all right so welcome back to another lesson in politics and public policy in the previous video we talked about policym um process we discussed a little bit of what public policy is how uh policym um happens um some rough steps of the policy process we also talked a little bit about the tools of uh of the policy process so the tools that policy makers have to enact public policy in this video we're going to talk a little bit uh more about the actual policym process in the united states so let's get started so in the united states policym can be very fragmented um we'll go over some of the features that make it so messy and how it kind of works in the end mostly but the first thing that we should know is that uh policym in the united states is generally very slow and incremental this is because of gridlock and partisanship and increasingly because of polarization some of these obstacles are by design um they are uh created in the system to make it so there are fewer errors and more stability um things take longer to get done but at the same time we can have more um more predictability on what is going to happen dayto-day however there are also negatives in in such a slow and incremental process right it might take a long time time for policies to to catch on or catch up with current issues and we can see that clearly with environmental policies for example right we are in an environmental uh crisis and our public policies are not uh up to date with the gravity of of the situation famously the united states is a federation if you've taken um intro to american politics you know that federalism is the distribution of power between the federal state and local governments um in the united states this is uh uh this is very marked right this can contribute to the complication and and complexity of the policy process because each level of government might have their own different takes on how different policy topics are enacted and that um and and partisanship often adds a layer of of complexity in the interaction between these different levels of government federalism in the united states has progressed in in different ways it has evolved in different ways so we started with or at least for our purposes we start thinking about federalism um up until the 1930s uh where we have dual federalism or where where the two levels of government right the federal government and state and local governments uh were very separate and we can say that um it preserved some of of some some balance between of the powers between federal government and uh state governments with um following uh 1930 uh between 1930 and 1960 we have cooperative federalism uh where this power is shared equally but lines are starting to get blurred um we see the federal government growing a bit in power especially with uh fdr and the new deal um so that contributes to some of of the blurring of these lines between the 1960s and 1980s we see creative federalism where the federal government is still continues this this this crescendo and uh they get to decide what states need and provides them with the resources to to do that so maybe the government now decide the federal government now decides that schools have to provide free lunches for for for um for every student and the government the federal government will then give money to state governments to make them implement these types of programs um between the 80s and the 2000s we see new federalism so it's the reassertion of powers that going back to the states and local governments so it's a reaction of this increase in federal power um that we see here um with a lot of of of attempts to to to get power back to the states to decide what they should be doing where the money is coming from and and so on so forth 911 um was uh a punctuation we're going to talk about punctuation punctuations in public policy in in another video but was a a point where the federal government had to step in and seize more power and state longer governments generally at that point were glad to to to give it up uh that power to the federal government in parl of national security so the the the way the timeline here works is over time starting in the 30s federal government was growing in power in relation to the states there was a period of reaction between um starting in the 1980s where the states were trying to push back but then with 9/11 we see the the federal government again taking uh a larger stand in in this balance of power in federalism and then in starting in 2009 uh around obama uh the obama era uh we see what we called progressive federalism where states um managed to keep uh some control over the issues that were previously reserved to the federal government but the federal government can still influence policym in the states by setting a benchmark so for example the federal government will say will will set a minimum benchmark for pollution right for air pollution for example and the states will are allowed to then legislate whether or not that benchmark is enough and they can set their own standards above that benchmark right so this is uh a a very quick um overview of the evolution of federalism in the united states in the last century and this is i think a pretty good um i think a pretty good uh visualization in in a timeline of what that looks like right dual federalism and comparative federalism are known as the cakes right the layered cake and the marble cake then creative federalism is the picket fence federalism and then um these other ones are are we don't really have images for them but um i think these illustrations kind of illustrate the point um on top of federalism we also have the separation of powers in in the country so both um federal and state governments are divided in three branches we have the legislative the executive and the judicial branches and each of these branches have some control over policym processes obviously the legislative is uh is in charge of making legislation which gives them a lot of control over over policy public policy but we also see the executive in the image of the president also um participating some very actively in in public policym not only via attempts at legislation via executive orders but also the decisions on budget decisions on foreign policy and and and things like that and increasingly we see the judicial branch also having a very important role in policym via these late decisions that um affect uh policym right the the the latest decision that um was very controversial was the roie wade decision and it is essentially the judicial french making policy right or or affecting policy um i here encourage you to read the article on the chevron reference that i included on inquire and also watch the videos on the shaon deference that um was overturned and i think it's a very interesting um i think it's a very interesting point um to to understand the participation of the judicial um branch in public policy and how since the the the overturn of the chevron deference the judicial branch has even more power in in deciding policy so an increasingly important actor that is not often mentioned when we talk about the separation of of of these branches of uh when we talk about these separate branches is the bureaucracy so we often have this misguided notion that the united states has a bloated and redundant bureaucracy uh but we'll talk about the actual size of the public se sector in a bit for now you should know that the bureaucracy is comprised of all the agencies and government bodies responsible for actually implementing policies technically they're mostly under the executive so they're part of the executive branch we just don't normally think about the bureaucracy when we think about the executive branch up until recently bureaucrats had uh a fair amount of freedom in deciding on how to implement policy which is generally good if you think about who is creating the laws and who is implementing the laws people in congress are usually not the not experts in the laws that they are creating right they are maybe lawyers but bureaucrats are people who have expertise they did often you know a master's or a phd in those topics and so legislation is passed in with some vague language and that allows for bureaucrats to decide on how to implement that policy based on their expertise and this is what the overturn of the chevron deference um changed another way to see theru structure of policym in the united states is the iron triangle so the iron triangle is a pretty popular model or it was pretty popular it's a bit less so now um but the idea is that for each policy issue right so the environment immigration um labor we have uh these these three main vectors right congress or the congressional committee responsible for each of these policy issues the bureaucracy or the agencies in the executive responsible for the implementation of each of these um issues and interest groups and lobbying that want to have a say on how each how public policy is made within that uh policy issue and they have these this symbiotic relationship where they um they exchange support um and sometimes goods um to get what what they want to get um be that influence be that um power be that a policy outcome that they that they want so this model i think is very interesting um it is very simplified as i said it is uh a bit outdated because now we see that there are some other institutions that also try to influence the policy process and they often break in uh break in this these policy monopolies in the the iron triangles so we no longer only have congress interest groups and the bureaucracy we also have other groups like unions we have the media we have religious organizations we have businesses so it is more of a policy network uh rather than than a policy uh triangle another separation that we have to to to keep in mind when we talk about policym in the united states is the difference between the public and the private sector right we have um certain policies that are under the exclusive purview of the government so and of the of the public sector but the government often allows the private sector to participate in the implementation of policies in exchange for well getting rid of the problem not having to to to to concentrate resources into solving that problem and the private sector is more than happy to get profit over um over those uh these policy deliveries so we have some types of privatization so we have complete privatization which involves the outright sale of government-owned enterprises or assets to private investors so for example the sale of national airlines telecommunication companies utility companies right so things that in the past might have been under the purview the exclusive purview of the federal government or state governments that have been sold to private companies we also have party privatizations uh where the government retains a stake in the enterprise um while selling a portion of it to private investors and this can involve public private partnerships where both sectors collaborate in providing a service and then finally we have service contracting where governments may contract out services traditionally provided by the public sector such as waste management transportation or education to private firms so uh for example when um if we have um a school needs busing sometimes they can't find bus drivers um qualified to to do the job and they might find a company to provide that service instead of hiring a bus driver outright right um there are some pros and cons uh regarding privatizations so there are some potential benefits such as increased efficiency so private firms are often believed to streamline operations cut costs um introduce innovations which can lead to a more efficient service delivery we also can see um revenue generation as a as a pro so selling stateowned assets can provide immediate cash for the government which can then be used to pay down the debt or invest in other uh public policy programs something like that we can see improved in service quality um because private companies have to compete with each other to provide a service we might uh you might think that that will lead to a better service and customer sat satisfaction since now it's the the government is not the holder of the monopoly of that service and other is competition and then finally we see a reduction of the public sector burden right by transferring services to the private sector governments can reduce the financial and administrative burden of managing these services however there are also some drawbacks right so the public interest concerns um private companies obviously prioritize profit over public welfare which can lead to higher costs for consumers or reduced access to essential services for disadvantaged groups right private companies exist to turn a profit often providing quality services is not something that guarantees profit we also have the risk of monopolies privatization can create private monopolies if a single company dominates a critical service or industry that would potentially uh lead to a price gouging and reduced service quality you also can see job losses since private companies uh are more interested in profit and uh they might choose to cut costs by um by not hiring as many people as it's necessary to provide that service and all those people who used to provide that service in the government are now jobless and obviously we also have accountability issues when services are privatized there may be less transparency and accountability in how they are delivered as private companies are not subject to the same level of public oversight as government agencies so pros and cons um an example of um of privatization is uh is private prisons right so we have seen uh a bunch of states adopting private prisons um and it has yielded um some negative results we have seen that uh prisoners in private prisons end up um uh committing crimes uh at a higher rate uh no upon being released they end up committing crimes again at a higher rate than people in public prisons they also have fewer job programs education programs so they have less access to to to things that would rehabilitate them to to become productive members of societies uh society upon being released and that is you know baked in the fact that private prisons need prisoners to to turn a profit so they need people in those beds to turn a profit so there is uh uh certainly at least a conflict of interest in in in in having private prisons uh last stop here uh for this video next video we're going to talk about the size of the the government how many bureaucrats are there how much money is being spent on what and so on and so forth so see you in the next video