Search results

This paper develops the concept of policy regime decay to examine what happens when the political foundations of public policies break down. Policy regime decay consists of an erosion of consensus over policy goals, an unraveling of support coalitions, and an exhaustion of institutional capacity to structure the policy process. These elements of decay have observable implications and they inform an empirical strategy for a case study of U.S. food and agriculture policy. Using content analysis of congressional hearings, analysis of legislative roll calls, and policy agenda measures, the paper finds evidence of elite disagreement over nutrition programs, a partisan divide on Farm Bill votes, and a diffusion of committee jurisdiction over food and agriculture issues in Congress. These findings have implications for understanding the policy consequences of polarization, policy feedback effects, and the dynamics of policy regimes.

American political development (APD) endeavors to understand the dynamism and durability of institutions. This focus has much in common with kindred scholarship in political science on the temporal construction of politics, yet the points of connection between APD and other fields are not always clear. As a remedy, this article reviews the various modes of institutional change found in the literature, the causal mechanisms in each, and the metaphors scholars sometimes use to capture processes that are difficult to observe directly. Using these various modes, mechanisms, and metaphors, scholars of APD explore institutional dynamics at different levels of analysis, highlighting the connections between the micropolitics of situated action and broader transformations at the macro level of the polity. The review concludes by showing how the study of APD speaks to issues of power and political economy that are once again central to political science scholarship.

This essay examines public-sector employment in order to grasp the distinctive character of the American state. Looked at comparatively, the American state is anything but small or weak. Rather, befitting a federal system, public authority in the United States is exercised largely through state and local government. What is distinctive about the American state is the concentration of public-sector employment in three areas: education, defense, and public safety. This pattern reflects a historical legacy of American state-building. The result has been a set of institutions that hides or conceals public authority in various ways. Adapted from the source document.

American political development (APD) endeavors to understand the dynamism and durability of institutions. This focus has much in common with kindred scholarship in political science on the temporal construction of politics, yet the points of connection between APD and other fields are not always clear. As a remedy, this article reviews the various modes of institutional change found in the literature, the causal mechanisms in each, and the metaphors scholars sometimes use to capture processes that are difficult to observe directly. Using these various modes, mechanisms, and metaphors, scholars of APD explore institutional dynamics at different levels of analysis, highlighting the connections between the micropolitics of situated action and broader transformations at the macro level of the polity. The review concludes by showing how the study of APD speaks to issues of power and political economy that are once again central to political science scholarship. Adapted from the source document.

This essay examines public-sector employment in order to grasp the distinctive character of the American state. Looked at comparatively, the American state is anything but small or weak. Rather, befitting a federal system, public authority in the United States is exercised largely through state and local government. What is distinctive about the American state is the concentration of public-sector employment in three areas: education, defense, and public safety. This pattern reflects a historical legacy of American state-building whereby the federal government frequently employed less visible, indirect forms of policy intervention while state and local government developed robust authority, particularly in matters that pertained to public and private morals. The result has been a set of institutions that hides or conceals public authority in various ways. Ultimately, the inability of Americans to see this state reinforces the very skepticism toward governmental authority that such a state-building strategy was meant to avoid.

This essay examines public-sector employment in order to grasp the distinctive character of the American state. Looked at comparatively, the American state is anything but small or weak. Rather, befitting a federal system, public authority in the United States is exercised largely through state and local government. What is distinctive about the American state is the concentration of public-sector employment in three areas: education, defense, and public safety. This pattern reflects a historical legacy of American state-building whereby the federal government frequently employed less visible, indirect forms of policy intervention while state and local government developed robust authority, particularly in matters that pertained to public and private morals. The result has been a set of institutions that hides or conceals public authority in various ways. Ultimately, the inability of Americans to see this state reinforces the very skepticism toward governmental authority that such a state-building strategy was meant to avoid. Adapted from the source document.