Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-322
Public
Policymaking
An Introduction
NINTH EDITION
JAMES E. ANDERSON
Texas A&M University
With Jeffrey Moyer and George Chichirau
Australia • Brazil • Japan • Korea • Canada • Mexico • Singapore • United Kingdom • United States
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
This is an electronic version of the print textbook. Due to electronic rights restrictions,
some third party content may be suppressed. Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed
content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. The publisher reserves the right
to remove content from this title at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it. For
valuable information on pricing, previous editions, changes to current editions, and alternate
formats, please visit www.cengage.com/highered to search by ISBN#, author, title, or keyword for
materials in your areas of interest.
Important Notice: Media content referenced within the product description or the product
text may not be available in the eBook version.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-322
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Public Policymaking:
An Introduction,
Ninth Edition
© 2023, © 2015, © 2011 Cengage.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this work covered by
the copyright herein may be reproduced or distributed
James E. Anderson
in any form or by any means, except as permitted by
with Jeffrey Moyer and
U.S. copyright law, without the prior written permission
George Chichirau
of the copyright owner.
SVP, Higher Education
Product Management: Erin
Unless otherwise noted, all content is Copyright
© Cengage Learning, Inc.
Joyner
VP, Product Management,
For product information and technology
Learning Experiences: Thais
Alencar
assistance, contact us at
Cengage Customer & Sales Support, 1-800-354-9706
or support.cengage.com.
Product Director: Laura Ross
Product Manager: Lauren
For permission to use material from this
Gerrish
text or product, submit all requests
online at www.copyright.com.
Product Assistant: Martina
Umunna
Content Manager: Manoj
Kumar, Lumina Datamatics
Library of Congress Control Number: 2021922912
Limited
Digital Delivery Quality
Partner: Liz Newitt
Product Marketing Manager:
Valerie Hartman
IP Analyst: Deanna Ettinger
IP Project Manager: Nick
Barrows
Production Service: Lumina
Datamatics Limited
Designer: Sarah Cole
Cover Image Source: Jung
Getty/Gettyimages
ISBN: 978-0-357-65997-7
Cengage
200 Pier 4 Boulevard
Boston, MA 02210
USA
Cengage is a leading provider of customized learning
solutions with employees residing in nearly 40 different
countries and sales in more than 125 countries
around the world. Find your local representative at
www.cengage.com.
To learn more about Cengage platforms and services,
register or access your online learning solution, or purchase materials for your course, visit www.cengage.com.
Printed in the United States of America
Print Number: 01
Print Year: 2021
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Contents
Preface
vii
Chapter 1 The Study of Public Policy
1
The Plan of This Book 3
What Is Public Policy? 7
Constituent, Distributive, Regulatory, Self-Regulatory,
and Redistributive Policies 12
Material and Symbolic Policies 18
Policies Involving Public Goods or Private Goods 19
Approaches to Policy Study 21
Political Systems Theory 21
Group Theory 22
Elite Theory 24
Institutionalism 26
Rational-Choice Theory 27
Informing Your Own Approach 29
Methodological Difficulties in Studying Public Policy 31
Chapter Review 34
For Further Exploration 35
Suggested Readings 35
Chapter 2 The Policy Makers and Their Environment
37
­
­
The Policy Environment 42
The Role of Social and Technological Change 49
The Official Policy Makers 50
Nongovernmental Participants 61
Levels of Politics 72
Case Study The Endangered Snail Darter 78
Chapter Review 79
For Further Exploration 80
Suggested Readings 81
iii
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
iv
Contents
Chapter 3
Policy Formation: Problems, Agendas,
and Formulation
83
Policy Problems 85
The Policy Agenda 92
The Agenda-Setting Process 95
The Loss of Agenda Status 104
Two Cases in Agenda Setting 105
Case Study Coal Mine Safety 105
Case Study Environmental Pollution Control 109
The Formulation of Policy Proposals 112
Who Is Involved? 113
Policy Formulation as a Technical Process 117
Case Study Formulating Policy: The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act 119
A Concluding Comment 124
Chapter Review 125
For Further Exploration 126
Suggested Readings 126
Chapter 4
Policy Adoption
128
Theories of Decision Making 130
Decision Criteria 135
Values 135
Political-Party Affiliation 138
Science 144
The Public Interest 146
Styles of Decision making 148
Bargaining 149
Persuasion 151
Presidential Decision making 156
Case Study Policy Adoption: Consumer Bankruptcy 161
Case Study Policy Adoption: The Family Smoking
Prevention and Tobacco Control Act 167
Chapter Review 170
For Further Exploration 170
Suggested Readings 171
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
v
Contents
Chapter 5
Budgeting and Public Policy
172
The Budget and Public Policy 173
Fiscal Policy 179
Case Study The U.S. Federal Government Response
to the COVID-19 Recession 180
The National Budgetary Process 185
Case Study The Struggle to Balance the Budget 204
Chapter Review 211
For Further Exploration 212
Test Your Knowledge 212
Suggested Readings 212
Chapter 6
Policy Implementation
214
Federalism and Implementation 217
Case Study The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 219
Who Implements Policy? 222
Administrative Organization 230
Administrative Politics 233
Administrative Policy Making 240
Case Study The Nuclear Waste Disposal Act 248
Case Study The Total Maximum Daily Load Program 249
Techniques of Control 251
Case Study The Clean Air Act’s Emissions-Trading System 262
Compliance 264
Chapter Review 273
For Further Exploration 274
Suggested Readings 275
Chapter 7
Policy Impact, Evaluation, and Change
276
299
Policy Impact 277
Policy Evaluation 282
Policy Evaluation Processes 286
Case Study The GAO and Food Safety 289
Problems in Policy Evaluation 294
Policy Evaluation: The Use and Misuse of Cost–Benefit Analysis
Case Study The Politics of Evaluation: Head Start 304
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
vi
Contents
Policy Termination 309
Case Study The Policy Cycle: Airline Regulation and Deregulation 313
Chapter Review 322
For Further Exploration 322
Suggested Readings 323
Chapter 8
Reflections and Observations
324
Notes 337
Index 366
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Preface
­
When Professor James Anderson’s 1st Edition of Public Policymaking was
released, the Soviet Union still existed, President Bush (the Senior) was still
in office, and we had not even started our primary education. Since then,
Anderson’s text has served as one of the entry level texts in the field, and we
were honored by Cengage Learning’s request to review and update this key
volume so students today could benefit from it.
In Public Policymaking: An Introduction, Ninth Edition, we see again that
despite the din of the news cycle, little has changed in the fundamental structure of the political system, and we believe that policymaking is best presented
as a policy cycle—a sequence of functional activities beginning with problem
identification and agenda formation, and continuing through the evaluation
of policy, which may result in the continuation, modification, or termination
of policy. This may restart the policy cycle in a search for alternatives for handling a problem.
The policy cycle schema is a workable and flexible approach to the study
and analysis of public policymaking, whether in the United States or elsewhere. In addition, the text looks at some other ways to study policy formation
(e.g., group theory and elite theory); makes some comparisons with action in
other countries; and delves into some of the logistical aspects of policymaking,
such as majority building, cost–benefit analysis, and decision-making.
Since the eighth edition of this book was written, some of the fundamental
assumptions of American political life and public policy have changed. Donald
Trump rode a golden escalator down to announce his run for the Presidency,
and despite few at the time taking him seriously, radically changed the nature
of government and challenged the existing order. While Trump himself has
since left office after being defeated by a “return to normalcy” campaign in
the form of current President Joe Biden, few believe that the state of politics
can ever return to what it was. Aside from anything former President Trump
or current President Biden might have otherwise sought, the COVID-19 pandemic has recast the role of government and changed the culture, economy
and society in ways we are only beginning to appreciate and understand. Similarly, the looming threat of climate change poses a challenge to leaders in the
United States and elsewhere.
The fundamental structure of the policymaking process remains as before.
However, in the last decade not much of significance has made the journey
through the policy cycle. Despite this, the framework remains crucial and
useful for policy scholars, and as the incoming administration returns to the
norms followed during the Obama administration, this traditional approach is
likely to demonstrate more applicability than ever.
vii
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
viii
Preface
As the subtitle indicates, Public Policymaking: An Introduction is intended
to be a starting point for the study of public policymaking by giving some
consideration to all of the stages or phases of the policymaking process. For
those who wish to explore various stages more deeply, the suggested readings
and websites listed at the end of each chapter will be helpful. After decades of
studying the policy process, learning is still going on in this field.
This book seeks impartiality and objectivity to the extent these values are
possible or helpful. While we are unafraid to call a spade a spade, we have
sought to provide analysis and teaching rather than preaching.
Organization and Updates
We have made a number of adjustments and additions to this text, but remain
indebted to Professor Anderson for his concise descriptions of key concepts,
thorough coverage of the field and scholarship within, and insightful analysis
of the key concepts and theories. Much of our work consisted of providing
a comprehensive update to the original examples, as well as the addition of
more relatable content to new students of public policy. Many of Professor
Anderson’s examples were timeless; in these cases we have simply retained his
work, while adding additional context and updates (especially with regard to
developments under the Obama and Trump administrations). In some places
we have also sought to broaden the material to a non-US audience including
the European Union.
We have also added learning objectives placed at the beginning of each
chapter based on Bloom’s learning taxonomy. Students can then test themselves at the end of the chapter to make sure they understood and retained key
material. These addititions can also serve as the basis for writing prompts and
class discussions.
Chapter 1, “The Study of Public Policy,” has new material on the use of public policy in the career fields, the influence of social media on the development
of public policy and discussion of developments in drug policy as an example
of increasing popular influence in the political decision-making process.
Chapter 2, “The Policy-Makers and Their Environment,” surveys the political environment, or context of policymaking, and presents the official and
unofficial participants in the policy process. Material has been added on critical theories, regulation of social media, policy diffusion, electoral reform as
well as numerous examples pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic and inequality. We retained the Snail Darter case: though old, it remains seminal.
Chapter 3, “Policy Formation: Problems, Agendas, and Formulation,”
examines policy problems and agendas, agenda-setting processes, and the formulation (or crafting) of policy proposals. These are the pre-adoption aspects
of the policy process. Here we have added discussion of Schneider & Ingram’s
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Preface
ix
social constructions of target populations theory, as well as significant updates
to the environmental and health care examples to incorporate current events.
Chapter 4, “Policy Adoption,” centers on decision-making processes and
criteria and the adoption of policies. Here we have added discussion of new
approaches to decision-making in public policy, updated consideration of
political culture and partisan ideologies, material on the difficulties of measuring public opinion via polling, and developments on the filibuster.
Chapter 5, “Budgeting and Public Policy,” discusses the national budgetary process because of its importance for the substance, implementation, and
impact of public policies. Budgetary numbers are updated. There is a new case
study on the U.S. federal government’s response to the COVID-19 recession,
providing a broad overview of the most important fiscal and monetary policy
debates arising from the arrival of the global pandemic. There is also more
detail on the “ongoing saga of the struggle for a balanced budget” (in Professor
Anderson’s words), which has been drastically impacted by the events of 2020.
Chapter 6, “Policy Implementation,” roams over much ground to provide
understanding of the implementation or administration of public policies.
Changes here include new material on the evolution of the No Child Left
Behind Act, the EPA under the Trump administration, an overview of general
expenditures during 2020, the outlook for carbon emissions trading in the US,
IRS enforcement of tax regulations and more.
Chapter 7, “Policy Impact, Evaluation, and Change,” probes the effects of
policies, their evaluation, and possible termination. Numerous limited modifications, additions, and deletions have been made here. There is more on
education programs, accountability at the Pentagon, and net neutrality. The
concluding case study on airline deregulation has also been slightly updated.
Chapter 8, “Reflections and Observations,” goes beyond stating conclusions
– as in previous versions. It is, rather, an informative essay on the American
policymaking process.
Instructor Resources
Additional instructor resources for this product are available online. Instructor assets include an Instructor’s Manual, PowerPoint® slides, and a test bank
powered by Cognero®. Sign up or sign in at www.cengage.com to search for
and access this product and its online resources.
Acknowledgments
We wish to express our appreciation to all who have assisted in our revisions
to this volume. At the request of Cengage Learning, several scholars provided
pre-revision reviews. They provided many good ideas and suggestions for
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
x
Preface
change and improvement. We did not agree with everything that came through
this process, but we nonetheless appreciated the time and engagement of these
scholars. Our thanks go to the following professors for reviewing the text and
offering their evaluations, comments, and suggestions:
Dr. John M. Aughenbaugh Virginia Commonwealth University
William Lester Jacksonville State University
We would like to thank our colleagues and faculty at the University of
Massachusetts, Boston for their mentorship and support to help us understand
the field of public policy and the numerous scholars who have come before us
– especially professors Mark Warren and Michael Johnson.
Our work was greatly aided by the Politics editor at Cengage, Emily Hickey,
who provided detailed feedback on each of the revised chapters and gave valuable insight on how to best approach thorny topics. Others such as Manoj
Kumar, Lauren Gerrish, Sheila Moran, Carmine Scavo, and Chris Sabooni
helped keep the project moving and bring it to a successful conclusion. Any
shortcomings in the book—errors of fact or faulty judgments—are our own
doing, so responsibility for them rests squarely with us. We would appreciate
readers informing us about them.
Jeffrey Moyer
­
George Chichirau
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
1
The Study of Public Policy
Learning Objectives
This chapter will introduce you to the study of public policy and define the framework by which
scholars and practitioners understand the field and contributions to public life.
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
1-1 Discuss the definitions, problems, and benefits associated with a scientific policy studies
approach to the field of public policy.
1-2 Understand what a public policy is and what it is not.
1-3 Discuss the problems, goals, demands, and outputs of various categories of public policy
using relevant examples.
1-4 Appraise how each of the five theoretical approaches that scholars use for analyzing policy
making generates knowledge and examines public policies.
1-5 Summarize the methodological difficulties that can encumber the study of public policy.
I
n the course of their daily lives, people are affected, directly and indirectly,
obviously and subtly, by an array of public policies. Consider automobile
owners. When a car is purchased, the Truth in Lending Act requires provision
of accurate information by a lender on the cost of credit. The vehicle features
safety equipment, such as a padded dash and seat belts, required by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and a catalytic converter to
reduce tailpipe emissions, necessitated by Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) rules. Out on the highway, financed jointly by the state and national
governments, our driver needs to be aware of state and local traffic regulations
or risk direct contact with law enforcement officials. State policy requires that
the automobile be insured and that both it and the driver be licensed. The
price of the gasoline the car consumes is indirectly affected by national energy
policies and directly increased by national and state excise taxes. The vehicle’s
gas mileage must meet the national corporate average fuel economy standard or a “gas guzzler” tax will apply. Further, these energy policies and fuel
efficiency standards are informed by international agreements on addressing
climate change, such as the Paris Accords signed in 2015. Many more laws and
rules apply to automobiles.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
­
­
­
1
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
2
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
­
Public policies in a modern, complex society are indeed ubiquitous. They
confer advantages and disadvantages; cause pleasure, irritation, and pain; and
collectively have important consequences for our well-being and happiness. They
shape a significant portion of our physical and social environment. This being
so, we should know something about public policies, including how they are
formed, budgeted, implemented, and evaluated. There are also scientific, professional, and political reasons for studying public policies and policy making.
Scientifically, the systematic and rigorous study of the origin, development,
and implementation of public policies will enhance our knowledge of political
behavior and governance, as well as of public policy per se. How is policy
making affected by federalism and the separation of powers? Were pressure
groups or public opinion or the media influential in the adoption of a policy?
Why did government cease to confront a problem? Concern with questions of
this sort is designated as policy study.
Professionally, a person may pursue a career as a policy analyst or evaluator.
Practitioners of policy analysis, which draws heavily upon economic theory
and statistical and mathematical analytical techniques, have been increasing
in number in recent decades.1 Policy analysis has an applied orientation and
seeks to identify the most efficient alternative (i.e., the one that will yield the
largest net social benefit) for dealing with a current problem, such as the control of air pollution or the disposal of household garbage. A variant of policy
analysis is evaluation research, which assesses how well policies attain their
goals and the other societal effects that they may have. Cost–benefit analysis
and risk analysis fall into this category.
Even if you never are called upon to conduct a formal policy analysis or
engage in the practice of policy advocacy or lobbying on behalf of a client, the
study of public policy is still rewarding for those in the public and private sectors. Many professionals whose job titles have nothing to do with public policy
and who spend their entire careers in the private sector still are charged with
interacting with government policy on any number of levels, and awareness
of the life cycle of policy stages, the interests represented in formulating those
policies that are rejected and implemented, will benefit their work in numerous ways. Last, consider that many larger corporations themselves are subject
to internal organization that work much like government. Scholars of public
policy would be well suited to confront these challenges.
Politically, many people want to engage in policy advocacy, using knowledge of public policy to formulate and promote “good” public policies that
will have the “right” goals, that is, goals that serve their purposes. They may
think of themselves as liberals, conservatives, libertarians, environmentalists,
or socialists and disagree greatly in their notions of what is good or just. The
research efforts of policy advocates are frequently skewed by their wish to
generate data and analysis in line with their preferences. Ideally, policy study
is conducted objectively, though scholars and practitioners of policy should
always be aware of how implicit bias can impact the work of those they are
studying, as well as their own.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The Plan of This Book
3
This book draws on the scientific policy studies approach to develop a
basic understanding of the policy-making process, which is here viewed as
an inherently political process involving conflict and struggle among people
(public officials and private citizens) with conflicting interests, values, and
desires on policy issues. In describing and analyzing the policy-making process,
the scientific policy studies approach has three basic aims.2 First, its primary
goal is to explain the adoption of a policy rather than to identify or prescribe
“good” or proper policy. Analysis, rather than advocacy, is its style. Second,
it searches for the causes and consequences of public policies by applying
social-scientific methodology, which is not restricted to the use of quantitative
data and methodology. At a minimum, it requires that one should strive to be
rational, empirical, and objective. Third, this approach aims to develop reliable
theories and explanations about public policies and their politics. Thus, policy
studies can be both theoretical and relevant to the more practical aspects of
policy making. It has been said that nothing is as practical as a good theory.
There is not a single process by which public policies are formed. They do not
come off an assembly line as do automobiles, refrigerators, and other standard
products. Rather, variations in the subjects of policies will produce variations
in the style, techniques, and politics of policy making. Foreign policy, taxation,
health-care financing, surface-transportation policy, occupational licensing,
and land-use zoning are each characterized by a somewhat different policy
process—different participants, procedures, decision rules, political patterns,
and more. Many scholars argue that the type and nature of the policy being
shaped will directly inform the politics that inform this policy, though there
are significant debates as to what this looks like.
Policy making may also take different forms, depending on its organizational venue. Policy making within agencies is more likely to feature hierarchy,
secrecy (or low visibility), and the involvement of experts or professionals than
is legislative policy making. Courts do not act in the same way that legislatures
or executives do. And certainly, one can discern different patterns in tax policy
formation in the United States, Great Britain, and Greece.
This variability does not mean, however, that there are no common functions or elements and that it is impossible to formulate generalizations on policy
formation. Given the diversity and complexity in policy-making processes, the
development of some sort of general theory that has broad explanatory power is
an unrealistic aspiration.3 But we can achieve a useful start toward what political scientists call theory building by striving to develop sound generalizations
about such topics as who is involved in policy formation, on what sorts of issues,
under what conditions, in what ways, and to what effect. Nor should we neglect
to ask about how policy problems develop or obtain a place on governmental
agendas. Such questions are not as simple as they may first appear.
­
­
­
­
The Plan of This Book
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
4
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
To provide a conceptual framework to guide the examination of the policy
process in the ensuing chapters, we view it as a sequential pattern of activities
or functions that can readily be distinguished analytically, although they may
be empirically more difficult to pull apart. Many scholars have sought to build
out a similar so-called stages model of public policy, and while this exercise
does not imply that the policy process always follows this linear path, identifying these distinct steps can help develop further theoretical and empirical
inquiry. The following categories or stages are employed (see their portrayal in
Table 1.1), and illustrative questions are included.
1. Problem identification and agenda setting. The focus here is on
how the problems that may become the targets of public policies are
identified and specified. Why only some problems receive consideration
by policy makers requires an examination of agenda setting, that is, how
governmental bodies decide what problems to address. What is a public
problem? Why does some condition or matter become a public problem?
How does a problem get on a governmental agenda? Why do some
problems not achieve agenda status?
2. Formulation. This encompasses the creation, identification, or borrowing
of proposed courses of action, often called alternatives or options, for
resolving or ameliorating public problems. Who participates in policy
formulation? How are alternatives for dealing with a problem developed?
Are there difficulties and biases in formulating policy proposals?
3. Adoption. This involves deciding which proposed alternative, including
taking no action, will be used to handle a problem. In American
legislatures this function is performed by majorities. How is a policy
alternative adopted or enacted? What requirements must be met? Who
are the adopters? What is the content of the adopted policy?
4. Implementation. (A synonym is administration.) Here, attention is on
what is done to carry into effect or apply adopted policies. Often further
development or elaboration of policies will occur in the course of their
administration. Who is involved? What, if anything, is done to enforce or
apply a policy? How does implementation help shape or determine the
content and impact of policy?
5. Evaluation. This entails activities intended to determine what a policy is
accomplishing, whether it is achieving its goals, and whether it has other
consequences. Who is involved? Who is advantaged and disadvantaged
by a policy? What are the consequences of policy evaluation? Are there
demands for changes in or repeal of the policy? Are new problems
identified? Is the policy process restarted because of evaluation?
Within this simplified framework, the formation and implementation of
policies are seen as political in that they involve conflict and struggle among
individuals and groups, officials and agencies, with conflicting ideas, interests,
values, and information on public-policy issues. Policy making is political; it
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Getting the
government to
consider action on
the problem
Common sense
Efforts by the
government
to determine
whether the policy was effective
and why or why
not
Did the policy
work?
Application of
the policy by the
government’s
administrative
machinery
Applying the
government’s
policy to the
problem
Development of
support for a specific proposal so
that a policy can
be legitimized or
authorized
Getting the
government to accept
a particular solution
to the problem
Development of pertinent and acceptable
proposed courses of
action for dealing with
a public problem
What is proposed to
be done about the
problem
Stage 5:
Policy
Evaluation
Stage 4:
Policy
Implementation
Stage 3:
Policy
Adoption
Stage 2:
Policy
Formulation
Source: Adapted from James E. Anderson, David W. Brady, and Charles Bullock III, Public Policy and Politics in the United States, 2d ed. (Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, 1984).
Those problems,
among many, that
receive the serious
attention of public
officials
Stage 1:
Policy
Agenda
Definition
Policy Terminology
The Policy Process
Table 1.1
The Plan of This Book
5
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
6
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
involves politics. Politics itself was once defined by Laswell as “who gets what,
when & how.” This definition is not limited to identifying when a Republican
president or a Democratic Congress wins—politics is not equal to partisanship, as it covers a much broader range of activities that govern the allocation
of resources and attention. That is, its features include conflict, negotiation,
the exercise of power, bargaining, and compromise—and sometimes such
nefarious practices as deception and bribery. There is no good reason to resist
or disparage this conclusion, or to imitate those who derogate policies that
they do not like with such statements as “It’s nothing but politics.” Although
it is sometimes implied or even asserted that if enough analysis were done, if
enough facts and data were gathered, all right-thinking people would agree on
the appropriate course of action to handle a problem, this is not the way the
world works. Quite reasonable people can disagree on policy issues because
they have differing interests, values, and affiliations. Politics is the way a democratic society resolves such differences.
The policy-process (sometimes it is called the policy cycle) approach
to policy study has several advantages. First, and most important, the
policy-process approach centers attention on the officials and institutions
who make policy decisions and the factors that influence and condition their
actions. We need to be concerned about more than the complexity of public
problems, the goals of the polity, the general forms policy responses can take,
and similar matters. Knowledge of these is clearly of value, but we also want to
know who makes policy decisions and how they do it. Consequently, answers
are needed for such questions as: What is the legislature’s role in policy making? How does its structure affect decision making? What sorts of factors
or considerations influence the legislators’ decisions? The policy- process
approach not only helps us learn about policy making and policy; it also causes
us to take a more holistic view of how government works.
Second, policy making usually incorporates the stages or categories of
activity that we have described. This sequential nature thus helps one capture
and comprehend the flow of action in the actual policy process. However,
in actuality, the formulation and adoption stages may blend together, as
when proposed legislation on welfare reform is modified during consideration
in committees and on the House and Senate floors in order to win votes needed
for its enactment. Administrative agencies issue rules elaborating policy while
implementing it simultaneously. The adoption of a policy, such as restrictions
on abortion, solves a problem for some people while it creates a problem for
others, who then restart the policy process in an effort to modify or repeal
the disliked policy. Even in such instances, the policy-process approach can be
used to analytically distinguish the various activities involved.
Third, the policy-process approach is flexible and open to change and
refinement.4 Additional stages can be introduced if experience indicates that
they would strengthen description and analysis. Perhaps budgeting should
be recognized as a separate stage of the process. Various forms of data collection and analysis, whether quantitative (statistical), historical, legal, or
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
What Is Public Policy?
7
normative (value-oriented), are compatible with it. It can be used to study
a single policy (e.g., the Americans with Disabilities Act) or to compare the
enactment and implementation of several civil rights laws. Group, institutional, and other approaches to policy study can be fitted into it. The group
approach may help explain policy adoption; institutionalism can cast light
on its implementation. Systems theory may help alert us to some of its societal consequences.
Fourth, the policy-process approach helps present a dynamic and developmental, rather than static and cross-sectional, view of the policy process. It is
concerned with the evolution of policy and requires that one think about what
moves action on policy from one stage of the process to another stage. Moreover, it helps emphasize relationships, or interactions, among the participants
in policy making. Political parties, interest groups, legislative procedures, presidential commitments, public opinion, and other matters can be tied together
as they drive and help explain the formation of a policy. Further, one can seek
to discover how action at one stage of the process affects action at later stages.
For example, how does the design and content of legislation ease or complicate its implementation? How does implementation affect its impact?
Fifth, the policy-process approach is broadly applicable across contexts. It
can readily be used to examine policy making in foreign political systems. It
also lends itself to manageable comparisons explored in this text, such as how
problems reach governmental agendas, how policies are legitimated, or how
policies are implemented in various countries.5
In this discussion of public policy, scholars and practitioners can sometimes lose sight of democracy and the impact of popular will.6 There is often
not much space given for discussions of ensuring democratic accountability
in the studies of public policy, through events over the last decade, such as
the decision by British voters to leave the EU as well as the election of Donald
Trump and the policy implementation challenges encountered by his administration, often gave rise to challenges between the expressed will of political
leaders and the outcomes of the political process.
We now turn to an explanation of public policy and of various ways of
categorizing public policies.
In general usage, the term policy designates the behavior of some actor or set
of actors, such as an official, a governmental agency, or a legislature, in an
area of activity such as public transportation or consumer protection. Public
policy also may be viewed as whatever governments choose to do or not to do.
Such definitions may be adequate for ordinary discourse, but because we set
out in this book to do a systematic analysis of public policy, a more precise
definition or concept is needed to structure our thinking and to facilitate effective communication with one another.
­
What Is Public Policy?
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
8
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
In this book, a policy is defined as a purposive course of action or inaction
followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. This definition focuses on what is actually done instead of what is only
proposed or intended; differentiates a policy from a decision, which is essentially a specific choice among alternatives; and views policy as something that
unfolds over time.
Public policies are developed by governmental bodies and officials.
(Nongovernmental actors and factors may of course influence public-policy
development.) The special characteristics of public policies stem from their
being formulated by what Easton has called the “authorities” in a political
system, namely, “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges,
administrators, councilors, monarchs, and the like.” These are the persons
who “engage in the daily affairs of a political system,” are “recognized by most
members of the system as having responsibility for these matters,” and take
actions that are “accepted as binding most of the time by most of the members
so long as they act within the limits of their roles.”7 In short, public policies are
those produced by government officials and agencies. They also usually affect
substantial numbers of people.
There are several implications of this concept of public policy as a relatively
stable, purposive course of action followed by government in dealing with
some problem or matter of concern. First, the definition links policy to purposive or goal-oriented action rather than to random behavior or chance occurrences. Public policies in modern political systems do not, by and large, just
happen. They are instead designed to accomplish specified goals or produce
definite results, although these are not always achieved. And unintended consequences may occur. Proposed policies may be usefully thought of as hypotheses suggesting that specific actions be taken to achieve particular goals. Thus,
to increase farm income, the national government has utilized income subsidies and production controls. These programs have indeed enhanced the
incomes of many farmers, but by no means all.
The goals of a policy may be somewhat loosely stated and imprecise in
content, thus providing a general direction rather than precise targets for its
implementation. Those who want action on a problem may differ both as to
what should be done and how it should be done. Ambiguity in language then
can become a means for reducing conflict, at least for the moment. Compromise to secure agreement and build support may consequently yield general
phrasing and lack of clarity in the statement of policy goals.
Second, policies consist of courses or patterns of action followed over time
by governmental officials rather than their separate, discrete decisions. It is
difficult to think of such actions as a presidential decision to honor a movie
actor or a Social Security Administration decision to award disability benefits
to Jane Doe as public policies. A policy includes not only the decision to adopt
a law or make a rule on some topic but also the subsequent decisions that are
intended to enforce or implement the law or rule. Industrial health and safety
policy, for example, is shaped not only by the Occupational Safety and Health
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
9
Act of 1970 (OSHA) but also by a stream of administrative rules and judicial
decisions interpreting, elaborating, and applying (or not applying) the act to
particular situations.
Third, public policies emerge in response to policy demands, or those
claims for action or inaction on some public issue made by other actors—
private citizens, group representatives, or legislators and other public officials—
upon government officials and agencies. Such demands may range from
general insistence that a municipal government “do something” about traffic
congestion to a specific call for the national government to prohibit theft of pet
dogs and cats for sale to medical and scientific research organizations. In short,
some demands simply call for action; others also specify the action desired.
In response to policy demands, public officials make decisions that give
content and direction to public policy. They may enact statutes, issue executive
orders or edicts, promulgate administrative rules, or make judicial interpretations of laws. Thus the decision by Congress to enact the Sherman Antitrust
Act in 1890 was a policy decision; another was the 1911 Supreme Court ruling
in Standard Oil of New Jersey vs. United States, that the act prohibited only
unreasonable restraints of trade rather than all restraints of trade. Each was
of major importance in shaping what we might call antitrust policy. Such
decisions may be contrasted with the innumerable relatively routine decisions
that officials make in the day-to-day application of public policy. The Social
Security Administration employs many case analysts, for example, to assess
applications for disability benefits.
Policy statements in turn usually are formal expressions or articulations
of public policy. Among these are legislative statutes, executive orders and
decrees, administrative rules and regulations, and court opinions, as well as
statements and speeches by public officials indicating the government’s intentions and goals and what will be done to realize them. Policy statements are
sometimes notably ambiguous. Witness the conflicts that arise over the meaning of statutory provisions or judicial holdings, or the time and effort expended
analyzing and trying to divine the meaning of policy statements by national
political leaders such as the president of the United States or the chair of the
Federal Reserve Board. Different levels, branches, or units of government may
also issue conflicting policy statements, as on such matters as environmental
pollution or liability for consumer products.
In recent years, many government leaders have embraced the use of social
media as a central tool in communicating with the media, constituents, and
other parties. This use of social media can often blur the line between a policy
and a policy statement, especially when the leader in question has a great deal
of power or influence. In many cases, these policy statements expressed via
social media may have little to no practical impact on published regulations
or enacted laws, but may instead reveal a systemic philosophy that impacts
decisions, budget spending, and symbolic rhetoric.
Fourth, policy involves what governments actually do, not merely what
they intend to do or what officials say they are going to do. If a legislature
­
­
­
What Is Public Policy?
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
10
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
­
enacts a law requiring employers to pay no less than a stated minimum wage,
but nothing is done to enforce the law, and subsequently little change occurs in
economic behavior, it seems reasonable to contend that public policy actually
takes the form of nonregulation of wages.
Relevant here is the concept of policy outputs, or the actions actually taken
in pursuit of policy decisions and statements. This concept focuses our attention on such matters as amounts of taxes collected, miles of highway built,
welfare benefits paid, restraints of trade eliminated, traffic fines collected, and
foreign-aid projects undertaken. These can usually be enumerated with little
difficulty. Examining policy outputs, we may find that a policy differs somewhat or even greatly from what policy statements indicate it should be.
Policy outputs should be distinguished from policy outcomes, which
focus on a policy’s societal consequences. For example, do longer prison terms
reduce crime rates? Do air pollution control programs improve public health?
Outputs can be counted; outcomes are often difficult or impossible to measure.
Fifth, a public policy may be either positive or negative. Some form of overt
governmental action may deal with a problem on which action is demanded
(positive), or governmental officials may decide to do nothing on some matter on which government involvement was sought (negative). In other words,
governments can follow a policy of laissez-faire, or hands off, either generally
or on some aspects of economic activity. Such inaction may have major consequences for a society or some groups, as in the late 1970s, when the national
government decided to cease regulating commercial airline rates and routes.
Inaction becomes a public policy when officials decline to act on a
problem—that is, when they decide an issue negatively. This choice differs
from nonaction on a matter that has not become a public issue, has not
been brought to official attention, and has not been considered or debated.
A slightly ludicrous example is the lack of governmental action on the removal
of earthworms from soil—the activity has no seasons and no bag limits. Is this
a public policy? The answer is no, because it is not an issue and no decisions
have been made.
Finally, public policy, at least in its positive form, is based on law and is
authoritative. Members of a society usually accept as legitimate the facts that
taxes must be paid, littering regulations must be obeyed, and highway speed
limits must be complied with, unless one wants to run the risk of fines, jail sentences, or other legally imposed sanctions or disabilities. Thus, public policy
has an authoritative, legally coercive quality that the policies of private organizations do not have. Indeed, a major characteristic distinguishing government
from private organizations is its monopoly over the legitimate use of coercion.
Governments can legally incarcerate people; private organizations cannot.
Some public policies may be widely violated even though they are authoritative, such as many highway speed limits. Enforcement of speed limits is
often limited, piecemeal, or sporadic. Does this still represent public policy?
The answer is yes, because these limits are still on the statute books and
enforcement is provided for—if you are pulled over for violating them, lack of
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
What Is Public Policy?
11
enforcement elsewhere is no defense in traffic court. Of course, whether such
speed limits are effective or wise policy is another matter. Authoritativeness is
a necessary but not a sufficient condition for effective public policy.8
Categories of Public Policies
Governments at all levels in the United States—national, state, and local—have
been increasingly active in producing public policies. Every year, a large volume of laws and ordinances flows from the nation’s national, state, and local
legislative bodies. That volume of laws in turn is greatly exceeded by the quantity of rules and regulations produced by administrative agencies acting on
the basis of legislative authorizations. This proliferation of public policies has
occurred in such traditional areas of governmental action as foreign policy,
transportation, education, welfare, law enforcement, economic regulation,
and international trade. Table 1.2 illustrates the variety of laws passed.
During the 116th Congress (2019–2020), 3449 public laws were enacted.
A great many involved naming public buildings and technical or limited
changes in existing laws. Despite substantial partisan conflict, Congress was
able to adopt several important statutes. Collectively, they dealt with a broad
range of topics. All of them incorporate biases or preferences that benefit some
Table 1.2
A Selection of Major Congressional Legislation, 116 th Congress
Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act
Families First Coronavirus Response Act
United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement Implementation Act
Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act
Hong Kong Human Rights & Democracy Act
Competitive Health Insurance Reform Act
Criminal Antitrust Anti-Retaliation Act
Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act
Secure 5G And Beyond Act
Presidential Transition Enhancement Act
Fairness for Breastfeeding Mothers Act
Taxpayer First Act
National Flood Insurance Extension Act
Bipartisan Budget Act
Defending the Integrity of Voting Systems Act
Great American Outdoors Act
Source: United States Statutes at Large 2021
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
12
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
groups and disadvantage or disappoint other groups. Only rarely does a public
policy make everyone better off.
Given the large number and complexity of public policies in the United
States, the task of trying to make sense of them is enormous. Indeed, the entire
printed edition of the Code of Federal Regulations (updated yearly) spans
around 200 volumes.10 This section will summarize a number of general typologies that political scientists and others have developed for categorizing public policies. These typologies will prove much more useful in distinguishing
among and generalizing about policies than some of the more traditional and
widely used categorization schemes, such as by issue area (labor, welfare, civil
rights, and foreign affairs), institution (legislative policies, judicial policies,
and departmental policies), and time (New Deal era, post–World War II, and
late nineteenth century). Although these categories are convenient for designating various sets of policies and organizing discussions about them, they are
not helpful in developing generalizations because they do not reflect the basic
characteristics and content of policies. The discussion of typologies will also
provide the reader with a notion of the scope, diversity, and different purposes
of public policies.
Constituent, Distributive, Regulatory,
Self-Regulatory, and Redistributive Policies
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
This typology differentiates policies on the basis of their effects on society
and the relationship among those involved in their formation.11 We begin with
constituent policies. (Constituent is used here in the sense that it involves the
composition or makeup of government.) As Lowi states: “Constituent policies
are policies formally and explicitly concerned with the establishment of
government structure, with the establishment of rules [or procedures] for the
conduct of government, of rules that distribute or divide power and jurisdictions within which present and future government policies might be made.”12
This is sometimes referred to as state-building.
A structural example of constituent policy is the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.
Created in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the new department
pulled together functions from twenty-two units in other executive
departments. These included the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(Justice), Customs Service (Treasury), Coast Guard (Transportation), and Secret
Service (Treasury), among others. No intelligence agencies (e.g., the Central
Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency) were included. By having these units lodged in the same vast and sprawling department (170,000
employees), it was believed that they would be able to act in a more unified
and effective manner to protect the nation’s internal security against terrorist
attacks. Melding them into a coherent and effective operating department has
proven to be a difficult task, as the Department was subjected to a great deal of
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
13
public scrutiny and criticism when it emerged as a central actor in the Trump
administration’s immigration policy changes. Tensions between political leadership and the department’s constituent goals often put it into contention, as
the political debates about immigration bled into fights about guidelines for
immigration enforcement and potential funding for a wall, which led to the
longest federal government shutdown in 2018–19.
A procedural example of constituent policy is the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946. This important statute, a response to the
growth of administrative agency discretion in the early twentieth century, prescribes procedures to be used by agencies in notice and comment or informal
rulemaking. For example, the APA requires notice of the proposed rulemaking
opportunity for interested persons to participate in the proceeding through
oral or written submissions, publication of a proposed rule at least thirty days
before it becomes effective, and opportunity for interested persons to petition
for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. The act’s requirements for adjudication are much more detailed, but in both instances it is intended to ensure
openness and fairness in agency decision making. More recently, the APA was
cited by the Supreme Court in decisions limiting the Trump administration’s
actions on the U.S. Census and immigration policy, demonstrating the real
barrier it can pose to executive policy making.
Constituent policies also include such matters as personnel practices and
budgetary actions. Because they are concerned with government organization,
procedures, and processes, constituent policies can have important substantive
consequences. That is, how something is done or who has responsibility for
acting may help determine what is actually done. There is widespread recognition across the political spectrum that “personnel is policy,” and presidents
often face important symbolic and substantive choices when choosing individuals for Cabinet positions, as well as the numerous lower-level appointees that
help run the federal government. Frequently, efforts are made to use procedural
issues to delay or prevent adoption of substantive decisions and policies. An
agency’s action may be challenged on the grounds that improper procedures
were followed, as under APA, when it is really the substance of the action that
is being resisted. Some Washington lawyers have become highly skilled in
manipulating procedural rules to delay or negate agency action. If an agency
becomes entangled with procedural requirements, it may lose the capacity for
timely and effective action.
Distributive policies involve the allocation of benefits or services, at no
charge, to particular segments of the population—individuals, groups, companies, or communities. These include subsidies, grants, loans, technical
assistance, information (as on the weather), contracts, and river and harbor
improvement actions. The federal departments of Agriculture, Commerce,
Energy, and Transportation administer a wide range of distributive policies.
Distributive policies may variously serve to enhance prices or incomes, reduce
the cost or risk of actions, encourage research or economic development, stimulate economic activity, and provide recreational opportunities, tourism, and
­
­
­
Constituent, Distributive, Regulatory, Self-Regulatory, and Redistributive Policies
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
14
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
more. Perhaps needless to state, the expenditure of public funds is usually
involved, although not in the case of protective tariffs or import limitations.
Typically, distributive policies do not impose costs upon any specific group.
Rather, the costs are paid by the public treasury, which means taxpayers generally. In some cases, the government even will finance measures through looser
monetary policy such as issuing debt and new currency to make investments—the
political response to the COVID-19 crisis involved significant spending to avoid
widespread economic losses. Thus, distributive policies appear to create only winners and no specific losers, although obviously the impacts of this monetary shift
may be felt by future generations (this will be explored further in a later chapter).
Although many distributive policies are of low political visibility, there
are exceptions. One example is the successful automobile industry bailout in
2009. To help stave off their collapse and the loss of hundreds of thousands
of jobs, the government ultimately loaned General Motors and Chrysler (Ford
was in better shape), their finance companies, and many of their suppliers $82
billion. Many Republicans and Conservatives were opposed to these efforts,
but the companies ultimately survived and emerged from bankruptcy, making
the government money in the process. Similar interventions were seen in 2020
to alleviate the impact of widespread shutdowns, with smaller businesses and
those in the travel sector getting specific attention.
A discussion of distributive policies and the tensions between administrative and legislative budget control would not be complete without attention to
the history of so-called pork barrel projects (earmarks). The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) defined pork, or an earmark, as “funds provided
by Congress for projects or programs where congressional direction (in bill
or report language) circumvents Executive Branch merit-based or competitive
allocation processes, or specifies the location or recipient, or otherwise curtails the ability of the Executive Branch to manage critical aspects of the funds
allocation process.” So defined, OMB identified nearly 9,200 earmarks in 2010
appropriations bills worth $11 billion.13 Most states and congressional districts
shared in the bacon. Funds were directed to highway projects, research activities, public buildings, tourist attractions, and more. However, these projects
were often attacked as wasteful, with one example including the “Bridge to
Nowhere” or the Gravina Island Bridge in Alaska. After extreme negative attention to these examples and the Republican takeover of the House in the 2010
midterm elections, the use of earmarks was discontinued, though this was
achieved through internal party caucus rules. Elected officials in both parties
have debated this move since, with supporters of earmark bans claiming that
this is needed to reduce corruption and increase transparency, while those
who would bring back the earmark resent the transfer of authority over determining local funding priorities to the executive branch.14
Scattered around the country, these projects have little connection with
one another, which supports Lowi’s contention that distributive policies
“are virtually not policies at all but are highly individualized decisions that
only by accumulation can be called a policy.”15 Each locality and its supporters
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
usually seek designated money for their own project without challenging the
right of others to do the same. Most projects thus have some friends and no
enemies in Congress, and presidents usually choose to leave them alone.
Regulatory policies impose restrictions or limitations on the behavior of
individuals and groups. That is, they reduce the freedom or discretion to act of
those regulated, whether bankers, utility companies, meat-packers, or saloonkeepers. In this sense they clearly differ from distributive policies, which
increase the freedom or discretion of the persons or groups affected.
When we think of regulatory policies, we usually focus on business regulatory policies, such as those pertaining to control of pollution or regulation of
transportation industries. Among others, these sorts of policies were the focus
of the movement for deregulation. The most extensive variety of regulatory
policies, however, is that which deals with criminal behavior against persons
and property. What are called social regulatory policies deal with such topics
as affirmative action, school prayer, gun control, pornography, and abortion,
and involve the regulation of personal behavior.16
Over decades, narratives about various issues or constituent groups can
impact how the media, voters, and public officials respond to perceived
problems. Whether poverty is an individual tragedy that reflects some form
of moral failing or whether it is a collective problem that is instead caused
by collective societal limitations can give rise to drastically different public
policies to address this issue. Although many individuals will surely have more
nuanced perspectives on this issue that can be informed by either narrative,
these underlying narratives have a strong causal impact on the types of policies
that are enacted. These narratives capture how we understand the root causes,
and the resulting solution choices are framed by these narratives.
One such example of this is drug policy. For decades, many voters and
the public officials that represent them framed drug abuse and addiction as primarily a personal moral failing, and as a result much of the policy response to this was increased funding for enforcement of criminal laws
against possession and trafficking. However, this narrative has shifted in more
recent decades, with public dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the War on
Drugs and the disparities in which communities were targeted by law enforcement. This has led to a greater allowance of personal choice with some substances, such as cannabis, resulting in some states legalizing the recreational
use of cannabis, beginning in 2012. For other substances, such as opioids, the
narrative has instead focused on the role of drug companies as well as the
failure of regulators at the Food and Drug Administration, with many politicians approaching those with opioid addiction with a more sympathetic lens
than previous drug epidemics in the twentieth century.
The formation of regulatory policy usually features conflict between two
groups or coalitions of groups, with one side seeking to impose some sort of
control on the other side, which customarily resists, arguing either that control is unnecessary or that the wrong kind of control is being proposed. Amid
this opposition, regulatory decisions involve clear winners and losers, although
­
15
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
Constituent, Distributive, Regulatory, Self-Regulatory, and Redistributive Policies
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
16
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
the winners usually get less than they initially sought. (When the winners are
public-interest groups, they may not gain direct material benefits from policies, like the Clean Air Act, that provide broad social benefits.) It is often difficult, however, to identify all the purposes and consequences of regulatory
policies. Regulatory policies take several forms.
Some regulatory policies set forth general rules of behavior, directing that
actions be taken or commanding that others not be taken. These prohibitions
are enforced by actions brought in the federal courts against violators. In contrast, public-utility regulation by state governments involved detailed control
of entry into the business; standards of service; financial practices; and rates
charged by electric, telephone, and other utility companies. Comparatively,
antitrust regulation entails much less restriction of business discretion than
does public-utility regulation.
Consumer-protection policies illustrate other variations in regulatory policies. Some statutes, such as the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 and the Drug
Amendments of 1962, set standards for quality that drug manufacturers must
comply with. Thus, before new drugs can be put on the market, they must be
shown to meet the standards for safety in use and efficacy for the purposes
intended. Other consumer legislation, such as the Consumer Credit Protection Act, requires creditors to provide borrowers with accurate information on
interest and other financing costs for credit purchases. The first sort of policy
is intended to prevent products that do not meet designated standards from
entering the marketplace; the second type is meant to provide consumers with
enough information to make informed decisions. However, private actors often
find loopholes in these regulations—see the prevalence of so-called health supplements as an example of holes in the regulatory framework of the FDA.
Some regulatory policies, such as those that restrict entry into a business,
such as television broadcasting or electric power distribution, are implemented by decisions that confer benefits on some and deny them to others. Of
the several applicants for a television broadcast license for a city that may be
before the Federal Communications Commission, only one can be awarded.
These can be called competitive regulatory policies because they limit the
number of providers of specific goods and services. They also may regulate the
quality of services that can be provided to consumers.17
Self-regulatory policies are similar to competitive regulatory policies in
that they involve restricting or controlling some matter or group. Unlike competitive regulatory policies, however, self-regulatory policies are usually more
controlled by the regulated group as a means of protecting or promoting the
interests of its members. Several hundred professions and occupations, ranging from tree surgeons and auctioneers to lawyers and physicians, are licensed
in one or more states; about sixty are licensed in a majority of states. Commonly licensed health professionals include chiropractors, dentists, dental
hygienists, emergency medical technicians, optometrists, pharmacists, physicians, podiatrists, practical and registered nurses, psychologists, sanitarians,
and social workers.18
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
17
­
The usual policy-making pattern here is for a professional or occupational
group acting on its own to seek licensing legislation from the state legislature. Outside the ranks of the interested group, interest in the matter usually
is slight. The result is enactment of a licensing law, whose implementation is
delegated to a board dominated by members from the licensed group. In time,
entry into the licensed occupation or profession may be restricted, and the
prices charged for its specialized services may increase. These barriers can
often act as barriers to entry for new entrants and help existing market participants maintain their share. It is unclear to what extent licensing improves the
quality of services available to the public.19
Redistributive policies involve deliberate efforts by the government to
shift the allocation of wealth, income, property, or rights among broad classes
or groups of the population, such as haves and have-nots, proletariat and
bourgeoisie. “The aim involved is not use of property but property itself, not
equal treatment but equal possession, not behavior but being.”20 In American
society, redistributive policies ultimately involve disagreements between liberals (pro) and conservatives (con) and tend to be highly productive of conflict.
The usual pattern in redistributive policy shifts resources from haves to
have-nots. It is possible, however, for the flow to reverse. Farm subsidy payments under the agricultural income-support programs go mostly to large
commercial farmers; small-scale farmers derive few benefits, yet everyone who
pays taxes contributes to financing of these programs. Typically, however, such
instances are not debated as redistributive,21 perhaps because of reluctance to
acknowledge that sometimes the haves benefit at the expense of the have-nots.
Often, the political cost of stricter regulations on a given industry with some
amount of economic or political power requires elected leaders to give a corresponding subsidy or benefit. When Congress increased requirements on health
insurers as part of the Affordable Care Act, they also created a mandate for
individuals to buy health insurance, as well as subsidies for individuals to purchase insurance on the regulated market.
Redistributive policies are difficult to enact precisely because they involve
the reallocation of money, rights, or power. Those who possess money or
power rarely yield them willingly, regardless of how strenuously some may
discourse upon the “burdens” and heavy responsibility attending their possession. Because money and power are good coinage in the political realm, those
who possess them have ample means to resist their diminution.
Policies that have (or have had) some redistributive influence include the
graduated income tax, Medicare and Medicaid, the War on Poverty, the Voting
Rights Act, and legislative reapportionment. The Johnson administration’s War
on Poverty represented an effort to shift wealth and other resources to people
of color and economically exploited people. Encountering much resistance
from conservatives and lacking strong presidential support, it was gradually
dispersed and dismantled, but not without effect. The Voting Rights Act, which
on the whole had been enforced with considerable strength by the Justice
Department, helped to produce a substantial increase in the registration of
­
­
­
Constituent, Distributive, Regulatory, Self-Regulatory, and Redistributive Policies
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
18
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
Black voters, voting, and state and local officeholding in the South. However,
after the Supreme Court’s decision to limit major parts of the Voting Rights
Act in Holder v. Shelby County (2013), states that had previously been subject to enhanced scrutiny passed restrictions that led to backsliding on voting
access.22
The graduated income tax, which is based on the principle of ability to pay
(those who have more income can fairly be expected to pay at progressively
higher rates), has now lost some of its redistributive potential. The top marginal rate once was as high as 91 percent. In the early 1980s, the rates ranged
from 14 to 50 percent over a dozen income brackets, which still held out the
possibility of considerable redistribution. The Tax Reform Act of 1986, enacted
by Congress with strong support from President Reagan, who believed that
high marginal tax rates both infringed on individual liberty and discouraged
economic growth, provided for only two tax brackets at 15 and 28 percent. 23
Since then, different administrations have shifted tax rates back and forth
depending on the dominant narrative at the moment, with a tax rate as high
as 39.6 percent being instituted during the 1990s and more recently in 2012,
before being cut temporarily again to 37 percent by Congress and President
Trump in 2017. Tax rates are likely to remain a political football in the coming years, despite evidence that reducing tax rates does not sustainably impact
economic growth.24
Redistributive policies are not only difficult to obtain, they are also hard
to sustain, as the discussion of the income tax indicates. Equality of result or
condition (i.e., equality in income or standard of living) is not overly appealing
to many Americans, whatever they think about equality of opportunity.
Material and Symbolic Policies
­
Public policies may also be described as either material or symbolic, depending upon the kind of benefits they allocate.25 Material policies provide tangible resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries, or they impose
real disadvantages on those who are adversely affected. Legislation requiring
employers to pay a prescribed minimum wage, appropriating money for a
public-housing program, or providing income-support payments to farmers is
material in content and effect.
Symbolic policies, in contrast, have little real material impact on people. They do not deliver what they appear to deliver; they allocate no tangible advantages and disadvantages. Rather, they appeal to people’s cherished
values, such as peace, patriotism, and social justice. A historic example of a
symbolic policy is the Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928, by which the United States
and fourteen other countries agreed to outlaw war. Comment on its impact
seems unnecessary. Likewise, burning of the U.S. flag as a symbolic form of
political protest has agitated members of Congress for many years, nearly leading to passage of a Constitutional amendment to ban this form of expression.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Policies Involving Public Goods or Private Goods
19
Occasionally, a policy that appears to be mostly symbolic may turn out to
have important consequences. The Endangered Species Act of 1973, which is
intended to help ensure the survival of rare animals and plants, initially appeared
to be a statement of good intentions with few costs. Little opposition attended its
enactment. As implemented, however, the act has had important effects, sometimes being used to block construction projects, timber cutting, and other activities that would threaten or destroy the habitats of endangered species, such as
spotted owls, California gnatcatchers, and the red-cockaded woodpecker.26
Likewise, the Paris Climate Accords, first signed in 2015, are nearly entirely
symbolic in function, though they are widely seen as signifying a greater commitment to environmental protection and measures to reduce the impact of
human-driven carbon emissions. In the United States, these Accords took on
an added symbolic nature, with the Trump administration announcing in mid2017 that it would withdraw from the Accords in order to supposedly protect
American economic interests, while critics of this decision both domestically
and internationally interpreted this as evidence that the administration was
not committed to addressing climate change. Meanwhile, the practical limitations on withdrawal from the Accords meant that the United States left for
a period of 77 days before the incoming Biden administration rejoined the
Accords upon taking power in 2021.
Policies that are ostensibly material as labeled by legislative language may
be rendered essentially symbolic by administrative action or by the legislature’s failure to provide adequate funds for their implementation. The goals
of the Housing Act of 1949 and later laws were made substantially symbolic
by the subsequent failure of Congress to provide the authorized level of funding for public-housing construction.27 On the other hand, policies may move
from the more symbolic to the more material category. Oppenheimer argues
that policy for controlling oil pollution was largely symbolic during the years
1947 to 1966.28 Legislation was on the books, but little was done to enforce
it. Since 1966, as the environmental movement gained strength and public
concern about pollution intensified, enforcement became much stronger, and
additional legislation, such as the Oil Pollution Act, was passed. Oil spills now
draw strong responses—the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill immediately
attracted intense public attention and responses from elected leaders.
The material–symbolic typology is especially useful to keep in mind when
analyzing effects of policy because it directs attention beyond formal policy
statements. It also alerts us to the important role of symbols in political behavior.
Policies Involving Public Goods or Private Goods
Public policies may also involve the provision of either public or collective
(indivisible) goods or private (divisible) goods. 29 The nature of collective
goods is such that if they are provided for one person, they must be provided
for all. Moreover, one person’s consumption of a public good does not deny it
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
to others. A standard example is national defense: There is no effective way to
provide it for some citizens and exclude others from its benefit, enjoyment, or
other consequences, nor to calculate that some citizens benefit more from it
than others. Thus, an economically rational person would never voluntarily
pay for national defense, clean air, or mosquito control, choosing rather to be
a free rider and let others stand the costs. Hence, defense must be provided,
if we want it, by government and financed by taxation. Other examples of
collective goods are public safety, traffic control, and scenic beauties.
Private goods, in contrast, may be broken into units and purchased
or charged by the individual user or beneficiary, and are available in the
marketplace. Others may be excluded from their use. Various social goods
provided by government (garbage collection, postal service, medical care,
museums, public housing, and national parks) have some characteristics
of private goods. Charges and fees are sometimes, but not always, levied
on users.
Some argue that only collective goods should be the subject of public policy.
The tendency, however, has been more and more to convert private goods into
social goods by government action. Many consider ill health, unemployment,
environmental pollution, industrial accidents and disease, and misrepresentation in the marketplace to be collective, rather than individual, problems—
matters affecting the entire population, hence involving public goods for which
the entire society should pay. Generally, the more something is thought to have
the qualities of a public good, the more likely people are to accept its provision
by government. If it seems clear that some benefit more directly than others,
there may also be a desire to levy charges, fees, or taxes on the direct beneficiaries to cover part of the cost. Thus, we encounter user fees at national parks,
tuition at public colleges, rent in public-housing projects, and tolls for some
bridges and highways.
The privatization movement, encouraged in the 1980s by the Reagan
administration, represented a counterforce to the long-run tendency to expand
the scope of social goods. Based on free-market economic theory, privatization supports transferring many government assets or programs to the private sector and contracting with private companies to handle many public
services, whether the collection of garbage or the operation of prisons. “The
private sector, it is argued, will perform these functions more efficiently and
economically than the public sector.”30 However, in more recent years the
privatization of prisons on the state and federal levels has led to suggestions
that contractors often derive perverse incentives for making sure that criminal
justice policies are harsher than they should be. In 2011, a Pennsylvania
judge was jailed amidst allegations that he accepted kickbacks from a juvenile detention contractor for sending youth to confinement— likewise,
private prison companies such as CoreCivic have played a significant part
of controversial Trump administration decisions to enhance immigration
enforcement. The Biden administration has since announced plans to end use
of private prisons.
­
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
20
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Political Systems Theory
21
Approaches to Policy Study
Political and social scientists have developed many models, theories,
approaches, concepts, and schemes for analyzing policy making and its
related component, decision making. Indeed, political scientists have often
displayed more facility and zeal for theorizing about public policy making
than for actually studying policy and the policymaking process. Nonetheless, theories and concepts are needed to guide the study of public policy,
to facilitate communication, and to suggest possible explanations for policy
actions. Those who aspire to systematically study the policy making process
need some guidelines and criteria of relevance to focus their effort and to
prevent aimless meandering through the fields of political data. What we
find when we engage in research depends partly upon what we are looking
for; policy concepts, models, and theories give direction and structure to
our inquiry.
The theoretical approaches discussed here include political systems
theory, group theory, elite theory, institutionalism, and rational-choice theory.
Although most of these approaches were not developed specifically for analyzing policy formation, they can readily be bent to that purpose. In addition, all
of them can be fitted into the policy-process framework. They are useful to the
extent that they direct our attention to important political phenomena, help
clarify and organize our thinking, and suggest explanations for political activity or, in our case, public policies. Limitations and criticisms are mentioned as
the discussion proceeds.
Public policy may be viewed as a political system’s response to demands arising from its environment. The political system, as Easton defines it, comprises those identifiable and interrelated institutions and activities (what we
usually think of as governmental institutions and political processes) in a society that make authoritative allocations of values (decisions) that are binding
on society. The environment consists of all phenomena—the social system, the
economic system, and the biological setting—that are external to the boundaries of the political system. Thus, at least analytically one can separate the
political system from all the other components of a society.31
Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of demands
and supports. Demands are the claims for action that individuals and
groups make to satisfy their interests and values. Support is rendered when
groups and individuals abide by election results, pay taxes, obey laws, and
otherwise accept the decisions and actions undertaken by the political system
in response to demands. The amount of support for a political system indicates the extent to which it is regarded as legitimate, or as authoritative and
binding on its citizens.
­
­
­
­
­
Political Systems Theory
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
22
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
Figure 1.1
A Model of the Political System
The Environment
Inputs
Outputs
Demands
Laws
Political
System
Support
Decisions
Feedback
Outputs of the political system include laws, rules, judicial decisions,
and the like. Regarded as the authoritative allocations of values, they
constitute public policy. The concept of feedback indicates that public policies (or outputs) made at a given time may subsequently alter the environment
and the demands arising therefrom, as well as the character of the political
system itself. Policy outputs may produce new demands, which lead to further
outputs, and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy (see Figure 1.1).
The usefulness of systems theory in studying public policy is limited by its
highly general and abstract nature. It does not, moreover, say much about the
procedures and processes by which decisions are made and policy is developed within the black box called the political system. Indeed, systems theory
depicts government as simply responding to demands made upon it, and its
results are sometimes characterized as input-output studies. (For an illustration, see the discussion in Chapter 2 in the section Socioeconomic Conditions.) Even if this theoretical model does not consider the role of government
to shape the demands put upon it, this approach can be helpful in organizing
inquiry into policy formation. It also alerts us to some important facets of the
political process, such as these: How do inputs from the environment affect
the content of public policy and the operation of the political system? How in
turn does public policy affect the environment and subsequent demands for
policy action? How well is the political system able to convert demands into
public policy and preserve itself over time?
Group Theory
­
­
­
­
Group theory rests on the contention that interaction and struggle among
groups are the central facts of political life. A group is 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
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Group Theory
23
a claim through or upon any of the institutions of government.”32 And many
groups do just that. The individual is significant in politics only as a participant in or a representative of groups. It is through groups that individuals seek
to secure their political preferences.
A central concept in group theory is that of access. To have influence and
to be able to help shape governmental decisions, a group must have access
or the opportunity to contact and express its viewpoints to decision-makers.33
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 result from the group’s being organized, from its having status,
good leadership, or resources such as money for campaign contributions.
Social lobbying—the 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 to the groups involved. Then, when a group wishes
to discuss policy matters with an official, it will have an opportunity to present
its case or have its telephone calls returned. Contributions to legislators by
political action committees are also often justified as a way of acquiring or
maintaining access.
In the nature of things, some groups will have more access than others. Public
policy at any given time will reflect the interests of those who are dominant. As
groups gain and lose power and influence, public policy will be altered in favor
of the interests of those gaining influence against the interests of those losing it.
The role of government (official groups) in policy formation is described
by one proponent of group theory:
The legislature referees the group struggle, ratifies the victories of the successful coalitions, and records the terms of the surrenders, compromises,
and conquests in the form of statutes. Every statute tends to represent compromises because the process of accommodating conflicts of group interests
is one of deliberation and consent. The legislative vote on any issue tends to
represent the composition of strength, i.e., the balance of power, among the
contending groups at the moment of voting. . . . Administrative agencies of
the regulatory kind are established to carry out the terms of the treaties that
the legislators have negotiated and ratified. . . . The judiciary, like the civilian bureaucracy, is one of the instrumentalities for the administration of the
agreed rules.34
­
Group theory focuses on one of the major dynamic elements in policy formation, especially in pluralist societies such as the United States, but it seems
both to overstate the importance and power of groups and to understate
the independent and creative role that public officials can play in the policy
process. Indeed, many groups have been generated by public policies. The
American Farm Bureau Federation, which developed around the agricultural
extension program, is a notable example, as is the National Head Start Association. Public officials also may acquire a stake in particular programs and act
as an interest group supporting their continuance.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
24
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
Another shortcoming of group theory is that in actuality many people (e.g.,
people whose incomes are below the federal poverty level) and interests (such
diffuse interests as natural beauty and social justice) are either not represented
or only poorly represented in the group struggle. As Schattschneider remarks
about the under-organization of the economically marginalized, “The flaw in
the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus sings with a strong upper-class
accent.”35 Those who are not represented will have little voice in policy making, and thus their interests are likely to be slighted therein.
Finally, from a methodological perspective, it seems misleading and inefficient to try to explain politics and policy making solely in terms of interests
and the group struggle. This bias leads to neglect of many other factors, such
as ideas and institutions, that abound and that independently affect the development of policy. The reductionism or unicausal explanation that results when
all political phenomena are crammed into the group concept should therefore
be avoided.36
Elite Theory
Approached from the perspective of elite theory, public policy can be
regarded as reflecting the values and preferences of a governing elite. The
essential argument of elite theory is that public policy is not determined by the
demands and actions of the people or the “masses” but rather by a ruling elite
whose preferences are carried into effect by public officials and agencies.
Dye and Zeigler provide a summary of elite theory:
1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do not.
(Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do
not decide public policy.)
2. The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed.
Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata
of society.
3. The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous
to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have
accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles.
4. Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and
the preservation of the system. (In the United States, the elite consensus
includes private enterprise, private property, limited government, and
individual liberty.)
­
5. Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather the
prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental
rather than revolutionary. (Incremental changes permit responses to
events that threaten a social system with a minimum of alteration or
dislocation of the system.)
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Elite Theory
25
6. Elites may act out of narrow self-serving motives and risk undermining
mass support, or they may initiate reforms, curb abuse, and undertake
public-regarding programs to preserve the system and their place in it.
7. Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic
masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.37
­
­
­
­
So stated, elite theory is a challenging theory of policy formation. Policy is
the product of elites, reflecting their values and serving their ends, one of
which may be a desire to provide in some way for the welfare of the masses.
Dye argues that development of civil rights policies in the United States
during the 1960s can be suitably explained by elite theory. These policies
were “a response of a national elite to conditions affecting a small minority of
Americans rather than a response of national leaders to majority sentiments.”
Thus, for example, the “elimination of legal discrimination and the guarantee
of equality of opportunity in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was achieved largely
through the dramatic appeals of middle-class Black leaders to the conscience
of white elites.”38
This interpretation presents a narrow perspective on both who is affected
by or interested in civil rights policies and the explanation for adoption of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964. Certainly, leadership in Congress and the executive
branch was very important, but so too were civil rights protests and marches,
public opinion, and support from an array of non-Black organizations. The
civil rights movement of the 1960s was far more than an effort by Black leaders to appeal to the conscience of white elites.39
Elite theory focuses our attention on the role of leadership in policy formation and on the reality that in any political system, a few govern the many.
Whether elites rule and determine policy, with little influence from the masses,
is a difficult proposition to handle. It cannot be proved merely by assertions
that the “establishment runs things,” which has been a familiar plaint in recent
years. Dahl argues that to defend the proposition successfully, one must identify “a controlling group, less than a majority in size, that is not a pure artifact
of democratic rules . . . a minority of individuals whose preferences regularly
prevail in cases of differences of preferences on key political issues.”40 It may
be that elite theory has more utility for analysis and explanation of policy
formation in some political systems, such as developing or Eastern European
countries, than in others, such as the pluralist democracies of the United
States and Canada. Domhoff has long argued, however, that there is an American upper class, based on the ownership and control of large corporations,
which is in fact a governing class.41
There is a case to be made for his viewpoint. Since the early 1980s, the
income and wealth of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has soared. Billionaires
have become numerous; many choose to become politically active. On the
other hand, the income of most of the population has stagnated. Since the
U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2010 declared restrictions on campaign spending by corporations and others unconstitutional, campaign spending in the
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
26
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
United States has dramatically surged.42 Many corporations and wealthy individuals use so-called dark money flowed through campaign committees and
interest groups to obscure their contributions, while advances in fundraising
have led to a surge in small dollar donations to candidates. After the 2020 election left control of two Senate races in Georgia unresolved, over a half billion
dollars in campaign contributions flowed to the state in nearly two months in
a bid to influence which party would control the Senate.
Research from 2014 suggests43 that economic elites and the interest groups that represent them have a decided advantage in getting policies
through Congress. When compared against each other, the pluralist vision
described previously had nearly no impact on policy adoption, while models
of elite domination demonstrated a strong impact on adoption. Modern narratives about the 1 percent versus the 99 percent (especially prominent on social
media) speak to this perceived disparity.
Institutionalism
­
­
The study of government institutions (or organizations) is one of the oldest
concerns of political science. This is not surprising, since political life generally
revolves around governmental institutions such as legislatures, executives,
courts, and political parties; public policy, moreover, is authoritatively determined and implemented by these institutions.
Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrated on describing the
more formal and legal aspects of governmental institutions: their formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and official functions or activities. Formal
relationships with other institutions might also be considered, such as legislative–executive relations. Usually, little was done to explain how institutions
actually operated as opposed to how they were supposed to operate, to analyze
public policies produced by the institutions, or to discover the relationships
between institutional structure and public policies.
Subsequently, political scientists turned their attention in teaching and
research to the political processes within governmental or political institutions, concentrating on the behavior of participants in the process and on
political realities rather than formalism. In the study of the legislatures, interest shifted from simply describing the legislature as an institution to analyzing
and explaining its operation over time, from its static to its dynamic aspects.
In the academic curriculum, the course on the legislature often came to be
about the legislative process.
Institutionalism, with its emphasis on the formal or structural aspects
of institutions, can nonetheless be usefully employed in policy analysis. An
institution is, in part, a set of regularized patterns of human behavior that
persist over time and perform some significant social function or activity. To
describe institutions as “rules,” as some do, is to oversimplify. It is their differing patterns of behavior that really distinguish courts from legislatures,
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Rational-Choice Theory
27
from administrative agencies, and so on. These regularized patterns of
behavior, which we often call rules or structures, can affect decision making
and the content of public policy. Rules, structural arrangements, and other
institutional features are usually not neutral in their effects; rather, they
tend to favor some interests in society over others and some policy results
over others.
It is contended that some of the Senate rules (and traditions, which often
have the effect of rules), such as those relating to unlimited debate and action
by unanimous consent, favor the interests of legislative minorities over majorities. Many actions in the Senate, such as bringing bills up for consideration
and closing off debate on them, require super-majorities or even unanimous
consent. Thus, a small group of legislators from one ideological faction can
often prevent discussion or adoption of changes clearly preferred by a majority
of the body.
In the American federal system, which allocates governmental power
among the national and state governments, several arenas of action are created. Some groups may have more influence if policy is made at the national
level, whereas others may benefit more from state policy making.
In summary, institutional structures, arrangements, and procedures often
have important consequences for the adoption and content of public policies.
They provide part of the context for policy making, which must be considered along with the more dynamic aspects of politics, such as political parties,
groups, and public opinion, in policy study. By itself, however, institutional
theory can provide only partial explanations of policy. It has little to say about
what drives the policy process, the dynamic forces of politics.
The rational-choice theory, which is sometimes called social-choice,
public-choice, or formal theory, originated with economists and involves
applying the principles of microeconomic theory to the analysis and explanation of political behavior (or nonmarket decision making). It has many
adherents among political scientists.
One of the earliest uses of rational-choice theory to study the political process is Downs’s Economic Theory of Democracy.44 In this influential book, Downs
assumes that voters and political parties act as rational decision-makers who
seek to maximize attainment of their preferences. Parties formulated whatever
policies would win them the most votes, and voters sought to maximize the
portion of their preferences that could be realized through government action.
In attempting to win elections, political parties moved toward the center of the
ideological spectrum to appeal to the greatest number of voters and maximize
their voting support. Thus, rather than providing voters with “meaningful
alternatives,” parties will become as much alike as possible, thereby providing
an “echo rather than a choice.”
­
­
­
­
­
­
Rational-Choice Theory
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
28
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
Let us now look more closely at the major components of rational-choice
theory. One of its basic axioms is that political actors, like economic actors, act
rationally in pursuing their own self-interest. Thus, Buchanan, a leading proponent of rational-choice theory, contends that politicians are guided by their
self-interest rather than by an altruistic commitment to such goals as statesmanship or the national interest. “This should be no surprise,” says Buchanan,
“because governments are made up of individuals, and individuals operate
from self-interest when they are engaged in a system of exchange, whether
this is in the market economy or in politics.”45 Self-interest is also not always
clearly defined—while most scholars are referring to economic status, many
individuals might seek to prioritize other values. Individuals who are engaged
in decision-making exchanges or transactions, such as voting, also have preferences that vary from person to person. Being rational, it is argued, individuals can comprehend and rank their preferences from most to least desired.
In making decisions (whether economic or political), they are guided by these
preferences and will seek to maximize the benefits they gain. In short, people
are self-interested utility maximizers, not the uninformed, confused, or irrational choice-makers often depicted in analyses of political behavior.
A second basic axiom of rational-choice theory involves methodological
individualism. The individual decision-maker is the primary unit of analysis and theory. The individual’s preferences or values are assumed to be more
important than other values—collective, organizational, or social. Conversely,
rational-choice theorists argue that the actions of organizations and groups
can be satisfactorily explained in terms of the behavior of a model individual.
Nothing substantial will be lost by so doing in explaining the behavior of all
persons.
For example, a rational-choice explanation of why Congress delegates discretionary power to administrative agencies begins with the assumption that
the preference of members of Congress is to get reelected.46 To this end, legislators delegate power to agencies, knowing that in exercising that power the
agencies will create problems for their constituents. Legislators will then be
called on by their constituents to assist them with their bureaucratic problems, and in return for assistance, the grateful constituents will vote to reelect
the legislators. The pursuit of self-interest by the members of Congress thus
explains the delegation of power and the growth of bureaucracy.
Some rational-choice theorists have explored the effects of incomplete or imperfect information and uncertainty on policy making.47 Political
decision-makers are said to be possessed of differing amounts of information
(a condition called information asymmetry) and are uncertain about the
outcomes or consequences of laws and policies when they are implemented.
In Congress, legislative committee members, as policy specialists and the basic
developers of legislation, are best informed about the relationship between a
proposed policy and its likely consequences. In comparison, the rank-and-file
members of Congress, who make the final decisions on the enactment of legislation, have only limited knowledge of the policy–consequences relationships.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Informing Your Own Approach
29
Conceivably, this information asymmetry would permit committee members
to act strategically and secure the enactment of policies of benefit primarily to
themselves (and their constituents).
Various rules and practices in Congress, however, help ensure that legislators will have incentives both to specialize in analyzing public problems and
crafting policies and to make information generally available to the members
of Congress. The problem is to identify the institutional arrangements that
help reduce uncertainty. This “information-theories” variant of rational choice
continues to assume that legislators are utility maximizers with differing interests. Their utility, however, is determined by policy outcomes rather than by
policies per se. About outcomes, as we have seen, there is uncertainty.
Rational-choice theory both alerts us to the importance of self-interest as
a motivating force in politics and policy making and provides a better understanding of decision-making processes. Many contend, however, that politics
is not nearly as devoid of altruism and concern for the public interest as the
rational-choice theorists assume. The adoption of “good public policy,” for
example, is frequently a goal of members of Congress. 48 And public-interest
groups, such as the National Wildlife Federation, are motivated by more than
immediate self-interest.49
Informing Your Own Approach
Because individual political scientists often manifest strong preference for one
or another of these theoretical approaches (or others, such as incrementalism, which is presented as a decision-making theory in the chapter on “Policy
Adoption”), there is no consensus on which is the “best” or the most satisfactory. Each approach focuses attention on different aspects of policy making
and politics and thus seems more useful for understanding some situations or
events than others.
Group theory and elite theory are often contrasting explanations of how
the policy process operates and, most important, of who controls or dominates
and benefits from it. Or, succinctly: Who rules? Sharp intellectual disputes have
been waged between group (or pluralist) theorists and elite theorists about
who controls decision making on public policy in American communities.
Systems theory and institutionalism both focus on the process of policy
making, albeit in different ways, and are not incompatible. Institutionalism
can be used to help explain what goes on within the “black box” (the political
system), which is neglected by systems theory. Because neither theory directly
confronts the question of who rules, either group or elite theory could be combined with them to some degree.
Rational-choice theory, because of its narrow focus, must stand pretty
much by itself. Institutions appear as the individual writ large; little attention
is given to the policy environment, how issues are brought to the attention of
government, or how policy preferences are developed. Like institutionalism,
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
30
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
however, rational-choice theory does show much interest in how rules and
structures help determine the outcomes of decision making. Rational-choice
scholars often occupy themselves with demonstrating how the manipulation
of rules could produce preferred decisions.
On the question of who rules, rational-choice theory asserts that democratically elected officials will promote their own interest rather than the people’s.
This conviction frequently leads to the normative (and conservative) conclusion that less government is better government. Group theorists feel that the
interests of dominant groups (however determined) prevail, and for elite theorists, the few (a ruling class) govern in their own interest, perhaps with some
concern for the condition of the masses.
The various theories thus raise some controversial questions about politics
and the policy making process. They also tend to skew research findings. Not
surprisingly, pluralists find groups in control, elite theorists detect dominance
by an elite, and rational-choice theorists find that self-interest dominates.
These theories are therefore not merely neutral alternatives for guiding analysis. What one finds in policy research depends in an important part on what
one is looking for, just as those who go about town finding trouble are more
apt to find it than are more peaceful citizens.
The differing concerns of these theoretical approaches can be further clarified by briefly observing how their proponents might look at the recent struggle
to adopt financial regulatory legislation. Banks and other financial institutions
were firmly regulated from the Great Depression until the 1970s. Then, as
free-market ideology and the economic deregulation movement gained traction, regulation was weakened or eliminated. Also, a “shadow” financial system not subject to regulation evolved. This inadequately restrained financial
system led eventually to the near collapse of the financial system and the Great
Recession. Strong pressure developed for regulatory legislation to prevent
future financial crises, which led Congress to pass reform legislation in 2010 to
address this lack of oversight. The Dodd-Frank Act restricted future bailouts,
regulated risky financial vehicles, and created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was intended to increase oversight of banks and financial
institutions. While the most recent economic turbulence from the COVID-19
pandemic did not lead to collapses involving financial institutions, this reform
has not wholly addressed public confidence in the financial system, with
major data breaches in recent years leading to calls for further reform. More
recent developments, such as the increasing use of crypto-currencies, provide
a unique challenge for regulators to address.
A group theorist would view this titanic struggle to adopt financial regulation as a contest for advantage among various financial interests, regulatory
advocates, and consumer groups, as well as the political parties and the Obama
administration. Lobbying and other group tactics would be scrutinized. An
institutionalist, in comparison, would focus on the problems presented by congressional structure and procedure in securing the enactment of legislation.
These could include getting the bill to the House floor for debate, overcoming
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Methodological Difficulties in Studying Public Policy
31
filibusters in the Senate, resolving differences in House and Senate versions
of the bill, and avoiding a presidential veto. Much attention would be given to
how a bill becomes law.
A rational-choice proponent would see members of Congress calculating
how the content of reform legislation would affect the ability to raise campaign
money and to get reelected. Another of their concerns would be strategic
behavior, as when opponents propose amendments that, if adopted, would
make the bill unacceptable to some of its supporters (a poison pill), or when
reformers craft amendments to help gain or retain supporters. Self-interest
would be seen as informing legislative behavior.
An elite theorist would see the legislative struggle here as one of interest
primarily to top-level legislative and political leaders. Both proponents and
opponents of reform would contend that what they were trying to do was
best for the public. The elitist would hold that the mass public was neither
interested nor informed, especially on the details of legislation.
Finally, a systems theorist would likely rivet on how government action was
influenced by inputs (demands, pressures, and information) from its political,
social, and economic environment. Limited attention at best would be devoted
to the details of how a bill becomes law. In time, the systems theorist would
be attentive to how the government’s decisions on campaign-finance reform
affected its operation and future demands on it.
To conclude, the lesson here is that it is advisable to avoid becoming
too dogmatically or rigidly attached to a particular model or theory. As a
rule, eclecticism and flexibility should be preferred in selecting theories and
concepts for explanatory use. The policy analysts’ goal should be the objective
explanation of the political behavior under scrutiny, rather than the validation of a favored model or theoretical approach. Each of the theories here discussed can, if used skillfully and fairly, contribute to a fuller comprehension of
policy making.
Methodological problems afflict all research, although social scientists appear
both more self-conscious about their methodology and more intellectually
inclined to batter themselves for methodological infirmities than do natural
and physical scientists. Policy research, especially given the complexity of
its subject matter, has its full share of methodological problems. Such problems may impede or limit policy research and may make it more than a little frustrating at times, but they neither prevent it nor negate the need for it.
An awareness of some of these problems, however, may help prevent wasted
efforts, needless errors, unsound conclusions, and insomnia.
Solid, conclusive evidence, facts, or data, as one prefers, on the motives,
values, and behavior of policy makers, the nature and scope of public problems,
­
­
­
­
­
Methodological Difficulties in Studying Public
Policy
­
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
32
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
the impact of policies, and other facets of the policy process are often difficult
to acquire or simply not available. The urge to convert assumptions or speculations about what happened into facts is something to be resisted, along with
the uncritical acceptance of the often-self-serving statements or incomplete
explanations emanating from public officials and other participants in the
policy process.
Sometimes numerical measures of political phenomena such as policy
impacts are used without sufficient care in determining their validity. Is the
number of infant deaths (in their first year) per 1,000 live births a good indicator of the general level of health care in a society that has much income
inequality? Do salary levels and similar data really measure the professionalism of civil servants? The acquisition of hard facts about who did what, why,
and with what effect should be the goal of research. We need to be able to
say with some certainty why members of Congress respond to constituency
interests on some issues and not others or what role the media play in setting
agendas.
In explaining behavior in the policy process, one needs empirical data that
will permit the demonstration or sound inference of cause-and-effect relationships. Once a person gets involved in quantitative data–based analysis, it is
important to resist the notion that collecting empirical data is of prime importance and that the more data one has, the more one can explain. To account
for or explain behavior, theory is needed that will guide analysis in potentially
fruitful directions, as well as good judgment in the selection of policy measures. As much as possible, hypotheses about cause-and-effect relationships
need to be developed and tested on the basis of the best available evidence.
The notion that policy analysis is worthwhile only when it involves the
analysis of quantitative data with statistical techniques—the higher powered
the better—should also be resisted. There is no reason to assume that if something cannot be counted, it does not count. Some policy areas and problems
have not been very amenable to rigorous quantitative measurement and analysis, although this may not always continue to be the case. Many aspects of
social welfare and economic regulatory policies currently fit into this category.
How does one measure the comparative influence of pressure groups, agency
values, and economic analysis on rulemaking by the EPA or OSHA? The prosecution of insider traders by the Securities and Exchange Commission? The
total benefits of a public-housing program? And how does one appraise the
power of ideas, as distinct from interests, in developing programs for the disabled? Such questions present real puzzles.
Yet it should be stressed that explicit theory, quantitative data, and careful, rigorous analysis have not been as frequently utilized in studying policy as
would be possible or desirable. Thus, Bernstein’s hoary contention that regulatory agencies pass through a four-stage life cycle (gestation and birth, youth,
maturity, and old age), frequently culminating in their “capture” (which is not
well specified) by the regulated groups, is often cited as though it were a clearly
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Methodological Difficulties in Studying Public Policy
33
supported phenomenon.50 The concept of regulatory capture was often cited
in the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill off the coast of Florida, where the
federal Minerals Management Service was criticized for being too close to
industry and was subsequently reformed after the crisis. Bernstein provides
impressionistic support but by no means strong proof for his life cycle theory.
It still lacks systematic empirical support. Conventional wisdom of this sort
frequently rests on a rather frail intellectual foundation.
To be rigorous, analysis does not have to be quantitative, and not all quantitative analysis is rigorous. Those who use quantitative techniques have been
known to quarrel with enthusiasm and even some rancor over the reliability or
appropriateness of their techniques, the quality of their data, and the validity
of their findings. (In Chapter 2 there is a discussion on whether socioeconomic
or political variables better explain policy.) Also, to be fair-minded, one should
avoid developing a phobia for quantitative or statistical analysis, as some
did in reaction to the behavioral movement in political science. Much can be
learned through quantitative analysis.
Data gained by interviews and questionnaires administered to public officials and other players in the policy process are often invaluable and may
not otherwise be available to researchers. Care is required, however, in using
both such techniques and the data acquired. Questions must be properly
framed to elicit the needed information. Questions that are “loaded” and
therefore bias responses, or that are so general as to create strong doubt
about their intent, need to be avoided. Officials and others may not always
respond fully or candidly to questions, their memories may be hazy, and they
may overstate their own role in events. Data gained from these sources obviously should not be viewed as gospel. Rather, they should be checked against
other sources, used with care, and regarded as representing particular viewpoints on some event.
Many studies of policy making take the form of case studies; that is, they
focus on particular programs, statutes, or areas of public policy. Case studies
have been the butt of much criticism because, being narrowly based, they do
not permit sound generalization. Preferred studies are those dealing with all
the cases in a universe, such as all regulatory commissions or sunset laws, or
a meaningful sample thereof, such as Supreme Court decisions on the rights
of the accused or the benefit decisions made by a welfare agency. These afford
a better basis for generalizations. Case studies, however, do have a variety of
uses.51 They can be used to test theories; to develop new theories; to provide
detailed, contextual analysis of events; to analyze deviant cases that contradict
our generalizations; and to help provide an “intuitive feel” for the subtleties
and nuances of the policy process and the practice of politics. There is plenty
of room in the study of policy for both case studies and more general and
comparative studies. And, as someone once remarked, the plural of anecdote
is data.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
34
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
Chapter Review
If you’ve met the learning objectives for this chapter, you should be able to …
1-1 Discuss the definitions, problems, and benefits associated with a scientific policy studies approach to the field of public policy.
●
●
Discuss how the study of public policy can benefit scholars, elected
leaders, and recipients of government actions.
Describe the five stages of the policy process.
1-2 Understand what a public policy is and what it is not.
●
●
Identify the wide range of career professionals that develop and
engage in public policy.
Recognize the attributes and key terms that define the concept of
public policy, including policy demand, policy statement, and policy
output.
1-3 Using relevant examples, discuss the problems, goals, demands, and
outputs of various categories of public policy.
●
●
●
Discuss constituent, distributive, regulatory, self-regulatory, and
redistributive policy typologies.
Recognize the characteristics, goals, and outputs of material policies
versus symbolic policies.
Discuss views on policy related to collective goods and private goods.
1-4 Appraise how each of the five theoretical approaches that scholars use
for analyzing policymaking generates knowledge and examines public
policies.
●
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of political systems theory.
●
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of group theory.
●
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of elite theory.
●
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of institutionalism.
●
Debate the strengths and weaknesses of rational-choice theory.
1-5 Summarize the methodological difficulties that can encumber the study
of public policy.
Analyze how a public policy can impact and be impacted by many
discrete areas of political action.
­
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
­
●
●
●
●
●
●
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Suggested Readings
35
For Further Exploration
❚ www.care2.com/causes/politics/
The Policy Action Network site provides numerous links to liberal think
tanks and foundations devoted to a variety of public-policy issues such
as economic, health, education, and media policies.
❚ http://www.jointcenter.org
This site for the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies
provides a wide range of information on policy issues and other matters
relating to racial and ethnic groups.
❚ http://www.ncpa.org
Although it is conservative in nature, the homepage of the National
Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) provides a wealth of descriptive
material on specific domestic- and foreign-policy issues.
❚ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/
PBS NewsHour provides a site titled “Forum,” where several current
policy issues are debated each month. This site also contains transcripts
of the various policy discussions and roundtable issues that were
broadcast on The NewsHour with Judy Woodruff.
Suggested Readings
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
❚
­
­
❚
­
❚
❚
Carl E. Van Horn, Donald C. Baumer, and William T. Gormley Jr., Politics
and Public Policy, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2017). Six policy
domains—boardroom, bureaucratic, cloakroom, chief executive,
courtroom, and living room politics—are utilized in a wide-ranging
examination of the policy process.
Frank R. Baumgartner and Beth L. Leech, Basic Interests: The Importance
of Groups in Politics and Political Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1998). No one interested in groups and politics should
ignore this outstanding analysis of group theory and the literature
on groups.
Kevin B. Smith and Christopher W. Larimer, The Public Policy Theory
Primer, 3rd ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2016). This is a weighty,
up-to-date exposition of public-policy theories and the study of public
policy.
Michael E. Kraft and Scott R. Furlong, Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and
Alternatives, 6th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2017). This readable
book combines an examination of the policy process with a discussion of
several areas of domestic policy.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
36
Chapter 1
The Study of Public Policy
­
­
Paul A. Sabatier and Christopher Weible, ed., Theories of the Policy Process,
4th ed. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2017). The challenging essays in
this anthology present a variety of theoretical lenses for studying the
policy process.
Theodore J. Lowi, Arenas of Power (Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2009).
This long-awaited study by the leading public policy guru draws on
history, analysis, and case studies to provide deep understanding of the
policy process.
Thomas R. Dye, Top Down Policymaking (New York: Chatham House, 2001).
This controversial examination of the policy-making process in the United
States argues that it is dominated by a national elite.
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
2
The Policy Makers and
Their Environment
Learning Objectives
This chapter will provide an overview of the various actors and institutions involved in crafting
public policy and the ways policy scholars understand the systems in which policies are
considered.
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
2-1 List and describe the basic actors in the policy environment including both formal and
informal actors
2-2 Understand the ways in which these actors are limited and constrained
2-3 Discuss how political culture impacts the consideration and adoption of policy
2-4 Appraise the role of material conditions such as class and how they impact the ways in
which policy is received and understood
2-5 Explain how policy scholars apply theories of formation to understand politics and political
behavior at different levels of operation
I
n the American political system, political power is fragmented and dispersed by constitutional prescription and political practice. Many points of
official decision-making exist, and a multitude of officials share in the exercise of political power and the formation of public policy. At the national level,
the Framers of the U.S. Constitution provided for the separation of power,
distributing it among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the
national government. Thus, Article I provides that “all legislative Powers herein
granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States. . . .” Article II states
that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America.” In turn, Article III declares that “the judicial Power of the United
States, shall be vested in one supreme court and such inferior Courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” This separation was
reinforced by the provision of different selection processes for officials in each
branch. Thus, the House of Representatives was to be chosen by the voters, the
Senate by the state legislatures (changed to the voters by the Sixteenth Amendment), the president by the Electoral College, and the judges by the president
with the consent of the Senate. The U.S. Constitution also prohibits anyone
from being a member of more than one branch at the same time.
37
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
38
Chapter 2
The Policy Makers and Their Environment
The separation of powers was not rigidly imposed, however. By the
corollary principle of checks and balances, the Framers gave each branch
some means for interfering with—checking—the exercise of power by the other
two branches. As James Madison stated in Federalist no. 51: “Ambition must be
made to counteract ambition.” Thus, Congress is given primary responsibility
for the enactment of legislation, but the president is authorized to recommend
matters for its attention and to veto laws, although the veto can be overcome
by a two-thirds vote in both houses. Many presidential appointments, including those to the federal courts, require Senate approval. The Supreme Court
can declare actions by the other branches unconstitutional, but Congress can
regulate the jurisdiction of the courts and the kinds of cases they may hear.
What the Framers really created was a set of separate institutions sharing
power. Jones puts it somewhat differently, stating that “these separated institutions often compete for shared powers!”1
The Framers’ intent was to use the principles of separation of powers and
checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power and the intrusion by government on individual liberty. Whatever their influence in these respects, these
principles have had other consequences. One is the decentralization of power.
Another is creation of the need for cooperation and deference among the
branches in order for the government to act effectively. Indeed, if each branch
were to insist on the fullest exercise of its prerogatives, the government would
end in deadlock. A third is to make American government inefficient in its operation—the Framers saw the need to frustrate the ambition of stronger factions
(including political parties holding majorities) by forcing the inclusion of other
power structures. Much time and effort are often required to make policy decisions, and the content of the resulting policy is often diluted and moderated.
Conventional wisdom holds that the national government performs more
effectively when both houses of Congress and the presidency are controlled by
the same party. However, divided governments, where one party controls the
White House (usually the Republicans) and the other party controls one or both
houses of Congress, existed for all but fourteen years during the 1969–2020
period. This condition is thought to contribute to gridlock, a situation in which
partisan, ideological, and other differences make it difficult for the government
to deal effectively with important problems. If one believes that the government
should act decisively on all problems soon after they reach the policy agenda,
something of a case could be made for the gridlock contention. In actuality, it
has frequently taken the government many years, even decades, to adopt legislation on such contentious matters as federal aid to education, medical care, civil
rights, and welfare reform. Even in years where one party controlled Congress,
such as with health care in 2009–2010 or tax cuts in 2017, the path to policy
adoption is still messy and fraught with danger for emergent policy proposals.
Further doubt on the divided government-gridlock contention was cast
by Mayhew’s study of the 1946–1990 era.2 Using the criteria of enactment of
important legislation and the conduct of major congressional investigations of
alleged misconduct in the executive branch, the study finds there are no major
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Chapter 2
The Policy Makers and Their Environment
39
differences in governmental output between periods of divided and unified
government. Mayhew was not concerned with whether presidents got what
they wanted from Congress or with the ideological hue of legislation.
However, another study determined that, when seriously considered, more
important legislation failed to be enacted under divided government than
under unified government. Legislation opposed by the president was especially
likely to fail under divided government.3 These studies leave one uncertain
as to the validity of the argument that unified party control is a requisite for
effective national governance.
Power in the American political system is further dispersed by the principle
of federalism, which created separate national and state governments, each
deriving its power from the Constitution. Essentially, the Constitution assigns
delegated and implied powers to the national government and unspecified
reserved powers to the state governments. The basic arrangement is summarized by the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.”
Before moving on, it should be pointed out that the Constitution also
divides power between government and the populace. Note that phrase in the
Tenth Amendment, “or to the people.” The Bill of Rights places a variety of
matters beyond the reach of government, such as freedom of speech, press,
religion, and assembly. These are not absolute, however. Other limitations are
found in the main body of the Constitution. American government is limited
government, even if it comes to be called “big government.”
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution delegates to Congress such powers
as those to tax and spend for the general welfare, to regulate interstate and
foreign commerce (the “commerce clause”), to coin money and regulate the
value thereof, to establish post offices and post roads, to raise and support
armies and a navy, and to declare war. Congress is also authorized “to make
all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” these
and other powers assigned to the national government. The “necessary and
proper” clause has served to significantly enhance the scope of the national
government’s power.
The reach and power of the national government have undergone continual expansion since the Constitution’s adoption, albeit more rapidly in some
eras than others. Today, the national government is vastly more active and
powerful than it was in 1850, 1900, or even 1950. National policies now apply
to many areas once regarded as the domain of the states; examples include
public education, social welfare, highway construction and maintenance, and
environmental protection. Current events and national crises serve to expand
the role of the federal government and the dependence of states on federal
resources—the response to COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that state and
local leaders look to Washington for guidance and resources, and they are often
powerless without this information. See in particular, the scramble to obtain
masks, ventilators, and other critical resources, with state governors resorting
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
40
Chapter 2
The Policy Makers and Their Environment
to extreme ends to get these items—Governor Baker of Massachusetts sent the
plane owned by the New England Patriots to China to get a mask shipment.
Much of what the national government does is constitutionally based on
the commerce clause—the authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Since the 1930s, the commerce clause has been given an expansive
interpretation by the Supreme Court. In 1995, however, the Court, by a 5–4
majority, declared unconstitutional the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
This law, which made possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school a federal crime, was held to be “a criminal statute that by its terms has nothing to
do with ‘commerce’ or any sort of economic enterprise, however broadly one
might define those terms.” Not since 1936, when it struck down a law regulating wages and hours in the coal industry, had the Court declared a congressional action unconstitutional as in excess of the commerce clause.
Notwithstanding the national government’s growth, the state governments
(and their local governments) continue to be important policy makers in many
areas, including law enforcement, definition and protection of property rights,
public education (both higher and lower), land-use regulation, construction
and maintenance of highways and streets, occupational licensing, gambling,
mental health services, and public sanitation services. Indeed, some observers contend that there has been a “resurgence of the states” as a consequence
of institutional, legislative reapportionment; increased cooperation among the
states; and distrust and lack of confidence in the national government.4
In the nineteenth century, the dominant conception of national–state relationships was called dual federalism. Each level of government had its distinct functions that it handled independently of the other. In the twentieth
century, dual federalism gave way to cooperative federalism, where all levels
of government—national, state, and local—cooperate in the development and
implementation of public policies. Thus, the state and the local governments
play a major role in the enforcement of national environmental pollution-control
and welfare programs. One would be hard-pressed to identify a policy area in
which they have no involvement or effect.
Although the Constitution does not require the states to employ the principle of separation of powers in organizing their governments, they all do so
in various ways. The states have created many local governments (more than
90,000 separate entities in 2017; see Table 2.1) to handle the local administration of state functions, such as law enforcement and public education, and
to provide for local self-government. In practice, local governments frequently
operate with only limited supervision and control by the state agencies and
officials. Along with the states, they provide additional arenas for policymaking and implementation.
The existence of this multitude of governments—national, state, and local—
together with the separation of powers enables interest groups and others to
engage in “arena shopping.” Those dismayed with policy produced by one level
or branch of government may look elsewhere for satisfaction. Thus, environmental groups in the 1960s and 1970s shifted their attention from the state
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
Chapter 2
The Policy Makers and Their Environment
41
Table 2.1
Local Governments, 2017
Counties
3,031
Municipalities
19,495
Townships
16,253
Special districts
38,542
School districts
12,754
Total
90,075
Source: United States Bureau of the Census: 2017 Census of Governments.
level to Washington and to the judiciary in search of pollution control and
environmental protection. However, after the early 1990s, when the national
government became unresponsive, environmental groups shifted focus and
sought favorable action from the Pacific Coast and Northeastern states. Economic development interests generally have found state and local governments
more inclined to do their bidding. State governments often tumble all over
themselves offering incentives to entice new businesses.
In recent years, business groups have become dissatisfied with the variance of state laws on product liability and the large monetary awards sometimes granted to aggrieved consumers by state courts. Although product
liability traditionally has been handled by the states, organized business has
turned to Washington for relief, where they have drawn support from the
Republicans in Congress. Likewise, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many
business groups lobbied Congress for a “liability shield” that would protect
them from lawsuits from employees or customers who contracted the virus.
While supporters of this proposal, including Senator Mitch McConnell, have
strongly advocated for such liability protections, these lawsuits have not
proven to be a problem yet.
Similarly, powerful interests that have come to lose in one venue can
reshape the terrain by bringing in new powerful players. In 1998, coordinated
action by state attorneys general resulted in the tobacco Master Settlement
Agreement in which cigarette manufacturers agreed to pay states for medical damages in exchange for a general legal protection from further lawsuits.
States will continue receiving payments in to the 2020s under this agreement,
which are intended to fund smoking cessation programs and reimburse for the
health costs of smoking.
Describing and analyzing policymaking at all three levels of government are
tasks too extensive for one book. Hence, the remainder of this book will focus
on the national government’s action on domestic issues but will not wholly
exclude foreign policy, American state and local governments, or other political systems. This chapter will begin by examining the environment in which
policymaking occurs and which helps to shape its actions—something that
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
42
Chapter 2
The Policy Makers and Their Environment
tends to be overlooked by rational-choice theory but to which we are alerted
by systems theory. Then we will survey the official and unofficial participants
in the policymaking process.
Policymaking in the European Union (EU) follows many of the same general principles, though the differences demonstrate that institutional design
matters. The principles of federalism described in the American context are
even more significant in the EU, as the decentralized nature of the superstate limits centralized decision-making. Consensus is crucial in regulation,
as unanimous support among member states is often required to pass major
initiatives. Likewise, EU authorities often find themselves pushing the limits
of their authority when responding to crises. Despite many of the challenges
of policymaking in this environment, effective regulation is still possible—the
EU’s adoption of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in 2016 was
seen as a model for protecting consumer privacy on the Internet and influenced state-level action in California.
The Policy Environment
Policymaking cannot adequately be studied apart from the environment or
context in which it occurs. According to systems theory, demands for policy
actions stem from problems and conflicts in the environment and are transmitted to the political system by groups, officials, and others. At the same time,
the environment both limits and directs what policy makers can effectively do.
The environment, broadly viewed, includes geographic characteristics such
as climate, natural resources, and topography; demographic variables such
as population size, age distribution, racial composition, and spatial location;
political culture; social structure, or the class system; and the economic system. Other nations become an important part of the environment when foreign and defense policies are involved. The discussion here focuses on a pair
of these environmental factors that have received much attention from political scientists (although not always from a policy-studies’ perspective): political
culture and socioeconomic conditions.
Political Culture
Every society has a culture that differentiates its members’ values and lifestyles
from those of other societies. Kluckhohn defined culture as “the total life way
of a people, the social legacy the individual acquires from his group. Or culture
can be regarded as that part of the environment that is the creation of man.”5
Most social scientists seem to agree that culture shapes or influences social
action but does not fully determine it. Culture is only one of many factors that
may give form and direction to human behavior.
We are interested here in the portion of the general culture of a society
that can be designated political culture: widely held values, beliefs, and attitudes on what governments should try to do, how they should operate, and
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.
The Policy Environment
43
relationships between the citizen and government.6 Political culture is transmitted from one generation to another by socialization, a process in which the
individual, through many experiences with parents, friends, teachers, political leaders, and others, learns politically relevant values, beliefs, and attitudes.
Political culture, then, is acquired by the individual, becomes a part of their
psychological makeup, and is manifested in their behavior. Within a society,
variations among regions and groups may result in distinctive subcultures. In
the United States, variations are noticeable in political culture (subcultures)
between different geographic regions, ethnicities, and generations.
A society’s political culture is not static; it changes and evolves over time,
though the pace of change among its components will vary. As a consequence
of the Great Depression and the New Deal, most Americans tolerate or support
much more government intervention in the economy than they once did. In
recent decades, attitudes have changed greatly on commercial gambling. Once
viewed as evil and criminal, it was generally banned. (Nevada was an exception, having legalized gambling in 1931.) Now only two states do not have
some form of legal gambling—lotteries, casinos, parimutuel betting, and so
forth. Gambling is now regarded as entertainment and a way to raise needed
government revenue.
On the other hand, Americans continue to be distrustful or skeptical of government. The Constitution was framed and adopted in an era when people
distrusted government. Hence, federalism and the separation of powers were
used to disperse governmental power and prevent its abuse. “Distrust of government is as American as apple pie,” says Huntington. “It has historically
been a central, continuing, and distinctive element of the American political
tradition and the idea that people should trust their government is a radical
departure from that tradition.”7
Starr argues that “it is the anti-governmental attitude on the [political] right
that particularly distinguishes Americans’ political culture. American conservatives have been far more anti-statist than European conservatives, who have
often played a central role in expanding the welfare state.”8 Both sides of the
political spectrum are deeply skeptical of certain components of government.
Those on the left are often wary of law enforcement, with groups such as Black
Lives Matter putting increasing attention on police violence. Meanwhile, those
on the right have often organized against the overreach of the federal government overall, including movements like the Tea Party in 2010.
Elazar contends that there are three identifiable political cultures—
individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic—and mutations thereof scattered
throughout the United States.9 The individualistic political culture emphasizes private concerns and views government as a utilitarian device to be used to accomplish what the people want. Politicians are interested in holding office as a means
of controlling government’s favors or rewards.
The moralistic political culture views government as a mechanism for
advancing the public interest. Government service is considered public service.
More governmental intervention in the economy is accepted, and there is much
Copyright 2023 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. Due to electronic rights, some third party content may be suppressed from the eBook and/or eChapter(s).
Editorial review has deemed that any suppressed content does not materially affect the overall learning experience. Cengage Learning reserves the right to remove additional content at any time if subsequent rights restrictions require it.