What do elite, bureaucratic, and pluralist theories have to say about the policymaking process? (p. 599) How do those theories relate to each step of the policymaking process described on p. 600? (e.g. the policy implementation phase in one that the bureaucratic theory would emphasize, etc.)
The second phase is to give the executive, managerial power to the people. Noveck explains, “Participatory budgeting has long been practiced in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They're just starting it in the 49th Ward in Chicago. Russia is using wikis to get citizens writing law together, as is Lithuania” (Noveck). The second phase might not work because not everybody is dedicated or educated to govern.
The following embedding mechanisms may be considered to emphasize the finalized policy change: leadership review of metrics such as frequency, reenergize core values and ethos by leadership, vision that focuses on the profession and assignment of right agency and staff to lead the change.
Imagine a nation where every single person had to follow a religion the government deemed acceptable, but not just that imagine a nation where the masses did not have a voice, where there would be no peaceful assembly, no printed press, almost no real freedoms; all of these privileges that we enjoy in our great country today were gifted to us by our founding fathers within the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a set of amendments or better known as laws which give each person their unalienable rights within any of the fifty states in our country. These rights are protected by a constitutional doctrine known as Selective Incorporation, which prevents any state to create laws that would take away a persons constitutional rights. The doctrine was put in place after the civil war when the southern states had made their own laws that prevented former
According to Allison and Zelikow admit the deviancy saying “characterization of the rational actor’s choice in a world of uncertainty about estimated consequences of options requires further information or assumptions about the actors’ attitude toward risk.” Allison justifies the model saying people must use the Rational Actor Paradigm. It uses a “systematic statement of the basic assumptions, concepts, and propositions employed in the basic school of analysis”. In our example, the only known objective was to agree upon that a decision of some kind had to be made. The options on the table were increase law enforcement, create exclusion zones, mass deportation, internment, extermination, propaganda, encourage loyalty, full scale evacuation or simply do nothing.
Just being a FGCS is bad because being in this group, one has only a 11 percent chance of finishing college in 6 years(Riggs). Everyone may not be a first generation student but everyone can learn of the barriers FGCS face. With having to help themselves without knowing how to. These students come from a family where neither their mother, father, nor siblings have gone to college. FGCS face the major problem of not being supported on what decisions to make, but colleges are trying to fix this issue by writing articles giving advice and by give students mentors to help solve any problems they will encounter.
Lindblom set the stage for further examination of rationality during the pivotal 1960s period of political science scholarship. Paul Diesing (1962) argued that rationality has multiple meanings and lamented the tendency to view rationality primarily as either technical or economic rationality concerned with organizational productivity and economic efficiency. Diesing develops a philosophy-oriented framework that argues for the study of three other forms of rationality—social, legal, and political. Aaron Wildavsky (1966), one of the 20th century’s most influential political scientists, takes the cue and warns strongly against framing rationality in terms of decision-making strategies or techniques such as cost–benefit analysis, systems analysis,
An Improvisational Model for Managing Change: The Orlikowski and Hofman's alternative model recognizes three types of change. Anticipated changes occur as intended. Emergent changes arise during the process. And opportunity-based changes are introduced during the process in response to an opportunity, event, or breakdown.
Much of the time, a strategy is embraced when Congress passes a law. Approach selection might likewise occur when the president signs an official request or when the Supreme Court runs on a critical case. Arrangement is regularly inherent an arrangement of little steps took a break by distinctive players, and in the end, a complex approach rises. 5. Implementing the policy; Most open arrangements are completed by managerial orgs in the official limb, in spite of the fact that occasionally the courts get included in actualizing choices they make.
To access the merit or value of government policies and programs as well as proposed policy alternatives, citizens, analysts, and policymakers need to consider four criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and political feasibility (Kraft and Furlong, 2013, p.31). Kraft and Furlong (2013) explain that “effectiveness refers to whether a current policy or program or one that is being considered is likely to work, efficiency refers to what a policy or policy proposal costs in relation to its expected benefits to society, equity refers to the consideration of what constitutes a fair or equitable policy choice, and political feasibility concerns how government officials and other policy actors appraise
In this discussion post, I will be addressing prompt A. First, I will cover the rational basis test. The rational basis test is used to decide whether the use of discrimination is lawful in certain cases. The textbook defines the rational basis test as “as long as there’s a reason for treating some people differently that is ‘rationally related to a legitimate government interest,’ the discriminatory act or law or policy is acceptable” (page 155). This means that if there is a reason to not include people for a reason, like not having the qualifications to participate, it is considered lawful. The example that the textbook uses deals with blind people.
He analyses a bottom-up approach to policy making in this book but fails to state if it is adequate. Up until this book was published, the majority of people looked at policy making from a top-down perspective. Since the 1980’s there has been increased debate over which approach is more effective (Gabel, 2012). Top-down implementation occurs when the government set policies and instructions on how to implement these policies. This makes it clear-cut because it is clear and based solely around agency objectives.
There are four major decision-making models- rational, bounded rationality, incremental and garbage can models. In the following, pros and cons of each model will be discussed and explain why Incremental and Garbage Can Models can best describe the decision made during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Rational model is a cognitive process, which the decision-makers run through rational steps. The steps refer to definition of problems, identification and evaluation of alternative policies, implementation of the best policies among all and finally monitoring of effects, ran through a unitary decision-maker (Taylor, 1998). Theoretically, the model can search for the best solution to the problem based on the comprehensive consideration.
It is necessary few main concepts to be defined in order to have a more clear understanding of some of the most recent developments in the field of the study/science of decisions. First, it will be relevant to provide a definition of rationality for the better understanding of the theoretical background and secondly will follow a description of the different nature of the proposed
It refers to the patterns of communication, interpretation and adjustment between individuals. Both the verbal and nonverbal responses that a listener then delivers are similarly constructed in expectation of how the original speaker will react. Workers contribution is more involved in this theory. (Markes, 1999) Contributions 1)
