This lecture, will cover a series of examples, and applications of organized anarchy.

Hopefully, with each example I discuss, you'll see greater relevance, and form a more concrete understanding, of how this theory can be applied, in cases that you experience, in your world. I have 3 examples, I want to discuss in this lecture. The first concerns, the case of San Francisco Unified School District's, effort to undergo desegregation, in the 70's, and it's a story told by Stephen Weiner. I'll list this reading in the slide here, in case you want to find it, on your own. I want to show you, how that case can be elaborated, using the garbage can framework, laid out in the last lecture. Following that, I want to discuss John Kingdon's book, Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. John Kingdon, writes a very nice summary of garbage can theory, and it's application to the policy world. And how legislative agenda setting, is performed. Think it's a great read, that I hope all of you will experience. Last, I'm going to discuss the recent case of Title IV, and the no child left behind act. This concerns a federal act, to reform the american education...primary education system. I'm going to recount it, briefly, using materials, that most of you, can find online. Now I understand, many of you wont be familiar, with some of these particular cases, I'm relaying. So I'm going to offer, a little bit of a review, and summary, so you get the gist. The point of the examples is just, to get you thinking as an analyst, and manager, applying theories to 2 cases. It might be a good exercise, for many of you to try applying, these theories to cases, you're more familiar with, in your own context. Or which interests you!

Just view the ones, I relate here in these lectures as models, and charicatures, that you can apply, extend, and elaborate, further in particular cases of your interest. The case I want to discuss first, was written by Stephen Weiner, and it concerns San Fransisco Unified School Districts, desegregation plan adopted in the 1970s. Let me give you the, the general story, so you see an arch, of what happened. in the 1960s, San Francisco uni, unified, experiences white flight. At the same time, desegregation cases hit the law, legal courts in southern states, and cities, and moves north, and west, throughout the country. No actions taken, by San Francisco Unified, during this period. And the end of [INAUDIBLE] NAACP, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, complains, and warns the district, it is too segregated. And during this time, San Francisco Unified develops a desegregation plan. That's immediately rejected, in a committee due to cross town busing fears, because they think it would be hard to manage, and be unwanted, so instead a citizen's committee forms, and develops a desegregation plan, for only 2 of over a 100 elementary schools. So in 1970, what happens is the NAACP, files a lawsuit demanding all 102 elementary schools, of San Francisco Unified be included in the desegregation plan. And a US District judge doesn't want to rule on it, until the Supreme Court rules, arguing that San Francisco Unified, made a small effort with two schools and therefore is showing good faith. So the judge advises San Francisco Unified to devise a plan. And San Francisco Unified appoints one staff member and three kind of weak committee. A staff committee, a certified staff committee, and the most important, a citizens advisory counsel, and third committee, has the most energy, and committed members of all 3. And by 1971,

the U.S. Supreme Court ruled, San Francisco Unified must desegregate it's elementary schools, and it has 2 months, to devise a plan. So the case is really a, a process of a partial decision, and little, or nothing, happening. It's a pretty common occurrence, when it comes to policy, and district reforms. Why, why should we think that garbage can theory applies, and can help us understand the process? Of relative indecision here. That's basically, what we're confronting, with San Francisco Unified. So, let me, deconstruct that, a little bit. First, this is a case where it's ambiguous, as to what desegregation means. Problems, and preferences are unclear. It's ambiguous, how to accomplish desegregation, we don't know, what the actual metric is, at which you've actually obtained, a decent enough desegregation leve, that would meet the courts. Moreover, it's unclear what the solutions are, and how to accomplish it, what technologies, and there's a tight deadline. Also, the participants in this case keeps changing. Judges turn over, different committees form and dissolve, the thread of a law suit creates this choice opportunity at a particular time. So, it has these kind of garbage can, elements to it. So let's look at the actual case, and identify the problems that, Steven Whiner mentioned. The key problem is that of desegregating the elementary schools and I listed this site for whatever reason is P6. And that, it's down there halfway, on this list. At the outside, the participants aren't sure what integration should look like, they eventually adopt, a, a state standard, that's pretty strong, all the schools have to have racial compositions, within 15% of the district average. So, every school, has to kind of resemble, the district average, within a 15% error. A bunch of other problems, keep entering

the choice arena, and they're interrelated somewhat. For example, keeping the integrity of school complexes, and communities, community schools, right? That's a concern, and a problem. Bilingual education, is a problem, and in, in dire need bussing is considered a problem by whites, and this has led to the problem, white flight. there is a problem that SES integration or socioeconomic levels that would be integrated to in addition it's not just desegregating the primary schools, it's the secondary schools the, the high schools that's also of concern. Meanwhile, other problems arise, but they aren't really taken up, in the choice arena of the CAC. We're going to focus on the CAC meetings, and those kind of committees. for example that teachers, and students, boycott schools, that are in disrepair, because of budget problems. There is a lawsuit, filed by Latin American organizations, about bilingual education. there's financial problems, are apparent, with contract disputes. And finally, the teacher strikes. Oh, these other problems, [LAUGH] that are occurring, at the same time that, the courts are demanding, San Francisco go through a desegregation plan. A variety of participants are involved, around 6, but only some of them entered, the choice arena, again about desegregation. For example, one group, is a community interest group another group the second 1, is consist of federal consultants, who are outsiders, with little understanding, of the constituent's concerns. And third is, is a Citizens Advisory Council, which has access to the meetings, but only white middle class women, stay at home moms, actually have time, to attend. The working men, and minorities, are unable to make it. So, it ends up, that certain individuals, have the most energy, and access to these committee meetings,

which occur during the day, during the workday. Finally, there is other kinds of actors, such as the San Francisco Unified, consultations, and administrators, but they're drawn away to, to those other problems. The, the 6, through 10, problems about teacher strikes. So they're pulled away, to other choice arenas. and so are working, working minorities, and working men, which are other kinds of actors. and, so, within this choice arena, of meetings concerning desegregation, only certain participants come, and, recognize problems. Meetings, a variety of solutions, are proposed, and discussed, actually, Winer, discusses 24 of them, so there's almost too many to list here, in a short summary. but only 2, of which become a point of heavy discussion, and are connected closely to the kinds of problems, the core problems being discussed, in that committee. And the first 1, is a tristar plan, which is a 3 zone plan, that was written by technocrats. the external consultants. Which didn't take into account, concerns about white flight, and the preservation of community schools. Another solution, is called the Horseshoe Plan. It's a seven zone plan, which is less dramatic In terms of it's desegregation. And it wins, because it's it meets the intersection of flows, it meets the problem, of preserving community schools, as well as kind of dealing with the segregation, to some extent. Moreover, it has a lot of energy from from the local residents. not considered, as the simple solution, of crosstown busing. So, not every solution is addressed or, or considered but a large variety are and the one that's eventually picked is because it connects most to certain problems that are valued and have the greatest amount of participants latched on to them. So, let's put this all together now, in a complex

diagram, but I think it's effectiveb if we view this. certain actors in this, this context get pulled away, and don't ever really enter. and those are, A4 through the San Francisco Unified Consultants Administrators. They're pulled away, if you go across the screen there, to problems 7, 8, 9 and 10. The strike, the boycott. They had to deal, with all these other things. Other actors like a5, and a6, just can't make the meeting times, there during the work day, so those people just, don't enter the choice arena. Within the arena, the CAC is composed of mostly white, middle class females, and their attention, and energy. Is placed on P1, the integrity of community schools, and this is related to P3, how busing might lead to wide flight they also see the solution, the second solution, the horseshoe solution, as partly addressing the segregation order, as well as P1, this, integrity of community school. By contrast, the dotted lines that I drew here, show what federal consultants saw, they saw S1, the tristar plan, as the best solution, because it addresses the segregation order best. But this set of actors, don't see it as connected to the other problems of preserving community schools, and therefore, it's kind of undermined, by other members of this, choice arena. In a way this, this kind of diagram, sums up the decisions that arose, and why the timing kind of pressed it, and what it, what it did, and what it meant for the participants, within this context. if, if we had different participants, if we had different problems being proposed, and connected and if solutions were, well, latched with different energies to other problems, then we might have had an entirely different outcome in this context. And that's the point of the garbage can model. It's the confluence, and the connection between these disparate

flows, that explains, or characterizes, the actual choice, that arises. Let's next, turn to John Kingdon's text. Kingdon does a nice job of summarizing some of the major tenants of organized anarchy. He does this in his focus on the American health and transportation policies that arose during the 1976, 1980 presidency of Jimmy Carter. Kingdon, asked a fundamental question which is, why do certain issues, become part of the government's agenda, while others do not. Kingdon's, research finds, that policy proposals, are not necessarily, written in response, to a particular event. Rather, at any given time, there exists a multitude of proposals, ready to go, and they're waiting for the best opportunity, for their introduction. An idea's time comes via a process of organized anarchy. So let's look at how Kingdon regards federal agenda setting as such a process. Kingdon, looks at the federal agenda setting, as an organized anarchy, by first asking, who are the participants? Let's start by, identifying the various participants, in Washington, DC. Within the government, there's first Congress. And they have an upper, and lower house, the Senate, and the House, plus congressional staff. They have scheduled, election cycles of 2, and 6 years. So there is, some turn over amongst them. Second we have the president. Plus his cabinet, staff and political appointees, and his presidency has a large say, in agenda setting, but less control over alternatives. all kinds of other legislation, can be proposed conterminously. And his election cycles, every 4 years. And turnover is then, even if he is reelected for another 4, or so, among the staff you do see some turnover. Last, there are, there are, civil servants. And these are beaurocrats, who have longevity, and expertise. And they turn over, less frequently. the technocrats, that have a career. In terms, of doing this kind of

legislative policy work. Outside the government, there's all sorts of other actors, like lobbyists, labor, professional societies, public interest advocacy, organizations. There are also academics like me, and other researchers there are media outlets, voters, and constituents, and general public. So, you have all kinds, of other actors and participants, that can affect the legislative process, and turn over somewhat rather variably. Next, what is the process, of policy formation? In what ways, can we consider how a policy, originate, and develops. Here Kingdon considers, a few different models by which scholars have characterized policy formation. The first, concerns origins. Here the view of policy formation, depends on where the idea, and policy came from. How did the idea spread and the assumption here is that it started somewhere and got taken up more and more. So this kind of idea, of this spreading policy, that had some kind of initial point, and if we just follow that origin. We will have some understanding, of how it developed. Second, we have this few rational choice, we saw this earlier, in the course, this is actually a great diagram, that summarizes, that theory. here the view is that we define the goals, determine alternatives, choose the optimal alternatives, for example the policy in question and therefore it's adoption is based on predictions of the policy's consequences. So the explanation that policy's arrival, and formation, and existence, is a process of rational choice, and considering the consequences, of it as an alternative. The third view, he says, is one of incremental, incrementalism. Rather than starting from scratch, new policies actually build on existing policies. Changes, are made at the margins, and what we see today, is an adaptation of prior policies. So here I put an evolutionary tree where

the idea being that a policy from before is nothing more than an adaptation of prior ones. so Kingden argues, that each of these kind of depictions, has some value. But they, don't adequately describe, the process of policy formation, as completely as garbage can theory does. He proposes, these as relatively deficient, and inadequate valuable, but not as complete, as the alternative, which he's going to argue is organized anarchy. At least, for the process of agenda setting, in legislation.