Introduction – the policy process and the social sciences

1. Introduction – the policy process and the social sciences • Foci of public policy – what we study; why and how we study it? • Origins of public policy – contributions of various disciplines to its ideas (e.g., economics, political science, sociology, planning, management). • Challenges facing public policy – what we think we know, what we still don’t know, & why it matters?

2. Foci of public policy – what we study, and how we study it • Multi-disciplinary: every social science represented; and, increasingly relies on operations research, mathematics/statistics, risk assessment, urban & regional planning, computer science (e.g., Radin). • Scientific: generate hypotheses based on large amounts of cases – not just anecdote; compares/contrasts how polities formulate and implement policies so we can understand why they work, or don’t work, the way they were intended. How far can science take us? (e.g., Stone, Levin and Shapiro, Kingdon). • Evaluative: tries to assess efficacy of processes and outcomes through dispassionate, independent analysis. Hard to achieve – protagonists may disagree on policy goals; effectiveness may be hard to measure; valid, reliable data may be hard to come by; and, cause & effect may be difficult to establish (e.g., Bovens and T’hart). • Normative: are there lessons we can learn regarding how to make policies better serve the needs of society from how other countries design policies – e.g., economic regulation, social welfare, health care, environment? (e.g., de Mesquita, Ellis, Pal and Weaver).

3. Early origins of Public Policy • Ancient Greeks – particularly Plato (427-347 BC) and Aristotle (384-322 BC) – were concerned with understanding how polities advanced the welfare of their citizens (i.e., justice). • Principal question: how do different systems, and different types of leaders, treat their citizens/advance their welfare? • Charles-Louis de Secondât, baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) – postulated that every polity must perform three functions: make, implement, adjudicate laws. • These powers can be divided among different entities, or combined in one. • The first is more democratic, enables wider-debate over policy and more accountability. • Montesquieu drew ideas from John Locke (1632-1704) who first noted that European monarchs combined legislative, executive, and fiduciary powers.

4. Significance of classical notions of public policy Legislative – law or rule-making function (Congress, State Assembly, planning commission?) Judicial/fiduciary – resolve conflicts regarding interpretation of laws, rules & their applicability (courts, specialized regulatory agencies, zoning boards? Executive – administration & enforcement of laws/rules (President, governor, mayors?) • Functions can overlap (legislatures can sometimes enforce their own rules; executives can sometimes make laws; courts often re-interpret intent of laws (e.g., civil rights). • To the extent these functions are kept distinct, policy change is easier: there are more points of access/accountability. When combined, access tends to be restricted.

5. 19th Century Advancements • The rise of sociology (1st modern social science) led to sophisticated ideas about the role of power in policy process. • Max Weber (1864-1920) and Auguste Comte (1798-1857) postulated that institutions promote certain norms that shape individual behavior and constitute sources of power. • These norms are found within interest groups and other non-governmental entities as well as in governments. • Behavior shaped by these norms fits predictable patterns, making it possible to predict policy outcomes –i.e., why societies choose, or fail to choose, certain decisions; this is empirically observable (Comte).

6. Norms, power and public policy Physical power – coercion, violence or its threat (law enforcement, armed forces, revolutionary movements). Economic power – control or influence on market forces to obtain a public good (e.g., embargoes, boycotts, consumption of goods, services) Legal power - formally sanctioned laws & rules (including treaties) formally recognized by government. Normative/spiritual power – widely-shared moral norms that legitimize behavior (e.g., religion) Expert power – specialized knowledge and insight into problems: (e.g., policy analysts, social scientists, urban planners). Personal power – charisma, ability to persuade, special knack for “good judgment” (e.g., leadership qualities).

7. Norms and power – alternative views • Institutions & individuals draw on multiple power sources: e.g., Robert Moses - 20th century NYC planner who had enormous influence on urban policies (expert, legal, personal power). • Institutions & individuals must operate within a set of norms – if they operate outside these, their power may be challenged. Exception? Authoritarian polities & dictators. • No single source of power grants a monopoly of authority –power “counteracts” power, and all sources are affected by austerity (i.e., limits on resources). • Many social sciences (e.g., economics, political science) often over-emphasize rational self-interest in the exercise of power. Individuals & institutions often have non-self-interested goals (e.g., community, altruism, charity, public interest – D. Stone).

8. 20th Century - present • Role of non-governmental organizations and their influence on policy began to be explored: e.g., Robert Michels (1876-1936) – conceived of Iron law of oligarchy: • In all formal organizations, power tends to be concentrated in the hands of a few because most members lack political skill – yet want economic benefits. • Leaders exploit this tendency to have bargaining leverage against other powerful organizations – e.g., labor unions vs. corporations, corporations vs. government – survival or organization becomes paramount goal! • Is it really an “inevitable” and immutable law?

9. Iron law of oligarchy – a 21st century perspective

10. How the Reform Movement Has Changed the Teamsters Union (TDU History 1976-1979) Beginnings In 1976 the Teamsters Union was in big trouble. Union leaders had allowed organized crime to infiltrate the highest levels of the union. The mob was raiding members’ pension funds to build casinos in Las Vegas. Teamster officials were taking payoffs from employers and selling out the members. “There is no jurisdiction of safety within our ranks,” a Los Angeles Teamster said at the time, “and anyone who speaks with conviction shall be haunted by a specter of fear.” Teamsters for a Decent Contract. It was in these difficult circumstances that a small group of freight Teamsters met in Chicago in late 1975 to talk about the national freight contract being negotiated the following year. They drew up a list of contract demands and made plans to print and distribute a brochure to freight workers and organize meetings around the country. The group called itself Teamsters for a Decent Contract (TDC). TDC distributed thousands of flyers to freight Teamsters, organized meetings in dozens of cities, and held a demonstration in front of IBT headquarters in Washington, D.C. They demanded that Teamster President Frank Fitzsimmons hold the line for a strong contract. The small group grew in numbers as freight workers responded to their message.

11. 20th Century – present (con.) • Scientific concern with how policies come about– and why polities differ in the way this occurs – is another theme of the modern era: influenced by revolution in behavioral sciences. • Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) David Easton (1917 – present) conceived of policy as an kind of input-output system, emphasizing relationships between demands and supports and role of “feedback” on modifying decisions. • Gabriel Almond (1911-2002) and Sidney Verba (1932 – present): role of political culture – impact of diverse values and attitudes that underlie supports and demands for the state’s role in policy (e.g., health care, environment).

12. A contemporary schematic of the public-policy process AGENDA SETTING POLICY MAKING PHASE POLICY IMPLEMENTATION PHASE Demands – poll results; election returns; protests & demonstrations; interest group lobbying Outputs – laws, rules, regulations Policy formulation/ law-making by legislatures Policy execution – application/ enforcement by bureaucracy Supports – expressions of favorable opinion; paying of taxes; loyalty to state & its leaders Feedback – reactions to policy decisions; evaluating outcomes & determining if they are meeting original expectations – including adjudication by courts of law

13. Challenges facing students of public policy • Measurement and comparability: how do we identify the factors that explain, e.g., what makes a policy effective, or what constitutes civic engagement? • Do concepts mean the same thing from country-to-country? E.g., what does “health security” mean – protection against disease, insurance against economic calamity? Preventing bio-terrorism?) This is important to ensure cross-cultural validity. • Are data collected in one place generalizable to conditions in another? Data are often unique to a specific society while others result from “global diffusion” of ideas (e.g., foreign trade, globalization of media, intellectual exchanges). • Finally, comparability depends upon the use of common language: E.g., does North Korea have interest groups? Not if you define them in the U.S. sense of “pressure groups” or “lobbyists.”

14. Challenges (con.) • Ability to develop theoretically-sound propositions: e.g., “in certain types of political systems (e.g., planned economies, mature democracies, developing nations), y is likely to result when x occurs.” • Some feel that this is what public policy research should focus on because it can advance our ability to predict, e.g., election outcomes, public opinion. • In this context, validity refers to the extent to which an instrument actually measures what it intends; reliability means the extent to which categories applied to cross-national expression constitutes “universals” or are “invariant.” • CAUTION - all of this implies that the study of public policy can be reduced to linear scientific propositions: it cannot! • Public policies never “resolve” problems for all time – new problems and issues arise. • Social wants and needs evolve and change. • Many policies have unpredictable consequences.*

15. The unpredictability of public policy – a primer • Many complex social problems have no definitive formulation – we call them “wicked problems” because they are difficult to both describe and resolve (Rittel and Webber, 1973) (e.g., alienation, breakdown of civility, apathy). • Solutions to these problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad (e.g., choosing among divergent risks – using pesticides on crops vs. risking famine; using air bags in cars carrying small children). • Solutions are a "one-shot operation;” there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly (e.g., nuclear deterrence). • We do not have enumerable (exhaustively describable) solutions, or well-described permissible operations that may be incorporated into plans (i.e., problems are often non-linear – climate change and its impact on the local environment). • Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem; The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution (e.g., even if universal health insurance increases costs to everyone, is it still the “right” thing to do?).