With this posting, I conclude a series of postings that
reviews some of the factors and conditions upon which public policy
changes. Using the research of Matt
Grossman,[1] the blog
has reported on the robust nature of this topic: that one cannot zero-in on a
few variables associated with policy change and get a satisfactory sense of
what is entailed. Instead, Grossman
argues that a rich array of factors must be considered to get a comprehensive
enough view of what all is involved.
Having pointed
out these rich sources of change, he goes further to point out that a recurring
factor is the presence of a select number of policymakers who seem to be
involved in the numerous histories of such changes. While these individuals, politicians and
interest group representatives, do not initiate change necessarily, they do
seem to manage the process. That is not
to say these individuals are indispensable to the process, but they do seem to
be present in most of the cases in which change occurs.
Also,
productive periods of time – those in which a high number of policy changes
occur – are noted with a political environment, unlike today, in which the
level of polarization is low. One such
period was what Grossman calls the Long Great Society period (1961-1976). This extended time was noted with a major
introduction and enactment of progressive legislation that was not only the
product of liberals, but also moderate conservatives. The presidential administrations involved included
Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Ford.
And that leads
to the topic of this posting: governmental networks. During productive eras of policy change,
there are viable and productive governmental networks at work to make the
necessary laws, regulations, and judicial decisions possible. It is these networks that allow the
interdependence among policymakers that transcends beyond an issue or proposed
bill of legislation and coordinates the work of many, allowing a productive
stretch of change.
Therefore,
students of this process would do well not to focus on one issue or even on one
general area of concern such as the environment. Their concerns should stretch beyond even a
liberal or conservative ideological bias.
To narrow the study to any one of these factors or conditions would isolate
a view of policymakers and policymaking artificially and misleadingly. This is, for example, how Grossman describes
the governing network during the progressive times of the ‘60s and ‘70s:
The most important feature of the
governing network of the Long Great Society was the sustained cross-issue and
cross-branch relationships that it featured, with a core of central actors
responsible for policymaking in all three branches in many domains over sixteen
years. This implies that the traditional
concept of issue networks is too limiting.
A network of actors may surround an issue area, but its most important
members may be those that transcend the issue, such as presidents or
congressional leaders. A network may not
be a replacement for a subsystem, but a means of connecting actors across
institutional and policy contexts.[2]
Just to be
clear, governing networks aren’t always in place. As a matter of fact, they are rare. But with a new president – and a new party –
in the White House, the opportunity is present for such a phenomenon these
days. Will it come about? Possibly, if the new president really works
at it despite a slim advantage in the Senate, a slim win at the polls (winning
the electoral vote, but losing the popular vote), and ostensibly much ill-will
among the electorate. The question
is: what would it take to structure a
new governing network?
If this writer
reads the Grossman’s monograph correctly, beginning with less partisan issues
would be prudent. Such an issue is the
infrastructure piece of his agenda. This
policy proposal would be appealing to Democrats and probably enough Republicans
(from blue collar areas) to formulate the relationships upon which a network can
be built. Along with avoiding the more
controversial issues – at least for now – such an approach would identify those
politicians and interest group representatives that could possibly be the
foundation of a workable network.
Networks take
time to form. Un-balkanizing our
politics is essential to a successful sustained effort to bring about the
changes the nation’s new president is promising. Other factors associated with network-building
are limiting interest group expansion (avoid too much concentration of this
segment of the political landscape) and steering clear of ideological
polarization.
What needs to be pushed to the
forefront is empathetic language (adopting as much opposition language as
possible to serve the purposes of the proposed change) and diversifying the
structure and membership of the network.
There is no single way to organize the effort; instead, the political
insights of key people must be exercised to meet the challenges of the issue
and the timing of the effort.
And all this further highlights the
key function – most of the time – that certain participants play. The histories of such efforts repeatedly
point out that while all congressional votes count the same, all congressional
members do not have the same level of influence. Most actors have little to say in each
proposal, but a few have a lot of say on a wide range of issues. These are the types of political elements that
civics students need to grasp to learn a realistic view of politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment