Since the nation just experienced an election for the
presidency, all of the House of Representatives, and one third of the Senate,
one question the citizenry can ask is:
what good did it do? How much say
does the citizenry have, through its vote, in determining what public policy
(policy change) will be initiated over the coming two years (until the next national
election) or four years when again it will decide who the chief executive will
be?
This writer
introduced this topic two postings ago and continued the theme in the last
posting. In the latter posting, he
provided a list of factors that were found to influence policy change. This list was provided by Matt Grossman and
his research.[1]
That research looked at almost 2000
case studies (policy histories) stretching from 1945 to 2012. That list is:
supportive president (42.15% of cases in which the factor was listed),
pressure of advocacy organization (22.54%), extension of previous policy
(21.56%), 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 posting then provided this same list
in terms of types of factors. That list
is as follows: 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 in both lists exceed one hundred percent, it indicates that
more than one of these factors categories is affecting policy change in any one
case.
This writer then reported that public
opinion does not show up until Grossman categorizes the factors (which numbered
60 in total) into types and then was
identified in only 17% of the cases.
This indicates that public opinion, at least in the years studied, was
not an overwhelming determinant in most cases of policy change.
Later in his reporting, Grossman
identifies public opinion, interest groups, and research as the three influential
sources of input emanating from outside the government. Yet none of them should be considered as a determinant
by itself as to what will be adopted as policy.
Then one could ask: what is a determinant? Well, the lists above give the reader strong
indications as to what are the more determinant factors.
The research Grossman reports
indicates that of the factors listed, all can and do have an influential
function from time to time, but some have more influence than others. What seems far more important in the process
are the internal institutional factors at play, such as presidential backing or
central Congressional figures. Yes,
interest groups are important, especially those that represent large and
wealthy business entities, but only when they can coalesce with other entities.
Other non-actor factors that can have
influence on a more than random basis are path dependence (prior work and
attention to a proposed change), research, and events, but even then, what
really makes the difference is when a coalition of institutional players (the
President and/or Congressional members) decide to make the change happen.
So, can one attribute policy change
to the product of liberal and conservatives in Congress coming together and
working out a compromise which results in a new policy? One can ask this question because most of the
rhetoric in election campaigns falls along the liberal (or far liberal) and
conservative (or far conservative) divide.
When one says there are blue and red
states, one readily envisions the distinction being between liberal (blue) and
conservative (red) state biases. Of
course, there are also purple states (a mixture of blue and red) where neither
side can attain dominance, but the rhetoric there still falls within the
ideological distinction of these two camps.
When
discussing this aspect of the nation’s politics, Grossman reports:
A majority of actors were not easily
categorized as liberal or conservative; these included government organizations,
individual activists, and nonpartisan interest groups … More telling, liberal
organizations were more than twice as common as conservative
organizations. This likely reflects the
liberal nature of most policy changes and the more common liberal ideological
direction of policy making since 1945.[2]
This observation relates to two
conditions: one, the time covered by the
research reflects a particularly liberal time in the nation’s politics. Grossman writes of the extended policy change
era that he calls the Long Great Society period, in which policy initiatives by
the Lyndon Johnson administration almost dominated central government efforts
during and well after Johnson’s time in office.
And two, most people who get involved
in the nuts and bolts of policy change are motivated by the practical issues a
policy change entails. They are less
motivated by grandiose ideological positions.
Another important observation that
Grossman offers is that more than half of the governmental actors who are
identified are mentioned only in relation to one change effort. But when one further analyzes the data, it
turns out that a relatively few are involved with many efforts. These more influential politicians are what
Grossman calls institutional entrepreneurs and can be judged to be central
figures in the policy change business. As
it turns out, it is these individuals who are crucial in formulating the
necessary coalitions to get the change accomplished.
Here is how Grossman describes it:
Although many actors occasionally influence
policy, only a few constitute institutionalized entrepreneurs with repeated influence.
Because these actors influence policy
with numerous allies and partners in compromise, they become central in
governing networks. These well-connected
actors tend to be presidents, long-serving legislators, and prominent interest
groups.[3]
An overall description
of the policy change process is: the
process is noted for the level of cooperation institutional actors exert, but
not the work of a single actor. No one
actor is critical to getting things done, not even the president. Yes, some are more influential than others
and as a member of a coalesced group, they are very important, but no one is indispensable.
The other generalization that can be
made is that public opinion is enjoying a more prominent position as of
late. The work of the Tea Party can be
cited and now there is a liberal version trying to get off the ground,
especially after the last election. For
political junkies – those who are not so entangled with the substantive aspects
of policy, but see it as sport – the coming years might be entertaining.
No comments:
Post a Comment