Policy Paradox

analytical Essay
1778 words
1778 words

In the book, “Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making”, by Deborah Stone (2012), she makes several claims about the process and approach to policy analysis. Stone analyzes what she describes as three pillars of public policy; model of reasoning, model of society, and model of policy making. Her view on this process is different from the approach of a rational or market model in politics. Public policy based on the “rational decision-making model” has flaws (Stone 2012, p.11).
In the rational model of reasoning decisions are made by evaluation. There are logical steps or processes that are taken to make policy decisions. The goal or purpose is clearly defined or known. All alternatives are evaluated and taken into consideration …show more content…

In this essay, the author

  • Explains stone's approach of policymaking, which centers on shared goals of equity, efficiency, welfare, liberty, and security.
  • Analyzes how stone's book, "policy paradox: the art of political decision making," explains how policy decisions center around the goals of society.
  • Explains how politicians use language to convince people to their way of thinking. the use of metaphors, synecdoche, and numbers to tell stories is effective in gaining support for an issue.
  • Analyzes stone's book, "policy paradox: the art of political decision making," which argues that decisions are made in the arena of politics and not by rational decision-making.
  • Explains stone's use of symbols, stories, and numbers in the polis, to define problems.

The political solution or decision is the based on the one that does the most good for the most people in the community, based on the perception of the power group making the decision. In politics, facts may not be facts, but instead be misleading to promote a particular point of view. She also claims in the realm of policy, paradox takes place, where one idea, thought, or policy may have multiple meanings. The activity or idea will be defined in the way that suits our ideology or way of …show more content…

All policy decisions center around the goals of society. Those policy decisions can be conflicting with the various goals. All of the goals Stone talked about in her book make sense. It is the interpretation of the effects of policy on those shared goals; the varying priority of those goals to society, and trying to find the best solutions or policies for issues can be very challenging. The different perspectives on priorities or what is important to who and when drives the political decisions. For example, currently terror attacks against society is a big issue in the political arena. The societal goals of security and freedom may be in conflict when it comes to policy decisions in this area. How much freedom does society have to give up to have security? If we give up some freedoms this may also limit our individual security from the government, for example with Meta data. Learning how politicians craft arguments to further their ideology in relation to the goals was interesting. I guess I knew it was always there but did not think about it in those terms until I read this

Get Access