Phil Rocco
Connect with Phil
About Phil
Rocco's research examines the political economy of policy knowledge in the United States. A central dilemma of contemporary American politics is that ideological polarization has eroded a shared cognitive basis for reasoning about how to solve public problems. To better understand this dilemma, his work builds on comparative political economy scholarship on how the US “knowledge regime”—the organizational infrastructure that generates ideational frameworks, analysis, and advice—affects the way that policymakers recognize problems, build coalitions, and develop viable policy solutions. While existing work treats variation in knowledge regimes across national contexts, he shows that variation within the US context—across time, policy area, and institutional venue—has significant consequences for the character of public policy. His published and forthcoming work also focuses on how fragmented policy designs are shaping the politics and policy of health care in the US, as well as how policymakers and frontline workers overcome challenges associated with fragmentation.
Contributions
Trump’s Washington is Ghosting States and Cities
Why Work Requirements Will Not Improve Medicaid
The Political Roots of Uncooperative Federalism
No Jargon Podcast
In the News
Publications
Explores the often-overlooked but vital role of intergovernmental partnerships in conducting the U.S. census, particularly focusing on the 2020 count. Drawing on interviews with hundreds of public officials and quantitative analyses of state and local activities, this book provides scholars and practitioners with deeper insight into the factors that facilitate or hinder effective intergovernmental partnerships for census taking.
Examines how official federal datasets on subnational fiscal activity can obscure the political dynamics behind local budget decisions, arguing that researchers must critically consider both the technical and political contexts in which these datasets are produced.
Explores how U.S. territories advocate for their interests through intergovernmental councils and direct lobbying. Findings suggest that territories—while denied access to traditional mechanisms of shared rule—do participate in intergovernmental relations, through a combination of bottom-up and top-down multilateral intergovernmental councils (IGCs), as well as bilateral intergovernmental lobbying.
Examines why the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has remained a stable and influential institution in the federal budget process, arguing that in addition to its reputation for neutrality and competence, the CBO’s durability also relies on a strong political support structure and increased congressional investment in fiscal expertise.
Argues that “intense policy demanders” played an important role in defining the policy alternatives that comprised congressional Republicans' efforts to repeal and replace the ACA.
Shows how the Affordable Care Act's intergovernmental structure, which entails the participation of both the federal government and the states, has deeply shaped the politics of implementation. Focusing on the creation of insurance exchanges, the expansion of Medicaid, and execution of regulatory reforms examines how opponents of the Act fought back against its implementation.
Draws on interviews with state health-insurance personnel in over thirty states to show the influence and limits of partisanship on shaping patterns of collaboration between federal and state officials under the Affordable Care Act.
Outlines a method for noticing difficult-to-spot changes to public policy that happen “off the radar,” without formal changes in legislation or rules.
Compares the Affordable Care Act to the Universal Credit in the United Kingdom to show how increasing demand for individualized government services cannot be met under conditions of increasing budget austerity and a polarized politics of accountability.