Does public policy matter? When we think about this question, our attention is naturally drawn to the specific aims of the policy at hand. So, if we pass a law to improve education, our measures of success might be improved standardized test scores or higher graduation rates; for environmental policy, we look at whether the air is cleaner or whether the populations of endangered species are growing.
But a lively group of political scientists has argued that, when we ask whether policy matters, we need to think much more broadly, taking into account how policy affects important values of participation, voice, representation, and equality. These scholars -- who include Andrea Louise Campbell, Helen Ingram, Suzanne Mettler, Paul Pierson, Anne Schneider, Theda Skocpol, and Joe Soss -- make the case that, in a host of subtle ways, public policy structures democracy itself.
Put simply, public policy profoundly influences who counts and who doesn't. It does so by influencing the resources and skills that people can turn toward participation, the belief that their participation will affect political outcomes, and the stake they have in government action.
Public policies create politically relevant constituencies. The political scientist E.E. Schattschneider observed 75 years ago that new policies create new politics. In today's parlance, public policies produce feedback effects on political and civic engagement.
Which brings us to the health-reform debate. Opponents of health reform have argued that passage of the bill will boomerang, dooming supporters' electoral prospects in the midterm elections and planting the seeds for repeal once the Congress changes partisan control.
Studies of policy feedbacks raise serious questions about these assumptions. If the GI Bill, Social Security, and other far-reaching social policies are any guide, the health-care bill's repeal would seem unlikely. Rather, health care reform would be expected to restructure health-care politics in several ways: Beneficiaries could have greater civic resources (money, time) and civic capacity (health) to devote to political participation; they could develop stronger psychic bonds to their government, encouraging greater civic involvement; and they could come together in an interest-based constituency to defend and expand the new programmatic benefits afforded to them.
Of course, this argument assumes that health care reform is a well-designed policy -- that it is, indeed, the sort of good policy that makes for good politics, to paraphrase President Obama. We should have a pretty good sense of this by November 2010.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Bart Stupak & the Dilemma of Representation
The sudden rise of Rep. Bart Stupak in the health-reform debate, and the national role he has played, spotlights a dilemma of democratic representation that has been under-appreciated in the current debate. That dilemma concerns whether members of Congress are servants of their voting constituencies or of the broader public good, the national constituency, if you will.
In his pep talk to House Democrats yesterday, President Obama tried to make the case that, really, there was no trade-off or tension between these two visions. Good policy makes for good politics, he argued. What's good for the nation is good for your district. In a lot of policy debates, that is probably true.
Yet, the case of Bart Stupak (D-MI) suggests that, contrary to President Obama's effort to reconcile the constituency dilemma, elected officials may find it expedient to play them off against each other. Let me explain.
For months, Rep. Stupak has led a group of like-minded House members to get stricter antiabortion provisions into the bill, at times threatening to derail the most significant piece of health-care legislation in two generations. Although his district is conservative, Rep. Stupak has never claimed that he is simply representing the views of his voting constituency. Rather, he has signaled through word and deed that he is representing his own Catholic conscience and the values of abortion foes nationwide.
Such is his prerogative, and there is no doubt that his motives are sincere. What is troubling, however, is that while he purports to represent a national constituency, not simply a district-based one, he has effectively shut out the members of that national constituency, both prolife and prochoice, from communicating their views to him by the only practical means: email.
Go to Rep. Stupak's website (http://www.house.gov/stupak/) and try to send a letter by pressing the "Email Congressman Stupak" link. You will find that you are required to fill in your address. When you get to the state box, you will find that Michigan is the only state listed in the pull-down menu. If you enter a zip code other than one in Rep. Stupak's district, and then attempt to send your letter, your letter will evaporate, and in its place you will be greeted with the following message from the Congressman: "Your zip code indicates that you are outside of the 1st District of Michigan. Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 1st District of Michigan."
By all accounts, Rep. Stupak is a principled leader, and his efforts are part of the democratic process. However, by seeking to represent a national constituency, but not allowing communication from the citizenry at large, he has left himself vulnerable to the perception that he is hiding behind his district. He is, in effect, trying to have it both ways: purporting to represent a national constituency but holding himself accountable only to a local one. To a citizen outside the 1st District of Michigan who would be deeply affected by his efforts, this seems to violate the spirit of the First Amendment, which accords us the right to petition our government.
Elected officials who aspire to represent national constituencies must be prepared to listen to voices, both friendly and unfriendly, from outside their districts.
In his pep talk to House Democrats yesterday, President Obama tried to make the case that, really, there was no trade-off or tension between these two visions. Good policy makes for good politics, he argued. What's good for the nation is good for your district. In a lot of policy debates, that is probably true.
Yet, the case of Bart Stupak (D-MI) suggests that, contrary to President Obama's effort to reconcile the constituency dilemma, elected officials may find it expedient to play them off against each other. Let me explain.
For months, Rep. Stupak has led a group of like-minded House members to get stricter antiabortion provisions into the bill, at times threatening to derail the most significant piece of health-care legislation in two generations. Although his district is conservative, Rep. Stupak has never claimed that he is simply representing the views of his voting constituency. Rather, he has signaled through word and deed that he is representing his own Catholic conscience and the values of abortion foes nationwide.
Such is his prerogative, and there is no doubt that his motives are sincere. What is troubling, however, is that while he purports to represent a national constituency, not simply a district-based one, he has effectively shut out the members of that national constituency, both prolife and prochoice, from communicating their views to him by the only practical means: email.
Go to Rep. Stupak's website (http://www.house.gov/stupak/) and try to send a letter by pressing the "Email Congressman Stupak" link. You will find that you are required to fill in your address. When you get to the state box, you will find that Michigan is the only state listed in the pull-down menu. If you enter a zip code other than one in Rep. Stupak's district, and then attempt to send your letter, your letter will evaporate, and in its place you will be greeted with the following message from the Congressman: "Your zip code indicates that you are outside of the 1st District of Michigan. Regrettably, I am unable to reply to any email from constituents outside of the 1st District of Michigan."
By all accounts, Rep. Stupak is a principled leader, and his efforts are part of the democratic process. However, by seeking to represent a national constituency, but not allowing communication from the citizenry at large, he has left himself vulnerable to the perception that he is hiding behind his district. He is, in effect, trying to have it both ways: purporting to represent a national constituency but holding himself accountable only to a local one. To a citizen outside the 1st District of Michigan who would be deeply affected by his efforts, this seems to violate the spirit of the First Amendment, which accords us the right to petition our government.
Elected officials who aspire to represent national constituencies must be prepared to listen to voices, both friendly and unfriendly, from outside their districts.
Postcard from Ecuador: Giving Globe-locally
About two hours north of Quito, 9000 feet up in the Andes, in the shadow of the Imbabura volcano, lies a wonderful Hacienda owned by the children and grandchildren of two former Ecuadorian presidents. Hacienda Zuleta offers a magical stay for guests, who are welcomed into the family home and treated to fascinating stories about the history and politics of the region, as well as spectacular scenery, perfect weather, five-star meals, and restful accommodations.
The Hacienda uses the tourism proceeds in part to support a family charity, The Galo Plaza Lasso Foundation. The foundation is named after the owners' father, a progressive and farsighted leader who served as President from 1948-52 and went on to have a distinguished career as an international diplomat in trouble spots such as Congo and Lebanon.
The foundation oversees several initiatives: a community center and educational programs for the children of tiny Zuleta village, a rescue and rehabilitation program for Ecuador's endangered condor population, and a microenterprise operated by the renowned embroiderers of Zuleta. The women's collective was begun in the 1950s by the First Lady of Ecuador, Rosario Pallares, before the term microenterprise had come into fashion.
The foundation is a wonderful cause with a ready-made donor base of tourists who visit the Hacienda and see these projects first hand. Yet the U.S. tax laws, while providing incentives for Americans to donate to worthy projects such as these at home, provide no such incentive for charities abroad. Tourists give, but perhaps not at the level they would if they had the extra financial incentive to dig into their pockets.
The foundation's visionary leaders would like to expand its programs, and that takes money. Their choice is to try to establish a U.S.-based charity -- a costly, bureaucratically challenging process whose outcome is by no means assured -- or find a U.S.-based charity that is willing to serve as the foundation's fiscal sponsor. Both are daunting challenges for a small, volunteer-run foundation at the top of the Andes.
The foundation's experience raises interesting questions of public policy. Presumably, Americans can't deduct donations going directly to foreign charities because the U.S. government has no oversight authority over these entities. The policy is reasonable and understandable: No taxpayer wants the government to subsidize charities whose bona fides cannot be monitored, much less guaranteed.
But we live in a global society, and Americans -- particularly young Americans -- consider themselves citizens of the world. It's increasingly difficult to distinguish U.S. causes from those of other countries. For purposes of social change, young people see national boundaries as largely artifacts of geography.
Fortunately, a few entrepreneurial organizations have recognized the dilemma and found ways to encourage global altruism while ensuring domestic accountability.
One such group is Globalgiving.org, whose mission is to "build an efficient, open, thriving marketplace that connects people who have community and world-changing ideas with people who can support them." The website allows Americans to make a tax-deductible contribution to roughly 2,300 small, locally run projects working on issues from feeding orphaned cheetahs in Namibia, to helping families build an ecotourism hub in Jordan, to providing care for young sex-trafficking survivors in Cambodia.
Global Giving charges a 15% sponsorship fee. In exchange, it facilitates the donations and oversees the projects -- making sure, for example, that they have management, mission, and governance standards consistent with international-philanthropy guidelines. In essence, Global Giving fills the role of government regulator, making sure that the charitable projects are doing what they claim.
Global Giving was started by two former World Bank executives who saw the power of online philanthropy in addressing global poverty. Their experience suggests a broader role for other multinational institutions, such as the United Nations, whose foundation serves as the fiscal sponsor for charitable projects such as the antimalaria charity "Nothing but Nets."
There is no substitute for experiencing the social entrepreneurship where it's happening, whether in the Andean highlands of Ecuador or wherever else you might travel. The passion, creativity, vision, and daily labors of love are life-affirming to behold. But if you can't go, you can give.
The Hacienda uses the tourism proceeds in part to support a family charity, The Galo Plaza Lasso Foundation. The foundation is named after the owners' father, a progressive and farsighted leader who served as President from 1948-52 and went on to have a distinguished career as an international diplomat in trouble spots such as Congo and Lebanon.
The foundation oversees several initiatives: a community center and educational programs for the children of tiny Zuleta village, a rescue and rehabilitation program for Ecuador's endangered condor population, and a microenterprise operated by the renowned embroiderers of Zuleta. The women's collective was begun in the 1950s by the First Lady of Ecuador, Rosario Pallares, before the term microenterprise had come into fashion.
The foundation is a wonderful cause with a ready-made donor base of tourists who visit the Hacienda and see these projects first hand. Yet the U.S. tax laws, while providing incentives for Americans to donate to worthy projects such as these at home, provide no such incentive for charities abroad. Tourists give, but perhaps not at the level they would if they had the extra financial incentive to dig into their pockets.
The foundation's visionary leaders would like to expand its programs, and that takes money. Their choice is to try to establish a U.S.-based charity -- a costly, bureaucratically challenging process whose outcome is by no means assured -- or find a U.S.-based charity that is willing to serve as the foundation's fiscal sponsor. Both are daunting challenges for a small, volunteer-run foundation at the top of the Andes.
The foundation's experience raises interesting questions of public policy. Presumably, Americans can't deduct donations going directly to foreign charities because the U.S. government has no oversight authority over these entities. The policy is reasonable and understandable: No taxpayer wants the government to subsidize charities whose bona fides cannot be monitored, much less guaranteed.
But we live in a global society, and Americans -- particularly young Americans -- consider themselves citizens of the world. It's increasingly difficult to distinguish U.S. causes from those of other countries. For purposes of social change, young people see national boundaries as largely artifacts of geography.
Fortunately, a few entrepreneurial organizations have recognized the dilemma and found ways to encourage global altruism while ensuring domestic accountability.
One such group is Globalgiving.org, whose mission is to "build an efficient, open, thriving marketplace that connects people who have community and world-changing ideas with people who can support them." The website allows Americans to make a tax-deductible contribution to roughly 2,300 small, locally run projects working on issues from feeding orphaned cheetahs in Namibia, to helping families build an ecotourism hub in Jordan, to providing care for young sex-trafficking survivors in Cambodia.
Global Giving charges a 15% sponsorship fee. In exchange, it facilitates the donations and oversees the projects -- making sure, for example, that they have management, mission, and governance standards consistent with international-philanthropy guidelines. In essence, Global Giving fills the role of government regulator, making sure that the charitable projects are doing what they claim.
Global Giving was started by two former World Bank executives who saw the power of online philanthropy in addressing global poverty. Their experience suggests a broader role for other multinational institutions, such as the United Nations, whose foundation serves as the fiscal sponsor for charitable projects such as the antimalaria charity "Nothing but Nets."
There is no substitute for experiencing the social entrepreneurship where it's happening, whether in the Andean highlands of Ecuador or wherever else you might travel. The passion, creativity, vision, and daily labors of love are life-affirming to behold. But if you can't go, you can give.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The Right to Representation
The Swiss will soon vote on whether to offer abused or neglected animals state-appointed legal representation.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,681363,00.html
(Thanks to www.newser.com for finding this story!)
Disenfranchised groups benefit most when their interests are incorporated into the formal architecture of government -- when there is a civil servant or bureau or department on the case. In the U.S., for example, the Children's Bureau played an important role in child welfare policy in the early 20th century. Even more than children, animals are a disenfranchised group -- they don't speak, much less organize or vote -- making institutionalized representation all the more imperative.
Animal welfare is a classic public good -- something we all benefit from without regard to whether we contributed to its production. Left to the free market, public goods will be undersupplied. Government's role is to supply them.
As Zurich's animal-welfare lawyer, Antoine Goetschel, notes: "The changes would acknowledge the importance of human-animal relationships and ensure that the existing law in regard to them is properly applied."
The Swiss are farsighted on this issue, both as a moral proposition and as a matter of political logic.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,681363,00.html
(Thanks to www.newser.com for finding this story!)
Disenfranchised groups benefit most when their interests are incorporated into the formal architecture of government -- when there is a civil servant or bureau or department on the case. In the U.S., for example, the Children's Bureau played an important role in child welfare policy in the early 20th century. Even more than children, animals are a disenfranchised group -- they don't speak, much less organize or vote -- making institutionalized representation all the more imperative.
Animal welfare is a classic public good -- something we all benefit from without regard to whether we contributed to its production. Left to the free market, public goods will be undersupplied. Government's role is to supply them.
As Zurich's animal-welfare lawyer, Antoine Goetschel, notes: "The changes would acknowledge the importance of human-animal relationships and ensure that the existing law in regard to them is properly applied."
The Swiss are farsighted on this issue, both as a moral proposition and as a matter of political logic.
Capt. Sullenberger Retiring
As I was sitting down to write my first post a few minutes ago, I read that Capt. Chesley (Sully) Sullenberger is retiring, along with flight attendant Doreen Welsh. As everyone knows by now, Sully was the USAirways pilot who safely landed his disabled Airbus in the Hudson in January 2009, making America feel good for the first time in a long time. Ms. Welsh was at the back of the plane and suffered a serious leg gash as she tried to shepherd panicked passengers toward the escape doors in the front. As someone who flies weekly between my house and my workplace, often on USAirways, I've come to admire airline crews for cheerfully putting up with long hours, pay and pension cuts, job insecurity, grumpy and disobedient passengers, and a work environment that leaves no room for error. The USAirways crew and New York ground controllers on January 15, 2009, embody what this blog is about: ordinary people called to unlikely action who leave our world a better place. A tip of the hat to Capt. Sullenberger and Flight Attendant Welsh, their fellow crew members and all the folks who do such a good job taking care of us in the air.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
