My final research project: The impact of state-level bills on immigration policy

The impact of state-level bills on immigration policy

With the worldwide globalization age, the world is developing into a network-based community, and therefore international emigration and immigration among developed and developing countries is becoming one of the striking phenomena reflecting today’s fast-changing worldwide socio-economic situations. In the United States, a world super-power, the immigration issue is one of the serious socio-economic problems that Americans consider. Historically, the number of immigrants has continuously increased in the United States, and their political and economic power influence American society at a certain level. The number of illegal immigrants since the 1980s has explosively increased, but they can be an issue influencing serious social illness or several criminal acts. Moreover, the serious economic downturn provides momentum to increasing conflicts between American citizens and immigrants living in the United States. Many Americans consider immigrants as plunderers of the country’s economic pie, and therefore many states have passed anti-immigration bills limiting immigrants’ legal rights and status. To American federal and state governments, immigration presents one of the very difficult problems to give relevant answers to.

Under this consideration, this research deals with the impact of immigration bills on immigration policy. That is, I assume the newly-made immigration bills place a considerable limitation on the socio-economic life of immigrants in the United States. The purpose of this research is to review with a critical mind how several immigration bills at the state and federal levels influence immigrants living in the United States in terms of their economic life.

To do so, data that I will use for my final research project are related to MPI (Migration Policy Institute) data hub and U.S. Census data. MPI data (http://www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/) includes the latest immigration-related statistics for the United States and other countries in 2007 as a base year. Moreover, it also showcases the most current national and state-level demographic, social, and economic facts about immigrants to the United States; as well as stock, flow, citizenship, net migration, and historical data for countries in Europe, North America, and Oceania. U.S. Census data, as one of the favorite data sources for social scientists, is the authoritative and comprehensive summary of statistics on the social, political, and economic organization of the United States. Of several parts of U.S. Census data, I will select The Statistical Abstract of the United States (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/) for my research to grasp basic information about immigrants living in the United States, such as the number of immigrants by state, their income level, and so on. Especially, I will compare these data in the 2006 version of the Statistical Abstract (as a proxy data before the advent of radical immigration bills) and the 2008 version of the Statistical Abstract (as a proxy data after the advent of radical immigration bills) to understand the impact of immigration bills.

With these datasets, as I mentioned earlier, I would like to review the following research questions: (1) how several 2007 immigration bills passed by states have influenced immigrants’ economic life, (2) the number of immigration bills (total), status of immigration bills (passed, rejected, expired, and pending), types of immigration bills (regulating employment, regulating law enforcement, contracting rights), and how they are associated with changes in immigrants’ lives, mainly in terms of their economic conditions, and (3) how the immigration bills since 2007 impact states differently; that is, the differences in impact between states that traditionally have many legal and illegal immigrants, such as Arizona, Texas, California, and Florida, and others that have smaller numbers of immigrants. To do so, this research will use the state as the unit of analysis. By using some empirical methods, such as descriptive, ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis, I will deal with the relationship between independent variables (state response like introduction and implementation of immigration bills) and dependent variable (immigrant’s economic condition or life). Several conditional variables, such as some demographic, political, and contextual factors by state, can be included in the process of the research development.

Regarding my research, I need more data sources regarding immigration and immigration policy at the state and federal levels, if possible. So does anyone know the relevant data sources regarding them? Which factors relevantly reflect immigrants’ economic conditions? In my research, immigration bills can basically be considered as a strong “limitation” factor to immigrants’ socio-economic rights, although not all immigration bills have unfavorable characteristics towards legal and illegal immigrants. Under this condition, how can I deal with all immigration bills having diverse types, status, and intentions to understand the relationship of other independent variables?

The cases of incrementalism and distributive policy ("Part 2" of week 5)

1. I think the No Child Left Behind Act (hereafter “NCLB”) regarding American education policy can account for some parts of the incremental model of policy making, although there are several debates and different thoughts on this policy issue, considering the origin of this act. McGuinn’s article, The National Schoolmarm: No Child Left Behind and the New Educational Federalism, published in 2005, can be a helpful source to understand the origin and working process of this act.

In this article, McGuinn introduces three prominent arguments regarding the origins of NCLB, and one of them is based on the incremental approach. That is, this act, although it was made possible by longer-term developments, largely represents a continuation of earlier state and federal reform efforts. Katheryn McDermott, in McGuinn’s article, argues that “NCLB is more accurately seen as a continuation, rather than a departure from, ongoing trends in federal education policy and intergovernmental relations more generally…Comparing NCLB with the most recent prior authorization of ESEA in 1994 shows that NCLB does not take federal education policy in a new direction” (pp. 44-45). Therefore, several scholars, including McDermott, mention that NCLB does not represent a major shift in federal education policy but rather is simply “an extension of the 1994 reforms contained in Goals 2000 and the Improving America’s Schools Act” (p. 44).

However, I am wondering whether or not NCLB is wholly a by-product of the incremental model. Although the incremental approach influenced the federal educational policy-making process, it cannot explain the whole story of it, considering the response of some policy actors, like GOP members. NCLB contained a number of elements that were strongly opposed by states, factions of the Republican and Democratic parties, and powerful interest groups. Democrats and Republicans had long opposed a reform-oriented federal role in education – and in particular the kind of federally mandated testing, accountability, and choice contained in NCLB. In addition, states have always welcomed federal education funding, but they have fought vigorously to protect their policymaking autonomy over schools. If NCLB is essentially a continuation of Democratic education reforms embraced strategically by a Republican presidential candidate to appeal to swing voters, it is reasonable to presume that the GOP’s longer-term commitment to supporting and implementing the law is weak. Therefore, the incremental approach cannot wholly explain the GOP’s support of NCLB because of the party’s perceived abandonment of its longstanding support for state’s rights.


2. Web link: New York Times, “Swine Flu Vaccine Will Be Too Late to Prevent Pandemic, Experts Say,” September 11, 2009:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/15/health/12flu.html?scp=2&sq=swine%20flu&st=cse


I think the issue of the federal government’s providing swine flu vaccine to the 159 million Americans who need it can be one example related to distributive policies because the development and relevant provision of the new swine flu vaccine, and the antiviral drug “Tamiflu,” can be defined as a government effort to distribute a good or benefit to some portion of the American population. As Professor Corley mentioned in her audio lecture file, the provision of this vaccine to American citizens is considered as the provision of distributive policies because it hadn’t been distributed ever before to the target population and so this is the very first time we had this resource that could be distributed to people in small plots unit by unit (vaccine per person).

Although several public health and welfare issues are mainly related to redistributive policies or regulatory issues, the provision of swine flu vaccine doesn’t exactly match them because the issue of providing swine flu vaccine is not related to the characteristics of redistributive (having characteristics such as imposing a direct tax among one group with a view to providing for the benefit of another) or regulatory policies (involving a direct choice as to who will be indulged and who deprived). Moreover, we should understand current socio-economic and political contexts regarding the fact that swine flu is a new disease brought about recently around the world, having no precedent and no perfect cure but serious fatality rates. With the recognition of the seriousness of this policy issue, the Obama administration has appropriated about a billion dollars in federal public spending to buy the bulk ingredients from several private medical companies. Considering the fact that distributive policies are mainly related to the most common forms of federal action and are typically paid for through general tax revenues, federal efforts to provide swine flu vaccine can be explained by an example of distributive policies, although the transfer of federal public spending, such as increasing public welfare spending for overcoming swine flu and the relative decline of public spending to other fields, might bring about the effect of redistribution of public goods and services.

I think Lowi’s main argument, that the types of policies determine the types of politics, can be applicable to this issue well, although the policy process is very complex and sometimes might reveal some limitations of this argument. With the serious public health crisis, represented by the fast globalization of diseases, the federal government attempts to distribute swine flu vaccine with the support of each state government to protect all 159 million Americans who need it. That is, this case shows us that a certain policy environment and policy (a new public health policy issue) guides or influences political relationships (federal, state, and citizens in the United States). However, as I mentioned earlier, Lowi’s argument regarding four types of policy classifications has several limitations when we apply it to real policy contexts. Typologies in public policies can be extremely valuable, but they should optimally be offered along with well-considered ground rules for classification. I think Greenburg et al. and Steinburger’s arguments offer more relevant conclusions to policy analysis and the policy-making process. That is, considering the multiple participants participating in a certain specific policy issue and their different perceptions regarding the policy, the problem in classification according to Lowi’s typology has simply shifted from one of determining “which aspect” to one of determining “whose perceptions” (Greenburg, et al., p. 206). Moreover, as Steinberg mentioned in his article, selecting which policy issue is included in a certain policy typology is hard and is sometimes meaningless because each policy is likely to have different meanings for different participants and the exact meaning of a policy is by no means self-evident but rather, is ambiguous and manipulable. I basically agree with Steinberg’s opinion that policy typologies are insightful in elucidating and in specifying socially constructed meanings.

Beyond Lowi's policy typologies

This week’s readings regarding McCool’s chapter 3 (policy process) and chapter 4 (policy typologies) present very fundamental topics in the study of public policy but there is little consensus on which policy processes and policy typologies have stronger explanatory power than others, why researchers need them in policy studies, how researchers should take advantage of them and interpret them in several diverse policy arenas, and how the interaction, interrelationship, or intra-relationship among several kinds of policy actors is revealed or manipulated in the policy-making processes. Although several scholars competitively introduce various policy processes and policy typologies to improve the understanding of public policy and it is worthwhile for them to be studied, we as scholars still have the following questions: Do we really need policy processes and policy typologies to understand the policy-making process? How do we set the relationship between the substances and the processes (or contexts) of public policy? Focusing on chapter 4 dealing with policy typologies and related debates, I will make some comments regarding them.

In chapter 4, one of the main discussion points is the relationship between related variables to make “good” policy typologies. To do so, McCool introduces Lowi’s typology based on four types of policies (distributive, regulatory, redistributive, and constituent) as a starting point for discussion. As we already read in McCool’s chapter 4, the main argument of Lowi’s article is that the types of policies determine or guide the types of politics. This is a reverse argument, compared with the existing studies dealing with power relationships in policy analysis. However, Steinberger and Greenberg et al., and Spitzer attempt to revise or criticize Lowi’s basic assumption regarding the relationship between the two variables with a more realistic viewpoint. I really enjoyed the arguments made by Steinberger and Greenberg et al., and I think they can be better alternatives to understand Lowi’s policy typologies, although they each make use of a different research methodology: a qualitative and phenomenological viewpoint of Steinberger’s article versus the empirical and systematic comparative viewpoint of Greenberg et al.

Greenberg et al. and Steinberger alike argue that public policy has an inherently complex and ambiguous nature, as Lowi mentioned, but most particular policies can be, and are, coherently understood and defined in a wide variety of ways, in terms of multiplicity of aspects and participants, interaction of policy actors and their environments (Greenberg et al’s argument), and socially constructed meanings (Steinberger’s argument).That is, Lowi’s policy typologies based on the categorization of a particular policy within four types of policies should be carefully understood under a contingent and multi-dimensional consideration of several explicit as well as implicit factors, according to them. I really agree with their arguments and think they have higher validity, probability, and reliability for understanding real policy analysis. In spite of their excellent arguments, some of their argument is a little confusing. For example, the concept of “requisite actions” and “autonomous actors” in Banfield’s theory under Greenberg et al. is very interesting but it is a little confusing regarding the exact meaning and the relationship between these concepts and the validity of Lowi’s argument.

Finally, I would like to comment on the condition of a “good” theory in policy studies, as McCool mentioned at the conclusion section of chapter 4. According to McCool, the researchers under today’s policy analysis face a dilemma, such as which factors should or could be emphasized over others: “economy” or “simplicity” vs. “testability.” Which one is selected or preferred depends on the researcher’s intention and understanding regarding how policy typologies should be used and why policy typologies are needed. I think there is no answer concerning this debate but the efforts to make consensus of it should be required for a better policy analysis.

"Part 2" of assignment #2 (Week 3 Articles)

1. Shulock Article:

a) In this article, the author introduces two different types of policy analysis: the traditional and interpretive views of policy analysis. Based on the economic and rational choice theory, traditional policy analysis presumes that (1) experts trained in proper analytical techniques can apply them systematically to the political marketplace, (2) experts can discover and measure the impact of policy on citizen interests, (3) they can project policy consequences with some accuracy, and (4) they can affect the decisions of identifiable clients, who will use the analysis to solve policy problems (p. 228). However, interpretive analysis based on uncertainty in decision-making assumes that (1) policy-makers try to interact and sometimes struggle with various social actors to shape issue interpretations and preferences about the public interest, (2) under inherently inconclusive information, the policy-making process consists of a constant battle over agenda, competition over jurisdiction and issue interpretations, and dynamic changes, and (3) policy analysis orients toward a democratic process (p. 228). According to the author, while traditional view of policy analysis is more focus on the outcomes and using policy analysis to come up with some final decisions, interpretive view of policy analysis is considered as part of engaging the public and the decision-making process, and focusing on more participation.

b) Before answering this question, I think we cannot conclude which perspective regarding policy analysis is more accurate than the other because this is not a problem of fact (dealing with rightness or wrongness of certain topics or issues) but a problem of value (dealing with good/bad or validity/invalidity of certain topics or issues). Rather, I think we can decide which one is the more valid or relevant viewpoint than the other, in terms of today’s complex policy context and environment. With this in mind, I argue that the interpretive perspective of policy analysis, mentioned by the author, can be a more relevant and valid perspective under current policy reality. Traditional understanding and study of policy analysis, as a comprehensive, problem-solving, scientific enterprise, is based on “an overreliance on a positive framework and an antidemocratic tendency” (p. 239), and it gives rise to misunderstanding of policy analysis. Moreover, efficiency-preoccupied policy analysis and understanding makes policy scientists downplay or neglect the effect of public policy on the citizenry.
I basically agree with the author’s argument that policy analysis already involves discourse, introduces ideas into politics, and affects policy outcomes (p. 240). Public policy should involve improving the democratic or political capacities of people, and not simply the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of services. Lasswell believed that the purpose of policy-making was the formation of values which could shape the full development of individuals and society as a whole, as his mention of the “policy sciences of democracy.” There are models emerging that are more concerned with public policy as public learning and which stress values such as participation, co-production, communication, decentralization, and community.
Overemphasizing the value of efficiency frequently conflicts with other values and isolates the individuals participating in the policy process as customers preoccupied with their self-interests. Several scholars, such as Dryzek, Stone, and deLeon, criticize these problems and suggest a new approach for a more democratic policy-making process, like deLeon’s “participative policy analysis.” I think this has a similar context to the author’s interpretive viewpoint of policy analysis.

c) Web link: http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/the-white-house-revisits-government-web-privacy-policies/?scp=1&sq=participatory%20policy%20analysis&st=cse

This article shows us the example of the federal government’s effort to reform current government Web-privacy policy. Regarding the use of “cookies” in Websites, meaning “unique numeric IDs that many Web sites deposit in their browser,” the existing cookie policy is out of date and there has been conflict between those arguing about privacy concerns by tracking cookies of citizens accessing public information. What is interesting regarding cookie policy under the Obama administration is that the federal government is attempting to change cookie policy and reflect citizens’ various voices in the governance process. According to this article, the White House outlined a proposed new cookie policy and asked citizens to provide feedback by August 10 in a “comments section” on the Website of the Office of Management and Budget. The citizens can comment there or by sending an e-mail to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov and all comments will be published publicly.
I think the federal government’s effort to reflect citizens’ voices and thoughts regarding Web privacy policy through opening a comments section in public institutions can be an example toward participative policy-making. Moreover, this trial is also connected with the interpretive perspective regarding policy analysis, which considers policy analysis as “collective social struggle to shape issue interpretations and preferences about the public interest” (Shulock, p. 229) and relates to dynamic policy change and competition over jurisdiction and issue interpretations among policy actors. I think the federal government’s use of several Web technologies, such as Websites, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and wikis, could create new ways for people to communicate with their government and participate in policy-making.

2. Hird Article:

a) To measure the impact of “use of policy analysis” in decision-making, the author operationalizes it as “the impact of the nonpartisan policy research organizations” (hereafter “NPROs,” p. 87) serving each state legislature. Under this research design, Hird measures the utilization of policy analysis in terms of the size and types of NPROs and their impact on the policy process. By using empirical research like standard mail survey method and statistical analysis (using “ordered probit model”), the author concludes that NPROs don’t have substantial policymaking influence according to legislators, yet larger and more analytical NPROs have significantly more influence over policymaking than smaller/descriptive NPROs (p. 100). That is, although state NPROs are not viewed as influential in the policymaking process in absolute terms, larger/analytical operations do enhance NPRO policymaking influence. Moreover, several contextual and additional variables, such as political culture, state political ideology, and legislative professionalism, interact to determine the extent to which NPROs are used or regarded as useful.

b) Hird’s argument on the use of policy analysis in terms of the influence of NPROs in the state is valuable in that it provides scholars with a new understanding of NPROs and the policy environments in which they thrive. However, I am not sure Hird’s argument, in which some structural factors of the NPROs (types and sizes) can be influential factors of the extent of use of policy analysis, can be applicable to other political environments, beyond the state legislature. This research result is based on knowledge utilization of state legislatures, especially focusing on the NPROs, but I think policy analysis is an inherently “political” process and several dynamic interactions among policy actors might influence the use of policy analysis. That is, Hird made a conclusion through the congressional policy-making process in terms of the NPROs-related data per state, but we cannot be sure whether or not a single sector, rather than multiple sectors, would produce more generalizable findings. It might be connected with a methodological problem.
Moreover, if we add some potential factors regarding the NPROs, such as their types of functions or the extent of public spending on the NPROs by state legislatures, the relationship between NPROs and PROs (“partisan research organizations”) per state, and gubernatorial power and preference on the NPROs, I wonder if we could get a similar result, compared with this research.

Hi, guys!

Nice to meet you guys. My name is Dongjae Jung and I came from South Korea almost four years ago.

I am a second-year Ph.D. student in the School of Public Affairs and have been living in Tempe, Arizona, since August of 2005. I have one undergraduate and two master's degrees, all related to the fied of public administration and public policy. Before participating in the SPA, I worked in the public sector for almost five years in the Korean national government and the Korean National Assembly, South Korea, as a research fellow and a policy aide.

My academic interest is basically related to public policy, especially focusing on the policy evaluation process and policy modelings by using several quantitative research methods. I hope this class will help me to understand the complex American policy-making process and increase my statistical capacities. Moreover, I am anticipating exciting discussions and meetings with you online. Thanks!