Public Policy 301 Exam 1

Exam 10/02/2025

What is political analysis?

Focuses on three central items:

1. Taking seriously key players on the policyscape/ in the political environment

2. Identifying how they can influence progress toward your goals

3. Developing strategies to interact with them to advance your goals

Why is political analysis helpful?

1. To build support for your initiatives, you must be strategic in how you deal with various stakeholders—especially if you want to build and/or preserve political capital.

2. It helps you to achieve a rich understanding of the many political and social forces that can influence your ability to successfully achieve your policy goal.

What are the main steps of political analysis?

1. Description: Identify the key forces that could help, hinder, or otherwise influence progress toward your goal. What is the state of affairs for each force, at the moment?

2. Analysis: After identifying the key forces that may affect your progress, consider why they should matter for you and how they could affect your progress.

Key Forces that we should pay careful attention to when conducting political analysis

• Actors

• Motivations/ Interests

• Participation

• Resources

• Strategies and influence

• Action Channels

Reasons for government involvement

• Political reasons: reflect major shift in public opinion, gov personnel, or a social movement demanding action

  • Examples: 

    • Civil Rights (CR Act of 1964)

    • Welfare (1996 Welfare Reform) 

    • Immigration (President Trump’s border wall proposal) 

• Moral or Ethical Reasons: Seen as right thing to do, even without public pressure

  • Examples: 

    • Social security, veterans, FEMA support after natural disasters

• Valence Issues

• Economics/ Market Failures : to correct for negative side effects from a competitive market economy 

  • Examples: 

    • Regulating emission of greenhouse gasses, cleaning oil spills, regulating pollution of waterways, bank bailout

Mancur Olsen, 1982 “The Logic of Collective Action” from Rise and Decline of Nations

Mancur Olson challenges the traditional assumption that groups of individuals with common interests will naturally organize to pursue those interests. He argues that this is not true, especially for large groups. The central problem is that individuals in large groups are rational and self-interested, leading them to "free ride" on the efforts of others. Therefore, collective action to provide a "public good" is unlikely unless groups can overcome this problem through specific mechanisms, the most important being selective incentives.

Olsen’s Logic Model of Collective Action

1. The Central Paradox: Large groups of rational individuals will not act to achieve their common group interests.

   • Reason: The benefit of a collective good is shared by the entire group, but the cost of providing it is borne by the individual who acts.

   • Therefore, any individual's personal share of the gain from their own sacrifice is tiny, while the cost is full. It is irrational for them to contribute.

2. The Free Rider Problem: This is the core mechanism behind the paradox. Since no one can be excluded from enjoying a collective good once it's provided, each individual has an incentive to let others pay the cost (to "let George do it"). If everyone thinks this way, the good is not provided.

3. Group Size Matters:

   • Small Groups: Are more likely to provide collective goods because each member's share of the benefit is significant enough to potentially outweigh the cost of action. (e.g., two firms in an industry).

   • Large Groups: Are less likely to act because an individual's impact is imperceptible, making free riding the rational choice. (e.g., all consumers).

4. The Solution: Selective Incentives: The primary way to motivate participation in large groups is through selective incentives—rewards or punishments applied selectively to individuals based on whether they contribute to the collective effort.

   • Negative Selective Incentives: Punishments for non-participation. Examples: Union dues through compulsory membership ("closed shop"), social ostracism, or even violence (as in early union "dues picketing").

   • Positive Selective Incentives: Private rewards for participation. Examples: Insurance benefits from a farm organization, subscriptions to magazines, group travel discounts, or special attention to a member's grievances.

5. Social Selective Incentives: In small, socially interactive groups, social pressures themselves can act as selective incentives.

   • Positive: Honor, respect, and companionship for contributors.

   • Negative: Censure, shunning, or ostracism for free riders (e.g., "sending someone to Coventry").

   • These incentives are most effective in homogeneous groups where social bonds are strong.

6. Rational Ignorance: Information about collective goods is itself a collective good.

   • The typical citizen has little incentive to become well-informed about politics or public policy because the chance that their single vote or opinion will change the outcome is vanishingly small.

   • This widespread "rational ignorance" is what makes lobbying and political persuasion effective.

7. When Voluntary Action Can Happen:

   • When Costs are Negligible: People may contribute if the cost is trivial (e.g., signing a petition, voting) because it's not worth the mental effort to calculate the minuscule benefits.

   • In Small Groups: Where individual benefits are large and bargaining is easy.

   • With "Zealots": A small number of people with intensely strong preferences are more likely to act than a large number with the same aggregate but diluted interest.

Rational Ignorance (Olsen)

The rational decision by individuals to remain uninformed about a public issue because the cost of acquiring the information exceeds the expected individual benefit.

Deborah Stone, Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making

Deborah Stone argues that the dominant, "rational" model of policy analysis is fundamentally flawed because it fails to account for the true nature of politics. Politics is not a sterile, scientific process but a messy, creative, and inherently human struggle over ideas, values, and meanings. She introduces an alternative model, the "Polis," to describe political community, which is characterized by community, influence, loyalty, and the power of ideas, in contrast to the market model of individual, self-interested actors.

Stone: The Market

Individuals are the central players, driven by rational self-interest. Public interest = sum of individual interests. Competition drives social interactions. Individuals decide based on: rational calculation (costs/benefits). The market drives change. Foundation of the rationality movel.

Stone: The Polis

Groups are the central players. Driven by altruism and self-interest. Public interests = Shared interests; what is good for the community. Cooperation and competition drive social interaction. Individuals decide based on: loyalty, group/public interests. Politics drives change.In the polis, the most powerful currency is not money or votes, but ideas. Political reasoning is about strategic portrayal—using metaphor and analogy to persuade others to see a situation your way. The goal is to define the terms of the debate.

Stone: The Rationality Project

Stone identifies a powerful tradition in policy analysis—the "rationality project"—that seeks to remove politics from policy-making. This project aims to use objective, analytical, and scientific methods (like cost-benefit analysis) to solve problems. Stone argues this is impossible and misguided because politics is the essence of policy-making.

Stone: The Pervasiveness of Paradox

The real world of policy is full of paradoxes—situations where two contradictory interpretations can be true. Examples include:

• Winning is Losing: A legislative victory can become a political liability.

• Problems and Solutions are Fluid: The definition of a problem and its proposed solution can shift to fit political needs (e.g., the Iraq War).

• Symbolic Meanings: A pile of rubble can be both a "public safety hazard" and the "remains of a family's home."

Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram “Social Construction of Target Populations”, 1993

Schneider and Ingram argue that public policies are shaped not just by evidence or needs, but by how different groups are socially constructed in the public imagination. Policymakers assign different groups—like the poor, elderly, or business owners—positive or negative images that affect how they are treated by policy. They categorize groups into four types: advantaged (powerful and positively viewed), contenders (powerful but negatively viewed), dependents (positively viewed but weak), and deviants (weak and negatively viewed). These constructions influence who receives benefits or punishments from policy and help sustain power dynamics over time.

Schneider and Ingram: How Social Construction Influences Policy

1. Agenda Setting and Policy Design: Elected officials are incentivized to:

   1. Provide benefits to advantaged groups (positive and powerful)

   2. Impose burdens on Deviant groups (negative and weak)

   3. Avoid providing real benefits to Dependents (powerless, so no electoral cost) and hide benefits to Contenders (powerful but negative) 

Policy Tools: The specific mechanisms used to implement policy vary group by group, the aspects of policy intended to motivate the target populations to comply with policy or to utilize policy opportunities:

1. Advantaged: Capacity-building tools, entitlements, outreach, self regulation, free info and training

2. Dependents: Stigmatizing subsidies, hortatory tools, paternalistic authority, means tested programs, check ins

3. Deviants: Coercive tools, sanctions, incarceration, disenfranchisement

4. Contenders: Policy exceptions

Schneider and Ingram: Advantaged Groups

Powerful, positively viewed. Ex: the elderly, business, veterans, scientists

• Find it easy to get their issues on the legislative agenda

• can shape their own construction and minimize unfavorable constructions (lawyers, tv shows)

• Recipients of much beneficial policy (may be over subscribed)

• Often prioritized as targets (even when targeting other groups that would make more sense)

Schneider and Ingram: Deviant Groups

Powerless, Negatively Viewed. Ex: Criminals, drug addicts, communists, flag burners, gangs

• Little control of legislative agenda or design of punishment

• Policies for deviants are prioritized- especially during elections

• social construction makes it politically attractive to overprescribe burdens and punishments (may be harsher than necessary)

Schneider and Ingram: Contenders

Powerful, negatively viewed. Ex: The rich, big unions, minorities, cultural elites, moral majority

• Elected officials prefer hidden benefits that only the groups notice

• Elected officials want the public/media to believe that policies punish them, but they have few (if any) negative effects

• contenders can minimize burdens but can’t do much to gain visible benefits

• Statutes targeting contenders can be complex and vague

• Policies depend on level of group activity and public attention

Schneider and Ingram: Dependents

Low power, positive construction. Ex: Children, mothers, disabled

• elected officials want to appear concerned with their interests but their lack of power makes it difficult to direct resources toward them

• Policies tend to be symbolic and ddelegate authority to lower level of government or the private sector

• Dependents have little power over policy design

• The group has long been considered the responsibility of the private sphere (families, churches) 

Kimberlé Crenshaw. The Urgency of Intersectionality. TED Talk.

In her TED Talk, Kimberlé Crenshaw explains the concept of intersectionality—the idea that systems of oppression (like racism, sexism, and classism) intersect to create unique forms of disadvantage for people who belong to multiple marginalized groups. She highlights how Black women, for example, often fall through the cracks of both feminist and anti-racist frameworks. Crenshaw uses real- life examples, such as court cases and missing persons, to show how ignoring intersectionality leads to erasure and injustice.

Pluralist Theory / Pluralism

The theory that all interests are and should be free to compete for influence in the government. Such competition results in moderation.

Interest Groups

Individuals who organize to influence the government’s programs and policies. Members often pay dues and attend meetings. These groups:

• Educate members about important issues

• lobby congress and the president

• represent members’ interests in the political arena

• mobilize members

• monitor government programs

Members are typically:

• more educated

• higher income

• professionals and managers

• possess time, money, and skills

Interest group: Member association

One type in which members actually play a substantial role, sitting on committees and engaging in group projects: e.g. the league of women voters, labor unions

Interest Group: staff organizations

membership groups in which a professional staff conducts most of the groups activities (eg defenders of wildlife, children’s defense fund. Interest groups have shifted towards being staff organizations. Time has become less expendable.

Lobbying

A strategy by which organized interests seek to influence the passage of legislation through direct engagement with members of the legislature

PACs (Political Action Committees)

Private groups that raise and distribute funds with the purpose of electing or defeating candidates.

• Each calendar year, individuals, other PACs, and party committees can contribute to a PAC

• PACs can contribute to candidates during each election cycle (primary and general)

• Politicians may start leadership PACs to raise money for other candidates campaigns

Political elites

Important figures in the politics of policymaking.

• Crucial players in the legislative process, especially agenda setting

• Can catalyze or inhibit policy development

• Build and maintain coalitions that are crucial to getting things done

• Key point: hwo is in power determines which interests are represented

Policy entrepreneur

Someone who identifies a problem and brings a policy proposal onto the political agenda

Political parties

Play a central role in policymaking. “HR for government”

• Shape policymaking personnel

• give clues about the policy agenda

• influence policy entrepreneurs’ capacity to push programs through the legislative process

John Kingdon: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies

Kingdon explores how issues come to be prioritized on the policy agenda, emphasizing that it is not just about the seriousness of problems but about timing, politics, and perception. He introduces the "Multiple Streams Framework," which includes three streams: problems, policies, and politics. When these streams align—a moment he calls a "policy window"—it becomes possible for significant policy change to occur. Kingdon highlights the role of policy entrepreneurs—individuals who invest time and resources to push their solutions—who seize these windows of opportunity to promote change.

Argument: Policy change doesn’t happen through a linear, logical process. Instead, it occurs when three independent “streams” come together at a critical moment. This convergence, often triggered by a policy window, creates the opportunity for major policy shifts.

Kingdon: Three Streams Model

Kingdon's central framework. The government's agenda is set by the interaction of:

1. The Problem Stream: What gets defined as a problem? This is not objective. Conditions become problems through indicators, focusing events, and feedback. Become problem through result of focusing event.

2. The Policy Stream: The "soup" of potential solutions developed by experts, bureaucrats, and analysts. Ideas float around, are debated, and are refined in "policy communities."

3. The Politics Stream: Based on national mood, public opinion, election results, and partisan dynamics. This stream is largely independent of the specific problems or policies. Dominated by high-profile actors. 

Kingdon: Policy Window

A temporary, crucial opportunity for action on an issue. These windows open due to a change in the political stream (e.g., a new administration) or when a problem captures intense public attention (e.g., a crisis). Windows don't stay open long.

Kingdon: Coupling

For an issue to get on the agenda and for a solution to be adopted, a policy entrepreneur must successfully "couple" the three streams during an open policy window. They must take a prepared solution (policy stream) and attach it to a widely recognized problem (problem stream) when the political climate is favorable (politics stream).

Focusing Events

Crises, disasters, or powerful symbols that suddenly push a problem into the spotlight (e.g., a plane crash, a bridge collapse, "CAT scanner" as a symbol of rising health costs).

Kingdon: Problems

Problems are Socially Constructed: A "problem" is not just an objective condition. It becomes a problem when people define it as such. This definition is highly political.

Kingdon: Problem Definition

The process by which a condition is transformed into a problem deemed worthy of government attention. This involves values, comparisons, and categorization.

Kingdon: Budget as a constraint/ promoter

The budget isn't just a number. It actively shapes the agenda by promoting issues related to cost (like healthcare cost control) and constraining expensive proposals (like national health insurance in a tight fiscal climate).

Kingdon: Spillover

 When feedback from the implementation of one program highlights new problems or the failure of existing policy, putting a related issue on the agenda.

Objectives for making policy

1. Equity: Achieving fair distribution, though not necessarily equal. Stone: Inequality destroys communities; it is in our best interest to use policy to combat inequality.

2. Efficiency: Avoiding waste and unnecessary expense: factors like unequal info, inequality, discrimination, and free riding challenge efficiency

3. Welfare: Well-being in terms of “life, liberty, and happiness”; aid for those in need

   1. A political charged concept.

   2. big question: how to determine “need”

   3. paradoxically, progress creates more/ new needs

4. Liberty: positive and negative freedom (isaiah berlin):

   1. Positive: the ability not just opp to pursue and achieve your goals, self mastery

   2. Negative: freedom from restraint/ interference by others

   3. Determining when community goals should be allowed to interfere with individual choice (eg preventing harm to others

6. Opportunity: the CHANCE to do something, Ability: if the opportunity presents itself do you have the skills to do it, take advantage of it.

7. Security: Assurance of the absence of bad things; lack of worry Ex: using scientific risk analysis to plan for danger (weather, national security)

Understanding problems

1. Numbers: we use numbers to measure policy problems, but there is a big question of HOW to measure (ex poverty parameters)

2. Grouping, categorization: ie decisions about inclusion and exclusion. Arbitrary borderlines. Makes communities, changes people’s behaviors. Numbers facilitate negotiation.

3. Causes: we look to causes to understand how to assign responsibility to problems. This shapes how we approach problem solving.

Agenda setting

Step in the policy process where policy actors attempt to get an issue seriously considered for public attention.

Central questions to ask: 

• why do people pay attention to some problems?

• what makes a problem important enough to solve?

• why are some problems ignored? 

Methods of Agenda setting

• creating an issue

• Dramatizing, calling attention to an issue

• Pressuring the government to do something abou the issue

Central players

• Political elites (eg president, congress)

• candidates for office

• interest groups

• the media

Baumgartner and Jones: Punctuated Equilibrium Model of Policy Change

Policymaking is “punctuated by bursts of activity that modify issue understandings and lead to non-incremental policy change”(1993, 54).

Argument: Issue definition is the driving force in stability and instability because it has the potential to mobilize those who are previously disinterested. New ways of thinking about problems can quickly work their way through the government and promote dramatic change in public policy.

Apathy is a key variable in politics. Ideas matter.

• Long periods of relative stability or incrementalism are interrupted by short bursts of dramatic change. Agenda setting is central to this cycle. 

• Although incrementalism may suggest equilibrium, much of the political world (and policy) is always in flux

• Points of stability are created and destroyed at critical junctures through the process of issue development. 

Edward Royce. 2018. “Poverty as a Social Problem” in Poverty and Power. [pp. 1-18]

Edward Royce argues that poverty should be understood not as an individual failing but as a structural and political issue embedded in the organization of society. He challenges the common belief that poverty results from poor personal choices, emphasizing instead how systemic inequality, power imbalances, and policy decisions create and maintain poverty. Royce defines poverty as a social problem because it affects not just individuals but the broader society, reinforcing social divisions and undermining democracy. He explains that public perception of poverty is shaped by dominant ideologies that blame the poor, which distracts from the institutional causes. The chapter also outlines how political power is used to maintain economic advantages for the few, often at the expense of the poor.

The Politics of Problems: Moving Challenges to the Policy Agenda key takeaways

• lawmakers must consider multiple objectives when considering which issues to bring to the table

• the question of whether an issue makes it onto the policymaking agenda in the first place is a political one

• Issues are more likely to make it to the political agenda when policy entrepreneurs can successfully:

  • manipulate how we define issues/ problems

  • attract the attention of previously uninterested groups

  • take advantage of windows of opportunity 

Public Policy and The Politics of Discourse

Politics of discourse, shifting away from just creating spaces where students feel safe to engage to spaces where people feel brave enough to engage in difficult conversations in social justice issues. Brave spaces as being more congruent to understanding power, privilege, oppression, and challenging discussions.

The Best of Enemies Case Study

• Ann Atwater and CP Ellis’ unlikely friendship developed during the “Save Our Schools” meetings as part of the Durham Human Relations Committee when they were able to see each other as people

• Atwater was a Black woman

• Ellis had at one time been the president of the Durham KKK Chapter

Brian Arao and Kristi Clemens. 2013. “From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces”

Argue that rather than striving for “safe spaces” where discomfort is avoided, educators and facilitators should foster “brave spaces” where participants are encouraged to engage in honest, challenging dialogue.

Amy Aldridge Sanford. 2018. “Confrontation and Avoidance: Alternatives to Civil Discourse.” Dean & Provost

Critiques the limitations of traditional civil discourse, suggesting that calls for “civility” can suppress necessary confrontation, especially when addressing injustice.

Ann Atwater. 2013. “What Forgiveness Costs.” Durham Herald Sun (December 15, 2013).

Atwater describes the emotional difficulty and personal strength required to forgive CP Ellis, a former Klansman, and how that act transformed them both.

C.P. Ellis. 1980. “Why I Quit the Klan.” from American Dreams: Lost and Found by Studs Terkel.

Ellis recounts how his involvement with the KKK stemmed from his frustration and sense of powerlessness, but working with Ann Atwater changed his perspective. Through their collaboration, he recognized how racism was used to divide working-class people and ultimately renounced white supremacy.

“Civil Rights Activist, Ex-Klansman C.P. Ellis.” Obituary segment featuring Ann Atwater. 2005. NPR.

NPR segment reflects on the unlikely friendship, emphasizing how their story became a powerful example of reconciliation and transformation. It portrays Elis’ renunciation of hate as sincere and deeply influenced by his partnership with Atwater. 

Theodore Lowi “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory”

Main Argument: "Policy creates politics." Revolutionary inversion of the traditional view. Different types of public policies produce predictable and distinct patterns of political interaction, or "arenas of power." By classifying policies into three types—distributive, regulatory, and redistributive—we can understand and anticipate who participates, how coalitions are formed, and where decisions are made. 

Lowi - Distributive Policy (aka Patronage policy, pork barrel)

Benefits easily taken apart and allocated case by case.

Policies that provide benefits to individuals, specific groups, or localities, with costs spread across the general taxpayer. Supporters actively seek more/ continued support. Benefits are easily taken apart and allocated unit by unit, case by case. Basically giving people stuff. Typically people feel the benefits of policy, few people feel like theyre left out as a result.

Examples: Benefits provided to a single congressional district, new highways, a bridge, NSF grants/ research outcomes. Pork-barrel projects (rivers & harbors), farm subsidies, defense contracts, tariffs (historically).

Political Arena: "Mutual non-interference" or log-rolling.

Political Process: Politics of patronage. Each actor seeks their own benefit without opposing others' benefits. Conflict is minimal.

Key Actors: Individual firms, specific localities, congressional committees.

Key Characteristics:

• Highly disaggregated (can be divided into small, unrelated units).

• No real opposition. No direct confrontation between winners and losers. Least likely to demonstrate fervent opposition. 

• Stable, broker-style "elites" in congressional committees.

Lowi - Regulatory Policy

Compels certain behaviors.

Policies that impose rules and restrictions on behavior, creating clear winners and losers.

Examples: Speed limits, Title IX, Eliminating substandard goods, prohibiting false advertising, Environmental regulations, workplace safety rules (OSHA), broadcasting licenses, antitrust laws.

Political Arena: Pluralist group conflict.

Political Process: Politics of compromise and bargaining. Direct confrontation between indulged and deprived groups.

Key Actors: Interest groups, industry sectors, Congress as a whole.

Key Characteristics: 

• Applies a general rule to specific cases.

• Direct confrontation is inherent.

• Shifting coalitions and unstable power structures.

• Congress is the key arena for settling conflicts.

Lowi - Redistributive Policy

Reallocating resources between haves and have-nots.

Policies that shift resources or power broadly between social groups or classes.

Examples: Progressive income tax, Social Security, Medicare, welfare programs.

Political Arena: Class-based conflict.

Political Process: Politics of ideology. Conflict is stabilized and institutionalized.

Key Actors: Peak associations (e.g., large business and labor groups), the executive branch (President, budget office).

• Impacts broad categories of people (e.g., "haves" vs. "have-nots").

• Involves high-stakes conflict over fundamental resources.

• Stable, ideological conflict.

• Decision-making shifts away from Congress to the executive branch.

Constituent Policy

Procedural policy, rules for policy making.

Policies that create or reorganize the institutions and processes of government itself. They establish the "rules of the game" for how other policies will be made and implemented. Their impact is not on specific clientele or classes, but on the government's own structure and procedures.

Examples: Creating a new government agency, redistricting, congressional pay raises, term limits, not letting congress insider trade, adjusting the roles of government institutions.

Key Characteristics:

• Focus on Process: These policies deal with the machinery of government—how decisions are made, who has authority, and what the procedures are.

• Diffuse Impact: They don't directly distribute benefits or costs to the public in the same way as the other types. Instead, they affect everyone indirectly by altering the governmental system.

• Low Public Visibility: Because they are often about administrative reorganization or procedural rules, they tend to be highly technical and attract less public attention than regulatory or redistributive fights.

• Elite-Driven: Debate is often confined to experts, bureaucrats, and institutional players who have a stake in how the government is organized.

E.E. Schattschneider

A political scientist whose work on the tariff (a distributive policy) Lowi uses to describe the mutual non interference dynamic

C. Wright Mills

A sociologist who argued a “power elite” controls major decisions. Lowi argues this elite theory is most relevent only in the redistributive arena.

Pluralist School

The theory that politics is a competition among many interest groups. Lowi argues this theory accurately describes the regulatory arena, but is not a universal model for all politics.

Log-Rolling

The practice of trading votes to secure benefits for one's own district, characteristic of distributive politics.

Arenas of Power

The distinct political environments that form around each type of policy.

Pork Barrel Spending

Pork barrel is a metaphor for government spending that is primarily intended to benefit a specific politician's constituents or political donors in their home district, rather than serving a national interest. The term is almost always used critically to describe wasteful or unnecessary spending that is secured for the primary purpose of gaining favor with voters and ensuring a politician's re-election. Connect to Lowi’s distributive policy.

Policies Determine Politics - Lowi

1. The types of relationships to be found among people are determined by their expectations

2. In politics, expectations are determined by government output (policies)

3. Therefore, political relationships are determined by the type of policy at stake. For every type of policy, theres likely to be a distinctive type of politics.

Targeted Policies

programs that are directed toward narrower segments of the population (TANF, food stamps)

• Tend to focus benefits narrowly on neediest citizens

• May offer the most efficient use of public resources

Universal Policies

programs that reach the entire population of citizens (social security, unemployment)

• Tend to elicit higher levels of political support bc of extended reach

• But universal policies may extend benefits less directly

Lindbloom: “The science of muddling through”

a model of decision making/ policy design. tree vs. root.

Central argument: The “root method” is the ideal approach for decision making; but due to practical limitations the “branch method” is the most logical

This style of decision making results in incremental progress: policy change is slow and at the margins; oftentimes, goals are only partially achieved

Lindbloom: “The science of muddling through” The Root Method

(rational-comprehensive model)- working from the ground up each time using comprehensive analysis of issues and taking into account every relevant factor

Pros: great for small problems

Cons: fails with complex decisions; too many variables to consider

Lindblom: “A futile attempt at superhuman comprehensiveness” (520)

Lindbloom: “The science of muddling through” The Branch method

Successive limited comparisons- begin with what already exists; experience-based; “good” policies are those on which various analysts can agree

Pro: recognizes that people do not have the necessary knowledge or info to make a fully comprehensive choice

Cons: some goals and possibilities are neglected; promotes incrementalism

Mettler: “the submerged state”

• The submerged state = existing policies that lay beneath the surface of US market institutions and w/in federal tax system

• The submerged state operates through indirect means such as tax breaks to households or payments to private actors who provide services.

• Such policies have become more common since the 1980s.

• They shower their largest benefits on the most affluent americans.

• Examples:

  • Home mortgage interest tax deduction

  • Earned income tax credit

  • Retirement benefits tax exemption

  • Health insurance tax exemption

• Central argument: Policies of the submerged state obscure the role of the gov and exaggerate that of the market

  • A challenge to democracy

  • Leaves citizens un(der)aware of how power operates

  • Hinders the ability to form and voice accurate opinions about gov

Policy Design

The development of policy alternatives in dealing with problems on the public agenda

Policy instruments

The tools that the government can use to intervene on a particular problem

Considerations for Choosing a policy instrument:

• Effectiveness in addressing the problem 

• political acceptability

• technical feasibility

• economic impact

• long term effects

Lowi argues: Policies determine politics

• Relationships between people depend on their expectations 

• expectations are determined by government policies

• thus, political relationships are determined by the policies at stake. Each type of policy has a distrinctive set of politics.