Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
Chapter One Summary
The Market and the Polis
The author begins with the statement "A theory of policy politics must
start with a model of political society, that is, a model of the simplest
version of society that retains the essential elements of politics." She
chooses the word Greek word "polis", which means city-state. This word is
fitting because it describes an entity small enough to have very simple
forms of organization yet large enough to embody the elements of politics.
In searching for the elements of politics, it is helpful to use the market
model as a foil because of its predominance in contemporary policy
discussions. The contrast between the models of political and market
society will illuminate the ways the market model grossly distorts
political life.
A market can be defined as a social system in which individuals pursue
their own welfare by exchanging things with others whenever trades are
mutually beneficial. Participants in the market are in competition with
each other for scarce resources; each person tries to acquire things at the
least possible cost, and to convert raw materials into valuable things that
can be sold at the highest possible price. In the market model,
individuals act only to maximize their own self-interest (which might
include the well-being of their friends and family). Maximizing one's own
welfare stimulates people to be resourceful, creative, clever and
productive, and ultimately raises the level of economic well-being of the
society as a whole. With this description of the market model, an
alternative model of the polis can be constructed by contrasting more
detailed features of the market model and a political community.
Community
Because politics and policy can only happen in communities, community must
be the starting point of the polis. Public policy is about communities
trying to achieve something as a community. This is true even when there
are conflicts over what the goals should be and who the members of the
community are. Unlike the market, which starts with individuals and
assumes no goals, preferences, or intentions other than those held by
individuals, a model of the polis must assume both collective will and
collective effort.
A community must have a membership and some way of defining who is a member
of the community and who is not. Membership is in some sense the primary
political issue, for membership definitions and rules determine who is
allowed to participate in community activities and who is governed by
community rules and authority. The author notes a significant distinction
between residence and citizenship.
She continues with a discussion of the difference between political
community and cultural community. A political community is a group of
people who live under the same political rules and structure of governance
and share status as citizens. A cultural community is a group of people
who share a culture and draw their identities from a common language,
history, and traditions. The political community can include many diverse
cultural communities, and policy politics is faced with the question how to
integrate several cultural communities into a single political community
without destroying or sacrificing their identity and integrity.
Membership in a community defines social and economic rights as well as
political rights. The author recognizes that there is a component of
"mutual aid" among community members. Mutual aid is a good in itself that
people create in order to foster and protect a community. Sharing burdens
brings and holds people together. And in a larger sense, sharing caring,
and maintaining relationships is at least as strong a motivator of human
behavior as competition, separation, and promotion of one's separate self-
interests.
Public Interest
The concept of "public interest" may mean any of several things. It could
be individual interests held in common, individual goals for the community,
program or policies favored by a majority, or things that are good for the
community as a community. It's important to note in regards to public
interest that often people want things for their community that conflict
with what they want for themselves (such as lower taxes and good schools)
and that what people want usually changes over time. At the very least,
every community has a general interest in having some governing process and
some means for resolving disputes without violence, defending itself from
outsiders, and perpetual existence.
There is virtually never full agreement on the public interest, yet it is
necessary to make it a defining characteristic of the polis because so much
of politics is people fighting over what the public interest is and trying
to realize their own definition of it. The concept of public interest is
to the polis what self-interest is to the market. They are both
abstractions whose specific contents we do not need to know in order to use
them to explain and predict people's behavior. We simply assume that
people behave as if they were trying to realize the public interest or
maximize their self-interest.
Essentially within a market the empty box of public interest is filled as
an afterthought with the side effects of other activities. In the polis,
by contrast, people fill the box intentionally, with forethought, planning,
and conscious effort.
Common Problems
Common problems are defined as situations where self-interest and public
interest work against each other. There are two types of common problems:
actions with private benefits entail a social cost (industrial waste into a
lake); and social benefits require private sacrifices (school system
requires taxes). Any situation can be described in both ways (clean lakes
are a social benefit requiring private costs of nonpolluting waste disposal
and a poor school system is the social cost of high private consumption).
So whether a situation is labeled as "social benefits and private costs" or
"social costs and private benefits" is strictly a matter of point of view.
Common problems are also called collective action problems because it is
hard to motivate people to undertake private costs or forgo private
benefits for the collective good. (Think global warming!)
In market theory, common problems are thought to be the exception rather
than the rule. In the polis, by contrast, common problems are everything.
Most significant policy problems are common problems. The major dilemma of
policy in the polis is how to get people to give primacy to these broader
consequences in their private calculus of choices, especially in an era
when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and personal gain.
Influence
Fortunately, the vast gap between self-interest and public interest is
bridged in the polis by some potent forces: influence, cooperation, and
loyalty. Actions, no less than ideas are influenced by others-through the
choices others have made and the ones we expect them to make, by what they
want us to do, and by what we think they expect us to do. More often than
not, the author argues, our choices are conditional. (Striking worker,
post office complaint)
Influence also leads to interesting collective behavior, such as "bandwagon
effects" in elections when a candidate's initial lead cause more people to
support him because they want to back a winner or when panics happen when
people fear an economic collapse, rush out to cash out their bank accounts
or sell their stocks, and in so doing bring about the collapse they feared.
One cannot understate that influence-in all its varieties and degrees of
strength-is one of the central elements in politics.
Cooperation
In the polis cooperation is as important as competition for the following
reasons. First, politics involve seeking allies and organizing cooperation
in order to compete with opponents. Every conflict unites some people as
it divides others and politics has as much to do with how alliances are
made and held together as with how people are divided. Secondly,
cooperation is essential to power and is often a more effective form of
subordination than coercion. (Prison guard and prisoners)
In the market, cooperation is usually described negatively (collusion,
oligarchy, price-fixing, insider trading) while in the polis it is
described more positively (coalition, alliance, union, party, support).
Loyalty
Cooperation entails alliances, and alliances are at least somewhat
enduring. In the ideal market, a buyer will switch suppliers in response
to a price or quality change. In politics, relationships are not so fluid.
They involve gifts, favors, support and most of all, future obligations.
Political alliances bind people over time. In the market, people are
"buyers" and "sellers". In politics, they are "enemies" and "friends".
Friendships are forgiving in a way that pure commercial relationships are
not, or should be. In the polis, history counts for a lot; in the market,
it counts for nothing. (It's business not personal)
This does not mean that political alliances are perfectly stable or that
people never abandon friends and join with former enemies. But it does
mean that in the polis there's a presumption of loyalty. It takes a major
event-something that triggers a deep fear or offers a vast opportunity-to
get them to switch their loyalties. There is a risk to breaking old
alliances and people do not do it lightly.
Groups
Because of the powerful forces of influence, cooperation and loyalty,
groups and organizations, rather than individuals are the building blocks
of the polis. Groups are important in three ways: First, people belong to
institutions and organizations, even when they are not formal members and
their opinions are shaped by organizations and they depend on organizations
to represent their needs. Second, the author asserts, policy making is not
only about solving public problems, but about how groups are formed, split,
and re-formed to achieve public purposes. Third, groups are important
because decisions of the polis are collective.
Information
In the ideal market, information is perfect, meaning it is accurate,
complete and available to everyone at no cost. In the polis, by contrast,
information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategically withheld.
Correct information does exist, but in the politics, the important thing is
what people make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful than
facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control
such interpretation. (Think spin control). In the polis, information is
never complete. More importantly for a model of the polis is that crucial
information is deliberately kept secret for the reason that one expects
someone else to behave differently once the information is made public.
(Think Fred Thompson joining the race for presidency) Secrecy and
revelation are tools of political strategy and information by its very
nature is valued and valuable.
Passion
One of the "Laws of Passion" is that passion feeds upon itself. Like
passion, political resources are often enlarged or enhanced through use.
Channels of influence and political connections grow by being used.
Political skills and authority also grow with use. The more one makes
certain types of decisions, the easier it is to continue in the same path,
in part because repeated decisions require no new thought, and in part
because people are less likely to resist or question orders and requests
they have obeyed before. This phenomenon of resource expansion is
ignored in the market model.
Another law of passion governing the polis is "the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts". A protest march means something more than a few
thousand people walking down the street. Most human actions change their
meaning and impact when done in concert or in quantity. Another is "things
can mean (and therefore be) more than one thing at once." (Health care
expenditures) Ambiguity and symbolic meanings have no home in the market
model of society, where everything has its precise value or cost.
Power
Power is the primary defining characteristic of a political society and is
derived from all the other elements. It is a phenomenon of communities.
Its purpose is always to subordinate individual self-interest to other
interests-sometimes to other individual or group interests, sometimes to
the public interest. It operates through influence, cooperation, and
loyalty. It is based also on the strategic control of information. And
finally, it is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the
laws of matter.
Any model of society must specify its source of energy, the force or forces
that drive change. In the market model, change is driven by exchange,
which is in turn motivated by self-interest. Through exchanges, the use
and distribution of resources is changed. In the polis, change occurs
through the interaction of mutually defining ideas and alliances. Ideas
about politics shape political alliances, and strategic considerations of
building and maintaining alliances in turn shape the ideas people espouse
and seek to implement.
Stone, Chap. 1
To show how market models distort political life and to design an
alternative model, the author contrast the political community and a market
model based society. The Greek term, Polis, meaning city-state is used to
embody the essence of the political society. It describes an entity small
enough to have simple forms of organization, yet large enough to embody the
elements of politics…
In a market, the participants are competing for scarce resources and their
goal is to make a profit by:
1. Acquire goods at the lowest cost
2. Convert raw goods to profitable finished goods
The market model is used because of the prevalence in contemporary policy
discussions.
In the market model, the participants,
1. strive to maximize their own self-interest
a. Self-interest is described as one's own welfare as perceived by
them
This maximizing of welfare stimulates people to be resourceful, creative,
clever and productive, and ultimately raises the level of economic well-
being of the society as a whole and this is assumed to be benefits to all
of society.
The author discusses the difference between political community and
cultural community. A political community is a group of people who live
under the same political rules and structure of governance and share status
as citizens. A cultural community is a group of people who share a culture
and draw their identities from a common language, history, and traditions.
The political community can include many diverse cultural communities, and
policy politics is faced with the question how to integrate several
cultural communities into a single political community without destroying
or sacrificing their identity and integrity.
In the construction of a new polis model the author looks at the concepts
of society to contrast political community and the market model.
1. Unit of analysis, or who makes the determinations
a. Under market it is the individual
Unlike the market, which starts with individuals and assumes no goals,
preferences, or intentions other than those held by individuals, a model of
the polis must assume both collective will and collective effort.
b. And in the polis, the community makes the determination
2. What are the motivations?
a. In market model, it is self-interest which drives the
motivation
The author said, It's important to note in regards to public interest that
often people want things for their community that conflict with what they
want for themselves (such as lower taxes and good schools)
b. So In polis, it is the public interest which serves self-
interest.
3. Chief conflict
a. Individuals perceived welfare versus another's Individuals
perceived welfare
b. In the polis it is Self-interest vs public interest (cost of
externalities, use of commons)
Common problems are defined as situations where self-interest and public
interest work against each other. There are two types of common problems:
actions with private benefits entail a social cost (industrial waste into a
lake); and social benefits require private sacrifices (school system
requires taxes). Fortunately, the vast gap between self-interest and
public interest is bridged in the polis by some potent forces: influence,
cooperation, and loyalty. Actions, no less than ideas are influenced by
others-through the choices others have made and the ones we expect them to
make, by what they want us to do, and by what we think they expect us to
do. More often than not, the author argues, our choices are conditional.
(Striking worker, post office complaint)
4. Peoples ideas and preferences
a. From the self-interest individual
b. Strong Influence from the community
5. Nature of collective activity
a. MM competition
b. PM cooperation and competition
In the polis model, cooperation is as important as competition for the
following reasons. First, politics involve seeking allies and organizing
cooperation in order to compete with opponents. Secondly, cooperation is
essential to power
In the market, cooperation is usually described negatively (collusion,
price-fixing, insider trading) while in the polis it is described more
positively (coalition, alliance, union, party, support).
6. criteria for decision-making
a. mm Max self interest and min cost
In the ideal market, a buyer will switch suppliers in response to a price
or quality change.
b. Loyalty, max self-interest, promote public interest
In the polis, history counts for a lot; in the market, it counts for
nothing. (It's business not personal)
7. Building blocks of social action
a. Mm individuals
b. Pm groups
Because of the powerful forces of influence, cooperation and loyalty, the
groups and organizations, rather than individuals are the building blocks
of the polis.
Groups are important in three ways:
First, people belong to institutions and organizations, their opinions are
shaped by organizations and they depend on organizations to represent their
needs.
Second, the author asserts, policy making is not only about solving public
problems, but about how groups are formed, split, and re-formed to achieve
public purposes.
Third, groups are important because decisions of the polis are collective.
8. nature of information
a. accurate, complete, available
b. where polis, tends to be, ambiguous, interpretive, incomplete,
manipulated
In the ideal market, information is perfect, meaning it is accurate,
complete and available to everyone at no cost. In the polis, by contrast,
information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategically withheld.
Correct information does exist, but in the politics, the important thing is
what people make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful than
facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control
such interpretation. (Think spin control). In the polis, information is
never complete. Secrecy and revelation are tools of political strategy and
information by its very nature is valued and valuable.
9. How things work,
a. Law of matter, resources are finite and diminish with use
b. Law of passion,
One of the "Laws of Passion" is that passion feeds upon itself. Like
passion, political resources are often enlarged or enhanced through use.
Political skills and authority also grow with use. The more one makes
certain types of decisions, the easier it is to continue in the same path,
in part because repeated decisions require no new thought, and in part
because people are less likely to resist or question orders and requests
they have obeyed before. This phenomenon of resource expansion is
ignored in the market model.
Another law of passion governing the polis is "the whole is greater than
the sum of its parts". A protest march means something more than a few
thousand people walking down the street. Most human actions change their
meaning and impact when done in concert or in quantity. Another is "things
can mean (and therefore be) more than one thing at once." (Health care
expenditures) Ambiguity and symbolic meanings have no home in the market
model of society, where everything has its precise value or cost.
10. source of change
a. material exchange and quest to maximize own welfare
b. ideas, persuasion, and alliances and pursuit of power, own
welfare, and public interest.
Control & Power is the primary defining characteristic of a political
society and is derived from all the other elements.
1. Its purpose is always to subordinate individual self-interest to
others.
2. It operates through influence, cooperation, and loyalty.
3. It is based also on the strategic control of information.
4. It is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the laws
of matter.
Any model of society must specify its source of energy, the force or forces
that drive change. In the market model, change is driven by exchange,
which is in turn motivated by self-interest. Through exchanges, the use
and distribution of resources is changed. In the polis, change occurs
through the interaction of mutually defining ideas and alliances. Ideas
about politics shape political alliances, and strategic considerations of
building and maintaining alliances in turn shape the ideas people espouse
and seek to implement.
Chapter 2- Equity
"Every policy issue involves the distribution of something."
A distributive conflict is any conflict where equity is the goal.
The paradox of distributive problems:
"Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal
treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal,
depending on one's point of view." (see cake in class distribution pps. 40-
41)
Equality = uniformity in distribution, sameness
Equity = "distributions regarded as fair, even though they contain both
equalities and inequalities"
Three important dimensions to any distribution:
1) Recipients (i.e. Who gets something)
2) Item (i.e. What is being distributed)
3) Process (i.e. How is the distribution being decided upon and carried
out)
Horizontal equity- equal treatment of people of the same rank.
Vertical equity- unequal treatment of people in different ranks.
-rank/merit based distribution
-group based distributions (e.g. quotas, affirmative action, etc.)
In some instances (e.g. lottery, athletic competition) people accept
unequal outcomes as long as there is a fair process in place for deciding
the outcome. (many things of value are indivisible).
Two views of equality-
1) criteria of the process: fairness in process
2) criteria of the recipients and items: the "end-result"
People do not "always agree on the relevant characteristics of recipients
and items."
That is where conflicts arise, in the descriptive and categorization
process.
Liberty:
1) freedom from constraints
2) "having enough basic resources to choose out of desire than
necessity"
-"fair shares" – everyone has at least a bare minimum to survive
Discussion of liberalism vs. conservatism, which continues throughout the
book.
Jonathan Cervas
PSC723
Equality – Deborah Stone
1. Political Science defined- "who gets what, when, and how"
a. Distributions are at the heart of public policy controversies
2. Distributive conflict
a. Equity is the goal for all sides, the conflict comes over how
the sides envision the distribution of whatever is at issue
3. Paradox - Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may
require unequal treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as
equal or unequal, depending on one's point of view.
Equality - uniformity in distribution
Equity - distributions regarded as fair, even though they contain both
equalities and inequalities
4. In any distribution, there are three important dimensions
a. The recipients
b. The item
c. The process
5. Challenges to distributive conflict
a. Who should count as a member of the class of recipients
b. Relevant internal divisions for distributing something and that
these divisions have been ignored
c. Some major divisions in society are relevant to distributive
equity and that membership in a group based on these divisions
should sometimes outweigh individual characteristics in
determining distribution
d. Expanding the definitional boundaries of the item is always a
redistributive strategy, because it calls for using the more
narrowly defined item to compensate for inequalities in a larger
sphere
e. The switch from a standardized value of the item to a more
customized value
f. For many things in life, we are willing to accept an unequal
outcome so long as we know that the process was fair
6. The argument for Equality
a. Criteria of Process
i. Acquired fairly if:
1. Created newly or not formally held as property
(inventions or rights to own)
2. Acquired by transfer (sale, gift, or inheritance)
b. End-result concept
i. Assumes that a just distribution is one in which both the
recipients and items are correctly defined and each
qualified recipient receives an equal share of each
correctly defined item
c. End-results look only at the end result and do not need any
historical information as to how the distribution came about
7. Rawls defines the relevant class if recipients as all citizens, and he
defines the relevant items as social primary goods
a. Social primary goods are things that are very important to
people but are created, shaped, and affected by social structure
and political institutions (I.e. power, opportunity, wealth,
income, civil rights, and liberties
b. Natural primary goods are things very important to people but
which, while affected by society, are less directly under its
control (I.e. intelligence, strength, imagination, talent and
good health
8. Rawls approach looks to our innate sense of justice as well as our
fundamental rationality and then derives principles of equity by
asking us to deliberate about rules for a just society without being
biased by knowing our own situation (veil of ignorance)
Stone: Policy Paradox
Chapter 3
Efficiency:
Getting the most out of a given input
Achieving an objective for the lowest cost
The ratio between input and output, effort and results, expenditure
and income or cost and resulting benefit
Conflicts with Efficiency:
Who gets the benefits and bears the burdens of a policy?
How should we measure the values and costs of a policy?
What mode of organizing human activity is likely to yield the most
efficient results?
Trying to measure efficiency is like trying to pull oneself out of
quicksand without a rope. There is no firm ground. Objectives for public
policy are forged in political conflict and are constantly changing not
handed down on a stone tablet.
At the societal level, efficiency is an ideal meant to guide how society
chooses to spend its money or allocate its resources in order to get the
most value. Efficiency is always a contestable concept.
Markets and Efficiency:
The theory of markets says that as long as exchanges are both
voluntary and fully informed, they lead to the goal of allocative
efficiency: Resources always move in a direction that make people
better off.
o Every exchange should lead to a situation in which the new
holders get more value out of the resources than the old
holders.
Challenges from the Market:
In order for efficiency, there must be numerous buyers and sellers
of any resource, so that no one person or firm can influence the
market price.
There must be full information about the available alternatives, so
that exchanges truly result in the best situation for everyone.
Decisions and actions of parties to an exchange must not affect the
welfare of people who are not part of the exchange.
Resources involved in exchanges must be used individually and used
up if they are used at all.
Challenges from the Polis:
One can question the possibility of purely voluntary exchanges due
to the vastly unequal distribution of income and wealth.
The market model requires accurate and complete information. But
information is always incomplete, interpretive and deliberately
controlled.
Individual actions have side effects on others. To ignore side
effects, or to pretend that externalities are a defect in a miniscule
area of human affairs, is to undermine the ability of public policy to
achieve efficiency in any important sense.
The Equality-Efficiency Trade-off:
Equality eliminates the differential rewards necessary to motivate
people to be productive.
To maintain equality government must continuously interfere with
individual choices about how to use resources, and in doing so, it
curbs useful experimentation and productive innovation.
To maintain equality requires a large administrative machinery that
uses up resources but is not itself productive.
Cartoon (pg 83)
"Welfare doesn't work, because it gives poor people an incentive to stay
poor!"
"Instead, let's give the wealthy a huge tax cut. Then the poor will
have an incentive to become millionaires."
Where labor is well organized and shares significant political
power, where in other words, there is someone to "articulate the self-
interest of the non-rich," economic polices tend to reconcile equality
with efficiency. The idea that the two are incompatible is a
politically useful myth for the rich and powerful.
Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Deborah Stone
Chapter 3: Efficiency
Efficiency is broadly defined as achieving the goal of getting the most out
of a given input or achieving an objective for the lowest cost (cost being
monetary, effort, time, etc.)
Efficiency can be measured in simplified ratios of input: output; effort:
results; expenditures: incomes; or cost: resulting benefit.
There are different ideas of what is efficient for people who are in
different positions. The chapter presents the example of a library where
different views engage the goal of improving the efficiency of the library.
Outside scholars viewing the daily operation of the library judged the
wasteful staffing positions as taking money away that could be used to
increase the size of the library's collection. For these scholars, the
size of the supply determined the level of efficiency. Other views from
the community and from the library staff questioned if supply can be used
to measure efficiency. Some preferred service over the size of the
collection, as others placed their preference in the amount of time
required to use the library and its level of user friendliness.
As one can see, it is difficult to determine what specifically determines
efficiency for different situations. Certain questions need to be asked:
1) Who determines the correct output or objective?
2) How do we value compare multiple objectives?
3) How do different outputs affect different people and groups?
4) How are inputs counted that are outputs of something else?
5) How do we decide which benefits/outputs to be in the equation?
6) How do we include unlimited opportunity costs of resources used as
inputs?
Markets and Efficiency
The debate over the best mode to organize society to achieve the greatest
social welfare has led many to the market idea, where voluntary exchanges
achieve efficiency through freedom and rational choice (Note: the market
theory does not promote absolute freedom, as governments are needed to
enforce contracts and define the rules of ownership and not allow black
markets that have the potential to hurt individuals or go against the
organization and stability of the society).
The market theory is as follows: as long as exchanges are voluntary and
individuals are fully informed of the possible outcomes and alternatives,
society will meet efficiency goals. This theory is explained as resources
will always move in the direction to make people better, because people
will always choose what makes them better off or at least not worst off.
Exchanges in the market go through transformations, where goods can be
transformed into other goods and services and vice-versa (money into raw
materials; raw materials into finished goods; money into labor; finished
goods into money). Values of exchanges also transform, as the market price
of a good (universal price) is subject to the value that an individual is
willing to pay for it. As exchanges are done by individuals, efficiency
must also be determined subjectively through an individual's perceived
welfare.
Challenges from the Market
The market can face many failures which affect the welfare of the society.
Here are some possible failures in the market:
Monopolies: markets need numerous buyers and sellers so that no one can
influence the market price. Without these conditions, monopolies can
control the price. In welfare economics, monopolies are viewed as natural
and unavoidable due to the infeasibility of certain services (e.g. utility
services). Best option if these situations, is to accept the monopoly and
rely on government regulation to control and negative effects.
Lack of Information: market exchanges require fully informed individuals,
something that is difficult to acquire. Some people may be unwilling to
provide all information as it may hurt their chances of an exchange (such
as possible side effects). Some individuals may not be able to understand
everything on a certain issue as well. Best option for this problem is try
to inform the public as much as possible (e.g. nutrition labels).
Externalities: when people outside of the exchange are affected by the
exchange. There are several options to attempt to alleviate this problem,
but best option is to consider all possible effects of any transaction.
Collective goods: when resources are not used individually or are not used
up at all. This type of failure involves private sacrifice for social
benefits (e.g. national defense). Collective goods are determined to be
non-correctable where collective action is needed.
Challenges from the Polis
When looking at the market theory, one needs to ask: can a society built
around a system of voluntary exchanges produce efficiency? This question
brings up the issue of happiness and satisfaction for different people.
While the theory states that voluntary exchange will bring about happiness
and satisfaction, others argue that much of the activity that people care
about does not come from the world of exchange.
Several problems in the market, due to society's interaction with it,
questions the viability of the market. For example, one needs to question
the idea of pure voluntarism in market. With the unclear line between
cooperation and coercion in many situations, voluntary exchange maybe an
impossible requirement to meet. Manipulation inside the market also
occurs, as buyers and consumers are constantly influenced by sellers in a
service economy. The unequal distribution of income and wealth also hurts
voluntarism, as some have no choice but to work where they can so they can
survive. Other problems, such as contract manipulation with long-term
relationships and unforeseeable long-term consequences inhibit the outcome
of efficiency as well.
Individual welfare is influenced by others (being comparable to those
around you as well as sympathy towards others), and by the complex
activities and decisions of the community. While the market theory
stresses individuality, not everything is based off of the individual. The
livelihood and security of the community in which an individual is a member
from is very important.
Equality-Efficiency Trade-Off
Equality and efficiency is thought to be a zero-sum trade off where the
more one has, the less another will have. Equality is viewed as a barrier
to efficiency, as it removes motivation for higher production. If everyone
will always be equal, then there would be no desire for anyone to move
ahead. If there is no desire to work harder, then the society will be less
productive (i.e. less efficient). Also, constant government interference
is required to keep the society equal and government interference requires
a large administrative machine that wastes resources which could be used in
a more productive manner.
It is not clear if these arguments are accurate. The arguments rely on
opinions and deceptive wording. While some policy makers argue for some
redistribution of resources for better equality, no one is feasibly arguing
for a complete redistribution for total equality. While policy makers seek
some kind of trade off between equality and efficiency, other methods can
be found to motivate businesses at the same time attempting some method of
equalizing distribution.
Chapter 4: Security
Security in the broad sense as need; things that should be available
because they are essential.
Difficult to define objectively
Dimensions of Need
What is "minimally necessary" for survival.
Relates to specified amounts of food, amounts of weapons for defense,
income to function
o Things that are absolute. Quantifiable
Using food as an example:
o Kinds of food, as opposed to "standard" food ("liver and lard")
o Societal association or status (Dinner at Wynn Las Vegas vs. Burger
King drive thru)
o Cultural (ex. Jews not consuming pigs)
o Fasting in cultures
Symbolic factors add to the absolute aspect of breaking down what is
minimally necessary into easy to handle components.
"If we accept the symbolic dimension of need as important, then
security means protecting people's identities as well as their
existence." P.90
This added dimension to need makes it a relative idea as well.
Allows one people in a group to compare themselves to each other
(absolute standard) and people in other groups as well (relative
standard)
So far, there are two dimensions of need:
1. Absolute
2. Relative
A third dimension is the direct vs. instrumental view of need.
Direct: Actions that can take place now to counter current problems
Instrumental: Actions that can contribute to future gains
o An investment for the future
Ex. Education
A fourth dimension is protection against what might happen
Policies enacted to allow for more effective action against the
unknown future
o Ex. Mandatory seatbelts in cars, licenses for pilots, safety
requirements for bridges and dams, pre-natal healthcare
Final dimension: Relational needs
A sense of belonging to something; need for non-tangible satisfaction
These five aspects are not stepping stones to one another, but alternative
views.
Makes it difficult to define what "security" should mean for a whole
society of unique individual needs
Needs in the Polis
With so many different perspectives, the society makes decisions on what
policies to pursue by collectively validating claims for need
"Public needs" are those needs the society "recognizes as legitimate
and tries to satisfy as a community"
o Different from public goods, which are goods that anyone can use
o "Public needs" are needs the society believes are essential to that
particular society and define that society
Examples. Medieval Jewish communities and practices that allowed for
the necessary practices of the religion; Athens and their military and
festivals
The provision of public needs can create a sense of loyalty in turn,
helping to strengthen the society.
In making claims for societal needs, the Stone gives three examples of how
a society can understand what is needed.
1. Needs expressed as decisions related to consumption
a. Action will be used to pursue those needs
2. Neopluralism
a. Not all needs will be recognized equally and those needs accompanied
with greater clout will be addressed
3. Marxist
a. The few powerful control what the needs of the society should be and
the majority of society do not know what they really need
The Security-Efficiency Trade-off
Argument: If people have what they need or feel secure, they will not work
as hard and will be a drain on society
Counter-arguments:
1. Self-fulfilling prophecy
a. The argument is proven true, not because it is necessarily true, but
because those who are receiving the security are forced to
consistently prove their hardship due to eligibility tests
i. This is an argument for universal coverage as it uses the policies
instituted during the Great Depression and lifetime employment
policies in Japan as better alternatives to proving ones need for aid
2. Measurement of productivity
a. Mathematical errors in measurement
i. Related to greater staffing that, accounting-wise, lowers productivity
and has no use, but increases the delivery of quality service
3. Unwillingness to incur losses in order to gain
a. Preservation of jobs and industries that could be lost due to more
efficient sectors pushing out obsolete or inefficient processes
i. Author suggests countering the loss of jobs with training and
relocation
1. But, again, community, pride, and belonging issues arise
Given these different dimensions of need/security in a society, any
one perspective will not be sufficient to address the needs of a society.
Instead, it will take a multi-perspective approach to effectively tackle
these issues.
Policy Paradox: Ch. 4
The challenges of defining Security are similar to those of defining Equity
and Efficiency. Security here generally refers to how well the government
is able to provide for our essential needs. Stone addresses three main
areas in this chapter.
"Dimensions of need"
To begin, the basic definition of need is things that are necessary for
physical survival or things that are minimally necessary (e.g. the poverty
line with regards to income).
1). Needs are difficult to define in objective and countable terms when you
add symbolic meanings (e.g. food and its ritual significance). Symbolic
meanings weight human differences, whereas with the example of food it's
easier to find equity in the basic, material value (at least in terms of
biochemistry).
Need is not a biological question necessarily, but a political one.
2). Absolute need and relative need
Fixed or quantifiable needs vs. relative to a social standard (e.g. defense
policy - where a country will develop its national security measures in
relation to other nations that are perceived as threats.)
3). Instrumental need
enables people to move beyond basic survival needs, e.g. education
e.g. steel industry in the US (direct need: import restrictions are
necessary to preserve its product against cheaper foreign competition /
instrumental need: restrictions give the industry more time to develop
technologies and cut costs in the future)
4). Protection from possible future needs
Politically this is more powerful than present needs as it takes into
account fear of the unknown
e.g. safety measures (food / FDA, environmental, homeland defense)
5). Relational needs
Refers to needs for relationships opposed to things, e.g. connectedness of
a community, benevolence to others
* Note that the needs discussed are largely intangible and that the
"dimensions of needs" lead to differing concepts about security.
5 Dimensions Recap: Material vs. symbolic / absolute vs. relative / direct
vs. instrumental / present vs. future / physical vs. communal
"Needs in the polis"
Political figures decide which needs are real and legitimate – difficult to
do as we have acknowledged that there are several different definitions and
perspectives.
Public needs come into play here – needs a particular society determines
are legitimate based on cultural considerations, e.g. Public needs in the
US today: safety research and development vs. immediate aid for the
homeless or mental health services. Public needs are always disputed.
Claims-making about needs - 3 variations:
1). Needs expressed in consumption decisions (consumer demand)
2). Neopluralism view – needs are not equal and obtaining them depends
largely on political power
3). Marxist tradition – those who control the means of production decide
which needs are most important; the subordinate classes may not even know
what they really need
"The Security-Efficiency Trade-off"
Are security and efficiency compatible (or incompatible)?
3 points to consider:
1). Security can undermine productivity
e.g. welfare system diminishes motivation by creating a cycle of dependence
2). How we measure productivity
A standardized unit of measurement is needed, especially when comparing
different industries.
E.g. More people and services are needed in some industries opposed to
others – e.g. the service sector vs. the manufacturing sector.
Productivity can be reported low in the service sector, due to how it is
defined, but these comparisons are largely inaccurate.
3). The progress argument
Disinvestment leads to investment – the auto industry in the US might fail,
but there will be growth in other areas – and if you choose to protect a
failing industry it may lead to inefficiency.
To avoid some of the related problems, we should consider better job
retraining and relocation programs.
Policy Paradox
Chapter 5: Liberty
The paradox of liberty is that the idea of America is consumed with freedom
and individual rights and yet laws and policies of all kinds necessarily
restrict human behavior. The question posed by this policy paradox is when
it is acceptable to restrict liberty.
Like all the other paradoxes presented by Stone in this book she discusses
attempts to simplify the question of when to restrict liberty and then
presents the roadblocks to these clear cut distinctions.
Paradox of Liberty
Order and safety in a society requires rules, laws and policies. Even in a
free society these things are necessary to maintain the greatest extent of
freedom possible. Therefore, freedom for society requires the restriction
of individual liberties.
Attempts to Set Standardized Criteria
John Stuart Mills
The restriction of liberty is justified but should be used as little as
possible.
4 elements:
1. when it prevents harm to others
2. the restriction is based on cases where there is a distinguishable
line between actions that harm others and those that don't.
3. recognize that liberty is an individual concern and should not be
restricted on the group level
4. liberty is defined as a lack of interference
Problems with this classification:
- actions that cause harm can be dealt with in many different ways that
interfere with different people and have different levels of
interference
- Mill's presents his ideas as if there is only one way to prevent each
harm and the effects of this policy can be weighed against the level
of restriction and then evaluated
- Harm is subjective, restrictions to prevent harm to one group can
cause harm to another
Types of injury that can prevented by policy (at the cost of interference
or restricting liberty)
1. Physical injury
a. Direct and indirect
b. Intentional and accidental
*Should policy be created to prevent accidental harm or there too much
ambiguity to warrant the restriction of liberty?
2. Material damages – loss or destruction of property
3. Aesthetic damages – environmental harm, graffiti, privacy
invasions, creating a disturbance, etc.
4. Psychological and emotional damage – curriculum requirements or
restrictions,
5. Moral or spiritual damage – hate speech, pornography
Liberty outside of the vacuum
In the real world of the "polis" that Stone discusses, the liberty versus
injury dilemma is more difficult.
1. liberty is not really all about the individuals because people are
part of a community
- This changes the picture because it introduces new harms and new
considerations
o Structural harms that prevent a community from working properly
o Accumulative harms – one action is insignificant but as more
people engage in that action the harm becomes more pronounced
o Individual harm that causes group harm
2. Policies and laws will cause and prevent harm individually and to
groups in the community. We allow different groups to cause harm and
protect other groups based on their position and roles in the
community.
3. Harms are often allowed, even when they are foreseeable and expected,
to protect free markets and the sovereignty of the government
How to approach community and individual harms through policy
Two Dilemmas:
1. Dependence: Security from harm makes people and communities dependent
but it allows them to seek out needs, take risks, and make choices.
- Promote self-sufficiency so the government does not have to curtail
liberty through dependency (Stone argues that self-sufficiency is an
illusion and unattainable)
- liberty for those who can secure it for themselves
- create policies that ensure security and maintain rights through
further legislative action (ie: informed consent laws)
- One problem with dependency created by legislation and policy is that
some groups can be deprived of rights based on their group status (must
be 18 to vote)
2. Paternalism: Is it the responsibility, or even the proper role, of the
government to protect people from themselves?
- can you consent to being assaulted or enslaved?
- paternalism may be justified in certain circumstances, especially
when, under normal
conditions one would not engage in a given behavior
* "paternalism is justified whenever a rational individual would
consent in advance to restrain himself in some way."
- however, what a "rational" person would do in a given situation is
subjective
Liberty or Equality?
In order to obtain perfect equality you would have to severely restrict the
liberty of those with resources to the benefit of those without resources.
Introduces the positive view of liberty – that liberty is more simply the
freedom choice rather than the absence of interference.
- liberty increases when individual control increases
o there is a limited range of actions over which you can have
control
o resources are needed to understand options
power, wealth, and knowledge are the resources needed
therefore, in the positive view liberty is restricted
when inequality in resources exists
positive views of liberty also restricts infringement of
liberty to those cases in which human control is involved
In essence Stone argues that redistribution of wealth actually increases
liberty by equalizing resources and creating human choice for people who
may not otherwise have choices. She claims that liberty exists in degrees,
so minor restrictions of some individual liberty could vastly increase
another's liberty. Finally, she claims that compelled cooperation to get
society to address problems does not create a liberty-equality trade-off.
Stone does not see a problem with removing liberty from those considered
"wealthy" to possibly increase the freedom of others because she places the
liberty of certain groups in a higher priority than the liberty of others.
John Stuart Mill's and others who take the "negative" view of liberty would
disagree with this evaluation of what, exactly, constitutes liberty.
Chapter 5 – Liberty
The Paradox of Liberty – Flag burning example.
*Freedom is ambiguous and complex, just as other goals and values that
motivate politics.
I. Liberty
A. Dilemma of liberty arises in public policy and the question of when
the government can
legitimately interfere with choices and activities of citizens.
B. John Stuart Mill: The only time a government can exercise power
over a citizens liberty,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
*In John Stuart Mill's example, the individual reigns supreme.
1. Elements of Tradition in Mill's way of thinking:
-1st: There is a single criterion by which we can judge
whether interference with individual action is justified –
harm to others.
-2nd: Predicated on the possibility of clear distinction
between behavior that affects other people and behavior
that does not.
-3rd: Sees liberty as an attribute of individuals, not
social roles or groups or organizations.
-4th: Defines liberty in a negative way (Lack of
interference with individual actions).
II. Breaking down Mill's definition:
A. Harm to others (policy issues are then cast as a choice between
protecting the liberty of individuals and preventing harms to others).
a. What types of harms should government prevent?
i. Physical harm – seems obvious
1. What about toxic doses of chemicals in the workplace?
2. Birth control pills can be harmful if used by a smoker. Should smokers
be prohibited from taking birth control pills?
*Even when an action is known to produce harms in
others, there are many possible ways of preventing
harm, each of which interferes with different types
of liberties for different sets of people.
Ex. Some chemicals used in manufacturing are
known to cause injury to fetuses. Should employers
exclude fertile women of childbearing years from jobs
involving exposure to chemicals?
ii. Material Harms
1. An activity may cause loss of income (ex. Slander)
2. Actions may cause loss of resources (ex. Reckless driving can damage
another's property)
a. How far do we want to go? Is there a difference between actions that
cause physical damage to property and those that destroy market value
of property?
b. Even material losses have different degrees of urgency and reality
that might be considered relevant for decisions about liberty.
iii. Amenity Effects
1. An activity that causes aesthetic harms (ex. Satellite dishes on
rooftops)
2. Environmental harms might be considered amenity harms rather than
material (actions that change the character of landscape or destroy
wildlife habitats).
3. Disturbances of quiet (blaring radios)
**All are examples of policy areas where
government limits certain activities in order
to mitigate amenity harms.
iv. Emotional and Psychological harms
1. Place in public sphere – government asked to restrict behavior of one
set of people to prevent psychological damages to another (ex. Three
Mile Island)
2. Spiritual and Moral Harms:
a. Mill was adamant about the idea that religious belief should never be
a permissible ground for government regulation of behavior.
b. Harms to others are not objective phenomena, but are political claims
which are granted more or less legitimacy by the government.
c. Claims based on physical harm are easier to assert successfully than
claims based on material harms etc. (it's a hierarchy)
i. ***Significant aspect of political strategy is thus to move claims
from one category to another in order to gain legitimacy.
III. Liberty in the Polis
1. The polis is a community with some collective vision of public
interest, thus the liberty of individuals is also limited by
obligations to the community.
a. In the polis, the sphere of compulsion based on the interests of
society (not individuals) is large.
b. Above all else, societies require their members to obey the law,
regardless of whether violations cause harm to someone else.
i. Ex. A driver will be punished for running a red light even if no one
is harmed.
ii. Meant to protect social order, not individuals.
2. Structural Harms – effects on the ability of a community to function
as a community.
3. Accumulative Harm – some actions are not harmful when one person does
it, but when a number of people do it, it can be devastating (ex.
Walking on grass, dumping sewage, taking money out of the bank).
4. Harm to a group of that results from harm to individuals
a. Applicant is denied a job based on race, it affects his family, his
community, others may not try to get a job of that caliber, children
denied emotional and financial security, etc.
5. Public officials and Business Executives
a. Governments are far less restrictive of these roles because they need
more freedom to do their jobs.
b. Sovereign Immunity: government agencies, officials, employees cannot
be held liable for certain kinds of damages they causes (ex. Police
car damage during a chase).
c. Whether the liberties of officials are greater or smaller than those
of ordinary citizens, the key point is that liberty in the polis is to
a significant extent an attribute of roles rather than individuals.
6. Corporate Actors
a. To think of liberty only as it applies to individuals misses the
significant political question of the freedom accorded to corporate
actors, which affect individuals just as much.
b. Government Agencies – can perpetrate both harms to the community and
harms to the individual.
i. Ex. Increased monitoring and record sharing may create a sense of
distrust in the community.
ii. Because corporate actors can have far greater impact on individuals
and community than the actions of other individuals, a theory of
liberty must consider corporate actors as well.
iii. Distinct legal culture in America regarding role of government in
restricting individual liberties to promote social cohesion, security,
and solidarity (law and morality are separate spheres; ex. Baby
drowning).
IV. The Liberty-Security Trade-Off: Can a society provide its members both
liberty and security?
1. The dilemma of Dependence:
a. Without the security of having one's basic needs met, a person cannot
make free choices. On the other hand, security creates dependence (old
city machine bosses, for example).
i. Security is necessary for liberty and yet undermines it.
b. If public policy promoted self-sufficiency instead of dependence, then
people would not become dependent and suffer the inevitable
constraints on liberty that accompany dependence.
c. Modern democracies attempt to reconcile security and liberty by
creating formal political rights for the dependent.
2. The dilemma of Paternalism:
a. Should the government prevent people from acting voluntarily in ways
that harm themselves?
b. Mill: never, unless it is referring to slavery.
i. By entering into slavery a person gives up his liberty and protecting
individual liberty is the very purpose of prohibiting paternalism in
the first place.
1. Are there other situations in which a person's freedom to choose
should be denied in order to enable him to have other choices in the
future? (ex. Assisted suicide).
2. Problem: how do we decide what is "as bad as" slavery?
c. Loophole: exclusion of whole categories of people from rights and
liberties
i. Children and mentally incompetent are usually thought proper objects
of paternalism, as well as "backwards" societies.
ii. Ex. Women and blacks in the US.
iii. Ex. Right to die and the judge's interpretation of the will of women
vs. men.
d. Ulysses Contract:
i. Dworkin suggests that paternalism is justified whenever a rational
individual would consent in advance to restrain himself in some way.
V. The Liberty-Equality Trade-Off
1. People have different talents, skills, and abilities to secure the
valued resources and opportunities in society. To maintain equality,
government would have to take away resources and positions from some people
(the advantaged) and give them to others (the disadvantaged). This taking
away of resources and positions interferes with the freedom of action of
the advantaged.
**Only applies to a negative concept of liberty, one that
defines it as the absence of
restraint.
3. Positive View of Liberty: Expanded whenever a person's control over
his/her own life is increased.
a. Range of issues or problems over which one can exercise control.
b. The resources, both material and non material, that enable one to
envision alternatives and carry out one's will.
c. Under the positive definition, power, wealth and knowledge are
prerequisites to liberty because they are sources of capacity to
exercise control.
i. In this sense, liberty is defined by degree (those with more power,
wealth and knowledge have more liberty).
d. Links social and individual freedom.
e. Issue with the positive definition is not what kinds of harms should
be prevented, but what constraints on individual freedom are within
the realm of human agency.
*Becomes evident as we move from physical harms to abstract harms that
harms are political claims asserted by one set of interests against
another.
Policy Paradox – Chapter 6 "Symbols"
Symbolic representation is the essence of problem definition in
politics. According to the author, a symbol "is anything that stands for
something else…The meaning of a symbol is not intrinsic to it, but is
invested in it by the people who use it." Symbols which shapes "our
perceptions and suspend[s] skepticism" are what make symbols political
devices. This makes symbols a means of influence and control, even though
it is often hard to tell with symbols exactly who is influencing whom.
There are four aspects of symbolic representation that are especially
important in the definition of policy problems: narrative stories,
synecdoches, metaphors, and ambiguity.
Stories
Definitions of policy problems usually have narrative structure (a
beginning, middle, and end) involving change or transformation.
Brief Outline: Narratives with heroes and villains, problems and solutions,
tensions and resolutions. The most common are:
Stories of decline, including the story of stymied progress and the
story of progress-is-only-an-illusion.
Stories of control, including the conspiracy story and the blame-
the-victim story.
A) Story of Decline
a. "In the beginning, things were pretty good. But they got worse.
In fact, right now, they are nearly intolerable. Something must
be done." Usually ends with a prediction of crisis: "Unless such-
and-such is done, disaster will follow."
i. Real World Examples: poverty rates are rising, crime rates
are higher, import penetration in U.S. markets is greater,
environmental quality is worse.
Variations on a Story of Decline
A) Stymied Progress
a. "In the beginning things were terrible. Then things got
better, thanks to a certain someone. But now somebody or
something is interfering with our hero, so things are going
to get terrible again."
i. Real World Examples: Automakers tell a story of how
minimum wage legislation, mandatory health benefits, and
occupational safety regulation threaten to destroy
America's once-preeminent position in the world economy.
The Pentagon tells how budget constraints have
undermined our once-dominant military position.
B) Change-is-only-an-illusion
a. "You always thought things were getting worse (or better).
But you were wrong. Let me show you some evidence that things
are in fact going in the opposite direction. Decline (or
improvement) was an illusion."
i. Real World Examples: Cancer patients are not really
living longer; these "statistics" are only because we
can now diagnose cancer at earlier stages. Child abuse
is not really on the rise, it only appears to have
increased because we have more public awareness, more
legislation, and more reporting.
C) Story of Helplessness and Control
a. "The situation is bad. We have always believed that the
situation was out of our control, something we had to accept
but could not influence. Now, however, let me show you that
in fact we can control things."
i. Real World Example: Cancer, previously thought to strike
victims unpredictably, now turns out to be related to
diet, smoking, and chemicals – all things humans can
control.
Variations on Story of Helplessness and Control
A) Conspiracy
a. Its plot moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of
control, but it claims to show that all along control has
been in the hands of a few who have used it to their benefit
and concealed it form the rest of us.
i. Real World Example: Ralph Nader's famous crusade against
automobile manufacturers was a story that converted car
accidents into events controllable through the design of
cars, and even willingly accepted by automakers.
B) Blame-the-victim
a. It moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of control,
but locates control in the very people who suffer the
problem.
i. Real World Examples: the poor are poor because they seek
instant pleasures instead of investing, Third World
countries are poor because they borrow too eagerly and
allow their citizens to live too extravagantly, women
are raped because they "ask for it".
What all these stories of control have in common is their assertion
that there is choice. They choice may belong to society as a whole, to
certain elites, or to victims, but the drama in the story is always
achieved by the conversion of a fact of nature into a deliberate human
decision.
Synecdoche
Brief Outline: A small part of a policy problem is used to represent the
whole—for example, the horror story.
Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a whole is represented by one of
its parts: "Ten thousand feet moved down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the
White House." This form of symbolism is very common in politics, where
examples are offered up as "typical instances" of a larger problem. These
typical cases then define the entire problem and frame the policy response.
Real World Example: The "welfare queen" has become the dominant
representation of the welfare problem. She is a mother of many children who
has been on the rolls for ten or twenty years, and has adopted welfare as a
way of life. In fact, only about a fifth of current welfare recipients have
been on the rolls for ten years or more. So, a reform that is targeted to
the long-term welfare recipient, then, will only affect a small part of the
welfare population, and a small part of the welfare problem.
The Horror Story: Politicians or interest groups deliberately choose one
outlandish incident to represent the universe of cases, and then use that
example to build support for changing an entire rule or policy that is
addressed to the larger universe.
Real World Examples: The early 1995, the 104th Congress rush to dismantle
much of the safety and environmental regulation of the 70s and 80s, so
antiregulation crusaders claimed the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration had abolished the tooth fairy (by requiring dentists to
discard any baby teeth the pulled), and had required all buckets to be
built with a hole in the bottom of them. These absurdities could be counted
on to create hostility to regulation, but they grossly distorted the
actions of the agency. What OSHA did require was that dentists protect
themselves and their assistants from blood-borne pathogens when handling
teeth (not the disposal of baby teeth), and 50 babies drown yearly by
falling into buckets, so OSHA suggested that the buckets be redesigned to
tip over if a child fell in, but left it up to the industry to make a
voluntary effort.
Synecdoche can suspend our critical thinking with its powerful poetry. The
strategy of focusing on part of a problem, particularly one that can be
dramatized as a horror story, thus is likely to lead to skewed policy. Yet
it is often a politically useful strategy because it takes a larger issue
and presents a single, manageable chunk for the public to identify with.
Metaphors
A metaphor is an implied comparison. It works by using a word that denotes
one kind of object to describe another.
Brief Outline: A likeness is asserted between one kind of policy problem
and another. Common metaphors in politics include organisms, natural laws,
machines, tools, containers, disease, and war.
Living Organisms: Communities or groups are said to have a "life of their
own" and organizations have "goals". To see something as an organism is to
assert that it is "natural", which in turn implies that however it is, that
is "the way it is supposed to be". It's often argued that tampering with
any part of an organism (community, neighborhood, family) will upset a
delicate balance, destroy the whole, or interfere with nature.
Natural Laws: Many famous social scientists have claimed to discover laws
that govern the social world and that set limits, and even total barriers,
to the changes humans can bring about through deliberate policy. The most
influential "law" of social behavior is Charles Murray's "law of unintended
rewards". This law states that 'any social transfer increases the net vale
of being in the condition that prompted the transfer'. In simple English,
this law states that helping people who have problems (poverty, illness,
homelessness, or drug addiction) especially giving them money or services,
actually rewards them for having the problem and creates an incentive for
them to stay poor, sick, homeless, etc. While no one in Washington or state
capitals is going to quote Murray's Law, the equation "helping hand equals
incentive to be needy" is the driving force in today's social policy
debates.
Machines and mechanical devices: Our Constitution is derived from a notion
that a political system is a machine with working parts that had to be kept
"in order" and "in balance". Thus, "checks and balances" are central to our
way of thinking about how political power should be allocated. The metaphor
of balance implies a story about the decline from balance to imbalance and
prescribes addition of something to one side or subtraction from the other.
Wedges and inclines: Government regulation is often portrayed as a wedge:
once they get their foot in the door, the regulators will be pushing
through with more and more. The image of the wedge suggests that a
seemingly small beginning can have enormous leverage. The 'slippery slope'
argument is a part of this metaphor.
Containers: The idea of a fixed space. The problem might be that a space is
overfilled, thus Mexican workers "spill over" the borders into the United
States. The solutions to the problems are varied, but appropriate to the
metaphor. One can "drain off" some of the contents of the container, by
appointing disgruntled employees to a low-level management position where
their loyalties will be split. Or you can allow a gradual release of
pressure by letting angry citizens "blow off steam" at town hall meetings.
Disease: Cults, communism, crime (or any other condemned behavior) is said
to "spread". Members and advocates "infect" others with their ideas (the
"Gay Agenda"). Teenage pregnancy and high school dropout rates are viewed
as an "epidemic". Disease metaphors imply a story about deterioration and
decline and about struggle for control between humans and nonhuman "germs".
The disease label discredits opponents and implies a moral rightness of
treating them as less than human. The most pervasive disease metaphor is
social policy us the image of the poor and disadvantaged – who have their
problems because of personal issues and deficiencies.
War: This is ingrained in policy language. We declare "war on poverty",
"invasion of privacy", and go on "campaigns" against drunk driving. When
something is portrayed as an invasion, the invader is foreign, and
therefore not a citizen whose rights have to be respected or whose life is
to be valued.
Names and labels are used to create associations that lend legitimacy and
attract support to a course of action. Symbolic devices are especially
persuasive and emotionally compelling because their story line is hidden
and their sheer poetry is often stunning. For these reasons, it is worth
cultivating some skill in recognizing symbols and questioning their
assumptions by asking: What is the underlying narrative? Does it make
sense? Does the metaphor tell a different story from the one the author
purports to tell? Does the metaphor seem to obviate the need for evidence,
or does it bias the kind of information opponents might bring to bear on a
conflict? Does a symbol offer a "pig in a poke", and might we want to
inquire into substance before lending support to the symbol?
Ambiguity
The most important feature of all symbols is their ambiguity. A symbol can
mean two (or more) things simultaneously: "religious freedom" means
organized vocal prayer in public schools to some people and absolutely no
prayer in public schools to others.
Brief Outline: The ability of statements, events, and experiences to have
more than one meaning. Ambiguity is the "glue" of politics. It allows
people to agree on laws and policies because they can read different
meanings into the words.
Ambiguity enables the transformation of individual intentions and actions
into collective results and purposes. Without it, cooperation and
compromise would be far more difficult. It allows leaders to aggregate
support from different quarters for a single policy.
It allows policy makers to placate both sides in a conflict by "giving the
rhetoric to one side and the decision to the other".
Real World Example: a president might succeed in unifying advocates and
opponents of foreign military intervention by asking for a congressional
mandate allowing him to send troops "only if American interests are
threatened".
Conclusion
Policy stories are tools of strategy. Policy makers often create problems
as a context for the actions they want to take. This is not to say that
they actually cause harm and destruction so they will have something to do,
but that they represent the world in such a way as to make themselves,
their skills, and their favorite course of action necessary.
Outline for Policy Paradox CH.6: Symbols
Symbolic representation is the essence of problem definition in
politics.
A symbol "is anything that stands for something else," and that
meaning is collectively created.
Symbols shape our perceptions and are thus a means of influence and
control, as well as political devices.
There are four types of symbolic representation that are especially
important in the definition of policy problems:
I. Narrative Stories
Tell how the world works and provide a promise of resolution
for scary problems.
o Policy problems are similar to stories in that they:
have a beginning, middle, and end, have heroes,
villains, and innocent victims, and often pose evil vs.
good.
o In policy making, what appears as conflict over details,
is really disagreement abut the fundamental story.
o The most common types of stories used in policy are:
1. Stories of Decline
Basis: "In the beginning, things were pretty good. But then
they got worse. In fact, right now, they are nearly
intolerable. Something must be done."
Exemplifies a crisis situation and warns unless this is
done…disaster will follow. It is a prediction of doom (Very
Common).
A. Stories of Hindered Progress
Basis: "In the beginning things were terrible. Then things
got better, thanks to a certain someone. But now somebody or
something is interfering with our hero, so things are going
to get terrible again."
This is often told by every group that wants to resist
regulation.
Ex. When the AMA was fighting government cost-containment
efforts, they reminded people about the days of plagues, TB,
high infant mortality, etc. and warned that new government
restrictions would undo all the progress that had been made.
B. Stories of "Change is only an Illusion"
Basis: "You always thought things were getting worse (or
better). But you were wrong. Let me show you some evidence
that things are in fact going in the opposite direction.
Decline (or improvement) was simply all an illusion."
Ex. Violence and corruption throughout the world are not
really on the rise. They only appear to have increased
because we have more public awareness, more legislation, and
more reporting in the media of these topics.
2. Stories of Helplessness and Control
Basis: "The situation is bad. We have always believed that
the situation was out of our control, something we had to
accept but could not influence. Now, however, let me show you
that in fact we can control things."
Stories about control serve to speak to the fundamental
problem of liberty in this country, mainly, they force us to
ask questions regarding to what extent do we actually control
our own life conditions and destinies?
Politicians use this because what had formerly been viewed as
random, accidental, natural, or a twist of fate, is now
alleged to be amenable to change due to human agents of
intervention. These stories often provide heroes.
A. Stories of Conspiracy
Basis: Its plot moves us from the realm of fate to the realm
of control, but it claims to show that control thus far has
been in the hands of a few who have used it to their benefit.
These stories always reveal that harm has been deliberately
caused or knowingly tolerated, and they end with a call to
wrest control from the few who benefit at the expense of
many.
Ex. Oil companies.
B. Stories that Blame the Victim
Basis: It also moves us from the realm of fate to the realm
of control, but locates control in the very people who suffer
the problem.
This story often ends with victims having to reform their own
faulty behavior.
Ex. The poor are poor because they seek instant pleasures
instead of using their time to work hard and invest their
money efficiently.
Overall, policy stories use many literary devices to lead the audience to a
course of action and people must be aware of these tactics in order to be
able to make somewhat thoughtful choices and decisions.
II. Synecdoches
These are figures of speech in which a part is used to
represent the whole.
In politics, such symbolism is very common, where certain
examples are offered up as typical instances of a larger
problem.
We often make policies based on examples believed to be
representative of a larger universe.
Politicians or interest groups often use "Horror Stories,"
where they deliberately choose one outlandish incident to
represent the universe of cases, and then use that example to
build support for changing an entire rule or policy.
o Ex. Why do women get half of all assets in a divorce
void of a prenuptial agreement? This rule was fashioned
on the assumption that the woman in a household spends
her married years as a housewife and mother, and as
such, had no economic assets of her own to claim in a
divorce.
The strategy of focusing on part of a problem is likely to
lead to skewed policy, but it is often politically useful
because it takes a larger issue and presents a single, more
manageable chunk for the public to identify with.
o Ex. A plea all over the news to find one missing,
abused, or starving child within a region, makes the
public aware and sympathetic to other children in a
similar situation.
III. Metaphors
Are sometimes held to be the essential core of human thought
and creativity.
In policy, they are a likeness asserted between one kind of
policy problem and another.
The author describes these specific types of policy
metaphors:
1. Living Organisms
A. With this metaphor, communities or groups are said to have a
"life of their own" and organizations have "goals".
B. Ex. "Industry is being strangled," serves to personify industry.
C. When anything in politics is described as "fragmented," the
perception is that it is broken. Policy metaphors often jump from
"description to prescription."
D. A natural life cycle is also used to explain why political
issues seem to experience periods of rapid growth and then decline.
E. In a culture where the common understanding is treating likes
alike, to claim a likeness through a political metaphor is also to
posit an interpretation of equity, and demand equal treatment of
certain agencies, etc.
2. Natural Laws
A. In policy, this contributes to the belief that providing
monetary assistance to those who have problems like, poverty,
homelessness, drug addiction, etc., actually rewards them for
having the problem and creates an incentive for them to remain in
their current condition.
3. Machines and Mechanical Devices
A. Our Constitution is derived from 18th century political thoughts
that rest on a notion that the political system is a machine with
working parts that have to be kept "in order" and "in balance".
B. Thus, "checks and balances" are central to our way of thinking
about how political power should be allocated.
C. Policy prescriptions become the addition of something to one
side or subtraction from the other.
D. Ex. With nuclear weapons, strategists talk of a "balance of
terror," where mutual fear prevents either side from acting.
4. Wedges and Inclines
A. Government regulation is often portrayed as a wedge: once they
get their foot in the door...
B. The image of the wedge suggests that a seemingly small beginning
can have enormous leverage.
C. As for inclines, the metaphor is of one ascending a ladder,
compelled rung by rung, even though it gets scarier step by step,
and despite the fact that perhaps escalating further goes against
one's better judgment.
D. Slippery slope arguments meanwhile begin by acknowledging that a
law for example is not in itself bad, but permitting the phenomenon
would eventually lead to badness.
E. Ex. Allowing physicians to pursue pleas for assisted suicide in
certain cases…
5. Containers
A. This is the idea of a fixed space.
B. The problem might be that a space is overfilled, thus Mexican
workers "spill over" the borders into the United States.
C. Or, one can "drain off" some of the contents of the container,
and allow a gradual release of pressure by letting angry citizens
"blow off steam."
6. Disease
A. In the policy realm, cults, crime, or any other condemned
behavior is often said to "spread," with such people viewed as
contagious. Members and advocates are basically said to "infect"
others with their ideas.
B. Ex. Teenage pregnancy and high school dropout rates are viewed
as an "epidemic".
C. The disease label discredits opponents and implies a moral
rightness of treating them as less than human.
D. The psychiatry profession has further facilitated such treatment
in the political realm, by converting many social problems into
mental disorders. As such, consistent unemployment and repeated
absences from work are classified as "anti-social personality
disorder," meaning that those people are in fact sick, not simply
unhappy.
7. War
A. We declare war on many issues (such as drugs) because when
something is portrayed as an invasion, the invader is foreign, and
therefore not something whose rights have to be respected.
B. When people are at war, survival is at stake, so costs are often
ignored and one is viewed as a traitor if he or she does not
support the effort. This is one obvious reason why this tactic is
so often used by leaders to carry out policies.
Overall, names and labels are used to create associations that lend
legitimacy and attract support to a course of action. What is a "gas tax"
to one person is a "user fee" to another. Symbolic devices are especially
persuasive and emotionally compelling because their story line is often
hidden.
IV. Ambiguity
The capacity to have multiple meanings.
A symbol can mean two (or more) things simultaneously:
"religious freedom" means organized vocal prayer in public
schools to some people and absolutely no prayer in public
schools to others.
Ambiguity is the "glue" of politics. It allows people to
agree on laws and policies because they can read different
meanings into the words. Without it, cooperation and
compromise would be far more difficult.
o Ex. Ambiguity can unite people who would benefit from
the same policy but for different reasons. Some groups
do not want to see the construction of more homes
because they want to preserve nature, while others
simply do not want to see the value of their own homes
reduced.
It allows leaders to aggregate support from different
quarters for a single policy.
It allows policy makers to placate both sides in a conflict
by "giving the rhetoric to one side and the decision to the
other".
Legislators can satisfy demands to do something about a
problem by passing a vague statue with ambiguous meaning and
then letting administrative agencies hash out the more
conflicting details.
By portraying a decision one way in the press yet executing
it another, political leaders can perform the magic trick of
making two decisions at once and keeping the peace so that
two sides can technically claim victory.
Overall, problems are not out there in the world waiting for smart analysts
to come and define them, they are created in the mind of citizens by other
citizens, leaders, organizations, and government agencies as an essential
part of political maneuvering. Policy stories are tools of strategy with
symbols, metaphors, ambiguities, etc., all as weapons in the arsenal of
manipulation.
Policy Paradox Chapter 7 Numbers
"One common way to define a policy problem is to measure it."
(Stone, 2002)
One common way to begin a discussion about a policy is to define the
problem and need according to trends. If a problem is big enough by the
numbers, policy efforts gain instant credibility. One example of this can
be seen with the problem of obesity. In the State of Nevada and almost
every other state, legislators have begun to take a look at obesity trends
and are formulating state policies and programs to help reduce the
prevalence of obesity. One of the first steps in our state was the
formation of a task force to examine the Cost of Obesity. The task force
produced a report to demonstrate how costly obesity has become to all
people in our state regardless of health status. Using the report from the
task force, legislators had enough momentum to pass Nevada State Senate
Bill 197. The outcome of this bill was the formation of the Advisory
Council for the State Program on Fitness and Wellness which is comprised of
professionals from a variety of backgrounds. The Council is to make
recommendations on how our State Program for Fitness and Wellness should
operate. Inevitably the Advisory Council will go right back to the numbers
to accomplish this goal.
The challenge for policy makers is to determine the best way to represent
the problem with numbers. This is challenging because there are an
infinite number of ways to describe something with numbers. The manner for
using numbers to describe the problem will depend on the purpose of the
policy analysis.
Inclusion versus exclusion
One critical issue in using numbers to describe a problem is inclusion
versus exclusion. This is the process by which we determine that something
counts and another does not. When numbers are used to describe a problem
something will be left out. The manner by which the problem is reported
becomes very political. How doe we determine who to leave out? Someone
will always be unhappy?
Numbers as Metaphors
Counting numbers as metaphors is to focus on what counts and leave out
everything else. In obesity, we have a baseline measure called body mass
index (BMI). According to the CDC, "BMI is used because for most people,
it correlates with their amount of body fat. So, an adult with a BMI
between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight and an adult who has a BMI of
30 or higher is considered obese." There are inherent problems when numbers
are used as metaphors. What is obese and what is not obese will be
challenged. It is possible to have a BMI less than the critical cut-off
and be too fat. It is also possible to have a BMI greater than the
critical cut-off and be completely healthy. So, one issue is where the
boundary lies for what is and what is not.
Numbers as norms and symbols
Measures imply a need for action. Typically, the first step in promoting
change is to measure the problem. Reporting the numbers creates pressure to
change. The numbers become a norm. Norms help establish helplessness or
lack of control of the issue.
There are often problems in using numbers as norms and symbols. Often the
numbers are ambiguous. Measures often have double meaning. Good in one
arena bad in another. So, how the measure is interpreted is very
important. Cost is an example of a double edged sword. Few would argue
that health care in America is costly. The numbers speak for themselves.
For many the high cost may be a sign of high quality. However, for others
it is better to pay less for more. One great example of this is seen in
the prescription drug industry. In many states there is little regulation
to prevent pharmacies from raising prices on the prescription drugs they
fill. The problem is that prices are inconsistent. What may cost $40 at
one pharmacy may cost over $200 at another. Legislation is increasing to
help stop the mark-up to the buyer and curb the income of the seller.
Efficiency and productivity can also be 'double edged swords.' This is
evident in health care when increasing efficiency and productivity may be
seen as positive to insurance companies, but negative to the consumer who
requires quality care.
When it comes to numbers, politicians tend to like the middle or at the
average and prefer to avoid extremes. The ambiguity of the middle ground
is a safe place compared to the extreme ends where votes may be easily won
and easily lost.
Hidden Stories in Numbers
Numbers tell a story, of decline and decay or bigger and worse. The goal
is to create a sense of helplessness and control. Typically, the numbers
are used to tell the story and the deception lies in the fact that they
don't lie, or do they? Characteristically, numbers can be explicit. More
importantly, numbers can be very implicit too. If something counts, it
must be important right? People tend to use counting and measure of
something to verify the problem is worth looking at. When something
"counts" the assertion is made that "it" is identifiable with clear
boundaries. One example of this is seen in education where there is great
debate over accountability. Test scores have become the outcome measure
for schools to demonstrate they are accountable for student progress,
improvement, and achievement. There is great argument related to this
stemming from the validity and reliability of the measures of aptitude and
achievement.
When we begin to count a trait we begin to create a community of "like."
The problem with this lies in the distinction of what counts and what does
not. The boundary between what is and what is not may be very fuzzy. In
policy counting mobilizes efforts. We promise conflict resolution via
arithmetic and can manipulate what we measure by adding, subtracting,
multiplying, and dividing. This is contradictory to the nature of
exactness appreciated in science where numbers are seen as symbols of
objectivity, precision, and accuracy.
Counting is political
1. include versus exclude
2. implies norms of how much is too little too much
3. ambiguity
4. tell stories
5. illusion that complex is simple
6. create communities
7. aid negotiation and compromise
8. bolster authority of those that count
Numerical strategies
1. people react to being counted
2. counting makes people notice
3. stimulate public demands for change
4. explicit measure to evaluate and people will try to manipulate scores
5. power of measure is power of control
6. creates alliances between measured and measures
7. numbers don't speak for themselves and people try to control how
others will interpret
References
Centers for Disease Control. Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved April 14,
2007
from www.cdc.gov.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making.
(2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Policy Paradox Chapter 7 Numbers
Define a Policy Problem by measuring it but there are infinite ways to do
so with numbers
Ex: Literature describes with words
Ex: Painting with pigments
Most determine the purpose for the measuring
Fundamental issues of any policy conflict are always contained in the
question of how to count the problem
Ex: Unemployment rate = designed as the measure of people wanting work
or the need for jobs. The official method of counting unemployment is
the official definition of the problem leaves out people who fit
somebody's notion of unemployed but not the official notion
Official Definition Also Unemployed
Older than 16 Unwilling to take avail.
jobs
Have previously held a job dangerous
Are available for work unpleasant
Have looked for work within the previous four weeks demeaning
Can only find part-time when
Want full-time
Quit a job to look for
Something better
Can't work due to child care
Worker's strike
Counting always involves deliberate decisions about counting as
Must begin with categorization
What include and exclude
Important characteristics and asking whether the object to be
classified is substantially like the others in the category
Establishment of boundaries in the form of rules or criteria
Only after characterizing does mere tallying come into play
Really political terms
Inclusion/exclusion – suggest community, boundaries, allies, enemies
Selection – privilege and discrimination
Important characteristics – value judgment and hierarchy
Goals of public policy need the language of counting
Number as Metaphors
Numbers work exactly like metaphors
To categorize in counting or analogize in metaphors is to select one
feature of something, assert a likeness on the basis of that feature
and ignore all the other features
To count is to form a category by emphasizing some feature instead of
the others and excluding things that might be similar in important
ways but do not share the same feature. Ex: actively looked for work
in the past 4 weeks = unemployment but desperately wanting work but
not "pavement pounding" does not equal unemployment
Two Challenges due to the judgment of inclusion and exclusion
1)
The assertion of a real likeness where the measure finds a
difference, and insists on inclusion of something the measure
excludes. Ex: unemployment rate included "discouraged workers"
and "underemployed workers" or how to count the homeless – just
those who sleep on the streets or shelters, vs. prison, detox
centers, mental institutions, who would have no home if released
Important definitions because they determine who will get
benefits, loans, contracts, budget increases, jobs, fines, and
penalties
Sometime arbitrary by setting a cutoff point or threshold or
threshold on a numerical scale ex: LSAT for law school
admissions, income level for welfare, drinking and voting rights
2)
Assertion of a real difference where a measure finds a likeness
and insists on exclusion of something the
measure includes Ex: Health care facility need was defined by
primarily by the ratio of hospital beds to population of the
community however it the definition of "bed" was not consistent,
it did not account for the number of staff, nor proximity to
general population
Though debate about final counts seems to be about the tally, it can be
argued they are really about the categorization. Numbers are invoked to
give an air of finality to each side's opinions
Every number is an assertion about similarities and differences. You can't
count without making judgments about categorization and similarities and
differences are the ultimate basis for decisions in public policy
Numbers as Norms and Symbols
Numbers make normative leaps.
Measures imply a need for action because we do not measure things except
when we want to change them or change our behavior in response to them.
Call for a measurement = first step in promoting change
Ex: Unemployment figures as force in politics – to use the numbers to put
pressure on the administration to create new jobs
Not only for pressure, but some level of the measure will become the norm
Norms – part of the story of helplessness and control / Control and
failure: unemployment rate, prime interest rate, inflation rate, size of
the budget, the GNP, and the deficit
Double edged swords – it is good to be high on the measure but low is also
good
Symbols – savings symbolizes both thrift and past waste so it matters
more is how the measure is interpreted
Cost – ideology of efficiency is that it is better to pay less for
something than more. However, high cost is sometime a symbol of high
quality or prestige. Cost becomes a proxy measure for prestige
Reformers see the waste side of cost and People in the system see the
quality side and symbolic benefits of high cost
Cost to buyers is income to sellers Costs are always income to
somebody else, so there is always a constituency for high costs
to battle the low costs.
Efficiency - getting the most output for a given input
Productivity – output per hour of labor
Generally think the more efficiency and productivity the better
– however high output can symbolize both perfunctory work and a
job well done. Efficiency is not always a virtue where the
output is personal attention or custom designs.
Middles and Averages ex. Middle class - most people think of
themselves as middleclass even when they fall substantially above or
below the median
However is the option of working class is added about 45% will choose
this and feel alienated by tax breaks aimed at middle-class
The Political middle class not the same as economic middle class so
hard to write a tax plan to please both
Hidden Stories in Numbers
To Count something at all is to assert that phenomenon is at least frequent
enough to bother counting
Initial demands to count something formally grow from recognition that
the thing is common enough to worry about –
Common, regular, and expected even to show how rare the phenomenon is.
Moves an event from the singular to the plural
To count is to assert that it is an identifiable entity with clear
boundaries. You can't count something you can't distinguish
Is the phenomenon measurable at all? If yes, is it too inclusive or
exclusive?
To count is to create a community. Any number is implicitly an assertion
that things counted in it share a common feature that should be treated as
a group.
Natural communities – or primary groups – people who actually interact
regardless of whether they are counted ex: population of a village,
size of a family, or size of a school
Artificial communities – or statistical groups – lump together people
who have no relationship other than the shared characteristic that
determined the count. Ex; age groups, income classes
Sometimes the distinction between artificial and natural communities
is fuzzy
Because these groups are created, counting is an essential instrument
of political mobilization
To count is the promise of Conflict Resolution through arithmetic. The
common wisdom among negotiators is that irreconcilable demands can be
handled by breaking them up into smaller components and trading the parts
off against each other. Ex: like pregnancy in the abortion debate
Once a phenomenon has been converted into quantifiable units, it can
be added, multiplied, divided, or subtracted, even though operations
have little meaning in reality
Numbers force a common denominator where there is none.
Why Counting is Political
1. Counting requires decisions about categorizing, about what (or whom)
to include and exclude
2. Measuring any phenomenon implicitly creates norms about how much is
too little, too much, or just right
3. Numbers can be ambiguous, and so leave room for political struggles to
control their interpretation
4. Numbers are used to tell stories such as stories of decline
5. Numbers can create the illusion that a very complex and ambiguous
phenomenon is simple, countable and precisely defined
6. Numbers can create political communities out of people who share some
trait that can be counted
7. Counting can aid negotiation and compromise, by making intangible
qualities seem divisible
8. Numbers, by seeming to be so precise, help bolster the authority of
those who count
Making Numbers in the Polis
Numbers in politics are measures of human activities, by human beings, and
intended to influence human behavior. They are subject to conscious and
unconscious manipulation by the people being measured, the people making
the measurements, and the people who will interpret and uses the measures
made by others.
Numerical Strategies in Problem Definition
1. People react to being counted or measured, and try to "look good"
on the measure
2. The process of counting something makes people notice it more, and
record keeping stimulates reporting
3. Counting can be used to stimulate public demands for change
4. When the measurement is explicitly used to evaluate performance,
the people being evaluated try to manipulate their "scores"
5. The power to measure is the power to control. Measures have a lot
of discretion in their choice of what and how to measure
6. Measuring creates alliances between the measurers and the measured
7. Numbers don't speak for themselves, and people try to control how
others will interpret numbers.
Numbers are always descriptions of the world, and as descriptions, they are
no more real than the visions of poems or paintings. Their vision of
experience may correspond more or less with popular visions, just as a
realist, impressionist, and abstract expressionist paintings correspond
more or less with common visions. Numbers are real as artifacts. But the
dominance of numbers as a mode of describing society in public policy
discussions is only recent, and perhaps temporary, phenomenon in cultural
history – not the result of some underlying reality of numbers.
Chapter 8: Causes
This chapter focuses on the use of causes of problems that call for a
policy to be enacted. However, one of the difficult things to do is pin-
point an exact cause.
The author states that the purpose of policy should be the addressing of a
problem once a cause has been determined. While she states that causes can
be used to bring about some justice for the parties wronged, it can also be
used to shape alliances and assign responsibility.
Causal Stories as Problem Definition
There are two sides to the world, in terms of causes.
1. Natural world: this is where the undirected, the random, and the
accidental occur
2. Social world: intent, control of the situation, and influence are the
causes. There is a specified, calculated direction
She then goes on to define 4 causal theories relating consequences and
actions
1. Accidental causes: these are the product of a roll of the dice and
are part of the natural world of causes
2. Intentional causes: the exact opposite of accidental causes, here,
there is a direct assignment of responsibility.
a. Rational actions result from intentional causes with a good
outcome; the achievement of a specific, positive goal
b. Bad intentional causes are planned outcomes that result in
people being wronged and the perpetrators
i. Conspiracies run in this category
1. Example used by the author: Tobacco Industry
3. Unintended consequences: the unforeseen product of an action
a. Example: Minimum wage laws
b. Unintended consequences can also be the result of negligence
4. Mechanical causes: caused through human means by objects or people
with the inability to exercise discretion
a. Examples: Machines that malfunction, people tied to regulations
and "just doing my job"
In addition to these, the author suggests three more perspectives to
address causes.
1. Complex System: the accused can blame the cause of malfunction on a
system that is so complex and is, at times, unmanageable. It is hard
to anticipate every problem.
a. This makes blame harder to assign
2. Institutional System: problems are caused by strong institutions that
collude with each other for mutual benefit.
a. Example: Branches of the military getting a part of defense
spending
3. Historical: two sides receive responsibility
a. The powerful use their clout to stop needed policy that
addresses a problem they are responsible for
b. The powerless, convinced of their powerlessness, do nothing to
combat the powerful, but accept the status quo
In the end, the actors trying to solve the problem are prone to define
"the" cause, rather than look at the problem as a result of multiple causes
with plenty of blame to go around.
Making Causes in the Polis
This section of the chapter is concerned with strategies used to assign
blame
Preference of blame
1. Best is to blame nature
2. Second best is to blame someone else, but that person or group could
fight back
3. Third alternative is to show ignorance of the problem
4. Least best alternative: admit the problem was intentional
The author defines the following strategies when it comes to assigning
blame
1. There is a conspiracy that secretly produced the action.
a. Example: Nader and complaints that manufacturers were making
inferior products to induce greater consumption
2. Teleological strategy
a. Assuming the unfavorable effects of the action taken were the
intended effects of the actor
i. Effective strategy, if true, for a call to change
3. Risk as a factor implicating blame
a. Calculated risk: a company knowing there is a possibility for
unfavorable consequences, but uses the idea of calculated risks
to cover up the outcome
i. Allows for the toleration of harm by businesses as well as
regulatory agencies
b. Manipulation of risk: mainly applied to civil rights litigation
i. Allows for the determination of discrimination if the
perceived risk of hiring one person is higher for that
group as opposed to a random group of people or another
specific group
4. Complex Cause
a. Allows the accused to shift blame to complexity (related to the
complex system)
Given this, acceptance of the cause will be determined by the public that
is made aware of it. If the cause is in line with public values and makes
a compelling case, especially in the legal and scientific communities,
there is a good chance it will be accepted. If the cause goes against
public values or is restricted in its ability to be expressed, then there
is a lesser likelihood of acceptance.
Using Causes in the Polis
If they are successfully accepted by the polis, causal theories can:
1. Challenge or protect existing attitudes and institutions
2. Assign blame
a. Blame is still hard to define, given its complexities
i. Ex. Drunk drivers and who is responsible (driver,
manufacturer of car or alcohol, bartenders)
3. Create a reputation of a "fixer" of problems
4. Can shift or create alliances organized in common
Causes can be hard to define, but if they are convincing enough and stand
the test of public scrutiny, they can be used, not only solve their
problems, but as strategies for those forming the policy.
Stone 9
1. What are interests?
a. Interests are the "sides" in politics.
2. What's the problem?
a. There is a difference between real interests (problems and needs
people have) and political demands (what people ask from
government).
3. What makes up the problem?
a. Interests can be viewed from an individual level (i.e., what do I
need to survive, what do I need from the government)
b. Interests can be viewed on a class level
c. Interests can be viewed on a group level
4. Representation is the process by which interests are defined and
activated in politics, and has a dual quality: representatives give
expression to an interest by portraying an issue and they also speak for
people in policy debates.
5. Thus, interests derive from these two types of representation.
6. Mobilization: the process by which effects and experiences are converted
into organized efforts to bring about change. Thus, what kind of
interests will mobilize? Those who can offer selective benefits in order
to avoid the free-rider problem.
a. Additionally, the substance of an issue can determine whether and
how organizations get involved in promoting and expanding the
interests. In a game theoretic model, concentrated issues (spread
over a small number of people) versus concentrated issues are
likely to result in stalemates or alternating victories for each
side; diffused (spread over a large number of people) versus
diffused programs will likely spread gradually. Concentrated
interests will likely defeat diffuses interest (better
organizational resources) The point is that the distribution of
costs and benefits in any program determines the type of political
contest it will undergo. But, politics shapes the way problems and
policy issues are perceived in the first place.
7. Groups often try to define issues so as to make a concentrated interest
appear general in an effort to gain broader appeal; and economic issues
are framed into social issues.
a. Narrow interests broadened their efforts and took out the Clinton
Health Care Reform Act.
8. Summary: problems are defined in politics in an effort to accomplish
political goals, to mobilize support for one side in a conflict. To
define an issue is to make an assertion about what is at stake and who is
affected, and therefore, to define interests and the constitution of
alliances. Thus, the definition of any policy problem must also define
interested parties and stakes.
Policy Paradox: Chapter 9 – Interests
Interest is considered "the sides in politics," the group that benefits
or are affected by an issue.
It can also be described as "the active side of effects," where
"effects," as described by policy analysts, are enduring consequences of
actions that exist whether we're aware of them or not.
"Effects" are not important in the political arena until they become
demands; therefore it's important to know how, when, and why "effects"
transitions to political interests.
One debate spearheaded by political scientists during the 1950s and 1960s
was whether people affected by an issue automatically transition from a
passive stance into an active stance.
One important challenge to the notion of automatic transition is that
people can be mistaken about their interest, whether objectively or
subjectively.
o Objective interests are those effects that actually impinge on people
whether they're aware of it or not (having an interest).
o Subjective interests are those things that people believe affect them
(taking an interest).
Representation is the process by which interests are defined and
activated in politics and has a dual quality: representatives give
expression to an issue; and representatives speak for people,
articulating their wishes in policy debates
Mobilization is the process by which effects and experiences are
converted into organized efforts to bring about change.
o The "free-rider" problem is seen as a major obstacle to interest
mobilization. Individuals have little or no incentive to join groups
and work for a collective good. Since they receive the benefit if
others work for it and succeed in obtaining it - - also known as the
logic of collective action theory.
Three reasons why the logic of collective action does not always obtain
in the polis:
1. The logic's prediction is betrayed by reality. People do not exist in
polis as autonomous, isolated atoms.
2. Collective efforts tend to follow the laws of passion rather than the
laws of matter. The costs of collective action (i.e. time and effort)
are its benefits.
3. The importance of symbols and ambiguity. Every political goal can be
portrayed both as a good to be obtained and a bad to be avoided.
People respond differently to bads and goods.
John Q. Wilson's distribution-of-effect theory is where the interest of
small minorities intensely affected by something will dominate the
interests of large majorities only incidentally affected by something.
Making a particular interest appear to be in the interest of the general
public is a classical political strategy (i.e. "What's good for General
Motors is good for the Country").
Problems are defined in politics in an effort to accomplish political
goals, to mobilize support for one side in a conflict. To define an issue
is to make an assertion about what is at stake and who is affected, and
therefore, to define interests and the constitution of alliances. Thus,
the definition of any policy problem must also define interested parties
and stakes, how the role of bully and underdog is allocated, and how a
different definition would change power relations.
Stone Chapter 10
Stone prefaces the chapter with a quote from:
President Warren G. Harding
"I listen to one side and they seem right, and then I talk to the
other side, and they seem just as right and there I am where I
started…"
decisions may be made by habit, social custom, impulse, intuition,
consensus, delegation, bargaining, mediation, or even flipping a coin.
They may be made a multitude of various ways, but more than often
contemporary policy analysts do not resort to simply just flipping
a coin.
Rather, they focus on rational methods of decision making.
The Concept of Rational Decision Making
A rational decision making model depicts a policy problem as a
choice facing a political actor
An actor is defined as an individual, a firm, an organization, or
any entity capable of making a decision, who must choose a course
of action in order to attain a desired end
This actor then goes through several steps before arriving at a
decision.
o Defining goals
o Imagining alternative means for attaining them
o Evaluating consequences of taking each course of action
o Choosing the alternative most likely to attain the goal
In regards to the rational decision making process, there are
variations to this model
o One such variation is the cost-benefit analysis
It consists of totaling all the positive and negative
consequences of an action seeing whether it will lead to
an overall gain or loss
Additionally, this type of model is often measured by
quantity, such as dollars.
o Another common variation is the risk-benefit analysis
This model also totals the positive and negative
consequences much like the cost benefit analysis,
however, the negative also incorporates the measures of
the likelihood of the negative effects as well as its
magnitude. 236
i.e. if a new drug has a 10% chance of killing 100
people, its expected cost would be estimated as 10 lives
which is 10 percent of 100 people.
Making decisions in the Polis
Making decisions in the Polis is similar rational decision making,
but there are slight variations to the formula.
For instance, problems are portrayed as decisions; which allows
actors to control its boundaries
Moreover, another strategy actors employ in the Polis is to make
one's preferred outcome seem like it is the only viable solution.
o Stone terms this strategy as Hobson's choice
o Thomas Hobson was a 17th century liveryman in England who
rented out horses. Rather than giving the customer a choice,
he opted to give them the horse that was closest to the door.
o Define:liveryman – an individual who works in a stable
o One example of a Hobson's choice would be in Federalist 10
In where Madison offers two possible solutions in
order to solve the problem of factions
See top of pg 247 for quote:
Another variation to the decision making formula is to utilize what
Stone calls as issue framing
o A frame is a boundary that forces us to look at a particular
part of the problem while simultaneously neglecting all other
aspects of it
o Using this technique allows actors to frame a policy problem
and create a Hobson's choice
In addition to the previously mentioned techniques, the Polis Model
also relies on the following tenets which further distinguish
itself from a traditional rational-analytic model
o State goals ambiguously and attempt to keep some goals secret
o Be prepared to shift goals and redefine goals as the
political situation dictates
o Keep undesirable alternatives off the agenda by not
mentioning them
o Make the preferred alternative appear to be the only feasible
solution
o Focus on one part of the causal chain and ignore others that
would require politically difficult or costly policy actions
o Use rhetorical devices to blend alternatives, don't appear to
make a clear decision that may lead to strong opposition
o Select from the infinite range of consequences only those
whose costs and benefits will make your preferred course of
action look "best"
o Choose the course of action that hurts powerful constituents
the least, but portray the decision as the maximization of
social good for broad public appeal
Policy Paradox Ch.11
Inducements-
Carrot and stick-The idea behind inducements is that knowledge of a
threatened penalty of promised rewind motivates people to act differently.
Incentives or Deterrence-
An incentive makes it easier or more rewarding to make someone do something
(tax credit) Deterrence makes it harder or more costly for them to act:
(criminal justice system, income)
Most favored nation status is given by the U.S. Government in exchange for
political cooperation (threat of removing the status looms).
A problem exists when there is a divergence between private interests and
public interests, or when individuals benefit (or lose) from doing
something that harms (or helps) the community.
The inducement system has three parts-
The inducement giver
The inducement receiver
The inducement itself
These all work together under the premise that people are rational by
nature and will make the right decisions based on a calculated thought
process. Pg 267, How the carrot and stick inducement can be wrong.
Deterrence-
EPA, School Principle, Judge, IRS single actor acting on behalf of a much
larger entity
Negative inducements can cause a climate of conflict and divide two parties
(tariffs, fines, embargos Positive inducements create alliances and
goodwill (productivity bonuses, trade subsidies, foreign ?
Chapter 11
Positive Inducements (Incentives) and Negative Inducements (Deterrents)
An incentive makes it easier or more rewarding to make someone do
something (tax credit) Deterrence makes it harder or more costly for
them to act: (criminal justice system, income)
Most favored nation status is given by the U.S. Government in exchange
for political cooperation (threat of removing the status looms).
A problem exists when there is a divergence between private interests
and public interests, or when individuals benefit (or lose) from doing
something that harms (or helps) the community.
The idea behind inducements is that people act differently than they
might otherwise choose.
The theory of inducements rests on a utilitarian model of human
behavior. The assumptions include:
1. People are adaptable – they have control over their own behavior
, so that confronted with new knowledge of a penalty or reward,
they can change their calculus and their behavior.
Problem – loyalty – people don't change because they hang
on to old habits, choices, and actions.
2. The givers and receivers are unitary actors – givers must be
able to implement a consistent policy of rewarding or penalizing
behavior, and a target must be capable of making calculations
and taking a single course of action.
3. The receiver has some orientation toward the future –
Inducements can only work to the extent that the target cares
about the costs and rewards to be faced in the future and is
willing to modify current behavior.
Inducements far in the future have less impact than the
ones that occur immediately.
4. Of purposeful notions of cause
Inducements applied when the cause of a problem is
understood as intentional
Intended to alter the consequences to the target of
taking the action in question – such as criminal
penalties on burglary.
Inducements applied when the cause is understood to be
inadvertent – unforeseeable side effects or careless
mistakes.
Designed to make formerly invisible consequences
visible to the target – such as taxes on industrial
pollution or consumer rebates for plastic bottles.
These all work together under the premise that people are rational by
nature and will make the right decisions based on a calculated thought
process.
The inducement system has three parts:
o The inducement giver.
o The inducement receiver (the target).
o The inducement itself.
Using inducements as a policy instrument does not require us to
understand the causes of the problem or the reasons why people do what
they do.
o Politically much easier to accomplish than finding out the real
problems and really fixing it.
Inducements are determined by the targets expectations – not the
givers.
Positive inducements and negative inducements can foster different
political relationships.
o Positive inducements (wage productivity bonus, foreign aid, or
trade subsidies) can encourage two parties to cooperate.
o Negative inducements (fines, tariffs, and embargoes) create a
climate of conflict and may divide the two parties.
Making inducements in the polis
In the polis, inducements are usually designed by one set of people
(policy analysts, legislators, and regulation writers), applied by
another (executive branch bureaucrats), and received by yet a third
(individuals, firms, and organizations).
Never a direct correspondence between the inducement as proposed by
the designer and as applied by the giver.
o Several elements of the polis make giving out inducements
difficult.
Negative and positive inducements can be divisive.
Imposing penalties and rewards can have very concrete, material costs.
o 3 – Strikes rule.
o Best thesis award.
Sanctions designed may be too drastic that the sanction givers are
extremely loath to impose them.
Inducements may hurt the very thing one is trying to protect.
o Federal government withdrawing funds from states that don't
provide services to their citizens (Medicaid, federal highway
subsidies, public housing), thus depriving the very people they
are trying to help.
The costs of imposing sanctions may become resources for the givers.
o In an embargo imposed to induce some political change, the
sanction giver incurs some loss of its export market as well as
a loss of imports.
The sacrifice increases credibility of it commitment
toward policy change.
The most important reason for slippage between the design of
inducements and the target's response is that people are strategic as
well as adaptive.
o They will try to reap a reward or avoid a penalty without
changing behavior.
Enormous disparities in power and economic resources shape the impact
of the more temporary inducements of day-to-day programs.
o For people who don't control any wealth or productive assets,
the overwhelming incentive is to acquire economic security by
getting and keeping a job.
No system of inducement is self-executing, automatic, or apolitical.
Policy Paradox
Chapter 11- Inducements
The proverbial carrot and the stick- getting other people to chose actions
we desire
Incentives and Deterrence (rewards/punishments)
3 parts to the Inducement System-
Giver
Receiver/Target
Inducement itself
All 3 need to work together for the desired change
Inducement Theory Assumptions (based on utilitarian model)
1) People are rational
2) Givers/receivers are unitary
Instead of one trainer working with one donkey, rather one
trainer with 100 donkies
3) Based on a Purposeful notion of cause
Make visible unforeseen consequences of inadvertent actions
Positive/negative inducements conceptually same, yield different political
relationships
Positive- goodwill, alliance, reciprocity
Negative- division, conflict
In the Polis
Parties to inducement process-
Designers (legislators, regulators)
Implementers (executive bureaucrats)
Receivers
Passage between parties is treacherous for several reasons-
Costs of handing out rewards/punishments
Inducements can have symbolic meanings
For the target, inducements are simply another option
Adaptive measures of the targets
Chapter 12: RULES
This chapter focuses on rules that impose obligations and duties
Policy-making relies heavily on official rules (rules consciously
designed to accomplish social goals)
Policy analysts must also account for unofficial rules and how they
interact with more formal official rules.
Rules derive their power from legitimacy. Legitimacy is rather
obscure and can be considered the political scientist's equivalent of
the economist's invisible hand. Nevertheless, rules work best when
they are perceived as legitimate.
The most important problem in the design of rules is the tension
between precision and flexibility.
Precise rules are said to ensure that like cases will be treated
alike, they insulate people from the whims, prejudices, moods, or
predilections of officials and provide predictability. A down side to
precise rules though is that they cannot be sensitive to some kinds of
individual contextual differences (i.e. different cases will be
treated alike). Precise rules also stifle creative responses to new
situations. [Chart on page 292 explains precise vs. flexible rules]
5 unattainable ideals in rules: Optimum social balance between
discretionary power and control by formal rules; The perfectly precise
rule; The perfectly flexible rule; The neutral rule; The perfectly
enforced rule.
Writing a rule is just the beginning. No rule or set of rules, even
the Constitution, is written once and for all. Rules acquire their
meanings and their effects as they are applied, enforced, challenged
and reversed.
Stone: Chapter 12
Rules are designed to accomplish a social goal.
Policy-makers relies heavily on formal rules, generally referred to as
laws, originating from different platforms.
They can be a result of:
legislative bodies (Statutory laws)
Administrative bodies (regulations)
Courts (common laws)
State or Federal constitutional laws
Rules:
mandate behavior, or confer power onto
private citizens or organization
Public officials or organization
If you want the power of the law behind you, you much follow these rules
which are imposing obligations and duties onto you.
There is another category of rules, the informal rules, which include
social and traditional customs, moral rules and principles, and internal
bylaws of private organizations.
Informal rules often guide the formation of formal rules and the
interpretation along with the enforcement of the formal rules.
The author feels that if policy analysis is not accounting for the
interaction between these two types of rules, then a needed component is
missing. I strongly agree, but there are two points I would expand on,
first, if the design of a policy are using "informal rules", from a source
with strong internal beliefs, the process will be slanted toward an
isolated group. Secondly, the majority of people
Rules, informal or formal, need to be perceived as legitimate to function.
The context in which a rule is applied to, can mean whether or not the rule
was broken.
For an example, it is against formal and informal rules to kill someone,
but if it is in self-defense, or an accident which is not your fault, or
you are in the military directed to act against an enemy, it is acceptable
behavior.
The classification of an action can result in the application or non-
application the rule, this creates a division of society by including or
excluding, and uniting or dividing people, making alliances between people
who benefit or are caused harm by a rule. This grouping occurs naturally
as the balance of policy analysis is based on a medium which does not
totally benefit one people over another.
(An example is the water grab issue, once the rule on the acquisition of
water rights is applied, it divides the people of Nevada into two groups,
the farmers and others who are harmed by this action, and the city dwellers
which gain some benefit.)
The legitimacy of rules comes from how the context and classification
follow informal rules of society. The creation of an acceptable rule is
rooted in the tension between precision and flexibility of a rule.
Precision is the ability to describe action and context without ambiguity.
There are three foundations which are required for precision:
Like cases will be treated alike, demonstrating equality and fairness to
all. The author points out that alike is a qualitative judgment, open
to interpretation.
Insulates people from whims, prejudices, moods, and pre-di-lection of
officials. We are to be governed and punished by laws, not by an
individual's will
Provide a degree of predictability, we know what behavior is breaking the
rules, and we know the punishment applied to that infraction.
Though precision provides us protection from injustice, it creates crude
classification, so cases can differ, but the same decision is applied,
thereby creating an injustice by ignoring mitigating circumstances.
Flexible rules, with broad criteria's and room for discretionary thinking
enables adaptation to changing situations, these Vague Rules call for the
use of Tacit Knowledge, which is an intuitive sense of what is right or
true.
Vague rules can convey a hard line determination to solve an issue to the
community, and at the same time give flexibility of the level of
enforcement. It is noted that depending on which end of the flexibility
you are on, can make this a good or bad feature of vagueness.
Precision in rules versus discretion dilemma:
Each has their virtues, and the belief is that one can perceive if
either one is being allied properly. The assumption is that only necessary
discretion is applied to the rules in society, and unnecessary discretion
is eliminated. In the case of judges' decision, if the society feels
strongly about a certain application of the law, the discretion can be
limited or removes. An example is the 3 strikes, and you're out, rule.
The author feels there is not an optimal balance between precision and
discretionary, only attempts that placate our need to be just, avoiding the
impossibility of putting society values in stone. Just as the ideal
balance is unattainable, so is the ideal precise rule. The thought of
defining a rule to have all the possibilities covers is not realistic.
Having the perfect flexible rule would create a framework so vague;
it would present the polar opposite to the three foundations of precision.
All cases differ, unconstrained subjectivity, and little predictability of
consequences. Therefore the author states that the balance is never
static, movement is necessary to convey changes in society and the informal
rules.
Static rules, over time, become more beneficial to those who learn to
manipulate them for their benefit. The perfectly enforce rule ignores the
circumstances. Even the most noble among us are victims of circumstances.
Rules are in a constant flux between precision and vagueness, between
centralization and discretion, with public and private agendas' trying to
define it to their benefit. New rules are generally written vaguely,
depending on the informal rules in society to fine tune their meaning and
enforcement.
The author interprets the effect of the Constitution as a reaction to
tyranny, creating a pre-crisis management system which doesn't address the
feasibility.
In democracy, the politician is always conscious of his reelection,
the ways to avoid conflict is to Shun statutes which harm your constituents
such as
1. Constituency services (Fighting red tape and provide helpful
information)
2. Logrolling (getting job and money into one's district, by
supporting similar programs in other districts.)
3. By supporting feel-good policies, i.e. street naming
But when there is a need to show support for legislation which may be
controversial to some, ambiguity is a means to reflect opposition directed
at the politician. There is a pressure on rules created from the potential
for disobedient, this pressures is called perverse incentives. This means
there is a trade-off between objectives, but the rule rewards or penalizes
only one of them. A local example is the way the water rights doctrine is
written in the SW and how the agriculture industry and farming community
has responded over history, The law says the first to use it for a
beneficial propose has complete rights to the water, but if you don't use
any portion of the claim, you lose it and someone else can claim it. So it
is common practice to flood fields, without any conservation practices, and
effectively preserving water for future use by wasting it today. The
author says that, though one might think it is poorly designed rules
causing perverse incentives, really anytime you have a rule curbing an
activity, which is profitable or enjoyable, people will find ways to
manipulate them to their benefit.
The discretionary application of the rule of thumb enforcement of law
causes the bending of formal rules, similar to speeding at 65 in a 60, most
patrolman will not ticket you, or knowing what amount you can fudge on and
not cause an audit on your income tax return, this is accepted practice in
our society, but the more common this practice becomes, the greater
breakdown in the effectiveness of the law..
In the Polis, the myth of perfectly precise, neutral, and enforced
rules are essential to the legitimacy of laws, but the ability for
enforcers to treat like rule breakers alike is an impossibility as, not
only do enforcers application of laws very, but also the informal rule
varies from town to town, and state to state, and in liberal political
theory, these myths are necessary to justify why one should give up their
autonomy.
Fairness, to our society would be likes are treated alike, and each
person should get his or her due, to accomplish this each mitigating
circumstances must be considers when applying the formal law, so the
informal rule applied to vague formal rules, gives the greater flexibility
in reaching an acceptable decision in society and keeping the myth of
perfectly precise, neutral, and enforced rules alive.
Policy Paradox
Chapter 13 Summary
I. The Two Faces of Persuasion
a. Reason and Informed Decision
i. Rational Ideal
ii. Individual Behavior as rational decision
iii. Esteems reason, denigrates impulse
b. Reason as basis for government
i. Groups emulate individual rational deliberation
ii. People are educated, not coerced
iii. Information and knowledge can resolve conflict
1. Rational persuasion and voluntary behavior change
a. Stop littering and smoking, use seat belts and
drive safely
c. Persuasion as propaganda and indoctrination
i. Indoctrination
1. Intentionally manipulative
2. Robs people of their capacity to think independently
3. Preceptoral system
a. Individual is puppet
"Information "Propaganda "
"Enlightens "Benights "
"Liberates "Enslaves "
"Education "Brainwashing "
"Learning "Compliance "
4. Boundary between is blurry
II. Making Facts in the Polis
a. Rational Ideal
i. Neutral Facts
1. Facts do not exist independent of interpretive ideas
2. Act of naming is classification, a political act
a. Terrorism vs Police action
b. Nuclear Power Industry
"Stand-ins/temporary "Jumpers/sponges "
"employees " "
"Part-time "Meat market/dying for a"
"vocations/careers "living "
3. Distinguishing information from propaganda
a. Facts are produced in social processes
i. Legislatures conduct hearings
1. Who testifies, how much time.
4. Scientific Facts
a. Randomized Control Test (RCT)
i. Mushy Results
1. Must choose between basic
definitions and ways of counting
2. Human influence
5. Rational Ideal Overstates purity of information
b. Indoctrination in liberal democratic polis
i. Dominant elites control peoples beliefs and knowledge
1. Schools
a. Hidden Curriculum
2. Business
3. Mass Media
4. Government Social Service Organizations
5. Withholding Information
a. Secrecy
Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Chapter 13: Facts
We have already discussed two mechanisms for changing people's behavior:
chapter 11 dealt with creating incentives and penalties and chapter 12 with
mandating rules. Chapter 13, titled "Facts," deals with persuasion
strategies, which change people's behavior by influencing their minds and
their perceptions of the world, not by offering the carrot and stick or
permissions and prohibitions.
The Two Faces of Persuasion
The first is reasoned and informed decision – the rational ideal. The
second is propaganda and indoctrination.
Persuasion in the Rational Ideal Model (the good face that we hope sustains
democracy)
- In this model, individual behavior is rational. People make goals,
get information about ways to achieve those goals, evaluate those
alternatives, and choose the best ones.
- The rational ideal offers reason as the basis for government. This
means that groups, organizations, and societies go through the same
rational process as individuals when making decisions.
- Information and knowledge can resolve conflicts, and force is
replaced by discussion.
- An example from a policy analysis textbook:
Policy disagreements would lessen – and perhaps vanish – if we could
predict with certainty the safety consequences of the breeder reactor,
or the costs of annual upkeep of clay courts, or whether a special
shuttle bus for the elderly would be heavily used. (quoted from Stone
306-7)
- This depends on "facts" being impartial and accurate and on everyone
having similar rational goals.
Persuasion as Propaganda and Indoctrination (the bad face that many
political scientists feel is only in totalitarian political systems)
- It has two elements distinguishing it from the rational ideal.
- First, it is intentionally manipulative.
- Second, it robs people of their capacity to think independently by,
for example, appealing to fears and insecurity.
Different language for the two models:
Rational ideal Preceptoral System
information propaganda
enlightens and liberates benights and enslaves
educations brainwashing
learning compliance
Which vision is correct? The boundary between the two is blurry.
Making Facts in the Polis
If you look at both versions, you will see that neither version can exist
in pure form. Persuasion is somewhere in the middle.
Facts in the Rational Ideal Model
- It assumes the existence of neutral facts, but facts do not exist
independent of interpretive lenses. Even naming an object, action or
policy is a political act (terrorism vs. security measures).
- The problem goes beyond naming. Most of our knowledge comes from
social knowledge, but the institutions charged with finding facts make
choices in developing the information (e.g., what kind of data to
collect), and they can have a private agenda.
- Even scientific facts are not always perfectly accurate or unbiased
(placebo example).
- The rational ideal overstates the purity of information and
people's rationality, as we are influenced by more than just facts
(Kennedy vs. Nixon example).
Indoctrination in Liberal Democratic Polis?
- Stone rejects the idea that a totalitarian government is a necessary
condition for indoctrinations. Instead, she describes it as a
relationship in which dominant elites control people's beliefs and
knowledge in a manipulative and self-interested way.
- Schools have a hidden curriculum to teach obedience, authority,
etc.
- Businesses work to indoctrinate citizens to accept its privileged
position.
- The mass media
- Street-level bureaucrats (e.g., voting registrars, teachers, police,
judges) can also effect client behavior, such as this Texas judge to a
bilingual Hispanic mother:
You're abusing the child and you're relegating her to the position of
housemaid. Now get this straight. You start speaking English to this
child because if she doesn't do good in school, then I can remove her
because it's not in her best interest to be ignorant. (quoted from
Stone 318)
- I disagree with the idea that communist regimes, with their effort
to make a new man have served as the archetype of political
indoctrination for American social scientists. Stone uses a quote
dealing with practicing virtues in order to be virtuous through
habitutation (Stone 319). This is Aristotelian, not Marxist.
- Finally, indoctrination can happen through withholding information.
Conclusion
The rational ideal is incorrect because it assumes facts are accurate and
impartial. The preceptoral model is incorrect because it assumes
indoctrination only happens in totalitarian states, but it also happens in
liberal democracies. Again, persuasion lies between the two.
Stone Chapter 14
Rights
The chapter on rights is within the section of the book termed "Solutions"
in the Policy Paradox. Rights are frequently decided in litigation even
though the inciting event is one regarding standards of behavior and
whether a behavior is reasonable. The chapter presents Rights through two
traditions: Positive and Normative
"Positive Rights "Normative Rights "
"A right is a claim backed by "A right is whatever people in a given "
"the power of the state "society ought to be able to do, have, or "
" "expect from fellow citizens and the "
" "government (but is without power of "
" "enforcement) "
"Rights derive from the power of"Rights derive from some source other than "
"the government "power, such as morality, religion, "
" "rationality, or natural law "
"People can have rights only to "People can have rights to things they don't"
"those things they claim and for"actively claim, and for which the state "
"which the state backs them up. "would not back them up. "
How Positive rights work:
1. Call for a right through legal mechanism using types of rights
"Type "Definition "Subset "Example "
"Procedural "Process by which " "Right to Work "
"Right "important decisions " "Anti-discrimin"
" "must be made. Does " "ation "
" "not define outcome, " "Fair hearing "
" "only process. " "Fair housing "
" " " "Equal "
" " " "education "
"Substantive "Specific action and "Negative- right to "Free speech "
"Right "entitlement people "be free of "Right to vote "
" "may claim "restraint, can not "Right to "
" " "be prevented from "assemble "
" " "doing something " "
" " " " "
" " "Positive- an "Health Care "
" " "entitlement to have"Education "
" " "or receive "Employment "
" " "something, holder " "
" " "of service is " "
" " "responsible for " "
" " "provision of " "
" " "necessity. " "
2. Utilize a mechanism to assert rights.
"Type "Entity "Form "
"Formal Statement of the "Legislatures "Statutory Law-U.S. or State"
"right must be in place or " " "
"new legislation must be "Constitutions "U.S. or State level "
"enacted " " "
" "Agencies "Administrative law- Rules "
" " "of authoritative agency "
" " " "
" "Courts "Common law- Past decisions "
" " "at any level of the court "
" " "system "
"Grievance Process is the "Litigation "Courts "
"system to determine " " "
"contested rights "Adjudication "Administrative Agencies "
"Enforcement Process is a "(Initiated by " "
"remedy to mandate the "contestant) "Provided by government "
"relationship between two "Adjudication " "
"contesting parties " "Mostly compliant by citizen"
" "Compliance "report of violations "
How Normative Rights work: Normative Rights are absent of criminal code but
are typically the basis for elevating a standard of behavior to
consideration of a policy change. Tort law given as example of standard
for policy change for normative rights.
Tort law uses normative vision of three standards to deliberate resolution
of dispute:
1. Standard of Decency
2. Public Interest
3. Civilization of Society
Political basis of rights:
1. Competing interest in a single contest
2. Both parties may be repeat players in court- low stakes in outcome
3. Both parties may be one-shotters- significant event in their lives
4. Probably are repeat player and one-shotter- not equal before the law
Participants in contest utilize strategic maneuvers:
1. Test cases are common
2. Characteristic of plaintiff are specific
Good public image
Admirable qualities
Have a situation that results in broad sympathy
Be able to withstand the process to change the rules
3. Class action to group of persons that have a similar situation that
impacted each individual
Stack plaintiffs
Congregate large number to sway judge
Ticket balancing- multiple interest groups of persons involved
The most distinguishing feature of rights as a policy instrument is that
they provide occasions for dramatic rituals that reaffirm or redefine
society's internal rules.
Rights moralize about what behavior is good and bad and dramatize societal
values through contests between real people on a public stage.
Rights Issue as defined by components of Policy Paradox by Deborah Stone:
Chapter 14
Issue: Education
Initial Standard defined in the Declaration of Independence- A normative
term used "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness." Supporting standard defined in the Constitution, a Formal
Statement, appended Bill of Rights, and the creation of a judicial system:
Positive Rights.
Plessy 1896 called for equal education for black children: a procedural
right. Met the positive rights standard but was interpreted through
societal interest (normative rights) measure. Finding was for equal but
separate facilities for education of black children. Mr. Plessy was a one-
shotter participant against a repeat player- unequal before the law.
Brown v. Board 1954 called for desegregation of public schools. Normative
conditions, the civilization of society, had finally changed enough for the
Supreme Court to overturn the previous ruling from 1896. This provided the
Formal Statement of rights needed for change. Attitudes and procedures
failed to change. Token integration occurred, this nullified the Grievance
process to challenge the failure, and an Enforcement process was absent to
assist in equal access to education: a Positive substantive right.
1957- National Guard is mobilized in Arkansas for school desegregation.
Grievance process enacted and Enforcement process utilized, but only in a
singular event. Citizen reporting still required to engage the grievance
process and enforcement protocol. Federal regulatory sanctions are absent.
1963 James Meredith, an African American adult male, obtained a federal
order citing the Formal statement of a Procedural Right to allow entrance
into a segregated university. The governor and courts of Mississippi
defied the order. The president federalized and dispatched the Mississippi
National Guard and provided Federal Marshals to protect Mr. Meredith,
enacting an Enforcement Process. Mr. Meredith was a 9 year Air Force
veteran, and had served in the war. His was a test case, selected because
he had the positive characteristics desired of a plaintiff in the strategic
maneuver of the NAACP.
The rest of the story…
1963 Dr. Martin Luther King speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington
D.C. culminating the March on Washington and urging the President to enact
a Civil Rights Act to end desegregation and other forms of discrimination.
His speech to 200,000 people contained the words of the Declaration of
Independence.
1964 Civil Rights Act passed after marches, demonstrations, and "class
action" strategies employed, utilizing a negative substantive right. This
Act provided further desegregation enforcement by withholding federal funds
from school districts that did not integrate.
1969 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the order of desegregation of all
schools.
1971 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of busing of
children to areas apart from where they live to achieve integrated school
districts.
Chapter 14 Summary
Rights
Rights as a policy instrument
Resolve policy problems with legal rights
Concepts of Rights in the Polis
Positive Rights Normative Rights
"Right is a claim backed by the "Right is whatever people in "
"power of the state "society ought ot be able to do, "
" "have, or expect from fellow "
" "citizens and the government. "
"Rights derive from the power of "Rights come from some source other"
"government "than power, such as morality, "
" "religion, rationality, or natural "
" "law. "
"People can have rights only to "People can have rights to things "
"those thins they claim and for "they don't actively claim, and for"
"which the state backs them up. "which that state would not back "
" "them up "
An example of normative rights: wives have a right not to be beaten
by their husbands, even though many never seek help and much wife
beating is ignored by law enforcement agencies. In the positive
tradition, wives have a right to be free of beating only if, when they
protest beatings, the state takes their side and restrains the
husbands.
Rights as Policy Instruments
Types of Rights
"Procedural Right "Defines a process by which "
"An example: Employers would be "decisions must be made "
"entitled to conclude that all " "
"blind people are incapable of " "
"operating a machine. They would " "
"have to find out what are the " "
"capabilities of each applicant. " "
"Substantive Right "Defines specific actions or "
" "entitlements people may claim "
"Negative Substantive Right "Right to be free of restraint; "
"First Amendment freedoms are "says no one can prevent you from "
"examples of this "doing something "
"Positive Substantive Right "Entitlement to have or receive "
"The ADA of 1990: requires "something; specifies obligations "
"employers to redesign tasks, "of someone to provide whatever the"
"equipment etc. to accommodate "entitlement is "
"people with disabilities. " "
Sources of Rights
"Legislatures "Statutes passed by a legislative "
" "body at any level (federal, state,"
" "local) "
"Constitutions "Constitutions of the US or any of "
" "the states "
"Administrative agencies "Rules and regulations proclaim "
" "under agency authority "
"Courts "Past decisions and precedents of "
" "judges at any level of the court "
" "system "
Mechanisms of Rights
"Formal statement "Given in one of the four sources "
" "above "
"Grievance Process "Adjudication between two or more "
" "parties to a conflict by a neutral"
" "third party (judge) "
"Enforcement Process "Begins with people who believe "
"Case of James Meredith: black man"their rights have been violated, "
"in 1963 got a federal court order "or by corporations. "
"which allowed him to enroll at the" "
"University of Mississippi. The "Adjudication process done by the "
"Governor said he would defy the "government "
"order and personally blocked " "
"Meredith's way. Pres. Kennedy "Following the courts' ruling rest "
"federalized the Miss National "on the peoples voluntary "
"Guard to protect Meredith while he"cooperation. "
"enrolled and had federal marshalls" "
"protect him until he graduated. " "
Rights in the Polis
"Rationality Model "Polis Model "
"People rely on official statements"People get beliefs and ideas about"
"of rights found in constitutions, "rights from moral philosophy, "
"statutes or court opinion, etc. "media, and other people. "
"Statements of rights are clear, "Statements of rights are never "
"and judges merely apply formal "clear; judges must interpret "
"rules to facts of the case, using "formal rules and they use norm and"
"logic and reason "beliefs as well as logic and "
" "reason "
"Judges are not influenced by power"Judges are influenced by their own"
"of disputants, money, or anything "experiences, beliefs about "
"except reason and facts. "justice, and understandings of "
" "society. "
"All citizens have equal access to "Parties who are repeat players in "
"the courts to claim their rights; "courts have more power than those "
"identity of litigants does not "who use courts once or "
"influence outcome of litigation "sporadically. Money helps "
" "Interest groups and organizations "
" "deliberately structure and manage "
" "disputes to increase their chances"
" "of winning "
"Courts rely on voluntary "Judges use rhetoric to increase "
"compliance; in extraordinary "voluntary compliance with their "
"conditions, they can call on "decisions. Legislative and "
"legislative and executive branches"executive branches get involved "
"to help enforce contested "often, both to enforce court "
"decisions "decisions and overrule judges. "
Rights are a way of governing relationships and coordinating
individual behavior to
achieve collective purposes.
The most important/distinctive feature of rights: they provide/offer
the opportunity to reaffirm or redefine society's internal rules and
its categories of membership
Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone
Summary of Chapter 15 – Powers
Chapter 15 is about policy solutions that involve modifying decision making
processes, what Stone terms constitutional engineering and restructuring
authority.
Constitutional engineering is a way of changing who makes the decisions and
who controls a sphere of policy.
Stone states that the processes of defining policy problems and
establishing policy solutions are political exercises that yield differing
problem definitions and highlight the authority structures currently in
place. This translates into two levels of policy analysis:
1. Problem Mechanics
2. Decision Making Structure Mechanics
With these two levels of analysis in mind the author presents three
strategies for constitutional engineering.
Change the membership of the decision making body. Here the author explores
which characteristics are important membership determinants e.g.
demographic and accountability issues.
Change the size of the decision making body. Here the author discusses how
Federalist Paper 10 favored large federations. This began a whole genre of
abstract arguments purporting to show that large units logically led to
better public decisions. Stone then describes the equally strong American
tradition favoring small community based government. Stone finishes with
mentioning the more modern thinking that each policy problem has its own
implicit scale characteristics.
Change the federalism of the decision making body. Stone looks at the
difference between the distributive results of centralized versus
decentralized decision making bodies. Namely, do they consistently benefit
different sets of people. As an example, the author discusses the control
of population growth and the possible effects of control authority resting
with state as opposed to local government. Moving growth control authority
to the highest level increases the possibility that growth will be
distributed evenly across communities. As long as local government retains
authority, they can displace the burdens of growth elsewhere, pushing low
income, minority and large family home seekers into other communities/
Ch. 15
Powers
This chapter covers policy solutions that entail reforming the decision-
making process or what the author calls Constitutional Engineering. This
concept is a way of changing who makes the decisions and who controls the
policy making.
The pattern in America has been to restructure the authority system to
solve policy problems. This only changes the "who" involved not necessarily
the why or what.
When changing authority structure the author suggests examining these two
questions first: Does it make the trains run on time? Does it "work" to
solve the nominal problem?
The definition of the nominal problem is usually the issue. To find the
nominal problem you might need to answer: What is the nature of the
community that is constituted by the type of authority structure uses to
"solve" the problem? Who is given the right to make decisions about the
problem? Whose voice counts, both for choosing leaders and for choosing
policies? Who is subordinated to whom? What kind of internal hierarchy is
created? Who is allied with whom? How does the authority structure create
loyalties and antagonisms among members of the community?
The previous two questions break down as:
1. Problem Mechanics
2. Decision Making Structure Mechanics
The author explains a few ways to deal with each.
Changing the Membership:
First one must understand the qualities and interests of the policy maker
to understand how they will affect the policy. The author looks at
"exclusions" (age, race, sex, etc.) or "vote qualifications" to see how a
particular demographic might have their issues more or less represented.
Descriptive representation: when representatives share important
demographic characteristics with their constituents.
Substantive representation: representatives that share important policy
beliefs and goals with their constituents.
These become important when deciding upon a candidate that may live in a
racially charged neighborhood or a one-policy specific district.
Changing the Size:
The author explains Madison's rational in the Federalist Paper No. 10, on
promoting a large government. He believed smaller communities have less
qualified candidates to choose from and would have to dig deeper to find
them. He also believed it would be more difficult for a "unworthy"
candidate to win over a large constituency. Also, he believed the larger
the community the more likely there would be a variety of parties and
interests. He believed "larger is better" in regards to the republic.
On the other side of the argument the author then gave an example of
someone living in a condominium with 10-20 units as opposed to 100 units
and to see if the group would vote in the best interest of how to spend
your money. The assumed answer is no, a larger group will not be as
concerned about the individual.
The author continues on to give a few more examples for each side of the
argument.
Changing Federalism
This section looks into changing the number of decision-making units from
few to many or many to few.
Decentralization puts the authority in the hands of the people who are
"close to the problems" and "know the lay of the land".
Centralization advocates say that decentralization allows authority in many
small jurisdictions to be dominated by elite, policies that maintain the
status quo, enactment of racial and other prejudices, and little or no
redistribution.
See chart on page 374.
Federalism also requires deciding how the branches of government interact.
Which branches should have authority over others and where the balance of
power should lie.
There are many theories on how to balance centralist and decentralist
arguments. The arguments are usually based upon efficiency, justice, or
public interest. The author believes that the underlying argument for all
of this is changing the power structure and how to split up old alliance,
establish new ones, or place a favored interest in a powerful position. In
the end all of the sides of the arguments come down to politics!
