Picking up on the topic this writer introduced in the last
posting – what factors are in play in the process of policy-making – this
posting will provide an overall listing of those factors. This listing is derived from the work of Matt
Grossman.[1] The political scientist describes prior
research as more the work of hedgehogs; that is, efforts that become overly
entangled with one or two factors – such as interest group involvement – and
losing the more robust approach of dealing with a multitude of factors.
A process that
does deal with many factors, he describes as more the work of a fox. A “fox” relies “on no overarching narrative
and assessing multiple possibilities.”[2] According to Grossman, the fox approach is
more accurate; an estimation established by experimental research by economists
and political scientists. To be more foxlike,
Grossman relies on the work of policy historians. It turns out that the histories of policy
changes (the term these researchers prefer) is done by historians who dedicate
their efforts to such documentation.
Grossman
looked at the compilation of such histories from 1945 to 2012. The areas of policy his review covers are as
follows (with the number of books and articles utilized): agriculture (14 books, 3 articles), civil
rights and liberties (24 books, 4 articles), criminal justice (15 books),
education (12 books, 4 articles), energy (13 books, 1 article), environment (18
books, 3 articles), finance and commerce (16 books, 3 articles), health (22
books, 2 articles), housing and community development (11 books, 8 articles),
labor and immigration (19 books, 1 article), macroeconomics (21 books, 1
article), science and technology (15 books, 5 articles), social welfare (19
books, 1 article), and transportation (12 books, 1 article). His research reviewed nearly 2,000 cases of
policy change.
After
identifying the factors (independent variables) from these qualitative sources
of information, he also qualitatively determined the significance of the
individual policy changes (dependent variable).
Grossman readily admits the potential for subjectivity such a process
can entail, but assures the reader that the effort was to be objective. And then, with all the data arranged,
prepared, and categorized, he applied suitable statistical analyses to the data.
The aim here is
to give the reader an overall sense of those identified independent factors
that seem to more prominently have an influence on policy change
processes. It can be generally detected
that there seem to be three general types of policy change efforts by
policy-makers: efforts that result from
unplanned events (e. g., the 9/11 attack and subsequent policy initiatives),
efforts that are a continuation of long standing efforts (e. g., healthcare as
in the Affordable Health Care Act), or renewal or tweaking policy change (e.
g., budget legislation).
Irrespective
of the type of change effort, there are, in the Grossman research, 60 factors
coming into play among all the policy change efforts he identified. From his reporting, one can get a sense of
what is in play when government officials are entertaining policy change. While the overall number of factors is large,
he detected that some factors are highly recurring.
This is a
listing of the most cited factors in the offered explanations the histories
provide and the percent of explanations in which they are offered: supportive president (42.15%), pressure of
advocacy organization (22.54%), extension of previous policy (21.56%),
individual Congressperson led (15.23%), focusing event (12.40%), change in
power of the two parties (12.05%), Congressional committee chair led (11.89%),
pressure from corporations (11.48%), earlier choice made more likely (11.01%),
government report issued (10.91%), House and Senate reach agreement (10.86%), new
data arise (10.40%), important frame for proponents (9.83%), Congressional
lobbying (9.57%), affected by economic downturn (9.32%), general media coverage
(9.06%), court ruling stimulated action (7.57%), key Congressional floor vote
(7.31%), and Congressional party/leadership led (7.05%). The number of policy change cases looked at
is 1,943.
The blaring
omission in this listing is public opinion.
This writer assumes that it is one of the 60 factors, but from the
percents offered above, one can speculate how infrequent public opinion becomes
a meaningful factor. Of course, this can
reflect how undemocratic our public decision-making is.
It also reflects how unusual it is
for policy-makers to be dealing with issues or policy proposals about which the
common person would have knowledge or interest.
Most of the time, these officials deal with the more mundane areas of
governance that most people just take for granted or about which they are
totally uninformed. How many citizens
care whether the Air Force buys one fighter jet opposed to another? Yet, such a decision can mean expenditures of
billions of dollars.
Another way to view the above
information is to categorize the more specific factors into types. Here is such a listing from Grossman’s
research: Congressional (41.17%),
executive branch (53.17%), judicial branch (9.47%), interest groups (36.13%),
research (24.96%), public opinion (17.04%), media (10.19%), state/local
(6.74%), international (5.35%), path dependence – referring to ongoing action –
(28.87%), events (26.04%), and ideas (13.84%).
Of course, since these numbers exceed one hundred percent, it indicates that
more than one of these categories is affecting policy change in any one case.
Also of note: when one gathers the
various factors into types, public opinion gets more attention. This could be due to how various factors can
be interpreted as forms of public opinion.
While 17.04% does not indicate an overwhelming factor or type of factor,
it is worth considering when studying any policy change. This is an encouraging finding.
No comments:
Post a Comment