Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T04:42:34.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

After the “Master Theory”: Downs, Schattschneider, and the Rebirth of Policy-Focused Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 September 2014

Jacob S. Hacker  and
Paul Pierson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on the pioneering work of Anthony Downs, political scientists have tended to characterize American politics as a game among undifferentiated competitors, played out largely through elections, with outcomes reflecting how formal rules translate election results into legislative votes. In this perspective, voters, campaigns, elections, and the ideological distribution of legislators merit extensive scrutiny. Other features of the political environment—most notably, the policies these legislators help create and the interest groups that struggle over these policies—are deemed largely peripheral. However, contemporary politics often looks very different than the world described by Downs. Instead, it more closely resembles the world depicted by E. E. Schattschneider—a world in which policy and groups loom large, the influence of voters is highly conditional, and the key struggle is not over gaining office but over reshaping governance. Over the last twenty years, a growing body of scholarship has emerged that advances this corrective vision—an approach we call “policy-focused political science.” In this framework, politics is centrally about the exercise of government authority for particular substantive purposes. Such exercises of authority create the “terrain” for political struggle, profoundly shaping both individual and group political behavior. More important, because policies can be so consequential, they also serve as the “prize” for many of the most enduring political players, especially organized interest groups. The payoffs of a policy-focused perspective include a more accurate portrayal of the institutional environment of modern politics, an appreciation for the fundamental importance of organized groups, a better understanding of the dynamics of policy change, and a more accurate mapping of interests, strategies, and influence. These benefits are illustrated through brief examinations of two of the biggest changes in American politics over the last generation: asymmetric partisan polarization and the growing concentration of income at the top.

Type
Reflections
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 2014 , pp. 643 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan J. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Ahler, Doug, Citrin, Jack and Lenz, Gabriel. 2013. “Do Open Primaries Help Moderate Candidates? An Experimental Test of the 2012 Primary.” University of California, Berkeley: Working Paper.Google Scholar
Arnold, R. Douglas. 1990. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bawn, Kathleen, Cohen, Martin, Karol, David, Masket, Seth, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties.” Perspectives on Politics 10(3): 571–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry. 2014. “Rich People Rule!” The Monkey Cage. April 8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/ Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Jones, Bryan. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, and Leech, Beth. 1998. Basic Interests: The Importance of Groups in Politics and Political Science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, Leech, Beth, and Mahoney, Christine. 2003. “The Co-evolution of Groups and Government.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, August 28–31.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam, McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2013. “Why Hasn’t Democracy Slowed Rising Inequality?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 27(3): 103–24.Google Scholar
Brady, David, and Volden, Craig. 1998. Revolving Gridlock: Politics and Policy from Carter to Clinton. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2003. How Policies Make Citizens: Senior Political Activism and the American Welfare State. Princeton: Princeton, NJ University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Marty, Karol, David, Noel, Hans, and Zaller, John. 2008. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Congelton, Roger D. 2004. “The Median Voter Model.” In The Encyclopedia of Public Choice, ed. K. Rowley, Charles and Schneider, Friedrich. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2011. Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007. Washington, DC: CBO.Google Scholar
Culpepper, Pepper. 2011. Quiet Politics and Business Power: Corporate Control in Europe and Japan. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 1990. Agency under Stress: The Social Security Administration in American Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Drutman, Lee. 2010. “The Business of America is Lobbying: The Expansion of Corporate Political Activity and the Future of American Pluralism.” PhD diss., University of California—Berkeley.Google Scholar
Eisenhower, Dwight. 1954. “Letter to Edgar Newton Eisenhower.” Document #1147; November 8. In The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XV, ed. Galambos, Louis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K., Kelly, Nathan J., Morgan, Jana, Volscho, Thomas, and Witko, Christopher. 2014. “Conditional Status Quo Bias and Top Income Shares: How U.S. Political Institutions Benefit the Rich.” Journal of Politics 76(2): 289–303.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1977. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2013. “America’s Polarized Politics: Causes and Solutions.” Perspectives on Politics 11(3): 852–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., with Abrams, Samuel J.. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., with Abrams, Samuel J. and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2005. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. 2014. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics 12(3): 564–581.Google Scholar
Gourevitch, Peter. 1986. Politics in Hard Times: Comparative Responses to International Economic Crises. Syracuse, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. “Downs and Two-Party Convergence.” Annual Review of Political Science 7: 25–46.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2002. The Divided Welfare State: The Battle over Public and Private Social Benefits in the United States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S. 2004. “Privatizing Risk without Privatizing the Welfare State: The Hidden Politics of Social Policy Retrenchment.” American Political Science Review 98(2): 243–60.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2005a. “Abandoning the Middle: The Bush Tax Cuts and the Limits of Democratic Control.” Perspectives on Politics 3(1): 33–53.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2005b. Off-Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2010a. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2010b. “Drift and Democracy: The Neglected Politics of Policy Inaction.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington D.C. September 2–5.Google Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. 2012. “Presidents and the Political Economy: The Coalitional Foundations of Presidential Power.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 42(1): 101–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, Peter, and Soskice, David. 2001. Varieties of Capitalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Healy, Andrew, and Lenz, Gabriel. 2014. “Substituting the End for the Whole: Why Voters Respond Primarily to the Election-Year Economy.” American Journal of Political Science 58(1): 31–47.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1974. Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In The New American Political System, ed. King, Anthony. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Huber, Evelyn, and Stephens, John. 2001. Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M. 2011. Governing for the Long Term: Democracy and the Politics of Investment. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Alan M., and Weaver, R. Kent. Forthcoming. “When Policies Undo Themselves: Self-Undermining Feedback as a Source of Policy Change.” Governance.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Shapiro, Robert. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence, and Skocpol, Theda, eds. 2011. Reaching for a New Deal: Ambitious Governance, Economic Meltdown, and Polarized Politics in Obama's First Two Years. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, Soren, Webb, Clayton McLaughlin, and Wood, B. Dan. 2014. “The President, Polarization, and the Party Platforms, 1944-2012.” The Forum 12(1): 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, Andrew. 2007. Democratic Laboratories: Policy Diffusion among the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Keyssar, Alexander. 2000. The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of US Lawmaking. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lapinski, John S. 2013. The Substance of Representation: Congress, American Political Development, and Lawmaking. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, Beth, Baumgartner, Frank, La Pira, Timothy, and Semanko, Nicholas. 2005. “Drawing Lobbyists to Washington: Government Activity and the Demand for Advocacy.” Political Research Quarterly 58(1): 19–30.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lieberman, Robert C. 2001. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Liptak, Adam. 2010. “Court under Roberts Is Most Conservative in Decades.” New York Times, July 24.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory.” World Politics 16: 677–715.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. 2012. It’s Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Marwell, Gerald, and Oliver, Pamela. 1993. The Critical Mass in Collective Action: A Micro-Social Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 1991. Divided We Govern: Party Control, Lawmaking, and Investigations, 1946–1990. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David. 2000. “Electoral Realignments,” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 449–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdam, Douglas, and Kloos, Karina. 2014. The Origins of Our Fractured Society: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Post-War America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarthy, John D., and Zald, Mayer N.. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82(6): 1212–41.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2007. “The Policy Effects of Political Polarization.” In Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, ed. Pierson, Paul and Skocpol, Theda. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Meltzer, Alan, and Richard, Scott F.. 1981. “A Rational Theory of the Size of Government.” Journal of Political Economy 89(5): 914–27.Google Scholar
Melnick, R. Shep. 1994. Between the Lines. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2002. “Bringing the State Back In to Civic Engagement: Policy Feedback Effects of the G.I. Bill for World War II Veterans.” American Political Science Review 96(2): 367–80.Google Scholar
Mettler, Suzanne. 2011. The Submerged State: How Invisible Government Policies Undermine American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 1980. The Organization of Interests: Incentives and the Internal Dynamics of Political Interest Groups. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2005. “Power and Political Institutions.” Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 215–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry M. 2012. Special Interest: Teachers Unions and American Public Schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Orloff, Ann Shola. 2009. “Gendering the Comparative Analysis of Welfare States: An Unfinished Agenda.” Sociological Theory 27(3): 317–43.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., Bartels, Larry M., and Seawright, Jason. 2013. “Democracy and the Policy Preferences of Wealthy Americans.” Perspectives on Politics 11(1): 51–73.Google Scholar
Patashnik, Eric M. 2008. Reforms at Risk: What Happens after Major Policy Changes Are Enacted. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1993. “When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change.” World Politics 45(4): 595–628.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, Paul. 2014. “Madison Upside Down: The Policy Roots of Our Polarized Politics.” In The Politics of Major Policy Reform in Postwar America, ed. Jenkins, Jeffrey A. and Milkis, Sidney M.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rae, Douglas. 1975. “The Limits of Consensual Decision.” American Political Science Review 69(4): 1270–94.Google Scholar
Rubin, Ruth Bloch. 2013. “Organizing for Insurgency: Intraparty Organization and the Development of the House Insurgency, 1908–1910.” Studies in American Political Development 27(2): 86–110.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1935. Politics, Pressure and the Tariff. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1942. Party Government. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Schorr, Boris. 2013. “Asymmetric Polarization in State Legislatures? Yes and No.” Measuring American Legislatures (blog), July 29, 2013, (http://americanlegislatures.com/2013/07/29/partisan-polarization-in-state-legislatures/) accessed June 20, 2014.Google Scholar
Silver, Nate. 2012. “A Risky Rational behind Romney's Choice of Ryan,” Fivethirtyeight (blog), August 11, 2012 (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/a-risky-rationale-behind-romneys-choice-of-ryan/) accessed July 24, 2014.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. 2007. “Government Activism and the Reorganization of American Civic Democracy.” In Activist Government and the Rise of Conservatism, ed. Pierson, P. and Skocpol, T.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Skowronek, Stephen. 1993. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to George Bush. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Rogers. 1997. Civic Ideals: Conflicting Visions of Citizenship in U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe. 1999. “Lessons of Welfare: Policy Design, Political Learning, and Political Action.” American Political Science Review 93(2): 363–80.Google Scholar
Soss, Joe, and Mettler, Suzanne. 2003. “Beyond Representation: Policy Feedback and the Political Roots of Citizenship.” Presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Meetings, Chicago April 3–6.Google Scholar
Stimson, James. 2012. “Policy Mood Dataset.” Available at “Policy Mood” (http://www.unc.edu/∼cogginse/Policy_Mood.html) accessed October 21, 2012.Google Scholar
Strolovitch, Dara, Warren, Dorian, and Frymer, Paul. 2006. “Katrina’s Political Roots and Divisions: Race, Class, and Federalism in American Politics.” Social Science Research Council, June 11 (http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/). accessed July 24, 2014.Google Scholar
Teles, Steven. 2008. The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thelen, Kathleen. 2005. How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States, and Japan. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Theriault, Sean. 2008. Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tushnet, Mark. 2004. “Constitutional Hardball.” John Marshall Law Review 37: 523–53.Google Scholar
Van Houweling, Robert. 2012. “Parties as Enablers: Individual Incentives for Partisan Legislative Organization.” Unpublished manuscript. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Vogel, David. 1989. Fluctuating Fortunes: The Political Power of Business in America. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1991. Mobilizing Interest Groups in America: Patrons, Professions, and Social Movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan. 2010. “The Allocation of Campaign Contributions by Interest Groups and the Rise of Elite Polarization.” Unpublished manuscript. Stanford University.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. Kent. 1988. Automatic Government: The Politics of Indexation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Weaver, Vesla, and Amy, Lerman. 2010. “Political Consequences of the Carceral State.” American Political Science Review 104(4): 817–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weir, Margaret, and Skocpol, Theda. 1985. “State Structures and the Possibilities for ‘Keynesian’ Responses to the Great Depression in Sweden, Britain, and the United States.” In Bringing the State Back In, ed. Evans, Peter B., Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, and Skocpol, Theda. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Vanessa, Skocpol, Theda, and Coggin, John. 2011. “The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism.” Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 25–43.Google Scholar
Wilson, Graham K. 2006. “Thirty Years of Business and Politics.” In Business and Government: Methods and Practic, ed. Coen, David. Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. 1980. “The Politics of Regulation.” In The Politics of Regulation, ed. Wilson, James Q.. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar