Finance and Public Policy
Influencing Government Outcomes
The flow of power, influence and opinion is a fairly circular model between the people and our government. Within the U.S., the idea that power comes from the people lies at the foundation of our society. It is this idea that sparks the continual necessity of contact between the general population and the set organization that governs them. The general goal of our society is to live freely and be allowed to prosper without having any of our rights infringed upon. The governments job in this situation is to help us achieve our goals, and generally to act in our best interests.
This however, is where the balance between public opinion and media help dictate governmental focus and policy. Along with this, comes the flip side of the equation, where the government enacts bills, policies, laws, regulations, programs, etc., to help the people. The process is self feeding, the goal of government is ultimately meant to serve the individual within the U.S., but the individual wouldn't be well without the government.
The point here is that the power to influence within our society doesn't simply flow in one direction, nor have one source. Between the four groups - the individual, the public, the media, and the government - each one has the power to influence one another, but they thrive off of each other as well. There isn't necessarily one dominating force within the whole of the United States. It is this symbiotic relationship that has made America so unique, effective and - for the most part - prosperous operation. This is a system that allows the thoughts of the individual to be well distributed to not only the people in "power," but to all the people in the country. It is in this sense that we see influence can and does come from all sides.
Government is generally looked upon as the powerful source within our nation. It is too often that people forget that Government does, and is supposed to be, working for us, the American people.
Summary of Previous Research and Framework:
This article by John Mark Hansen, properly titled "Individuals, Institutions, and Public Preferences over Public Finance," questions a multitude of issues within our nation. Firstly, he questions the validity of arguments both for and against the practice of democracy within our current American society. There have been a number of claims as to whether our system of voting and vocalized public opinion is actually effect in determining certain policies within the government and our nation.
Hansen states that some critics blame the political problems within our nation upon "the incompetence of the citizenry." (Hansen, 1) At the same time however, others lay the blame on the inherent problems that stem from the practice of democracy itself; "Whether or not voters are capable, democratic institutions can never realize coherent, decisive, and responsive collective choices, no matter how elegant their design." (Hansen, 1)
Secondly, Hansen addresses the issue of effective democracy as it pertains to our public budget through recent American history (from the 80's on). "In the last two decades, the United States has demonstrated its simultaneous susceptibility to the charms of public expenditure and tax reduction..." (Hansen, 2) It is here that he suggests the views and wants of people in general are innately irrational. "They believe in the free lunch; they want something for nothing. In the more benign variant, people hold positions on public budgeting that are incomplete or internally inconsistent." (Hansen, 2)
In the end, it is the basic goal of this article to take a first of all debunk such notions that the citizenry can't think logically or coherently with consistency as it pertains to both public finance and our governmental organization in general. Hansen charges to take a long, good, hard, look at the "individuals, institutions and their preferences over public finance" (Hansen, 2) It is his goal to define the "meaning and import of the publics resistance to budget policy change." (Hansen, 2)
John Hansen most clearly defines his hypothesis within the first paragraph of his article stating that, "of the many ideas that animate democracy, in both theory and practice, one of the most audacious demands (is) that the preferences of ordinary citizens count for something in the creation of public policy." (Hansen, 1) He the charges that "democracies contrive that citizens express their views and that public officials attend to them..." (Hansen, 1) It is to this point that he sets off to prove throughout the remainder of the article.
It is Hansen's quest here to more clearly/systematically display that not only is it the job and obligation of the citizen to dictate desire and policy to the government, but also to show that such a process both works well and succeeds because of the publics competent hands.
To prove his points (first of which that they American Public is competent in its decisions), Hansen uses a combination of surveys, pilot studies (similar to a case study, from different years) as well as examples of incidents that occurred in the economy to help with illustration.
Through the survey and pilot study data, Hansen first disproves the idea that the public is incompetent in making the correct decisions within the public budget showing that surveys and studies that sparked such arguments asked the wrong questions. Hansen then refers to a pilot study conducted by the American National Election Study (NES), that presents its readers with tradeoffs to each question instead of one sided decisions. (Hansen, 3)
In the process of debunking wrongly constructed survey/polling/study data -- used as a basis for arguments against working democracy -- Hansen easily shows through use of examples within public influenced economic spending and correct survey/study data of his own how the American people can both think logically and coherently.
He states that the "the difficulty of bringing the government budget under control has sullied the reputation of democracy." (Hansen, 18) And even though solving our problems with government spending are still difficult, he says that:
"Citizens preference over the public budget are remarkably well structured. Most people have no difficulty determining their views. Most have no difficulty recognizing tradeoffs. And most have no difficulty maintaining consistency. The preferences of ordinary Americans are strikingly coherent..." (Hansen, 19)
It is to this extent that he praises the ability of the American populace and their mass opinion. However, he does not argue this point without scrutiny, finding that: "The public underestimates the hazard to the future of financing current consumption with borrowed money; it under-appreciates the importance of investment in the physical and economic well-being of its children; it misjudges the power of the economic forces unleashed when the government extracts less from the private economy; and so forth." (Hansen, 19)
"The hope of democratic politics, however, is the possibility that the people may like a new state of affairs as well or better - once they are there." (Hansen, 20) Hansen then ends his article with the statement that is innately pro democracy, explaining how it can work if there is a two way communication between those in government and those in the public about what's really best for the economy of the nation.
It is therefore, my charge here is to reprove, or reaffirm Hanson's conclusions about the competence of the American constituency in the face of the public financing, both in terms of consistency and relevance. I wish to reprove, by comparing ANES data of 2004 with the actions and spending of the national government, that the people not only have the ability but the right to direct and influence their representatives in dealings of public finance.