In her book Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone analyzes the plethora of political and sociological paradoxes that confront societies in their attempt to create, evolve and implement public policy. She begins her analysis of the policy making process by discussing the tensions between the market model of society and the political model (17). Similar to public choice theorist, Stone seeks to shed light on of how societies make collective decisions and how a representative government then implements the will of its people. Despite providing much needed insight into the complexities of the political decision making processes, the theories and models presented throughout this week’s readings provide little insight into how to achieve structural change from within the confines of an established political system.
Stone goes on to argue that decision making in the polis—a political society—reflects the tensions related to eight of its central characteristics: community, public interest, influence, cooperation, loyalty, groups, information, passion and power. Power is perhaps one of most interesting characteristics of the polis; as it has the potential to influence, and even control, its other characteristics. Power in the United States is often interpreted as adequately fragmented because the polis is able to participate in democratic processes and the federalist system of governance divides power between different levels of government (Schneider and Ingram, 15). Despite these two characteristics, the current state of the US campaign finance system raises more cause for concern about state capture than ever before. In 2012, winning candidates in the House and Senate raised an average of $1,700,00 and $10,000,000 respectively (Frumin). As only .06% of the American population contributes more than $200 annually to campaigns, it is obvious that wealthy individuals and organizations are disproportionately influencing the electoral process that appoints representatives who will impact public policy (Center for Responsive Politics).
As Stone writes, “…the qualities and interests of people who make decisions shape the kinds of decisions they make” (353). In a democracy with an electoral system so deeply corrupted by private interest, how does one reshape the political landscape? Stone argues that in a representative democracy there are two strategies that can be applied to shift power within the political system: 1) changing the composition of the electorate or 2) changing the identity of representatives. The second is perhaps the most pressing contemporary political issue in the United States. Yet changing campaign finance laws requires a willingness to act on the part of politicians in power. And as these politicians are constrained by their loyalty to the contributors who aided them in becoming elected the the cycle of capture extremely has become increasingly difficult to break. Among other attributes of American society, the current structuring of the electoral system is in great part what has enables individual’s yielding significant economic power to translate it into political power.
Despite the need for public choice theory and other models to move beyond considerations of state capture by a single interest group, the relationship between market interest—represented by interest groups and powerful individuals, and the political processes cannot be discounted. Acknowledging and analyzing the complexities of the polis are necessary to understanding how a society shapes its public policy. However, models and theories that are not grounded in context are not reflective of the power dynamics within the polis that become engrained in public policy.
Questions:
1) Do the different models and theories presented in this week’s readings adequately address ambiguity in the polis? 2) Do they provide us with insight on how to achieve structural change?
3) Are there other characteristics that are central to the functioning of the polis that Stone does not include? 4) Are her characteristics well-defined?
Coures Readings:
Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram, Chapter 2: “A Pluralist View of Public Policy” in 7 Policy Design for Democracy, University Press of Kansas, 1997.
Stone,Deborah. Policy Paradox; The Art of Political Decision Making. 1997.
Wilson, James Q., Chapter 5: “Interests” in Bureaucracy: What Government Agencies Do and Why They Do It, BasicBooks, 1989. (C)
Bachrach, Peter and Morton S. Baratz, “Two Faces of Power,” The American Political Science Review, 56(4), 1962. (C)
External References:
Center for Responsive Politics. Donor Demographics, 2016. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php
Frumin, Aliyah. "How Much Does it Cost to Win a Seat in Congress". MSNBC. http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/how-much-does-it-cost-win-seat-congre