for A-plus writer only

G et

ty Im

ag es

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Discuss how different levels of government shape the policy process.

• Understand how policy making operates within a governmental structure more conducive to inaction than action.

• Identify different types of policy actors and how they affect the policy-making process.

The Where and the Who of Public Policy

2

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 31 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The U.S. governmental structure prescribed by the U.S. Constitution is characterized by fragmentation and a division of authority. Thus, the formation of policy involves both formal and informal actors, and policy making can occur in multiple arenas. At the national level, the Constitution, through the separation of powers and federalism, ensures that authority and responsibility for policy making is divided. The Constitution established a separation of powers, resulting in three branches of government:

• a legislative branch with the power to make laws, • an executive branch with the power to enforce laws, and • a judicial branch with the power to interpret laws.

Similarly, federalism established that government would be divided into two levels: the national or federal level and the state level. Each level was to share power and respon- sibilities with the other level. These varied levels and branches of government result in what is known as fragmentation.

Policy makers are in essence those formal and informal actors involved in policy making. Formal actors are those who have legal authority permitted by the Constitution. They are found in governmental institutions that make up the three branches of government. These formal actors include elected representatives, such as legislators, the president, bureau- crats, and appointed representatives, such as judges. The informal actors are members of interest groups, the media, individual citizens, lobbyists, and think tanks.

Thus, with its ratification in 1789, the Constitution established a fixed structure for U.S. poli- tics, as well as policy that defined a specific governmental structure and legislative process. However, the Constitution also outlined a flexible political and policy process that extends beyond the confines of governing institutions and structural boundaries and that includes the public and interest groups (Beard, 2000; Brown, 2000). Hence, the answer to the question of where U.S. policy making occurs is not as simple as referring to the language of the Con- stitution or as obvious as identifying the three branches of the federal government.

2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making

To understand where public policy occurs, one must recognize that modern U.S. pol-icy making operates both within and beyond the institutional structure established by the Constitution. If policy making is viewed as a game, then the players and rules that govern the game must be defined.

Defining where policy making occurs requires attention to a series of structural elements, which include the public arena, the system of checks and balances, the separation of powers, fed- eralism, and policy arenas, which are also known as subgovernments or issue networks. (Sub- governments also refer to the notion of iron triangles. See Heclo, 1978, for an additional discussion of this phenomena and the role of issue networks.) The interplay between insti- tutional power and politics, the dynamics between various policy actors and the legisla- tive process, and the basic institutional structure of U.S. government can help explain where public policy is made.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 32 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

To summarize, the Constitution outlines a specific structure and process for U.S. policy making, and it requires that this process take place within an expansive circle of governmental struc- tures. The language of the Con- stitution not only provides the basic institutional framework for where policy making occurs, but also implies that the policy process extends beyond the for- mal constitutional structure of U.S. government. Simply, the Constitution is the rule book for the policy game.

The Constitution may be described as both a basic blueprint for and a living guide to the policy process. As a blueprint, the Constitution has helped define the basic legislative process, as well as the power and roles of various policy actors and institutions. However, the Constitution is also a living document that over time has been amended to address fundamental changes in society and in governing. Since 1787, 27 diverse amendments have sought to revise the nature of the Constitution and the society it governs. In addition, political parties and interest groups have emerged as powerful forces within U.S. politics and policy making—even though the formal language of the Constitution does not men- tion these forces or the issues confronting them. For that reason, our interpretations of the Constitution have also evolved so that government can apply the Constitution’s prin- ciples to new situations.

Still, this remarkably simple document that provides a framework for governing and that continues to reflect new sociopolitical realities retains its original structure (Kammen, 1993). Although constitutional amendments have addressed issues such as slavery, vot- ing, presidential succession, representation, and the rights and freedoms of the American people, not a single amendment has altered the basic structural framework initially out- lined by the framers of the Constitution, who were delegates from the 13 American colo- nies to the Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution mixes both specific and equivocal sections that cover both direct and indirect elected representation, demand different and conflicting roles from each branch of government, and separate powers between state and federal levels. Ironically, this Constitution seems to have created a set of policy-making contradictions. These consti- tutional contradictions have all but ensured a policy-making process that seems almost self-defeating: No matter where policy making may occur, no actor or branch of govern- ment will have or hold exclusive policy-making power over all others. In the end, policy making is not entirely effective or efficient under the system of government established by the Constitution.

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

The Constitution is a living guide to the policy process.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 33 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The Constitution established an entire political system that is essentially in conflict with itself. In general, the legislative structure of U.S. government is designed to be inefficient to promote governmental stability over the threats posed by more dramatic and immediate policy actions. Policy making—and influences on policy making—seems to occur almost everywhere, with little ability to hinder the influence or effects of competing branches of government or policy actors. As a result, great changes in public policy are rare unless extenuating political circumstances emerge. Nonetheless, under certain political condi- tions such as a crisis, the structure of the government can respond quickly and can prove to be a very efficient policy-making system.

In structural terms, the Constitution established a national government in which repre- sentation and the electoral role played by the public would vary, powers were separated among governments and institutions, institutional power was checked and balanced, and policy making occurred in arenas beyond the governmental structure that the Constitu- tion outlines (see Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Structural elements that define where U.S. government takes place

The U.S. Constitution impacts policy making in such a way that no matter where policy making occurs, no one actor or branch of government can dominate the policy process.

Public Arena—Direct and Indirect Elected Representation

Public granting of authority to elected representatives to make policy through passing laws.

Federalism

System of government that constitutionally provides for sharing of power between a national government and regional governments.

Policy Arena or Subgovernments

Series of policy interconnections between three parties: public (interest groups), institutional (congressional committees), and bureaucratic (administratives agencies).

Separation of Powers— Checks and Balances

Diffusion of power among branches of government.

Ensures that no one institution possesses absolute policy-making power—each checks the others’ powers.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 34 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The Public Arena: Direct and Indirect Elected Representation

A central tenet of U.S. policy making’s legitimacy rests on the public granting the rightful authority to elected representatives to govern them. This is known as the public arena. The election of governing representatives, their role and purpose, has long been an issue of theoretical and practical debate. (Amongst some of the classic Greek philosophers, including Plato, Aristotle, and Polybius, a love for democracy seems at best tempered, if not outright suspect. See Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000.) For U.S. politics, the democratic method by which citizens are able to check the power of elected representatives is critical to understanding where policy making begins and where it ends. Moreover, elected rep- resentation fundamentally explains how policy develops and how it is characterized. U.S. policy making is not founded on clearly democratic terms. Rather, the founders designed a national government in which the public did not necessarily elect all of the representa- tives who would govern them. (See Ebenstein & Ebenstein, 2000; Heywood, 1994.)

The election of representatives by the citizenry and the differentiation between how vari- ous levels of the national government would be elected reflect the enduring duality to U.S. government: It is founded on both direct and indirect elected representation. For example, in the United States voters indirectly elect the president. Citizens do not cast votes for the president; rather, they vote for a slate of electors known as the electoral college who then vote for the president. In modern times the slate of electors almost always follows the popular vote of its state. In contrast, direct elected representation allows voters to vote directly for a candidate running for office, such as in a congressional race. Through such representation, U.S. policy making exists as a pluralistic endeavor in which direct and indirect political pressure by the public would constrain the actions of policy makers. Yet because of the varied structure of representation adopted by the Constitution, policy deci- sions would not escape political constraints, but would also not be a prisoner to them. The resulting structure balances the degree of elected representation perceived to be essential for legitimacy against the degree of elected representation that would make government too responsive to the demands of the public. U.S. government, as such, is not a direct democracy of the people, but is a republic in which semblances of democratic governance exist (see Figure 2.2).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 35 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.2: Republicanism versus Democracy

The U.S. government is a republic in which democratic governance exits. This balance influences the policy process by ensuring a system of power checks among the different actors in the policy process.

Adapted from Greenberg, E. S., & and Pope, B. (1999). The struggle for democracy (4th ed.). New York: Longman, p. 36.

To balance the necessities of democracy and liberty, the framers designed a national gov- ernment in which the direct policy power of the public was checked through elected repre- sentation (see Table 2.1).The resulting governing formula reflected a balance between the fears of an unbridled direct democracy—a tyranny of the majority—and the necessity that legitimate government must grant the public a means to check those who govern them. In essence, the framers set up a government designed to prevent majority rule (Dahl, 1977).

Table 2.1: Elected representation and the influence on policy makers

Branch of Government

Method of Election Public’s Influence Term of Office

Senate Indirect* Indirect* 6 years

House of Representatives

Direct Direct 2 years

Judiciary Nonelected Indirect Lifetime

Presidency Indirect Direct 4–8 years

Executive Branch’s Bureaucracy

Nonelected Indirect ? years

*Direct election of senators was instituted under the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913.

Republicanism Government by popular consent Indirect rule by representatives Eligible representatives act as trustees Minority and majority rule Limited government Safeguards rights and freedoms

Democracy Government by popular consent

Rule by people—direct or indirect Eligible electorate is broadly defined

Elected representatives act as delegates Majority rule supercedes minority rule

Responsive government Safeguards rights and freedoms

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 36 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Indirect representation means that the power of the public to directly influence policy making would be limited in specific branches of the government. Because an electoral role for the public was provided in U.S. government, it has ensured the citizens can still hold responsible many of the critical policy actors who govern them. Although the Constitu- tion purposely limits a more dominant role by the public, the need for popular support has ensured that policy makers can seldom escape the electoral constraints of the people.

Because popular support is the bedrock of the U.S. republic’s democracy, it is difficult to avoid the influence, or potential influence, of the people in policy making. Congress and the president are often greatly affected by the manner in which the public can hold them accountable for their policy decisions. Public opinion, as indicated by polling results, pub- lic protests, letter campaigns, or organized marches, can provide powerful constraints on the policy process. Whereas the judiciary and executive branches may be exposed to less direct pressure than the legislative branch, the foundation of shared governance ensures that each action taken by a branch of the national government is, or can become, an elec- toral issue. No bureaucratic agency or federal court can ignore the political pressure from elected officials that can and does emerge in light of public pressures. As a consequence, where policy making occurs, in part, is within an inescapable public realm.

Although the Constitution ensures a role for the public in the policy-making process, the potential for influence does not always manifest. To what extent the public influences policy is debatable, given lackluster voting rates and a generally low level of political par- ticipation (see Figure 2.3). Nevertheless, one should not confuse an ideal level of public participation in the political process with the realization that at any given moment, some segment of the public—large or small—can actively attempt to define or alter the course of the policy process. In other words, policy making does occur within a public arena, even if many members of the public choose not to involve themselves. Policy making, there- fore, is not simply an institutional or procedural exercise. Rather, policy making develops within a greater political arena in which the public plays a critical role in the manner and content of public policy. In short, U.S. policy making is as much about the role of the pub- lic in making policy as it is about the institutions that make policy.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 37 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.3: Turnout of registered voters in electoral years, 1980–2010

As indicated in the figure, some registered voters do not actively participate in the electoral process, so it is unclear how extensive the public’s influence is in the overall policy process.

Reports from the Federal Election Commission and Congressional Research Service, 1960–2010.

The Separation of Powers and the System of Checks and Balances

Underscoring concerns of popular sovereignty and the public’s role in governing, the Con- stitution additionally seeks to limit any concentration of policy-making power. Checks and balances and the separation of powers together establish an offsetting institutional structure in which national policy making requires a series of institutional partners. At the federal level, each of the three branches of government possesses significant power to make policy, although it is checked and balanced by the other branches of the government.

The separation of powers is an organizational method that ensures that no one institu- tion possesses absolute policy-making power (Madison, 2000). Rather, at the federal level, policy-making power is diffused among the three branches. The resulting compromise creates a republic that is effective and efficient to a degree, but that lacks a concentration of power that allows the federal government to be too efficient and effective in policy mak- ing. Interestingly, a more efficient government would require a greater concentration of policy-making power within one of the three branches of government.

Because of checks and balances and the separation of powers, the U.S. government can generally be described as an inefficient system of governance. Ironically, by adopting a republic–democracy, the framers all but institutionalized an inefficient system of fed- eral policy making. Nevertheless, the structure of U.S. government allows the executive

0

10

20

30

40

50

60 President Congress

P e rc

e n

ta g

e V

o te

r Tu

rn o

u t

Electoral Year 1980–82 1984–86 1988–90 1992–94 1996–98 2000–02 2004–06 2008–10

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 38 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

branch to wield considerable policy-making influence at particular times—for example during crisis or war (see Figure 2.4). Thus, within the U.S. government, efficient policy making can emerge depending on the issue and politics. For example, the president is primarily responsible for addressing foreign policy and national security matters. Within this policy area, more efficient policy making exists because the president has the con- stitutional power to identify problems, set the foreign policy agenda, formulate options, adopt courses of action, and order the implementation of specific policy actions. Although the role of the president in national security matters has evolved over the last 200 years, there are few explicit constitutional checks on the president’s power to manage matters of foreign policy and national security. This is not to suggest that a president can operate free of oversight by the other branches of government or can ignore the will and influence of the public. Public pressure, congressional oversight, and judicial review can temper and constrain the president’s management of foreign policy. In particular, the degree of public support, or the lack of it, can represent one of the greatest checks on the president’s policy-making power in matters of foreign policy or national security. (As evidenced in numerous cases where military force is applied and leads to American casualties, modern presidents remain vulnerable to the changes in public opinion. See Holsti, 1996.)

Figure 2.4: Government structure and the circles of policy making

Though the government has a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances, the executive branch has significant policy control in certain circumstances, such as times of crisis.

The apparent inefficiency of U.S. policy making can be overcome by the emergence of (a) coalitions of broad political support within the legislative and the executive branch, or (b) a unifying national crisis that compels each branch to cooperate with one another. Each of these circumstances helps us understand how U.S. government can—when

Domestic Policy Arenas National Security or “Crisis” Policy Arenas

Judiciary

Judiciary

Legislature

Legislature

Executive

Executive

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 39 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

compelled—work beyond structural obstacles like the separation of powers that other- wise complicate efficient governing.

Because of institutional divisions in U.S. government, efficient policy making often requires a coalition of broad political support across the two branches most critical to the legislative process—the executive and the legislative—in conjunction with other policy actors. What is a broad coalition of political support? A simplistic picture of the legislative process presupposes that a majority in the Senate, a majority in the House, and the presi- dent’s signature represent the essential winning political coalition. In the case of a presi- dential veto, a supermajority of two thirds would seem to represent the winning political coalition. The realities of modern U.S. politics, however, make it clear that developing a winning political coalition demands compromise across and within institutions to foster consensus among the political parties, party leadership, senior committee members, the president, and the various public constituencies that are active in the policy process.

The leadership of the political parties, for instance, cannot impose its policy preferences on fellow party members. Individual senators, whether members of the majority or not, possess considerable power over how the legislative process proceeds within the Senate. A single senator, for example, by filibustering legislation or placing riders can greatly complicate the efficiency of the policy process. Committee members, especially senior members, possess considerable power over the language of legislation considered for adoption. In addition, by setting the legislative calendar, party leadership in both cham- bers can influence the order and timing in which policy issues are considered for action. In the House of Representatives, although party line votes are common and party leadership is generally more successful in whipping up support, no procedural rules or institutional customs prevent House members from opposing the policy proposals of their own party.

In contrast, a president often requires the support of members from both parties as well as support from senior congressional members to implement a policy agenda. Finally, because of the direct influence of various constituencies over elected members, all mem- bers of Congress and the president must consider the role and influence of various interests groups, associations, and individual citizens with a stake in the policy process. Therefore, dramatic policy actions demand that a substantial degree of cooperation man- ifests among all the relevant policy actors across party affiliation.

Essentially, the stronger the political coalition, the greater the consensus and the more likely the system will operate efficiently. However, such cooperation across all branches of government is the exception rather than the rule, as the average policy issue does not foster such unifying cooperation and consensus among otherwise conflicted political actors. The best example of such cooperation occurs in times of a national defense crisis, such as the September 11 attacks. In this case the members of Congress worked together to pass legislation authorizing the president to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, com- mitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001” (Congressional Research Service, 2007, p. 1). Ironically, the most efficient policy making may best emerge under the worst of circumstances—a national crisis.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 40 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

If and when it occurs, the power of a crisis is to bring overwhelming clarity to the policy debate, compel action regardless of the perfectibility of the proposed solution, and reduce the inevi- table politicking and institutional trade-offs that are endemic to the normal legislative process. A “true” national crisis fuels cooperation and tends to ensure immediate policy actions are taken to redress the consequences of this dire event.

Although the legislative significance of crises should not be discounted, their rarity in occur- rence, coupled with the intrinsic subjectivity of such events, suggests that their effect on the legislative process is rare and fleeting. (To our knowledge, there has been no systematic and specific research on the extent to which national crises in the post–World War II era have served to diminish or redefine the constitutional con- straints imposed by separation of powers and/or balance of powers.) The cooperation and clarity, which can aid legislative efficiency, occurs for as long as the crisis exists—whether in terms of per- ception or reality. In the aftermath of September 11, many security measures were put into place, such as stringent checks at airports and reporting

of financial transfers of funds above $9,000. These policies are still in place because the perception of both formal policy-making actors and the general public is that the threat is still real. Once the consequences and severity of the crisis are diminished, some decline in legislative cooperation is inevitable. Moreover, as the crisis declines in significance, the method of policy making snaps back to its more methodical and incremental nature. The structural reality of the U.S. legislative process is that most public policies must weather the considerable trials and tribulations of a constitutional structure that is designed and inclined to hinder legislative initiatives and dramatic policy actions. Not surprisingly, the statistical reality is that only a small percentage of the bills introduced in Congress become law; the historical trend shows that a diminishing percentage of introduced bills are in fact becoming law (Stanley & Niemi, 2000) (see Table 2.2). Arguably, what the separation of powers has wrought is a system of governance that all but ensures inefficient policy making, except under rare circumstances where broad coalitions or crises can inspire more efficient cooperation. Interestingly, it is this very policy-making reality—in which no branch or actor has ultimate control or power even at the expense of more efficient gov- erning—that the framers sought and established. Again, in light of where policy making occurs, given the separation of powers and the rarity of crisis and clear coalitions of sup- port, it is evident that the policy process extends throughout and across a federal structure that all but ensures a slow and incremental policy process.

Bloomberg via Getty Images

Measures to improve airport security became easy to get approved in the wake of September 11.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 41 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Table 2.2: Bills introduced and enacted by Congress

Year Total Number of Bills Introduced in Congress

Number of Bills Enacted

(as percentage of bills introduced)

1999–2000 8,968 558 (6%)

2001–2002 8.946 350 (4%)

2003–2004 8,466 476 (6%)

2005–2006 10,558 465 (4%)

2007–2008 11,081 442 (4%)

2009–2010 10,629 366 (3%)

Source: Tauberer, J. (2011, August 4). Kill bill: How many bills are there? How many are enacted? GovTrack.us. Retrieved from http:// www.govtrack.us/blog/2011/08/

Federalism

The separation of powers among the federal government’s three branches of govern- ment complements the government’s federalism, its separation and distribution of pow- ers between the federal government and the state governments. Theoretically, a federal system is based on a sharing of sovereign power between states and lower units of gov- ernment and the central government. This system of government is designed to divide responsibilities between the central and state governments, while maintaining an effec- tive balance that will serve both the liberty of states and the stability of the nation. Divi- sion is based on constitutional power, with each level of government possessing exclusive sovereign responsibility within roughly defined circles of public policy while also enjoy- ing concurrent or shared power in other policy areas.

Federalism and its division of policy-making power, which the Constitution outlines, further explain the considerable structural complexity of U.S. policy making. The Con- stitution to a large degree defines—and leaves open to interpretation—the complex relationship between federal and state governments. The powers of the federal gov- ernment are derived from a fusion of expressed powers and implied powers found in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution. The Constitution gives the national government 17 expressed—or clearly defined—powers. For example, the national (federal) govern- ment has the sovereign authority to print money, declare war, establish an army and navy, enter into treaties with foreign governments, regulate commerce between states and international trade, establish post offices and issue postage, and make laws neces- sary to enforce the Constitution. Supplementing these expressed powers is the flexibility of the federal government’s implied powers provided by Section 8’s “necessary and proper clause,” or the “elastic clause”:

The Congress shall have Power . . . To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 42 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Implied powers are those that one can reasonably infer from the list of expressed pow- ers in Article I, Section 8. Because the elastic clause and its implied powers are flexible, the clause has helped expand the power of the national government at the expense of state governments by allowing the federal government policy jurisdiction and legislative power when officials in the federal government feel that such authority is “necessary and proper.”

Further underscoring the role and power of the national government are the implications of the supremacy clause, which appears in the Constitution’s Article VI, Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

This clause ensures the near omnipotence of the national government over states and local governments by making all national laws and treaties the “supreme Law of the Land.” More importantly, the supremacy clause serves as an instrument with which the national government can, if it chooses, ensure national cohesion and solidarity in policy actions within fundamental areas of concern.

On the other hand, the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which defines the scope of state power, checks the power of the national government. The 10th Amendment states that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” However, because the Constitution itself does not clearly list them, these so-called reserved powers of the state remain open to considerable debate. Courts have ruled that state powers include, for example, the right to regulate intrastate commerce, to conduct elections, to establish local governments, and to provide for public health, safety, and morals. In particular, the power to provide for public health, safety, and morals—also known as police powers— have given states the sovereign responsibility to legislate and govern areas dealing with crime, marriage, education, pornography, traffic laws, and the use of land. The concurrent powers shared by national and state government include setting up courts, creating and collecting taxes, building highways, borrowing money, making and enforcing laws, char- tering banks and corporations, spending money for the betterment of the general welfare of citizens, and taking private property with just compensation.

The accepted ambiguity of the 10th Amendment raises important questions as to which level of government has responsibility over specific issues and policy areas. Over the last 100 years, the federal government, through one or more of its branches, has intervened in most of the areas that many constitutionalists would argue are reserved for state govern- ments (see Figure 2.5).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 43 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.5: Recent legislation demonstrating federal government’s intrusion into state policy areas

The 10th Amendment checks the power of the national government but does not specify the level of government responsibility in specific issues or policy areas. The national government has intervened in certain areas, though some argue these policies should be determined by state governments.

The Evolution of Modern U.S. Federalism An accurate description of current U.S. federalism would emphasize that policy power, although divided to some explicit degree between the states and the federal government, is a far more fluid division of power. This has not always been the case. Federalism has evolved over time, and over time the balance of power between the national and state governments has changed. From 1789 to 1945 the national government and the state gov- ernments were each supreme within their own spheres of responsibility as outlined by the Constitution. Federalism in this period is described as dual federalism because essentially two types of government were in existence: national (federal) and state. The national gov- ernment had limited power over policy making except in the areas of foreign, national defense, and commerce policy. With respect to domestic policy responsibility, the federal

1996 Welfare Reform Act Signed by President Clinton

The Welfare Reform Act placed limits on how many years an individual can receive welfare.

2008 Troubled Asset Relief Program Signed by President Bush

The Troubled Asset Relief Program injected money into United States financial systems to address the mortgage crisis.

2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Signed by President Obama

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided a stimulus package to help jumpstart the United States economy.

2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Signed by President Obama

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ensured near universal health-care coverage.

2010 Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Signed by President Obama

The Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act provided tighter regulation of the financial systems by the SEC, FDIC, and Department of Treasury.

2002 No Child Left Behind Act Signed by President Bush

No Child Left Behind Act mandated greater teacher accountability and annual standardized testing for grades 3 through 8.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 44 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

government primarily printed money and delivered the mail. State governments directed all policies that affected the lives of citizens—in essence everything at the local level, including economic regulation and criminal law. Dual federalism can be visualized as a cake made up of different and separate layers, because national and state governments each have individual areas of responsibility that are separate and distinct from the other level’s responsibilities. Dual federalism started to break down in the 1930s with the eco- nomic crisis of the Great Depression and the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Each situa- tion allowed the national (federal) government to encroach more on state power through the regulation of the economy and the war effort.

Cooperative federalism describes the nature of federalism from the end of World War II in 1945 to the election of President Richard Nixon in 1968. It was characterized by the over- lapping of state and national governments’ power and policy responsibilities. Coopera- tive federalism can be visualized as a marble cake, because it is hard to see where one level of government’s power ends and another begins. Under “marble cake” federalism, policy making is shared by national, state, and local governments. Many federal programs are administered by state and local governments, and in return state governments receive federal funds to support their own state programs.

The federalism of the period from 1968 to at least the election of President Barack Obama has been labeled new federalism and is characterized by the return of discretionary power to the states through the redirection of money and power away from the federal bureau- cracy and toward state and local governments. Nixon accomplished the return of some power to the states through revenue sharing, which directed funds away from the federal government toward the state and local levels. This allowed the federal government to collect taxes and the state and local governments to spend the money raised from taxes. New federalism can be seen in a variety of policies from successive presidential admin- istrations. For many critics the champion of new federalism is President Ronald Reagan. During his presidency (1981–1989), Reagan returned power to the states through the introduction of block grants, which allowed state and local governments to spend federal money as they saw fit. Previously the federal government granted the states categorical aid, which limited the states to using funding for designated programs. Depending on the particular categorical grant, associated rules can require state or local governments to match a percentage of the funds provided by the federal government. Block grants, on the other hand, provide federal monies with fewer rules and restrictions and intend to serve general policy areas, rather than specific policy programs or objectives. Thus, block grants can be viewed as money without strings that can be spent broadly. Reagan has been criticized for introducing block grants because what such grants meant in reality was that states had to pay for programs previously paid for by federal government. In essence, what Reagan did was shift the responsibility for a number of federal programs to the state and local level. Supporters of new federalism argue that returning financial responsibil- ity to state governments means that states do not merely retain financial authority over policy but the actual power to control policy. For example, under President Bill Clinton, 1996 welfare reforms gave states the ability to spend federal dollars as they determined. Since the election of Obama, state governments are regulated to ensure that they invest in policies that are consistent with the federal government’s objectives (Lowi, Ginsberg, Shepssle, & Ansolabehere, 2012; Theodoulou, 2002).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 45 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

One of the more interesting aspects of modern U.S. federalism is the explosion of govern- ing centers, all of which can and do play an intricate role in the policy process. Thus, in terms of public policy and the manner in which we live our day-to-day lives, the power to create local governments may represent one of the most profound, and often overlooked, powers of the states.

The Explosion of Local Government and the Increase in Legislative Centers Over the last 200 years, the growth of U.S. government has occurred not in the federal bureaucracy, but in the bureaucracies of the states and cities (Stanley & Niemi, 2000). Thus, by 2012 U.S. policy making had extended beyond federal and state government to include over 89,000 types of local governments, from cities to counties (US Census Bureau, 2010). The Constitution ensures that the role of states, as with the role of the central government, remains fluid, more ambiguous than definitive, adapting to changing circumstances both within the nation and across the political spectrum. (For additional information on feder- alism, American politics, and policy making, see Anton, 1988; Nagel, 2001; Zimmerman, 1998.) Thus, a more accurate modern image of U.S. federalism recognizes the substantial number of local governments that are critical to U.S. governance and the policy-making process (see Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.6: Federalism in theory and in reality

Today’s local governments have larger roles in the policy-making process.

Classic Image of American Federalism

Reality of American Federalism

State Federal Concurrent

Powers Concurrent

Powers

State Federal Concurrent

Powers Concurrent

Powers

Local Governments

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 46 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Classic images aside, U.S. federalism has evolved and grown far beyond the constitution- ally recognized two levels of government. Local governments, from cities to counties, have exploded in number and possess substantial policy-making power to affect the direction in such critical areas as education, policing, welfare, and taxation. Overall, although local governments may be products of state governments, the scope of their policy responsibili- ties and the total size of their bureaucracy are considerable. Again, on a day-to-day basis it is difficult to suggest that local governments do not have a significant legislative effect on the citizenry. From property taxes to surcharges, from waste pickup to city beautification programs, and from fire prevention and community policing, local governments are for many citizens the most visible and active form of all the levels of government. Local gov- ernment is now a defining element in U.S. federalism. Still, the realities of federalism must also consider that while the policy roles of local and state government has expanded, fed- eralism’s fiscal, or budgetary, realities suggest that much power still lies with the national and state governments.

Fiscal Federalism To accomplish national goals, the federal government grants money to state and local governments, and these funds subsidize various areas of public policy that the state and local governments develop and administer (Anton, 1988; Nagel, 2001; Stanley & Niemi, 2000; Zimmerman, 1998). This relationship between federal and local governments involving the offer or transfer of money from the federal level to the state or local level is known as fiscal federalism. Simply, the federal government subsidizes various poli- cies at the state and local levels because citizens demand them, and the state and local governments cannot afford to fund these policies on their own. For example, to improve student performance across the nation in elementary through high school, the federal government provides an incentive fund to raise teachers’ pay, while states provide the actual teachers’ pay. Another example is the federal government’s clean fuels program for city buses: While cities pay for the buses, the federal government provides financial incentives to use environmentally friendly fuel, thereby subsidizing the operational costs for the cities. The fiscal reality has led to fiscal federalism being synonymous with fiscal dependency because of the significant role played by the federal and state governments in subsidizing policies and programs for lower levels of government (US Census Bureau, 2010) (see Figure 2.7).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 47 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.7: Federal aid as a percentage of state and local government budgets, 1960–2010

The government subsidizes certain state- and local-level policies because the state and local governments cannot afford some policies that their citizens demand.

US Census Bureau Government Reports, 1960–2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov

Among the means the federal government has used to fund and support policies and programs are categorical grants-in-aid (categorical grants) and block grants. The rules or mandates associated with such grants enable the federal government to influence the method by which programs and services are administered at the state and local level across the nation. The Medicare program of 1965 is an example of an ongoing categorical grant that provides federal monies accompanied by instructions on how to use and imple- ment the program. Medicare and other categorical grants aim to establish a clear standard for how programs and services are administered.

In terms of the nature of federalism, categorical grants reflect the intent of the federal gov- ernment to establish some national uniformity in the way states and local governments implement these programs. However, because of increasing rules and regulations associ- ated with categorical grants, states, local governments, and many citizens increasingly prefer more discretion in how programs are administered. Reagan championed block grants in order to reduce the national government’s role in policy implementation and

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Federal aid as a percentage of state/local budgets

P e rc

e n

ta g

e

Year 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

33 30

31

28

24 2525 24

21 2019

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 48 11/21/12 12:45 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

increase the state’s role. Subsequent presidents who believe administrative control would better serve policy if it were shifted to state and local governments have also shown a preference for block grants. Presidents Nixon and Reagan, for example, supported such a preference and wanted state governments to have more discretion to decide how to use money from federal government.

From the Lyndon B. Johnson presidency of the 1960s to the Obama administration, the fiscal struggle over the delineation of where the legislative centers of U.S. politics will be defined—state or federal—has intensified (Elazar, 1984). There have been periods of greater national-directed policy—in particular, in the policy areas of health and poverty, with stricter fiscal and management directives aimed at expanding the power of the fed- eral government. Attempts to expand federal power are clearly evident in Johnson’s Great Society programs, Clinton’s failed health-care initiative, and the Obama 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Presidents such as Nixon and Reagan, in contrast, sought to shift policy responsibilities back to the states by supporting the transfer of financial responsibility back to the state and local level. However, many of these same presidents also expanded federal power in certain areas. For example, Nixon signed legislation to create the U.S. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, increasing the federal government’s powers in environmental policy. President George W. Bush expanded the role of the national government in education through the No Child Left Behind initiative.

Current laws and policies indicate a shift toward state and local governments’ managing public programs; nonetheless, the federal government maintains a dominant role in policy administration because of the fiscal dependence of state governments on federal monies. Similarly, local governments remain dependent, to a great degree, on the fiscal support of state governments. This is particularly true for state and local governments in periods of economic decline, when their tax revenues decrease and costs for programs such as unemployment increase. Today there are anywhere from 800 to 1,000 state and local aid programs, ranging from Medic- aid to programs of which most taxpayers are unaware, such as nursing workforce diversity. In sum, the fiscal role of the fed- eral government represents a powerful force in ensuring that the legislative center remains somewhat skewed toward the national level. As long as state and local governments’ budgets depend on sales and property taxes and intergovernmental aid to make up the shortfall between revenue and expenditures, the state and local levels will con- tinue to depend on the level of government above them.

Photo Researchers/Getty Images

Medicare is an example of an ongoing categorical grant.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 49 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Policy Arenas and Subgovernments

Fiscal federalism illustrates the interdependence between national, state, and local levels of government with respect to the distribution of federal funds and policy oversight. It is just one example of fragmented U.S. policy making. The fragmentation of U.S. politics creates a fertile ground for what are commonly referred to as policy arenas or subgov- ernments. Subgovernments reflect legislative centers of policy development that extend beyond specific institutions or levels of government outlined by the Constitution. Sub- governments illustrate how legislative activity operates outside of formal institutions, highlighting the political and policy ties that bind various players in the policy game.

The classic image of these subgovernments is a series of policy interconnections between three parties: public, institutional, and bureaucratic. More specifically, these subgovern- ments consist of interest groups such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, the National Chamber of Commerce, Common Cause, the National Rifle Association, and the American Medical Association. Subgovernments also comprise congressional committees such as the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, as well as administra- tive agencies such as the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement and the Office of Community Planning and Development (see Figure 2.8). This three-party structure has resulted in many policy scholars viewing subgovernments as iron triangles. The term denotes a policy-making relationship among and between three groups of actors who form an alliance to ensure policy benefits the interests of the tri-partnership. For exam- ple, a subgovernment could consist of dairy manufacturers (the interest group), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (the government agency), and those senators and representa- tives from districts and states with large dairy manufacturing.

Figure 2.8: Classic iron triangle image

Subgovernments are legislative centers or areas that underline political relationships that link each policy areas’ actors to the other areas. Together these three areas are referred to as iron triangles.

Interest Groups

Congressional Committees Agencies

Iron Triangle

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 50 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

In sum, subgovernments can be considered fluid alliances, built on close relationships between various institutional and noninstitutional actors, which develop along a particu- lar policy issue or issues. (The phenomenon of subgovernments has been theoretically redefined by other scholars into notions of issue networks and policy subsystems. See McCool, 1995, for a review of various pieces on subgovernments and issue networks.) Policy outcomes are determined by various subgovernments and revolve around their interests. Subgovernments, therefore, tend to develop around those specialized areas of policy that have a low level of general public interest and awareness.

This perspective has in recent years expanded among political scientists, who argue these alliances involve many more interested actors than the three posited by the subgovern- ment model (Walker, 1991). A number of authors argue that the policy process is even more decentralized and fragmented, characterized by a series of overlapping policy sub- systems of broader alliances of public and private groups such as think tanks, interest groups, and individuals (Walker, 1991). Building upon the notion of policy subsystems to explain how agendas are set and policy change is achieved, some authors argue the policy-making process is dominated by issue networks (Heclo, 2012). Issue networks are informal coalitions consisting of interest groups, public and private organizations, and members of the public, often with policy expertise, who come together around a particu- lar issue. Members of this network share an interest in the issue and apply pressure on the policy-making process by supplying alternatives so that the policy reflects their interests. Such issue networks are fluid, and their level of visibility will alter depending on the vis- ibility of the issue.

Interest groups such as the American Medical Association influence the policy process by advocating specific issue positions supportive of their agenda and the interests of their members. Such influence not only includes classic lobbying of issue positions, but also the active role interest groups play in providing information and analysis about proposed legislation to members of Congress, their staff, and officials within administrative agen- cies. Furthermore, government officials and staff come to depend on interest groups to provide expertise, critical information on legislative proposals, and prospective legisla- tive language, as well as a critical bridge with which to build political support across the legislative process.

Congressional committees and subcommittees—such as the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and its subcommittee on Employment and Workforce Safety—represent the second part of the classic iron triangle. With the increase in complex- ity and number of legislative proposals, committees have become powerful legislative cen- ters. This power stems from the committee members’ influence over the shape of legislative proposals. Committees and subcommittees are responsible for the analysis, evaluation, and markup of various policy proposals and initiatives. The members of these committees have critical control over legislative language and the structure of prospective legislation. In fact, significantly few members of a congressional committee possess substantial influence over the manner in which formal legislation addresses a given policy problem.

The final actor within the classic iron triangle is the administrative agency, for example the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The agency represents the bureaucratic actors responsible for executing the adopted legislative proposals. Because legislation may lack explicit detail with which to structure and manage the implementation of a policy, the

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 51 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Policy in Practice: Challenging a Long-Standing Marijuana Policy Marijuana, or Cannabis sativa, has been illegal across the United States since 1937, when Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act. Under this act, the production and consumption of cannabis became punishable with stiff fines and jail sentences for violators. Limited medical and industrial uses of marijuana were allowed upon payment of a steep tax, but this provision was rarely enacted and was repealed before the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970. The 1970 act classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug (the most dangerous of categories) and states marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no medical use, and is unsafe to use even under medical supervision. Lawyers, interest groups, and activists from across the political spectrum have worked since 1970 to shift the classifica- tion of marijuana, expand opportunities for its medical use, and even legalize it, but have had little success—until now.

With 50% of Americans consistently favoring the legalization of marijuana, it is no wonder that there is vigorous debate over the wisdom of current federal policy. Opponents of current policy argue the negative health effects of marijuana have been exaggerated, as have its addictive qualities. They note that since marijuana is regularly used by about 10% of the U.S. population (with many more engaging in sporadic use) its criminalization enriches criminal groups and gangs in the United States and abroad. Advocates of decriminalization argue it is better to legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana. Doing so would remove the criminal element, reduce greatly the number of people imprisoned for marijuana use, and create a much-needed source of new revenue for towns, cities, and states. But proponents of the current policy disagree with this view, because they argue envisioned tax benefits are vastly overstated. They also fear decriminalizing marijuana use could create a rise in overall drug addiction, which could have negative social impacts.

agency has considerable influence over the method and manner in which a given govern- ment action may affect the public. As a consequence, agencies operate in a public environ- ment in which political forces and actors can and do seek to manipulate the manner by which they execute government decisions. Each agency, for instance, remains concerned with yearly budget allocations; public and political opposition to agency oversight; and the perceptions held by the public, political officials, interest groups, or other actors that question and critique the purpose of agencies. The politics that surround each agency is further affected by the administrative rule-making process that is open to public comment, as well as the routine annual nature of the federal budget cycle that ensures that agencies will remain closely connected with congressional committees and interest groups.

The greatest bond within these iron triangles may arise from the social relationships that develop between these three groups of actors (Heclo, 2012). Socially, the ties of the iron tri- angle grow greater as interest groups pursue members of Congress for director positions, seek senior staffers as lobbyists and analysts, and recruit agency officials for senior man- agement positions. Additionally, members of Congress and senior staff are often tapped for senior appointments within the various governmental agencies. Moreover, the con- centration of interest groups, committees, and agency officials within the confines of the policy-making community fosters a striking social dynamic. As a result, a powerful social fabric of personal ties and friendships is woven daily during the practical aspects of the policy process. These ties serve to strengthen relationships and help to build an even more powerful iron triangle.

(continued)

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 52 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.1 Understanding the Where of U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Policy in Practice: Challenging a Long-Standing Marijuana Policy (continued) Whatever side of the debate you favor, the impact of the current policy is clear: More than 20 million Americans have been arrested for marijuana use since 1965, and the percentage of prisoners incar- cerated in federal prisons for marijuana trafficking or use hovers around 10%. The government’s “war on drugs” has suppressed overall marijuana consumption, which may serve to reduce the addiction and use of other illegal drugs, but the overall percentage of Americans using marijuana appears to be largely unchanged over the past several decades.

All this may change in the months ahead. Many states are considering legalizing marijuana, either for prescribed medical uses or as a generally permissible recreational substance. For example, California allows medical use of marijuana if sanctioned by a doctor. A system of grow houses and marijuana dispensaries currently populate the California landscape. This system, however, remains in viola- tion of federal law prohibiting all use of marijuana, and federal arrests of those participating in the California program do occur. Massachusetts is also considering a similar medical marijuana measure. Colorado and Oregon took the issue even further when voters in these states weighed in on the com- plete legalization of marijuana at the end of 2012.

The apparent rise of state policies that legalize some or all use of marijuana vividly highlights the ten- sions between state and federal policy making in our federalist structure. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, which makes marijuana illegal, cannot be overruled by state policy. And yet activists continue to promote state policy that directly contradicts federal law. They hope that in doing so, they will raise public awareness about this issue and bring heightened political pressure to bear on policy makers in Washington, D.C.

The status of marijuana is truly a policy in process. This issue reminds us of the supremacy of federal policy in many areas but also alerts us to the power of state policy making to shift public opinion and force federal policy makers to act.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Can you speculate further about why activists promoting the legalization of marijuana would work so hard to change state policy when it is clear that federal policy supersedes the right of states around this issue?

2. The criminalization of marijuana is an example of federal policy that is regularly violated by a significant percentage of Americans. Can you think of other policies—local, state, or federal— that are regularly ignored or violated by a sizable portion of the population? What features characterize these policies?

3. The fiscal crisis of government, especially at the local and state level, has heightened support for the legalization of marijuana. Many analysts agree that significant tax revenues could be generated for roads, schools, public health, and other social services through the regulation and taxation of marijuana. Some say that one impact of the current policy on marijuana is the underfunding of social services. What do you make of this argument?

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 53 11/27/12 3:26 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

2.2 Understanding the Who of U.S. Policy Making

As Chapter 1 discusses, the stages of the policy process involve a number of actors whose roles, importance, and influence vary. Some policy actors, for instance, possess influence on specific issues and at specific points in the policy process. Because some actors work in formal institutions of government like Congress, they may influence many stages of the policy process. Other institutional actors, such as bureaucrats in administrative agencies, may play critical roles at certain phases like the predecision phase, but their influence and importance begin to wane during the later stages leading to adoption and execution of the policy. In contrast, noninstitutional actors (informal actors who do not work within formal institutions of government, such as the public, lobbyists, interest groups, media, and think tanks) lack institutional means of power but remain important in shaping the evolution of public policy. Overall, both institutional and nonin- stitutional actors play important roles throughout the policy-making process in determin- ing the content, execution, and impact of public policy.

Respective policy actors’ importance throughout the policy process is based on the extent of influence they possess over public policy. Such influence reflects the actors’ explicit power to impact policy and the policy process. In other words, the most powerful actors are those with the power to shape, define, and execute policy directly. In general, the most powerful policy actors are the institutional actors. Still, noninstitutional actors without direct power over the policy process can and do influence elected officials and the policy decisions they make. Overall, although no one actor claims omnipotent influence across every stage of the policy process, certain institutional or noninstitutional actors do have more or less influence within particular policy stages (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Policy stages and the importance of policy actors Stages of Policy

Process Institutional Noninstitutional

MC President Courts Staff Bureaucracy Public IG Lobbyists Media Think Tank

Problem Identification

• • • • • • • • • •

Agenda-Setting • • • • • • • • • • Policy Formulation

• • • • • • • • • •

Policy Adoption • • • • • • • • • • Policy Implementation

• • • • • • • • • •

Policy Evaluation • • • • • • • • • •

Policy Change/ Termination

• • • • • • • • • •

MC – Members of Congress IG – Interest Groups • - Very Influential Policy Actor • - Influential Policy Actor • - Less Influential Policy Actor

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 54 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Table 2.3 illustrates the influence of particular policy actors across the policy process and compares the influence an actor enjoys relative to other policy players. The signifi- cance of a given actor within a specific stage and across the policy process can be roughly described along a continuum of very influential to less influential. The term influential is used to identify the general degree of policy-making power an actor can enjoy. Even though it remains difficult to determine the exact degree of influence of any given actor, it is fair to recognize that certain actors do have greater influence at specific policy stages. Subsequent chapters will focus on the role of certain policy actors within a given stage of the policy process. The following discussion will summarize the basic institutional and noninstitutional actors that participate in the policy game.

The Policy Players—Institutional Actors

The array of institutional actors includes players that operate within and throughout the institutional setting of the policy process. They include the familiar in name and the con- stitutionally powerful, as well as the unfamiliar and the constitutionally weak but institu- tionally powerful. These actors fall under the three branches of government and include members of Congress, personal and professional staff, the president, the president’s inner circle, the Executive Office of the President, the cabinet, Supreme Court justices, federal judges, and the bureaucracy. Their influence can be roughly determined by understand- ing the nature of the power and position they enjoy within the U.S. government and the policy process.

Members of Congress The central legislative and policy role of members of Congress is well established within the U.S. government. The power of individual members is founded on the strong influ- ence they enjoy within the legislative branch over the policy process. Although other policy actors can and do influence the legislative process, only members of Congress can formally introduce, discuss, and negotiate legislative proposals. Thus, members of Congress can define problems, set the agenda, formulate policy solutions, and assist in the adoption of a specific course of action.

Underscoring this lawmaking function is the service or broker function that each congres- sional member performs to satisfy the demands and concerns of constituents. The public traditionally views members of Congress as brokers for the concerns of their constituents. The congressional member assumes a responsibility to broker varied issues, such as dis- pleasure over a particular piece of legislation, difficulty with a government agency, desire for an internship, or tickets to the White House tour. In terms of the policy process, ideas for policy solutions often originate with constituents who are displeased with the manner in which a public or private actor has treated them.

Closely related to a member of Congress’s broker role is the critical function of representa- tion. Every member must balance the political and policy demands placed upon him or her. At a minimum, members must effectively represent their constituents’ ideological or policy interests if they are to remain in these elected positions. The choice for congressio- nal members is whether to act as the so-called trustee or the delegate. What determines such a choice? The decision is driven by four factors:

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 55 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

• the policy issue itself, • the member’s perception about the constituents’ interests, • the effectiveness of the policy proposal, and • the inevitable political calculation that must underscore most legislative decisions.

It is arguably even more accurate to suggest that each member of Congress is indeed a trustee until he or she is politically compelled to act as a delegate.

Complicating the choices that members of Congress must make as they balance political and policy demands is the growing polariza- tion of both chambers of Congress over the last 5 years or so. A polar- ized Congress is one in which the majority of members are at either end of the ideological extremes, with relatively few congresspeo- ple favoring the ideological center or middle. Simply, polarization means more Republican conserva- tives than moderate Republicans and more liberal Democrats than right-of-center Democrats. The growth of the Tea Party has driven Republican candidates to demon-

strate their allegiance to the values of the party and conservative ideology to the right of center. Democrats have likewise responded by offering a liberal opposition—although not too liberal—to this growing conservative groundswell. Polarization has prompted Republicans elected in the last few years to oppose the policy agenda of Obama and the Democrats. For example, witness the solidarity of republicans in Congress against the health-care reform of the Obama administration, which was uniformly supported by elected Democrats. Polarized policy making is more about obstruction and opposition than crafting policies that are the product of consensus and compromise.

Members of Congress are also responsible for governmental oversight. Oversight refers to the formal power granted to Congress to evaluate various federal agencies. Oversight ensures that Congress can, when deemed necessary, evaluate whether laws are being enforced correctly, whether programs and services are being appropriately administered, and whether waste or abuse is occurring within specific federal agencies.

Finally, the public education function reflects the role that members play in informing the public about policy issues and solutions being debated within Congress. Through traditional legislative actions—such as hearings, speeches, and floor debates—members strive to raise attention and awareness, as well as educate their constituents about a given problem and their preferred policy solution. More recently, nontraditional actions, such as participating in debates and discussions on an array of media outlets, including the Internet, allow members to pursue an aggressive media campaign on behalf of the issues

Getty Images

Ideological extremes can impact the policy process.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 56 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

about which they wish to educate the public. Given the need to satisfy constituent needs or questions, the public education function is as much about providing help to the voter as it is about furthering members’ careers.

Congressional Staff Staffers are men and women of differing ideologies, from the congressional staff intern to the chief of staff, from the staff assistant to the committee staff member. They play an especially critical—but often overlooked—policy role. Each congressional office in Wash- ington, D.C., as well as each congressional committee, consists of a small army of staff members. Depending on their assigned role and seniority, in addition to their degree of access to the senator or representative, congressional staff can be quite influential during various stages of the policy process.

Potential influence on the policy process tends to be greater among the senior legislative staff. Depending on their position, these staffers play critical roles. They research policy issues; communicate to members the legislative concerns of interest groups and lobbyists; provide political and policy analysis of legislative issues; and help orchestrate backroom negotiations between members and interest groups, lobbyists, the White House, agency officials, and other congressional offices.

Aside from the personal staff, members of Congress also employ or have access to a series of professional committee staffs. Agreement between the majority and minority parties determines the actual number of committee staff, and larger staffs are usually accorded to the majority party in each congressional chamber. Regardless of the size, committee staffers not only help develop and prepare a committee’s legislative agenda but also sup- plement the majority party’s power over the legislative and policy process while also attempting to further the minority party’s influence on proposed legislation. Overall, given the large number of congressional committees and subcommittees, committee staffs prove instrumental and influential in how the legislative process is managed.

Each majority and minority committee chair depends on the professional committee staff to formulate and synthesize the disparate details of any piece of proposed legislation. The structure of the committee’s agenda, the language of legislation, and the fiscal allocations to projects can be shaped and defined by the explicit influence certain committee staff- ers have in the formulation of policy solutions. Within the House of Representatives, in particular, majority committee staff can wield considerable power because the size of the chamber, coupled with the greater prominence of the majority party’s committee leader- ship, only enhances the legislative role and influence of the committee staff. In the end the size of such staff becomes a de facto indicator of political and policy power (Smith, 1988).

The policy influence of the committee staff depends to a large degree on their respon- sibility in translating the array of policy proposals, amendments, and fiscal allocations into specific legislative language that will constitute the final legislation to be considered. Additionally, because many pieces of national legislation such as appropriations bills are in the hundreds of pages, the mere writing of legislation provides committee staff with enormous political power over the final legislative product.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 57 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The President The policy power of the president emerges from a unique mixture of constitutional and perceptual power. The president derives implicit political power—beyond constitutional powers—from being the only national representative. The president’s political power is relative to whether the issue deals with domestic or foreign policy (see Table 2.4).

Table 2.4: Presidential power and the policy process

Explicit Constitutional Powers Policy Stage Policy Realm

Veto and sign Problem definition

Agenda setting

Formulation

Adoption

Domestic

Commander in chief of the military Problem definition

Agenda setting

Policy formulation

Adoption

Evaluation

Policy change/termination

Foreign

Grant reprieves and pardons Problem definition

Agenda setting

Policy adoption

Implementation

Domestic

Negotiate treaties Policy formulation

Adoption

Foreign

Appoint ambassadors Policy formulation

Adoption

Foreign

Appoint Supreme Court nominees Policy formulation

Adoption

Domestic

In terms of domestic policy, the president’s power is constrained by constitutional reali- ties. Legislatively, a president’s formal power is limited to veto and signature. Although presidential power remains limited, the reality of U.S. politics establishes the presidents’ broad significance in domestic political affairs. From the introduction of policy initiatives to the ability to focus the nation on a specific issue to the formulation of policy propos- als, the president emerges as a central figure in each significant policy debate. Still, a president’s legislative power over domestic policy remains essentially constrained by the countervailing powers of Congress. These checks and balances ensure that negotiation, even compromise, will likely mark most domestic policy discussions that involve the president and Congress.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 58 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Presidential powers in foreign policy, though minimal in number, are significant in their scope and effect on the direction of the nation’s foreign and national security affairs. Spe- cifically, the powers related to the president’s roles as commander in chief, in receiving ambassadors, and in negotiating treaties have established the president as the predomi- nant actor within foreign and national security affairs. The power of commander in chief, for instance, ensures that the president acts as the definitive leader of the nation’s armed forces, as well as the leader for national security and defense-related public policies. These explicit powers have helped establish the president’s ability to identify national security and foreign policy problems, shape the foreign policy agenda, and formulate policy solu- tions. These powers also enable the president to implement, evaluate, and change the direction of policy within foreign affairs. Yet the real power of presidents may not lie with their explicit powers, but with the perceived power associated with the position as the only national representative within U.S. politics.

For every president, the public’s perception of leadership is a basis of power or weakness. A popular president, for instance, can use favor with the public to persuade members of Congress to rally in support of a legislative agenda. An unpopular president, however, is effectively weakened throughout the policy process, and congressional members are often emboldened to challenge the policy agenda of a weak president from beginning to end. As such, every president, even more than any other legislative actor, must seek popular sup- port for policy initiatives. Furthermore, across both domestic and foreign policy realms, successes and failures have substantial effect on the perception of the president. A policy failure, whether because of a national economic crisis that continues unabated or a foreign policy debacle, can effectively poison a president’s popularity. In comparison, a policy success, whether because of a growing economy or successful war, can greatly boost the public’s opinion of the president. Perception, however, is a fickle commodity in politics, and a president’s popularity is often victim to the changing whims of the national public. The most dramatic example of a president’s reversal of fortune is that of President George H. W. Bush, who enjoyed remarkably high approval ratings following the 1991 Persian Gulf War—only to lose the next president election because of a sagging economy and a broken election pledge of no new taxes. In terms of the policy process, successful exploi- tation of these implicit powers can often lead a president to become truly powerful and influential across all segments of the policy process.

Former President George W. Bush on September 11, 2001 The U.S. public waited in shock after the planes struck the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001. Then president George W. Bush addressed the nation that evening to discuss the tragedy and promised to find the culprits behind the attack. His speech on that memorable day became one of the most well-known speeches in U.S. history, regardless of its strengths or shortcomings. Read former president Bush’s speech here: http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/ releases/2001/09/20010911-16.html.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. Why does Bush say the United States was attacked? 2. What policies does he say he will pursue in response to the attack? 3. What does the president want to achieve?

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 59 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Presidential Inner Circle Successful presidents depend greatly on a small yet politically powerful contingent of inner circle staff, sometimes referred to as the Kitchen Cabinet and drawn from the larger White House staff. The inner circle serves at the pleasure of the president, and its influ- ence and power is derived from its access and proximity to the president. This level of access to the president can lead to an “imperial advisor,” whose power and prominence in affecting presidential policy making can be quite substantial. Ken O’Donnell, a top aide to President John F. Kennedy, is a famous example. Another example, is Karl Rove, a political advisor to President George W. Bush; Rove is regarded by many political pundits as one of the most influential advisors in the recent history of the presidency (Moore & Slater, 2003).

Politically, given the effects that arise from the perception of a president by the public and other political actors, it falls to the inner advisory circle to ensure that a president is considered politically powerful, achieves the legislative agenda desired, and is viewed positively by the American public. Within this inner circle, the abilities of these political advisors—from the speechwriters to the press secretary, from the communication director to the chief of staff—determine how the White House is managed and how well the staff aids the president’s policy and political agenda. Figure 2.9 illustrates those presidential advisors most likely to be in the inner circle. They fall roughly into three main areas:

• advisors with expertise in domestic policy, • advisors with expertise in foreign policy, and • political advisors, upon whom the president will rely for advice on how to

appeal to the media, the general public, and voters.

It is not uncommon to find some members of the inner circle in the cabinet, often because of the position they hold. It is reasonable to view the inner circle as those closest to the president, whose opinion he or she values and whose input he or she finds vital.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 60 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.9: The president’s inner circle

The president’s inner circle generally has three distinct types of advisors: domestic policy experts, political experts, and foreign policy experts.

Executive Office of the President As Figure 2.10 shows, the Executive Office of the President (EOP) consists of groups and councils associated with critical policy issues. The EOP is organized around policy areas, and its members assist the president in the analysis, formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public policies. The structure of the EOP is not static, however, and will often be different from president to president. For example, the EOP of George W. Bush included the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives; it is absent from Obama’s EOP. Other offices within the EOP, such as the National Security Council, tend to have a consistently prominent role in serving the modern president.

President

Chief of Staff

Domestic Policy

Intergovernmental affairs advisor

Budget director

Domestic policy advisors

Political Staff

Communications director

Press secretary

Political advisors

Chief speechwriters

Pollsters

Foreign Policy

National securty advisor

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 61 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.10: The institutional presidency, 2012

The president is the only national representative and thus derives implicit powers beyond those provided by the Constitution. However, the presidency also relies on political relationships with several different experts, groups, and councils.

The Presidential Cabinet The presidential cabinet includes the formal cabinet officials of each the 15 major federal government departments and the extra-cabinet officials, such as the head of the CIA, the vice president, and the chief of staff. These represent the elite leaders responsible for exe- cuting the president’s major programs and overseeing the bureaucratic arm of the federal government (see Figure 2.10). In 2002 the largest reorganization of the federal government occurred with the creation of the cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security.

Inner Circle White House Staff

Department of Justice

Department of Defense

Department of State

Department of Health and Human Services

Department of Treasury

Department of Agriculture

Department of Homeland Security

Department of the Interior

Department of Labor

Department of Education

Department of Transportation

Department of Energy

Department of Veterans Affairs

Department of Commerce

Department of Housing and

Urban Development

Extended Cabinet

Cabinet

Council of Economic Advisors

Office of Administration

Office of Management and Budget

Office of National Drug Control Policy

Office of Science and Technology Policy

Office of the United States Trade Representative

President’s Intelligence Advisory Board and Intelligence Oversight Board

White House Military Office

White House Office

Executive Office of the President

President

Vice President

President’s Chief of Staff

Head of Environmental

Protection Agency

CIA Director

Head of National Security Council

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 62 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Traditional cabinet positions are nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The political significance of such appointments reflects the dramatic impact that changes in presidential administration can have on all facets of the bureaucracy. Each cabinet official is responsible for executing current policies, undertaking the new initia- tives that have just become law, and ensuring that the administrative vision held by the president is implemented. For the president, the cabinet and extended cabinet represent the administrative arm through which decisions evolve into actual policy actions, pro- grams are managed effectively and efficiently, and policies result in specific impacts to the designated target population(s).

Federal Courts Although the role of the federal courts is now accepted as constitutional tradition, their appropriate role within the political and policy process is contentious. The federal courts’ influence on the policy process occurs through the court’s power of judicial review, which allows courts to assess the constitutionality of policy actions taken by the other branches and levels of U.S. government and declare them null and void (Pocklington, 1985). This policy-making role for the courts was not intended by the Constitution (Horowitz, 1977). Article 3, Section 2, for example, defines the broad scope of the judiciary’s jurisdiction but provides no definition of judicial power or reference to judicial review:

The judicial power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under the Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming lands under Grants of different States.

While the scope of judicial power may have arguably been unclear at the writing of the Constitution, over the last 2 centuries, the courts have established a wide and firm foot- hold in the legislative, policy, and political process through judicial review. This policy- making role has led to two opposing schools of thought on the appropriate role of the judiciary in the policy-making process (see Figure 2.11).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 63 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.11: Two perspectives on judicial review

The court has a significant role in public policy. Judicial restraint and judicial activism are two opposing viewpoints about the role courts should have in the policy-making process.

Whichever perspective is adopted, the federal court continues to have significant impli- cations for the field of public policy. Whether activist or constrained in philosophy, the power of judicial review has led the Supreme Court to rule and impose remedies for issues dealing with some of the most contentious and divisive socioeconomic problems and policy issues confronted by the United States (see Table 2.5).

Table 2.5: Judicial court decisions affecting policy issues

Case Policy Issue

Marbury v. Madison (1804) Judicial review

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Federalism

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) Interstate commerce

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) Slavery

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Minority rights

Schenck v. United States (1919) Free speech (continued)

Interpretation of the Constitution should be

consistent with the intentions of the

Constitution’s framers.

The judiciary should not make policy when rendering

legal decisions.

The Constitution is intrinsically ambiguous, so we don’t know

true intent of framers.

The judiciary has to aggressively interpret issues and problems that were not

foreseen by the framers, thus reacting to changing realities.

Judicial Restraint*: Courts should not go beyond text of

Constitution

Judicial Activism: Courts should see beyond the text of

Constitution

* This concept is also known as strict constructionism.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 64 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Table 2.5: Judicial court decisions affecting policy issues (continued)

Powell v. Alabama (1932) Right to counsel

Korematsu v. United States (1944) National security

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954) Desegregation of schools

NAACP v. Alabama (1958) Freedom of association

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) Separation of church and state

Gideon v. Wainright (1963) Right to legal counsel

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Rights of the accused

Roe v. Wade (1973) Abortion

United States v. Nixon (1974) Executive privilege

Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978) Affirmative action

Gregg v. Georgia (1976) Capital punishment

Bush v. Gore (2000) Voting rights

Boumediene v. Bush (2008) National security

Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (2012) Health-care coverage

Arizona v. United States (2012) Immigration

Still, as significant as some of the judicial decisions have been, the courts remain a com- paratively weak and potentially constrained branch of the federal government. The judiciary’s power to effect change—similar in degree and consequence to that of legisla- tion passed by Congress or an executive order signed by the president—depends on the degree of respect and deference enjoyed by the court. To have an explicit effect on society or public policy, the judiciary depends wholeheartedly on the deference and cooperation of other institutional and noninstitutional actors. Based on the judicial decision and the remedies it may impose, the federal courts will require varying cooperation and support of Congress, the president, the bureaucracy, the 50 states, and especially the public. This places the judiciary at some disadvantage, as it must recognize the possibility that if the court is not respected, any remedy imposed may fail to be implemented. Essentially, con- straints over the judiciary can help shape and temper its legal decisions and their resulting impact on policy.

Overall, even though the courts can seem weak or constrained, the judiciary has the power to render decisions that have significant implications for the policy-making pro- cess. Because the judiciary has enjoyed consistently high public favor, even sometimes higher than the elected branches of the federal government, the power of the court to review and render decisions that have and will have substantial effects on the nature of policy and polity remains intact (see Figure 2.12).

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 65 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.12: Approval ratings of the president, Congress, and Supreme Court, 1990–2011

The Supreme Court has, overall, a high public approval rating, which illustrates the court’s significant role in public policy.

Gallup Annual Governance Polls, 1990–2011.

If the prestige or status of the court becomes in question, or if various institutional and noninstitutional actors begin to doubt the legitimacy of the court’s decisions, the influ- ence of this actor on the policy process could decline substantially. In the future, to what extent the courts remain powerful policy actors may depend on whether or not their deci- sions are more radical in implication than is or will be politically acceptable by the vast number of other policy actors. For example, in Bush v. Gore (2000), the court determined the recounting of presidential voting ballots had to stop, thus declaring George W. Bush president. However, despite widespread public opposition to the controversial position, general support for the court did not significantly drop (Gibson, Caldeira, & Spense, 2003). In contrast, the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission may represent a decision with the opposite effect and consequent negative implications. In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Election Campaign Act’s prohibition of the use of corporate or union funds to pay for advertisements supporting or opposing an electoral candidate for federal office violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The net result has been to increase the amount of money flowing into presidential campaign funds as well as congressional campaigns.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Congress President Supreme Court A

p p

ro v a l P

e rc

e n

ta g

e

Year 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2011

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 66 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Bureaucracy The previous discussion of subgovernments highlights bureaucracy’s central role as a policy actor. This centrality comes in large part from the bureaucracy being the admin- istrative means by which the policy decisions and actions of the various branches of the government are implemented. Although the Constitution does not mention the bureau- cracy, it is often referred to as the “fourth branch” of the federal government because of the power it has in implementing public policy. Because the language of many adopted policy actions is ambiguous, the bureaucracy is responsible for actively defining the intent of government decisions. The bureaucracy also develops rules and regulations related to a piece of legislation or a government program, and also provides critical information and expertise to other institutional and noninstitutional actors. Overall, the basis of the admin- istrative power of the bureaucracy resides in many areas. Table 2.6 outlines the various policy-making implications of administrative power.

Table 2.6: Administrative power and policy making

Basis of Administrative Power Policy Implication

Rule making Rules and procedures for implementation

Adjudication Discretion to decide program scope of implementation

Information Collection and publication of information

Programmatic history Development of policy expertise

Clientism Relationship with other policy actors

Political appointments Political support for administrative goals

Leadership of agency Quality of public management

Organizational capacity Resources and capability for implementation

The political expectations placed on the modern bureaucracy can be summed up in three words: accountability, efficiency, and effectiveness (AEE). Each government agency, within the sometimes diffuse or strict area defined politically, must strive to achieve optimal AEE. First, each agency must ensure that it is accountable to the public it serves and the political leaders who are its administrative masters. Efficiency represents the achievement of administrative goals at the lowest possible cost with the highest level of productivity. Efficiency, however, does not always ensure effectiveness. The goal of effectiveness, in comparison, is to ensure that the administrative program, whatever its purpose, achieves the mandated goals specified by the policy makers. Ironically, given the complex policy and political areas within which such bureaucratic goals develop and operate, the end of effectiveness may jeopardize or come at the expense of efficiency.

When the bureaucracy fails to achieve optimal AEE, this does not simply threaten the agency—it can lead to the failure of an essential policy or program. At the extreme, a failure of the bureaucracy is a failure of the federal government to perform its public func- tions and responsibilities. Basically, the optimal influence of the agency throughout the

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 67 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The Policy Players—Noninstitutional Actors

Noninstitutional actors such as interest groups, the media, members of think tanks, and the general public are those with varying degrees of influence on making policy but no formal institutional credentials. Such actors can and do play critical roles in influencing policy direction. Interestingly, it often seems that such actors attain an even greater promi- nence than many institutional actors. To a certain extent, the level of influence many non- institutional actors enjoy depends on how actively involved they are or become within the many stages of the policy process.

Interest Groups The power and influence of interest groups is of long-standing historical and political importance in U.S. public policy. Historically, the structure of government designed by the Constitution’s framers ensured the place and opportunity for influence by the pri- vate actor and the organized group. One could argue that the very history of U.S. politics derives from a constant battle among various interests and groups.

The term interest group is used to describe a diverse set of political groups who apply pressure to the policy process in order to secure policy that either benefits or does not harm their interests. Interest groups fall into three basic categories: professional, eco- nomic, and promotional (McKay, 2000) (see Figure 2.13). Economic groups represent corporate interests, trade unions, and farmers. The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations is an example of an economic interest group. Pro- fessional groups represent the interest of a distinct profession such as the American Bar Association, American Association of Retired Persons, and the American Political Science Association. Finally, promotional groups define those groups that are organized around a singular cause or interest, such as the environment, pro-choice or pro-life, gun control or

policy process depends on the extent to which it achieves and maintains an optimal level of AEE. Yet achieving these ends within the bureaucratic realm of government—a world in which politics redefines failure and success—is far easier said than done.

Government Shutdown Narrowly Avoided The Senate and the House had great difficulty coming to an agreement on the budget in 2011. A 6-day spending bill was passed just 1 hour before an official government shutdown. This bill cut $38.5 billion from the 2011 budget but prevented the more than 4 million government employees from receiving a pay cut. Although neither the Democrats nor the Republicans were completely satisfied with the bill, it was seen as a good compromise. Watch some of the media coverage of the bill here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoPjNklnmy4&feature=fvst.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. What might some consequences be if the various branches and agencies of the government

fail to work together? 2. How might a government shutdown affect your life? 3. How has the government’s budget agreement affected your life?

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 68 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

gun rights, and senior citizens. The National Rifle Association, for instance, represents a promotional interest group. Additionally, interest groups may also include intergovern- mental groups, such as the National League of Cities or the National Governors Associa- tion, as well as nonprofits, charitable, and religious groups (for example the YMCA, the Red Cross, and the Salvation Army).

Figure 2.13: Types of interest groups

Interest groups apply pressure during the policy process to secure policies that benefit their interests.

Overall, the influence of an interest group is based on its ability to mobilize, organize, use fiscal and political resources, and focus its attention on a given issue within the political arena. Depending on their political influence and prominence, interest groups can and do effectively push their issues to the forefront of the agenda, altering the language of leg- islation, adding amendments that favor their group, improving their fiscal or regulatory interests, and blocking or revising bills before they are voted on or adopted. However, the extent to which such groups have influence in the formulation and implementation of policy varies with time and the significance of the policy issue.

Lobbyists The lobbyist is a political actor who uses his or her influence to make policy-related appeals on behalf of the groups or individuals whom the lobbyist represents. Often criti- cized by the public but praised by private interests, lobbyists play significant roles in the policy process, and their lobbying, or attempts to sway public officials, is a billion- dollar industry (see Figure 2.14). Lobbying occurs at every level of government, including

Types of Interest Groups

Professional Groups

American Bar Association American Association of Retired Persons

Economic Groups

Class of corporate interests, trade unions, and farmers

Promotional Groups

Singular causes or interests

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 69 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

federal, state, and local. Lobbyists influence legislators by providing resources, data, or arguments supporting their client’s case to the legislators or their staff in order to convince them to support the client’s position. There are, of course, claims of corruption and brib- ery to garner such support. Lobbyists can also use media campaigns to mobilize public support that will pressure elected officials to support the position of the lobbyists and their clients.

Figure 2.14: Amount of U.S. dollars spent lobbying Congress and federal agencies, 1998–2011

Lobbyists play a significant role in the policy-making process, and lobbying occurs at every level of government.

Center for Responsive Politics. Retrieved from http://www.opensecrets.org

Many types of individuals or groups use lobbyists to advocate for a wide array of causes. Many multinational corporations, from Microsoft to Boeing, have an army of corpo- rate lobbyists—not to mention a series of lobbyists and firms on retainer—as do interest groups such as trade unions. Overall, a lobbyist’s influence derives from a mixture of ele- ments (see Figure 2.15). Lobbying has become a highly criticized activity. It suffers from a negative portrayal because of what many critics perceive as the undue influence of those lobbyists representing clients with large amounts of financial resources. Many observers view the influential client’s lobbying as buying an elected representative’s support on an issue—thereby putting the client in a position to dictate the policies that are adopted.

A m

o u

n t

S p

e n

t in

B il li o

n s o

f D

o ll a rs

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

1.44 1.44 1.56 1.64

1.82 2.04

2.18

2.42 2.62

2.85

3.3 3.5 3.51 3.32

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 70 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Figure 2.15: The lobbyist: Elements of influence

Many individuals or groups rely on lobbyists’ skills to help advocate for different causes.

Media The weight of the analytical evi- dence suggests that the media’s power to shape, define, and rede- fine issues affects the policy pro- cess (Iyenger, 1993). In terms of the policy process, the power to constantly deliver and frame infor- mation to the public enables the media to play a significant policy role. The media’s influence allows it to identify problems, set public and political agendas, shape the understanding of policy issues, provide particular analysis of pol- icy proposals, and affect how pro- grams and policies are perceived and evaluated within the public and by the government. In light of

Experience

Years committed

to political and

policy advocacy

Expertise

Level of knowledge

and skill set to

successfully develop

winning strategies

Access

Close professional

and personal

relationships with key

actors in process

Resources

Available monies

and capacities

Character

Level of respect

from key actors

and earned

reputation

Roll Call/Getty Images

Media frame and deliver information to the public, a significant role in the policy process.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 71 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

the explosion of web pages, Internet news, e-mail, online chats, online polls, discussion groups, online video, real-time simulcast, and 24-hour news networks, a rising concern is whether balanced and fair reporting and analysis is being presented to the public. Unclear, for instance, is whether the constant demand for information to fill this 24-hour news cycle jeopardizes more thoughtful and critical analysis of the many important domestic and foreign policy issues affecting society. Nevertheless, given the vastly expanded role of the media within society—a result of the 21st century’s digital revolution—the real power and influence of the media within the political and policy process may have yet to reach its full potential.

Think Tanks Think tanks are policy institutes, so named because they house experts whose job is to research and think about public policy. Simply, think tanks represent an institute (academic or nonacademic affiliated) in which resident scholars, researchers, and fellows assigned from government, universities, the corporate world or the media conduct original pol- icy research analysis and programmatic evaluation. The policy role of such groups can vary considerably depending on whether such organizations are ideologically driven or research driven, with a preference against partisan bias. In general, the influence of think tanks stems from their ideological compatibility with respective legislators and decision makers, as well as the analytical value of their research and the insight of their expertise.

The level of expertise garnered from think tank research and analysis has permitted the various researchers and scholars to sometimes play an integral role in the policy process. Experts will often be called on to provide testimony on proposed policy solutions or on the best policy design for a particular problem. Additionally, a number of institutional actors depend on think tank expertise when developing policy proposals or when decid- ing the consequences that may follow a particular course of action. Aside from the specific value of their expertise, think tanks identify new policy concerns through their research, provide evaluation of the effects of past policies and programs, and help emphasize the possible consequences from specific policy actions. Finally, such think tanks offer a useful forum in which academics, scholars, former government officials, and other experts can collaborate and pursue research, with potentially dramatic policy implications, by focus- ing attention toward new and possibly better directions in public policy. Following is a list of some of the most prominent think tanks.

• Brookings Institution • Tomás Rivera Policy Institute • Center for Budget and Policy Priorities • Rand Corporation • Urban Institute • Heritage Foundation • Council on Foreign Relations • Cato Institute • Hoover Institute • American Enterprise Institute

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 72 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

The Public—A Mass of Individual Citizens In theory, the most significant influence on the policy process is the public. The public’s role in the policy process can prove vital whenever the people turn their attention and action toward identifying and classifying issues—certain of which may be pushed onto the agenda with enough public support.

Additionally, the public support for certain solutions and the demands for government action can sometimes lead to dramatic instances of political and policy actions. Such instances can occur when elected representatives perceive a clear policy mood. Politi- cal scientist James Stimson (1999, 2004) defines policy mood as an instance when deci- sion makers perceive that the climate of public opinion and public sentiment reflects the general public’s underlying preferences over the direction of government policy. Stimson (1999, 2004) argues the policy mood among U.S. voters is always one in which issues are thought of in terms of left/right or more government/less government. As Stimson (2004) states, “The first dimension of American public opinion is the welfare state/size of government controversy that divides the parties” (p. 81). Generally, when the nation faces economic recession and increased unemployment, the policy mood will be one of sup- porting government intervention in the economy and reinforcing the welfare safety net. Conversely, when the nation experiences economic growth, the policy mood influencing public policy outcome will often be one that supports less government intervention and a retraction of the welfare safety net. Hence, the policy mood dictated that Obama had no choice but to step in and implement his $750 billion economic stimulus package in 2009 to jumpstart economic growth, a decision prompted by mounting public discontent with the banking industry and corporate America and the fear of large-scale unemployment and economic recession.

For decision makers, the public affects every stage of the policy process because the citi- zenry plays a critical role in elections and subsequent appointment of policy actors. In reality, however, the public’s political power often fails to materialize due to the people’s lack of political participation.

The lack of participation within U.S. politics has especially profound implications for the policy process. At a minimum, those who do not participate in the political process del- egate their power over decision makers to those interest groups, political parties, govern- ment officials, and citizens who do actively participate. More troubling, lack of political involvement may fuel even greater apathy in the future. For decision makers, because so much of the public fails to become active in the policy process, focusing on the interests of individuals and groups who are active factors in their political future is simply smart politics. Arguably, the apathetic only become active and mobilized when a particular issue of personal significance materializes. Still, whether the public participates or not, the citi- zenry will continue to have a dominant role in the policy process as long as decision mak- ers tap into the policy mood, which often dictates policy direction to elected officials. The public’s role, and its potential political influence when actively involved, is cemented in the Constitution through the basis of the vote, elected representation, and a Republican system of government that operates with a pluralistic character.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 73 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Because policy decisions will be made irrespective of who does or does not participate, certain individuals and groups inevitably acquire a disproportionate influence on the pol- icy process because of their willingness to participate. Interestingly, an analysis of recent national, state, and local voting results (coupled with a realization that even fewer indi- viduals choose to actively participate after an election) suggests that decreasing numbers of individuals shape politics and policy. In essence, those who remove themselves from the policy process feed a costly spiral of apathy that can have significant consequences on whether their problems are identified or ignored, whether the design of policy solutions is appropriate to their concerns, and whether certain policies are adopted or defeated by the more active interests within the political society.

Case Study: The Realities of Being a U.S. Senator Senator Richard Lugar’s dramatic concession statement high- lights not only the terrible divisions in the U.S. Senate and the nation in 2012, but the effect that elections, policy actors, and politics can have on the overall policy process.

I would like to comment on the Senate race just con- cluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, includ- ing job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn- Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.

Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who don’t fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will specu- late whether we were guilty of overconfidence. The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took any- thing for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations. Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be

Roll Call/Getty Images

Senator Richard Lugar

(continued)

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 74 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Case Study: The Realities of Being a U.S. Senator (continued) targeted by outside groups. These included my votes for the TARP program, for govern- ment support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform. It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.

From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as any- thing else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Repub- lican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority. If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisan- ship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.

This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solu- tions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most con- sequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise. Unfor- tunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminish- ing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions.

Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as dif- ficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues. Legislators should have an ideological (continued)

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 75 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 2.2 Understanding the Who of the U.S. Policy Making CHAPTER 2

Case Study: The Realities of Being a U.S. Senator (continued) grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment. Too often bipartisan- ship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of princi- ple. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisan- ship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today—from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.

I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is los- ing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader. I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value construc- tive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.

As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 76 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 2

Summary

The structural realities of U.S. government reflect a dynamic union between the dif-fusion and concentration of policy-making power. Structurally, each branch of the federal government, as well as all levels of government, garner significant power to influence and shape the policy process. Additionally, institutional and noninstitutional actors play roles in the policy process.

Key Points to Remember

• The U.S. government is a political system operating under a Constitution that designed a policy-making structure that is not effective, efficient, or productive except under rare circumstances, such as crises.

• In the absence of crisis, U.S. politics and policy making operates within a struc- tural realm seemingly more conducive to inaction and frustration than policy action.

• The failures of government and the policy process are the very by-product of the structure unique to U.S. government.

• Our federal system of government divides power across branches and levels of government and ensures a role for the public.

• At unique times, dramatic policy actions are possible and do occur. • Institutional actors represent the set of actors central to the governmental role in

the policy-making process. • Noninstitutional actors include those actors that seek to influence, directly and

indirectly, the actions and decisions of the institutional actors. • Each group of actors enjoys varying degrees of influence at various stages of the

policy process.

Key Terms

block grants Federal monies given to state governments to pay for general policy areas, or programs, with few rules and restrictions on how monies should be spent.

categorical grants-in-aid Federal monies provided to states/local governments that must be used to support specific policy programs.

coalitions of broad political support A political compromise across and within institutions to foster consensus among the political parties, party leadership, senior committee members, the president, and the various public constituencies that are active in the policy process.

Executive Office of the President (EOP) Permanent agencies organized around policy areas that assist the presi- dent in the analysis, formulation, imple- mentation, and evaluation of public policies.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 77 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 2

expressed powers Powers specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution.

federalism A system of government that constitutionally provides for sharing of power between a national government and regional governments.

filibustering A delaying tactic used in Senate to tie up a bill through constant speaking on the floor until the majority decides to pull the bill from the Senate floor.

fiscal A term that applies to budget- ary matters, especially the revenues and expenditures of governments.

fiscal federalism The national govern- ment financially subsidizes state and local level.

implied powers Powers not specifically given by the Constitution but inferred from those powers that are specifically granted by the Constitution as reserved powers.

inner circle Staff members serving at the pleasure of the president who act as an advisory group; includes chief of staff, communications director, press secretary, speechwriters, budget director, domes- tic policy advisors, and national security advisor.

institutional actors Those players who have formal institutional credentials and direct power over the policy process, such as the president, members of Congress, members of the bureaucracy, and the judiciary.

interest group An organized group of individuals who apply pressure on the government to secure policy that benefits or does not harm their interests.

iron triangles A policy-making relation- ship among congressional committees, the bureaucracy (administrative agencies), and interest groups.

issue networks Informal coalitions of interest groups, public and private organi- zations, and members of the public, often with policy expertise, who come together around a particular issue.

lobbyists Individuals who use their influ- ence to make policy-related appeals on behalf of the groups or individuals they represent.

noninstitutional actors Those players who have no formal institutional creden- tials or direct power over the policy pro- cess, such as interest groups, lobbyists, the media, members of think tanks, and the general public.

policy arenas Subgovernments or iron triangles.

policy mood The climate of public opin- ion and public sentiment reflecting the general public’s latent preferences over government policy.

policy subsystems Broad alliances of public and private groups such as think tanks, interest groups, and individuals that influence policy making.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 78 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions CHAPTER 2

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Is indirect representation a threat to democracy, or is it compatible with the idea of democracy? If it is compatible, should the U.S. Senate be changed back to an indirect branch of government?

2. Which level of government—local, state, or federal—has the most significant impact on your life on a day-to-day basis? Which level of government—local, state, or federal—has the most significant impact on the quality of your life?

3. In your opinion, which actor proves most influential to the overall policy-making process?

4. Is a national crisis necessary for immediate policy action within such a divided structural government? Absent war or threat of war, what qualifies as a national crisis in your opinion?

5. Do you believe that the policies that matter the most to members of Congress are the ones that help get them reelected?

6. Should academics or think tanks have more or less of a role in the policy process? Does expert opinion pose a threat to pluralism and the policy process?

presidential cabinet The secretaries or chief administrators of each the major departments of the federal government and the extra-cabinet officials, such as the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the vice president, and the chief of staff; they are responsible for executing the president’s major programs and oversee- ing the bureaucratic arm of the federal government.

public arena Public granting of authority to elected representatives to make policy through passing laws.

republic A national government that includes both direct and indirect represen- tation, ensuring that the public possesses varying degrees of influence over institu- tions and decision makers.

separation of powers Diffusion of power among branches of government; ensures that no one institution possesses absolute policy-making power.

subgovernments Series of policy inter- connections between three parties—public (interest groups), institutional (congressio- nal committees), and bureaucratic (admin- istrative agencies); also referred to as iron triangles.

supremacy clause Found in Article VI, Clause 2, of the Constitution, this states that all laws passed by the national government are the supreme laws of the land and are superior to all laws adopted by any state.

10th Amendment This states that all pow- ers not effectively delegated to the national government nor prohibited by the Consti- tution are essentially reserved and assumed to fall under the purview of the states.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 79 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 2

Applied Internet Exercises: Strategies and the Iron Triangle

Devise a Lobbying Strategy

Congratulations, you’ve just been hired as a lobbyist to influence a specific piece of proposed legisla- tion—the Stop Online Piracy Act. Your first task for your new client is to go online and research the issue. A couple of good sources are linked below:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/248298/sopa_and_pipa_ just_the_facts.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2012/01/18/what-are-sopa-and-pipa-and-why-all-the- fuss/

In a memo that cannot exceed three pages, your task is as follows:

1. Research the issue—the arguments for and against. 2. Identify which actors you will target to try and influence, how, and why. 3. Identify the main policy points you will use to influence each of these actors so they will not (or

will) support this legislative effort. 4. Predict how each of these actors will react and the outcome of your lobbying efforts.

Remember, before you begin this exercise, you need to choose which side you are lobbying for or against.

How Strong Is That Iron Triangle, Again?

So-called iron triangles exist across many issue areas, and their impact, in the opinion of many, is quite negative. But do they really exist as strongly as it is assumed? Using public sources available online, your tasks are as follows:

1. Choose an issue area (energy, defense, the environment, etc.) you will investigate to see whether an iron triangle truly exists.

2. Identify and analyze three major associations, interests groups, and/or lobbying groups (who work in this issue area) and provide an evaluation of their top staff and their past connections (if any) to government or the bureaucracy.

3. You must prepare a two-page memo that assesses how strong the so-called iron triangle is within the issue area you have chosen.

To get you started, the following links will help you identify potential associations, interest groups, and lobbying groups to investigate:

http://usgovinfo.about.com/blorgs.htm

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/185843-top-lobbyists-hired-guns

http://pag.vancouver.wsu.edu

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/199245-k-streets-top-10-lobbying-victories-of-2011

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 80 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Suggested Readings CHAPTER 2

Suggested Readings

Ainsworth, S. (2002). Analyzing interest groups. New York: Norton.

Baum, L. (1997). The puzzle of judicial behavior. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Bednar, J. (2008). The robust federation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Breyer, S. (2005). Active liberty: Interpreting our democratic Constitution. New York: Knopf.

Crenson, M., & Ginsberg, B. (2007). Presidential power: Unchecked and unbalanced. New York: Norton.

Domhoff, G. W. (2009). Who rules America? Challenges to corporate and class dominance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Ivengar, S. (2011). Media politics. New York: Norton.

Mayhew, D. (1974). The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Posner, R. (2006). Not a suicide pact: The Constitution in times of national emergency. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What governments do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 81 11/21/12 12:46 PM

the80472_02_c02_031-082.indd 82 11/21/12 12:46 PM