Bøker i Politics, Institutions, and Public Policy in America-serien

This study adopts a political perspective and is grounded in the assumption that special education is a policy domain characterized by multiple and competing interests. The interest groups studied operate in a political, multi-institutional policy environment and employ targeted strategies to further specific policy goals. Special education as a national policy is the sum of incremental policy making across multiple institutions. The multiple access points to the policymaking system afford institutions the ability to create and interpret policy across time and contexts. As a result, special education policy is defined by federal law, corresponding state laws, regulations, judicial interpretations, and local implementation. This research focuses specifically how advocacy groups "package" their interests to policy makers, strategies they choose, and their overall effectiveness. This study is the first that analyzes special education interest groups' behavior and effectiveness over a 30-year time span, using advocacy groups as units of analysis. The study also increases our knowledge about the political participation of parents of children with disabilities, who have a deep personal investment in the policy outcomes and who behave differently from groups that represent professionals. Finally, the study's longitudinal focus on advocacy organizations from the initial passage of the federal special education statute in 1975 through its reauthorizations contributes to the knowledge of interest group interactions over time. This is an important book for readers with a specific interest in special education policy and political scientists who are more generally interested in the broader questions of public policy making. The book is also of interest to practitioners in the fields of special education and public policy.

From the days of Athenian democracy to the back rooms of Chicago politics today, corruption has plagued all political systems for all time. It is ubiquitous, vexing, and at times, threatens the very fabric of society. No culture, no system of government, no code of ethics has been able to eliminate political corruption. While the United States generally ranks comparatively low in measures of political corruption (Transparency International rates the U.S. as the 18th "least" corrupt nation in the world, with Denmark at number one, New Zealand, second, and Sweden third, the U.K. 16, France 23, Spain 28, Israel 33, South Korea 40, Italy 55, Cuba 65, with Somalia last at 180), yet it too continues to confront the sting of political corruption. For something to count as political corruption in the United States, it must have a public impact, be a part of some violation of public trust. As such, another useful distinction can be drawn between individual corruption and systemic corruption. The former is individual wrongdoing. An officeholder on the take, a legislator who sells his vote, would be examples of "bad apples." Systemic corruption encompasses a broader sphere. Instead of bad apples, here you have a "bad system." The undermining of democratic legitimacy or equality might be considered examples of systemic corruption, as might campaign financing practices. Such corruption runs deeper than mere individual transgression. Corruption is embedded into the day-to-day operation of the system. In focusing on the individual, we often overlook the systemic. It is easier, and in the short run, more gratifying to catch, punish, and condemn an individual like Governor Blagojevich. Yet what of the systemic forces that led the governor to behave in such a manner? Is there undue systemic pressure to accumulate money, so much so that the system pushes politicians "over the edge"? A politician need not "sell" offices to enter into a Faustian bargain. It may be perfectly legal to collect campaign contributions, yet it may also have a corrosive or corrupting effect on the integrity of the democratic process. With so many issues of corruption swirling around in the current American political climate, it is timely that there is new scholarship that casts much-needed light on these systemic forces. The brilliant discussions by a stellar list of distinguished scholars, led by Michael A. Genovese and Victoria A. Farrar-Meyers, in the insightful edited volume, Corruption and American Politics, delivers the best and most up-to-date thinking by some of the finest political minds in the nation. This will be an essential resource for all collections in political science and American studies.

Given the dearth of training in archival research, the editors envisioned a book that addresses the "how to" of archival research by involving the perspective of archivists. The editors identified chapter authors who demonstrate in their research-oriented essays how archival research influences and improves empirical political science research. They weave their scholarly contributions together with their practical experiences and "boots on the ground" advice to ease readers toward their first foray into the archives. Because archives were largely abandoned by political scientists in the 1950s, archivists' understanding of their collections and their archival practices is heavily influenced by the habits and methodological concerns of historians. The essays in this volume help archivists better understand the somewhat unique perspectives and habits political scientists bring to archival collections. This volume challenges archivists to think "outside the box" of the conventions of history and reconsider their collections from the perspective of the political scientist. This first-of-its-kind book-traversing political science and library and information science-challenges political scientists' reliance on "easy data" promising in return "better data." The editors propose that the archival record is replete with data that are often superior to current, available public data, both quantitative and qualitative. Substantive chapters in Doing Archival Research in Political Science illustrate how archival data improve understanding across the array of subfields in American politics. It also challenges archivists to rethink their collections through the prism of political science. Doing Archival Research in Political Science holds tremendous cross-disciplinary appeal. Students and faculty in political science are exposed to a fertile but underutilized source of empirical data. Political scientists will benefit from the methodological perspectives, the practical advice about doing archival work, and the concrete examples of archives-based research across the subfields in American politics (e.g., congressional studies, presidential studies, public opinion, national security, interest groups, and public policy). Students and faculty in library and archival studies will benefit greatly from the candid discussion of the unique theoretical and methodological concerns inherent in political science, improving their ability to reach out and promote their collections to political scientists. Examples of archives-based political science research will help library faculty better understand how their collections are being utilized by users.

This book is the first comprehensive study of Senate majority leadership--it covers the office and its occupants from the first incumbent, John W Kern in 1913, through the term of William H. Frist in 2006. Data are both qualitative and quantitative. They include materials from archives of several majority leaders-Lyndon Johnson, Mike Mansfield, Howard Baker, and George Mitchell. Also available are statistics of roll call votes, which reveal continuing patterns of legislative behavior, e.g., leaders seem to be drawn from among senators who are "middle-men" in political ideology but who drift toward more extreme positions depending on the size of their partisan majority. This partisanship, however, is tempered by commitments to institutional loyalty. Research further highlights the continuity of majority leadership in the Senate by noting a path dependent relationship between majority leaders and presidents, who depend on leaders to shepherd their proposals. In their relationship to their states, leaders also are found to be attentive to demands for distributive benefits. All told, these multiple constituencies-state, party, Senate, and president-constrain majority leadership in the Senate. The task of the leader is to balance constraints. In this unprecedented work, Andrea Hatcher examines Senate majority leadership in terms of the constituencies, both electoral and functional, of the Senate majority leader. These constituencies-state, party, Senate, and president-are found to represent constraints on the Senate majority leader as their demands often compete, and the ways in which Senate majority leaders balance them form the contours of Senate majority leadership. It might seem obvious for there to be much variance as Senate majority leaders and their constituents change over time, and, to be sure, differences in leadership styles emerge. However, what is more striking is not the change but the continuity that guides the institutional development of Senate majority leadership. The path dependence is one of constrained Senate majority leadership, not for the conventional wisdom that the majority leader operates in a supermajoritarian institution, but for the broader reason that these plethora of intra-, inter-, and extra-institutional forces pull at the leader. The scope of inquiry is comprehensive, beginning with an identification of trends in the selection of senators to become majority leader. It, then, traces the voting behavior of Senate majority leaders, analyzing by way of statistical findings how the leader represents his party constituency by roll call voting. One key, but often overlooked, variable that this study examines is size of a leader's majority.

While other studies have examined the history of cable television regulation, none has fully explained why the FCC struggled to develop regulations during its formative years. In this study, Michael Zarkin helps fill this gap by providing such an explanation through an application of organizational learning theory. Zarkin argues that in order for the FCC to formulate regulations for a brand-new communications medium, it first needed develop and effectively utilize the capacity to gather and analyze policy-relevant knowledge. By the 1970s, conditions were ripe for this to happen, and the FCC was able to more effectively revise its cable television policies. This book elaborates and applies an organizational learning framework that contributes to our understanding of how regulatory agencies operate. By employing a broad range of published and unpublished primary sources, the book also succeeds in providing a more detailed and penetrating study of cable television than previous endeavors. Rather than simply summarizing and critiquing policy decisions, the book paints a picture of the people, ideas, and politics that shaped cable television regulation during these formative years. The FCC and the Politics of Cable TV Regulation, 1952-1980 will be of interest to scholars who study regulatory agencies, the policy process, and communications law and policy.

This book strives to address this gap in the research literature by focusing on the intergovernmental role of the nation's governors. This is done by examining the lobbying efforts of the governors through their national organization, the National Governors Association (NGA). The NGA has been a prominent representative of state interests for a number of decades, and the increasingly complex relationships between the states and the federal government--and the governors' role as manager of those relationships--have ensured that the governors and the NGA remain at the center of many critical national policy debates. Furthermore, the NGA serves as the primary organizing body of the governors, and the organization allows the state executives to effectively exert their influence over important policy decisions at the federal level. For these reasons, the NGA is a most appropriate organization for the study of governors as they work to influence federal policy. Taking a mixed method approach, this study highlights the factors that affect the ability of governors to shape national policy decisions and examines the results in the context of contemporary literature on the governorship, intergovernmental relations, and federalism. This book is therefore ideal for all who are interested in U.S. governorship, intergovernmental relations, and federalism generally.

This book remedies the near-complete lack of individual senator-level data available to scholars. Moreover, the dataset that Bell compiles represents a much more comprehensive list of Senate filibusters than any that has previously been compiled. Data are available for the entirety of the period from 1790 to 2008. The text provides a fully current (through the end of the 110th Congress) list of Senate filibusters from the first recorded instance in 1790. This new list undergirds a comprehensive historical analysis of filibusters and a full exploration of both micro-level (individual senator) determinants of filibustering and macro-level (institutional) factors that affect filibustering and its consequences. Beyond compiling and sharing the raw data on who filibusters what, Bell demonstrates that senators' filibustering behavior is frequently an extension of senators' legislative behavior more generally. The book makes it clear that filibustering is simply one strategy among many that senators employ as they try to advance their sometimes competing goals of representing their constituents, serving their political parties, and crafting good legislation. Building on work by Franklin L. Burdette (1940), Richard S. Beth (1994), and Gregory Wawro and Eric Schickler (2006). Filibustering in the US Senate offers a readable, accessible analysis that clarifies the meaning of important terms and offers practical insights into the uses-and abuses-of Senate legislative procedures. The timeliness of Filibustering in the US Senate, its interesting subject matter, and the accessible nature of the analysis will appeal to general and professional readers of political studies, as well as to practitioners in government.

"Many citizens, politicians, and pundits routinely complain about the health of the political system, but few attempt a systematic diagnosis and even fewer recommend treatments. In this highly readable book, Anthony Gierzynski identifies many of the shortcomings in U.S. politics and offers some provocative prescriptions to address them." - Paul S. Herrnson, University of Maryland "For those anxious about the health of American democracy, they can do no better than read Gierzynski's book, which offers a sane and informed approach to making our political institutions work better. And like a good doctor, Gierzynski wisely avoids recommending many of the conventional remedies that might do more harm than good." - Ray La Raja, University of Massachusetts "Unlike myopic specialists who are prone to treat only a specific part of the body, Dr. Gierzynski offers scholars, students, and laymen a holistic and rich understanding of what ails us and what we can do to make things better. This is a readable and important book for anyone who cares about the health of our democracy." - David T. Z. Mindich, Saint Michael's College