Public Policy A public policy is a set of principles that directs government actions. The policy may take one of many forms- laws, rules, programs, money, court decisions and even customs and traditions. These policies affect everyone, but not always in the same way. For example a policy thats good for the consumer may not be good for the farmer. Public policy is developed through a process of debate and compromise. For that process to work effectively, policy makers need to hear from a broad range of people.
They need to know how a policy, or changes in a policy, will affect different groups of people and how each group feels about the change. Its not always easy for our policy makers to find out all the different opinions; it is the responsibility of citizens to be involved. On issues, sometimes there are no right answers. No purely technical fix exists for some problems; negotiation is an important part of the process, and to make effective policies, policy makers need to build and maintain constituencies. A feedback loop for exchange of information with society is essential. (Finly) James Anderson expressed his ideas concerning public policy in his book called Public Policymaking where he mainly addresses the issues of group theory, elite theory, and system theory. Group theory is a set of rules that usually go along with particular group of specialists in the particular field doing the same business. Also the author presents process-oriented approach within a logical framework for a better understanding of each stage of policymaking in his book.
The Essay on Public Administration and Theories
In the United States of America President Woodrow Wilson is considered to be the father of public administration. He was the first president to hire social scientists in government and as a result as other presidents came along such as Freanklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon B. Johnson public administration evolved to what it is today (Henry, 2013, p. 342). President Lyndon Johnson is the one that ...
This approach exhibits policymaking as a sequence of functional activities, beginning with the identification of a problem and agenda setting and concluding with evaluation, revision, or termination of a policy. Revisions include new examples in Chapter 2 that explore political subculture in greater depth and the division of Chapter 3 into two new chapters, Policy Agenda, which examines how problems are defined then molded into political issues, and Policy Formation, which discusses in depth the search for and evaluation of alternatives to shaping policy. In addition, Chapter 4 includes coverage of the courts and other administrative agencies that play a role in public policy, and Chapter 5 focuses more on budgeting strategy rather than the technical process. We also can see the updated examples throughout include recent events such as the 2000, and there is a case study in each chapter of the book that helps the reader gets deeper into analyzing the issue of public policy making process. Another public policy-making book example that we are going to evaluate in order to understand the issues concerning contemporary policymaking process is called Public Policy and program evaluation by Evert Vedung. In this tremendous scientific work, Swedish political scientist Evert Vedung positions program evaluation as a highly significant, even essential tool of Western democratic decision making in the public domain. This introductory-level text is intended for students of both evaluation and public administration.
It joins social science with political science by linking evaluation concepts and processes to theories and frameworks of public administration, including, for example, systems perspectives and theories of organizational change. Vedung highlights the strong results orientation of contemporary public decision making, from local municipalities to federal bureaucracies, and offers a practical, decision-oriented approach to evaluation designed to assist public officials in meeting these contemporary demands for results. Vedung equally emphasizes the politicized and democratic contexts of contemporary public decision-making in Western societies, and his practical conceptualization of evaluation is tempered by such political realities as interest-group influence and by such democratic ideals as pluralism. Vedung presents his conceptualization of evaluation in the service of public decision making in 15 chapters, supplemented by a glossary of evaluation concepts. The 15 chapters of the text can be divided into two principal arguments. In the first four chapters, Vedung offers his definition of evaluation and his view of the field. He defines evaluation as the careful retrospective assessment of the merit, worth, and value of administration, output, and outcome of government interventions, which is intended to play a role in future, practical action situations (p.
The Term Paper on Affirmative Action Public Opinion Vs Policy
Affirmative Action: Public OPinion vs. Policy When Justin Ketcham, a white college student from the suburbs, thinks about affirmative action, he thinks about what happened when he sent out letters seeking scholarships so he could attend Stanford University after being accepted during his senior year of high school. The organizations that wrote back told him their money was reserved for women or ...
3).
With this definition, he focuses his view of evaluation on retrospective assessments of public program implementation and outcomes, leaving critiques of originating policies to other fields. This definition also highlights evaluation as a practical and instrumental activity and underscores the pivotal role of valuing in evaluation. Throughout the text, Vedung discusses the valuing part of evaluation and thoughtfully acknowledges the challenges – both technical and political – of identifying appropriate criteria and standards on which to judge the program under study. Vedung offers his view of the field of program evaluation in a fairly lengthy chapter 4. He differentiates evaluation models by their organizers or basic questions (Vedung, p. 35).
He offers three clusters of models: effectiveness, efficiency, and professional models. Effectiveness models address the results of interventions and can be organized around stated program goals, side effects, observed results, system components, or client or stakeholder concerns. Economic models focus on costs and benefits and can address productivity or efficiency. The lone professional model presented is peer review. Chapter 5 introduces the substantive core of Vedungs own view of evaluation, presented as the Eight Problems Approach to Public Policy Evaluation. Vedung appropriately avers that it is the problems or questions addressed, not the designs or methods, that provide identity to evaluation. These eight problems, which frame the remainder of the book, are: (1) identifying the evaluation purpose, (2) selecting the evaluator, (3) analyzing the intervention, (4) describing the program as implemented, (5) determining the programs results, (6) explaining these results, (7) judging the program with identified criteria and standards of performance, and (8) using the evaluation in practical action situations. In Vedungs detailed discussions of these problems, he attends especially to the problem of explanation or impact evaluation, which he views as important, particularly for higher-level decision-makers in national bodies (Vedung, p.
The Review on Logic Model Development Guide
Logic Model Development Guide Introduction If you don’t know where you’re going, how are you gonna’ know when you get there? –Yogi Berra In line with its core mission – To help people help themselves through the practical application of knowledge and resources to improve their quality of life and that of future generations – the W.K. Kellogg Foundation has made program evaluation a priority. As ...
166).
Through four separate chapters (and 90 pages), he discusses both conventional and alternative approaches to impact assessment. His critique of the randomized experiment as the premier model for public program evaluation, especially in Sweden, is balanced and persuasive. His comprehensive discussion of process evaluation as an alternative analytic framework for attributing results to interventions is a unique contribution of this book. Vedungs process evaluation is not an assessment of program implementation (often called process or implementation evaluation in the U.S.) nor a scientific explanation of how intended activities led to observed results (as in theory-oriented or theory-driven evaluation).
Rather, Vedung presents process evaluation as a comprehensive analysis of the program in its historical, political, economic, and social context that seeks a whole pattern of causal interdependencies (Vedung, p. 210).
To guide process evaluators, Vedung offers six broad factors that include the policy history of the intervention, its implementation at multiple levels (from agency to street-level bureaucrat to beneficiary), and its location in networks of issues and influence. Vedungs championship of process evaluation exemplifies his beliefs that evaluation researchers must . . . learn to live with the insight that public policymaking can never be transformed into science in the way desired by outright technocrats and radical experimentalists (Vedung, p. 192).
The Essay on Dividend policy decision
Dividend policy decision is one of the important decisions of corporate finance. A dividend policy should be such that it maximizes the shareholders wealth and provides adequate financing to the firm. A firm with fluctuation dividend policy is considered risky by the investors. (Shim & Siegel, 1998) Usually a stable dividend payout policy is maintained by companies. Leverage which is given by ...
More profoundly, the demand for rational, social science like evaluation must be subordinated to the requirements of a democratic body politic (Vedung, p.
288).
Vedung succeeds in this book in presenting evaluation as a service to public democratic decision-making. He offers public officials a well-articulated view of what evaluation can do for them. His presentation includes strong and appropriate attention to the place of stated program goals in evaluation, to the pluralism often warranted in judging program merit and worth, and to the essential role of utilization in practical evaluation. His discussion of strengths and weaknesses of stated program goals as the primary organizer for evaluation makes an important argument not often heard amidst the widespread rejection of goal-oriented evaluation models. Vedung maintains that goals are publicly and officially adopted in political assemblies by the representatives of the people (Vedung, p.
41) and thereby hold special status as institutionalized, collective goals of the state. Citizens and elected officials have legitimate reasons to ascertain whether policy goals have in fact materialized in the field (p. 90), and accountability to citizens is essential in a representative democracy. The public administration lens integrated into this book also generates several creative ideas, including the suggestion to describe the program being evaluated through the use of policy instruments (chap. 8) and the portrayal of monitoring as not checking only for compliance but rather as a comprehensive assessment of program delivery and coverage, where the government meets society, as it were (Vedung, p. 137; chap. 9).
Vedung presents evaluation in the service of public decision-making, but not as a critic of public affairs, policies, or programs. His ideas are thus more closely aligned with those of U.S. evaluation theorists Joseph Wholey and Eleanor Chelimsky than those of U.S. theorist Ernest House. House has long argued that evaluation should serve to democratize public decision making by including a greater plurality and diversity of voices and perspectives and by engendering decisions that move toward greater justice and equity in society. This critical perspective is all but absent from Vedungs evaluation approach. I would have also been enlightened by more attention to the contrasts between the Swedish and the U.S.
The Essay on Leadership In The Public Policy Making Process
The under estimating of acknowledging the understanding of the leadership trait which is feet the most important in the creation of sound public policies would be the public policies. This understanding of the analyzing the balance of power in our federal system must be accepted by the way the federal system works. According to our text it states “The federal system is the environment within which ...
democratic contexts for evaluation. I benefited from the detailed Swedish examples in the text and wanted more analysis of how they uniquely, or not, define democratic decision making in Sweden. I further wanted some additional connections between the various frameworks presented in the book, especially between Vedungs view of extant evaluation models (chap. 4) and his eight problems approach (Vedung, chaps. 5 and 15).
Finally, I was occasionally distracted but more often entertained by the unusual English usages sprinkled throughout what is otherwise a clearly written manuscript. Through this text, I thought it would be possible for me, especially as a student of public administration, to gain a clear, well-reasoned understanding of how program evaluation can facilitate their work.
Another significant aspect of contemporary public policy-making is the notion of compromise. Compromises are used through the policy making process in all the fields of the interest. The number-one benefit of compromise is that it serves as a forum to resolve disputes. Compromise can be fast, quick and easy, or they can drag on for years and years. Since the rules and procedures are usually relaxed in compromise meetings, the parties are also in a better position to represent them. It naturally follows that compromising on public policy issues also tends to be less expensive; parties will usually end up having to relent on some issues. Benefit can be seen that serves to bridge the gap in proceedings so that the parties can get a better glimpse of where things are headed if they are unable to resolve their differences.
Most cases will settle, but many times it is not until the parties are on the verge of war. Compromise may help to facilitate a settlement sooner rather than later. Another good thing about compromise is that strict rules or procedure in reaching a decision does typically not bind an arbitrator. He or she can consider a lot more facts and circumstances. Arbitrators typically try to be practical and oftentimes look at compromise as being inherently fair. Thus, the likelihood is that an arbitrators decision will award something to at least one of the parties. Compromise can also bring finality. Sometimes for the better, a decision on an issue cannot be appealed or overturned in the absence of a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
The Research paper on First Amendment Issues: Prayer In Public School
Inclusion of prayer in modern American school schedule has been a controversial and highly debated issue during last several decades. When tragedy of the Columbine High School in 1999 occurred, in which twelve students and one teacher died, the issue of moral education and role of religion in the life of public education has been brought to an entirely different level. Right after the tragedy, The ...
Thus, once a decision is rendered on the issue(s), the issue(s) is over. Both parties will typically not be able to appeal (which can make the matter drag on for years and years).
There are definitely some the drawbacks of compromise in the process of successful contemporary policymaking. There are no guarantees that the process will be a fair process. Once a decision is reached, the parties are generally stuck with that decision. Without the right to appeal, there is always the risk of being subject to the whims and prejudices of the arbitrator.
Overall, this is probably the biggest drawback to the compromise process. Ironically enough, the rationale for compromising in the first place may actually encourage parties to fight about issues concerning environment, education, healthcare or whatever, whereas if a dispute could have been avoided and the benefits of a compromise may not have been realized. In the absence of compromises, the parties may be more inclined to pursue an expensive lawsuit or other options instead of talking about the issue(s).
If compromise is an option though, the parties may elect to talk instead of fighting about something and try to work out their differences more informally. (Zilberman) To conclude the research on how to create successful public policies it is necessary to mention that there are various kinds of particular ways of performing the task. As we could see from the scholarly literature concerning the issue it is always necessary to look at particular circumstances of the situation that is faced in order to come up with the best of all decisions.
And than based on the results of the survey of the particular situation we have it is necessary to create a good plan that involves all the theories and the stages heuristic that were discussed by Lowi and Sava in their approaches towards typology of decision making. After all that is done it is necessary to make corresponding actions in order to implement what was planned. The final stage is evaluation and control. Thus it is possible to see that public policy is a very complex area of policy making and it requires lots of attention of all people that are involved in its creation.
Bibliography:
Anderson, James E. Public Policymaking, 5th edition. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 2003. Evert, Vedung.
Public Policy and Program Evaluation, New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1997. Finly, Will. Canadas Public Policy Towards Crimes, from Ontario Statesman, issue April 2003. Stephenson, Joe. Policy Making Theories Examined, from Wired, issue June 2000. Ostap Zilberman, Towards Successful Policy Making, from Public Administration Review, issue October 1998..
