Immigration – entry rights & conferring citizenship benefits Problem? How to allow reasonable entry and exit to support diverse labor markets while deciding how to confer benefits of citizenship. Issues: Different countries have historically defined the benefits and costs of immigration differently – and this calculation changes as economies change. At different times and places – immigration debates become re-distributive and regulatory: Second language programs? Job and skill-building? Placing “quotas” based on race, faith, nationality. Key issues – cultural assimilation vs. cultural negotiation; regionalization of immigration policy in Europe; growing fragmentation in U.S. STABLE PERCEPTIONS: IMMIGRATION AS MORE OF A PROBLEM THAN OPPORTUNITY 2008 2009 2010 70 66 65 60 61 58 54 50 50 Percent 49 39 45 44 44 43 42 40 39 45 52 53 45 39 36 30 20 25 27 10 0 CANADA FRANCE GERMANY NETHERLANDS ITALY UNITED STATES www.transatlantic trends.org – German Marshall Fund (2010): 1000 interviewees in @ country – fall 2010 SPAIN UNITED KINGDOM DIFFERING VIEWS OF LABOR-MARKET COMPETITION Immigrants take jobs away from natives Immigrants bring down wages 70 60 58 56 Percent Agreeing 50 52 44 40 30 52 35 32 30 20 10 0 CANADA EUROPEAN AVERAGE UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM LEGAL IMMIGRANTS INCREASE CRIME IN SOCIETY 2009 2010 60 56 54 50 45 47 46 40 Percent 40 36 35 30 32 29 34 33 29 25 24 23 20 10 0 CANADA SPAIN UNITED STATES UNITED KINGDOM FRANCE NETHERLANDS GERMANY ITALY Some major lessons – distributive policies Cost control is growing pre-occupation in many policy areas across countries In thick systems – because of demographic changes and shrinking revenues, controlling benefits is a recurring option (e.g., health care, pensions, job training). In thin systems – because of growing economic burden on the private sector/individual citizens, increasing governmental efforts to reduce expenditures, increase revenues is increasing (e.g., health care, pensions, labor markets). The ability to control costs, and to introduce innovations, is path dependent – Previous decisions, shaped by agenda-setting and tradition, establish a pattern which makes incremental reform easier, radical departures from policy more difficult (e.g., health care, immigration). “Thick” systems – because they have a tradition of strong, intrusive state-role in policy – may find cost-control and competitive policies easier to institute. Some major lessons – (con.) Demographic changes are a major driver of distributive policy agenda: As societies age, resource capacity declines; high priority problems change – e.g., from primary education to pension relief; from pre-natal care to “end-of life” care. Demographic shifts re-align electoral coalitions: as societies age, populations become fiscally conservative – demands grow to shift resources from one program to another. Thus, what was previously defined as a distributive policy to benefit one group, is now viewed as a disadvantage to other groups. Information and analysis are critical to re-shaping agendas: Neutral and dispassionate policy analysis is rare, more typical is “advocacy science.” The groups and agencies that advocate benefits or seek to control the growth of the state: e.g., health groups, pensioners, anti-immigrant organizations provide information When change occurs, it is likely that new sources of information, new studies, etc. have arisen. Policy processes as re-distributional and regulatory – overview Re-distributional policies serve disadvantaged groups – defined in various ways: As constituencies with unique problems and challenges that are not served by markets or the state. As groups that have historically received a smaller share of a policy “pie.” Whether the constituency is well-defined or not, re-distribution must be advocated; it is not given without political struggle. Regulatory policies restrict, control, or limit the discretion of many groups and individuals in order to minimize harm to society. Examples: Environmental protection Traffic safety & transport Health and consumer safety. Corporate behavior and integrity/security of markets. How re-distributive policies work Re-distributive policies take many forms: e.g., tax policy, income re-distribution, direct benefits. Examples? Telecommunication – FCC allowing new “players” and technologies into markets – e.g., Internet and wireless communications; expanded range of choices. Providing special compensation for enduring a burden: e.g., paying communities for accepting hazardous or radioactive waste sites. Many re-distributive policies are developed by courts, through access to remedies via litigation (e.g., disability rights in U.S.), as well as by legislation or executive decisionmaking. Comparing disability policies–agenda-setting & re-distributive policy European Community (EU) United States Focusing events/national mood – in 20th century, disabled viewed as “helpless victims” (Burke, 2004) needing compensation and rehabilitation. Civil Rights Act (1964) & Rehabilitation Act (1973) framed antidiscrimination agenda. Group dynamics – Disability rights movement grew to include own policy analysis component and litigation strategy; also groups “linked up” with conservative legislative and executive branch advocates of “independence and self-determination.” Sub-governmental dynamics – federal structure means education-related mandates weak; strengthened national authority provided by civil rights & economic leverage – (e.g., denying federal funds for ADA compliance failure). Jurisdictionality – federal role in non-discrimination is now unquestioned; both federal courts and Congress will support disability policies. Focusing events/national mood – weak civil rights tradition meant that national mood(s) only changed when broader concerns with social exclusion and joblessness (UK unions led the way) reach high-levels of concern. Group dynamics – 1997 Amsterdam treaty directive set agenda from “top-downward” from EU to countries – and did so in larger frame of excluded groups by gender, race, sexual orientation, faith, etc. (Use of “policy directives” and trans-national European disabilities forum) Sub-governmental dynamics – EU commission and staff set groundwork for rule-making and information-sharing, leaving implementation to separate nation-states. Jurisdictionality - non-discrimination is now firmly part of the EU’s agenda but not through litigation: instead, works via compelling non-discrimination policies in existing services & programs, from jobs, health care, education, transportation, urban design. How regulatory policies work Regulatory policies employ various strategies to “regulate,” each of which is important because of what it does and does not do! Outcomes – monitoring and controlling outputs (e.g., emissions from pollutant sources, risk exposures from hazardous wastes). Inputs – monitoring and restricting content of some consumer good (e.g., amount of lead in motor fuel, permissible level of additive in food or pharmaceuticals). Technologies – permitting & managing certain devices and services (e.g., emission control devices, airframes & vehicle design, broadcast and telecommunications). Behavior – what people can and cannot do (e.g., hunting, fishing, painting or repairing their homes, licensing of professions, building code “inspections”). Comparing environmental policies–what we can learn about regulation European Community (EU) United States Focusing events/national mood – U.S. led the world in regulation due, in part, to severity of environmental problems, closure of the frontier, support for protecting natural resources – by end of 20th Century, national mood changed with changes in economy/economic structure. Focusing events/national mood – Europe lagged in everything except food safety– a reflection of a political culture dominated by small farms, local markets. Dramatic environmental threats in 1980s and 1990s moved EU to more aggressive regulatory climate – “precautionary principle.” Group dynamics – strong tradition of “nature protection groups” that later evolved to become environmental protection movement. Strong reliance on litigation as well as direct action. Group dynamics – while tradition is similar in regards to group dynamics, there is more activism on environmental issues by non-environmental groups – e.g., farmers, unions, consumers. Sub-governmental dynamics – federal structure initially led to more sub-national innovation (e.g., California and air quality); later led to opportunities for “backlash.” Sub-governmental dynamics – EU commission & strong “federal” structure led to quick imposition of regulatory standards for air, water, food safety, toxic materials, even industrial policy – e.g., recycling and re-use. Jurisdictionality – gradual move away from strong federal role in policy, more emphasis on “regulatory flexibility” – (cooperation with regulated community on standard-setting). Jurisdictionality – EU has been more aggressive in a region-wide set of standards. Why? To avert a race to the bottom; ensure greater economies of scale in regulation; sensitivity to trans-boundary nature of pollution. 1948 Can pollution be a “focusing event”? – Smog in Los Angeles: 1948 - present 1953 1984 1964 2006 Risk analysis process – general policy making in U.S and EU The precautionary principle (German environmental law in 1974). Rather than await certainty with respect to existence of risk, regulators should act in anticipation of potential harm to prevent it. Employs conservative assumptions of harm, and being able to reverse decisions harmful to health & environment (NAS, 1995). Relies on input from wide range of stakeholders to ensure success/flexibility. Administrative reform as regulation In many modern developed polities, there has arisen a broad public concern that government itself must be controlled and regulated in its: Size and scope – pressures to reduce. Expenditures and rate of budgetary growth – make it do “more with less”. Efficiency of operations –transform its structure & improves its performance. Austerity politics has become a common theme in Europe and U.S. since 1970s but takes different forms due to political culture: In U.S. – thin state tradition has led to greater hostility toward bureaucracy, but not policy-makers – Americans want a government that operates like a business. In Europe, greater emphasis on public service access, NOT shrinking size of state. Administrative reform (con.) Despite efforts to “downsize” government in the U.S. – through reductions of personnel, early retirements, closure of offices, and shrinking of operating budgets , greater cost savings have not occurred. Why not? Most government expenditures are in entitlement programs and national defense – in the former, costs are driven by distributive and re-distributive benefits granted to citizens; in the latter –technology/labor costs of weapons and readiness drive costs. Government is inherently “redundant” – our federal system means that all 50 states duplicate one another’s services and functions, and the federal government has grown to provide supplemental programs to sustain them. Lessons? One determinant of government size and scope is lack of agreement on what government should NOT do – this inhibits genuine down-sizing in either EU or US. EU has gone further than US in transforming structures and improving bureaucratic accountability – easier in a parliamentary system where party that controls legislature controls the bureaucracy. Reflections on distributive, re-distributive, regulatory policies Administrative reform debates help us understand that, regardless of how public policies originate, eventually they all take the form of a hybrid. Historically, regulatory policies embraced distributional /re-distributional traits: Since 19th Century, business regulation was encouraged by nascent industries to protect their share of markets; prevent reckless competition; forestall public outrage over size and influence; and build public trust & confidence in their safety: Railway transport and pipeline industry regulation (e.g., ICC, FTC) began as effort to “rationalize” industry and guarantee steady profits – thus, industries helped the government set up both the agencies and their staffs. Telecommunications and airline industries (in early 20th century) followed suit (FCC, FAA) – their goal was to create stable industries through managing safety issues and rationalizing technology. Reflections (conclusions) Over time regulation becomes a form of distributional policy. Regulated industry may receives an exclusive license to operate over a given territory & with a guaranteed market (an artificial price-fixed monopoly) – broadcast rights, phone service, utilities, airline travel (in U.S. before 1979). Tight-knit sub-government relationships develop between regulated industry and regulatory agencies –regulated industries compose their own regulations; and, at times, corporate abuse occurs because regulators are compromised in their dual role of controller and promoter (e.g., banking and securities)! In turn, some distributive /re-distributive policies may have unintended consequence of re-constructing society, creating a new polity that then is regulated differently (e.g., K. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier 1987): Suburban America was product of distributive & re-distributive policies designed to benefit groups – e.g., GI Bill (encouraged single-family homes), Federal Home Administration (low-interest loans restricted by race covenants), National Interstate and Defense Highway Act – paid for freeways. New zoning regulations were developed to protect a suburban “aesthetic” and prevent high-density development.