Abstract
How does social policy change happen? This is the general question that political sociologists Daniel Béland and Alex Waddan attempt to answer in their work, The Politics of Policy Change: Welfare, Medicare, and Social Security Reform in the United States. Wisely avoiding the issue of whether policy changes are actually ever needed, they clearly identify their stated objectives for writing the book in the preface. According to the authors, there are two major objectives to be met through their analysis of the process of policy reform. The first general objective is to write a book that will allow the reader, whether “informed and nonacademic” or a social policy specialist, to develop a deeper understanding of the politics of federal policy changes. The authors’ second, and more specific purpose for writing the book, is to advance their argument that policy analysts need to pay more attention to the role of ideas or ideational processes in relation to other variables that contribute to policy change in order to better understand any policy reform. They also assert that paying careful attention to ideas is necessary to explain both sharp and incremental policy change. Will the authors successfully achieve their stated objectives in this work?
Offered for analysis are three case studies that represent fairly recent United States federal policy reforms and aftermath: welfare reform that culminated in the passage of the l996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) thus ending “welfare as we know it” and the Act’s reauthorization in 2005; The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, which managed to reconcile two seemingly contradictory goals of cost containment and program expansion while also introducing private, free market approaches into the program; and lastly, the failed attempt to privatize Social Security in 2005, where the Bush Administration received the following message, loud and clear: “Don’t mess with Social Security!” Each of the policy episodes is covered in a separate chapter, and concludes with a brief discussion of their current statuses in the Obama era.
Using the case studies as data, Béland and Waddan utilize an integrated framework which they developed as an analytical tool for the study of policy change. Set up in an hypothesis testing mode of cause and effect, numerous independent variables that had been identified in previous research that are thought to contribute to policy change are considered. The independent variables under consideration are political actors, institutions, ideas or ideational processes, historical legacy, and issue ownership. The interaction among the variables then sets into motion one of three possible mechanisms of change: layering, conversion, or policy drift. The outcome or dependent variable is, of course, policy change. From their analyses of the three case studies employing the integrated framework, Béland and Waddan discovered that different relations among ideas and other independent variables in each case resulted in three very different policy outcomes. This led the authors to conclude: “The analysis of three distinct policy areas demonstrates the added value of the integrated framework outlined in the introduction while explaining the contrasting ways in which specific social programs located within the same national welfare state can evolve over time” (p. 167).
The integrated framework as an analytical tool is a creative approach, but the framework needs more fine tuning. Evaluating the framework from a methodological standpoint, the authors did identify independent variables, the dependent variable, and explained the change mechanisms of laying, conversion, and policy drift to the reader’s satisfaction. However, their presentation of the independent variable of ideas or ideational processes was frustrating. While independent variables such as political actors and issue ownership, and the dependent variable of policy change were clearly understood, the variable of ideas or ideational processes obviously presented unique challenges in terms of conceptualization and operationalization, possibly due to its social-psychological nature. For example, the “idea” of fiscal constraint is referenced several times when the authors are discussing the context within which current policy changes in the United States are considered, so is it simply an abstract, cognitive ideational variable? Can it also be an ideational process variable that influences the way that political actors think and feel about fiscal constraint which then may predispose them to act in certain ways regarding policy formation and change? Probably so, but it would have helped the reader to see an expanded discussion of this. While I would generally agree with the authors’ contention that policy analysts need to pay more attention to how ideas matter in the process of policy change, they needed to further develop their discussion of ideas and ideological processes. Perhaps the authors should have consulted their colleagues in social psychology about how to frame this particular discussion. Also not considered in the framework is the possibility that the unexpected (external factors) may impact the policy change process. The authors do, however, acknowledge that something totally unrelated can derail a policy reform effort. “It’s about timing and contingency” (p. 139).
While the integrated framework as an analytical tool clearly needs more work, the three chapters in the book devoted to the case studies were a fascinating read. The policy change episodes were well documented, written in a highly engaging writing style, and Béland and Waddan excelled in “telling the story” of each episode. Based on the strengths of these chapters alone, it is clear that the informed and nonacademic reader would appreciate the book. The social policy specialist may hold a less favorable view of the work, but consider adopting it as a supplemental text in a political science course on federal policy because of the thorough documentation in the case studies. From my perspective, the authors met their readership objective. In terms of the second objective, while the authors’ contention that policy analysts must pay more attention to ideas or ideational processes is certainly reasonable and fairly well supported through their analyses in narrative form, their attempt to demonstrate how ideas matter through the application of the integrated framework was less compelling and somewhat confusing. But the integrated framework appears to be a promising analytical tool, and with further development, may be more effectively utilized.
In the final chapter, Béland and Waddan engaged in a brief discussion of the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, often fondly referred to as “Obamacare.” This policy episode may afford the authors an opportunity to develop another case study and employ an improved version of the integrated framework as an analytical tool for analysis. Also, I recommend that they apply the framework to analyze policy change in a different national context. It will be interesting to see if the authors retain their use of the integrated framework to analyze policy episodes in future collaborative projects.