presentation- american business and public policy

8/13/2019 Presentation- American Business and Public Policy

1/23

Summarizing

American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and

Political Theory

Theordore J. LowiWorld Politics, XVI 1964

Presented by:James Kwame Mensah

ID: 5610131024


2/23


3/23

Theodore J. Lowi was born

on July 9, 1931 Michigan State University

Harvard University

American Political ScienceAssociation

International Political ScienceAssociation

Cornell University American Politics

Public Policy


4/23

Main Purpose of the Article

Case Studies Existing Notions: The Non-theories Of Power In

America

Arenas of Power: An Interpretative Scheme For

Cases

Areas of Policy Defined

Arenas of Power

Arenas & Political Relationships: A DiagrammaticSummary

Conclusion and Observations


5/23

Uses a well-known case-study by Bauer, Pool and

Dexter American Business and

Public Policy

To develop a model of

policy analysis To link types of policies to

theories of policy making

To generalize beyond the

case-study


6/23

One of the most important methods of political scienceanalysis

Schattschneider, Herring and others in the 1930s haveused case studies to conduct a variety of decisions

Case studies vary in terms of subject matter and format,in scope and rigour

This paper is an analysis of political relationship withinthe context of a single, well-defined issue foreigntrade

Analysis of business attitudes, strategies,communications and business relationships in politics

Makes good use of the best behavioural researchtechniques without losing sight of the rich context of

policies, traditions and institutions


7/23

Interesting questions:

What do all these case studies seek to add up to? Including

this one

How much further along the road have we through thesecase studies?

What questions have the author of these case studies

raised?

This paper will provide us with

The occasion for asking these questions

Help us to attempt to formulate theories that can beassessed, weighed and cumulated

But before we do this,

Lets take a look at the theories we have now

How does this case study relate to them


8/23

Case studies have produced three main theories of

power and public policy Group /pluralist theory

The elites theory

Pressure group theory

Group / Pluralist Theory This is based on the idea that policy making is a process of group

struggle

Power in US is highly decentralized

Resources are distributed through a process of interest groups

competing This involves an analysis of group participants and their

strategies

The extremists in this theory have treated government (formalinstitutions) as a tabula rasa


9/23

Criticism of Group / Pluralist Theory Failed to take into account the economic and political

structure within which the group process takes place

It understate the independent and creative role that publicofficials play in the policy process

Elites Theory Public policy is regarded as reflecting the values and

preferences of a governing elite

Public policy is not determined by the demands and actions

of the people or the masses but rather by a ruling elite Society is divided into the few who have power and the

many who do not.

Only a small number of persons allocate values for society;the masses do not decide public policy.


10/23

Pressure group theory

This has not been used so much since its creation in 1935because is mistakenly taking as a case of pluralism

Public policy happens in a multiplicity of groups in adecentralised and bargaining arena

The relationship here is based on mutual non-interferenceamong uncommon interest

Criticisms of these theories

They do not generate related propositions that can be testedby research and experience

The findings of studies based upon any one of them are notcumulative

These "theories" becomes self- directing and self-supportive


11/23

Findings from the Analysis of American Business

and Public Policy These findings test the assumptions of pluralist and

elites schools of thought There was no nexus between the policies at stake and

interest group activation with a settlement by compromise The two "sides" of the controversy never met in a face-to-

face conflict

Cohesion was found to be directly (not inversely) related to

overlapping membership Little in the way of direct attempts to influence policy-

makers could be found

Most Congressmen were found to have their ownindependent ideologies and interests


12/23

Problems of the tariff decision (both pluralist and

elitist) No evidence that the top military played a role of any sort

in both the tariff and foreign trade

Only a minority of businessmen large and small ever felt

themselves aligned with either side of the issue

Of the 128 big business leaders, 56% -free trade, 3% -raisingtariffs, and 41%- leaving tariffs as is

Leaders of the largest firms remained inactive because their

firms were too diversified to have a clear interest (GeneralElectric and Dupont)

Most other industrialists in the top "command posts"probably favoured freer trade


13/23

Irrelevance of The Models/Theories

The pluralist model was of little use to them

Elitist model was also of less assistance

This is because neither approach is a model/theory

Self-validating standpoint

The pluralist approach suggests what to look for

The elitist model suggests what not to look for

Neither has much bearing on specific cases They dont afford a means for cumulating the data

and findings in coherent and logical abstractionswith other findings

Merely provide a basis for repeating the assumptions


14/23

American Business and Public Policy despite itsrichness suffers some handicaps like all casestudies

Problem of uniqueness

Lack of comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness of itsanalysis and makes it more of a story book

Problems of broad theories

Can American Business case study be generalized

from single issue of free trade to all domesticdecisions?

What classes of cases can we generalize to?

This case could not offer anything different


15/23

We are about where we were before this book waspublished

The authors came out in favour of cashiering thepresent approaches

So what is needed to be done A basis for cumulating, comparing, and contrasting diverse

findings

Would bring the diverse cases and findings into a more

consistent relation to each other Would begin to suggest generalizations sufficiently close to

the data


16/23

This is what interpretative scheme seeks to do

It is based on these arguments

The types of relationships to be found among peopleare determined by their expectations

In politics, expectations are determined bygovernmental outputs or policies

A political relationship is determined by the type of

policy at stake So that for every type of policy there is likely to be a

distinctive type of political relationship


17/23

Three major categories of public policies in thescheme: distribution, regulation, and redistribution

These types are historically and functionally distinct They constitute real areas of power

Each develops its own characteristic; politicalstructure, political process, elites, and group relations

Distributive Policies

Distributive policies involve allocation of services orbenefits to particular segments of the population

individuals, groups, corporations, and communities Highly individualized decisions that aggregate into a

policy

Indulged & deprived, loser and recipient never come

into direct confrontation


18/23

Regulatory Policies

Involve imposing restrictions on the behaviour ofindividuals and groups

That is, they reduce the freedom or discretion to actof those who are regulated

Specific & individual in impact Show no favoritism

The formation of regulatory policy usually involves

conflict between two groups or coalitions of groups,with one side seeking to impose some sort of controlon the other side

Regulatory decisions involve clear winners and

losers


19/23

Redistributive Policies

Involve deliberate efforts by the government to shiftthe allocation of wealth, income, property, or rightsamong broad classes or groups of the population,such as haves and have-nots, masses and the elite

Equal possession not equal treatment Welfare state programs-redistribute to only those

who qualify (retired or unemployed)

Redistributive policies are difficult to secure becausethey involve the reallocation of money, rights, orpower.


20/23

Once you look at the areas of policy and theories ofpolicy, a number of hypothesis emerge

The regulatory arena corresponds to the pluralistschool

The redistributive arena closely approximate theelites view of political process

Distributive Arena Greater multiplicity of interest groups

It is a politics of every man for himself

Single person and single firm are the major activists

Application of Distributive Policies Rivers & harbours, Land development, Tax exemptions,

Defense procurement, Area of redevelopment andgovernment services


21/23

Regulatory Arena

Multiplicity of groups with tangential interests-slightly

touching interests Two basic groups-indulged and deprived

Power structure is less stable coalitions form aroundshared interests and shift coalitions as interest change or

conflict emerge.

Redistributive arena

The political structure seems to be highly stabilise

This derived from shared interest It influences politics towards centralisation and stablisation

of conflict

Application of redistributive policies

Health insurance, income tax


22/23

Arena PoliticalUnit

RelationAmongUnits

Powerstructure

Stabilityofstructure

Decisionallocus

Implementation

Distributive Individual,firm,corporation

Log-rolling,mutual non-interference,uncommoninterest

Non-conflictualelite withsupportgroups

Stable Congressionalcommitteeand/ oragency

Agencycentralised toprimaryfunctional unit(bureau)

Regulatory Group The coalition,sharedsubjectmatterinterest,bargaining

Pluralistic,multi-centered,theoryofbalance

Unstable Congress,in classicrole

Agencydecentralisedfrom center bydelegation,mixed control

Redistribution

Association

The peakassociation,class,ideology

Conflictualelite, i.e,elite andcounterelites

Stable Executiveand peakassociation

Agencycentralisedtowards top(abovebureau),

elaboratestandards


23/23

Conclusion No study of policy can equal American Business and Public

Policy in care, rigor and exhaustiveness It covers a lot of policies, types of public policies and

theories of public policies

It tried to link the types of public policies to the theories ofpublic policies and the relationship between them

Observations It is ambiguous

There was also confusion as to whether the author wastalking about domestic trade or international trade

The author is unusually clear about the research aim

Public policy is broad and taking a single case like foreigncannot help the author to find in detail types of publicpolicies as well as theories of public policies

presentation- american business and public policy

Documents