Abstract
This paper presents four case studies of policy‐making in New Zealand in an attempt, firstly, to examine the relative roles of bureaucratic and political policy actors and, secondly, to suggest some factors which might account for the variation found in both these and other observed cases. This is done on the basis of distinguishing between types of policy (as suggested by Theodore J. Lowi) according to their likelihood to engender conflict The findings are discussed in relation to the workings of other Westminster political systems (Britain, Canada, Australia). The conclusion is drawn that while politicians are sometimes involved in policy‐making to only a minimal extent, they should still be held responsible for what emerges from that process.

This publication has 15 references indexed in Scilit: