Utilizing a historical approach of both great breadth and depth, collectively representing more than 500 years of policy history, Jeffrey Jenkins, Sidney Milkis, and their contributors take on the monumental task of explaining major policy reforms in the postwar period in American politics. The key for any such volume is to be able to introduce rich and complex policy histories, while overlaying them with a theoretical and conceptual framework that carries through, and over, the case analyses. In these respects, the volume is a success.

Jenkins and Milkis begin by focusing attention on the emergence and development of what they label the “policy state” or the “policy-minded polity” (pp. 1, 8). These terms refer to an American governing system whereby policy is both a goal and mode of governance, even structuring institutions as policy is layered on institution and vice versa (p. 5). And the volume concludes with a chapter by Paul Pierson, who argues that policies constitute political organization, and that as a set of rules and incentives, they are part of the institutional fabric of modern American government (pp. 282, 284). Within this conceptual framework, the attachment of interest groups and parties, and how these reinforce polarization—which is itself a result of the policy-mindedness of political parties—are persistent themes throughout the work.

Between these bookended analytical chapters, 11 chapters cover a far-ranging set of substantive policy histories and reforms, from Sean Farhang’s chapter on the privatization of the enforcement mechanism in the administrative state (pp. 48–76) to Terry Moe’s examination of policy stasis in education reform (pp. 129–56) to Judith Goldstein’s chapter on trade policy (pp. 203–26). The depth and richness of this set of policy histories make the introduction and conclusion all the more important in helping the reader keep analytical focus. This results, in part, from a set of tensions that underlie many of the policy histories. These tensions represent fundamental points of departure for understanding policy reforms, for debating the scholarly explanations of these reforms, and for directing future scholarship in a policy-focused discipline of political science.

The first of these tensions inherent in the policy histories concerns the dual role of American federalism. In examining the politics surrounding the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Lawrence Jacobs and Theda Skocpol describe the reformers’ reliance on progressive federalism to overcome the obstacles presented by the role of the states in the implementation of the Act (pp. 162–65). In their analysis, policymakers were well aware that provisions leaving its implementation to the states were problematic, given federalism’s historic dampening effect on social policy. In contrast, Carol Swain and Virginia Yetter suggest that federalism may be key to reform on the intractable issue of immigration reform (p. 199). In these chapters, progressive, Washington-centered federalism, confronts the older notions of states as laboratories, or at least important pressure valves, when confronting intransigence at the federal level. The discussion leaves unanswered the connections between progressive and traditional notions of federalism and the policy-minded polity. The policy-minded polity’s shift from rights as natural, and pertaining to constitutional politics, to rights as programs and policies would seem to supplant traditional cleavages associated with federalism, states’ rights, and associated jurisdictional spats.

The chapters seem to bear this out. Although there is some pressure to devolve some immigration functions to the states, the analysis reveals federal impetus to cut short that impulse. It would seem that the full flowering of the policy-minded polity would necessitate a de-emphasis on state-level policy making—at least where the major parties, and supporting groups, contest the issue. Carrying this logic out, there is an interesting contrast between Jacobs and Skocpol’s notion that policy could mitigate partisanship and Pierson’s suggestion that policy, inextricably tied to groups and by extension to party alignment, is a major source of polarization. This seems to be a particularly important juncture for future scholarship, assuming the preeminence of policy in the modern American state.

The second tension in the case studies pertains to the relationship between vested interests and checks and balances in policy outcomes. In chapters that appear back-to-back, Dorian Warren examines how vested business interests and the supermajoritarian requirements of the U.S. Senate have in part led to the demise of American labor as a political force. Hot on his heels, Moe documents how teachers’ unions, having won supportive policies in many states, have been consistent roadblocks to education reform. In the one instance, labor power has declined as a result of the very same forces that allow teachers’ unions to succeed. These chapters highlight the importance of understanding policy as an institution, and the path dependence that policies induce. In this case, an accounting of the vested interests and traditional notions of institutions would not be enough to carry the analyses. These two cases center on the status quo structure provided by past policies.

The third tension involves whether endogenous or exogenous factors are disproportionately likely to lead to major policy reform. In his chapter on education reform, Moe suggests that, at least in this important policy area, endogenous forces are unlikely to lead to major policy reforms (p. 147). Likewise, Jennifer Merolla and Paul Pulido’s chapter on major policy changes in homeland security identifies such changes as responses to significant, exogenous shocks or events (p. 275). In contrast, Farhang’s account of the rise of private enforcement mechanisms for social regulation is a model of dramatic, endogenous change through the expansion of Civil Rights enforcement mechanisms to other areas of policymaking (e.g., environmental regulation). In agreement, Richard Immerman notes in his chapter on intelligence reform that policy change had more to do with framing and rhetoric around the Iraq war than (very real) intelligence failures (p. 246).

Tensions surrounding the endogenous and exogenous source of policy change and its extent are dependent to a great degree on the nature of feedback, positive or negative, in the policy process. Here, the discussion would have greatly benefited from reference to the literature on the policy process, which envisions a major role for endogenous factors, bolstered by positive feedback, as a source of major, dramatic shifts in public policy.

Finally, the emergence and development of the policy-minded polity raises immense and important questions concerning presidential versus congressional government. Pierson quotes Grover Norquist as alluding to the fact that the GOP did not need a thinking president, just someone, anyone, to wield a pen (p. 292). While the postwar period in American politics saw the accretion of power to the executive branch, one wonders if the arrival of the policy-focused state means a shift in the balance of power toward Congress. If groups are part and parcel of political parties, and align those parties on policy issues of their choosing, then it would seem that the presidency, as nationally representative, may be ill-suited for serving the goals of policy-oriented parties and the interests of affiliated groups. These tensions serve both as disjunctures in comparing many of the case studies of policy reform and as the volume’s central contributions to an understanding of policy change, and they are likely to spur interesting research. Together, the case studies testify to the need for scholars not working in American political development or historical approaches to policy to take policies as institutions and foundations for political organization more seriously.