Rural Development Councils: An Intergovernmental Coordination Experiment

Eight pilot state Rural Development Councils were establishedby the federal government in 1990 to coordinate rural developmentefforts among federal departments and agencies and to establishcollaborative relationships with states, local governments,and the private sector. After one year of operation, these councilsprovided a mechanism for the participating states to definethe rural issues relevant to their unique settings and to worktoward the accomplishment of their goals. In addition, the processallowed federal officials in Washington and in the states toutilize the discretion available in the system to maximize collaborationand cooperation. Additional states will be involved in the effortin 1992. Three types of agendas or expectations surrounded theinitiative: substantive, political, and process approaches.Although it is too early to determine the extent to which thecouncils have "delivered" on these expectations, the experimentprovides preliminary evidence of the scope of federal abilityto stimulate change within a state as well as the economic andpolitical forces that constrain it.     

Federalism, Political Structure, and Public Policy in the United States and Canada

Two of the three large countries on the North American continent—the United States and Canada—share a number of similarities that often make it difficult for the untrained observer to differentiate between the two nations. On the surface, the two are structured similarly as federal systems that, by definition, exhibit shared power between the national government and provincial or state political entities.Although there are other important social and economic characteristics of the two countries that help explain differences in policy processes and outcomes, it is the contention of this article that one gets the clearest sense of what Elazar has called thinking federal by utilizing an analytical approach that joins questions related to federalism with some conceptual frameworks of the public policy field. Two frameworks undergird the argument in this article—the Lowi typology of different types of policies and Deil Wright's typology of different models that describe the American inter-governmental system.In both countries, policies must be sensitive to the greater interdependencies between units of government as well as to linkages between policy areas. The mechanisms or instrumentalities for dealing with policy issues are intrinsically complex. It is also clear that the intergovernmental networks that exist in both the U.S. and Canada are composed of an array of actors. The differing political structures of the systems do impact the types of intergovernmental policies that have emerged in the two countries. The executive dominance so imbedded in Canadian governments has contributed to their ability to adopt and implement certain controversial redistributive policies, such as a national health insurance program. By contrast, the fragmentation of the U.S. system makes redistributive policies more difficult.     

OSHA INSPECTION COSTS, COMPLIANCE COSTS, AND OTHER OUTCOMES: THE FIRST DECADE

A number of critics of the Occupational Safety and Health Act have argued that it has greatly increased the cost of operation of the regulated industries while providing very little benefits. But OSHA's inspection costs were relatively inconsequential (only a small percent of work sites actually inspected). Although it engaged in a number of "nitpicking" inspections of non-serious citations, the average penalties were extremely low. At the same time OSHA provided considerable consultation and educational assistance to industry. Compliance costs, in theory, could be much larger, but it is incorrect to attribute all of these to OSHA. A num ber of indirect positive outcomes could be attributed to OSHA, even though it is not possible to measure these through cost-benefit analysis.     

Who’s the Party of the People? Economic Populism and the U.S. Public’s Beliefs About Political Parties

Some observers of American politics have argued that Republicans have redrawn the social class basis of the parties by displacing the Democrats as the party of the common person. While others have addressed the argument by implication, we address the phenomenon itself. That is, we examine whether the populist rhetoric used by conservatives has reshaped the American public??s perceptions about the social class basis of American political parties. To this end, we used NES data and created novel survey questions for examining the class-based images of the parties. We examine whether the public holds populist images of the Republican Party and whether the working class and evangelical Christians are especially likely to hold this belief. Contrary to this argument, most Americans view the Democrats as the party of the people. Furthermore, working class and evangelical Christians are no less likely to hold this belief.