Suchergebnisse

The standard wisdom among political scientists has been that "iron triangles" operated among regulatory agencies, the regulated industries, and members of Congress, all presumably with a stake in preserving regulation that protected the industries from competition. Despite almost unanimous agreement among economists that such regulation was inefficient, it seemed highly unlikely that deregulation could occur. Yet between 1975 and 1980 major deregulatory changes that strongly favored competition did take place in a wide range of industries. The results are familiar to airline passengers, users of telephone service, and trucking freight shippers, among others. Martha Derthick and Paul J. Quirk ask why this deregulation happened. How did a diffuse public interest prevail over the powerful industry and union interests that sought to preserve regulation? Why did the regulatory commissions, which were expected to be a major obstacle to deregulation, instead take the initiative on behalf of it? And why did influential members of Congress push for even greater deregulation? The authors concentrate on three cases: airlines, trucking, and telecommunications. They find important similarities among the cases and discuss the implications of these findings for two broader topics: the role that economic analysis has played in policy change, and the capacity of the American political system for transcending narrow interests.

Argues that mass influence has emerged as a hegemonic force in public policy making since the 1970s, leading to "democratic excess"; US.

The Founding Fathers warned about the dangers of an "excess of democracy" and designed the Constitution in large part with a view toward preventing it. Judging from most commentary on American politics, with respect to most of the intervening two hundred years, they need't have worried: The mass public has only occasionally been a dominant force in national policy making. Elites, although often responding to broad public concerns, have usually defined the specific directions of policy change.

Much of the controversy and debate in modern American life revolves around such public policy issues as abortion, gun control, health care, and immigration. Governing America is a new, three-volume collection of essays designed to give readers the complete story behind the major policy issues of the 21st century. This comprehensive resource takes a unique perspective on public policy issues and presents them in historical context. Controversial issues along with the history of the U.S. government's involvement in these debates are examined in great detail by experts in the field. Coverage incl

Severe party conflict, not a high-minded suspension of politics, now prevails "at the water's edge." Democrats and Republicans fight pitched battles over foreign affairs. But are the two parties polarized in their substantive preferences on foreign policy, or mainly jockeying for partisan advantage? Are they polarized on foreign policy less sharply than on domestic policy? What are the sources of party polarization over foreign policy? Using a new measure of senatorial foreign-policy preferences from 1945-2010, we explore party polarization over foreign policy. We find that foreign-policy preferences have had varying relationships with party politics and general ideology. Since the 1960s, however, the parties have become increasingly polarized on foreign policy. Using a multilevel analysis, we show that foreign-policy polarization has developed in response to partisan electoral rivalry, foreign-policy events, and general ideological polarization. The analysis indicates an increasing influence of domestic politics on foreign policy.

Lester G. Seligman, professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, died November 2, 2004,
in Urbana, Illinois. He had a distinguished academic career, making
major contributions to the study of political leadership and
especially the U.S. presidency, and played a leadership role in the
profession as well. He was widely admired, not only for the
excellence of his teaching and research, but also for his
indefatigable optimism, good humor, and generous spirit.