Public Policy Essay ⋆ Political Science Essay Examples ⋆ EssayEmpire

Public policy is what officials within government choose to do or not to do about public problems—conditions that are perceived to be unacceptable. Government policy makers typically set certain policy goals and objectives, and then identify the tools or means to reach those ends. Debate over public policy choices reflects differing views about the goals or the means or both. Questions center upon whether the government should be involved in a certain policy area or not, and if it is involved, whether it should try to regulate individual and corporate behavior, provide economic subsidies to certain individuals or businesses, redistribute societal resources from one group to another, make information available to the public, provide services directly to citizens, or aim for some combination of such policy tools.

Sometimes, governments decide not to adopt policies because little political consensus exists over what needs to be done. In this case, policy makers may conclude that the problem is best left to citizens and the private marketplace. For years, for example, most governments did little about energy consumption because citizens and policy makers saw no reason to reduce the use of energy, which was plentiful and inexpensive. By the 1990s, however, policy makers around the world began to link high levels of energy use, particularly fossil fuels, to climate change as well as to economic and national security risks. They increasingly came to believe that governments should intervene by setting energy efficiency standards, imposing new energy taxes and fees, and creating carbon dioxide emissions limits and trading schemes, among other actions.

Disagreements over policy goals themselves may involve conflicts over political ideology or social values, evident, for example, in battles over abortion, stem cell research, affirmative action, and immigration reform. David Easton’s famous dictum that politics is “the authoritative allocation of values for a society” captures well the connection of public policy to societal values and underscores the importance of asking what governments choose to do about public problems, why they do so, and what effects these actions have on society.

Evolution Of The Study Of Public Policy

Political scientists have long studied public policy, but the field changed considerably during the 1970s and continued to evolve in later decades. Particularly within the United States, it emerged as a subfield of the study of American government and public administration. Today it is far broader in scope, cuts across all fields of the discipline, attracts scholars and students with highly disparate interests, and involves the use of the full range of contemporary methods of investigation and analysis.

Many students of public policy trace the field’s origins to work by Harold Dwight Lasswell (1902–1978) and others in the 1920s and 1930s, out of which ideas arose about the promise of policy sciences. This was also a time of considerable change in the study of social sciences in general, where empirical and analytical work began to dominate over the more traditional emphases on history, normative or philosophical ideas, description of government programs, and practical issues of program management.

The policy sciences approach reflected a problem-focused and interdisciplinary view of what governments might do about society’s problems—from the diffusion of nuclear weapons to energy use and urban development. Not surprisingly, the new field contributed significantly to the rise of think tanks, such as the RAND Corporation and Brookings Institution, to advise governments on complex issues of public policy. By the early 1970s, the field of policy studies began to grow at a rapid pace. New organizations such as the Policy Studies Organization were founded because, at that time, the field had no natural home within the discipline of political science or the American Political Science Association. New journals, such as Policy Sciences and the Policy Studies Journal, were launched at this time as well, and new schools of public policy were established at Duke University, the University of Michigan, and Harvard University, among others.

The next three decades were characterized by continued growth in academic public policy programs, the proliferation of policy research organizations, and an increasing volume and diversity of policy studies research. Compilations such as the Encyclopedia of Policy Studies, edited by Stuart Nagel and first published in 1983 with a second edition in 1994, and more recently, the Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, edited by Michael Moran, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin in 2006, captured the wide range of models, theories, concepts, ideas, and methods found in the burgeoning field, including its comparative and international aspects and its interdisciplinary character. While not unusual for the discipline of political science, this multiplicity of research approaches created major fractures among students of public policy, particularly within academia. They parallel the kinds of conflicts over appropriate approaches, theories, and methods found in most other fields within the discipline.

Approaches To The Study Of Public Policy

It is common to identify three related but distinct emphases within the study of public policy. One stresses analysis of policy processes such as agenda setting, formulation, adoption, and implementation, as well how political, social, and economic forces are linked to them and affect the way policies are developed, proposed, and acted on in government. This policy process approach—essentially study of the politics of policy making—is most often associated with political science and often draws from theories and models common within the discipline to explain policy developments. These include political systems theory, group theory, elite theory, institutional theories, and rational choice or formal theory. Articles reflective of the policy process perspective can be found in most mainstream political science journals but also in law and public policy journals, such as the Policy Studies Journal. Most major textbooks in the field continue to use some variation of the policy process approach.

Early work of this kind can be found in studies and texts by Charles Lindblom, Aaron Wildavsky,Theodore Lowi, James Q. Wilson, Charles Jones, Hugh Heclo, Michael Lipsky, John Kingdon, Deborah Stone, Bryan Jones, Frank Baumgartner, Daniel Mazmanian, Paul Sabatier, Hank Jenkins-Smith, and Kenneth Meier, among many others. Often this work drew from theories of the policy-making process and helped to advance understanding of how policy making actually works. Studies by Kingdon, Stone, and Baumgartner and Jones substantially improved knowledge of how public problems and policy alternatives are defined and are affected by political processes, as well as how they emerge or do not emerge onto societal and governmental agendas for action. Work by Jones, Heclo, Lowi, and Wilson clarified how policies are formulated and acted on by policy makers, with particular attention to the role of policy legitimation, the importance of issue networks and interest groups, and variation in policy-making processes attributable to issue characteristics, such as saliency, complexity, and the distribution of perceived costs and benefits in society. Studies of policy implementation by Mazmanian and Sabatier, Lipsky, and Wildavsky; of policy change by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, among others; and of policy and program evaluation by Meier and others identified the key variables that affect these policy processes, led to the development of sophisticated causal models, and stimulated empirical studies that tested hypotheses about these relationships.

Compilations such as Sabatier’s Theories of the Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on Public Policy, first published in 1999, testified to the advancement of the field by the late 1990s, and especially to new expectations for development and testing of theories that could explain policy processes. As Sabatier argued, the classic policy process model was clearly not a causal theory or even a very good description of how policy making takes place in the real world. Nevertheless, the model clearly directs attention to certain important political phenomena and policy actors and can highlight the variables that are worthy of study. For example, studies by Kingdon in the 1980s boosted interest in the agenda-setting phase of the policy process, and subsequent work by Baumgartner and Jones, among others, substantially raised the bar of expectations for data collection and analysis to test theories about agenda setting and the dynamics of policy making over time. Similarly, Sabatier’s development of the advocacy coalition framework helped to foster empirical studies of policy change.

Another approach to public policy study relies heavily on concepts borrowed from economics and related disciplines and builds on the heritage of policy sciences by focusing on the practice of policy analysis. From this perspective, the key tasks are systematic or scientific assessment of possible policy alternatives in terms of their likely effectiveness, efficiency, and equity, among other criteria. Economists emphasize efficiency, such as achieving the greatest benefits at a given cost or minimizing a certain risk at a reasonable cost. But normative political theorists are equally concerned with criteria such as the extent of government authority in regard to individual rights or questions of justice or equity, such as how the benefits or costs of public policies are distributed across a population. Scholars who employ decision theory are likely to draw from economics, psychology, statistics, and operations research to emphasize decision choices and associated risks and consequences, such as choosing between more and less risky alternatives with varying costs and consequences.

This general approach to the study of public policy is evident in research within political science over the past three decades and can be seen in public policy textbooks in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, such as Gary D. Brewer and Peter deLeon’s The Foundations of Policy Analysis (1983), Grover Starling’s Strategies for Policy Making (1988), Carl V. Patton and David S. Sawicki’s Basic Methods of Policy Analysis and Planning (1993), David L.Weimer and Aidan R.Vining’s Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practices (2005), and William Dunn’s Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (2009). It can be seen as well in pathbreaking work by James March and Johan Olsen in the 1980s that sparked a renewed interest in what might be called institutional policy analysis, which involves asking what difference certain formal and legal aspects of institutions make. Its influence can be found in similar innovations by Elinor and Vincent Ostrom to develop an institutional approach to public policy that could clarify how the choice of certain institutions and rules affect decision making and policy impacts. In 2009, Elinor Ostrom shared the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences for this work, particularly both conceptual and empirical research that demonstrated how common property resources can be successfully managed by user associations and not just by centralized government. This heritage is also clear in Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram’s intriguing work on policy design, where they suggest that sound policy choices depend on an understanding of the attitudes and motivations of key policy actors, including the “targets” of public policies. These are examples of what some call institutional rational choice frameworks that share a focus on institutional rules, an assumption of rational actors, and the resources and incentives that motivate them.

In all of these instances, the authors illustrate a strong interest in advancing the interdisciplinary study of public policy in addition to making contributions to the development of political science. These scholars often borrow from economics, sociology, psychology, and public administration in an effort to understand policy phenomena, build new theories, and inform empirical studies. Their work is as likely to appear in interdisciplinary public policy journals as in leading journals in political science.

The Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, for example, publishes articles that reflect the policy analysis approach, as do some journals in public administration and applied economics and sociology, and those devoted to a specific area of public policy such as health care, the environment, energy, welfare, or urban affairs. This kind of work can also be found in the publications of many policy research organizations such as the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, Resources for the Future, and the Pew Research Center, as well as in research supported by university policy institutes and government agencies, including hundreds of studies released each year by the Government Accountability Office.

A third common approach to the study of public policy concentrates on the substance of public policy itself, that is, work on health care, education, environmental protection, energy, defense, foreign affairs, and a multitude of other policy fields. Studies of substantive public policy may include a focus on the history of policy development, the specifics of policy goals and means, competing ideas and proposals for policy change, or assessments and evaluation of existing policies and programs. Rather than study policy-making processes or conducting policy analyses, this kind of work tends to examine what policies actually try to do and how successful they are at it, as well as to explore the disagreements nearly always found over the design of current policy and available alternatives. Often, authors of such studies display little interest in using them to build theory or test hypotheses, but the studies nonetheless may be used to illustrate or advance a particular theory, argument, or interpretation.

This third approach is often found among those with training in law, public administration, and public policy or with experience in government. Articles, research monographs, and books reflective of this approach are published by policy research organizations or think tanks; nonprofit organizations and interest groups; and law, public administration, and public policy journals. Some of these are devoted exclusively to the history of public policy such as the Journal of Policy History. Most textbooks in the field of public policy include a number of substantive policy chapters, typically ones on economic policy, health care policy, environmental and energy policy, education policy, criminal justice policy, Social Security and welfare policy, and foreign and defense policy.

Among the three approaches, there are often notable differences in the extent to which students of public policy stress scientific goals (e.g., development of testable hypotheses and theories, collection of reliable data, and use of rigorous analytic methods), professional purposes (e.g., using policy analysis or program evaluation to identify strengths and weaknesses of policies), or the advancement of political values (e.g., those often associated with some think tanks, interest groups, and partisan organizations).The first emphasis tends to be found in academic political science departments, the second in public policy schools and think tanks with a strong applied or professional orientation, and the last in organizations with a strong commitment to particular social and political values. However, the dividing lines are rarely hard and fast. As critics such as Deborah Stone argue, even work that is ostensibly objective or value-free often reflects hidden political values. Also, research produced by policy organizations that are committed to certain values, such as environmental protection, women’s rights, or equitable access to health care, can still be rigorous and valuable.

Continuing Controversies And Developments In Policy Studies

The major debates today in the study of public policy are similar to those that have taken place within many other fields of political science over the last several decades. They include the extent to which work should be theoretically grounded, and if so, in what theories or analytic frameworks. They extend to disagreements over the relative strengths and weaknesses of relying on qualitative or quantitative research methods. They also include conflicting ideas about whether the chief purpose of policy studies should be the advancement of knowledge—especially within the discipline—or provision of knowledge to society and policy makers that can foster solutions to public problems. As noted, these are primarily controversies within academia because those who work in public policy research institutes and other kinds of policy organizations are usually not preoccupied with questions of theory and methods. They are more likely to value studies that offer new data or analyses, fresh insights and interpretations, and practical suggestions for policy improvements.

It is likely that the near-term future of policy studies will reflect the current diversity of work. Most scholars will engage in the kind of studies they think are interesting and appeal to the audiences they value. Their professional training, present positions, and expectations about the results shape these choices. Yet, there is a growing consensus that the best scholarly work involves a combination of approaches and methods, such as the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods, and the integration of historical, descriptive, legal, and analytic research. In some subfields such as environmental policy studies, scholars also may try to pull together ideas from a number of pertinent disciplines, such as ecology, economics, sociology, and political science, to offer new insights into the range of variables that contribute to public problems, shape the adoption of policies, or affect policy implementation and success. Similarly, in many policy areas, scholars try to integrate the study of politics and policy analysis to foster a greater sensitivity to the way political contexts can affect the use of policy analysis.

Above all, much work in the field of public policy studies today reflects a keen appreciation of the importance of smart policy design, the institutional and political constraints and opportunities that are likely to be faced during policy making and implementation, and the need for assessment of policy results and adoption of appropriate policy changes. Put otherwise, regarding whether scholars seek to explain the formation, operation, and impact of public policy or to affect these processes, many are likely to draw creatively from the multiplicity of approaches, methods, and insights that have become available since the 1970s.

One of the most valuable lessons of the past several decades is that much of what is thought known about the performance of political institutions and public policies could be proven wrong over a longer time frame. This is especially likely when social, economic, and political conditions change substantially or abruptly, and thus alter the premises on which current policies are based. One example is climate change and the implications for energy policies. Another is the new threat of international terrorism and the impact on foreign and defense policies. Studies that draw from any of the three perspectives could be valuable. Research on the policy-making process could identify the factors most likely to affect a political system’s capacity for successful policy change under such circumstances. Studies in the policy analysis tradition could examine the most promising policy alternatives, perhaps with special attention to qualities of resiliency, or the potential for adaptation as conditions change over time. Substantive policy studies could delve into the details of public policy and help to identify those aspects of enduring social value regardless of altered circumstances.

In more general terms, societies around the world are entering a new and turbulent period. Globalization may dramatically alter economic practices and security. Population growth and economic expansion in developing nations may undercut the capacity of natural resources to meet people’s needs. Advances in technology and communications may contribute to the erosion of cultural and religious traditions and threaten social and political stability. All of these trends suggest that there will be no shortage of challenging public problems and policies to study in the years ahead. The evolution of policy studies as a field, and the rich diversity of work within it, means that students of public policy can find abundant frameworks, theories, models, and methods to put to work to improve understanding of the changing world and to devise suitable responses to the problems that now exist or will emerge in the coming decades.

Bibliography:

Anderson, James E. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. 6th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006.
Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Birkland,Thomas A. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making. 2nd ed. Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 2006.
Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. 2nd ed. New York: Longman Classics, 2003.
Kraft, Michael E., and Scott R. Furlong. Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and Alternatives. 3rd ed.Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010.
Lindblom, Charles E. Politics and Markets: The World’s Political-economic Systems. New York: Basic Books, 1977.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press, 1989.
Mazmanian, Daniel A., and Paul A. Sabatier. Implementation and Public Policy. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman, 1983.
McCool, Daniel C. Public Policy: Theories, Models, and Concepts: An Anthology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995.
Moran, Michael, Martin Rein, and Robert E. Goodin, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Ostrom, Elinor. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
Sabatier, Paul A., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Boulder: Westview Press, 1993.
Schneider, Anne Larason, and Helen Ingram. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1997.
Stone, Deborah A. Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. Rev. ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2002.
Weimer, David L., and Aidan R.Vining. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practices. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2005.

This example Public Policy Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.