One would think that a set of central questions any civics
educational curriculum would address is: what process is used to develop national
policy; how does the nation’s public policy get enacted; whose benefits are
served by that process of development and enactment? This posting does not attempt to answer these
questions, but will introduce several postings that will look at one of these
questions. That is: how does that policy get enacted? It turns out that there is an extensive,
political science literature dedicated to this inquiry.
Matt Grossman’s[1]
monograph reports that that research has been responsible for an array of
theoretical models that guide this study.
Among those models, one can find views titled public opinion, scientific
influence, interest group, and actor success models. Each of these titles represents more specific
perspectives. For example, actor success
models include a chief executive model that looks at the role of president in
the development and enactment of policy change.
The upcoming
postings will share Grossman’s judgments of each of these models and culminate with
what he thinks is the best way to conceptualize this research topic based on
what his analysis of case studies indicates.
Overall, he finds fault with these various models. He summarizes their deficiencies in the
following description:
Some of these ideal types are based
in normative premises: the public
opinion literature’s objective is democratic accountability; the scientific
influence literature seeks evidenced-based policy. The interest group literature is instead born
of a dystopia, the idea that policy results are bought and sold. Assessments of these ideal types tend to
become searches for confirming or disconfirming evidence for a single theory,
rather than investigations of competing alternatives. Actor
success models thus share two problems: (1) they bias the starting point,
including only the agenda of potential proposals of concern to each set of
actors, and (2) they look for deviations from agreement with the actor in
question, assuming that agreement implies influence.[2]
As a prelude
and as hinted at in this above cited quote, Grossman’s research points him
toward a wider approach about what influences decision-making in the field of
policy change. His study heavily looks
at Congressional processes since most policy change occurs in that branch of
government. This is not to say that the
other branches are ignored. His study
does include policy-making in the executive (both at the presidential level and
bureaucratic level) and the judicial branches.
This writer,
frankly, finds this diversity of views and approaches a bit disheartening. That is, given the centrality of this process
in any understanding of political behavior or governance, one would think that
the discipline of political science would speak to this topic with more
certainty than what is indicated by such varied views. But that is the nature of trying to
scientifically study human behavior or human decision-making, especially when
that interest is aimed at such a complex endeavor as national policy-making.
In turn, civics
education must accommodate this reality.
If one of this course of study’s aim is to prepare students to be able
to actively engage in the processes of government as an active citizen, civics
teachers are naturally called upon to convey an accurate depiction of what
constitutes the relevant governmental processes.
To do this, educators naturally look
to the experts who study this process and whose charge is to, at minimum,
convey an accurate general description of how policy is developed and
enacted. That is, civics teachers have a
vested interest in the success of such scholarship. In doing so, they are well-served
in keeping abreast of what is found in this research. These upcoming postings will address this
concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment