1 / 45

Chapter 15

Chapter 15. POWERS. Ameen Baker * Jason Chandler * Kim Cox * Mike Davis * Sharon Goldberg. Introduction. Introduction. Constitutional Engineering: Policy solutions that entail reforming a decision-making process. Flawed decision-making process?. We need a better PROCESS….

jkris
Télécharger la présentation

Chapter 15

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Chapter 15 POWERS Ameen Baker * Jason Chandler * Kim Cox * Mike Davis * Sharon Goldberg

  2. Introduction

  3. Introduction Constitutional Engineering: Policy solutions that entail reforming a decision-making process

  4. Flawed decision-making process?

  5. We need a better PROCESS…

  6. Process Reforms New processes will produce better policies: • Just • Efficient • Consistent • Safe

  7. Restructure authority in order to solve problems:WHOSE VOICE COUNTS?

  8. Historically American Impulse Our deep faith in the possibility of creating decision-making structures that will render good decisions

  9. Who Makes the Decision?

  10. A call to restructure is always a bid to reallocate power…

  11. Logic & Mechanisms • Change of arena • New structure • New design • Produces decisions in the “public interest” • Reallocates power

  12. Two Perspectives on Choices 1.Does it “work” to solve the problem? 2. What authority structure will be in place to make decisions?

  13. Variations of Constitutional Engineering • Change the membership of the decision-making body • Change the size of the decision-making body • Shift the locus of decision-making among federal, state, & local governments

  14. Changing the Membership

  15. Changing the Membership • Qualities/interests shape people’s decisions • How can we change the membership? • Voters • Officeholders All democracies impose voting restrictions

  16. Changing the Membership • “Voter qualifications” • Justified in terms of competence • US: exclude children <18 • 1966 Supreme Court struck down VA “poll tax” • Argument – voting restrictions lead to improved outcomes • Do you agree?

  17. Changing the Membership • The court says … “like race, color, and creed, wealth is not germane to one’s ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process….capricious…irrelevant.”

  18. Changing the Membership • Voting rights is an ongoing topic in policy conflict • Homeless • Armed Forces • Immigrants • Should these groups be allowed to vote?

  19. Changing the Membership • Officeholder qualifications • Should represent interests of constituents • Altering the identity of representatives or constituents’ control over them should change decisions • Space Shuttle Commission Example • Healthcare

  20. Changing the Membership • Representation • Descriptive • Share important demographic characteristics • “think, feel, reason” the same • Substantive • Share important policy beliefs and goals • Accountable

  21. Changing the Membership • Race-based Districting Controversy • Electing liberal Democrats vs. majority black voting districts • Interests are always multi-dimensional

  22. Changing the Membership • Solution to representing excluded interests • Creation of alternative, parallel institutions to represent weak interests • “community action agencies”

  23. Changing the Size

  24. Changing the Size • Wait, size matters? • Sure does

  25. Changing the Size Reviewing the size of representative decision making-units • Two different viewpoints • Bigger is better – One large governing body • Smaller is better – Provide chance for more smaller units

  26. Changing the Size • Why does this matter? • Want to prevent tyranny by groups of like-minded citizens who have interests “adverse to the rights of other citizens or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” – James Madison • How do we pick our officials – an important decision!

  27. Bigger is better! • James Madison’s Federalist Paper No. 10 • A large republic will be more effective because: • More “fit characters” • Harder for “unworthy candidates” to win over a larger number of people • The larger the community, the greater the variety of parties and interests it will contain (less likely a majority of officers will have a “motive to invade the rights of other citizens”)

  28. Changing the Size • Bigger is better!! • Are we sure about this? • Condo example

  29. Smaller is better! • Small units: • Produce better substantive policy decision • Provide greater opportunity for individual involvement • More participation = More dialogue and deliberation

  30. Middle of the Road • It all just depends ideology • Both big or small should not be thought of as purely good in all situations • Big is better for national defense • Small is better for police protection

  31. The Real Issue • Not whether small or big is a fit-all situation • Who is the player in a given circumstance • Becomes a contest between particular interests • The will of the majority can be adverse to community interests • Madison may have made his Constitutional argument that power would be spread to the majority with big government, but it could be said that it kept the power in the hands of a particular minority

  32. Changing Federalism

  33. Changing Federalism • Federalism involves a division of power • Central authority and constituent political units • Federal and State government • Should the American system be centralized or decentralized?

  34. Changing Federalism • Pros of decentralization • “Power with the people” • Diversity with decision-making • “Practice” before policies are implemented nationally • Autonomy

  35. Changing Federalism • Cons of decentralization • Authority is granted to local elites • Policies maintain status quo • Prejudices • Little or no redistribution of power or wealth

  36. Changing Federalism • Pros of centralization • “Power with the unbiased” • Technical decision-making • Standardization of policies • Promotes equality

  37. The case of welfare Centralization vs. Decentralization

  38. Entitlement program Centralized Authority rests with federal government States can request permission to deviate from protocols Block grant program Decentralized Authority rests with state governments States have freedom to spend the grants, with limited federal intervention Welfare

  39. Changing Federalism By examining its decentralized nature, it is easy to understand that federalism is a matter of power.

  40. Consider This . . . • The federal government can more easily undertake redistribution • State governments have more boundaries • The federal government has more money • Efficiency? Justice? Public interest?

  41. Really Consider This . . . Many advocates for change in federalism seek a change in the balance of power

  42. Healthcare Applications

  43. Healthcare Applications • Medicare vs. Medicaid • Not-For-Profit vs. For-Profit • Unions • AARP and Part D • Medicaid and SCHIP • Hospital Systems • Electing Legislatures

More Related