The main reason governments address public problems through policy approaches is Quizlet

Regulate: licensing, inspection, enforcement of standards, application of sanctions (ex. environmental, health and workplace safety regulations)

subsidize: loans, direct payments or benefits, tax credits, price supports (ex. student loans)

ration: limit access to scarce resources (ex. permits for backpacking in national parks)

tax and spend: contract for government services from the private sector or buy products for government agencies (ex. imposing cigarette taxes to discourage smoking; AmeriCorps)

contract out: contract for government services from the private sector or buy products for government agencies (ex. purchase of computers for federal or state governments or public schools)

use market incentives: a special category of taxation or imposition of fees that creates incentives to change behavior and achieve goals and objectives (ex. tax rebates for purchasing hybrid vehicles)

privatize: transferring public services from government to private sector (ex. privatization of prisons)

charge fees: fees for select services (ex. college tuition)

educate: provide information to the public through formal programs or other actions (ex. formal public meetings)

create public trusts: holding public property in trust for citizens indefinitely (ex. local land conservation trust)

conduct research: conduct or support research and development (ex. NSF support for academic studies)

Policymaking in the U.S. political system is inherently difficult because of the institutional dispersal of power, the multiplicity of policy actors, and the sharp conflicts that often arise over what policy actions to take. Policy analysis can help to resolve the conflicts by

clarifying the issues and bringing reliable information to bear on the decision-making process.

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, institutional theory, rational choice theory, political systems theory, and the policy process model

Each offers a different perspective on the principal determinants of decision making within government and, therefore, on what people might regard as the major forces that shape the direction and content of public policies.

Elite theory

emphasizes how the values and preferences of governing elites, which differ from those of the public at large, affect public policy development.

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, while

another in defense policy, and others in areas as diverse as health care, agriculture, financial regulation, energy, and education.

elite theory demonstrates that the U.S. policymaking process may not be

as democratic as many believe it to be.

The role of different elites is particularly evident in the

subgovernments or issue networks

Group theory/Pluralism

sees public policy as the product of a continuous struggle among organized interest groups

power in the U.S. political system is widely shared among interest groups, each of which seeks access to the policymaking 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 influence 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 political resources, and are inadequately represented in the policymaking process.

A modern variant of interest group theory, the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), focuses

on the "interactions of competing advocacy coalitions," particularly within a policy subsystem such as agriculture, telecommunications, energy, or environmental protection

Each coalition consists of policy actors from different public and private institutions and different levels of government who share a particular set of beliefs about the policies that government should promote.

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.

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 influence.

When specific industries decide to lobby for or against a particular policy,

they often become critical actors in the policymaking process.

Institutional theory

emphasizes the formal and legal aspects of government structure.

Institutional models look at the ways governments are arranged, their legal powers, and their rules for decision making.

A major tenet of institutionalism is that the structures 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.

The term institution can have many meanings. It refers to

"both the organizations and the rules used to structure patterns of interaction within and across organizations"

Many kinds of institutions can influence public policy: markets; individual firms or corporations; national, state, and local governments; voluntary associations such as political parties and interest groups; and foreign political regimes. Analysts use institutional theory 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 system.

...Rules have real consequences for the ways decisions are made, helping some and hurting others. They can make some groups more influential than others and some policy outcomes more likely than others.

Rational choice theory, also called public choice and formal theory,

draws heavily from economics, especially microeconomic theory, and often uses elaborate mathematical modeling.

It assumes that in making decisions, individuals are rational actors; that is, they seek to maximize attainment of their preferences or further their self-interest.

Rational choice theory tries to explain public policy in terms of the actions of

self-interested individual policy actors, whether they are voters, corporate lobbyists, agency officials, or legislators.

It forces people to think about the core motivation of individual political actors and its consequences for the larger political system and for public policy.

When decision makers have different and unequal information

— a condition called information asymmetry

Political systems theory is more comprehensive, 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 environment, such as the public opinion and interest group pressures.

Systems theory emphasizes the larger social, economic, and cultural context in which political decisions and policy choices are made, such as a general preference for limited government or low taxes.

Systems theory is a simple way to portray how governments respond to society's demands on them.

Systems theory is a formal way to think about the interrelationships of institutions and policy actors and the role of the larger environment. It also supplies some useful terms, such as input, demands, support, policy outputs, policy outcomes, and feedback. What are these?

Input into the political system comes from demands and support.

Demands are the claims individuals and groups seek to further their interests and values on the political system.

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 confidence in institutions and leaders.

In this theory, the political system responds to demands and support in the process of policymaking and produces outputs (decisions, law, and policies) 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 element— feedback from these kinds of outputs and outcomes— that can alter the environment and create new demands or support.

The policy process model, is also called the

policy cycle model- used to make clear that the process is cyclical or continuous, rather than a onetime set of actions.

The policy process model posits

a logical sequence of activities affecting the development of public policies.

No policy decision or solution is ever final, why?

Changing conditions, new information, formal evaluations, and shifting opinions often stimulate reconsideration and revision of established policies.

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 policymaking, 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 adjustments to the law in the future.

In many ways, problem definition and agenda setting is the most critical of all. If a problem 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 and determining its causes are not

always simple tasks, and the search for answers usually reflects a number of different perspectives.

...

...

Problem definition may also come with some distinct biases.

How one defines a problem goes a long way toward shaping the solution offered.

In other words, "Where you stand depends on where you sit." A person's perspective and background determine how he or she defines a problem and relates to it.

Making comparisons is part of

Problem definition (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 government taxes, they might conclude that U.S. prices are in fact quite low

The different actors and institutions (formal and informal) reviewed in chapter 2 are almost always deeply involved in

problem definition

By supplying new, and often objective, information on the nature of a problem and its implications, policy analysts can help to

steer political debate toward a rational assessment of the scope of the problem, its causes, and possible solutions.

Defining a problem is not enough; the public and policymakers must recognize it as a problem, and it must

rise high enough on the agenda that action becomes likely.

Because of the competition for agenda space, many problems that government could potentially address

never capture its attention and are neglected.

the term nonissues best distinguishes those problems that fail to gain attention from those that do.

When policymakers begin active discussions 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

There is no official or formal listing of such an agenda; rather, it becomes evident in the subjects that elected officials choose to discuss, the media cover prominently, and interest groups and other policy actors work on at any given time.

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 intersection of

three largely independent sets of activities in what he calls the problem, policy, and political "streams" that flow through society. When the streams converge, they create opportunities to consider certain issues.

Whether they successfully move to the political agenda and are acted on is sometimes in the hands of influential policy entrepreneurs, or leaders who invest much of their time and resources in the issue.

The problem stream refers to

the various bits of information available on the problem, whom it affects, and in what ways.

The policy stream refers to

what might be done about the problem— that is, the possible alternative policies.

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 temporarily and incubated until the climate improves. Those that fit better with the political climate may receive serious attention 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 acceptability.

The political stream refers to

political climate or public mood.

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.

One of the major purposes of policy analysis is to

conduct studies that evaluate the potential of new policy ideas.

Another way to think about why one issue may gain agenda status while another does not is to look to the particular issue's characteristics, especially its

salience and potential for conflict.

Policy formulation is

the development of proposed courses of action to help resolve a public problem.

There are many different actors that are active contributors to policy formulation ex. executive officials, interest groups, legislators.

Policies that are carelessly formulated— for example, by using inadequate data, questionable projections, or unreasonable assumptions

— may fail

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 judicial decision.

Legitimation as a step in the policy process is at once both simple and complex. It is simple when it merely means that a recognized authority considered and approved a policy proposal such as when a bill becomes a law. It is complex when:

The complex view is that legitimation requires more than a majority vote or legal sanction by a recognized authority.

Policy legitimacy or acceptability in this sense flows from several 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.

Policies that are adopted without such legitimation face serious hurdles. They may well fail to command public support, affected interest groups may oppose them or even challenge them in court, and their implementation could be adversely affected.

Implementation is the "set of activities directed toward putting a program into effect." Three activities— are particularly important to successful implementation:

organization, interpretation, and application

Organization is the establishment of resources, offices, and methods for administering a program.

Interpretation means translating the program's language— the plans, directives, and regulatory requirements— typically found in a law or regulation into language that those affected can understand.

Application is the "routine provision of services, payments, or other agreed upon program objectives or instruments"

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 operation of a particular government program.

Executive branch agencies implement most public policies within the United States. The traditional view was that they and their personnel were nonpolitical administrators who simply carried out the will of the legislature by following 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 administrators have in formulating policy and the discretion they have in its implementation. Because of this degree of discretion, agency decisions often reflect the

political philosophy and preferences of the chief executive who appointed the agency's administrators.

All government agencies and programs depend on a continuing supply of money to operate and carry out the various activities of policy implementation. The federal government uses an annual budget process that begins with the president's budget recommendations to Congress and ends with Congress passing appropriations bills, without which, according to the Constitution, no money can be spent.

Ultimately, agency budgets reflect a compromise between what the chief executive wants and what the legislature is willing to give.

Policy evaluation, or program evaluation, is an assessment of whether policies and programs are working well. In particular, analysts look for evidence that a program is

achieving its stated goals and objectives.

Evaluation involves judging a program's success in terms not only of the program's policy outcomes but also of its legitimacy or need, regardless of how well it is working,

Of the many reasons governments engage in policy and program evaluation:

costs may be among the most important.

policy change, which refers to

the modification of policy goals, the means used to achieve them, or both; the change could be minor, moderate, or extensive.

Most often a policy or program undergoes incremental change in an attempt to make it more effective or to meet the objectives of its main constituencies and other policy actors.

Punctuated equilibrium model of policy change

Rather than emerging gradually and enacted in small steps as in the classic incrementalism view of the policy process, this model suggests that we can get dramatic policy change when the conditions are right.

What is thought to be a resolution of a problem through policy adoption at one point is later

evaluated and judged to be unacceptable. Interested parties then advocate changes. Another round of the policy cycle begins as the newly recognized needs reach the political agenda and a different policy is formulated and adopted.

What are instruments of public policy?

This is the role that government might play in addressing public problems, and especially the policy alternatives among which policymakers can choose.

Some instruments (policy tools) may be regulation, government management, education/information/persuasion, taxing and spending, and market mechanisms.

Policymakers consider many questions when deciding which policy instrument to use to address a particular issue or problem.
The most obvious 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.

One of the best-known policy instruments, regulation, encompasses several different kinds of government actions, including

the laws that legislatures enact and the rules that bureaucracies adopt.

Governments use the direct services or direct management of resources as instruments of public policy. Education, defense, public parks, and most municipal services, such as police and fire protection

are examples of policies that governments implement by providing the service directly to citizens.

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 obvious example: the federal government transfers money from people who are working to retirees or others who are covered by the system's rules.

Governments also use tax policy to promote or discourage certain activities. ex. tax on smokers

Governments can take advantage of market mechanisms as a form of public policy. Using the market may be an explicit decision by the government not to intervene in any way but instead to

allow the laws of supply and demand to work.

Governments also actively use market incentives rather than other approaches to achieve policy goals. Such as cap-and-trade programs.

Another policy instrument available to the government is educating citizens while attempting to

persuade them to behave in a certain way.

Providing information to the public can be a powerful policy instrument.

Providing information to the public can be a powerful policy instrument.

Information disclosure as such can be used to inform people on the sources of election campaign funds, the energy efficiency of appliances, the fuel economy of cars and trucks, and the financial activities of corporations, among other policy concerns.

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 information provision approaches?

The goal is to understand the basic differences among policies and the political conditions that lead to one kind of policy rather than another.

According to Lowi, all government functions can be classified into three types:

distributive, redistributive, and regulatory.

Lowi's policy typology provides a simple but helpful way to classify different kinds of government programs and policies. The characteristics associated with each type allow the student of public policy to understand the debate surrounding the issue, why policies may or may not gain approval, how they might be implemented, and the public's acceptance of them.

Distributive policies

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)

also called pork-barrels

Examples include college research grants, weapons procurement, agricultural subsidies, highways and bridges, and other public construction projects.

even in fiscally difficult times, elected officials may continue to support costly distributive policies.

USUALLY THESE ARE CONFLICT FREE because they tend to be visible only to those directly involved

For every redistributive policy, winners and losers are associated with its approval, which makes such policies

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.

ex. affirmative action

Regulatory policy is government restriction of individual choice to keep conduct from transcending acceptable bounds.

This definition covers a wide range of government activities, from protecting consumers to ensuring environmental quality. The range is so broad that some scholars divide regulatory policies into two subcategories:

competitive regulation, is mostly associated with regulating specific industries and their practices, such as computer software and communications companies. ex. licenscing of radio, tv broadcasting

The second, protective or social regulation, protects the general public from activities that occur in the private sector.

What is one main reason public policy changes over time?

What is public policy what is its purpose quizlet?

Which is the best definition of public policy quizlet?

What is the best definition of the public policies of a government?