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).
No comments:
Post a Comment