Dye T. Top Down Policymaking. NY: Chatham House Publishers, 2001.

CHAPTER 1

Policymaking from the Top Down

The discovery that in all large-scale societies the decisions at any given time are typically in the hands of a small number of people confirms a basic fact: Government is always government by the few, whether in the name of the few, the one, or the many. HAROLD LASSWELL PUBLIC POLICY IN America, as in all nations, reflects the values, interests, and preferences of the governing elite. The assertion that public policy reflects the "demands of the people" expresses the myth rather than the reality of democracy. However widespread this myth is believed by the people, and however artfully this myth is defended by scholars, the reality is that public policy is made from the top down. To say that public policy in a democratic society is made from the top down is not to disparage democracy. The underlying values of democracyliberty and equalitydefine individual dignity. These are fundamental moral values, not granted by governments, but belonging to every individual as a matter of natural right. And government by the consent of the governedwith free, periodic, competitive elections in which each person's vote is equal to that of every other persondefines the minimal processes of democracy. Yet power is unequally distributed in all societies. No government can promise its citizens effective participation in all of the decisions that affect their lives. At most in the United States, only a few thousand individuals have any direct influence over public policy. Even the most ardent defenders of American democracy do not claim that the nation's 275 million people can be brought together to make national decisions: "People could be born, grow old, and die while they waited for such an assembly to make one decision." 1 The Founders of the nation never even considered including national referenda voting in the U.S. Constitution. Power in American society is concentrated in the hands of the relatively few people who control its largest organizations and institutions. These are the people who make policy for the nation; they are the "national elite." Even in a democracy, "the immediate or proximate decision makers in government, in business, and in the nonprofit sector comprise a small fraction of the citizenry. . . . So, troubling as it may be, the existence of a decision-making eliteor, more accurately, elitesis a fact of political life."2 Top Down Policymaking is a study of the process by which power is exercised in America. The policymaking process refers to the way in which public policy is made. It does not refer directly to the composition of the national elitethat is, who really decides policy issues -although this book briefly describes the structure of wealth and power in America. Nor does this term refer directly to the outcomes of the processthat is, the activities of government in social welfare, health care, national defense, education, environmental protection, and so on although this book introduces various substantive policy issues as illustrations. Rather, Top Down Policymaking focuses on how policies are made. WHAT IS PUBLIC POLICY? Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do. 3 This simple definition contrasts with the frequent assumption that a "policy" must be a continuing series of activities with a goal, objective, or purpose. But the problem raised in assuming that government actions must have goals in order to be labeled "policy" is that we can never be sure whether or not any particular action has a goal, or if it does, what that goal is. However much we may wish that governments act in a "purposeful, goal-oriented" fashion, we know that in reality they frequently do not do so. Our simple definitionpublic policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to doincludes not only government action but also government inaction. Government failure to act also constitutes policy. Government inaction may have just as great an impact on society as

government action. Top-down policymaking does not necessarily imply the oppression or | exploitation of the masses of people. National elites may act out of narrow, self-serving interests or enlightened "public regarding" motives. They may choose to initiate reforms in the interests of mass wellbeing, occasionally even at some expense to themselves. They may be motivated to do so by a sense of altruism, or more likely by a sense of enlightened self-preservation. That is, national elites may undertake popular reforms to preserve the existing system and their place in it, to ensure mass support for it, and to avoid mass unrest. Top-down policymaking recognizes that policies may change over time, but they do so in response to redefinitions by elites of their own interests and preferences. The top-down view of policymaking does not imply the absence of social change; it is not a static view of public policy. It is true that national elites are generally conservative, in the sense that they wish to preserve the existing economic and political system and their dominant position in it. But America's national leadership understands the need for continuing modifications in public policy to keep abreast of economic, technological, and even social change. They understand the need for a responsive policy process. But they prefer that changes be incremental rather than revolutionary, that policies be modified rather than replaced. WHO'S ON TOP? Power and wealth in America are concentrated in large institutions. The nation's elite are those individuals who occupy positions of authority in institutions that allocate society's resourcesthat is, those individuals who decide who gets what. The institutional basis of power in modern society was best described by sociologist C. Wright Mills a half century ago: No one . . . can be truly powerful unless he has access to the command of major institutions, for it is over these institutional means of power that the truly powerful are, in the first instance, powerful. If we took the one hundred most powerful men in America, the one hundred wealthiest, and the one hundred most celebrated away from the institutional positions they now occupy, away from their resources of men and women and money, away from the media of mass communication ... then they would be powerless and poor and uncelebrated. For power is not of a man. Wealth does not center in the person of the wealthy. Celebrity is not inherent in any personality. To be celebrated, to be wealthy, to have power, requires access to major institutions, for the institutional positions men occupy determine in large part their chances to have and to hold these valued experiences.4 The national elite is composed of those individuals who formulate, manage, and direct the policies and activities of governments, corporations, banks, insurance and investment companies, mass media corporations, prestigious law firms, major foundations and universities, and influential civic and cultural organizations.' Admittedly, there is some autonomy and specialization among leaders in various institutional sectors of American society, some differentiation in spheres of influence, and even some rivalry and competition for preeminence among national leaders.6 But there is more than enough interaction, linkage, and communication to justify reference to a national elite. And bargaining, accommodation, and compromise are more prevalent than conflict among national leaders. Differences may arise among leaders over the means of achieving common interests, but consensus prevails over the ends of public policy. Chapter 2 briefly describes the institutional structure of American society and provides a portrait of "the national elite." It describes "who's on top" in the top-down policymaking process. But most efforts are devoted to describing how policy is made from the top down. THE TOP-DOWN POLICYMAKING MODEL The top-down policymaking model describes the processes by which the national elite goes about transforming its own values, interests, and preferences into public policy. For

purposes of analysis we can think of these processes as separate paths by which policy flows from the top down (see figure I.I). But we should remember that while there is some separation in these processes, and some functional specialization of the key institutions involved in each process, all of them tend to be intertwined. Elite policy preferences are simultaneously communicated through each process. The Policy Formulation Process Policymaking begins by deciding what will be the decided. Defining the problems of societyagenda settingis the first and most important stage of the top-down policymaking process. Conditions in society that are not identified as "problems" never become policy "issues," never become "news," never gain the attention of government officials. Deciding what will be the problem is even more important than deciding what will be the solution. Agenda setting begins in the boardrooms of banks and corporations, in the lounges of law firms and investment houses, in the editorial conference rooms of media giants, in the meetings of foundation and think tank trustees. Problems are identified and alternative solutions discussed. Powerful people begin to think about societal problems and what, if anything, should be done about them. Multiple corporate, professional, and social contacts among elites encourage the development of agreement about what conditions deserve national attention. Policy formulation begins when the concerns of elites are communicated to foundations, think tanks, and policy planning organizations. Elites serve on the governing boards of the foundations that provide the financial resources to undertake policy studies, for example, the Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie, Sloan, Scaife, Mellon, Bradley, Lilly, and Olin Foundations (see chapter 3). These foundations provide the financial support for the think tanks and policy planning organizations that are charged with responsibility to study policy issues and devise solutions, for example, the Council on Foreign Relations, Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Hoover Institute, and others (see chapter 3). The goals of these foundations and policy planning organizations are to identify policy problems, assemble relevant information, devise policy alternatives, and occasionally even bring together top elites to help develop a consensus about what should be done. The Leadership Selection Process Money drives electoral politics in America. No one can seriously contend for a seat in Congress or the desk in the Oval Office without access to moneylots of it. NATIONAL ELITE

Policy formation Foundations Think Tanks Commissions, Task Forces Interest group process Organized Groups Lobbyists PACs Candidate selection process Parties Campaigns Fat Cats Funding Opinion-making process Mass Media Advertising And Public Relations Firms

President GOVERNMENT Legitimation and implementation processes Congress Bureaucracy Courts

POLICY OUTCOMES

Welfare

Health

Education Defense

Trade

Immigration Law Taxation Enforcement

EVALUATION PROCESS Figure 1.1 Top-Down Policymaking The costs of campaigning rise dramatically each electoral cycle. The average House member must now raise and spend almost $1 million every two years. U.S. senators must be prepared to raise more than $5, $10, or $25 million every six years. More than $1 billion was spent by all congressional and presidential candidates in the 2000 election cycle. Where does all this money come from? It comes from the same corporations, banks, insurance companies, law and investment firms, media conglomerates, and wealthy individuals that compose America's national elite. Big money flows through a myriad of party organizations, political action committees, and independent organizations, as well as candidate campaign treasuries (see chapter 4). Prudent politicians contact moneyed elites before deciding to run for office. They try to reassure potential contributors that they share their goals and values, that if elected they will be available to give a sympathetic hearing to their concerns, that they will make every effort in office to accommodate the interests of their contributors, and that they hope their proven loyalty will inspire continued financial support in future elections. A lukewarm response from moneyed elites to early appeals for campaign contributions is a clear signal that a would-be candidate should seek other employment. The Interest Group Process The interest group process provides direct support for the policy preferences of elites. Interest groups are organizations that seek to influence government policyto obtain special benefits, subsidies, privileges, and protectionsfor their sponsors. They are financed by, and responsible to, the same corporate, banking, financial, professional, legal, media, and civic institutions that compose the national elite. Washington is a labyrinth of special interest organizationsbusiness, professional, and trade associations; lawyers and law firms; representatives of large corporations; lobbyists and consultants; public and governmental relations firms; and political action committees (see chapter 5). Their lobbying activities are as varied as the imagination of the lobbyists themselves. "Opening doors," establishing personal contacts, "rubbing elbows," and partying and "schmoozing" with government officials are designed to gain access"just a chance to talk." Lobbying goes well beyond testifying at congressional hearings, contacting government officials, presenting technical information and reports, keeping informed about bills, and following the "ins and outs" of the legislative process. It includes "grassroots" mobilization of campaign contributors and voters back home, as well as public relations activities designed to develop and maintain a favorable climate of opinion in the nation. But most important, the special-interest process includes the distribution of campaign funds to elected officials. Campaign contributions from interest groups go overwhelmingly to incumbent officeholders. Vote buying, of course, is illegal. Experienced lobbyists avoid offering a campaign contribution in exchange for a specific favor. But experienced legislators know what to do to keep the campaign contributions flowing. The Opinion Making Process The nation's media elites play a dual role in top-down policymaking. The leadership of the mass media is itself a key component of the nations elite, equal in power to top corporate, banking, insurance, investment, and government elites. But the media elites also perform the crucial function of communicating elite views to government decision makers and to the American public. The media's principal source of power is in communicating the policy agenda

telling elected officials what problems or issues they must address, and telling their mass audiences what should concern them. The mass media is not always successful in telling people what to think, but it is stunningly successful in telling them what to think about. Media power is highly concentrated in the leading television networks (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) and the prestigious national press (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report). Media empires are emerging (Viacom, Walt Disney, Time-Warner, etc.) that extend their control from television networks, newspapers, and magazines, to motion pictures, recorded music, sports, and entertainment (see chapter 6). Policy Legitimation by Government Policy legitimation is the function of government decision makersCongress, the president, and the courts. These are the "proximate policymakers." Their activities occur in the final phases of top-down policymaking, well after the agenda for policymaking has been established, policy directions have been formulated, leaders have been selected, interest groups have been activated, and the mass media have brought the issues to their attention (see chapter 7). Proximate policymaking is the open, public phase of the process. It attracts the attention of most scholars, commentators, and political scientists. And because this phase of the policymaking process involves bargaining and logrolling, ) persuasion and compromise, competition among interest groups, career enhancement and political credit-taking among elected officeholders, many scholars conclude that these activities characterize the whole of the policymaking process. It is true, of course, that conflict, competition, bargaining, and compromise take place between Congress and the president, between Democrats and Republicans, and between liberals and conservatives. And it is true that the details of the policies that emerge from the governmental process are decided in congressional committees; in the offices and hallways of the Capitol; in discussions among interest group leaders, members of Congress, and their staffs; in executive departments and agencies; and in the White House itself. Finally, it is true that the proximate policymakers are ultimately accountable to the electorate, although these officials have very little confidence in the judgment of their constituents (see feature: "Elite Attitudes toward Citizen Policymaking," pp. 8-9). But the agenda for policy consideration has been set before the proximate policymakers become actively involved in the process, the major directions of policy change have been determined, and the mass media have prepared the public and its representatives for policy action. The decisions which emerge from the formal lawmaking process are not unimportant: who gets the political credit, what agencies get control of the program, exactly how much money will be spent. But these decisions of the proximate policymakers center on the means I rather than the ends of public policy. Policy Implementation by Bureaucracies The policy process does not end with the passage of a law by Congress and its signing by the president. Rather, policymaking moves on to the implementation phaseto the departments and agencies of the executive branch of government charged with carrying out policy. Bureaucrats shape policy themselves (see chapter 8). Much of the policymaking process takes place within the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal Reserve Board, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Internal Revenue Service, and hundreds of other bureaucratic centers of power. The bureaucracy is not constitutionally empowered to make policy, but it does so nonetheless in the policy implementation process. Indeed, as society has grown in size and complexity, the bureaucracy has gained power. It is no longer possible, if it ever was, for Congress or the president to actually govern society. The bureaucracy must assign responsibilities to existing organizations or create new ones, translate laws into operational rules and regulations, hire personnel, draw up contracts, and perform the tasks of governance. All of

these activities involve decisions by bureaucratsdecisions that determine policy. But the bureaucracy is continually monitored by organized interest groups seeking to ensure that policies of the national elite are not significantly altered in the implementation process. And Congress itself spends a great deal of time in bureaucratic "oversight"trying to ensure that the intent of its laws is reflected in the activities of the bureaucrats. The Policy Evaluation Process Elites receive feedback regarding the effects of government policies along the same paths outlined in our top-down policymaking model (see figure 1.1, p. 5). The policy evaluation process is finding out about the effects, if any, of public policy. It is determining whether these effects are those intended and whether the effects are worth the costs of the policy. Governments themselves sometimes undertake policy evaluation. But top-down policy evaluation occurs when elites themselves directly discern policy effects from the information they receive from the institutions they themselves control; or when they receive reports about the effectiveness of government policies from the interest groups, think tanks, and foundations they sponsor; or when the mass media reports on policy effectiveness, or more likely its ineffectiveness, waste, inefficiency, or corruption (see chapter 9). THE BOTTOM-UP POLICY PROCESS MODEL The top-down policy model stands in sharp contrast to traditional descriptions of the policymaking process. The prevailing model of policymaking in American political science is a popularly driven, "bottom-up" portrait of decision making. This "democratic-pluralist" model assumes that in an open society such as ours any problem can be identified by individuals or groups and brought into the political process for discussion, debate, and resolution. Citizens can define their own interests, organize themselves, persuade others to support their cause, gain access to government officials, influence decision making, and watch over the implementation of government policies and programs. A variety of democratic institutions are said to facilitate this upward flow of citizen influence. Interest groups, political parties, candidates seeking election to office, and the mass media are all portrayed as responding to popular concerns (see figure 1.2). Most Americans are skeptical of the bottom-up process. They do not believe that the government pays much attention to their policy views or that it understands their problems very well. They believe that "the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves." And they believe that members of Congress should pay more attention to public opinion polls (see feature: Cm-zen Ittitudes toward Elite Policymaking," pp. 12-13). Nevertheless, we want to briefly describe the bottom-up model for the purposes of comparing ,t with the top-down model.

Welfare

Health

POLICY OUTCOMES Education Defense Trade Immigration Law Taxation Enforcement

GOVERNMENT Implementation and Evaluation Lrgitimation Formulation Agenda Setting Problem Identification

Interest Groups

Political Parties

Candidates Election

Mass Media

CITIZENS AND VOTERS Figure 1.2 Bottom-Up Policymaking . In the bottom-up model interest groups are said to function as important intermediaries between individuals and their government. They supplement the electoral system by providing individuals with the means to direct^ influence government policy. Organized interest groups act on behalf of individuals n lobbying, testifying at congressional hearings, contacting government officials, overseeing the progress of legislation as well as its implementation by executive agencies, and helping to direct the flow of campaign contributions to responsive public officials. Political parties are said to be essential for organizing popular majorities to exercise control over government. In theory, "responsible" parties adopt a platform setting forth principles and policy positions; recruit candidates for public office who agree with these principles and policies; inform and educate the voters about public issues; organize and direct campaigns based on principles and issues; and then, after winning control of government, organize the legislature ,n order to ensure that their policies will be enacted. Of course, in practice it is widely recognized that parties seldom act in this "responsible" fashion. Rather than organize voters around principles or policies, parties seek primarily to win public office. Yet in doing so, it is argued that parties seek to find and express majority opinion. Thus, parties provide yet another means by which popular opinion can be transformed into public policy. Competitive elections lie at the heart of the democratic process. But in order to transform citizen demands into public policy through elections, several conditions must prevail: candidates must offer of the voters dear policy alternatives, the voters must cast their ballot based on their policy preferences, the outcome of the election must reflect a "policy mandate, and winning candidates must proceed to enact the policies upon which they campaigned, mile it is widely acknowledged that these conditions are seldom met in full, nonetheless, voters do tend to favor candidates whose expressed policy views match their own The mass media themselves reinforce the traditional bottom-up model 01 the policy process by insisting that they merely present a "mirror" of society in their reporting. That is, the media assert that they play an important yet passive role in policymaking-investigating and reporting on the concerns and problems of individual Americans. Media elites generally deny that they have an active role in agenda setting-that is, deciding themselves what problems and issues will receive public attention. Rather they prefer to portray their reporting as a mirror-ing of popular concerns and issues. The traditional bottom-up model assumes that the most important policymaking activities occur within government itself. Governmental bodiesthe president and White House staff, congressional committees and their staff, executive departments and agencies, and the courts respond to pressures placed on them by organized interest groups, party leaders, electoral politics, and media reporting, in their policymaking activities. The policymaking process in government is usually represented as a series of activities: The identification of policy problems through demands for government action Agenda setting, or focusing the attention of the mass media and public officials on specific public problems to decide what will be decided The formulation of policy proposals through their initiation and development by policy-planning organizations, interest groups government bureaucracies, and the president and

Congress The legitimation of policies through political actions by parties, interest groups, the president, and Congress The implementation of policies through organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies The evaluation of policies by government agencies themselves, outside consultants, the press, and the public In short the traditional model views the policymaking process as a series of activities problem identification, agenda setting, formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation that take place largely within government. DEMOCRACY FROM THE TOP DOWN Top Down Policymaking is not presented as a recommendation or prescription for America. Rather it is presented as an analytic model to help understand and explain the realities of political life in a democracy. We may all prefer to live in a society where everyone has an equal voice in policymaking; where many separate interests offer solutions to public problems; where discussion, debate, and decision are open and accessible to all; where parties and candidates focus their attention on key public policy issues; where the mass media conscientiously strive to inform and educate citizens and voters about public policy; where policy choices are made democratically; where implementation is reasonable, fair, and compassionate. But although we may prefer such a policymaking process, we nonetheless should strive to understand a more realistic "top-down" system. Policymaking from the top down is not incompatible with democracy. The central values of American democracyindividual liberty, private property, and equality of opportunityare not necessarily threatened by top-down decision making. A national elite that is truly limited in its power, bound by constitutional prohibitions against infringement of basic liberties, can rightly claim to be a democratic elite. Its claim is also justified by constitutional arrangements that implement the principle of "government by the consent of the governed" that is, open, free, periodic, and competitive elections that allow popular majorities to oust governmental leaders. The nation's Foundersthose fifty-five delegates who came together in Philadelphia in 1787 to write the U.S. Constitutionpreferred the term "republic" over the term "democracy." They agreed that the origin of government was an implied contract among the people. They believed that the legitimacy of government rested on this contract, that is, on the consent of the governed, not on force. They expected the people to consent to be governed by persons of principle and property, out of recognition of their abilities, talents, education, leadership qualities, and stake in the preservation of ordered liberty. The Founders believed in a "natural aristocracy." They believed that all people were equally entitled to respect of their natural rights to life, liberty, and property. (Most of the Founders were even aware that this belief ran contrary to the institution of slavery, although they chose to ignore this contradiction.) But for the Founders "equality" did not mean that people were equal in intelligence, talent, wealth, or virtue. They accepted inequalities of wealth and power as a natural product of human diversity. Indeed, they looked upon governmental efforts to force reductions in inequalities as violations of fundamental liberties. In short, the Founders were quite comfortable with the notion of a national elite. So are we. Top Down Policymaking begins with a brief description of the structure of wealth and power in America today (chapter 2). It then proceeds to describe a top-down model of policymaking that challenges the prevailing democratic-pluralist "bottom-up" model, first with respect to policy formulation (chapter 3); and then with respect to the selection of political leadership (chapter 4); the activities of interest groups in Washington (chapter 5); and the role of the mass media in shaping the political agenda and public opinion (chapter 6). It then goes on to describe the more familiar activities of policy legitimation, notably in Congress, but it does so from the perspective of the top-down policymaking model (chapter 7). It observes that the

policymaking process continues in the bureaucracy as it goes about the tasks of policy implementation (chapter 8). Finally, Top Down Policymaking describes how policies are evaluated by national leaders, both within and outside the government, and how changes and reforms come about. Throughout the book illustrative features are provided to assist in understanding the utility of our top-down policymaking model.