Israel's Governability Crisis by Rosenthal Maoz;

Author:Rosenthal, Maoz;
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic

Figure 5.2 The Strategic Interaction in the Knesset Committees.

The first step is taken by the committee’s chairperson who faces an initial agenda set by the Knesset’s plenary. This yields information set (1:1) the upper node (Accept) of which means a chairperson that accepts the plenary’s agenda and set it on the committee’s table so as to push it through. The first information set’s lower node means rejection of that agenda which manifests itself when the chairperson promotes an alternative agenda. In the next information set (2:1) on the upper node, a committee member who receives a first response prerogative decides whether to accept the plenary’s and the chairperson’s endorsed agenda or reject it (the lower branch of the upper node) by offering new frames and alternatives to that agenda. The same two strategies are given by the lower node (2:2) of that information set.

In this case, a “rogue” chairperson going against the plenary and offers a new agenda might receive cooperation from the first committee member (upper branch of node 2:2) or the committee member might offer a new agenda (lower branch of 2:2). The second committee member has the same strategies (this game tree can be extended to include as much nodes as members). Even before considering committee members’ utility calculations one can see that the first move by the chairperson and the selected strategies taken by committee members create a qualitatively varied set of situations. As Knesset committees need to attain a consensus in their decisions, the states where one committee member blocks the agenda set by the chairperson (either the plenary or the ‘rogue’ agenda) become states that yield the status quo as no new agenda is accepted. Yet several states constitute a policy change achieved through the players’ strategies and counterstrategies:

1.The combination 1:1 up->2:1 up->3:1 up: This is a plenary-dominated committee where new agendas are not set in face of the plenary’s agenda.

2.The combination 1:1 down->2:2 up-> 3:3 up: This is a chairperson-dominated committee where the rogue agenda is endorsed by the committee members who refrain from veto or challenging it.

3.The combination 1:1 down->2:2 down->3:4 down means a complete chaos: the chairperson goes rogue so do both committee members derailing the process preventing any actual policy change. This is a chaotic situation which chairpersons would avoid if they wish to lead a policy process which can change existing policies and be approved by the Knesset’ plenary.

Again assuming that politicians in committees are professional players that aim at attaining their policy and power desires, the moves players choose yield these different states. In such a strategic policy making environment, the question is what are the considerations that guide the players in making choices within the context of that interaction? To see that observe figure 5.3 drawn with CyberSenate software (N. R. Miller, 2007).5 Figure 5.3 shows the contract curves of four players who are a set of specific and clearly defined committee members who react to a bill set on their table by the plenary. They need to process the bill’s details and specific directions.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.