The Policy Paradox: Interpreting Goals Through the Market and Polis PA 306 Farley

Reasons for Book 1. Rationality is narrow conception of how humans behave. Paradox and ambiguity are constant. Politics helps us view things from multiple perspectives. 2. Economics is dominant in policy analysis, but very limited. People are individuals, but rather social creatures. 3. No satisfactory models for how policy gets made. Unplanned outcome of everyone acting in self interest? Assembly line? 4. Conventional models ‘worship’ objectivity and determinate rules. We need a model in which “analytical concepts, problem statements, and policy instruments” are political claims themselves.

Rationality project depends on three pillars: model of reasoning rational decision making vs. role for emotions, importance of metaphor, how we see things vs. what they are. Model of society homogenous globules of desire in a market setting, vs. interdependent society, cooperation as well as competition? Oxytocin and dopamine. Model of policy making: production model or struggle over ideas?

Political claims vs. truth claims Are there such things as universal truths?

What is the public interest? Counterpart to private interest in the market Individual interests held in common Things you want for community that might not be in individual interest Goals on which there is consensus. Things that are good for community as community.

Concept of Society The Market The Polis As “the commons” As “civil society” See figure on page 33

How are Goals Determined? Influence Who influences who? When does influence turn into coercion?

Cooperation “Politics involves seeking allies and organizing cooperation in order to compete with opponents.” Stone P.24 “Cooperation is often a more effective form of subordination than coercion. Authority that depends solely on coercion cannot extend very far…” Stone p.25

Information: “Spin”: “Because politics is driven by how people interpret information, much political activity is an effort to control interpretations…” Stone p.28

Passion “The more often an order is issued and obeyed, the stronger the presumption of compliance.” Stone P.31 The affective dimensions of decision-making…

Power Is a phenomena of communities. “Its purpose is always to subordinate individual self-interest to other interests—sometimes to other individuals or group interests, sometimes to the public interest. It operates through influence, cooperation, and loyalty. It is based also on strategic control of information. And finally, it is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the laws of matter.” Stone P.32

Groups are important: People belong to institutions and organizations. Policy making is not only about solving public problems, but about how groups are formed, split, and re-formed to achieve public purposes.

“Public Interest” Informed by Market Perspectives… In market terms, public interest is understood as: “the net result of all individuals pursuing their self-interest… In a market, in short, 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.” Stone P.22

“Shared meanings motivate people to action and meld individual striving into collective action. Ideas are at the center of all political conflict. Policy making, in turn, is a constant struggle over the criteria for classification, the boundaries of categories, and the definition of ideals that guide the way people behave.” Stone P.11

“Policy is a rational attempt to attain objectives.”

Goals… “are often invoked as justifications for a policy, for a government action, or for the government’s not taking action. They are also used as criteria for evaluating public programs; In this way, they functions as standards against which programs are assessed. They are often called values, suggesting a more complex array of considerations rather than a definitive endpoint.” Stone P.37

Equality: Can redefine what is being shared “Same size share for everybody” Can redefine what is being shared The cake or the meal? What counts as income for medicare? For financial aid? Can redefine who is sharing Blocks (e.g. men, women; citizens, non-citizens; minority, non-minority) Ranks (lecturers, VPs; seniority) Are we rewarding the appropriate things? Process vs. outcome Equal probabilities, equal votes, equal opportunity Are markets fair?

Efficiency What is efficiency? Maximizing value from given resources? Who determines value? What happens when we have multiple objectives? Is it an end in itself? Are there trade offs with equity?

Security “Minimum requirements for biological survival.” What are human needs? Are needs satiable? Do we consider relative as well as absolute needs? Individual needs, or relational needs?

Liberty “People should be free to do what they want unless their activity harms other people.” When should liberty be constrained? Harms to individuals Harms to community

These conceptions can be understood as overlapping and competing with each other… One’s assumptions about these goals drive the manner in which policy issues are perceived.