American
Government Field Examination, Day One,
May 2004
Part 1 –
Answer one question
1. Work
in the growing field of American Political Development raises questions about
why and how political scientists study history. How would you describe the field of “APD” to a political
scientist who is not closely associated with it? Do political scientists tend to study history as historians
do? Or, are there distinctive political
science approaches to the study of political development in the United States? In what sense, if any, does the American
system “develop”? Be sure that your
answer includes specific examples from works in American Political Development.
2. Many
scholars argue that beginning in the 1960s a "rights revolution"
transformed American public policy. What is this alleged revolution and what
evidence is there that it took place?
Given the foundational status of rights in American political life, can
one call this a revolution? The historical status of a rights revolution
notwithstanding, are "rights" (such as freedom of speech, the right
of women to choose an abortion, property rights, and budgetary entitlements
like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) truly insulated from politics? Or
are rights subject to political attack and renegotiation no less than any other
domestic policy instrument? If rights
can indeed be curbed or scaled back, does the term "right" have any
real meaning in the modern U.S. state?
Part II –
Answer two questions
1. Some rational choice scholars argue that
American politics is best understood as a
chain of principal-agent
relationships: the citizenry empowers
the Congress, which
in turn delegates its collective power
to its various standing committees, which in
turn delegate authority to various
bureaus (e.g., the EPA, IRS, etc), which are
organized internally as administrative
hierarchies. From this theoretical
perspective,
the key issue is democratic control. Good government obtains when each agent
receives the proper incentives from its
political superiors.
Is principal-agent theory a useful framework for understanding
American national government? What
insights does it offer that other frameworks downplay or ignore? What if anything does principal-agent theory
mask or suppress? Justify your answer
with cites to relevant works and concrete examples.
2. Stephen Skowronek argues in The Politics Presidents Make that certain presidents in history-Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Reagan -have played the principal part in "reconstructing" the American constitutional order during their time in office. Have presidents truly been "regime builders'"? Or has it been political parties, or perhaps Congress? Or some relationship among presidents, Congress, and parties? What attributes of the presidency as an institution might be said to make it possible for presidents to bring about such critical transformations? What about parties or Congress? Is the role of the regime builder compatible with the concept of republican government held by the Framers of the Constitution? Or, has the presidency played a part in history that was not anticipated by the architects of the Constitution?
3. David Mayhew argues that the electoral
realignments perspective on American
political development does not hold up
under scrutiny and that scholars should
abandon its terminology entirely. What are the major empirical claims of
realignment
theory?
Be specific. Why does
Mayhew argue that the realignments model is wrong?
Do you agree with Mayhew's negative
assessment, or do you think the realignments
perspective remains a valuable one? Justify your answer.
4. How is the content of the policy
agenda set in the United States today? To what extent
does the
current agenda-setting process ensure that policymakers focus their attention
of the concerns most important to average citizens? On the concerns most
important to policy experts?