IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v7y1987i1p1-16.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Requisites of radical reform: Income maintenance versus tax preferences

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis Coyle
  • Aaron Wildavsky

Abstract

Why did tax reform succeed in gaining passage while the family assistance plan failed? Using cultural theory, we argue that the active consent of elites from three political cultures is required before radical policy proposals will win political support in America. Although the Nixon administration cast the income maintenance plan in integrative terms-support for the family-it failed because egalitarian leaders demanded more. Tax reform succeeded because elites of the three cultures-individualists, egalitarians, and supporters of hierarchy-saw benefits in the plan and were willing to compromise.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis Coyle & Aaron Wildavsky, 1987. "Requisites of radical reform: Income maintenance versus tax preferences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(1), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:7:y:1987:i:1:p:1-16
    DOI: 10.2307/3323347
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/3323347
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/3323347?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Aaron Wildavsky, 1994. "Why Self-Interest Means Less Outside of a Social Context," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 6(2), pages 131-159, April.
    2. M. Aenne Schoop & Marco Verweij & Ulrich Kühnen & Shenghua Luan, 2020. "Political disagreement in the classroom: testing cultural theory through structured observation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 623-643, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:7:y:1987:i:1:p:1-16. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.