Andrea
What is the driving force behind how and why policymakers make decisions? In an ideal policy environment, based upon the predicates of the rational model, policymakers will make informed decisions based on new information and lessons learned from past decisions made. However, as Gilardi (2010) finds, pre-existing ideologies may offset evidence indicating that an alternative policy is more effective or preferred than the current status quo. Ideology limits the value of new information and can impact the development of a policymaker’s stance on specific issues (652).
Today’s most emblematic manifestation of this tension is perhaps the current policy and political debate about the legalization of same sex marriage on the federal level. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in September 1996, restricts federal marriage benefits and inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States, thus denying same sex couples, even in states where their marriages are recognized, access to important benefits and protections. As more states have allowed same sex marriage, DOMA has entered increasingly murky territory in terms of its effectiveness as a policy. While marriage is usually a “states issue,” the role of federal policy in effectively nullifying the benefits intended to be afforded by states that allow same sex marriages has made the issue increasingly complex. Policymakers are at a crossroads: How can both federal and state policies be effective when one directly contradicts the premise of the other?
The cases currently being heard by the US Supreme Court have created an unprecedented policy window. Hollingsworth v. Perry seeks to have California’s Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, declared unconstitutional. United States v. Windsor seeks to allow protections and benefits given to opposite sex couples also extended to same sex couples. Either of these cases alone would perhaps draw enough attention to the issues at hand; together, they are doubly potent, particularly because each case addresses a different problematic component of current federal policy around same sex marriage.
Volden, et al. (2008), find that the policy windows create an opportunity for experimentation and innovation; and that during these periods policy innovations take place (326). They write, “Independent adoptions by states with different opportunities for change over time would also produce a spread of policy adoptions… simply because of differences in when their policy windows open” (326). Their finding is particularly relevant to the current policy landscape of same sex marriage, wherein theoretically each state can make its own legislative decisions. The states’ capacity is limited by the current federal policy restricting rights for same sex couples.
In the US, the spread of opinions about same sex marriage is vast and varied. States that have legislated same sex marriage on the whole have more progressive policymakers, while policymakers opposed to same sex marriage tend to represent states or districts with more conservative populations. The issue of pre-existing ideology, raised by Gilardi (2010), is certainly at play in the same sex marriage debate. For the most part, policymakers are primarily interested in being reelected, so the policies they support must reflect the ideologies of their electorate. At the same time, the policy window created by the attention being given the current Supreme Court cases has created an opportunity for innovation, particularly because the same sex marriage debate has called many long-standing ideological stances into question.
Resources
Gilardi, Fabrizio, “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?,” American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 2010.
Liptak, Adam, and Peter Baker. “Justices Cast Doubt on Benefits Ban in U.S. Marriage Law.” The New York Times. March 27, 2013.
Volden, Craig, Michael M. Ting, and Daniel P. Carpenter, “A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion,” The American Political Science Review, 102(3), 2008.
I think this example showcases in a very interesting way the complications of policy diffusion within the US federal system. Policy diffusion can occur for many reasons (imitation, competition, coercive forces etc.) but what becomes interesting through this exposé is the way this diffusion across states can contradict the federal policy system. Can we claim that in this case, the states are creating policy innovations that the federal policy system cannot or has not yet been able to internalize? I think this is an excellent example of the intricacies that often go along with the concept of policy diffusion but are not so often discussed in the literature.
Achilles
What is the driving force behind how and why policymakers make decisions? In an ideal policy environment, based upon the predicates of the rational model, policymakers will make informed decisions based on new information and lessons learned from past decisions made. However, as Gilardi (2010) finds, pre-existing ideologies may offset evidence indicating that an alternative policy is more effective or preferred than the current status quo. Ideology limits the value of new information and can impact the development of a policymaker’s stance on specific issues (652).
Today’s most emblematic manifestation of this tension is perhaps the current policy and political debate about the legalization of same sex marriage on the federal level. The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by President Bill Clinton in September 1996, restricts federal marriage benefits and inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States, thus denying same sex couples, even in states where their marriages are recognized, access to important benefits and protections. As more states have allowed same sex marriage, DOMA has entered increasingly murky territory in terms of its effectiveness as a policy. While marriage is usually a “states issue,” the role of federal policy in effectively nullifying the benefits intended to be afforded by states that allow same sex marriages has made the issue increasingly complex. Policymakers are at a crossroads: How can both federal and state policies be effective when one directly contradicts the premise of the other?
The cases currently being heard by the US Supreme Court have created an unprecedented policy window. Hollingsworth v. Perry seeks to have California’s Proposition 8, which bans same sex marriage, declared unconstitutional. United States v. Windsor seeks to allow protections and benefits given to opposite sex couples also extended to same sex couples. Either of these cases alone would perhaps draw enough attention to the issues at hand; together, they are doubly potent, particularly because each case addresses a different problematic component of current federal policy around same sex marriage.
Volden, et al. (2008), find that the policy windows create an opportunity for experimentation and innovation; and that during these periods policy innovations take place (326). They write, “Independent adoptions by states with different opportunities for change over time would also produce a spread of policy adoptions… simply because of differences in when their policy windows open” (326). Their finding is particularly relevant to the current policy landscape of same sex marriage, wherein theoretically each state can make its own legislative decisions. The states’ capacity is limited by the current federal policy restricting rights for same sex couples.
In the US, the spread of opinions about same sex marriage is vast and varied. States that have legislated same sex marriage on the whole have more progressive policymakers, while policymakers opposed to same sex marriage tend to represent states or districts with more conservative populations. The issue of pre-existing ideology, raised by Gilardi (2010), is certainly at play in the same sex marriage debate. For the most part, policymakers are primarily interested in being reelected, so the policies they support must reflect the ideologies of their electorate. At the same time, the policy window created by the attention being given the current Supreme Court cases has created an opportunity for innovation, particularly because the same sex marriage debate has called many long-standing ideological stances into question.
Resources
Gilardi, Fabrizio, “Who Learns from What in Policy Diffusion Processes?,” American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 2010.
Liptak, Adam, and Peter Baker. “Justices Cast Doubt on Benefits Ban in U.S. Marriage Law.” The New York Times. March 27, 2013.
Volden, Craig, Michael M. Ting, and Daniel P. Carpenter, “A Formal Model of Learning and Policy Diffusion,” The American Political Science Review, 102(3), 2008.
I think this example showcases in a very interesting way the complications of policy diffusion within the US federal system. Policy diffusion can occur for many reasons (imitation, competition, coercive forces etc.) but what becomes interesting through this exposé is the way this diffusion across states can contradict the federal policy system. Can we claim that in this case, the states are creating policy innovations that the federal policy system cannot or has not yet been able to internalize? I think this is an excellent example of the intricacies that often go along with the concept of policy diffusion but are not so often discussed in the literature.
Achilles
RSS Feed