What Drives Progressive Policy? Institutional Politics, Political Mediation, Policy Feedbacks, and Early U.S. Old‐Age Policy

Abstract

What drives progressive public policy? Because progressive policy challenges the interests of powerful people and interests that dominate policy making, it is puzzling that progressive policy ever happens. This article addresses this question by modeling and appraising institutional political, political mediation, and policy feedback theories and models of progressive policy making. Institutional political theory focuses on political institutional conditions, bureaucratic development, election results, and public opinion. Political mediation theory holds that social movements can have influence over progressive policy under favorable political conditions. Policy feedback theory holds that programs will be self‐reinforcing under certain conditions. The article goes beyond previous research by including and analyzing public opinion in institutional political and political mediation models and addressing positive policy feedbacks. We appraise five models derived from these three theories through fuzzy set qualitative comparative analyses of the generosity of early old‐age policy across U.S. states at two key moments. We find some support for each theory, and the results suggest that they are complementary. Left regimes or social movements can initiate progressive policy, which can be reinforced for the long term through positive policy feedback mechanisms. We discuss the implications for current U.S. politics and for progressive policy elsewhere.

Why Epistemic Believing Makes Us Better (Public) Sociologists

“…The first is that believing does not, unto itself, change structures. People and practice are still embedded in existing expressions of power, and believing does not change or obviate existing power relationships overnight (Amenta and Elliott 2019). Believing—temporarily or otherwise—does not fix inequality by itself.…”

The Rise of Homeschooling Regulation in the Era of School Choice: Legislative and Judicial Trends, 1972–2009

“…In contrast, political sociologists often note that this focus on policy outcomes picks up only the backend of the story and obscures the factors that determine whether there is sufficient "state capacity" to even enact regulatory reforms via courts or legislatures (Gamson and Meyer 1996;Tarrow and Tollefson 1994;Tilly 1978). We seize this opportunity and focus on the initial policy consequences of social movement mobilization rather than on policy impacts further downstream (Amenta et al 2010;Amenta and Elliott 2019). The timing of initial laws and court decisions matters, because first movers have a greater chance of setting the agenda for subsequent policy initiatives.…”

Upscaling without innovation: taking the edge off grassroot initiatives with scaling-up in Amsterdam’s Anthropocene forest

“…However, in-depth analysis of market-driven urban experimentations, strongly query the ability of market-oriented practices to invoke urban environmental change, since the majority of these practices duplicate existing frameworks and policies (Christiaens, Moulaert, and Bosmans 2007;Seyfang and Smith 2007;Kaika 2017;Luke and Kaika 2019). By contrast, a wealth of older and more recent scholarship shows that change is more likely to emerge from community-based activities that question existing institutional arrangements and create space for experimentation with alternative systems of organization, production and consumption (Amenta and Elliott 2019).…”