IT TAKES A NETWORK TO GET A LOT DONE

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.     

---

[1] Matt Grossman, Artist of the Possible:  Governing Networks and American Policy Change Since 1945 (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press).

[2] Ibid., location 3464-3474 (a Kindle designation).

THE WORKINGS OF THE POSSIBLE

This blog of late has reviewed some general observations and insights regarding the conditions that lead to public policy change.  By public, this writer is referring to governmental policy in the form of laws, regulations, and/or judicial decisions.  What he wants to next address is the work of institutional entrepreneurs and governing networks.  This posting looks at the first of these two.

          The reason for this interest is based on the belief that central to the teaching of civics should be not only the workings of government, but also imparting skills associated with citizen engagement, especially in a democracy like ours that exalts republican (with a small r) values.  On both counts – workings and engagement – a student is well served if he/she understands what goes into the formulation of policy.

          In terms of institutional entrepreneurs – a group referred to here as policy entrepreneurs – these are the relatively small groups of politicians (usually presidents and Congresspersons) who are not always the initiators of changes, but who play central roles in their enactment.  They, in short, act as ringleaders in getting proposed changes into effect.  A president or legislator who wants something enacted would do well to solicit the support of these individuals.  They are not essential, but they are, given the history of such efforts, usually highly useful.

          What can be said of these policy entrepreneurs?  According to Matt Grossman,[1] whose research this blog has relied on in terms of this topic, they are the ones who form and organize the necessary coalitions of policy-makers.  They orchestrate the give and take that lead to the compromises essential to arrive at the agreements upon which the enactments count.  They, in addition, identify both those individuals, within and without government, who can make the difference between enactment or failure to enact.

          In the last posting, it was pointed out that the current political scene, including in the Congress, levels of polarization have become so high that policy-making or rule-making has been seriously curtailed.  This condition is of relatively recent vintage and before its ascendance, especially in the years between and including the 1960s and 1990s, such names as Moynihan, Kennedy, Dole, and Javits – all US Senators – were often cited as those politicians who were in effect the policy entrepreneurs of their day.

          These central figures can be characterized by certain attributes.  First, they do not think or act in terms of specific laws they are aiming to enact, but instead in terms of what can possibly be enacted.  There is a significant difference between these perspectives.  The former tends to think of the “perfect” (perfection defined by a politician’s values and/or attitudes), while the latter thinks in the realm of the possible.

Grossman describes these entrepreneurial politicians as more concerned with getting things done than getting specific things done – quantity over quality.  Or stated another way:  they strive for change for its own sake.  In this line of thinking, while rare, they might use their skills to block enactment, but as a group, they would rather strive toward change through the enactment of new policy.

This overall perspective leads to some more specific orientations.  They often see, for example, the perfect being the enemy of the good.  That is, in trying to achieve the perfect, one can lose the good and end up with nothing new, aka the status quo.  Of course, this is deemed to be the bad since it is the status quo that motivated the effort to change in the first place.

They partake of certain activities.  They trade favors – something for something else.  They are ready to concede minor goals to achieve the overall aim or some version of it.  They try to stay clear of the more controversial issues and, by doing so, avoid engendering criticism that will kill their efforts.

As for critics, they try to win them over by addressing their concerns or, at least, they try to do so.  And they cajole their fellow legislators, usually by flattery.  Positive interchanges are better since the current bit of change effort will be followed by others and willing allies are always welcomed.  Such alliances are not promoted by distasteful experiences in the past.

All this means compromising.  But are there limits to such compromising?  Of course, there are.  Too much compromising – in terms of beliefs – will indicate that the politician is lacking in principles and, therefore, is apt to be judged as untrustworthy.  The system of policy-making, as in any deal making, must depend on participants trusting the word of the other participants.  Part of that is having a sense of what the limits of each participant are.  And that, by its very nature, is what principles are all about.

This writer sees this phenomenon of entrepreneurial activity being more prevalent at the federal level than at the state level.  In most state legislatures, one party is firmly in power and with that, one train of political thought prevails (more singular in terms of ideological biases).  This is not true in all states; some are more diverse.  Having said that, even when there is more unanimity, not all participants will see things the same way all the time.  Translation:  wheeling and dealing will commence.

Last, Grossman writes of “Senate gangs.”  These are the recurring members who are the entrepreneurs in the US Senate.  With that, one is naturally led to consider governing networks which will be the next and last topic this blog will address concerning how policy-change takes place.

---

[1] Matt Grossman, Artist of the Possible:  Governing Networks and American Policy Change Since 1945 (New York, NY:  Oxford University Press).