The concept of politics originates from the Greek “polis”, representing elements of government, state, and community. Politics were perceived as a way in which to create the ideal social order. Although this idea may seem infeasible, it provides the means to produce an enhanced society, than the one before. The older you get and the more educated you become you realize, like many things in life, the importance of politics. Especially as a post-secondary student I am realizing the direct influence that public policies have on my life. Throughout this paper I will use political theories to compare and contrast specific public policies. For example, the Advocacy Coalition Framework states that there are sets of core values about the causation and value of public policy. These coalitions form because they share the same common interests. This framework can be used to analyze policy change over a long period of time by understanding political context via stakeholder analysis. The Policy Feedback theory is another framework used to understand how policy creation occurs in a context that is directly affected by already existing policies. Throughout this paper I will analyze the history and progress of the Higher Education Act (HEA) using various political frameworks in order to better understand how a specific public policy affects its citizens directly.
President Johnson enacted the Higher Education Act (HEA) in 1965 as part of his Great Society agenda. The HEA is a law that, put simply, controls how federal dollars are awarded to colleges and students. The main focus was to provide financial assistance and resources for students, especially low income, pursuing post secondary and higher education. The original HEA included six titles: Title I; which provides funding for extension and continuation of education programs, Title II; which allocates money to enhance library collections, Title III; which creates provisions for strengthening developing institutions, Title IV; which provides student assistance through scholarships, low interest loans, and work-study programs, Title V; which creates provisions for improving the quality of teaching, and Title VI; which creates provisions for improving undergraduate instruction. This legislation has been reauthorized 9 times since 1965, the most recently in 2008. Reauthorization has lost its power, in terms of policy change, due to policy being made outside of the reauthorization process in spending bills and federal regulation. Before each reauthorization, Congress amends additional programs and changes the languages and policies of existing programs. According to Mettler, in the 1980’s the politics-surrounding student lending began to shift, due to the lucrative expansion of student lending. (814) In 1993, President Clinton, attempted a complete reform of higher education policy by completely replacing the existing system with direct lending by the government, cutting out banks as middle men. A coalition of lenders coordinated to fight Clinton’s policy and was successful in that a weakened version of his plan was passed, with little or limited direct lending. Mettler states that between 1995 and 2006, as student lenders profits soared so too did their financial power and political capacity. For example, Sallie Mae emerged as the top donor within the finance and credit industry: outspending even MasterCard and American Express. (Mettler, 813) Lenders also formed coalitions and organizations in Washington, to represent their interests. Although in 2006, political participation and media attention, put lenders on the defense and caught Democrats attention; which allowed them to use this public mandate to introduce higher education legislation. An internal investigation into the Department of Education revealed that the Bush Administration had allowed improper relations among the colleges or universities and lenders. Following that investigation, Congress enacted two bills that put constraints on lenders, thus allowed President Obama to enter office with a full head of steam in terms of student-aid policy. From 2007 to 2010, the president and lenders continued this on-going battle, even though health care reform consumed and overshadowed the administrations attention on higher education. Due to the administrations lack of focus and the submerged state of higher education reform, vested interests groups were far more aware of what was at stake, compared to ordinary citizens. Eventually the hard work of the administration paid off when the direct lending plan was combined with health care reform it received a majority of Democratic support in the Senate. This legislation represented a successful shift from submerged governance to visible governance when the existing system of student lending was replaced with direct lending.
The Advocacy Coalition Framework was designed to explain the political behavior of actors or groups in the policy process. The conceptual framework focuses on the belief systems of advocacy coalitions within policy subsystems as the critical vehicle for understanding the role of policy analysis in policy-oriented learning and the effects on governmental programs. This fundamental idea could have influenced the establishment of the two-party system in the United States. These core beliefs include a problem’s attention, causes, ability to solve the problem, and solutions. Policy beliefs are unlikely to change unless a major focusing event occurs or the coalition’s members accept new knowledge about policies. Policies are unlikely to change unless the status quo changes or a superior power implements a change. This framework can be used to explain how the lenders formulate coalitions to influence politics and represent their own interest within the realm of higher education policy. The formulation took place when the Clinton administration attempted to alter their prior arrangements within student lending. These coalitions formed strategies such as the creation of a PAC, increased lobbying, and increased political capacity; which in turn affected the implementation of Clinton’s direct lending plan. In the same regards, an increase in voter participation and investigative reports on lender practices allowed Democrats to formulate it’s own coalition and strategies to implement. In summary the Advocacy Coalition Framework helps to dissect submerged policies such as higher education reform and determine the long-term actors and the effects those actors have in the policy process.
In order to better understand the policy process we must examine the impacts of these policies on future political processes, and not just the inner workings of a specific policy. The relationship between two coalitions can be explained through the policy feedback theory, in that the policies or strategies implemented by one coalition influence the actions or behavior of the other. The increased voter participation and investigative reports on lender practices can both be seen as “feedback effects’ of the policies implemented by the Republicans and lenders. This framework can be seen when the lenders mobilized in reaction to Clinton’s attempt to reform higher education policies. This attempt to change prior agreements influenced the behavior of an institution like Sallie Mae to increase campaign financing and lobbying efforts in Washington. We can use the PFT framework and its functions to lead an inquiry to address the political dynamics of the feedback process. First policies influence the meaning of citizenship, which is the reciprocal relationship between the government and it’s citizens. In terms of higher education the, regulation such as the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), can be seen as a tool or filter to determine who is eligible for federal
student ai
d. Second, policies once established, may affect future governance. For example, in 1993 when the Clinton administration failed to pass his plan of direct lending, this attempt definitely influenced Barack Obama’s future higher education policy. Maybe negatively when you notice the amount of public statements the President gave on higher education compared to other social welfare programs. Third, policies influence the power of organized groups and associations. For example, when the lenders like Sallie Mae mobilized and organized to oppose Clinton’s 1993 direct lending plan for student loans. The submerged state of welfare programs often makes it hard for the government to rally public support in these areas. Lastly, policies established affect political agendas and the definition of policy problems in that they affect how issues are understood and how they are received. For example, the Obama administration learned from Clinton’s previous failure with higher education policy, and instead combined the higher education legislation with the health care reform, which eventually ensured its passage. This framework attempts to explain the mechanisms by which policies produce the variety of effects on politics. There are two types of effects that influence political preferences and behaviors; resource and interpretive effects. Resource effects state that tangible resources provided by social welfare policies directly impact civic engagement. In higher education reform, students who gained access to higher education through student loans and Pell grants are more likely to get engaged in politics, compared to others. Interpretive effects of policies are created through the influence of resources given and the features of policy design and implementation. For example higher education policy offers benefits to those who have “earned” the right, compared to “welfare” benefits are given to people who must prove the need for that support.
Policy Feedback Theory is a framework that focuses primarily on social welfare provision, and is indispensable for researchers trying to understand how policies, once enacted, shape future politics. That being said, Policy Feedback framework applies directly to the effects and impacts social welfare programs, like higher education policy, have on society and future politics. This framework is critical when analyzing the impacts of a submerged state program, like higher education policy. PFT framework allows us to take a look into past policies in order to understand future politics, as well as understanding the functions and dynamics of relationships between policy-makers, interest groups, and ordinary citizens. An important dynamic of the policy feedback framework is understanding the relationships between the political actors and organizations that influence public policy. The Advocacy Coalition framework provides a lens to better understand how, why, and when coalitions form in order to directly or indirectly attempt to influence politics. This lens allows researchers to make sense of complex policy subsystems that contain various components that interact to produce outcomes for a specific policy. The traditional scope of ACF includes inquiries involving coalitions, learning, and policy change. The study of coalitions focuses on structure, stability, belief systems, formation, and maintenance of advocacy groups. An understanding of political groups and actors contributes to scholars understanding of policy change. ACF framework allows researchers to see the inner workings of the coalitions behind the scene, which is especially important with submerged state programs. To be able to identify the coalitions provides transparency within these programs to the mass public. Overall the ACF and PFT frameworks are essential to understanding the public –policy process, especially in submerged state programs, like Higher Education