How Policy Shapes Politics: Rights, Courts, Litigation, and the Struggle Over Injury Compensation (Studies in Postwar American Political Development)

"Judicialization, juridification, legalization - whatever terms they use, scholars, commentators and citizens are fascinated by what one book has called "The Global Rise of Judicial Power" and seek to understand its implications for politics and society. In How Policy Shapes Politics, Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke find that the turn to courts, litigation, and legal rights can have powerful political consequences. Barnes and Burke analyze the field of injury compensation in the United States, in which judicialized policies operate side-by-side with bureaucratized social insurance programs. They conclude that litigation, by dividing social interests into victims and villains, winners and losers, generates a fractious, chaotic politics in which even seeming allies - business and professional groups on one side, injured victims on the other - can become divided amongst themselves. By contrast, social insurance programs that compensate for injury bring social interests together, narrowing the scope of conflict and over time producing a more technocratic politics. Policy does, in fact, create politics. But only by comparing the political trajectories of different types of policies - some more court-centered, others less so - can we understand the consequences of arguably one of the most significant developments in post-World War II government, the increasingly prominent role of courts, litigation, and legal rights in politics"--Unedited summary from book jacket Judicialization, juridification, legalization-whatever terms they use, scholars, commentators and citizens are fascinated by what one book has called "The Global Rise of Judicial Power" and seek to understand its implications for politics and society. In __How Policy Shapes Politics__, Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke find that the turn to courts, litigation, and legal rights can have powerful political consequences. Barnes and Burke analyze the field of injury compensation in the United States, in which judicialized policies operate side-by-side with bureaucratized social insurance programs. They conclude that litigation, by dividing social interests into victims and villains, winners and losers, generates a fractious, chaotic politics in which even seeming allies-business and professional groups on one side, injured victims on the other-can become divided amongst themselves. By contrast, social insurance programs that compensate for injury bring social interests together, narrowing the scope of conflict and over time producing a more technocratic politics. Policy does, in fact, create politics. But only by comparing the political trajectories of different types of policies -- some more court-centered, others less so -- can we understand the consequences of arguably one of the most significant developments in post-World War II government, the increasingly prominent role of courts, litigation, and legal rights in politics. The 'global rise of judicial powe' has been called one of the most significant developments in late twentieth and early twenty-first century politics. In this book, Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke examine the political consequences of the growing reliance on courts and litigation in public policy by analyzing the field of injury compensation, in which judicialized and bureaucratized programs operate side-by-side. Their study mixes quantitative data on a wide range of injury compensation policies with three in-depth case historical studies in which they trace political struggles over Social Security Disability Insurance, asbestos injury litigation, and the obscure but fascinating controversy over injuries purportedly caused by vaccines. They conclude that while social insurance programs that compensate for injury tend to bring social interests together, the use of litigation divides interests between victims and villains, winners and losers and so creates a comparatively fractious, chaotic politics.-- Provided by Publisher The 'global Rise Of Judicial Power' Has Been Called One Of The Most Significant Developments In Late Twentieth And Early Twenty-first-century Politics. In This Book, Jeb Barnes And Thomas F. Burke Examine The Political Consequences Of 'judicialization' - The Growing Reliance On Courts, Rights And Litigation In Public Policy - By Analyzing The Field Of Injury Compensation, In Which Judicialized And Bureaucratized Programmes Operate Side-by-side. Introduction -- Congressional Hearings And The Politics Of Adversarial And Bureaucratic Legalism -- Social Security Disability Insurance : The Politics Of Bureaucratic Legalism -- Asbestos Injury Compensation : The Politics Of Adversarial Legalism And Layered Policies -- Vaccine Injury Compensation : Shifting Policies, Shifting Politics -- Conclusion. Jeb Barnes And Thomas F. Burke. Includes Bibliographical References (pages 231-248) And Index. Comparing judicialized and bureaucratized injury compensation policies, Jeb Barnes and Thomas F. Burke conclude that litigation divides interests between victims and villains and winners and losers, and so creates a comparatively fractious, chaotic politics.