These notes were from a grad-level seminar, Frontiers of Public Policy and Action. Classmates included Brian Loveman, George Strump &/or George Stein, Paul Wogaman, and Major [his given name] somebody.
Takeaways:
Selecting one form of action as policy does not preclude other possibilities. So what causes policy to limit choices?
Soft constraints = a matter of choice, which leads to difference.
Hard constraints = invariance, operating across all political systems, including political inequality.
We assume that a dollar is a dollar. But is that true when dealing with the public treasury?
What happens when a dollar of yours is used to harm you? When you are taxed to harm yourself?
A public good may become a public bad.
A political price is assumed in all political systems.
Capabilities = potential assets.
Limitations = political liabilities.
Every decision reflects these.
With multi-tiered political systems, the concept of commons becomes ambiguous.
The bribe = the rich get richer; the poor, poorer.
Public entrepreneurs. Public goods and services.
Behavioral theory as an alternative to top-down management perceptions.
Unity of command: limited span of control. A belief the organization is always directed toward the center. (As for a bell curve?) (Or that which deviates from authority?)
Bureaucratic disfunctions. Formal versus informal policy/action.
Rules of procedure may dictate the solution.
Medieval epistemology quite at variance with contemporary perspectives. As in, spirits as an opportunity for Truth to be revealed, as well as magic and myth.
As for those who are negatively affected by an action (externalities) = direct consequences of actions.
A bilateral monopoly = oligarchy or other monopolists.
Water policies in the West as an example of a local matter that exerts much wider influence.
Trade associations within public agencies …
Dynamic of a hidden hand, an equilibrium without direct intervention.
How do we assure that rivalries between cities, states, or nations work toward a common good?
The aristocracy of the South became a military caste. State military colleges in South, not North, Midwest, or West.
Can bureaucratic professionals regulate their superiors? Or is a self-centered careerist more interested in pleasing the superiors who control his promotions?
As for strong client relationships?
Is what we’re buying with tax dollars in the national interest? (Block grants versus categorical grants.) Are these grants or are they purchases? Are we buying what we should?
Taxing capacity = real jurisdiction.
Politics as a subset of corruption.
Public education as a public good yet to the individual’s advantage.
Monocentric decision-making processes in a large city lead to
- Moves toward common, central preferences. (Bell curve, with a tendency to lose information on different interests.) Also, what is necessary to put together a minimum winning coalition?
- Deterioration of public services, along with decomposition of neighborhood, fundamental social change.
Mafia as a shadow bureaucracy versus government collective action.
~*~
From Spiralbound Daffodil, with commentary from now.
Jnana's Red Barn 