Influencial Policy and Competence

It has been well-established basis in conventional democratic theory that citizens are the driving force in affecting policy. But if policy is thought of as a simple government product, or output, it is reasonable to fathom potential influences on participation and competence. The first Ingram reading impressed me by providing justification for empirical data. I made an unfounded premature claim about just casually changing cultural norms in the last class. This week’s readings shed more light to this issue.

Ingram’s discussion of social constructions/stereotypes and the sebsequent value we place on them presented a fresh look on the importance of this study but I didn’t understand its importance of it in terms why a politician supports certain legislation. To me, this model vaguely outlined that sometimes polticians appear to be rational, and are at other times irrational. Reflecting on the most recent high-profile legislation it seems to me that almost all policy was targeted toward benefiting the negative, but powerful, groups: bailouts, healthcare in some ways. Would Ingram and Schneider suggest that despite its apparent irrationality, these policies are beneficial to both re-election and the promotion of the common goals that the article lays out? Will the almost inevitable loss of Democrat-filled seats on Congress act as an indication either way? What about government inaction on the policy front? Can a lack of policy influence norms or views of the political structure to either promote or hinder competence?

The Welfare and GI Bill studies provide very compelling evidence for how the design and perception of policy can influence norms and sensitivity to government. A few have commented on what we should do to reform welfare so I’ll save it for class. One thing I always look out for in these studies is self-selection bias. Could it be reasonable to entertain the idea that veterans of WWII were already pre-determined to take civil service jobs at a higher rate than other groups? Are people who are likely to go on welfare also be very unlikely to hold the government in high esteem? In any case, the main arguments that are expressed relate to the importance of the policy influences as an output, not input. As with any field in its infant stages, some kinks need to be addressed empirically.