Showing papers in "PS Political Science & Politics in 1991"

Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process

Abstract: Any theory of the manner in which governmental policies get formulated and implemented, as well as the effects of those actions on the world, requires an understanding of the behavior of major types of governmental institutions (legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, chief executives), as well as the behavior of interest groups, the general public, and the media. The dominant paradigm of the policy process, the stages heuristic popularized by Jones (1970), Anderson (1975), and Peters (1986), has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced, in large part because it is not a causal theory. In the course of their empirical work, policy scholars have highlighted a number of phenomena that need to be incorporated into theories of the policy process. The development of such theories requires an integration ‘of both political scientists’ knowledge of specific institutions and behavior and policy scholars' attention to policy communities, substantive policy information, etc.Innovations by Policy Scholars in Understanding the Policy ProcessAt least since World War II, most political scientists have tended to focus on either a specific type of institution (legislatures, the presidency, courts, interest groups, administrative agencies, local governments, political parties) or on specific types of political behavior outside those institutions (public opinion, voting, political socialization). These have become the standard subfields within the discipline.In contrast, scholars interested in public policy have not been able to stay within these subfields because the policy process spans all of them. In the course of empirical work, policy scholars have highlighted a number of phenomena often neglected by political scientists without a policy focus:a) The importance of policy communities/networks/subsystems involving actors from numerous public and private institutions and from multiple levels of government;b) The importance of substantive policy information;c) The critical role of policy elites vis-a-vis the general public;d) The desirability of longitudinal studies of a decade or more;e) Differences in political behavior across policy types.

Political Science and Public Policy

Abstract: Political scientists who are policy scholars often trace their lineage back to the pioneering work of Lerner and Lasswell (1951). But public policy did not emerge as a significant subfield within the discipline of political science until the late 1960s or early 70s. This resulted from at least three important stimuli: (1) social and political pressures to apply the profession's accumulated knowledge to the pressing social problems of racial discrimination, poverty, the arms race, and environmental pollution; (2) the challenge posed by Dawson and Robinson (1963), who argued that governmental policy decisions were less the result of traditional disciplinary concerns such as public opinion and party composition than of socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and unemployment levels; and (3) the efforts of David Easton, whose Systems Analysis of Political Life (1965) provided an intellectual framework for understanding the entire policy process, from demand articulation through policy formulation and implementation, to feedback effects on society.Over the past twenty years, policy research by political scientists can be divided into four types, depending upon the principal focus:1. Substantive area research. This seeks to understand the politics of a specific policy area, such as health, education, transportation, natural resources, or foreign policy. Most of the work in this tradition has consisted of detailed, largely atheoretical, case studies. Examples would include the work of Derthick (1979) on social security, Moynihan (1970) on antipoverty programs, and Bailey and Mosher (1968) on federal aid to education. Such studies are useful to practitioners and policy activists in these areas, as well as providing potentially useful information for inductive theory building. In terms of the profession as a whole, however, they are probably less useful than theoretical case studies—such as Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) on implementation or Nelson (1984) on agenda-setting—which use a specific case to illustrate or test theories of important aspects of the policy process.2. Evaluation and impact studies. Most evaluation research is based on contributions from other disciplines, particularly welfare economics (Stokey and Zeckhauser 1978; Jenkins-Smith 1990). Policy scholars trained as political scientists have made several contributions. They have broadened the criteria of evaluation from traditional social welfare functions to include process criteria, such as opportunities for effective citizen participation (Pierce and Doerksen, 1976). They have focused attention on distributional effects (MacRae, 1989). They have criticized traditional techniques of benefit-cost analysis on many grounds (Meier, 1984; MacRae and Whittington, 1988). Most importantly, they have integrated evaluation studies into research on the policy process by examining the use and non-use of policy analysis in the real world (Wildavsky, 1966; Dunn, 1980; Weiss, 1977).3. Policy process. Two decades ago, both Ranney (1968) and Sharkansky (1970) urged political scientists interested in public policy to focus on the policy process, i.e. the factors affecting policy formulation and implementation, as well as the subsequent effects of policy. In their view, focusing on substantive policy areas risked falling into the relatively fruitless realm of atheoretical case studies, while evaluation research offered little promise for a discipline without clear normative standards of good policy. A focus on the policy process would provide opportunities for applying and integrating the discipline's accumulated knowledge concerning political behavior in various institutional settings. That advice was remarkably prescient; the first paper in this symposium attempts to summarize what has been learned.Policy design. With roots in the policy sciences tradition described by deLeon (1988), this approach has recently focused on such topics as the efficacy of different types of policy instruments (Salamon 1989; Linder and Peters 1989). Although some scholars within this orientation propose a quite radical departure from the behavioral traditions of the discipline (Bobrow and Dryzek 1987), others build upon work by policy-oriented political scientists over the past twenty years (Schneider and Ingram 1990) while Miller (1989) seeks to integrate political philosophy and the behavioral sciences.

Capitalism and Democracy

Abstract: Joseph Schumpeter, a great economist and social scientist of the last generation, whose career was almost equally divided between Central European and American universities, and who lived close to the crises of the 1930s and '40s, published a book in 1942 under the title, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. The book has had great influence, and can be read today with profit. It was written in the aftergloom of the great depression, during the early triumphs of Fascism and Nazism in 1940 and 1941, when the future of capitalism, socialism, and democracy all were in doubt. Schumpeter projected a future of declining capitalism, and rising socialism. He thought that democracy under socialism might be no more impaired and problematic than it was under capitalism.He wrote a concluding chapter in the second edition which appeared in 1946, and which took into account the political-economic situation at the end of the war, with the Soviet Union then astride a devastated Europe. In this last chapter he argues that we should not identify the future of socialism with that of the Soviet Union, that what we had observed and were observing in the first three decades of Soviet existence was not a necessary expression of socialism. There was a lot of Czarist Russia in the mix. If Schumpeter were writing today, I don't believe he would argue that socialism has a brighter future than capitalism. The relationship between the two has turned out to be a good deal more complex and intertwined than Schumpeter anticipated.

Liberal Learning and the Political Science Major: A Report to the Profession.

Abstract: This report was completed in cooperation with a national review of arts and sciences majors initiated by the Association of American Colleges as part of its continuing commitment to advance and strengthen undergraduate liberal learning. The American Political Science Association was one of twelve learned societies contributing to this review. Each participating learned society convened a task force charged to address a common set of questions about purposes and practices in liberal arts majors; individual task forces further explored issues important in their particular fields. In 1991, the Association of American Colleges will publish a singlevolume edition of all twelve learned society reports with a companion volume containing a separate report on "Liberal Learning and Arts and Sciences Majors." Inquiries about these two publications may be sent to Reports on the Arts and Sciences Major, Box R, Association of American Colleges, 1818 R Street, NW, Washington, DC 20009. Generous funding for the project and dissemination of the reports was provided by the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) and the Ford Foundation. The Task Force on the Political Science Major, which was appointed by Lucian Pye, then President of the American Political Science Associa-

“Aiming at a Moving Target”: Social Science and the Recent Rebellions in Eastern Europe

Abstract: One week before the mass demonstrations that led to the collapse of the Czechoslovak Communist regime in November, 1989, a Charter 77 activist, Jan Urban, proposed that the group contest the national elections to be held in June of 1991. Urban's friends laughed at his proposals for being hopelessly Utopian. But a week later, thousands of students filled Wenceslas Square, a general strike was called, and the regime collapsed. The leaders of the future Civic Forum, who had been carefully watching events in Hungary, Poland and the GDR, had little idea that their own country was ripe for revolution.Charter 77 would not have fared much better had it consulted Western social scientists, because our models for understanding the emergence of new social movements and their spread and outcomes are woefully inadequate. While prediction in social science is always hazardous, our lack of preparation for the recent wave of mobilization in Eastern Europe is particularly glaring, given the vast body of research and theorizing that has developed since the 1960s both in Western Europe and the United States.

America as a Model for the World? A Foreign Policy Perspective

Abstract: I. How the Placement of States Affects Their PoliciesBecause throughout most of the years since the second World War the United States and the Soviet Union were similarly placed by their power, their external behaviors should have shown striking similarities. Did they? Yes, more than has usually been realized. The behavior of states can be compared on many counts. Their armament policies and their interventions abroad are two of the most revealing. On the former count, the United States in the early 1960s undertook the largest strategic and conventional peace-time military build-up the world has yet seen. We did so even as Khrushchev was trying at once to carry through a major reduction in the conventional forces and to follow a strategy of minimum deterrence, and we did so even though the balance of strategic weapons greatly favored the United States. As one should have expected, the Soviet Union soon followed in America's footsteps, thus restoring the symmetry of great-power behavior. And so it was through most of the years of the Cold War. Advances made by one were quickly followed by the other, with the United States almost always leading the way. Allowing for geographic differences, the overall similarity of their forces was apparent. The ground forces of the Soviet Union were stronger than those of the United States, but in naval forces the balance of advantage was reversed. The Soviet Union's largely coastal navy gradually became more of a blue-water fleet, but one of limited reach. Its navy never had more than half the tonnage of ours.

Making Class Participation a Reality

Abstract: The classroom is core to the educational process. It is here that university community begins and teachers ". .. create the common ground of intellectual commitment (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 1990, 12). Uninspiring classrooms where students are rarely motivated and where instructors, sometimes out of despair, do little more than mechanically cover the material need to be brought to life. The classroom experience is too important to be surrendered to despair and uninspired teaching. Class participation, by bringing students actively into the educational process, provides one means for enhancing our teaching and bringing life to the classroom. A recent report on the state of higher education, while recognizing the important role played by lectures, stresses the need for a variety of teaching styles. Seeing the passive student as "one of the greatest challenges facing higher education," it recommends the increased use of active modes of teaching that require students to take greater responsibility for their learning. Among the modes recommended are small group discussions, simulations, in-class presentations, and debates (Study Group on the Conditions of Excellence in American Higher Education 1984, 27). Chickering, Gamson, and Barsi are even more emphatic in asserting that:

Liberal Democracy as a Global Phenomenon

Abstract: I. The Worldwide Democratic Revolution and Its CausesIt being less than ten days after the collapse of the attempted coup by communist hardliners in the Soviet Union, the coup's outcome serves as a useful reminder of the vitality that the democratic dea has for people still living under authoritarianism. The anti-communist revolution in the USSR is of course not an isolated event. The single most remarkable macropolitical phenomenon of the past generation has been the global crisis of authoritarianism, and the spread of liberal democracy in its wake, as noted by Lucian Pye in his presidential addressto this convention two years ago. By my count, there were three democracies in 1790; 13 in 1900, 27 in 1919, and 62 today.This progress has not been linear or continuous, of course: there were 14 fewer democracies in 1940 than in 1919; democracies were overthrown throughout Latin America in the 60s and 70s. Many of the countries thathave become democracies in the past few years are very unstable or of uncertain commitment to liberal values, and it would not be surprising to see a number of them lapse back into some kind of authoritarian rule in the nearfuture, as Thailand has already done this past year. Nonetheless, th trend is there. The 62 countries I countas democracies have a combined population of 2.24 billion people, or approximately 44 percent of the world's population. Moreover, neither the Soviet Union nor China are counted among the 62, and if parts or all of either country democratizes successfully, half to two-thirds of the world's population could be said to enjoy democratic rights and liberties.

The "East" Becomes the "South"? The "Autumn of the People" and the Future of Eastern Europe.

Abstract: Snyder, David and Charles Tilly. 1972. "Hardship and Collective Violence in France: 1830-1960." American Sociological Review 37: 520-532. Tarrow, Sidney. 1985. "The Crisis of the Late 1960s in Italy and France in the Transition to Mature Capitalism." In Giovanni Arrighi, ed., Semiperipheral Development: The Political Economy of Southern Europe. London and Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 215-42. . 1989a. Democracy and Disorder: Protest and Politics in Italy, 1965-1975. Oxford: Oxford University Press. . 1989b. Struggle, Politics and Reform. Collective Action, Social Movements and Cycles of Protest. Cornell University, Western Societies Paper No. 21. distributed by Cornell University Press. . In preparation. Power in Movement: Collective Action, Social Movements and Revolutions in the Modern World. New York: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming. Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. . 1984. "Social Movements and National Politics." In Charles Bright and Susan Harding, eds., State-making and Social Movements: Essays in History and Theory. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 297-317. . 1985. Big Structures, Large Processes, Huge Comparisons. New York: Russell Sage. . 1990. "Mobilization and Contention in Great Britain, 1754-1834." Unpublished chapter, The New School for Social Research.

Divided Government in the States

Abstract: America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Committee on Political Parties of the American Political Science Association. 1950. "Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System," American Political Science Review 44, supplement. Fiorina, Morris. 1989. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment, 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Ginsberg, Benjamin, and Martin Shefter. 1990. Politics By Other Means: The Declining Importance of Elections in America. New York: Basic Books. Goggin, Malcolm, et al. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown. Hinckley, Barbara. 1988. Stability and Change in Congress, 4th ed. New York: Harper and Row. Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. The Electoral Origins of Divided Government. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Manley, John. 1973. "The Conservative Coalition in Congress." American Behavioral Scientist, November/December: 223-47.

The Economics of Transitions Democracy

Abstract: the place of Uruguay. You will see states weak as organizations, political parties and other associations that are ineffectual in representing and mobilizing, economies that are monopolistic, over-protected and over-regulated, agricultures that cannot feed their own people, public bureaucracies that are overgrown, welfare services that are fragmentary and rudimentary. And would you not conclude that such conditions breed governments vulnerable to pressures from large firms, populist movements of doubtful commitment to democratic institutions, armed forces that sit menacingly on the sidelines, church hierarchies torn between authoritarianism and social

British and American Journal Evaluation: Divergence or Convergence? *

Abstract: regarded by a jury who undoubtedly knew its own mind when it came to pornography (Alexander v. United States, 271 F.2d 140 (8th Cir. 1959)). Similarly, the university political science professor who testified on the effects of hair length in public schools may have ventured beyond his area of expertise; at least so thought the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (Karr v. Schmidt, 460 F.2d 609, 612-613 (5th Cir. 1972)). Nevertheless, political scientists generally have been respectfully received in most cases reviewed. In many cases their opinions have been central to the resolution of key issues. As awareness of the contributions of social scientists spreads in the legal community, political scientists can expect additional opportunities to test their experience in federal and state courtrooms. About the Author

Alternative Theories of the Policy Process: Reflections on Research Strategy for the Study of Nuclear Waste Policy*

Abstract: The contribution of multiple theories of the policy process stems, in part, from the identification of alternative concepts and relations that provide distinct—though often partially overlapping—explanations of (and predictions about) policy development. Thus the competing theories single out alternative concepts as critical to the policy process, and specify widely different hypotheses for test. When theory-building is at a rudimentary level, as is generally the case for the study of the policy process, the alternative theories may provide enriching supplemental insights and hypotheses that, if confirmed, lead to better theory. In that spirit, this article provides some illustrations of the application of alternative theories to an ongoing policy dispute over adoption and development of the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) as a testing and storage facility for defense nuclear wastes. My focus is on how the alternative theories emphasize different sets of concepts (and therefore data) and hypotheses, and on some of the implications for research design. These comments are based on my own preliminary research on the WIPP issue, and are meant to be illustrations and suggestions, rather than conclusions, about the policy process regarding the WIPP.

Explaining Divided Government: Why Can't the Republicans Win the House?

Abstract: Studies Quarterly 18: 485-92. Davidson, Roger H. 1988. "The New Centralization on Capitol Hill." Review of Politics 50: 345-64. Derthick, Martha. 1979. Policymaking for Social Security. Washington, DC: Brookings. Dunar, Andrew J. 1984. The Truman Scandals and the Politics of Morality. Columbia: University of Missouri Press. Freeman, Jo. 1975. The Politics of Women's Liberation. New York: David McKay. Higgs, Robert. 1987. Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press. Key, V. O., Jr. 1964. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 5th ed. New York: Crowell.

Policy Models and Equal Educational Opportunity

Abstract: If anyone doubts that policy analysis is like a hot dog—its contents are both variable and suspect— Sabatier's essay in this issue should remove those doubts. His outlines of the open systems/funnel of causality, rational actors within institutions, policy streams, and advocacy coalitions approaches make pellucid that adherents to any one of these perspectives will examine different variables in searching for truth, beauty, or at least explanation in public policy-making. A full illustration of how each of these lens, when focused on the same policy area, would yield a somewhat different image would require a volume of significant length. While the profession waits for Sabatier to produce such a volume, perhaps we can be satisfied with a brief discussion of how the pursuit of equal educational opportunity would be viewed through a pair of these lenses. The rational actors within institutions and advocacy coalition lenses are used to examine this important policy area. When the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the “separate but equal” interpretation of the constitution ( Plessy v. Ferguson , 1896) and followed that quickly with a decision ignoring the “but equal” part of the phrase in public education ( Cumming v. County Board of Education , 1899), racially segregated schools were legitimized. What followed was a long war, waged most obviously by the legal arm of the NAACP (Tushnet, 1987), which led to the Supreme Court's reversal of the Plessy decision ( Brown v. Board of Education , 1954, 1955). At that point policy-making in the area of equal educational opportunity shifted from a focus on overturning a loathsome judicial precedent to implementing a favorable one. Initial euphoria led to overly optimistic predictions about the speed with which segregated school systems could be dismantled.

The Status of Latinos in the Profession: Problems in Recruitment and Retention

Abstract: not have to be tolerated by anyone. In addition, they saw that an individual who chooses to stand up and fight against such behavior is supported by the college, not brushed aside. I now make it a point to conclude my discussion of women's rights by saying that if any of them (even males) are harassed they should feel free to tell faculty or administrators because the situation will be taken seriously. Finally, from a personal perspective, the support given to me made me able to take a step back from the anger and embarrassment. My initial inclination was to try to force the student to withdraw from my class. But now I see that some good has resulted from our discussion. Although institutions cannot keep incidents like this from happening, it is comforting to have them respond in such a positive manner.

America as a Model for the World? A Skeptical View

Abstract: movement among Russian nationalists, exemplified not only by Boris Yeltsin but by a number of conservative nationalists as well. We should, therefore, put today's nationalist struggle in a certain perspective. They will dominate the politics of the world's relatively lessdeveloped and less-democratic regions. In places like the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, intense nationalist struggles for independence will be the inevitable preconditions for democracy. But the process of national separation, while promising to be arduous and bloody, is in the end a transitional state of affairs. Once recognized as having a separate and equal station among the nations of the earth, there is no reason why the newly emerging nationalisms in these regions will not eventually mature in a more tolerant and democratic direction. Nationalist struggles in the present are therefore necessary precursors to the emergence of stable democracy in the future, just as they were in Western Europe in the nineteenth century. Conclusion

On Celebrating College Teaching

Abstract: Great teachers give us a sense not only of who they are, but more importantly, of who we are, and who we might become. They unlock our energies, our imaginations, and our minds. Effective teachers pose compelling questions, clarify choices, explain options, teach us to reason, suggest possible directions, and urge us on. The best of teachers, like the best of leaders, have an uncanny ability to step outside themselves and become liberating forces in our lives. Successful teachers are vital and full of passion. They love to teach as a painter loves to paint, as a writer loves to write, as a singer loves to sing. They are people who have a motive, a passion for their subject, a spontaneity of character, and enormous fun doing what they do. One scholar suggests that the seven deadly sins of college teaching are arrogance, dullness, rigidity, insensitivity, vanity, self-indulgence, and hypocrisy.1 There are doubtless others. And these are also, not coincidentally, the downfall of most leaders. Their opposites need cultivation: humility, enthusiasm, flexibility, sensitivity, compassion, discipline, commitment, as well as exceptional professional competence. Inspirational teachers are psychologically centered. They know who they are and are self-confident. They know what they do is important and significant. They teach their subject-politics, physics, psychology or whatever-as if it really mattered! They can get excited about their subject no matter how many times they may already have held forth on it. They vivify their subject and rise well above ever becoming mechanical, dry or routine. They push themselves just as they push their students, and in the end their courses become memorable learning experiences. Teachers learn they are always on stage and that who they are, how they act, and what they believe, are as important as what they say and teach. "There's not a second that goes by within the classroom when something about your values isn't being made obvious whether you are talking about your values or values in general or not."2 Or to paraphrase a former professor of mine, a teacher's major contribution is

Representation, Accountability, and Efficiency in Divided Party Control of Government

Abstract: James L. Sundquist (1986, 75) argues that, "those who believe that a basic weakness of the United States government is the recurrent conflict and deadlock between the executive and legislative branches must turn, at the outset, to the problem of divided government." Presidents from James Madison to George Bush have complained about conflicts with Congress and the effects of divided party government. President Lincoln complained in jest that, "I have been told I was on the road to hell, but I had no idea it was just a mile down the road with a Dome on it" (Udall 1988, 3). President Lyndon Baines Johnson, known for his success in working with Senators and Representatives as well as his bluntness, said, "A long time ago I learned that telling a man to go to hell and making him go are two different propositions" (Udall 1988, 239). Reformers from Woodrow Wilson to James Sundquist (1986) and Lloyd Cutler (1988, 1989) argue that divided government is the root of inefficiency and deadlock in our democracy and that there is a need for reform. 1 Wilson's complaint is repeated by those who argue in the 1980s and 1990s that divided government led to budget deficits and stalemate (quoted in Pfiffner 1991, 44): "You have a Government that is not responding to the wishes of the people. You have a Government that is not functioning, a Government whose very energies are stayed and postponed. If you want to release the force of the American People, you have got to get possession of the Senate and the Presidency as well as the House." Michael Mezey (1991, 99-121) argues that our present system of separation of powers and divided party control of government cannot produce informed, coherent, timely, and effective laws. Mezey (1989, 143) claims that, "neither the executive nor the Congress is capable of action on its own and each is capable of stopping the other from acting. " In the years since Sundquist (1986) first advocated major constitutional reforms, the discussion of divided government has suffered from insufficient attention as to why it occurs and with what consequences, the purpose of this PS symposium. The critics of divided government often assert that it makes government inefficient and unaccountable, but they do not present comprehensive data analysis to support their case. And few critics comment on the function of representation that divided government provides so well for congressional constituencies. Divided government occurs when one party controls the presidency while one or both houses of Congress are controlled by the opposing party, the standard of post-World War II American politics. From 1946 to 1992, the Truman presidency through the first four years of the Bush presidency, divided party control of the federal government has occurred 67 percent of the time (or 30 out of 45 years).2 From 1897 to 1945, divided government appeared only 12 percent of the time (6 times). While it is clear that divided government is an important issue for our time, several competing explanations for the occurrence of divided government are offered in this PS symposium and in a growing literature (Thurber 1991, 1-8) on the topic. These explanations are based upon a variety of factors, as follows: the constitutional structure of government (separation of powers); electoral behavior and the political party system (different constituency bases, ticket splitting, candidate individualism, political recruitment, the power of incumbency, and the weaknesses of American political parties); and public opinion (the preference of American voters to want divided government in principle). A synthesis of these varying explanations is necessary in order to understand the reasons why we have divided government, but we do not know the relative importance of each explanation since the competing theories have not been judged against each other. As basic textbooks on American politics tell us, the constitutional separation of powers structures executive-legislative rivalry into predictable and almost guaranteed conflict. Although never mentioned in the Constitution, the historic competing interests of the two major political parties have exacerbated this conflict between the president and Congress because the opposing interests guarantee that the president and a majority of both houses of Congress will not share the same policy or ideological preferences (Edwards 1989, 96-97). The authors of the Constitution provided for checks and balances among the three organizationally separate branches of government which make our government contentious, complicated, and inefficient, but also representative. Separation of powers and divided government thus frustrate those who would have government pass laws in a more timely manner. However, separation of the powers of Congress and the executive and divided party government both check despotism and allow for the

Recruiting Minority Students for Academic Careers: The Role of Graduate Student and Faculty Mentors.

Abstract: careers in general. When the material rewards, in terms of salary and security, are matched against the effort, it may hardly seem worth it in any rational sense. Yet there are some important compensations. In most cases, this career offers the prospect of being able to define one's own objectives and control the pace and content of one's labor. It offers the many rewards of teaching-making a difference in the lives of others, starting students on their own quest for knowledge, contributing to the betterment of community and so on. It often includes the opportunity to participate in work at the frontiers of knowledge about a critical dimension of human life. It almost always provides a lifetime's worth of intellectual challenges, often in company with helpful and exciting people who encourage one to keep trying to meet those challenges. It can, in short, make life interesting. And for all of those that fall by the wayside, there are many others who make it through successfully. Further, while it shares the liabilities of an academic life, a scholarly career in political science offers the same compensations. For many, this includes a measure of modest financial security with tenure. More importantly for most, whether in research or teaching, it offers the excitement of making a living by one's wits, of shaping events (occasionally) and minds (often) on the strength of pure intellectual energy. For some, such compensations are enough rationally to offset the risks of failure this career entails. For others, there is no question of choice, since the alternatives are so infinitely less attractive as to be unthinkable while any hope of success remains. It is in the hope of saving these last committed aspirants that I have set these lessons down.

Democracy and Critical Education for Citizenship

Abstract: Recent events in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, and China give political scientists a new opportunity to confront critically our own democratic form in the United States. We might begin by evaluating the literature on democracy in light of recent revisionist critiques that have raised important issues of standpoint and power in the community at large and in the classroom. In so doing, we can link democratic theory, democratic practice, and issues of pedagogy as we address the following questions:

Building democracy in estonia

Abstract: Converse, Philip E. and Roy Pierce. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dahl, Robert. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Oleszek, Walter J. 1989. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process, 3rd ed. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Taagepera, Rein and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes: The Effects and Determinants of Electoral Systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Divided Government and the Risks of Constitutional Reform

Abstract: Government in the United States is deadlocked, so we are told, incapable of responding to domestic challenges or fulfilling international responsibilities A growing number of thoughtful commentators have described American government as gridlocked, stalled, incoherent, without resolve, bankrupt, rudderless, and in trouble Divided government is the most frequently specified cause of this predicament Constitutional reform, dedicated to bridging the separation of powers and revitalizing American political parties, is a frequently mentioned solution ' What is the United States to do? What can it do? A nation so firmly committed to the proposition that political institutions matter has little choice but to seriously consider the possibility of changing its political institutions The failure of American political institutions to adapt to changing exigencies leads many a would-be reformer to commend the necessity of constitutional reform "A government is an organism with work to do," observed Donald Robinson (1986: 40) "It must be judged according to its fitness to perform the tasks we assign it A horse is fit to pull a carriage, but it cannot take a man to the moon" In other words, America is struggling to cope with late 20th century political and policy problems with antiquated, 18th century institutions Given Robinson's analogy, we might say the Constitution has remained a horse, when what America needs is a rocket The Constitution, so the reformers would have us believe, is at best outmoded and at worst irrelevant to most of the big problems we face as a nation (see Miller, 1978: 744) Even if accurate, the divided government critique of American politics is hardly unique It has been made before, perhaps with the greatest authority and rigor by James Bryce in 1889 In The American Commonwealth, Bryce (1889: 293-95) provided the following assessment of interbranch relations (edited for brevity):

In-Class Debating in Public Law Classes as a Complement to the Socratic Method

Abstract: In an introductory American politics course students customarily learn a modicum of public law by memorizing seminal cases and matching them with concepts relating to larger topics, e.g., "rights and liberties" or "the judiciary." Students in advanced courses in public law, however, are usually required to grapple directly with, and to critically evaluate, appellate court cases and constitutional commentaries. Typically, this objective of teaching students how to "teach themselves the law" is accomplished by the technique known as the Socratic method. The Socratic method, an approach that dominates legal education in the United States, involves asking students, who have presumably already read the assigned cases, to indicate the facts of the case, the legal questions put before the court, how the court answered each question, the reasoning of the majority opinion, and the reasoning behind dissenting or concurring opinions. Then, often in order to answer a series of hypothetical questions by the instructor, students must "harmonize the outcomes of seemingly inconsistent cases so that they are made to stand together." As Howard Abadinsky noted, "By taking and putting together different cases, the student acquires a way of thinking and working with cases that constitutes the fundamentals of legal reasoning, as well as knowledge of doctrinal rules presented by these cases."' 1 The Socratic method, however, has not been without its critics. First, it is questionable whether or not instructors want to subject undergraduate students to the same rigors as law students. Political science courses in public law are not mini-law-school classes, and it is not the objective of most instructors in undergraduate classes in constitutional law to get their students to "think like lawyers." Second, there are those who argue that the technique itself actually is damaging to students.2 I believe there is a way to teach students to critically evaluate cases, and to expose them to case commentaries as well as the basics of legal research, without relying exclusively on the Socratic method. In my classes in public law, I have each student participate in an in-class debate during the quarter, structured much like competitive debates at the interscholastic or intercollegiate level. Although, for the most part, students are re-arguing cases that have already been decided, they function as the "affirmative" and the "negative" terms in traditional academic debating. The cases serve as the resolution. Both sides present constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches, and they answer cross-examination questions. Further, there is a short writing assignment accompanying the project that obliges the students to argue the merits of their case and to anticipate their opponents' arguments. I have successfully used inclass debating in conjunction with lecturing and the Socratic method.

Not on My Watch

Abstract: University of Wisconsin-Madison (and not a participant in the NCAPSA meeting), provides a close look at the Resolution Trust Corporation and other aspects of the S&L bailout. The challenge now, he argues, lies with the institutional analysis needed to provide decent oversight of the clean-up processone of the most complex organizational constructs the nation has devised. Theresa Anderson, Senior Evaluator at the U.S. General Accounting Office, in turn looks to the directions of the future for policy oversight, and describes the evolution of administrative capacity within the GAO for that purpose. Finally, Ronald C. Moe, Specialist in American National Government at the Congressional Research Service, extends the arguments in a very pointed way-political scientists have been irrelevant to the savings and loan crisis, he argues, because the discipline has little to say today about government. We did little to contribute to a climate that might have averted it, and have little to say about how to resolve it, he argues, because the discipline has turned away from seeking to understand institutional issues or understand government. We all hope that this discussion will help advance an understanding of the underpinnings of this crisis and of the role that political science can play in the policy process in the future. "Not on My Watch"