Public Policy Analysis Tools - Essay Example

Public Policy Analysis Describe the application of public policy analysis tools and methods to a specific policy issue. The policy under consideration is drug control in a specific area, applied by the GAO. Policy was issued back in 2010, and after two years, its performance was analyzed using basics mathematical tools like charts and graphs. Whether they were up to the mark or not was very easy to assess as the benchmark was provided against each objective. A policy isn’t a single dimension; for instance if gun control is on the agenda, it will not be mere ‘reduce guns in public’ as the goal; it will require region specific planning. For instanceб if Chicago has more prevalence of firearms, it will require deep root planning and digging in to find the cause as to why they need guns in the first place. This might lead to worse security situation in that state. Improving law and order in that state might be the first step instead of imposing penalty on possession of guns. Continuing with the previous example of drug control policy, a report was published by GAO on March 26, 2013 (Larence & Kohn, 2013) that mentions a policy by Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which nose-dived horribly in achieving its goals. The policy was stated in the year 2010 as a part of National Drug Control Strategy. It was supposed to achieve its targets of reducing illicit drug use by year 2015. 2. Evaluate various economic analysis models. Various economic analysis models used for evaluating public polices depend on the nature, its goals and the demographics. Deterministic models and simulation models are among the many that are employed by public policy analysts. For the policy by ONDCP, the analytic models used were primarily for studying other aspects of the policy that included politically driven agenda. For instance, there are some states that have allowed the use of medical marijuana. To study the reason as to why they are allowed to smoke weed, needs to go in the analysis if ONDCP is to be successful in reducing its usage. It’s quite startling that the model used to analyze this revealed that such states already had a high usage of marijuana even before medical weed got the green signal from the authorities (Larence & Cohen, 2013). 3. Assess processes to measure equity in public policy analysis. Equity in a public policy doesn’t refer to the stock market shares. It might seem to be closely related to equality but it is not. For instance, equity in a public policy generally refers to proportionate allocation of resources, which is not equality (Nagel, 1983). Resources could be in any form, money, commodity, manpower etc. Relating the concept of equity to the case under discussion, suppose two cities get $200,000 each to collect data and marijuana samples, this could come under equality but not equity. Equity would mean that if a city ‘A’ has twice the population of city ‘B’, then city ‘A’ should get the proportionate allocation of monetary resource. So that city ‘A’ gets $266,000 while city ‘B’ gets $133,000. This is how equity works in a public policy. Generally, public policies avoid including an equity criteria, even the controversial issues surrounding the deregulation of petroleum industry, seem to be shying away from incorporating an equity criterion (Regens & Rycroft, 1986). The allocation of resources is a sensitive subject in a public policy. There is a huge probability of corruption being involved in this phase of the policy analysis. Bureaucratic manipulation, political power games, businesses and broad allocation of discretionary authority surround the equity of a policy. Power-dominated clients can significantly influence the whole process, which is why avoiding the capture of policy is paramount for effective implementation. 4. Analyze practices of incorporating public advocacy in policymaking. Policy study by public advocates needs to be considered in a different light than the usual public research. Public advocacy tends to skew the policy towards its own goals and agenda (Anderson, 2010). This doesn’t have to be a bad thing, in fact this prejudice is probably necessary as the public advocates always prefer that the policy serves the public interests first. It is a method of keeping things in check, keeping the policy formation ‘on track’. Advocacy is not the same as an analysis; public advocacy uses public knowledge and the knowledge of policy formulation to further their goals, and putting their priorities first in the policy list. In fact certain institutions play the part of both the policy analysts and public advocates, like the Brookings Institution and Resources for the Future (Anderson, 2010). The presence of public advocates makes sense as there needs to be significant presence (involvement) from public in public policy making and implementation; there is no policy without implementation. While implementing a policy, involvement of public officials (including advocates) is a must, in fact it is almost a never ending process of designing and implementation (Biggs & Helms, 2007). The concept of public advocacy might seem obvious but there is more to it than what the people generally think. In fact, public advocacy can be categorized into two broad categories; grass-root advocacy and proxy advocacy (Gormley, 1983). The grass-root advocacy usually consists of a private group that is not necessarily interested in the interests of the occupants (specifically in public utility regulation) (Gormley, 1983). It is a non-governmental, non-business entity and may choose to represent any segment of the public; elderly, disadvantaged or even the entire public. In stark contrast to grass-root advocacy, a proxy advocacy consists of public-officials (Gormley, 1983). 5. Critique examples of public policy analysis and advocacy with evidence of citizen participation. To put everything in the perspective of the GAO policy regarding drug use reduction, it would be better to relate the economic tools, advocacy and equity with the GAO’s March 2013 report. Critiquing the policy itself would be difficult as the report issues by the organization already highlights (critiques) the loopholes and suggests that the “office could better identify opportunities” (Larence & Cohen, 2013). The economic model used for the drug reduction looked into the economic impact of illicit drug use. These costs include healthcare, crime, lost productivity and amounted to $193 billion (Larence & Cohen, 2013). The analysis could also have put in the opportunity cost of this amount. Statistical Summary of Economic Analysis (Cost)1 The economic model used here doesn’t fully show the implications; opportunity costs can be significant as this same amount that is being used to reduce drugs could have been used in education or in creating more jobs, that could have a huge impact on the national GDP. Civil participation is not prevalent from the reports. It can be assumed that the penalties imposed by authorities were in agreement with the public advocacy, because otherwise it would not have been possible to pass the policy. For instance the Civilian employee drug-free program (specifically for reducing drug use at workplaces). The funds allocated (the equity) here is controlled by many governing bodies. Fiscal Year 2011 Obligations2 The drug demand reduction program funds the National Guard Bureau Prevention Treatment, and many other civil and military departments (Larence & Cohen, 2013). To list the whole allotment of equity would be too complicated for this paper, as the scope of this paper is limited against the bulk of the policy under consideration. Analyzing a public policy is a “multifaceted field” (Thissen & Walker, 2013), quantitative and qualitative research tools accompany the analysis (as was the case with the GAO policy). In many cases political discourse as well as a citizen forum is setup (Thissen & Walker, 2013). The GAO report published and discussed in this paper was in fact constructed with both of these, as the consensus needs to be built regarding equity; how severe should the drug use be in order to bear huge expenses on the government’s part. It was highlighted in the previous paper that the more centralized the control, the more difficult it would be to achieve efficiency. It is a knife that cuts both ways, as decentralizing the authority also empowers local bodies and without strict supervision and performance evaluation, this can result into a loss of equity. Central budget officials don’t like the idea of delegating the approval authority as they feel a loss of oversight control (Guess & Farnham, 2000), which is real. The biggest critique of the GAO policy is that the local authority (delegation of power) resulted in inefficiency and the whole programme missed the target by a significant margin. To eradicate it, the report is now published. However, more in depth, at the grass-root level supervision is not discussed in detail in the report. If the local authority becomes strictly supervised with weekly/biweekly goals, the policy implementation can surely work this time around. Public policy making doesn’t necessarily represent the original representation of public. For instance in public organization the decision makers generally comprise of government officials, occupying formal offices (Sapru, 2010). And this makes the whole idea of public advocacy more significant, especially an independent body such as the grass-root advocacy. It might not seem necessary to revitalize the grass-root level advocacy in the GAO policy, but in case there are further complications (failures) observed, this might be a helpful addition in achieving the targets. References List Anderson, J. E. (2010). Public policy making: An introduction. Cengage Learning. Biggs, S., & Helms, L. B. (2007). The practice of American public policymaking. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Gormley, W. T. (1983). The politics of public utility regulation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh. Guess, G. M., & Farnham, P. G. (2000). Cases in public policy analysis. Washington, DC: Georgetown UP. Larence, E., & Kohn, L. (2013). Office could better identify opportunities to increase program coordination (GAO-13-333). Retrieved from Office of Public Affairs website: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-333 Nagel, S. S. (1983). Equity as a policy goal. Bowling Green, OH: Social Philosophy and Policy Center. Regens, J. L., & Rycroft, R. W. (1986). Measuring Equity in Regulatory Policy Implementation. Public Administration Review 46.5: 423-31. Sapru, R. K. (2010). Public policy: Art and craft of policy analysis. New Delhi: PHI Learning. Thissen, W. A. H., & Walker, W. E. (2013). Public policy analysis new developments. New York: Springer. USA. National Drug Intelligence Center. U.S. Department Of Justice. (2011). United States Department of Justice, National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). Retrieved 5 June 2013 from http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs44/44731/44731p.pdf Read More