public policy

implementation (& its ideal process)

execution or enforcement by the responsible institutions. ideal process of policy implementation: -specification of program details: how and by which agencies should the program be executed? how should the laws/ programs be interpreted? -allocation of resources: how are the budgets distributed? which units of an organization will be in charge of the execution? -decisions: how will decisions of single cases be carried out?

challenges to bottom up

-fallback- sometimes don't have a long term vision, as they lack skills to see how the policy decision could be followed through -time consuming: compiling information of how everyone feels about a policy, collecting and synthesizing data, not all stakeholders agree on an issue -more costly -ill informed stakeholders (not experts) have too much influence -transparency- government ignoring consultation- government doing consultation bc its whats meant not because they actually consider it -getting the message out to all stakeholder groups is difficult - how do you pick consultants- government hires consultants, and how do you know what their values are and how do you ensure impartiality -communication issues with more agents involved

bottom up

-private decisions (citizens) form coalitions and come up with ideas -trace policies from private decisions up to decision makers -focuses on policy networks -flexibility, teamwork -high motivation -shifting public opinion, something in the media can shift peoples opinions

why do we worry about implementation

1. challenges to democracy: decisions should be made by the elected, however bureaucrats are there to implement, meant to serve impartially however no one is completely impartial. unelected members can influence. not just saying how things should be down they're saying what should be done. bureaucrats decide what should be done- unelected 2. bureaucratic inefficiency- we expect efficiency -goal uncertainty -coordination -organization culture -non measurable of outputs -too much/ too little authority in the wrong place

the incremental method

1. ends and means are intimately intertwined 2. only a few means are considered 3. the few means considered don't stray far from the status quo (incremental, each new policy branches off another) 4. evaluation of means is crude, many consequences are ignored 5. choice among means is determined by agreement among interested parties rather than be an analysis 6. agreement is the only empirical indicator of virtue because values are not usually clear cut or even shared.

attention grabbing techniques/ strategies (3)

1. framing: issues can be framed to -appear technical and relevant only to experts (reduce number of agents involved) -linked to wider societal values to gain emotional support 2. causalities, responsibilities, solutions -issues become problems when there is a solution and we should do something -find someone to blame, someone who is responsible 3. crisis: triggering events -crises act as triggering events, focusing media and government attention to an issue "never waste a good crisis" winston churchill (911 Bush, Pearl Harbour Roosevelt)

according to rational model theorists policy makers can (3)

1. identify a problem 2. search through all possible alternatives for addressing the problem 3. select the most efficient and effective solutions

rational choice model: the rational approach/ decision making steps (6)

1. specify all ends (goals) identify criteria 2. weight the criteria and all the ends 3. examine all possible means and alternatives 4. weight all means and alternatives 5. for each set of means calculate it based on how it could achieve the different ends 6. choose alternative with highest weighted score/ value

3 sorts of rationality at play in deciding how to implement a policy

1. technical rationality: when policy goals are not controversial, or people do not have strong feelings about the policy area, these circumstances enable experts to dominate the discussion 2. political rationality: Superior company lost because there was influence over Quebec to stay in Canada, there was this initiative. 3. bureaucratic rationality: lighten hand of government, motivated to hang onto what they have and increase prestige, budget etc.

lessening the # of alternatives, the policy adopted depends on these factors (3)

1. the feasible set of options. some policies are excluded because of scarcity of resources (economic resources and political support resources) 2. allocation of competencies (assignments of skills) between different actors plays a critical role in decision making 3. role of scientific policy advice. recent the role of think tanks has increased.

policy monopolies & agenda setting

agenda setting occurs when policy monopolies become increasingly contested and previously disinterested or non-active actors switch

advocacy coalition network

always working in the background, always have the same goal, takes years to turn decisions into outcomes. founded on a shared belief. focuses on the importance of a belief system: 1. deep core beliefs: underlying philosophy, where they fall on left/ right spectrum. whether they think people are inherently good or evil. security vs. freedom. resistant to external influence. 2. policy beliefs: fundamental policy issues, broader scale. distribution of power between federal and provincial governments, not very susceptible to change. can be changed overtime 1 policy cycle- 10 years 3. secondary beliefs: most susceptible to change, fundings, delivering and implementation of policy goals ex. Idle No more. MADD. Green Peace. PETA

heuristic

any approach to problem solving that employs practical method not guaranteed to be perfect but sufficient for immediate goals. not always realistic, best way to study public policy

Smith and Sabatier ACN

contains people from a variety of positions (elected and agency officials, interest groups, leaders, researchers) who share a particular belief system- set of values, causal assumptions and problem perceptions, coordinated activity over time everyone that is interested in one particular policy issue the deeper the connection the deeper the coalition

policy formulation & decision making

definition of objectives which should be achieved, and the consideration of different action alternatives. information gathering and processing (analysis) and conflict resolution between public and private actors and government departments (interaction).

evaluation/ termination vague

did we achieve our goals? to terminate a policy loos bad, therefore not usually terminate and the government just has tons of public policy ideas. verify whether implementation actually works and if they were in line with the goals, evaluation is set out mainly by government, unfortunately it is often skipped.

disproportionate attention

government will ignore issues or pay them an unusual amount of attention, there is no in-between, lack of attention to most issues explains why most policies don't change, when they get an insane amount of attention they change

agenda setting vague

how does an issue get noticed? study of power. things don't become problems until we recognize them. competing interests and values. defining a problem strongly influences agenda setting. people fight over competing problems and try to make priority, power struggle over what problem needs priority in getting government help. once people care the government must act in order to stay relevant.

implementation in the rational model (3 steps)

implementation happens towards the end 1. instrument choice (elected officials) 2. communication (elected officials) policy cycle assumes communication happens perfectly. between the top of an organization and what happens at the bottom there is a lot of room from communication error. goals established can be very vague, unambiguous language. general goal vs. operational goal 3. program delivery (bureaucrats) complexity of joint action: lots of different people and organizations, many decisions and agreements need to be made before 1 outcome is produced. thesis- number of decisions become greater= lower chance of success

evaluation

intended outcomes of policies move into the centre of attention. intended results & unintended consequences. scientific studies, government reports, public debates. issues: assessment of policy outputs and outcomes is biased by position, interest and values. flawed definition of policy aims and objectives present obstacles. strong incentive of blame avoidance governments avoid precise definition. if the policy is successful it will be reinforced- forms pilot projects if it was unsuccessful unlikely to be terminated and therefore leads to the growth of a "jurassic park of programs"

inside initiation

interest groups have direct access to government agencies and are capable of putting topics on the agenda without even recognition of the public

models vs. theories

models: simplified representation of a process gives a heuristic: mental shortcut. the policy cycle is a heuristic. theories: real life process and pulling out essentials seeing how they relate to one another

assumptions being made with rational choice theory

no time or cost constraints, maximum utility, full cognitive ability

policy monopoly example

post war US nuclear power - there was a period of public attention to the issue, government wanted the public to think of nuclear power as a positive option -this created a positive image, and a policy monopoly because people saw it as a benefit -policy details were left to the government - this monopoly was challenged when there were questions about safety (three mile island accident) this broke the policy monopoly -the way in which the issue was framed changed and there was a negative view of nuclear power for decades and it is is only now starting to change.

policy monopoly

predominant way of how a policy is viewed, then there are smaller views. need to break the monopoly because they limit solutions

agenda setting

problem recognition and issue selection. PR: requires a problem be defined and in need of state intervention IS: problem is actually put on the formal political agenda for serious consideration of public action

public policy issue

public policy + social conditions + conflicting players

Harold Lasswell

public policy as a science and rational, came up with the cycle although the names for the steps have changed

outside- initiation problem

social actors force government to place an issue on the systemic agenda by gaining public support

policy instruments

techniques or means through which actors attempt to attain their goals

who implements

the canadian public services implement most policies ministers are responsible for their department deputy ministers are not elected; they are the chief public servants for their area, they are appointed how: regulation, laws, subsidies, educated: considered the soft method, doing nothing, taxation, grants

implementation analysis - top down

top down: - trace policies from elected officials down to bureaucrats who implement decisions -focuses on central guidance -characteristic of top down is goals are determined really early by elected officials, and they are pretty inflexible, set and then people need to go out and do them, people feel they are unimportant, lack of motivation in a top down as feel that input is not valued, management decides, your job is to go do it

policy implementation

transferring goals of a policy into results. assume implementation is technical and non political. chiefly the task of bureaucrats policies (broad statement of goals that may assume 2 forms: operational and general) vs. programs (the measures taken to achieve these goals, to implement these policies)

implementation vague

what are the practical considerations? transform goals from beginning into actual results. problem: goals can be vague, does the implementation meet the actual intention of the decision makers? number of things that can affect it: type and complexity of the problem, size of groups targeted by policy, human and financial resources

policy formulation & decision making vague

what should we do? establish goals. whats most cost effective? seldom do we make rational decisions, setting goals, cost, estimating solutions. choosing from a list of solutions and selecting policy instruments.