The History Book Club discussion

This is a thread that focuses on "Policy Making" and Political Decision Making.

This thread can also focus on "Grassroots Policies" as well within the Political Science arena.

Please, no self promotion.

Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making

by Deborah Stone (no photo)

Synopsis:

Since its debut, Policy Paradox has been widely acclaimed as the most accessible policy text available.

Unlike most texts, which treat policy analysis and policy making as different enterprises, Policy Paradox demonstrates that "you can’t take politics out of analysis."

Through a uniquely rich and comprehensive model, this revised edition continues to show how real-world policy grows out of differing ideals, even definitions, of basic societal goals like security, equality, and liberty. The book also demonstrates how these ideals often conflict in policy implementation.

In this revised edition, Stone has added a full-length case study as an appendix, taking up the issue of affirmative action. Clear, provocative, and engaging, Policy Paradox conveys the richness of public policy making and analysis.

About the Author:

Deborah Stone holds appointments as Research Professor of Government at Dartmouth College and Honorary Professor of Political Science at Aarhus University in Denmark. She has taught in undergraduate and graduate programs at Brandeis, MIT, Yale, Tulane, and Duke, as well as in universities worldwide where Policy Paradox is used.

Review:

"Policy Paradox is a book that I assign to all my public policy students. Deborah Stone delves into this topic with great theoretical depth. Often, when we talk about policy, we talk about particular policy issues. In-depth thought about how policies develop and what kind of analytical framework we approach them with is less common.

One of the ways we typically approach analysing policies is through an economic framework. We think about the policymaking process like a market moved by rational actors. Stone juxtaposes another framework, which considers community, commitments, emotions and values. She calls it the ‘polis’ model.

As she outlines this alternative framework, Deborah Stone looks at important questions. What role should numbers and statistics play in politics? What role should values and principles—like equity, liberty, efficiency and security—play as we’re shaping policies? Ideas about these questions float around in our political discourse and shape what politicians say and how the American people respond.

So Policy Paradox pushes us to think about ourselves not just as rational actors but rather as a political community. It pushes us to assess and acknowledge the role that values play in our politics. This is a book that the more you dig into, the more you get out of it. It is also utterly readable, which is not always the case with academic writing. It’s a great text.

Can you crystalize what she means by the ‘policy paradox,’ please?

Stone opens the book with a series of policy questions. And points out that, with many policy questions, there are no clear answers. We, as a people and as a polity, have been debating issues like the desirable degree of government assistance for generations. Stone asks: How do we resolve these paradoxes? And her conclusion is: There is no straightforward formula. Instead of a formula, she provides us with a framework for addressing policy paradoxes—imagining ourselves as a political community and acting accordingly. - Jamila Michener, assistant professor of government at Cornell University in an interview with Five Books

More:
https://fivebooks.com/best-books/jami...

Source: Five Books

Regulating the Poor: The Functions of Public Welfare

by Frances Fox Piven (no photo)

Piven and Cloward have updated their classic work on the history and function of welfare to cover the American welfare state's massive erosion during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton years.

The authors present a boldly comprehensive, brilliant new theory to explain the comparative underdevelopment of the U.S. welfare state among advanced industrial nations.

Their conceptual framework promises to shape the debate within current and future administrations as they attempt to rethink the welfare system and its role in American society.

Reviews and Interviews:

"Uncompromising and provocative. . . . By mixing history, political interpretation and sociological analysis, Piven and Cloward provide the best explanation to date of our present situation . . . no future discussion of welfare can afford to ignore them."
—Peter Steinfels, The New York Times Book Review

"Regulating the Poor is a classic. Piven and Cloward bring a lot of historical evidence to bear in this book, in making a straightforward argument. Their main contention is that welfare systems play a political function.

These systems don’t just exist because we’re good people who want to help those in need, although that’s part of it. They also serve a social control function.

Piven and Cloward lay out a cyclical description of how the generosity of social welfare policies have waxed and waned. When there is discord on the horizon, when it looks like folks in poverty are going to be reacting to their economic insecurity in socially disorderly ways—as was the case in the 1960s—policy benefits get more generous. That helps regulate the poor, it keeps them from reacting in a way that might necessitate more fundamental political change. But when the political front is quiet, we cycle back to a less generous system in order to position people to be useful in the labor market.

This is a descriptive account, but the broader point that Piven and Cloward assert is that social welfare policy is not only about goodwill and general principles, it is also about continual attempts by the state to control lower income populations. This is a controversial contention. But Piven and Cloward provoked political scientists to grapple with it. That is why this book is important.

What does the comparative underdevelopment of the American welfare system tell us about the contentions made by Piven and Cloward?

The primary reason for regulating the poor, as far as Piven and Cloward are concerned, is to support the market economy and maintain social order. When we need more labourers in the market, we pull back welfare benefits and we get people who are willing to take any job. While I think there is much truth to their contentions, there are other reasons for regulating poor people. One of those reasons is that, in the US, poor people are disproportionately black and Latino; they’re racial ‘others.’

Historically, this points to reasons beyond the economic for motivating the public and political elites in the US to want to ensure that they can control and take punitive measures against not just poor people in general, but against poor people of colour in particular. To the extent that the UK and other western welfare states are more generous, one of the main differentiating factors is race.

But that is only part of the story. There is a substantial literature around comparative welfare states that traces why the United States welfare state is underdeveloped." -- Interview with Jamila Michener, assistant professor of government at Cornell University at FiveBooks

More: https://fivebooks.com/best-books/jami...

Source: FiveBooks

The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy (Chicago Studies in American Politics)

by Suzanne Mettler

“Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Such comments spotlight a central question animating Suzanne Mettler’s provocative and timely book: why are many Americans unaware of government social benefits and so hostile to them in principle, even though they receive them?

The Obama administration has been roundly criticized for its inability to convey how much it has accomplished for ordinary citizens.

Mettler argues that this difficulty is not merely a failure of communication; rather it is endemic to the formidable presence of the “submerged state.”

In recent decades, federal policymakers have increasingly shunned the outright disbursing of benefits to individuals and families and favored instead less visible and more indirect incentives and subsidies, from tax breaks to payments for services to private companies.

These submerged policies, Mettler shows, obscure the role of government and exaggerate that of the market.

As a result, citizens are unaware not only of the benefits they receive, but of the massive advantages given to powerful interests, such as insurance companies and the financial industry.

Neither do they realize that the policies of the submerged state shower their largest benefits on the most affluent Americans, exacerbating inequality.

Mettler analyzes three Obama reforms—student aid, tax relief, and health care—to reveal the submerged state and its consequences, demonstrating how structurally difficult it is to enact policy reforms and even to obtain public recognition for achieving them.

She concludes with recommendations for reform to help make hidden policies more visible and governance more comprehensible to all Americans.

The sad truth is that many American citizens do not know how major social programs work—or even whether they benefit from them.

Suzanne Mettler’s important new book will bring government policies back to the surface and encourage citizens to reclaim their voice in the political process.

Reviews:

“The Submerged State is a vitally important analysis for anyone who has bemoaned the inertia and inequities of modern US politics.”-- (Times Higher Education)

“[I]nformative [and] engaging. . . . This is an important, well-reasoned, welcome volume. Highly recommended.”-- (D. R. Imig Choice)

“Mettler demonstrates convincingly that the submerged state perpetuates economic inequality as well as confusion, ignorance, and apathy. The average citizen would benefit greatly if, as far as possible, Mettler’s prescriptions for the reduction of the submerged state were to be effected.” -- (Ursula Hackett Oxonian Review)

“Important and provocative.” -- (Jeffery A. Jenkins, University of Virginia Congress & the Presidency)

“Why do Americans find government so baffling and irritating—even though many of us depend on public programs for a secure retirement, an affordable mortgage, or a college loan?

In this timely and important book, political scientist Suzanne Mettler explains how the United States has come to rely on hidden, indirect policies that privilege special interests but puzzle regular citizens. American democracy can do better, and she shows how. Politicians and the public alike have much to learn from her brilliant and engaging analysis.” -- (Theda Skocpol, Harvard University)

“Americans want government policies to be transparent, straightforward, and fair, but many social programs are confusing and opaque and shower benefits disproportionately on the well-to-do. In this timely, penetrating, and highly readable book, Suzanne Mettler illuminates the hidden government benefits and subsidies that comprise our ‘submerged state’ and demonstrates how its murky operation impairs democratic practice and weakens civic engagement.”--(Eric M. Patashnik, University of Virginia)

George Floyd Moves the World


A Black Lives Matter protest in Paris, France, June 2020
Eric Bouvet / VII / Redux

George Floyd Moves the World - The Legacy of Racial Protest in America and the Imperative of Reform - by Mary L. Dudziak -
June 11, 2020

The killing of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer has thrust the United States into an uncomfortable light, as people around the world have taken to the streets to decry American racism.

In Milan, protesters sat with hands around their necks in front of “I can’t breathe” signs, quoting Floyd’s dying words.

The phrase was spelled out in candles in Australia.

In Dublin, a large crowd, fists in the air, chanted, “No justice, no peace.” Syrians painted a mural of Floyd amid the rubble in Idlib.

Black people across the world, said Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo, were “shocked and distraught” by Floyd’s killing.

In many places, crowds turned their attention to practices by their own countries. In New Zealand, indigenous people stressed their vulnerability to racial profiling. In Bristol, England, protesters toppled the statue of Edward Colston, a prominent slave trader, and threw it into the harbor. In Belgium, protesters set fire to a statue of King Leopold II. The reaction went beyond a rebuke of racial injustice when Minneapolis police shot foreign reporters with “nonlethal” weapons, leading to criticism from foreign governments about the importance of press freedom.

The global impact of the Black Lives Matter movement in recent weeks has felt like a shift “as monumental as the Berlin Wall coming down,” wrote the journalist Kim Zetter. But stunning as the reaction was, it was not unfamiliar: global demonstrations in solidarity with American racial protest were common during the U.S. civil rights movement. And as they did then, U.S. foreign policy leaders today have looked at the global response and considered the effect of the crisis on U.S. foreign relations—worrying that the protests and violent police response, coming on top of the United States’ handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic downturn, threaten to undermine American strength in the world. As Richard Haass wrote for Foreign Affairs last week, “The turmoil in the United States, set before the eyes of the world, raises questions about American power.” This message echoes the concern of American diplomats from the civil rights era: failing to live up to the nation’s stated ideals undermines its international influence.

During the civil rights movement, concern over the impact U.S. racism had on the nation’s global image helped reinforce pressure for reforms, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The focus on how the United States was perceived, however, rather than deeper structures of inequality, ultimately limited reform efforts. Race discrimination remained an American feature, undermining rights at home and leaving the United States persistently vulnerable to the charge that its promotion of democracy and human rights abroad was hypocritical.

Remainder of article:
Link: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articl...

Source: Foreign Affairs