Response Paper 7 - Grade: A PDF

Preview

Summary

Policy Typology...

Description

Nari Coleman Ms. Sharmin POLS 220 October 27, 2020

Policy Typology What is a policy typology? How does it connect to public policy? Policy typology is a system for categorizing things based on similar characteristics and for differentiating things with different characteristics. A policy typology is a way of organizing a broad range of public policies into a system of policy types to help with understanding and analyzing. When two groups of scholars debated if politics determines policy or if the type of policy determines politics, the development of policy typology happened. In 1964, Theodore Lowi, a political scientist, developed a modern framework of policy typology. I’ll provide a further explanation of policy typology and its components. To continue, many policy models consist of public policy as the product of linear progression of political events, for example, stage model. The basic idea of a policy model is the policy stream, different actors in the politics stream(unofficial and official), and the policy outcome. First problems are recognized and put on the agenda, next is the debate over potential solutions, then legislatures develop alternative solutions on the basis of practical or partism favor, and then bureaucracies implement the policy so there can be policy impact. Theodre Lowi wanted to know what were the outputs of the policy process and what does it say in regards to politics, then theorized what politics could be expected from the policies implemented. He created a policy typology and identified four categories: distributive policy, redistributive policy,

regulatory policy, and constituent policy. The constituent policy was removed from the policy typology framework. The idea behind policy typology was to predict what type of policy will create what type of politics. For example, if the policy type is re-distributive then you can predict the type of politics will be stable and bargaining. Policies are considered to be able to fit into one of the four categories. A table was constructed called Lowi’s Policy Typologies and Resulting Politics. Lowi developed a two by two matrix of policy typology and government coercion based on the target of the coercion(individual or environment) and the likelihood of government coercion being applied(immediate or remote). Lowi observed that certain types of policies tend to mobilize policy actors in predictable patterns. It is also argued that if one knows the policy type it’s possible to predict the political interactions between actors in the subsystem. The expectations that policy actors have about policies determines the type of political relationship between actors. The earliest policy typologies usually separated into different categories based on the theme. This system was only useful for categorizing different types of policy domains, but it didn’t help with predicting and concluding about the politics that involve the policies. This early version of policy typologies made it challenging to learn from other types of policies and their role in politics. Which means it was not effective in being a useful science in public policy. Lowi’s perspective on public policy, which he defined as “deliberate coercion statements attempting to set forth the purpose, the means, the subjects, and the objects of coercion”, let’s people try to understand his objectives behind developing this policy typology framework. The statements Lowi addresses are the rules that are formulated by the government, they are in charge of the coercion. Rules are the expression of government intention to influence the behavior of citizens, the subjects of the rules could be individual citizens or the collective

society. The rules are enforced through the use of positive or negative sanctions. Lowi stated that coercion is a macrosocial phenomenon where, “institutions moralize it, administration routinizes it, and the government legitimizes it”. Before Lowi, the relationship between politics and policy was thought to be linear and casual, which meant politics determined policies. Rationally speaking public policy is an attempt to influence individual behavior. Moreover, the four categories in policy typology are distributive policy, redistributive policy, regulatory policy, and constituent policy. Distributive policy is a type of policy which takes resources from a larger group of people and gives them to a smaller group of people. Distributive policies involve the granting of a benefit to an interest group or another group of beneficiaries, there is no competition. This policy allows the government to provide public goods or services to the nation with the help of public funds. For example, when the government uses taxpayer money to fix highways, everyone is allowed to use it, this type of distributive benefit is spread evenly with everyone. Bring home the bacon policy is another example in which federal funds are distributed on local projects. There are several political outcomes to distributive policy, like logrolling, which is the practice of exchanging favors in politics by voting for one another's proposed legislation. Members of congress want to participate in these activities because they cite their effectiveness in bringing in money from Washington which helps with their re-election campaigns. Other outcomes include low conflict and coercion since there are no counter groups to stop spending, decisions are made quickly and easily. The political actors involved in this process are congressional committees, executive bureaus, and interest groups. Furthermore, the next policy is redistributive. Redistributive policies target a broader group of people, such as programs like Welfare and Social Security, Medcare, etc, which determine the “have and have-nots”. Workers are the givers in regards to the social security

program because they are paying taxes that go to the program then the money flows back out as monthly income to beneficiaries. For example, in the low income housing policy, taxpayer funds are used to support housing for the under-priviliged. There is an idea of winners and losers in this policy. Civil Rights is an example of the redistribution of rights, when african-americans demanded their rights and resources that were in the constitution. Politics are more active in redistributive policies, the president has a stronger role in this than congress. The different outcomes in redistributive policy are high bargaining and coercion between large groups because of ideological roots, like the debate on universal healthcare. Next, regulatory policies are policies aimed at directly influencing the behavior of a specific individual or group of individuals through the use of sanctions or incentives. The purpose of the policy is to increase the costs of violating public law. Most decisions are reached by negotiations. Regulatory policies are intended to govern the conduct of business. For example, the clean air act, net neutrality, etc. When predicting the outcome of this policy coercion is more immediate and applicable to the individual. This policy also has conflictual politics and high bargaining. Different groups argue over who should be the target and receive the cost of government coercion which is why the results of regulatory policy are unstable, combative and decisive. There are two broad types of regulatory policies, protective and competitive. Protective regulatory policy is intended to protect the public at large from the negative effects of private activity, such as, tainted food, air pollution, etc. Business companies are motivated by profit so they will resist regulations for different reasons usually in the case of a decrease in profit. Other outcomes in this policy include high contentious and regulatory agencies acting in public interest. Policy actors found in this policy are congressional

committees, executive agencies, etc. Competitive regulatory policy involves policies designed to limit the provision of goods and services to one or a few designated deliverers, who are chosen from a larger number of competing potential deliverers. For example, allocation of radio and television frequencies by the federal government and awarding cable television franchises by the local governments. Policies intended to regulate trades or professions, such as law, medicine, engineering, etc. This system ensures professional oversight of the activities of professionals who need to be trained in order to give proper service to their clients. States assign the power to licensed professions to members of the profession. Barriers created through the licensing process to limit the number of professionals who provide the service. The types of politics formed from competitive regulatory policy are very low congress involvement, logrolling, competitive advantages of one group. Subcommittees, small interest groups, etc, are policy actors in this policy. Lastly, constituent policy which was initially a part of Lowis framework was later removed due to criticisms. For example, Lowi did not provide any evidence in regards to the role of congress and the president in debating constituent policy, he did not specify his definition of constituent policy. Setting up a new agency could be considered a constituent policy. For example, the development of Homeland Security after the terrorist attack on 9/11. The purpose of this policy is to make rules about rules. The politics from this are consensual and have high coercion. Lowi has contributed a different perspective of addressing policies as something that shapes and is shaped by political conflict. Criticism of his framework claims it is too challenging to assign policies to one category. Some policies have redistributive and regulatory attributes, sometimes both. Another framework called Wilson’s policy typology, created by James Q. Wilson, is a

system that rejects ambitious policy types. Wilson arranges policy types into terms of the extent to which their cost and benefits are focused on one particular interest or are spread across numerous people or interests. The one similarity between Lowi’s and Wilson policy typologies are they both have the similar assumption about the relationship between policy and politics. Wilson thinks the political atmosphere is defined by people's expectations about the cost and benefits of a policy. The argument was the cost and benefits shape the way politics is carried on. Wilson’s classification matrix is a two by two structure based on whether cost and benefits are broadly distributed or concentrated and defines four categories of politics rather than policy. These categories include: majoritarian, entrepreneurial, client, and interest. Majoritarian politics is a type of politics in which the cost and benefits of a policy both are distributed among larger groups, like social security. The initial debate in ideological and cost terms is a part of the politics more majoritarian, and involves loose groups of people. The second category is entrepreneurial politics which happens when perceived benefits of a policy are distributed but the costs are concentrated, like with air pollution policies. For example, in 1906 when the Pure Food and Drug Act protected consumers. Incentive is strong for opposing policies. Third, client politics occur when the perceived benefits are concentrated and the costs are distributed. For example, traditional pork-barrel politics. The politics involves policies without the general public interest. Lastly, interest group politics usually happen when both the perceived benefits and cost are concentrated, which leads to high conflict and bargaining between interests groups. For example, Occupational Safety and Health Act that was enacted in 1970. To conclude, policy typology is a system for categorizing things based on similar characteristics and for differentiating things with different characteristics. A policy typology is a way of organizing a broad range of public policies into a system of policy types to help with

understanding and analyzing. Both Lowi’s and Wilson’s policy typologies are helpful with understanding the relationship between policy and politics. They both offer different perspectives and are beneficial in their own ways. In my own opinion I believe politics shapes policies meaning I agree with Wilson’s policy typology more than Lowi’s....