Conservatives, Commissions, and the Politics of Federalism, 1947–1996

Reorganizing the Activist State: Conservatives, Commissions, and the Politics of Federalism, 1947–1996 By Philip Bartholomew Rocco A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Christopher K. Ansell, Chair Professor Sean Farhang Professor Eric Schickler Professor Ann C. Keller Spring 2015 Reorganizing the Activist State: Conservatives, Commissions, and the Politics of Federalism, 1947–1996 Copyright 2015 by Philip Bartholomew Rocco Abstract Reorganizing the Activist State: Conservatives, Commissions, and the Politics of Federalism, 1947–1996 by Philip Bartholomew Rocco Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science University of California, Berkeley Professor Christopher K. Ansell, Chair This study examines the origins of conservative efforts to reform the “activist American state” in the postwar period by reorganizing fiscal and administrative relationships between federal, state, and local governments. Existing scholarship suggests that conservatives’ efforts to grant sub-national governments greater decision-making authority over national policies were either an obvious extension of challenges to the New Deal or a reaction to liberal policies in the 1960s. Drawing on a combination of archival sources, secondary literature, and quantitative data, this study shows, in contrast, that conservative challenges to the activist state in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s were shaped by institutional investments made in the early 1950s. Indeed, long before the Great Society, conservative policy entrepreneurs constructed what I call generative institutions that gradually reconfigured the political context in which debates over federalism occurred. These institutions reframed the critique of centralized government as a dilemma of proper administration and management, built broader political coalitions with state and local officials, and experimented with new policy alternatives that would become the basis of later reforms. The institutions conservatives built were commissions for studying and deliberating about problems of “intergovernmental relations.” Intergovernmental commissions helped conservatives to recalibrate their engagement with a growing federal government in three ways. First, in the absence of wider support for reform, these commissions refocused conservatives’ arguments from ideological or constitutional claims into administrative ones by marshaling the power of existing executive-branch institutions to produce and publicize novel information about that branch’s own problems, helping to investigate and publicize concrete policy failures and tensions that agencies did not wish to expose. Second, the commissions’ bipartisan, intergovernmental composition provided conservatives in government with a single forum for organizational brokerage––the ability to build policy consensus with a diverse range of stakeholders, namely, state and local elected officials. As a result, the commissions’ research products came to be valued by a broader audience than conservative reformers 1 alone. Third, over time, commissions accumulated strategic knowledge about intergovernmental relations, which allowed conservative policy entrepreneurs to criticize major categorical grant programs and recombine older policy proposals into viable new reforms. The result was not the retrenchment of the activist state, as some conservative policy entrepreneurs hoped, but a set of reforms that empowered state governments to play a more important role in shaping the outcome of federal policies. In showing how intergovernmental commissions gave conservatives the capacity to reorganize authority within the activist state, this study also makes a larger claim about patterns of institutional change within studies of American Political Development (APD). While APD is concerned with explaining “durable shifts in governing authority,” recent historical-institutional scholarship suggests that major shifts may emerge not from systemic shocks but from gradual processes of drift, conversion, and layering; the recombination of ideas and interests by skilled entrepreneurs; or the formation of policy networks. These studies examine how entrepreneurial actors pursue direct policy changes, yet they fail to take into account how new institutions can help to subsidize the costs of entrepreneurship. Similarly, while scholarship on policy agendas focuses on the importance of venue shifting, it says little about what distinguishes venues that catalyze change from those that do not. Generative institutions, I argue, can pave the way for major reforms by routinizing the production of policy information, building consensus, and developing policy expertise. 2 For my parents, Bart and Valerie Rocco i Acknowledgements Writing this dissertation has allowed me to experience, among other emotions, profound gratitude. I am especially grateful to the members of my dissertation committee. My dissertation chair, Chris Ansell, has been a source of inspiration and a generous teacher. Above all, conversations with Chris yielded tractable strategies for studying unwieldy organizational environments. Chris also helped me to manage the tension between creativity and constraint that defines both the action in my narrative and my own intellectual life. From the moment I arrived at Berkeley, Eric Schickler was a thoughtful mentor, commenting on everything I sent and encouraging me to think deeply, read beyond my comfort zone, and write with precision. Eric also fostered intellectual camaraderie through regular meetings of the APD Working Group, whose members discussed the papers and chapters out of which the dissertation grew. Throughout the writing process, committee members Sean Farhang and Ann Keller have helped me to improve this project immeasurably, by offering thorough comments and sharing their insights on the politics of institutional change. Several individuals and institutions at Berkeley deserve recognition for contributing time, resources, and enthusiasm to my work. The Institute of Governmental Studies (IGS), the Travers Department of Political Science, the Mike Synar Fellowship Program, and the Center for Right-Wing Studies provided me the necessary resources to undertake the archival work that is the backbone of this project. Throughout my time at IGS, Terri Bimes and Jack Citrin encouraged and assisted me in seeking research support. IGS librarians Paul King, Nick Robinson, and Julie Lefevre responded graciously to query after query. Christine Trost, Suzan Nunes, Camille Koué, Charlotte Merriweather, Barb Campbell, and Katherine Nguyen also ensured me a smooth path through Berkeley’s own administrative state. Finally, Dylan Clark, Makyla DaPonte, Bo Kovitz, and Allison Arnold went above and beyond to help analyze legislation and sift through archival documents as part of Berkeley’s Undergraduate Research Apprentice Program. Numerous colleagues have shaped the ideas that animate these pages. First and foremost, Todd LaPorte supported and inspired my interest in the tangled infrastructure of American public policy. Chloe Thurston has been a careful reader and a caring friend, and may have seen this project through more iterations than anyone else. Fellow federalism scholar Beth Pearson shared in my excitement after punishing archival digs and was always happy to talk about the gory details of revenue sharing over coffee at Babette. When I started the project, conversations with Miranda Everitt helped me to cut through the vacuous jargon, most of it anyway, to the core of my ideas. Travis Johnston and Sara Chatfield gave encouraging and honest feedback when I needed it most. PerOla Öberg and Malin Holm also kindly arranged for me to present my research as part of two doctoral workshops at Uppsala University. Further thanks are due to Michael Dichio, Karen Tani, Chris Chambers-Ju, Ruth Bloch Rubin, Gregory Elinson, Paul Schulman, Laurel Eckhouse, Janna King, Stephen Goggin, Jake Grumbach, Jason Klocek, David Brian Robertson, Margaret Weir, Daniel Béland, Alex Waddan, Julia Azari, Lisa Miller, ii Adam Sheingate, and Andrew S. Kelly for their willingness to read drafts, talk about ideas, or simply wax poetic. As I wrote, sturdy companions helped me to avoid a hermetic lifestyle. I will never forget surveying the world from the top of the Hoover Tower with Peter Ekman, whose esprit de corps and sense of spatial adventure have made him my own personal “Center on Urban Studies.” After long days of writing, I was often privileged to share laughs and dinner with Joyce S. Lee, a housemate who has sustained me with her bonhomie and good taste. While Alicia Puglionesi was far away, her phone calls and letters have contributed to a Wunderkammer of ideas that continue to enrich my life. Adequate words of thanks do not exist for friends who offered their support during a difficult time, including Andrew Macurak, Jack Thearle, Gerard Leone, Gemma Mangione, Lauren Mancuso, David Reinecke, Maia Averett, Patrick Driscoll, Alex Roehrkasse, Ben Shestakofsky, Gordon Shen, and Nathan Grover. In their professional capacities, Bryan Port and Brad Sickenius did the same. Let it also be said that some of my best writing was done while house sitting for Hans Wuerfmannsdobler and Teresa Mora; their cats Charlie and Parker proved to be ideal editorial assistants. Most importantly, none of my work would have been possible or meaningful without

Load more