for A-plus writer only
nosyistypesif
soc320_chapter_01.pdf
M ic
ha el
D uv
a/ Th
e Im
ag e
Ba nk
/G et
ty Im
ag es
Learning Objectives
In this chapter you will learn to:
• Identify concepts and factors that influence public policy.
• Identify key elements of public policy.
• Define what public policy is and what it does.
What Is Public Policy?
1
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 1 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
The goal of this text is to provide a well-balanced, broad understanding of the field of public policy in the United States, one that gives insight into the political dynamics that influence U.S. social policy making. As the title of this book suggests, one can look at the policy-making process as a game in which there are multiple players, rules, arenas, and strategies that dictate the dynamics and outcomes of social policy. Although policy making occurs at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—this text will focus on policy making at the federal level. Many aspects of public policy making—the who, the what, the where, and so on—are inherent to the process of creating policy, so having a solid understanding of policy making at the national level can guide the study of policy making at other levels of government.
The first step in beginning the quest to understand how the policy game is played is to define what is meant by the term public policy. Most simply defined, a policy is a chosen plan or method of action that determines future actions, and the term public policy refers to a general plan of action adopted by a government to solve a social problem, counter a threat, or make use of an opportunity. However, as discussed later in this chapter, there is no precise or commonly accepted definition of public policy, because the question of what public policy encompasses is deceptively difficult to answer.
Part of defining public policy entails understanding that U.S. public policy emerges from and is influenced by many theoretical concepts. These concepts offer an important basis for developing the necessary appreciation of the factors, dynamics, and tensions that affect policy making. Let’s explore the essential theoretical concepts that are included in any definition of public policy.
1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy
There are many theoretical concepts that make up the complex foundation upon which the political and policy process stand. Summarized in Figure 1.1, the catalog of concepts that follows is by no means exhaustive, but it covers the dominant con- cepts within the field of public policy.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 2 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Figure 1.1: Concepts relevant to public policy
Several different concepts are significant in public policy. Each concept is multidimensional and influences the complex policy-making process.
Power
No concept is as central to an analysis of public policy as is the notion of power. The policy-making process and resulting policies can not only reflect who in the process has and can wield power, but also who or what can communicate the power of the state.
Simply defined, power is the ability to alter or influence the actions of others. However, power is a multidimensional concept and should not be oversimplified. Power can be derived by material or technological capability, method of governing, political position, or support offered by the elite or mass public. However, the degree to which these elements of power may wield substantial influence remains relative to time, place, and issue. For example, during a period of domestic economic decline or political unrest, political deci- sion makers may lose credibility, authority, and legitimacy to use the power of their office. Similarly, depending on the issue, the degree of power that may be required to compel or coerce policy actors (i.e., people who create and influence policy) may rise substantially.
As such, it may be most beneficial to think of power not as being absolute in every condi- tion, but as being relative to the circumstances in which power is applied. This distinction between relative and absolute power allows one to understand that the power of a belief,
POLICY
Power
Efficiency & Effectiveness
Authority & Legitimacy
Equality & Justice
Public vs. Private
Human Nature
Representation
Public Interest
Politics
Needs & Rights
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 3 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
an idea, or a conviction does not always overcome the realities of tangible power derived from military, economic, or techno- logical means—and vice versa. For example, for many years the United States lagged behind other nations in the provision of universal health-care coverage. Many political scientists explain this fact by examining the power of groups such as the American Medical Association and the insurance industry lobby to use significant campaign contribu- tions to influence legislators to block change. In this case eco- nomic power trumped what many people believed could be a beneficial policy.
Although the concept of power can be defined in multiple ways, political theorists Stephen Lukes (1974) and Andrew Heywood (1994) argue it is best to focus on three facets essential to understanding its relevance for public policy. Specifically, power can be understood in terms of the following:
• The influence on decision making: the ability to influence a course of action in one’s favor.
• The ability to set the agenda: who in society has or controls the political power to act. • The ability to persuade and to alter and shape thoughts, ideas, and perceptions (Lukes,
1974; Heywood, 1994).
Authority and Legitimacy
The principles of authority and legitimacy strengthen the significance of the concept of power. Simply defined, authority is the right to give an order and not have it questioned. For example, elected officials, by virtue of the electoral process, have the right to make and pass certain laws.
One of the most influential theorists on authority is Max Weber. Weber (1958) argues there are three types of authority:
• Rational–legal authority is derived through the public’s acceptance of the legal sys- tem and provides for the efficient running of society through government. Thus, those who have authority are elected officials.
• Traditional authority claims that there are established beliefs about who can rule. Thus, the ability and right to rule is passed down, often through heredity.
• Charismatic authority is derived from a leader’s extraordinary personal attributes, and such leaders should be obeyed because of who they are.
Roll Call/Getty Images
Medical students prepare for American Medical Association Medical Student Lobby Day. Such groups can have significant influence in the policy process.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 4 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Representation
The evolution of democracy, from the direct democracy of Ancient Greece to the modern versions of representative democracy, reflects a preference for including the public within the policy process. Representation is the system by which the general population’s interests are represented in a decision-making body by a few individuals working on their behalf. Today the value of democratically elected representation is often accepted without critical question. However, to what extent the public should be directly involved in policy mak- ing has long been debated. For example, James Madison (1787/1990), one of the drafters
Rebuild and Recover President Barack Obama discusses some of the core issues facing the United States, particularly the economic crisis, in his 2009 State of the Union Speech. He takes a somber tone but has a hope- ful message as he assures Americans that although the "day of reckoning" has arrived "we will rebuild, we will recover." Watch the beginning of Obama's speech at http://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2A8AYa5JqmU.
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. According to the president, what are the problems facing the nation? 2. Why does President Obama say government action is necessary? What actions does he believe
government must take? 3. What does this speech show in terms of the president’s authority?
Authority reflects the disparity in power between the actor who attempts to influence others and the target of this influence. Additionally, an actor with authority enjoys more power over another actor lacking such authority. In other words, authority helps identify one’s position of power. The term authority also refers to a right to wield power. In the context of public policy, authority represents the idea that those with the power to legislate have the right to compel obedience from the governed. Moreover, this idea of authority implies that the governed will obey those who govern them. In contrast, the absence of authority may lead legislators to believe that brute force is necessary to ensure the obedi- ence of the governed.
The path from rightful authority to sheer brute force is determined by the presence or absence of legitimacy. Legitimacy can be defined as the government’s right to govern and thus be obeyed. S. M. Lipset (1960) argues that “legitimacy involves the capacity of the political system to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society.” Legitimacy refers to the assumption that the public willingly grants to others the right to influence and govern them. Legitimacy pro- vides the essential justification by which authority and power become rightful authority and not just use of power. Overall, effective and just governing requires not only neces- sary power but also the rightful authority and the granting of legitimacy to wield such policy power. For example, during a period in which the United States finds itself under attack by foreign enemies, the public and other policy actors do not question the authority of the president to take whatever actions he or she believes necessary—the Constitution legitimates that a president may take such actions.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 5 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
of the U.S. Constitution, raised the concern that citizens united and stoked by passion may very well endanger the rights of the few and many, as well as risk the stability of the state itself. Should the people govern themselves directly, a form of government known as a direct democracy, or should elected officials be chosen to govern for them, a form of gov- ernment known as a representative democracy? Table 1.1 summarizes these two forms of democracy and outlines their major characteristics.
Table 1.1: Major characteristics of direct and representative democracy
Direct democracy Representative democracy
• Most legitimate and democratic form of rep- resentation.
• Basis by which people govern is indirect. Through voting and political pressure, the citizenry can guide or compel elected officials; but it is still not the people that explicitly de- termine the outcome of policy debates.
• Power of representation remains explicitly with the people.
• Officials elected by the people who serve their interests and the interests of the state.
• Can allow the brutish power of the majority to impose their will over the minority.
• Temper the explicit power of the majority by delegating governing to a select set of chosen representatives.
Modern democracies operate as representative democracies. Under such a method of representation, elected representatives must decide whether to balance the needs and demands of their constituents with the necessity for policy actions that their constituents may not want. For these representatives, the tension always exists between deferring to the public’s demands (acting as delegates of the public) or following their own convic- tions of what is best for their constituents and for society (acting as trustees). The nature of elected representatives and the tensions they face raise many questions about policy making. Are elected representatives only interested in reelection, or does conviction for what is best for society override concerns for reelection? Do the convictions of elected rep- resentatives supersede the policy demands of their constituents, or do the preferences of a public that may be misguided by their own whims and passions overrule the convictions of the representative? (The debate about the value or curse of democracy centers to a great extent on the necessary role of the public and the necessity and type of representation best for governing. Among the classics to explore are Plato, The Republic; Aristotle, Politics; and Polybius, The Histories, as cited in Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000.)
In actuality, the two faces of the representative, whether delegate or trustee, can emerge at varying points. Depending on the policy issue, elected officials confront the realities of the political process in which they must trade off between personal conviction and the neces- sity to serve the policy demands of their constituents. Certain issues, such as those that affect constituents from other districts or states, may encourage elected representatives to act more like trustees. In comparison, issues of great political importance to their own constituents can compel representatives to act more like classic delegates. Ironically, nei- ther form of representation ensures that government is either effective or representative. Rather, both representative roles serve critical functions at given times and help ensure that elected leaders embrace the notion that they are chosen to lead, as well as to best rep- resent and decide for the people they govern.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 6 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Public Interest
The concept of public interest, which is central to politics and public policy, essentially refers to goals or policies that are in the best interests of society as a whole. Representative democracy is based on a premise that elected officials can both define and determine the public interest. However, how policy makers should determine the public interest contin- ues to inspire debate. To understand the concept of public interest, one must identify spe- cific public interests. At the most extreme, in periods of public crisis such as war, the public interest is clearly the defense of the nation. Other crises that lack a similar degree of threat do not inspire such clarity.
In general the public interest includes the critical concerns of all or most members of the community. Public consensus, or widespread agreement, may emerge over issues that affect the many, but what about issues that affect the few? Are critical concerns in the
public interest if they affect only a small number of individuals? Arguably, as the intensity and consequences of certain inter- ests increase, a consensus may emerge as to what the public interests are or should be. For example, there is little debate, especially in the post–September 11 world, that defending against a terrorist threat is in the public interest. A terrorist threat is the intent to cause harm to an entire community. Thus, the 2001 Avia- tion and Transportation Security Act enacted by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush was generally viewed by the public as being in
their best interest because it prompted stricter airport security passenger screening. How- ever, determining what other issues are in the public interest is not an easy task.
When a clear public interest fails to emerge, it is often because individuals do not always agree—even with equal analysis, a wealth of information, and motivation—what is in their own or the public’s best interest. Similarly, at times individuals will fail to accurately calculate the negative consequences of their own actions on society. And, not surprisingly, individuals may fail to see what issues are of public concern for the entire community. It is rare that there is consensus on what is the public interest. As such, in many circum- stances, government may have to define and impose a specific public interest on its citi- zenry through government actions.
Public policy is basically an imposed definition of the public interest on society by elected representatives. The failures and the victories of public policy depend on how clearly public interest is defined. Yet the dilemma that persists is that those who define the public interest may be doing so in a manner that serves their own private interests and not the common good.
Comstock/Thinkstock
Public interest issues concern most members of a community. Air security is one issue of public interest.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 7 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Hunger in the United States Although hunger is often associated more with problems in Third World countries, the statistics on hunger in the United States are staggering. It is reported that 1 in 6 adults and 1 in 4 children struggle with a lack of access to enough nutritious food. This is commonly known as food insecurity. Many of these people are working full-time jobs, and only 10% are homeless. Learn more about this topic from this video presented by Feeding America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPvtlllZ6tk.
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Discuss the choices people, society, and the government face when dealing with this issue? 2. Is solving hunger in the public interest? 3. Is the seriousness of this issue adequately communicated to the public?
Politics
The term politics derives from the Greek word polis, which means “city-state.” By exten- sion, politics refers to the affairs of the state, or what concerns the state. Traditionally, politics is defined in the context of decisions made by government and the institutional processes government uses, such as debate and consensus, to determine the direction for the community and society. In this sense, politics raises an important awareness of the del- icate division between the public affairs of the state and the private lives of individuals.
Politics encompasses the dynamics and exchanges that occur when a state determines its strategic plan of public policies. David Easton (1981) defined this notion of politics as the “authoritative allocation of values.” Politics captures the communication, exchange, discussion, and debate that emerge between competing ideas and groups within the state. According to Bernard Crick (1962), politics is the “solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion” (p. 30). Crick’s interpretation of politics reflects the importance that discussion, negotiation, and consensus have in mini- mizing the consequences of social differences. Without politics, society would lack the discussion of issues and policy solutions that helps lubricate the institutional process and stymie the escalation to societal conflict and violence. Arguably, in the title of his 1936 book, Harold Lasswell may have best summed up the concept of politics as an exploration of “who gets what, when, and how?”
Public Versus Private Concerns
When should government intervene in private affairs (anything restricted to a particular person or group)? One contentious theory that describes government action in terms of the economic principle of market failure helps explain the difference between public and private (Weimer & Vining, 1989). This theory assumes that government actions should be limited to specific attempts to correct the failings of an idealized market. In an ideal- ized market the interactions of private individuals always result in the efficient alloca- tion of socioeconomic resources within a given state. However, in reality, resources are not always allocated efficiently, and this is considered a market failure. Public policy is a response by the state to correct market failures. According to this theory, public policy should be thought of as a governmental decision to intervene in the private interactions
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 8 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
of groups, individuals, or other actors. Public policies, in part, represent government’s attempt to encourage, discourage, prohibit, or prescribe certain optimal behavior within the public that is or is not occurring privately (Weimer & Vining, 1989). However, govern- ment action should be limited to attempting to remedy private failures that have great consequences for society as a whole.
Typically, what is a policy issue that is of primary concern to the government versus one that is of primary concern to the individual falls along a continuum (see Figure 1.2). A policy position that falls at the private extreme of the continuum is viewed as an issue that the individual is solely responsible for addressing. With such a position, government should have no role.
Figure 1.2: Theoretical continuum of public policy
A policy can address a range of public, private, or both public and private concerns. The government does not play a role in issues that are exclusively a private concern.
Issues considered private concerns are not as obvious as one might assume. A classic example of a private issue is the practice of religious beliefs and the position that favors separation of church and state. It is popularly accepted that the state should not play a role in advocating or regulating a particular religion. However, it is not as clear to what extent religious behavior should be regulated so that it does not intermingle with the state. Recent federal court cases have explored the meaning of separation of church and state in terms of religious practices that occur at public school sporting events, at extracurricular school activities, and during official proceedings at courtrooms (Axtman & Parker, 2001; Reuters, 2002). In this case what is seemingly a private issue can be also seen as a public one if it is decided that certain practices should not be sanctioned by the government and thus must be regulated.
One of the examples of the tension between public and private solutions is that of Social Security and saving for retirement (see Figure 1.3). Currently, this issue is seen as a purely public solution—money is taken out of everyone’s paychecks for Social Security sav- ings, irrespective of one’s private preference. Originally, Social Security was a public pol- icy designed to regulate the savings behavior of all individuals. Before passage of the 1935 Social Security Act, savings and retirement were considered to be private concerns.
Balanced Public and Private Concerns PrivatePublic
Fully Public Issue Greater Public vs. Private Aspects to
Policy Issue
Greater Private vs. Public Aspects to
Policy Issue Fully Private Issue
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 9 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
The logic was that individuals should be responsible for managing their financial means in order to ensure their future livelihood. However, the political acceptance of a public role in this issue increased with the onset of the Great Depression in the 1930s, when a great number of people were negatively affected by economic conditions. The Depression revealed that individuals had not been saving sufficiently for retirement, much less a dire economic emergency.
Figure 1.3: Public versus private policy solutions: Issues of savings and retirement
Saving for retirement, as depicted in this continuum, was originally a private concern. Social Security was designed to regulate individual behaviors but was not voluntary. Saving for retirement is no longer considered a uniquely personal issue because of national economic conditions.
Social Security is again sparking debate between public and private perspectives as main- taining funding for the program has become less certain. According to the 2001 Moyni- han-Parsons Commission on Social Security, difficult choices will have to be made as to whether to maintain Social Security as it is through increased taxation, cut Social Secu- rity benefits, or institute some kind of privatization. (The various policy positions were derived from a recent government study. The positions on the continuum are a rough approximation. See the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security, 2001). The Social Security issue highlights how the preference for more or less government interven- tion can and does change dramatically over time.
Full Private SolutionsBalance of Public/Private
Full Public Solutions
Reduced Social Security Benefits
Maintain Full Public-Funded Social Security
Full Public Responsibility 1935 Social Security Act
Public-Managed Investment Accounts
Plans
Partial Privatization Personal Retirement
Accounts Plans
Full Private Responsibility Before 1933
Full Privatization (Private Investment
Accounts)
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 10 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Determining what role government will play in a particular policy area highlights some fascinating ideological contradictions within U.S. politics. The classic perception is that liberals believe the government should play a greater role in tackling society’s biggest problems. They tend to use public power to actively address social ills and economic inequalities through policy actions. For example, in addressing the issue of poverty or education, liberals tend to prefer public-funded and managed government programs. In contrast, conservatives tend to favor a limited role for the state and a preference for pri- vate actions and responsibility. Regarding education and poverty, they tend to favor pri- vate responsibility and personal initiative over government funding and management. Yet if the policy issue deals with abortion, for example, many conservatives favor gov- ernment actions that prohibit women from obtaining abortions, whereas many liberals would argue that such an issue is private. The point is that there is no set map as to what type of policy actions best serve a particular problem.
The extent and nature of the role of government within a society is not predetermined. The scope of policy action reflects the array of political, policy, and ideological interests, the period in which a problem manifests, and the pervasive belief that a certain course of action is best given the nature of the problem. In the end the question is not whether more or less government is the solution to the problem. Rather, an assortment of public or private solutions should be considered and evaluated as to their merits in positively addressing the issue in question.
Needs and Rights
What are the needs and rights of individuals within a complex society? The political debate over the allocation of resources to meet society’s needs pervades the policy process. Simi- larly, the notion of rights and the role of government in protecting those rights are fun- damental, though they remain in some dispute. For public policy, the dilemma is clearly discerning between what is a need and what should be protected as a right under the law.
A need refers to what is required for humans to exist, regardless of culture or politics. Few would debate that a human’s basic needs are air, water, food, clothing, and shelter. The debate begins when we start discussing the quality of needs and the government’s responsibility for meeting them. For example, what type of air, water, food, clothing, and shelter will suffice to satisfy the needs of individuals? Moreover, don’t health, education, and security qualify as needs, given their critical importance to survival and the persis- tence of life in a complex society? Once this debate about need is placed within the forum of domestic politics, it becomes quite unclear what needs really are.
If members of a community are hungry, lack water, or require shelter, it may appear obvi- ous what role government should have in addressing such societal woes. Yet some indi- viduals still remain homeless, whereas others may lack sufficiently healthy foods or clean water. There is no universal list of needs a government must provide and ensure for its citizenry. Rather, through the political process and policy actions, government defines and redefines what is a need, the extent to which society’s resources will be reallocated to meet these needs, and what role government agencies will play in delivering and ensur- ing these needs for the betterment of individuals and society.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 11 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
In comparison, the notion of rights captures the moral entitlement that one expects to be treated in a certain manner by society. For many the right to live in freedom and at liberty is fundamental to a democratic society. Thus, in the United States freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of information are fiercely protected and guarded. The United States is unique in that the Bill of Rights has codified the broad areas within which each individual is ensured constitutional protection. Yet even though a set of rights and freedoms was defined in the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, these rights and freedoms are often contested within various political and legal contexts.
The debate within U.S. public policy concerns not only what rights individuals have, but how such rights will be defined. For example, over the last 15 years, there has been heated debate over who has the right to marry. Such definitions of rights react to the pressures of the public or elite and evolve as a society progresses. For public policy, the significance of defining one’s rights proves substantial. Once defined by law, the rights of individu- als represent a check against the enormous power of the state. Rights also provide a legal basis for deterring or punishing the actions of individuals and establish a moral frame within which to view the behavior of all individuals and the state. For example, a legal right to sufficient air, water, food, clothing, and shelter would obligate the state to provide a minimum level of care to satisfy the basic needs of its populace. Such a unique right, if ever granted, would redefine what quality of needs is necessary for survival.
Equality and Social Justice
Can a society be unequal and just, or does justice demand equality for all? Justice has always been a fundamental value of democratic societies. The classical Greek philosophers Aris- totle and Plato distinguished between two types of justice: procedural and social (as cited in Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000). Procedural justice refers to the procedures that ensure individu- als are treated fairly, such as due process, a fair trial, and equal- ity before the law. Social justice refers to the fairness of a society in determining that individuals receive what they are entitled to or need. Equality refers to individuals having equal status within society and thus being treated equally in equal situa- tions. Is social justice essential for the betterment of a society, and does such a goal demand a certain degree and type of equal- ity? Although such questions raise an array of prickly dilemmas for policy makers, they are integral to the debate over how policy should address profound societal failings.
iStockphoto/Thinkstock
Justice is a fundamental value of democratic society and can be either procedural or social.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 12 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Social justice would seem to suggest a degree of equality across a society that alleviates obstacles to one’s future possibilities and removes forces that cause undue suffering. As a concept, social justice raises awareness of the societal pains of inequality, discrimination, racism, sexism, ageism, segregation, homophobia, and economic suffering that hinder the achievement of a more complete society. Some would argue that social justice extends fur- ther, to the moral necessity to determine “a morally defensible distribution of rewards in society, evaluated in terms of wages, profits, housing, medical care, welfare benefits, and so forth” (Heywood, 1994, p. 235). In terms of equality, such an understanding of social justice carries with it the expectation that the government will redress inequalities so that those who are in greatest need obtain assistance. If equality is deemed necessary for a society, then the obligations of the state may extend far beyond the allocation of resources, the deliverance of programs, or even the protection of individual rights and freedoms.
What form of equality is truly socially just? Let’s explore this question by distinguishing among the various notions of equality.
• Foundational equality addresses the belief that all individuals share a similar natural imperative and, as such, are recognized as equal to one another in terms of moral worth. Foundational equality demands that no one individual or member of a group garners special benefit or persecution under the law or in his or her treat- ment by the state. Legally, and in terms of public policy, foundational equality helps us grasp the notion of equal protection before the law. For example, all individuals have the right to have adequate shelter and to live where they choose, and they can- not be denied shelter on the basis of race or gender.
• A type of equality that addresses the greater sociocultural and political conditions that may prohibit greater individual equality is equality of opportunity. This notion of equality helps ensure that individuals are provided with a roughly equal footing when competing within the greater society. For example, providing suffrage to African Americans and women, removing poll taxes, and expanding the right to vote to 18-year-olds all offered an increased equality in the right to vote. To ensure equality of opportunity, the state may have to address conditions that hinder per- sonal development deemed essential for maximizing one’s potential. For example, given the importance education has in maximizing one’s future potential, profound differences in educational opportunities could be seen as a striking example of an inequality of opportunity.
Ironically, although this interpretation of equality may suggest a significant degree of intervention by the government, it does not eliminate inequality. Equality of opportunity represents an attempt to alleviate inequality that exists because of soci- etal obstacles that makes it impossible for individuals to choose their own destiny. However, individuals are expected to use their effort and ability to take advantage of equality of opportunity. For example, if segments of the population are restricted from voting, then that society is by definition unequal. However, if one chooses not to vote even though granted the opportunity to do so, such a society is not neces- sarily unequal.
• The most radical interpretation of equality focuses on the resulting equality of out- comes. Equality of outcome is defined by the existence of a societal similarity in the quality and quantity of the critical needs and rights within society. Minimally, such notions may simply justify such government initiatives as a progressive income tax, a minimum wage, or government-sponsored public health care and education.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 13 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Taken to the extreme, equality of outcome can justify a wide role for public policy and the redistribution of all societal resources to achieve this material equality for all individuals. According to this notion of equality, a just society will exist once inequality, whether material or not, is eradicated.
Overall, each vision of equality focuses on different paths toward a more just society. Each vision, however, can still be taken to such radical extremes that the very notion of equal- ity is threatened by its pursuit. For instance, how aggressive should the government be in defining when and where the practical conditions of inequality exist? Moreover, to what extent should public policies be developed and implemented to ensure against various aspects of inequality? In the end, notions of equality remain open to definition, as do the very public policies that seek to address the causes and conditions that lead to greater equality. Thus, although social justice may seem an obvious pursuit of the state, defin- ing the path of equality that best serves such a goal is a political and policy question that continues to escape clarity. Such a question remains laden with concern over how such equality and social justice will indeed be practically achieved through the specific design and implementation of public policies.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
The public and policy makers judge the entire range of public policies and government programs in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness. Efficiency refers to whether a gov- ernment program or service operates at the most optimal level in its use of resources such as time, dollars, or personnel. Effectiveness refers to whether a specific program or ser- vice achieves the intended effect sought by the public policy. Efficiency highlights whether programs and services are wasting resources. Effectiveness emphasizes the importance of achieving the desired positive or negative impacts on the desired actors.
In the context of public policy, what is an acceptable level of efficiency remains open to significant interpretation and even political manipulation. Policies and programs bear the political consequences that may arise from the perception that programs or services are too costly to fulfill. Frequently, political pressure pushes government programs to be as efficient as possible to minimize the needless waste of limited taxpayer resources. Con- versely, inefficiency is at times deemed acceptable, depending on the preferences of the actors involved and changing societal realities. Various programs administered by the government—from national missile defense research and space exploration to the postal service—have at times been criticized as fiscally inefficient. However, depending on the public and political preference for particular programs, an inefficient welfare program may attract more criticism than an inefficient defense program. But most importantly, the goal of efficiency may prove difficult, given that government programs and services are designed to redress complex policy problems. As such, any notion of efficiency may be sacrificed, given the political priorities that emphasize effectiveness over efficiency.
Similarly, as with efficiency, the notion of effectiveness can be redefined by the political and policy preferences of the actors involved. Objectively speaking, a program is ineffec- tive if it fails to alter the behavior of a target population as intended by the policy. If the behavior persists unchanged, it should seem clear that the policy is ineffective. In actual- ity, effectiveness remains open to subjective definition. Because of political preferences, poor analytical skills, or lack of proper evaluation, a policy may be deemed effective even
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 14 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
though it is actually ineffective. In particular, programs that garner great political sup- port may persist even in the absence of any evidence of tangible benefit. For instance, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) programs have long achieved wide support among a variety of political and public actors. Critical evaluations of D.A.R.E. programs have questioned the program’s impact on drug use among schoolchildren because no discernible change in patterns of drug use can be credited to the exposure to D.A.R.E pro- grams (Waldron, 2001, Levoy, 2002). Nevertheless, public and political support continues for these programs because the same political actors that designed and adopted the policy are also critical to evaluating its effectiveness.
Human Nature
Human nature refers to the characteristics that humans have naturally; for example, a sense of morality. What these characteristics are exactly has been long been a source of debate. However, according to political theorist Andrew Heywood, human nature, which refers to that “essential and immutable character of all human beings” (Heywood, 1994, p. 316), is a constant thread that permeates our discussions and analyses of the political society in which we all live. At some level, the notion of human nature permeates all facets of politics and policy—whether it is the nature of political representation, the insti- tutional structure of government, the rights and freedoms given to individuals, policies dealing with nuclear deterrence, speed limits, education training programs, or programs that attempt to rehabilitate convicted criminals.
All societies have sets of rules and laws that specify how people are expected to act. Pub- lic policy often enforces, clarifies, or interprets those rules and laws. For example, in the second half of the 20th century, the United States pursued antidiscrimination policies to ensure civil rights for all citizens. Why? A majority of citizens felt it was morally wrong for individuals to be discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity. Does this mean that racism has been eliminated from U.S. society? Unfortunately not, but now an individual cannot be legally discriminated against. Legislation and civil rights policy can- not alter the fact that some people think others are unequal because of who they are. In this sense, human nature is fixed, and public policy can’t change how an individual feels—although it can prohibit certain behavior based upon those feelings. Conversely— and optimistically—some believe that individuals have the capacity to learn, change, and improve. This belief helps justify the types of policies that society may view as necessary to address social problems.
The concept of human nature enables us to generalize the expected behavior of all individu- als, as Figure 1.4 illustrates. Are individuals born good or bad? Are individuals socialized to become bad? Can individuals be conditioned to become good? Such generalizations justify the logic, the design, and the necessity of public policies that seek to govern and regulate individual behavior and actions. Policy makers rarely tailor public policies to the realities of each individual nature, but the policies represent sweeping policy statements about what society believes about human nature. Politically, invoking this concept carries a powerful connotation of what one believes individuals are, what they can be, and what they cannot be. Yet the concept remains so frustratingly intriguing because the answer to the question of what human nature is remains elusive.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 15 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.1 Theoretical Concepts Critical to Understanding Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Central to the debate about human nature is whether genes program an individual’s nature or whether the environment nurtures or changes the individual. Classical Greek theorists Aristotle, Plato, and Polybius offer a severe critique of the weak and self- destructive nature of individuals and thus justify a system of government that separates and minimizes the political power afforded to them because of their nature (as cited in Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000). In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes argued that the atavistic tendencies of human beings—their basic selfishness, aggressiveness, and weaknesses— cannot undergo reformation; instead, a state can only constrain these tendencies (as cited in Ebenstein, 2000). Conversely, other theorists such as Thomas Aquinas offer a more opti- mistic vision of human nature that holds to the potential goodness of individuals (as cited in Ebenstein, 2000). Is human nature inherently good or bad?
Figure 1.4: Policy implications of nature versus nurture
The notion of human nature permeates all discussions about politics and public policy. The concepts of nature and nurture are complex and carry different culturally dependent connotations. The challenge is to define and understand what nature and nurture are and are not.
In light of the issue of human nature, to what extent can this nature change when nur- tured? Can the environment—including family, peers, the community, or the state— nurture the behavior of the individual? If the notion of nurture affects how we develop as individuals, then an environment that is either negative or positive can nurture or con- dition one to be either more good or more bad. Individuals are not fixed from a nurture
Nature
Nurture
Individuals are good and optimistic.
Government has a limited policy role.
Government regulates bad innate behavior.
GOOD BAD
GOOD
Reform is possible for individuals.
Government has a positive role.
Individuals are bad and pessimistic.
Government has an expanded role and significantly regulates all behavior.
BAD
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 16 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
perspective, but are products of the character of their environment, good or bad. The indi- vidual is nurtured to reflect the character of that environment. Based on this perspective, if appropriate public policies can be developed to alter the weaknesses or failings of the environment, then all individuals can be nurtured to change, improve, and excel beyond their initial condition. In contrast, a negative environment left unchanged will simply fuel a cycle of nurturing character weaknesses and failings.
Beliefs about human nature are culturally and nationally significant in that they inform what all individuals are capable of, what the role of government should be, the purpose and nature of public policy, and the state of society. The challenge with such a complex concept, however, is to practically define and understand what human nature and nurture are and are not. Taken to an extreme, the nurture argument can be used to justify radical policies of social engineering that seek to remake the individual through programmatic conditioning. State-sponsored reeducation programs such as those in the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Nazi Germany sought to indoctrinate complete ideological and politi- cal loyalty to the state. Similarly, extreme notions of the “nature” argument can manifest into arguments of the natural superiority of one group over another and have long justi- fied ethnic, racial, and religious genocide. Clearly, either extreme can produce horrific policy and political outcomes.
Now that you have an appreciation of the concepts that shape and influence public policy, let’s move on to a discussion of exactly what public policy is.
1.2 Defining Public Policy
Not surprisingly, a number of scholars such as James Anderson, Thomas Dye, and B. Guy Peters have provided useful and important definitions of public policy (Anderson, 1997; Dye, 1987; Peters, 1999).These competing definitions provide a useful foundation that begins to expand on what policy is. At first glance, these defi- nitions may seem redundant. However, each emphasizes the very complexity of public policy and provides many insights about the nature and scope of politics, policy, and gov- ernment. Rather than focusing upon any one of these competing definitions, we’ll discuss the common dimensions and elements that are found within most of them (Theodoulou, 1995). The various definitions reveal six common critical components based upon the fol- lowing three assumptions:
• Policy is concerned with how issues and problems are defined, constructed, and placed on the political and policy agenda.
• Policy is both long-term and short-term. • Policy is an ongoing process involving formulation, implementation, enforcement,
and evaluation.
Each of the six components captures a different, but integral, dimension of what public policy means and represents (see Table 1.2).
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 17 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Table 1.2: Public policy definition Essential components
• Represents both action and inaction. • Is focused on achieving an intentional course of action with a specific or sometimes vague goal as
its objective. • Involves an array of formal and informal players within and outside the arenas of government. • Includes a variety of types of public policy actions, including executive orders, rules, and regulations. • Is an action that leads to intentional and unintentional consequences. • Follows a definable yet fluid evolutionary course of stages, represented by a predecision, decision,
and postdecision phase, in the policy-making process.
Action and Inaction
The decisions to bomb another nation-state, establish the Social Security program, and build a new highway infrastructure are all diverse examples of explicit actions undertaken by a governing political body to address a specific issue or problem. Such policy actions cannot be ignored or disregarded. The decision to act, made by the appropriate authorities, will result in some degree of substantive policy action. The policy actions taken by the state are often significant, tangible, and readily visible statements of what the government or authorities intend.
Conversely, choosing not to bomb another state, preferring not to establish a Social Secu- rity program, and deciding never to build a new highway are all representations of inac- tions with comparable significance for society. The decision not to go to war, for instance,
is a powerful decision with potentially dramatic repercussions. The decision by President George H. W. Bush not to invade Iraq in 1991 and battle the regime of Saddam Hussein during the Persian Gulf War represents a classic decision of inaction with long-standing implications for U.S. interests. The decision by the Bill Clinton administration not to become directly involved in Rwanda dur- ing the bloody civil war in that nation represents another example of inaction. To fairly criticize the decisions of these presidents, or any decision maker, one must appreciate the basic calculation between whether to choose to act or accept the pres- ent circumstances.
One can understand decision makers’ preference for inaction or action in light of a simple calcula- tion about whether they should somehow alter the present social, economic, or political status quo, or current state of affairs. This calculation is not as simple as is often suggested in the media, by pundits, or by armchair political experts. Once decision makers take action, the status quo will change.
Narvikk/Vetta/Getty Images
The decision to bomb another country is an example of an explicit action undertaken by a governing political body.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 18 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
A change in the status quo often presents a significant dilemma and constraint on all deci- sions and actions. Why? Because it is unclear exactly what outcome and consequences will result from any specific policy action.
In the abstract, every decision by the government to alter the status quo is a simple deci- sion between either action or inaction (see Figure 1.5). Such decisions, however, are not the result of mere fiscal calculations of costs and benefits. Rather, governmental decisions involve the many aspects of messy real-world politics, where calculations of cost and benefit and evaluations of consequences from action or inaction are often made subjective by the political realities of the policy process. In essence, as people start to question the current status quo or demonstrate that they no longer support it, policy makers will start to prefer taking action on issues over simply not acting.
The preference for action or inaction reflects the union of political motivations unique to each policy issue. Ideology, partisan affiliation, constituent interest, or national interest may affect the decision for action. For example, health-care reform in the United States had been considered since the late 19th century, but no significant action had been taken. Why, then, did the Obama administration decide to act so decisively regarding this issue in the early 21st century? The administration calculated that there was sufficient sup- port among voters, that many members of Congress were receptive ideologically, and the president himself was in favor. (See Chapter 11 for more about U.S. health-care policy.)
Figure 1.5: Policy action versus policy inaction
Action and inaction are considered in relation to the overall status quo. If absolutely no action is taken, the status quo represents the realization that the current state of affairs will remain the same. Every decision to alter the status quo is a decision either to seek change or to seek no change.
STATUS QUO—CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS
ACTION=Seeking Change
INACTION=Seeking No Change
• Political/Policy Consequences of Status Quo Unacceptable
• Problem Solved or New Problem Emerges
• Political/Policy Consequences of Status Quo Acceptable
• Problem or Issue Persists
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 19 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Formal and Informal Players
Although public policy is often thought of as the product of decisions made by government officials, the reality is that public policy is also sparked, influenced, designed, adopted, executed, and evaluated by an array of policy-making players of a formal and informal nature. The formal players represent the set of actors with policy authority as defined by the U.S. Constitution, as well as actors who assist these authorities in the design, adop- tion, implementation, and evaluation of public policy. Across all levels of government, elected officials, appointed officials, members of the judiciary, professional staff, and the bureaucracy represent the many sources of formal power that influence and shape the policy process from within the institutional arenas of government. Each of these formal players enjoys various and sometimes considerable influence over the evolution of the policy process.
Additionally, an eclectic array of informal players—including interest groups, lobbyists, citizen activists, experts and academics, political consultants, and the media—represents a particularly interesting and powerful force that seeks to influence and shape the policy process from outside the institutional arena. The informal players who sway the legisla- tive process garner influence through their relationships, role, and access to the formal players.
Various Types of Actions
“Public policy” is a label applied liberally to help describe a wide range of government actions, legislation, and decision making. To assist in classifying these various public poli- cies, a number of typologies can be found within the public policy literature (Anderson, 1997; Dye, 1992; Edelman, 1995; Lowi, 1964; Peters, 1996; Schneider & Ingram, 1997) (see Table 1.3). A typology of public policies is simply a classification of types or categories of policies that have characteristics in common. For example, one way to type policies is by looking at their effects on society—who benefits from a type of policy and who bears the cost from a type of policy. Another way to type policies is by issue area, such as foreign, health, welfare policy.
The typologies of public policy presented in Table 1.3 might suggest a range of diverse policies. In actuality, each of these classifications offers a different perspective for under- standing the purpose and intent of public policy. The types don’t compete with one another; instead, they complement one another. In addition, the types don’t necessarily fit a single classification; rather, many policies reflect a number of types within a given policy action. Thus, a policy could be classified as a particular type in one situation and as something else in another situation.
Given the political nature of policy making, policy can also be typed as either liberal or conservative. The former demands governmental intervention to bring about social change, whereas the latter opposes such action. In recent years it has become increasingly difficult to differentiate between the two as the United States faces a number of issues that require some sort of intervention by government. Issue areas have also been used to classify types of policy, such as welfare policy, foreign policy, and environmental policy. Additionally, some authors type policy through an institutional designation such as judi- cial policy or legislative policy (Salisbury, 1968).
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 20 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Table 1.3: Public policy typologies
Anderson
Procedural Policy • Establishes set of legislative criteria prescribing
conditions and actors responsible for a policy action
• Outlines the rules and regulations available to the administrative agency
• Are directions as to how substantive actions will be taken
• Example: rules of war
Substantive Policy • Tangible actions by government deals with a
specific problem • May assign costs and benefits • Can focus advantages and disadvantages
toward specific target population • Example: lowering the state’s blood alcohol
level for legal intoxication
Edelman
Material Policy • Provides tangible benefits or substantive power
to policy beneficiaries • Can impose real disadvantages on those adverse-
ly affected • Represents significant policy actions by govern-
ment to address or redress a specific issue or concern
• Example: new regulation restricting car emissions
Symbolic Policy • Principally rhetorical • Seeks to inform or persuade population • Often represents a particular point of view • Attempts to appeal to emotions or patriotism • Declaration of action without tangible advan-
tages or disadvantages • Example: calls to Americans to stand united
after September 11, 2001
Lowi
Distributive Policy • Allocation of goods
and services for specific individual/ group or segment of population
• Are portrayed as win-win policies since benefits are targeted
• Various costs are sufficiently distrib- uted to minimize potential for politi- cal opposition
• Reflect pork barrel politics
• Provides general- ized benefits to society
• Example: highway construction
Redistributive Policy • Reallocation of rights,
monies, or property to assist a specific individu- al/group or segment of population
• Redistribution of public or private resources from one group to another
• One group benefits while another bears costs
• Highly contentious • Usually viewed along
class lines, resulting in winners and losers
• Can also reallocate ben- efits that are specifically focused on a select few
• Reflects desire for more equitable allocation of resources within society
• Example: Social Security
Regulatory Policy • Application of rules
of behavior on in- dustry, individuals, or groups
• Seeks either to alter or restrict behav- ior and practices deemed as negative in effect
• Costs are borne by a specific group
• Example: regula- tions prohibiting smoking in public places
Self-Regulatory Policy • Self-monitoring by
individual or group of their behavior
• Impose level of costs deemed rea- sonable by govern- ing members of target population
• Tends to benefit the regulated group because it pre- empts government regulation
• Example: profes- sional licensure
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 21 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Intended Courses of Action
Certain policy goals, and the actions taken to achieve them, are by definition dramatic pub- lic policies. The decisions to go to war in light of the attack on Pearl Harbor, to desegregate schools in the South, to establish Great Society programs in the 1960s, to deregulate certain industries, or to capture Osama bin Laden dead or alive were dramatic policy actions. Explicit or implicit within these policy actions is the desire to achieve prescribed goals through intentional courses of action. In other words, public policy actions do not simply materialize without thought, nor are they accidents. Rather, they reflect the decisions taken by the various authorities to address a recognized issue or problem in a specified manner.
Achieving policy goals is accomplished through the use of various policy instruments, which are the means or tools by which governments achieve solutions to problems. Exam- ples of policy instruments are laws, services, taxes, and monies. The art of playing the policy game is that no scientific blueprint exists as to which instruments best address a policy problem, how such instruments should be designed to solve a problem, or how best to achieve a desired policy goal. Often the choice of instrument depends upon the nature of the problem, the target population, the goals of the policy, and finally, how the policy shall be implemented.
The evolution of policy action begins with identifying the problem, stating the policy change and goal desired, and specifying the instruments with which to achieve this change. The description of the goal, however, can range from the exact to the vague. For instance, an often-stated policy and political goal is reducing crime. Stated as such, how- ever, the goal remains vague. A more specific goal would seek to reduce the number of a particular crime, such as murder or rape, and by some specific percentage. In such a case, the instrument to achieve such a goal could be legislation that mandated an automatic sentence of the death penalty for those individuals found guilty of rape or murder. If a policy goal evolves from general to specific, the selection of instruments and the basis with which to evaluate success or failure become much clearer.
Although the policy instrument represents the means by which policy makers achieve their desired policy ends, it is still the specificity of the expected goal that provides the basis for judging success and failure. Vague goals cloud the measure of success or failure. For example, the government introduces a program to retrain workers who lost their jobs because their employers went out of business or downsized. The instrument the govern- ment chooses to address this problem is money that funds a retraining program that will provide financial incentives to participants. What is the goal of such a program? Is it to retrain workers so that they are marketable with new job skills or to place them in a job immediately upon graduation? The goal is unclear.
Specific goals, even though advantageous from one perspective, do not always satisfy polit- ical motivations. Thus, an inevitable tension exists in the policy process between the policy value of clear goals versus the political value of vague goals. In a perfect policy world, instruments would be perfectly interlocked with the understanding of the problem in order to achieve a stated goal. In reality, instruments are often mismatched with a poorly mis- understood problem designed to achieve a vague goal. The consequence of this dynamic mismatch between problems, instruments, and goals is to impede the ability of the policy to achieve the desired action. In other words, poor public policy is not simply an accident, but a by-product of the political failings that exist within the policy-making process.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 22 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Intentional and Unintentional Consequences
Once a policy decision is made and the instruments are selected, some consequence will result from the policy action. No policy action, once executed, fails to have any impact whatsoever. Every public policy can alter the administrative environment or the political interest of certain stakeholders (individuals who are directly or indirectly affected by the issue, within and outside government). A public policy can also deplete or redirect limited resources away from other areas or heighten the interest of the public or media in a spe- cific issue. At this point, the question becomes whether the action resulted in intentional consequences as desired by the decision maker, unintentional consequences unforeseen by the decision maker, or some degree of both.
With respect to intentional consequences, a policy seeks to achieve some stated goal. For example, if the policy issue deals with the poor and the program is food stamps, the desired intentional consequence is a reduction in the number of poor adults, children, and families who are hungry. However, sometimes a public policy does not achieve the intended consequences because the nature of legislation, structure of the program, rules and regulations governing the program, and issues involving implementing and evaluating the program lead to unin- tended consequences. For example, if a food stamp program disallows legal immigrants, then a class of individuals that may be poor and hungry will not qualify for assistance. Or abuse or waste, either by the administrative agency or the user of food stamps, may result in mon- ies not being used to purchase necessary foodstuffs. In fact, an unintended consequence of the U.S. food stamps program was the creation of a secondary black market in which food stamps were used to trade and purchase goods other than foods. As a result, already limited resources were wasted, criminal behavior and abuse related to the program arose, the positive perception of the program was damaged, and the success of the program was diminished.
Sometimes certain public poli- cies are just bad solutions to complex problems. The design of a policy can be driven by politics, the legislative process, and administrative realities, and thus may not effectively address the nature of the prob- lem and its causes. Further, the ripple effects of the policy may result in new problems. Although the policy may have been designed to be a solution, the reality is that no effects of a policy solution can be perfectly foreseen until it is intro- duced. Although past experience, policy research, expertise among the actors, and sim- ple logic may all suggest that the policy is indeed the right solution, it still may prove to be a failure once implemented.
Exactostock/Super Stock
The creation of a secondary black market is an example of an unintended consequence associated with food stamp programs.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 23 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.2 Defining Public Policy CHAPTER 1
Seldom will policy problems as complex as child poverty, adult illiteracy, youth unem- ployment, urban pollution, gun-related violence, or traffic congestion remain static and unchanged. Moreover, it is unclear beforehand how administrative difficulties, regional socioeconomic differences, and the nature of the problem may impact the policy solution. As a result, even the supposed best solution, well designed and politically supported, may result in some negative consequences that are only fully appreciated once the policy is put into action. The realization that polices will likely have both intended and unintended consequences helps emphasize the obstacles to addressing any specific policy problem.
Policy Making as a Process
To observers of the policy-making world, the policy process appears as a jumbled maze and a process almost absent any pattern. Clearly, the evolution of policy is not simple, nor is there any single standard evolutionary path. Every policy is virtually unique in the manner in which it can develop. Nevertheless, exploring the process as a series of fluid policy stages is valuable.
Many textbooks on policy making group the activities that take place during policy mak- ing into a sequence of stages referred to as a policy cycle or stages-heuristic approach to understanding U.S. policy making. The stages-heuristic approach will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3 but, briefly, it identifies the policy process as an evolution- ary cycle of abstract phases and stages by which policy emerges, develops, and changes within a given society. This approach serves to break down the policy process so that we understand how private issues evolve into public and political concerns, how the legis- lative process structures political concerns into legislative proposals and law, how such laws are formulated and put into effect, and how such policies are evaluated and may eventually change or end.
In this text the policy cycle is broadly characterized as a series of phases labeled as pre- decision, decision, and postdecision, in which the activities identified by the stages- heuristic approach take place (Figure 1.6). Specifically, within the predecision phase, analytical attention focuses on the identification of a policy problem, the agenda setting of issues, and the formulation and design of policy solutions. At the decision phase, pol- icy adoption explores the legislative actions that government actors undertake to address specific policy problems. Finally, during the postdecision phase, we see the necessity of policy implementation, the role of policy evaluation, and the decision to change or terminate a policy.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 24 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.3 What, Then, Is Public Policy? CHAPTER 1
Figure 1.6: Public policy process phases and stages
The stages-heuristic approach identifies policy making as a cyclical process of phases and stages. Different activities take place in the predecision, decision, and postdecision phases of the policy process.
1.3 What, Then, Is Public Policy?
Most simply defined, public policy refers to an action of government designed to secure a politically defined purpose. In this text we define public policy simply as whatever government chooses to do or not do to deal with a problem or issue of concern. Generally, policy does one or more of the following: (a) reconciles conflicting claims on scarce resources, (b) establishes incentives for cooperation and collective action that would be irrational without government influence, (c) prohibits morally unaccept- able behavior, (d) protects the activity of a group or an individual, and (e) promotes activi- ties that are essential or important to government. Finally, policy provides direct benefits to citizens.
Predecision Phase
Problem Identification
Agenda Setting
Policy Formulation
Decision Phase
Policy Adoption
Postdecision Phase
Policy Implementation
Policy Evaluation
Policy Change or Termination
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 25 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Section 1.3 What, Then, Is Public Policy? CHAPTER 1
Policy in Practice: Social Security Action and Inaction Born of the Great Depression and signed into law in 1935, Social Security has become the United States’ largest program, accounting for 20% of all federal spending. At its inception, Social Security was a striking example of policy action in the face of pressing social problems. It is now the most universal of all federal programs, touching the lives of every working person, and is among the most popular. Social Security means that one is assured at least a small pension and an acceptable level of free or low-cost medical care. It means that those with aging parents won’t have to work an extra job or go into debt to support their parents’ bills and their own health bills as they age. And for those in the job market, Social Security means that older Americans can afford to retire sometimes as early as 591/2 years old, which creates employment opportunities for younger Americans.
Despite its popularity, Social Security is now a program in trouble, one plagued by policy inaction. Social Security payments to the old and disabled—and in some cases to their dependents—are funded by payroll taxes levied on employers and employees. In theory the program is self-funding, akin to a forced savings account. In practice, changing demographics have upset the balance between funding coming in and benefits paid out. The proportion of Americans approaching retirement age is grow- ing, and those reaching retirement are living longer and drawing more from the fund than planned.
There is, however, a possible policy solution: Funding for Social Security must rise, and expenditures must decline. This means raising the Social Security tax on workers and employers. It also means moving the age of full retirement beyond the current mark of 66 years. And it may entail taxing or trimming Social Security benefits for retirees who are especially wealthy and secure. Social Security reform was last accomplished in 1982, when payroll taxes rose to fund a Social Security trust fund designed to keep the program strong. But this fund has been depleted more quickly than expected. In 2010 the federal government began paying more in Social Security benefits than it was collecting, and this fiscal gap will grow each year until Social Security becomes insolvent some 2 decades from now.
Despite frequent promises by policy makers to fix Social Security, inaction rules. One reason is presi- dential politics. Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio are among the five states with the largest number of retirees, and all three states are important swing states in presidential elections. A presidential candidate intent on reforming Social Security would risk disfavor in these important states.
Another source of policy inaction is the imbalance between interest groups. Older Americans are represented by the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). The AARP opposes cuts to Social Security benefits, and it can quickly mobilize older voters across the country, making it among the most feared of all lobby groups. Younger Americans who would benefit from tough reforms to Social Security have nothing like AARP on their side.
Taxes are another cause of inaction. The 1982 reforms to Social Security show that it is possible to raise taxes to keep Social Security strong. But in policy making, timing can be everything. In an increas- ingly polarized United States, political leaders are reluctant to advocate any tax increase, especially when its benefits might not show up for decades. And since Social Security taxes are applied only to the first $110,000 of annual income, any tax hike for the program would disproportionately impact the middle class. These days, that could be political suicide.
These three drivers of policy inaction—swing state politics, imbalance among lobby groups, and tim- ing—are not exclusive to Social Security. Look for them in varying degrees in other policy areas where inaction prevails. (continued)
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 26 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Summary CHAPTER 1
Summary
Every day the intended and unintended consequences of public policy intimately touch the lives of everyone in the United States. From social policies dealing with immigration, welfare, health care, education, and the environment to policies deal- ing with national security, foreign aid, and trade, it is an inescapable reality that an array of public policies will affect how each individual will live and interact within our complex society. Ironically, we may come to fear, love, respect, or admonish the political and policy process and the often profound policy actions of the government—sometimes all in the same day. Thus, it is crucial that we as individuals and citizens be able to understand what public policy is.
The goal of this chapter has been to provide an understanding of what public policy is, including its vocabulary and theoretical underpinnings. From the preceding discussion, it should be clear that there is no easy way to define public policy, because it is a multifac- eted and theoretically complex concept. What should be clear is that public policy cannot be separated from the environment that it is part of and that it is a general plan of action government adopts to solve a problem, counter a threat, or take advantage of an opportu- nity. We should remember that an action plan does not necessarily mean that government actually does something; it can also mean that the government makes a deliberate deci- sion not to take action.
Policy in Practice: Social Security Action and Inaction (continued)
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. Public opinion surveys consistently report that almost three quarters of young Americans believe that Social Security will be a “dead program” by the time they reach retirement age. This puzzles analysts, who argue that straightforward changes in the structure of Social Security can guarantee its solvency well into the future. The problem, say many, is that young people seem unwilling to raise their voices in concern about the program, choosing instead to assume that it will inevitably fail. From your vantage point, what might explain this dim view by young Americans of Social Security’s chances?
2. Rather than make current workers pay into the Social Security program, some policy makers suggest that these workers should have the option of shifting their payments into private sys- tems that would invest the retirement savings of workers in the stock market or bonds, which would provide a higher rate of return. In effect, Social Security would be taken out of the hands of government and “privatized.” Have you heard of this alternate approach to Social Security? What do you make of it?
3. The existence of AARP and its effectiveness in protecting retirement benefits for seniors high- lights the lack of similarly powerful lobby groups safeguarding the retirement options for young and middle-aged Americans. As a result, say many scholars, seniors have a disproportionate voice in policy making around Social Security. What might explain, in your view, the apparent lack of lobby groups serving the retirement interests of younger Americans?
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 27 11/27/12 2:43 PM
Key Terms CHAPTER 1
authority A recognized right to wield power over others.
direct democracy A government in which people govern themselves directly.
effectiveness A public policy’s achieve- ment of desired positive or negative impacts on the desired target.
efficiency A measure of whether a gov- ernment program or service is using its resources at the optimal level.
equality of opportunity Individuals are free to pursue their interests regardless of their socioeconomic characteristics.
equality of outcome Individuals should have same rights so that differences between all individuals are reduced or eliminated.
foundational equality All individuals are equal to one another, so no individual receives special benefits or disadvantages in the way the state treats him or her.
legitimacy Public acceptance of decision makers’ authority to take policy actions.
needs Basic necessities an individual can- not live without because they are funda- mental to human survival.
policy A chosen plan or method of action that determines future actions.
politics Affairs of the state or of what concerns the state.
power The ability to alter or influence a course of action or the behavior of individuals.
public interest The common well-being, or whatever action is in the best interest of the public.
public policy What government does or does not do to respond to a problem.
representative democracy A government in which voters elect representatives to act on their behalf.
Key Points to Remember
• Various concepts provide insight into the concepts and complexities that help shape our understanding of public policy and the policy process. This chapter examines 10 of these concepts.
• Policy decisions are much more complex than they appear because of the array of actors involved, the set of instruments available, and the desired goal of the policy.
• Public policy is a sequential pattern of activity. • The policy-making process is composed of a series of policy stages in which societal
issues evolve from an awareness of a problem to the formulation of solutions, the adoption of a certain course of action, the implementation and evaluation of policy programs, and the eventual change or termination in public policy.
• The interplay of actors, the environment, and the realities of politics contribute throughout the evolutionary process of policy making.
• Public policy is both what government does and what it does not do. • Policies are solutions to problems; they have objectives and intended as well as
unintended consequences.
Key Terms
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 28 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions CHAPTER 1
Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions
1. What role does power have in changing the behavior and ideas of others? In your opinion, what is the basis for such power in U.S. politics?
2. Should the needs of the individual—those critical for life—be protected as rights under the law? In other words, do individuals have the right to certain needs critical to life? If so, determine in practical terms what are needs—whether in terms of food, housing, health, and education—that are necessary for an indi- vidual to have in order to live.
3. Is public policy only what government has chosen to do, or does the decision not to act represent an even more profound action?
4. Is legitimacy critical to effective authority or can an authority govern effectively without legitimacy? On what basis is such legitimacy achieved? Also, when do democratic governments and their officials lose legitimacy? In your opinion, at any time over the last 20 years, have U.S. authorities lost legitimacy?
5. Can one define the “public interest” objectively? If so, on what basis should it be defined? In your opinion, what issues are in the public interest?
6. At what point does an issue—whether economic, political, or social—become a public policy issue? Are there some issues that are always private? Discuss.
7. List and describe the public policies that you believe have had an intentional and unintentional effect on your life. What tangible effect have these policies had on you and your interests? Discuss.
rights Moral entitlements and freedoms that the state guarantees to individuals.
social justice A degree of equality across a society that allows individuals to have equal rights and opportunities.
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 29 11/21/12 2:23 PM
Suggested Readings CHAPTER 1
Suggested Readings
Crick, B. (1993). In defense of politics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Berry, C. (1986). Human nature. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
Heywood, A. (1994). Political ideas and concepts: An introduction. New York: St Martin’s Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Politics: Who gets what, when, and how? New York: McGraw-Hill.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1969). The semi-sovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Smith, K. B.. & Larimer, C. W. (2009). The public policy theory primer. Boulder, CO: West- view Press.
Stone, D. A. (1997). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (2nd ed.). New York: Scott, Foresman.
White, J. (2003). The values divide: American politics and culture in transition. New York: Chatham House/Seven Bridges Press.
Applied Internet Exercises: An Introduction to Public Policy 1. As a candidate for elected office, explain what your view of governing and policy making is
and why you will choose to act more like a trustee or a delegate. Finally, while it’s easy to say what you are for, you must also choose an issue that you are willing to stand up and dis- agree with your constituents on. Using recent polling results, which you can find at http://www .pollingreport.com/issues.htm, select one issue that the public supports and that you will bravely not support, and explain why.
2. You have just been hired as a legislative staffer for a freshman senator who knows little about the major problems facing the nation. Your task is a simple one: He or she would like a two- page memo on a major problem facing the nation and why it is (or is not) a public problem that demands government action. Using http://www.cnn.com as a resource, identify a major issue that is currently debated. Only use whatever issue is highlighted on the CNN home page the day you complete this exercise. Include these elements in your memo:
• All of the relevant arguments for and against your position. • A suggested course of action and the best policy instruments to use. • If you choose to argue against any action, identify the consequences this action may have
on the senator’s legitimacy and authority going forward.
Do not exceed two pages—senators don’t like to read long memos!
the80472_01_c01_001-030.indd 30 11/27/12 3:26 PM
