Public Administration ‒ Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws in the U.S.

Types of Public Policy

Regulatory Policy   Regulatory policy is designed to limit the actions of persons or groups so as to protect the general public or a substantial portion of the public. For example, people are prohibited from selling certain drugs, polluting the air and water, and engaging in monopolistic business practices. One form of regulation simply focuses on illegal criminal activity; it is a crime to do certain things. State and local governments have special responsibilities in this area, and certain federal agencies, such as the Drug Enforcement Administration, are active here as well. Another form of regulation focuses on American business and seeks to ensure fair and competitive practices. Indeed, the first major regulatory effort in this country came in 1887, when the federal government created the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate the railroads. Similar regulatory agencies today monitor securities (Securities and Exchange Commission), commodity exchanges (Commodity Futures Trading Commission), and labor relations (National Labor Relations Board), among others.

A modern regulatory area is concerned with access to certain goods available to the public generally, such as the airwaves (regulated by the Federal Communications Commission) or clean air and water (regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency). Other regulatory bodies focus on protecting health and safety in such areas as consumer protection (Consumer Product Safety Commission), air travel (Federal Aviation Administration), food (Food and Drug Administration), and workplace safety (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration).

Although federal regulation of economic activities has seen several waves of growth through the past century (Ripley & Franklin, 1987), the last two decades have seen somewhat of a movement in the opposite direction. Late in the Carter administration and extending through the Reagan administration, there were several efforts to deregulate certain industries. The Civil Aviation Board was disbanded in 1984, and over the following decade significant areas of transportation, telecommunications, and banking were deregulated. Moreover, regulations were eliminated or enforcement slowed down in areas such as workplace, auto, and consumer products safety.

During the 1990s, however, as many federal agencies relaxed their regulatory grip, a few attempted to expand their authority. The Environmental Protection Agency sought to set standards for pesticide and cancer risk, while the Occupational Safety and Health Administration created guidelines for reducing violent crime in retail locations open at night (Niskanen, 2001). The Food and Drug Administration attempted to expand its jurisdiction to the tobacco industry by establishing nicotine as a drug, which would have given federal regulators the power to control tobacco products. This move, however, was challenged by the tobacco companies, and in 2000 the Supreme Court ruled against the federal government, calling the FDA's attempt to assert jurisdiction in this area “impermissible” (Kessler, 2001, p. 384). These actions took place during the Clinton administration, which focused its efforts on regulatory changes in several areas, including the environment, corporate tax shelters, civil rights, trade, transportation, the securities market, banking, food, drugs, and health-care insurance. The administration used its National Performance Review to eliminate or rework a number of federal regulations.

Many of the regulatory activities undertaken by the George W. Bush administration were in response to crises, resulting in rules related to financial institutions, homeland security procedures, corporate governance, and energy. Two other Bush initiatives—No Child Left Behind and the addition of a drug benefit to Medicare—also involved new regulatory programs (DeMuth, 2011). The Bush administration also established two sets of guidelines: one for scientific peer review and the other related to conducting regulatory analysis, which imposed additional obligations for regulatory agencies but at the same time “reinvigorated the regulatory review process, exhibiting a willingness to 

Distributive Policy    Distributive policy , perhaps the most common form of government policy, uses general tax revenues to provide benefits to individuals or groups, often by means of grants or subsidies. If the country faces a large agricultural surplus, for example, the federal government may provide incentive payments to farmers to not produce crops that would add to the surplus. Similarly, the federal government provides direct grants to state and local governments for a variety of purposes. Finally, governments often create “public goods” that all citizens can enjoy. In some cases, such as national defense, the good is provided for all; in others, such as city, state, or national parks, it is anticipated that some citizens will use the benefit and others will not. (In Chapter 3, we will examine the growing trend toward employing user fees for certain of these traditionally public goods.) Unlike regulatory agencies, which are often at odds with the clientele group they are seeking to regulate, agencies that carry out distributive policies often develop close relationships with their constituencies and, in turn, with interested members of Congress. The growth of veterans' benefits over the past several decades is an almost classic example of the operation of such a subgovernment. The Department of Veterans Affairs is now one of the largest federal agencies and provides a broad range of health benefits, educational assistance, pensions, and insurance for veterans. Such a development would not have been possible without its close relationship with veterans' groups (such as the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars) and with the veterans' committees in Congress.

Redistributive Policy   Redistributive policies take taxes from certain groups and give them to another group. On rare occasions, redistribution is from the less-well-off to the better-off; many charge that capital gains proposals are of this type. Redistribution is, however, generally thought of as benefiting less advantaged groups at the perceived expense of the advantaged. Among major redistributive policies are those that deal with (1) income stabilization, helping to support those who are unemployed or retired; (2) social welfare, providing either direct payments to individuals or supporting state and local efforts for the indigent; and (3) health-care programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare. Most federal agencies active in the redistributive area are located in the Department of Health and Human Services, which claims its mission to be “the United States government's principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves” (http://www.hhs.gov/about/).

Since redistributive policies are often (though sometimes incorrectly) viewed in win-lose terms—that is, if one group benefits, another will surely lose—they generate perhaps more intense discussion than any other area of public policy. Despite this controversy, every American president since Roosevelt and prior to Reagan has supported some major redistributive effort. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush, however, took the opposite position, seeking to limit and even reduce redistributive programs. The reform agenda also influenced President Clinton, whose pledge to “end welfare as we know it” resulted in legislation placing a five-year cap on public assistance and tying welfare benefits to a work requirement. President George W. Bush continued this trend by advancing a $1.3 trillion tax cut and encouraging Congress to trim federal spending. In addition, President Bush implemented a faith-based initiative designed to employ private and nonprofit organizations in the delivery of social services, under which federal, state, and local governments sought to recruit, train, and assist religious groups to provide a broad array of social services. The Obama administration did an about-face, taking on the issue of economic inequality through its efforts to pass the health-care bill—the first major social legislation in decades—and a push for increased taxes on the wealthiest Americans. These moves signaled the Obama administration's commitment to moving the country away from the “hands-off” legacy of the Reagan years (Leonhardt, 2010). Clearly President Obama's tax plan for rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans will continue this trend.

Constituent Policy   Constituent policies (Lowi, 1972, p. 300) are intended to benefit the public generally or to serve the government. Foreign and defense policies are good examples of the first set of constituent policies, as well as good examples of the operations of a significant subgovernment. The Air Force had lobbied since the 1960s to build the B-1 bomber as a mainstay of our air defense. In 1978, President Carter was able to “kill” the B-1; however, only three years later, a combination of Department of Defense officials, representatives from the defense industry (especially contractors), and congressional supporters of increased military capabilities helped President Reagan resurrect the B-1. Incidentally, although more than a hundred B-1 bombers were built and were in service at one time, even today the B-1 remains controversial, with some proposals to retire the final sixty-six bombers facing opposition from military analysts and politicians, especially those with bombers based in their home states (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2000020,00.html).

The other set of constituent policies are those directed toward the agencies of government itself. Legislation affecting the structure and function of government agencies, as well as policies governing their operations, falls in this area. President Carter was especially interested in policies impacting government agencies and was instrumental in such changes as a reorganization of the federal personnel system and a reemphasis on affirmative action in hiring practices. Presidents Reagan and George H. W. Bush were more interested in matters of technical efficiency and problems of waste in government. President Clinton, early in his term, expressed an interest in managerial issues, pledging to implement some version of Total Quality Management in the federal government, as he had done in Arkansas, and later developed the National Performance Review to make government work better and cost less (a topic we will examine in detail later). More recently, President George W. Bush placed an emphasis on developing more efficient, businesslike practices of government through a top-down performance system tied to the budget. President Obama has engaged in what has been called a “stealth revolution” in the way government works, quietly emphasizing new technology, the use of White House czars for different policy areas, and new levels of openness and transparency (Kettl, 2011).