Structure of Policy Change

The Red Scare and the space race caused instability in the policy process, but some agencies can maintain stability by following a deliberative model for decision-making. This model produces more informed and stable policy outcomes that can be adapted to new information and changing public priorities.

Format: Hardback
Length: 208 pages
Publication date: 07 May 2018
Publisher: The University of Chicago Press

The launch of Sputnik by the Soviet Union ignited a widespread fear and panic in the American public, known as the Red Scare. President Eisenhower initially urged caution, but circumstances compelled him to take action. By the time President Kennedy proposed landing a man on the moon, NASA's budget had experienced a staggering five thousand percent increase compared to its pre-Sputnik levels. This surge in spending was not limited to the space race alone; it occurred in almost every policy area, where waves of popular support or disillusionment with previous ideas led to significant changes in the budget or forced agencies to react swiftly without adequate knowledge or preparation.

The question arises: Is this instability an inherent characteristic of the policy process, or can agencies adopt strategies to maintain stability amidst fluctuations in public opinion? Derek A. Epp contends that certain agencies possess the ability to achieve stability, even in the face of complex challenges like immigration or climate change. He suggests that instability is, in part, a result of inadequate institutional design. While maintaining stability around complex issues may pose greater difficulties, the deliberative process itself can influence the degree of stability surrounding a particular issue.

Epp examines whether agencies follow a deliberative model, where policies are developed through debate among a small group of policymakers, or a collective model, where the opinions of many people are aggregated, akin to the stock market. He argues that in many instances, the collective model yields more informed and stable policy outcomes that are better equipped to adapt to new information and changing public priorities. This approach involves engaging a broader range of stakeholders, including experts, citizens, and interest groups, to ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the problem and to generate a range of potential solutions.

By adopting a deliberative model, agencies can foster a sense of consensus and buy-in among different stakeholders, reducing the likelihood of policy flip-flops or sudden changes in direction. This stability can be particularly valuable in times of crisis or when decisions have far-reaching consequences. It allows policymakers to make informed decisions based on a thorough analysis of the evidence and to consider the potential impacts of their actions on various constituencies.

However, it is important to note that the collective model is not without its challenges. Engaging a diverse range of perspectives can be time-consuming and complex, and there may be disagreements and conflicts among stakeholders. Additionally, the process may be slow and bureaucratic, which can limit the ability of agencies to respond quickly to urgent situations.

In conclusion, the launch of Sputnik and the subsequent Red Scare highlighted the vulnerability of policymaking to fluctuations in public opinion. While instability is an inherent feature of the policy process, agencies can adopt strategies to maintain stability and make informed decisions. The collective model, where policies are developed through a deliberative process involving a broad range of stakeholders, has the potential to yield more informed and stable policy outcomes that are better equipped to adapt to changing circumstances. However, it is important to strike a balance between inclusivity and efficiency, ensuring that the policymaking process remains responsive to urgent needs while maintaining a commitment to evidence-based decision-making.

Weight: 386g
Dimension: 161 x 236 x 19 (mm)
ISBN-13: 9780226529691