The Policy-Making Process

Setting the Agenda The most important decision is to decide what to make policy about- that is the policy agenda; “He who decides what politics is about runs the country.” Shared beliefs determine what is legitimate for the government to do (think taxes, environmental control, etc.) Legitimacy determined by Shared political values Custom and tradition Impact of events Changes in views of political elites

Legitimacy Scope of what gov. does is getting larger compared to early 20th century Views on scope of gov. power change with events (war, depression, terrorism, gas prices, etc) Government also increases its agenda when the public at large is not demanding it and there hasn’t been a major event. This is usually due to influence from groups lobbying the government for change/policies

Who Influences Policy? Groups- these can be corporations or unions or unorganized groups (occupy wall street) Concept: Relative deprivation- when people think they should be better off than they are. This leads to calls for change in some way. Institutions- courts, the bureaucracy, the Senate Courts can make decisions that force the other branches to act (desegregation) b/c they set off a chain reaction- they have, therefore, become vehicles for advocates of unpopular groups/causes Bureaucracy- thinks of problems for the gov. to solve rather than react to public Senate- what was once a slow place of debate has now morphed into a policy making machine Media- can put new things on the agenda or get other groups’ agendas publicized

Making a Decision Once you decide what policy is about, then you have to make decisions about it In order to do this the gov. considers the costs and benefits of such decisions Cost is the burden (monetary or not) that some people must bear if the policy is adopted Benefit is the satisfaction (monetary or not) that people enjoy if it is adopted It is here that most politicking is done Perceptions of costs and benefits change over time (i.e. aid to unwed mothers fine a while ago and now not as much accepted)

Costs and Benefits Most people want the gov. to give a lot without them having to pay for it Politicians therefore have a huge incentive to offer programs that benefit people, for which they have little cost Widely distributed cost- taxes Widely distributed benefit- social security Narrowly distributed cost- factory expenditures to reduce pollution, restrictions of freedom of speech of a dissident group Narrowly distributed benefit- subsidies to farmers

Majoritarian Politics: Distributed Benefits and Distributed Costs Examples- social security, defending nation against an attack Majoritarian politics involve appealing to large blocs of voters to find a majority Interest groups not important in majoritarian politics b/c citizens don’t have incentive to join groups that help everybody

Interest Group Politics: Concentrated Benefits, Concentrated costs Examples- Congress passed bill requiring companies to give workers 60 days notice. This generated benefit and support from labor unions but opposition from companies These issues are fought usually between organized interest groups and produces decisions that the public doesn’t really know much about

Client Politics: Concentrated benefits, distributed costs Example- Farmers benefit from gov. subsidies, Gov. regulation of airline industry One group gets benefits and public bears cost (usually unaware that they are doing so) Porkbarrel projects and logrolling happen here

Entrepreneurial Politics; Distributed benefits, concentrated costs Society as a whole will benefit from a policy that imposes costs on some Example- antipollution and safety requirements of car manufacturers, Brady Bill (background checks on people of want to buy guns) System produces policy entrepreneurs – people who will work to get policies passed and give a voice to the unorganized (Ralph Nader- consumer advocate) Entrepreneurial politics more common now

Case Study: Case of Business Regulation/ Majoritarian Politics Not all efforts to regulate business have been bad Anti-trust laws have been the result of majoritarian politics and no one now really opposes the existence of them (Sherman Act – 1890, Federal Trade Commission Act- 1914 No interest groups here because the laws don’t divide society into rival identifiable groups

Case Study: Case of Business Regulation/ Interest Group Politics 1935 labor unions- fought and won- led to Wagner Act, which created the National Labor Relations Board 1947- management fought back 1959 another argument between business and labor All fights were highly politicized OSHA passed later (federal safety guidelines for workplace)

Case Study: Case of Business Regulation /Client Politics Gov. regulates some industries (practice of law, medicine, and taxi drivers, plumbers, dry cleaners, etc.)- usually these are designed to prevent fraud and malpractice but the restrictions mean that entry into those occupations can be artificially high Gov. regulations on some things make the cost higher to consumers (the public) (i.e. when milk dropped in price, the gov. stepped in and milk went up but the public didn’t organize to change it) Gov. subsidizes farming industry but also has regulated airlines and merchant shipping Client politics is harder to conduct unless the public thinks the client is worthy of the benefit they are getting Sometimes regulation can hurt the client in the end (i.e. FCC)

Case Study: Case of Business Regulation /Entrepreneurial Politics During 1960s and 1970s many consumer and environmental protection laws were passed These passed largely because a policy entrepreneur galvanized public opinion to make them pass (these entrepreneurs can be congressmen, bureaucrats, private citizens) Task of policy entrepreneur easier if there is a public scandal or dramatic event that makes people rally to change policy Once the policy entrepreneur has succeeded in getting some regulations passed, he/she will push for more quickly Risk faced by policy entrepreneurs is that their legislative victories can be short lived if the regulatory agencies don’t keep up