Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:07:29.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Political Conflict and Lesson-Drawing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

David Brian Robertson
David Brian Robertson
Affiliation:
Political Science, University of Missouri St. Louis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political adversaries have reason and opportunity to use foreign lessons to gain advantage in political conflicts. Political factors strongly affect the way public policy lessons are drawn and transformed into public policy. Political opponents contest the value, practicality, and transferability of policy initiatives in order to bias the outcome. The paper hypothesizes that (i) the politicization of lesson-drawing induces issue experts to emphasize the descriptive and technical aspects of programs; (2) gives an incentive to advocates of change to use lessons to advance their position during the agenda-setting process; and (3) gives opponents of change an incentive to draw counterbalancing negative lessons from foreign experience when a proposed lesson reaches the point where adoption is entirely possible. The 1988 Congressional debate over mandatory plant closing prenotification provides evidence supporting hypotheses. The paper further hypothesizes: (4) most polities will not adopt both conservative and liberal programs even when theoretically they could do so; and (5) the degree to which a population of polities adopt a particular lesson will be a function of the program's economic and politicial feasibility. The diffusion of labor market and income maintenance policies across the American states supports both of these claims.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 1991 , pp. 55 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alt, J. E. and Chrystal, K. A. (1983). Political Economics (Berkeley: University of California Press).Google Scholar
Bailey, T. (forthcoming). ‘The Mission of TECs and Private Sector Involvement: Lessons from the PICs’, in Finegold, D., McFarland, L. and Richardson, W. eds. U.S. and U.K. Education and Training Policy in Comparative Perspective (London: Falmer Press).Google Scholar
Ball, T., Fair, J. and Hanson, R. L. (1989). Political Innovation and Conceptual Change (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Berry, F. S. and Berry, W. D. (1990). ‘State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis’, American Political Science Review 84, 2, 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bluestone, B. and Harrison, B. (1982). The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Butler, S. M. (1981). Enterprise Zones: Greenlining the Inner Cities (New York: Universe Books).Google Scholar
Canak, W. and Miller, B. (1990). ‘Gumbo Politics: Unions, Business and Louisiana Right-to-Work Legislation’, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43, 2, 258–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, M. W. (1947). Sweden: The Middle Way (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Clark, J. (1985). ‘Policy Diffusion Research and Program Scope: Research Directions’, Publius 15, 4, 61–70.Google Scholar
Cohodas, N. (1985). ‘Business Defeats Labor on Plant-Closing Bill’, Congressional Quarterly, 43, 3011, 2528.Google Scholar
Coleman, P.J. (1987). Progressivism and the World of Reform: New Zealand and the Origins of the American Welfare State (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas).Google Scholar
Collier, D. and Messick, R. E., (1975). ‘Prerequisites versus Diffusion: Testing Alternative Explanations for Social Security Adoption’, American Political Science Review, 69, 4, 1299–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Commons, J. R. and Andrews, J. B. (1916). Principles of Labor Legislation (New York: Harper and Bros.).Google Scholar
Congressional Record (1988), 22 June to 13 July (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
CQ (Congressional Quarterly Almanac) (1988). ‘Congress OKs Plant-Closing Notice’, (Washington: Congressional Quarterly), 213.Google Scholar
Economist (1984). ‘Bologna Comes to Westminster’, November 3, 60.Google Scholar
Eisinger, P. K. (1988). The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State: State and Local Economic Development Policy in the United States. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press).Google Scholar
Elazar, D.J. (1984). American Federalism: A View From the States (New York: Harper and Row).Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S., Mclver, J. P. and Wright, G. C. Jr., (1987). ‘State Political Culture and Public Opinion’, American Political Science Review, 81,3, 797–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, III.: Row, Peterson).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flora, P. and Alber, J. (1981). ‘Modernization, Democratization and the Development of Welfare States in Western Europe’, in Flora, P. and Heidenheimer, A. J. eds. The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books).Google Scholar
Freeman, J. R. (1989). Democracy and Markets: The Politics of Mixed Economies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1975). ‘National Economic Planning’, Newsweek 86, 14 07, 71.Google Scholar
Furniss, N. and Tilton, T. A. (1977). The Case for the Welfare State: From Social Security to Social Equality (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press).Google Scholar
Galenson, W., ed., (1973). Incomes Policy: What Can We Learn from Europe? (Ithaca, NY: New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations).Google Scholar
Gilder, G. (1981). Wealth and Poverty (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Ginsburg, H. (1983). Full Employment and Public Policy: The United States and Sweden (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books).Google Scholar
Glaser, E. M., Abelson, H. H. and Garrison, K. N. (1983). Putting Knowledge to Use: Facilitating the Diffusion of Knowledge and the Implementation of Planned Change (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass).Google Scholar
Green, A. L. (1966). Manpower and the Public Employment Service in Europe (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
Hansen, G. B. (1967). Britain's Industrial Training Act: Its History, Development, and Implications for America (Wasington: National Manpower Policy Task Force).Google Scholar
Heclo, H. (1974). Modem Social Politics in Britain and Sweden (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies (Boston: Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Lemov, P. (1990). ‘Health Insurance for All: A Possible Dream?’ Governing 4, 2, 56–62.Google Scholar
Levinson, A.. (1980). The Full Employment Alternative (New York: Coward, McCann and Geoghegan).Google Scholar
Levitan, S. A., Carlson, P. E. and Shapiro, I. (1986). Protecting American Workers: An Assessment of Government Programs (Washington: Bureau of National Affairs).Google Scholar
Lindblom, C. E. (1977). Politics and Markets: The World's Political Economic Systems (New York: Basic Books).Google Scholar
Lombardi, J. (1942). Labor's Voice in the Cabinet: A History of the Department of Labor (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. G. (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations (Bergen: Universitetsforlaget).Google Scholar
McKenzie, R. B. (1988). The American Job Machine (New York: Universe Books).Google Scholar
National Commission for Manpower Policy (1978). European Labor Market Policies, Staff Report 27 (Washington: NCMP).Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1989). ‘State Labor Legislation Enacted in 1988’, Monthly Labor Review 112, 1, 40–58.Google Scholar
Nelson, R. R. (1990). ‘State Labor Legislation Enacted in 1990’, Monthly Labor Review 112, 1, 35–56.Google Scholar
Nightingale, D. S. and Burbridge, L. C. (1987). ‘The Status of State Work-Welfare Programs in 1986: Implications for Welfare Reform’, Unpublished mimeo (Washington: Urban Institute).Google Scholar
Osborne, D. (1988). Laboratories of Democracy (Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press).Google Scholar
OTA (Office of Technology Assessment) (1986). Technology and Structural Unemployment: Reemploying Displaced Adults (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
Palmer, J. L., ed (1978). Creating Jobs: Public Employment Programs and Wage Subsidies (Washington: Brookings).Google Scholar
Player, M. A. (1984). Employment Discrimination Law: Cases and Materials (Minneapolis, MN: West Publishing).Google Scholar
Reagan, R. (1988). ‘Message to the House of Representatives Returning Without Approval the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988’, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan (Washington: GPO), 1, 635–637.Google Scholar
Reubens, B. G. (1970). The Hard-To-Employ: European Programs (New York: Columbia University Press).Google Scholar
Robertson, D. B. and Judd, D. R. (1989). The Development of American Public Policy: The Structure of Policy Restraint (Glenview 111 and Boston: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Robertson, D. B. and Waltman, J. L. (forthcoming). ‘The Politics of Policy Borrowing’, in Finegold, D., McFarland, L. and Richardson, W. eds. U.S. and U.K. Education and Training Policy in Comparative Perspective (London: Falmer Press).Google Scholar
Rose, R. (1990). ‘Inheritance Before Choice in Public Policy’, Journal of Theoretical Politics 2, 3, 263–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, R. (forthcoming). Lesson-Drawing Across Time and Space (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).Google Scholar
Ross, M. J. (1987). State and Local Politics and Policy: Change and Reform (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
Rothstein, L. E. (1986). Plant Closings: Power, Politics and Workers (Dover, MA: Auburn House).Google Scholar
Savage, Robert L. (1985). ‘Diffusion Research Traditions and the Spread of Policy Innovations in a Federal System’, Publius 15, 4, 1–27.Google Scholar
Schattschneider, E. E.. (1960). The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1957). Administrative Behavior, Second ed. (New York: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Smith, B. L. R. ed. (1984). The Higher Civil Service in Europe and Canada: Lessons for the United States (Washington: Brookings).Google Scholar
Steinbrunner, J. D. (1974). The Cybernetic Theory of Decision: New Dimensions of Political Analysis (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, D. A. (1988). Policy Paradox and Political Reason (Glenview IL and Boston: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown).Google Scholar
Sundquist, J. L. (1975). Dispersing Population: What America Can Learn from Europe (Washington: Brookings).Google Scholar
US Congress (Senate Committee on Labor and the Public Welfare, Subcommittee on Employment, Poverty, and Migratory Labor) (1974). Hearings on Labor Market Policy in Sweden (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Growth) (1976a). The Canadian Job Creation Model and Its Applicability to the United States (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Growth) (1976b). Hearings on Thirtieth Anniversary of the Employment Act of 1946 – A National Conference on Full Employment (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources) (1979), Hearings on Employee Protection and Community Stabilization Act of 1979 (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (House of Representatives, Select Committee on Aging) (1984). World Health Systems: Lessons for the United States (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (Senate Committee on Labor Resources, Subcommittees on Labor and on Employment and Productivity) (1987a). Hearings on Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittees on Labor Management Relations and Employment Opportunities) (1987b). Hearings on Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act, H.R. 1122 (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Congress (Senate Committee on Labor Resources, Subcommittees on Labor and on Employment and Productivity) (1989). Hearings on Tish Summers and Laurie Shields Displaced Homemakers Training and Economic Self-Sufficiency Assistance Act of 1989 (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US DHSS (Department of Health and Human Services) (1986). Research Tables Based on Characteristics of State Plans for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US DOL (Department of Labor, Secretary of Labor's Task Force on Economic Adjustment and Worker Dislocation) (1986). Economic Adjustment and Worker Dislocation in a Competitive Society (Washington: GPO).Google Scholar
US Supreme Court (1968). King v. Smith, 88 S.Ct. 2128.Google Scholar
Walker, J. L. (1969). ‘The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States’, American Political Science Review 63, 3, 880–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltman, J. L. (1987). ‘The Strength of Policy Inheritance’, in Waltman, J. L. and Studlar, D. T. (eds), Political Economy: Public Policies in the United States and Britain (Jackson, University Press of Mississippi: 259–269).Google Scholar
Weir, M., Orloff, A. S. and Skocpol, T. (1988). The Politics of Social Policy in the United States (Princeton: Princeton University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilensky, H. L., Luebbert, G. M., Hahn, S. R. and Jamieson, A. M. (1985) Comparative Social Policy: Theories, Methods and Findings (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California).Google Scholar
Wilensky, H. L. and Turner, L. (1987). Democratic Corporatism and Policy Linkages: The Independence of Industrial, Labor-Market, Incomes and Social Policies in Eight Countries (Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California).Google Scholar
WLDF (Women's Legal Defense Fund) (1990). ‘State Laws and Regulations Guaranteeing Employees Their Jobs After Family and Medical Leaves’, chart (Washington: WLDF).Google Scholar