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.     

The State of American Federalism, 1996-1997

Federalism enjoyed political and popular salience during theperiod 1996–1997 as the so-called "Devolution Revolution"began to be implemented and analyzed in the United States. Whilethere were a few examples of important Revolutionary efforts,the federal government continued to hold much of the power andsignificance it has achieved over the past sixty years. Evenin the area of welfare policy, where in 1996 there were historicreforms enacted to end the federal entitlement, the federalgovernment maintained a significant presence that made the ideaof devolution of welfare policy responsibility some what questionable.Nevertheless, states continued to lead in policy innovationin areas ranging from education to health, and the U.S. SupremeCourt continued to question the limits of federal power. Thepast year illustrated, once again, the complexity of our federalsystem and how difficult it is to reform federalism—particularlywhen it involves a shift in power and creates the perceptionof winners and losers.     

Accountability and Coercion: Is Justice Blind when It Runs for Office?

Through their power to sentence, trial judges exercise enormous authority in the criminal justice system. In 39 American states, these judges stand periodically for reelection. Do elections degrade their impartiality? We develop a dynamic theory of sentencing and electoral control. Judges discount the future value of retaining office relative to implementing preferred sentences. Voters are largely uninformed about judicial behavior, so even the outcome of a single publicized case can be decisive in their evaluations. Further, voters are more likely to perceive instances of underpunishment than overpunishment. Our theory predicts that elected judges will consequently become more punitive as standing for reelection approaches. Using sentencing data from 22,095 Pennsylvania criminal cases in the 1990s, we find strong evidence for this effect. Additional tests confirm the validity of our theory over alternatives. For the cases we examine, we attribute at least 1,818 to 2,705 years of incarceration to the electoral dynamic.     

The State of American Federalism, 1997 - 1998

Although it was a relatively quiet year for the courts and congressionalaction, 1997–1998 saw several developments that may significantlydefine federalism in the coming years. The 1998 federal budgetis projected to show a surplus, ending decades of deficit financinginWashington, D.C., but also raising questions about the budget'sfiscal impact on federalism and intergovernmental relations.Devolution took a back seat in Washington, D.C., as concernsabout managed care, education, and internet access led to proposalsfor increased federal involvement in state and local affairs.The states continued their implementation of welfare reformand launched other programs in health, environment.     

EXPENDITURES ON CHILDREN AND VISITATION TIME

In their critique, Garfinkel, McLanahan, and Wallerstein raise concerns about the representativeness of the authors' sample, benchmark approach methodology, and historical review of guidelines, all of which lead them to discount the evidence presented opposing the cliff-model assumption of father expenditures on children, and to laud instead child support guidelines that give little monetary credit or adjustment for visitation. This article presents evidence that (a) this sample is at most little biased, and remains trustworthy for the main implications presented; (b) although only a beginning, the benchmark approach is highly useful and most of the concerns raised about it are ill founded or implausible; and (c) the historical review suggesting that current guidelines assume zero visitation expenses is indeed accurate for the vast majority of states, according to the foremost authority. Thus, notwithstanding the critique, these findings have merit and importance and should be considered by policy makers. The authors also comment on the additional arguments against continuous and generous adjustments for visitation, finding them based on a weak foundation of evidence and reasoning.     

“Spin-In” Technology Transfer for Small R&D Bio-Technology Firms: The Case of Bio-Defense

This study investigates the types of factors which can lead to government acquisition, or the “spin-in” of bio-defense technologies from small bio-technology firms. Empirical findings suggest that for small biotechnology R&D firms desiring to increase “spin-in” technology transfer, there appears to be two distinct and important influence groups—the scientific community within federal agencies, institutes, and centers, and the more managerial, policy-oriented decisions makers. We found that personal communication and networking appear to be the primary factor that leads to a successful technology transfer, however, the form and substance of personal communication and networking will differ between the two influence groups.