Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T14:12:50.040Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The logic of deflective action: US energy shocks and the US policy process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2012

Peter Z. Grossman
Peter Z. Grossman*
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Butler University, Indianapolis, USA
*
professor peter z. grossman Clarence Efroymson Professor of Economics, Butler University, 4600 Sunset Avenue, Indianapolis IN 46208, Tel: 1 317 940 9727, Fax: 1 317 940 9445, Email: pgrossma@butler.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Exogenous shocks may lead to policies that seem extreme and even “irrational”. This paper argues that, in the event of a major energy shock in the US that persists, such legislation is an inevitable response to the demand from constituents that political actors “do something”. Since shocks by their nature are unanticipated and are often highly technical and complex, boundedly rational legislators cannot generally understand all of the ramifications of the shock, much less hope to craft well-considered and precise legislation to deal with it. But the demand to “do something” means that a range of actions is politically necessary. The “shock” policy process is modelled as a stepwise legislative decision problem. If the crisis persists, legislation that promises a solution is likely to be the result, even if this “solution” is infeasible. The model is applied to five US energy shocks.

Keywords

US energy policysocioeconomic shockslegislator behaviourcrisis legislation
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , 06 March 2012 , pp. 33 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahrari, M. E. (1987) A paradigm of “crisis” decision making: the case of synfuels policy. British Journal of Political Science 17(1): 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, R. D. (1990) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F. R.Jones, B. D. (2009) Agendas and Instability in American Politics, 2nd Edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Broder, J. 2007. Voter anger may free up energy bills. New York Times (13 November), C1.Google Scholar
Cobb, R. W.Elder, C. D. (1975) Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda Building. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Cobb, R., Ross, J. K.and Ross, M. R. (1976) Agenda building as a comparative political process. American Political Science Review 70(1): 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, L. R.Noll, R. G. (1991) The Technology Pork Barrel. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1972) Up and down with ecology – the “Issue-attention Cycle”. The Public Interest 28: 38–50.Google Scholar
Eyestone, R. (1978) From Social Issues to Public Policy. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Fri, R. W. (2006) From energy wish lists to technological reality. Issues in Science and Technology. Online at: www.issues.org/23.1/fri/htmlGoogle Scholar
Grossman, P. Z. (2009a) US energy policy and the presumption of market failure. Cato Journal 29(2): 295–317.Google Scholar
Grossman, P. Z. (2009b) The Apollo fallacy and its effect on US energy policy. Energy Policy 37(10): 3880–3882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, T. E. (2003) The Rotten Fruits of Economic Controls and the Rise from the Ashes, 1965–1989. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Higgs, R. (1987) Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Higgs, R. (2009) The political economy of crisis opportunism. Policy Primer No. 11. Mercatus Center: George Mason University.Google Scholar
John, P. (2003) Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions and punctuations: using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Studies Journal 31(4): 481–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. D.Baumgartner, F. R. (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jones, C. O. (1974) Speculative augmentation in federal air pollution policy-making. The Journal of Politics 36(2): 438–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Maltzman, F.Shipan, C. R. (2008) Change, continuity, and the evolution of the law. American Journal of Political Science 52(2): 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nohrstedt, D. (2005) External shocks and policy change: Three Mile Island and Swedish nuclear policy. Journal of European Public Policy 12(6): 1041–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. (1993) Policy change over a decade or more. In Sabatier P. A. and Jenkins-Smith H. C. (eds.) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 13–39.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A.Weible, C. M. (2007) The advocacy coalition framework. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd Edition. Boulder CO: Westview Press, 189–220.Google Scholar
Schlager, E. (2007) A comparison of frameworks, theories and models of policy processes. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 293–320.Google Scholar
Shepsle, K. A.Weingast, B. R. (1981) Structure-induced equilibrium and legislative choice. Public Choice 37(3): 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
True, J. L., Jones, B. D.Baumgartner, F. R. (2007) Punctuated equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 155–187.Google Scholar
Tullock, G. (1976) The Vote Motive: An Essay in the Economics of Politics with Applications to the British Economy. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
Weaver, R. K. (1986) The politics of blame avoidance. Journal of Public Policy 6(4): 371–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahariadis, N. (2007) The multiple stream framework: structure, limitations, prospects. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd Edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 65–92.Google Scholar