 |
|  |  |  |  |
American Government,
Ninth Edition
James Q. Wilson
John J. DiIulio, Jr., University of Pennsylvania
|  |  |
 |  | Study Outline
Chapter 15:
The Policy-Making Process
- Setting the agenda
- Most important decision affecting policy-making is deciding what belongs
on the political agenda
- Shared beliefs determine what is legitimate
- Legitimacy affected by
- Shared political values
- Weight of custom and tradition
- Changes in way political elites think about politics
- The legitimate scope of government action
- Always gets larger
- Changes in public's attitudes
- Influence of events
- May be enlarged without public demand even when conditions improving
- Groups: a motivating force in adding new issues
- May be organized (corporations) or disorganized (urban minorities)
- May react to sense of relative deprivation--people's feeling that they are worse off than they expected to be
Example: Riots of the 1960s - May produce an expansion of government agenda
Example: New commissions and laws - May change the values and beliefs of others
Example: White response to urban riots
- Institutions a second force adding new issues
- Major institutions: courts, bureaucracy, Senate, national media
- Courts
- Make decisions that force action by other branches: school
desegregation, abortion - Change the political agenda
- Bureaucracy
- Source of political innovation: size and expertise
- Thinks up problems to solve
- Forms alliances with senators and their staffs
- Senate
- More activists than ever
- Source of presidential candidates with new ideas
- Media
- Help place issues on political agenda
- Publicize those issues raised by others, such as safety standards proposed by Senate
- Evolution of political agenda
- Changes in popular attitudes that result in gradual revision of the agenda
- Critical events, spurring rapid changes in attitudes
- Elite attitudes and government actions, occasioning volatile and interdependent
change
- Making a decision
- Nature of issue
- Affects politicking
- Affects intensity of political conflict
- Costs and benefits of proposed policy a way to understand how issue affects
political power
- Cost: any burden, monetary or nonmonetary
- Benefit: any satisfaction, monetary or nonmonetary
- Two aspects of costs and benefits important:
- Perception affects politics
- People consider whether it is legitimate for a group to benefit
- Politics a process of settling disputes about who benefits and who ought
to benefit
- People prefer programs that provide benefits at low cost.
- Perceived distribution of costs and benefits shapes the kinds of political
coalitions that form but not who wins
- Majoritarian politics: distributed benefits, distributed costs
- Gives benefits to large numbers
- Distributes costs to large numbers
- Initial debate in ideological or cost terms, for example, military budgets
- Interest group politics: concentrated benefits, concentrated costs
- Gives benefits to relatively small group
- Costs imposed on another small group
- Debate carried on by interest groups (labor unions versus businesses)
- Client politics: concentrated benefits, distributed costs
- Relatively small group benefits; group has incentive to organize
- Costs distributed widely
- Most people unaware of costs, sometimes in form of pork barrel projects
- Entrepreneurial politics: distributed benefits, concentrated costs
- Gives benefits to large numbers
- Costs imposed on small group
- Success may depend on people who work on behalf of unorganized majorities
- Legitimacy of client claims is important, for example, the Superfund
VII. The case of business regulation - The question of wealth and power
- One view: economic power dominates political power
- Another view: political power a threat to a market economy
- Text cautious; weighs variables
- Majoritarian politics
- Antitrust legislation in the 1890s
- Public indignation strong but unfocused
- Legislation vague; no specific enforcement agency
- Antitrust legislation in the twentieth century strengthened
- Presidents take initiative in encouraging enforcement
- Politicians, business leaders committed to firm antitrust policy
- Federal Trade Commission created in 1914
- Enforcement determined primarily by ideology and personal convictions
- Interest group politics
- Labor-management conflict
- 1935: labor unions seek government protection for their rights: businesses oppose
- Unions win
- Wagner Act creates NLRB
- 1947: Taft-Hartley Act a victory for management
- 1959: Landrum-Griffin Act another victory for management
- Politics of the conflict
- Highly publicized struggle
- Winners and losers determined by partisan composition of Congress
- Between enactment of laws, conflict continues in NLRB
- Similar pattern found in Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970
- Reflects a labor victory
- Agency established
- Client politics
- Agency capture likely
- Licensing of attorneys, barbers, and so on
- Prevents fraud, malpractice, and safety hazards
- Also restricts entry into occupation or profession; allows members to charge
higher prices
- Little opposition since:
- People believe regulations protect them
- Costs are not obvious
- Regulation of milk industry
- Regulation prevents price competition, keeping price up
- Public unaware of inflated prices
- Consumers have little incentive to organize
- Sugar quotas also benefit sugar producers
- Attempts to change regulations and cut subsidies and quotas
- 1996 bill replaced crop subsidies with direct cash payments
- Subsidies continued to increase
- 2002 law replaced 1996 law, and new subsidies were authorized
- Subsidies: the result of history and politics
- Client politics for "special interests" seems to be on decline
- Importance of appearing to be "deserving"
- Regulation can also serve to hurt a client (e.g., FCC and radio broadcasters/telephone companies)
- Entrepreneurial politics; relies on entrepreneurs to galvanize
- 1906: Pure Food and Drug Act protected consumer
- 1960s and 1970s: large number of consumer and environmental protection statutes
passed (Clear Air Act, Toxic Substance Control Act)
- Policy entrepreneur usually associated with such measures (Ralph Nader, Edmund Muskie)
- Often assisted by crisis or scandal
- Debate becomes moralistic and extreme
- Risk of such programs: agency may be "captured" by the regulated industry
- Newer agencies less vulnerable
- Standards specific, timetables strict
- Usually regulate many different industries; thus do not face unified opposition
- Their existence has strengthened public-interest lobbies
- Allies in the media may attack agencies with probusiness bias
- Public-interest groups can use courts to bring pressure on regulatory agencies
- Perceptions, beliefs, interests, and values
- Problem of definition
- Costs and benefits not completely defined in money terms
- Cost or benefit a matter of perception
- Political conflict largely a struggle to make one set of beliefs about costs
and benefits prevail over another
- Types of arguments used
- "Here-and-now" argument
- Cost argument
- Role of values
- Values: our conceptions of what is good for our community or our country
- Emphasis on self-interest
- Ideas as decisive forces
- Deregulation
- Example: airline fares, long-distance telephone rates, trucking
- A challenge to "iron triangles" and client politics
- Explanation: the power of ideas
- Idea: government regulation was bad
- Started with academic economists
- They were powerless but convinced politicians
- Politicians acted for different reasons
- Had support of regulatory agencies and consumers
- Industries being deregulated were unpopular
- Reducing subsidies; for example, the tobacco industry
- Supported by members of Congress from tobacco-growing states
- Allowed growers to borrow against unsold tobacco and not pay back the loan
- Public went along until smoking became issue
- New system: growers pay subsidies
- Widely held beliefs (against smoking) defeated narrow interests (subsidies)
- Presidents since Ford have sought to review government regulation
- Many groups oppose deregulation
- Dispute focuses mostly on how deregulation occurs
- "Process regulation" can be good or bad
- The limit of ideas
- Some clients are just too powerful, for example, dairy farmers, agricultural
supports
- But trend is toward weaker client politics
|  |
|  |
|
|
|