Issues in Policy History – serie

Americans have benefited from substantial improvements in health since the end of World War II. They live longer and grow taller; they have the safest and cheapest food supply on the planet; they have seen virtually all childhood diseases brought under control. Yet concerns about health remain widespread today. Cancer seems to be everywhere; autoimmune, nervous, and environmental diseases have reached pandemic proportions; medical malpractice suits have proliferated.How can we have received so many benefits while still being as worried as ever about our health and the health care system established to ensure and extend those benefits? The historical perspective provided by the essays in this volume helps answer this question by identifying two points of significant change in health care policy. Beginning in the 1950s there emerged a subtle yet critical reconceptualization as the individual rather than the group came to figure prominently as the central policy-making unit. Then in the late 1960s a palpable sense of limits rendered the individualism of the previous decade into a Malthusian formulation: the greater the access or benefits that any one person received, the less others could get. Besides tracing these patterns in health care development, the essays also show how traditional notions of expertise have been affected by the changes. Contributors are Amy Sue Bix, Hamilton Cravens, Gerald N. Grob, Alan I Marcus, Diane Paul, David Rosner and Gerald Markowitz, and James Harvey Young.

As the oil shortages, inflation, and unemployment of the 1970s disrupted American lives and the Watergate scandal rocked the presidency, faith in the future of the nation and its leaders was severely damaged. This volume, which is the product of a unique collaboration of distinguished scholars from history and political science, offers a probing analysis of the causes, processes, and consequences of this erosion of faith in public solutions to our country's problems.At the beginning of the decade, a confident American public and its leaders still embraced the government activism that was the legacy of the New Deal. But grave doubts about the efficacy of public policy—fueled by Watergate, Vietnam, stagflation, energy crises, and intensely controversial social policies—undermined this public trust as the decade wore on, until by the end tax revolts were breaking out across the country. Describing government as the problem, not the solution, Ronald Reagan broke with tradition to set a political and policy agenda that has been dominant ever since.These experts from two disciplines bring their special insights to bear in dissecting the key developments of this decade that have transformed American politics in the last quarter of the century. The contributors are Ballard C. Campbell, Joseph Hinchliffe, J. David Hoeveler, Sidney M. Milkis, Alice O’Connor, Paul J. Quirk. David Brian Robertson, and John T. Woolley.Like the other titles in Issues in Policy History, this book reprints a special issue of The Journal of Policy History.

That large financial contributions distort American politics and American democracy is an idea that stands as a truism in political debate. It has fired reform movements; it has inspired round after round of efforts to limit who can give to candidates and parties, how much they can give, and how much campaigns can spend. The laws have generated constitutional arguments about free speech, a still inconclusive literature on whether contributions actually shape policy, and a great deal of work for lawyers and financial analysts who monitor compliance. In the wake of Enron's collapse and subsequent revelations about that corporation's involvement with policy makers, the public's attention has once again focused on the role that money plays in politics. Little of the scholarly work (and none of the legal work) is historical. Yet history can shed light on the long-running debate about the impact of money on politics and what, if anything, are plausible policy options. This collection of original essays is a step in that direction. The chapters cover episodes from the early nineteenth century through the 1970s. They illustrate how deep concern about money in politics runs—and how the definition of the problem has changed over time. Through the nineteenth century, the "spoils system" in which party loyalists gained reward for their efforts appeared to be the evil that blocked responsive parties and honest public administration. Party war chests that brought howls of complaint (and great exaggeration) seemed quaint by the middle of the twentieth century. In part because reform had weakened the parties and campaigns required consultants' skills in coordination and in part because television advertising was so expensive, the cost of campaigns rose. Candidates griped and policy entrepreneurs worked out possible solutions, which were in place before the Watergate scandal focused public attention on campaign finance. In the history of campaign-finance reform, one generation's solutions have tended to become another's problem. Contributors to the volume are Paula Baker, Robert Mutch, Mark Wahlgren Summers, and Julian E. Zelizer.

This volume offers a comparative analysis of the challenges facing center-left parties in the United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, the European Union, Poland, and Russia. Among the questions addressed are: -If the traditional social bases of left parties are now too limited for winning in majoritarian politics, what kind of coalitions and ideas, which reach beyond those bases and yet retain them, may be effective?- If the answer to the first question is that such umbrella coalitions are too torn to be workable, what is the alternative? What is gained and lost in moves toward the center or further to the left?- Is coalition politics sufficient for governance in terms of both policy and the long-term political health of a party, or must there be a central, guiding set of ideas around which coalitions are formed?- What are the inherent weaknesses of market-oriented parties against which democratic center-left parties might appeal and win?- To what extent do national histories and political cultures both provide resources for, and set constraints and limits on, what parties may creatively do with political appeals and policies?The center of political gravity differs in these countries, with the United States and United Kingdom to the right and France and Germany to the left. Neither Poland nor Russia has been able to develop a party of this kind with any political strength. These essays explore how center-left parties, positioned as they are in the electoral spectrum, cope with the challenge of establishing an ideology to distinguish themselves from center-right parties and, while remaining both moderate and progressive, or even radical, try also to capture the center of politics.Contributors are David S. Bell, Alonzo L. Hamby, Uwe Jun, Robert Ladrech, Thomas F. Remington, Hubert Tworzecki, and Mark Wickham-Jones.

Thirty years ago, in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail," Martin Luther King, Jr., appealed to the American people to support a "constructive nonviolent" struggle to create a racially integrated society. Although legal segregation has been outlawed, America today seems in many ways even more fragmented by racial and ethnic divisions. And, despite the passage of landmark legislation in 1964 and 1965, the controversy surrounding civil rights seems to have grown, with the extension of civil rights protection to "new" groups including the disabled only creating further disputes in American politics and the courts.It is true that progress has been made in the struggle for civil rights for racial and ethnic minorities and women. This collection of essays, however, seeks more than simply to measure the success of civil rights policy in America. Instead, the contributors ask how both the civil rights problems and the policies developed to remedy them have been affected by the distinctive historical forces that have shaped the American political culture. Written from diverse disciplinary, topical, and cultural perspectives, these essays offer readers a broad and historically informed analysis of civil rights policy that should foster reasoned discussion, academic debate, and further research.

A detailed look at drug control policy as it has been shaped historically in the United States and other countries, most notably in China and East Asia.Drug policy has emphasized suppressing drugs at their source by curtailing their distribution, but few policy makers have considered legalization as a remedy. On the other hand, much of drug policy has been a record of bureaucratic infighting and aggrandizement. At the same time, it has reflected nativistic and racial biases. These essays suggest, however, that alternative strategies would not necessarily be any more successful. David Courtwright argues that legalization of drugs would create its own problems. Given the nature of federal policy, institutional structures, and social mores, the authors question whether drug policy could have been otherwise constructed.William O. Walker has brought together leading scholars writing in the field to contribute essays that offer broad perspectives on the history of drug policy. They provide a comparative and historical lens through which to view the current debate over drug policy in the United States.

Each essay in this volume sheds light on an important aspect of the decade—actually a decade and half—known as the Sixties. The Sixties are famous for the diverse social movements that threatened the essence of American public policy and mainstream society and changed those very entities in fundamental ways. These essays juxtapose the dramatic narratives of social movements, including civil rights, women's liberation, and antiwar protest, and the Cold War liberalism that spawned them. The contributors are two political scientists, several historians influenced by the social sciences, and the senior staff attorney for the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund. Contributors are Brian Balogh, Hugh Hečlo, Martha Derthick, Daryl Michael Scott, W. J. Rorabaugh, Martha F. Davis, and Louis Galambos.

This study presents an examination of the historical background and contemporary significance of the asylum and refugee issue confronting Western governments that draws lessons for future policy-making.This is the first study of the asylum-refugee problems to examine not only the history of policies of receiving nations in the West but also some of the underlying causes of refugee movements. Past studies of the asylum problem have focused narrowly on the conditions in receiving countries and have failed to see the global interconnectedness of the refugee problem. The authors argue that resolving the asylum problem in the West requires policy makers to direct their attention toward the conditions outside the industrialized countries that cause mass movements of populations as well as toward the improvement of their own asylum procedures.The present increase in the number of asylum-seekers and refugees is neither a temporary phenomenon nor a random product of chance events. It is the predictable consequence of fundamental political, demographic, economic, and ecological crises occurring throughout the Third World and Eastern Europe. However, Western governments did not until relatively recently envisage a large-scale movement of the poor countries northward to Western Europe and North America. Actual migratory pressures from the South and perceived threats of exodus from the East have only served to reinforce a restrictive attitude toward asylum. The refugee problem has reached such a critical point that the very institution of asylum is being threatened. These articles address the underlying causes of the current crisis, assess present policies, and define the considerations necessary for future policy-making.

The 1992 Los Angeles riots catapulted the problems of the city back onto the policy agenda. The cauldron of social problems of the city, as the riots showed, offers no simple solutions. Indeed, urban policy includes a range of policy issues involving welfare, housing, job training, education, drug control, and the environment. The myriad of local, state, and federal agencies only further complicates formulating and implementing coherent policies for the city. This volume, while not offering specific proposals to remedy the problems of the city, provides a broad historical context for discussing contemporary urban policy and for arriving at new prescriptions for relieving the ills of the American city. The essays address issues related to public housing, poverty, transportation, and the environment. In doing so, the authors discuss larger themes in urban policy as well as provide case studies of how policies have been implemented over time in specific cities. Of particular interest are two essays that discuss the role of the historian in shaping urban policy and the importance of historical preservation in urban planning.

The makers of public health policy face enormous challenges in the twenty-first century. In the past, their field has been imprecisely defined, deeply conflicted, poorly organized, and constantly changing. Lines of responsibility within the field are blurred at best, and groups with similar goals sometimes find themselves at cross-purposes. In the United States, state and local agencies interact with each other, with federal programs, and with powerful private interests. Many decisions that profoundly affect the health of the public are made for reasons largely unrelated to public health per se. Since the human and financial stakes involved in public health policies are immense, these challenges are, to say the least, serious issues. Underlying this volume is the belief that historical analyses and international perspectives can help policy makers understand—and hopefully begin to address—some of those old challenges in new ways.Contributors to this volume include Virginia Berridge, James Colgrove, Howard I. Kushner, Alex Mold, Constance A. Nathanson, Harold Pollack, and Brett L. Walker.

In recent years, the Journal of Policy History has emerged as a major venue for scholarship on American policy history in the period after 1900. Indeed, it is for this reason that it is often praised as the leading outlet for scholarship on American political history in the world. Only occasionally, however, has it featured essays on the early republic, the Civil War, or the post–Civil War era. And when it has, the essays have often focused on partisan electioneering rather than on governmental institutions. The rationale for this special issue of the Journal of Policy History is to expand the intellectual agenda of policy history backward in time, so as to embrace more fully the history of governmental institutions in the period before 1900. The six essays in this volume contain much that will be new even for specialists in nineteenth-century American policy history, yet they are written in a style that is intended to be accessible to college undergraduates and historians unfamiliar with the period.