Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making Chapter One Summary

106
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.

Transcript of Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making Chapter One Summary

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 embodythe 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 modelgrossly 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 ultimatelyraises 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 apolitical 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 acommunity. 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 intentionsother 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. Membershipis in some sense the primary political issue, for membershipdefinitions 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 statusas 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 severalcultural communities into a single political community without destroying or sacrificing their identity and integrity.

Membership in a community defines social and economic rightsas 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 createin 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 asstrong 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 regardsto 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 themarket. 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 interestor maximize their self-interest.

Essentially within a market the empty box of public interestis 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. Thereare 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 apoor 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 fearan 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 aremade 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. (Prisonguard 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 switchsuppliers 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 waythat 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 andloyalty, 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, andre-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. Inthe polis, by contrast, information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategically withheld. Correct informationdoes exist, but in the politics, the important thing is whatpeople make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful than facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control such interpretation. (Thinkspin 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 andpolitical 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 nonew 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 canmean (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 aphenomenon 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 toimplement.

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 largeenough 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 cost2. 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-interesta. 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. Acultural 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 atthe concepts of society to contrast political community and the market model.

1. Unit of analysis, or who makes the determinationsa. Under market it is the individual

Unlike the market, which starts with individuals and assumesno 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 motivationThe author said, It’s important to note in regards to publicinterest 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 welfareb. 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. Thereare 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 whatwe 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 preferencesa. From the self-interest individualb. Strong Influence from the community

5. Nature of collective activitya. MM competitionb. 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 actiona. Mm individualsb. Pm groups

Because of the powerful forces of influence, cooperation andloyalty, 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 informationa. accurate, complete, availableb. where polis, tends to be, ambiguous, interpretive,

incomplete, manipulatedIn the ideal market, information is perfect, meaning it is accurate, complete and available to everyone at no cost. Inthe polis, by contrast, information is interpretive, incomplete, and strategically withheld. Correct informationdoes exist, but in the politics, the important thing is whatpeople make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful than facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control such interpretation. (Thinkspin 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 useb. 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 samepath, 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 canmean (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 changea. material exchange and quest to maximize own

welfareb. 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 toimplement.

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, samenessEquity = “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 process2) 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 constraints2) “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 CervasPSC723

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 conflicta. Equity is the goal for all sides, the conflict

comes over how the sides envision the distributionof 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, dependingon one’s point of view.

Equality - uniformity in distributionEquity - distributions regarded as fair, even though they contain both equalities and inequalities

4. In any distribution, there are three important dimensions

a. The recipientsb. The itemc. The process

5. Challenges to distributive conflicta. Who should count as a member of the class of

recipientsb. 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 outweighindividual 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 Equalitya. 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 notneed 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 topeople 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 ParadoxChapter 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 guidehow 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 thegoal of allocative efficiency: Resources always move ina direction that make people better off.

o Every exchange should lead to a situation in whichthe 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 someoneto “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 libraryand 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 achievethe greatest social welfare has led many to the market idea,where voluntary exchanges achieve efficiency through freedomand 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 possibleoutcomes 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 payfor it. As exchanges are done by individuals, efficiency must also be determined subjectively through an individual’sperceived 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 thatno 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 informedindividuals, 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 thisproblem 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 produceefficiency? 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 interactionwith 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, assome have no choice but to work where they can so they can

survive. Other problems, such as contract manipulation withlong-term relationships and unforeseeable long-term consequences inhibit the outcome of efficiency as well.

Individual welfare is influenced by others (being comparableto those around you as well as sympathy towards others), andby 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 removesmotivation 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 NeedWhat is “minimally necessary” for survival.

Relates to specified amounts of food, amounts of weapons fordefense, 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 downwhat 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. Absolute2. 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 gainso An investment for the future

Ex. EducationA 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 fora whole society of unique individual needs

Needs in the PolisWith 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 theirmilitary 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 consumptiona. Action will be used to pursue those needs

2. Neopluralisma. Not all needs will be recognized equally and those

needs accompanied with greater clout will be addressed3. Marxist

a. The few powerful control what the needs of the societyshould be and the majority of society do not know whatthey really need

The Security-Efficiency Trade-offArgument: 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 needfor aid

2. Measurement of productivitya. 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 gaina. 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 belongingissues 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 ouressential 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 minimallynecessary (e.g. the poverty line with regards to income).

1). Needs are difficult to define in objective and countableterms 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 tofind 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 needFixed or quantifiable needs vs. relative to a social standard (e.g. defense policy - where a country will developits 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. educatione.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 unknowne.g. safety measures (food / FDA, environmental, homeland defense)

5). Relational needsRefers 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 productivitye.g. welfare system diminishes motivation by creating a cycle of dependence

2). How we measure productivityA 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 theUS might fail, but there will be growth in other areas – andif 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 ParadoxChapter 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 restrictliberty.

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 LibertyOrder and safety in a society requires rules, laws and policies. Even in a free society these things are necessary to maintain thegreatest extent of freedom possible. Therefore, freedom for society requires the restriction of individual liberties.

Attempts to Set Standardized Criteria

John Stuart MillsThe 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 differentlevels 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 injurya. Direct and indirectb. 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 property3. 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 vacuumIn 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 andnew considerations

o Structural harms that prevent a community from workingproperly

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 harm2. 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 thegovernment

How to approach community and individual harms through policyTwo 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 increaseso there is a limited range of actions over which you can

have controlo 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 claimsthat 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 – LibertyThe 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 wecan 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 (Lackof 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 produceharms in others, there are many possibleways 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 fromjobs 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 valueof property?

b. Even material losses have differentdegrees of urgency and reality thatmight be considered relevant for decisions about liberty.

iii. Amenity Effects1. 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 harms1. Place in public sphere – government

asked to restrict behavior of one set ofpeople 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 claimswhich 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 Polis1. 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 theinterests 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 oneperson does it, but when a number of people do it, it canbe 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 affectshis 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 Executivesa. 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 Actorsa. 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 areseparate 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 forthe 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 hisliberty and protecting individual liberty is the very purpose of prohibiting paternalism inthe 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 wellas “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-Off1. 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 theyare 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 ofinterests against another.

Policy Paradox – Chapter 6 “Symbols”

Symbolic representation is the essence of problem definitionin 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 Declinea. “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 isworse.

Variations on a Story of Decline

A) Stymied Progressa. “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-illusiona. “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 anillusion.”

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 Controla. “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 thoughtto strike victims unpredictably, now turns outto be related to diet, smoking, and chemicals – all things humans can control.

Variations on Story of Helplessness and Control

A) Conspiracya. 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 formthe rest of us.

i. Real World Example: Ralph Nader’s famous crusade against automobile manufacturers was astory that converted car accidents into eventscontrollable through the design of cars, and even willingly accepted by automakers.

B) Blame-the-victima. It moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of

control, but locates control in the very people whosuffer the problem.

i. Real World Examples: the poor are poor becausethey 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 fifthof 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 OccupationalSafety and Health Administration had abolished the tooth fairy (by requiring dentists to discard any baby teeth the pulled), andhad required all buckets to be built with a hole in the bottom ofthem. 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 itup 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 politicallyuseful 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 discoverlaws 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 arevaried, but appropriate to the metaphor. One can “drain off” someof 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 schooldropout 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 haveto 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 byasking: 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 mightbring to bear on a conflict? Does a symbol offer a “pig in a poke”, and might we want to inquire into substance before lendingsupport 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 experiencesto 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 andactions into collective results and purposes. Without it, cooperation and compromise would be far more difficult. It allowsleaders to aggregate support from different quarters for a singlepolicy.

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 toget 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 notinfluence. 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. Thesestories 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 tothe 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 believedto 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 supportfor changing an entire rule or policy.

o Ex. Why do women get half of all assets in adivorce void of a prenuptial agreement? Thisrule 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 andcreates an incentive for them to remain in their current condition.

3. Machines and Mechanical DevicesA. 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 eitherside 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 aladder, 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 theUnited States.

C. Or, one can “drain off” some of the contents of thecontainer, 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 ratesare 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. WarA. 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 traitorif 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 thatlend 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 schoolsto others.

Ambiguity is the “glue” of politics. It allows people to agree on laws and policies because theycan 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 administrativeagencies hash out the more conflicting details.

By portraying a decision one way in the press yetexecuting 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 ofpolitical maneuvering. Policy stories are tools of strategy with symbols, metaphors, ambiguities, etc., all as weapons in the arsenal of manipulation.

Policy Paradox Chapter 7Numbers

“One common way to define a policy problem is to measureit.”

(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. Inevitablythe Advisory Council will go right back to the numbers to accomplish this goal.

The challenge for policy makers is to determine the best wayto 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 isinclusion versus exclusion. This is the process by which wedetermine 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 MetaphorsCounting numbers as metaphors is to focus on what counts andleave 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 inherentproblems when numbers are used as metaphors. What is obese and what is not obese will be challenged. It is possible tohave 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 thenumbers 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 prescriptiondrug industry. In many states there is little regulation toprevent 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 stopthe 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. Moreimportantly, numbers can be very implicit too. If somethingcounts, 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 countsand what does not. The boundary between what is and what isnot 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 areseen as symbols of objectivity, precision, and accuracy.Counting is political

1. include versus exclude2. implies norms of how much is too little too much3. ambiguity4. tell stories5. illusion that complex is simple6. create communities7. aid negotiation and compromise8. bolster authority of those that count

Numerical strategies

1. people react to being counted2. counting makes people notice3. stimulate public demands for change4. explicit measure to evaluate and people will try to

manipulate scores5. power of measure is power of control6. creates alliances between measured and measures7. 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 wordsEx: Painting with pigments

Most determine the purpose for the measuringFundamental 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 officialmethod 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 UnemployedOlder than 16 Unwilling to take avail. jobsHave previously held a job

dangerousAre available for work unpleasantHave looked for work within the previous four weeks

demeaning

Can only find part-time when

Want full-timeQuit a job to look

for Something

betterCan’t work due to

child care Worker’s strike

Counting always involves deliberate decisions about counting asMust begin with categorization

What include and excludeImportant characteristics and asking whether the objectto be classified is substantially like the others in the categoryEstablishment of boundaries in the form of rules or criteriaOnly after characterizing does mere tallying come into play

Really political termsInclusion/exclusion – suggest community, boundaries, allies,enemiesSelection – privilege and discriminationImportant characteristics – value judgment and hierarchy

Goals of public policy need the language of counting

Number as Metaphors

Numbers work exactly like metaphorsTo 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 thatmight be similar in important ways but do not share thesame 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 exclusion1)

The assertion of a real likeness where the measurefinds a difference, and insists on inclusion of something the measure excludes. Ex: unemploymentrate 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 primarilyby the ratio of hospital beds to population of thecommunity 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 aboutcategorization and similarities and differences are the ultimate basis for decisions in public policyNumbers 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 wasteso 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. Costbecomes 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 alwaysa 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 theoutput 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-classThe 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 atleast 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 thephenomenon is.

Moves an event from the singular to the plural

To count is to assert that it is an identifiable entity withclear 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 implicitlyan 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 theshared 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 abouthow 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 andambiguous phenomenon is simple, countable and preciselydefined

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 themeasures 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 forchange

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 ofwhat 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 paintingscorrespond more or less with common visions. Numbers are real as artifacts. But the dominance of numbers as a mode ofdescribing 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 somejustice for the parties wronged, it can also be used to shape alliances and assign responsibility.

Causal Stories as Problem DefinitionThere 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 perpetratorsi. 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 lawsb. Unintended consequences can also be the result of

negligence4. 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 assign2. 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 responsibilitya. The powerful use their clout to stop needed policy

that addresses a problem they are responsible forb. 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 proneto 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 PolisThis section of the chapter is concerned with strategies used to assign blame

Preference of blame1. Best is to blame nature2. Second best is to blame someone else, but that person

or group could fight back3. Third alternative is to show ignorance of the problem4. Least best alternative: admit the problem was

intentional

The author defines the following strategies when it comes toassigning 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 strategya. Assuming the unfavorable effects of the action

taken were the intended effects of the actori. Effective strategy, if true, for a call to

change3. Risk as a factor implicating blame

a. Calculated risk: a company knowing there is a possibility for unfavorable consequences, but usesthe idea of calculated risks to cover up the outcomei. Allows for the toleration of harm by

businesses as well as regulatory agenciesb. Manipulation of risk: mainly applied to civil

rights litigationi. Allows for the determination of

discrimination if the perceived risk of hiring one person is higher for that group asopposed to a random group of people or another specific group

4. Complex Causea. 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 isa 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 blamea. Blame is still hard to define, given its

complexitiesi. Ex. Drunk drivers and who is responsible

(driver, manufacturer of car or alcohol, bartenders)

3. Create a reputation of a “fixer” of problems4. 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) andpolitical demands (what people ask fromgovernment).

3.What makes up the problem?a.Interests can be viewed from an individual

level (i.e., what do I need to survive, whatdo I need from the government)

b.Interests can be viewed on a class level

c.Interests can be viewed on a group level4.Representation is the process by which interests

are defined and activated in politics, and has adual quality: representatives give expression toan interest by portraying an issue and they alsospeak for people in policy debates.

5.Thus, interests derive from these two types ofrepresentation.

6.Mobilization: the process by which effects andexperiences are converted into organized effortsto bring about change. Thus, what kind ofinterests will mobilize? Those who can offerselective benefits in order to avoid the free-rider problem.

a.Additionally, the substance of an issue candetermine whether and how organizations getinvolved in promoting and expanding theinterests. In a game theoretic model,concentrated issues (spread over a smallnumber of people) versus concentrated issuesare likely to result in stalemates oralternating victories for each side; diffused(spread over a large number of people) versusdiffused programs will likely spreadgradually. Concentrated interests will likelydefeat diffuses interest (betterorganizational resources) The point is thatthe distribution of costs and benefits in anyprogram determines the type of politicalcontest it will undergo. But, politics shapesthe way problems and policy issues areperceived in the first place.

7.Groups often try to define issues so as to make aconcentrated interest appear general in an effort

to gain broader appeal; and economic issues areframed into social issues.

a.Narrow interests broadened their efforts andtook out the Clinton Health Care Reform Act.

8.Summary: problems are defined in politics in aneffort to accomplish political goals, to mobilizesupport for one side in a conflict. To define anissue is to make an assertion about what is atstake and who is affected, and therefore, todefine interests and the constitution ofalliances. Thus, the definition of any policyproblem must also define interested parties andstakes.

Policy Paradox: Chapter 9 – Interests

Interest is considered “the sides in politics,” the groupthat 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’reaware 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 the1950s 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 bringabout 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 notalways 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 majoritiesonly incidentally affected by something.

Making a particular interest appear to be in the interestof 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, andtherefore, 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 goalso Imagining alternative means for attaining themo Evaluating consequences of taking each course

of actiono Choosing the alternative most likely to attain

the goal In regards to the rational decision making process,

there are variations to this modelo 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 wellas 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 10percent 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 choiceo 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 astable

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 offactions

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 ata 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 bynot mentioning them

o Make the preferred alternative appear to be theonly 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 powerfulconstituents the least, but portray the decision as the maximization of social good forbroad 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 harderor 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 giverThe inducement receiverThe 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 entityNegative 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 thatharms (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 modifycurrent 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 onburglary.

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 orconsumer 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 findingout 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 twoparties 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 asproposed 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 sanctiongivers 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 itsexport 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 thatpeople 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 ParadoxChapter 11- Inducements

The proverbial carrot and the stick- getting other people tochose actions we desire

Incentives and Deterrence (rewards/punishments)3 parts to the Inducement System-

GiverReceiver/TargetInducement itself

All 3 need to work together for the desired change

Inducement Theory Assumptions (based on utilitarian model)1) People are rational2) Givers/receivers are unitary

Instead of one trainer working with one donkey, rather one trainer with 100 donkies3) Based on a Purposeful notion of cause

Make visible unforeseen consequences of inadvertent actions

Positive/negative inducements conceptually same, yield different political relationshipsPositive- goodwill, alliance, reciprocityNegative- division, conflict

In the PolisParties to inducement process-

Designers (legislators, regulators)

Implementers (executive bureaucrats)Receivers

Passage between parties is treacherous for several reasons-

Costs of handing out rewards/punishmentsInducements can have symbolic meaningsFor the target, inducements are simply another

optionAdaptive 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 onpage 292 explains precise vs. flexible rules]

5 unattainable ideals in rules: Optimum social balancebetween discretionary power and control by formal rules; The perfectly precise rule; The perfectly flexible rule; The neutral rule; The perfectly enforcedrule.

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 organizationPublic officials or organization

If you want the power of the law behind you, you much followthese 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 andthe 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 aneeded 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 stronginternal 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 directedto 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 behavioris 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 anissue 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, dependingon the informal rules in society to fine tune their meaning and enforcement.

The author interprets the effect of the Constitution asa 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 providehelpful 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 isa 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 exampleis 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 fora 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 manipulatethem 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 ruleapplied to vague formal rules, gives the greater flexibilityin reaching an acceptable decision in society and keeping the myth of perfectly precise, neutral, and enforced rules alive.

Policy ParadoxChapter 13 Summary

I. The Two Faces of Persuasiona. Reason and Informed Decision

i. Rational Idealii. Individual Behavior as rational decisioniii. Esteems reason, denigrates impulse

b. Reason as basis for governmenti. Groups emulate individual rational

deliberationii. People are educated, not coercediii. Information and knowledge can resolve

conflict1. Rational persuasion and voluntary

behavior changea. Stop littering and smoking, use

seat belts and drive safelyc. Persuasion as propaganda and indoctrination

i. Indoctrination1. Intentionally manipulative2. Robs people of their capacity to think

independently3. Preceptoral system

a. Individual is puppetInformation PropagandaEnlightens BenightsLiberates EnslavesEducation Brainwashing Learning Compliance

4. Boundary between is blurryII. Making Facts in the Polis

a. Rational Ideali. Neutral Facts

1. Facts do not exist independent of interpretive ideas

2. Act of naming is classification, a political act

a. Terrorism vs Police actionb. Nuclear Power Industry

Stand-ins/temporaryemployees

Jumpers/sponges

Part-time vocations/careers

Meat market/dying for a living

3. Distinguishing information from propaganda

a. Facts are produced in social processesi. Legislatures conduct hearings

1. Who testifies, how much time.

4. Scientific Factsa. Randomized Control Test (RCT)

i. Mushy Results1. Must choose between basic

definitions and ways of counting

2. Human influence5. Rational Ideal Overstates purity of

informationb. Indoctrination in liberal democratic polis

i. Dominant elites control peoples beliefs and knowledge

1. Schoolsa. Hidden Curriculum

2. Business3. Mass Media4. Government Social Service Organizations5. Withholding Information

a. Secrecy

Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making,Chapter 13: Facts

We have already discussed two mechanisms for changingpeople’s behavior: chapter 11 dealt with creatingincentives and penalties and chapter 12 with mandatingrules. Chapter 13, titled “Facts,” deals with persuasionstrategies, which change people’s behavior by influencingtheir minds and their perceptions of the world, not byoffering the carrot and stick or permissions andprohibitions.

The Two Faces of PersuasionThe first is reasoned and informed decision – the rationalideal. The second is propaganda and indoctrination.

Persuasion in the Rational Ideal Model (the good face thatwe hope sustains democracy)

- In this model, individual behavior is rational.People make goals, get information about ways toachieve those goals, evaluate those alternatives, andchoose the best ones.- The rational ideal offers reason as the basis forgovernment. This means that groups, organizations, andsocieties go through the same rational process asindividuals when making decisions.

- Information and knowledge can resolve conflicts, andforce 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 safetyconsequences of the breeder reactor, or the costs ofannual upkeep of clay courts, or whether a specialshuttle bus for the elderly would be heavily used.(quoted from Stone 306-7)- This depends on “facts” being impartial and accurateand on everyone having similar rational goals.

Persuasion as Propaganda and Indoctrination (the bad facethat many political scientists feel is only in totalitarianpolitical systems)

- It has two elements distinguishing it from therational ideal.

- First, it is intentionally manipulative.- Second, it robs people of their capacity to thinkindependently by, for example, appealing to fears andinsecurity.

Different language for the two models: Rational ideal Preceptoral System

information propagandaenlightens and liberates benights and enslaveseducations brainwashinglearning compliance

Which vision is correct? The boundary between the two isblurry.Making Facts in the PolisIf you look at both versions, you will see that neitherversion can exist in pure form. Persuasion is somewhere inthe middle.

Facts in the Rational Ideal Model- It assumes the existence of neutral facts, but factsdo 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 ourknowledge comes from social knowledge, but theinstitutions charged with finding facts make choices indeveloping the information (e.g., what kind of data tocollect), and they can have a private agenda.- Even scientific facts are not always perfectlyaccurate or unbiased (placebo example).- The rational ideal overstates the purity ofinformation and people’s rationality, as we areinfluenced by more than just facts (Kennedy vs. Nixonexample).

Indoctrination in Liberal Democratic Polis?- Stone rejects the idea that a totalitarian governmentis a necessary condition for indoctrinations. Instead,she describes it as a relationship in which dominantelites control people’s beliefs and knowledge in amanipulative 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 clientbehavior, such as this Texas judge to a bilingualHispanic mother: You’re abusing the child and you’re relegating her tothe position of housemaid. Now get this straight. Youstart speaking English to this child because if shedoesn’t do good in school, then I can remove herbecause 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 thearchetype of political indoctrination for Americansocial scientists. Stone uses a quote dealing with

practicing virtues in order to be virtuous throughhabitutation (Stone 319). This is Aristotelian, notMarxist. - Finally, indoctrination can happen through

withholding information.

ConclusionThe rational ideal is incorrect because it assumes facts areaccurate and impartial. The preceptoral model is incorrectbecause it assumes indoctrination only happens intotalitarian states, but it also happens in liberaldemocracies. Again, persuasion lies between the two.

Stone Chapter 14Rights

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 throughtwo traditions: Positive and Normative

Positive Rights Normative RightsA right is a claim backed by the power of the state

A right is whatever people in a givensociety 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 the government

Rights derive from some source other than power, such as morality, religion, rationality, or natural law

People can have rights only to those things they

People can have rights to things theydon’t actively claim, and for which

claim and for which the state backs them up.

the state would not back them up.

How Positive rights work:1. Call for a right through legal mechanism using types of

rightsType Definition Subset ExampleProceduralRight

Process by whichimportant decisions must be made. Does not define outcome, only process.

Right to WorkAnti-discriminationFair hearingFair housingEqual education

Substantive Right

Specific action and entitlement people may claim

Negative- rightto be free of restraint, can not be prevented from doing something

Positive- an entitlement to have or receivesomething, holder of service is responsible forprovision of necessity.

Free speechRight to voteRight to assemble

Health CareEducationEmployment

2. Utilize a mechanism to assert rights.Type Entity FormFormal Statement of the Legislatures Statutory Law-U.S. or

right must be in place or new legislation mustbe enacted

Constitutions

Agencies

Courts

State

U.S. or State level

Administrative law- Rules of authoritative agency

Common law- Past decisions at any level of the court system

Grievance Process is the system to determinecontested rights

Litigation

Adjudication

Courts

Administrative Agencies

Enforcement Process is a remedy to mandate therelationship between two contesting parties

(Initiated by contestant)Adjudication

Compliance

Provided by government

Mostly compliant by citizen 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 Decency2. Public Interest3. Civilization of Society

Political basis of rights:1. Competing interest in a single contest2. Both parties may be repeat players in court- low stakes

in outcome3. 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 common2. 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

rules3. 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 14Issue: 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: aprocedural 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 overturnthe 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 andenforcement 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 negativesubstantive 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 ofbusing of children to areas apart from where they live to achieve integrated school districts.

Chapter 14 SummaryRights

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 power of the state

Right is whatever people in society ought ot be able to do, have, or expect from fellow citizens and the government.

Rights derive from the power of government

Rights come from some source other than power, such as morality, religion, rationality, or natural law.

People can have rights only to those thins they claim and

People can have rights to things they don’t actively

for which the state backs them up.

claim, and for 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, wiveshave 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 RightsProcedural Right

An example: Employers would be 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.

Defines a process by whichdecisions must be made

Substantive Right Defines specific actions orentitlements people may claim

Negative Substantive RightFirst Amendment freedoms are examples of this

Right to be free ofrestraint; says no one canprevent you from doing

somethingPositive Substantive Right

The ADA of 1990: requires employers to redesign tasks, equipment etc. to accommodatepeople with disabilities.

Entitlement to have orreceive something; specifiesobligations of someone to

provide whatever theentitlement is

Sources of RightsLegislatures Statutes passed by a

legislative body at any level

(federal, state, local)Constitutions Constitutions of the US or

any of the statesAdministrative agencies Rules and regulations

proclaim under agencyauthority

Courts Past decisions and precedentsof judges at any level of the

court system

Mechanisms of Rights

Formal statement Given in one of the foursources above

Grievance Process Adjudication between two ormore parties to a conflict bya neutral third party (judge)

Enforcement ProcessCase of James Meredith: black man in 1963 got a federal court order which allowed him to enroll at the University of Mississippi. The Governor said he would defy the order and personallyblocked Meredith’s way. Pres. Kennedy federalized theMiss National Guard to protect Meredith while he enrolled and had federal marshalls protect him until he graduated.

Begins with people whobelieve their rights have

been violated, or bycorporations.

Adjudication process done bythe government

Following the courts’ rulingrest on the peoples voluntary

cooperation.

Rights in the Polis

Rationality Model Polis Model

People rely on official statements of rights found inconstitutions, statutes or court opinion, etc.

People get beliefs and ideas about rights from moral philosophy, media, and other people.

Statements of rights are clear, and judges merely apply formal rules to facts of the case, using logic and reason

Statements of rights are never clear; judges must interpret formal rules and they use norm and beliefs as well as logic and reason

Judges are not influenced by power of disputants, money, or anything except reason andfacts.

Judges are influenced by their own experiences, beliefs about justice, and understandings of society.

All citizens have equal access to the courts to claimtheir rights; identity of litigants does not influence outcome of litigation

Parties who are repeat players in courts have more power than those who use courts once or sporadically. Money helps

Interest groups and organizations deliberately structure and manage disputesto increase their chances of winning

Courts rely on voluntary compliance; in extraordinary conditions, they can call on legislative and executive branches to help enforce contested decisions

Judges use rhetoric to increase voluntary compliancewith their decisions. Legislative and executive branches get involved often, both to enforce court 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: theyprovide/offer the opportunity to reaffirm or redefine

society’s internal rules and its categories of membership

Policy Paradox, Deborah StoneSummary 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 Mechanics2. 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 authordiscusses how Federalist Paper 10 favored large federations.

This began a whole genre of abstract arguments purporting toshow 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 policymaking.

The pattern in America has been to restructure the authoritysystem 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 trainsrun 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? Whois 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 ofinternal 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 Mechanics2. 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 thepolicy 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 winover 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 assumedanswer is no, a larger group will not be as concerned about the individual.

The author continues on to give a few more examples for eachside of the argument.

Changing FederalismThis 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 ina powerful position. In the end all of the sides of the arguments come down to politics!