FHCE 5100: Consumer Policy Ultimate Quizlet

Chapter 3 Textbook transcript

APTER 3 UNDERSTANDING PUBLIC POLICYMAKING MARCH FOR OUR LIVESH Making changes to policy . Emma González , one of the survivors of the Parkland , Florida , shooting in February 2018 , appears onstage at March For Our Lives on March 24 , 2018 , in Washington , D. C. The march was a student - led demon stration in support of legislation to stop gun violence . Kevin Mazur / Getty Images for March For Our Lives CHAPTER OBJECTIVES ● Describe different theories of public policy and how they help to explain the decisions made . ● • Discuss the policy process model , from the steps associated with making public policy to the role of policy analysis in the de sign and formulation of policy actions and the evaluation of policies . Assess different types of public policy and how their character istics affect their development and treatment in the policy pro cess . Define the types of government functions and evaluate basic differences among policies and the political conditions that lead to them . On February 14 , 2018 , a young gunman entered his former high school in Park land , Florida , and opened fire on stu dents and teachers with an AR - 15 rifle . Seventeen people died in the shooting , and another seventeen were wounded.1 The attack followed other high - profile mass shootings in the United States , including one claiming forty - nine lives in a gay nightclub in Orlando , Florida , in 2016 , and the Sandy Hook Elemen tary School shooting in 2012 , among others . Like Sandy Hook , the Parkland school shooting once again saw vul nerable children and teachers attacked in what is supposed to be a safe area . There had apparently been warnings and concerns about the gunman , which raised questions regarding his ability to access and buy weapons and whether there had been sufficient follow - up on the concerns raised . President Donald Trump , as previous presidents before him , offered prayers and condolences to the families and met with stu dents at the White House . During the meeting and the days that followed , the president raised concerns regarding mental health and gun ownership . He also suggested that if some number of teachers were allowed to carry weapons and were trained in their use , the Park land tragedy could have been averted or at least lessened . The president ini tially suggested raising the minimum age of purchasing a rifle from eight een to twenty - one and possibly banning bump stocks , devices that can convert semiautomatic weapons like the AR - 15 to allow nearly automatic firing , much like a machine gun . He later endorsed a position supported by the National Rifle Association ( NRA ) to arm and train a certain percentage of teachers in the schools as way to prevent or lessen the chance of school shootings.² As has happened often in response to such gun violence , many public officials wondered whether to adopt more strin gent gun control laws and regulations and questioned the general gun culture of the United States . The NRA also re sponded in a somewhat typical way by stating that Democrats ' " goal is to elim inate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so they can eradicate all individual freedoms . " 3 In March 2018 , the Justice Department proposed a rule defining bump stocks as machine guns . The rule garnered ninety - seven thousand comments , and the department issued a final rule on them in December 2018.4 In August 2018 , the New York Times reported that the Department of Education under Sec retary of Education Betsy D eVos was considering whether to allow states to use federal funding to purchase guns for educators . It appeared that the Trump administration and the Repub lican - controlled Congress through the end of 2018 had only minimal inter est in stronger gun control policies . In fact , some would argue that little of substance has been done to date to address the continued concerns about gun violence . What we have seen in the gun control debate indicates how dramatic events , such as a highly vis ible public shooting , and changes to the political environment brought on by a presidential election or shifts within Congress can cause adjustments in pol icy proposals and actions . Such an event occurred again in August 2019 when there were two mass shootings -one in El Paso , Texas , and the other in Dayton , Ohio - within hours of each other . In this case , some policymakers , including President Trump and others within the GOP , suggested a move to ward " Red Flag " gun laws that would allow the confiscation of firearms if a judge determined a person to be a dan ger to himor herself or others . This occurs often in the policymaking pro cess . Media coverage of a mass shooting , a natural disaster , or a terrorist attack reaches the public , key interest groups , and policymakers , and they begin to reconsider existing policies and pro grams . Current homeland security and airline safety polices are a direct result of the terrorist attacks of September 11 , 2001. Changes in food safety policy often follow major food recalls as atten tion is focused anew on food production and preparation practices that can make people ill or even kill them . This pro cess is not surprising in that problems such as food safety often are out of the public light and do not engender much attention until there is a real ( or per ceived ) threat that may require more or different government action and people demand such action . Of course , many other factors can in fluence the development of policies be yond the existence of a dramatic event such as a mass shooting , terrorist at tack , or accident . The political process discussed in chapter 2 plays a large role in policy development , and so too does public opinion . For example , as it relates to gun control , the media as well as those supporting gun control measures often have cited opinion polls stating that a strong majority of Ameri cans favor stricter gun control policies , such as more thorough background checks before purchase of a weapon . Of course , those opposed to such policies argue that the right to gun ownership is protected by the Second Amendment to the Constitution and thus should not be affected by the majority's opin ion . These kinds of developments and arguments showcase what can happen to the policy agenda when unexpected and striking events and perhaps shifts in opinion lead policymakers to address certain issues in this case whether to change gun control policies . Policy and political analysts often study these kinds of developments to learn more about how and why decisions are made within the political and bureaucratic arenas . A different but related kind of pol icy development occurred when Repub lican members of Congress sought re peatedly to roll back the 2010 Afford able Care Act , or Obamacare ; the House alone voted more than sixty times to do so through 2018. The extraordinary level of news coverage of those efforts brought concerns over policy gridlock and decision making to the forefront of national debate . The new attention to these matters also raised intriguing questions about the process of policy making : How do such conflicts and media coverage of them affect decisions about policies and budgets ? What role do interest groups , such as those rep resenting business interests that were actually pushing Republicans to ease back on their demands , play in these discussions and decisions ? In the end , what most influenced members of Con gress in making these decisions : their own political ideologies , constituency views , the stance of business and other interest groups , their sense of how their votes might affect their reelection chances , or the broader public opinion in the nation ? In short , what does this kind of ex perience tell us about the larger forces that shape policy decisions at any level of government , and about the capacity of both major political parties today to facilitate agreement on public policy to resolve such conflicts and demonstrate to citizens that government can indeed address their concerns in a construct ive and bipartisan manner ? We try to address these kinds of questions in this chapter as we turn to how we study the policymaking process . Knowing something about agenda setting , pol icy formulation , policy legitimization , and policy implementation can help in understanding why certain problems get addressed and others do not , and how politics in the broadest sense influ ences the decisions that are made . Chapter 2 showed how the structure and rules of U. S. government insti tutions create certain political incen tives that push policymakers toward the kinds of decisions they make as they focus on one policy problem or another and choose what to do about it . This chapter introduces several the ories that further explain why policy makers reach decisions like these . After a brief consideration of five compet ing approaches , the chapter focuses on the policy process model or framework , which is widely used in the study of public policy . It is particularly helpful for clarifying the role of policy analysis in the design and formulation of the most appropriate policy actions govern ment can take and for evaluating how well those policies work once they are implemented . As we argued in chapter 2 , policymak ing in the U. S. political system is in herently difficult because of the institu tional dispersal of power , the multipli city of policy actors , and the sharp con flicts that often arise over what policy actions to take . Policy analysis can help to resolve the conflicts by clarifying the issues and bringing reliable informa tion to bear on the decision - making pro cess . It is especially useful when dealing with complex public problems — such as economic , climate change , or national security forecasts — that are not easy to understand and when policymakers need to make the best estimates they can about a proposal's likely effective ness , costs , and fairness . THEORIES OF POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY Social scientists use theories and models - abstract representations of the real world to understand the way things work . They can create mean ing out of what otherwise might seem to be a complicated and chaotic world in which nothing makes sense and all acts seemingly are random . Theories generally attempt to explain why cer tain things happen the way they do - in the case of policy theories , why certain policies are adopted . Models tend to be more descriptive in nature and are less concerned with explanation . The theor ies discussed here pertain to the world of government , politics , and public pol icy , and they provide the concepts and language that facilitate communication with others about these subjects . They also help to focus people's attention on the most important factors that affect government decision making . Political scientists use several different theories and models to explain and describe the nature of policymaking and the policies that result . Among the most common are elite theory , group theory , insti tutional theory , rational choice theory , political systems theory , and the policy process model ( J. Anderson 2015 ; Birk land 2016 ; M cCool 1995 ) . Each offers a different perspective on the principal determinants of decision making within government and , there fore , on what people might regard as the major forces that shape the dir ection and content of public policies . Social scientists use these theories to explain politics and policymaking , and students can use them to better under stand how policies are made and why we get one policy rather than another . In other words , when asked why the United States has one kind of economic , agricultural , health care , or education policy and not another , the answer de pends in part on which theory is used to offer insights into these choices . Elite Theory Elite theory emphasizes how the values and preferences of governing elites , which differ from those of the public at large , affect public policy develop ment . The primary assumption of elite theory is that the values and prefer ences of the general public are less in fluential in shaping public policy than those of a smaller , unrepresentative group of people , or elites ( Dye 2001 ; Schubert , Dye , and Zeigler 2016 ) . These policy actors may be economic elites— foundations , wealthy people , corporate executives , oil companies , Wall Street investment bankers , and professionals such as physicians or attorneys - who some research has found have particu lar influence on public policy even when " majorities of the American public ac tually have little influence over the policies our government adopts " ( Gilens and Page 2014 , 577 ) . They may be cul tural elites , such as celebrated actors , filmmakers , recording artists , or other media stars . Elected officials constitute an elite as well , as do other influential policy actors , such as scientists and pol icy analysts . Elite theory , then , focuses on the role of leaders and leadership in the development of public policy . We can see the application of elite the ory by looking at those who dominate public policy decisions . A single power elite or establishment is seldom at the center of all policy decisions , because different elites tend to dominate in different policy areas . For example , one elite may be influential in foreign policy , another in defense policy , and others in areas as diverse as health care , agricul ture , financial regulation , energy , and education . By emphasizing the power of these groups , elite theory demonstrates that the U. S. policymaking process may not be as democratic as many believe it to be . For example , critics have noted that most of the members selected for President Trump's cabinet are very wealthy ( including Steven Mnuchi n , Betsy D eVos , and Wilbur Ross ) and not able to relate to issues and concerns of most Americans . If elite theory is accur ate , then the policies pursued by these now governmental elites will continue to advantage other elites within the spe cific policy areas . Similarly , when the tax reform act of late 2017 was said to benefit the wealthy at the expense of the middle class , we were seeing elite the ory at work . More recently , as the economic recovery in the United States failed to extend to middleand working - class citizens , and public resentment over economic stag nation and high unemployment rates grew , we saw a twist on elite theory . The Occupy Wall Street movement and its variations around the nation high lighted the enormous inequities in in come and wealth , symbolized by refer ence to the privileged " 1 percent " of the population in comparison to the lives of the " 99 percent . " That perspective found its voice in Bernie Sanders's cam paign for the Democratic Party nomin ation in 2016 , as well as in Senator Elizabeth Warren's efforts to secure the party's nomination for the 2020 elec tion . Sanders himself emerged again as one of the leading candidates for the nomination . The role of different elites is particularly evident in the subgovernments or issue networks described in chapter 2 ( Baum gartner and Jones 2009 ; Kin gdon 1995 ; M cCool 1990 ) . This kind of elite domin ance is in part a function of the low sali ence of policymaking within these sub governments or issue networks . Most people outside of the narrow circles who are concerned about any given policy area , such as the Federal Communi cations Commission's regulation of the television and telecommunication in dustries , would have little reason to pay attention to the issues or to participate in policy decisions . In fact , most mem bers of Congress also tend to defer to their colleagues who work regularly on these issues . Much the same can be said for the advice and influence that legisla tors seek from agribusiness on U. S. farm policy and pharmaceutical companies on health care policy . Parallels to these kinds of subgovernments , or narrow policy communities , also exist at state and local levels . Group Theory Group theory sees public policy as the product of a continuous struggle among organized interest groups ( Baumgartner and Leech 1998 ; Cigler , Loomis , and Nownes 2016 ) . In contrast to elite the ory , supporters of group theory , par ticularly those who call themselves " pluralists , " tend to believe that power in the U. S. political system is widely shared among interest groups , each of which seeks access to the policymak ing process . That is , they say power is pluralistic rather than concentrated in only a few elites . In this view , some groups provide countervailing power to others - for example , labor unions ver sus manufacturing interests as they lobby legislators and executive offi cials and appeal to the broader pub lic through issue advocacy campaigns . This balance helps to ensure that no one group dominates the policy process . It is reasonable to assume , however , that the groups with greater financial resources , recognition , access to policymakers , and prestige are likely to have more in fluence than others . At the opposite end of the spectrum are those people - such as the poor and homeless - who are not well organized , lack significant polit ical resources , and are inadequately rep resented in the policymaking process . When people speak of " special interests " influencing government decisions , they are using the concepts of group theory . Examples include what we discussed at the beginning of the chapter with efforts by the NRA to protect Second Amendment rights , and by the food in dustry to prevent government from re quiring manufacturers to provide even more details about the ingredients in processed foods , an action long favored by consumer groups . A modern variant of interest group the ory , the advocacy coalition framework ( ACF ) , focuses on the " interactions of competing advocacy coalitions , " par ticularly within a policy subsystem such as agriculture , telecommunica tions , energy , or environmental protec tion ( Sabatier and Jenkins - Smith 1993 ) . Each coalition consists of policy actors from different public and private insti tutions and different levels of govern ment who share a set of beliefs about the policies that government should promote . In the clash between advo cates for health care reform and health insurance companies , for example , each coalition tries to manipulate govern ment processes to achieve its goals over time . Whether and to what degree the coalitions reach their objectives de pends on forces in the rest of the pol itical system and the larger society and economy that either provide opportun ities or present obstacles . The ACF posits that policy change can occur over time , as each coalition uses its resources to change the views or policy beliefs of leading policy actors . Many students of public policy argue that group theory tends to exagger ate the role and influence of organized interest groups in policymaking and to underestimate the leadership of public officials and the considerable discretion they have in making policy choices . It is easy to believe that lurking behind every policy decision is a special inter est group eager to have its way , but assigning too much power to organ ized groups oversimplifies a more com plex dynamic in policymaking . Public officials also frequently use organized interest groups to promote their own political agendas and to build support for policy initiatives . The relationship between groups and policymakers is often a subtle , two - way exercise of in fluence ( Kraft and Kamieniecki 2007 ) . Institutional Theory Institutional theory emphasizes the formal and legal aspects of govern ment structure , which we discussed in chapter 2. Institutional models look at the ways in which governments are ar ranged , their legal powers , and their rules for decision making . These rules include basic characteristics such as the degree of access to decision mak ing provided to the public , the avail ability of information from government agencies , and the sharing of authority between the national and state govern ments under federalism . A major tenet of institutionalism is that the struc tures and rules make a big difference in the kinds of policy process that occur and which policy actors are likely to be influential in them . Enactment of a very contentious farm bill in 2018 , for ex ample with its very generous agricul tural subsidies - illustrates the power in the Senate of less populous agricultural states such as Iowa and South Dakota . Because the Constitution provides that each state has two senators , these small states have as much voting power in the Senate as the far more populous New York and California . The term institution can have many meanings . It refers to " both the organ izations and the rules used to struc ture patterns of interaction within and across organizations " ( Ostrom 2007 , 22 ) . Therefore , in addition to a focus on organizations such as legislatures , courts , or bureaucracies , the term en compasses how people within organ izations relate to one another and to those in other organizations — that is , the rules that govern their behavior . Many kinds of institutions can influ ence public policy : markets ; individual firms or corporations ; national , state , and local governments ; voluntary as sociations such as political parties and interest groups ; and foreign political regimes . Analysts use institutional the ory to study how these different entities perform in the policymaking process as well as the rules , norms , and strategies used by individuals who operate within particular organizations , such as the U. S. Congress or the federal court sys tem . Although formal institutional analysis can become quite complex , institutional theory is a simple reminder that pro cedural rules and certain aspects of government structure can empower or obstruct political interests . A common axiom is that there is no such thing as a neutral rule . Rules have real con sequences for the ways in which de cisions are made , helping some and hurting others . They can make some groups more influential than others and some policy outcomes more likely than others . The current Senate rules for con firmation of Supreme Court justices , for example , allowed Brett Kavanaugh to win approval for a seat on the court in October 2018 by a vote of 50 to 48 . Under previous rules , his nomination would likely have failed because such confirmations required 60 votes to suc ceed . Rational Choice Theory Rational choice theory , also called pub lic choice and formal theory , draws heavily from economics , especially microeconomic theory , and often uses elaborate mathematical modeling . A highly developed and rigorous theory , rational choice has been widely ap plied to questions of public policy ( Os trom 1998 , 2007 ; Schneider and Ingram 1997 ) . Analysts have used it to explain actions as diverse as individual voter decisions and the calculations of public officials as they face national security threats . It assumes that in making de cisions , individuals are rational actors ; that is , they seek to maximize attain ment of their preferences or further their self - interest . The theory suggests that analysts consider what individuals value , how they perceive a given situ ation , the information they have about it , various uncertainties that might in fluence the outcome , and how a particu lar context or the expectations of others --for example , rules and norms - might affect their actions . The goal is to de duce or predict how individuals will be have under a variety of conditions . Rational choice theory tries to explain public policy in terms of the ac tions of self - interested individual pol icy actors , whether they are voters , corporate lobbyists , agency officials , or legislators . David Mayhew ( 1974 ) pro vided a simple illustration in his classic text , Congress : The Electoral Connection . Mayhew asked what kinds of behav ior one might expect from members of Congress if their only incentive were reelection . He found that this sim ple assumption about individual motiv ation could reveal a great deal about the ways members behaved and even about what kinds of public policy ac tions such a Congress would be likely to produce . Mayhew found that the " electoral incentive " caused members to advertise themselves , claim credit , and take positions on the issues . This is not to imply that members of Congress and other politicians do not have many concerns other than getting reelected , including a genuine desire to promote the public welfare . However , Mayhew's example simply highlights the explana tory power of rational choice theory . It forces people to think about the core motivation of individual political actors and its consequences for the larger pol itical system and for public policy . The critics of rational choice theory argue that individuals are not always single - minded pursuers of their own self - interest . The critics also question the narrow and rigid assumptions that underlie the theory , such as the abil ity of individuals to behave rationally when they may lack pertinent infor mation , or when decision makers have different and unequal information a condition called information asym metry ( Green and Shapiro 1994 ; Shepsle and Bonchek 1997 ) . Some say that the theory gives too little emphasis to the willingness of individuals to engage in collective action pursuits , such as join ing public interest groups or participat ing in community organizations ( Stone 2012 ) . Even so , rational choice theory provides insights into political behavior that can affect the design of public policies . It is especially useful to formulate predic tions of how agency officials and the objects or targets of policy actions are likely to respond to policy initiatives ( Schneider and Ingram 1997 ) . For ex ample , economists say that to persuade individuals to significantly reduce their fuel consumption would take a hike in the gasoline tax of fifty cents or more per gallon . Anything less would likely not alter the consumers ' behavior be cause they would see the incentive as too small to make a difference in their personal welfare . Recent fluctuations in gasoline prices , although not tax re lated , seem to support this idea . Dur ing times when gas prices are signifi cantly higher , people turn more to mass transit , bicycles , car pools , and more efficient automobiles to get around , but return to previous behavior when gas oline prices drop again , as they did in 2018 . Political Systems Theory Political systems theory is more com prehensive , but also more general , than the other theories . It stresses the way the political system ( the institutions and activities of government ) responds to demands that arise from its en vironment , such as the public opinion and interest group pressures that we discussed in chapter 2 ( Easton 1965 ) . Systems theory emphasizes the larger social , economic , and cultural context in which political decisions and policy choices are made , such as a general pref erence for limited government or low taxes . Legislating by the rules . Then minority leader Nancy Pelosi , D Calif . , speaks with reporters as she leaves the House chamber in the Capitol after holding her filibus ter focusing on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals , or DACA . Pelosi became Speaker of the House for the second time after Democrats captured the House in the 2018 elections . Bill Clark / CQ Roll Call via AP Images Systems theory is a formal way to think about the interrelationships of institu tions and policy actors and the role of the larger environment . It also sup plies some useful terms , such as input , demands , support , policy outputs , pol icy outcomes , and feedback . In systems theory , these terms operate in formal models . Input into the political system comes from demands and support . De mands are the claims individuals and groups seeking to further their interests and values make on the political system . For example , a union calls for safety regulations in the workplace . Support signifies the acceptance by individuals and groups of the actions of govern ment as well as the actions ' legitimacy . Support is evident when people obey the law and respect the system's rules and procedures and when they vote in elections and express trust and confi dence in institutions and leaders . For example , there was support for the es tablishment of workplace safety regula tions when the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organ izations ( AFL - CIO ) made it a legislative priority and President Richard Nixon agreed to back legislation on the subject ( Kelman 1980 ) . In this theory , the political system re sponds to demands and support in the process of policymaking and pro duces outputs ( decisions , law , and pol icies ) that over time may create real changes ( called policy outcomes ) in the situations that prompted the demands and support in the first place . Systems models incorporate yet another elem ent - feedback from these kinds of out puts and outcomes - that can alter the environment and create new demands or support , as was evident with the contentious Affordable Care Act of 2010 and Americans ' varied responses to it ( Jacobs and Mettler 2018 ) . Another ex ample is strong public support for add itional policies to protect nonsmokers , such as bans on smoking in restaur ants and bars , which followed other antismoking policies over the past four decades . In this example , an import ant policy outcome is that exposure of nonsmokers to dangerous secondhand smoke was reduced . Systems theory is a simple way to por tray how governments respond to soci ety's demands on them . It proposes an almost biological model of politics sug gesting that governments and public officials react to the political climate much as organisms respond to envir onmental stimuli . As the environment changes — for example , the economy de teriorates or the public becomes dis tressed with crime rates or corporate malfeasance - individuals and groups are moved to make demands on govern ment to deal with the situation . Once government acts , the system readjusts in light of the particular decisions and their effects . Each of these theories is helpful . Each offers a distinct conceptual lens through which to view politics and pub lic policy , highlighting particular fea tures of the political and institutional landscape . Yet none by itself is com pletely satisfactory . We believe another approach — the policy process model is more useful than the others , in part because it can incorporate the most valuable elements of each of the others . It also has the advantage of portraying the activities of government and pol icymaking more clearly and using lan guage that most people can understand intuitively . This chapter and the rest of the book make extensive use of the pol icy process model , also called the policy cycle model ( J. Anderson 2015 ; Birkland 2016 ; Jones 1984 ) .7 THE POLICY PROCESS MODEL The policy process model posits a logical sequence of activities affecting the de velopment of public policies . It de picts the policymaking process and the broad relationships among policy actors within each stage of it . The model can also be helpful to understand the flow of events and decisions in different cul tures and institutional settings ; in other words , the concepts and language are general enough to fit any political sys tem and its policy processes . Table 3-1 presents the model as a set of six distinct , if not entirely separate , stages in policymaking , in keeping with the way the model is discussed in most textbooks . Sometimes the term policy cycle is used to make clear that the process is cyclical or continuous , rather than a onetime set of actions . Instead of a top - down listing of each stage , it could be presented as a series of stages linked in a circle , because no policy de cision or solution is ever final . Changing conditions , new information , formal evaluations , and shifting opinions often stimulate reconsideration and revision of established policies . In addition , in the real world these stages can and do overlap or are sometimes skipped . In other words , policies might be formu lated before they are high on the pol itical agenda , or it may be impossible to differentiate policy formulation from legitimation . Despite these complications , the policy process model captures important as pects of policymaking that correspond to political reality , as review of the six components or stages of the model makes clear . Moreover , policy analysis can potentially affect each of the stages ; that is , methods of policy analysis can provide knowledge and insights that might influence every stage of policy making , from how the agenda is set and policies are formulated to how existing programs are evaluated and changed . For example , economic and budgetary analysis had a powerful influence on the discussions and decisions regarding the Affordable Care Act . And this analysis continues through its implementation and could lead to changes and adjust ments to the law in the future . Table 3-1 The Policy Process Model Stage of the Process Agenda setting Policy formulation K What It Means How problems are perceived and defined , command attention , and get onto the polit ical agenda . The design and draft ing of policy goals and strategies for achieving them . Often involves the use of policy analysis . Illustrations Health care reform rose sharply on the agenda during President Obama's first term and continued well into his second . Obamacare stayed high on the agenda as Republicans attempted repeatedly to overturn the law , and it remained a very visible issue for years as the two parties fought over it . Differing perspectives and opinions regarding the building of a wall along the Mexican border , its costs , and its effectiveness led to a series of standoffs and multiple attempts to resolve differences be tween President Trump and Congress . Policy legitimation Policy implementation Provision of institu tional resources for putting the programs into effect within a bureaucracy . Policy and program evaluation The mobilization of political support and formal enactment of policies . Includes jus tification or rationales for the policy action . Policy change Measurement and assessment of policy and program effects , including success or failure . Modification of policy goals and means in light of new informa tion or shifting political environment . The passage of health care reform in 2010 saw intense lobbying on the part of many of the affected interests . Ultimately , the bill was passed in the face of unanimous Republican opposition because Democratic supporters argued that the reform plan would provide for better health coverage for most citizens . Implementation of the federal Endangered Spe cies Act has lagged for years because of insuffi cient funding , which re duced its effectiveness . Efforts to measure the effectiveness of No Child Left Behind , an education policy that set national education standards to improve public education , have produced mixed results . New national security , airport security , and immigration reforms were adopted following the terrorist attacks of 2001 , and subsequent changes were made in these areas such as the development of TSA Pre to improve screening for low - risk travelers . Sources : Drawn primarily from Charles O. Jones , An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy , 3rd ed . ( Monterey , Calif .: Brooks / Cole , 1984 ) ; and Garry D. Brewer and Peter de Leon , The Foundations of Pol icy Analysis ( Homewood , Ill .: Dorsey Press , 1983 ) . The original policy process model can be traced to Harold Lasswell's early work on the policy sciences , " The Policy Orientation , " in Daniel Lerner and Har old D. Lasswell , eds . , The Policy Sciences ( Stanford , Calif .: Stanford University Press , 1950 ) . Problem Definition and Agenda Setting Governments at all levels in the United States deal with many different pub lic problems and policies each year . But how do the problems generate interest to begin with ? That is , why do people pay attention to them , or why are they considered important enough to solve ? And why do some problems , such as crime or the performance of public schools , command so much attention at times while others , such as population growth or energy use , tend to be ig nored ? If a problem does rise to a level of visibility , as immigration issues have in recent years , who determines that it is the government's responsibility to address it rather than leave it to individ uals and the private sector ? These ques tions are at the center of the problem definition and agenda - setting stage of the policy process . In many ways , this step is the most critical of all . If a prob lem is not well defined , and if the public , the media , and policymakers cannot be persuaded to pay attention to it , it may go unresolved , even if society continues to suffer the ill effects . Defining a Problem . It might seem relatively easy to identify a problem , to define it objectively , and to ensure that politics does not enter into the equation . If the issue is increases in violence and shootings , for example , who disagrees that these are serious problems and that society should do everything possible to prevent them ? But are the causes of the problem equally clear ? Perhaps they include easy access to firearms and the media's ten dency to emphasize violence . Analysts may need to look for other causes as well . What about mental health con cerns and who has the ability to access firearms , cited as an issue in the Park land , Florida , school shooting , among others ? Or , perhaps , might it be caused by what some Americans see as the moral decay in society ? As these examples illustrate , defining a problem and determining its causes are not always simple tasks , and the search for answers usually reflects a number of different perspectives . How one defines a problem also goes a long way toward shaping the solution offered . As John W. Kingdon ( 1995 , 110 ) stated , " Prob lem definition and struggles over defin ition turn out to have important conse quences . " Problem definition may also come with some distinct biases . As Deb orah Stone ( 2012 , 160 ) put it : No language and no communi cation is free of symbols , and we couldn't have any discussion or do any analysis without them . More over , in the polis , symbolic devices do extra work . They function as weapons in the problem - definition arsenal ( to use another metaphor ) . Political actors use them strategic ally to define problems in a way that will persuade doubters and attract support for their own side in a conflict . In other words , " Where you stand de pends on where you sit . " A person's perspective and background determine how he or she defines a problem and re lates to it . Personal ideology and values are likely to influence how the prob lem is defined or even if the individual considers a situation to be a problem at all . Internet pornography , for ex ample , is thought of as an issue about protecting children or about protecting basic civil liberties , with very different implications . The financial rescue plan that Congress adopted in late 2008 was initially described as a Wall Street bail out , a distinctly less appealing defin ition from the perspective of those who favored it . This is what political commentators mean when they refer to how issues may be " framed " or " spun . " Those who favor one view of a problem or one kind of a solution use language that de scribes the problem or the policy action in a framework that reflects their per spective . Their opponents act similarly to convey a different perspective . Those who favor government support for family planning services , for example , frame the issue as a matter of individ ual rights or a health care service that government should provide . Opponents of family planning might frame the issue in moral terms and argue that government should not fund such ser vices , especially for minors . Immigra tion policy has been framed in multiple ways by different politicians . President Trump , for example , speaks of immigra tion almost exclusively in terms of the risks it poses to the nation , including crimes committed by undocumented immigrants and the rise of gangs such as MS - 13 . This is quite different from the perspective famously highlighted by the Statue of Liberty— " Give me your tired , your poor , your huddled masses yearning to breathe free . " It is different still from the economic perspective of having an adequate labor pool for cer tain low - paying jobs that are not highly valued by American citizens , including many in agriculture , meatpacking , and hotel and restaurant service . Making comparisons is part of prob lem definition ( Baumgartner and Jones 2002 , 2009 ; Kingdon 1995 ; Stone 2012 ) . Americans might think gasoline prices and taxes are too high and argue for relief . Yet if they compared the price of gasoline in the United States to that in Europe and Japan , where it is significantly higher because of govern ment taxes , they might conclude that U. S. prices are in fact quite low ( Parry 2002 ) . In recent comparisons of test scores with students in other countries , American students lagged behind in mathematics . This finding raised con cerns about the quality of education in the United States . As these examples suggest , the way problems are defined and measured is not neutral ; nor is it without important implications for whether and how public policies are for mulated and implemented . The different actors and institutions ( formal and informal ) reviewed in chapter 2 are almost always deeply in volved in problem definition ( Rochefort and Cobb 1994 ; Baumgartner and Jones 2015 ) . Reports by executive agencies are crucial in supplying information on a problem and how it is chan ging over time , a good example being the highly respected reports on en ergy production and consumption from the Energy Information Administration of the Department of Energy . Con gressional committees frequently hold hearings on public problems and in vite testimony from various experts . Congressional advisory bodies , such as the Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) and the Congressional Budget Office ( CBO ) , issue authoritative reports on nearly all public problems , from oil imports to health care . Even inter est groups get involved . Most interest groups work hard not only to interpret the policy studies but also to supply other information that portrays a prob lem as they prefer to see it . For example , the Center for Responsive Politics , a re search group concerned with money and its effects on elections and public policy , has for years provided data and reports highlighting the financing of elections . Members of the private sector may also define public problems in areas of particular concern to them . By supplying new , and often objective , information on the nature of a prob lem and its implications , policy analysts can help steer political debate toward a rational assessment of the scope of the problem , its causes , and possible so lutions . A study of urban sprawl , for example , might highlight the adverse impacts on highway congestion , land use , and water supplies , and suggest how better growth management could minimize those effects . The findings and recommendations of such a study would no doubt differ significantly from the arguments of real - estate devel opers and pro - growth public officials , as Atlanta , Georgia , and other high growth metropolitan areas have learned in recent years ( M. Murray 2002 ) . Setting the Agenda . Defining a problem is not enough ; the public and policymakers must recog nize it as a problem , and it must rise high enough on the agenda that action becomes likely . At that point , the search for solutions , or policy formulation , begins . Yet it is by no means easy for societal problems to reach agenda sta tus , because at any given moment many issues are competing for social and pol itical attention . Some make it onto the agenda , and some do not ( Baumgartner and Jones 2009 ; Birkland 1997 ; R. Cobb and Elder 1983 ; Kingdon 1995 ) . Because of the competition for agenda space , many problems that government could potentially address never capture its attention and are neglected . Popu lation growth is a prime example . The United States is growing as fast as or faster than any other industrialized na tion in the world . Its growth rate ( about 0.7 percent a year in 2018 ) is much higher than that of most European na tions . Indeed , the Census Bureau pro jects that the U. S. population ( about 330 million in 2019 ) is likely to rise to nearly 390 million by 2050 , depending on the prevailing birthrate and the rate of im migration . Such a large increase has im portant implications for the economy , urban growth patterns , transportation needs , agricultural demand , energy use , and more . 10 Except for a few cities and regions , however , population growth has never been an issue that com manded much attention from either the U. S. public or its elected officials . The implications are plain . The mere existence of a problem is no guarantee that it will attract government atten tion or be addressed . Indeed , the term nonissues best distinguishes those prob lems that fail to gain attention from those that do . Some issues are inten tionally kept off the agenda by those who oppose acting on them , as was true of civil rights in much of the South dur ing the 1950s and 1960s . Others , such as population growth and energy use , often have been ignored by an indiffer ent public and policymakers . For the former , what some scholars call agenda denial , E. E. Schattschneider ( 1960 , 71 ) explained the phenomenon : All forms of political organization have a bias in favor of the exploit ation of some kinds of conflicts and the suppression of others because organization is the mobilization of bias . Some issues are organized into politics while others are organized out . 11 When policymakers begin active dis cussions about a problem and potential solutions , the issue is said to be " on the agenda . " Scholars distinguish between a systemic agenda , which the public is aware of and may be discussing , and an institutional or government agenda , to which policymakers give active and serious consideration ( R. Cobb and Elder 1983 ) . John W. Kingdon's ( 1995 , 3 ) definition captures the meaning of the institutional agenda . It is , he said , " the list of subjects or problems to which governmental officials , and people out side of government closely associated with those officials , are paying some serious attention at any given time . " The term agenda , therefore , means the subjects that gain such attention and become possible objects of policy action . There is no official or formal listing of such an agenda ; rather , it becomes evi dent in the subjects that elected offi cials choose to discuss , the media cover prominently , and interest groups and other policy actors work on at any given time . Agenda setting is central to the pol icy process : if an issue does not attract the appropriate attention , chances are it will languish without government response . Therefore , the public policy student needs to understand what fa cilitates the movement of certain issues onto the agenda . Obviously , policymak ing elites in government can define a problem and raise its visibility . Mem bers of Congress or the president may highlight a particular concern or issue they want addressed , as President Lyn don Johnson did in the 1960s for civil rights , President Barack Obama did in 2009 for health care reform , and Presi dent Donald Trump did for immigra tion and other issue areas upon taking office in 2017. Governors or mayors do the same at the state or local level , as illustrated by New Jersey governor Chris Christie's actions and statements on dis aster relief following Hurricane Sandy . Government agencies that deal with a particular problem can also raise aware ness and move related issues onto the agenda . The media , by deciding which issues to report on or not , also highlight public problems and may sway pub lic opinion about them . Interest groups likewise emphasize those problems of greatest concern to them and try to define them according to their own pol itical values and goals . The box " Steps to Analysis : What's on the Agenda ? " is an exercise in determining what issues are currently attracting the government's attention . Determinants of Agenda Setting . Some issues make it to the agenda auto matically . They are mandated , or re quired , actions with which government must deal . Examples include passing the annual budget , legislating to re authorize existing programs , and acting on a president's or governor's nom inees for executive appointments . These issues alone probably take up most of the time that policymakers have avail able , leaving little to the discretion ary issues . So what determines which of the optional issues receive attention and possibly policy action ? In one of the best attempts to answer that question , Kingdon ( 1995 ) points to the intersec tion of three largely independent sets of activities in what he calls the problem , policy , and political " streams " that flow through society . When the streams con verge , they create opportunities to con sider certain issues . Whether they suc cessfully move to the political agenda and are acted on is sometimes in the hands of influential policy entrepre neurs , or leaders who invest much of their time and resources in the issue . ¹2 Steps to Analysis \ a What's on the Agenda ? Policymakers do not typically de velop a list of ten items and say that these are what is on their agenda , but you can get a sense of what they feel are the important problems or issues based on what they are discussing in their press conferences or identifying on their websites . You can get some indica tion of what is on the agenda by using an array of web resources . First , go to the White House web site at www. whitehouse. gov . From here , you can browse links , such as Issues , to see the president's pri orities . You can do the same for any state . Search for any state web site using any search engine . For example , search for " Pennsylvania state government . " From there , look for a link that discusses priorities or issues . Often there may be several ideas under a general category such as Education . You may be able to do something similar with local gov ernment sites . As you analyze these sites , keep these questions in mind : • What appear to be the major issues for each level of govern ment ? Among the major issues , are there specific ones that ap pear to rise to the top ? • How are you making your judg ment for your responses to the above ? What evidence are you using ? · Are there any new programs being proposed ? Are there sug gestions to change or eliminate existing programs ? Next , sample one or more of the leading media sites to determine which issues their journalists be lieve merit the most coverage . Choose from ABC , CBS , NBC , Fox News , CNN , MSNBC , and other tele vision networks , and from the New York Times , the Washington Post , and your city's newspaper . Here are the major links : www. abcnews. go. com www. cbsnews. com www. nbcnews. com www. foxnews. com www. cnn. com www. msnbc. com www. newyorktimes. com www. washingtonpost. com ● Do the government and media sites overlap , or do they cover different issues ? . Can you think of major prob lems - national , state , or local that the media and elected offi cials are ignoring ? What do you think are the reasons for this neglect ? The problem stream refers to the vari ous bits of information available on the problem , whom it affects , and in what ways . Government reports and other studies are a valuable resource . They are released frequently and can assess the magnitude of the problem , in terms of both how serious it is and how wide spread . Some issues , such as airline security , warrant attention because of their potential harm to large numbers of people . Information about a prob lem or a possible solution works both ways : it may either help an issue make it to the agenda or prevent it . Climate change , for example , did not become an agenda item until a sufficient amount of scientific information had been col lected to document the problem . Policy makers may not , however , spend time on a problem if the technology is not available for a solution . Sometimes the failure or inability of the private sector to address an issue will get it on the agenda . For example , the private sector cannot deal to any great extent with poverty in the United States or pro vide the kind of benefits for the elderly offered through the federal Social Secur ity program . The scope of the problems makes them candidates for the national policy agenda . Finally , government pro grams may have spillover effects that spur concern about another area . A focusing event , such as a crisis , usually improves an issue's chance of getting on the agenda , in part because of the exceptional media coverage it receives . The terrorist attacks of Sep tember 11 , 2001 , clearly altered the agenda status of airport and airline se curity in extraordinary ways . Likewise , natural disasters such as Hurricanes Ka trina in 2005 , Sandy in 2012 , and Maria and Harvey in 2017 or wildfires in the West over the past few years can focus attention on the risk to the public well - being caused by hurricanes , floods , earthquakes , and fires ; Katrina clearly did so for hurricanes , and it stimulated a strong government response . Simi larly , the massive BP Deepwater Hori zon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 highlighted the weaknesses of federal oversight of offshore oil drilling and the limitations of self - regulation by the industry . These focusing events are sometimes linked to powerful national priorities , such as defense , public safety , and public health , which may spur gov ernment action . The policy stream refers to what might be done about the problem - that is , the possible alternative policies . Legislators and their staffs , executive agency offi cials , interest groups , academics , and policy analysts all may develop policy proposals . Often , the ideas are floated as trial balloons - potential solutions to see how they are received . Some be come the subjects of speeches , press releases , legislative proposals , hearings , and study reports . The policy ideas tend to circulate within the specialist com munities , or issue networks , of those most concerned about the problem , and with the public through books , maga zines , the broadcast media , and the internet . Kingdon ( 1995 ) compares this process to evolution because only the fittest ideas survive . Policy alternatives that are inconsistent with the current political climate , the " unfit , " may be dropped from consideration temporar ily and incubated until the climate im proves . Those that fit better with the political climate may receive serious at tention from policymakers and other policy actors . What Kingdon calls the " criteria for survival " are what this text refers to as evaluative criteria , such as economic feasibility and political ac ceptability . Chapter 6 addresses these criteria . The political stream refers to this polit ical climate or public mood . It is evident in public opinion surveys , the results of elections , and the activity and strength of interest groups . For example , Ron ald Reagan's election in 1980 abruptly changed the political climate by greatly increasing the acceptability of conser vative policy ideas as did George W. Bush's election in 2000. There was a comparable dramatic shift with Barack Obama's election in 2008 that was al tered somewhat after Republicans re took the House of Representatives fol lowing the 2010 election . The election of Donald Trump once again saw a huge swing toward Republican priorities such as decreased taxes , reduced health and environmental regulation , and efforts to negate many of Obama's legis lative and regulatory achievements . Al though it is never easy to decipher the political mood of the nation - and it can change quickly - elected officials have a well - developed ability to detect a shift in public attitudes , especially in their own constituencies . When these three streams converge , policy entrepreneurs have their best chances to move problems and policy ideas onto the agenda and step closer to approval . Moreover , policy entrepre neurs may help to bring about such a convergence . They may be inside gov ernment or outside ; they may be offi cial policymakers or one of the legions of unofficial policy actors , such as inter est group leaders . The president holds a unique position as a powerful agenda setter , in part because of the enormous media attention the office receives . At the state or local level , the parallel would be a governor or mayor . As chapter 2 noted , however , one of the intriguing characteristics of the U. S. political system is the dispersal of power , meaning that policy leader ship can come from many sources . At the national level , congressional com mittees and subcommittees are often hotbeds of innovative policy ideas pre cisely because members and their staffs are continually seeking ways not only to improve public policy but also to enhance their own visibility and com pete with the other major party . Policy think tanks and interest groups are rich sources of policy proposals . Indeed , as the next three chapters explain , one of the major purposes of policy analysis is to conduct studies that evaluate the po tential of new policy ideas . When the politically astute activist think tanks and interest groups put their weight behind these studies , influential policy makers and their staffs are likely to read them and take note of the results . Colleges and universities , professional associations , state and regional think tanks , citizens ' groups , and the business community are also sources of policy ideas . Another way to think about why one issue may gain agenda status while another does not is to look to the issue's characteristics , especially its sa lience and potential for conflict ( Walker 1977 ) . Salience refers to the issue's rela tive importance to the general public , and conflict refers to the level of dis agreement over it . The logic here is that policymakers would rather deal with a problem the public believes is import ant than deal with one it is ignoring or thinks is of little consequence . In addition , policymakers prefer to avoid conflict and so will tend to shy away from contentious issues . Therefore , one would expect that the issue with the best chance of getting on the agenda would be one that is highly salient but low in conflict , and the one with the worst chance would have low salience and high conflict . Policy Formulation Policy formulation is the development of proposed courses of action to help re solve a public problem . As noted , policy alternatives are continually being stud ied and advocated as part of the policy stream and constantly being evaluated against the prevailing standards for pol icy acceptance . Among the standards for policy acceptance are economic cost , social and political acceptability , and likely effectiveness in addressing the problem . Policy analysis is abundant at this stage of the policy process , as the leading policy actors ( formal and infor mal ) look for information and ideas that will allow them to pursue their goals . The next three chapters deal with pol icy analysis in depth , but we can note here that formulation is a technical as well as a political process . Policies that are carelessly formulated - for example , by using inadequate data , questionable projections , or unreasonable assump tions — may fail . A case of failure was the rollout of the Affordable Care Act website in late 2013 when it became apparent that the site could not handle the enormous amount of traffic and the technical demands associated with the then new program . In addition , perhaps too much weight was placed on meeting a specific deadline . While officials in the Trump administration would disagree , others have asserted that the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico in 2017 was significantly inadequate and contributed to the enormous human toll that storm caused . Who is involved in policy formulation ? Chapter 2 discussed the formal policy actors in government , such as legisla tors , chief executives , and agency offi cials , who are especially influential at this stage . In most policy areas , the ap pointed and career officials in a bureau cracy are among the most experienced and knowledgeable policy actors . They have the technical information needed to develop policy and the political knowledge that comes from working in the policy arena . Their expertise can cut both ways , however . On the one hand , it can be valuable in formulating new pol icy approaches . On the other hand , cur rent officials who are strongly wedded to traditional policy approaches may be concerned about the implications of new policies for their offices , resources , and careers . In short , agency offi cials may be conservative about policy proposals and favor only incremental changes , while those outside the agency are willing to experiment with innova tive policy designs . In addition to agency expertise , legisla tors and executive branch officials have access to many other sources of infor mation and advice as they formulate public policy proposals . The president , for example , draws not only from his White House staff but also from the Executive Office of the President , which includes specialized agencies such as the National Security Council , the Coun cil of Economic Advisers , the Coun cil on Environmental Quality , and the Office of Management and Budget . The last agency serves as a well - staffed , centralized policy clearinghouse for the White House . Legislators , particularly at the national level , also have sources of expertise and advice . Working for Congress are the GAO ( a diversified pro gram evaluation office ) , the CBO ( for budgetary and economic analysis ) , and the Congressional Research Service ( for policy research ) . These offices are sup plemented by extensive staffs that serve the several hundred committees and subcommittees where policy formula tion is concentrated . Some estimates , for example by Brookings , put the con gressional staff totals at about twenty thousand people , although these num bers have been decreasing , particularly for the GAO , CBO , and CRS.13 Executives and legislators at state and local levels have far fewer resources for policy for mulation , but the larger states and cities may nevertheless be well equipped to address the kinds of questions that arise during formulation . Interest groups are active contributors to policy formulation . Like the bur eaucracy , interest groups have a great deal of information at their disposal to provide background or specific so lutions to problems . This information ranges from technical details about the problem to judgments about whether a proposal is likely to have political sup port . But interest groups also attempt to shape policy to serve their own eco nomic or political needs . One example has been the response from the social media and technology companies such as Facebook and Google to potential government regulation of their activ ities as well as their responses to Trump administration efforts to end net neu trality_rules — that is , the practice of equal access to all internet data . The box " Steps to Analysis : Appraising Policy Formulation " suggests some questions that might be asked about the reliability and fairness of the process of formula tion as it applies to any area of public policy . Steps to Analysis \ a Appraising Policy Formu lation What steps would you take to deter mine whether a policy proposal was properly formulated in any area of concern , such as health care , educa tion , national security , or the econ omy ? One prominent issue follow ing the 2016 election concerned ac cess to colleges by non - U. S . students and undocumented students . Some college and university presidents suggested that they create " sanc tuary campuses " to protect these students . The discussion quickly turned into claims that these presi dents were advocating such a pol icy . Do some simple research on the issue of sanctuary campuses . You may also want to do an internet search on " sanctuary campus " to get additional information . Use the fol lowing to help guide your thinking on policy formulation : 1. Start by examining the as sessments of the problem to determine whether they were based on appropriate data and analysis . 2. Next , try to find out who was involved in the formulation process , who dominated it , and whether any serious conflicts of interest existed . You could also review the main assump tions made and any analysis that was used to determine whether they were valid . 3. In your judgment , was this potential campus policy exam ined sufficiently and evaluated fairly ? Policy Legitimation Policy legitimation is defined as giving legal force to decisions , or authorizing or justifying policy action . It may come from a majority vote in a legislature or a formal executive , bureaucratic , or ju dicial decision ( Jones 1984 ) . From some perspectives , the process of legitimation includes the legitimacy of the action taken — that is , whether it is thought to be a proper exercise of government au thority and its broad acceptability to the public and / or other policy actors . Legitimation as a step in the policy pro cess is at once both simple and complex . It is simple when it merely means that a recognized authority considered and approved a policy proposal . A bill be comes a law at the national level if both houses of Congress approve it and the president signs it , but does that process necessarily imply that the measure was legitimated ? This question may be espe cially pertinent for the large number of policy measures that are part of omni bus legislative packages , or the gov ernment's growing tendency to adopt budget riders , which are policy actions attached to mandatory appropriations bills . These riders often are buried deep within budget bills precisely to avoid le gislative scrutiny and public criticism ( Davidson et al . 2020 ) . Yet another barrier to policy legitima tion is the public's very low appraisal of Congress . As discussed previously , polls have regularly found record low approval ratings of the institution , with some rating the honesty of members of Congress below that of telemarket ers , lobbyists , and car salespeople . If the American people do not trust the mem bers and their behavior , they might well doubt that Congress is acting in their interests . 14 As we discussed in chapter 2 , partisan gerrymandering of congres sional district lines that can give a substantial advantage to one party over another also raises questions of legitim acy . Similarly , when one candidate in a presidential election wins the popular vote but loses the Electoral College vote , doubts may arise about the legitimacy of the victor , as occurred following both the 2000 and 2016 elections . The complex view is that legitima tion requires more than a majority vote or legal sanction by a recognized authority . Policy legitimacy or accept ability in this sense flows from sev eral interrelated conditions : the action is consistent with the Constitution or existing law , it is compatible with U. S. political culture and values , and it has demonstrable popular support . Legitimation also may follow from a process of political interaction and de bate that involves all major interests and a full and open airing of the issues and controversies ( Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993 ) . A careful assess ment of any policy analyses or other technical studies might be part of this process of discussion and debate . So too might public participation through public meetings , hearings , and citizen advisory bodies , or endorsement by re spected community or national leaders . Sometimes lawmakers call on cultural elites , athletes , and other celebrities to convince the public of the worthiness of the issue under consideration . Congres sional committees , for example , have heard testimony on various issues from actors Ben Affleck , Michael J. Fox , George Clooney , and Julia Roberts ; and former heavyweight boxing champion Muham mad Ali . Steps to Analysis \ a Judging Policy Legitima tion It is never easy to judge whether a policy proposal had been fully legit imated as it was considered for ap proval . Among other evidence , ana lysts would look for information that indicated public support for the action , that the views of major interest groups were considered , that policymakers took enough time to think carefully about their decisions and the consequences , and that appropriate information was used in making decisions . Consider this case . On January 18 , 2017 , the National Oceanic and At mospheric Administration ( NOAA ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ) re ported that in 2016 the earth reached the highest temperatures on record . The new readings broke a record set in 2015 , which in turn broke a record set in 2014. Sci entists at NOAA and NASA , along with their colleagues in other scien tific organizations , attributed most of the recent warming to human ac tivity , most notably the burning of fossil fuels - coal , oil , and natural gas — and a small part of the change in 2015 and 2016 to the weather pattern called El Niño , where the Pacific Ocean releases energy and water vapor to the atmosphere.ª You can find the most recent assess ments of climate change in 2016 at websites for both NOAA and NASA www. noaa. gov/stories/2016 marks - three - consecutive - years - of record - warmth - for - globe www. giss. nasa. gov/research/ at and news / 20170118 / . Reports for the years since 2016 are also available at the NOAA and NASA sites . The reports for 2016 appeared two days before the Donald Trump ad ministration was to take office . Trump , many of his cabinet ap pointees , and many Republican members of Congress had long questioned the reality of climate change advanced by the vast major ity of climate scientists . They also promised to roll back most of Presi dent Barack Obama's initiatives to combat it , and they did so once in office . They argued that the science was unsettled , that the economic costs of climate change actions were too high , and that maintaining the Obama policies would harm U. S. industries and consumers , particu larly the fossil fuel industry . Consider this case and try to deter mine whether efforts in 2017 and later years to pull back from climate change action meet expectations noted in the text for policy legitima tion . . If a president , members of Con gress , or other policymakers re ject scientific findings on cli mate change as reflected in the NOAA and NASA reports , is this necessarily in conflict with norms of policy legitimation ? • How important is it in this case to consider the interests of the fossil fuel industry , which might be adversely affected by climate change policies ? • How important is it to consider public preferences in making these decisions ? By late 2016 , public concern about climate change was at an eight - year high , and the public favored the climate change policies of the Obama presidency . Recent polls on the subject , which also show strong public support for ac tions to combat climate change , can be found at the Gallup web site : www. gallup. com/ poll / 190010 / concern - global warming - eight - year - high. aspx ; a range of newer polls from the Gallup organization can be found at https : // news. gallup. com/topic/ category_climate_change. aspx . a . Justin Gillis , " Earth Sets a Tem perature Record for the Third Straight Year , " New York Times , Jan uary 18 , 2017 . Policies that are adopted without such legitimation face serious hurdles . They may well fail to command public sup port , affected interest groups may op pose them or even challenge them in court , and their implementation could be adversely affected . Such was the case with President Obama's executive order on immigration that he signed in 2014. The president issued the execu tive order in response to inaction by the Congress on the issue . The execu tive order provided for temporary legal status to millions of undocumented im migrants . Much of the controversy sur rounding the policy had to do with the perceived illegitimacy of the president's unitary actions and thus bypassing of the legislative process . 15 The legitimacy was questioned to such an extent that a number of states sued , and ultimately the case went to the Supreme Court , which failed to support the executive order . The Trump administration faced many similar challenges to its execu tive orders , and the courts often ruled against the administration's actions . Policy formulation has both technical and political elements , but the process of policy legitimation is mostly polit ical . Nevertheless , policy analysis is still applicable at this stage ; assessment of a policy's political feasibility and social acceptability remains relevant . Analysis of public opinion on the policy is also useful , as is measuring interest group support and opposition . Ethical analysis is both appropriate and helpful to deter mine what is fair and equitable in a pol icy decision or how it affects individual freedom or liberty . These kinds of ques tions arise frequently in public debates over welfare reform , access to higher education , patients ' rights , family plan ning and abortion , fetal stem - cell re search , and many other issues . The box " Steps to Analysis : Judging Policy Legit imation " uses the case of climate change to pose questions that might be asked about the process of legitimation in any political venue and over any one of these or other issues . Policy Implementation For many , the passing of a law by the U. S. Congress , a state legislature , or a city council signals the end of the policy process . In reality , it is just the beginning of government activity that ultimately will affect citizens and businesses more than they may realize . When Congress enacted the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 , did indus try automatically comply and stop pol luting the air ? When Congress or state legislatures increase the highway speed limit , are drivers immediately allowed to legally drive seventy miles per hour ? The obvious answer to both of these questions is " no . " Once a policy is for mulated and adopted , it must be imple mented . According to a classic formulation by Charles Jones ( 1984 ) , implementation is the " set of activities directed toward putting a program into effect . " Three activities - organization , interpretation , and application - are particularly im portant to successful implementation . Organization is the establishment of resources , offices , and methods for ad ministering a program . Interpretation means translating the program's lan guage - the plans , directives , and regu latory requirements - typically found in a law or regulation into language that those affected can understand . Appli cation is the " routine provision of services , payments , or other agreed upon program objectives or instru ments " ( Jones 1984 , 166 ) . In other words , policy implementation depends on the development of the program's details to ensure that policy goals and objectives will be attained . One of the primary mechanisms agencies use to implement the laws is regulation . A regulation , which has the force of law , is simply the rule that governs the op eration of a particular government pro gram . Policy implementation is a crucial stage of the policy process because it is where one sees actual government interven tion and real consequences for soci ety ( Goggin et al . 1990 ; Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983 ) . For example , the Occupational Safety and Health ( OSH ) Act is a relatively short law that governs workplace health and safety in the United States . The law itself provides few details on how the Oc cupational Safety and Health Admin istration ( OSHA ) is to go about the business of protecting workers . It is the implementation of the OSH Act , ra ther than its adoption , that has most directly affected workplace health and safety conditions . Critics of OSHA often have blamed it for weak implementa tion decisions . For example , a review of the agency's actions from 1982 to 2002 concluded that it frequently de clined to seek prosecution of indus tries responsible for workplace deaths even when employers were found to have willfully violated safety standards . Later assessments drew much the same conclusion about OSHA's implementa tion of the law throughout the George W. Bush administration . 16 Another ex ample concerns the landmark Food Safety Modernization Act that Congress approved in early 2011 to reduce the occurrence and severity of food safety problems . The Food and Drug Adminis tration ( FDA ) acknowledged soon after its passage that implementing the law would be " an enormous undertaking , " particularly with severe budgetary con straints . Moreover , even though the food industry supported the policy as in its own interests , some members of Congress nonetheless sought to elimin ate all funding for the new program . In 2013 , the FDA finally adopted its rules to implement the act.17 Executive branch agencies implement most public policies within the United States . The traditional view was that they and their personnel were nonpolit ical administrators who simply carried out the will of the legislature by follow ing the established guidelines , with no say in the policy beyond its execution . This viewpoint , however , is unrealistic and fails to take into consideration the influence agencies and their adminis trators have in formulating policy and the discretion they have in its imple mentation . Because of this degree of discretion , agency decisions often reflect the pol itical philosophy and preferences of the chief executive who appointed the agency's administrators . Chief execu tives try to place in the top agency jobs people who agree with them on mat ters such as interpreting the law , de ciding on agency priorities and budget allocations , and choosing which policy tools to use . In addition , debates that occur during policy formulation often continue during implementation . A good example is the significant change in environmental policy actions , regu lations , and enforcement that occurred during the Trump administration com pared to the Obama administration . Most notably , the Trump administra tion announced that it would pull the United States out of the international Paris Agreement on climate change and reverse Obama regulations related to coal - fired power plants and vehicle fuel efficiency standards , among other deci sions ; those regulations constituted the heart of U. S. climate change policy . At times , the executive's enthusiasm for the law , or lack thereof , becomes appar ent when it comes time to write the rules . All government agencies and programs depend on a continuing supply of money to operate and carry out the various activities of policy implemen tation . The federal government uses an annual budget process that begins with the president's budget recommen dations to Congress and ends with Congress passing appropriations bills , without which , according to the Con stitution , no money can be spent . In between these two steps , Congress de cides whether to accept or modify the president's budget and in what ways . Some of those decisions depend on performance assessments , judgments about how well the agencies are imple menting their programs . The programs that have proved successful probably have an easier time securing the same or larger budgets ; those seen as less so may have to get along with less money . State governments often use a biennial budget process rather than an annual one and usually make adjustments in the second year . The overall process is similar to what occurs at the national level . Ultimately , agency budgets reflect a compromise between what the chief executive wants and what the legisla ture is willing to give . Policy Evaluation The last two stages of the policy pro cess are evaluation and change . Policy evaluation , or program evaluation , is an assessment of whether policies and programs are working well . Analysts look for evidence that a program is achieving its stated goals and objectives . For example , did the Affordable Care Act increase the number of people with health insurance ? Or did reductions of taxes lead to a stronger economy ? Do the programs have unanticipated con sequences , particularly any that are viewed as harmful ? For example , some have argued that President Trump's late 2017 tax cut improved the economy and led to lower unemployment rates . But , the nation's deficit increased to $ 779 billion in 2018 , an increase of 17 percent over the previous year , as cor porate tax revenue fell sharply and fed eral spending rose . 18 While some had predicted this outcome , it was none theless unintended . Evaluation involves judging a program's success in terms not only of the program's policy out comes but also of its legitimacy or need , regardless of how well it is working , especially for controversial programs such as family planning or affirmative action . Of the many reasons governments en gage in policy and program evaluation , costs may be among the most import ant . Government programs are usually expensive , and policymakers , who must be accountable to the voters , want to know if the results are worth the money -a question that lies at the heart of policy analysis . In addition to costs versus benefits , analysts have many other methods for evaluating policies and programs , but as with policy for mulation , legitimation , and implemen tation , evaluation is not merely about technical studies of program results . It also involves political judgments about a program's worth , decisions that are likely to be of great interest to all pol icy actors involved with the program . In this sense , almost all programs , from national security to agricultural subsid ies , are continually , if often informally , evaluated by members of Congress , interest groups , think tanks , and others . Unanticipated consequences . A U. S. Border Patrol vehicle patrols next to a fence at the U. S. - Mex ico border on January 5 , 2017 , near M cAllen , Texas . Incoming immigrants continued to come into the country , with the Trump administration raising concerns about " caravans " of people coming through the border . The Trump administration continued to fight to build a wall along the U. S. - Mex ico border . John Moore / Getty Images Policy Change Should government expand a program or reduce its scope ? Should the admin istrators try a different policy approach ? Questions like these may follow the evaluations and lead to policy change , which refers to the modification of pol icy goals , the means used to achieve them , or both ; the change could be minor , moderate , or extensive . Termin ation of a policy or program is one of many kinds of changes that might be considered , although historically it has been rare . Most often a policy or pro gram undergoes incremental change in an attempt to make it more effective or to meet the objectives of its main constituencies and other policy actors . A clear illustration relates to improving K - 12 education . During the George W. Bush administration , Congress passed and the president signed the No Child Left Behind legislation in 2001. The general purpose of the law was to in crease standards and improve child hood education . This was to be done through a mechanism of testing and ac countability to ensure all students were meeting minimum standards . Many saw the law as overly prescriptive and found that it was nearly impossible to meet the act's goals . Changes began to roll out incrementally with the Depart ment of Education issuing waivers to certain areas that were not meeting the original standards set by the law . By 2015 , Congress passed and the presi dent signed the Every Student Succeeds Act ( ESSA ) , which provided more flexi bility for the achievement of standards and returned more authority to the states . Yet sometimes policy change is more than incremental ; it represents a major departure from previous efforts . The Affordable Care Act is a case in point . Democrats had tried for years to adopt some form of national health care pol icy that would provide insurance , and therefore health care services , for the millions of Americans who are not covered by employer - provided or other forms of health insurance . Virtually every other developed nation in the world has such a policy . In 2009 and 2010 , the Obama White House and backers of that policy change on Capitol Hill garnered enough votes to succeed , although with no Republican support . Since its passage , the Affordable Care Act has survived Supreme Court review and numerous attempts by Republicans to overturn it or significantly weaken its core mandates . The most recent efforts by the Trump administration and the states to roll back some elements of the act are reviewed in chapter 8 . Passage of the Affordable Care Act reflects what Baumgartner and Jones ( 2002 , 2009 ) call a punctuated equilibrium model of policy change . Rather than emerging gradually and en acted in small steps as in the classic incrementalist view of the policy pro cess , the punctuated equilibrium model suggests that we can get dramatic pol icy change when the conditions are right . Thus we may have long periods in which policy stability is the norm , in part because those who dominate the policy process are " privileged groups of elites " who are largely satisfied with the status quo . But this seemingly stable condition can be undermined when new ideas make it onto the pol icy agenda , receive enhanced media and public attention , and are sufficiently en dorsed by new policy actors to force change . Hence we can have long - term stability or equilibrium that is on oc casion punctuated by short - term and sometimes volatile policy change . In this way , newly emergent challenges , such as those evident in health care , the environment , energy , immigration , and many other areas , lead to sometimes abrupt policy advances . Such changes may begin at the state or local levels of government and eventually spread to other states and to the federal govern ment as the critiques of existing pol icy and development of new approaches spreads to or diffuses to other levels of government . Such a process is evident in climate change policy throughout the 2010s ( Karapin 2016 ; Rabe 2004 , 2018 ) but has long been studied by political scientists in many other policy areas ( F. Berry and Berry 2018 ) . The education act and the health care reform act demonstrate that the pol icy process never really ends . What is thought to be a resolution of a problem through policy adoption at one point is later evaluated and judged to be un acceptable , or at least insufficient . Inter ested parties then advocate changes . Another round of the policy cycle begins as the newly recognized needs reach the political agenda and a differ ent policy is formulated and adopted . There is nothing wrong with this pro cess . Indeed , all public policies can be considered to be experiments in which government and the public learn what works well and what does not . Even major policy reforms in welfare , edu cation , environmental protection , im migration , and taxation , among other areas , have not always produced the changes the reformers had in mind , and further assessment and policy change often is needed ( Patashnik 2008 ; Sabat ier and Jenkins - Smith 1993 ) . INSTRUMENTS OF PUBLIC POLICY We have reviewed the various stages of the policy process model in the sec tions above . A related topic concerns the options that government policy makers have available at any point in this process , whether it is formulation , legitimation , or implementation . This is the role that government might play in addressing public problems , and es pecially the policy alternatives among which policymakers can choose . ( See Figure 3-1 . ) We put this discussion at the end of the chapter because it serves as a transition to what we go on to con sider in chapters 4 through 6 on the per spectives and insights of policy analysis . Description Figure 3-1 Instruments of Public Policy As we indicated earlier , one of the first decisions to be made is whether gov ernment should intervene at all to deal with a problem or simply leave its resolution to individual action or the marketplace . For example , governments chose for years not to regulate smok ing in public places , and then chose to do so in an escalating series of ac tions as scientists learned more about the health consequences of exposure to secondhand smoke , so that now many states even prohibit smoking in bars and nightclubs . Similarly , most cities and states chose to do nothing about rising levels of childhood obesity be cause they determined this was largely a matter of private or family choice . By 2011 , however , cities and states across the nation were intervening in varying ways , from prohibiting certain kinds of foods in school vending machines and cafeterias , to mandating physical exer cise for students , to attempts to out law the selling of extra - large servings of soft drinks.19 The Los Angeles Uni fied School District has even banned flavored milk and made other changes to its school lunch program to promote healthier eating.20 Chapter 1 described the most common rationales for such intervention , which include political reasons , moral reasons , and market fail ures . Complicating the decision about government action is that liberals and conservatives often disagree - some times heatedly — about what course to take , and especially about whether gov ernment or private action is most ap propriate . Managing public problems . Among the many options that policymakers can consider as they respond to various public prob lems is government management , in which government directly delivers services to the public or manages the resources at issue . Examples include the operation of public schools , national defense , national parks , and most local government services such as po lice and fire protection . The photo shows what happens when federal budgets are not passed and the needs to stop certain government operations . Mario Tama / Getty Images Should citizens and policymakers de cide that government intervention is in deed necessary , they can choose from a diverse menu of possibilities . We have provided a number of examples in the chapter . Policymakers consider many questions when deciding which policy instrument to use to address a particu lar issue or problem . The most obvi ous is whether the instrument will be effective in addressing the problem , but others include its political acceptability , technical feasibility , economic impact , and long - term effects . Chapter 5 exam ines policy alternatives in some detail . The following sections explain the most common policy tools that governments use . Regulation One of the best - known policy instru ments , regulation , encompasses several different kinds of government actions , including the laws that legislatures enact and the rules that bureaucracies adopt . Regulations are government de crees that either require citizens to do something or prevent them from doing so . Particular requirements ensure com pliance by individuals , corporations , and other units of government . Typic ally , the regulations impose sanctions , such as fines or imprisonment , for fail ure to comply . For the most part , citi zens and corporations adhere to these legal requirements voluntarily , but the means are available to enforce the regu lations when necessary . Government Management Governments use the direct services or direct management of resources as in struments of public policy . Education , defense , public parks , and most muni cipal services , such as police and fire protection , are examples of policies that governments implement by providing the service directly to citizens . Govern ments offer most of these services be cause they need to be provided in a specific way , such as making national parklands available to all for a modest fee . Today , it is not unusual for govern ments , especially at the local level , to contract out a wide variety of services and pay private companies to provide them . The questions of which government services might be handled by private businesses and whether doing so is a good idea are the subjects of on going public policy debate . According to James E. Anderson ( 2011 , 17 ) , " pri vatization supports transferring many government assets or programs to the private sector and contracting with pri vate companies to handle many public services , whether the collection of gar bage or the operation of prisons . " Pol icymakers evaluate the options by using criteria such as effectiveness , cost , and accountability to the public , and the public sector remains responsible for ensuring the quality of the work , even though the private sector is provid ing the services . To date , many services and programs that were once part of the public sector have been privatized or contracted out , including solid waste collection , jail and prison management , firefighting , highway construction and maintenance , and much more ( Savas 2000 ) . But even before the privatization movement , the government relied on the market to provide services . A clear example is that the government has al ways contracted with private compan ies in the defense industry to build air craft , tanks , ships , and missiles . Taxing and Spending Governments also use their ability to tax and spend to achieve policy goals and objectives . One form of spending policy is the direct payment of money to citizens . Social Security is an obvi ous example : the federal government transfers money from people who are working to retirees or others who are covered by the system's rules . Govern ments also provide monetary payments as a way of promoting certain activities . For example , under welfare reform , the federal government provides money to the states to distribute as they see fit to those needing assistance , but the states must show that they have reduced the welfare rolls or risk losing some of this federal funding . Governments also use tax policy to pro mote or discourage certain activities . For example , the federal government promotes home buying by allowing homeowners to deduct their mortgage interest from their taxable income . Many state governments have increased the tax on cigarettes not only to discour age smoking but also to raise revenue for other programs . These taxes vary quite widely from state to state , from a low of 17 cents per pack in Missouri to a high of $ 4.50 per pack in the District of Columbia ( see chapter 6 ) .21 Market Mechanisms Governments can take advantage of market mechanisms as a form of pub lic policy . Using the market may be an explicit decision by the government not to intervene in any way but in stead to allow the laws of supply and demand to work . For the most part , the government has chosen not to regu late electronic commerce on the inter net , or even to impose taxes on internet purchases , much to the dismay of local merchants who have found themselves losing market share to Amazon. com and other companies.² 22 Governments also actively use market incentives rather than other approaches to achieve policy goals . For example , when Congress passed the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments , it required a certain amount of reductions in sul fur dioxide and nitrogen oxides , which are precursors to acid rain . In the past , Congress may have used regula tion as the tool to achieve these re ductions , but under the 1990 act , the government used marketable permits to get the reductions . The permits , which are emission allowances , are provided to companies based on their previous emissions levels , but with the target of lower emissions over time . Companies then decide how to use these permits ; they can buy , sell , trade , or bank the permits , using whatever strategy allows them to meet the emissions targets at the least cost . If companies can emit less pollution than they have allowances for , they can sell their additional permits to companies for which emissions re ductions are more difficult and more costly ( A. Freeman 2006 ) . This market mechanism , also called " cap and trade , " has been suggested as one way to ad dress the release of greenhouse gases that lead to global climate change , and a number of cap - and - trade bills have been introduced in Congress in recent years . California adopted its own state cap and - trade program rather than wait for Congress to act ; it took effect in 2012 . Education , Information , and Persuasion Another policy instrument available to the government is educating citizens while attempting to persuade them to behave in a certain way . Following a natural disaster in the United States , the president usually makes a per sonal appeal to Americans to support relief efforts . This kind of message is called exhortation , or a hortatory ap peal ( Schneider and Ingram 1997 ) , and the bully pulpit can be an effective in strument of public policy under certain circumstances . Public opinion polls , however , have shown that trust in gov ernment and its leaders has decreased over the past sixty years.23 As trust decreases , so too does the effectiveness of persuasion as a public policy instru ment . People may not comply with a re quest of a public official if they question the official's justification in making it or the government's overall legitimacy . Providing information to the public can be a powerful policy instrument . Anne L. Schneider and Helen Ingram ( 1997 ) call it a " capacity - building " tool with the potential to inform , enlighten , and empower people through training , edu cation , technical assistance , and other ways of making information available . Use of this instrument has increased in recent years and is common in the areas of health , safety , and environmen tal protection ( Graham 2002 ) . For ex ample , the FDA requires nutritional la beling as a way of informing consumers about the substances in their food and allowing them to make decisions on healthy eating . The Environmental Pro tection Agency each year collects and makes available on its website infor mation about emissions of toxic chem icals from industries around the nation . In creating this policy in 1986 , Con gress hoped , with some success , that publicizing toxic emissions would give businesses an incentive to correct their pollution problems ( Graham and Miller 2001 ; Kraft , Stephan , and Abel 2011 ) . We also rely heavily on information dis closure to inform people on the sources of election campaign funds , the energy efficiency of appliances , the fuel econ omy of cars and trucks , and the financial activities of corporations , among other policy concerns . POLICY TYPOLOGIES Policymakers are likely to think about policy options in terms of the tools at their disposal . For example , what will be more effective in reducing toxic chemical emissions , regulation or infor mation provision approaches ? Which instrument will work better to cut fuel consumption , regulation ( raising ve hicle fuel efficiency standards ) or a mar ket incentive ( imposing a larger gasoline tax ) ? Public policy scholars think about the different kinds of policies that gov ernments adopt and why they do so for a slightly dif ferent reason ( M cCool 1995 ) . The goal is to understand the basic differences among policies and the political conditions that lead to one kind of policy rather than another . To that end , this chapter concludes with a review of the best - known and most frequently cited typology , developed by Theodore Lowi ( 1964 ) . According to Lowi , all government functions can be classified into three types : distributive , redistributive , and regulatory . Individual programs or grants that a government provides without regard to limited resources or zero - sum situations ( where one group's gain is another's loss ) are characterized as distributive policies . Examples in clude college research grants , weapons procurement , agricultural subsidies , highways and bridges , and other public construction projects . Many people label these kinds of programs pork barrel , the term used to describe the attempts of elected officials , such as members of Congress , to provide government pro grams and services that directly benefit their constituencies . Such politicians are said to excel at " bringing home the bacon . " These kinds of policies are often noncontroversial because they tend to be visible only to those dir ectly involved , and members usually do not seriously question each other's pet projects because to do so may jeopardize their own . One might expect such pol icies to be particularly attractive when spending limits and budget deficits are viewed as unimportant , because the po tential exists for most members of Con gress to get something out of this kind of spending . But even in fiscally difficult times , elected officials may continue to support costly distributive policies . One particular project sarcastically labeled as the " bridge to nowhere " received a lot of media attention with the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the Re publican vice - presidential nominee in 2008. The bridge was proposed to link a small island in Alaska to the main land at a cost of $ 223 million . The dir ect electoral rewards of providing such benefits to their states and districts ap pear to override politicians ' concerns about the budget . Conflict is what makes redistributive policies different from distributive pol icies . For every redistributive policy , winners and losers are associated with its approval , which makes such pol icies controversial and difficult to adopt . Because redistributive policies provide benefits to one category of individuals at the expense of another , they often reflect ideological or class conflict . Some examples include welfare , Social Secur ity , affirmative action , and tax policy . A proposed tax cut may benefit chiefly upper - income taxpayers while eroding services that assist lower - income citi zens because of reduced government revenue . If a company adopts an affirm ative action policy in hiring women or racial minorities , these groups may benefit at the expense of others . Lowi's final policy type is regulatory policy . According to Kenneth Meier ( 1993 , 82 ) , a leading scholar of regu lation , " Regulatory policy is govern ment restriction of individual choice to keep conduct from transcending ac ceptable bounds . " This definition covers a wide range of government activities , from protecting consumers to ensur ing environmental quality . The range is so broad that some scholars divide regulatory policies into two subcategor ies . The first , competitive regulation , is mostly associated with regulating specific industries and their practices , such as computer software and com munications companies . The second , protective or social regulation , pro tects the general public from activities that occur in the private sector ( Eisner et al . 2018 ; Ripley and Franklin 1991 ) . Competitive regulatory policy includes the licensing of radio and television broadcasting , antitrust actions , and pol icies associated with net neutrality , which is intended to keep internet ac cess free and open — that is , without blocking or discriminating against any particular applications or content on a network . Protective regulatory pol icy includes consumer protection and workplace health and safety rules , such as those administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission and OSHA . These kinds of policies are controversial because they require the government to intervene in the activities of private . businesses , often leading to increased operating costs or restrictions on cor porate behavior . Lowi's policy typology provides a sim ple but helpful way to classify differ ent kinds of government programs and policies . The characteristics associated with each type allow the student of pub lic policy to understand the debate sur rounding the issue , why policies may or may not gain approval , how they might be implemented , and the public's ac ceptance of them . CONCLUSIONS This chapter describes the leading the ories used to explain the politics of policymaking . Students of public policy use these theories to help explain why decisions are made the way they are . One could use these theories to help understand why , for example , President Obama and Congress pursued health care reform through adoption of the Affordable Care Act rather than choos ing another option , such as a single payer plan or expanding Medicare to cover the entire population . The an swer likely lies in the need to respond to the various interest groups active on health care reform as well as to secure the votes of members who could not support a more radical departure from the status quo . We choose to focus pri marily on the policy process model and explore each of its stages , noting the roles of different policy actors and the potential for policy analysis in each . We believe this model enables the pub lic policy student to formulate effective questions about the policy process . It also aids in evaluating the information and arguments used to advance certain policy proposals or to criticize exist ing programs . The models and theories introduced here are the tools for figur ing out what policy actors are doing at any given time and why they are doing it , and why policy actors might prefer one of the different types of policy ac tion discussed in the chapter to another . The next three chapters explore in more detail some of the themes touched on so far . They cover the nature of policy analysis and its growth over time , par ticularly through the rise of independ ent think tanks and the expansion in interest group analysis and policy pro motion . They introduce concepts and methods for measuring and analyzing public problems and thinking creatively about possible policy alternatives for dealing with them . They elaborate on the leading criteria for evaluating policy proposals and the range of policy ana lysis methods that can provide informa tion about the likely effects of those pro posals .

Chapter 1 Full transcript

"Chapter 1 Public Policy and Politics Who is responsible for ensuring public safety? Amusement parks are a big business in the United States, and millions of Americans visit them each year, particularly large facilities such as Walt Disney World and the Six Flags parks. Yet the occasional accident reminds us of the risk and possibly of the need for government intervention to provide adequate assurance of public safety. iStock/ DougLemke Chapter Objectives Define and explain the nature of public policy. Identify key concepts associated with the study of public policy. Explain the different contexts in which public policy is made. Examine the reasons for governmental involvement in public policy. Explore why citizens should understand public policy. Describe the reasons for evaluating public policies today. Every year millions of people in the United States go to theme parks, state and county fairs, and other events that feature thrill rides. According to the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, in recent years hundreds of millions of people attended the country's approximately four hundred parks, with revenues well into the billions of dollars. 1 This is clearly a large industry that includes not only amusement park giants such as Walt Disney World and Six Flags but also a variety of smaller, permanently placed operations. In addition, many traveling operations set up temporary ride attractions at events such as state and county fairs. While these parks and attractions provide safe entertainment and recreation for most visitors, periodic accidents—some fatal—are reported every year. In August 2016, three separate incidents occurred that called into question the safety of such rides. At Schlitterbahn water park in Kansas City, a ten-year-old boy died riding a water slide. A few days later, three people fell from a Ferris wheel when the car flipped at a county fair in Tennessee. Then a few days later, another child fell from a roller coaster at an amusement park in western Pennsylvania. 2 These are not onetime incidents. In October 2013, a number of people were trapped on Universal Orlando's Hollywood Rip Ride Rockit roller coaster for nearly three hours. 3 While there were no serious injuries as a result of this malfunction, it showed that things can go wrong with these sophisticated amusement rides. In some cases, accidents or deaths do happen, sometimes because malfunctions occur in the equipment and in some instances for no apparent reason other than the specific health of the visitor. Examples include a woman who fell from a roller coaster at a Six Flags park in Texas in July 2013 as well as a summer 2015 death that occurred at Walt Disney World's Magic Kingdom Space Mountain roller coaster, where a fifty-five-year-old woman lost consciousness upon exiting the ride and later died, likely due to her medical history. 4 When people go to these parks, they intend to have fun, and accidents in such venues can generate all sorts of media coverage. No one thinks they can get injured in Disney World, home of Mickey Mouse, Goofy, the Seven Dwarfs, and other beloved characters. So one might ask, what kinds of controls or regulations are in place to ensure individual safety in these amusement centers? The answer in this case is a bit complicated. It spans different government levels and agencies and is a good illustration of the complexity of policymaking. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is a regulatory agency responsible for ensuring public safety for a wide range of consumer products. The commission currently regulates over fifteen thousand products, ranging from lawn mowers to baby cribs. It also, not surprisingly, has some authority over amusement park rides. Specifically, the CPSC monitors the safety of the "portable amusement rides" that travel from one location to another and are set up for particular events, such as county fairs. What about rides associated with permanent amusement parks such as Six Flags? Government regulation of these rides occurs at the state level, and in some cases states have no authority. Some states require government inspection of park rides, and others do not. Regulation may even vary within the state itself. Florida is a prime example. While some permanent parks are significantly regulated, those that hire more than one thousand employees are generally exempt from state regulations. (This includes places such as Universal Studios, Disney World, and Busch Gardens.) Why do you think these differences between and within states exist? 5 Senator Edward Markey, D-Mass., has long argued that there should be more systematic federal regulation of amusement park rides. For many years, he introduced legislation that would give greater authority to the CPSC to regulate the industry, including "big theme" players such as Disney and Universal. 6 He has not been successful getting this legislation passed, with opposition coming—not surprisingly—from the major theme parks, which claim that federal intervention is unnecessary, that these accidents occur rarely, and that the risks are minimal. They often also cite that many of the accidents are due to the fact that "patrons have risk-increasing, pre-existing medical conditions or fail to heed rules like those about staying seated or keeping their limbs inside the car." 7 How risky are these rides? According to Markey, people die on roller coasters at a higher rate per mile traveled than those traveling by plane, bus, or train. A report by the Center for Injury Research and Policy cited evidence that "more than 93,000 children under 18 were treated in emergency rooms for amusement-park-related injuries between 1990 and 2010." 8 Former representative Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., states, on the other hand, that amusement park rides cause fewer injuries than fishing. 9 So who is right? The answer may be that both are, and it illustrates how information and data can be handled to communicate preferred positions. Policy analysts often use risk analysis to examine the extent of a problem and how it can affect a population. In the case of amusement park rides, according to a study by the National Safety Council, in 2015 there were 1,502 reported ride injuries at fixed-site amusement parks—or about 4.8 injuries for every million attendees (or less than one injury for every million rides). The vast majority of these injuries are not considered to be serious; in fact, only about 5.5 percent of them required an overnight stay in a hospital. 10 Once again, one might ask if this is a significant number. For comparison purposes, the CPSC estimated that in 2017 there were over 153,000 injuries from ATVs, mopeds, minibikes, and other such recreational vehicles; over 319,000 injuries playing football; and nearly 300,000 injuries from exercise and exercise equipment—and this is just for males. 11 Based on some of these comparisons, should we be concerned about the safety of amusement park rides? Another question might be whether government needs to be involved at all in the regulation of amusement park rides. It is clear that such accidents do nothing to help the bottom line of the amusement park industry, and it has a powerful incentive to provide safe environments in order to continue attracting visitors. Might the self-regulation that currently occurs, particularly in the permanent parks, be sufficient to ensure safety? Or is this a case where government regulation is needed to protect the public's well-being? These are the kinds of questions to which elected and government officials must respond when making public policy. While we are relatively certain that most people do not consider the role of government on their family vacation to Disney World, the examples above show that there are a variety of questions one might raise regarding government policy. The regulation of amusement park rides is an example of the constitutional issue of federalism (defined later in this chapter); how the perception of risk may affect decision making; and, ultimately, the role of government in a free-market or capitalist society. These kinds of questions are faced in nearly all areas of public policy, and they illustrate the diversity and the complexity of issues that arise. Ultimately, how these issues are resolved can have a profound impact on individual lives. This account of amusement park ride safety and its regulation speaks to the importance of the process of public policymaking. That process involves many different institutions, people, and groups. The complex policy issues ideally are resolved only after long hours of research and debate that consider the underlying beliefs and assumptions as well as pertinent facts, including in this case the relative risk of accidents and injuries. Sometimes, however, the issues are not resolved, or they arise again in response to new concerns or data. In addition, a policy typically deals with a particular slice of American life, such as the family vacation, although it also may have important effects on the public's general well-being. Across the range of government activities today, it is no exaggeration to say that public policy deals with just about everything, affecting life in ways that are both obvious and sometimes difficult to recognize. What Is Public Policy? Public policy is what public officials within government, and by extension the citizens they represent, choose to do or not to do about public problems. Public problems refer to conditions the public widely perceives to be unacceptable and that therefore require intervention. Problems such as environmental degradation, insufficient access to health care services, or as noted above consumer safety on amusement park rides can be addressed through government action; private action, where individuals or corporations take the responsibility; or a combination of the two. In any given case, the choice depends on how the public defines the problem and on prevailing societal attitudes about private action in relation to government's role. For the amusement park ride example, governments at both the federal and state levels share responsibility in some cases, and in others responsibility for safety is left to private businesses or individuals. There are ongoing debates over whether or not having the industry regulate itself in these situations is sufficient, and when accidents do happen, those debates become much more public. When it comes to safety issues, government may decide to intervene, such as in regulation of medications, or allow for private industry to address the issue. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may order a recall of tainted meat that could be unfit for consumption. But there are other situations where the company or industry will make its own decision to recall the products, and the government may see no need to intervene to further protect the public's health or safety. The term policy refers in general to a purposive course of action that an individual or group consistently follows in dealing with a problem (J. Anderson 2015). In a more formal definition, a policy is a "standing decision characterized by behavioral consistency and repetitiveness on the part of both those who make it and those who abide by it" (Eulau and Prewitt 1973, 465). Whether in the public or private sector, policies also can be thought of as the instruments through which societies regulate themselves and attempt to channel human behavior in acceptable directions (Schneider and Ingram 1997). The language used to discuss public policy can be confusing. Analysts, policymakers, and commentators sometimes speak without much clarity about intentions (the purposes of government action); goals (the stated ends to be achieved); plans or proposals (the means for achieving goals); programs (the authorized means for pursuing goals); and decisions or choices—that is, specific actions that are taken to set goals, develop plans, and implement programs (Jones 1984). These elements of public policy can be found in many different legal expressions such as laws, executive orders, regulations, and judicial rulings. They also can be seen in the way that policymakers, such as presidents, governors, or legislators, describe how they view public policy in any given area. Both the legal statements and the actions of policymakers can define what public policy is at any given time. We find it useful as well to distinguish between policy outputs (the formal actions that governments take to pursue their goals) and policy outcomes (the effects such actions actually have on society). To pull some of these perspectives together, we offer this definition: Public policy is a course of government action or inaction in response to public problems. It is associated with formally approved policy goals and means, as well as the regulations and practices of agencies that implement programs. Looking at public policy this way emphasizes the actual behavior of implementing agencies and officials, not merely the formal statements of policy goals and means found in laws and other expressions of government policy. As we will stress throughout the book, this view means that students of public policy need to seek out the information that can tell them what policy actually is at any given time. Any level of government, whether federal, state, or local, may be involved in a particular policy effort because social problems, and the public demand for action on them, manifest themselves from the local to the national level. At the local level, failing public schools, high crime rates, crowded highways, or air pollution might attract enough attention to spur the school board, mayor, or city council to find remedies. At the national level, concern about inequitable access to health care or how a country responds to a terrorist threat may galvanize policymakers and lead to policy development. Whatever the level of government, proponents of policy actions seek a multitude of goals that also affect all members of society. For laws that govern personal conduct, such as speed limits, policies aim to restrict individual behavior as a way to protect lives or prevent injuries and property damage; that is, the goal is to promote the public's welfare or common good. After government enacts the laws, public policies also affect how the mandated services aimed at the public good, such as police protection, public education, maintenance of highways and bridges, or national defense, are provided. Direct government payments are another form of public policy, and they affect people's lives on the individual and societal level. Social Security payments for senior citizens, agricultural subsidies for farmers, and research grants to universities sustain long-term individual and collective well-being. Public policies reflect not only society's most important values but also conflicts among values. Policies represent which of many different values receive the highest priority in any given decision. David Easton (1965) captured this view in his often quoted observation that politics is "the authoritative allocation of values for a society." What Easton meant was that the actions of policymakers can determine definitively and with the force of law which of society's different and sometimes conflicting values will prevail. Examples can be found in nearly every walk of life: Should the federal government implement a carbon tax on industry to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases and address health and climate change concerns, even if doing so raises the cost of products? Or should such decisions be left to the marketplace and individual choice? Should the federal government uphold the mandate of the original 2010 Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) that citizens purchase health care insurance if they are not covered through their employers, as one way to ensure that all citizens have access to health care services? Should government continue to recognize a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, or should it restrict the choice and instead promote the rights of the fetus? Because public policy often deals with tough questions like these, reflecting conflicts over fundamental human values, the resulting policies are going to affect people's lives. For these reasons, we designed this book with several goals in mind. The first is to help readers develop a fuller understanding of public policy and the ways governments make policy decisions. The second is to encourage readers to look ahead to the implications of policy choices. The third is to foster critical thinking about public policy and possible alternative courses of action. Because this last goal is so important, we introduce basic concepts related to policy analysis throughout the text. The aim is to equip readers with essential skills in analytical thinking that will enhance their understanding of policy issues and make possible more effective participation in the policy process. Developing a critical, analytical approach to policy issues has many advantages over simply learning the details of policy history, understanding the present legal requirements in various programs, or gaining an overview of current policy debates. Such knowledge is important, but it is inherently limited, in part because public policies and debates over them continually change, making earlier accounts less useful. In contrast, those who learn the basic principles of policymaking and policy analysis will have a better grasp of why governments make their decisions and be better able to identify the strengths and weaknesses in present policies as well as in proposals to change them. Individuals can apply these skills to the wide range of problems everyone faces as citizens and in their personal lives and careers. Defining Basic Concepts It is useful at this point to clarify several additional concepts in the study of public policy. These include government, politics, and policy analysis. Although these terms are in common usage, no universal definition exists for any of them. Government Government refers to the institutions and political processes through which public policy choices are made. These institutions and processes represent the legal authority to govern or rule a group of people. In the United States, the federal Constitution describes the government's institutions, which include Congress, the president, the various agencies of the executive branch, and the federal court system. Each is granted specific but overlapping legal authority to act under a system of separation of powers, which we discuss in chapter 2. At state and local levels, parallel government institutions develop policy for citizens within their jurisdictions, guided by the authority granted in state constitutions and in state and local statutes and ordinances. The American system of governance adheres to the principle of federalism, also discussed in chapter 2; in a federal system, the national government shares authority with the states and local governments. Quite often national policies, such as those dealing with environmental protection, are implemented chiefly by the states through an elaborate system of intergovernmental relations in which the federal government grants legal authority to the states to carry out national policies. In other policy areas, such as education, crime control, and land-use regulation, state and local governments play the dominant role. Politics Politics concerns the exercise of power in society or in specific decisions over public policy. It has several different but complementary meanings. It is used to refer to the processes through which public policies are formulated and adopted, especially to the roles played by elected officials, organized interest groups, public opinion, and political parties. This is the politics of policymaking. Politics can also be thought of as how conflicts in society (such as those over rights to abortion services or gun control) are expressed and resolved in favor of one set of interests or social values or another. Politics in this case refers to the issue positions that different groups of people (gun owners, environmentalists, health insurance companies, automobile companies) adopt and the actions they take to promote their values. These collections of individuals with similar interests often become active in the policymaking process. So politics is about power and influence in society as well as in the processes of policymaking within government. It concerns who participates in and who influences the decisions that governments make and who gains and who loses as a result. Harold Lasswell ([ 1936] 1958) put it this way: Politics is about "who gets what, when, and how." In the United States and most other democracies, politics is also related to the electoral processes by which citizens select the policymakers who represent them. In this sense, politics concerns political parties and their issue agendas and the political ideologies, philosophies, and beliefs held by candidates for office, their supporters, and their campaign contributors. The precise relationship of politics to public policy may not always be clear; defenders and critics of specific policy actions may offer arguments based in economics, history, ethics, philosophy, or any number of other disciplines we use to think about what is in the public interest. Still, no one doubts that electoral politics is a major component of the policymaking process. Politics exerts this strong influence on policymaking, in part because elected officials necessarily must try to anticipate how their policy statements and actions might affect their chances for reelection. Policymakers are therefore sensitive to the views of the groups and individuals who helped them win office in the first place and whose support may be essential to keeping them in office. These political incentives motivate public officials to pay particular attention to the policy preferences of their core constituencies, especially the activists, while also trying to appeal to the general electorate. For Republicans, the core constituencies include business interests, political conservatives, farmers, and suburban and rural residents, among others. For Democrats, the core constituencies are labor interests, environmentalists, African Americans, political liberals, residents of urban areas, and others. Politics is also one of the principal reasons public policy is so riddled with conflict and why it can be so difficult to analyze. Consider the debate over smoking and its health effects. For years, the federal government has sought to discourage smoking out of concern for its adverse effects on public health (Derthick 2005; Fritschler and Rudder 2007). Yet while the Office of the Surgeon General and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) take this position, the USDA has continued its longtime policy of subsidizing tobacco farmers. Clearly, tobacco policy today—whether higher cigarette taxes meant to curtail smoking (see chapter 6), public advertising campaigns to warn children and teenagers about the dangers of smoking, or actions to regulate tobacco as a drug—is both complex and controversial. Decisions are influenced by a public that is divided on the issue, by the actions of interest groups that represent the tobacco industry, and by public health studies that are used by other groups to press for further government action to reduce smoking. These various points of view and studies are parts of the contentious process of setting new policy directions. It would be wrong to assume, however, that such conflicts merely reflect inconsistencies in government policies or, worse, that they demonstrate bad faith. In fact, the process of resolving conflicts helps to determine where the public interest lies. These conflicts illustrate the different public interests that U.S. policymakers attempt to meet. Promoting a health agenda through decreasing smoking will lead to a healthier society and a reduction in health care costs for both the individual and the nation. But the family farm is revered in the United States, and Congress has enacted many policies to protect it. The tobacco industry has been able to play upon this public interest of protecting farmers in its lobbying efforts, and yet policymakers have been shifting their emphasis away from protecting farmers and in favor of regulation. In 2009, for example, Congress approved broad new powers for the FDA to regulate cigarettes and other forms of tobacco for the first time. 12 More recently, this debate has partially shifted to the safety of e-cigarettes. Still, whether the subject is tobacco use, health care, or how to reform the tax code, such conflicts are a key element in policymaking. Whether the debate is over tobacco support and public health, state support for colleges and universities, or changes to immigration policy, government officials, interest groups, and citizens promote their views about what to do, and they bring all kinds of information to bear on the decisions. Naturally, the different participants in the policy process can and do disagree vigorously about the kinds of public policies that are needed and the proper role of government in addressing the problems. The policymaking process within government provides abundant, although not necessarily equal, opportunities for all these participants, or policy actors, to discuss problems; to formulate and promote possible policy solutions to them; and to press for formal adoption by legislatures at the national, state, and local levels. Politics, as we defined it above, is evident throughout this process. Ultimately, executive agencies and departments, such as the FDA, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the Department of Defense, or a local police or public health department, are responsible for implementing what the legislators enact. Here too politics is often evident as an agency may reflect the political values and priorities of a president or governor, or try to respond to the views of other elected officials. Policy Analysis Analysis means deconstructing an object of study—that is, breaking it down into its basic elements to understand it better. Policy analysis is the examination of components of public policy, the policy process, or both. Put another way, it is the study of the causes and consequences of policy decisions. Duncan MacRae and James A. Wilde (1979, 4) have called policy analysis "the use of reason and evidence to choose the best policy among a number of alternatives." Policy analysis uses many different methods of inquiry and draws from various disciplines to obtain the information needed to assess a problem and think clearly about alternative ways to resolve it. The same information also shapes public debate and deliberation over what actions to take. At heart, policy analysis encourages deliberate critical thinking about the causes of public problems, the various ways governments and/ or the private sector might act on them, and which policy choices make the most sense. Doing so requires not only knowledge of government and politics but also the ability to evaluate the policy actions. Chapter 6 discusses the major evaluative criteria used to make such judgments. Why Study Public Policy? As the discussion in this chapter will make clear, the study of public policy occurs in many different organizations and for diverse reasons. Policy analysts both in and outside of government have a professional concern for public policy. That is, they work on developing public policy solutions by studying public problems and various policy alternatives or choices that might be made. Scholars at universities and research institutions share some of the same interests as policy analysts, but they may also be concerned with building general knowledge and advancing theory, for example, of the policy process or the performance of government institutions. We will revisit these approaches to the study of public policy, especially policy analysis, in chapter 4. For citizens who lack such professional reasons but who have strong personal interests in government and public policy, the U.S. political system affords numerous opportunities to become involved. Such interests alone are a good reason to study public policy, but it is not the only one. Studying public policy may help citizens sharpen their analytic skills, decide what political positions and policies to support, and determine how best to evaluate democratic governance. It may encourage students to consider careers in public policy, law, or government. Two additional reasons are presented here: to improve citizens' ability to participate in policy processes and their ability to influence policy decisions. Citizens' Ability to Participate and Make Choices The United States is a representative democracy. Its citizens elect delegates to act for them, but that is not necessarily the end of citizen participation. Within democracies, citizens may speak out on policy development and government actions. Lack of knowledge about public problems, policies, government decisions, or politics does not normally keep people from acting in this way, but they can participate more effectively by improving their understanding of the issues. During political campaigns, candidates for public office state their positions on the issues through speeches and advertisements—and, increasingly, through social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook—in hopes of persuading voters to support them. Voters who study public policy are better equipped to understand the candidates' policy ideas and to evaluate them—that is, to determine what impacts they are likely to have and whether they are desirable. If elections are to turn on informed assessments of the issues rather than how good the candidate looks on camera, policy knowledge of this kind is essential. Citizens can also join with others in an interest group to learn more about public policy. Scholars often observe that the logic of collective action suggests that a single individual would be irrational to join an interest group when almost no personal gain follows (Olson 1971). The enormous growth of citizen lobbies over the last several decades, however, clearly indicates that agreement with a group's goals persuades many people to sign up and participate (J. Berry 1997, 1999). Interest groups operate at all levels of government, and one of their roles is to educate policymakers and citizens about public policy issues. For example, many of them—from the National Rifle Association to the Sierra Club—commission policy studies and use them in the political process to advance their views (Cigler, Loomis, and Nownes 2016; Wolpe and Levine 1996). Nearly all the major groups maintain websites that offer issue briefings and facilitate communication with public officials. The box "Working with Sources: Interest Groups on the Web" addresses the role of such groups in shaping public policy. Working with Sources \a Interest Groups on the Web Interest group websites are treasure troves of policy information, but a word of warning is in order. Visitors to these sites need to be cautious about how they approach the materials and policy recommendations they find. Information on these sites is always selective; it may be limited in scope and biased in ways that a naive reader may not discern. Policy briefings and reports made available by such groups therefore merit careful and critical reading, and our goal here is to teach you how to be alert to the general political orientation of the group sponsoring the site. We start by asking about the credibility of the studies and reports you find there. Visit the website for the Consumer Advocates for Smoke-Free Alternatives Association (CASAA) (www.casaa.org), a nonprofit consumer organization that is "dedicated to ensuring the availability of reduced harm alternatives to smoking." From here you can click on the organization's "Resources" link or other links to access reports and data regarding its positions on the health effects of e-cigarettes. Note especially the language in the "About Us" section regarding "honest information about those alternatives so that they [both smokers and nonsmokers] can make informed choices." For a contrasting view, visit the website for the American Lung Association (ALA) (www.lung.org) and search for "e-cigarettes" in its search field. From here, you will see several links discussing the ALA's position on e-cigarettes and its concerns regarding potential health consequences. How credible is the information you found on the two websites? Which group do you think provides less biased information, and why do you think so? Does either supply references to authoritative sources for the information presented, such as government reports or studies published in scientific or scholarly journals? How else can you judge the facts and issue positions on these pages? By comparing the different positions and the language used to defend them, can you determine which group offers the most defensible stance on the health effects of e-cigarettes? Note: Websites are changed and upgraded frequently. The sites provided throughout this text are meant to be current; however, design changes may require you to investigate a site more thoroughly than originally assigned. At state and local levels, citizens may have the opportunity to get more directly involved in policymaking through referendums, initiatives, or participation in public hearings and meetings (Cronin 1989), and perhaps have greater influence. A referendum is a law proposed by a state or locality for voters to approve or reject. An initiative is much the same, but a group of citizens organizes the effort to place it on the ballot. About half the states allow citizen-generated initiatives. Naturally, the voters can better determine whether to support or oppose a ballot measure if they understand the proposal and its possible effects. Obtaining that information and developing a sound position on the issues is often a challenge for the average voter; it is also one reason critics argue that many initiatives lead to bad public policy, especially when insufficient thought goes into the drafting of the proposals or the public acts emotionally, or in response to misleading media advertisements (Ellis 2002). Public meetings afford perhaps the greatest opportunity to participate directly with other citizens and public officials to learn more about local problems and decide what to do about them. Notices of such meetings and hearings are posted in the local newspaper or on pertinent websites. The box "Working with Sources: The Public's Political Knowledge" is an introduction to a primary government source. Working with Sources \a The Public's Political Knowledge As indicated throughout the text, the enormous amount of information available through websites makes citizen activism more feasible than ever before. After all, the potential for activism is facilitated by information as well as by individual motivation to get involved. Reliance on web sources, however, also presents a challenge: how to manage the huge amount of information. The federal government's site, USA.gov (www.usa.gov), is an official portal to U.S. government websites. The mission of the site is to make government more accessible and seamless and to make it easier for citizens to find the services they seek and to complete transactions online. The search engine developed specifically for accessing such material is capable of sifting through a vast number of pages of information from national, state, and local governments in a fraction of a second. A simple exercise indicates how useful USA.gov can be. Let's assume you want to write to your senator and need to know his or her name and address. Go to the site, look under the "Government Agencies and Elected Officials" link, then select "Contact Elected Officials." Click "U.S. senators" and choose your state, and you have the names and contact information for your two senators. A more challenging illustration of how to navigate through USA.gov involves finding information about a public policy issue or general information. Try entering "nutrition facts" into the search field. From here you can find information on how to use the Nutrition Facts Label. Try to answer these questions: What is the Nutrition Facts Label, and why is it included on packaged food items? What is the Percent Daily Value? Where can you go to get information regarding food safety (use the search field)? What are the current recalls and alerts? Citizens' Ability to Influence Policy Decisions The ability of citizens to participate in decision-making activities can often lead to influence over the decisions that result. Policymakers and others involved in the policy process need information to understand the dynamics of a problem and develop options for action. As we show throughout this text, when examining policy alternatives, policymakers and other actors often make use of policy analysis. The more that citizens are aware of such studies and their implications, the better equipped they are to play an effective role in policymaking and help to shape the decisions that are made. One of the major objectives of this text is to help readers improve their capacity for reading and interpreting such policy studies. We also want to build understanding of the policymaking process itself and alert readers to the many opportunities they have to make their views known. Most readers may recognize that Congress has chief responsibility for making public policy. However, they may not be as alert to the critical role that administrative agencies play in implementing the laws that Congress enacts. Whether the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services or the Office for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Education, such agencies have enormous influence over how programs are run and the services they deliver to citizens. Citizens may be particularly able to influence government decisions at the state and local levels where policymakers and administrators are easier to reach. Whether at the national, state, or local level, citizens who wish to be effective need to be alert to the politics of any given situation. They need to know who the major policy actors are and the motives behind the positions they take. We provide many examples in the chapters that follow. A simple one concerns reform of the health care system. Someone who wants to change it must recognize the interests of the American Medical Association, a professional organization and interest group representing the interests of doctors, various health insurance companies and their trade associations, drug companies, hospitals, public interest groups, and others. All these organizations have strong views on health care and its potential reform, can easily be mobilized to contact policymakers, and can also mobilize voters to contact policymakers or vote in a particular way in an election. Not surprisingly, members of Congress and other policymakers tend to pay attention to these entities and take their positions into account. The Contexts of Public Policy Public policy is not made in a vacuum. It is affected by social and economic conditions, prevailing political values and the public mood at any given time, the structure of government, and national and local cultural norms, among other variables. Taken together, this environment determines which problems rise to prominence, which policy alternatives receive serious consideration, and which actions are viewed as economically and politically feasible. Some aspects of the policy environment, such as the U.S. system of separation of powers and the nation's free-market economy, are relatively stable. Others, such as which party controls the White House and Congress, the public mood or political climate, and media coverage of policy-related developments, can vary considerably over time. To underscore how these variables shape the policymaking process, we offer a brief description of the social, economic, political, governing, and cultural contexts of public policy. Social Context Social conditions such as demographics, or the composition of a population, affect policy decisions in myriad ways, as is evident in controversies over phenomena as diverse as early childhood education, child hunger, the rising costs of Medicare and Social Security, and immigration. Moreover, social conditions are dynamic, not static. The population changes because of immigration, growth in nontraditional households, and lower or higher birthrates. These social changes in turn alter how the public and policymakers view and act on problems ranging from crime to the rising cost of health care. Today, for example, senior citizens make up the fastest growing segment of the country's population. Their needs differ from those in other cohorts—or age groups—of the population, and they are more likely than younger citizens to demand that government pay attention to them. One critical concern is Social Security. As the elderly population increases, policymakers face difficult challenges, particularly how they can ensure the system's solvency as greater numbers of people begin to draw benefits and a smaller number pay into the system. Fifty years ago, Social Security was a government program that posed no special risk to budgetary resources. Now, however, public officials recognize that they must find politically and economically realistic ways to deal with an aging population and the retirement of the baby boom generation, those Americans born between 1946 and 1964. How citizens relate to one another in their communities also influences public policymaking. City policymakers have been trying to reclaim their downtown areas and make them more vibrant and a destination place. These efforts have had some success as more people are seeking out these more urban living communities. Even so, do efforts of urban renewal and reclamation force out lower-income people who can no longer afford housing or rental prices? Do cities provide adequate services for these communities, or do folks need to drive out to the suburbs to purchase groceries? What is the appropriate balance between residential and commercial development, and should tax incentives be used to encourage businesses to locate in these areas? These perspectives can also affect public transportation and environmental policies as questions are asked about the need for mass transit (such as light rail systems that serve cities and their suburbs) or to build new highways or further expand existing ones. Some of these trends have prompted public officials at all levels of government to think more about the "livability" or sustainability of their communities over the next few decades (K. Portney 2013). Economic Context The state of the economy also has a major impact on the policies governments adopt and implement. Economic policy deals with inflation and unemployment, but the economy itself affects the development of many other programs. For example, a strong economy often leads to lower unemployment, which in turn reduces the need for unemployment benefits, job training programs, and comparable assistance. Weaker economies often lead to different kinds of decisions. For example, in response to a weak economy and limited revenues, state governments made difficult decisions regarding their financial support for public higher education. The example illustrates how a change in economic conditions can affect the dynamics of public policymaking. As the United States shifts from a traditional industrial economy to one based on providing information and services, many similar impacts on public policy will become apparent. Social contexts influence policy development. Among the social contexts that influence public policy development is the diversity of the American population, which has been enriched by immigration over the years. Immigration became a key issue in the 2016 presidential campaign, with little agreement between the two parties. The photo shows Rutgers University students at a rally in opposition to Republican president-elect Donald J. Trump's proposed policy initiatives regarding immigration and the deportation of criminal undocumented immigrants. Albin Lohr-Jones/ Pacific Press/ LightRocket via Getty Images Another way to appreciate the influence of the economic context is to consider budgetary politics. The United States often has a deficit, with the government spending more money than it collects in taxes and other revenues. Congress tried for many years in the past to control or reduce the deficit, including a proposed constitutional amendment mandating a balanced budget. Hypothetically, deficits are a concern because there would not be any money to pay for new policy initiatives. Nor could government continue to fund programs without increasing taxes, always a politically unattractive option. The deficit decreased toward the end of the Clinton administration but increased again due to policies of the George W. Bush administration, which saw a major tax cut combined with a broad economic slowdown in 2001 and 2002 and the economic toll of the September 11, 2001, attacks. By 2009 the deficit rose to over $ 1.4 trillion, although by fiscal year 2015 it fell to $ 438 billion partially due to policies to reduce spending and raise revenue and to the slow economic recovery. But the deficits have increased again during the Trump administration, with fiscal year 2019 projections suggesting a deficit of $ 896 billion and a rise to $ 1.3 trillion by 2029.13 At the federal and state levels, policymakers struggled once more with tough decisions on spending priorities and budget cuts, a challenge that is certain to continue for years. Political Context It is impossible to understand public policy without considering politics, which affects public policy choices at every step, from the selection of policymakers in elections to shaping how conflicts among different groups are resolved. To appreciate the political context, one must be aware of the relative strength of the two major parties; the influence of minor parties; ideological differences among the public, especially the more attentive publics such as committed liberals and conservatives; and the ability of organized interest groups to exert pressure. It is equally important to consider how much interest the public takes in the political process, its expectations for what government ought to do, and the level of trust, confidence, and frustration it has in government. For example, both in the United States and in other industrialized nations, there has been a notable erosion of public trust in government in recent decades (Dalton 2004), typically because of historical events such as the Vietnam War, the Watergate scandal, or government inaction that called government activities into question. Some supporters of President Trump questioned what they perceive to be the ever-increasing size and power of government, particularly in relation to federal efforts to address the struggling economy through new economic stimulus measures and approval in 2010 of the controversial Affordable Care Act. This trend affects not only the way people are likely to judge government programs and what public officials do but also the way the press covers public policy debates and actions. It also leads to less traditional candidates attracting public support in their campaigns for the presidency, such as Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders did in 2016, and in the case of Trump to being elected president. In addition, it is more and more evident that Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, hold sharply different views about the legitimacy of government action and which policies are acceptable to them. During the 1990s, partisan differences widened, and on many policy issues, ideological polarization between the parties made government action difficult. This polarization and the seemingly endless bickering among politicians as they try to resolve their differences and find acceptable solutions to society's problems make the public even more critical of government and the political process (Hibbing and Larimer 2005). If anything, the polarization deepened as the two major parties frequently find themselves unable to agree on a wide range of policy actions, leading to further public disenchantment with government and politics and record low assessments of the U.S. Congress (Mann and Ornstein 2012; Persily 2015; Thurber and Yoshinaka 2015). 14 An example of this polarization and the inability to find common ground was the sixteen-day government shutdown in October 2013 that highlighted sharp differences between the parties, particularly in relation to the Affordable Care Act, and a record-breaking shutdown that extended into January 2019 over funding for a wall along the nation's southern border with Mexico. Another was the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Senate to hold hearings on President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February 2016. Ideological terms such as liberal and conservative are often used by the public to make sense of politics and policy. The student of public policy needs to recognize, however, that these political labels are not always reliable guides to predicting specific policy positions. That is, it is simplistic to assume that conservatives always want smaller government and that liberals always prefer the opposite. Most conservatives argue for less government intrusion into the economy and decision making within business and industry, but they often favor a strong government role to achieve certain social goals, such as reducing crime or banning abortions and gay marriages. Liberals, on the other hand, rally against government threats to civil liberties and individual rights but are among the first to call for government regulation of business activity to protect consumers and workers, or to control air and water pollution. An example of this incongruence was a statement from the Trump administration in August 2018 that perhaps internet sites such as Google, Facebook, and Twitter may need to be regulated because of allegations, largely unproven, that they have suppressed conservative views and news supportive of the administration. 15 This apparent embrace of regulation would seem to run counter to earlier statements and policies regarding a need to significantly reduce the number of federal regulations and their intrusion upon private business. Party labels themselves may be poor indicators of positions taken on policy issues. Although less common now, within the major political parties one can find ideological differences among members: some Democrats, particularly southerners, may be conservative, and some Republicans, particularly those from the Northeast or West Coast, may be much more moderate than most in their party. Yet today both parties, particularly in the U.S. Congress, tend to be much more ideologically cohesive than was the case several decades ago. The same is true within the minor or "third"-party organizations such as the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or the Constitution Party (also libertarian). Whether at the national or state level, it is entirely possible that voter disapproval of the two major parties might lead to the rise of such third-party movements. The Tea Party movement of the late 2000s, for example, reflected a strongly conservative stance, chiefly within the Republican Party, and it did very well in the 2010 elections, and perhaps changed the direction of the Republican Party. Because the United States has a weak party system, individual politicians not only run their own campaigns for office but also promote their own ideas. Many feel little obligation to support the official party position on policy issues, especially when electoral forces in their constituencies differ from those influencing the national party. In the same vein, the political context can vary greatly from one state to another, or even from one community in a state to another. Some states and cities tend to favor conservative policies, while others support liberal policies. Much depends on the alignment of party and ideological forces in the particular jurisdiction, in addition to the social and economic contexts. Among the policy implications of the prevailing political context in the United States is the continual challenge of reconciling partisan and ideological differences. Policy actors who cannot agree on what action to take may decide to do nothing, allowing social problems to continue unchanged; or they might reach a temporary compromise that falls short of an ideal solution. It is not at all unusual in the U.S. political system to see enactment of such policy compromises, which may contain broad or vaguely worded components. The details, where the greatest conflicts often occur, are worked out later, typically by the rule makers and managers in the executive branch agencies. Governing Context The U.S. government is highly complex, and its structure has a major impact on public policymaking. The authority to act is widely dispersed among institutions and policy actors. As a result, the time needed to resolve differences can be lengthy. In addition, the inevitable compromises lead to policies that may be less focused or coherent than many would wish. The separation of powers mandated by the Constitution requires that any policy developed at the national level be acceptable to a majority of Congress and to the president. Policymakers in both institutions must therefore find common ground. In recent decades, the search for consensus has been difficult because of divided government, with one political party in control of the White House and the other in control of one or both houses of Congress. Strong philosophical differences among policymakers over the role of government and the need to satisfy differing political constituencies often make them unwilling to compromise. Even with unified government, as the United States had in 2009 and 2010, it can be difficult to reach a compromise. Pundits often talk about the need for a filibuster-proof Senate, which would require a sixty-seat majority of the president's party. If policymakers dig in their heels and do nothing, outdated and ineffective policies will continue in force, and consideration of new and possibly more effective policies will not progress. Under the U.S. political system, the federal government and the states share governing responsibilities. Prior to the New Deal, these institutions had defined areas of governance. The situation is less clear today; more often than not, state and federal government responsibilities overlap. For example, state governments traditionally were responsible for education policy, but since 1960 the federal government has become more involved in education. It provides billions of dollars in education grants to state and local governments and subsidizes student loan programs in higher education, but the funds can come with many strings attached. More recent legislation, such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, increases federal involvement in education policy by pushing for evaluation of success in the nation's schools, including setting standards for what students should know and providing incentives to reform state educational systems. More recent efforts, such as adopting the Common Core State Standards, highlight concerns about standards being set centrally and for all states to follow. In addition to overlapping responsibilities, the states and the federal government face other problems of divided authority that arise when federal and state agencies try to determine what they need to do to put a policy into effect. Sometimes, the federal government is willing to share governing responsibility, but not money. For example, the federal government has granted authority to the states to implement many environmental programs, such as those falling under the Clean Water Act, but the states say that the funds from Washington are insufficient to cover the costs of their new duties, creating what many call unfunded mandates. It is clear that the states have a larger role today in the development and implementation of public policy. State and local governments have been forced to step in to fill the gap left by a shrinking or inattentive federal government. This devolution of authority to the states provides opportunities for innovation; however, it may also produce a "race to the bottom" as states compete with one another to save money. The evidence on the effects of such devolution is mixed to date (Donahue 1997; Rabe 2019). Americans sometimes complain that "government can't get anything done." In light of the complexity of the U.S. governance structure, with its overlapping responsibilities and political disagreements, a more accurate statement might be that it is a minor miracle that policies get enacted and implemented at all. Cultural Context Political culture refers to widely held values, beliefs, and attitudes, such as trust and confidence in government and the political process, or the lack thereof. Political culture also includes commitment to individualism, property rights, freedom, pragmatism or practicality, equality, and similar values, some of which are distinctly American. These values are acquired through a process of political socialization that takes place in families, schools, and society in general, and that at times seems to reflect popular culture and television (Putnam 1995, 2000). Scholars have found that such political cultures vary not only from nation to nation but from state to state within the United States, and even from one community to another, as one might expect in a diverse society. These cultural differences help explain the variation in state (and local) public policies across the nation (Elazar 1984; Lieske 1993) and account for some of the differences in voting between "red" states (Republican) and "blue" states (Democrat). Differing political cultures, particularly in rural areas, were one reason given for Donald Trump's presidential victory. You can see how political culture leads to different policies and perspectives in gun control policy. Some states, such as Texas and Wyoming, have somewhat limited gun control policies compared to states such as New York. Another example includes policies regarding the recognition of same-sex marriages, where certain states have been supportive (Vermont, Maine, Minnesota, and New York) while others have not been (Alabama, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Utah). Recurring battles over family planning programs, immigration, abortion rights, and international population policy reflect cultural conflicts, especially over the role of women in society, that have yet to be resolved. These kinds of value conflicts have translated into constraints on policymaking. While not a new issue, partisanship is more apparent than before at both the state and national levels. Members of Congress have observed that partisan rancor, ideological disputes, and decreased willingness to compromise on policy issues have made policymaking far more difficult than it was only a decade ago (Davidson, Oleszek, Lee, and Schickler 2020). As a result, government often finds itself deadlocked, completely unable to deal effectively with issues. The inability to solve public problems further erodes the public's trust in government and diminishes its willingness to get involved in the political process. 16 The Reasons for Government Involvement When the public and policymakers believe that government needs to intervene to correct a social problem, they create or alter policies. But this does not mean the matter is settled permanently. The rationales offered for government involvement in public policy were highly contested in the past, and they continue to be today. The arguments for and against government intervention in the economy and in people's lives draw from political philosophies and ideologies, specific beliefs about policy needs, and the positions that are advocated by political parties and interest groups. These arguments often are advanced during the processes of agenda setting (to discourage or encourage action), policy formulation (where the specific form of intervention is designed), or policy legitimation (where the rationale for intervention may be debated). The three leading, and somewhat overlapping, rationales for government intervention are political reasons, moral or ethical reasons, and economics and market failures. Political Reasons The public and policymakers may decide that government should intervene to solve a problem for political reasons. The reasons vary, but often they reflect a notable shift in public opinion or the rise of a social movement pressing for action. After the 1954 Supreme Court decision on public school segregation in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka and the rise of the civil rights movement, for example, the federal government began to act on civil rights. President Lyndon Johnson persuaded Congress to adopt new policies to prevent discrimination against minorities, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In the 1960s, the federal government began the Medicare program after more than twenty years of public debate in which critics argued that such actions were not legitimate for government and that they constituted a step toward "socialized medicine." During the 1960s and 1970s, the federal government also substantially increased its involvement in consumer protection, automobile safety, and environmental protection because of rising public concern about these issues. More recently, sensing a shift in the political environment regarding concerns about same-sex marriage, many states (Washington, New York, and Vermont, among others) enacted legislation legalizing such marriages. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex marriage was constitutionally protected, and by that time some thirty-seven states had legalized it. 17 Moral or Ethical Reasons In addition to the power of public opinion or a social movement, certain problems and circumstances may dictate that government should be involved for moral or ethical reasons. In other words, government action is seen as the right thing to do even without public pressure. Some portion of the population or members of an organized interest group may be unwilling to witness suffering from poverty, hunger, or human rights abuses, either at home or abroad, and want the government to do something about it. They may join groups to lobby policymakers or contact them directly to persuade them to act. There are many examples of government acting primarily for moral or ethical reasons. As we discuss in chapter 9, Social Security was adopted to ensure that the elderly, the disabled, and the minor children of deceased or disabled workers had sufficient income and would not suffer from the ravages of poverty. Debate over the future of the Social Security system continues this moral argument. Similar moral values lie behind the United States' long-standing support of family planning programs and economic assistance in developing nations. These operations have been defended as essential to promoting much-needed economic development that could rescue people from desperate poverty. The Bush administration offered many different reasons for its decision in 2003 to invade Iraq, but here too parallel moral arguments were advanced, including the need to remove dictator Saddam Hussein from power and to promote the growth of democracy and freedom in that nation. The moral imperative of ensuring health care for all was a primary reason offered by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. Natural disasters often spark such an interest for government to step in to help people affected by floods, tornadoes, or other events, as was particularly evident following the devastation of communities such as Houston and Puerto Rico from hurricanes in 2017. Economics and Market Failures In a pure capitalist or market system, most economists would not consider the plight of family farmers who cannot compete with large agribusiness or the challenges that face many other small businesses a legitimate reason for government intervention. They would argue that government intrusion into the marketplace distorts the efficiency with which a competitive market economy can allocate society's resources. In such a market, voluntary and informed exchanges between buyers and sellers allow them to meet their needs efficiently, especially when large numbers of people are involved, so that the market operates fairly. In this world, competition sets the fair market value on houses, cars, and other goods. Economists acknowledge, however, that a situation known as market failure warrants government intervention. A market failure occurs when the private market is not efficient. Market failures fall into four types: the existence of monopolies and oligopolies, externalities, information failure, and inability to provide for the public or collective good. A monopoly or oligopoly exists when one or several persons or companies dominate the market and can control the price of a product or service. Examples abound. It is a rare community that has more than one cable television operator or electric power company. Monopolies of this kind are called "natural" or "technical" because they are essentially unavoidable. There would be little sense in having multiple cable TV operators or power companies in an average-sized city if greater efficiency can be achieved by having a single company invest in the necessary infrastructure. Governments usually accept this kind of monopoly but institute regulations to ensure that the public is treated fairly. Yet the balance between government regulation and economic freedom for the monopoly is the subject of ongoing debate. Externalities are the decisions and actions of those involved in the market exchange that affect other parties, either negatively or positively. A negative externality occurs when two parties interact in a market and, because of that interaction, a third party is harmed and does not get compensation. Pollution is a negative externality. For example, consumers enter into an agreement with the utility to provide electricity. In the absence of government regulation, the utility may decide to use the least expensive fuel, most likely coal. When coal is burned, it sends pollutants into the atmosphere, which settle downwind and may cause health problems to a third party. The third party, not the two parties interacting in the electricity market, pays the costs of those health problems. Ideally, the health care costs associated with electricity production would be considered part of the cost of production, and government intervention may ensure that this happens. Through environmental regulation, the government requires utilities to install pollution control technology on their plants to limit the amount of pollutants emitted. A positive externality occurs the same way as a negative externality, but the third party gains something from the two-party interaction and does not have to pay for it. Higher education is a positive externality. Some policymakers argue that because society benefits from a well-educated population, it should be willing to provide financial support to encourage people to continue their education. Many state governments subsidize higher education tuition for their local institutions—admittedly at a significantly lower level now than in the past. For example, New York implemented its Excelsior Scholarship program, which provides "tuition awards to eligible students attending New York State's public colleges and universities (SUNY and CUNY)." Along with other financial aid programs, the scholarship allows qualified students to attend college tuition-free. Students qualify for Excelsior if their family's combined federal adjusted income falls below $ 125,000 (in 2019-2020). 18 Students must maintain good standing in school and complete at least thirty credits a year. 19 In essence, this benefit increases students' incomes and enables them to afford more schooling. Information failure is the third kind of market failure. According to the theories of market operation, to have perfect competition, willing buyers and sellers must have all the information needed to enter into a transaction or exchange. When the information is not fully or easily available, a market failure may occur. At times, the consumers' lack of complete information about a product or service does not present a major problem: consumers can adjust their buying behavior if they believe there is something wrong with the goods or services they purchased. When the lack of information leads the consumer to suffer significant financial or personal loss, the government may step in. A clear example of such government intervention is its regulation of prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceuticals. Without government, consumers would find it impossible to figure out whether medical drugs are safe and effective. The federal Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906 established the modern FDA and authorized it to test proposed drugs to ensure their safety and efficacy. The FDA and USDA may issue public warnings or recalls of food items that may cause sickness, such as alerts provided for certain varieties of Goldfish crackers and salads and wraps sold at stores such as Trader Joe's and Kroger in 2018, and for romaine lettuce nationwide in late November 2018. A fourth kind of market failure occurs when markets cannot provide for the public good, also called the collective good. A public or collective good is defined by two criteria: the ability to exclude someone from getting the good and the ability to jointly consume the good. Exclusion within the U.S. economy typically occurs through pricing. If an individual can charge for a good or service, then he or she can exclude someone from getting it. Goods that can be jointly consumed are those in which one person's consumption does not prevent another from also consuming it. The two criteria can be displayed as a typology (see Figure 1-1) of private goods and public goods that clarifies the range of what analysts call collective goods. Description Figure 1-1 Private Goods and Public Goods A pure private good, as defined in the figure, refers to a good that is private and for which there is no market failure. It represents the normal, day-to-day interactions between the private sector and consumers. The other three kinds of goods refer to nonprivate or public goods, and they signal conditions that may require government intervention to alleviate the market failure. Toll goods can be jointly consumed, and exclusion is feasible. An obvious example is a utility such as electricity or cable services. One person's use of cable services does not preclude another person's use, but a cable company's charges may exclude low-income individuals. Earlier, we identified such goods as natural monopolies. To keep essential services affordable, government intervenes by regulating prices. For years public utility commissions regulated prices that electric companies could charge their consumers. Experiments in electricity market deregulation have tried to create more competition and choices for consumers, but they have not always succeeded. Common pool resources are goods that cannot be jointly consumed and for which exclusion is not feasible. For example, environmental scientists write about a "tragedy of the commons," which comes about from use of natural resources such as air, water, grazing land, fisheries, and the like. The tragedy is that each individual seeks to maximize his or her use of the common pool resources without regard to their degradation or depletion because no one owns them. Such individual behavior may lead to the loss of the resources for all, even when each person would benefit from their continued use. To ensure the preservation of these shared goods, government intervenes. It requires individuals to have a license to fish, which may preclude some from partaking in the good, but the funds raised through the licensing fee can be used to restock the fishery. Government may also set catch limits on different species to prevent overfishing, and it requires ranchers to pay a fee to allow their cattle to feed on public grazing land. For common pool resources, government's role is to develop policies to ensure their continuance or sustainability. Without government, the public would likely deplete these goods. Finally, pure public goods can be jointly consumed, and exclusion is not feasible. They would not be provided at all without government intervention because the private sector has no incentive to provide them. National defense and public parks are examples. For these kinds of goods, government intervention is necessary to ensure the general public has them. These three reasons for government intervention—political, moral and ethical, and economic or market failure—are not exhaustive. Other reasons may present themselves, and these three may not be mutually exclusive; that is, policymakers may favor government action for one or more reasons at the same time. The reasons also may change over time: policies are adopted and changed in a continuous cycle, which is part of society's response to public problems and efforts to find solutions. Government intervention is simply one of these options. When such intervention no longer works or no longer makes sense, policies may be changed in favor of private action or free markets once again. Much of the movement toward deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s and of energy markets in the late 1990s reflected such views. The adverse consequences of deregulation surrounding the financial markets prompted a new round of public debate in the late 2000s over what kind of government intervention best serves the public interest. Congress enacted the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act in 2010 as a result of diminished faith in the ability of Wall Street financial institutions to limit the kinds of risky investments that contributed heavily to the national and global economic turmoil of 2008 and 2009. Market failure and food safety. The United States experiences an unusually high number of food contamination scares. The photo shows romaine lettuce sitting on produce shelves following a November 2018 warning from health officials in the United States and Canada telling people to stop eating romaine lettuce because of a new E. coli outbreak. AP Photo/ Mark J. Terrill The Practice of Policy Analysis There is one last topic we would like to introduce in this chapter. This is the value of policy analysis as a way of thinking about public policy. As we noted earlier, policy analysis is usually described as a systematic and organized way to evaluate public policy alternatives or existing government programs. Often it involves applying economic tools and other quantitative methods or measures (Bardach and Patashnik 2016). Policy analysis may therefore seem to some students of public policy to hold little relevance to anyone except policy specialists, but in reality everyone uses such analysis in many day-to-day activities. Buying a car, selecting a college course, or deciding on a restaurant for dinner all require thinking about the pros and cons associated with the available choices, including how to spend money. The Many Uses of Policy Analysis Policy analysis can be used throughout the policy process, but it becomes especially important in the formulation of policies and evaluation of programs after they are implemented. In assessing a public problem, policy analysis may assist in describing its scope, such as the percentage of public schools that are failing. When developing alternatives and choosing a direction, a decision maker can use analysis to assess the feasibility of the choices based on economic, administrative, political, and ethical criteria. The same methods can be used to evaluate a program to determine its effectiveness or whether it has achieved its expected results. In short, policy analysis represents an attempt to dissect problems and solutions in what is usually described as a rational manner. By this, practitioners mean that they bring information and systematic analysis to bear on policy issues and try to show how a given set of goals and objectives might be achieved most efficiently. Some analysts refer to this as "evidence-based policy." 20 Public policy goals and objectives are usually determined in a political process—for example, how much the government is willing to pay for health care services for the elderly—but analysis can help policymakers weigh competing ideas about how best to deliver such services. Policy analysts argue that their systematic analyses should be given serious consideration as a counterweight to the tendency of public officials to make policy choices based on their partisan positions, ideology, or support from important constituencies and interest groups. They point to inconsistencies in public policy or to what some would describe as unwarranted or inefficient policy actions. For example, why does the federal government give subsidies to farmers growing tobacco while it also tries to reduce smoking? Why does Congress continue to subsidize mining and timber harvesting on public lands, which causes environmental damage and costs taxpayers more than the revenues these activities earn? Why do members of Congress vote to spend public money on projects they favor (such as a highway or bridge in their district, or defense installations) and at the same time complain about the government's wasteful spending? The answers lie mostly in interest group and constituency pressures that elected officials find difficult to resist, particularly when the public fails to take an interest in such decisions. Citizens' Use of Policy Analysis Ordinary citizens and organizations also can benefit from policy analysis. Citizens with an interest in public policy or the political system may make decisions based on their general political views; for example, liberals usually favor government regulation to improve the environment. But most people would understand the benefit of a focused study of a particular program or proposal that put aside personal political views. Perhaps the liberal environmentalist will come to question whether regulation is the best way to achieve environmental goals. A conservative might be moved to reassess whether stringent laws that put first-time drug offenders in prison for years make sense given the very high cost of incarceration. It is not unusual for individuals or interest groups to use information developed through policy analysis to reinforce the arguments they make to government policymakers. An organization will often dangle its latest research or analysis to convince policymakers that the group is correct in its beliefs. For example, the following information was gathered from the website of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) (www.edf.org), discussing human responsibility for climate change. The information on the website quoted the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report: 95 percent—the scientific certainty that humans are to blame 3 feet—the amount sea levels could rise if climate change continues unabated 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit—the highest predicted surface temperature increase by 2100 By citing these presumably objective statistics, the EDF hopes to move the direction of climate change policy toward more direct action to reduce greenhouse gases. The EDF's opponents in the business community or the fossil fuel industry will circulate information, sometimes from the same studies, that bolsters their arguments about the uncertainty of the climate change science and the high costs imposed on society if policies and regulations are overly restrictive. It is not unusual for groups opposed to climate change policy or other environmental issues to question the scientific basis of the studies, or raise the issues of costs to comply, and thus call into question the need for restrictive action. Presented with conflicting assumptions and interpretations, students of public policy need to be aware of the sources of information and judge for themselves which argument is strongest. This book provides the tools and techniques to help students make informed judgments. In particular, chapters 4 through 6 cover the major approaches to policy analysis and some of the methods, such as cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment, that make clear what the studies say and how the findings relate to policy choice. For policymakers, policy analysis is an essential tool for the development of public policy and its evaluation. For citizens interested in public affairs, it provides a way to organize thoughts and information to be able to better understand the alternatives presented and the possible implications of these choices. Individuals do not have to know how to conduct complex economic analysis to recognize the importance of using a wide range of information when making decisions; they just need to be able to think about problems and solutions from different perspectives. The box "Steps to Analysis: How to Interpret Policy Studies" offers some suggestions for how to interpret the policy studies you encounter. Steps to Analysis \a How to Interpret Policy Studies Policy analysis is pervasive and critically important for the policymaking process at all levels of government. To determine which studies are credible and which are not, and which might be used as a basis for making policy decisions, students of public policy need to hone their analytical skills. How to do this? One way is to ask questions such as the following: What is the purpose of the study, and who conducted it? Does it seek and present objective information on the nature of the problem and possible solutions? Does the information seem to be valid, and what standard should you use to determine that? Is the report's argument logical and convincing? Does the report omit important subject matter? Does the study lay out the policy implications clearly and persuasively? We will address these kinds of questions throughout the book when summarizing studies. How to Decide Which Policy Is Best: Using Multiple Criteria As the examples cited in this section suggest, much of the controversy over public policy, from international affairs to protection of public health, reflects conflicts over which values are most important. Does protection of national security warrant some infringement on individual rights? If so, to what extent? Should we continue or expand public programs (such as support of health care services under Medicaid) even when they become very costly? Should we build a wall on the Mexican border as a way to combat immigration concerns regardless of cost or effectiveness in limiting illegal entry into the United States, or should cost and effectiveness play no role in this decision? When programs in any area (such as national defense, agricultural subsidies, environmental protection, or the war on terrorism) are not as effective as they should be, should we end them, or at least change them so they are likely to be more effective? All these questions suggest that citizens, analysts, and policymakers need to be aware of the multiple criteria that can be used to judge the merit or value of government policies and programs, and of proposed policy alternatives. We suggest that four criteria in particular deserve serious consideration: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and political feasibility. Effectiveness refers to whether a current policy or program or one that is being considered is likely to work. That is, how likely is it that the policy's goals or objectives will be achieved? In many policy areas, such as the environment, national defense, and energy, effectiveness may be affected by a proposal's technical or administrative feasibility. That is, it makes a difference whether a proposal is technically possible (for example, cheap, abundant, and clean energy sources) or whether an agency can adequately implement it. Efficiency refers to what a policy or policy proposal costs in relation to its expected benefits to society. It also is sometimes described as a desire to realize the greatest possible benefit out of the dollars that government spends. Thus, considering a policy proposal's economic feasibility means asking whether it is "affordable" or will be considered a good use of public funds in an era when all programs compete for such funds. Many conservatives opposed the Affordable Care Act of 2010 because of its high costs, and many challenged the significant tax cuts from the Trump administration in part because of their high costs in lost federal revenue. More recently, there have been challenges even to federal support during times of natural disasters. Equity refers to the consideration of what constitutes a fair or equitable policy choice. It may be a way to consider how a program's costs and benefits are distributed among citizens (that is, fairly or not). Think of who benefits or gains from decisions to raise or lower taxes, whether it would be fair to have taxpayers pick up the full bill for college tuition at public colleges and universities, or who would be most affected by a decision to reinstate a military draft. The criterion of equity is also a way to think about who is allowed to participate in policymaking processes, such as who gets to vote or who gets to speak at a public hearing. That is, it is about whether the process is open and fair to all concerned. During the 2016 presidential primary, there were complaints, raised primarily by Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, that the delegate distribution process was unfair. Political feasibility concerns how government officials and other policy actors appraise the acceptability of a proposal. Most often, references to political feasibility reflect a judgment about whether elected officials (for example, members of Congress or state legislators) are willing to support a policy proposal. In a democracy, policymakers must consider the preferences and potential reactions of the public, interest groups, and other government officials when developing policies. These criteria are not meant to be exhaustive. Others, such as ethical acceptability or consistency with political values such as individual freedom or civil liberties, may also be relevant, depending on the issue at hand. In addition, these criteria may not have equal weight in the decision-making process. Public officials acting on national defense and foreign policy issues, for example, rarely consider economic costs as paramount in reaching decisions. Personal freedom might be the primary consideration for some when considering policies in areas such as abortion rights, gun control, crime, and the privacy of email and cellular telephone communications. Chapters 4 through 6 more fully examine these criteria and the tools used to evaluate them. Conclusions The basic concepts of the study of public policy and policy analysis introduced in this chapter provide the foundation for understanding how and why public policy is made. Through these concepts, you will come to fully grasp both the actors involved in policymaking and the actions they take. Understanding the distinction between government and politics, for example, will help you to understand how these terms interact and interrelate. Public policy is not made in a vacuum. There are a myriad of variables that can affect how a problem is defined and the choices examined to solve it. Knowing, for instance, the political party makeup of Congress or your state legislature will provide some information regarding what type of government activity may be deemed acceptable. Understanding changing demographics within your community can provide insight into what issues are likely to be brought forward for action. There are many reasons why governments at any level decide to intercede. These reasons, such as the existence of a market failure or concerns about the ethics of a situation, allow us to better understand the rationale for government action. Ultimately, as citizens who are affected by multiple public policies every day of our lives, we should not only want to know more about the how and why of their development, but also be able to actively participate if we choose to do so. This chapter provided some of the basics to begin this journey. The remainder of Part I continues an analysis of the big picture: the institutions involved and ways to approach public policy. Chapter 2 introduces the government institutions and actors involved in policymaking and how they interact. Chapter 3 explains the prevailing models and theories used to study public policy, focusing on the policy process. Part II is a departure from other policy texts in its thorough coverage of policy analysis. In addition to an overview of policy analysis, chapter 4 presents the different ways practitioners carry it out. Chapter 5 stresses problem analysis, or understanding the nature of public problems, their causes, and solutions. It also considers the various policy tools available to governments and how to think creatively about policy alternatives. Chapter 6 describes the leading methods of policy analysis and summarizes the most frequently used criteria to judge the acceptability of policy proposals. The six chapters of Part III combine the material from the first two sections to delve into substantive policy topics. Each chapter follows the same format to illustrate how to think critically and constructively about public policy. These chapters highlight the nature of the problem, provide background on policy development, discuss different perspectives on policy change, and indicate how students might think about and assess the issues. Chapter 13 is a brief conclusion that emphasizes the role of citizen participation in policy choices. The end of each chapter includes discussion questions to assist students in examining the implications of the material, short lists of suggested readings and useful websites, and keywords. Because of the transitory nature of the internet, readers should expect that some web addresses will need to be updated. At the end of the book is a reference list for all the works cited in the individual chapters. Sharpen your skills with SAGE Edge at http:// edge.sagepub.com/ kraft7e. SAGE Edge for students provides a personalized approach to help you accomplish your coursework goals in an easy-to-use learning environment. Discussion Questions Have you ever joined an interest group? If so, why did you do so? What benefits did you expect to reap from joining? Do you agree with the "logic of collective action"? What do you think people get from participating in interest groups like the Sierra Club or the National Rifle Association? Consider the policy started in 2018 that separated thousands of migrant children from their parents when they crossed the southern border. What kinds of policies are acceptable and unacceptable in the United States?" — Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives by Michael E. Kraft, Scott R. Furlong Share as Soundbite

Chapter 2: Government Institutions and Policy Actors Powerpoint

1. Objectives •be able to explain the growth of government throughout U.S. history, • •analyze the structure of the U.S. government and the implications for policymaking, • •explain the challenges of policymaking posed by the separation of powers, • •describe and assess major governmental and non-governmental actors in policymaking process, • •assess how citizen involvement can make a difference. 2. Illustrative Example •Democrats have long demanded a national health insurance program. • •"President Obama is abandoning our founding principle that government governs best when it governs closest to the people"- John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) • •Elaborate deal making to secure votes: 1.220-215 (House of Representatives) 2.60-39 (Senate) - changes made 3.219-212 (again in the House of Representatives) ● •The public largely approves the law, especially components such as coverage under parents' plan until 26, no lifetime caps, or the coverage for preexisting conditions. 3. Mess by Design: Checks and Balances •Goal of the Constitution:set up a fair and equitable process of governing: • -No government branch has too much power - -Shared power between levels of government - •As a result, we have a complex and time-consuming policy process. Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) was a French political philosopher.He is famous for articulation of the theory of separation of power. 4. Gridlock •Complex issues are often associated with sharp differences in ways to approach them. • •Rooted in the U.S. history: -In late late-eighteen-centuryAmerica (when about 4 millionpeople lived here, mostly in ruralareas), people were concerned about individual freedom. •What are some other issues rightnow that seem to be gridlocked? • •Congress approval rating is about 26% now, but used to be as low as 10% just few years ago (about the level of Iran, two times lower than traffic lights, four times lower than Charlie Sheen). 6. Why is our government so big? •Size of federal government: -About 11 million employees and contractors(7% of US workforce, not including military) -$6.6 trillion annual spending (as of December 2020) - •Major reasons for government growth: -Physical area and population growth -Complexity of public problems -Business regulations -Changing attitudes of citizens -International role 7. What are the consequencesof a big government? •Every-day nuisance • •Big occupational sector • •Increased likelihood of conflicting/confusing policies • •Policymaking and analysis more difficult than ever Laws in Alaska: •It is illegal to whisper in someone's ear while they are moose hunting. • •It is legal to shoot bears,but waking a sleeping bear for the purpose of taking a photograph is prohibited. 8. Incremental policymaking Incremental policymaking 9. What determines the stalemate? What determines the stalemate? 10.•Political concept in which a group of members are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head • •U.S. government structure: -shared state and federal policy-making and control • •10th Amendment: -"The powers not delegated to the US (federal government) by the Constitution . . . are reserved to the states or to the people." Federalism is not unique to the United States. Currently, several countries in the world (light green in the map) are organized along federalist principles. 11.Federalism (cont.) •Dual Federalism(18th and 19th century) -Clear separation of responsibility: •States: education, transportation •Federal: national defense, international relations • •Cooperative Federalism(20th and 21st century) -Responsibility of states vs. federal government has blurred The New Deal was a series of economic programs enacted in the United States between 1933 and 1936. They involved presidential executive orders or laws passed by Congress during the first term of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. 13. Balance of Power shifts •Federal government -Dominant 1940s - 1960s - •More state and local control -Dominant in 1970s-1980s -Sometimes called "New Federalism" -Block vs. categorical grants -Unfunded mandates State highways, food stamps program, or Medicaid are examples of programs funded in part from categorical grants from the federal government. 14. Can states handle responsibility? -In December 2012 the State of Washington legalized the possession of marijuana for recreational use. In 2008 the State of Californiabanned the use of trans fat by restaurants •Why does the capacity of state governments to identify, assess, and respond to public problems vary? •Which states have a good policy capacity? -How can you tell? -What about GA or the state you are from? In December 2012 the State of Washington legalized the possession of marijuana for recreational use. In 2008 the State of Californiabanned the use of trans fat by restaurants 15. Concerns over state policy capacity •Policy performance varies from state to state. • •States with more money can design better policies. • •Business and interest groups can influence policymaking. • •Policy may be costly. • •Problems cross state borders. The website for the National Conference of State Legislatures (www.ncsl.org) provides an overview of differences between state implemented policies in various areas. 16. Separation of powers •Power is shared by three branches of government at all levels: -Legislative -Executive -Judicial - •The number of policy actors with overlapping responsibilities contributes to complexity of policymaking. Which branch of government is responsible for solving the problem of illegal immigration into the United States? 17. Legislative branch •Lawmaking and budgetary responsibilities • •Bicameral (House + Senate) • •Filibuster - •200+ committees and subcommittees -Expert staff support the legislators -Initiate and research policy proposals -The Library of Congress: operates a website (https://www.congress.gov/) where you can find information about the bills being currently under consideration by the Congress. 19. Executive Branch -•Law enforcing (president) - -All aspects of policymaking • •Executive agencies: - -Cabinet level (Executive Office of the President) and all departments & agencies underneath - -Independent executive agencies & regulatory commissions President and his administration are active in inspiring and leading public opinion on matters relevant to national problems. For example, the White House maintains social media channels through which public is informed about president's activities. 21. Judicial Branch -•Interpreting law • •Federal courts: -Supreme (9 members) -Circuit (13 courts) -District (94 courts) • Reactive policymaking and "gatekeeping" • •Precedent - rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases. • •Court decisions become precedent for how a law gets enforced (e.g., GPS use by law enforcement). -The Supreme Court established a precedent recently by ruling that the police violated the Constitution when they placed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a suspect's car and monitored its movements. 22. Conclusions about government impact on policymaking •and complicates the process. • •It is sometimes hard to determine which unit or level of government has responsibility to solve a problem. • •Examples: -Cell phone regulation (e.g., texting while driving) -Immigration (e.g., can states implement more restrictive laws than the federal government?) -Environment protection (e.g., can states ban the implementation of nationally-critical projects? Which agency's regulations prevail if they contradict each other?) 23. Who else influences the policies that governments make? •Informal Policy Actors - -the public - -interest groups - -media - sub-governments and issue networks 24. The Public •What the public thinks about a particular issue: - -important in a democratic system, - -many citizens are somewhat disconnected and uninterested in government policymaking -voiced & measured in numerous ways and at all levels, - -can have an impact, e.g., can lead to interest group formation and activity, - •Policy research institutes (e.g., Pew Research Center) are an excellent source of info on public opinion. -Wording of questions can have great effect on results of public opinion polls, e.g., what are the causes of the differences in willingness to donate organs across similar countries? 26. Interest Groups •What do they do? -Provide information(both objective and political) -Influence public opinion, media, and publications -Support & endorse policymakers to influence their opinions • •Testify at hearings • •And lobby . . . 27. Lobbying •Affects all levels and all agencies of government • •How does lobbying influence a policy agenda? -Supply info about policy or sponsor research -Media advertising -Candidate endorsement and support - •A great deal of interest group activity aims at trying to block policy proposals. • •Opensecrets.org data: - -Lobbying has grown rapidly in the first decade of 21th century and plateaued since then - -Top contributors Alphabet Inc. (Google) spent about $22 million on political lobbying in 2018. Alphabet and other tech companies have sponsored nonprofit organizations and think tanks in order to influence policymaking in areas of copyright law, privacy, and work visas for foreign workers. 28. Media •What does the First Amendment to the Constitution state? • •Multiple roles: -Inform about politics and policies -Influence the policy agenda - •The growth in the forms of media created outlets that tend to tailor their broadcasts to certain ideological audiences (e.g., MSNBC, Fox News). • •Role of fake news !!! The "mainstream" media coverage of Trump's immigration policy was much more negative than Obama's immigration policy despite the fact that deportations were lower under Trump 29. Issue Networks and Sub-governments •Issue- or sector-specific, e.g.: -Defense -Health care -Energy • •Iron triangle - includes government (executive agency), interest group, and congressional committee • •Influence and develop policies: -Specialized knowledge -Own way of communicating

Chapter 4 Powerpoint

1. What is Policy Analysis? •Covers many activities, e.g.,: -studying problems and collecting information, -comparing alternatives -evaluating effectiveness. - •Interdisciplinary nature •part science & part ideological judgment • •Main purpose is to inform. Think about using a cell phone while driving. What policies could be adopted to help solve the problem? What information would be necessary to analyze these policy alternatives? Who does policy analysis? •Government agencies(legislative & executive, federal & state), e.g.,: •Government Accountability Office •Congressional Research Service • •Interest groups • •Universities •Think tanks (policy research institutes) •Organizations that conduct research and engage in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, science or technology issues, industrial or business policies, or military advice. Policy analysis by think tanks •Policy research institutes" - growing sector: -Small and specialized . . . large and diverse. -Broad range of ideologies and ideals: •Brookings Institution (more left) •American Enterprise Institute (more right) • •Their work helps policymakers: -understand complex problems, -learn ways to address problems, -understand views of interest groups. What are the steps in policy analysis? 1.Define and measure the problem (Ch. 5) ● 2.Construct policy alternatives (Ch. 5) ● 3.Develop evaluative criteria (Ch. 6) ● 4.Assess policy alternatives (Ch. 6) ● 5.Draw conclusions (Ch. 6) Types of policy analysis:Scientific approach •Most rigorous, usually performed by universities or independent researchers. • •Unbiased and not paid for by policy makers or individuals who would be affected. • •Deepen the understanding of public problems, e.g.: Types of policy analysis:Professional approach •Generally these studies are objective and rigorous, conducted by policy professionals. • •Explicit purpose to make decisions (not advance theory). Findings from the analysis of the Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF) The Heritage Foundation: "Ever since TANF was adopted in 1996, spending on welfare has increased by more than 44 percent and is now unsustainable..." Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of [...] has fallen by about 28 percent." Types of policy analysis:Political approach •Research that openly takes a position. • •Can still be high quality and influential... •...but could also be very biased toward specific agenda. • •Often performed by interest groups to support their positions. • •Examples: -Effectiveness of economic stimulus programs: -Liberal vs conservative outlets Approaches to policy analysis •Root causes vs. proximate causes? • •Underlying issues or symptoms? - •Discussion: -What are the root causes of homelessness? -What would policy addressing root cause look like? -What are the proximate causes of homelessness? -What would policy addressing proximate cause look like? Incremental policy, although focusing on proximity causes, can be effective. For example, after introducing 21 minimum drinking age in 1984, the number of teenagers involved in alcohol-related crashes decreased significantly. •Comprehensive vs. short-term (incremental)? • •Elaborate and time consuming, or focused and brief? • •Discussion: -What would a comprehensive policy analysis to address homelessness among veterans look like? -What would a short-term policy analysis look like? The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment is an example of comprehensive approach to policy analysis. It is landmark study of the effect of expanding public health insurance on health care use, health outcomes, financial strain, and well-being of low-income adults. The Oregon Health Insurance Experiment is an example of comprehensive approach to policy analysis. It is landmark study of the effect of expanding public health insurance on health care use, health outcomes, financial strain, and well-being of low-income adults. Organizations that affiliate themselves with certain ideologies often release contentious (but not necessarily invalid) studies. Libertarian Cato Institute released numerous studies that support individual rights and limited government. •Rational vs. democratic? • •More rigorous, or focused on engaging citizens? • •Discussion: -Should the city conduct a study of the reasons for homelessness? -Or should the city set up a citizen advisory committee to decide what should be done? Scientific research overwhelmingly supports the idea of building the central nuclear waste repository. Democratic policy process, however, led to the termination of the Yucca Mountain project.

Chapter 2 reading ,

government had to grow to keep up with the new responsibilities in foreign affairs and national defense . This has meant an increase in the budget and personnel not only of the Departments of Defense and State but also of agen cies with peripheral connections to in ternational affairs , such as the Environ mental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and the Departments of Commerce and Agricul ture . In addition , the size , scope , and cost of certain projects mean that only the government can undertake them . They may come about because of a market failure , as discussed in chapter 1 , or changes in public expectations of gov ernment . Some individuals and organ ized groups therefore argue that for social or economic progress to occur , government needs to become involved . No other entity , they say , can perform the functions of government , especially space exploration and other scientific research and development , including work in the areas of defense , energy , and health . Finally , Americans must accept some responsibility for the growth of govern ment . Citizen demands for government action continue to rise . Americans tend to be ideologically conservative but lib eral in practice with respect to provision of government services , from police protection to health care for the elderly . The rise of the Tea Party movement in recent years is partially in response to what its supporters see as a federal gov ernment that is overinvolved . One can see the evidence of an expanding role for government throughout the federal rulemaking process , which is a good in dicator of the government's growth : The American people have long decried government in the abstract but rushed to its waiting arms with their problems or dreams . Throughout the 1980s , the 1990s , and into the 2000s , when skepti cism and outright hostility toward the federal government reached unprecedented levels , demands for specific public responses to private needs and desires continued un abated . ( Kerwin and Furlong 2019 , 83 ) The Tenth Amendment to the Consti tution declares : " The powers not dele gated to the United States by the Consti tution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people . " These powers are often called the reserve powers of the states and are the basis for their right to legislate in many areas . Despite the federal government's involvement in public policy issues that were formerly the states ' exclusive domain , state and local governments also have grown sub stantially over the past fifty years . More over , the trend toward devolution to the states ( discussed later ) has meant that many of these governments now are often at the leading edge of policy devel opment . The effects of government growth are many . First , government policies affect most of what people do every day . Sec ond , government growth has led to an entire occupational sector . Not only are governments at all levels major em ployers , but also their buying power has a substantial impact on numerous economic sectors that rely on govern ment programs and spending . Third , the scope of government increases the likelihood of conflicting public policies and greater difficulty in addressing soci ety's problems . Fourth , policymaking in a large , complex government organiza tion takes more time and effort to ana lyze problems , discuss alternatives , de cide on solutions , and implement pro grams — than in a smaller entity . When such efforts fail , the result is policy stalemate or gridlock , the phenomenon to which we referred at the chapter's opening . This is a major reason why we emphasize in this chapter how the gov ernment's policy capacity — its ability to identify , assess , and respond to public problems - might be improved . GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND POLICY CAPACITY Many students are already familiar with the major U. S. government institutions . Even so , a brief review of their most notable features and the implications for public policymaking may be useful . The reason is that the way institutions are designed and structured is critical to how they function , as are the rules they adopt for decision making . Both affect their policy capacity . The nation's founders created a system of checks and balances among the in stitutions of government , primarily to ensure that government could not tyr annize the population . That is , power would not be concentrated enough to pose such a threat . The formal structure of government they established well over two hundred years ago remains much the same today . The U. S. sys tem is based on a tripartite division of authority among legislative , executive , and judicial institutions and a federal system in which the national govern ment and the states have both sep arate and overlapping authority . Each branch of the federal government has distinct responsibilities under the Con stitution but also shares authority with the other two . This system of separ ated institutions sharing power had the noble intention of limiting government authority over citizens and protecting their liberty , but the fragmentation of government power also has a signifi cant impact on policymaking processes and the policies that result . Fragmented power does not prevent policy action , as the routine admin istration of current national policies and programs and the development of new policies clearly indicate . Moreover , when conditions are right , U. S. pol icymaking institutions can act , some times quickly , to approve major policy advances . Often they do so with broad bipartisan support ( Jones 1999 ; May hew 1991 ) . Some examples include the enactments of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 , the Emergency Economic Stabil ization Act in 2008 , and the Every Stu dent Succeeds Act in 2015. What con ditions lead to such substantial policy hanges in a system that generally poses significant barriers to such action ? It is an intriguing question to ponder , and one that this chapter explores . Despite policy successes , the frag mented U. S. political system generally makes it difficult for policymakers to respond to most public problems in a timely and coherent manner . The same can be said about the constitutional mandate for a federal system in which the states share power with the na tional government . The fifty states and about eighty thousand local govern ments chart their own policy courses within the limits set by the Constitu tion and national law . Stalemate at the national level usually increases during periods of divided government , when one political party controls the presi dency and the other at least one house of Congress ( Ripley and Franklin 1991 ; Thurber 1991 ; Thurber and Yoshinaka 2015 ) . The reasons are clear : members of the same political party tend to have similar beliefs concerning the scope of government and the direction of pol icies , but the two major parties often hold strongly conflicting views on these matters . Although divided government makes agreement and cooperation difficult , policymaking can proceed even under these circumstances . In fact , David May hew ( 1991 ) argues that divided govern ment has had only a limited impact on the enactment of major public policies at the national level . A good illustra tion is one of the most expansive laws ever written , the Clean Air Act Amend ments of 1990 , approved in a period of split - party control of the White House and Congress . Democrats took control of the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2009 with a popular presi dent who wanted to bring the parties together to address problems . President Obama , by many measures , had very successful achievements during his first two years in office , including passing a massive economic stimulus package , addressing the financial industry crisis , passing major health care reform legis lation , and making major changes to the college student loan program . These successes occurred primarily through support of the Democratic majority in Congress and were not a result of bi partisan efforts . Yet in the 2010 elec tions , voters backed Republicans at the national and state levels and created a Republican majority in the House of Representatives beginning in 2011 —and thus divided government once again . Results like these suggest that many Americans , and perhaps a major ity , were not happy with at least some of the new policy directions . The election of Donald Trump as presi dent ushered in another period of uni fied government , in this case with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency . While there were some legislative successes during this time , including a very large tax cut , many other agenda items , such as repeal ing Obamacare , have been unsuccess ful . In fact , beyond the tax bill , there have been few major legislative suc cesses despite Republican control of the House , the Senate , and the presidency . With Democrats retaking the House following a very strong showing in the 2018 midterm elections , significant le gislative accomplishments became even more difficult as they require cooper ation between the two parties that in creasingly share few common perspec tives on policy choices . lines also has affected control of the state legislature and congressional dele gations that is , where control in effect goes to the party that won a minority of the overall votes cast . This was seen in the 2018 election results in Wisconsin where the Democrats won 54 percent of the popular vote cast for the state as sembly but took only 36 percent of the seats . For these reasons , some states , most notably Iowa and California , have turned to a nonpartisan process for re districting.2 Fragmented power can lead to other concerns . For example , states ' policies , such as California's stringent air qual ity laws and Massachusetts's universal health care plan , sometimes result in significant advantages for their citizens that people living in other states do not enjoy . In addition , serious conflicts proaches to decision making . In fact , most of the time policymaking involves action that falls between gridlock and innovation . The norm in U. S. polit ics is incremental policymaking , es pecially for relatively noncontroversial policies . Incremental policy changes are small steps , often taken slowly . They are adjustments made at the margins of existing policies through minor amend ments or the gradual extension of a pro gram's mandate or the groups it serves . The Head Start preschool program is a good example of incremental change , made possible because it is seen as a suc cess . Presidents can play a role in pushing for change , and they sometimes favor dramatic shifts in policies or the struc tures of government . President Johnson pushed strongly in the early to mid 1960s for enactment of the new civil rights policies discussed above as well as the War on Poverty . In response to the September 11 , 2001 , attacks on the United States , President George W. Bush proposed creation of a new and large cabinet department , the Department of Homeland Security , to help prevent fu ture terrorist attacks . And as noted , President Obama was instrumental in passing health care reform , which rep resented a major shift in policy in this arena . Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the U. S. political system , with a focus on its proactive elements - Con gress , the president , and the rest of the executive branch . State governments are organized in a similar manner . The figure illustrates the different institu tions and policy actors who play a role in public policy development and imple mentation . It can be read in two some what different ways . First , it serves as a reminder that the U. S. system imposes substantial barriers to a top - down , uni lateral approach to making public pol icy . Second , it shows the many different points of access the system affords to policy advocates . State and local govern ments dominate in many policy areas , such as education and crime control . They also sometimes intervene when the federal government chooses not to act . For example , faced with federal in action , many states have adopted cli mate change policies that try to reduce use of fossil fuels ( Rabe 2004 , 2018 ) . The next section discusses the major features of the U. S. government system , beginning with federalism and followed by the institutions of the federal gov ernment . The chapter continues with " informal " policy actors , those outside of government who shape public policy , including the general public and organ ized interest groups . The purpose of this review is twofold : first , to reacquaint readers with the basic components of government , and second , to encourage them to think about the choices that are represented in these arrangements . Why is government structured one way and not another ? What difference does the structure of government make for public policymaking and the substance of public policy ? What changes in gov ernment might be desirable in terms of improving performance , especially the effectiveness , efficiency , and equity of policies ? Or in improving the respon siveness of government to the U. S. pub lic ? FEDERALISM As noted earlier , the framers of the U. S. Constitution designed a system of gov ernment in which power is divided be tween the national government and the states ( and , for some purposes , Native American tribes ) .10 Both the national and state governments have the author ity to enact laws or public policies . We focus here on the history of federalism , the federal - state relationship , the con tinuing controversies over the proper allocation of responsibility between the federal government and the states , and the variation among the states in their capacity for public policy innovation . W Description Figure 2-1 Federal , State , and Local Agents of Policymaking and Avenues of Policy Formation The Evolution of Federal State Relations During the early history of the United States , disputes arose over how much power the national government should have and what should be left to the states . As the national government at tempted to assert itself on issues such as the establishment of a national bank and the rules of interstate commerce , its authority was challenged . The Su preme Court , led by Chief Justice John Marshall , supported an expanded role of the national government . Yet , as dis agreement over the spread of slavery to new states and the subsequent Civil War showed , major conflicts persisted over interpretation of the national gov ernment's powers . The relationship between national and state governments in policymaking has evolved since the nation's founding . In the late eighteenth century , the func tions or responsibilities of each level of government were quite distinct . State governments , for example , were re sponsible for education and transporta tion policies . The national government limited itself to larger issues such as na tional defense and international trade . Little integration of the two levels of government existed . This state of affairs is often referred to as dual federalism , and it persisted throughout the nine teenth century , in part because the fed eral government's activities remained limited . In the twentieth century , federal - state relations changed significantly , espe cially in response to the Great Depres sion of the 1930s . President Roose velt's legislative program , known as the New Deal , was an expansive economic recovery program that began to break down the imaginary barriers between national and state policy . It was not unusual to see the national govern ment become involved in what were traditionally considered state responsi bilities . Thus dual federalism over time evolved into cooperative federalism , as collaboration on policymaking between the national and state governments in creased . Many large - scale federal pro grams begun in the 1960s and 1970s , another period of government growth , relied on such a model . The federal clean air and clean water programs , for ex ample , involved a mix of national and state responsibilities , with the national government setting environmental pro tection standards and the states carry ing out most implementation actions . Much of the cooperation that occurred between the national and state govern ments was a result of additional mon ies being provided to the states through block grants and categorical grants . Block grants are transfers of federal dollars to the states where the states have substantial discretion in how to spend the money to meet the needs of their citizens . Categorical grants also in volve the transfer of federal dollars to the states , but in this case the fund ing must be used for specific purposes . During the 1970s and 1980s , critics of increasing federal power urged the states to retake some of their policy making responsibilities . President Rich ard Nixon's " new federalism " initiatives in the early 1970s were designed to move away from categorical grants and toward block grants to give the states more discretion in how they used the funds . The devolution of policy to the states continued under President Ron ald Reagan . His conservative philoso phy and political rhetoric gave a signifi cant boost to the trend already under way to restore greater authority to the states . Although many states welcomed this change , they also worried about the subsequent decrease in federal dollars coming into their treasuries . In addition , the national govern ment had discovered a new way to enact popular policies without pay ing for them : it gave implemen tation responsibilities to the states . Federal policymakers received political credit for the new programs without spending federal tax dollars . These unfunded mandates - federal require ments placed on the state govern ments without funds for implementa tion - added stress to the relationship between the national and state gov ernments . That relationship continues to evolve . In 1995 , Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to limit future financial impacts on the states , but conflict over policymaking in a federal system did not vanish as a result . Congress continued to approve mandates with insufficient funding , at least according to state policymakers . The No Child Left Behind program is one example . Debate focused on the impact on the states of mandatory na tional standards for promoting primary and secondary school students to the next grade . Supporters of the standards wanted to ensure that students had the skills and knowledge to compete na tionally and internationally . Few ques tioned the goal of improving the quality of the nation's schools , but many had doubts about imposing federal stand ards in a policy area that has tradition ally been a state responsibility . State Variation in Policy Capacity Both of the major political par ties seem interested in continuing the decentralization of power to the states -that is , the transfer of policy author ity from the federal government to the states . The focus , however , has shifted to asking whether the states have the capacity to handle additional responsi bilities . The issues that arise in this debate parallel the book's main evalu ative criteria . For example , critics of de centralization are concerned about the implications for program effectiveness , efficiency , and equity because they rec ognize that the fifty states are quite different from one another both in their capacity to act on policy issues and in the kinds of policies they enact . The states also differ in fundamental ways such as physical size , population , extent of industrialization , and afflu ence . Moreover , each state and region has a distinctive history and culture that shape policy actions ( Elazar 1984 ; Lieske 1993 ) . What may work well and be acceptable to residents of Wiscon sin or Minnesota might not be appro priate or feasible in Texas or Missis sippi . Some states have extensive state parks and other recreational facilities , while others do not . Some have strict vehicle inspection programs to promote highway safety , and other states have no such programs . Over thirty states do not permit smoking in restaurants , and California in 2008 became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants ; New York City adopted a similar restriction in 2006 , and other cities followed suit.11 There is noth ing inherently negative about such pol icy variation among the states ; indeed , throughout the nation's history , Ameri cans have celebrated the rich diversity of state cultures and policy preferences . However , when a state's policies are so different from others that its residents may be deprived of essential human needs or federally protected rights , the federal government is likely to inter vene . One might argue that this was the justification for No Child Left Behind : to ensure certain minimal expectations for students regardless of where they get their education . Similarly , many ap plauded a decision by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in Novem ber 2013 proposing a general ban on trans fats in food to protect public health . Cannabis and the law . The photo shows employees advising clients on the more than twenty strains available at A Greener Today , a popular cannabis store in Seattle , Washington , in 2014. Because federal laws still prohibit the sale of legal cannabis , stores don't have access to the banking system and have to conduct all business in cash . Doing so complicates busi ness transactions and creates nu merous legal issues . Gilles Mingasson / Getty Images Those who favor increasing state au thority tend to believe that the states are capable of handling additional re sponsibilities and are better equipped than the federal government at defin ing their citizens ' needs . Indeed , for some , the states are the " new heroes " of American federalism , with greater cap ier today to gain access to those net works and to see what the specialized policy communities are considering and where change may be possible . government had to grow to keep up with the new responsibilities in foreign affairs and national defense . This has meant an increase in the budget and personnel not only of the Departments of Defense and State but also of agen cies with peripheral connections to in ternational affairs , such as the Environ mental Protection Agency ( EPA ) and the Departments of Commerce and Agricul ture . In addition , the size , scope , and cost of certain projects mean that only the government can undertake them . They may come about because of a market failure , as discussed in chapter 1 , or changes in public expectations of gov ernment . Some individuals and organ ized groups therefore argue that for social or economic progress to occur , government needs to become involved . No other entity , they say , can perform the functions of government , especially space exploration and other scientific research and development , including work in the areas of defense , energy , and health . Finally , Americans must accept some responsibility for the growth of govern ment . Citizen demands for government action continue to rise . Americans tend to be ideologically conservative but lib eral in practice with respect to provision of government services , from police protection to health care for the elderly . The rise of the Tea Party movement in recent years is partially in response to what its supporters see as a federal gov ernment that is overinvolved . One can see the evidence of an expanding role for government throughout the federal rulemaking process , which is a good in dicator of the government's growth : The American people have long decried government in the abstract but rushed to its waiting arms with their problems or dreams . Throughout the 1980s , the 1990s , and into the 2000s , when skepti cism and outright hostility toward the federal government reached unprecedented levels , demands for specific public responses to private needs and desires continued un abated . ( Kerwin and Furlong 2019 , 83 ) The Tenth Amendment to the Consti tution declares : " The powers not dele gated to the United States by the Consti tution , nor prohibited by it to the States , are reserved to the States respectively , or to the people . " These powers are often called the reserve powers of the states and are the basis for their right to legislate in many areas . Despite the federal government's involvement in public policy issues that were formerly the states ' exclusive domain , state and local governments also have grown sub stantially over the past fifty years . More over , the trend toward devolution to the states ( discussed later ) has meant that many of these governments now are often at the leading edge of policy devel opment . The effects of government growth are many . First , government policies affect most of what people do every day . Sec ond , government growth has led to an entire occupational sector . Not only are governments at all levels major em ployers , but also their buying power has a substantial impact on numerous economic sectors that rely on govern ment programs and spending . Third , the scope of government increases the likelihood of conflicting public policies and greater difficulty in addressing soci ety's problems . Fourth , policymaking in a large , complex government organiza tion takes more time and effort to ana lyze problems , discuss alternatives , de cide on solutions , and implement pro grams — than in a smaller entity . When such efforts fail , the result is policy stalemate or gridlock , the phenomenon to which we referred at the chapter's opening . This is a major reason why we emphasize in this chapter how the gov ernment's policy capacity — its ability to identify , assess , and respond to public problems - might be improved . GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS AND POLICY CAPACITY Many students are already familiar with the major U. S. government institutions . Even so , a brief review of their most notable features and the implications for public policymaking may be useful . The reason is that the way institutions are designed and structured is critical to how they function , as are the rules they adopt for decision making . Both affect their policy capacity . The nation's founders created a system of checks and balances among the in stitutions of government , primarily to ensure that government could not tyr annize the population . That is , power would not be concentrated enough to pose such a threat . The formal structure of government they established well over two hundred years ago remains much the same today . The U. S. sys tem is based on a tripartite division of authority among legislative , executive , and judicial institutions and a federal system in which the national govern ment and the states have both sep arate and overlapping authority . Each branch of the federal government has distinct responsibilities under the Con stitution but also shares authority with the other two . This system of separ ated institutions sharing power had the noble intention of limiting government authority over citizens and protecting their liberty , but the fragmentation of government power also has a signifi cant impact on policymaking processes and the policies that result . Fragmented power does not prevent policy action , as the routine admin istration of current national policies and programs and the development of new policies clearly indicate . Moreover , when conditions are right , U. S. pol icymaking institutions can act , some times quickly , to approve major policy advances . Often they do so with broad bipartisan support ( Jones 1999 ; May hew 1991 ) . Some examples include the enactments of the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001 , the Emergency Economic Stabil ization Act in 2008 , and the Every Stu dent Succeeds Act in 2015. What con ditions lead to such substantial policy hanges in a system that generally poses significant barriers to such action ? It is an intriguing question to ponder , and one that this chapter explores . Despite policy successes , the frag mented U. S. political system generally makes it difficult for policymakers to respond to most public problems in a timely and coherent manner . The same can be said about the constitutional mandate for a federal system in which the states share power with the na tional government . The fifty states and about eighty thousand local govern ments chart their own policy courses within the limits set by the Constitu tion and national law . Stalemate at the national level usually increases during periods of divided government , when one political party controls the presi dency and the other at least one house of Congress ( Ripley and Franklin 1991 ; Thurber 1991 ; Thurber and Yoshinaka 2015 ) . The reasons are clear : members of the same political party tend to have similar beliefs concerning the scope of government and the direction of pol icies , but the two major parties often hold strongly conflicting views on these matters . Although divided government makes agreement and cooperation difficult , policymaking can proceed even under these circumstances . In fact , David May hew ( 1991 ) argues that divided govern ment has had only a limited impact on the enactment of major public policies at the national level . A good illustra tion is one of the most expansive laws ever written , the Clean Air Act Amend ments of 1990 , approved in a period of split - party control of the White House and Congress . Democrats took control of the presidency and both houses of Congress in 2009 with a popular presi dent who wanted to bring the parties together to address problems . President Obama , by many measures , had very successful achievements during his first two years in office , including passing a massive economic stimulus package , addressing the financial industry crisis , passing major health care reform legis lation , and making major changes to the college student loan program . These successes occurred primarily through support of the Democratic majority in Congress and were not a result of bi partisan efforts . Yet in the 2010 elec tions , voters backed Republicans at the national and state levels and created a Republican majority in the House of Representatives beginning in 2011 —and thus divided government once again . Results like these suggest that many Americans , and perhaps a major ity , were not happy with at least some of the new policy directions . The election of Donald Trump as presi dent ushered in another period of uni fied government , in this case with the Republicans in control of both houses of Congress for the first two years of his presidency . While there were some legislative successes during this time , including a very large tax cut , many other agenda items , such as repeal ing Obamacare , have been unsuccess ful . In fact , beyond the tax bill , there have been few major legislative suc cesses despite Republican control of the House , the Senate , and the presidency . With Democrats retaking the House following a very strong showing in the 2018 midterm elections , significant le gislative accomplishments became even more difficult as they require cooper ation between the two parties that in creasingly share few common perspec tives on policy choices . lines also has affected control of the state legislature and congressional dele gations that is , where control in effect goes to the party that won a minority of the overall votes cast . This was seen in the 2018 election results in Wisconsin where the Democrats won 54 percent of the popular vote cast for the state as sembly but took only 36 percent of the seats . For these reasons , some states , most notably Iowa and California , have turned to a nonpartisan process for re districting.2 Fragmented power can lead to other concerns . For example , states ' policies , such as California's stringent air qual ity laws and Massachusetts's universal health care plan , sometimes result in significant advantages for their citizens that people living in other states do not enjoy . In addition , serious conflicts proaches to decision making . In fact , most of the time policymaking involves action that falls between gridlock and innovation . The norm in U. S. polit ics is incremental policymaking , es pecially for relatively noncontroversial policies . Incremental policy changes are small steps , often taken slowly . They are adjustments made at the margins of existing policies through minor amend ments or the gradual extension of a pro gram's mandate or the groups it serves . The Head Start preschool program is a good example of incremental change , made possible because it is seen as a suc cess . Presidents can play a role in pushing for change , and they sometimes favor dramatic shifts in policies or the struc tures of government . President Johnson pushed strongly in the early to mid 1960s for enactment of the new civil rights policies discussed above as well as the War on Poverty . In response to the September 11 , 2001 , attacks on the United States , President George W. Bush proposed creation of a new and large cabinet department , the Department of Homeland Security , to help prevent fu ture terrorist attacks . And as noted , President Obama was instrumental in passing health care reform , which rep resented a major shift in policy in this arena . Figure 2-1 provides an overview of the U. S. political system , with a focus on its proactive elements - Con gress , the president , and the rest of the executive branch . State governments are organized in a similar manner . The figure illustrates the different institu tions and policy actors who play a role in public policy development and imple mentation . It can be read in two some what different ways . First , it serves as a reminder that the U. S. system imposes substantial barriers to a top - down , uni lateral approach to making public pol icy . Second , it shows the many different points of access the system affords to policy advocates . State and local govern ments dominate in many policy areas , such as education and crime control . They also sometimes intervene when the federal government chooses not to act . For example , faced with federal in action , many states have adopted cli mate change policies that try to reduce use of fossil fuels ( Rabe 2004 , 2018 ) . The next section discusses the major features of the U. S. government system , beginning with federalism and followed by the institutions of the federal gov ernment . The chapter continues with " informal " policy actors , those outside of government who shape public policy , including the general public and organ ized interest groups . The purpose of this review is twofold : first , to reacquaint readers with the basic components of government , and second , to encourage them to think about the choices that are represented in these arrangements . Why is government structured one way and not another ? What difference does the structure of government make for public policymaking and the substance of public policy ? What changes in gov ernment might be desirable in terms of improving performance , especially the effectiveness , efficiency , and equity of policies ? Or in improving the respon siveness of government to the U. S. pub lic ? FEDERALISM As noted earlier , the framers of the U. S. Constitution designed a system of gov ernment in which power is divided be tween the national government and the states ( and , for some purposes , Native American tribes ) .10 Both the national and state governments have the author ity to enact laws or public policies . We focus here on the history of federalism , the federal - state relationship , the con tinuing controversies over the proper allocation of responsibility between the federal government and the states , and the variation among the states in their capacity for public policy innovation . W Description Figure 2-1 Federal , State , and Local Agents of Policymaking and Avenues of Policy Formation The Evolution of Federal State Relations During the early history of the United States , disputes arose over how much power the national government should have and what should be left to the states . As the national government at tempted to assert itself on issues such as the establishment of a national bank and the rules of interstate commerce , its authority was challenged . The Su preme Court , led by Chief Justice John Marshall , supported an expanded role of the national government . Yet , as dis agreement over the spread of slavery to new states and the subsequent Civil War showed , major conflicts persisted over interpretation of the national gov ernment's powers . The relationship between national and state governments in policymaking has evolved since the nation's founding . In the late eighteenth century , the func tions or responsibilities of each level of government were quite distinct . State governments , for example , were re sponsible for education and transporta tion policies . The national government limited itself to larger issues such as na tional defense and international trade . Little integration of the two levels of government existed . This state of affairs is often referred to as dual federalism , and it persisted throughout the nine teenth century , in part because the fed eral government's activities remained limited . In the twentieth century , federal - state relations changed significantly , espe cially in response to the Great Depres sion of the 1930s . President Roose velt's legislative program , known as the New Deal , was an expansive economic recovery program that began to break down the imaginary barriers between national and state policy . It was not unusual to see the national govern ment become involved in what were traditionally considered state responsi bilities . Thus dual federalism over time evolved into cooperative federalism , as collaboration on policymaking between the national and state governments in creased . Many large - scale federal pro grams begun in the 1960s and 1970s , another period of government growth , relied on such a model . The federal clean air and clean water programs , for ex ample , involved a mix of national and state responsibilities , with the national government setting environmental pro tection standards and the states carry ing out most implementation actions . Much of the cooperation that occurred between the national and state govern ments was a result of additional mon ies being provided to the states through block grants and categorical grants . Block grants are transfers of federal dollars to the states where the states have substantial discretion in how to spend the money to meet the needs of their citizens . Categorical grants also in volve the transfer of federal dollars to the states , but in this case the fund ing must be used for specific purposes . During the 1970s and 1980s , critics of increasing federal power urged the states to retake some of their policy making responsibilities . President Rich ard Nixon's " new federalism " initiatives in the early 1970s were designed to move away from categorical grants and toward block grants to give the states more discretion in how they used the funds . The devolution of policy to the states continued under President Ron ald Reagan . His conservative philoso phy and political rhetoric gave a signifi cant boost to the trend already under way to restore greater authority to the states . Although many states welcomed this change , they also worried about the subsequent decrease in federal dollars coming into their treasuries . In addition , the national govern ment had discovered a new way to enact popular policies without pay ing for them : it gave implemen tation responsibilities to the states . Federal policymakers received political credit for the new programs without spending federal tax dollars . These unfunded mandates - federal require ments placed on the state govern ments without funds for implementa tion - added stress to the relationship between the national and state gov ernments . That relationship continues to evolve . In 1995 , Congress enacted the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to limit future financial impacts on the states , but conflict over policymaking in a federal system did not vanish as a result . Congress continued to approve mandates with insufficient funding , at least according to state policymakers . The No Child Left Behind program is one example . Debate focused on the impact on the states of mandatory na tional standards for promoting primary and secondary school students to the next grade . Supporters of the standards wanted to ensure that students had the skills and knowledge to compete na tionally and internationally . Few ques tioned the goal of improving the quality of the nation's schools , but many had doubts about imposing federal stand ards in a policy area that has tradition ally been a state responsibility . State Variation in Policy Capacity Both of the major political par ties seem interested in continuing the decentralization of power to the states -that is , the transfer of policy author ity from the federal government to the states . The focus , however , has shifted to asking whether the states have the capacity to handle additional responsi bilities . The issues that arise in this debate parallel the book's main evalu ative criteria . For example , critics of de centralization are concerned about the implications for program effectiveness , efficiency , and equity because they rec ognize that the fifty states are quite different from one another both in their capacity to act on policy issues and in the kinds of policies they enact . The states also differ in fundamental ways such as physical size , population , extent of industrialization , and afflu ence . Moreover , each state and region has a distinctive history and culture that shape policy actions ( Elazar 1984 ; Lieske 1993 ) . What may work well and be acceptable to residents of Wiscon sin or Minnesota might not be appro priate or feasible in Texas or Missis sippi . Some states have extensive state parks and other recreational facilities , while others do not . Some have strict vehicle inspection programs to promote highway safety , and other states have no such programs . Over thirty states do not permit smoking in restaurants , and California in 2008 became the first state to ban the use of trans fats in restaurants ; New York City adopted a similar restriction in 2006 , and other cities followed suit.11 There is noth ing inherently negative about such pol icy variation among the states ; indeed , throughout the nation's history , Ameri cans have celebrated the rich diversity of state cultures and policy preferences . However , when a state's policies are so different from others that its residents may be deprived of essential human needs or federally protected rights , the federal government is likely to inter vene . One might argue that this was the justification for No Child Left Behind : to ensure certain minimal expectations for students regardless of where they get their education . Similarly , many ap plauded a decision by the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA ) in Novem ber 2013 proposing a general ban on trans fats in food to protect public health . Cannabis and the law . The photo shows employees advising clients on the more than twenty strains available at A Greener Today , a popular cannabis store in Seattle , Washington , in 2014. Because federal laws still prohibit the sale of legal cannabis , stores don't have access to the banking system and have to conduct all business in cash . Doing so complicates busi ness transactions and creates nu merous legal issues . Gilles Mingasson / Getty Images Those who favor increasing state au thority tend to believe that the states are capable of handling additional re sponsibilities and are better equipped than the federal government at defin ing their citizens ' needs . Indeed , for some , the states are the " new heroes " of American federalism , with greater cap ier today to gain access to those net works and to see what the specialized policy communities are considering and where change may be possible . IMPROVING POLICY CAPACITY This chapter demonstrates that the de sign of U. S. government institutions and the conflicting demands of the na tion's citizens make governing a diffi cult , though by no means impossible , task . The history of U. S. public policy development in many areas , as we will show in chapters 7 through 12 , indi cates a robust capacity for policy formu lation , adoption , and implementation . The proof is in the extensive collection of public policies in operation today . Much the same can be said about the policy capacity of state and local gov ernments . Although some are clearly more capable than others , considerable policy innovation and successful imple mentation are apparent at this level as well ( Borins 1998 ; Hedge 1998 ) . Does policy capacity need to be im proved ? Almost certainly . By any meas ure , the challenges that governments at all levels will face in the future will re quire an even greater ability than they now possess to analyze complex prob lems and develop solutions . Whether the problems are worldwide terrorism , economic recessions , natural hazards such as hurricanes , or global climate change or whether they are public needs for education , health care , and other social services - governments will have to do a better job of responding to these needs . Consider one example . When a dev astating hurricane struck New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas in September 2005 , critics described the responses by federal , state , and local governments as woefully inadequate . Hurricane Katrina killed over one thousand people and left a far larger number injured or home less , many of them residents of poor and minority communities . The storm also destroyed countless businesses . Government agencies had to drain se verely flooded neighborhoods , restore public services over a wide area , assist hundreds of thousands of residents dis placed by the storm , and rebuild dam aged levees and other structures across a wide stretch of the Gulf Coast . It was perhaps the worst natural disaster in U. S. history in terms of economic im pact , costing between $ 100 billion and $ 150 billion , according to the Congres sional Budget Office ( CBO ) .20 While gov ernments cannot prevent hurricanes , they can do much to improve their cap acities for emergency preparedness and disaster relief . One lesson from Katrina is that governments might have avoided the enormous human and economic toll had they made smarter decisions over the previous decade . The response to Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and later the 2016 floods in Louisiana suggests that at least some lessons were learned , and the governmental response was much better . But , as we saw with Hurricane Maria's impact on Puerto Rico and Hur ricane Florence in the Carolinas in 2018 , there is still much we need to improve . What about the capacity of citizens to participate in public life ? Here too there is much that can be done , and we will return to the subject in chapter 13 . In brief , it is easy to argue that in a democracy , citizens should be given ex tensive opportunities to participate in policymaking . Yet some analysts worry that citizens have too little time and too little interest to inform themselves on the issues so that they can partici pate effectively . Others focus on what measures might be taken to assist citi zens in learning more about the issues and encourage their participation . From either perspective , questions arise . For example , is it a good idea to create more state and local referendums to allow dir ect citizen participation in lawmaking ? Many cities and states do that , and as we stated earlier , some highly innova tive policies have been enacted through such direct citizen participation . But there is also a risk that such direct democracy can fuel public prejudice and allow special interest groups to have undue influence on the results ( Cronin 1989 ; Ellis 2002 ) . What is the best way to encourage citi zen participation in government pro cesses ? It seems clear that additional citizen participation may enhance pol icy capacity at the state and local levels , but some programs designed to involve citizens are more effective than others . Most scholars today recognize the desirability of going beyond the conventional hearings and public meet ings to offer more direct and mean ingful citizen access to policymaking . Citizen advisory committees , citizen panels , and similar mechanisms foster more intense citizen engagement with the issues ( Beierle and Cayford 2002 ) . Governments at all levels continue to endorse collaborative decision making with local and regional stakeholders , es pecially on issues of urban planning and management , natural resource use , and the like . Whatever the form of public involve ment , its effectiveness needs to be con sidered . Increasing citizens ' voices in policymaking can come at some cost in terms of the expediency of pol icy development and implementation . In other words , it can slow down the policy process and make it more diffi cult to resolve conflicts . Even with these qualifications , however , the successful involvement of the public in local and regional problem - solving processes , and in electoral processes , is encouraging for the future . Enhancing civic engage ment in these ways might even help to reverse a long pattern of citizen with drawal , not only from politics but also from communities ( Bok 2001 ; Putnam 2000 ; Skocpol and Fiorina 1999 ) . The enormous outpouring of support for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election , particularly by young voters , testifies to the potential of greater citi zen involvement in the future , and also to the diversity of mechanisms for such involvement , from traditional organizational politics to web - based re cruitment , fund - raising , and communi cation ( Dalton 2009 ; M cKenna and Han 2014 ) . CONCLUSIONS This chapter covers a lot of ground , from the growth of government over time to the constitutional design for U. S. government to the way policy actors within the major institutions interact when dealing with public prob lems and policymaking . Government growth is a direct result of the in creases in public policies that have been adopted in the United States through out history . To fully understand the de velopment of policy , we must pay atten tion to the various actors in our formal government systems and how they all have a role in making or obstructing policy . In addition , how people inter act in this political and governmental process is a key factor in explaining if policy gets made at all and the policy choice that follows . In a democratic sys tem of government , these actors outside the formal government structure , such as interest groups , the media , and citi zens themselves , also influence the pol icy process . Understanding how these actors get involved in the policy process is important in explaining how and why policy gets made . It is also through both the formal and informal actors that in dividuals can get involved and help to move policy in a particular direction . All of these factors help to explain why governing is so difficult , and why policy gridlock occurs so often . But the same factors also highlight the many strengths of the U. S. political system , particularly the opportunities it provides for citizens and organized groups to participate in the policy pro cess and shape the decisions that are made . These strengths are found at all levels of government , but especially in the states ' growing policy capacity and their efforts at policy innovation in recent years . Knowing how govern ment is organized and makes decisions is the foundation for the study of public policy , but equally important is understanding the political incentives that motivate and influence how pol icy actors , both governmental and non governmental , relate to one another in the policy process . Armed with these tools , students of public policy can see why government sometimes works and sometimes does not , and what needs to be done to improve government's cap acity for analyzing public problems and developing solutions to them . In the same vein , the chapter suggests that few changes would do more to en hance democracy than finding ways for U. S. citizens to become better informed about public policy and more engaged with government and the policy pro cess . SSAGE edge ™ for CO Press. Share as Soundbite Does policy capacity need to be im proved ? Almost certainly . By any meas ure , the challenges that governments at all levels will face in the future will re quire an even greater ability than they now possess to analyze complex prob lems and develop solutions . Whether the problems are worldwide terrorism , economic recessions , natural hazards such as hurricanes , or global climate change or whether they are public needs for education , health care , and other social services - governments will have to do a better job of responding to these needs . Consider one example . When a dev astating hurricane struck New Orleans and other Gulf Coast areas in September 2005 , critics described the responses by federal , state , and local governments as woefully inadequate . Hurricane Katrina killed over one thousand people and left a far larger number injured or home less , many of them residents of poor and minority communities . The storm also destroyed countless businesses . Government agencies had to drain se verely flooded neighborhoods , restore public services over a wide area , assist hundreds of thousands of residents dis placed by the storm , and rebuild dam aged levees and other structures across a wide stretch of the Gulf Coast . It was perhaps the worst natural disaster in U. S. history in terms of economic im pact , costing between $ 100 billion and $ 150 billion , according to the Congres sional Budget Office ( CBO ) .20 While gov ernments cannot prevent hurricanes , they can do much to improve their cap acities for emergency preparedness and disaster relief . One lesson from Katrina is that governments might have avoided the enormous human and economic toll had they made smarter decisions over the previous decade . The response to Hurricane Sandy in 2012 and later the 2016 floods in Louisiana suggests that at least some lessons were learned , and the governmental response was much better . But , as we saw with Hurricane Maria's impact on Puerto Rico and Hur ricane Florence in the Carolinas in 2018 , there is still much we need to improve . What about the capacity of citizens to participate in public life ? Here too there is much that can be done , and we will return to the subject in chapter 13 . In brief , it is easy to argue that in a democracy , citizens should be given ex tensive opportunities to participate in policymaking . Yet some analysts worry that citizens have too little time and too little interest to inform themselves on the issues so that they can partici pate effectively . Others focus on what measures might be taken to assist citi zens in learning more about the issues and encourage their participation . From either perspective , questions arise . For example , is it a good idea to create more state and local referendums to allow dir ect citizen participation in lawmaking ? Many cities and states do that , and as we stated earlier , some highly innova tive policies have been enacted through such direct citizen participation . But there is also a risk that such direct democracy can fuel public prejudice and allow special interest groups to have undue influence on the results ( Cronin 1989 ; Ellis 2002 ) . What is the best way to encourage citi zen participation in government pro cesses ? It seems clear that additional citizen participation may enhance pol icy capacity at the state and local levels , but some programs designed to involve citizens are more effective than others . Most scholars today recognize the desirability of going beyond the conventional hearings and public meet ings to offer more direct and mean ingful citizen access to policymaking . Citizen advisory committees , citizen panels , and similar mechanisms foster more intense citizen engagement with the issues ( Beierle and Cayford 2002 ) . Governments at all levels continue to endorse collaborative decision making with local and regional stakeholders , es pecially on issues of urban planning and management , natural resource use , and the like . Whatever the form of public involve ment , its effectiveness needs to be con sidered . Increasing citizens ' voices in policymaking can come at some cost in terms of the expediency of pol icy development and implementation . In other words , it can slow down the policy process and make it more diffi cult to resolve conflicts . Even with these qualifications , however , the successful involvement of the public in local and regional problem - solving processes , and in electoral processes , is encouraging for the future . Enhancing civic engage ment in these ways might even help to reverse a long pattern of citizen with drawal , not only from politics but also from communities ( Bok 2001 ; Putnam 2000 ; Skocpol and Fiorina 1999 ) . The enormous outpouring of support for Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election , particularly by young voters , testifies to the potential of greater citi zen involvement in the future , and also to the diversity of mechanisms for such involvement , from traditional organizational politics to web - based re cruitment , fund - raising , and communi cation ( Dalton 2009 ; M cKenna and Han 2014 ) . CONCLUSIONS This chapter covers a lot of ground , from the growth of government over time to the constitutional design for U. S. government to the way policy actors within the major institutions interact when dealing with public prob lems and policymaking . Government growth is a direct result of the in creases in public policies that have been adopted in the United States through out history . To fully understand the de velopment of policy , we must pay atten tion to the various actors in our formal government systems and how they all have a role in making or obstructing policy . In addition , how people inter act in this political and governmental process is a key factor in explaining if policy gets made at all and the policy choice that follows . In a democratic sys tem of government , these actors outside the formal government structure , such as interest groups , the media , and citi zens themselves , also influence the pol icy process . Understanding how these actors get involved in the policy process is important in explaining how and why policy gets made . It is also through both the formal and informal actors that in dividuals can get involved and help to move policy in a particular direction . All of these factors help to explain why governing is so difficult , and why policy gridlock occurs so often . But the same factors also highlight the many strengths of the U. S. political system , particularly the opportunities it provides for citizens and organized groups to participate in the policy pro cess and shape the decisions that are made . These strengths are found at all levels of government , but especially in the states ' growing policy capacity and their efforts at policy innovation in recent years . Knowing how govern ment is organized and makes decisions is the foundation for the study of public policy , but equally important is understanding the political incentives that motivate and influence how pol icy actors , both governmental and non governmental , relate to one another in the policy process . Armed with these tools , students of public policy can see why government sometimes works and sometimes does not , and what needs to be done to improve government's cap acity for analyzing public problems and developing solutions to them . In the same vein , the chapter suggests that few changes would do more to en hance democracy than finding ways for U. S. citizens to become better informed about public policy and more engaged with government and the policy pro cess . SSAGE edge ™ for CO Press. Share as Soundbite

It is always a good time to study policy

•Do you trust your drinking water? •Is someone in your family unemployed? •Are you worried about climate change? •Do you feel that others are not paying their "fair share" in taxes? •Are you concerned with poverty levels or rising inequality in America? •Do you think that marijuana should be legal?

Rational Choice Theory

•Economic model to explain policy development. • •Policy decisions made by self-interested individual policy actors who seek to maximize their own net benefits. • •Useful to predict implications of policy alternatives or behaviors, e.g.,: -When policymakers want people to drive less, they can make gas more expensive (e.g., via tax). -Why do politicians usually appear to move to the center with their political agenda once they win their party primary elections? Good schools are usually found in affluent neighborhoods. To send your children to one, you must outbid others for a house in a good school district. What if everybody intends to do the same? Policy Cycle" Process Model 1 Problem definition & Agenda setting 2 Policy formulation 3 Policy legitimation 4 Policy implementation 5 Policy evaluation and change • Think of a few prominent examples of public policies and/or problems, e.g.: - Assault weapons ban - Healthcare affordability - Global warming - Student debt • Where do those it in the Policy Process Model? Problem definition • Who and how determines what problems are the government's responsibility to address? • Differing perspectives: - Are school killings a problem? - How about bullying in schools? - Which problem is big enough to do something about? - Whose responsibility is it? • Problem definition is always biased! Problem definition is always influenced by a person's perspective, ideology, and values. We all differ in our perceptions of problems and their causes. Agenda setting • Agenda: a set of subjects that gain attention. • Public problems compete for social and political attention and many don't rise to the agenda level. • Systemic agenda (public attention) vs. Institutional agenda (government debate). • What issues are currently "on the agenda" in Georgia? Environmental scientists claim that air pollution is among top 10 causes of deaths in the U.S. Yet, until recently, it has been much lower on policymakers' agenda than, say, drunk driving John Kingdon's (1995) streams of agenda setting • Problem stream refers to the saturation of information available about the problem. • Policy stream refers to what might be done about the problem (i.e., availability and agreement on solutions). • Political stream refers to the climate, public mood, and climat political capital Policy formulation • What actions do we recommend to deal with the problem? • Many formal and informal actors should promote desired actions, but policy formulation should be a responsibility of experienced and knowledgeable professionals. • Debate should ensue over alternative policy choices. Poorly designed policies may provide contradictory results. When one Asian city addressed rat infestation by putting a lucrative bounty on rats, the result was more rats. Policy legitimation • Giving legal force to decisions (e.g., majority vote, administrative or judicial decision). • But it requires more than a vote: it must be accepted by the public. - Political feasibility - Social acceptability To facilitate social acceptability of policy, lawmakers sometimes call on cultural elites to participate in policy legitimation. For example, George Clooney testified before Congress in 2012 warning of a humanitarian crisis in the volatile area in Africa. Policy implementation • Passing the law is simply the beginning of policy- related activities and marks the step where actual intervention is seen. • Activities that put programs into effect: - organization of resources, - interpretation of laws and education of those affected, - application/provision of services or other policy instruments. • Done mostly by executive branch through regulations Policy evaluation and change • Often disregarded question: Did the policy achieve its stated objectives? - Did the bailout work? - Do welfare programs reduce the number of people dependent on welfare? • Need clarity on the goals of a program in order to evaluate whether they were achieved. • ill feed information back into the ill feed info cycle to improve policy. Instruments of policy • Regulation - Laws that either require or prevent citizens from doing something. - Typically accompanied by sanctions (e.g., fines) for failure to comply. • Government management - Distribution of resources and services, e.g., education, police protection, health care, public parks, etc. Governments chose for years not to regulate smoking in public places. However, due to recent scientific evidence of smoking effects on health, regulations escalate. Instruments of policy (cont.) • Taxing and spending - Incentives for citizens to act in certain ways, e.g., mortgage deduction or gambling tax. • Market mechanisms - Allowing the laws of supply and demand work can be an explicit decision of the government to promote economic efficiency. • Education and information (hortatory policy) - ing labels on cigarettes, nutritional information of ing la food items, etc. Policy typology (Theodore Lowi) • Distributive policy - Individualized grants and programs • Redistributive policy - Winners and losers - one gains, another pays • Regulatory policy - Government restriction of choice/behavior - Competitive regulations - Protective regulations

Market failures

1.Monopolies (or oligopolies) ● 2.Externalities: "external" to the transaction. ● -Negative externality: third party harmed by a transaction (e.g., pollution, foreclosures) - Positive externality:third party benefits from the transaction (e.g., education, your neighbor's landscaping hobby

Market failures (cont.)

4.Protection of public or collective good: ● -Free market transactions might consume the things we all need (e.g., natural resources like wetlands, air, beautiful places). - -The government protects the jointly consumed or "collective" resources (e.g., national security, protecting natural resources, smoking bans).

Chapter 1 Public Policy Powerpoint terms

Basic •What is a policy? -Course of action -Tool of regulation • •What is a public policy? -Government action to address public problems -Purpose driven (outcomes) programs of action or inaction (outputs) • •Policies often reflects conflicts of values(e.g., should face masks be mandatory to prevent the spread of COVID-19?) Key concepts: Government •What does the word "government" mean? • -The institutions and political processes through which public policy choices are made - -Legal authority - •What is the basic government structures in the United States? • -What does "federalism" mean? • -What responsibilities do the various branches of government have?

Chapter 4 Reading Transcript

CHAPTER 4 POLICY ANALYSIS : AN INTRODUCTION Cell phones and driving . A driver uses a cell phone while behind the wheel of a car in New York City in 2016. As accidents involving drivers using phones or other personal devices mount across the country , New York lawmakers considered new measures to curb the practice . One included a test called the Textalyzer , which would allow police to examine phone records of drivers involved in ac cidents to determine if the phone was used while driving . Spencer Platt / Getty Images CHAPTER OBJECTIVES • Explain the nature of policy ana lysis . ● ● ● Show how policy analysis is used in the policymaking process . Compare and contrast the differ ent types of policy analysis . Describe when certain types of analysis are needed . In 2013 , a twenty - one - year - old East . Texas driver checking her iPhone for messages crashed into an SUV , killing both the driver and a passenger and se verely injuring a child . She was found guilty in a jury trial of criminally neg ligent homicide , and in a twist in what has become an increasingly common form of accidents linked to distracted driving , families of the victims filed a product liability lawsuit against Apple . They said that the company should have known that its phones would be used for texting under dangerous con ditions and yet chose not to incorpor ate technology that could make texting while driving impossible . The argument is that Apple should have been aware that public education and laws on text ing and driving have had little impact to date , suggesting the necessity of a technological solution to cell phone use by drivers . Indeed , the National Safety Council reports that the use of cell phones while driving is responsible for some 1.6 million accidents a year in the United States , and more than 3,000 deaths . Texting while driving now ac counts for one - quarter of all car acci dents , and about 390,000 injuries each year.² Accidents like the one in Texas have led the states to adopt varied laws on use of cell phones while driving . By 2018 , forty - seven states and Washing ton , D. C. , had banned text messaging for all drivers , and nearly all of them provide for primary enforcement ; that is , one can be cited for this traffic violation alone . However , only sixteen states and the District of Columbia pro hibit all drivers from using handheld cell phones while they are driving , and thirty - eight states and the District of Columbia ban all cell phone use by nov ice or teen drivers . Twenty - one states prohibit school bus drivers from any cell phone use while driving . Are such laws changing driver behav ior ? Not very much , it seems . Recent surveys tell us that about 40 percent of teenagers say they texted or sent an email while driving within the past thirty days . Two - thirds of all drivers re port they have used a cell phone while driving , and about three - quarters of young drivers say that they are very or somewhat confident they can safely text while driving , despite evidence to the contrary , 3 In light of these findings , is there a case to be made for going beyond cur rent restrictions on cell phone use while driving ? For example , should any use of handheld cell phones , talking or text ing , while driving be prohibited for all drivers ? What about use of hands - free cell phones in cars , particularly smart phones with Bluetooth connectivity or a wired connection that can convert a cell phone to a hands - free device ? This may be a distinction without a difference since studies suggest the real driver dis traction is associated not with holding the phone but rather with talking on it . Studies have measured that risk as equal to driving with a blood alcohol level at the legal maximum , and the risk rises substantially if one is texting while driving . For that matter , the infotain ment systems built into many new cars , often allowing access to the internet and social networks , provide even more opportunity for taking one's eyes off of the road while driving.5 The implications of all this new tech nology are not lost on federal and state officials concerned with transportation safety . In December 2011 , the National Transportation Safety Board ( NTSB ) , an independent federal agency , called for a total ban on cell phone use while driv ing ( no calling , texting , or updating ) , citing the risks of distracted driving ; it said that drivers should use cell phones only in an emergency . Its call was simi lar to one issued by the National Safety Council in 2009 , but the decision to ban cell phones was left to the states . Given the accident statistics we review here , would you favor the NTSB's rec ommendation to ban all cell phone use while driving ? What about mandating that cell phone makers and cellular companies develop the technologies to prevent texting while driving ? Should something also be done about other distractions in the car ? In 2005 , Wash ington , D. C. , approved a cell phone re striction that also banned driving while " reading , writing , performing personal grooming , interacting with pets or un secured cargo or while playing video games . " 7 Is that going too far ? Would a public education campaign be prefer able to such restrictions , and would it work ? As drivers and citizens , everyone should ask how policymakers can ul timately reach decisions like these that are effective , fair , and reasonable . This chapter demonstrates that policy ana lysis may be able to help answer these kinds of questions . Chapter 3 elaborated on the policy pro cess model , which is useful for under standing how policy analysis contrib utes to government decision making . Whether in testimony before legisla tive committees , studies and reports on the internet , or articles and reports , policy analysis is usually performed at the policy formulation stage . Here , policymakers search for the proposals they believe hold promise for address ing public problems . But policy analysis is also used throughout the policymak ing process , starting with defining the nature of the problem right through implementing and evaluating policies within administrative agencies . This chapter examines the nature and purposes of policy analysis , including basic steps in the policy analysis pro cess . It also surveys the diverse ways in which analysts and research organiza tions engage in their work . The next two chapters go into greater detail on how we study public problems and seek solu tions to them , using different methods and criteria to evaluate what might be done . No one expects these chap ters to make students instant analysts ; rather , their purpose is to convey the challenge of understanding and solving public problems and the need for clear , critical thinking about public policy , whether the issue is how to reduce text ing while driving , how to lower student loan debt , or how to combat terrorism . Readers should learn what policy ana lysis is all about , how to question the assumptions that analysts make about their work , and how analysis of all kinds is used in support of political arguments and policy actions . We also try to dir ect readers to a variety of information sources about public policy and provide some guidelines for using them . THE NATURE OF POLICY ANALYSIS As discussed in chapter 1 , the term policy analysis covers many different activities . It may mean examining the components of the policymaking pro cess , such as policy formulation and im plementation , or studying substantive public policy issues , such as ensuring access to health care services , or both . Policy analysis usually involves collect ing and interpreting information that clarifies the causes and effects of public problems and the likely consequences of using one policy option or another to address them . Because public prob lems can be understood only through the insights of many disciplines , pol icy analysis draws from the ideas and methods of economics , political sci ence , sociology , psychology , philosophy , and other scientific and technical fields ( J. Anderson 2015 ; Weimer and Vining 2017 ) . Most often , policy analysis refers to the assessment of policy alternatives . Ac cording to one scholar , it is " the system atic investigation of alternative policy options and the assembly and integra tion of the evidence for and against each option " ( Jacob Ukeles , quoted in Patton , Sawicki , and Clark 2016 , 22 ) . Policy ana lysis is intended not to determine policy decisions but rather to inform the pro cess of public deliberation and debate about those decisions . As in the case of cell phone use by drivers , analysis can provide useful information and com parisons to answer the kinds of ques tions people raise about what might be done about the problem . Ultimately , however , the public and its elected offi cials must decide what course of action to take . Policy analysis , then , is part science and part political judgment . Doing analysis often means bringing scientific know ledge to the political process , or " speak ing truth to power " ( Wildavsky 1979 ) . To put it in a slightly different way , pol icy analysis involves descriptive or em pirical study , which tries to determine the facts of a given situation , as well as a normative or value - based assessment of the options . Policy analysis can never be reduced to a formula for solving pub lic problems , but as we will show , it can bring valuable information to both pol icymakers and the public . In those cases where public involvement in decisions is important , analysis also may enhance the democratic process ( Ingram and Smith 1993 ) . The study of public policy and the con duct of policy analysis are rarely sim ple matters . Public problems are usually complex and multifaceted , and people are bound to disagree over how serious they are , what might be done about them , and the role of government in re lation to the private sector . Some prob lems , such as global climate change or the challenges posed by terrorism , are monumental . Others , such as how best to provide for a high - quality public school system or improve urban trans portation , may be a bit easier to grasp . But they still are not simple . If they were , the course of action would be clear and not very controversial - removing snow from urban streets and collecting household trash , for example . Unfortu nately , dealing with most public prob lems is not so easy . What exactly does policy analysis do ? One of its primary functions is to sat isfy the need for pertinent information and thoughtful , impartial assessments in the policymaking process . This is particularly true when decisions must be made quickly because of impending deadlines or when the issues are pol itically controversial . Essentially , policy analysis involves looking ahead to an ticipate the consequences of decisions . and thinking seriously and critically about them . It is an alternative to " shooting from the hip " or making snap decisions based on ideology , personal experience , or limited or biased assess ment of what should be done . Even though such policy analysis is an intel lectual or professional activity , it takes place within a governmental setting and thus reflects political forces as well ( Dunn 2018 ) . The way the analysis is done and its effects on decision making reflect that basic reality . Policy alternatives for urban services . Cities and states can choose among many policy al ternatives as they try to meet recurring needs such as removing snow from city streets and collect ing household waste . The photo shows heavy equipment clearing the street of snow on the Upper West Side of New York City on January 24 , 2016. The city was hit with more than two feet of snow at that time . Astrid Riecken / Getty Images The role of politics is readily apparent in policy areas such as guaranteeing— or limiting a woman's right to choose an abortion , controlling illegal immi gration , or ensuring that biological evolution is included in public school science curricula . All were subjects of great controversy in Kansas , Pennsylva nia , and other states in the 2000s and 2010s . These issues touch on funda mental questions of values , and people may hold intense views on them . It is no surprise , then , that politics some times trumps policy analysis when de cisions are made on such issues . Yet the political nature of policymaking is also evident in nearly every policy area , from setting foreign policy objectives to re forming the nation's health care system . Policy choices usually reflect some com bination of political preferences and various assessments of the problem and possible solutions to it . Policy analysis can help to clarify the problem , the policy choices available , and how each choice stands up against the differ ent standards of judgment that might be used , such as those we emphasized in chapter 1 : effectiveness , efficiency , and equity . Ultimately , however , pol icymakers and the public must choose what kinds of policies they prefer to have . STEPS IN THE POLICY ANALYSIS PROCESS The most common approach to policy analysis is to picture it as a series of analytical steps or stages , which are the elements in rational problem solving ( Bardach and Patashnik 2016 ; Ma cRae and Whittington 1997 ) . According to models of rational decision making , one defines a problem , indicates the goals and objectives to be sought , con siders a range of alternative solutions , evaluates each of the alternatives to clarify their consequences , and then recommends or chooses the alternative with the greatest potential for solving the problem . This process is analogous to the way most of us make everyday de cisions , although most of the time we do it much more casually . Often , the so - called rational comprehensive approach to analysis and decision making is not possible , and the less demanding incremental decision making is substituted . Still , es sentially the same steps are involved . The only difference is that incremental decision making is more limited than the rational - comprehensive approach in the extent of analysis required ; often it means making modest changes in pol icy or making them gradually . In polit ical settings , incremental decision mak ing is a more realistic approach , given ideological and partisan constraints and the ever - present pressure from interest groups and other constituencies . All can restrict the range of policy options to be taken seriously and the issues likely to be debated ( J. Anderson 2015 ; Lindblom and Woodhouse 1993 ) . Description Figure 4-1 Steps in the Policy Ana lysis Process Figure 4-1 summarizes the major steps in policy analysis and the kinds of ques tions analysts typically pose . It also il lustrates how each stage of analysis might apply to a specific policy problem . Each step is considered briefly here as a summary description of what policy analysis aspires to do . Chapters 5 and 6 examine them in greater detail . Note as well how these steps in the analysis process relate to the stages of the pol icymaking process discussed in chapter 3. Defining and analyzing problems is usually part of the agenda - setting stage of policymaking , and sometimes so is the construction of policy alternatives , especially if some potential alternatives are not considered seriously at all . Usu ally , however , the formal construction of alternatives is part of policy design and hence fits into the policy formu lation stage of policymaking . Develop ment of evaluative criteria also can be part of policy formulation , but it mainly falls into the stage of policy legitima tion or approval . Assessing alternatives similarly can take place during both the formulation and legitimation stages of policymaking as policy actors consider which solutions they prefer and which may succeed politically . The same is true of the last stage of analysis , draw ing conclusions . Analysts and policy makers may draw conclusions about preferred policy alternatives as policy is formulated , debated , and adopted . Since the policymaking process often is highly continuous , these analytic steps also can be found in the implemen tation , evaluation , and policy - change stages of policymaking as current pol icies are assessed critically and alterna tives considered . Define and Analyze the Problem The first step in any policy analysis is to define and analyze the problem . Every one knows what the word problem means , but for policy analysts the term specifically refers to the existence of an unsatisfactory set of conditions for which relief is sought , either through private means or from the government . Analysts therefore need to describe that set of conditions , usually through the collection of facts or data on its mag nitude or extent . For example , who is affected by the problem , and how ser iously ? How long has the situation ex isted , and how might it change over the next several years or decades ? How amenable is it to intervention through one means or another ? The goals and objectives of such intervention , whether private or governmental , may not be clear to all concerned . It may also be necessary to clarify what is meant by the set of conditions , to define it clearly , and to develop accurate measures of it . If the problem is home lessness in the United States , for ex ample , an analyst will need to be clear about what is meant by homelessness , how to determine the extent of it , and which segments of the population are affected by it . Beyond gathering basic information about the problem , analysts want to identify its causes , which is not always an easy task . Without a good idea of how and why the problem came about , however , it is difficult to think usefully about possible solutions to it . This kind of diagnosis of the problem is akin to what a physician does when a patient is ill or what a mechanic does when a car is not running properly . The im portance of the diagnosis is clear if one looks at how policymakers are trying to cope with an issue as imposing as glo bal terrorism . Without an understand ing of the causes of terrorism and they may be both numerous and difficult to deal with - policy actions are unlikely to be effective . To use a more concrete example , one has first to diagnose the reasons for failing public schools before a solution can be sought . Otherwise , there is little reason to believe that some of the proposed solutions ( for example , formation of charter schools , use of school vouchers , or changing the nature of teacher evaluations ) will improve the quality of education . International economic assist ance . Members of the U. S. Army help load supplies at Beira Inter national Airport in Mozambique on April 1 , 2019 , joining the hu manitarian aid efforts following a cyclone that hit the country on March 14. The death toll from the cyclone was over 500 according to a Lusa report , with cholera cases from cyclone survivors jumping to over 270 . AP Photo / Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi A long - standing dispute over inter national development assistance speaks to the importance of careful measures and analysis of public problems . Eco nomic assistance to developing coun tries from twenty - nine donor nations , including the United States , totaled $ 147 billion in 2017 , or about 0.3 per cent of the donor nations ' combined gross national income . The United States contributed about $ 35 billion , more than any other nation . But does spending this much money pro vide what donor nations are hoping to achieve ? Critics say the impact is far less than it should be , and they often call for reduced spending . Yet looking only at the overall statistical portrait misses the real success stories in economic as sistance . Experience suggests that eco nomic aid is most likely to work when it comes in relatively small , well - targeted , and tightly controlled investments ra ther than in large sums delivered to a government that may waste it.10 Construct Policy Alternatives Once analysts believe they understand the problem , they begin to think about alternative ways of dealing with it . The policy typologies introduced in chapter 3 suggest several different approaches , such as regulation , subsidies , taxing and spending , market incentives , and public education or information provi sion . Governments have a finite num ber of act from which to hoose . Based on the available inventory of pos sibilities , analysts could construct a set of policy options for further study and consideration , such as the relative ad vantages of regulation and information disclosure for ensuring that financial markets operate properly and limit the risk of another economic collapse like the one that occurred in 2008 and 2009 . Chapter 5 introduces some useful ways to lay out a range of policy alternatives . Constructing policy alternatives is per haps the most important stage in the policy analysis process . If analysts and policymakers cannot think of creative ways of solving problems , conventional approaches that may no longer be ap propriate will continue to be used . Early in the process , therefore , analysts are called upon to think imaginatively and critically about how the problem might be addressed , both within government and outside it . One approach that has gained increasing acceptance , for ex ample , is privatization , the transfer of public services from government to the private sector . Such private sector so lutions , recommended by many policy analysts and organizations , and some times endorsed by the government , are said to be more appealing , and perhaps more effective , than reliance on a gov ernment agency , although the evidence on that is mixed . Chapter 5 suggests some fruitful ways for students of pub lic policy to think creatively about gen erating policy options of this kind . Choose Evaluative Criteria When the policy alternatives have been identified , the analysis shifts to assess ing their potential . This task calls for deciding on suitable evaluation criteria . As chapter 1 discussed , this text focuses on effectiveness or the likely success of proposals in solving the problem at hand , the economic costs and efficiency of proposals , and the implications for social equity . There are , however , many other appropriate criteria , such as polit ical , administrative , and technical feasi bility ; environmental impacts ; ethical considerations ; and any number of pol itical values , such as personal freedom , against which to assess policy pro posals . These are further explored in chapter 6 and summarized in Figure 6-1 . No matter how long a list of potential evaluative criteria analysts might de velop , some criteria will be more appro priate for a given problem than others . For example , for years the United States has been considering and funding the development of a missile defense sys tem for protection against a ballistic missile attack from a so - called rogue na tion like North Korea or Iran . On what basis should analysts evaluate the pro posal , particularly in relation to other national security needs ? One criterion would have to be technical feasibility . Can the missile defense system , which is based on highly complex computer soft ware and state - of - the - art technology , do what it is supposed to do ? An other would be the costs . The Penta gon spent more than $ 200 billion over four decades , with what critics say are relatively few positive results , and the cost of a fully deployed system would be much higher.11 Is this outlay of tax payer money reasonable in light of the gains to the nation's defense and the risk that the technology might not work as planned ? Do new concerns over the nation's deficits and rising debt make a difference in how we appraise the value of such a program ? How would an ana lyst go about determining the answer for a national missile defense , or for any comparable proposal , such as the Trump administration's desire to build an elaborate wall on the U. S. - Mexico border to deter illegal entry ? ¹2 Plenty of information is available about the missile defense system , but a good deal of it is contradictory , and analysts disagree heatedly about the core issues , such as technical feasibility . Any assess ment of the desirability of creating and funding a system as complex as missile defense would be a demanding under taking . Nevertheless , policymakers and analysts need to ask the questions and try to find answers . For some policy actions - for example , whether and how to regulate or control gun ownership , or whether to permit concealed weapons to be carried in pub lic places the evaluative criteria would likely include political values . Personal rights will be weighed against other needs , such as protecting the public's safety and well - being . As this example indicates , conflicts may arise among cri teria . The U. S. war on terrorism that began after the September 11 attacks raises similar questions : On what basis should policy analysts , citizens , and pol icymakers judge the suitability of policy options , such as military action against terrorist bases , economic development assistance to poor countries , or expand ing offshore oil and gas drilling ? Or the short - term national security implica tions of destroying terrorist operations versus the longer - term need to deal with the root causes of terrorism ? In many policy disputes , much of the bat tle between proponents and opponents of government action is over which cri teria to use as well as which conclusions to draw . Policymakers , analysts , and lobbyists of one stripe or another are likely to bring their ideological biases to these debates , such as a conviction by conservatives and many businesses that government regulation should be minimal and that economic growth is the primary national goal to be sought . Those beliefs tend to frame their selec tion of evaluative criteria and therefore their assessment of the problem and the solutions they are willing to consider . Assess the Alternatives With evaluative criteria at hand and a collection of possible courses of ac tion to take , analysis turns to assessing alternatives . That is , the analysts ask which of the several alternatives that might be considered seriously is most likely to produce the outcome sought -whether it is to reduce the crime rate , improve the plight of the home less , raise educational quality , reform the health care system , or rebuild the nation's infrastructure of highways and bridges . This exercise involves making judgments about how well each policy option fits in relation to the most rele vant criteria . The analysts might rank the options in terms of overall desirabil ity or consider them in terms of each criterion , such as effectiveness , eco nomic cost , and equity . Analysts have many ways to present the alternatives so that policymakers and other interested parties can understand the analysis and the choices they face . For example , if three policy options are offered for consideration , the analyst might present each in terms of its likely effectiveness , economic efficiency , and equity . Trade - offs are inevitable in this kind of decision making . Only rarely does a given policy option rank highest on all of the evaluative criteria . Analysts therefore attach weight to each criter ion . Should governments focus on pro viding access to health care for those without insurance , as President Obama and Congress tried to do with the Affordable Care Act of 2010 ? Or should the sharply rising costs of health care be more of a concern ? What about the mandate in the 2010 law that forced in dividuals to buy health care insurance , since repealed by a Republican Con gress ? Was that reasonable , and was it essential to achieve the other objectives of the health care reform law , as its defenders argued ? As analysts consider more than a few conflicting bases for as sessing policy options , the necessity for weighting criteria increases . Public policies on guns . Regu lation of guns continues to be among the most controversial of public policies even as the public favors additional action . In this photo , attendees view Israel Weapon Industries rifles at the company's booth during the annual meeting of National Rifle Association members in Indian apolis , Indiana , on April 27 , 2019 . Daniel Acker / Bloomberg via Getty Images Draw Conclusions Most studies draw conclusions about what kind of policy action is desirable , and some strongly advocate a position on the issues . Many studies do not rec ommend a single policy action . Rather , the analysts summarize their findings and draw conclusions about the relative merits of competing policy proposals but leave the choice of policy action to policymakers and the public . Whichever approach is taken , all ana lysis is of necessity partial and limited . That is , analysis cannot ever be com plete in the sense of covering every con ceivable question that might be raised . It also cannot be free of limitations , be cause every method or tool that might be used is subject to some constraints . Policy analysts need to develop a robust ability to deal with uncertainty , which comes with the territory . The later chapters consider these chal lenges and how to deal with them . Students will become familiar with the range of methods employed in the prac tice of public policy and how to use the different approaches , and therefore will be better prepared to cope with the challenges . For example , the amount of information available might be so over whelming that finding the desirable course of action seems impossible ; or there may be so little that no one can draw firm conclusions . Analysts may be faced with conflicting studies and inter pretations that start with varying defin itions of the problem and evaluative cri teria that render their conclusions and recommendations difficult to compare and judge . At this stage , we urge students to learn to ask critical questions about the infor mation they collect , especially regard ing its validity . Where did the infor mation come from , and how reliable is the source ? Is there any way to double check the facts and their interpretation ? Do the information and analysis seem on their face to be believable ? Are there any signs of bias that might affect the conclusions that the study offers ? If two or more studies contradict one an other , why is that the case ? Is it because of conflicting political ideologies , differ ences in the preferred policy actions , or disagreement in the way the problem is defined ? Are the authors too selective in deciding what information should be presented and what can be left ou By gathering information from multiple sources and comparing different inter pretations , students might find it eas ier to determine which of the studies is the most credible . Chapter 1 touched mation they collect , especially regard ing its validity . Where did the infor mation come from , and how reliable is the source ? Is there any way to double check the facts and their interpretation ? Do the information and analysis seem on their face to be believable ? Are there any signs of bias that might affect the conclusions that the study offers ? If two or more studies contradict one an other , why is that the case ? Is it because of conflicting political ideologies , differ ences in the preferred policy actions , or disagreement in the way the problem is defined ? Are the authors too selective in deciding what information should be presented and what can be left ou By gathering information from multiple sources and comparing different inter pretations , students might find it eas ier to determine which of the studies is the most credible . Chapter 1 touched briefly on the need to develop these crit ical skills in appraising public policy in formation and studies , and the point is stressed throughout the book . The best policy studies are those that are also sensitive to political reality . Their authors have made a special effort to understand the information needs of decision makers and the public , whether at the local , state , or national level . A common complaint within pol icy studies is that much analysis goes unread and unused either because it does not address the questions that de cision makers think are important or because it is not communicated effect ively to them so they can consider it . Analysis that is designed from the start to address these kinds of questions is far more likely to have an impact on the policy process ( Bardach and Patash nik 2016 ; Lindblom and Cohen 1979 ; C. Weiss 1978 ) . TYPES OF POLICY ANALYSIS No matter what kind of public problem needs a solution , from airline safety and urban transportation to persistent pov erty or immigration , there is usually no shortage of policy studies that might apply . Some come from government offices themselves , such as the Gov ernment Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service , or from executive agencies and departments such as the Food and Drug Administra tion , the Department of Homeland Se curity , and the Department of Defense . Policy analysis is becoming common at the state level ( Hird 2005 ) and globally , both within government agencies and in the private and nonprofit sectors . A great number of studies , however , come from interest groups and independ ent policy research institutes or think tanks , many of which advocate specific political agendas ( Rich 2004 ) . The abundance of policy studies reflects not only the dramatic rise in the num ber of think tanks since the 1970s but also the even more striking increase in the number of interest groups that seek to shape public opinion on the issues and affect the policy process . This shift in the political environment is most evi dent at the national level , where policy researchers and interest groups pay rapt attention to the debates in Congress and the activities of administrative agen cies . Even at state and local levels of government , particularly in the larger states and cities , policy studies and ad vocacy are common , especially as na tional groups such as the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council ( ALEC ) seek to influence policymaking in the states . The leading think tanks , such as the Brookings Institution , American Enter prise Institute for Public Policy Re search , Urban Institute , Center for Stra tegic and International Studies , and Heritage Foundation , are well endowed financially and can afford large profes sional staffs . Many receive significant and continuing support from founda tions and industry or from government agencies for whom they conduct re search under contract.13 These research institutes are therefore generally well equipped to distribute their analyses throughout government , the Washing ton policy community , academia , and major media outlets nationwide ( Ricci 1993 ; C. Weiss 1992 ) . We provide a list of websites for think tanks and for other sources of policy studies at the end of the chapter . See the box " Steps to Ana lysis : Think Tank Positions on Policy Issues " for a comparison of the findings of two prominent think tanks , the con servative Heritage Foundation and the liberal Center for American Progress , on gun control . One way to compare think tanks is to understand the kinds of policy stud ies or policy analyses available today , a matter addressed briefly in chapter 1. Policy analyses fall into three broad categories : scientific , professional , and political . All serve valid purposes , but they have varying goals and objectives and use different methods . Figure 4-2 summarizes the distinctions among the three perspectives . Description Figure 4-2 Orientations to Policy Analysis Sources : Drawn in part from Peter House , The Art of Public Policy Analysis ( Beverly Hills , Calif .: SAGE Publications , 1982 ) ; and David L. Weimer and Aidan R. Vining , Policy Analysis : Concepts and Practice , 6th ed . ( New York : Routledge , 2017 ) . Steps to Analysis \ a Think Tank Positions on Policy Issues All think tanks conduct analysis and advocate positions on public policy issues , but some of these groups are committed to political or ideological standpoints that affect their analyses and recommenda tions . Gun control is one issue that think tanks of varying political per suasions have studied over the past several decades . The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown , Connecticut , in Decem ber 2012 and shootings at many other locations such as a night club in Orlando , Florida ; a high school in Parkland , Florida ; a Wal mart in El Paso , Texas ; and a night life district in Dayton , Ohio - since then raise a number of questions related to use of firearms . These include the possible expansion of background checks required for those seeking to purchase a fire arm , a limit on size of the ammu nition clips available , a ban on as sault - style weapons , and additional restrictions on gun purchases by those with diagnosed mental ill ness . What Did the Heritage Foundation Say about Gun Control ? First , we must identify the specific problems to be addressed involv ing school safety , mental illness , the cultural climate , and the mis use of firearms . Second , we must analyze potential solutions to the specific problems identified , examining the facts and taking into account the costs and benefits of the potential solu tions to ensure that sound judg ment governs the emotions in escapably attached to the subject . Finally , Americans must imple ment appropriate solutions in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution , including the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms , the traditional role of the states in our federal system , and the cen tral significance of family . Source : John Malcolm and Jennifer A. Mar shall , " The Newtown Tragedy : Complex Causes Require Thoughtful Analysis and Responses , " January 17 , 2013 , available at www. americanprogress. org/issues/guns crime / report / 2013 / 12 / 13 / 80795 / the gun - debate - 1 - year - after - newtown / . What Did the Center for American Progress Say about Gun Control ? As a policy matter , most research suggests that making it more difficult for dangerous people to acquire guns will have a significant impact in redu cing the more than 30,000 gun deaths that happen every year in America . As a political mat ter , polling conducted before and after Newtown show [ s ] that 80 percent to 90 percent of Americans support expanding background checks , including most gun owners .... All potentially dangerous indi viduals need to be identified as such and prohibited from gun ownership . Many such people are already covered by the federal law - including felons , fugitives , some domestic abusers , and the dangerously mentally ill - but there are additional categories of people who should also be barred from possessing guns , such as vio lent misdemeanants , convicted misdemeanant stalkers , and certain domestic abusers who are not covered by the current law . Source : Arkadi Gerney and Chelsea Parsons , " The Gun Debate 1 Year after Newtown : Assessing Six Key Claims about Gun Background Checks , " December 13 , 2013 , available at www. americanprogress. org/issues/guns crime / report / 2013 / 12 / 13 / 80795 / the gun - debate - 1 - year - after - newtown / . • What conclusions can you draw about how these two policy re search organizations evaluate gun control ? • What are the similarities and differences in their positions ? Scientific Approaches Some individuals , especially academ ics , study public policy for scientific purposes - that is , to build understand ing of public problems and the pol icymaking process . They seek " truth " through scientific methods , regardless of whether the knowledge is relevant or useful in some immediate way . For example , social science studies in the scientific category typically are not in tended to influence public policy dir ectly . Their purpose is , as one author put it , " to deepen , broaden , and extend the policy - maker's capacity for judgment not to provide him with answers " ( Mil likan 1959 , 167 ) . On a substantive issue such as climate change , natural and so cial scientists may be interested mainly in clarifying what we know about cli mate change , its causes , and its probable effects on the environment , the econ omy , and people's well - being , not neces sarily in recommending policy action . Professional Approaches As we have seen in this chapter , others study public policy for professional reasons , such as conducting policy ana lyses for government agencies , think tanks , or interest groups . Many policy analysts , both in and out of govern ment , are committed to producing the best analysis possible , and they adhere to strong professional norms for eco nomic analysis , modeling of complex situations , forecasting future trends , and program evaluation . The compari son of the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institute ( AEI ) in the box " Working with Sources : Com paring Think Tanks " nicely illustrates the kinds of topics addressed by such analysts and how they express their purpose . Even though Brookings and AEI are usually described as left and right of center , respectively , both can be categorized as engaging in professional analysis.14 Working with Sources \ a Comparing Think Tanks Policy research institutes , or think tanks , differ in many ways . Some are large and cover many policy issues , while others are small and highly specialized . Some aim for professional analysis of the issues , and others promote a policy or ideological agenda . Here , we high light two prominent Washington think tanks that are well regarded for their analyses of policy issues . They also reflect different polit ical philosophies : the Brookings In stitution is usually characterized as slightly left of center , and the American Enterprise Institute as right of center . As you read the think tanks ' de scriptions below , pay attention to specific language in their mission statements that points to their pol itical philosophy and to possible bias in their analyses . • Reviewing the topics that each covers , and the way those topics are summarized , can you detect differences between the two or ganizations in what they think is important , and the kinds of policies they will likely favor ? The Brookings Institution Website : www. brookings. edu Founded : 1922 Orientation and mission : Aims to " conduct high - quality , independent research " that leads to " pragmatic and innovative ideas on how to solve problems facing society . " Its " 300 leading experts in government and academia from all over the world ... provide the highest qual ity research , policy recommenda tions , and analysis on a full range of public policy issues . " Sources of funding : Financed largely by an endowment and through support of philanthropic foundations , corporations , and pri vate individuals . Research programs fall into the fol lowing categories : Business and In dustry , Cities and Regions , Defense and Security , Education , Global De velopment , Health Care Policy , In ternational Affairs , Social Issues , U. S. Economy , and U. S. Government and Politics . The American Enterprise Institute Website : www. aei. org Founded : 1938 Orientation and mission : Says that AEI is " committed to making the in tellectual , moral , and practical case for expanding personal freedom , increasing individual opportunity , and strengthening the free enter prise system in America and around the world . Our work explores ideas that can further these goals , and AEI scholars take part in this pur suit with academic freedom . " Also notes that AEI " operates independ ently of any political party and has no institutional positions , " and that its " scholars ' conclusions are driven by rigorous , data - driven research and broad - ranging evidence . " Sources of funding : Supported pri marily by grants and contributions from foundations , corporations , and individuals . Research programs include work in the following areas : Economics , Education , Foreign and Defense Pol icy , Health Care , Politics and Public Opinion , Poverty Studies , and Soci ety and Culture . Sources : Taken from the websites for Brookings and AEI . The statements are summaries of what each describes as its mission and current areas of research . Political Approaches Some analysts may be as rigorous in the methods they use as the professionals , but they are also committed to specific policy values and goals and sometimes to ideological and partisan agendas . As one would expect , they try to empha size the studies and findings that help to advance those values and goals . This kind of policy study can be described as political , rather than professional or sci entific . Analysts who work for interest groups or activist organizations , such as the National Organization for Women , Planned Parenthood , ALEC noted earl ier , or the National Rifle Association , are especially likely to have this orientation . So too are those who work for polit ical parties and ideological groups , such as Americans for Democratic Action , the American Civil Liberties Union , or the American Conservative Union . The two think tanks compared in the pre vious " Steps to Analysis " box ( pp . 125 126 ) , the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress , fit into this category of political policy analysis because of their strong commitments to conservative and liberal policies , re spectively . In today's hyper - partisan en vironment , those working for political or ideological groups may face accus ations that their work can be so biased as to lose value . Even scholars at the top think tanks often blur the line be tween professional analysis and advo cacy , contributing to what many today see as potentially biased analysis . WHAT KIND OF ANALYSIS IS NEEDED ? No matter what policy area is involved , there is never a single correct way to conduct a policy study or one set of methods or tools to use . The next two chapters have more to say about ap propriate methods and tools , but here it is worth emphasizing that regard less of whether the policy research falls into the scientific , professional , or pol itical category , analysts face important choices about the kind of assessment needed for a given study and what ap proaches to use . Deal with Root Causes or Make Pragmatic Adjustments ? One of the basic questions that all analysts must answer is whether they should focus on the root causes of pub lic problems or examine policy actions that might ameliorate a pressing prob lem but do nothing about its underlying causes . Political scientist James Q. Wil son argued for the latter view in his influential book Thinking about Crime ( 1977 , 55-59 ) . The " ultimate causes cannot be the object of policy efforts , " he said , because they cannot be changed . As he explained , criminologists , for ex ample , know that men commit more crimes than women , and younger men more than older ones . It is a scientific ally correct observation , Wilson said , but not very useful for policymakers concerned about reducing the crime rate . Why not ? The answer is that soci ety can do nothing to change the facts . So rather than address the root causes of crime , he suggested that policymakers concentrate on what governments can do to reduce the crime rate , or deal with what some call the proximate causes , or immediate causes , of the problem : What is the condition one wants to bring into being , what measure do we have that will tell us when that condition exists , and what policy tools does a government ( in our case , a democratic and libertarian government ) possess that might , when applied , produce at reason able cost a desired alteration in the present condition or progress to ward the desired condition ? ( 59 ) In contrast , the distinguished scholar Charles E. Lindblom ( 1972 , 1 ) wrote that the kind of policy analysis illus trated by Wilson's statement can be come a " conservative and superficial kind of social science " that fails to ask fundamental questions about the social and economic structures of society . It considers , according to Lindblom , " only those ways of dealing with policy that are close cousins of existing practices , " and therefore reinforces a prevailing tendency to maintain current policies and practices even when they may be unsuccessful in addressing the prob lem . Analysts who favor Lindblom's perspec tive would examine the fundamental or root causes as well as the prox imate causes of public problems . These analysts would not dismiss as fruitless idealism the possibility of taking action on the root causes of problems in some circumstances . For example , the George W. Bush White House announced in July 2005 that the president's energy bill , then nearing approval in Con gress , would help to address " the root causes of high energy prices , " chiefly by expanding domestic production of energy . 15 Critics of the controversial en ergy bill were just as quick to suggest that the root cause most in need of at tention was the nation's increasing ap petite for energy , and that intensive pro grams fostering energy conservation and efficient energy use were needed more than an increase in supply . Both sides were correct in emphasizing the need to address not just the high price of energy in 2005 but the underlying causes of the problem . There are similar disputes today over how best to address legal and illegal immigration into the United States , the opiate epidemic in some cities and states , and the afford able housing crisis in cities with excep tionally high costs of living . We should note that even an incre mental adjustment in policy that does not look seriously at root causes of the problems nevertheless can make a big difference . Consider the imposition of a national minimum drinking age of twenty - one that was intended to com bat the high percentage of automobile accidents attributable to alcohol , espe cially among younger drivers . In 1984 , the federal government decided to deny a percentage of federal highway funds to states that refused to comply with the minimum drinking age require ment . An assessment of the policy's re sults in Wisconsin showed that it had " immediate and conclusive effects on the number of teenagers involved in alcohol - related crashes . " Accident rates declined by 26 percent for eighteen year - olds and 19 percent for nineteen and twenty - year - olds ( Figlio 1995 , 563 ) . High - profile measures . A worker directs traffic to slow down during road construction in Baltimore , Maryland , on February 3 , 2015 . Despite much talk in recent years about the urgent need to address infrastructure needs in the coun try , such as road repair , the two major parties remain deeply div ided over how much to spend and how to pay for it . Hassan Sarbakhshian / Bloomberg via Getty Images Comprehensive Analysis or Short - Term Policy Relevance ? Should analysts use the most compre hensive and rigorous approaches avail able to ensure the credibility of their results , even though doing so may take longer and cost more ? Or should they aim for a less comprehensive and less rigorous study that might provide per tinent results faster and cheaper , even at some risk of the credibility of the results ? The answer depends on the na ture of the problem under consider ation . The most complex , controversial , and costly policy choices might require the most comprehensive analysis , while more limited studies might suffice in other situations . Academic scientists ( social and natural ) tend to favor rigorous , comprehensive studies . They place a high value on methodological precision because they believe that only demanding scientific investigations produce knowledge that inspires confidence . Much the same is true for medical and pharmaceutical research where only the most compre hensive and rigorous scientific studies are considered to be trustworthy . Some times , however , a study can take so long to complete that it has less impact on policy decisions than it might have had if the results were known earlier . For example , in the 1980s , the federal gov ernment sponsored a decadelong study of the causes and consequences of acid rain , at a very high cost of $ 500 mil lion . Although widely viewed as first rate scientific research , the study also was faulted for failing to address some critical topics in time to influence deci sion makers . By most accounts , it had less influence than it should have had on the adoption of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 , the first national effort to deal seriously with acid rain ( Russell 1993 ) . Professional policy analysts are often distinguished from social science re searchers in part because of the ana lysts ' interest in applied policy research . The professionals are far more likely to aim their research at policymakers and other policy actors as evident in the brief descriptions of Brookings and AEI provided in the " Working with Sources " box . Analysts associated with advocacy or ganizations in the " political " category shown in Figure 4-2 are the most likely to emphasize short - term policy rele vance . They also typically bring a strong commitment to the values embodied in the organization . It is not surpris ing that the studies and reports by the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Sierra Club are unabashedly pro - en vironment , while those by the National Rifle Association and the Nuclear En ergy Institute support gun ownership and nuclear power , respectively . Such policy advocacy does not necessarily mean that the studies are invalid ; many may be just as well done and valuable as those released by ostensibly more ob jective research institutes . One assess ment of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities , for example , described its analyses as " academically rigorous " yet clearly " intended to influence law makers , aides , lobbyists , and journal ists . " The center had become , the author noted , " a powerful source of knowledge that helps out - of - power Democrats counter White House experts at the Office of Management and Budget . " 16 Because of these kinds of political com mitments , however , reports from ad vocacy organizations warrant a critical reading to detect any possible bias ( Rich 2004 ) . Consensual or Contentious Analysis ? Should analysts adhere closely to con sensual norms and mainstream public values , or should they challenge them and propose new values or new ways of thinking about the problem under consideration ? Political theorist Martin Rein ( 1976 ) argued for what he called a value - critical approach to policy re search , urging analysts to be skeptical of and distrust orthodoxy . He advocated approaches to policy study that made the analyst a " moral critic " who ques tions the value and belief assumptions behind policy research . He suggested three ways to engage in such research , with increasing degrees of critical in quiry : using consensual or mainstream approaches , using contentious or value critical approaches , and the most rad ical — using paradigm - challenging ap proaches . Most contemporary policy analyses fall into the first category , a much smaller number into the second , and a negli gible number into the third . Yet one could argue that many public policies today are very much in need of bold new thinking and radical challenges , much as Rein suggested in the mid - 1970s . Consider the case of health care policy , the subject of chapter 8. With sharply rising costs and widespread dissatis faction with access to and delivery of health care services today , some ana lysts and policymakers are beginning to suggest the need for radical change that goes beyond the Affordable Care Act of 2010 , such as the calls by progressives within the Democratic Party for " Medi care for all " to start a new conversation on health care policy . Much the same is true as analysts and decision makers . around the country confront the vari ous federal and state entitlement pro grams - from Social Security and Medi care to Medicaid and public employee pension systems and seek innovative and sometimes radical solutions to deal with dire forecasts of rising costs . Reliance on Rational Analysis or Democratic Politics ? Policy analysts are trained to engage in the rational assessment of public problems and their solutions , and they often use economic analysis and other quantitative methods to find the most logical , efficient , and ( they hope ) effect ive ways to deal with public problems . But should analysts also try to foster democratic political processes , such as citizen invo lvement ( d eLeon 1997 ; Gormley 1987 ; Jenkins - Smith 1990 ) ? As noted , some advocates of policy analysis believe that public problems and policy choices are so complex that technical scientific analysis is essential to reach a defensible decision . These views some times conflict with the expectation that the public and elected officials are ul timately responsible for choosing the policy direction for the nation . In short , as citizens , we value rigorous analysis , but we also expect democracy to prevail unless there is some good reason ( for ex ample , national security ) to limit public involvement . Consider the case of nuclear waste dis posal in terms of this dilemma . Fed eral government analysts and most of those working for the nuclear indus try and technical consulting companies have relied on complex risk assessment , a form of policy analysis dealing with threats to health and the environment . Nearly all of the studies have con cluded that risks from the radioactive waste to be housed in a disposal fa cility are relatively minor and manage able , even over the thousands of years that the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain , Nevada , was to contain the waste without significant leakage . Crit ics of the government's position , how ever , including the state of Nevada , countered that the scientific questions were far from settled and that the pub lic's concerns about nuclear waste have not been satisfactorily addressed . They called for a decision - making process that allowed for greater citizen involve ment and consultation , no matter how long it would take to build public trust ( Dunlap , Kraft , and Rosa 1993 ; Wald 2002 ) . Proponents of the waste site in turn asserted that the critics merely re flect the common NIMBY ( not in my backyard ) syndrome ; they argue that local opposition to such waste reposi tories and other unwanted facilities is inevitable and cannot be the sole basis for a policy decision . How can this kind of tension between reliance on technical analysis and dem ocracy be resolved ? Does the best solu tion lie in more analysis of these vari ous risks and better management by the federal government and the states ? Or should more weight be given to the public's fears and concerns , and should policymakers turn to a more open and democratic political process for making the necessary choices ? Other Aspects of Policy Analysis The differences among the fundamen tal types of policy research are evident in the great variety of academic journals and other professional outlets , many of which are available on the inter net . Some publications , for example the Journal of Policy Analysis and Manage ment , emphasize the economic aspects of public policy , while others , such as the Policy Studies Journal and the Review of Policy Research , stress institutional and political factors . A few journals , such as Philosophy and Public Affairs , examine the ethical aspects of public policy , and nearly every law journal dis cusses the legal considerations of public policy . We urge students to browse the websites as well as the journals in their campus libraries to see what informa tion is available on different topics . Most think tanks and advocacy organizations ( and most government agencies ) pub lish their studies , either in full or sum marized , on their web pages as well as in journals , books , and reports . The primary focus of this text is sub stantive policy analysis , which aims at answering questions such as what effects school voucher programs have on the quality of education , or whether regulation of cell phone use in cars re duces accident rates . But a great deal of work in the public policy field , es pecially by political scientists , focuses instead on describing how government and policymakers actually behave . Such work tries to address questions such as how Congress makes decisions on de fense policy or agricultural subsidies , and how the White House influences agency regulatory decision making ( J. Anderson 2015 ) . The perspectives and approaches of pol icy analysis apply to institutional issues as well as to substantive policy ques tions ( Gormley 1987 ) . This kind of ana lysis is especially helpful for examin ing proposals for institutional change . For example , institutional policy ana lysis might address a question such as what consequences could result if envir onmental protection policy were to be decentralized to the states ( Rabe 2010 , 2019 ) . Or , in light of controversies over both the 2000 and 2016 presidential elections , and in some states in the 2018 elections , what might be done to ensure that voters have sufficient opportunity to cast their ballots and that the votes are counted accurately ? Or what effects do state " voter ID " laws have on voter turnout and the perceived legitimacy of elections ( see chapter 13 ) ? Ethical issues in the conduct and use of policy studies deal with honesty and scruples . For example , what ethical ob ligations do analysts have to design and conduct their studies in a certain man ner ? To what extent are they influenced by the source of funding , particularly when the funds come from interest groups with a stake in the outcome , such as the tobacco companies that want to learn about the impact of ant ismoking initiatives ? Does the analyst work primarily for the client who pays for the study , or does the analyst have a duty to represent the larger public interest ( Weimer and Vining 2017 ) ? At a minimum , most analysts would agree that they are obliged to be open and transparent about their values and pol icy preferences , their funding sources , the methods they use , the data they col lect , and any critical assumptions they make in the analysis of the data and the conclusions they reach ( J. Bowman and Elliston 1988 ; Tong 1986 ) . Chapter 6 goes further into the criteria , includ ing ethical standards , that can be used to evaluate policy alternatives . CONCLUSIONS The example at the beginning of the chapter on cell phone use and driving shows the challenge of making policy decisions when so many questions can be raised about the problem and the im plications of taking action . Yet most stu dents and practitioners of public policy are convinced that analysis can advance solutions by clarifying the problem , collecting information , and suggesting ways to make decisions . For that reason , this chapter surveys the practice of pol icy analysis and shows how it relates to the policymaking process and to politics in general . The chapter also emphasizes that there are many different types of analysis , and that the one that is used in a given case should reflect the particular challenges that are faced . Today , analysis is ubiquitous , and it en ters policy debate everywhere it occurs . Analysis is conducted in formal think tanks , interest groups , executive agen cies , and legislative committees at all levels of government . Its thoroughness , objectivity , and purpose vary markedly , as one might expect . Students of pub lic policy therefore need to be alert to the strengths and weaknesses of par ticular policy studies and prepared to question everything : the assumptions , the methods , and the conclusions . At the same time , however , students need to explore the many available sources of policy information and to think cre atively about how to become engaged with contemporary policy problems . SSAGE edge for CO Press Sharpen your skills with SAGE Edge at http://edge. sagepub. com/ kraft7e . SAGE Edge for students provides a personalized approach to help you accomplish your course work goals in an easy - to - use learn ing environment .

Key concepts: Policy analysis

•Analysis to dissect problems and solutions • •A systematic method for studying: - -Problems, their nature and scope - -Proposals, policy alternatives, andpossible actions - -Policy consequences • •Good policy analysis leads to better policyand more informed debate

How to decide which policy is best?

•Effectiveness •Does the policy take care of the problem? •(e.g., investing in public companies based on private info) •Equity •Is it fair? •Does it impinge too much on our freedoms? •(e.g., higher tax rates for the rich) •Efficiency •How do costs compare to benefits? •(e.g., toughness of air travel safety policy) •Feasibility •Could it be carried out/implemented? •(e.g., absolute firearms control laws)

When sellers have better information

•George Akerlof and "The Market for Lemons": - -Quality is known by one party (seller) and not the other. -Assume 50% chance of getting a lemon. - Good = $20,000 Bad = $10,000 - -Expected value of a used car? -Good is driven out of the market by bad. - -Case of one-day-old cars - •Solution to the problem?

Contexts of public policy (cont.)

•Governing context -Structure of government(e.g., separation of powers) - •Cultural context -Values, beliefs(e.g., individualism vs. collectivism) -Many issues, e.g., same-sex marriages

Market failures (cont.)

● -Incomplete information for consumers to make good decisions •e.g., George Akerlof's "Market for Lemons" - -Not a problem for certain items (e.g., food). - -Can be a problem for complex items that are difficult to understand, e.g., health insurance, college loans, investments, etc. Pharmaceutical industry is a good example of why government regulations are needed. Without regulations, consumers would find it difficult or very costly to find out which medication is safe and effective.

Chapter 3 Powerpoint

Five key theories of public policy •Elite Theory •Group Theory •Institutional Theory Rational Choice Theory Elite Theory •Policies are made/driven by values and preferences of elites. • •Who are these elites? • •Different elites tend to dominate in different policy areas, e.g., scientists, politicians, famous artists, industry leaders, etc. • •Demonstrates that U.S. policy making process may not be as democratic as many believe it to be. The Occupy movement is an international progressive socio-political movement that expresses opposition to social and economic inequality and to the lack of "real democracy" around the world. Group Theory •Power over public policy shared by interest groups: -groups compete to secure own interests, -pluralistic power - no one group dominates the policy process, -bargaining strength determined by resources and human capital. • •Advocacy coalitions & competitive balance -policy subsystems influence the process, -example: labor unions vs. industries. Institutional Theory •Government structure and process determine policymaking: -Institutions, procedures, and rules are the determinants of policy, -If less than 1% of Americans are farmers, how and why did they get government subsidies? • •These structures and rules can empower or obstruct political interests: No such thing as neutral policymaking process

Contexts of public policy

•Social context -Societal changes(e.g., population makeup) - •Economic context -State of the economy(e.g., surplus vs. deficit) - •Political context -Political/ideological issues: •Who is in power? •Liberalism vs. conservatism

Externality problem & solution

•Assume that a factory runoff pollutes a river and kills fish. • •Fisherman livelihood depends on the fish. • •What should the government do? • -Penalizing the factory would sure make the fisherman happy. - -But what if the value of factory output is higher than the value of fish? - •Coase Theorem(after Nobel Prize laureate Ronald Coase)

Why study public policy?

•Improve ability to participate and make choices (collective actions, referendums, public hearings, etc.) • -Increase knowledge of policy issues and process - •Improve ability to influence policy decisions • -More informed arguments and analyses An enormous growth of citizen lobbies over recent decades indicates that many individuals do believe in collective actions. The National Rifle Association is an example of collective action in support of activities that advance the views of its members

Policy analysis is a career field

•Improve your ability to take a position and participate • •Influence policy decisions -If you know how policies get made,you know how to influence that process! -If you stay informed on issues,(and speak up), problems will getaddressed better.

Reasons for government involvement

•Political reasons (e.g., deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s) • •Moral or ethical reasons(e.g., introduction of Medicaid or Medicare insurance in 1960s) • •Economic reasons (market failures) -When private markets are not efficient -When free markets are not capable of finding a solution to public problem

Key Concepts: Politics

•What does the word "politics" mean? • -Exercise of power in society - electoral processes by which citizens select their representatives in each branch of government - -Processes through which public policies are formulated and adopted - -Roles played by elected officials, organized interest groups, public opinion, and political parties - •Examples how politics exerts influence on policymaking? • -Ideological conflicts, e.g., the right to refuse wearing a facemask during COVID-19 pandemic - -What are the main constituencies of major political parties?

Key concepts: Politics

•What does the word "politics" mean? • -Exercise of power in society - electoral processes by which citizens select their representatives in each branch of government - -Processes through which public policies are formulated and adopted - -Roles played by elected officials, organized interest groups, public opinion, and political parties - •Examples how politics exerts influence on policymaking? • -Ideological conflicts, e.g., the right to refuse wearing a facemask during COVID-19 pandemic - -What are the main constituencies of major political parties?