Policy Paradox - The Art of Political Decision Making Chapter 3-6

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 library and 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 achieve the greatest social welfare has led many to the market idea, where voluntary exchanges achieve efficiency through freedom and 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 possible outcomes 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 pay for it. As exchanges are done by individuals, efficiency must also be determined subjectively through an individual’s perceived 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 that no 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 informed individuals, 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 this problem 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 produce efficiency? 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 interaction with 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, as some have no choice but to work where they can so they can survive. Other problems, such as contract manipulation with long-term relationships and unforeseeable long-term consequences inhibit the outcome of efficiency as well. Individual welfare is influenced by others (being comparable to those around you as well as sympathy towards others), and by 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 removes motivation 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 Need What is “minimally necessary” for survival.  Relates to specified amounts of food, amounts of weapons for defense, 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 o o Societal association or status (Dinner at Wynn Las Vegas vs. Burger King drive thru) Cultural (ex. Jews not consuming pigs) Fasting in cultures Symbolic factors add to the absolute aspect of breaking down what 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. Absolute 2. 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 gains o An investment for the future Ex. Education A 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 for a whole society of unique individual needs Needs in the Polis With 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 their military 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 consumption a. Action will be used to pursue those needs 2. Neopluralism a. Not all needs will be recognized equally and those needs accompanied with greater clout will be addressed 3. Marxist a. The few powerful control what the needs of the society should be and the majority of society do not know what they really need The Security-Efficiency Trade-off Argument: 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 need for aid 2. Measurement of productivity a. 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 gain a. 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 belonging issues 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 our essential 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 minimally necessary (e.g. the poverty line with regards to income). 1). Needs are difficult to define in objective and countable terms 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 to find 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 need Fixed or quantifiable needs vs. relative to a social standard (e.g. defense policy - where a country will develop its 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. education e.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 unknown e.g. safety measures (food / FDA, environmental, homeland defense) 5). Relational needs Refers 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 productivity e.g. welfare system diminishes motivation by creating a cycle of dependence 2). How we measure productivity A 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 the US might fail, but there will be growth in other areas – and if 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 Paradox Chapter 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 restrict liberty. 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 Liberty Order and safety in a society requires rules, laws and policies. Even in a free society these things are necessary to maintain the greatest extent of freedom possible. Therefore, freedom for society requires the restriction of individual liberties. Attempts to Set Standardized Criteria John Stuart Mills The 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 different levels 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 injury a. Direct and indirect b. 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 property 3. 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 vacuum In 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 and new considerations o Structural harms that prevent a community from working properly 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 harm 2. 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 the government How to approach community and individual harms through policy Two 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 increases o there is a limited range of actions over which you can have control o 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 claims that 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 – Liberty The 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 we can 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 (Lack of 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 produce harms in others, there are many possible ways 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 from jobs 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 value of property? b. Even material losses have different degrees of urgency and reality that might be considered relevant for decisions about liberty. iii. Amenity Effects 1. 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 harms 1. Place in public sphere – government asked to restrict behavior of one set of people 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 claims which 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 Polis 1. 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 the interests 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 one person does it, but when a number of people do it, it can be 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 affects his 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 Executives a. 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 Actors a. 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 are separate 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 for the 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 his liberty and protecting individual liberty is the very purpose of prohibiting paternalism in the 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 well as “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-Off 1. 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 they are 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 of interests against another. Policy Paradox – Chapter 6 “Symbols” Symbolic representation is the essence of problem definition in 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 progressis-only-an-illusion.  Stories of control, including the conspiracy story and the blame-the-victim story. A) Story of Decline a. “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 is worse. Variations on a Story of Decline A) Stymied Progress a. “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-illusion a. “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 an illusion.” 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 Control a. “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 thought to strike victims unpredictably, now turns out to be related to diet, smoking, and chemicals – all things humans can control. Variations on Story of Helplessness and Control A) Conspiracy a. 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 form the rest of us. i. Real World Example: Ralph Nader’s famous crusade against automobile manufacturers was a story that converted car accidents into events controllable through the design of cars, and even willingly accepted by automakers. B) Blame-the-victim a. It moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of control, but locates control in the very people who suffer the problem. i. Real World Examples: the poor are poor because they 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 fifth of current welfare recipients have been on the rolls for ten years or more. So, a reform that is targeted to the longterm 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 Occupational Safety and Health Administration had abolished the tooth fairy (by requiring dentists to discard any baby teeth the pulled), and had required all buckets to be built with a hole in the bottom of them. 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 it up 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 politically useful 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 discover laws 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 are varied, but appropriate to the metaphor. One can “drain off” some of 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 school dropout 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 have to 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 by asking: 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 might bring to bear on a conflict? Does a symbol offer a “pig in a poke”, and might we want to inquire into substance before lending support 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 experiences to 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 and actions into collective results and purposes. Without it, cooperation and compromise would be far more difficult. 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”. 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.