In American politics, what theories have been used to explain who exerts power in the policy process? What are their core tenets? In what different ways can power be exerted in the policymaking process, and what resources are used in the exercise of that power? What theories of public policy making have scholars developed, where can policy making and change occur in the U.S., and where has major policy change in America happened in recent years? Provide a few specific and recent examples to demonstrate the varied nature of American policy making and change in recent years.
Introduction
In all political systems, there are different power centers, which exert their influence in a particular fashion to impact policy at both the state and federal level. Some of these powerful institutions are formally recognized, and their input is considered during the formulation of policy; however, some of the power centers do not have a state recognition, but because these power centers influence the formulation of policy; therefore, they informally recognized. It is also apparent, from the methodical study of literature regarding the policy formulation in different systems that the relevance of power centers changes as a system changes. It is because the restructuring of a system redistributes powers, which gives rise to new power centers.
In the United States, there are several power centers, some of which wield more influence than the others. Also, these power centers exert their influence or power by using different instruments and strategies. It is evident that the American political system is based on the concept of separation of power. Congress, Presidency and Supreme Court all wield power, which is projected in a particular fashion to influence policymaking. The bureaucracy, which primary function is to implement the policy, also plays a part in policy formulation. The executive (Presidency/bureaucracy) oversights different institutions, which are considered a method of influencing policy (West, 2015).
Congress, Presidency, Supreme Court are the traditional centers of power, which exert their influence in the prescribed manner; however, the nontraditional power centers use different instruments to project their power or influence the policymaking. There are several theories, such as Luke’s Three Faces of Power-Power Elite Theory-Pluralistic Theory, which explain how power is projected by different players or centers in the American political system.
Power Centers
Congress and Political Parties: The Congress plays an important role not only in policy formulation, but also in the devising of the final product (policy) (Clinton, Lewis, & Selin, 2014). The representatives from different constituencies set a political agenda and debate on agenda so that a policy can be formed about that political agenda. Political parties too, such as the Republican Party and Democrats, set political agendas and by these agendas, the candidates of these political parties run campaigns in their constituencies. Political parties play the role of an instrument that publicizes a political agenda (Fiorina, 2016). (Note: as the mapping of districts changes, so does the size of political/congressional power of political parties and thus their ability to influence policymaking (Greenblatt, 2011).
Presidency
Though the presidential influence on policymaking is limited and across time it varies; however, it is a fact that presidency influences policy is made especially in the form of congruence of presidential positions concerning congressional votes. Though, contemporary studies assert that presidential influence is much broader than that and during different stages of policy making, president influence policymaking by emphasizing resources, executive powers, and persuasion.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has devised its instruments to influence policy making; however, the most common method is examining a policy under the constitutional context. The observations and interpretations of the Supreme Court, about a matter or a clause of the constitution (respectively), affect policymaking.
Bureaucracy
As it is bureaucracy, which implements a policy; therefore, the input of bureaucracy is important. Also, policy formulation institutions employ bureaucracy, during different stages of policy formulation; therefore, the footprint of bureaucracy on any public policy is immense.
Corporate
In recent years, corporate has emerged as major power centers, and its influence on policy making has increased dramatically, especially after Citizen United decision of the Supreme Court that allowed Corporate America to spend enormous sums of money in American elections. It is also imperative to acknowledge that the Corporation does not directly influence the policymaking.
Theories of public policy making and change occur in the U.S. and major policy change in America happened in recent years
There are different theories of public policymaking, which explains 1) how policy forms in the United States and 2) what institutions play a part in policy making. Different theories about public policy have a different take on the power of centers and their role in policy making. In this section, I will discuss Pluralistic Theory, Elite Theory, and Institutional Theory to demonstrate how power and its projection is understood by different segments of the intelligentsia.
Institutional Theory
It asserts that the traditional centers of power emphasize their power in a particular manner to influence policymaking at different stages. It is only different branches of government, which can devise policy and give legitimacy to it (make it universal). Also, it is up to these traditional institutions whether to allow a footprint of non-traditional institutions/centers on policy or not.
Pluralistic
Theory (Functionalist perspective): It is, in fact, the pluralistic theory, which asserts that there are several power centers or power is dispersed in a democratic system. There are several veto groups, which compete with one another to exert influence on policy. The participation of different groups gives legitimacy to public policy in the American political system.
Elite Theories (Conflict perspective)
This is theory is also considered a far-left theory, as it asserts that a small segment of society (the wealthy class) controls policy-making and this small segment of society has an overwhelming presence in different power centers, such as traditional institutions, media and corporate. For instance, large media houses, which are owned by wealthy individuals, play a role in setting the political agenda and shaping opinion regarding that agenda. Similarly, corporate plays an important role in the policy formulation, it influences policy by lobbying and direct spending on the election system.
How the Policy Making has changed over the Years
Different watersheds have occurred, in policy making, in recent years. Generally, it was political parties, the Congress, the Presidency, Supreme Court and Bureaucracy that played a cardinal role in policymaking. However, since the emergence of media and the rise of Corporate America (as a powerful player in policy making), the entire process of policy formulation has changed. For instance, the media, which is controlled by a few picks a political subject and employs its resources to turn it into the agenda. Corporate America, on the other hand, spends money on media and the election cycle to influence policymaking. One such example is the repealing of sixty-three years old act, The Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial banking from investment backing. (Note: The lack of distinction between commercial banking and investment banking was one of the causes of The Great Depression.)
From the methodical study of policy formulation, it is apparent that a policy formulates and gets legitimacy in the Congress; however, the process of setting the agenda has changed over the years. The advocacy groups or different lobbies, which represent different players, influence policy makers (Senators and Congress Representatives), which then promote a particular political agenda. This political agenda (proposed legislation) is discussed or debated in the House of Representatives and the Senate after which the Congress passes it. It is imperative to acknowledge that the legislation becomes final when the Supreme Court renders a decision in a case.
Specific Examples
Repealing of Critical Components of Glass-Steagall Act
In the year 199, major components of the Glass-Steagall Act were repealed. According to the reports, around $300 million were spent by different lobbies to gain the support of Congressmen/women and Senators to repeal the major components of the act. To repeal those components of the act, which acted as a firewall between Investment and Commercial Baking, lobbies invested around $300 million (in 1999) in generating bi-partisan support for the repeal. The consequence of spending such huge amount in the form of lobbying by the banking industry (one of the components of Corporate America) was that 155 Democrats and 207 Republicans supported the partial repealing of the act (Sanati, 2009).
Public Opinion (Vietnam War)
As the Vietnam War continued, it unpopularity grew. The media published horrible stories from the war theatre, which changed the opinion regarding the war. As the opinion of different power centers, which included the public, changed regarding the war, the policy regarding the war also changed. Eventually, the policy of the government changed regarding the war.
Conclusion
In the end, it is concluded that in democracies in general and in U.S. political system in particular, there are several power centers or players, which influence the policymaking; however, it is the Congress, which eventually passes the legislation. Different players exert their influence differently, and for that, they use different platforms and instruments. For instance, Corporate America uses media, lobbies, and election cycles (funding in the election campaigns of candidates for the Senate and the Congress) to influence policymaking.
The closer look at the political system, of the United States, make it evident that the system can be better understood with the theories such as Pluralistic Theory and Elite Theory. The Institutional Theory fails to make us comprehend the functioning of the American Political System. For instance, it is apparent that there are several power centers in U.S. politics and these power centers have an overwhelming presence of the elite, which is why we see that recent public policies have benefitted a certain class more than the ordinary or average Americans.
The formulation of public policy is a cumbersome and complex process, which is influenced by different players. Also, a public policy never always truly represents public sentiment or concerns. One such example is the partial repealing of the Glass-Steagall Act, which only benefited the banking industry.
References
Clinton, J. D., Lewis, D. E., & Selin, J. L. (2014). Influencing the Bureaucracy: The Irony of Congressional Oversight. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 387-401.
Fiorina, M. P. (2016, September 21). The Political Parties Have Sorted. Retrieved from https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/fiorina_3_finalfile.pdf
Greenblatt, A. (2011, November 30). Can Redistricting Ever Be Fair? Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/topics/politics/can-redistricting-ever-be-fair.html
Sanati, C. (2009, November 12). 10 Years Later, Looking at Repeal of Glass-Steagall. Retrieved from https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/10-years-later-looking-at-repeal-of-glass-steagall/
West, W. F. (2015). The administrative presidency as reactive oversight: Implications for positive and normative theory. Public Administration Review, 75(4), 523-533.
+447462439809