Theodore Lowi's Arenas of Power introduces public policy as an independent variable that can influence the practice of politics. The book is divided into five sections that hammer in Lowi's fourfold policy typology and that develop its explanatory power over a range of cases. He argues that public policies fall into one of four categories. Constituent policies are “formally and explicitly concerned with the establishment of government structure” (68). A distributive policy is a patronage policy that “provides for a facility or for a privilege” (73). Regulatory policies “[bring] government into (1) directly coercive relationships (2) with individual citizens” and embody the state's “police power” over its constituents (79). Redistributive policies “involve involuntary groupings of people … [that] deal in attributes of citizens and structures of citizens without regard to individual performance” (87). These distinctions provide the basis for Lowi's multifaceted “arenas of power” model that is developed over the course of the book.

Part one of Arenas of Power (chapters 2 and 3) establishes the model as an alternative to pluralist and elitist theories’ examinations of the causes and outcomes of policymaking. Lowi argues that elitist and pluralist theories provide partial, rather than encompassing, explanations for the creation of policies. He contends that pluralism's explanatory leverage is primarily in the regulatory arena. Regulatory policies favor the creation of broad yet unstable coalitions capable of engaging in short-term group mobilization. Elitist theories are more salient in the redistributive arena, where peak organizations and executive actors are the primary decision makers. The distributive arena, on the other hand, favors neither groups nor elites. Instead distributive outcomes are the product of logrolling and the unstructured organization of diverse individual interests; policies are generated by committees and agencies. By breaking down policies into types, Lowi contends that the three policy arenas (constituent policies are introduced later on) determine in part which actors are involved in decision making and what degree of influence they have over policy outcomes.

In part two (chapters 4, 5, and 6), the arenas-of-power model serves as a lens to examine the relatively late development of the American state. Lowi argues that regulatory and redistributive policies encompass the rules that are most directly tied to the state's consolidation of coercive power. While constituent and distributive policies emerged during and immediately following independence, regulatory and redistributive policies only began to be entrenched and differentiated in the first half of the twentieth century (starting with the adoption of the New Deal). Lowi contends that the delay in the emergence of centralized coercive power is due in part to the decentralization of power to states, as a result of founding constituent policies, and the entrenchment of cities as the primary loci of distributive politics. Lowi argues that states did most of the “fundamental governing” (114) during the nineteenth century. The regulatory and redistributive policies of the New Deal engaged central government in a direct coercive relationship with citizens, thus bypassing states and cities as centers of power. Lowi sees the nonpartisan promotion of regulatory policies from the 1960s onwards as an indication of the continuing entrenchment of central authority.

Part three (chapters 7 and 8) continues along the same lines and traces the development of state bureaucracy. Lowi argues that each policy type also engenders type-specific agencies and bureaus. More importantly, this section takes to task the idea that “issues” directly dictate specific policy outcomes. Rather, Lowi contends that constituent, distributive, regulatory, and redistributive agencies can acquire saliency over time and can help shape individual and group demands. That is to say that demands are articulated in response to the particular type or types of policy that govern a specific “issue.” Part four (chapters 9, 10, and 11) furthers this argument by exploring, among others, agricultural and population control “issues.” Lowi revisits The End of Liberalism (352) and argues that agricultural “issues” have been unnaturally fixed in the distributive arena. He contends that the inability of liberal governments to engage in long-term planning and the initial prevalence of patronage politics in the agricultural sector have prevented a shift to an arena more suited for its declining importance in the American economy. Lowi uses the “issue” of population control to explore the predictive qualities of the arenas-of-power model. He argues that constituent and redistributive policies can enhance, respectively, divides along values lines and the possibility of strong societal mobilization. Thus “issues” are open to a variety of policy choices; however, the choice of policy then determines the “issue's” impact on society and political structures.

In part five (chapters 12, 13, and 14) Lowi expands on the causal power of public policy. He contends that the deepening of central authority and administration in the United States has engendered a form of radical politics. Rather than producing “withdrawal” or “revolutionary” models of mobilization that disavow existing policy frameworks, the United States has produced “rebellious” politics. Essential in this distinction is Lowi's contention that only “rebellious” politics target and are constrained by existing arenas of power. He argues that each arena of power produces its own form of “rebellious” politics and that, in turn, generates its own normative debate. For example, while redistributive radical politics focuses on “rights,” the regulative arena favors a discourse centered on “moral absolutes” (281). Lowi concludes Arenas of Power by briefly examining approaches to globalization and arguing for a shift away from an “economic definition of reality” (293) and toward a focus on political processes and policy.

Arenas of Power is a dense and sophisticated contribution to policy analysis and comparative politics. Norman K. Nicholson's brief introductory chapters provide a succinct analysis of each section's contribution to the “arenas of power” model and to the limits of the model's explanatory leverage. Perhaps the most intriguing part of the book lies in its recasting of American political history by examining the critical impact of policy types and eras on the development of political processes, political structures, and political “issues.” While section one grounds the model as an alternative to elitist and pluralist theories, it is the potential to use the model as a means to explain broad stages of political change (addressed in section two and onwards) that can truly put the fourfold typology to the test. The book's primary purpose is indeed to build the “arenas of power” for eventual exportation to other contexts. The model could be applied to post-transitional polities where the four policy types sometimes emerge simultaneously at the point of democratization rather than sequentially as in the American case. If policy influences the development of institutions, what impact does the simultaneous development of policy arenas have on the survival of nascent democratic institutions? Likewise in certain postcolonial polities where distributive politics are endemic, the model could be useful in highlighting the paths towards and obstacles preventing the emergence of other policy arenas. In sum, Arenas of Power provides a detailed and accessible analysis of policy types and lays the groundwork for broader comparative work.