Chapter 12 PDF

Preview

Summary

Unit 8 Chapter 12...

Description

Chapter Twelve Public Policy Barry D. Friedman

Learning Objectives After covering the topic of public policy, students should be able to: 1. ,dentify who has inÀuence in the maNing of American public policy. 2. Explain the various “models” of public policy that political scientists have formulated to describe how public policy is developed in the United States. 3. Identify the assortment of instruments and devices available to the government for enforcing policies. 4. Describe the origin and implications of the national government’s chronic de¿cit spending. Abstract 7KH ViJQi¿cDQW GHciVioQV WKDW JoYHUQPHQW SolicyPDNHUV²PoVW SUoPiQHQWly lHJiVlDWoUV buW DlVo H[HcuWiYHV DQG MuGJHV²PDNH DUH GHVcUibHG as public policies. While most of the contents of this textbook focus on the U. S. government’s institutions and their political intrigue, this chapter examines the outputs of these institutions and political activities. Public policy comes about in a plethora of ways, but political scientists have developed “models” to describe the most common processes that give birth to policies. The policy-process model describes how a problem is identi¿ed, how it comes to the attention of policymakers, and how a policy to address the problem is formulated and legitimated. Other models state that policies come about through incremental change, rational analysis, pursuit of individuals’ sel¿sh interests, interest groups’ competition with one another, cooperative efforts of those who specialize in a policy area, or direction by the elite class. The government possesses a range of instruments to accomplish policy execution—such as imprisonment, taxation, subsidies, and propaganda. The persistent demand from the public for services and bene¿ts has outpaced the national government’s ability to raise tax revenue to pay for their costs, resulting in annual budget de¿cits. These de¿cits have accumulated to a staggering total of almost $17 trillion (as of May 2013), which threatens to incapacitate the governmental system of the United States.

272

The Basics of American Government

7Ke 7Kings tKat *RvernPent 'Res At any given time, many people have a lot of ideas about what they want government to do. Sometimes, they want the government to do certain things that are necessary to promote the public interest; for example, they may have observed a lot of accidents at certain intersections in a small town, and believe that it is time for the local government to install traf¿c lights. Sometimes, they want government to do certain things that will maNe themselves, speci¿cally, better off. A legislator might want a new state highway, featuring a shiny new bridge that will cross a river, because he expects that his constituents will appreciate his effort and vote for his reelection. In fact, he may arrange for the bridge to be named after him. A lobbyist for an interest group may ask friendly legislators to arrange for a tax credit that bene¿ts the businesses that are af¿liated with his organization. All of this activity of demands, accommodations, and votes results in of¿cial government decisions. :e often refer to such a decision or a set of decisions as a SXbOic SROic\. The ingredients of public policies of the U. S. national government are found in documents and instruments such as these: the Constitution, the statutes, the appropriations laws that constitute the government’s budget, executive orders promulgated by the president, rules and regulations promulgated by regulatory agencies, and opinions of the Supreme Court. As a result of the decisions that all of these documents and instruments reÀect, the national government can be said to have public policies in such policy areas as agriculture, consumer protection, crime suppression, the economy, education, energy, environmental protection, fairness in employment, foreign affairs, forest and park preservation, illicit drugs, housing, military operations and readiness, public health, relief for poor families, taxation, trade, transportation, and unemployment. +RZ 3XbOic 3ROic\ &RPes AbRXt Public policies come about in numerous ways. Policy experts have described a typical manner in which a policy comes about. The model presents a six-step Solic\ Srocess, and these steps occur in sequence as shown in the Àow chart in Figure 12.1 Dye, 21211, p. 2.

Chapter Twelve: Public Policy

273

)igXre  6i[6teS 3olic\ 3rocess 0odel Agenda- Formulation Legitimation ImplementProblem H H H H H Evaluation Identi¿cation setting of Proposals of Proposals ation

Here is an explanation of each of the steps to which the policy-process model refers: group identi¿es a problem that some segment of the population is experiencing. For example, a member of Congress may be receiving letters from constituents that express complaints about a particular situation. Or the news media may notice some kind of dif¿culty being experienced by some number of people, and report the problem to their viewers, listeners, and readers. agenda oI SXblic Solic\. On this agenda are supposedly listed policy problems that have come to the attention of public policymakers, such as the president or members of Congress, such that they now recognize the need to take some sort of actions to remedy the problems. According to this model, public policymakers are generally reluctant to acknowledge that they have to take action on some problem, because remedies cost money and money is scarce. So, the model says, it is only when the demands for action become numerous and adamant that policymakers conclude that they can no longer ignore the demands. At that point, the problem becomes an entry on the agenda of public policy. There really is no document that is entitled “The Agenda of Public Policy.” However, there are certain places to which you may direct your attention for clues about what problems are on this metaphorical agenda. If you would like to know what is on the president’s agenda, you might examine the content of his State of the Union message. If you would like to know what is on Congress’s agenda, you might examine the legislative calendars of the Senate and the House of Representatives, respectively.

274

The Basics of American Government

address a problem will prompt some kind of activity to formulate speci¿c proposals. Here are the kinds of people and institutions who, from time to time, formulate proposals: Ɣ Employees of the Executive Branch (bureaucrats) are known to be active in the formulation of proposals. Some of the most extensive pieces of legislation that have made their way through the legislative process are known to have originated in the bureaucracy. Ɣ Congressional staff members—those who work for senators and representatives in their own of¿ces or who work for congressional committees—are known to be proli¿c authors of legislation. Ɣ Interest groups may employ individuals, such as lawyers, who understand the legislative process and will deliver proposed bills to members of Congress and congressional committees. Ɣ Think tanks often develop policy ideas. A think tank is an institution that employs scholars who develop policy proposals based on their knowledge in their respective ¿elds of study. The think tank will make the policy proposals available to policymakers who are looking for solutions to problems on the agenda of public policy. United States, policies must be made legitimate before they can be put into effect. Here are some ways in which policies are legitimated: Ɣ When Congress enacts a bill, it provides legitimacy to the bill’s purpose and content. The public understands Congress to be the legitimate representative of the public, which elected the legislators, pursuant to Article I of the Constitution. Ɣ When the president signs an act of Congress into law, he adds to the perception of the enactment’s legitimacy. The public acknowledges the president’s unique position as the only nationally elected of¿cial (along with the vice president), and respects his signature on the newly minted law.

Chapter Twelve: Public Policy

275

Ɣ On occasion, a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a law will be considered by the Supreme Court. When the court declares the law to be constitutional, the declaration causes the law to take on a virtually impenetrable aura of legitimacy. Ɣ Policymakers depend on the Executive Branch of¿cials who administer a law to do so in a way that supports the appearance of legitimacy. For example, when an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation explains to a suspect that the suspect has been arrested because of his disobedience of a speci¿c law enacted by Congress and signed by the president, the agent is indicating that the arrest is occurring in accordance with the law and is not an arbitrary and capricious action by the bureau and other of¿cials of the criminal-Mustice system. law, the executive branch is responsible for administering the law. intervals, the execution and results of a policy will be evaluated to determine whether the policy is bene¿cial and the execution is effective. If not, the policy should be reconsidered and either redesigned or abandoned. 0ore 6Seci¿c 0odels oI +oZ and :h\ 3articiSants 0ake 3Xblic 3olic\ Supplementing the policy process model that the previous section of the chapter described are a number of other models that explain more speci¿cally who are inÀuential in making policy and what their motivations are when they participate in the policymaking process. The following list presents some of the most well-known models to which modern literature about American government often refers. Incrementalism Model In 1, Charles E. Lindblom published the ¿rst description of the incrementalism model oI SXblic Solic\. Lindblom explained that most policy that the national government implements in a given year is simply the previous year’s policy with small (incremental) modi¿cations made to it. The logic is dif¿cult to challenge. Such an approach to

276

The Basics of American Government

policymaking saves time as well as the arduous effort to innovate new policy technologies. This approach also allows the full use of existing organization, equipment, and other infrastructure, without having to acquire new kinds of resources to support a radically different policy approach. The government’s—particularly the bureaucracy’s—familiarity with the ongoing policy approach allows for the development of experience that contributes to ef¿ciency and gradual re¿nement of implementation methods. Few political scientists argue with the conventional wisdom that the incrementalism model is the best single explanation of policymaking in the national government. Rationalism Model If incrementalism is the preferred method of policymaking, then the rationalism model oI SXblic Solic\ is its theoretical antithesis. The rationalism model contends that the fundamental criterion for sound policy is the realization of the greatest possible net bene¿t (i.e., difference between bene¿t and cost) to society. The rationalism model proposes that policymakers who are trying to design a policy should consider the principles that society values, develop an assortment of policy alternatives that would satisfy society based on those principles, evaluate the policy alternatives, and then compare the alternatives and select the one best alternative (i.e., the optimal choice). If there is one evaluation method that the largest number of proponents of the rationalism model advocates, it is the method of “cost-bene¿t analysis.” In evaluating a policy alternative, one would utilize cost-bene¿t analysis by listing and quantifying the costs associated with the alternative and then listing and quantifying the bene¿ts associated with the alternative. A value of net bene¿t can be computed by subtracting the sum of the costs from the sum of the bene¿ts. An alternative whose net bene¿t is less than zero could be eliminated without further thought. A value of bene¿t-cost ratio can be computed by dividing the sum of the bene¿ts by the sum of the costs. An alternative whose bene¿t-cost ratio is less than one could be eliminated without further thought. We know that incrementalism comes naturally to public policymakers. In so far as rationalism does not come naturally, the model has to have advocates who try to persuade policymakers to actually try to utilize it. This effort by the advocates is an uphill battle, because of the complications

Chapter Twelve: Public Policy

277

associated with the rationalism model. Some of the complications are as follows: this time inevitably involves the acrimonious policy arguments (e.g., in the legislature) that deliberations about newly conceived policy proposals provoke. on policy designers to list the possible policy alternatives, these policy designers are challenged to conceive of a number of currently nonexistent policy technologies. This process strains the human imagination. equipment, and other infrastructure to have to be replaced with new organization, equipment, and other infrastructure, at signi¿cant cost. experience with newly designed approaches with which we have no experience introduces the signi¿cant threat that we will encounter unwelcome surprises when the new approaches are implemented. Such unanticipated consequences can be very costly and can agitate the general public, clients of agencies, and the government of¿cials who have to try to appease those who have suffered from the problems that were not foreseen. Public-Choice Model Credit for the SXblicchoice model oI SXblic Solic\ is given to James M. Buchanan, Jr., who won the 1986 Nobel Prize in Economic Science for developing it. Buchanan explained that decisions about public policymaking are made by a wide range of individuals, all of whose actions are oriented toward the realization of their self-interests. The model traces these self-interest-oriented actions all the way back to each voter, who, as Anthony Downs (1957) explained, makes decisions about which candidates to vote for based on whose policy platforms will result in the most grati¿cation (especially wealth) for that individual. Downs similarly explained that political-party leaders in the United States prefer the development of party platforms that will appeal to the largest number

278

The Basics of American Government

of voters, so that their political parties can win the upcoming elections. As chapter 7 of this book explains, members of Congress decide how to vote on bills based on whether the bills establish policies that will appeal to their constituents (e.g., policies that offer entitlement programs to the entire public or groups within the population and policies that supply “pork” to the senators’ states and the representatives’ congressional districts). In summary, the public-choice model conceives of the arena of public policymaking as a giant marketplace of ideas, including policy proposals, in which government of¿cials and individual citizens “shop” for policies that will bene¿t them and then support them. The question of whether such self-interest-oriented decisions in the public policy arena can be aggregated to create any kind of coherent, productive result for society resembles the question of whether the self-interest-oriented decisions of business owners, employees, and shoppers can be aggregated to create any kind of coherent, productive result in the commercial and industrial marketplace. The capitalist economist Adam Smith (1776) argued that “the invisible hand” guides participants in the commercial and industrial marketplace to make self-interest-oriented decisions that, in the ¿nal analysis, bene¿t society. The same logic can be applied, by analogy, to argue that self-interest-oriented decisions by individuals in the policy arena can similarly bene¿t all. Group-Theory Model of Public Policy Based on David B. Truman’s classic monograph, The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion (1951), in which he describes the inÀuential role of interest groups in the American political system, policy scholars such as Dye (2010/2011, pp. 19-20) have conceived of a groXStheor\ model oI SXblic Solic\. Dye presents a diagram that illustrates, for a theoretical policy matter, a scale of alternative policy options on which the existence of competing special-interest groups is noted. On this diagram (see Figure 12.2), the existence of two such groups is indicated by circles that are drawn (1) at the groups’ respective positions on the scale of alternative policy options and (2) in relative proportion to the groups’ inÀuence (in terms of number of members, wealth, connection to inÀuential decision-makers, and so on).

Chapter Twelve: Public Policy

279

)igXre  6cale oI Alternative 3olic\ OStions Ior &omSeting *roXSs

The triangle (analogous to a fulcrum that balances a see-saw or other lever) is placed under the scale at a location that “balances” Group A and Group B’s respective interests. Note, on this theoretical example, that the fulcrum is located closer to the larger Group A’s position in deference to A’s size, but not completely at A’s extreme position in deference to Group B’s existence. Accordingly, this model states that policymakers determine where to set policy based on the competition of the interest groups that are active in the particular task environment for the policy area. As an example, consider the policy area related to abortion. In 1973, the U. S. Supreme Court handed down its opinion in the case of Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Confronted with a heated policy debate involving the pro-life and pro-choice groups, the court handed neither group a conclusive victory. Instead, it split the difference, prohibiting state legislatures from outlawing abortion during the ¿rst trimester of a pregnancy and allowing state legislatures to outlaw abortion (with certain speci¿c exceptions) in the third trimester. Of course, the court, in its opinion written by Associate Justice Harry A. Blackmun, did not explain its rationale in these pragmatic terms, in accordance with its practice of citing provisions of the Constitution and the laws. But the effort to provide some sort of satisfaction to both sides is unmistakably identi¿able. Subgovernment Model of Public Policy The sXbgovernment model oI SXblic Solic\ states that, in any particular policy area, there is an “iron triangle” partnership involving the

280

The Basics of American Government

congressional committees, executive department or agency, and interest groups active in that policy area that dominates policy in that policy area. This inÀuential model of public policymaking has already been described in chapter 5. Elitism Model of Public Policy In 1956, the sociologist C. Wright Mills published a memorable work entitled The Power Elite. Mills states the disconcerting fact that wealthy Americans have a disproportionate amount of inÀuence in the determination of what public policy will be. In interpreting Mills’s theory, Dye (2010/2011, p. 21) produces this diagram (Figure 12.3): )igXre  (litism 0odel oI 3Xblic 3olic\

According to this elitism model oI SXblic Solic\, the elites provide policy direction to the of¿cials and administrators. The population of of¿cials and administrators includes elected and appointed government of¿cials, such as the employees of the bureaucracy. The of¿cials and administrators impose policy execution upon the masses. Mills dismisses the question of whether elections allow the masses to control the policy decisions of of¿cials and administrators by characterizing American elections as a sham. In the ¿nal analysis, Mills insists, the of¿cials and administrators will do what the elites require. The possession of enormous wealth seems to guarantee the aristocrat a position of inÀuence. Really, what does any ordinary person do when he meets a wealthy person: challenge him or try to charm him?

Chapter Twelve: Public Policy

281

Other Models of Pu...