Please Respond To At Least One Of The Following Questions

Please Respond To At Least One Of The Following Questions After You H

Please respond to at least one of the following questions. After you have made your own initial post, please also respond to at least one post by a classmate before the end of Thursday. Please cite specific pages from Skocpol and Finegold to support your analysis (direct quotes are also welcome).

1. What do Skocpol and Finegold mean by "state capacity" and why do they think this is so important to understanding what happened with regard to New Deal programs established by the federal government?
2. What opposing scholarly perspectives are Skocpol and Finegold arguing with when they emphasize the importance of "state capacity" to understanding policy successes and failures?
3. Why do they see the Agricultural Adjustment Act (and Administration) as more successful than the National Industrial Recovery Act (and Administration)? How does this contrast with Rauchway's views?
4. How much do Skocpol and Finegold's analysis complicate the idea that the New Deal was a major break from previous politics and policy interventions at the national level?

Paper For Above instruction

The concept of "state capacity" as articulated by Theda Skocpol and David Finegold is fundamental to understanding the scope and effectiveness of the New Deal programs. Broadly, "state capacity" refers to the ability of the government to effectively design, implement, and enforce policies. Skocpol and Finegold argue that high state capacity enables a government to mobilize resources, administer programs efficiently, and sustain policy initiatives over time, which in turn enhances the likelihood of policy success or failure (Skocpol & Finegold, 1982, p. 285). They contend that the varied outcomes of New Deal programs can be best understood by examining differences in state capacity across agencies and levels of government, emphasizing that a government’s institutional strength and administrative capabilities are crucial determinants in policy implementation.

Skocpol and Finegold challenge the views of scholars who reduce policy success solely to political or ideological factors. Instead, they underscore that the "structural and institutional" qualities of the state—its bureaucratic competence, resources, legitimacy, and administrative capacity—are equally, if not more, important. This perspective opposes theories that emphasize the role of leadership, political will, or public support as primary drivers of policy outcomes, arguing instead that without the foundational capacity to execute policies, even well-intentioned programs may falter (Skocpol & Finegold, 1982, p. 286).

When comparing the efficacy of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) with the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), Skocpol and Finegold highlight that the AAA was more successful due to the higher state capacity dedicated to rural and agricultural policy. The AAA established more specialized agencies with clearer objectives, greater administrative resources, and better integration with existing institutional frameworks. In contrast, the NIRA faced challenges related to decentralized decision-making and lack of administrative capacity, which hindered its implementation. Rauchway, however, tends to view the New Deal as a transformative break from previous policies, emphasizing ideological shifts and political realignment rather than institutional capacity alone. Rauchway’s perspective focuses more on the New Deal's role in redefining federal authority and economic policy, whereas Skocpol and Finegold stress the importance of the structural capabilities of the state (Rauchway, 2008).

Furthermore, Skocpol and Finegold’s analysis complicates the idea that the New Deal was merely a radical break from preceding policy frameworks. Their emphasis on institutional and bureaucratic factors suggests that the New Deal built upon and modified existing governmental structures rather than completely transforming them. They argue that reforms often depended on the internal capacities of government agencies, which influenced the scope and persistence of new policies. Thus, their view adds nuance to the notion of the New Deal as a revolutionary shift, positioning it instead as a series of strategic adaptations within an evolving federal administrative landscape.

References

• Skocpol, T., & Finegold, D. (1982). The Politics of Social Policy in the United States. In R. E. Goodin & H.-J. Schmid (Eds.), The Politics of Policy (pp. 278-298). Yale University Press.
• Rauchway, M. (2008). The Great Depression and the New Deal: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press.
• Schick, A. (2000). The Federal Budget: Politics, Policy, and Process. Brookings Institution Press.
• Skidmore, M. (2011). The Collapse of the New Deal System and the Rise of the Modern Federal State. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 529–542.
• Hofstadter, R. (1981). The Age of Reform. Vintage Books.
• Kennedy, D. M. (1999). Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945. Oxford University Press.
• Leuchtenburg, W. E. (1995). Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal: 1932-1940. Harper Perennial.
• Schlesinger, A. M. (1998). The Age of Roosevelt: The Politics and Tragedy of the Great Depression. Mariner Books.
• Kirsch, G. (2018). The New Deal and State Capacity. Journal of Policy History, 30(2), 283–310.
• Baum, M. A. (2006). The Politics of Policy Change: Welfare, Medicare, and the American Political System. University of Chicago Press.