Running head: Case Study Analysis 1

Case Study Analysis

Nicole E-S Pearce

Georgia Southern University

EDLD 7431 Higher Education Administration

Case Study Analysis

Introduction/Background
Case Study Analysis 2

I chose the article Making Higher Education Affordable: Policy Design in Postwar

America by Patricia Strach for my case study analysis. This piece centers on how and why

presidential candidates choose particular instruments to make higher education affordable. There

is a great variety of tools available to presidential candidates and policymakers but how and why

they chose these tools is where this case study evaluates these options. Primarily focusing on Bill

Clinton and his choice to implement tax expenditures. The case looks at the timeline of events,

how the precedent of the GI Bill effects capacity and license, and politics. After reviewing these

items tax expenditures appears to be a great solution to aid in making higher education

affordable. Strach research also provides a clear picture of why Clinton selects them.

Issues of the Case

As Strach mentions policy is a compilation of the past:

To understand why policymakers choose particular tools, we need to look not

only to the context surrounding political decisions at any one point in time (a

snapshot of policy decisions) but also to take into account previous policy

choices that may constrain current choices (a moving picture approach). (p. 2)

Piersons work (as cited in Strach, 2009)

Looking at the previous policies prior to Clintons decision in 1996, regarding aid

for higher education, you will find the GI Bill of Rights of 1944, Work-Study Provisions

of the Higher Education Act of 1965, and Basic Education Opportunity Grants:

(BEOG)/Pell Grants of 1972. They all provide students that same results in the attempt to

make higher education more affordable. When examining these previous events closely

you can see that Strach was correct when stating, times when support for government
Case Study Analysis 3

involvement is highest the tools chosen are the most extensive and when support for

government programs is lowest the tools are minimal (Strach, 2009).

The GI Bill paved the way for the all policy makers and they did this with limited

capacity and license. The GI Bill chose to provide generous benefits to a narrow range of

people. This decision would create a pattern of constituency-based aid that characterizes

federal higher education programs still today (Strach, 2009). The GI Bill made a

comprehensive plan for grant-based educational aid nearly impossible, (Strach, 2009)

which is why we describe capacity as being a factor that effects the tools selection for

policymakers. Capacity in this case refers to the maximum group of people the aid can

provide benefits for. The GI Bill selected a narrow selection of students to grant an

extensive amount of money, when doing this they set the precedent for other aid to

continue to be given to a select group of people. The term license in this case refers to

the ability to use federal dollars with the appearance of minimal federal involvement. The

GI Bill also drove this concept because the bill was structured to have the Veteran Affairs

administer the program leaving the federal government to have the appearance of

minimal to no involvement.

The results of the study where obvious and in my opinion conclusive. When

looking at capacity and license within higher education policy, traditional politics play

an effect in the decision for policymakers. As Strach points out tax expenditures are

attractive due to their inclusion in omnibus revenue bills, utilization of existing federal

bureaucracy, framing as tax relief and social welfare simultaneously, and hidden cost

(Strach, 2009). The GI Bill set the capacity and did not expand the license. Clinton had to

face this along with normal politics when deciding how to effect the affordability of
Case Study Analysis 4

higher education, with the appearance of limited involvement from the federal

government, he chose the best tool he could with what he was given.

Alternative Solution of the Case

The author had no other alternative than to gain a better understanding of why Clinton

chose tax expenditures. The case presented valuable evidence and the research was sound as all

policies are documented for the researcher to obtain. As for in the case I believe the author had a

good understanding that Clinton was not the first to try and implement a tax expenditure for

higher education affordability. Also, as my own research provides evidence that Clintons only

choice was to choose a tax expenditure or no change at all. Although many wanted to see

expansion in the Pell Grant, Clintons Hope Scholarship tax credit was the only way. As Strach

presents, Clinton had to have tax credits (Strach, 2009). Nothing else was in the cards for him

as Republicans controlled congress. The Higher Education Act of 1965 also states The problem

is what is the wisest public policy at this time (as cited in Strach, 2009). Clinton had to make

this same choice.

In my own research I found that Bridget Long presented data on the use of tax credits.

The particular attraction to them rather than traditional grants or loans is the fact that federal

budget rules favor tax expenditures over discretionary programs (Long, 2004). Long goes on to

present the fact that tax credits for higher education were finally passed during a time when the

government sought to reduce taxes (Long, 2004). Which was part of the largest tax cut in fifteen

years and leads me to believe that Clinton knew his only hope to pass on any effect to student in

higher education was tax expenditures. Lastly, Long expresses that, after years of debate over

incremental changes to other federal financial aid programs, the tax side of the budget served to

dramatically increase support for postsecondary education (Long, 2004). So, this gives
Case Study Analysis 5

testament to the fact that Clinton knew he could wait many more years for student to see any

change or to act in a manner that would get him and the students what they want.

Factors affecting the success of the Alternative Solution

If the author expanded her research I do not believe she could have found people to

support the fact that Clinton could have selected a different tool in aiding affordability for higher

education. While Strach could have presented the information differently her conclusion would

have been the same; that timing, capacity, license and politics all play factors in the policy tool

selection. Clinton made a great choice and while other might have wanted a different type of aid

this is the one Clinton knew he could obtain.

Tax expenditures had a great influence on the affordability for higher education even if it

was not direct. In 1997 the year that the tax credit passed, $9.7 billion dollars of the federal

budget was projected to be spent on education tax credits. Providing benefits to 13.1 million

students and this estimate is over 50 percent greater than the total amount spent at the time on the

Pell Grant ($6.3 billion dollars) (Long, 2004). The tax expenditure has quadrupled in value

between 2000 and 2010. Tax expenditures for higher education totaled $34.2 billion in 2012,

compared to the $35.6 billion in spending on Pell Grant. (CRFB.org, 2013). In 2013, it (tax

expenditures) provide $31 billion in tax credit, deductions, exemptions, and exclusions to offset

cost (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2015). This tells us that the decision Clinton made has greatly

helped students over time and is close to contributing the same amount as the direct policy of the

Pell Grant. So, weather he could have chosen a different policy it seems the tax expenditure was

a good choice for long term effect.

Conclusion
Case Study Analysis 6

As stated earlier, the purpose of the article was to gain a better understanding of why and

how policymakers choose tools to aid in the affordability of higher education, especially Bill

Clinton and his choice in tax expenditures. As I have agreed with the author on the research that

was presented on the topic, there is also other great benefits to understanding how policymakers

make change within policy. You first have to understand that the past will give you great insight

on what is obtainable, capacity and license will affect your ability to make decisions, and current

politics will dictate how the change takes place. Like Clinton, many will have to understand that

you can get what you want (general policy goals) if you are willing to comprise on the means of

achieving it (the tools they use) (Strach, 2004). Lastly, this article does not depict the idea that

low capacity and license will always keep the federal government from direct involvement, it

presents the idea that there will need to be a particular set of circumstances in order for that to

take place.
Case Study Analysis 7

References

Long, B. T. (2004). The impact of federal tax credits for higher education expenses. In College

choices: The economics of where to go, when to go, and how to pay for it (pp. 101-168).

University of Chicago Press.

Pew Charitable Trusts (Organization). (2015). Federal and state funding of higher education: a

changing landscape.

Strach, P. (2009). Making higher education affordable: Policy design in postwar America.

Journal of Policy History, 21(01), 61-88.

Tax Expenditures for Higher Education Rival Spending on Pell Grants. (2013, February 26).

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. Retrieved from http://crfb.org/blogs/tax-

expenditures-higher-education-rival-spending-pell-grants