ere are also two groups making demands upon the system. The Oneidas want their land back and the local citizens do not want to lose their homes and businesses. Missing from analysis of this kind is how these decisions are made within the political system. There is no discussion of how the decisions to give the Oneidas the land or to require federal consent in dealing with Indian lands were reached. We also do not know how the Supreme Court decisions of 1974 and 1985 were made. As a result, political systems theory is short on the blood and guts of policy making and leaves the analyst looking for more answers.The institutional approach to policy analysis again deals with the authoritative nature of policy decisions. In addition, institutionalism goes further than political systems theory in that it seeks to characterize the behavior of the institutions in the policy making process. An institution is defined as a set of regularized patterns of human behavior that persist over time (Anderson 1984). These patterns of behavior have a significant affect on policy and decision making in that they tend to reflect the interests of one segment of society over another. These patterns of behavior are a common thread in our political system and make up some of the blood and guts of public policy stated above.The Oneida Land Claim is an excellent issue for such a form of analysis. The government of the United States clearly has a special position with regards to Indian nations. This minority group of citizens was for many years not given the same basic rights as those of white ancestry in the United States. As a result the federal government has a special interest in seeing that the Oneida Nation, as well as other minorities, are treated fairly. The pattern of special treatment by the federal is noticeable in the creation of the Treaty of Canandaigua and especially in the passage of the Trade and Intercourse Act which prohibits anyone, i...
