Public Policy Agenda - Essay Example

Task: Public Policy Agenda Agenda setting portfolio Questions/Issues Agenda setting is a relative term that has received different acclamation in assorted fields. In general, Agenda setting is the process of coming up with an appropriate and relevant issue to be addressed by specific objectives. It is a comprehensive process that ensures that issues are appropriately analyzed and follow-up procedures are drawn to ensure facilitation (Knoepfel 202). In the media fraternities, Shaw and McCombs state it as the ability of any news media to influence the view of topics on the public domain. The meaning is only applicable on the public domain of branding that helps different organizations gain a competitive advantage with regards to certain products in brand community. Agenda setting mark the primary step towards finding solutions to life problems. Evidently, the world is full of many public problems. This ranges from social challenges, public intrusion to health complications. All these challenges require both human intervention and political interception; however, in many instances viable answers fail to appear. In such instances, agenda setting remains the most viable option for solutions. Many organizations within or outside the government rely on agenda setting for solutions. Agenda setting is the ability to prioritize issues based on importance. The prioritization and opportunity cost incurred during decision make agenda setting a key recipe in public problems. It, however, is important to note that agenda setting does not give an overall look at a public problem but an integrated approach. Notably, the government has a sole role of providing and guaranteeing services for the public both at the present and the future. In many instances, some problems fail to appear in the government’s radar due to many reasons. To start with is the fact that government decisions are based on importance, priority and magnitude of problems. As a result, diseases that affect a limited magnitude of people cannot get attention as compared to a serious disease that spread and affects many people. In addition, government decisions and agenda setting remain based on interest and economic benefit various decisions derive to the public. A feeder road within the village cannot be considered before tarmacking a road leading to an industrial area. As a result, the feeder road may not appear or acquire the government’s attention although it is a problem. There are different kinds of agendas based on role, arrangement and results. Traditional agenda according to the Roberts rule of order puts items in order as suggested by governing bodies such as parliament. Notably, the system allows for personal input when arranging the items. Priority agenda on the other hand, arranges items in terms of priority. As a result, the most urgent issues get attention while the least demanding items get a later attention. This ensures important items get the maximum time required. Strategic agendas have items arranged within the context of the blue print or strategic plan. In the category long category of agendas can exist however they can be derived from retreats or special meetings. Special meeting agenda subsequently represents issues listed due to special attention such as a recent discovery of drugs menace or security issue. Evidently, special meetings do not indulge into the previous meetings but concentrate on the current and special issue. Time agenda involves placing instance by which an agenda should receive attention. It allows for adherence to a stipulated time and accommodates for interruption of pending business to allow facilitation of the times issue. In the legislation, timed agenda allows for creation of special orders that allows for discussion of specific issues regarding development, security or any other pressing issue (Knoepfel 202). Presiding agenda is a separate agenda held after finalizing an official meeting including specific motions and voting. Presiding agenda relies on reminders and notes mainly written by the chair person and binds the whole group. Last but importantly, is the consent agenda, which is an agenda found within the main discussion issues. It is an agenda that requires handling of controversial issues within a discussion mainly a disagreement or Internal decisions that require voting or debates. In many instances, consent agendas find way at the start of the meeting. Policy discussion is a preliminary stage of implementation. As a result, the process plays an integral role in organizing and facilitating success. Various tools exist for policy arguments. Focused group discussion, is the most contemporary way of generating and harmonizing arguments on policies. It allows for shared interest with an ultimate decision on priority. Policy review is a tool that allows organization and assessment of items within an organization to ensure they are in line and relevant. Policy frameworks also act as tools of discussion that allows generation of meaningful products after agendas formulation. Agenda building is a general process of contribution from the salient stakeholders with basic information for key decision making. It is a process of making decisions based on priority of items to be done within a given time. Evidently, there are various models of agenda building ranging from media, public and policy agenda. The models affect personal experience and real world indicators of the agenda setting process. Most importantly, they influence tools, direction and final decisions with regards to agenda building (Soroka 61). Many actors play an integral role in the agenda building process, however, the governments and the public remain the most important people. This is despite representation from other people such as policy holders and legislators. Predicting people who participate in agenda building can be challenging; however, it relies on many factors. To start with are the existing policies and legislations regarding the issue to be discussed. In many instances, the government has regulations on which people to involve at every stage of agenda development. The selection criteria of these groups are based on education and other skills that contribute directly or indirectly to the entire process of agenda building. Consequently, prediction of who to participate in agenda building remains pegged on the issue to be discussed. Important issues with great intensity that requires government intervention do not require input from other people. However, an issue which affects the community requires a joint intervention between the government and the public. Agenda building is imperative and plays an important role to the entire process of policy building; however, it is not the most important aspect of the process because of several weaknesses. For example, agenda building only sets the process but fails to bring on board various challenges that might affect the entire policy implementation process. In an art shell, agenda building sees problems through a glass window suggesting solutions but does not face the problem. It, therefore, contribute significantly to policy process but it not the most important aspect. Mobilization is a key towards achieving a rational and comprehensive policy process. To effectively achieve mobilization, it is important to make the process inclusive and conclusive. Agenda processes that fail to be inclusive attract resistance from stakeholders while agendas that are not conclusive fail to tack issues at great depth. It, therefore, is imperative to conduct focused group discussions, consultations, exhibitions, and capacity building as empowering techniques into the decisions making process. Policy formulation portfolio Questions/Issues A policy is a principle that guides decisions towards achievement of rational outcomes. Policy formulation is a comprehensive process of analysis and synthesis to improve effectiveness as well as acceptability of a given item. It is a stage oriented approach that gives special attention to various segments of decision different from agenda setting that brings matters on boards but do not give a clear indication of their direction. In essence policy formulation is a wholly process while agenda setting remains a stage to stage process that mainly contributes in identifying problems. In addition, agenda setting says how things should be done but policy formulations stipulate what should be done both in the short and long run. Policy formulation is a complicated process that doe not only require input but responsibility, as a result only limited people have the ability to undertake policy formulation. It requires two important roles which rotate around analyst and policy makers. Analysts are professionals who possess skills in various fields of interests such as accounting, law or engineering while poly makers are people experienced in analyzing and deriving the actual plan to be implemented by authorizing body. In many instances, the government through lead agencies participates in other process of policy formulation. This is because they authorize various actions and their contribution. Attempt to neglect legislators, therefore, increases chances of policy failure. Notably, the government has a major control in the direction of a policy in terms of regulation, funding and legislation (Knoepfel 203). Problem definition is an important element of the policy formulation process for various reasons. Policies without root problems waste resources or fail to solve the actual problems. In essence problem definition assists is determining whether the problem actually exists. Arguably, certain problems may exits but in the short run but might disappear or become harmless. Formulating policies for such problems lead to wastage of resources and manpower. Subsequently, some problems require a separate approach different from the normal operations. This makes it difficult to confer general trends to solve the same problems. Apart from finding out the reality of problems, definition of problems help in assessing whether anything can be done to solve the problem. In many instances, people identify problems but formulate policies before arriving at decisions whether there are solutions. The stage of policy formulation allows identification of probable solutions which are attainable and realistic. Problems that have no end in sight require a more comprehensive approach. Last but importantly, problem definition helps in assessing power to solve the identified and analyzed problem. Formulating policies without resources and ability to solve the problem fails the entire process. It, therefore, is important to identify and assess the capacity to solve the identified problem as a preliminary phase of solving issues. Policy entrepreneurs are people who make it their responsibility and remain part of the policy formulation process mainly through political agenda. They are also activists or elements within the government who pull a large majority towards a given direction of solution generation. Policy entrepreneurs represent the views of unorganized interests before consideration and adoption of certain issues. The group plays an integral role in problem definitions. They assist in problem definition as they have the actual information regarding policy proposals. Consequently, they act as channels of communication connecting the general public to the policy formulation process. Conceivably, the connection is extremely important as without it resistance is a common occurrence before implementation. Notably, policy entrepreneurs also conduct comprehensive and extensive research on the problem before making final decisions. This is important as most people or organizations make decisions regarding policies without having the right information on the same topic. As a result, many projects fail to commence either due to lack of relevant skills or a nonexistent problem. Top-down models of policy formulation are approaches or autocratic leadership processes that allows for independent decisions by the executive regarding change without much consultations. Top-down models of policy formulation are piped decisions arising from higher offices such as the kings and king makers models. The models may over emphasize the role of elites but also reveals the hidden skills within individuals. Top-down differ from bottom up models in various ways of policy formulation. For example, bottom-up models allows for consultation, therefore, prone to limited resistances (Knoepfel 202). Arguably, top-bottom models require the use of force and inducements to adequately implement policies while bottom-up policies are inclusive. Bottom up models such as the increment model has a goal to satisfy rather than top-down models, which concentrate on maximizing. As a result, bottom up models are more feasible and achievable than the top-bottom models. Rational comprehensive model is more an elitists approach to problem rather than inclusive as compared to the increment model that makes use of an entire workforce. The rational comprehensive models provide a clear path to success but have no clear achievement techniques. For example, it fails to consider the skills available concentrating of superior approaches towards problems. Increment models on the other hand are inclusive and promise the future but occasionally fail due to counter measures. Increment models do not provide room for flexibility or further improvements. Instead of moving goal posts, it is important to move the target population. Target population moved is the ability to incorporate, gain consent and ability to make a policy. It is a strategy aimed at making people happy through involvement into the policy formulation process without necessarily involving them in decision making. In many instances, getting the population to move incorporates awarding and using all tedious means of reaching the public to be in support of various decisions. Moving a target population differs from the conventional conception of policy formulation in the sense that, the contemporary systems require extensive consultation and stem-to-step inclusion of stakeholders. Notably, contemporary styles remain protected by legislations that require consistent consultations and discussions regarding certain policies (Soroka 62). As the level of education rises moving target population circulates around group discussions and not appealing or inciting. Street level bureaucrats are people or bodies charged with a responsibility of implementing policies at the grassroots levels. They are part of the policy community that initiate, monitor and assesses progress based on the set objectives. They include social workers, police or teachers who are charged with facilitating different functions for success of any policy. Street level bureaucracies entail dissemination or distribution of duty to people who have access to the target population. It involves assessing the different abilities and assigning responsibility based on manifested skills. Street level bureaucrats make public policy through extensive consultations with the relevant stakeholder and ensuring their recommendations remains part of the major policy. For example, a police boss at community level may open suggestions from the public after which he formulates new techniques based on the recommendations Policy implementation portfolio Questions/Issues Policy implementation is a structured and complex change process that influences front line staff to commit, perform or undertake adopted policies. It is the fourth phase of policy development, which involves organizing, interpretation and application of appropriate tools for success. Subsequently, it is a process of changing objectives of a policy into action plans to bring out the desired change. Policy implementation differs from agenda setting and policy formulation is diverse ways. For example agenda setting involves identifying objectives, policy formulation involves verification of the objectives while implementation entails transformation of the objectives into action. Additionally, policy implementation entails monitoring and assessment while policy formulation revolves around identification and prioritization of alternatives. This is different to agenda setting where analysis and discussion plays significant roles. Self executing is the ability of a policy system to sustain implementation throughout the entire process. It is a process of policy implementation that provides easy access and transmission of the organizations goals into simple rational solutions. Arguably, it differed from other policy techniques because it is a self sustaining body with sufficient control. Self executing strategies are sustaining and have various mechanisms of correcting or adding alternatives that guarantee the success of policy objectives. Policy implementation is an important part of the whole process, which has many players. As a result the input of many people and agencies contribute to the overall implementation process. Policy players vary depending on the nature of players; however, there are key participants in every policy process. The government, for example, is responsible for enforcement of legislations and laws governing various operations. It, therefore, is a key participant at any level of policy implementation. Failure to include the government in any policy implementation process attracts massive problems. Other key participants in the policy implementation process include lead agencies, activitist and non-governmental organizations that represent various interests groups. evidently, no strict formula exist for identifying policy players in implementation, however, the ability of knowing who participates rests on nature of policy. Increment policies for example will require different players as compared to other models. From this perspective, players in any policy implementation process depend on component, intention and nature of policy. Bureaucratic agencies are key players in policy implementation. They are responsible for assessing, overseeing, monitoring and writing reports based on policies. Bureaucratic agencies do not only involve policy managers but also external players, which directly or indirectly contribute to the successful implementation of the policy. As such, they also keep peace, monitor intruders and ensure policies remain in line with targeted objectives. In many instances bureaucratic agencies involve security organs, which play significant roles towards providing the serene environment required by people. For example many governments have impressive strategy documents and well-constructed health policies. The policies are comprehensive and promise a good future for people, but fail to decipher such expectations in the long-run. This is because the process requires a systematic attention that transforms the high level thinking into a more practical approach. The agents that connect this gap constitute the bureaucratic partners needed to identify, access, and analyze implementation environment before making ultimate decisions. Arguably, successful policy implementation relies on having people in the right places. Having the right people without right skills or in wrong places attract massive failure in policy implementation (Knoepfel 202). It, therefore, is important to combine both quantitative and qualitative approaches towards successful realization of the planned policies. Complex legal language has remained a major problem in the policy implementation process considering the differentiation of fields. These are laws that express the legal resolutions or decisions arrived at by various bodies. Arguably, non skilled or illiterate people have a great problem adopting and understanding such terms. As such they normally contribute to delay in an attempt to fully understand the mentioned terms. According to the contemporary, policy systems people should have the ability to express and understand policies. This is a challenging step of policy implementation considering the gap in education and understanding. Complex legal language has left only a few people in charge of policy implementation instead on being inclusive and conclusive. Bureaucratic agencies, on the other hand, have failed to realize the full potential of policies due to misunderstanding or interpretation. It is not clear whether it is a strategy to maintain monopoly or it is a normal process. The disjoint has caused non-coordination between departments hence calling for integrated policy frameworks. Rule making is the act of initiating guiding principles and laws within a given boundary of action. Rule making entails defining roles, actions and limits of different people. It limits conflicts, promotes adequate use of resources and facilitates good relationships. In the policy implementation process rule making plays an imperative role of enlisting interests against intended objectives. The process entirely prevents conflict of interests, which is a major problem within policy implementation. Notably, rule making also involves consulting the government on various issues of interest. In many instances, policies fail to reach the finishing line as a result of conflict between policy objectives and government requirements. Rule making, therefore, offers a consultative framework that allows for conformity in operations. Ordinarily policy implementation process generates a lot of tension with regards to target group, environmental factors, idealized policy and implementing organization. Arguably, the tensions may arise due to mismatch between transaction patterns and expected outcomes from policy formulators. In this light, several questions guide policy implementation as a way of ensuring it meets the anticipated objectives. For example, the role and anticipations of interest groups from the implementation process shapes the whole outcome. Many people reject the whole implementation process at a clear sense of mismatch in their expectation. The government at this stage may modify, abandon or continue implementation without change. The role of interested parties, therefore, is a key question in the implementation process that must be answered to emphasize commitment (Grafton and Anne 46). Additionally, the channels of implementation influence the general outlook of implementation process. Policy implementation through political parties is tantamount to more problems as compared to interest group channels. It is also important to ask the implication of the whole process in the eventual output. This minimizes disruptive tensions that arise in the policy implementation process. Management by objectives is a clear cut process of defining objectives to allow understanding and consent between employees and the management. The technique popularized by Peter Drucker allows employees to know their roles and fulfill responsibilities towards a common goal (Grafton and Anne 46). The process is important in policy implementation as it facilitates limited misunderstanding and problems between the management and workforce. It is different from the decision tree, which offers a sequential analysis of decisions with possible consequences. Decisions tree is a productive models that offers chances of outcome with regards to costs and utility. It is an important tool of policy implementation that can ensure policies remain in line with objectives. Nonetheless, it is different from the critical path method (CPM) that allows for flexibility, expansion and crash management. The algorithm technique provides as layout of all activities, duration, external, internal and logical endpoints of contributing factors. The results allow policy managers to make sound decisions that are planned to success. It, therefore, forms a viable tool for policy implementation. Policy implementation is a complex process as a result each participant has a different role. Legislators, for example, ensure projects meet the threshold of legislations and regulations that exist ranging from health, security and environment. Interests groups ensure the ideas and feelings of represented people are taken into consideration during the implementation phase. Courts, courts on the other, disrupt, allow or prosecute wrong actions. They act as arbitrators in project implementation ensuring that project policies are in line with the law, interests and other factors. Conceivably, different agencies represent diverse areas of environment, health, or even minerals. The role of agencies is to ensure policy implementation conform to the requirements of their guiding principles. Policy evaluation portfolio questions/issues. Policy evaluation is an interactive process that forms the last stage of policy development. It is an evidential process that uses both formal and informal processes to determine whether the policy has realized the intended objectives. Policy evaluation differed from agenda setting, formulation and implementation in the sense that it is the last process of policy development that takes an overall look to assess whether policy objectives meet required settings. Notably, policy evaluation can also take place on a step-to-step basis. It is a process that assesses the accomplished conceptual goals against competing objectives. Evaluation of policies follows given standards with regards to laws, ethical requirements and other regulations (Vedung 23). Policy evaluation is important as it provides a statistical and comparative effectiveness of different results. Policy evaluation finds whether the problem has been identified, important aspects neglected, recommendations incorporated, needs of modification, and sources of any failure. As such different kinds of policy evaluation exists, formative evaluation for example, is a monitoring process that attempts to find out whether a policy has been implemented as intended. It main objective is to document problematic factors in implementation and make recommendations. It, therefore, is a stepwise process that allows for flexibility throughout the development process. Summative evaluation, on the other hand, is a process that happens after completion of the program. Notably, the evaluation technique is not common as it is controversial and makes it difficult to measure program accomplishment. Policies get driven by goals facilitated by the need for a given factor. Undeniably, there are different types of goals ranging from primary, secondary and tertiary. Primary goals are core principles and guiding factors that make primary elements of a policy. They are the driving reasons behind the big decisions to implements a given policy. For example, building a water source by the government is a primary goal for the government. Subsequently, introducing irrigation is a secondary goal as it culminates from the water point previously builds to relieve residents from dire water problems. It, however, becomes a tertiary goal if the government decided to find market for the agricultural produce derived from farming (Raggamby and Friede 44). In this regards, primary, secondary and tertiary goals all aim at providing conform however, each range in importance. Policy evaluation attempts to ascertain whether the intended objective is achieved. Focusing on secondary or tertiary goals shift the focus, however, primary goals give the true picture. Standards of success are measured by various bodies in the policy implementation process. Standards of success vary from region to region; however, certain factors remain constant. To start with is the legality and conformity to existing regulations. A good policy should meet all legal expectations after implementation to prevent friction with legislators. Second policies should be able to integrate all players and limit ambiguity. Evidently, vagueness attracts judiciary elements, which derail the whole process. It should also be clear and simple to follow. As such legal, legislation and lead agencies play an integral role in measuring success. Bureaucratic agencies play different roles in evaluation. They act as point people giving vital feedback, which is important for improving organization’s performance. Furthermore, they initiate contact with affected groups to ensure sound solutions. They are also watch groups for any new challenges that might arise during evaluation. Interest groups are whistle blowers during the evaluation process. They are responsible to identifying failing aspects and airing their views. It, however, is important to make sure that only pertinent issues remain applicable to the process. Conceivably, not all interests can be contained in the general policy process. As a result only priority issues are taken into consideration during the agenda setting stage. Policy discontinuity may be a solution to non-achieving policies; however, it has various problems. For example, it is not a path to solution but a way of escaping reality. In this light, problems still exist hence discontinuity does not present a better option. Consequently, it leads to wastage of resources and time. All the stages of agenda setting, policy formulation and implementation require resources in terms of money and time. Starting and ending these processes at will lead to wastage of resources hence making policy discontinuity a problem. In addition, discontinuity promotes complexity of the problem as limited options remain. Psychology appearance is important as it acts as a persuading factor. It is a satisfactory technique meant to convince people on the benefits of policy processes. It is important as it limits resistance and aggressiveness against the whole process. Process evaluation is a continuous activity that offers a step-to-step assessment of the policy development process. In as much as many people regard it as a delay tool, it is important for early identification of problems. In this light process evaluation promotes flexibility and adaptability in line with the set objectives. Outcome evaluation, on the other hand, is a final process aimed at matching results against the set objectives. Outcome evaluation is important as it gives an overall picture hence summarizing any mismatch. It is also costly and easy to conduct. Despite the advantages, the evaluation technique fails to give the true picture and at times may find the whole process irrelevant. Efficiency, adequacy, effectiveness and equity are important yardsticks in policy evaluation from various perspectives. For example effectiveness and efficiency guarantee longevity and will to satisfy the intended public domain. Adequacy and equity, on the other, hand ensures availability with equal rights for use. Policies which do not meet these standards are likely to fail as all play a significant role in streamlining communal arrangements. Five questions associated with the practical program evaluation target rationality, accuracy, precision, rigor and methodology. Evaluation criteria should be able to ascertain the methods, accuracy in meeting the intended objectives and rationality in handling diverse issues. Works Cited Grafton, Carl, and Anne Permaloff. The Behavioral Study of Political Ideology and Public Policy Formation. Dallas: University Press of America, 2005. Print. Knoepfel, Peter. Public Policy Analysis. Bristol: Policy Press, 2011. Print. Raggamby, Anneke , and Frieder Rubik. Sustainable Development, Evaluation and Policy-Making: Theory, Practise and Quality Assurance. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub, 2012. Internet resource. Soroka, Stuart N. Agenda-setting Dynamics in Canada. Vancouver [u.a.: UBC Press, 2002. Print. Vedung, E. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2008. Print. Read More