IS IT BETTER TO ASK WHO OR WHAT?

The aim of this posting is to shift gears.  This account wishes to turn its attention to an international concern and an associated theory.  It is a concern that has lost some of its virulence over the last decade or so, but there is still a noted interest among leftist scholars.  Those who study this concern have summarily named the theory, dependency theory.  This writer cites this theory to point out a distinction; that is, how one defines a problem area has a significant effect on what solutions that person finds viable.

          Since World War II, an array of interests has extended significant amount of analysis as to why what used to be called the Third World countries and are referred to today as lesser developed countries (LDCs) are not as developed or wealthy as industrial or post-industrial nations.  One set of explanations or theories are known as modernization theories.  Another approach is the aforementioned dependency theory.  Modernization is generally supported by capitalist defenders and dependency theory by Marxist or Marxist leaning challengers.

          A third view is a cultural view.  Simply stated, one can attribute advancement to cultural traits that bolster functional behaviors.  These behaviors are defined as those modes of action that actually achieve development.  That is, they are not only helpful, but essential in achieving economic parity with the advanced countries.  This posting looks at comparing dependency theory with culturally based views.

          One writer who has addressed this comparison directly is David Landes.[1]  He is partial to the cultural view, but he presents a nuanced argument.  He does not dismiss the concerns of dependencists that captured quite a bit of attention or follow-ship in Latin America.  His offering attempts to be more practical and less ideological.  In doing so, he offers some insights that this account presents as a set of ideas worth considering.

          He begins his cited article as follows:

Max Weber was right.  If we learn anything from the history of economic development, it is that culture makes almost all the difference … Yet culture, in the sense of inner values and attitudes that guide a population, frightens scholars.  It has a sulfuric odor of race and inheritance, an air of immutability.  In thoughtful moments, economists and other social scientists recognize that this is not true, and indeed they salute examples of cultural change for the better while deploring changes for the worse … [C]riticisms of culture cut close to the ego [of those being studied] and injure identity and self-esteem.  Coming from outsiders, such animadversions, however tactful and indirect, stink of condescension.  Benevolent improvers have learned to steer clear.[2]

This writer agrees with Landes overall warning.  Cultural approaches step on toes and any advancement of culturally based arguments, to be considered, needs to be not only mindful of this, but be presented honestly with humility and empathy.

          This account’s blogger writes of this sensitivity from first-hand experience.  He was born into a Latin family – with a father from Cuba and a mother from Honduras.  He started in a mostly Irish American neighborhood in New York City.  He likes to tell people that English is his second language in that he learned Spanish first.  But through the effects of TV and mostly English-speaking neighborhood friends, he made the Anglo language not only his dominant language, but almost his only language.

          Along with language, there was his assimilation into the “Americanism” of the 1950s.  This was further enforced by pre-Cuban “invasion” Miami influences, since his family moved there in 1958.  Often, he can remember consciously making decisions to adopt American ways over Latin ways.  To this day, he feels he is a cultural American with some insight into the Latino life.  He does love his black beans and rice.

          But this digresses a bit.  As for Landes’ treatment, that writer readily admits that LDCs have been exploited and that exploitation has played a role in their fate.  And, therefore (in part), the challenges that LDCs represent are complex and caused by various factors that are not only numerous, but interrelated.  Surely, any set of solutions cannot be totally oblivious to the realities this overall reality poses.  But as a guiding sense of how to approach those challenges – and here is the tie this posting wants to make – an emphasis of one factor or a set of factors at the definitional level can have rippling effects.

          Dependency theory is usually based on a view of global politics.  That view identifies exploitive relationships between advanced nations (referred to as core or center nations) and LDCs (referred to as peripheral nations). 

Simply summarized, that global arrangement has LDCs divided among the core nations into monopolistic arrangements.  In these set ups, one can readily see why this general explanation is called dependency theory in that these nations’ relationships are meant to further the benefits of the core nations at the expense of the peripheral nations.

How?  Natural resources are extracted from peripheral nations at less than market prices – since the nations are divided within monopolistic markets of a single buyer.  A peripheral nation then becomes a consumer nation of a core nation’s products – again with limited options that, in turn, bolster prices.  That is, peripheral nations are limited with whom they can trade.  All this is supported by exploitive relationships between workers and entrepreneurs within both types of nations.  The “haves” of the peripheral nations do just as well as those of the core nations.[3]

From this overall description one can readily see how dependency theory reflects Marxian arguments.  While Landes does not disprove dependency theory, he does find fault with it from a practical perspective.  He writes:

Cynics might say that dependency doctrines have been Latin America’s most successful export.  But they have been bad for effort and morale.  By fostering a morbid propensity to find fault with everyone but oneself, they promote economic impotence.  Even if they were true, it would have been better to stow them.[4]

So, critics of dependency theory would state, it leads one to ask:  “Who did this to us?”  This perspective, given the challenges involved with development, can be seriously counterproductive.  Culturalists would ask:  “How do we put it right?”  Landes demonstrates this latter approach with the example Japan offers in the years after the overthrow of the Tokugawa shogun (1868).

Of course, Japan provides a una-cultural case study.  How that example relates to Latin America, where a Latin culture dominates but has had the influx of many other traditions, or other LDCs can be questioned.  Yet Japan, to the extent its experience can be generalized, does provide relevant information.  Perhaps this can be a topic for a future posting.  
But, for the purposes of this blog, its writer feels that a more proactive view, one that does not go around ascribing blame to all other factors or parties and, instead, takes on directly the challenges is a more beneficial outlook.  This is true not only in confronting the challenges of LDCs, but to address any social/political/economic dysfunctionality.

---

[1] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the Difference,” in Culture Matters:  How Values Shape Human Progress, eds. Lawrence E. Harrison and Samuel P. Huntington (New York, NY:  Basic Books), 2-13.

[2] Ibid., 2.  Emphasis added.

[3] Johan Galtung, “A Structural Theory of Imperialism,” Journal of Peace Research 8, 2 (1971):  81-117.  (See http://bev.berkeley.edu/ipe/readings/galtung.pdf .)

[4] David Landes, “Culture Makes Almost All the Difference,” 5 (emphasis in original).

POSITIONING TO EXPLAIN POLICY MAKING

Has the reader heard?  Nothing in Washington is getting done.  Congress is deadlocked with the Senate controlled by one party and the House by the other.  Things get passed in the lower house and not even considered in the upper chamber.  And then there is talk of impeaching the chief executive.  Things – using technical language – are a mess.

          But in all honesty, things were mucked up before the current occupant of the White House took over.  The last period of production[1] – to the dismay of some, the delight of others – was the first two years of the Obama administration.  His health care legislation can be cited as the last major achievement.  Oh yes, the Trump tax cut can be pointed out, but the advantage of that policy for the typical American is highly questionable.

          Perhaps, it is a grand time for civics teachers to ask their classes:  what does it take for legislation to happen?  Surely, political scientists have looked at this question.  What have they found in their research?  As is usually the case in the social sciences – political science being one of them – the scientists have found various answers and do not agree on a single explanation.  One can note a variety of theories these scholars have developed.

          Matt Grossmann,[2] who provides his own view, reviews a sampling of theories that address this question.  This posting shares his listing.  A future posting will provide Grossmann’s view and approach to his study of legislative production.  But before getting into this main concern, a background piece of information is helpful to share with the reader.

          This writer, in his initial graduate classes, was introduced to a transformative figure in his life.  That would be the late Dr. Charles Adair of Florida State University.  In those years, he was a professor of education in the social studies program.  One of his assignments was to write a position paper.  This writer obviously had other professors, but this particular assignment was not duplicated by the others.  The claim here is that writing a position paper is a useful exercise.

          A position paper basically calls on a writer to review the literature of some topic – here that would be the production achieved by law makers – and report and evaluate the varies approaches, models, or theories the review discovers.  The paper first defines the topic, then it begins a rundown of the various views with critical evaluations of their viability, and then adds a favored view with the reasons for its adoption.  In that rationale, any limitations with the view should be identified but overall its utility can be emphasized.

          In what follows, this posting offers an abbreviated version of a position paper; it offers at least the “review of options” portion of such a paper.  According to Grossmann, there are four main theoretical approaches to studying the topic of legislative production – what he calls policy change.  Generally, before reviewing these four, he offers the following as his predetermined bias in considering the available theories.

To investigate the actors and circumstances responsible for policy [or legislative] change, this book uses secondary sources of policy history:  reviews by policy area specialists of extensive case evidence on the political process surrounding policymaking.  These authors, who I call “policy historians,” catalog the important output of government and explain how, when, and why public policy changes.  They identify important policy enactments in all branches of government and produce in-depth narrative accounts of policy development.  I use this historical record to assess when and where policymaking takes place and which circumstances and actors were responsible.[3]

To begin, the topic can be conceptualized from a macro level or from a more granular analysis, at the micro level.  The literature seems, according to Grossmann, to generally utilize macro approaches.  Grossmann disagrees.  He favors a micro approach – more below. 

Grossman addresses the first two views more or less jointly.  The first macro view depends on such factors as public opinion, media coverage, or narrative takes on a policy area, or on some focusing event or string of events.  These views share an assumption:  areas of energized activity among lawmakers reflect an increased level of attention among the public, possibly stirred by the media. 

Another view using a macro approach elicits another concern.  That is that varying oscillations between ideological camps – between Democrats (progressive or liberal) control and Republican (conservative) control – explain when and over what production occurs.  While they are posed as the main cause of change, they cannot predictively distinguish policymaking from ideology, public opinion, or institutional partnerships.

Such approaches or views as these two do not discriminate sufficiently among the factors at work.  Therefore, their predictive or explanatory viability is highly compromised.  As to any correlations that can be derived from their use, e.g., party control and legislature production, Grossman points out: 

[N]either policy productivity or its ideological direction can be predicted from the ebb and flow of public opinion, institutional partisanship, or ideology.  Furthermore, changes in productivity and the ideological direction of policy go hand-in-hand because most policy changes expand the scope of government responsibility.[4] 

Therefore, as to the causes of policy change, one needs to look elsewhere; there’s not enough explanatory power with these views.  They point to post or after the effect phenomena.

Grossman’s focus goes on to narrow his concern to two factors.  Yes, there is the amount of legislative production, but there is also the harder to quantify substance of that production.  And in this latter concern, one needs to account for the perceived importance of what is produced through legislation.  One can have a lot of legislation on minor matters, but little affecting big – or perceived big – issues.

Subsequently, another view emphasizes issues or issue typologies.  The key to these macro theories is the existing players in the national political arena.  Who wins or who loses seems to be the focus.  If one can determine who is backing or pushing a policy or set of policies (or which issues are addressed), based on their perceived relative power bases, one can predict what gets legislated. 

The problem here is that such an approach is highly dependent on the issue and does not allow for generalizability of a set of factors.  That is, this explanation is too issue centered.  Each issue has its corresponding set of relationships among those who are supporting it and those who are opposing it.  Also, there is the temporary set of circumstances.  Hence, such an approach becomes a review of exceptional situations – something not amenable to “scientific findings."  Science demands generalizability.

The last set of theories reported by Grossmann centers on one factor:  a set of actors.  This view attributes success or failure in advancing or achieving legislative outcomes on the abilities of a set of entities.  Entities can be individuals, scientists, interest group(s), or the public in general.  This category is summarily dismissed by Grossmann with his claim that actors only become viable in limited situations.

Grossmann looks elsewhere to make up his explanation.  That would be relationships among legislators that transcend Congressional sessions and presidential tenures.  This is more a micro view focusing on various relationships and how they function.  The aim of this view is to be able to discover patterns and recurring elements or types of elements.  This blog in future postings will delve into Grossmann’s view; that is, that portion of this position paper will be the topic of future postings.

---

[1] Grossmann uses in his book the term productivity.  This, this account holds, is a misuse of the term.  A better term, production, is more accurate.  In his descriptions, Grossmann seems to be concerned with the amount of legislative accomplishments in terms of efforts resulting in laws or other forms of policy change.  That is a production concern.  Productivity introduces such factors as the amount of resources expended in producing those changes and how efficient the efforts have been.  This posting, therefore, will use the term production indicating the amount of policy change in the form of laws being enacted.

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

[3] Ibid., 2 (Kindle edition).

[4] Ibid., 3 (Kindle edition).