Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
43 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
First Stage of Public Policy: Agenda Setting
|
Agenda Setting: Defining a problem, getting it on the table, demands that need acting on
two types: Systemic, Institutional Those conditions affecting a substantial number of people and having broad effects, including consequences for those not directly involved Must be defined as problems, articulated and brought to public attention |
|
|
Components of Public Policy Problems
|
Causation: what causes the condition?
Might be obvious, might not be We argue over this. Scope: how broad is it? May be tough to answer if, for example, measurement is a problem People may be affected who don’t know they are We argue over this. Tractability: How amenable is it to a policy solution? Some problems (e.g., tangible ones) may be easier to tackle than others (e.g., intangible ones) We argue over this. Complexity: Is it very technical? Does it have a set of agreed-upon goals? Is there a great deal of uncertainty? We argue over this |
|
|
Condorcets Paradox
|
Collective preferences, voting is cyclical majority. Agenda Setter determines the outcome
|
|
|
Who Sets the Agenda?
|
Pluralism
Relatively open marketplace of ideas Everyone has an opportunity to influence Meritocracy Elitism There’s a power elite that makes most decisions, tends to win in politics Who would these groups be? What are the implications? State-centric Government sets agenda Bureaucrats are “elites” because they have superior information Supporting roles for legislators, interest groups |
|
|
The Garbage Can Model
|
“a collection of…
choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work.” In their model, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities flow in and out of a garbage can, and which problems get attached to solutions is largely due to random chance |
|
|
4 Streams of Organization: Kingdon, 3 main
|
Problems: May be “triggered,” but may also result from the need to apply a solution
Solutions: Have a life of their own—may be in response to problems but may seek the problem out Choice Opportunities: Sometimes organizations have to make decisions for reasons unrelated to the decision itself (e.g., photo ops) Participants: Come and go, and may carry around pet problems and solutions Problems, Solutions, Politics When these streams converge, they create a policy window Stream convergence is called coupling Coupling is done by policy entrepreneurs |
|
|
3 Main streams: Problems, Solutions, Politics
|
The Problems Stream
All of the conditions that policymakers and citizens want addressed Policy makers find out about these conditions via Indicators: Benchmarks (e.g., infant mortality rates) Focusing events (e.g., a labor strike) Feedback: learning from other implementations The Solutions Stream A “soup” of ideas competing to win acceptance Generated by policy specialists Many ideas floating around at once The Politics Stream At least three elements National mood: Government officials monitor what the public thinks through polls or via feedback from interest groups When the public supports an idea, public officials are more likely to put it on the agenda Pressure group campaigns: If many pressure groups support an idea, policymakers are more likely to act |
|
|
Policy Window
|
A policy window is a fleeting moment when advocates of proposals can successfully push their pet solutions or draw attention to their specific problems
Created when the three streams are coupled at a distinct moment in time |
|
|
2nd stage Pub Policy: Formulation
|
The development of mechanisms for solving the policy problem identified in the agenda setting stage
Big for beuracracy |
|
|
Who FORMULATES policy
|
Think tanks (ideological, non-ideological, universities)
Interest groups Members of Congress and their staffs Executive branch Judicial branch |
|
|
First Stage of Public Policy: Agenda Setting
|
Agenda Setting: Defining a problem, getting it on the table, demands that need acting on
two types: Systemic, Institutional Those conditions affecting a substantial number of people and having broad effects, including consequences for those not directly involved Must be defined as problems, articulated and brought to public attention |
|
|
Components of Public Policy Problems
|
Causation: what causes the condition?
Might be obvious, might not be We argue over this. Scope: how broad is it? May be tough to answer if, for example, measurement is a problem People may be affected who don’t know they are We argue over this. Tractability: How amenable is it to a policy solution? Some problems (e.g., tangible ones) may be easier to tackle than others (e.g., intangible ones) We argue over this. Complexity: Is it very technical? Does it have a set of agreed-upon goals? Is there a great deal of uncertainty? We argue over this |
|
|
Condorcets Paradox
|
Collective preferences, voting is cyclical majority. Agenda Setter determines the outcome
|
|
|
Who Sets the Agenda?
|
Pluralism
Relatively open marketplace of ideas Everyone has an opportunity to influence Meritocracy Elitism There’s a power elite that makes most decisions, tends to win in politics Who would these groups be? What are the implications? State-centric Government sets agenda Bureaucrats are “elites” because they have superior information Supporting roles for legislators, interest groups |
|
|
The Garbage Can Model
|
“a collection of…
choices looking for problems, issues and feelings looking for decision situations in which they might be aired, solutions looking for issues to which they might be the answer, and decision makers looking for work.” In their model, problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities flow in and out of a garbage can, and which problems get attached to solutions is largely due to random chance |
|
|
4 Streams of Organization: Kingdon, 3 main
|
Problems: May be “triggered,” but may also result from the need to apply a solution
Solutions: Have a life of their own—may be in response to problems but may seek the problem out Choice Opportunities: Sometimes organizations have to make decisions for reasons unrelated to the decision itself (e.g., photo ops) Participants: Come and go, and may carry around pet problems and solutions Problems, Solutions, Politics When these streams converge, they create a policy window Stream convergence is called coupling Coupling is done by policy entrepreneurs |
|
|
3 Main streams: Problems, Solutions, Politics
|
The Problems Stream
All of the conditions that policymakers and citizens want addressed Policy makers find out about these conditions via Indicators: Benchmarks (e.g., infant mortality rates) Focusing events (e.g., a labor strike) Feedback: learning from other implementations The Solutions Stream A “soup” of ideas competing to win acceptance Generated by policy specialists Many ideas floating around at once The Politics Stream At least three elements National mood: Government officials monitor what the public thinks through polls or via feedback from interest groups When the public supports an idea, public officials are more likely to put it on the agenda Pressure group campaigns: If many pressure groups support an idea, policymakers are more likely to act |
|
|
Policy Window
|
A policy window is a fleeting moment when advocates of proposals can successfully push their pet solutions or draw attention to their specific problems
Created when the three streams are coupled at a distinct moment in time |
|
|
2nd stage Pub Policy: Formulation
|
The development of mechanisms for solving the policy problem identified in the agenda setting stage
Big for beuracracy |
|
|
Who FORMULATES policy
|
Think tanks (ideological, non-ideological, universities)
Interest groups Members of Congress and their staffs Executive branch Judicial branch |
|
|
"Legitimacy": How to they get legitmated
|
: “a belief on the part of citizens that the current government represents a proper form of government and a willingness on their part to accept the government’s decrees as legal and authoritative”.
Voting “Majoritarian” decisions Can be popular (referendums, bonds) or elite (Congress, state assembly) Administrative regulations Formal Informal Negotiated Judicial decisions |
|
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka:
|
Legitmated by Plessy vs Ferguson, Seperate but equal
Supreme Court, violated equal protection clause |
|
|
Step 3: Implementation
|
Features of administrative/bureaucratic policymaking
Hierarchical Disconnects between upper and lower levels, political appointees and civil servants Low visibility Many standard operating procedures (SOPs; learned responses to implementation problems) – helpful in many situations, frustrating (or disastrous) in others Administrators are strategic political actors Decisions characterized by bargaining and compromise within the organization, with outside interests, and with other agencies |
|
|
Top Down Implementation:
|
Policies have clear goals at the “top,” then an implementation chain links those goals to outcomes
Policy implementation success is a function of capacity (resources, knowledge, legal authority, etc.) and commitment of implementers Better implementation = overcoming capacity and commitment obstacles |
|
|
Bottom up Implementation
|
Bottom-Up: To understand policy implementation, start with the lowest-level implementers and “map backwards” through the policy chain
Policy goals are ambiguous Legislative language deliberately vague Adopted policies full of compromises Implementers have own goals and norms “Policy” continues to be made throughout implementation—continuation of conflict and compromise |
|
|
Why street level Beaurocracy important?
|
Why is the bureaucracy an important unit of analysis in the policy process?
Big policymaking power Large numbers of workers Huge amount of public funding goes TO them and THROUGH them Important at local, state and national level Bureaucrats in the public service sector are most people’s main (or only) contact with government Bureaucrats responsible for translating policy into action and thus can be a place where stated and implemented policy diverge The interaction between workers at the lower levels of the bureaucratic hierarchy and the public is: Where policy translates into action Personal (street-level bureaucrats focus of citizens’ reactions to policy) A key part of the policy process because of the discretion and relative autonomy these workers exercise in policy implementation |
|
|
representative beurocracy
|
This evidence gives rise to the idea of the representative bureaucracy, that is, the idea that democratic principles are better served when bureaucracies reflect the demographic composition of the populations they serve
|
|
|
Policy Process: Budgeting STEPS*
|
• 18 months
• Originates in the house, overseen by congressional budget agency • Step 1: Figuring out how much money is available o C.E.A = forecasting future economic conditions • Step 2: Agency defense process o OMB • Reconciliation: House and Senate each pass individual process by jan 15, Sub committees have power to allocate money • Sub committees o More time and expertise to specialize • Impounding not a presidential choice • GAO, responsibility to audit spending across government Deficit |
|
|
Incrementalism
|
Rationality principle: people make “optimal” decisions given a range of possible choices by maximizing utility subject to a budget constraint
Presumes the people can: Identify a range of choices Accurately calculate costs and benefits based on utility functions Make comparisons among choices based on those calculated costs and benefits Choose the best alternative Lindblom calls this the “rational-comprehensive” or “roots” method of decision-making |
|
|
Bounded Rationality
|
It means that for most problems, a decision-maker can’t:
Lay out all the alternatives Assess the costs and benefits of each one Including implications for satisfying the values of every relevant stakeholder Make a comparison among them Choose the best alternative |
|
|
Bounded Rationale: Satisficing
|
Satisfy vs Sacrifice
|
|
|
What would Lindblom say are the implications of bounded rationality for public managers?
|
Managers “muddle through” (the “branch” method) complex policy decisions
Successive limited comparisons Another way to say this: local search They don’t have the time or resources to consider all policy alternatives, so they limit themselves to local comparisons to the status quo (a much simpler problem) |
|
|
Punctuated Equilibrium
|
Punctuated equilibrium: small changes in most time periods (stability, equilibrium) punctuated by rare but big changes
|
|
|
Parrallel vs Serial
|
Basic idea is that governmental decision-making is usually characterized by parallel processing: multiple subsystems processing multiple issues simultaneously
Big resource advantages to handling “day-to-day” operations in parallel, “closed” system But sometimes there is a shift to serial processing: sequential processing of issues by macro-political institutions Crises, focusing events The switch to serial processing can result in big changes, or punctuations |
|
|
Pub Step: Evaluation, 3 Steps
|
1993: Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires agencies to set goals, measure results and report progress
Strategic plans every 5 years with mission statement and goals covering major functions Annual performance plans each fiscal year with measurable performance goals Reported annually through OMB for President’s annual budget request from Congress Evaluation often built into legislation A. La Head Start 1: Goals 2: Targets 3: Measurement |
|
|
3 Steps of Evaluation
|
Step 1: What are the Goals
• Lower unemployement • Lower crime rates • Lowering poverty • Reduce Achievement Entry Gap • “ “ long term gap • decrease delinquency • improve socio emotional outcomes • Goals both stated and unstated Step 2: Targets of Policy • Intended reciepients • Impoverished families • Society • Low income kids • Low income parents • Both primary and secondary targets, can also change over time Step 3: How will you measure whether policy goals are attained • Two kinds of measures o Outputs: Counting up what policy does: how many teachers, cost, etc o Outcomes: measuring actual impracts • Unintended consequences o Outputs easier to measure, outcomes harder to measure • Gov. Workers have primary interest in measuring outputs only |
|
|
Pub Policy Strategies: Social Construction
|
the cultural characterizations or popular images of the persons or groups whose behavior and well-being are affected by public policy.”
Collectively, we attach language, stories, metaphors and symbols to groups to define them …and, by extension, to shape the public policies that pertain to those groups These images are normative and evaluative Main idea: Collectively, we attach language, stories, metaphors and symbols to groups to define them …and, by extension, to shape the public policies that pertain to those groups These images are both normative and evaluative |
|
|
4 Targeted Populations
Why does social construction matter for public policy |
Advantaged
Contenders Dependents Deviants Strong pressures on policymakers to implement policies that benefit positively constructed groups AND To implement policies that punish negatively constructed groups |
|
|
Strategies: Interest Groups
|
An organized association that promotes or seeks advantages for its cause—particularly by seeking favorable policy decisions from government
What do interest groups do? Lobby Advocate Mobilize membership Raise funds Participate in policy networks |
|
|
Interest Group Network
|
Interest groups
Bureaucrats Legislators Experts Non-profits Advocates |
|
|
Advocacy Coalition Framework
|
Rests on five principles:
Scientific and technical information important Long time horizon (10+ years) needed to understand policy change Policy subsystem is the primary unit of analysis Policy subsystem is “iron triangle” actors + consultants, scientists, media, state/local gov’t Policies and programs can be understood as translations of beliefs |
|
|
Coalitions
|
Coalitions are groups that have similar beliefs about a policy
Deep core beliefs: views about role of government, views about human nature Policy core beliefs: Beliefs about policies and their outcomes (basis for forming coalitions) Secondary beliefs: Narrower, empirically-based beliefs that can be changed by new information and learning |
|
|
Lobbying: 3 classes of political strategies
|
Representation strategies
“Taking it to the voters” Elected representatives like to continue being elected Different policy alternatives have different consequences for constituents, so there is a natural connection between elected officeholders and the public that groups can exploit by getting their voters to the polls Majority-building strategies Focus on developing the needed votes in a legislature to enact or defeat a bill In Congress, sometimes you need half the votes, sometimes two-thirds and sometimes only 40% Informational strategies Focus on providing to government officeholders information about consequences Interest groups often have superior information about policy outcomes and their alternatives In political science, the strategic provision of politically relevant information to government officeholders goes by what term? Lobbying Organizations lobby |
