FINAL PAPER

Political Science 2200/PIA2200

American Government and Politics

DUE: Monday, April 19^th by 4:00P.M.

Instructions:

There are two sets of questions for this final seminar assignment. One set (the first part) focuses on macro-level interpretations of how American politics and government work. The second set will focus on micro-analytic arguments looking at a particular institutional domain or set of relationships. Your objective in each case is to provide analytic integration, and carefully weaving literature throughout your essays. It is absolutely essential that I receive the papers by the date specified above. You should keep each essay to within 3,000 words - absolutely no more than 15pp. for each. Less is better if it means that you are more concise and precise in your writing and analysis.

Part 1.

Question 1.

A debate rages as to whether the U.S. system is "exceptional", i.e., unique, or not. Specify institutional, cultural, and policy dimensions of this issue. Evaluate the evidence and arguments on behalf of this claim and against it. On the basis of this analysis, develop your own assessment of the evidence and arguments regarding this claim and set out some ideas as to how one might research such matters further.

Question 2.

A fundamental issue in democratic theory is the notion of equality of influence. To what extent is this realistic? What are the impediments to equality of influence from the perspectives of governing structures, the distribution of social, political, and cognitive resources, and the means by which influence-seeking is organized? Place this analysis in the context of the elitist-pluralist debate about democracy and assess the extent to which a democratic theory can be reformulated to be consistent with inequalities of influence (see Dahl here).

Part 2.

Question 3.

Shepsle and Weingast in "The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power" make an argument that committee power in Congress is a function of rational reciprocities to allow for collective action in an otherwise fragmented institution (i.e., relative autonomy for each committee). Shipan, however, finds that on a popular piece of legislation various committee chairs were willing to support a procedure to circumvent the committee referral process. (In other words, immediate self-interest wins out over norms designed to protect members' longer term interests.) How does one reconcile the logic of these two arguments? Alternatively, can they be reconciled? Think also of evidence indicating, especially in the House, greater partisanship co-existing along with such fragmenting devices as multiple referrals (a bill going to several committees), the incentives for committee participation, and members' incentives for re-election.. Is there a clear logic here? How would you explain this strange and independent institution? What sort of theory, if any, underlies these seemingly contradictory tendencies?

orQuestion 4.

Discuss the relationship of political power to governing from two diverse perspectives - that of the president and that of a federal agency head. How does the power to govern look from each actor's perspective. What do you thereby conclude about presidential capabilities and strategies vis a vis the executive and bureaucratic capabilities and strategies vis a vis the White House?

Question 5. From a policy standpoint, some theorists argue that gridlock grips the American political system because of its fragmented institutions and the frequency of divided government. Others argue that the system produces policy favorable mainly to concentrated interests whose incentives for collective action are high. Still others argue that policy change tends to come in waves even under conditions of divided government (suggesting at work perhaps broader social forces or policy learning or even policy fads). Yet others might say that only strong party majorities under unified government produce substantial policy changes. Finally, yet others would argue that in the end presidential leadership is critical to policymaking. The above perspectives are not always mutually exclusive of one another (although some are). Discuss the literature relevant to each and sum up in an integrated analysis where you think the evidence leaves us in making these assessments about policymaking in the U.S. federal government.