The policy making process is quite unique. There are policies that can remain stable for quite an extended period of time, while other policies can change abruptly and fiercely, but why is this? True, Jones, and Baumgartner (2014) sought out to explain why certain policies remain in period of stasis, while others are punctuated by dramatic changes through their Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. According to True, Jones, and Baumgartner, they stated that, “Punctuated equilibrium theory (PET) seeks to explain simple observation: Political processes are often driven by a logic of stability and incrementalism, but occasionally they produce large-scale departures from the past” (2014, p. 59). This theory suggests that policies are often only changed
…show more content…
The scope of PET theory included why and how political processes, which were generally known to be stable and increase their policies in increments, could occasionally produce large-scale changes from previous policies (True et al., 2010). For most of the theories stated by True et al. (2010), the level of analysis where conclusions drawn or inferred was often a policy “system” or subsystem. Specifically, PET discusses the nature of decision making in political systems but lacks in defining them directly, as in other …show more content…
State Policymaking from 1990 to 2003” was written to examine if tobacco policy making trends had been effected by competitive health coalitions whom were challenging the dominant policy coalition at the time (Givel, 2006). It was argued in the article that tobacco policy monopoly was either destroyed or weakened due to health advocates and government agencies being concerned about the health risks associated with tobacco use. The tobacco industry had tried to campaign through the United States to try and deter the effect of these new coalition groups, continuing to show an ongoing convict between the two groups for power in the states and policy dominance (Givel, 2006). Therefore, the article sought out to examine whether or not tobacco policy monopolies had been maintained or destroyed within the United States due to punctuated changes by the coalition
The scope of PET theory included why and how political processes, which were generally known to be stable and increase their policies in increments, could occasionally produce large-scale changes from previous policies (True et al., 2010). For most of the theories stated by True et al. (2010), the level of analysis where conclusions drawn or inferred was often a policy “system” or subsystem. Specifically, PET discusses the nature of decision making in political systems but lacks in defining them directly, as in other …show more content…
State Policymaking from 1990 to 2003” was written to examine if tobacco policy making trends had been effected by competitive health coalitions whom were challenging the dominant policy coalition at the time (Givel, 2006). It was argued in the article that tobacco policy monopoly was either destroyed or weakened due to health advocates and government agencies being concerned about the health risks associated with tobacco use. The tobacco industry had tried to campaign through the United States to try and deter the effect of these new coalition groups, continuing to show an ongoing convict between the two groups for power in the states and policy dominance (Givel, 2006). Therefore, the article sought out to examine whether or not tobacco policy monopolies had been maintained or destroyed within the United States due to punctuated changes by the coalition