Thursday, April 4, 2019

Models of Policy Making

Models of polity MakingI phone the whether constitution figure expose(a) is additive or non-incremental depends on antithetical situation. (I cerebrate the reality is much more than complicated than any guess, in frame to reduce the complexity of this question we pot map contrasting hypothesis positions.)Before we plow whether the nature of the constitution touch is incremental or non-incremental, we should prototypic think what is an incremental model of insurance and what is a non-incremental model of form _or_ system of g overnment lick, and we should also think about both the gains and disadvantages of these models. in that respect atomic number 18 putting surface chord different models here the modestness ( bound sharp-wittedity) model, the incrementalism model and the refuse brook model.Bounded Rationality ModelIn Simons leap rationality model, the rationality is conditi aced. The actual growth of social activities is affected by intuition, e xperience, accuracy of information and valuate judgments. Pure objective and rational stopping point-making model is lone more or less(prenominal) a hypothesis model, it doesnt exist in reality. In the spring rationality model, the decision sop upr should distinguish fact from treasure and preferences and he shouldnt replace the value with the fact also, the decision sufficer should distinguish method from goal In fact, the government has only curb insurance form _or_ system of government options and decision- nobleman tail end only do limited cost-benefit analysis. The information, sensible resources, political support and sentence of the constitution argon all limited at that placefore, the insurance choice has been limited. According to this situation, the assessment criteria of the indemnity be non whether this insurance constitution is optimal or non, the criteria of the constitution are whether it is satisfying and second best or not. Simons theory doe snt say that the decision makers cant make any non-incremental progress, however it tells us that the decision making military operation are limited by information and business office. If the form _or_ system of government maker can have enough material support, political support, information and enough time accordingly they can make somewhat non-incremental process if all these factors are very limited then it is highly unlikely for them to make a very no-incremental insurance process.Incrementalism modelLindbloms incrementalism model emphasizes that the constitution process is an ongoing process. Decision-making process is largely ground on decision-makers bypast experience with some slight modifications of breathing insurance. This is an incremental process, and the flip-flops indoors this process seemed to be slow, hardly the diminished smorgasbords whitethorn lead into some great changes, the actual speed of changing is often greater than we thought. However, a d rastic insurance change from constitution A to the next insurance form _or_ system of government A1 is not only unfeasible scarcely also undesirable a drastic change may threat social stability and allow cause form _or_ system of government disruptions.In his view, the decision-making and insurance-making process are bounded to political factor, technical factor, and they are also constrained by existing policies. And all these constrain have determined that the decision-making process is incremental.Garbage can modelGarbage can model is carried out by Marche and Olsen. They be populateve there is inherently irrational factor within in the decision-making process, and sometime there is limited rationality in the incremental process. They argue that constitutionmakers policy targets and solutions are often not very clear.In the policy process, the policy making organizations are facing lots of potential policy solutions, policy programs, policy participants and policy oppo rtunities. And these factors were impel into a policy garbage can and they are mixed together. The policy is what the policy maker last picks out from the can. The garbage can model tried to expand organizational decision theory into the then uncharted field of organizational anarchy which is characterized by problematic preferences, unclear technology and fluid participation. There are four of those shoots were identified in the model Problem (requires attention), Solutions (has it own life.), Opportunities, Participants (not stable). They are independent of each(prenominal) other and there is no causal link. The theoretical break by means of of the garbage can model is that it disconnects problems, solutions and decision makers from each other, unlike traditional decision theory. Some opportunities may cycle and some may never return. When opportunities arise, problems, solutions and participants go forth across and the four streams may converge. If problems and solutions are matched during this period then the problem is resolved. If they dont match, then they go a trend wait for another decision-making opportunity. Specific decisions do not follow an shapely process from problem to solution, but are outcomes of several relatively independent streams of events within the organization. Under normal circumstances, policy makers are utilise his default preference with his to discovered the right questions.Garbage can model has some advantages on the one business deal, it can explain why the bureaucracy is often inefficient. Using this model, we can understand that bureaucrats often omit the incentive to push reform indeed, public policy process tends to change slowly. On the other hand this model shows that opportunities, human creativity and choice smooth have some space in policy process and some dramatic change can happened through a non-incremental random way.Kingdon creates the multiple stream models from the garbage can model to explain why t here are major shifts in the agenda, and why these changes could be non- incremental change to existing policy. Kingdons model identifies three streams in the system problems, policies, and politics. Each stream is stream during the policy process. And each is stream is independent from others, and each stream has its own dynamics and rules. However, in a critical time point all these streams leave alone merge into one single package. Usually, a focus veer allow baffle this critical time point, also the change of political complex body part ordain also bring the critical time point to the policy entrepreneurs. And the policy entrepreneur will use this package to promote their policy solution. If the solution of the issue has been received by the policy makers, then there will be even a dramatic change within the policy process.As I discussed above, Lindbloms incrementalism model can process goo in a stable situation. However, it has some limitations and inadequacies. Firstl y, it is a conservative approach it is generally suitable for relatively stable environment. In order to make the policy process work well, the former(prenominal) policy should be good. However, once the social conditions and the environment changed dramatically, the incremental decision-making model may not work well. History has shown that certain moment in social development requires self-colored policy adjustments, and sometimes it is even necessary for the policy makers to abandon former policy. In these situations, the incremental method could be useless or even has some negative effects. In these cases, I think the bounded rationality policy model can work better. Because in this model, policy maker can make vernal policy by using limited information through careful calculations. Although in the bounded rationality model, the frontmost trial of new policy is not perfect, but it can provide a useful base for further improvement for next incremental process or at least(pre nominal) it can provide a potential policy alternative for the garbage can. At some degree, I think the incrementalism approach and the garbage can approach are method directed which means these devil policy process dont require a certain policy goal term the bounded rationality approach is goal directed which means there is a certain goal.In conclusion, I think whether policy process is incremental or non-incremental should depend on different situations. Also, in order to discuss whether a policy process is incremental or non-incremental we should limit the time span of the policy process. The incremental process works better in a stable environment and it does not require a clear policy goal if the policy process is theoretically limited within a on the spur of the moment policy period, then there will be no major changes. The non-incremental process may work better in a rapid changing situation. The bounded rationality model shows that the policy makers could make useful poli cy with limited information and resources.5) Some criticize policy theories for being better at explaining policy stability than policy change. Evaluate this claim with respect to some leading thinkers from our course.No, I think there are some theories can explain policy change as well as policy stability.Here are some theories which can be utilise to explain policy changesPunctuated counterbalance Theory and insurance channelPunctuated Equilibrium Theory attempts to describe the progressive policy changes and profound change. When the policy issues are addressed by the political sub-system, we usually can ob get along the existence of incremental changes conversely, when transaction with policy issues to be raised to the macro political system, there may be a significant policy change, and we often observe a major policy change (True, Jones, and Baumgartner, 1999102).In the process of policy change, the policy entrepreneur is trying to change recognized/accepted topics of the public (Baumgartner and Jones, 199342).Although the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory has pointed out when the image of the existing policy is challenged the opportunities will be created, but the theory hasnt tell why policies will be challenged.We can observe a policy change when there are new way of policy thinking, a mobilization of new policy supporters and a knowledgeabilityal change within the policy structure. Whether these factors appear together or they appear alone will make policy maker change their former incremental and stable policy process at different degrees. These factors will punctuate the symmetricalness of policy stable developing process and these factors will bring turbulent and unstable policy process. The definitions of policy issue, the boundary of policy problem, the agenda setting of policy are the key factors in policy process. several(predicate) definition of policy issue will also reinforce policy supports or bring doubts to existing policy. The mode l emphasizes policy change is punctuated equilibrium, the change is motivated by a complex combination of innate and external factors.Advocacy Coalition good example and constitution ChangeAdvocacy Coalition Framework was first proposed by Sabatier (1988). Sabatier suggests that we should focus on the interaction of the policy advocacy. Sabatier suggests that within the conglutination those members share the mutual effect in a set of policy beliefs. Based on this hypothesis, policy change can be understood as a function of the affinity amidst the competing advocacy coalition and outside factors (Sabatier, 19999 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 19935). The policy change is a result of advocacy coalitions competition, interaction of beliefs and outside factors.Advocacy Coalition Framework shows that belief system can be divided into three trains, deep centre, policy sum beliefs and inessential aspects.Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999147) pointed out that major changes in a polic y actually is a change of core beliefs, while a smaller change of policy reflects changes in the policy beliefs or the secondary beliefs . Basically, deep core values are fixed, and it is more like an exogenous variables policy core beliefs are formed and it serve as advocacys adhesives, it often take a decade or more time to change, and it can be considered as part of the endogenous variable. Substantial policy change is the result of the changes in policy beliefs. And the changes in secondary level will lead to small, incremental policy change (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999 131).Also policy Change is divided into two types incremental policy changes and significant policy changes. Incremental change can be the result of policy learning. Because the goal of policy learning is not to shake the foundation of core beliefs, therefore there will not be major policy changes (Sabatier, 1988149 Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1999123). And the leaning process is often used to reinforce and support the policy belief and core belief.Another way to think of the learning processSubject of disciplineObject of LearningConsequenceGovernmentalGovt OfficialsIntelligent policy processinstitutional ChangeExperimentalPolicy NetworkMethodologyNew Policy SolutionSocietalPolicy CommunityIdea and ConceptShifting ParadigmHowever, if the core belief is shaken, then the advocacy coalition may collapse. Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1999147-49) pointed out that the cause for major policy changes include changes in socio-economic conditions, changes in governance system, etc ten-fold Streams Model and Policy ChangeMultiple Streams Model is developed based on the garbage can mode (Cohen, March and Olsen (1972). Multiple Streams Model is proposed in 1984 by Kingdon. According to this model, when policy maker are facing uncertainty and time pressure, the most concerned issue for them is the time point rather than rational or optimal output. From this perspective, the key point for policy chan ge is the right time point. If policy maker can grasp the key time point, then he can make some policy changes.Multiple Streams Model indicates that the policy process consists three processes/streams and these processes are made by different actors the first problem streams includes different information and solutions proposed by their supporters the second policy streams includes government officials concern of policy alternatives and policy formation the third politics stream includes political consideration by the elected officials and elected representatives (Sabatier, 19999).These three processes flow inside and outside the federal government, and each is an individual process operation for most of the time, they are un tie in to each other (Kingdon, 1994216). In a crucial time point, policy entrepreneur will combine the various processes (coupling into a single package, and it will greatly enhance a policy issue attention and even create a policy opportunity) (Zahariadis, 199 973). And in this critical point, policy windowpane will be opened.Kingdon (1994216) has described, when the policy window open, a policy issue will come out. Some policy solutions which can be used to address the policy issues have already existed, and the time for this policy is correct. Policy window is an opportunity to promote a particular policy program, they will appear by themselves, but it is a very short time for throng to notice and use this opportunity (Kingdon, 2003166). Kingdon (2003168) further pointed out that under the Multiple Streams Model, policy window may flow from the political stream or problems stream. If the policy window is opened for political reasons, it is because of president changed, there are changes of the administrating party, there is change in congress, etc If the policy window is opened from the policy stream, it is mostly because some issues have caught the attention of government officials.Whether policy makers are seeking solutions to promot e existing policies or seeking alternatives to replace existing policies, the policy maker will always provide some opportunities for policy advocators to sell their policies. This means that as long as those policy advocators can make policy makers believe that their program is a feasible option to address policy issues or their solutions can sustain to accumulate political prestige and resources of the new policies sooner or later, their policy proposals will have the chance to enter the policy agenda. It is possible for these proposals to be legitimized and carried out as the governments policy (Kingdon, 2003172). Zahariadis (199982) argues that, if the policy window is opened in the political stream, then the combination of the various processes are more likely to be doctrinal. It is an existing policy to help find solutions to solve policy issues. If the policy window is opened in the problem stream, then the combination of the various processes are more likely to be consequen tial, that is a process for finding a viable solution.Kingdon (200394-95) also pointed out that the policy problems may not seem obvious to every person. Sometimes a problem is noticed because there is a focusing event which has provided it with a policy window. Kingdon (200397) the focus of the event will be made as image in political world and a symbol will harvest attention and strengthen the purpose for certain issues.In conclusion, I think from a philosophic aspect the theories of policy stability and theories of policy changes are the two sides of the same coin. Also, I think the relationship between different theories is not only completive but sometime different theories are complementary to each others. I think the problem for some policy scholars is that they often focused on one theory instead of looking for different explanations from different theories4) Deborah Stone calls the press over topics the essence of policy making. Discuss this claim with respect to leadi ng theories of the policy process.I name my answer to question as Idea and Deborah Stone, I want go through her book and explain why ideas are so important.According to Deborah Stone, idea will help tribe to define alliance, strategic considerations also idea will help people to get the legitimacy and draw policy boundaries. (Deborah, P 34). According to Deborah Stone, idea will decide who will be affected, how will they be affected and will they be affected legitimately (Deborah, P.34).In the first Chapter, Stone starts her analysis at the city-state (the Greek term polis) level. The public policy is considered as an attempt to achieve a certain lodge goals (Deborah, P 21). However, due to the fact that everyone has his own understanding of ideas, therefore the political community has become a place for internal debates over who will be affected, how will they be affected and will they be affected legitimately(Deborah, P 34) . The policy-making process has thus become a continuou s interaction between the conflict and cooperation.In Stones model, individuals may pursue their goals through collective action. The motivation is not only based on self-interests but also based on public concerns. This is because the public interest is be related to the goal of survival (Deborah, P 33). However, when there is a contradiction between self-interest and public interest, the policy process will be more complicated (Deborah, P 33). When the group is motivated under common ideas, the group will get more strength, and there will be a balance between private interests and public interests in the conflict.Stone directly uses the idea as the core archetype of this book. In her construction of polis community vs market individual(Deborah P 33) model, ideas have become the focus. Stone tries to use scrape of idea to explain all stages of policy-making process. Policy-making is followed by a continuous constantly beat to turn on for the classification of standards, types o f boundaries, and guide people to conduct the ideal typical definition.The struggle of idea can be seen in several policy levels. According to Stones theory, idea defines what people want from the policy it is the foundation for people to cognize and understands what the policy is. Idea provides a relationship between advocators and advocacy coalitions Idea provides causal relationship for these people and groups, and ideas will be reflected to their policy objectives through their actions of obtaining support. And these people with the shared idea will submit decision-makers to meet their preferences. As mentioned above, Stone sees idea as a constantly changing dynamic and resources of construction. And by given different interpretations of ideas, the concept of the ideas will also change. She points out that the politics of policy is to choose the interpretation (Deborah P 75). Stone argues that the authority to interpret idea is the key factor in the policy-making process. and legitimated idea can be transformed into policy. And using the legitimacy, peoples knowledge or behavior can be changed. And policy change can also be made through this interaction of ideas. Ideas affects how people cognized politics, and the change of politics will also feedback on ideas. To Stone, idea is not static idea is an ongoing of constructing and reconstructing process of concepts.Now I will try to exam whether Deborah Stones idea theory can fits with other policy process theory.In the punctuated equilibrium theory, Baumgartner and Jones also argue that idea is a potential power in the policy making process. According to their book Agendas and derangement in American Politics, a powerful sustenance idea is associated with the institution (Baumgartner and Jones, P 7) In page 16, they also writethe tight connection between institution and idea provides powerful support for prevailing distribution of political advantage. These statements mean that idea will help people unde rstand what is at stake and how will they be affected (Stone, 2002), policy advocators will use institution arrangement to make their idea be legitimate. Also, in order to gain more power those policy actors will manipulate images and ideas. To Baumgartner and Jones, ideas are important because they provide some potential undergirding institutional arrangements and the struggle of idea is the struggle over legitimate institution arrangements.In the book Agendas, alternatives and public policies, Kingdon also discusses the importance. In order to make useful policy suggestions, participants in the policy process are competing to develop new ideas and they are trying to provide their ideas in the form of potential solutions to policy makers. According to Kingdon, policy entrepreneurs lie in wait in and around government with their solutions already in hand, waiting for problems to float by to which they can attach their solutions, waiting for a development in the political stream they can use to their advantage (Kingdon, P 165). Shared ideas make policy entrepreneurs into alliance and these alliances are trying to make their ideas become legitimate. Kingdons native policy soup (Kingdon, P 139-143) model provides us a picture of how decision makers accept idea through coherent narrative process (ideas are flowing in the streams just as molecules flowing in the soup). According to Kingdon, a policy community creates a short list of ideas. If the ideas can go through the selecting process, softening up process and if they can pass the exam by specialists and policy makers, they may finally become policies. The whole process can be viewed as a continuing struggle of ideas. In this case, ideas are not only competing with other ideas, they are also struggling to survive in this primal soup. I also think Kingdons policy window model is another improvement to Deborah Stones arguments. mint are now struggling to make their idea in front of the policy window at the corr ect time. This model discovers that the during the policy process, critical time is also important for ideas struggling.However, I think there are also some theories which do not fully support Deborah Stones argument. In the garbage can model, because the nature of unclear, policy is not unavoidably to be the consequence of the ideas struggling. In Kingdons Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, he describes that as garbage can into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants removed from the scene (Kingdon, P 85). In some sense, Deborah Stones Struggling of ideas assumption is more based on a goal-oriented policy making process, in order to make it work, there should be a clear policy goal from all participants while the unsullied garbage can model is more like a method-oriented policy making process, it doesnt require a clear goal or solution at the beginning. In the garbage can model, people are not fighting with each other over ideas in the fi nal solution selecting stage, however it is still correct to say that each solution in the garbage can is a result of deliberative idea thinking. I think there is a slight difference between Deborah Stones theory and the garbage can model.Another policy theory which doesnt fully consistent with Deborah Stones theory is the incrementalism theory. According to Lindblom, the incremental policy process is more relied on former existing policies. According to this model, the policy environment generally remain stable. Because the incremental nature of the policy, the new policy will inherent the policy environment from previous policy, if the former policy has resolved the struggling of idea, then there will be less struggling of ideas in the new policies. Since the policy environment is stable, it will be unlikely for us to speculate a violently struggle over ideas.The last policy process theory I want discuss in the context of struggling over idea is the advocacy coalition framework ( ACF) theory. The central idea of this theory is that people or groups with the same beliefs (core/policy/secondary) will form a coalition. I think Sabatiers concept of belief is similar to Deborah Stones concept of idea. Especially, I think the concept of policy belief is playing the government agency of idea in the policy process. I think his core belief is rooted even deeper than idea. The core belief will sometimes become unnoticeable. And using the ACF model, we can find out that the policy process is a competition among different policy beliefs, and I think this observation is close to Deborahs struggle over ideas the essence of policy making.. But it does not mean that the change in the secondary belief level is also a result of struggling, according to Sabatiers theory, such change is more like the result of an incremental learning process.In conclusion, I think Deborah Stones argument is useful for us to understand some policy process. However, by using different theories w e should also notice whether policy processes are struggle over ideas should be analyzed in situations. The Punctuated-Equilibrium model, ACF model and Multiple Stream model indicate that Deborahs argument is valid. In the P-E model, the change of existing idea or appearance of new idea will bring turbulence to the policy process in the ACF model, the learning process can change beliefs at different level, and these changes will bring feedbacks to the policy process in the M-S model, policy entrepreneurs will using the opportunity to propose their ideas, and when critical time is come, the coupled stream will become policy.Incremental Model suggests that policy process is not necessarily linked to struggling when the time span of the policy is very short. There could be no struggle when the whole policy process is already fixed. However, I think the origin/first policy in the incremental model is a result of idea struggling.The Garbage Can model suggests that the choosing process wi thin the policy process may appear as a random process, it is not necessarily to be the consequence of the idea struggling.ReferenceSabatier, capital of Minnesota A. 1988. An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the voice of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein, Policy Sciences, 21129-168.Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.) 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO Westview Press.Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1993. Policy Change and Learning An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder, CO Westview Press.Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 1999. The Advocacy Coalition Framework An Assessment, In Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO Westview Press.Kingdon, John W. 1995. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed., NewYork HarperCollins.Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 1999. Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams, In Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO Westview Press.True, James L., Bryan D.Jones, and Frank R. Baumgartner. 1999. Punctuated- Equilibrium Theory Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking, In Sabatier, Paul A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO Westview Press.Jones, Bryan D., Frank R. Baumgartner, and James L. True 1998. Policy Punctuations U.S. Budget Authority, 1947-1995, The Journal of Politics, 60(1)1-33.Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones. 1993. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago University of Chicago Press.ReferenceKingdon, J. W. (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies . U. S. A.Harper Collins.Lindblom, C. E. (1959) The science of muddling through. Public institution Review, 14, pp. 79-88.Cohen, M., March, J., Olson, J. (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, pp. 1-25.March, James and Olsen. (1984) The New Institutionalism organisational Factor in Political Life. American Political Science Review 78. 734-749

No comments:

Post a Comment