirely transactions oriented is that normative aspects of a policy may be downplayed. Value is attached to the deal itself rather than what the deal brings with it. 
 
The third area of cost is that the deal making may not be as transparent as may be claimed. There may be side-agreements that are an undeclared part of the deal or an obligation accepted for the future. The normal slow grind of policy making with Committees of Inquiry, coalition building, drafting and amendments, are sources of frustration but have the advantage of illuminating the different angles of a policy change. 
 
Conclusion
 
Trump has expressed a general frustration with Washington DC and its processes. An emphasis on transactions and getting things done provides a rational for shaking things up and bypassing the ‘insider elites’ and their agendas. It will bring additional risks to what is already seen as likely to be a high-risk presidency.