Lindbloms Incrementalism and Jones Punctuated Equilibrium - Assignment Example

Student’s Name: Instructors Name: Class Name: Date Assignment is due: Paper1 Lindbloms Incrementalism Incrementalism is a policy-making procedure which produces decisions only slightly different from those of past practice. It is also referred to as the science of muddling through in contrast to the model of the balanced all-inclusive ideal of planning. It is preferred by conservatives because they see it as safe. It is also a model that conserves the system behavior. Almost all policy changes are incremental. This means that there are barriers to significant policy changes. The reasons that make policy changes incremental are discussed below. One of the foremost factors that make incremental change vogue is the fact that any natural system faces various constrains. These constrains limit any significant policy change leaving room only for incremental change. Constrains are experienced in the financial areas, and also in other areas that are crucial to large organizations. It’s noteworthy to consider that most policymakers and decision takers in large organizations are averse to risks. This is because they are afraid that unanticipated for changes will bring irreversible results. Thus, they employ risk-averse strategies, and the result is that incremental changes occur in the organization (Lindblom 79-88). Incrementalism is preferred because like inaction, it is known to consume fewer resources. Other systems consume large resources, and they are mostly unproven. Prospects of large budgetary deficits discourage policy makers from tackling organizational problems on a grand scale. There are some things that must happen for significant policy to occur in the incremental set up. It is imperative to understand that this type of management is being discussed in the realm of political science, and the public arena. One of the things that have got to happen to set the wheels of Incrementalism in motion is the availability of constitutional checks and balances. Together with the constitutional balances there has to be separation of powers, and also a system of political federalism. These are to ensure that the decision- making process is not overly streamlined. This is because if the process is remarkably streamlined, Incrementalism is thwarted (Lindblom 79-88). For change to occur under this policy system there, has to be the existence of sub-governments, and interest groups. These manipulate the occurrence of incremental change within the status quo.These groups limit the scope of alternatives, control institutional micro agenda and skew the process of decision making in line with past practices. They also shut out those voices that are unsympathetic to incremental change. Incremental change cannot happen if there is no culture of political compromise, bargaining and negotiation. This political culture is central to the process of incremental change especially if the political arena is one that is decentralized. The features of complex and large organization also aid the incremental process. These include features like inertia, fragmentation, financial constrains, bureaucracy and conflicting goals. Operating under the principle of established principles like the due process in law promotes Incrementalism (Lindblom 79-88). Paper 2 The streams model deals with the policy making under the rubric of ambiguous conditions. Ambiguity being defined as the state of having various ways of thinking about the same phenomenon, the streams model is infested with various barriers that hinder policy change. One of the most significant barriers is that the policy-making process is filled with people who are only fluid participants. The fluidity of the participants means that policy change is quite hard to achieve. It becomes difficulty to arrive at a decision because the participating parties drift from one decision to another. This is caused by the fact that turn over is remarkably high in the organizations taking policy changes. A good example is the government, where decision makers drift in and out of office. This makes it difficult to implement change because the people who came with the ideas are not in office (Zahariadis 71-89). The other significant barrier is that most people who are into the policy changing business do not understand what they desire. This is because their objectives are not clear from the beginning. The lack of clarity in objective setting muddles the process of policy changing. The formulation of policy without precise preferences is the death bell for the policy changing process. It puts constrains on the process that choke policy changing. Another barrier to policy change is unclear technology. Lack of clear knowledge as to how individual’s abilities contribute to the overhaul of a system inhibits the process of policy change. This is because the individuals concerned do not know the way to go about it. For significant policy change to occur in the “organized anarchy”, there are at least three things that must be in place. The first thing is that policy makers have got to know about the problem to be tackled. The problem must be isolated and made palatable to the policy makers. Three beacons are used to identify problems to suit policymakers. One is by the use of indicators. The second is by the use of dramatic or melodramatic events like the crash of an airplane. The last method of getting to know about problems is through feedback (Zahariadis 71-89). The second thing that must happen for significant change to happen is the formulation of the right ideas. The formulation is usually the work of professionals like bureaucrats, academics, congressional staff and other people. If the right idea is not sold to these people, then the possibility of policy change is remarkably difficulty. The last thing that determines policy change are politics. Politics is central to the policy changing process. Politics in the policy changing process is influenced by the main factors. These are the national mood, administrative and legislative turnover and pressure groups. Legislators and administrators bank on the national mood and the pressure from activists (Zahariadis 71-89). Paper #3: Baumgartner and Jones’ Punctuated Equilibrium The punctuated equilibrium policy change theory as postulated by Baumgartner and Jones is also known as the large leaps theory. The change in this theory happens in significant, large bursts that represent momentous departures from the past as contrasting to the incremental changes that do not usually challenge the status quo.The also happens when the conditions are right. In punctuated equilibrium, even though the conditions predispose the environment to the monumental changes, the conditions do not predict the changes. Another thing is that the conditions in punctuated equilibrium do not guarantee the changes that do occur (Baumgartner and Jones 23, 35). There are some barriers to effective change in the punctuated equilibrium, or large leaps theory. One of these barriers is introducing many issues at a go. This is a chief barrier because most people cannot tolerate the ability to handle many issues at the same time. So, if the change bringers want to bring policy change, they must introduce one issue at a time. Another hurdle is making rule or administrative changes to existing policies. This kills the change process. Making administrative changes is tantamount to sabotaging punctuated equilibrium. The way to circumvent this hurdle is to question the existing policies. Failure to define the key issue is another main barrier to the policy change process in punctuated equilibrium (Baumgartner and Jones 23, 35). This is because people want something definite to associate with the policy change. They can only rally behind a concrete idea. The issue has got to be clearly defined for it not to become a barrier. Several things have to happen so that significant policy change is achieved in the punctuated equilibrium module. The first thing that has got to happen is that the issue has to be defined differently. If the issue is not defined differently, then the issue has to be viewed from a new dimension. If relatively new dimensions of the issue are given attention, then significant change is about to occur. The redefinition of an issue or policy gives it emotional appeal that validates its support from the people. This is remarkably crucial because the applicability of this policy change is instrumental in politics.Especialy decentralized politics like the American politics. Another thing that has got to occur is that new actors have to get involved in the issue. The policy change cannot occur if just the old actors are handling the issue. The introduction of new actors makes the issue become salient. It makes the issue receive maximum media attention. The media are instrumental to a large degree in the success of this policy change. It is important to note that the media does not bring change. The media only highlights change. The media involvement can occur before, or after the main policy change. It also makes the issue have more public attention. More publicity arouses, and inspires support for the issue. For policy change to occur properly, institutions have to be eliminated. This could be agencies, or departments. The reason for their removal is that because institutions naturally hamper the change process. This is because change threatens institutions (Baumgartner and Jones 23, 35). Paper #4: Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith’s Advocacy Coalition Framework Advocacy coalition is a political science policy change theory that believes that change happens through coordinating policy within individuals with core policy convictions. Advocacy coalition assumes that coalitions are held together by core beliefs and that secondary convictions are less critical in the cementation of coalitions. Advocacy coalitions pursue various avenues to achieve change. There are some barriers to significant change in the advocacy framework. One of the barriers is if the members do not share core values. If the members do not share core values, then it becomes difficult to coordinate the vision for advocacy coalitionists. Core values change because people are given to undergoing all sorts of rebirths. If this happens within a group, it creates a barrier that is hard to overcome (Jenkins and Sabatier 79-88). Another barrier that can be a great hindrance to advocacy coalition is if the mass media does not support the agenda, or the proponents of change. This is because the coalition relies heavily on the mass media to win support for its actions. For example, if it wants to call for a boycott, it has to involve the mass media extensively. The other barrier that can hinder advocacy coalition significantly is if the think tanks and research teams do not do their work well. This is because this method relies on information from its researchers, and thinkers to change public beliefs. Also, if the base of supporters dwindles, like in the political arena, this set up experiences significant barriers. Several things have got to happen, for significant policy change to occur in the advocacy coalition framework. One of the things that have got to be in place is the decision makers have to be like minded. This is the only way that advocacy coalitions can work. This is because similar minded decision makers can be easily influenced. Policy changer must share core convictions. This is a prerequisite that cannot be overlooked in the advocacy coalition framework (Jenkins and Sabatier 79-88). Another thing that has to happen is that momentous external changes have to occur in the socio- economic realm. This is the only avenue that can give the like minded people opportunity to exploit the avenues for change. Thus, things like economic recessions are things that push the agenda for proponents of change. While still expounding this point, it is important to note that these people push for change through boycotts, and demonstrations. The group that supports the status quo must also cease to be in power. This is because as long as the group that supports the status quo is in power, the proponents of change can not do anything. This is because they can be countermanded by those in authority who do not share similar convictions (Jenkins and Sabatier 79-88). The proponents of change have got to be in the highest office possible. This is because there is the danger that the change proposed by the advocacy coalitionists can be thwarted by those in superior jurisdiction. Thus, the proponents of change should be in the ultimate position of power. Works Cited Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Brian. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993. Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier P. Dynamics of Policy oriented learning. New York: Bantam books, 1993. Lindblom, E. The science of muddling through, Public Administration Review, 19. 2 (1959):79-88. Zahariadis, N. Ambiguity, time and multiple streams, Policy Studies Review, 12.6 (1999): 71-89. Read More