| Popis: |
As disease campaigns multiplied in the 1980s and 1990s, critics worried that they would compete with each other for federal funding, stalling the growth of the medical research budget. But even though diseases with the most organized patients secured huge funding increases, disease lobbying rarely became a zero-sum game. Instead, disease campaigns were most successful when the National Institutes of Health budget was growing. When medical research competed with other federal spending priorities, the search for cures won out over more redistributive and politically controversial programs. Combining insights about advocacy and budget politics reveals that advocacy’s effectiveness varies over time, as does the extent to which related problems compete with each other. Specialized claims do not invariably compete, nor do they necessarily doom broader goals. |
