Official Actors IN Public Policy PDF

Preview

Summary

Official Actors IN Public Policy...

Description

OFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY OVERVIEW ⇒ For many years people have analysed laws, policy and political relationship between the three branches of Government



In the 1950s the approach was heavily focused on institutionalism: and approach to studying politics that focus on the formal institutions of government



In particular, political scientists explored behaviourism, trying to understand

the motivations behind human actions in the political sphere ⇒ Whereas the definition of ‘institution’ used to encompass only the formal bodies of a State (e.g. the legislature, executive, and judiciary), it now more widely encompasses any body where individuals interact to achieve policy goals (known as neoinstitutionalism)

ACTORS ⇒ There are two broad types of people when making policy: official actors and unofficial actors ⇒ An official actor is someone who possesses legal authority to engage in the formulation of public policy e.g. legislature, executive and judiciary ⇒ An unofficial actor is someone who does not occupy formal public positions or political offices – this does not mean they are any less important than official actors e.g. interest groups and the media

OFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY: LEGISL ATURES OVERVIEW ⇒ The legislature makes Statute – thousands of Bills are considered every year so it takes up a considerable amount of time ⇒ The legislature passes both substantive laws (such as what to spend money on) and symbolic laws (such as what to name a building) ⇒ Most Bills fail early in the law making process, but their introduction can start a general policy discussion and move ideas on to the agenda

⇒ Outside of law making, Congressional representatives (and State legislatures) attend meetings, hearings, debates, and campaign ⇒ Members of Congress also engage in casework – this is assistance they provide to constituents who encounter a grievance with a federal agency or the federal government e.g. cases relating to political asylum and social security benefits ⇒ They also have an important oversight role over the executive branch, including the numerous federal agencies – it refers to the review, monitoring, and supervision of federal agencies, programs, activities, and policy implementation



As trust in Government declines (especially since the Watergate scandal during Nixon’s presidency), the importance of oversight increases



One way to exercise its oversight function is to hold public hearings e.g. hearings have been held after 9/11, Watergate, and natural disasters



These hearings help people to understand the issues and usually reveal shortcomings in the existing policies



A particular effective way issues can be highlighted is through a field hearing, which are Congressional hearings outside Washington (usually at

the place where the particular issue is located) ⇒ In the exercise of its oversight function, Congress can gather information from pressure groups, the media, and from its own investigative body (the Government Accountability Office) which analyses the effectiveness of public programs

ORGANISATION ⇒ The activity in the chambers of the Senate and the House may, at times, seem slow, but most of the work is done in committees



Committees play a central role in policy making, analysing legislation, amendments and deciding whether or not to send it back to the Chamber to

be voted on ⇒ Congress is huge meaning it requires a lot of organising



Each party has majority and minority leaders, whips, and chairs for different committees



The speaker of the House is elected by all the members – the current

speaker is Paul Ryan ⇒ State Legislatures are also fairly complex (New York and California’s legislatures rival that of Congress in terms of complexity)



Some people are surprised that Congress members do not read all the bills that come through the system, but it is unrealistic for them to do so as there are so many of them and also have staff to help find and understand the

important ones ⇒ Committees are the gatekeepers of legislation, ensuring only the important legislation will be heard first



The committee chairs are usually senior members of the majority party and the ranking members are the most senior members from the minority party



Committee chairs have a lot of power in determining what laws are

ultimately voted on by the House and the Senate ⇒ The legislative branch is clearly very important when it comes to policy making

CRITIQUES ⇒ It is sometimes argued that the legislative branch does not reflect the will of the people, often ignoring what the public want and engaging in unhelpful and unnecessary arguing ⇒ As many legislative members have an ambition to be reelected, they often adopt positions that ensure they do not offend too many people which can stifle policy making



Richard Fenno, however, argues there are two different types of members of Congress members: those that like the ‘fame’ of the job (and therefore just want to be reelected) and those that care about the actual issues (and therefore want to legislate properly)

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY MAKING ⇒ As Congress members represent their particular States and districts, they are often seen as being more concerned with those regions than with the interests of the Party as a whole (in other words, there is a decentralised Congress)



This makes adopting ‘big’ policy more difficult

OFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY: EXECUTIVE

OVERVIEW ⇒ The executive branch carries out and enforces laws. It includes the President, Vice President, the Cabinet, executive departments, independent agencies, and other boards, commissions, and committees. ⇒ President has a few benefits in the legislative process



The president can veto (i.e. reject) legislation passed by Congress



Although this veto can be overturned by the House and Senate if there are enough votes to do so – however, overriding a presidential veto is quite difficult because of the number of votes they need to get to do so



The president also has a pocket veto: this occurs when the president of the United States fails to sign a piece of legislation, either intentionally or

unintentionally, while Congress is adjourned and unable to override a veto. ⇒ President has an organisational advantage in being a single person, so he/she has more power to follow a path that he/she wants to take ⇒ The president also gets a lot of attention from the media ⇒ The president also enjoys a lot of information that the other branches of government doesn’t get e.g. information about government spending and how exactly problems are being tackled



Although this gap is closing with the rise of agencies such as the Government Accountability Office

LIMITS ⇒ The president’s power isn’t limitless ⇒ Neustadt argues that the president’s main power is one of persuasion ⇒ The Executive branch – which includes various officials and agencies – is massive, meaning the president cannot reasonably supervise everything that is happening

 The president relies on their staff to let them know what is happening ⇒ Kingdon states that the president is more concerned with agenda setting than developing policy alternatives to address the problems he/she raises on the agenda

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES AND BUREAUCRATS ⇒ A bureaucracy is a large group of people who are involved in running a government but who are not elected

⇒ Max Weber says bureaucracy’s have the following features:



Hierarchy: “a firmly ordered system of super- and subordination in which there is supervision of the lower offices by the higher ones”



Defined powers across the hierarchy: “fixed and official jurisdictional areas”

 Trained staff who work full-time ⇒ People often criticise bureaucratic governments for being very big



When the Founding Fathers ratified the Constitution the task of administrating Government was nowhere near as big as it is now



Today about one in seven Americans work for the federal, state, or local government

WHAT DO GOVERNMENT AGENCIES DO? ⇒ A government agency will handle tasks that are not economically beneficial for the private sector to handle or tasks that we simply demand the government to provide (instead of the private sector) ⇒ If a good involves a free rider problem (a situation where people can benefit from something without paying for it) it is a public good



For example, you might have a situation where someone pays no tax (a free rider) but benefits from national defence (public good)



In Welfare Economics and the Theory of the State (1952) William Baumol makes the case for government provision of public goods in areas where

there is free-rider problem ⇒ Many people complain as they do not know what the bureaucracy does



Some people think they have too much influence in our lives, their work is unaccountable, and they make the wrong decisions



A lot of these complaints come from their direct involvement and knowledge of services that affect them e.g. the postal service



The unpopularity of bureaucracies has existed for a long time and many people value the role of private firms over bureaucratic agencies e.g. many Americans see FedEx and UPS as a better service than the general postal service

ISSUE OF ACCOUNTABILITY ⇒ Other people complain that bureaucracies are unaccountable – individuals are usually unelected and chosen based on skill rather than party affiliation



People thus think that workers in a bureaucracy simply seek more power and

influence rather than any desire to help the people ⇒ Many political thinkers in the 19th and 20th centuries didn’t view the bureaucracy as a policy maker – their belief was that the bureaucracy was distinct from politics and simply did what the other (accountable) branches told them to do ⇒ However, this is not the current mode of thinking



The bureaucracy are constantly making decisions that affect the public without any direct input from Congress (i.e. they are exercising bureaucratic discretion)



Exercising bureaucratic discretion – with little public oversight – is therefore

seen as undemocratic ⇒ Nevertheless, achieving proper bureaucratic accountability is difficult without a clearly defined public interest to work towards (and this clearly isn’t the case in a country as big as the USA) ⇒ The level of discretion afforded to the various bureaucratic agencies is not always the same



Kenneth Meier: “The amount of discretion accorded an agency is a function of its resources (expertise, cohesion, legislative authority, policy salience,

and leadership) and the tolerances of other actors in the political system.” ⇒ How do the agencies exercise their discretion?



If they are exercising their discretion based on popular pressure or influence from the elected branches, then the level of accountability of such agencies will be higher than if they don’t



Some people question the level of private influence over these agencies e.g. it has been argued that the Federal Aviation Administration pandered to the airline industry at the expense of public safety

OFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY: COURTS

OVERVIEW ⇒ Alexander Hamilton: “the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts”



In addition to this, the court ensures the law stays within the boundaries of the Constitution



Marbury v Madison (1803) is a case in which the Court established a precedent for judicial review in the US, declaring that acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are null and void, as the Constitution is the

supreme law of the land ⇒ The Courts power to declare laws unconstitutional does seem to give it a lot of power, but the Court lacks the monetary power (e.g. over taxes) or force (such as the use of the military) to get what it wants

POLICY MAKING ⇒ Woodrow Wilson believed that Courts were engaged in the neutral discovery of legal principles, and lacked the policy-making powers and discretion exercised by Congress and the bureaucracy



In other words, he believed there was a divide between the law (the courts) and the politics (the legislature and the executive) when it came to policy-

making ⇒ Wilson’s beliefs are, today, seen as an oversimplification of reality (although it is generally believed there is a distinction between law and politics)



E.g. Easton says that the Court can determine the boundary of policymaking, but they do so neutrally using a predetermined set of rules



In other words, the Court is tasked with working out what the law actually is

having already been agreed that such a law exists by the policy-makers ⇒ However, to some extent the Court does make policy through its constitutional boundary setting



For example, in Brown v Board of Education the Supreme Court said segregated schools were unconstitutional due to racial discrimination on the same principles that they said racial segregation was acceptable in Plessy v

Ferguson ⇒ Dahl: “[t]o consider the Supreme Court of the United States strictly as a legal institution is to underestimate its significance in the American political system. For it

is also a political institution, an institution, that is to say, for arriving at decisions on controversial questions of national policy.”

OFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY: COURTS OVERVIEW ⇒ Alexander Hamilton: “the interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts”



In addition to this, the court ensures the law stays within the boundaries of the Constitution



Marbury v Madison (1803) is a case in which the Court established a precedent for judicial review in the US, declaring that acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are null and void, as the Constitution is the

supreme law of the land ⇒ The Courts power to declare laws unconstitutional does seem to give it a lot of power, but the Court lacks the monetary power (e.g. over taxes) or force (such as the use of the military) to get what it wants

POLICY MAKING ⇒ Woodrow Wilson believed that Courts were engaged in the neutral discovery of legal principles, and lacked the policy-making powers and discretion exercised by Congress and the bureaucracy



In other words, he believed there was a divide between the law (the courts) and the politics (the legislature and the executive) when it came to policy-

making ⇒ Wilson’s beliefs are, today, seen as an oversimplification of reality (although it is generally believed there is a distinction between law and politics)



E.g. Easton says that the Court can determine the boundary of policymaking, but they do so neutrally using a predetermined set of rules



In other words, the Court is tasked with working out what the law actually is

having already been agreed that such a law exists by the policy-makers ⇒ However, to some extent the Court does make policy through its constitutional boundary setting



For example, in Brown v Board of Education the Supreme Court said segregated schools were unconstitutional due to racial discrimination on the same principles that they said racial segregation was acceptable in Plessy v

Ferguson ⇒ Dahl: “[t]o consider the Supreme Court of the United States strictly as a legal institution is to underestimate its significance in the American political system. For it is also a political institution, an institution, that is to say, for arriving at decisions on controversial questions of national policy.”

UNOFFICIAL ACTORS IN PUBLIC POLICY OVERVIEW ⇒ An unofficial actors is someone whose participation in the creation of policy is not specified in the Constitution



However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the freedom of speech, religion and the press. It also protects the right to peaceful protest and to petition the government.



In other words, the First Amendment allows individuals to interact with the political bodies freely and with Constitutional protection – this is of fundamental importance in the US democratic system

INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS ⇒ Individuals can participate in public policy through voting and communicating with those that represent them



However lower levels of political participation (including low levels of voter turnout at elections) reflect the trend that people feel increasingly alienated and out-of-touch with the political system

MOBILISING CITIZENS ⇒ It is possible to mobilise (i.e. bring together) people to get involved in political activity



In other words, political mobilisation is a process by which a group goes from being a passive collection of individuals to an active participant in public life



Such participation can include protest, lobbying, and other forms of expression in response to some problem/issue e.g. mobilisation occurred in

response to the health care reforms in 2009 ⇒ Mobilisation generally happens when it affects the public in a very personal way e.g. when it threatens – or has the appearance of threatening – their very way of living ⇒ Due to the range of issues that different people mobilise behind (each issue may only mobilise a few thousand or hundred people) it is difficult to gauge what the general ‘public opinion’ is and what would be in the public interest



Although all public policy tries to appeal to the public interest, there are clearly problems in trying to do this



Without adequately determining what the ‘public opinion’ is, how can any representative or government really act in the public interest?

INTEREST GROUPS ⇒ An interest group is a group of people that seeks to influence public policy on the basis of a particular common interest or concern.



All interest groups share a desire to affect government policy to benefit themselves or their causes.



Public interest groups promote issues of general public concern (e.g., environmental protection, human rights, and consumer rights)



Groups that seek to influence public policy for the specific and often exclusive benefit of their members or of people with similar interests are

known as private interest groups ⇒ The number of interest groups has grown significantly since the 1960s



The creation of an interest group is fairly straight-forward (in that legally and politically, there are few barriers)



However, interest groups often struggle to get the resources and money to mobilise people effectively and efficiently



Also, creating a group does not necessarily mean anyone will listen to you – some groups will be more powerful than others