Strategic Party Government: Party Influence in Congress, 1789–2000

Why does the influence of Congressional parties fluctuate over time? Building on prevailing answers, we develop a model, Strategic Party Government, which highlights the electoral motives of legislative parties and the strategic interaction between parties. We test this theory using the entire range of House and Senate party behavior from 1789 to 2000 and find that the strategic behavior of parties complements members' preferences as an explanation for variation in party influence. Specifically, the strongest predictors of one party's voting unity are the unity of the opposing party and the difference between the parties in the preceding year. Moreover, we find strong links between party behavior in Congress and electoral outcomes: an increase in partisan influence on legislative voting has adverse electoral costs, while winning contested votes has electoral benefits.     

Agenda Control, the Median Justice, and the Majority Opinion on the U.S. Supreme Court

Some scholars argue that the author of the majority opinion exercises the most influence over the Court's opinion-writing process and so can determine what becomes Court policy, at least within the limits of what some Court majority finds acceptable. Other students of the Court have suggested that the Court's median justice effectively dictates the content of the majority opinion: whatever policy the median justice most wants, she can get. We test these competing models with data on Supreme Court decision making during the Burger Court (1969–86). While we find substantial evidence for both models, the agenda control model gains greater support. This suggests that opinions on the Court on each case are driven, in general, by the interaction of three key variables: the policy preferences of the majority opinion author, the policy preferences of the median justice, and the location of the legal status quo .     

“Editorials at a Glance”: Cultural Policy,Gender, and Modernity in the World War I Bureau of Cartoons

Cultural policy during the Great War, rather than radiating from the central government, evolved from contemporary culture—propaganda, movies, and mass media. The state was a player, but quasi‐public organizations such as propaganda agencies, non‐state actors like the YMCA, and “public opinion” played important roles. The Committee on Public Information (CPI)—the government's propaganda committee—influenced Americans through books, advertisements, posters, and cartoons. This essay examines two of the CPI's efforts: the Bureau of Cartoons and the Division of Pictorial Publicity. In these materials, we can see the intersection of class‐based notions of gendered idealism and a developing media state's use of a sentimental culture of the Victorian middle‐class to represent and motivate the nation. With staff drawn primarily from advertising agencies and newspapers, the Committee's work shows how the formulation of cultural policy is the result of complex negotiated processes involving state interests, cultural liaisons, and ideological assumptions.     

Die Rückkehr des befehlenden Staates? Muster und Ursachen der Veränderung staatlicher Handlungsformen in der deutschen Abfallpolitik

During the last 15 years, a shift in the relationship between state and society has been identified that can be characterized by an overall “retreat of the state”. The increasing use of co-operative policy instruments that do both, supplement and replace traditional authoritative measures, is one of the relevant manifestations of this change. However, most recent developments in German environmental policy in general and product-related waste management policy in particular reveal that this is all but an unambiguous tendency. After years of predominantly co-operative policy-approaches, there seems to be a revival of the authoritative state. The article analyses the patterns of change and presents reasons. In doing so, it challenges the popular functionalist hypothesis assuming that co-operative approaches arise from the functional needs of modern policy problems. Quite the contrary, the article draws on institutional factors — the European law in particular — and on party politics for explaining the identified change.     

Factors in successful program implementation in Russia during the transition: pilot programs as a guide

While much of the implementation literature over the past several decades has recognised the importance of context (e.g. in issues of institutional culture, degree of hierarchy), little of the literature comparing the results of numerous program implementation experiences examines the experience of non‐Western contexts. This study seeks to partially fill this gap by applying the ‘conventional wisdom’ of implementation theory to program implementation experience in Russia. We analyse the implementation of 18 demonstration projects in Russia against 9 success factors identified in the implementation literature. Most of the pilots involved multiple cities; so there are a total of 48 city‐case observations to study. Overall, the findings are that the factors associated with successful program implementation among OECD countries are also those at work in Russia's transitional economy. The weights associated with the various factors may differ, however. One could imagine, for example, that political support counts for more in Russia than in the western local governments. One might also believe that opportunities for learning from other implementers could be more important in the West, where professional associations are more highly developed. The core finding of consistency should be valuable to administrators across transitional economies who can now refer to the rich findings of implementation research with greater confidence of its applicability to their programs. Perhaps equally important is the finding that some of the same factors predominantly associated with successful or troubled implementation in Russia have similar effects in implementation examples drawn from transition and developing nations; there are, however, some important differences. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Were Bosnian policy research organisations more effective in 2006 than in 2003? Did technical assistance play a role?

In 2003 the policy development process in Bosnia and Herzegovina was characterised by international community (IC) dominance. The IC provided the vast majority of the analysis of problems facing the country and drafted many of the laws. This article documents developments from fall 2003 to fall 2006 in the use of evidence and analysis in the policy development process and the role of local policy research organisations (PROs—often called think tanks) in it. The likely relation between these changes and the activities of a PRO mentoring project that operated over the same period is also assessed. Evidence comes as a series of interviews in both years with government officials and members of parliament, on the one hand, and leaders of PROs and advocacy NGOs on the other. The broad picture that emerges from the above review is of a substantial positive development in the policy development process in Bosnia and Herzegovina over the period. Factual evidence and analysis are playing a much greater role, and PROs have been a major provider of this information. The evidence indicates that PROs have been successful in convincing the policy community that they are purveyors of objective, disinterested advice and analysis. The improvements occurred in a conducive environment that steadily placed greater responsibility for policy formation on Bosnian officials. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Holzer,Harry J., and Neumark,David (2006). Affirmative action: What do we know? The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(2), 463‐490.

The original article to which this Erratum refers was published in the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 25(2), 463–490.