Solution manual for american government power and purpose 11th edition by lowi ginsberg shepsle and ansolabehere

Solution Manual for American Government
Power and Purpose 11th Edition by Theodore
J.Lowi, Benjamin Ginsberg, Kenneth A.Shepsle
and Stephen Ansolabehere
Link full download Test bank:
/>Link full download Solution Manual:
/>
CHAPTER 1 Five Principles of
Politics
CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND THE PRINCIPLES OF POLITICS
Chapter 1 begins with several observations about the complexity of American
national government. First, the federal division of power in America and the
sovereign authority of the competing centers of political power mean that
understanding American government requires attention to not only the national
government but also the state, county, town, and city levels of government as well.
Second, at each of these levels, a complex array of departments, agencies, offices,
and bureaus makes governing decisions, implements government policies, and
performs sometimes overlapping tasks and functions. And third, the complexity
of American government is no accident; on the contrary, it was a core element of
the Founders’ constitutional design. By dividing power federally and separating
it among legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, the Founders
hoped that a variety of voices would be heard and that the competition between
multiple interests would keep any particular interest from dominating the others.
In this way, the very complexity of American government is associated with the
protection of liberty and the opportunity to influence political decisions.
Still, if the complexity of American government helps to protect individual
liberty and the right to participate in politics, it also imposes a burden on citizens,
who must determine where key decisions are made, which actor(s) make these
decisions, and how best to exercise influence over them. The very complexity that
protects a citizen’s liberty and ability to participate in his or her own governance
is itself an impediment to effective influence.

In an effort to help students appreciate American government in all of its
complexity and to chart a course toward a better understanding of it, this chapter
provides working definitions of basic key terms such as government and politics.


❘1

Government is defined in the chapter as “the institutions and processes that rulers
establish to strengthen and perpetuate their power or control over a land and its
1
2
inhabitants.” Of course, different types of governments exist. We can differentiate
among governments, first, by asking “Who governs?” Governments in which all
political authority is vested in a single individual are known as autocracies,
whereas governments in which political authority is shared among a small group
of elites are oligarchies. Governments in which more people participate and in
which political authority is broadly shared among the populace are democracies.
A second point of differentiation involves asking, “How much government
control is permitted?” Governments that recognize broad limits on their authority
are constitutional governments; governments that recognize few limits but are
kept in check by other political and social institutions are known as authoritarian
governments; and governments that are free of both legal limits and powerful
counterforces in society are called totalitarian governments.
Politics refers to the conflicts and struggles over the leadership, structure, and
policies of governments. The chapter introduces the five principles of politics that
provide the theoretical framework for the remainder of the book. These principles
are
1. The rationality principle: All political behavior has a purpose. Political
actors, be they citizens or professional politicians, engage in instrumental acts
that are designed to achieve a goal or some combination of goals. In many

instances, political behavior and action are the results of conscious, and
sometimes even calculated, choices on the part of these purposive individuals.
2. The institution principle: Institutions structure politics. Institutional
arrangements provide for a division of labor, rules regarding the process of
deciding relevant questions, and the means by which those to whom authority
and responsibility for action have been delegated are checked by other actors.
These routines and structured relationships enable cooperation and facilitate
bargaining and decision making.
3. The collective action principle: All politics is collective action. In order to
produce public goods and make collective decisions, people must come
together. Collective action in political contexts is often achieved through both
informal and formal bargaining procedures. As the number and diversity of
the relevant actors increase, so, too, do the problems associated with
collective action.
4. The policy principle: Political outcomes are the products of individual
preferences and institutional procedures. Purposive, goal-oriented behavior
works its way through the rules and processes of government. Individuals


have different goals that are shaped, channeled, and filtered through relevant
processes. Both goals and processes shape outcomes.
5. The history principle: How we got here matters. Historical processes are the
backgrounds that help explain the ways in which individual goals and insti3
tutional processes develop. Indeed, government and institutional rules and
procedures are historically determined, as are political (and international)
loyalties and alliances and the political beliefs, ideologies, and perspectives
that citizens and officeholders use to evaluate contemporary political events.
Political goals, institutional choices, and policy outcomes can all be seen as
a partial result of the “path” of history. Although history may be a useful
guide for interpreting events and planning political actions, it can also hamper

our responses to new events and exigencies.
The chapter concludes by framing the textbook’s approach to analyzing politics
as it relates to constructing arguments and gathering evidence. Building our
arguments on the five principles of politics, we must then turn to evidence from
the empirical world to verify, refine, or nullify those arguments. Matching
argument and evidence is the repeated task of this textbook as it explores the
various aspects of American government and politics.

DISCUSSION TOPICS AND QUESTIONS
1. Both conservatives and liberals like government—they just like different
aspects of government. When it comes to regulation, most forms of
intervention into the economy, and social welfare, liberals tend to prefer
government action to nonaction. Still, when it comes to the role of
government in terms of defense spending, crime, and social regulation (for
example, abortion politics), conservatives are more likely to call for greater
government spending and involvement. Consider the politics surrounding
homeland security. Who is in favor of a stronger role for the national
government? Who is opposed? Why do you think the Department of
Homeland Security has elicited opposition from both the Left and the Right?
Given the complexity of this question, what do you think explains the
persisting dominant view that “liberals want more” and “conservatives want
less” government?
2. It was often said that “Mussolini made the trains run on time.”
However,anyone who has spent some time around a bureaucratic agency or
department at some level in American government is familiar with jokes
about the inefficiency of bureaucratic institutions. Discuss how this
characterization of the efficiency of totalitarian governmental systems
exemplifies the inverse of a collective-action problem. Collective decisions
are more problematic the more those involved have to reconcile the

❘1

perspectives of numerous and diverse voices. Put in this light, how does this
make you feel about the “inefficiency” of government? In what ways is this
an example of institutions created to solve the problem of collective action?
3. Time and again, surveys demonstrate that Americans like government
actionin the particular but not in the abstract. When asked if, in general, they
feel
4
government should play a greater or lesser role in society, most Americans
usually express the view that government should “stay out of” their lives, the
economy, and so on. However, when asked more specific questions regarding
whether or not the government should help the homeless, provide assistance
to the elderly, protect patients’ rights, and so on, most Americans seem to
want greater government involvement. Is this paradox a contradiction in
American political thought? How might an understanding of it affect the
strategies of politicians who want more and less government, respectively?
4. The policy principle suggests that political outcomes are the product of the
interaction of individual goals and established rules and processes. Might it
be the case that the rules themselves shape the very goals of individuals?
Students go to college and take courses on American government, literature,
and so on, ostensibly to achieve a broader goal of learning. Instructors,
colleges, and universities usually establish processes that facilitate such
learning. One notable process is the assigning of letter grades to students as a
means of providing both observable standards of comparison of students as
well as incentives for students to learn. But sometimes students will focus
more on getting a good grade (satisfying the rule/process aspect) rather than
focusing on the broader goal of learning. Can process become a goal? How
might this general point be applied to understand the behavior of political

actors?

GETTING INVOLVED
Have students explore several of the five “Principles of Politics” by interviewing
political actors. Encouraging them to think broadly in terms of who constitutes a
“political actor,” have students identify a locally elected officeholder, a leader or
member of an interest group, a campaign worker or volunteer, or even a candidate
for student government. Students should use the interview to explore especially
the rationality principle. What goals motivate the interviewee’s interest and
activities in politics? How are his or her actions explainable in terms of those
goals? To what extent is there evidence of mixed or conflicting goals in the
political actor in question? Students might also use the interview to explore the
collective-action principle. If the interviewee is a leader, students might ask
questions about how he or she brings people together for common purposes. If the
interviewee is a follower, then questions might explore which leadership


mechanisms are particularly effective motivators. For example, why, despite the
attractiveness of “free riding,” does the interviewee participate in collective
efforts? How do institutional arrangements promote such collective action?
Have students write a brief paper or otherwise report back to the class on their
first-hand observations of how well the principles explain political behavior. By
the same token, have them explore (individually and as a class) what kinds of be5
havior are more difficult to explain in terms of the principles of politics. That is,
what are the limits of such rational-choice approaches?

CLASS ACTIVITIES, DEMONSTRATIONS, AND SIMULATIONS
1. Have students examine the Web site of the Department of Homeland Security
at www.dhs.gov. Use some of the following suggestions for classroom
discussion and analysis.

a. Note the day’s terrorism threat advisory. Discuss the various levels of terrorist threat advisories and why the terrorism threat level is what it is at the time
you access the site. Has there been a recent change in the threat warning?
What caused or helps to explain the last significant change in the threat level?
Ask students to consider the effectiveness of the “color-coded” threat warning
system.
b. Draw students’ attention to the various political aspects of the Web site
(forexample, “from the press room,” the Homeland Security blog, and the
public-outreach sections for citizens, first responders, business, and
governments). Note recent press releases and public-outreach activities. Have
students consider why such a broadly supported executive department feels
the need to pay so much attention to political matters.
c. Have students explore the Web site, directing them to the “About the Department” heading on the main page. Have them click on the “Department
Components and Agencies” link to note the wide variety of agencies and
departments (from Agriculture to Treasury and from Commerce to Defense)
that come under DHS’s purview. Use this listing (and the specific programs
mentioned) as an opportunity for students to consider the complexity of
government and its pervasiveness in their everyday lives.
2. Have students consider the five principles of politics as a means of
understanding nonpolitical behavior. Although these principles are key to
understanding behavior in the political realm, they can be applied to other
aspects of our lives as well. Is all behavior purposive, subject to collectiveaction difficulties, rules, and historical forces? Ask students to write three
reasons that they have taken your American government class. Interpret their
list of reasons in light of some of the five principles of politics. With luck,
some will talk of their inherent interest in the subject and their desire to learn
more. Interpret these assertions in terms of goals. In many institutions,
students take American government courses because of state, university, or


❘1

major or minor program requirements. Interpret their taking of your class in
terms of the rules that have been established. Personalize the outcome of this
relative mix of goals and rules in terms of your own decision making
regarding how you have structured the course, what you have attempted to
include and exclude in light of these realities, and so on. This early discussion
is a
6
splendid opportunity to introduce yourself to your students, apply some of the
common terms that will be employed throughout the semester, and outline
your own goals and rules for the course.

SAMPLE LECTURE
Government is everywhere. Government structures and regulates the American
economy. Government seeks to improve the quality of the air we breathe and the
water we drink, and to protect the environment. Through the Department of
Homeland Security, government seeks to protect us from the threat of terrorism.
Government makes covert policy through the CIA, the National Security Council,
and the office of the Director of National Intelligence, and conducts investigations
into the lives of American citizens through the FBI. Government even balances
the needs of society against individual rights to privacy. Sometimes society wins;
sometimes privacy wins. Still, it is frequently the case that the interests of the
government win out over competing societal institutions, groups, and individuals.
Even when we, as citizens, believe that our rights have been violated by the
government (or some other actor in society), we seek redress through some other
government agency or institution. Government can be both a threat to and a
protector of the common good, individual rights, economic freedom, and
individual liberty. I don’t say this to be an alarmist warning you of the threat to
your liberties from “Big Brother.” Rather, what I mean to say is that the scope of
government activity has expanded greatly throughout the twentieth century and
that extremely few aspects of contemporary life are not affected both positively

and negatively by the government.
In some ways, it is odd to think that the U.S. government—which grew out of
colonial Americans’ fear that a “tyrannical” British government was slowly
stripping them of their rights—would erect, expand, and maintain such a farreaching government in American society. But as we begin the twenty-first
century, this is where we stand. Many conservatives and liberals alike are
concerned that provisions in the Patriot Act of 2001, the workings of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the potential for warrantless wiretapping
have expanded the role of government in our everyday lives. In its efforts to
provide security and order, they claim, the government stands as an imposing
threat to our liberty. If order and liberty are, as the textbook argues, trade-offs in
any government, then how did we get to this point in American history? Even
prior to the war on terrorism, the twentieth century saw enormous growth of


governmental power in the United States. In the course of fighting two world wars
and a cold war and addressing domestic policy needs, including the Great
Depression, the American national government has expanded greatly. Although
they might not measure up to other advanced industrial democracies—such as
Scandinavian countries, for example—in the scope of government services and
involvement, the contemporary 7
governing institutions in the United States are influential and pervasive in
American society.
Americans are ambivalent about the role and scope of government. A people
deeply suspicious of government activity and fundamentally conservative in their
overall outlook toward government (at least on an abstract level), Americans have
seen their way clear to providing for greater government regulation of the
economy, a stronger government role in law enforcement and national defense,
and an increasing role for government in social policy. The odd thing about it is
that as much as some of us might lament the general trend in government
expansion, we frequently welcome increased government involvement in specific

policy areas and spheres of social life. Few now would question the fundamental
belief that the national government should protect child labor, regulate food and
drug safety, protect the rights of minority groups, help citizens plan for retirement,
and assist the poor and elderly in obtaining medical services, although they are
largely twentieth-century innovations. Even in somewhat more controversial areas
such as protecting the environment, providing assistance in education, imposing a
progressive income tax, and protecting workers from unsafe working conditions
or unfair employment practices, we might debate the proper role of the national
government or the wisdom of its actions, but we are less inclined to argue that the
national government has no role in such affairs. We argue at the margins. We see
the need for government action, and we see the potential for failure and abuse.
Because of its pervasiveness in society and its importance in myriad aspects of
our lives, government, its role, functions, processes, and purposes need to be better
understood. We begin this journey of understanding with the question, What is
government? The German social scientist Max Weber defined government as the
institution in society that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Thus, the
key components of government involve the need for some coercive capacity to
force people to do that which they are not inclined to do and a sense on the part of
the broader society that it is within the government’s rights to employ coercion to
accomplish governmental and societal goals. In exchange for these powers, the
government is expected to maintain public order, protect property, and provide
public goods. Although most governments seek to achieve some mixture of the
maintenance of order, the protection of property and liberty, and the production
of public goods, each of these things can be defined very differently in different
cultures, historical periods, and contexts. Because of these different definitions,
there are many types of governments in the world. We speak of democracies,
oligarchies, and autocracies, as well as of constitutional, authoritarian, and
totalitarian governments. Distinguishing among different types of governments
requires attention to both the number and the diversity of the people who are

❘1

influential in making government decisions and to the limits that society places
on government action.
First, we can categorize governments in terms of the number of people in8
cluded in decision making. Ascending in the number of participants involved in
the “politics” of a regime, types of governments would include those that are ruled
by a single individual (autocracy), those in which decision making is limited to
only a small group (oligarchy), and governments in which the political decision
making is relatively widespread (democracy). Second, we might categorize
governments based on the limitations of government authority. Decreasing in
terms of the recognition of such limits, types of governments would include:
constitutional governments, in which there are strong limits on government
action; authoritarian governments, in which competing power centers in society
place some, though not many, limits on government action; and totalitarian
governments, in which governments eliminate the societal competition endemic
to authoritarian systems and monopolize all relevant political and societal power.
Generally, scholars refer to the complex institutions that comprise the
government as “the state.” The concept of “the state” refers to the source of all
government authority. Still, it is an abstraction. There is no one place where one
goes to petition “the state.” There is no address to which one can send a letter to
“the state.” Rather, what we mean by “the state” is in reality a complex
arrangement of institutions and processes that have authority for action and
legitimacy in purpose. Indeed, were we to try to mail our letter to “the state” it
would require one state actor, the U.S. Postal Service, to deliver the letter to yet
another authoritative state actor. In many ways, the complexity of the state
requires that we break the government down into its component parts, processes,
and institutions in order to understand it. Later in this course, we will turn to an
understanding of some of these important institutions. For now, the abstract

concept needs to be better understood. We will achieve this understanding by
delving deeper into two of Weber’s main topics of concern: the use of force (or
coercion) and legitimacy.
Both coercion and legitimacy are requisite for governance. As much as we like
to believe that the United States is exceptional, and as much as in our everyday
lives we tend to ignore the coercive aspects of government, the American state is
no exception in this regard. We all know what will happen to us if we consistently
and flagrantly defy the rules of society as reflected in governmentally sanctioned
laws. A state actor (most likely in a uniform) will come take us away, by force if
necessary, for the purposes of state-administered judgment of our actions and
state-imposed punishment. Moreover, we also know when we pay sales tax or
look at our paychecks, and especially on April 15 of every year, that the
government has “requisitioned” our funds to provide for its continued functioning.
And as much as we may dislike in specific instances both the government’s
capacity to punish and tax us, rarely do individuals question the overall “right” or
legitimacy of the government to do these very things. Were other private,
nongovernmental actors in society to attempt to punish us for our actions or take


our money under threat of force, fine, or imprisonment, we would likely resist.
Indeed, we would look to the government for assistance and protection.
The means of coercion and revenue collection are just as key to the function9
ing of American national government as they are to other governments. Indeed,
acquiring and justifying the central government’s capacity for coercion and
revenue collection was critical to the framers of the U.S. Constitution. If we were
to look at Federalist 23, and Federalist 30, two prominent selections from the
Federalist Papers, we would see that among the Federalists, key figures believed
that the central government under the Articles of Confederation lacked the
fundamental powers to govern. In Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton (as Publius)
argued for a strong central government to replace the weak central government

established by the Articles of Confederation. Tellingly, Hamilton’s concerns here
are related to the coercive capacity of the central government. He wrote:
The principal purposes to be answered by union are these—the common defense of
the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal
convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and
between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial
with foreign countries. The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to
raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both;
to direct their operations; to provide their support.

In order to be a government, Hamilton argued, the central government established
by the Constitution needed a capacity for coercion that could be employed both
internally and externally. Of course, armies, fleets, soldiers, and sailors, not to
mention all of the other functions of government, cost money. In addition to
providing for “common defense” and repelling “internal convulsions,” in order to
be a government, the United States also needed a means of collecting revenue.
Hamilton turned to this subject in Federalist 30. Describing money as “the vital
principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion and enables
it to perform its most essential functions,” Hamilton defends the central
government’s potentially expansive need to secure the funds for its own survival,
arguing, “A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply
of revenue, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded
as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.” Again, this was not a mere
policy point but one that Hamilton felt was essential to the functioning of the
government. In order to maintain order and protect property, and to produce public
goods, the government needed the power to tax. He wrote: “How is it possible
that a government half supplied and always necessitous can fulfill the purposes of
its institution, can provide for the security, advance the prosperity, or . . .
undertake or execute any liberal or enlarged plans of public good?”
From the Weberian point of view and from the definition of government that

stresses that all governments employ coercion and have a means of collecting
revenue, Hamilton does not merely argue for the strengthening of the national


❘1

government. Instead, he argues that the central government needs the very
fundamental tools of government. Indeed, Hamilton wrote in Federalist 23, that
once it


10
was decided there would be a central government, “that government ought to be
clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust.”
It is true that the U.S. government employs coercion and collects revenue, as
does any government. Still, the fact that we have to remind ourselves that the U.S.
government is not exceptional in this regard reflects an overall success of the
government in its ability to maintain legitimacy. Although the sources of
legitimacy for governments vary from one society to the next and have varied
significantly over time, in the United States, as in most democracies, the primary
source of legitimacy is popular consent. Democratic and republican governments
are deemed legitimate to the extent that people feel that their interests and
perspectives are being represented by the actions of the government. If people are
given a voice, they will be more likely to accept the final decision of government,
even in cases where they do not get what they want. To return to our original
question regarding why a people who were fundamentally skeptical of
government power and fearful of the potential for tyrannical government rule
would empower such a pervasive state, at least part of the answer lies in their
perception that the government is generally likely to act on their behalf. Because
they are regularly included in government decision making (or, at least, feel as if

they are), as the authors of this textbook suggest, people “believe that they can
have both the blessing of freedom and the benefits of government.” This sounds
almost as if people calculate their interest. That is, to the extent that they believe
they will, in the end, benefit from expanding the government, they will empower
the government to do more.
This leads us to some concluding questions (although they will be starting
points for much that follows in this course). What motivates political behavior?
What factors determine the dynamics of political actions and political outcomes?
How can and do people come together to make collective decisions? How do
historical events shape behavior and affect outcomes? These are some of the
fundamental questions of government and politics. And they get to the heart of the
themes of governmental power and political purpose that guide the textbook.
As we have discussed, governments serve necessary functions in society. They
are a means of reconciling diverse interests, goals, and perspectives. Governments
(through their institutions and processes) reconcile political conflicts and
individual preferences to come to authoritative decisions about how best to
proceed. These decisions are the product of historical processes and will, in turn,
become the historical context in which future questions will be interpreted and
future decisions will be made. The following relatively simple statements reflect
the five principles of politics that guide the text and will serve as important
guideposts for us throughout the course.
Let’s take them in order. First, there is the rationality principle: all political
behavior has a purpose. When people or politicians act, they are likely doing so
in an effort to achieve some goal or even some combination of goals. In many


instances, political behavior and action are the results of conscious, and sometimes
Five Principles of Politics ❘ 11
even calculated, choices on the part of these individuals. Second is the institution
principle: institutions structure politics. The institutions and processes of

government are often designed to facilitate bargaining and to provide incentives
for people to come together. Moreover, these institutions and processes provide
order to what otherwise would be chaotic decision making. Third is the collective
action principle: all politics is collective action. In order to produce general, public
goods and make collective decisions, people must come together. In coming
together, their individual goals and purposes often clash. As the number and
diversity of the relevant actors increase, so, too, do the problems associated with
such collective action. Fourth, the policy principle: political outcomes are the
products of individual preferences and institutional procedures. The goals of both
individual as well as procedural rules matter. Together these factors determine
political outcomes. And finally, there is the history principle: how we got here
matters. Only by understanding where we have been historically and why
decisions were made as they were in the past can we plan for the contingencies of
the future and interpret the world at present.
On the basis of these five abstract principles, we will endeavor better to
understand American national government—to see how it has changed, how it is
similar to other governments, and how, in fact, it differs dramatically from most
other governments.

LECTURE OUTLINE
I. Introduction: the ubiquity of government
A. Government plays significant roles in most spheres of contemporary
society.
B. Americans have a traditional and historically rooted skepticism
towardgovernmental power.
C. Despite this skepticism and ambivalence in the abstract, Americansacross
the ideological spectrum have increasingly turned to government for
assistance.
D. Government is everywhere, in part because Americans have welcomed
it.II. What is government?

A. Working definition: the institution in society that has a monopoly on
thelegitimate use of force
B. Key concepts for discussion
1. Legitimacy: extent of popular involvement
2. Coercion: taxation and conscription
C. Types of government
1. Ascending order of inclusiveness


a. Autocracy
b. Oligarchy
c. Democracy
12
2. Descending order of recognized limits on coercion
a. Constitutional
b. Authoritarian
c. Totalitarian
III. “The state” in America
A. All governments, the U.S. government included, rely on coercion as
ameans of state power.
1. Alexander Hamilton argues in Federalist 23, that the United States’
central government needs the means of coercion.
2. Hamilton argues in Federalist 30, that the United States’ central
government needs a means of collecting revenue.
B. Governments, especially constitutional democracies, rely on
legitimacyfor state building.
1. Importance of popular consent
2. When people perceive the government works in their interest, they
aremore willing to expand its power.
IV. The five principles of politics: five principles guide the analysis of the textbook.

A. The rationality principle: All political behavior has a purpose.
1.
Political behavior is goal oriented.
2.
Political actors make instrumental choices about how to
act.B. The institution principle: Institutions structure politics.
1. Institutions provide a division of labor and rules regarding
decisionmaking processes.
2. These institutions have unintended consequences and shape
behaviorand outcomes.
C. The collective action principle: All politics is collective action.
1. Government requires collective societal action.
2. The differing goals of individuals often clash when they come together
to act collectively.
D. The policy principle: Political outcomes are the products of individual
preferences and institutional procedures.
1. Outcomes are the product of the intermingling of individual goals
andinstitutions.
E. The history principle: How we got here matters.
1. Historical processes shape institutions.
2. History provides a normative context by which we can understand
andinterpret political events and outcomes.


SUGGESTED FURTHER READING
There are many different forms of government in the world. According to one
political science account, various social conditions and modernization processes
Five Principles of Politics ❘ 13
explain the emergence of democratic and totalitarian forms of government,
respectively; see Barrington Moore Jr., Social Origins of Dictatorship and

Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World (Boston:
Beacon Press, 1966). For an excellent discussion of the distinctions among
different types of democracies in regard to the relationships of executive and
legislative powers, the role of political parties and electoral systems, and
constitutions, see Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and
Consensus Government in Twenty-one Countries (New Haven, Conn.:Yale
University Press, 1984). In The Future of Freedom: Illiberal Democracy at Home
and Abroad (New York: Norton, 2003), Fareed Zakaria provides a critical look at
the operation of democracy in different countries to determine both its successes
and its excesses.
Viewing government in the United States, Louis Hartz argues that America’s
lack of a feudal period in its development precluded the emergence of the deep
ideological divisions that plagued other democracies. Hartz further argues that
compared with that of these other countries, the politics of the United States has
been marked by a broad liberal or Lockean consensus; see The Liberal Tradition
in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution
(New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955). For a concise history of the development of
the European “state,” see Gianfranco Poggi’s Development of the Modern State:
A Sociological Introduction (Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1978).
Although the contemporary American state’s functions and activities expanded
dramatically after the New Deal in 1933, the national government had been
developing an expanded capacity for governance since the late nineteenth century.
For an engaging scholarly treatment of this development, see Stephen
Skowronek’s Building a New American State: The Expansion of National
Administrative Capacities, 1877–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press,
1982).
In addition to considering more general theories of government and the state,
this chapter also introduces the five principles of politics that examine the
individual goal orientations of political behavior. The classic political-science
treatment of “collective-action problems” is Mancur Olson’s Logic of Collective

Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1965). The principles of politics outlined in this chapter and used
throughout the remainder of American Government, Eleventh Edition, are an
outgrowth of a trend in political science toward rational-choice and publicchoice
models of politics. In many ways, these trends reflect political scientists’ efforts
to appropriate and apply neoclassical economics models to the political realm. To


gain a greater understanding of the history of these developments, see Dorothy
Ross’s Origins of American Social Science (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 1991). Another (briefer) account of the development of economics,
sociology, and political science can be found in W. Richard Scott, Institutions and
Organizations (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995). Moreover, Scott examines
the multiple ways that institutions and organizations impact the behavior of
political, economic, and social actors. To examine where theories of rationality fit
in contemporary political science, see Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner, Po14
litical Science: The State of the Discipline, centennial edition (New York: Norton,
2002). Finally, because any good student of American politics should understand
the limits of his or her approach, see Donald Green and Ian Shapiro’s pointed
critique of rational choice theories of politics in Pathologies of Rational Choice
Theory: A Critique of Applications in Political Science (New Haven, Conn.: Yale
University Press, 1996).

SUGGESTED VIDEOS
For an informative treatment of the development of the earliest of democracies,
see The Greeks: Crucible of Civilization (PBS Home Video, 2000, 165 minutes).
This video examines Greek politics and democracy as well as the eventual fall of
the Greek empire. Questions of democracy and power are pointedly addressed in
20th Century with Mike Wallace—Democracy Crushed: Tiananmen Square
(A&E Home Video, 1999, 50 minutes). This contemporary example of the

struggle for liberty makes clear the stakes of popular control of government and
the value and fragility of democracy. Charlie Chaplin’s Great Dictator (Twentieth
Century Fox, 1940, 128 minutes) is a satirical look at the dictators of the time,
with clear allusions to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. It is useful not only for
its entertainment value but also as an example of democracy’s and popular
culture’s view of early twentieth-century dictators on the eve of American entry
into World War II.

SUGGESTED WEB SITES
In addition to setting forth key definitions and orienting students to the various
types of government that exist in the world, Chapter 1, Five Principles of Politics
also introduces students to political science as a discipline and to the value of this
approach in understanding government and politics better. For more information
on political science, visit the American Political Science Association’s Web site
(www.apsanet.org). Students may have particular interest in exploring “What is
Political Science?” (www.apsanet.org/content_9181.cfm?navID=727) and
“Careers in Political Science” (www.apsanet.org/content_6457.cfm).