Paper Example on Public Policy Perspectives

Introduction

Public policy is the formal intention and set of acts of the government to react by either removal of specific flaws in the society or enhancing the existing conditions within a particular area of interest. Public policy occurs where the body exercising the authority attempts to give solutions to issues of public concern such as education provision, good healthcare, dealing with promotion of environment, combating crime and development of security, the rule of infrastructure and good transportation networks and the foreign policies and relations. This entails what s chosen to either be done or not to be achieved by the government as the sole moderator through the regulations, law actions and decisions it may make. Public policy implies that there are processes that are involved before the decision making procedure. The method may include the agenda-setting, formulation of ideas, analysis, and implementation of the issues if viable (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). The public policy is therefore laid down as a result of the established laws. However, there may be public participation in the in the process since the policies influence the public directly. Public policy has an impact on every aspect of human beings; this includes the social, cultural and economic issues. The economic progress is influenced by the financial and economic policies formulated by the government which may consist of its activities in the demand and supply of products. The citizens may also be affected socially by the policies that are made by the government in regards to the issues such as the justice legal system and security that define how the people interact and relate with each other. Culturally, the government may have an impact on the people through the policies formulated such as the abolition of racial issues and the promotion of unity through discouraging the society with classes. This clearly shows that public policy is made on the people's behalf, therefore, is aimed at solving a particular challenge in a community. However, the federal system is usually open to external parties such as non-governmental authorities who may have a say on the implementation of the policies. The policies can change reacting to the dynamics in the interest of the public and the government (Pal, 2005).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The understanding of the public policy making policy can be approached by an examination of the contrast between the theories of the policy process. The open plan is founded on some theoretical frameworks that play a significant role in the policy trajectory concept. The policy theories structures include Advocacy Coalition Framework, Multiple Streams Framework, Institutional Rational Choice framework, and Punctuated - equilibrium theory (McCool, 1995). This report shall explicitly outline the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the Institutional Rational Choice framework by stating the broad assumption of the theory explaining each theory's understanding of policy change. Extensively, both approaches will be contrasted by identification of their inconsistencies and competing positions thus evaluate the most useful strategy in the process of policymaking.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) is a policy theory framework conceptualized by Hank Jenkins-Smith and Paul A. Sabatier (1993). It is an essential tool that is used in the policy-making and especially crucial in issues concerning the public policy system that are intense. The theory was formulated to deal with the irregularities and challenges that involved the substantial conflicting goals, key technical disputes and the many actors from the various government levels. ACF, therefore, facilitates the comprehension of the rules and priorities that carried out in the dispute management that come from the different government levels interaction as well as the implementation of the formulated public policies. The theory framework is founded on three pillars which include: the macro-level assumption that states that the policy-making happens amidst the professionals in a policy subsystem although their characteristic is influenced by the socioeconomic and political systems broader factors; the Meso-level conviction that stipulates the best way to handle the multiple actors in the subsystem by integrating them into the advocacy coalitions; and, the micro-level individual level that draws heavily on the social psychology. The foundations play a significant role in the policy change, beliefs, and dependent variables through two critical paths: the external perturbations and learning that is policy-oriented (Sabatier & Weible, 2007).

The theory's model of individual change has a primary influence in the policy change and belief in a subsystem. To be specific, the significance of the filters that are everlasting and conflicts that exacerbate alongside the coalition's distrust and the thinking group in the alliance. It is more unlikely that the coalition members will effect voluntary policy core beliefs. The technical and scientific information may not necessarily facilitate the primary core but do so at the secondary level. The ACF makes a description of the policy-oriented learning as the similar thoughts and intentions of behavior that endure alternately resulting from the encounters or newly acquired information that is aimed at achievement or revision of the policy. The abilities in the policy-oriented learning accompany the policy change and belief that has been drawn hypothesis to range differently on account of the ACF's belief system level. The deep core and police core beliefs are much normative and resist change concerning the new information. Contrary, the hypothesis by the secondary beliefs has more susceptibility to learning that is policy oriented since their focus does not require much evidence and the change in expectations among some individuals. For instance, it is much easier to influence the perceptions by people on the air pollution causes in Los Angeles than in the whole nation of USA. Policy-oriented learning takes more years to have a significant effect on the secondary beliefs, that are more pliable to information compared to the policy core beliefs, unlike the external perturbations that may result to quick dynamics in the subsystem structure as well as the policy core beliefs by the individuals.

ACF also argue that an important although not enough significant policy condition changes in a subsystem is fundamental external perturbations to the subsystem of the policy. The significant disruptions may be comprised of the socioeconomic conditions dynamics, changes in the regime, other subsystem outputs, and disasters. These eternal perturbations can change the agendas, enhance the public attention and make the people more aware of the sovereigns I the critical decision making (Weible, 2006). The external shocks may affect the policy core belief components of the dominant advocacy coalition. For instance, at the period of economic recession, a coalition that is pro-regulatory may reconsider any economic effects that are adverse on the population target from the stringent controls.

ACF assumes that the modern social policy making is both legally and substantively complex; therefore the parties taking part should practice professionalism if they are to have an impact. The professionalism happens within the participants' composed policy subsystem who constantly enquires into having an impact in the policy subsystem like California water policy. The subsystem should be comprised of the dimension that is functional and the territory. The participants of the set policy also comprise of the agency officials, legislators, group leaders of in6terest parties, judicial officials involved in the policy subsystem, journalists and researcher who have specialized in the area of policy. The ACF makes a further assumption that the participants in the policy should hold a strong belief and have the urge actualize the beliefs to policies. With the scientific and technical information, the assumption by ACF plays a significant role in the policy beliefs modification by the participants implying that the researchers are the policies' process, central players.

ACF is interested in changing the policy over a span of time which may be over a decade. It assumes that the beliefs of the participants of the administration are very stable over a long period and cause challenges in the significant policy change. It, therefore, differentiates the grown subsystems from the ones that are nascent. The expanded subsystem policy is comprised of the participants set who have a self-regard as a semi-autonomous society who have are professions in the policy domain as well as the ones that have seen the extension of an extended area in the public policy. Such matured policies subsystems include the interest groups, agencies and the institution of research that have had specific sub-units in the domain of the extended topic.

In the ACF research project, the identification of the correct subsystem scope is the most significant aspect. The primary rule should be aiming at both the geographic and substantive range of the structure interaction units. For instance, in Zafonte and Sabatier (2004) attempt to evaluate whether the subsystem automotive pollution control was in place in America enormously not dependent on the broader air pollution control subsystem, they discovered that the pollution by the automotive had its distinct section in the clean air act, which a known sub-bureau is found in the US. The biggest central policymaking happens within the policy subsystems and comprises of the specialist's negotiations. The policy participants in the subsystem behavior are influenced by dual factors which include dynamics and stability.

The ACF has developed since 1998 to be one of the most promising public policy framework (Johns, 2003). There have been numerous research and reports by the researchers across the globe on the diverse topics in policy such as environmental, sport, drug, domestic violence, and warfare. It has shown to be important through the quantitative and qualitative methods applied in the studies. However, ACF has its limitations that are identifiable by any policy practitioner. This is because the primary purpose of the ACF is broader in the explaining the life changes alongside the changed policy over the duration. The ACF criticism that has been growing has been on a constant revision and modification. The capacity that has promoted the review of the theoretical framework over the past decades has been productive and strengthened the science path. However, the basic principles have been constant since the development of the theory and have not been either changed or expanded. The law includes: the individual model has been constantly founded in the social psychology, the aim of policymaking has typically been the policy subsystem although with a more coincide procedure for subsystem identification, the leading political actor has over time been the coalition of advocacy alongside the analysis of network has made confirmation that alliances have held the common principal beliefs jointly, and, the role of science in policy concern. The biggest criticism on ACF is lack of address on the collective action problem. There is much network analysis integration to address the issue of solving the collective action problem. Extensively, one of the ACF's underdeveloped aspects is the lack of the clear concept and functional institutional variables forming the coalition structure and behavior, that is the analysis on the institution and the framework development (Ostrom, 2005).

Institutional Rational Choice Framework

Institutional Rational Choice (IRC) tries to invent a theoretical framework that explicitly outline the...