French Education and the Limits of State Autonomy
| Date | 01 September 1988 |
| Published date | 01 September 1988 |
| Author | John S. Ambler |
| DOI | 10.1177/106591298804100305 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
FRENCH
EDUCATION
AND
THE
LIMITS
OF
STATE
AUTONOMY
JOHN
S.
AMBLER
Rice
University
N
another
of
those
pendulum
swings
so
familiar
to
observers
and
prac-
t
titioners
of
political
science,
the
popularity
of
society-centered
models
of
the
democratic
policy
process
recently
has
provoked
a
series
of
counterattacks
by
proponents
of
&dquo;state-centered&dquo;
models
(Nordlinger
1981;
Krasner
1978,
1984;
Skocpol
1985;
and,
on
neomarxist
theories,
Carnoy
1984,
and
Carnoy
and
Levin
1985).
Neither
the
pluralist
nor
the
orthodox
Marxist
school,
it
is
argued,
gives
adequate
consideration
to
the
ability
of
the
state
to
act
autonomously.
The
only
means
of
ascertaining
the
extent
of
state
autonomy,
and
the
utility
of
state-centered
models,
is
through
case
studies
of
the
policy
proc-
ess
in
different
countries
and
policy
areas.
The
purpose
of
the
following
analysis
will
be
twofold:
first,
to
demonstrate
the
limits
of
state
auton-
omy
in
a
policy
arena
which
would
seem
to
favor
it,
and,
second,
to
sug-
gest
some
general
problems
with
state-centered
models
in
the
study
of
the
democratic
policy
process.
The
case
studies
of
French
education
to
be
presented
are
not
intended
to
offer
a
definitive
test.
Limited
as
they
are
in
number
and
scope,
they
do,
however,
offer
important
evidence,
for
they
deal
with
a
policy
arena
which
has
a
number
of
characteristics
commonly
associated
with
state
autonomy.
Among
Western
nations,
France
often
is
perceived
to
be
the
most
perfect
democratic
embodiment
of
the
strong
and
centralized
state
(Krasner
1978:
58-61;
Nordlinger
1981:
103, 105;
Skocpol
1985:
34,
N.
29).’
In
a
survey
of
the
development
of
uses
of
the
concept
of
the
state,
J.
P.
Nettl
concludes
that &dquo;...
it
is
the
French
state
and
the
idea
of
the
state
that
provide
the
basic
European
model&dquo;
(Nettl
1968:
567).
From
the
time
of
Louis
XIV
and
his
energetic
minister,
Jean-Baptiste
Colbert,
to
postwar
economic
planners,
high
political
authorities
have
taken
a
broad
view
of
the
state’s
responsibility
for
guiding
social
and
economic
development.
Within
French
Government,
the
Ministry
of
Education
is
one
of
the
most
highly
centralized,
with
extensive
formal
control
over
curriculum,
personnel
and
funding
allocations.
And
yet,
as
will
be
shown,
state
autonomy
in
French
education
is
limited
by
intrastate
conflict
and
rivalry
between
public-private
coalitions.
Received:
March
26,
1987
First
Revision Received:
September
30,
1987
Accepted
for
Publication:
October
5,
1987
1
For
empirical
evidence
disputing
the
"strong
state"
interpretation
of
French
policy-making,
see
Suleiman
1987,
and
Hollifield
1986.
470
CONCEPTIONS
OF
STATE
AUTONOMY:
NORDLINGER
AND
HIS
CRITICS
The
state-centered
literature
shares
a
common
focus
on
the
impor-
tance
and
relative
autonomy
of
the
state.
It
offers
no
consensus
regard-
ing
the
boundaries
and
functions
of
the
state.
The
most
systematic
treatment
of
state
autonomy
within
democratic
polities,
and
the
one
which
will
serve
as
a
point
of
reference
in
the
following
analysis,
is
that
offered
by
Eric
Nordlinger
in
his
book,
On
the
Autonomy
of
the
Democratic
State.
Nordlinger
is
aware
of
conflicts
within
the
state,
but
concludes
that
state
autonomy
may
be
gauged
by
the
proportion
of
authoritative
decisions
which
follow
state
preferences,
defined
as
&dquo;those
with
the
weightiest
support
of
public
officials
behind
them,
based
on
the
number
of
officials
on
different
sides
of
the
issue,
the
formal
powers
of
their
offices,
their
hierarchical
and
strategic
positioning
relative
to
the
issue
at
hand,
and
the
information,
expertise,
and
interpersonal
skills
at
their
disposal&dquo;
(Nordlinger
1981:
15).
Nordlinger
suggests
that
state
au-
tonomy
may
exist
not
only
when
state
preferences
prevail
over
diver-
gent
societal
preferences
(Type
I
autonomy),
but
also
when
the
state
succeeds
in
reshaping
societal
preferences
which
initially
are
opposed
to
its
own
(Type
II
autonomy).
Even
when
societal
preferences
are
&dquo;non-
divergent&dquo;
from
its
own,
Nordlinger
argues,
there
is
no
reason
to
assume
that
the
state
is
not
acting
autonomously
when
it
translates
its
prefer-
ences
into
policy
(Type
III
autonomy).
Nordlinger
is
aware
that
policy
coalitions
often
bridge
the
state-society
divide;
yet
he
insists
that
state
autonomy
still
can
be
measured:
&dquo;State
autonomy
obtains
to
the
extent
that
the
policy
outcome
coincides
with
the
latter’s
preferences
in
both
(or
all)
coalitions
as
weighted
exclusively
by
their
intrastate
resources&dquo;
(Nordlinger,
1981:
20).
Nordlinger
proposes
more
systematic
attention
to
the
capacity
of
po-
litical
authorities
to
impose
their
own
policy
preferences,
a
contribution
for
which
he
and
other
state-centered
theorists
are
to
be
congratulated.
Yet
his
reliance
on
state
vs.
society
models
obscures
an
understanding
of
the
democratic
policy
process
in
two
important
ways.
First,
he
seeks
to
factor
out
such
untidy
phenomena
as
intrastate
conflict
and
public-
private
coalitions,
when
in
fact
the
essential
character
of
the
policy
proc-
ess
would
seem
to
be
the
interaction
among
elected
officials,
govern-
ment
agencies,
political
parties
and
private
interest
groups.
Secondly,
Nordlinger
attempts
to
avoid
the
danger
of
reification
by
defining
the
state
as
a
set
of
individuals,
made
up
of
all
elected
and
appointed
offi-
cials
with
influence
on
public
policy
(Nordlinger
1981:
10-11).
This
atomistic
image
of
the
state
as
individuals
rather
than
institutions
avoids
one
set
of
problems
but
creates
another
by
marginalizing
some
of
the
most
crucial
forces
and
contests
in
the
political
process.
These
problems
are
recognized
and
avoided
by
other
theorists
of
state
autonomy,
including
Stephen
Krasner
and
Theda
Skocpol,
who
under-
stand
the
state
as
a
set
of
institutions
as
well
as
the
individuals
who
guide
them
(Krasner
1978,
1984;
Skocpol
1985).
Indeed,
Skocpol
dismisses
Nordlinger’s
treatment
of
the
state
as
simply
revisionist
pluralism,
a
charge
To continue reading
Request your trial