Public Policy - Book Report/Review Example

Public Policy: An Introduction Public policy has been defined by Anderson as the purposive ‘course of action or inaction followed by an actor or actors in dealing with a problem or a matter of concern. According to this definition therefore, public policy is more of what is done and not what is intended by public sector actors. This approach to distinguishing public policy from other public sector activities is important given the fact that not all issues of concern are given the same level of seriousness by those in charge of taking action as we will see later. But again, drawing from this definition, public policy is a continuous process which starts from decision making and goes into implementation. Another thing is the fact that public policy is purposive meaning that it is deliberately put in place to achieve certain objectives. It is therefore not the result of a random action, but something that has been thought through and discussed with an aim of addressing issues or changing people’s behavior in a particular way. It is however important to note that sometimes, the goals intended are never achieved given the fact that the party pushing for a particular policy may not be able to push through the formulation stage by failing to garner enough support say in the congress and therefore fails their bid. Besides, the failure to achieve the objectives of a public policy, even when such becomes a reality is the attendant consensus building process. It is instructive to note that sometimes, even people with the same goal in mind might significantly differ in their perspectives of how the issue at hand should be addressed. This way, compromises are strict, and in the end, we may end up with a document that is vague or too general such that at the end of it all, the resultant regulation is not clear as to what is to be done or what should not be done. Another distinguishing characteristic is the fact that public policy is developed by government bodies and officials. These are the parties mandated to intervene in matters of public concern by the rules governing the country. Other players such as non-governmental organizations therefore put various levels of pressure to ensure that action that is favorable to their course is taken. But such external bodies does not in way way make the decisions because that is not part of their constitutional mandate. However, they can participate in the implementation of the public policy once a decision has been made. But again, there is a possibility that even after the law is passed, the government may not have enough resources to implement it and relies on the people to do so and in the end this ends up not being done. Therefore, it becomes more of inaction rather than action. It has also to be remembered that public policy issues affect many people in the society. After this matter, government bodies and agencies such as congress and other bodies have to ensure that the decision taken are in the best interest of the country, otherwise we may end up with a huge section of the population being disgruntled and this is a perfect recipe for civil strife. The scope therefore of public policy, that it affect huge numbers of people within the population, distinguishes it from other public sector activities. But again, given that those who take decisions in public policy come into office having been appointed by politicians or are themselves politicians, it therefore means that political interest sometimes guides public policy. Therefore, with an eye on the coming elections, politicians will rarely take difficult decisions if buy so doing, they may end up antagonizing huge sections of their voting blocks. The failure by President Obama to push through congress gun control laws was partially a pointer to this reality. It has also to be remembered that public policy aims at influencing the government decisions over a course of time. It is not therefore a random ‘flash in the fry pan thing’ or something aimed at only particular arms of the government. Public policy affects the government decisions across the board as long as the issue at hand comes under review. This is what public policies are made included in the laws of a country so that they may be used as a guidelines to government action. And when matters comes to court on issues touching on this rules, the courts use their judicial powers to interpret the policy in a way that makes sense. In this sense, the policy undergoes further refining with subsequent judicial decisions. In this instance, public policy becomes different from other activities in the sense that the decision eventually becomes part of the legal system in the country, directing action and aimed leading to specific goals being achieved. Lastly, it is important to note that public policy comes out of policy demands. These are the demands made by other actors in the society such as private citizens, non-governmental organizations, pressure groups, legislators and other public officials. Through these demands, some form of debate is started as the issue is discussed and analyzed in great details before it culminates into the issue going to congress and taking the path to becoming law. In this sense, we can see public policy as a reaction to the demands put on the congress and government agencies by various segments of the society. It has to be stressed that not all demands lead to public policy. There are instances whereby the government, whose intervention is sought decides to do nothing. This is because in government’s own opinion, the policy being sought may be counterproductive in the longer term. Tis is called negative public policy, and leads to maintaining of the status quo. Public and Private Problem Policy are aimed at public problems and not private problems. A public problem refers to a situation that is causing suffering to a majority of the people. Besides, there is a general feeling that there is nothing those affected can do and as a result, there is a need for the authorities to intervene and reduce their suffering. Examples may include global warming, traffic congestion, abortion and crowded prisons. A private problem on the other hand, is a problem that is only affecting minority of the people. In many instances, there is a tendency to believe that it is their own problem and in any case, those affect can do something regarding their situations. However, this may become public problems with time in the event that the cause sufficient anxiety and dissatisfaction such that many people wish that governmental intervention can improve matters. But it has to be noted here that not all problems will have the government intervening even if they are of public nature. First, there is the issue of standards. People will only see government intervention as necessary if the problem they are facing goes to a levels they feel they can no longer tolerate. Otherwise, they will not even raise it. Smoking in public places is frowned upon because scientific results show that it causes a wide range of cancers. But some people may argue that it is not true simply because they want the government to keep off the issue. In this instance therefore, the people feel that they can still tolerate existing levels of public smoking and there is no need of government intervention. Then there is the issue of elites who drive public policy deciding what to pursue and what to leave out. Essentially, if politicians feel that a certain group of electorate are likely to influence the upcoming elections, they are likely to take seriously concerns raised by that group of voters. This is because their aim is to put themselves in good stead in the minds of the voters. The same level of seriousness might not be taken on issues affecting groups in the society who are known not to vote or their numbers are unlikely to tilt election results. It for this issue that the Republican Party has of late been divided on whether to have rapprochement with the colored people given their growing numbers. Historically, this group of voters have tended to vote democrat and the conservative republicans are not known to court them. But with estimates showing that this group is growing, the Republican Party in the United States has grown jittery, and their opposition to matters on immigration such as has been more guarded. Theories of Public Policy Elite Theory Elite theory stipulates that public policy, in itself, takes care of the needs of the elites and not the masses who demand the policy. To begin with, this theory holds that in any society, there is a clear distinction between the elites who control the resources and are wealthy. They are otherwise called the haves, and are the minority. On the other hand, we have the masses who form the majority in the population and mostly do not have the resources to compete with the haves. They are the poor and are otherwise called the have nots. Essentially, this theory holds that it is the elites who shape public policy and not the masses as is always assumed in a democratic society. Therefore, policy reflects the values of elites in this sense that what they want is what is included in policy while what they do not want simply does not make into the policy. In this sense, public policy is a way of the elites in society to realize their self-serving interest. Given the fact that the elites have the resources, they mostly control the political process through either sponsoring candidates and or putting up spirited campaigns to support one side or the other. These resources cannot be matched by those who have no resources. In essence, most of those who make it into the political office owe their allegiance to the elites or are themselves part of the elites. This way, they get to see to it that their interests are preserved. It is interesting to note that even though the elites are in the minority, they still hold sway in the political process which it is in itself democratic and based on universal suffrage of one man one vote. This can only be explained by the resources they can bring to bear in the political process in terms of the campaigns and advertisements such that the positions they support become more prominent that the opposition. This way, they stand a better chance of getting their message through and being heard. In the United States political landscape, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is known to be a powerful gun lobby. It spend huge sums of money campaigning for candidates seen friendly to gun holder rights and against those deemed to be against gun rights. Immediately following the massacre of about 20 students in Connecticut by a lone gunman, president Obama undertook took action to bring to congress a bill that aimed at wider controls against gun rights. Even though the timing of the action was right as the massacre was still in people thoughts, the NRA was the subject that many were talking about. Even though they did not come out explicitly to oppose the president, it is understood they lobbied they Republican lawmakers and in the end the president’s efforts floundered and the expected changes never made it through. This just go a long way to show how the immense financial muscles of such elites groups in society can be used to protect their interests. Systems Model This approach looks at public policy as a system. In a nutshell, a system has a set of ‘inputs’ which are found in its environment. It takes in these materials and processes them into a set of outputs. Then depending on the feedback it gets from the environment, either the inputs might be changed or the methods of processing the inputs. Extrapolating this therefore, we can see public policy as including the institutions within the society and various activities that are carried out which basically transforms the various demands laid on by the groups in society into authoritative decisions. To reach fruition, these decisions requires the support of the whole society in the sense that all have to identify with the new set of laws put in place. Therefore, public policy issues, as we have already seen, affects a wider cross-section of the society. It has also to be noted, as we will see later regressing evolution of public policy, that the feedback derived from the society via various means, may lead to change in the various aspects of the legislation with the aim of ensuring that maximum benefits is derived from public policy. Game Theory With game theory, we basically assumes that decisions makers are faced with a number of choices they can make, and each choice presents the chance of a particular outcome. The decision maker therefore will aim at maximizing their benefits and at the same time minimizing the losses. In public policy environment therefore, this theory assumes that the various actors in public policy process have a number of choices which they can make and each of these choices presents different sets of outcomes. Each of the actors has goals to be achieved and resources and have to work on a strategy based on likely reaction of their opponents in such a way that they end up with a desirable pay-off from that ‘game.’ Thus, as we will see later, the the` poly makers have a lot of issues on their hands and it is not given that a policy will attract their attention. Therefore, the timing of various action sand events become key in getting them to move an problem into an agenda and finally kicking off the process of turning an agenda into a legislation. But above all, even the policy makers have their own interest in the process. It has to pointed out here that the policy making process is political. In this sense, those pushing for a given sources of action through public policy and the policy makers form the different set of teams, involved in a game, and each wanting to maximize his or her payoff from the game. The Policy Making Process The Agenda In essence, an agenda refers to a problems that policy makers have decided to address. Realistically, there are many issues competing for the attention of the policy makers. This is because the politicians and executives have limited time and resources, lack interests information, will to consider all the issues. Besides, the politicians themselves also have their own views ion how particular issues have to be considered. Therefore, a problem has to undergo various processes for it to qualify to be an agenda. The agenda setting process starts with the problem stream whereby actors either within or outside the government decide on which matter to pursue. This may be the brainchild of an individual or several individuals. Then it goes to the proposal stream whereby a number of people come together to consider solutions to the problem at hand. They may include bureaucrats, academicians, congressional staffs or public officials. These people have several interests and will bring to fore their own perspectives, leading to some proposals being discarded while others are adopted. With the final copy in hand, they had to wait for the kingdom moment; a moment whereby their proposals can resonate with the public and the policy makers so that the issue qualify to be an agenda. This may include change in presidential administration, swing in public mood or even election results. For instance, the coming into power of president Obama in 2009 was accompanied by a flurry of environmental and labor interest agendas, which had been suppressed under the regime of President George W. Bush. This then bring us to the agenda models to be adopted in pushing through a problem to become an agenda. As seen above, it can be deduced that choosing the wrong model may lead absence of resonance of the issue with the public and most importantly, the policy makers. One of the models is the outside initiative model which basically involves members of the public presenting a problem to the government to be dealt with as an institutional agenda. Basically this means that the agenda has to be taken seriously. This is common for problems that are not controversial, but wider publicity has to be carried out due to lack of information among wider public. Inside initiative model is one whereby a solution to a problem is implemented within the government. Hence, it originates within the government and implemented within the government. Mobilization model is one whereby the agenda is introduced by a member of the legislature but the solution will have to be enforced by members of the public once a legislation is passed. In conclusion, it is important to note that the public policy process is a purely political process. Hence, time has to be spent building the agenda so as to create an agreeable document. This is the most difficult part and a lot of disagreements are bound to be witnessed. Building consensus may lead to watering widow the document to the extent that the final document will be too vague. Another issue is the timing of when to introduce the problem. Wrong timing may simply not garner enough support, however important the issue being addressed. This is why sometimes, many bills have been left to gather dust in congress because there is a danger of failure to get enough support in the floor of the two houses. Formulation of Policy Proposals Once a problem has become an agenda in the sense that politicians and executives feel that the issue at hand should be addressed, the next stage is policy proposal. Basically, what happen s here is development of ways in which the issue should be addressed. The problem here is that the policy makers may be faced with a situation whereby they have to choose between options presented by several conflicting camps or they themselves may be struggling to come up with a viable solution to the problem. Another thing to remember here is that the fact that an agenda has reached the policy proposal does not in any way means that it will end up becoming law or an executive order being issued. In some instances, we may have a case whereby the congress decide to do nothing about it. On the other hand, politicians themselves may fail to agree, thus stalling the process. This is normally a safe bet, rather than risk a vote over the issue in the congress and lose. Thus, as long as it remains inconclusive, there is always hope that one day when the situation prevailing in congress is conducive, it may be introduced and passed. A good example of how painstakingly slow the process can be is the Family Support Act (FSA) of 1988. This was passed after decades of disagreements, studies and recommendations. Policy formulators should have a number of issues at the back of their minds while they are undergoing their jobs. One is to look at the budgetary implications of the policy they are drafting. If the figures involves are too huge, it may be a turnoff and fellow legislators will be justified to withdraw their support, especially given the paucity of national resources. On the other hand, another issue will be a determination of whether the policy is politically acceptable. As long as it is not, a lot of effort will have to be spent building bipartisan support for the policy to ensure that it will sail through in the congress. If this cannot be achieved, then it means that the policy will have problems sailing through. Lastly, is the issue of whether or not the public will support such a policy if it is passed into law. This is a very important point, given the fact that legislators will be keen to retain their seats. This therefore means that having a policy that is not agreeable to the voters essentially means that the politician will be out to face a very hostile electorate and they will certainly lose their seats. This is a scenario no one will be willing to face. Legislators would rather vote out such a policy if they feel there will be a backlash from their constituencies. Participation in Policy Process There are many stakeholders who participate in formulating policies. In most cases, the congress does not in itself come up with the policies. Rather, it works on policies coming in from a wide cross section of the society. Essentially, the president and his team will submit some of the bills to the congress for consideration into law. This is important in pointing congress to areas the president is given priority and more importantly, the stand the president is taking on a number of key issues in the country. Therefore, the first participants in the policy formulation process is the government agencies. These agencies are dominated by career civil servants and appointed officials. In the course of their work, these officials get to encounter a number of issues and problems, and they do develop policies to address those problems and submit them to the executive. In the event the executive, after going through the proposals and considering the president’s policies and programs, are in agreement, the sent the proposal to the congress for debate and possible adoption into law. Agencies are in good position to enhance the policy formulation process especially given their expertise and the fact that they are in continual involvement with particular issues. They are therefore technically competent to deal with the issues hand. The problem sometimes is that the legislators are sometimes guided by political considerations rather than the soundness of proposals and this may lead to delays. Presidential organizations are the next participants in the policy formulation process. These are bodies such as task forces, commissions and interagency teams appointed by the president to look into various issues as may be determined by the president and make a report, which is to be considered as in regards to having legislations ton address the problem identified by the president and which was part of their terms of reference. A major challenge for these commissions appointed by the president is to come up with the proposals and win support for their own proposals. The main advantage of these way of doing things is that the commissions can be less activist and focus on key issues rather than the politics and ‘noise’ that adds no value to the final solutions. This way, they are likely to be more objective. However, the composition of such commissions may be a major sticking point. Conservative figures, working together with more liberal may end up clashing and doing less. In this sense therefore, in most instances, in view of the president’s position on issues, members of a commissions are normally those likely to support the president’s view. Legislators are another key plank in public policy formulation process. They receive recommendations on how a given problem should be handled from members of the public, various interest groups, administrative officials and citizens and work with this to formulate their proposals. While it may appear that the legislators do all the work, they get the support from the congressional teams who do draft the proposals in a manner that safeguards the interest of the legislators. Markedly, choice of words and hat to include and what not to include become important. On the other hand, legislators build consensus over divisive issues among themselves so as to ensure the proposals sail through in the congress. Lastly, interest groups play a key role in policy formulation because they have the time and staff, something that may not be the case with the legislators. Besides, their work is normally backed up by research done over years and therefore authoritative. It has to be noted that some of these interest groups represent a sizable majority of voters and legislators would be keen to have constructive engagement with these interest groups especially the wording on policies that are of interest to the members represented by these groups. Policy Implementation After the policy becomes law, the next step is implementation. Basically, implementation of the policy falls within the purview of administrative agencies. Basically, we have numerous agencies that that deals with various issues and therefore are used by the state and the federal governments to enforce policy. These agencies interact with the citizens on a day to day basis and by virtue of that, directly affect the lives of the people. It has to be mentioned that given the fact that polices are broad statement of intention, sometimes it is the duty of these agencies to use their discretion in determining what the best way to implement a given policy. This situation is caused by a number of factors such as the inability to bridge the differences and therefore broad statements are a way of striking a consensus. Besides, the limitation of time, resources and information may means that the legislators are unable to come up with a concrete law, hence the need to leave such gaps in the hope that implementing agencies will fill them with more concrete pieces of legislation and by-laws. In law, this is referred to as delegated legislation. In essence, the administrative agencies, which are themselves arms of government at lower levels, will have to look at the intention of the policy and on the basis of that decide on what to do and what not to do. Therefore, the same law will be enforced differently in different states and the various state and government agencies swing into action. Policy Evaluation Once a policy is in place and is being implemented, individuals and institution may have different views of the policy. These may range from private individuals, interests groups, the courts, opinion leaders, commentators, the media, administrators and even legislators. It has to be noted that the views expressed by these individuals and institutions are based on their beliefs systems and values. For instance, a democrat may be in favour of an increase in taxes for the reach because he feels that the extra tax collected will be used on investments that uplift the lives of the poor. A conservative on the other hand may be very negative about the welfare systems simply because he feels the same does not help much as some people have a way of cheating the system and benefiting fraudulently. These views sometimes are crystalize into something tangible in the sense that it may either call for sections of the policy to be amended or the policy to be scrapped off completely. Remember that the process is purely political and if legislators feel that there if a possibility of scoring a few political points, we may have a few individuals working on the amendments or abolition of the policy in its entirety. It has also to be noted that while implementation is going on, some citizen’s become aggrieved with the manner this is done and will undoubtedly head to the courts. The decisions of the courts help to further refine the law and become part of the established practice with regards to enforcement of the given policy. Normally, when a court issues a ruling, such a ruling becomes binding to lower courts, in a system called precedence. It therefore means that in a way, cases of the same nature brought in that court should be decided in the same way. In some instance, there is the possibility that the courts may decide that a given policy or part of it is unconstitutional, meaning that it can no longer be enforced. Another issue with regards to evaluation of policy will centers around how the policy is implemented. Basically, there will be a focus on the cost benefits analysis, which simply refers to looking at the gains the policy is achieving vis a vis the cost of implementing such a policy and deciding whether it is worthwhile to continue with the policy in its form, or a lot more benefit may be reaps by changing a few things. Sometimes, such a kind of evaluation has led to changing or eliminating programs while retaining the policies themselves [Cha97]. A programs is basically a branch of the policy that helps in the implementation of the policy. Programs sometimes due overlap with other programs or constitute unnecessary duplication with other programs which are in place. This may call for elimination of such programs to make the policy more effective. Information regarding effectiveness of the policy will have to be collected from the staff involved with the implementation. Crucially, it will be important to look at how their performance e has changed in light of the policy and specifically areas that need improvement. Systematic evaluations has been gaining currency in recent days. What happens is that public institutions have a working arrangement with private institutions such as research organizations and universities. Essentially what happens is that the universities and institutions studies the impact of the policies as part of their activities and make public their findings. This way, it becomes clear whether the policy is helping in addressing the intended problems. But besides, it is a cheaper way of conducting evaluation as it involves less in terms of financial commitment in evaluating policy. Given that the studies take a professional approach and is devoid of subjective tendencies, then credible information against which action can be taken is generated. The Role of Representation in the Policy Process Basically, representation means that a groups of people, in this case the citizens, will have their issues being handled by their leaders on their behalf. It connotes that the leader will act in the best interest of the led in all cases and by so doing, will constantly seek the opinions of his people. Given, this is what is expected of the elected representatives as they pour over various agendas and formulate various policies. The problem with representation in public policy issues is that the representatives as they are, will largely take positions that may not largely be of benefits to the people who elected them. To begin with, there is the issue of party politics and the representatives will be whipped into supporting party positions, which sometimes goes against the wishes of the majority of those who are being led. Let us also not forget the power of various interests groups. Majority of these interest groups, like the gun lobby, have had the history of using their immense wealth to lobby legislators to support their course. Of course there has been talk of incentives in various forms such as campaigns funds, but the key here is that a good number of politicians may end up defending courses that are at variance with the wishes of those who voted them. It has therefore to be noted that whereas many leaders would want to craft the picture of a people who hold the interest of the electorate at heart, other things come into pay that makes this impossible. Even getting the issue affecting the electorate into agendas may be as difficult for a legislator as it is for any other person. Fellow legislators will be having an eye on the forthcoming elections any may not want to antagonize their electorate. In my opinion therefore, the issue of representation in public policy is a bit overhyped, and may not necessary be so. Public Choice Theory All throughout, the narrative that is likely to be gleaned here is that public policy process is chiefly aimed at benefitting the masses through some form of legislation. In essence, the assumption is that legislation is usually passed in the best interest of the people and even follow-up pieces of legislation and as amendments is aimed at improving the position of the populace. However, public choice theory challenges this key assumption by asserting that sometimes policy decisions, are clothed as being in the public interests when in actual fact, it ends up serving selfish interest of a few in the society. A good example has to be the Clean Air Act of 1977. Essentially, the aim of the policy was to protect less developed areas in the United States from air pollution. But in practice, the strict environmental standards imposed by the Act ended up reducing completion by stifling economic growth in the Midwest, something that served the best interest of a few firms. The public choice theory brings out the fact that public policy making is rife with trade-offs and manipulations as different individual and groups hide their real intention by pretending to push for an issue that is in the best interest of the population. This way, they are able to garner widespread support and legislation ends up not befitting the very people who were to be targeted. Therefore, there is an element of the failure of government by letting such nefarious tactics to succeed. Public Policy Environment It would be important to appreciate one fact that has been alluded to all through this essay; the environment. We must appreciate the fact that policy makers do not operate in a vacuum. Essentially, in the course of their work. They interact with various actors and phenomena which either make their work easier or more difficult as it should be. Such include weather conditions, the political culture, demographic characteristics such as population size and racial composition and age distribution and even economic factors, political and nongovernmental actors. Socio-economic Conditions Public policy is sometimes aimed at resolving conflicts among various groups in the society. Normally, it is the groups that feel dissatisfied that may seek government intervention so that the existing situation that is causing their dissatisfaction is addressed. For instance, laborers who are unhappy with existing wage levels may take a keen interest inn having minimum wage legislation. They would therefore petition their representatives and other interest groups to support them in having the issue resolved through some kind of legislation of executive action. In short, we can say that public policy can be used to define the relationship among various sections of the society and help reduce tensions. Interest Groups Interest groups are are essential part of public policy making. Regardless of the institutional makeup and even the political systems, interest groups would always find a way of existing. For instance, in a country that has less freedom of expressions, interest groups may operate in more subtle ways compared to how they do in the United States. Basically, they participate in interest articulation which is basically presenting demand to policy makers or suggesting alternatives to policy such as getting their members to participate in demonstrations or taking legal actions and by so doing putting pressure on policy makers to give them an ears. They also contribute to rationality in policy making by supplying policy makers with technical information, something that may not be available to the policy makers and by so doing they help in crafting better public policies. Political Parties Political parties can play a major role in policy making process given the resources at their disposal. Generally speaking, political parties are expected to do what is referred to as policy aggregation. This is the bringing together of issues of concern to various sections of the society and bringing this into a single policy. By so doing, the political parties aims to build a wider base of support which can help it retain or gain power in the future elections. In the United States however, the role of political parties in policy making is a bit blurred. Both Republicans and Democrats don’t appear to have major divisions in terms of policy. These major parties have this been reduced to seeking power though making loudest noise in the media, and negative attacks on the opponents. Conclusion It is interesting to note that public policy is an issue that brings together various individuals and groups in the society to determine how behavior is regulated. However, it has also to be noted that the matter is hugely a political process. Hence, self-interest of those pushing for and against a given policy sometimes takes prominence over the genuine needs of the public who are the targets of the policy. In recent times, there have been complaints that a lot of money is used to bribe policy makers to have them support one side or the other in the policy making process. It is therefore a tragedy in the sense that the poor and underprivileged may never have their voices heard even though they participate in elections that results into governments and the political representatives. It has therefore to be noted deliberate policies regulating the work of lobbyist and interest groups, especially regarding matters to do with gifts where financial or otherwise to policy makers is regulated. Works Cited Cha97: , (Jones), Read More