Policy formulation is “the development of pertinent and acceptable, proposed courses of action for dealing with a public problem” (Anderson, 2011, 4). Policy formulation differs from agenda setting because policy formulation focuses more on the development of finding an effective action plan for what has been addressed in the agenda-setting. As stated,
Policy-makers may be confronted with several competing proposals for dealing with a problem, or they may have to struggle with devising their own alternative. Policy formulation does not always culminate in a law, executive order, or administrative rule. Policy-makers may decide not to take positive action on a problem but instead, leave it alone, to let matters work themselves out. (Anderson,
…show more content…
Each of these are top-down models, meaning elected officials make the policy forcing the bureaucrats or anyone below the elected officials to implement the policy created. Rational Comprehensive Theory is the ideal way the government should work. Rational Comprehensive Theory first tried to identify and define the problem. Next, it tries to list all possible alternatives to the problem. Thirdly, it conducts a comprehensive analysis or the alternatives. Lastly, it is time to choose the best option. Most of the time it is selected because of trial and error. Unfortunately, the government does not have time to do all of this work for every single policy. Remember, public policy is meant to fix the now, not the future. Public policy is trying to fix problems that are currently occurring. Incremental Model tackles the policy formulation in a different way. Incremental recognizes that we do not have the time to gather all the resources. As a society and government, we must “satisfice”, meaning do the best with what you have. Along with “satisfice”, we also “muddling through”. There is no point in telling me the best way to do it because there is simply no time to do that, rather tell me what actions can be taken at this current moment to resolve the situation. The government’s objective is balancing information around while still making the …show more content…
Now it becomes a game of he said, she said. Everyone is going to take the word of the police officer because he has the respect of other members of society and higher ups. Another example would be a police officer not giving a citizen a ticket for going seventy miles per hour at sixty-five miles per hour, even though the law states the speed limit is sixty-five miles per hour. The street-level bureaucrats will have the benefit of the doubt compared to everyone else since they interact with most members of society in a very direct manner compared to everyone else. With the discretion and autonomy of street-level bureaucrats, it gives them an opportunity to bend the rules a little bit creating their own public policy. Bending the rules can either be a beneficial thing for society or something that might bite them back. Street-level bureaucrats incorporate public law into a new law at changing the standard of the law because of their discretion. The current law is not consistent with the law the police officer says, but now a new public law has been
Public policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommended course of action or inaction to addressing the issue.
...nt to work together has increased. It has become more common place for federal law enforcement to work with local law enforcement. The monetary influence from programs administered by the Executive Branch with such programs as COPS, helps bring new technologies to local police agencies, thus impacting policing. Moreover, the federal law enforcement’s creation of new crime fighting technologies, eventually make their way into the state and local police departments. This supports the idea that both the Legislative and Executive Branches influence law enforcement; however, the Executive Branch provides a more direct and active influence.
...one, D. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. New York: Norton, 2012. Book.
Wheelan, C. (2011). Introduction to Public Policy (1st ed.). United States: W.W. Nortion & Company, INC. (Original work published 2011).
In law enforcement, discretion is left up to each police officer to make responsible and reasonable decisions on situations while in the field. A police officer will have no choice but to use discretion in certain situations and make decisions on what type of force or punishment is necessary for the situations. Many people in the society always believe that police officers can make any decision they wish to at any time while working. This is very wrong because there are situations whereby a police officer or even the chief of police has no other choice, but to follow the law in making decisions. The role of the police administrator is double challenging because, he/she must determine how best to use discretion as well as encourage or dissuade discretion by subordinate members ...
Picking and choosing battles to fight is very important for the executive if they hope to cause real change for the people. In Rudalevige’s book, he gives advice to future presidents and said, “Too few priorities may be better than too many, usually, presidents should choice the targeted “refile” approach over firing a less focused “shotgun” blast legislative proposals at congress” (Rudalevige, 437 – 438). A ‘refile approach’ offers more emphasis on certain subjects of importance and can sometimes lead to more congressional approval. The executive branch must continuously evaluate which issues will most likely to get greenlighted fight harder for and note policies to give up on temporarily. Today, we have learned there are more powers to the executive branch than previously known to battle against congressional
The policy process is a long process that involves many steps and participants that deal with issues related to crime. Once the issues have been addressed and the policy has been created the policy then governs the criminal justice system. Some of the participants involved with the policy process are federal, state, and local government. The federal, state, and local governments all have roles in the development and implementation of the criminal justice system. Some of the roles of the federal and state governments are similar and others differ.
Althaus, Bridgman and Davis describe the Australian policy cycle as a circle of functions beginning with 'identifying an issue ' through 'policy analysis ', 'policy instruments ', 'consultation ', 'coordination ', 'decision ', 'implementation ' and 'evaluation ' feeding back in to 'identifying an issue ' again (Althaus et al 2013: 37-40). Of all the parts of the policy cycle the APS are least involved with the decision making phase and most involved in the consultation and implementation phases (Althaus et al 2013: 16). In particular it is the role of the head of each of the public service departments to provide advice to the government (the consultation phase) and be responsible for the execution of public policy (the implementation phase). These responsibilities are spelled out in the legislation which governs the APS. An earlier version of the legislation, the Public Service Act 1992 stated it thus: “The Secretary of a Department shall… be responsible for its general working… and shall advise the Minister in all matters relating to the Department ' (Weller and Wanna 1997: 14). The current version of legislation, the Public Service Act 1999, describes the role of a Department Secretary as: “(a) principle official policy advisor to the Agency Minister; (b) manager, ensuring delivery of programs… (c) leader...” (Public Service Act 1999, Part 7 Section 57
If one was to look at the political administration dichotomy, in theory only elected officials should be the ones who decide the public policy, since they are decision makers, but once the policy is made by the elected officials then the policy implementations. Furthermore, administrations are the responsibility of the bureaucrat with whatever they do. In practice, the bureaucrat is involved in implementation and formulation, in which they have the expertise and the knowledge on the subject. The question then is should bureaucrats be involved in policy formulation? This is structural and difficult to draw a line between these two functions. This paper will look at whether or not Bureaucrats should be involved in policy formulations and if what is stated in theory is actually practiced in reality. It will be argued bureaucracy should be involved in policy formulation in order such policies run smoothly.
The reinventing government concept was best explained by two Americans, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler. They made this concept known across a wide popular audience and also enhanced the perceived legitimacy and popularity of this idea among government leaders. Basically this idea is a reformist concept where governments are seeking to adopt ten major reform initiatives. Osborne and Gaebler came up with ten principles of reinventing government that if embraced by governments and managers, could turn public sector managers into public sector entrepreneurs. The ten principles are: catalytic government, community owned government, competitive government, mission drive government, results oriented government, customer driven government, enterprising government, anticipatory government, decentralized government, and market oriented government.
Policy refers to those plans, positions and guidelines of government which influence decisions by government, for example policies in support of sustainable economic development or policies to enhance access to government services by persons with disabilities. There are various types and forms of policy. Among the range of policy type are: broad policy which enunciates government-wide direction; more specific policy which may be developed for a particular sector or issue-area; operational policy which may guide decisions on programs, and project selection. With respect to the forms that government policy can take, it is reflected most typically in legislation, regulations, and programs.
Policymaking is a political process which is affected by various social and economic factors (Hofferbert, 1974) and media systems play an integral role in shaping the social context in which policies are developed. Through the media, citizens learn how government policies will affect them, and governments gain feedback on their policies and programs. Media systems act as the primary channels between those who might want to influence policy and the policymakers '' controlling the scope of political discourse and regulating the flow of information. Textbook policymaking follows an orderly sequence where problems are identified, solutions devised, policies adopted, implemented, and lastly evaluated (Mazamanian & Sabatier, 1989). In reality, the policy process is more fluid, where policies are formed through the struggle of ideas of various advocacy coalitions (Sabatier, 1991) in what has been described as a policy primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995). The policies, on which the media focuses can, and often does, play an important part in determining the focal issues for policymakers.
Public Managers have to participate in the policy making process. Previously, according to scholars, “policy process” was considered “decision making” (Wu, Ramesh, Howlett, & Fritzen, 2010). Under such pretense, public managers considered their role merely with policy implementation. However the recent theories that define public policy, have demarcated public policy as an activity that involves a broad range of activities ranging from defining problems, ensuring the defined problems to make it to agenda, developing alternative solutions of addressing these issues, implementing the results and evaluating the outcomes.
‘The doctrine of dichotomy implied that the politicians and their direct appointees have the right to make policy decisions for the polity but it is the duty of the bureaucrats to carry those policies in good faith’ (Pfiffner, 2004, p. 2).
Persons studying public choice do not consider that government officials are in fact concerned with public interests. The dispute here is that these administrators function in an environment which replicates poor communication on current political issues or just do not care to address these issues. Administrators do not focus on public choice since their main objective is policy making process. It is certain in all societies that there will be self-interest in all aspects of public policy making. For example, government officials will prepare a country’s budget based on their own self-interest and how they can be benefitted mostly.