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.