Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making
Chapter One Summary
The Market and the Polis
The author begins with the statement “A theory of policy politics must start with a model
of political society, that is, a model of the simplest version of society that retains the
essential elements of politics.” She chooses the word Greek word “polis”, which means
city-state. This word is fitting because it describes an entity small enough to have very
simple forms of organization yet large enough to embody the elements of politics. In
searching for the elements of politics, it is helpful to use the market model as a foil
because of its predominance in contemporary policy discussions. The contrast between
the models of political and market society will illuminate the ways the market model
grossly distorts political life.
A market can be defined as a social system in which individuals pursue their own welfare
by exchanging things with others whenever trades are mutually beneficial. Participants
in the market are in competition with each other for scarce resources; each person tries to
acquire things at the least possible cost, and to convert raw materials into valuable things
that can be sold at the highest possible price. In the market model, individuals act only to
maximize their own self-interest (which might include the well-being of their friends and
family). Maximizing one’s own welfare stimulates people to be resourceful, creative,
clever and productive, and ultimately raises the level of economic well-being of the
society as a whole. With this description of the market model, an alternative model of the
polis can be constructed by contrasting more detailed features of the market model and a
political community.
Community
Because politics and policy can only happen in communities, community must be the
starting point of the polis. Public policy is about communities trying to achieve
something as a community. This is true even when there are conflicts over what the
goals should be and who the members of the community are. Unlike the market, which
starts with individuals and assumes no goals, preferences, or intentions other than those
held by individuals, a model of the polis must assume both collective will and collective
effort.
A community must have a membership and some way of defining who is a member of
the community and who is not. Membership is in some sense the primary political issue,
for membership definitions and rules determine who is allowed to participate in
community activities and who is governed by community rules and authority. The author
notes a significant distinction between residence and citizenship.
She continues with a discussion of the difference between political community and
cultural community. A political community is a group of people who live under the same
political rules and structure of governance and share status as citizens. A cultural
community is a group of people who share a culture and draw their identities from a
common language, history, and traditions. The political community can include many
diverse cultural communities, and policy politics is faced with the question how to
integrate several cultural communities into a single political community without
destroying or sacrificing their identity and integrity.
Membership in a community defines social and economic rights as well as political
rights. The author recognizes that there is a component of “mutual aid” among
community members. Mutual aid is a good in itself that people create in order to foster
and protect a community. Sharing burdens brings and holds people together. And in a
larger sense, sharing caring, and maintaining relationships is at least as strong a motivator
of human behavior as competition, separation, and promotion of one’s separate selfinterests.
Public Interest
The concept of “public interest” may mean any of several things. It could be individual
interests held in common, individual goals for the community, program or policies
favored by a majority, or things that are good for the community as a community. It’s
important to note in regards to public interest that often people want things for their
community that conflict with what they want for themselves (such as lower taxes and
good schools) and that what people want usually changes over time. At the very least,
every community has a general interest in having some governing process and some
means for resolving disputes without violence, defending itself from outsiders, and
perpetual existence.
There is virtually never full agreement on the public interest, yet it is necessary to make it
a defining characteristic of the polis because so much of politics is people fighting over
what the public interest is and trying to realize their own definition of it. The concept of
public interest is to the polis what self-interest is to the market. They are both
abstractions whose specific contents we do not need to know in order to use them to
explain and predict people’s behavior. We simply assume that people behave as if they
were trying to realize the public interest or maximize their self-interest.
Essentially within a market the empty box of public interest is filled as an afterthought
with the side effects of other activities. In the polis, by contrast, people fill the box
intentionally, with forethought, planning, and conscious effort.
Common Problems
Common problems are defined as situations where self-interest and public interest work
against each other. There are two types of common problems: actions with private
benefits entail a social cost (industrial waste into a lake); and social benefits require
private sacrifices (school system requires taxes). Any situation can be described in both
ways (clean lakes are a social benefit requiring private costs of nonpolluting waste
disposal and a poor school system is the social cost of high private consumption). So
whether a situation is labeled as “social benefits and private costs” or “social costs and
private benefits” is strictly a matter of point of view.
Common problems are also called collective action problems because it is hard to
motivate people to undertake private costs or forgo private benefits for the collective
good. (Think global warming!)
In market theory, common problems are thought to be the exception rather than the rule.
In the polis, by contrast, common problems are everything. Most significant policy
problems are common problems. The major dilemma of policy in the polis is how to get
people to give primacy to these broader consequences in their private calculus of choices,
especially in an era when the dominant culture celebrates private consumption and
personal gain.
Influence
Fortunately, the vast gap between self-interest and public interest is bridged in the polis
by some potent forces: influence, cooperation, and loyalty. Actions, no less than ideas
are influenced by others-through the choices others have made and the ones we expect
them to make, by what they want us to do, and by what we think they expect us to do.
More often than not, the author argues, our choices are conditional. (Striking worker,
post office complaint)
Influence also leads to interesting collective behavior, such as “bandwagon effects” in
elections when a candidate’s initial lead cause more people to support him because they
want to back a winner or when panics happen when people fear an economic collapse,
rush out to cash out their bank accounts or sell their stocks, and in so doing bring about
the collapse they feared. One cannot understate that influence-in all its varieties and
degrees of strength-is one of the central elements in politics.
Cooperation
In the polis cooperation is as important as competition for the following reasons. First,
politics involve seeking allies and organizing cooperation in order to compete with
opponents. Every conflict unites some people as it divides others and politics has as
much to do with how alliances are made and held together as with how people are
divided. Secondly, cooperation is essential to power and is often a more effective form
of subordination than coercion. (Prison guard and prisoners)
In the market, cooperation is usually described negatively (collusion, oligarchy, pricefixing, insider trading) while in the polis it is described more positively (coalition,
alliance, union, party, support).
Loyalty
Cooperation entails alliances, and alliances are at least somewhat enduring. In the ideal
market, a buyer will switch suppliers in response to a price or quality change. In politics,
relationships are not so fluid. They involve gifts, favors, support and most of all, future
obligations. Political alliances bind people over time. In the market, people are “buyers”
and “sellers”. In politics, they are “enemies” and “friends”. Friendships are forgiving in
a way that pure commercial relationships are not, or should be. In the polis, history
counts for a lot; in the market, it counts for nothing. (It’s business not personal)
This does not mean that political alliances are perfectly stable or that people never
abandon friends and join with former enemies. But it does mean that in the polis there’s
a presumption of loyalty. It takes a major event-something that triggers a deep fear or
offers a vast opportunity-to get them to switch their loyalties. There is a risk to breaking
old alliances and people do not do it lightly.
Groups
Because of the powerful forces of influence, cooperation and loyalty, groups and
organizations, rather than individuals are the building blocks of the polis. Groups are
important in three ways: First, people belong to institutions and organizations, even when
they are not formal members and their opinions are shaped by organizations and they
depend on organizations to represent their needs. Second, the author asserts, policy
making is not only about solving public problems, but about how groups are formed,
split, and re-formed to achieve public purposes. Third, groups are important because
decisions of the polis are collective.
Information
In the ideal market, information is perfect, meaning it is accurate, complete and available
to everyone at no cost. In the polis, by contrast, information is interpretive, incomplete,
and strategically withheld. Correct information does exist, but in the politics, the
important thing is what people make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful
than facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control such
interpretation. (Think spin control). In the polis, information is never complete. More
importantly for a model of the polis is that crucial information is deliberately kept secret
for the reason that one expects someone else to behave differently once the information is
made public. (Think Fred Thompson joining the race for presidency) Secrecy and
revelation are tools of political strategy and information by its very nature is valued and
valuable.
Passion
One of the “Laws of Passion” is that passion feeds upon itself. Like passion, political
resources are often enlarged or enhanced through use. Channels of influence and
political connections grow by being used. Political skills and authority also grow with
use. The more one makes certain types of decisions, the easier it is to continue in the
same path, in part because repeated decisions require no new thought, and in part because
people are less likely to resist or question orders and requests they have obeyed before.
This phenomenon of resource expansion is ignored in the market model.
Another law of passion governing the polis is “the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts”. A protest march means something more than a few thousand people walking
down the street. Most human actions change their meaning and impact when done in
concert or in quantity. Another is “things can mean (and therefore be) more than one
thing at once.” (Health care expenditures) Ambiguity and symbolic meanings have no
home in the market model of society, where everything has its precise value or cost.
Power
Power is the primary defining characteristic of a political society and is derived from all
the other elements. It is a phenomenon of communities. Its purpose is always to
subordinate individual self-interest to other interests-sometimes to other individual or
group interests, sometimes to the public interest. It operates through influence,
cooperation, and loyalty. It is based also on the strategic control of information. And
finally, it is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the laws of matter.
Any model of society must specify its source of energy, the force or forces that drive
change. In the market model, change is driven by exchange, which is in turn motivated
by self-interest. Through exchanges, the use and distribution of resources is changed. In
the polis, change occurs through the interaction of mutually defining ideas and alliances.
Ideas about politics shape political alliances, and strategic considerations of building and
maintaining alliances in turn shape the ideas people espouse and seek to implement.
Stone, Chap. 1
To show how market models distort political life and to design an alternative model, the
author contrast the political community and a market model based society. The Greek
term, Polis, meaning city-state is used to embody the essence of the political society. It
describes an entity small enough to have simple forms of organization, yet large enough
to embody the elements of politics…
In a market, the participants are competing for scarce resources and their goal is to make
a profit by:
1. Acquire goods at the lowest cost
2. Convert raw goods to profitable finished goods
The market model is used because of the prevalence in contemporary policy discussions.
In the market model, the participants,
1. strive to maximize their own self-interest
a. Self-interest is described as one’s own welfare as perceived by them
This maximizing of welfare stimulates people to be resourceful, creative, clever and
productive, and ultimately raises the level of economic well-being of the society as a
whole and this is assumed to be benefits to all of society.
The author discusses the difference between political community and cultural
community. A political community is a group of people who live under the same
political rules and structure of governance and share status as citizens. A cultural
community is a group of people who share a culture and draw their identities from a
common language, history, and traditions. The political community can include many
diverse cultural communities, and policy politics is faced with the question how to
integrate several cultural communities into a single political community without
destroying or sacrificing their identity and integrity.
In the construction of a new polis model the author looks at the concepts of society to
contrast political community and the market model.
1. Unit of analysis, or who makes the determinations
a. Under market it is the individual
Unlike the market, which starts with individuals and assumes no goals, preferences, or
intentions other than those held by individuals, a model of the polis must assume both
collective will and collective effort.
b. And in the polis, the community makes the determination
2. What are the motivations?
a. In market model, it is self-interest which drives the motivation
The author said, It’s important to note in regards to public interest that often people want
things for their community that conflict with what they want for themselves (such as
lower taxes and good schools)
b. So In polis, it is the public interest which serves self-interest.
3. Chief conflict
a. Individuals perceived welfare versus another’s Individuals perceived
welfare
b. In the polis it is Self-interest vs public interest (cost of externalities, use of
commons)
Common problems are defined as situations where self-interest and public interest work
against each other. There are two types of common problems: actions with private
benefits entail a social cost (industrial waste into a lake); and social benefits require
private sacrifices (school system requires taxes). Fortunately, the vast gap between selfinterest and public interest is bridged in the polis by some potent forces: influence,
cooperation, and loyalty. Actions, no less than ideas are influenced by others-through the
choices others have made and the ones we expect them to make, by what they want us to
do, and by what we think they expect us to do. More often than not, the author argues,
our choices are conditional. (Striking worker, post office complaint)
4. Peoples ideas and preferences
a. From the self-interest individual
b. Strong Influence from the community
5. Nature of collective activity
a. MM competition
b. PM cooperation and competition
In the polis model, cooperation is as important as competition for the following reasons.
First, politics involve seeking allies and organizing cooperation in order to compete with
opponents. Secondly, cooperation is essential to power
In the market, cooperation is usually described negatively (collusion, price-fixing, insider
trading) while in the polis it is described more positively (coalition, alliance, union, party,
support).
6. criteria for decision-making
a. mm Max self interest and min cost
In the ideal market, a buyer will switch suppliers in response to a price or quality
change.
b. Loyalty, max self-interest, promote public interest
In the polis, history counts for a lot; in the market, it counts for nothing. (It’s business not
personal)
7. Building blocks of social action
a. Mm individuals
b. Pm groups
Because of the powerful forces of influence, cooperation and loyalty, the groups and
organizations, rather than individuals are the building blocks of the polis.
Groups are important in three ways:
First, people belong to institutions and organizations, their opinions are shaped by
organizations and they depend on organizations to represent their needs.
Second, the author asserts, policy making is not only about solving public problems, but
about how groups are formed, split, and re-formed to achieve public purposes.
Third, groups are important because decisions of the polis are collective.
8. nature of information
a. accurate, complete, available
b. where polis, tends to be, ambiguous, interpretive, incomplete, manipulated
In the ideal market, information is perfect, meaning it is accurate, complete and available
to everyone at no cost. In the polis, by contrast, information is interpretive, incomplete,
and strategically withheld. Correct information does exist, but in the politics, the
important thing is what people make of such reports. Interpretations are more powerful
than facts. For this reason, much of political activity is an effort to control such
interpretation. (Think spin control). In the polis, information is never complete. Secrecy
and revelation are tools of political strategy and information by its very nature is valued
and valuable.
9. How things work,
a. Law of matter, resources are finite and diminish with use
b. Law of passion,
One of the “Laws of Passion” is that passion feeds upon itself. Like passion, political
resources are often enlarged or enhanced through use. Political skills and authority also
grow with use. The more one makes certain types of decisions, the easier it is to continue
in the same path, in part because repeated decisions require no new thought, and in part
because people are less likely to resist or question orders and requests they have obeyed
before. This phenomenon of resource expansion is ignored in the market model.
Another law of passion governing the polis is “the whole is greater than the sum of its
parts”. A protest march means something more than a few thousand people walking
down the street. Most human actions change their meaning and impact when done in
concert or in quantity. Another is “things can mean (and therefore be) more than one
thing at once.” (Health care expenditures) Ambiguity and symbolic meanings have no
home in the market model of society, where everything has its precise value or cost.
10. source of change
a. material exchange and quest to maximize own welfare
b. ideas, persuasion, and alliances and pursuit of power, own welfare, and
public interest.
Control & Power is the primary defining characteristic of a political society and is
derived from all the other elements.
1. Its purpose is always to subordinate individual self-interest to others.
2. It operates through influence, cooperation, and loyalty.
3. It is based also on the strategic control of information.
4. It is a resource that obeys the laws of passion rather than the laws of matter.
Any model of society must specify its source of energy, the force or forces that drive
change. In the market model, change is driven by exchange, which is in turn motivated
by self-interest. Through exchanges, the use and distribution of resources is changed. In
the polis, change occurs through the interaction of mutually defining ideas and alliances.
Ideas about politics shape political alliances, and strategic considerations of building and
maintaining alliances in turn shape the ideas people espouse and seek to implement.
Chapter 2- Equity
“Every policy issue involves the distribution of something.”
A distributive conflict is any conflict where equity is the goal.
The paradox of distributive problems:
“Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require unequal treatment;
and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal, depending on one’s point of
view.” (see cake in class distribution pps. 40-41)
Equality = uniformity in distribution, sameness
Equity = “distributions regarded as fair, even though they contain both equalities and
inequalities”
Three important dimensions to any distribution:
1) Recipients (i.e. Who gets something)
2) Item (i.e. What is being distributed)
3) Process (i.e. How is the distribution being decided upon and carried out)
Horizontal equity- equal treatment of people of the same rank.
Vertical equity- unequal treatment of people in different ranks.
-rank/merit based distribution
-group based distributions (e.g. quotas, affirmative action, etc.)
In some instances (e.g. lottery, athletic competition) people accept unequal outcomes as
long as there is a fair process in place for deciding the outcome. (many things of value
are indivisible).
Two views of equality1) criteria of the process: fairness in process
2) criteria of the recipients and items: the “end-result”
People do not “always agree on the relevant characteristics of recipients and items.”
That is where conflicts arise, in the descriptive and categorization process.
Liberty:
1) freedom from constraints
2) “having enough basic resources to choose out of desire than necessity”
-“fair shares” – everyone has at least a bare minimum to survive
Discussion of liberalism vs. conservatism, which continues throughout the book.
Jonathan Cervas
PSC723
Equality – Deborah Stone
1. Political Science defined- “who gets what, when, and how”
a. Distributions are at the heart of public policy controversies
2. Distributive conflict
a. Equity is the goal for all sides, the conflict comes over how the sides
envision the distribution of whatever is at issue
3. Paradox - Equality may in fact mean inequality; equal treatment may require
unequal treatment; and the same distribution may be seen as equal or unequal,
depending on one’s point of view.
Equality - uniformity in distribution
Equity - distributions regarded as fair, even though they contain both equalities
and inequalities
4. In any distribution, there are three important dimensions
a. The recipients
b. The item
c. The process
5. Challenges to distributive conflict
a. Who should count as a member of the class of recipients
b. Relevant internal divisions for distributing something and that these
divisions have been ignored
c. Some major divisions in society are relevant to distributive equity and
that membership in a group based on these divisions should sometimes
outweigh individual characteristics in determining distribution
d. Expanding the definitional boundaries of the item is always a
redistributive strategy, because it calls for using the more narrowly
defined item to compensate for inequalities in a larger sphere
e. The switch from a standardized value of the item to a more customized
value
f. For many things in life, we are willing to accept an unequal outcome so
long as we know that the process was fair
6. The argument for Equality
a. Criteria of Process
i. Acquired fairly if:
1. Created newly or not formally held as property (inventions
or rights to own)
2. Acquired by transfer (sale, gift, or inheritance)
b. End-result concept
i. Assumes that a just distribution is one in which both the recipients
and items are correctly defined and each qualified recipient
receives an equal share of each correctly defined item
c. End-results look only at the end result and do not need any historical
information as to how the distribution came about
7. Rawls defines the relevant class if recipients as all citizens, and he defines the
relevant items as social primary goods
a. Social primary goods are things that are very important to people but are
created, shaped, and affected by social structure and political institutions
(I.e. power, opportunity, wealth, income, civil rights, and liberties
b. Natural primary goods are things very important to people but which,
while affected by society, are less directly under its control (I.e.
intelligence, strength, imagination, talent and good health
8. Rawls approach looks to our innate sense of justice as well as our fundamental
rationality and then derives principles of equity by asking us to deliberate about
rules for a just society without being biased by knowing our own situation (veil of
ignorance)
Stone: Policy Paradox
Chapter 3
Efficiency:
 Getting the most out of a given input
 Achieving an objective for the lowest cost
 The ratio between input and output, effort and results, expenditure and income or
cost and resulting benefit
Conflicts with Efficiency:
 Who gets the benefits and bears the burdens of a policy?
 How should we measure the values and costs of a policy?
 What mode of organizing human activity is likely to yield the most efficient
results?
Trying to measure efficiency is like trying to pull oneself out of quicksand without a
rope. There is no firm ground. Objectives for public policy are forged in political
conflict and are constantly changing not handed down on a stone tablet.
At the societal level, efficiency is an ideal meant to guide how society chooses to spend
its money or allocate its resources in order to get the most value. Efficiency is always a
contestable concept.
Markets and Efficiency:
 The theory of markets says that as long as exchanges are both voluntary and fully
informed, they lead to the goal of allocative efficiency: Resources always move in
a direction that make people better off.
o Every exchange should lead to a situation in which the new holders get
more value out of the resources than the old holders.
Challenges from the Market:
 In order for efficiency, there must be numerous buyers and sellers of any
resource, so that no one person or firm can influence the market price.
 There must be full information about the available alternatives, so that exchanges
truly result in the best situation for everyone.
 Decisions and actions of parties to an exchange must not affect the welfare of
people who are not part of the exchange.
 Resources involved in exchanges must be used individually and used up if they
are used at all.
Challenges from the Polis:
 One can question the possibility of purely voluntary exchanges due to the vastly
unequal distribution of income and wealth.
 The market model requires accurate and complete information. But information
is always incomplete, interpretive and deliberately controlled.
 Individual actions have side effects on others. To ignore side effects, or to
pretend that externalities are a defect in a miniscule area of human affairs, is to
undermine the ability of public policy to achieve efficiency in any important
sense.
The Equality-Efficiency Trade-off:
 Equality eliminates the differential rewards necessary to motivate people to be
productive.
 To maintain equality government must continuously interfere with individual
choices about how to use resources, and in doing so, it curbs useful
experimentation and productive innovation.
 To maintain equality requires a large administrative machinery that uses up
resources but is not itself productive.
Cartoon (pg 83)
“Welfare doesn’t work, because it gives poor people an incentive to stay poor!”
“Instead, let’s give the wealthy a huge tax cut. Then the poor will have an incentive
to become millionaires.”

Where labor is well organized and shares significant political power, where in
other words, there is someone to “articulate the self-interest of the non-rich,”
economic polices tend to reconcile equality with efficiency. The idea that the two
are incompatible is a politically useful myth for the rich and powerful.
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 Societal association or status (Dinner at Wynn Las Vegas vs. Burger King
drive thru)
o Cultural (ex. Jews not consuming pigs)
o 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.
Outline for Policy Paradox CH.6: Symbols




Symbolic representation is the essence of problem definition in politics.
A symbol “is anything that stands for something else,” and that meaning is
collectively created.
Symbols shape our perceptions and are thus a means of influence and control, as well
as political devices.
There are four types of symbolic representation that are especially important in the
definition of policy problems:
I. Narrative Stories
 Tell how the world works and provide a promise of resolution for scary
problems.
o Policy problems are similar to stories in that they: have a
beginning, middle, and end, have heroes, villains, and innocent
victims, and often pose evil vs. good.
o In policy making, what appears as conflict over details, is really
disagreement abut the fundamental story.
o The most common types of stories used in policy are:
1. Stories of Decline
 Basis: “In the beginning, things were pretty good. But then they got
worse. In fact, right now, they are nearly intolerable. Something must be
done.”
 Exemplifies a crisis situation and warns unless this is done…disaster will
follow. It is a prediction of doom (Very Common).
A. Stories of Hindered Progress
 Basis: “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.”
 This is often told by every group that wants to resist regulation.
 Ex. When the AMA was fighting government cost-containment efforts,
they reminded people about the days of plagues, TB, high infant
mortality, etc. and warned that new government restrictions would undo
all the progress that had been made.
B. Stories of “Change is only an Illusion”
 Basis: “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 simply all an
illusion.”
 Ex. Violence and corruption throughout the world are not really on the
rise. They only appear to have increased because we have more public
awareness, more legislation, and more reporting in the media of these
topics.
2. Stories of Helplessness and Control
 Basis: “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.”
 Stories about control serve to speak to the fundamental problem of liberty
in this country, mainly, they force us to ask questions regarding to what
extent do we actually control our own life conditions and destinies?
 Politicians use this because what had formerly been viewed as random,
accidental, natural, or a twist of fate, is now alleged to be amenable to
change due to human agents of intervention. These stories often provide
heroes.
A. Stories of Conspiracy
 Basis: Its plot moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of control, but
it claims to show that control thus far has been in the hands of a few who
have used it to their benefit.
 These stories always reveal that harm has been deliberately caused or
knowingly tolerated, and they end with a call to wrest control from the
few who benefit at the expense of many.
 Ex. Oil companies.
B. Stories that Blame the Victim
 Basis: It also moves us from the realm of fate to the realm of control, but
locates control in the very people who suffer the problem.
 This story often ends with victims having to reform their own faulty
behavior.
 Ex. The poor are poor because they seek instant pleasures instead of using
their time to work hard and invest their money efficiently.
Overall, policy stories use many literary devices to lead the audience to a course of action
and people must be aware of these tactics in order to be able to make somewhat thoughtful
choices and decisions.
II. Synecdoches
 These are figures of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole.
 In politics, such symbolism is very common, where certain examples are
offered up as typical instances of a larger problem.
 We often make policies based on examples believed to be representative
of a larger universe.
 Politicians or interest groups often use “Horror Stories,” where they
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.

1.
2.
3.
4.
o Ex. Why do women get half of all assets in a divorce void of a
prenuptial agreement? This rule was fashioned on the assumption
that the woman in a household spends her married years as a
housewife and mother, and as such, had no economic assets of her
own to claim in a divorce.
The strategy of focusing on part of a problem is likely to lead to skewed
policy, but it is often politically useful because it takes a larger issue and
presents a single, more manageable chunk for the public to identify with.
o Ex. A plea all over the news to find one missing, abused, or
starving child within a region, makes the public aware and
sympathetic to other children in a similar situation.
III. Metaphors
 Are sometimes held to be the essential core of human thought and
creativity.
 In policy, they are a likeness asserted between one kind of policy problem
and another.
 The author describes these specific types of policy metaphors:
Living Organisms
A. With this metaphor, communities or groups are said to have a “life of their
own” and organizations have “goals”.
B. Ex. “Industry is being strangled,” serves to personify industry.
C. When anything in politics is described as “fragmented,” the perception is that
it is broken. Policy metaphors often jump from “description to prescription.”
D. A natural life cycle is also used to explain why political issues seem to
experience periods of rapid growth and then decline.
E. In a culture where the common understanding is treating likes alike, to claim a
likeness through a political metaphor is also to posit an interpretation of equity,
and demand equal treatment of certain agencies, etc.
Natural Laws
A. In policy, this contributes to the belief that providing monetary assistance to
those who have problems like, poverty, homelessness, drug addiction, etc.,
actually rewards them for having the problem and creates an incentive for them to
remain in their current condition.
Machines and Mechanical Devices
A. Our Constitution is derived from 18th century political thoughts that rest on a
notion that the political system is a machine with working parts that have to be
kept “in order” and “in balance”.
B. Thus, “checks and balances” are central to our way of thinking about how
political power should be allocated.
C. Policy prescriptions become the addition of something to one side or
subtraction from the other.
D. Ex. With nuclear weapons, strategists talk of a “balance of terror,” where
mutual fear prevents either side from acting.
Wedges and Inclines
A. Government regulation is often portrayed as a wedge: once they get their foot
in the door...
B. The image of the wedge suggests that a seemingly small beginning can have
enormous leverage.
C. As for inclines, the metaphor is of one ascending a ladder, compelled rung by
rung, even though it gets scarier step by step, and despite the fact that perhaps
escalating further goes against one’s better judgment.
D. Slippery slope arguments meanwhile begin by acknowledging that a law for
example is not in itself bad, but permitting the phenomenon would eventually
lead to badness.
E. Ex. Allowing physicians to pursue pleas for assisted suicide in certain cases…
5. Containers
A. This is the idea of a fixed space.
B. The problem might be that a space is overfilled, thus Mexican workers “spill
over” the borders into the United States.
C. Or, one can “drain off” some of the contents of the container, and allow a
gradual release of pressure by letting angry citizens “blow off steam.”
6. Disease
A. In the policy realm, cults, crime, or any other condemned behavior is often
said to “spread,” with such people viewed as contagious. Members and advocates
are basically said to “infect” others with their ideas.
B. Ex. Teenage pregnancy and high school dropout rates are viewed as an
“epidemic”.
C. The disease label discredits opponents and implies a moral rightness of
treating them as less than human.
D. The psychiatry profession has further facilitated such treatment in the political
realm, by converting many social problems into mental disorders. As such,
consistent unemployment and repeated absences from work are classified as
“anti-social personality disorder,” meaning that those people are in fact sick, not
simply unhappy.
7. War
A. We declare war on many issues (such as drugs) because when something is
portrayed as an invasion, the invader is foreign, and therefore not something
whose rights have to be respected.
B. When people are at war, survival is at stake, so costs are often ignored and one
is viewed as a traitor if he or she does not support the effort. This is one obvious
reason why this tactic is so often used by leaders to carry out policies.
Overall, names and labels are used to create associations that lend legitimacy and attract
support to a course of action. What is a “gas tax” to one person is a “user fee” to another.
Symbolic devices are especially persuasive and emotionally compelling because their story
line is often hidden.
IV. Ambiguity
 The capacity to have multiple meanings.
 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.
 Ambiguity is the “glue” of politics. It allows people to agree on laws and
policies because they can read different meanings into the words. Without
it, cooperation and compromise would be far more difficult.




o Ex. Ambiguity can unite people who would benefit from the same
policy but for different reasons. Some groups do not want to see
the construction of more homes because they want to preserve
nature, while others simply do not want to see the value of their
own homes reduced.
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”.
Legislators can satisfy demands to do something about a problem by
passing a vague statue with ambiguous meaning and then letting
administrative agencies hash out the more conflicting details.
By portraying a decision one way in the press yet executing it another,
political leaders can perform the magic trick of making two decisions at
once and keeping the peace so that two sides can technically claim
victory.
Overall, problems are not out there in the world waiting for smart analysts to come and
define them, they are created in the mind of citizens by other citizens, leaders, organizations,
and government agencies as an essential part of political maneuvering. Policy stories are
tools of strategy with symbols, metaphors, ambiguities, etc., all as weapons in the arsenal of
manipulation.
Policy Paradox Chapter 7
Numbers
“One common way to define a policy problem is to measure it.”
(Stone, 2002)
One common way to begin a discussion about a policy is to define the problem and need
according to trends. If a problem is big enough by the numbers, policy efforts gain
instant credibility. One example of this can be seen with the problem of obesity. In the
State of Nevada and almost every other state, legislators have begun to take a look at
obesity trends and are formulating state policies and programs to help reduce the
prevalence of obesity. One of the first steps in our state was the formation of a task force
to examine the Cost of Obesity. The task force produced a report to demonstrate how
costly obesity has become to all people in our state regardless of health status. Using the
report from the task force, legislators had enough momentum to pass Nevada State Senate
Bill 197. The outcome of this bill was the formation of the Advisory Council for the
State Program on Fitness and Wellness which is comprised of professionals from a
variety of backgrounds. The Council is to make recommendations on how our State
Program for Fitness and Wellness should operate. Inevitably the Advisory Council will
go right back to the numbers to accomplish this goal.
The challenge for policy makers is to determine the best way to represent the
problem with numbers. This is challenging because there are an infinite number of
ways to describe something with numbers. The manner for using numbers to
describe the problem will depend on the purpose of the policy analysis.
Inclusion versus exclusion
One critical issue in using numbers to describe a problem is inclusion versus exclusion.
This is the process by which we determine that something counts and another does not.
When numbers are used to describe a problem something will be left out. The manner by
which the problem is reported becomes very political. How doe we determine who to
leave out? Someone will always be unhappy?
Numbers as Metaphors
Counting numbers as metaphors is to focus on what counts and leave out everything else.
In obesity, we have a baseline measure called body mass index (BMI). According to the
CDC, “BMI is used because for most people, it correlates with their amount of body fat.
So, an adult with a BMI between 25 and 29.9 is considered overweight and an adult who
has a BMI of 30 or higher is considered obese.” There are inherent problems when
numbers are used as metaphors. What is obese and what is not obese will be challenged.
It is possible to have a BMI less than the critical cut-off and be too fat. It is also possible
to have a BMI greater than the critical cut-off and be completely healthy. So, one issue is
where the boundary lies for what is and what is not.
Numbers as norms and symbols
Measures imply a need for action. Typically, the first step in promoting change is to
measure the problem. Reporting the numbers creates pressure to change. The numbers
become a norm. Norms help establish helplessness or lack of control of the issue.
There are often problems in using numbers as norms and symbols. Often the numbers are
ambiguous. Measures often have double meaning. Good in one arena bad in another.
So, how the measure is interpreted is very important. Cost is an example of a double
edged sword. Few would argue that health care in America is costly. The numbers speak
for themselves. For many the high cost may be a sign of high quality. However, for
others it is better to pay less for more. One great example of this is seen in the
prescription drug industry. In many states there is little regulation to prevent pharmacies
from raising prices on the prescription drugs they fill. The problem is that prices are
inconsistent. What may cost $40 at one pharmacy may cost over $200 at another.
Legislation is increasing to help stop the mark-up to the buyer and curb the income of the
seller. Efficiency and productivity can also be ‘double edged swords.’ This is evident in
health care when increasing efficiency and productivity may be seen as positive to
insurance companies, but negative to the consumer who requires quality care.
When it comes to numbers, politicians tend to like the middle or at the average and prefer
to avoid extremes. The ambiguity of the middle ground is a safe place compared to the
extreme ends where votes may be easily won and easily lost.
Hidden Stories in Numbers
Numbers tell a story, of decline and decay or bigger and worse. The goal is to create a
sense of helplessness and control. Typically, the numbers are used to tell the story and
the deception lies in the fact that they don’t lie, or do they? Characteristically, numbers
can be explicit. More importantly, numbers can be very implicit too. If something
counts, it must be important right? People tend to use counting and measure of
something to verify the problem is worth looking at. When something “counts” the
assertion is made that “it” is identifiable with clear boundaries. One example of this is
seen in education where there is great debate over accountability. Test scores have
become the outcome measure for schools to demonstrate they are accountable for student
progress, improvement, and achievement. There is great argument related to this
stemming from the validity and reliability of the measures of aptitude and achievement.
When we begin to count a trait we begin to create a community of “like.”
The problem with this lies in the distinction of what counts and what does not. The
boundary between what is and what is not may be very fuzzy. In policy counting
mobilizes efforts. We promise conflict resolution via arithmetic and can manipulate
what we measure by adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing. This is
contradictory to the nature of exactness appreciated in science where numbers are
seen as symbols of objectivity, precision, and accuracy.
Counting is political
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
include versus exclude
implies norms of how much is too little too much
ambiguity
tell stories
illusion that complex is simple
create communities
aid negotiation and compromise
bolster authority of those that count
Numerical strategies
1. people react to being counted
2. counting makes people notice
3. stimulate public demands for change
4.
5.
6.
7.
explicit measure to evaluate and people will try to manipulate scores
power of measure is power of control
creates alliances between measured and measures
numbers don’t speak for themselves and people try to control how others will
interpret
References
Centers for Disease Control. Overweight and Obesity. Retrieved April 14, 2007
from www.cdc.gov.
Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. (2nd ed.).
New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
Policy Paradox Chapter 7
Numbers
Define a Policy Problem by measuring it but there are infinite ways to do so with
numbers
Ex: Literature describes with words
Ex: Painting with pigments
Most determine the purpose for the measuring
Fundamental issues of any policy conflict are always contained in the question of how to
count the problem
Ex: Unemployment rate = designed as the measure of people wanting work or the
need for jobs. The official method of counting unemployment is the official
definition of the problem leaves out people who fit somebody’s notion of
unemployed but not the official notion
Official Definition
Older than 16
Have previously held a job
Are available for work
Have looked for work within the previous four weeks
Also Unemployed
Unwilling to take avail. jobs
dangerous
unpleasant
demeaning
Can only find part-time when
Want full-time
Quit a job to look for
Something better
Can’t work due to child care
Worker’s strike
Counting always involves deliberate decisions about counting as
Must begin with categorization
What include and exclude
Important characteristics and asking whether the object to be classified is
substantially like the others in the category
Establishment of boundaries in the form of rules or criteria
Only after characterizing does mere tallying come into play
Really political terms
Inclusion/exclusion – suggest community, boundaries, allies, enemies
Selection – privilege and discrimination
Important characteristics – value judgment and hierarchy
Goals of public policy need the language of counting
Number as Metaphors
Numbers work exactly like metaphors
To categorize in counting or analogize in metaphors is to select one feature of
something, assert a likeness on the basis of that feature and ignore all the other
features
To count is to form a category by emphasizing some feature instead of the others
and excluding things that might be similar in important ways but do not share the
same feature. Ex: actively looked for work in the past 4 weeks = unemployment
but desperately wanting work but not “pavement pounding” does not equal
unemployment
Two Challenges due to the judgment of inclusion and exclusion
1)
The assertion of a real likeness where the measure finds a difference, and
insists on inclusion of something the measure excludes. Ex:
unemployment rate included “discouraged workers” and “underemployed
workers” or how to count the homeless – just those who sleep on the
streets or shelters, vs. prison, detox centers, mental institutions, who
would have no home if released
Important definitions because they determine who will get benefits, loans,
contracts, budget increases, jobs, fines, and penalties
Sometime arbitrary by setting a cutoff point or threshold or threshold on a
numerical scale ex: LSAT for law school admissions, income level for
welfare, drinking and voting rights
2)
Assertion of a real difference where a measure finds a likeness and
insists on exclusion of something the measure includes Ex: Health care
facility need was defined by primarily by the ratio of hospital beds to
population of the community however it the definition of “bed” was not
consistent, it did not account for the number of staff, nor proximity to
general population
Though debate about final counts seems to be about the tally, it can be argued they are
really about the categorization. Numbers are invoked to give an air of finality to each
side’s opinions
Every number is an assertion about similarities and differences. You can’t count without
making judgments about categorization and similarities and differences are the ultimate
basis for decisions in public policy
Numbers as Norms and Symbols
Numbers make normative leaps.
Measures imply a need for action because we do not measure things except when we
want to change them or change our behavior in response to them.
Call for a measurement = first step in promoting change
Ex: Unemployment figures as force in politics – to use the numbers to put pressure on the
administration to create new jobs
Not only for pressure, but some level of the measure will become the norm
Norms – part of the story of helplessness and control / Control and failure:
unemployment rate, prime interest rate, inflation rate, size of the budget, the GNP, and
the deficit
Double edged swords – it is good to be high on the measure but low is also good
Symbols – savings symbolizes both thrift and past waste so it matters more is how
the measure is interpreted
Cost – ideology of efficiency is that it is better to pay less for something than
more. However, high cost is sometime a symbol of high quality or prestige. Cost
becomes a proxy measure for prestige Reformers see the waste side of cost and
People in the system see the quality side and symbolic benefits of high cost
Cost to buyers is income to sellers Costs are always income to somebody
else, so there is always a constituency for high costs to battle the low
costs.
Efficiency - getting the most output for a given input
Productivity – output per hour of labor
Generally think the more efficiency and productivity the better – however
high output can symbolize both perfunctory work and a job well done.
Efficiency is not always a virtue where the output is personal attention or
custom designs.
Middles and Averages ex. Middle class - most people think of themselves as
middleclass even when they fall substantially above or below the median
However is the option of working class is added about 45% will choose this and
feel alienated by tax breaks aimed at middle-class
The Political middle class not the same as economic middle class so hard to write
a tax plan to please both
Hidden Stories in Numbers
To Count something at all is to assert that phenomenon is at least frequent enough to
bother counting
Initial demands to count something formally grow from recognition that the thing
is common enough to worry about –
Common, regular, and expected even to show how rare the phenomenon is.
Moves an event from the singular to the plural
To count is to assert that it is an identifiable entity with clear boundaries. You can’t
count something you can’t distinguish
Is the phenomenon measurable at all? If yes, is it too inclusive or exclusive?
To count is to create a community. Any number is implicitly an assertion that things
counted in it share a common feature that should be treated as a group.
Natural communities – or primary groups – people who actually interact
regardless of whether they are counted ex: population of a village, size of a
family, or size of a school
Artificial communities – or statistical groups – lump together people who have no
relationship other than the shared characteristic that determined the count. Ex;
age groups, income classes
Sometimes the distinction between artificial and natural communities is fuzzy
Because these groups are created, counting is an essential instrument of political
mobilization
To count is the promise of Conflict Resolution through arithmetic. The common wisdom
among negotiators is that irreconcilable demands can be handled by breaking them up
into smaller components and trading the parts off against each other. Ex: like pregnancy
in the abortion debate
Once a phenomenon has been converted into quantifiable units, it can be added,
multiplied, divided, or subtracted, even though operations have little meaning in
reality
Numbers force a common denominator where there is none.
Why Counting is Political
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Counting requires decisions about categorizing, about what (or whom) to include
and exclude
Measuring any phenomenon implicitly creates norms about how much is too little,
too much, or just right
Numbers can be ambiguous, and so leave room for political struggles to control
their interpretation
Numbers are used to tell stories such as stories of decline
Numbers can create the illusion that a very complex and ambiguous phenomenon
is simple, countable and precisely defined
Numbers can create political communities out of people who share some trait that
can be counted
Counting can aid negotiation and compromise, by making intangible qualities
seem divisible
Numbers, by seeming to be so precise, help bolster the authority of those who
count
Making Numbers in the Polis
Numbers in politics are measures of human activities, by human beings, and intended to
influence human behavior. They are subject to conscious and unconscious manipulation
by the people being measured, the people making the measurements, and the people who
will interpret and uses the measures made by others.
Numerical Strategies in Problem Definition
1. People react to being counted or measured, and try to “look good” on the
measure
2. The process of counting something makes people notice it more, and record
keeping stimulates reporting
3. Counting can be used to stimulate public demands for change
4. When the measurement is explicitly used to evaluate performance, the people
being evaluated try to manipulate their “scores”
5. The power to measure is the power to control. Measures have a lot of
discretion in their choice of what and how to measure
6. Measuring creates alliances between the measurers and the measured
7. Numbers don’t speak for themselves, and people try to control how others will
interpret numbers.
Numbers are always descriptions of the world, and as descriptions, they are no more real
than the visions of poems or paintings. Their vision of experience may correspond more
or less with popular visions, just as a realist, impressionist, and abstract expressionist
paintings correspond more or less with common visions. Numbers are real as artifacts.
But the dominance of numbers as a mode of describing society in public policy
discussions is only recent, and perhaps temporary, phenomenon in cultural history – not
the result of some underlying reality of numbers.
Chapter 8: Causes
This chapter focuses on the use of causes of problems that call for a policy to be
enacted. However, one of the difficult things to do is pin-point an exact cause.
The author states that the purpose of policy should be the addressing of a problem
once a cause has been determined. While she states that causes can be used to bring
about some justice for the parties wronged, it can also be used to shape alliances
and assign responsibility.
Causal Stories as Problem Definition
There are two sides to the world, in terms of causes.
1. Natural world: this is where the undirected, the random, and the accidental
occur
2. Social world: intent, control of the situation, and influence are the causes.
There is a specified, calculated direction
She then goes on to define 4 causal theories relating consequences and actions
1. Accidental causes: these are the product of a roll of the dice and are part of
the natural world of causes
2. Intentional causes: the exact opposite of accidental causes, here, there is a
direct assignment of responsibility.
a. Rational actions result from intentional causes with a good outcome;
the achievement of a specific, positive goal
b. Bad intentional causes are planned outcomes that result in people
being wronged and the perpetrators
i. Conspiracies run in this category
1. Example used by the author: Tobacco Industry
3. Unintended consequences: the unforeseen product of an action
a. Example: Minimum wage laws
b. Unintended consequences can also be the result of negligence
4. Mechanical causes: caused through human means by objects or people with
the inability to exercise discretion
a. Examples: Machines that malfunction, people tied to regulations and
“just doing my job”
In addition to these, the author suggests three more perspectives to address causes.
1. Complex System: the accused can blame the cause of malfunction on a
system that is so complex and is, at times, unmanageable. It is hard to
anticipate every problem.
a. This makes blame harder to assign
2. Institutional System: problems are caused by strong institutions that collude
with each other for mutual benefit.
a. Example: Branches of the military getting a part of defense spending
3. Historical: two sides receive responsibility
a. The powerful use their clout to stop needed policy that addresses a
problem they are responsible for
b. The powerless, convinced of their powerlessness, do nothing to
combat the powerful, but accept the status quo
In the end, the actors trying to solve the problem are prone to define “the” cause,
rather than look at the problem as a result of multiple causes with plenty of blame to
go around.
Making Causes in the Polis
This section of the chapter is concerned with strategies used to assign blame
Preference of blame
1. Best is to blame nature
2. Second best is to blame someone else, but that person or group could fight
back
3. Third alternative is to show ignorance of the problem
4. Least best alternative: admit the problem was intentional
The author defines the following strategies when it comes to assigning blame
1. There is a conspiracy that secretly produced the action.
a. Example: Nader and complaints that manufacturers were making
inferior products to induce greater consumption
2. Teleological strategy
a. Assuming the unfavorable effects of the action taken were the
intended effects of the actor
i. Effective strategy, if true, for a call to change
3. Risk as a factor implicating blame
a. Calculated risk: a company knowing there is a possibility for
unfavorable consequences, but uses the idea of calculated risks to
cover up the outcome
i. Allows for the toleration of harm by businesses as well as
regulatory agencies
b. Manipulation of risk: mainly applied to civil rights litigation
i. Allows for the determination of discrimination if the perceived
risk of hiring one person is higher for that group as opposed to
a random group of people or another specific group
4. Complex Cause
a. Allows the accused to shift blame to complexity (related to the
complex system)
Given this, acceptance of the cause will be determined by the public that is made
aware of it. If the cause is in line with public values and makes a compelling case,
especially in the legal and scientific communities, there is a good chance it will be
accepted. If the cause goes against public values or is restricted in its ability to be
expressed, then there is a lesser likelihood of acceptance.
Using Causes in the Polis
If they are successfully accepted by the polis, causal theories can:
1. Challenge or protect existing attitudes and institutions
2. Assign blame
a. Blame is still hard to define, given its complexities
i. Ex. Drunk drivers and who is responsible (driver,
manufacturer of car or alcohol, bartenders)
3. Create a reputation of a “fixer” of problems
4. Can shift or create alliances organized in common
Causes can be hard to define, but if they are convincing enough and stand the test of
public scrutiny, they can be used, not only solve their problems, but as strategies for
those forming the policy.
Stone 9
1. What are interests?
a. Interests are the “sides” in politics.
2. What’s the problem?
a. There is a difference between real interests (problems and needs people
have) and political demands (what people ask from government).
3. What makes up the problem?
a. Interests can be viewed from an individual level (i.e., what do I need to
survive, what do I need from the government)
b. Interests can be viewed on a class level
c. Interests can be viewed on a group level
4. Representation is the process by which interests are defined and activated in
politics, and has a dual quality: representatives give expression to an interest by
portraying an issue and they also speak for people in policy debates.
5. Thus, interests derive from these two types of representation.
6. Mobilization: the process by which effects and experiences are converted into
organized efforts to bring about change. Thus, what kind of interests will
mobilize? Those who can offer selective benefits in order to avoid the free-rider
problem.
a. Additionally, the substance of an issue can determine whether and how
organizations get involved in promoting and expanding the interests. In a
game theoretic model, concentrated issues (spread over a small number of
people) versus concentrated issues are likely to result in stalemates or
alternating victories for each side; diffused (spread over a large number of
people) versus diffused programs will likely spread gradually.
Concentrated interests will likely defeat diffuses interest (better
organizational resources) The point is that the distribution of costs and
benefits in any program determines the type of political contest it will
undergo. But, politics shapes the way problems and policy issues are
perceived in the first place.
7. Groups often try to define issues so as to make a concentrated interest appear
general in an effort to gain broader appeal; and economic issues are framed into
social issues.
a. Narrow interests broadened their efforts and took out the Clinton Health
Care Reform Act.
8. Summary: problems are defined in politics in an effort to accomplish political
goals, to mobilize support for one side in a conflict. To define an issue is to make
an assertion about what is at stake and who is affected, and therefore, to define
interests and the constitution of alliances. Thus, the definition of any policy
problem must also define interested parties and stakes.
Policy Paradox: Chapter 9 – Interests











Interest is considered “the sides in politics,” the group that benefits or are affected by
an issue.
It can also be described as “the active side of effects,” where “effects,” as described
by policy analysts, are enduring consequences of actions that exist whether we’re
aware of them or not.
“Effects” are not important in the political arena until they become demands;
therefore it’s important to know how, when, and why “effects” transitions to political
interests.
One debate spearheaded by political scientists during the 1950s and 1960s was
whether people affected by an issue automatically transition from a passive stance
into an active stance.
One important challenge to the notion of automatic transition is that people can be
mistaken about their interest, whether objectively or subjectively.
o Objective interests are those effects that actually impinge on people whether
they’re aware of it or not (having an interest).
o Subjective interests are those things that people believe affect them (taking an
interest).
Representation is the process by which interests are defined and activated in politics
and has a dual quality: representatives give expression to an issue; and representatives
speak for people, articulating their wishes in policy debates
Mobilization is the process by which effects and experiences are converted into
organized efforts to bring about change.
o The “free-rider” problem is seen as a major obstacle to interest mobilization.
Individuals have little or no incentive to join groups and work for a collective
good. Since they receive the benefit if others work for it and succeed in obtaining
it - - also known as the logic of collective action theory.
Three reasons why the logic of collective action does not always obtain in the polis:
1. The logic’s prediction is betrayed by reality. People do not exist in polis as
autonomous, isolated atoms.
2. Collective efforts tend to follow the laws of passion rather than the laws of matter.
The costs of collective action (i.e. time and effort) are its benefits.
3. The importance of symbols and ambiguity. Every political goal can be portrayed
both as a good to be obtained and a bad to be avoided. People respond differently
to bads and goods.
John Q. Wilson’s distribution-of-effect theory is where the interest of small minorities
intensely affected by something will dominate the interests of large majorities only
incidentally affected by something.
Making a particular interest appear to be in the interest of the general public is a
classical political strategy (i.e. “What’s good for General Motors is good for the
Country”).
Problems are defined in politics in an effort to accomplish political goals, to mobilize
support for one side in a conflict. To define an issue is to make an assertion about
what is at stake and who is affected, and therefore, to define interests and the
constitution of alliances. Thus, the definition of any policy problem must also define
interested parties and stakes, how the role of bully and underdog is allocated, and how
a different definition would change power relations.
Stone Chapter 10
Stone prefaces the chapter with a quote from:
President Warren G. Harding
 “I listen to one side and they seem right, and then I talk to
the other side, and they seem just as right and there I am
where I started…”
decisions may be made by habit, social custom, impulse, intuition,
consensus, delegation, bargaining, mediation, or even flipping a coin.
 They may be made a multitude of various ways, but more
than often contemporary policy analysts do not resort to
simply just flipping a coin.
 Rather, they focus on rational methods of decision making.

The Concept of Rational Decision Making
 A rational decision making model depicts a policy problem as
a choice facing a political actor
 An actor is defined as an individual, a firm, an organization,
or any entity capable of making a decision, who must choose
a course of action in order to attain a desired end
 This actor then goes through several steps before arriving at
a decision.
o Defining goals
o Imagining alternative means for attaining them
o Evaluating consequences of taking each course of action
o Choosing the alternative most likely to attain the goal
 In regards to the rational decision making process, there are
variations to this model
o One such variation is the cost-benefit analysis
 It consists of totaling all the positive and negative
consequences of an action seeing whether it will
lead to an overall gain or loss
 Additionally, this type of model is often measured
by quantity, such as dollars.
o Another common variation is the risk-benefit analysis
 This model also totals the positive and negative
consequences much like the cost benefit analysis,
however, the negative also incorporates the
measures of the likelihood of the negative effects
as well as its magnitude. 236
 i.e. if a new drug has a 10% chance of killing 100
people, its expected cost would be estimated as
10 lives which is 10 percent of 100 people.
Making decisions in the Polis





Making decisions in the Polis is similar rational decision
making, but there are slight variations to the formula.
For instance, problems are portrayed as decisions; which
allows actors to control its boundaries
Moreover, another strategy actors employ in the Polis is to
make one’s preferred outcome seem like it is the only viable
solution.
o Stone terms this strategy as Hobson’s choice
o Thomas Hobson was a 17th century liveryman in
England who rented out horses. Rather than giving the
customer a choice, he opted to give them the horse that
was closest to the door.
o Define:liveryman – an individual who works in a stable
o One example of a Hobson’s choice would be in
Federalist 10
 In where Madison offers two possible solutions in
order to solve the problem of factions
 See top of pg 247 for quote:
Another variation to the decision making formula is to utilize
what Stone calls as issue framing
o A frame is a boundary that forces us to look at a
particular part of the problem while simultaneously
neglecting all other aspects of it
o Using this technique allows actors to frame a policy
problem and create a Hobson’s choice
In addition to the previously mentioned techniques, the Polis
Model also relies on the following tenets which further
distinguish itself from a traditional rational-analytic model
o State goals ambiguously and attempt to keep some
goals secret
o Be prepared to shift goals and redefine goals as the
political situation dictates
o Keep undesirable alternatives off the agenda by not
mentioning them
o Make the preferred alternative appear to be the only
feasible solution
o Focus on one part of the causal chain and ignore others
that would require politically difficult or costly policy
actions
o Use rhetorical devices to blend alternatives, don’t
appear to make a clear decision that may lead to strong
opposition
o Select from the infinite range of consequences only
those whose costs and benefits will make your preferred
course of action look “best”
o Choose the course of action that hurts powerful
constituents the least, but portray the decision as the
maximization of social good for broad public appeal
Policy Paradox Ch.11
InducementsCarrot and stick-The idea behind inducements is that knowledge of a threatened penalty
of promised rewind motivates people to act differently.
Incentives or DeterrenceAn incentive makes it easier or more rewarding to make someone do something (tax
credit) Deterrence makes it harder or more costly for them to act: (criminal justice
system, income)
Most favored nation status is given by the U.S. Government in exchange for political
cooperation (threat of removing the status looms).
A problem exists when there is a divergence between private interests and public
interests, or when individuals benefit (or lose) from doing something that harms (or
helps) the community.
The inducement system has three partsThe inducement giver
The inducement receiver
The inducement itself
These all work together under the premise that people are rational by nature and will
make the right decisions based on a calculated thought process. Pg 267, How the carrot
and stick inducement can be wrong.
DeterrenceEPA, School Principle, Judge, IRS single actor acting on behalf of a much larger entity
Negative inducements can cause a climate of conflict and divide two parties (tariffs,
fines, embargos Positive inducements create alliances and goodwill (productivity
bonuses, trade subsidies, foreign ?
Chapter 11
Positive Inducements (Incentives) and Negative Inducements
(Deterrents)

An incentive makes it easier or more rewarding to make someone do something
(tax credit) Deterrence makes it harder or more costly for them to act: (criminal
justice system, income)

Most favored nation status is given by the U.S. Government in exchange for
political cooperation (threat of removing the status looms).
A problem exists when there is a divergence between private interests and public
interests, or when individuals benefit (or lose) from doing something that harms
(or helps) the community.
The idea behind inducements is that people act differently than they might
otherwise choose.
The theory of inducements rests on a utilitarian model of human behavior. The
assumptions include:
1. People are adaptable – they have control over their own behavior , so that
confronted with new knowledge of a penalty or reward, they can change
their calculus and their behavior.
 Problem – loyalty – people don’t change because they hang on to
old habits, choices, and actions.
2. The givers and receivers are unitary actors – givers must be able to
implement a consistent policy of rewarding or penalizing behavior, and a
target must be capable of making calculations and taking a single course
of action.
3. The receiver has some orientation toward the future – Inducements can
only work to the extent that the target cares about the costs and rewards to
be faced in the future and is willing to modify current behavior.
 Inducements far in the future have less impact than the ones that
occur immediately.
4. Of purposeful notions of cause
 Inducements applied when the cause of a problem is understood as
intentional
 Intended to alter the consequences to the target of taking
the action in question – such as criminal penalties on
burglary.
 Inducements applied when the cause is understood to be
inadvertent – unforeseeable side effects or careless mistakes.
 Designed to make formerly invisible consequences visible
to the target – such as taxes on industrial pollution or
consumer rebates for plastic bottles.
These all work together under the premise that people are rational by nature and
will make the right decisions based on a calculated thought process.
The inducement system has three parts:





o The inducement giver.
o The inducement receiver (the target).
o The inducement itself.













Using inducements as a policy instrument does not require us to understand the
causes of the problem or the reasons why people do what they do.
o Politically much easier to accomplish than finding out the real problems
and really fixing it.
Inducements are determined by the targets expectations – not the givers.
Positive inducements and negative inducements can foster different political
relationships.
o Positive inducements (wage productivity bonus, foreign aid, or trade
subsidies) can encourage two parties to cooperate.
o Negative inducements (fines, tariffs, and embargoes) create a climate of
conflict and may divide the two parties.
Making inducements in the polis
In the polis, inducements are usually designed by one set of people (policy
analysts, legislators, and regulation writers), applied by another (executive branch
bureaucrats), and received by yet a third (individuals, firms, and organizations).
Never a direct correspondence between the inducement as proposed by the
designer and as applied by the giver.
o Several elements of the polis make giving out inducements difficult.
Negative and positive inducements can be divisive.
Imposing penalties and rewards can have very concrete, material costs.
o 3 – Strikes rule.
o Best thesis award.
Sanctions designed may be too drastic that the sanction givers are extremely loath
to impose them.
Inducements may hurt the very thing one is trying to protect.
o Federal government withdrawing funds from states that don’t provide
services to their citizens (Medicaid, federal highway subsidies, public
housing), thus depriving the very people they are trying to help.
The costs of imposing sanctions may become resources for the givers.
o In an embargo imposed to induce some political change, the sanction giver
incurs some loss of its export market as well as a loss of imports.
 The sacrifice increases credibility of it commitment toward policy
change.
The most important reason for slippage between the design of inducements and
the target’s response is that people are strategic as well as adaptive.
o They will try to reap a reward or avoid a penalty without changing
behavior.
Enormous disparities in power and economic resources shape the impact of the
more temporary inducements of day-to-day programs.

o For people who don’t control any wealth or productive assets, the
overwhelming incentive is to acquire economic security by getting and
keeping a job.
No system of inducement is self-executing, automatic, or apolitical.
Policy Paradox
Chapter 11- Inducements
The proverbial carrot and the stick- getting other people to chose actions we desire
Incentives and Deterrence (rewards/punishments)
3 parts to the Inducement SystemGiver
Receiver/Target
Inducement itself
All 3 need to work together for the desired change
Inducement Theory Assumptions (based on utilitarian model)
1) People are rational
2) Givers/receivers are unitary
Instead of one trainer working with one donkey, rather one trainer with
100 donkies
3) Based on a Purposeful notion of cause
Make visible unforeseen consequences of inadvertent actions
Positive/negative inducements conceptually same, yield different political relationships
Positive- goodwill, alliance, reciprocity
Negative- division, conflict
In the Polis
Parties to inducement processDesigners (legislators, regulators)
Implementers (executive bureaucrats)
Receivers
Passage between parties is treacherous for several reasonsCosts of handing out rewards/punishments
Inducements can have symbolic meanings
For the target, inducements are simply another option
Adaptive measures of the targets
Chapter 12: RULES

This chapter focuses on rules that impose obligations and duties

Policy-making relies heavily on official rules (rules consciously designed to
accomplish social goals)

Policy analysts must also account for unofficial rules and how they interact with
more formal official rules.

Rules derive their power from legitimacy. Legitimacy is rather obscure and can
be considered the political scientist’s equivalent of the economist’s invisible hand.
Nevertheless, rules work best when they are perceived as legitimate.

The most important problem in the design of rules is the tension between
precision and flexibility.

Precise rules are said to ensure that like cases will be treated alike, they insulate
people from the whims, prejudices, moods, or predilections of officials and
provide predictability. A down side to precise rules though is that they cannot be
sensitive to some kinds of individual contextual differences (i.e. different cases
will be treated alike). Precise rules also stifle creative responses to new
situations. [Chart on page 292 explains precise vs. flexible rules]

5 unattainable ideals in rules: Optimum social balance between discretionary
power and control by formal rules; The perfectly precise rule; The perfectly
flexible rule; The neutral rule; The perfectly enforced rule.

Writing a rule is just the beginning. No rule or set of rules, even the Constitution,
is written once and for all. Rules acquire their meanings and their effects as they
are applied, enforced, challenged and reversed.
Stone: Chapter 12
Rules are designed to accomplish a social goal.
Policy-makers relies heavily on formal rules, generally referred to as laws, originating
from different platforms.
They can be a result of:
legislative bodies (Statutory laws)
Administrative bodies (regulations)
Courts (common laws)
State or Federal constitutional laws
Rules:
mandate behavior, or confer power onto
private citizens or organization
Public officials or organization
If you want the power of the law behind you, you much follow these rules which are
imposing obligations and duties onto you.
There is another category of rules, the informal rules, which include social and
traditional customs, moral rules and principles, and internal bylaws of private
organizations.
Informal rules often guide the formation of formal rules and the interpretation along with
the enforcement of the formal rules.
The author feels that if policy analysis is not accounting for the interaction between these
two types of rules, then a needed component is missing. I strongly agree, but there are
two points I would expand on, first, if the design of a policy are using “informal rules”,
from a source with strong internal beliefs, the process will be slanted toward an isolated
group. Secondly, the majority of people
Rules, informal or formal, need to be perceived as legitimate to function.
The context in which a rule is applied to, can mean whether or not the rule was broken.
For an example, it is against formal and informal rules to kill someone, but if it is in selfdefense, or an accident which is not your fault, or you are in the military directed to act
against an enemy, it is acceptable behavior.
The classification of an action can result in the application or non-application the rule,
this creates a division of society by including or excluding, and uniting or dividing
people, making alliances between people who benefit or are caused harm by a rule. This
grouping occurs naturally as the balance of policy analysis is based on a medium which
does not totally benefit one people over another.
(An example is the water grab issue, once the rule on the acquisition of water rights is
applied, it divides the people of Nevada into two groups, the farmers and others who are
harmed by this action, and the city dwellers which gain some benefit.)
The legitimacy of rules comes from how the context and classification follow
informal rules of society. The creation of an acceptable rule is rooted in the tension
between precision and flexibility of a rule.
Precision is the ability to describe action and context without ambiguity. There are three
foundations which are required for precision:
Like cases will be treated alike, demonstrating equality and fairness to all. The author
points out that alike is a qualitative judgment, open to interpretation.
Insulates people from whims, prejudices, moods, and pre-di-lection of officials. We
are to be governed and punished by laws, not by an individual’s will
Provide a degree of predictability, we know what behavior is breaking the rules, and
we know the punishment applied to that infraction.
Though precision provides us protection from injustice, it creates crude classification, so
cases can differ, but the same decision is applied, thereby creating an injustice by
ignoring mitigating circumstances.
Flexible rules, with broad criteria’s and room for discretionary thinking enables
adaptation to changing situations, these Vague Rules call for the use of Tacit
Knowledge, which is an intuitive sense of what is right or true.
Vague rules can convey a hard line determination to solve an issue to the community, and
at the same time give flexibility of the level of enforcement. It is noted that depending on
which end of the flexibility you are on, can make this a good or bad feature of vagueness.
Precision in rules versus discretion dilemma:
Each has their virtues, and the belief is that one can perceive if either one is being
allied properly. The assumption is that only necessary discretion is applied to the rules in
society, and unnecessary discretion is eliminated. In the case of judges’ decision, if the
society feels strongly about a certain application of the law, the discretion can be limited
or removes. An example is the 3 strikes, and you’re out, rule.
The author feels there is not an optimal balance between precision and
discretionary, only attempts that placate our need to be just, avoiding the impossibility of
putting society values in stone. Just as the ideal balance is unattainable, so is the ideal
precise rule. The thought of defining a rule to have all the possibilities covers is not
realistic.
Having the perfect flexible rule would create a framework so vague; it would
present the polar opposite to the three foundations of precision. All cases differ,
unconstrained subjectivity, and little predictability of consequences. Therefore the author
states that the balance is never static, movement is necessary to convey changes in
society and the informal rules.
Static rules, over time, become more beneficial to those who learn to manipulate
them for their benefit. The perfectly enforce rule ignores the circumstances. Even the
most noble among us are victims of circumstances.
Rules are in a constant flux between precision and vagueness, between
centralization and discretion, with public and private agendas’ trying to define it to their
benefit. New rules are generally written vaguely, depending on the informal rules in
society to fine tune their meaning and enforcement.
The author interprets the effect of the Constitution as a reaction to tyranny,
creating a pre-crisis management system which doesn’t address the feasibility.
In democracy, the politician is always conscious of his reelection, the ways to
avoid conflict is to Shun statutes which harm your constituents such as
1. Constituency services (Fighting red tape and provide helpful information)
2. Logrolling (getting job and money into one’s district, by supporting similar
programs in other districts.)
3. By supporting feel-good policies, i.e. street naming
But when there is a need to show support for legislation which may be
controversial to some, ambiguity is a means to reflect opposition directed at the
politician. There is a pressure on rules created from the potential for disobedient, this
pressures is called perverse incentives. This means there is a trade-off between
objectives, but the rule rewards or penalizes only one of them. A local example is the
way the water rights doctrine is written in the SW and how the agriculture industry and
farming community has responded over history, The law says the first to use it for a
beneficial propose has complete rights to the water, but if you don’t use any portion of
the claim, you lose it and someone else can claim it. So it is common practice to flood
fields, without any conservation practices, and effectively preserving water for future use
by wasting it today. The author says that, though one might think it is poorly designed
rules causing perverse incentives, really anytime you have a rule curbing an activity,
which is profitable or enjoyable, people will find ways to manipulate them to their
benefit.
The discretionary application of the rule of thumb enforcement of law causes
the bending of formal rules, similar to speeding at 65 in a 60, most patrolman will not
ticket you, or knowing what amount you can fudge on and not cause an audit on your
income tax return, this is accepted practice in our society, but the more common this
practice becomes, the greater breakdown in the effectiveness of the law..
In the Polis, the myth of perfectly precise, neutral, and enforced rules are essential
to the legitimacy of laws, but the ability for enforcers to treat like rule breakers alike is an
impossibility as, not only do enforcers application of laws very, but also the informal rule
varies from town to town, and state to state, and in liberal political theory, these myths
are necessary to justify why one should give up their autonomy.
Fairness, to our society would be likes are treated alike, and each person should
get his or her due, to accomplish this each mitigating circumstances must be considers
when applying the formal law, so the informal rule applied to vague formal rules, gives
the greater flexibility in reaching an acceptable decision in society and keeping the myth
of perfectly precise, neutral, and enforced rules alive.
Policy Paradox
Chapter 13 Summary
I.
The Two Faces of Persuasion
a. Reason and Informed Decision
i. Rational Ideal
ii. Individual Behavior as rational decision
iii. Esteems reason, denigrates impulse
b. Reason as basis for government
i. Groups emulate individual rational deliberation
II.
ii. People are educated, not coerced
iii. Information and knowledge can resolve conflict
1. Rational persuasion and voluntary behavior change
a. Stop littering and smoking, use seat belts and drive
safely
c. Persuasion as propaganda and indoctrination
i. Indoctrination
1. Intentionally manipulative
2. Robs people of their capacity to think independently
3. Preceptoral system
a. Individual is puppet
Information
Propaganda
Enlightens
Benights
Liberates
Enslaves
Education
Brainwashing
Learning
Compliance
4. Boundary between is blurry
Making Facts in the Polis
a. Rational Ideal
i. Neutral Facts
1. Facts do not exist independent of interpretive ideas
2. Act of naming is classification, a political act
a. Terrorism vs Police action
b. Nuclear Power Industry
Stand-ins/temporary
Jumpers/sponges
employees
Part-time vocations/careers
Meat market/dying for a
living
3. Distinguishing information from propaganda
a. Facts are produced in social processes
i. Legislatures conduct hearings
1. Who testifies, how much time.
4. Scientific Facts
a. Randomized Control Test (RCT)
i. Mushy Results
1. Must choose between basic
definitions and ways of counting
2. Human influence
5. Rational Ideal Overstates purity of information
b. Indoctrination in liberal democratic polis
i. Dominant elites control peoples beliefs and knowledge
1. Schools
a. Hidden Curriculum
2. Business
3. Mass Media
4. Government Social Service Organizations
5. Withholding Information
a. Secrecy
Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making, Chapter 13: Facts
We have already discussed two mechanisms for changing people’s behavior: chapter 11
dealt with creating incentives and penalties and chapter 12 with mandating rules. Chapter
13, titled “Facts,” deals with persuasion strategies, which change people’s behavior by
influencing their minds and their perceptions of the world, not by offering the carrot and
stick or permissions and prohibitions.
The Two Faces of Persuasion
The first is reasoned and informed decision – the rational ideal.
propaganda and indoctrination.
The second is
Persuasion in the Rational Ideal Model (the good face that we hope sustains democracy)
- In this model, individual behavior is rational. People make goals, get
information about ways to achieve those goals, evaluate those alternatives, and
choose the best ones.
- The rational ideal offers reason as the basis for government. This means that
groups, organizations, and societies go through the same rational process as
individuals when making decisions.
- Information and knowledge can resolve conflicts, and force is replaced by
discussion.
- An example from a policy analysis textbook:
Policy disagreements would lessen – and perhaps vanish – if we could predict
with certainty the safety consequences of the breeder reactor, or the costs of
annual upkeep of clay courts, or whether a special shuttle bus for the elderly
would be heavily used. (quoted from Stone 306-7)
- This depends on “facts” being impartial and accurate and on everyone having
similar rational goals.
Persuasion as Propaganda and Indoctrination (the bad face that many political scientists
feel is only in totalitarian political systems)
- It has two elements distinguishing it from the rational ideal.
- First, it is intentionally manipulative.
- Second, it robs people of their capacity to think independently by, for example,
appealing to fears and insecurity.
Different language for the two models:
Rational ideal
Preceptoral System
information
enlightens and liberates
educations
learning
propaganda
benights and enslaves
brainwashing
compliance
Which vision is correct? The boundary between the two is blurry.
Making Facts in the Polis
If you look at both versions, you will see that neither version can exist in pure form.
Persuasion is somewhere in the middle.
Facts in the Rational Ideal Model
- It assumes the existence of neutral facts, but facts do not exist independent of
interpretive lenses. Even naming an object, action or policy is a political act
(terrorism vs. security measures).
- The problem goes beyond naming. Most of our knowledge comes from social
knowledge, but the institutions charged with finding facts make choices in
developing the information (e.g., what kind of data to collect), and they can have
a private agenda.
- Even scientific facts are not always perfectly accurate or unbiased (placebo
example).
- The rational ideal overstates the purity of information and people’s rationality,
as we are influenced by more than just facts (Kennedy vs. Nixon example).
Indoctrination in Liberal Democratic Polis?
- Stone rejects the idea that a totalitarian government is a necessary condition for
indoctrinations. Instead, she describes it as a relationship in which dominant
elites control people’s beliefs and knowledge in a manipulative and self-interested
way.
- Schools have a hidden curriculum to teach obedience, authority, etc.
- Businesses work to indoctrinate citizens to accept its privileged position.
- The mass media
- Street-level bureaucrats (e.g., voting registrars, teachers, police, judges) can also
effect client behavior, such as this Texas judge to a bilingual Hispanic mother:
You’re abusing the child and you’re relegating her to the position of housemaid.
Now get this straight. You start speaking English to this child because if she
doesn’t do good in school, then I can remove her because it’s not in her best
interest to be ignorant. (quoted from Stone 318)
- I disagree with the idea that communist regimes, with their effort to make a new
man have served as the archetype of political indoctrination for American social
scientists. Stone uses a quote dealing with practicing virtues in order to be
virtuous through habitutation (Stone 319). This is Aristotelian, not Marxist.
- Finally, indoctrination can happen through withholding information.
Conclusion
The rational ideal is incorrect because it assumes facts are accurate and impartial. The
preceptoral model is incorrect because it assumes indoctrination only happens in
totalitarian states, but it also happens in liberal democracies. Again, persuasion lies
between the two.
Stone Chapter 14
Rights
The chapter on rights is within the section of the book termed “Solutions” in the Policy
Paradox. Rights are frequently decided in litigation even though the inciting event is one
regarding standards of behavior and whether a behavior is reasonable. The chapter
presents Rights through two traditions: Positive and Normative
Positive Rights
A right is a claim backed by the power
of the state
Rights derive from the power of the
government
People can have rights only to those
things they claim and for which the
state backs them up.
Normative Rights
A right is whatever people in a given society ought to
be able to do, have, or expect from fellow citizens and
the government (but is without power of enforcement)
Rights derive from some source other than power, such
as morality, religion, rationality, or natural law
People can have rights to things they don’t actively
claim, and for which the state would not back them up.
How Positive rights work:
1. Call for a right through legal mechanism using types of rights
Type
Definition
Subset
Procedural
Process by which
Right
important decisions must
be made. Does not
define outcome, only
process.
Substantive
Right
Specific action and
entitlement people may
claim
Example
Right to Work
Antidiscrimination
Fair hearing
Fair housing
Equal education
Negative- right to be
Free speech
free of restraint, can not Right to vote
be prevented from
Right to
doing something
assemble
Positive- an entitlement
to have or receive
something, holder of
service is responsible
for provision of
necessity.
Health Care
Education
Employment
2. Utilize a mechanism to assert rights.
Type
Entity
Formal Statement of the right
Legislatures
must be in place or new
legislation must be enacted
Constitutions
Grievance Process is the system
to determine contested rights
Enforcement Process is a remedy
to mandate the relationship
between two contesting parties
Form
Statutory Law-U.S. or State
U.S. or State level
Agencies
Administrative law- Rules of
authoritative agency
Courts
Litigation
Common law- Past decisions at
any level of the court system
Courts
Adjudication
Administrative Agencies
(Initiated by contestant)
Adjudication
Provided by government
Compliance
Mostly compliant by citizen report
of violations
How Normative Rights work: Normative Rights are absent of criminal code but are
typically the basis for elevating a standard of behavior to consideration of a policy
change. Tort law given as example of standard for policy change for normative rights.
Tort law uses normative vision of three standards to deliberate resolution of dispute:
1. Standard of Decency
2. Public Interest
3. Civilization of Society
Political basis of rights:
1. Competing interest in a single contest
2. Both parties may be repeat players in court- low stakes in outcome
3. Both parties may be one-shotters- significant event in their lives
4. Probably are repeat player and one-shotter- not equal before the law
Participants in contest utilize strategic maneuvers:
1. Test cases are common
2. Characteristic of plaintiff are specific
 Good public image
 Admirable qualities
 Have a situation that results in broad sympathy
 Be able to withstand the process to change the rules
3. Class action to group of persons that have a similar situation that impacted each
individual
 Stack plaintiffs


Congregate large number to sway judge
Ticket balancing- multiple interest groups of persons involved
The most distinguishing feature of rights as a policy instrument is that they provide
occasions for dramatic rituals that reaffirm or redefine society’s internal rules.
Rights moralize about what behavior is good and bad and dramatize societal values
through contests between real people on a public stage.
Rights Issue as defined by components of Policy Paradox by Deborah Stone: Chapter 14
Issue: Education
Initial Standard defined in the Declaration of Independence- A normative term used “We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.” Supporting standard defined in the Constitution, a Formal
Statement, appended Bill of Rights, and the creation of a judicial system: Positive Rights.
Plessy 1896 called for equal education for black children: a procedural right. Met the
positive rights standard but was interpreted through societal interest (normative rights)
measure. Finding was for equal but separate facilities for education of black children.
Mr. Plessy was a one-shotter participant against a repeat player- unequal before the law.
Brown v. Board 1954 called for desegregation of public schools. Normative conditions,
the civilization of society, had finally changed enough for the Supreme Court to overturn
the previous ruling from 1896. This provided the Formal Statement of rights needed for
change. Attitudes and procedures failed to change. Token integration occurred, this
nullified the Grievance process to challenge the failure, and an Enforcement process was
absent to assist in equal access to education: a Positive substantive right.
1957- National Guard is mobilized in Arkansas for school desegregation. Grievance
process enacted and Enforcement process utilized, but only in a singular event. Citizen
reporting still required to engage the grievance process and enforcement protocol.
Federal regulatory sanctions are absent.
1963 James Meredith, an African American adult male, obtained a federal order citing
the Formal statement of a Procedural Right to allow entrance into a segregated university.
The governor and courts of Mississippi defied the order. The president federalized and
dispatched the Mississippi National Guard and provided Federal Marshals to protect Mr.
Meredith, enacting an Enforcement Process. Mr. Meredith was a 9 year Air Force
veteran, and had served in the war. His was a test case, selected because he had the
positive characteristics desired of a plaintiff in the strategic maneuver of the NAACP.
The rest of the story…
1963 Dr. Martin Luther King speech at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C.
culminating the March on Washington and urging the President to enact a Civil Rights
Act to end desegregation and other forms of discrimination. His speech to 200,000
people contained the words of the Declaration of Independence.
1964 Civil Rights Act passed after marches, demonstrations, and “class action” strategies
employed, utilizing a negative substantive right. This Act provided further desegregation
enforcement by withholding federal funds from school districts that did not integrate.
1969 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the order of desegregation of all schools.
1971 The U.S. Supreme Court upholds the constitutionality of busing of children to areas
apart from where they live to achieve integrated school districts.
Chapter 14 Summary
Rights
 Rights as a policy instrument
 Resolve policy problems with legal rights
 Concepts of Rights in the Polis
Positive Rights
Right is a claim backed by the power of the
state
Normative Rights
Right is whatever people in society ought
ot be able to do, have, or expect from
fellow citizens and the government.
Rights derive from the power of
government
Rights come from some source other than
power, such as morality, religion,
rationality, or natural law.
People can have rights only to those thins
they claim and for which the state backs
them up.
People can have rights to things they don’t
actively claim, and for which that state
would not back them up
 An example of normative rights: wives have a right not to be beaten by their
husbands, even though many never seek help and much wife beating is ignored
by law enforcement agencies. In the positive tradition, wives have a right to be
free of beating only if, when they protest beatings, the state takes their side and
restrains the husbands.
 Rights as Policy Instruments
Types of Rights
Procedural Right
Defines a process by which decisions must
An example: Employers would be entitled
be made
to conclude that all blind people are
incapable of operating a machine. They
would have to find out what are the
capabilities of each applicant.
Substantive Right
Defines specific actions or entitlements
people may claim
Right to be free of restraint; says no one
can prevent you from doing something
Negative Substantive Right
First Amendment freedoms are examples of
this
Positive Substantive Right
Entitlement to have or receive something;
The ADA of 1990: requires employers to
specifies obligations of someone to provide
redesign tasks, equipment etc. to
whatever the entitlement is
accommodate people with disabilities.
Sources of Rights
Legislatures
Statutes passed by a legislative body at any
level (federal, state, local)
Constitutions
Constitutions of the US or any of the states
Administrative agencies
Rules and regulations proclaim under
agency authority
Courts
Past decisions and precedents of judges at
any level of the court system
Mechanisms of Rights
Formal statement
Grievance Process
Enforcement Process
Case of James Meredith: black man in
1963 got a federal court order which
allowed him to enroll at the University of
Mississippi. The Governor said he would
defy the order and personally blocked
Meredith’s way. Pres. Kennedy
federalized the Miss National Guard to
protect Meredith while he enrolled and had
federal marshalls protect him until he
graduated.
Given in one of the four sources above
Adjudication between two or more parties
to a conflict by a neutral third party (judge)
Begins with people who believe their rights
have been violated, or by corporations.
Adjudication process done by the
government
Following the courts’ ruling rest on the
peoples voluntary cooperation.
Rights in the Polis
Rationality Model
People rely on official statements of rights
found in constitutions, statutes or court
opinion, etc.
Polis Model
People get beliefs and ideas about rights
from moral philosophy, media, and other
people.
Statements of rights are clear, and judges
merely apply formal rules to facts of the
case, using logic and reason
Judges are not influenced by power of
disputants, money, or anything except
reason and facts.
All citizens have equal access to the courts
to claim their rights; identity of litigants
does not influence outcome of litigation
Statements of rights are never clear; judges
must interpret formal rules and they use
norm and beliefs as well as logic and
reason
Judges are influenced by their own
experiences, beliefs about justice, and
understandings of society.
Parties who are repeat players in courts
have more power than those who use courts
once or sporadically. Money helps
Interest groups and organizations
deliberately structure and manage disputes
to increase their chances of winning
Courts rely on voluntary compliance; in
extraordinary conditions, they can call on
legislative and executive branches to help
enforce contested decisions
Judges use rhetoric to increase voluntary
compliance with their decisions.
Legislative and executive branches get
involved often, both to enforce court
decisions and overrule judges.
 Rights are a way of governing relationships and coordinating individual behavior
to
achieve collective purposes.
 The most important/distinctive feature of rights: they provide/offer the
opportunity to reaffirm or redefine society’s internal rules and its categories of
membership
Policy Paradox, Deborah Stone
Summary of Chapter 15 – Powers
Chapter 15 is about policy solutions that involve modifying decision making processes,
what Stone terms constitutional engineering and restructuring authority.
Constitutional engineering is a way of changing who makes the decisions and who
controls a sphere of policy.
Stone states that the processes of defining policy problems and establishing policy
solutions are political exercises that yield differing problem definitions and highlight the
authority structures currently in place. This translates into two levels of policy analysis:
1. Problem Mechanics
2. Decision Making Structure Mechanics
With these two levels of analysis in mind the author presents three strategies for
constitutional engineering.
Change the membership of the decision making body. Here the author explores which
characteristics are important membership determinants e.g. demographic and
accountability issues.
Change the size of the decision making body. Here the author discusses how Federalist
Paper 10 favored large federations. This began a whole genre of abstract arguments
purporting to show that large units logically led to better public decisions. Stone then
describes the equally strong American tradition favoring small community based
government. Stone finishes with mentioning the more modern thinking that each policy
problem has its own implicit scale characteristics.
Change the federalism of the decision making body. Stone looks at the difference
between the distributive results of centralized versus decentralized decision making
bodies. Namely, do they consistently benefit different sets of people. As an example, the
author discusses the control of population growth and the possible effects of control
authority resting with state as opposed to local government. Moving growth control
authority to the highest level increases the possibility that growth will be distributed
evenly across communities. As long as local government retains authority, they can
displace the burdens of growth elsewhere, pushing low income, minority and large family
home seekers into other communities/
Ch. 15
Powers
This chapter covers policy solutions that entail reforming the decision-making process or
what the author calls Constitutional Engineering. This concept is a way of changing who
makes the decisions and who controls the policy making.
The pattern in America has been to restructure the authority system to solve policy
problems. This only changes the “who” involved not necessarily the why or what.
When changing authority structure the author suggests examining these two questions
first: Does it make the trains run on time? Does it “work” to solve the nominal problem?
The definition of the nominal problem is usually the issue. To find the nominal problem
you might need to answer: What is the nature of the community that is constituted by the
type of authority structure uses to “solve” the problem? Who is given the right to make
decisions about the problem? Whose voice counts, both for choosing leaders and for
choosing policies? Who is subordinated to whom? What kind of internal hierarchy is
created? Who is allied with whom? How does the authority structure create loyalties and
antagonisms among members of the community?
The previous two questions break down as:
1. Problem Mechanics
2. Decision Making Structure Mechanics
The author explains a few ways to deal with each.
Changing the Membership:
First one must understand the qualities and interests of the policy maker to understand
how they will affect the policy. The author looks at “exclusions” (age, race, sex, etc.) or
“vote qualifications” to see how a particular demographic might have their issues more or
less represented.
Descriptive representation: when representatives share important demographic
characteristics with their constituents.
Substantive representation: representatives that share important policy beliefs and goals
with their constituents.
These become important when deciding upon a candidate that may live in a racially
charged neighborhood or a one-policy specific district.
Changing the Size:
The author explains Madison’s rational in the Federalist Paper No. 10, on promoting a
large government. He believed smaller communities have less qualified candidates to
choose from and would have to dig deeper to find them. He also believed it would be
more difficult for a “unworthy” candidate to win over a large constituency. Also, he
believed the larger the community the more likely there would be a variety of parties and
interests. He believed “larger is better” in regards to the republic.
On the other side of the argument the author then gave an example of someone living in a
condominium with 10-20 units as opposed to 100 units and to see if the group would vote
in the best interest of how to spend your money. The assumed answer is no, a larger
group will not be as concerned about the individual.
The author continues on to give a few more examples for each side of the argument.
Changing Federalism
This section looks into changing the number of decision-making units from few to many
or many to few.
Decentralization puts the authority in the hands of the people who are “close to the
problems” and “know the lay of the land”.
Centralization advocates say that decentralization allows authority in many small
jurisdictions to be dominated by elite, policies that maintain the status quo, enactment of
racial and other prejudices, and little or no redistribution.
See chart on page 374.
Federalism also requires deciding how the branches of government interact. Which
branches should have authority over others and where the balance of power should lie.
There are many theories on how to balance centralist and decentralist arguments. The
arguments are usually based upon efficiency, justice, or public interest. The author
believes that the underlying argument for all of this is changing the power structure and
how to split up old alliance, establish new ones, or place a favored interest in a powerful
position. In the end all of the sides of the arguments come down to politics!