Suchergebnisse

Since 1969, governors of Iowa have averaged a decade in office, significantly longer than their peers in other states. Why? This book draws on approval data, interviews with politicos around the state, including two former governors, and a statewide survey of Iowa voters to explain Iowa's unique tendency to reelect governors at an unprecedented rate. Results show that Iowa voters give their governors considerable leeway so long as they feel personally connected to the person holding that office. Iowa voters expect their governor to be out and about on a regular basis, an expectation that is fueled by Iowa's position as holding the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses. A sagging economy doesn't necessarily spell electoral doom for a governor if he perceived as working hard on behalf of the electorate. When that feeling of connectivity is absent, however, such factors weigh heavily on governor's reelection prospects.

Electing members of legislatures through multimember districts (MMDs) reduces racial & ethnic minorities' descriptive representation in those bodies, but is their substantive representation also hurt? Do legislative MMDs lead to worse policy outcomes for minorities independent of their effect on legislative demographics? To address these questions, I examine welfare policy in the states from 1997 to 2000. I find evidence that suggests that states whose upper legislative chamber is comprised of MMDs have significantly less generous welfare policy. I conclude that MMDs do indeed damage the substantive representation of racial & ethnic minorities in legislatures, independent of their effect on descriptive representation. 4 Tables, 1 Appendix, 49 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractElecting members of legislatures through multimember districts (MMDs) reduces racial and ethnic minorities' descriptive representation in those bodies, but is their substantive representation also hurt? Do legislative MMDs lead to worse policy outcomes for minorities independent of their effect on legislative demographics? To address these questions, I examine welfare policy in the states from 1997 to 2000. I find evidence that suggests that states whose upper legislative chamber is comprised of MMDs have significantly less generous welfare policy. I conclude that MMDs do indeed damage the substantive representation of racial and ethnic minorities in legislatures, independent of their effect on descriptive representation.

AbstractThis special issue considers the relationship of the life sciences to both public policy and public administration. This makes sense because the bureaucratic process and public administration are deeply involved in the policy process and the development of substantive public policy. The two subjects are intertwined. And a biological perspective can illuminate many aspects of both. That is the focus of this issue.

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- Preface -- List of Illustrations -- Chapter 1: Public Policy as a Concept and a Field (or Fields) of Study -- Defining Public Policy -- Defining the Field(s) of Public Policy Studies -- The Policy Sciences: A Very Short History of the Field of Policy Studies -- The Fracturing of the Policy Sciences -- Why Build When You Can Beg, Borrow, and Steal? -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Chapter 2: Does Politics Cause Policy? Does Policy Cause Politics? -- Good Policy Theory -- Policy Stages: A First Attempt at Policy Theory -- Stages Model: Descriptive or Predictive? -- Another "Theory" of Public Policy: Policy Typologies -- Typologies as Non-Mutually Exclusive Categories -- Conclusion: Where Do We Go from Here? -- Notes -- Chapter 3: Who Makes Decisions? How Do They Make Decisions? Actors and Institutions -- Bounded Rationality and Incrementalism -- Incrementalism in Practice -- Public Choice and the Tiebout Model -- The Tiebout Model: Citizens as Efficient Policymakers? -- Institutional Rational Choice -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Chapter 4: Whose Values? Policy Design -- Objective Policy Design? -- The "Paradox" of Policy Design -- Social Constructions and Target Populations -- "Democratic" Values and Policy Design -- Narrative Policy Framework -- Testing Policy Design Theories? -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Chapter 5: Where Does Policy Come From? The Policy Process -- Process and Power -- Policy Subsystems and Issue Networks -- Advocacy Coalitions: Theory or Framework? -- Punctuated Equilibrium: A Descriptive Framework for Policy Change -- Assessing the Value of PET -- Garbage Cans and Policy Windows: A Multiple Streams Approach to Policy Change -- A Theory of Policy Change? -- Conclusion -- Notes -- Chapter 6: What Should We Do? The Field of Policy Analysis -- The Rationalist Approach

Ideal for advanced policy students, this comprehensive exploration of public policy offers a concise, structured overview and serves as a critical guide to the concepts, issues, theory, and methodolog.

"Outcomes of Political Decision Making" published on by Oxford University Press.

There are good reasons to expect that greater proportions of women in decision making bodies shape decision making in important ways that are not fully considered in the current literature. In the present study, a conceptual framework is presented that differs significantly from other explanations for gendered group decision making. Data from an original laboratory experiment offers support for the hypothesis that group outcomes will vary based on gender composition due to differing process strategies used by men and women. These data illuminate how gender diversity in decision making bodies is likely to shape policy making, as well as enhance our understanding of how policymaking is itself gendered. Adapted from the source document.

This study investigates whether observers react negatively to overly ambitious leaders, focusing on whether women are more sensitive than men in their perceptions of the traits of decision makers and whether men and women behave differently as a result of such perceptions. Results from two laboratory experiments show how participants react to ambitious decision makers in simple bargaining scenarios. The results indicate that observers tend to equate ambition for decision-making authority with self-interested, unfair, male behavior. Moreover, observers tend to be less satisfied with a decision made by an ambitious decision maker compared to the same decision made by an unambitious decision maker. That is, people generally dislike ambitious decision makers independent of the actual decision that is made. Further, there are important differences in male and female expectations of what decision makers will do that, when combined with perceptions of decision-maker gender, have more nuanced implications for outcome satisfaction and our understanding of "follower behavior."