Compare and Contrast

1 & 13 Smith & Larimer vs. Kraft & Furlong

- Lasswell (Kraft & Furlong) argues that the study of public policy should be like
medicine: problem-oriented, multidisciplinary, theoretically & methodologically
sophisticated, and value oriented. But Smith & Larimer argue that this is not an
accurate description because there is an internal inconsistency. It is oriented
towards democracy, but regular citizens dont usually participate; it is mostly
elites/technocrats making decisions.
2 & 3 Heclo vs. Federalist #10
- Heclos issue networks seem to illustrate the factions that Madison seems to talk
about. However, unlike those factions, Heclos issue networks are more inclusive
those who know about the issue are included. Thus, unlike what Madison believes,
issue networks are more democratic than the iron triangles.
2 & 5 - Heclo vs. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier
- Jenkins-Smith & Sabatier and Heclo disagree on the scale of coalitions. JS&S believe
that advocacy coalitions place most individuals within a subsystem into a
manageable number of belief-based coalitions, where Heclo places more emphasis
on the individual as an autonomous actor. JS&S argue that the focus on individuals
over-complicates things in the policy sector.
2 & 8 Heclo vs. Baumgartner and Jones
- The punctuated equilibria models policy subsystems are similar to the issue
networks discussed by Heclo. They both involve individuals in the know vs. people
who do not know. However, they differ on the interpretation of individuals
motivations (knowledge vs. apathy)
2 & 14 Heclo vs. Kingdon
- Kingdon would agree with Heclos assertion that interest groups are incredibly
powerful. However, he says that they usually use their influence to block rather than
initiate agenda terms. Heclo believes that this is not the casehe says that interest
groups have a powerful incentive to push their agenda.
3 & 5 Federalist #10 vs. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier
- JS&Ss arguments about the ACF complement Federalist #10s assertions about the
evils of faction. There are still people who will impose their will upon others.
3 & 7 Federalist #10 vs. Schneider and Ingram
- Madison seems to imply that there will be high political efficacy and voter turnout
in his factions theory, but Schneider and Ingram address why certain groups are less
likely to participate in government. S&I offer some more insight into holes that
Madison did not address.
3 & 8 Federalist #10 vs. Baumgartner and Jones
- Baumgartner and Jones and Madison would be in agreementthey both discuss
political actors who impose their will upon others.
3 & 10 Federalist #10 vs. DeLeon and DeLeon
- Madison would be extremely hesitant to accept DeLeonx2s bottom-up approach.
They created a republic so that representatives could serve as a buffer against
mobocracy, and this seems to be a devolution back to the people. Madison would say
that the US is too big a country to constantly be slowed down by this direct
democratic approach. They didnt believe in the common people.
3 & 11 Federalist #10 vs. McLaughlin
- Madison would say that McLaughlin is giving the individual too much credit. Policy
should be proposed and imposed by representatives. Madison, very Hobbesian,
would be very fearful of the will and capacity of the individual, and would argue for
more of the pressure that McLaughlin discusses to control the evil nature of man.
3 & 12 Federalist #10 vs. Bovens, Hart, and Kuiper
- Madison would agree with the separation of the programmatic and political
dimensions, but would ask for more bipartisan reform and compromise because he
believed that factions would split America apart.
4 & 5 Federalist #51 vs. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier
- The most important phrase in Federalist 51 is Ambition must be made to counter
ambition. The Advocacy Coalitions are exactly what Madison warns against in
government, and would affirm his points about separation of powers and checks
and balances. We could describe the relationship as a closer illustration of Madisons
arguments.
4 & 6 Federalist #51 vs. Lindblom
-
5 & 8 Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier vs. Baumgartner and Jones
- Both of them are focused on factions or subsystems (B&J). The ACF framework
states that if a policy directly confronts a core belief, ACs wont change their mind.
However, in the punctuated equilibria model, the power of subsystems depends on
the apathy/attention span of the public. They would conflict over the role of the
public.
5 & 13 Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier vs. Kraft & Furlong
- JS&S would criticize the Policy Stages Model of Lasswell (Kraft & Furlong) because
it doesnt account for crises, and the steps dont necessarily go in that particular
order. For example, formation sometimes comes before agenda setting. The ACF
focuses more on the motivation and influence of interest groups.
6 & 8 Lindblom vs. Baumgartner and Jones
- They do not have many similarities, except during B&Js description of policy
stability. Punctuated equilibria is not a model of incrementalismit is a model of
drastic change and chaos.
6 & 13 Lindblom vs. Kraft & Furlong
- Lindblom would disagree with this form of policymaking because it would remind
him of the rational-comprehensive model, and the limitations of its successiveness
and overwhelming factors that need to be taken into account.
6 & 14 Lindblom vs. Kingdon
- Kingdon would see policymaking as a more drastic change, whereas Lindblom sees
it as more incremental.
7 & 10 Schneider and Ingram vs. DeLeon and DeLeon
- S&I emphasize the importance of social constructions on the way individuals
participate in government, which compliments DeLeonx2s bottom-up approach of
focusing on the individual. It could explain why certain policies are implemented
better in comparison with others.
8 & 10 Baumgartner and Jones vs. DeLeon and DeLeon
- B&J emphasize punctuated equilibria, influenced by the exclusion of the apathetic.
DeLeonx2s argment compliments the points that B&J discuss. By reaching out to the
individual level, people would be made more aware of issues, and thus, be more
encouraged to change policies. However, DeLeons implication is that individuals are
willing to cooperate, whereas B&J believes that once individuals know, they will
want to change things.
11 & 12 McLaughlin vs. Bovens, Hart, and Kuipers
- McLaughlin emphasizes local factors and dispels the myth of rational man. BHK
deals more with the ex ante and ex post assessments of policies, rather than
implementation. We can link this to McLaughlins arguments through the lens of
policy success. According to McLaughlin, policy succeeds only when individuals
have enough will, capacity, pressure, and support to implement it. BHK looks more
at the macro level.
13 & 14 Kraft and Furlong vs. Kingdon
Kingdon would argue that policymaking is more by chance (window of
opportunity), whereas Lasswell (Kraft & Furlong) would argue for a more cyclical
pattern of events.