Page 1 of 27
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal – Vol. 8, No. 6
Publication Date: June 25, 2021
DOI:10.14738/assrj.86.10286. Masumbe, P. S. (2021). A Survey of the Nexus between the Group Theory in Public Policy-Making; and Diplomacy and Diplomatic
Practices; and Its Impact on International Public Administration. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(6). 139-165.
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
A Survey of the Nexus between the Group Theory in Public Policy- Making; and Diplomacy and Diplomatic Practices; and Its Impact
on International Public Administration
Peter SAKWE MASUMBE, (PhD)
Lecturer, Department of Public Law and Public Administration
University of Buea- Cameroon
ABSTRACT
This article seeks to discern the nexus between the group theory in public policy- making in domestic politics; and diplomacy and diplomatic practices in
international relations. Apparently, diplomacy and diplomatic practices, though
strands of international relations, pivot on group theory’s doctrines. Herein, I argue
that, there exist a nexus between the group theory, diplomacy and diplomatic
practices, which fashions the character of international public administration.
Given the literature dearth in this domain, I offer a framework based on Charles
Lindblom’s Incrementalism and the Realist Theory to show how the nexus between
the group theory of domestic politics; and diplomacy and diplomatic practices
impacts international public administration. The research purpose is to boost
deeper theoretical and empirical understanding of public administration, since the
group theory aims at causing group equilibrium amongst competing groups in
domestic politics; while diplomacy promotes group’s (state) interest (power) over
another group’s (state) interest (power) in international politics.
Keywords: Public Administration, Group Theory, Diplomacy, Diplomatic Practices
INTRODUCTION – THE RESEARCH PROBLEM
This article is about providing deep theoretical and empirical understanding of core issues in
public administration, specifically those residing at the psyche of the group theory in public
policy-making; and how these issues are linked to diplomacy and diplomatic practices, even as
the latter are core strands of realism in international relations; and to discover if international
public administration is fashioned by these issues. Its specific research problem is that, there is
a nexus between the group theory of public policy-making; and diplomacy and diplomatic
practices (realpolitik), which positively or negatively fashions the character of international
public administration. The research purpose is to increase knowledge in the field, particularly
on how the group theory postulated to serve the exigencies of domestic politics, also acts as the
substratum for diplomacy and diplomatic practices in international relations; with the broader
benefits of opening the paths for engagements into either the group theory in public policy- making or diplomacy and diplomatic practices, through research on cores issues of human
development, such as, peace, peaceful co-existence of divergent peoples, stability, conflict
resolution and extremisms’ curtailment.
Page 2 of 27
140
Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal (ASSRJ) Vol. 8, Issue 6, June-2021
Services for Science and Education – United Kingdom
So, of what character is this nexus? What is its modus operandi? Is it enabling or coercive? Of- course, some people argue that, the group theory in public policy-making is wholly confined to
domestic politics (Fiorina 2015, Adeline 2018); as others claim that, the group theory, occupies
a domineering space in international public administration (Amucheazi 1994, Mentan 2004).
These opposing views pose a research problem, which is to determine the theoretical and
empirical basis of the nexus between the group theory of domestic politics; and diplomacy and
diplomatic practices of international relations. Given the insufficient literature in this domain,
I engage to demonstrate that, diplomacy and diplomatic practices, (intertwined in the realist
philosophy, which considers the states as the principal actors in the international relations, and
act in pursuit of their own national interests, especially the struggle for power over other
states), basically revolve on fulfilling the exigencies of the group theory, - a theory whose aims
are to mediate between competing groups in domestic politics, in what is known in the group
theory’s philosophy as, “group equilibrium or suppression” (Collingridge 1992, Kalmia, 2015).
Thus, while the group theory aims at mediating group’s equilibrium amongst competing social,
economic, political and cultural groups in domestic politics; diplomacy and diplomatic practices
aim at negotiating group’s (state) interest (power) over another group’s (state) interest
(power) in international relations, in what Machiavelli (1469 – 1527) calls “realpolitik”.
THE GROUP THEORY, ITS ORIGINS AND PHILOSOPHY IN PUBLIC POLICY-MAKING
The group theory in public policy-making constitutes the intellectual precursor to pluralism
and was originated by Arthur F. Bentley in his book, The Process of Government, (1908). The
theory was built upon and refined further by David Truman in his book, The Governmental
Process (1951). Thus, the group theory and its offspring of pluralism, including other
competitor group-based theories (such as elitism and neo-corporatism) are closely entwined,
and any discussion of one necessitates discussion of the others. Specifically, this theory pushes
the philosophy that, the conduct of politics revolves entirely on the sole believe that all intra
and interstate politics are organised around causing group equilibrium. That is, the whole
essence of national or international politics is all about mediating between social, cultural,
political, economic groups for the unique purposes of causing group equilibrium – that is the
balancing of the interests of one group over the interests of another group in society. Such group
could include trade unionists, pharmacists, medical doctors, teachers, farmers, lawyers,
students’ bodies, the South West Elite Association in Cameroon, Women against Genital
Mutilations, Women against Children Trafficking, and so on, all of which front as groups for
lobbying to promote their common interests amongst public policy-makers.
The group theory anchors on the contention that interaction and struggle among groups are
the central facts of political life. Thus, a group is defined as a collection of individuals, a state or
states that may, on the basis of shared attitudes or interests make claims upon public
authorities for acquiring a certain degree of quality, quantity of consumptive capacities of the
common good, irrespective of similar claims laid by other groups on the same common good in
society (Bentley 1908, Truman 1951) Invariably, this theory of politics sees society as
constituted into various groups, all of which seek to obtain public utilities and other favours
from the public authorities, through the instrumentality of public policy and decision-making
processes. Group must skew the interest of other groups in favour of their; as most connected,
powerful and well organised group. In addition, the theory acts as a mediator between groups’
interest that is, to cause a balance, equilibrium amongst stronger and weaker groups in society
in their similar zeal to obtain favours from public policy-makers.
Page 3 of 27
141
Masumbe, P. S. (2021). A Survey of the Nexus between the Group Theory in Public Policy-Making; and Diplomacy and Diplomatic Practices; and Its
Impact on International Public Administration. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 8(6). 139-165.
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.14738/assrj.86.10286
Essentially of-course, the group theory was formulated to explain the dynamics in the conduct
of politics at the national level (Emezi 2002, Likensky 2009), but in this paper, I question its
nexus atthe international arena, and argues that like other writes, who did not sufficiently show
this nexus that, the realisation of the activities in international politics via the realist theory of
international relations, and its strands of diplomacy and diplomatic practices, essentially rely
on the tenets of the group theory (Ojo, 1988, Okolie 2016). Thus, the character of the group
theory as the substratum of the history, nature, practice and the future of international relations
is of very great importance for scholars in public policy-making and international relations.
Certainly, given the diverse and sometimes sumptuously divergent exigencies of citizens in
their quest to satisfy their needs in their societies, several aspects of public policy-making
actually do reflect the activities and interests of the group theory, such as fixing a balance in the
allocation of resources amongst these groups. Yet other activities reflect the tenets of other
public policy theories, such as the elite, institutional, process, incremental, game, and so on.
Consequently, each public policy has a philosophy which public authorities might tend want to
respect; or said differently, each public policy impels some constraints upon public authorities
in the mobilisation, distribution and allocation of resources in society. Thus, understanding
politics, only through armpits of the group theory is grossly misleading, because other theories
postulate their interpretation and understanding of politics as well.
It is thus expedient for the student of public administration to grasp the tenets of other theories,
as studies in public administration are engaged. Examples in the US include the AFL-CIO and
minimum-wage legislation, farmers’ groups and agricultural subsidies, the National Rifle
Association and gun-control policies, and the National Education Association and federal aid to
public schools in the United States of America, (Wildavsky & Naomi 2007, Likensky 2009:78).
The group theory rests on the contention that interaction and struggle among groups are the
central facts of political life. Accordingly, a group should be understood as a collection of
individuals that may, on the basis of shared attitudes or interests, make claims upon other
groups in society. It becomes a political interest group "when it makes a claim through or upon
any of the institutions of government." According to this theory, the individual is; or states are
significant in politics only as participants in or representatives of groups.
Traditionally, according to the group theory, it is through group competition that individuals
seek to secure their political preferences. A central concept in group theory is that of access to
the corridors of political power. To have influence and to be able to help shape governmental
decisions, a group must have access, or the opportunity to express their viewpoints to decision- makers. Obviously, if a group is unable to communicate with decision-makers, if no one in
government will listen, its chances of affecting policy-making are slim. Access may be a product
of the group's being organised, from its having status, good leadership, or resources such as
money for campaign contributions, and having a highly educated and enlightened character of
membership. Social lobbying, through wining, dining, and entertaining of legislators and other
public officials can be understood as an effort to create access by engendering a feeling of
obligation from the public authorities – public policy and decision makers to the groups
involved.
Thus, when a group wishes to discuss public policy matters with an official, it will have an
opportunity to present its case or have its telephone calls returned, maybe after some