| Title | : | Policy Drift: Shared Powers and the Making of U.S. Law and Policy |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 1479839833 |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9781479839834 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 304 |
| Publication | : | Published February 13, 2018 |
There is no finality to the public policy process. Although it’s often assumed that once a law is enacted it is implemented faithfully, even policies believed to be stable can change or drift in unexpected directions. The Fourth Amendment, for example, guarantees Americans’ privacy rights, but the 9/11 terrorist attacks set off one of the worst cases of government-sponsored espionage. Policy changes instituted by the National Security Agency led to widespread warrantless surveillance, a drift in public policy that led to lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of wiretapping the American people.
Much of the research in recent decades ignores the impact of large-scale, slow-moving, secular forces in political, social, and economic environments on public policy. In Policy Drift, Norma Riccucci sheds light on how institutional forces collectively contributed to major change in three key areas of U.S. policy (privacy rights, civil rights, and climate policy) without any new policy explicitly being written. Formal levers of change—U.S. Supreme Court decisions; inaction by Congress; Presidential executive orders—stimulated by social, political or economic forces, organized permutations which ultimately shaped and defined contemporary public policy.
Invariably, implementations of new policies are embedded within a political landscape. Political actors, motivated by social and economic factors, may explicitly employ strategies to shift the direction of existing public polices or derail them altogether. Some segments of the population will benefit from this process, while others will not; thus, “policy drifts” carry significant consequences for social and economic change.
A comprehensive account of inadvertent changes to privacy rights, civil rights, and climate policy, Policy Drift demonstrates how unanticipated levers of change can modify the status quo in public policy.
Policy Drift: Shared Powers and the Making of U.S. Law and Policy Reviews
-
She uses a lot of big words, particularly in her introduction and conclusion, so I'm not 100% sure I fully understand her argument. But, if she is arguing what I think she's arguing, it's actually a pretty straightforward and dare I say commonsensical book.
Basically, if I understand it correctly, she argues that policy in the U.S. is the result of more complexity than many realize. That is, most people probably assume that a single person or entity sets a policy, and that's just the way it is forever. For example, some people might think, "One time President X wanted Y, so now our country has Y" or "Congress passed X law and now that's the law of the land." In reality, she argues, it's not just one person or entity that determines policies. She argues that the three branches of government all help shape public policy in the U.S., as does "bureaucracy," which she distinguishes from the executive branch, and which she calls the fourth branch of government. She also argues that voters, protesters, social media companies, big business, news outlets, advocacy groups, and many others also help shape policy. Further, she argues that policy is never "finished;" it is ever-evolving. Finally, she argues without saying so directly that who you vote for matters. For example, she poses a hypothetical scenario questioning what would have happened to climate change policy had Clinton beat Trump in 2016.
The thing is, if I understood her correctly (which, again - fair warning: I might not have), I don't think these ideas are as novel as the author thinks they are. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., for example, has said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice," in recognition that change happens gradually over time. Take LGBT issues, for example. I don't think anyone believes "Some group set LGBT policy, and that's just the way it is and will always be forever." People understand that members of the LGBT community have more rights than they did 50 years ago, and I think most people expect such members will have even more rights in an additional 50 years. I also think she should give the general populous some benefit of the doubt that they know that various people, groups, and entities help shape the current state of affairs for any given policy.
Nonetheless, even if I didn't find this book particularly earth-shattering or controversial, I did thoroughly enjoy it. This was especially true for the "meat" of the book, chapters 2-4, in which she uses vignettes of policy debates to illustrate her broader thesis of complexity and impermanence. These chapters were easier for me to understand, in part because I found the language more accessible, and in part because they are told in narrative form. Much of this book is also a discussion of somewhat recent history (i.e. Clinton administration onward), and the part of me that lived through that history found the retelling fascinating. The chapters did help illustrate her broader thesis, of course, but I also just found enjoyment in reading them for their own sake (as interesting stories even without the broader points).
I also did find it fascinating that - unlike the MLK quote above - the policy drifts described were used not just by progressives, and not just be conservatives. That is, some believe (as MLK's quote implies), a perpetual state of progress. "Policy Drift" distorts that notion, illustrating two examples in which republicans used policy drifts for conservative, restrictive purposes (increasing spying and the destruction of our planet). On the other hand, some believe that the world is doomed, and everything keeps getting worse and worse. The author illustrated that this, too, was not accurate, and she successfully illustrated how democrats have used policy drift to promulgate their own causes (mainly women's and LGBT rights).
A pretty good book, especially for those who like government or history. -
This book was way more interesting than I thought it would be at the offset. As I got deeper into the book I saw the the author leaned more away from the conservative perspective. That is their personal choice that I respect. Though I would have preferred more of a neutral tone to fully share the ideas of all parties on a book on policy. Still a good read. I learned quite a bit.
