Postmodern policy analysis: Discourse and identity in welfare policy

Postmodern inquiry into the discursive construction of identity has the potential to make a distinctive, democratizing contribution to public policy analysis. More so than conventional approaches, a postmodern policy analysis offers the opportunity to interrogate assumptions about identity embedded in the analysis and making of public policy, thereby enabling us to rethink and resist questionable distinctions that privilege some identities at the expense of others. Public policy analysis can benefit from postmodernism's emphasis on how discourse constructs identity. A review of postmodernism and postmodern approaches to interrogating identity is followed by an exercise in postmodern policy analysis. Social welfare policy in contemporary postindustrial America is shown to participate in the construction and maintenance of identity in ways that affect not just the allocation of public benefits, but also economic opportunities outside of the state. Mired in old, invidious distinctions (e.g., independent/dependent, contract/charity, family/promiscuity), welfare policy discourse today helps to recreate the problems of yesterday, particularly as a critical factor in reproducing women's poverty.     

Moral atrophy in the welfare state

The welfare state is often accused of being counterproductive: as the scope of public responsibility expands, private morality (especially altruism and benevolence) atrophies. This essay surveys psychological findings for evidence, which turns out to be broadly consistent with either of two models of moral development, each bearing distinct policy implications. The model of morally keeping in practice that is implicit in the term moral atrophy suggests the need for frequent opportunities to exercise moral skills, which would seem inconsistent with the welfare state. Alternatively, the model of moral character-building favoured by both philosophers and ordinary discourse would require only occasional reminders of one's moral principles. On this model, benevolence could usefully supplement the welfare state.     

State-sponsored violence as a tragedy of the commons: England's privateering wars with France and Spain, 1625–1630

The “tragedy of the commons” is the familiar problem that open access to a common property resource leads to overexploitation and to zero profits. A commons model is applied to an example of state sponsored private violence, the practice of privateering or licensed piracy. It is predicted that the presence of uncertainty about the value of the prey will reduce the amount of exploitation effort, and that industry profits may be positive due to both uncertainty and heterogeneous exploiters. Using data from England's wars with France and Spain between 1625 and 1630, the model suggests that the commons, represented by enemy merchant shipping, was not overexploited and that privateering profits were positive. The dynamic paths of privateering effort, ships seized, and individual firm profits were, however, consistent with the normal expectation that commons exploitation will peak and fall, as competition drives down returns through entry. “England was never richer than when at war with Spain.” Sir Edward Coke      

Seeing Canada Through the Referendum: Still a House Divided

On 26 October 1992, a majority of Canadians in a majority ofprovinces rejected the Charlottetown Accord in a national referendum.The accord capped the "Canada round" of constitutional negotiationsand attempted to satisfy Quebec, while also addressing otherpan-Canadian issues. The accord was defeated for different reasonsin different parts of the country. In Quebec, the "No" sideargued that the agreement did not meet their demands for greaterjurisdictionalautonomy within the federation. In the rest of Canada, the "No"side was particularly successful in demonstrating that the agreementdeviated from the principle of equality in the treatment ofindividuals and provinces. These critiques, inspired by differentvisions of the federation, lead in different directions. Inlight of these divisions, many commentators have suggested thatintergovernmental elites ought to abandon efforts of wholesaleconstitutional change. However, political developments in Quebecmay force these questions back onto the agenda.     

The courts,interest groups,and public opinion about abortion

Public preferences about the availability of abortion under various circumstances have remained fairly stable over time. Yet a standard CBS/New York Times abortion question indicates that a significant shift in opinion occurred during the 1980s, whereby the public became increasingly supportive of legalized abortion as it is now. These very different patterns of public opinion about abortion suggest that the public perceived a shift in the abortion status quo, toward more restricted access, over time, and became more supportive of current abortion policy.A model of support for legalized abortion as it is now is developed that incorporates the influences of court activities and interest-group behavior. The analysis indicates that the public reacted directly to the activities of the courts, becoming more supportive of current abortion policy in response to media coverage of court cases that challenged the abortion status quo and Supreme Court nominations and confirmations. Although absolute preferences remained largely unchanged, it appears the public perceived an increasing threat to the status quo and became correspondingly less enamored with further restrictions on the availability of abortion.