MODELS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

MODELS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS

Uses of Models.

The models we shall use in studying policy are conceptual models.

Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy Identify important aspects of policy problems Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its consequences

Selected Policy Models.

INSTITUTIONALISM: POLICY AS INSTITUTIONAL OUTPUT

Government institutions have long been a central focus of political science. Public policy is authoritatively determined, implemented, and enforced by these institutions. The relationship between public policy and government institutions is very close. Strictly speaking, a policy does not become a public policy until it is adopted, implemented, and enforced by some government institution. Government institutions give public policy three distinctive characteristics.

  • First, government lends legitimacy to policies. Government policies are generally regarded as legal obligations that command the loyalty of citizens.
  • Second, government policies involve universality. Only government policies extend to all people in a society; the policies of other groups or organizations reach only a part of the society.
  • Finally, government monopolizes coercion in society, only government can legitimately imprison violators of its policies. The impact of institutional arrangements on public policy is an empirical question that deserves investigation. Federalism recognizes that both the national govern ent and the state governments derive independent legal authority from their own citizens.

PROCESS: POLICY AS POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Today political processes and behaviors are a central focus of political science. Political scientists with an interest in policy have grouped various activities according to their relationship with public policy. The result is a Policy process, which outlines

  • Problem Identification: The identification of policy problems through demands for government action.
  • Policy Formulation: The development of policy proposals by interest groups, White House staff, congressional committees, and think tanks.
  • Policy Legitimation: The selection and endorsement of policies through political actions by Congress, the president, and the courts.
  • Policy Implementation: The implementation of policies through organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies.
  • Policy Evaluation: The evaluation of policies by government agencies them selves, outside consultants, the press, and the public.

It has been argued that political scientists should limit their studies of public policy to these processes and avoid analyses of the substance of policies. It is not the content of public policy that is to be studied but rather the processes by which public policy is developed, implemented, and changed.

RATIONALISM: POLICY AS MAXIMUM SOCIAL GAIN

A rational policy is one that achieves “maximum social gain”; that is, governments should choose policies resulting in gains to society that exceed costs by the greatest amount, and governments should refrain from policies if costs are not exceeded by gains. First, no policy should be adopted if its costs exceed its benefits. Second, among policy alternatives, decision makers should choose the policy that produces the greatest benefit over cost. To select a rational policy, policymakers must

  1. Know all the preferences and their relative weights,
  2. know all the policy alternatives available,
  3. Know all the consequences of each policy alternative,
  4. Calculate the ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative, and
  5. Select the most efficient policy alternative.

Rational policymaking also requires information about alternative policies, the predictive capacity to foresee accurately the consequences of alternate policies, and the intelligence to calculate correctly the ratio of costs to benefits. Finally, rational policymaking requires a decision-making system that facilitates rationality in policy formation. Large investments in existing programs and policies (sunk costs) prevent policymakers from reconsidering alternatives foreclosed by previous decisions.

INCREMENTALISM: POLICY AS VARIATIONS ON THE PAST

Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past government activities with only incremental modifications. On the contrary, constraints of time, information, and cost prevent policymakers from identifying the full range of policy alternatives and their consequences. Incrementalism is conservative in that existing programs; policies, and expenditures are considered as a base, and attention is concentrated on new programs and policies and on increases, decreases, or modifications of current programs.

Policymakers generally accept the legitimacy of established programs and tacitly agree to continue previous policies. Second, policymakers accept the legitimacy of previous policies because of the uncertainty about the consequences of completely new or different policies known programs when the consequences of new programs cannot be predicted.

Conflict is heightened when decision making focuses on major policy shifts involving great gains or losses, or “all-or-nothing,” “yes-or-no” policy decisions. This search usually begins with the familiar-that is, with policy alternatives close to current policies.

Only if these alternatives appear to be unsatisfactory will the policy-maker venture out toward more radical policy innovation.

GROUP THEORY: POLICY AS GROUP EQUILIBRIUM

Politics is really the struggle among groups to influence public policy. The task of the political system is to manage group conflict by

  1. establishing rules of the game in the group struggle,
  2. arranging compromises and balancing interests,
  3. enacting. According to group theorists, public policy at any given time is the equilibrium reached in the group struggle.

This equilibrium is determined by the relative influence of any interest groups. Group theory purports to describe all meaningful, political activity in terms of the group struggle. Policymakers are viewed as constantly responding to group pressures bargaining, negotiating, and compromising among competing demands of influential groups. Politicians attempt to form a majority coalition of groups. Parties are viewed as coalitions of groups. Second, overlapping group membership helps to maintain the equilibrium by preventing anyone group from moving too far from prevailing values. Individuals who belong to anyone group also belong to other groups, and this fact moderates the demands of groups who must avoid offending their members who have other group affiliations. No single group constitutes a majority in American society. The power of each group is checked by the power of competing groups.

ELITE THEORY: POLICY AS ELITE PREFERENCE

Public policy may also be viewed as the preferences and values of governing elite? Elite theory suggests that the people are apathetic and ill informed about public policy, that elites actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than masses shape elite opinion. Thus, public policy really turns out to be the preferences of elites. Policies flow downward from elites to masses; they do not arise from mass demands.

Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles.

  • Elites share consensus in behalf of the basic values of the social system and the preservation of the system.
  • Public policy does not reflect the demands of masses but rather the prevailing values of the elite.
  • Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.

What are the implications of elite theory for policy analysis? The values of elites may be very “public regarding.” Second, elitism views the masses as largely passive, apathetic, and ill informed; mass sentiments are more often manipulated by elites, rather than elite values being influenced by the sentiments of masses; and for the most part, communication between elites and masses flows downward.

PUBLIC CHOICE THEORY: POLICY AS COLLECTIVE DECISION MAKING BY SELF-INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

Public choice is the economic study of non-market decision-making, especially the application of economic analyses to public policymaking. Traditionally, economics studied behavior in the marketplace and assumed that individuals pursued their private interests; political science studied behavior in the public arena and assumed that individuals pursued their own notion of the public interest. This theory assumes that all political actors’ voters, taxpayers, candidates, legislators, bureaucrats, interest groups, parties, bureaucracies, and governments-seek to maximize their personal benefits in politics as well as in the marketplace. Enlightened the self-interest leads individuals to a constitutional contract establishing a government to protect life, liberty, and property. Second, externalities are another recognized market failure and justification for government intervention. Public choice theory helps to explain why political parties and candidates generally fail to offer clear policy alternatives in election campaigns. Public choice theory also contributes to out understanding of interest groups and their effects on public policy. In short, interest groups, like other political actors, pursue their self-interest in the political marketplace.

GAMETHEORY: POLICY AS RATIONAL CHOICE IN COMPETITIVE SITUATIONS

Game theory is the study of rational decisions in situations in which two or more participants have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choices made by each. Perhaps the connotation of a “game” is unfortunate, suggesting that game theory is not really appropriate for serious conflict situations. Game theory is an abstract and deductive model of policymaking. The choices are frequently portrayed in a “matrix”-a diagram that presents the alternative choices of each player and all possible outcomes of the game. The actual outcome depends on the choices of both Player A and Player B. Payoffs are frequently represented by numerical values; these numerical values are placed inside each cell of the matrix and presumably correspond to the values each player places on each outcome. Because players value different outcomes differently, there are two numerical values inside each cell—one for each player. Consider the game of “chicken.” Whoever veers is “chicken.” For example, one player may prefer death to dishonor in the game

Pos ini dipublikasikan di ADMINISTRASI NEGARA. Tandai permalink.

Tinggalkan Balasan

Isikan data di bawah atau klik salah satu ikon untuk log in:

Logo WordPress.com

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Logout / Ubah )

Gambar Twitter

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Facebook

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Logout / Ubah )

Foto Google+

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Logout / Ubah )

Connecting to %s