Policy Studies Review, Vo'ot. 3, No. I, August, 1983

11. SYMPOSIUM ON URBAN POLICY PROBLEMS Symposiwn Editors: &rk S . Rosentraub and Robert Warren

URBAN P O L I C Y PROBLEMS: P O L I C Y RESEARCH, THE NEW F E D E R A L I S M , AND T H E 1980s Robert Warren and Mark S . Rosentraub

It has been more than thirty years since Lerner and Lasswell (1951, p.14) edited The Po'oticy Sciences and called for the establishment of the "policy sciences of democracy" to be concerned with

... explaining the policy-making and policy executing process, and with locating data and providing interpretations which are relevant to the policy problems of a given period.

Lasswell saw social scientists at the core of this undertaking. working through interdisciplinary teams, in "fruitful association vith the active policymakers. I'

In retrospect, much of what Lasswell and others called a framework for undertaking policy research was achieved by the late 1960s. The national government, foundations, and cities were engaged in funding an unprecedented variety of innovative social programs that amounted to experiments. At the same time, social scientists were involved in the design and implementation of a great number of these programs as well as their evaluations. Responding to this demand for' social science input, numerous university-based research centers, new degrees, or policy specializations within existing programs were established.

The circumstances of 1983, however, point out the dangers of relying on straight-line projections. Virtually every aspect of policy research within the social sciences has progressively diminished in the last decade. Several phases in this process can be identified.

As the nation's economic and political conditions started to change in the early 1970s. a number of questions were raised about the capacity of social scientists to effectively play a role in policy formulation. Daniel Moynihan's kmhm Feasible Misundsrstcmding (1969) set the tone. At the same time, reductions began in federal and foundation funding for the array of urban and social welfare programs that had been put in place and for the participation of academics as policy analysts. Unsurprisingly, support for university, policy-oriented research and degree programs also started to erode. Thus, while the attacks on the efficacy of policy research by some were spirited, it vas the heavy reductions in external funding that made the biggest inroads in both interdisciplinary collaboration and interaction between academics and decision-makers.

This quantitative decline in policy studies was transformed into a qualitative change vith the election of Ronald Reagan as President. The majority of social scientists with policy interests now found themselves in a paradoxical situation. On the one hand, the Reagan administration implemented a set of programs which represent the most radical change in national socioeconomic policies in fifty years. Dramatic shifts have occurred in federal spending priorities. Equally significant are efforts to realign the roles of the national, state, and local govern- ments in the federal system and the boundary between public and private sectors. On the other hand, these great and abrupt changes have been accompanied by what can only be called an adversarid relationship between the assumptions and style of the Reagan adminjatration and a policy analysis model.

A negative value has been placed on funding independent social science research on policy questions. This negative approach has been accompanied by a lack of receptivity on the part of decision-makers to the data or knowledge generated outside the government, particularly if

41

42 Mark Rosentraub and Robert Warren

it is at variance with their expectations or preferences. The nature of the adversarial stance, however, goes beyond simply ideological or methodological differences between the administration and policy re- searchers. The Reagan administration has sought to make important data sets unavailable or more costly for academic research. This intent is reflected in such things as a substantial increase in the number and type of government records that are classified and large reductions in the amount of data generated by the Bureau of the Census and other governmental agencies.

Social scientists wishing to engage in policy analysis obviously face a number of challenges as well as opportunities at this point in time. In fact, who determines the agenda of policy research and who are the clientele of policy analysts are two questions which require special attention. There has been an assumption frequently stated by policy analysts that public officials are their most appropriate clients and that the latter are receptive to policy research. Implicit in this view is that the agenda of policy research should reflect the needs articu- lated by the principal clients, the decision makers.

While these assumptions might have been workable a decade ago, they are no longer tenable. It is clear that governmental officials, even those attempting massive programatic changes, are not receptive to the initiation of policy research or attentive to its findings. Thus, if Lasswell's (1951, p.15) ultimate goal for the policy sciences of democ- racy, "the realization of human dignity in theory and face," is still to be pursued, policy researchers must, at times, be willing and able to undertake policy studies on their own initiative and seek to make the results available to groups in society for whom they are relevant. In the process, policy analysts may find themselves at odds with officials over the topics to be studied and in acquiring necessary information about governmental activities.

It follows that the interests of analysts cannot be limited to the programs or policies officials are considering or administering. Take, for example, the case of health. If decision-makers place their empha- sis upon reducing the governmental role in health services and in fostering greater competition in the private sector, does this mean policy inquiries concerning health in the nation must be limited to the governmental agenda which does not include questions of equity or the full identification of long-run social costs of such policies?

Another function of the policy sciences. according to Lasswell, is to provide interpretations of the ongoing processes that are relevant to identifying and understanding the policy problems of a particular period. A further job of policy analysts is to clarify longer-term tendencies in the nation. state, and region and their implications for public policy.

The tasks which social scientists engaged in policy analysis have before them are formidable under the best of circumstances. This is even more true when external support and receptivity are reduced and university cutbacks jeopardize internally subsidized policy research, Many serious issues were raised about the adequacy of policy studies in the more favorable environment of the late 1960s. Yet, much has been learned as well. The time is at hand to reassess the goals and tools of policy studies and press on with the enterprise rather than assume that government can be directed by revealed knowledge.

A reemphasis of the importance of policy studies is timely not only for the contribution it can make to choices that are being made about the basic purpose and functions of government, but because of the need for many universities to examine their commitment and role in the formulation acd study of public policy. The Reagan administration is seeking to end or restrict many major social policies, originating in the 1930s. which have had the support, albeit in varying degrees, from previous Republican and Democratic administrations. There are few

Policy Research, New Federalism, and the 1980s 43

organizations outside of universities that have the resources and spatial dispersion to analyze the implications--positive and nega- tive--of the massive reductions in public services at all levels of government and the transfer of some to the private sector.

The Reagan administration's "New Federalism" has sought to shift the responsibility for providing and funding a number of long-standing public social programs to state and local governments while simultane- ously reducing or eliminating national control over many aspects of the private sector. The intent is that the market, rather than government, should "regulate" such things. New roles are being proposed for indi- viduals. the private and nonprofit sectors, and voluntary organizations in matters traditionally handled in the public sector. But, in many cases, nonprofit and voluntary groups find themselves with increasing demands but reduced capacity to respond due to the withdrawal of federal grants. As a result, some citizens have encountered serious problems in obtaining adequate medical care, vocational training, child care, and even food and shelter.

These service delivery contractions are not matters of debate. Indeed. they have been cited on many occasions by partisans of the New Federalism as part of the necessary shrinkage of the public sector needed to revitalize the private sector and stimulate the economy to the point that problems of productivity and employment will be solved through market adjustments. Any that the short-term hardships will result in longer-term prosperity.

The policies of the Reagan administration and their underlying causal assumptions are legitimate topics for policy analysis. Obvious- ly, no single volume can explore the complete relationship between theory and public policy. Indeed, not only are there major analytical orientations within the several different disciplines which study public policy, but there are also numerous different policy areas.

What is attempted in this symposium is to look at a cross-section of Issues central to the nation's social policy agenda from a variety of perspectives. This is accomplished with three different perspectives. In the first set of articles structural issues concerning the relation- ship between a policy science and its discipline are considered as well as the entire question of producing policy research that can be used by decision-makers. The second set of articles considers the New Federal- ism of the Reagan administration in terms of the changes expected. The third and largest section examines specific urban policy issues in terms of the choices that must be made by urban decision-makers.

Harry Richardson begins the symposium by considering the relevance of urban economic theory to the analysis of urban problems. Economists have joined other social scientists at the forefront of the study of public policy. Yet, as Richardson points out, urban economic theory did not become an accepted part of economic analysis until the 1970s. The compromises necessary to move urban economics into accepted dimensions of economic theory may have rendered urban economists' views of the city as useless policy tools. Richardson's assessment of one major disci- pline and the issues surrounding policy analysis raise questions for all disciplines. Andrew Seidel, in a similar vein, examines the problems of moving policy analyses and their information from the researcher's reports to the practitioner. Producing usable research is a necessity for policy researchers. Yet. critical problems remain in making infor- mation usable. Seidel identifies these problems and catalogues the kind of activities social scientists can engage in to reduce communication problems.

Fairchild and Hutcheson, Jr., in the second section of the sympo- sium, question whether or not President Reagan's view of federalism addresses the critical issues of power relationahips in light of the results of the block grant program. Lazin and Aroni continue in this vein through an analysis of low income housing programs. Finally,

44 Mark Rosentraub and Robert Warren

Thompson suggests views of federalism may largely fail to address the question of urban development in his consideration of reinvestment and "growth pole" theory.

The last set of articles, those which deal with specific policy issues, begins with Morgan and England's assessment of fiscal stress. In terms of developing urban policy, most people have considered the cities of the northeastern and northcentral states as the communities suffering fiscal stress. Yet, as Morgan and England note, fiscal stress is present in all sections of the U. S. where minority populations are concentrated. If the victim is not to be blamed for urban distress, national policies must be concerned with the social and economic needs of dependent populations concentrating themselves in all cities.

One question which has dominated most policy discussions at the urban level has been the tax revolt. Was the tax revolt a national phenomenon or a series of reactions to local conditions? This question is examined by Rosentraub and Harlow and questions the value of assuming that events in California, Michigan, or Massachusetts represent a permanent shift in attitudes. Chapman takes the tax revolt as a policy issue one step further by examining the financial tools available to administrators if their community restructures taxes. New financial tools raise important equity and distribution issues. Policy scientists and policymakers must study these issues when developing responses to tax relief initiatives.

One policy issue which became part of the social policy agenda of the 1960s was citizen participation. Yet, conflicts between citizens and bureaucrats quickly changed citizen participation programs. Gittell examines these changes and suggests citizen participation in the 1970s and 1980s may be designed to prevent social change despite requirements for involvement. In contrast to her points, Rich argues recognition of community groups means real citizen participation. The Gittell-Rich interchange explores the goals, meaning, and intent of citizen partici- pation as the federal government, states, and cities attempt to balance fiscal austerity and citizen involvement.

All historical periods have had special problems for urban areas. The 1980s will face, as perhaps never before, challenges for planning the future of urban transportation and health care. Dick Netzer and Ardeshir Anjomani debate the role of subsidies and support for public transportation and the kinds of flexible system cities will need in the future. These choices, as their debate suggests, raise equity and locational choices. Lastly, Jones and Rice examine the question of civil rights and health care. For black Americans, civil rights viola- tions in health care may lead to shorter and less productive lives. In reviewing the application of civil rights to health care, Jones and Rice raise fundamental questions about the distribution of health in our society and what policymakers need to do to correct imbalances.

Together, then, this collection of articles addresses only a few of the policy issues confronting urban areas. While several critical areas are not addressed, each article examines a certain orientation towards public policies and its results. This is, perhaps, the best objective for social scientists. In studying the distribution of the benefits and costs of collective action, the opportunities for individual achievement are scrutinized. It is through that scrutiny that issues of equity in urban areas must be considered and debated.

REFERENCES

Lasswell, H. The policy orientation. In D. Lerner b H. Lasswell (Eds.).

Moynihan, P. M a x i m feas ib le misunderstanding. New York: The Free The policy sciences. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951.

Press, 1969.