In this discourse, the discussion is centered on public policy agenda where According to Patton et al., the logic of consequences that is often referred to as rationality provides the framework for selecting an appropriate decision out of different alternatives deemed to be the most suitable option for solving a given problem (3). The key elements that emerge include rationality of both the process and the outcome of the process. Often, the information used to make decisions can be imperfect and that has adverse impact on the results (Zittoun 66). This means that epistemic rationality is about what can be believed in decision-making for better results. Here, when linked with decision-making at the policy levels, rationality is bounded by laws, policies, and rules that restrain decision-makers on what to do and how to make the decision. Such decisions draw on norms of choice based on practical and not theoretical rationality (Zittoun 67). Typically, when making decisions on policy development, choices are made on a rational basis that relies on issues such as motivationally biased beliefs.We will write a custom Policy Analysis and Planning: Basic Methods specifically for you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page 308 certified writers online Learn More
Public Policy Agenda
Rationality and policy development
The connection between rationality and public policy development involves decisions that have implications on public life, which should be made under the principled guide that is consistent with the laws and instructional customs enshrined in the constitution. This is because public policies are founded on the national regulations and constitutional laws. Rational decisions can only be known as rational if the decisions made on public policy are able to solve the problems efficiently and effectively. Rational decisions must reflect support for government institutions, serve justice to the citizens, and encourage active citizenship (Zittoun 70). The rationality or reasoning as other people define it is the course of action that is based on reasoning which is characterized by rationality.
Positivism and policy development
Often, when knowledge based decisions are made that draw on natural phenomena, which is then referred to as positivism. Positivism draws on logic, experience, empirical evidence, valid knowledge or certitude, and positive facts or verified data which encompass the elements of human intellectual development. Positivism holds that the public operates on laws and regulations that must be observed to maintain law and order (Zittoun 71). In the development of public policy, it is appropriate to have a policy in place that is characterized by a decision-making process that can be used to identify the problem to be solved and to generate effective solutions to the problems being solved. The policy development process must factor elements that frame a system which comprehends the human life so as to reflect the true philosophy of the thoughts, feelings, and actions of the policy makers that are consistent with the laws and regulations that govern the society (Zittoun 75). The direct manipulation of scientific laws by translating them into human intellectual thinking links positivism to policy development.
This leads to the conclusion that explanations on which policies are developed must be based should be derived from valid sources (Zittoun 78). This is based on humanistic thoughts that provide the policy maker with the insights into the thoughts and feelings that are desirable in decision-making. The rationale is that positivism draws on the rules of natural science such observations, logical conclusions, and valid knowledge. Policy development is about
Self-interest and policy development
The connotation of self-interest means that it is a philosophical tenet that defines one’s focus on the interests of an individual. In this case, self-interest spans the economic and political needs that serve to satisfy the needs of an individual. Philosophically, self-interest can be seen in the context of enlightened self-interest, ethical, rational egoism, and individualism (Kingdon 11). Here, interest is seen as the emotion that prompts curiosity or attention or the ambition of an individual. How, then is self-interest connected with policy development? To answer the question, it is imperative to note that policies are developed to address the needs and expectation of individuals who are the building blocks of the public domain. It means that policy development must start with the reflection of individual needs which extend outwards to the public domain.
In developing public policy, it is necessary for some inputs to be provided that reflect the courses or patterns of action taken to be taken by an institution that is mandated to solve or take an action to solve a problem (Zittoun 78). The extent and nature of the policies must reflect the ability of the developer and enforcer to be able to carry out the policy implementation without conflicts arising between the implementer and the individuals on whom the policy applies. The connection again can be varied depending on the area and jurisdiction of interest and application. For those who do legislation of the policies in public life, the humanistic or moral motivations are influenced by the purpose for which the policy is being developed. In another context, the social problems’ theory emerges as problems and conflicts that can be solved as observed in the political theory of interest.
What is bounded rationality? How does it relate to public policy development? The answer to this question is that not self-destructor is one who does not engage willfully in the destruction of an individual. This means that policies should be developed that lead to encouraging and cultivating an environment that readily accepts inputs such that they support the demands of the people for which the policies are developed. Inputs include political, social, economic, and physical products to enhance policy development. The connection between not self-destructor and policy development in the environment where people thrive is that some aspects of the environment can be altered to reflect the demands placed on individuals in response to political and environmental conditions. In the context of the political environment, events such as policy development should be defined by the political system and its rules, customs, and laws. Here, individual play a significant role of accepting the policy outcomes in line with the external and internal environments.Get your
100% original paper on any topic done
in as little as 3 hours Learn More
Bounded rationality and how to avoid it
To categorically be defined as a rational decision, rationality involves cognition and abilities to design solutions to problems however complicated they are. Despite that, human beings have limited cognitive abilities and the ideals of rationality cannot be fully factored into the decision-making process because the human mind is limited. In addition, time is a limited resource and the trace-ability of the decision problems is limited in making a rational decision. Cognition that is bounded involves long term and short term memory, identification, preparation-search trade-off, emotions, parallel processing, and emotional contagion. Due to that, bounded rationality and rationality emerge as two distinct concepts. Bounded rationality then implies the cognitive abilities of the human being in decision-making that can be optimized within the cognitive bounds of the mind in decision-making.
Bounded rationality can be overcome to allow for appropriate use of cognitive abilities in decision-making. Among the proposed models is to enrich the decision-making process to allow for better decisions. For example, when a decision involving two outcomes is to be made, the decision-maker can opt for one alternative and lease the other alternative because of the calculated consequences that each alternative is thought to yield. The results are based on the preferences of the decision-maker. Enriching the model involves making decisions that are inclusive of different variables or factors that are inherently relevant to the decision-maker.
This is related to public policy in the sense that public policies are characterized by authoritative collective choices and binding agreements based on the rule of law and constitutional regulations. In the context of decision-making, bounded rationality means that the decision-made in public should neither be misleading nor harmful to the public. In addition, the decisions shoal allow for a seamless transition between institution and other organizations involved in public policy formulation. Efficiency should characterize the processes. This calls for the decision-maker to invoke the principles of bounded rationality in decision-making such as the principles of adaptation, trade-offs, and uncertainty. Once the decision-maker in public policy development have been identified, it is possible to make decisions that avoid the limitations defined in the context of bounded irrationality.
What is the free rider? How does it relate to public policy development?
The fee rider problem is defined as a situation that happens when people want to use a resource without the obligation to pay for it. In public policy development, the free rider problem comes about due to the interventionists and cartels who want public institutions and politicians to formulate policies that favor them. The ability to collude and include information from each member that is involved in public policy development in the group constitutes the free rider problem. For instance, policies can be made that are defined by the absence of property rights that are not protected by law. The rationale is that if the public policy does not define the laws that govern the way such property should be dealt with or handled and there appears a policy weakness that allows one to make use or own the property, then, motivated by economic incentives, the free rider will promote self interest in place of the common public interest.
In public policy development, decisions can be made that favour a certain group of people and does not favor others. That means that people pursue their own interests at the expense of others. However, the free rider has something that can benefit the population in public policy development. This means that the behavior of different individuals that are involved in the public policy formulation can be controlled by minimizing competitive behaviour. Here, the groups that are involved in the free rider problem also matter in the context of decision-making and policy development. Despite the fact that the decision-making process can be made beneficial by use of the free rider element, it is possible to slow down the effectiveness of the decision-making process by weakening the participating entities. However, elements such as chiseling, behaviour that is consistent with the self-interest, political interventions, use of compulsory unionism, and the ability to identify the root of a problem in decision-making constitute some of the benefits due to the free rider concept.
Public choice theory
James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock were the founding fathers of the public choice theory in which the way public decisions are made were extensively discussed. It follows the principles and concepts that underlie economic decisions where public choice follows the principles of decision-makers that are used in economics and the market place in collective decision-making (Zittoun 23). The rationale is that self-interest plays a significant role in decision-making irrespective of who is involved in the decision-making process.
Politicians- elected into office
When electing politicians into the office, the points which matter most are the interest of the politician and the people who elect the officials into the office. Here, a clear conflict of interest arises because government institutions and politicians tend to fail to conform to idealized polity just as real markets behavior demonstrates. The basis for selecting the politicians can be explained by use of the median-voter theorem. This is because the actionable information provided by the voter enables them to make decisions about the person of their choice. When extremes happen in the voting system where voters are aligned to one candidate, voting outcomes depend on the median vote. The rationale is that suggestions that point to the left or to the right always do not produce the anticipated results. However, the decision to vote is modeled on a rational balance. The case is that most voters in a democratic institution tend to be poorly informed about a politician. That results into the poor choices that voters make.We will write a custom
Policy Analysis and Planning: Basic Methods
specifically for you!
Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More
This is where the elements of the public choice theory play the significant role of electing people to the office. Among the elements are political manipulations that are characterized by the way politicians interact with the people, among themselves, and their supporters with the aim of pursing a single goals, to be elected into office. Thus, it is exemplified in the public choice theory where politicians pursue the rent seeking goals. The other element is the realities of collectives. Such an approach is used by politicians to solve social dilemmas by use of individuals or groups. That makes the homo economicus and Homo politicus to appear to be the same.
Bureaucrat-brains of the government
The nature of dealing with the government in the context of bureaucracy emerges in the sense that government official are chosen in a way that provides those aligned with the top officials into legislative positions. Bureaucracy is practiced because the chief executives identify own people and put them in the positions of power without the requisite normal procedures and often qualifications. However, the system that is used to elect them can either be democratic or another and those who are put in the portions of power often strive to please those who place them there or those who they perceive voted them in. in any case, the salary of the office holder is usually fixed (Schnell 182). Once the person in power has elevated someone into the position of power, it is possible to fire them at will and that means that the beneficiary has to toe the line of the appointee to ensure harmony exists between the two people.
Often, such behaviour of the government official can be related to the business owner who successfully makes more profits as the underlying factors are made favorable to the instrument and profit generation in the business (Schnell 182). A successful business person will be evaluated against the performance of the business just as government bureaucratic will be evaluated against the performance or the services they deliver to those they promised to while seeking for their votes. Examples include the use of bureaucratic values in the government of the United Kingdom. At that time, the government employed highly qualified professionals to provide certain services to the people (Kraft and Furlong 11). Bureaucracy was based on the key values of salaries that were kept regular, promotion at the place of work, recruitment by examination, and use of standardized procedures (Kingdon 9). The results were complete control of the taxation system of the people and the government at that time, better service delivery, and more cooperation between the people and the government.
The key feature of government bureaucracy include a rigid division of and labor, an established chain of command that spans the entire organization and the government at large, and people who are able to execute the type of tasks assigned them from time to time. In this case, power plays a significant role in enhancing service delivery as influenced by political leaders. It is imperative to note that political leaders have special powers over their subjects as families are hierarchically defined (Schnell 183. However, political or family powers are held by an individual in different relationships. This leads to the definition of political power, which perpetuates the bureaucracy of the government as the tool that makes the laws and the punishments that can be put on those who break the laws and that which has the ability to employ the people or the force of the society to meet the required enforcement of the laws. However, the need for some level of bureaucracy is necessary in modern governments because it is seen as a tool to allow for effective and efficient way of systematically managing human activity.
It is imperative to note that there is an irrationality of voting for an individual as evidenced in the outcome of an election. Typically, two outcomes are expected when voting occurs (Patton et al. 12). This includes outcomes that are in favor of a certain individual and choice of a certain group of people another one, which of course in not favorable to another group of people. Voters in any case are normal people and are responsible for selecting people to the office. In this case, different assumptions happened due to the public choice theory. The assumptions are made in relation to the economic theories’ that are adopted in different market conditions. This is where the politicians are seen as business people and voter are seen as customers.
Here, the decisions made by politician are sold to the voters who are supposed to buy into their suggestions. Here, people to whom the decisions are made about is defined as the ‘money’ in classical economic theories. Each entity involved in the decision-making process aim to maximize the utility of a decision to their own needs and expectations (Patton et al. 12). Here, politicians make the most outcomes by winning the votes cast by the people. While other researchers argue that modeling the choice to vote is rational, others disagree and point out that the act of voting is irrational. This is because, the chance that one person determines the outcomes of an election is painfully small. However, it is true that one vote might tilt the balance of the outcome of an election if the votes cast by other people show a pattern an even distribution pattern.
It is worth noting that the private (domain changes) sphere sometimes drives the interests of the government because each entity be it the government or the public could like to pursue their interests and ensure that they are effectively achieved. This is the same as when allocating available resources in the pursuit of certain goals. This leads to political opinions where the people usually see the government as interfering in the private affairs of the people. However, this is a requisite to encouraging people to get intensely involved in different affairs that promotes the well-being decision-ma of the people (Patton et al. 12). The primacy of the interests of the private institutions is to promote personal interests such as charitable institutions, the willingness and desire to help others, and the ability to engage in those activities that support the well-being of others. However, it has been revealed otherwise because the tendency to help others is not clearly demonstrated, but shops that people are not usually drive by the motive to help others, but to make selfish-gains.Not sure if you can write
Policy Analysis and Planning: Basic Methods by yourself?
We can help you
for only $14.00 $11,90/page Learn More
An example is where a college professor or a judge has been given permanent employment by the government, in bath cases; the people tend to exploit the situation by maximizing their leisure. It is insidious; however, to make such a statement on the judge. That is because one can risk imprisonment for such a statement irrespective of the fact that there might be proof of the statement. It is therefore seen as a problem because it points out that such situations make the people more ambitious to pursue private interests. The problem with the approach is that inefficiencies that are found in private institutions spill over to the public domain and government services labeling the service providers as incompetent. The rationale is that the private sector is driven by the profit motive and the public sector is driven by service delivery. However, the end results should be efficient delivery of services to the people. Theory and practice show that problems abound in each way the government takes to solve problems that are related to service delivery to the people.
Public (social problems) requires collective action
On the other hand, the public presents the problem of those who deliver the services because they are required to do so. This is the case with corporate decision-making against the profit motive and service delivery. The rationale is that governments often complain of inefficient resources that limit the type and quality of services provisioned to the people. This is because the government might decide to invest in services that the private sector is ready and willing to deal with. It is important to note that the government sometime limits the resources they assign for particular services, which when done by the private sector result into more efficient and effective service delivery (Patton et al. 12). Typically, the quantitative aspects of services and products are elements that lead to the type of social problems that the government experiences at hands of the people.
This leads to the collective action problem where both the private sector and the government should work together to achieve the desired goals of service delivery. The overall goal is to ensure that the positive and negative aspects of both public and private sector services lead to efficient and effective service delivery to avoid the collective action problem. This calls the removal of issues such as the exploitation of the small by the great, institutional design that allows for justices and fairness, and using strategies that afford the public good.
Public community-agenda-institutional agenda-public policy (reactionary)
It is appropriate to note that the public and institutional agenda should provide a Way of solving the problems that affect the communities adversely. For instance, theory suggests that the process of formulating policies should be consistent with the problems affecting the people. In politics, it is essentially the same as in business because the classical economic theories have proved that political processes and market forces take the same trend. Here, it is worth noting that the similarity between political processes and market forces is that a market for a product can only exist if the product or service is designed to solve a given problems. The same case applies to political forces, where a problem that causes distresses to the community causes the people to look to the government for intervention. Typically, a problem can only be valid when it comes solving or seeking a solution to the problem (Baggott 3). This means that issues or situations that are seen as needing government or individual intervention are a valid problem. In the political from, people look at the way politicians handle and solve their problems differently.
Interest groups on the other hand behave in a way which shows that they want to exploit the political process to solve a given problem. Typically, a political process then sets in that enables the people to loo for help from the politician. A rational approach is seen as appropriate for solving the problem because it does not look at the problem as situation that is loosely defined, but that which is accurately defined by the interest groups as well as the government and the representatives of the people.
Bureaucrats / politicians
The interaction between the voters and the public makes it a point of interest especially when voters make decisions on the person of their choice. Politicians are interested and committed in making policy definitions and changes because they are the sovereign representatives of the people. The interactions among the people and the politicians is asymmetrical because when audit queries are done by the politician on various agencies, the cost of auditing depends on the technology and the level of bureaucracy experienced. However, there seems to be a relationship between bureaucracy and political power that unveils in a negative manner (Patton et al. 19). Typically, it is evident that bureaucrats are more powerful than the politicians. That is because, politicians are not as qualified as bureaucrats who hold expertise information that is not formal and a direct conflict happens between the politician and the expertise in the sense that politicians always struggle to be free of the manipulation that might be fronted by the expertise.
Voters represent the public voice as argued in the public choice theory. That is because, the voter is seen in the median-voter theorem as one that decides the fate of the politician. However, it is not one voter who decided the fate of a politician, but when votes are cast in a system, then the voting can only be bias towards one competing for to be elected.
Degree of effect
When assessing the effects of the rationality theory of choice on the people put in the poetical office, the degree of effect is counterproductive. This resonates well with the degree of preferences and behaviour that emerges due to the rationality principle. The psychological rationality of the people’s choice as driven by underlying factors such as economic conditions leads to the conclusion that normative standards when followed provide accurate statistics of the degree of effect of the rationality theory of choice.
Politicians try very hard to influence the outcome of the votes or policy formulation by putting up concerted efforts to influence the people to vote for them and their choices irrespective their preferences and choices. Such an approach is in direct contradiction with the consumer choice problem in economics. However, customers or the people tend to look at the utility-maximization approach rather than the popularity approach in selecting the person of their choice. The results are usually not what one anticipated for, but a consensus on who the majority wanted.
In person, one can be in contact with the politician and that has proved to be an effective way of winning an individual. In reference to the rationality theory, the aggregate behaviour of a person is evidenced by the results of voting to show one’s decision, which is accumulated with others to show a greater trend in the voting pattern.
This include the active society, societal structures that are developed according to policy, acquisition of more rational knowledge, implementation of an efficient governance model, and policies that appropriately enable the policy maker to recognize problems earlier. Indicators for a successful policy formulation include the efficiency and effective program measures, priorities that have been set to show how the level of efficiency, and ability to solve problems related to the people for whom the policy had been created (Patton et al. 20). A critical review show that the social indicators of a good policy include a well-defined social program, better social conditions, ability to identify social problems, and a measure of the degree of satisfaction.
Public policy comes in three forms
The distributive constitutes the ability to formulate those policies that enable effective distribution of services and products to the entire membership. In context, the government policies should provide ways of dealing with fair distribution of services, better welfare service provision, efficient utilization of services, and provision of public education.
In this case, redistributive entails establishments of bounds and controls that appropriately enable the institutions and individuals to have their powers limited to a specific extend as required by the law. Such a policy approach results into good behaviour besides the ability to institute punishment for those who fail to adhere to policy. The regularity policy entails creating the regulations that set the stays of corporations and other entities such as private institutions.
Models of agenda building
According to the outside-initiative model, agenda setting is done by incorporating issues that arise within the society of groups in society to be solved through a policy process. Here, the model factors in the first instance the public agenda before the political agenda is considered.
It is imperative to note that the inside-initiative approach denotes a model where initiatives are made within the government and remain to be part of the government policy. In this case, there is no initiative to place
In the mobilization approach, issues that arise are often solved through the initiative of the politicians taking the agenda to the political arena before putting it in the public. Such as approach is appropriate for politicians who want to show initiative and popularity among the voters.
In specific semiotic events, policy discourse entails the different approaches that have been used and put in place to address problems through written, verbal, or use of any form of language to communicate. The communication paradigm should be coherent and use of properly understood language that involves traditional as well as any other forms of language. The different types of discourse include cognition and memory, emergence of syntactic structure, power, interaction, and strategies. In the context of the political landscape, it entails speeches, hearings, and debates among other communication tools. Typically, political discourse is informal. On the other hand, the policy window entails, in theory, problems that affect the society open policy windows to solve them.
This calls for the definition of problems as matters that require attention because they are in the public domain. The key defining elements include the problem stream, policy stream, and the politics stream. When combined, a policy window opens. For instance, if a large number of people are released from prison, then, a problem stream opens. The policy could be a program where people are integrated into the society in a manner that enables them to cope with the new environment and eventually be good citizens, an approach that reduces crime. On the political front, criminal justice reforms might be the call of the public. In addition, the public might be satisfied with the non-prison sentences of reforming criminals. However, a new administration might champion evidence based governance program.
Environment of public policy in the U.S
The national policy covers areas that include regulations, courses of action, systems of laws, and funding priorities for different private and public entities. Policy decisions are made by different individuals with different interest and beliefs. The national policies are classified into education, culture and society, criminal justice, economic affairs, environment, and health. The other classes include affairs and national security, social affairs, and agricultural development. It has implciaitons on policy decsions at the national, state, and local levels.
Policy formulation: What is the best way to understand policymaking?
This is done through the following models.
Rational comprehensive model and incremental models
In this case, the model is defined by input variables that are taken from the internal and external environments. The element of incrementalism is vital because, in theory, it allows for the simplicity and effectiveness in decision-making. It is worth mentioning that the model has been applied widely and proved to be effective in policy formulation in the current world. In this case, the suitability of the model is based on the premises that different values and coordination mechanisms are used to formulate the theory.
That said, the model gets defined by both the empirical and theoretical elements are factored into the model. The model can be summarized as being implemented as smaller parts of a lager whole besides taking the incremental approach as the unit of measure and it allows for ‘The Science of Muddling Through’ to work and embraces the idea of rationality in decision-making. Despite the appropriateness of the model in various circumstance, the negative side of the equation is that it is weakens the decision-making process by allowing for limited comparisons, allows for mutual adjustments, the changes are incremental instead of being wholesome, and allows for the existence of multiple pressure in decision-making. It is not possible to distinguish between ends and means and embraces competing values.
Target population model
The model reflects the values and moral of the target population in policy formulations. In addition, some poplar people or images into the public sphere may influence the policy formulation process and the elements that define the policy. This is because the public or the population exerts very strong influences n policy makers and that makes it easy for them to comply to formulate policies that favor the public. In addition, different social constructs play a significant role in policy formulation. Target population constructs include behavioral changes, recognition of shared characteristics, images, symbols, valence-oriented values, and other constructs that are created by groups of people such as religion.
This model is based on the public agency or government institution attributes. The model puts the civil servant or the politician in direct contact with the public for policy development. Examples include teachers and policemen who always in contact with the public. Upon policy formulation, the people in direct contact with the administration play a liaison role in policy formulation. It is important to note that street bureaucrats are the ones who constancy in touch with the citizens and are able to get firsthand information on the shape and nature of the policies and what the public wants.
The key elements that play a significant role in policy implementation include the economic, political, social, structural, and structural environments. Typically, there are various inputs and outputs to the process, which include interest groups, public opinion, election results, news media, and public opinion. The outputs include oversight and evaluation and laws. Policy implementation follows a specific approach of issue emergence, setting the agenda, defining the alternative selections, enactment, implementation, and evaluation of the policy.
In this context, self-executing treaty is designed to make it a judicial ramification which can be enforced by the law. It is important to note that certain action such as legislation is enacted to make the policy applicable in its implementation paradigm. This leads to policy related legislation. The two actions required include policy process making rules and operationalizing the policy. That is in addition to oversight issues legislation, and government legislation. Some degree of overnight is included into the process.
The rules and regulations of policy implementation include the legislation written in a language that is sufficiently clear and with no tint of vagueness. The rules are enacted in such a way that they provide the standards, procedure, and regulations that can be followed to implement the policy. Regulations provide the foundation for the reporting requirements necessary for the implementation of the policy.
The legislative nature of policy implementation is that discussions are made on the cross-legislature factors that are necessary for policy implementation. The institutional powers granted to the legislative framework in important n policy formulation. Congress plays a significant role in policy formulation because it is a political tool where proper Congressional Committees begin. The state legislator is responsible for providing the required representation by listening and communicating the needs of the citizens. It is also responsible for lawmaking by indenting the problem, whose solution will be implemented through the formulation of policy, allowing for inputs from expert opinions, and approved the policies that remedy the problem being solved. The City Council is responsible for developing city plans, providing policy advice and guidelines, and addressing issues related to minerals and water resources. The city manager provides initial directions on issues such as policy problems and the best department to handle the policy issue.
Also the role played by the court in implementing law
The court interprets legal discourses using systems that have been put in place. The judiciary applies the facts of the law on issues that happen and sometimes changes the laws through judicial reviews and it is always linked with the active in economic issues. On the other hand, the court interprets and implements the criminal as per the sections of the law that provide directions to that effect. Family law is interpreted by the court in the context of violence against women, children and others disadvantaged groups. The court mandates certain bodies to protect victims and train prosecutors and judges to handle such cases. On the other hand, the court takes responsibility of implementing the migration law by identifying those classes and laws that have been enacted to implement them through the instruments such as the police.
Evaluation is based on the inputs to the implementation process, the processes of transformation, and outputs from the processes. The conversion process consists of the conversion and translation of laws into policies and how they are effective in solving the problems that have been forwarded to be solved. Outcomes can be immediate or might take time to be realized. Typically, evaluations are seen as careful assessment of the ploy and not impact assessment passé. The evaluation process must include the decisions and the problems to be solved using those decisions, identification of alternatives and how those alternatives merge well into the solution domain, and the probabilities and consequences of different options.
The criteria for choosing alternatives provide the framework for policy evaluation, which includes the key elements of equity, efficiency, ad effectiveness based on political feasibility and the choice of compliance characteristics. A policy that inherently reflects the quality of equity shows that the policy is applied equally to all the people affected by the problem to be solved. That means there is an equal redistribution of resources. Rewards are similarly redistributed to the losers in the form of income and services.
Efficiency is demonstrates the degree of the ratio of inputs to the outputs. Less costly policies that are effective in policy formulation are better than those that are costly. Typically, effectiveness defines he extent to which a policy meets the goals it was designed for. Efficiency is a measure of how much a certain input produces as output, but effectiveness is about whether the overall objective was attained as required. On the other hand, advice is based on what and how it should be done and by whom.
It is adequately hoped that policy implementation is able to achieve the primary objectives where there is direct actionable results based policies. Typically, changes in one part of the policy affects the other part such as if policy changes are introduced on the voting patterns, then, the entire electorate is affected. Secondary policies constitute the elements that define the after effects of policy implementation. The consequences of policy formulation include inclusion and compliance to more ambitious metrics for policy formulation. This can be revealed in the process of management by objectives as opposed to management by results. Here, the objectives are well-defined where the achievable goals are signaled and the policy is tested to the effect of making the policy effective.
Baggott, Rob. Understanding Health Policy. Policy Press, 2015.
Kingdon, John Wells. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Longman Pub Group, 2010
Kraft, Michael Eugene, and Scott R. Furlong. Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, And Alternatives. Sage, 2012.
Patton, Carl, et al. Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning. Routledge, 2015.
Schnell, Karen Callaghan, Frauke. “Assessing The Democratic Debate: How The News Media Frame Elite Policy Discourse.” Political communication, vol. 2, no. 18, 2001, pp. 183-213.
Zittoun, Philippe. “Understanding Policy Change as A Discursive Problem.” Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, vol. 1, no.11, 2009, pp. 65-82.