Public policy, which is a governmental action, is a principled guide to an action that needs to be taken by either administrative or executive branches of a state. Inherently, Patterson claims that there are three stages of public policy process. The three stages include agenda setting, policy formulation and legitimation, and policy implementation and evaluation.
There are two basic forms of agenda in public policy, which include the systematic agendas and institutional agenda. Systematic agenda includes all the agendas that the political community agrees to resolve. Systematic agenda consists of issues that appear and disappear, in the public attention up to the time the issue will reoccur again, consequently becoming problematic enough to be ignored. It is at this stage that the policy makers push the issue to institutional agendas, which make up the list of issues that are in the process of active consideration. Whereas systematic agendas are abstract and fluid, and along with identifying problem area, although they do not propose any alternative or solution to the problem, institutional agendas are specific concrete, as well as limited. Inherently, institutional agendas also identify the problem, as well as alternative solutions. Progressing of an issue of systematic agenda highly depends on the number of people, who are interested in it and concerned about it.
More importantly, issues reach the decision agenda, following different ways, such as through individuals and coherent groups that are working towards making their issues, addressed by the government. Secondly, issues may reach the decision agenda through the chance, when policy proposals are talked over, since they are noticed by the government, and then pushed to the decision agenda. Essentially, there are three process streams, which consist of policies and politics problems, which have to meet, for an issue to become a governmental agenda. More importantly, they meet once, an initiator takes some critical action and consequently, this makes a window of opportunity open, since the issue would be under both active and serious consideration of the government.
Essentially, it is the role of bureaucracy to suggest the policies to be legislative, as well as provide information regarding the strengths along with weaknesses of the proposed alternatives and solutions in the formulation process. The bureaucracy assumes this role, since it is perceived to have the technical expertise that most legislators and elected officials do not have. Moreover, media may also have a stake in policy formulation and legitimation, by not only creating issues, but also by influencing both the public and political opinions, making the special interest groups to intervene in such issues (Griffin 38).
One of the first hurdle, that need to be taken in policy formulation and legitimation, is a problem definition, where the legislators are expected to agree on the parameters of the problem, before they commence the process of formulating solutions.
After defining a problem, the consecutive process involves formulation of a solution which emerges as a result of bargaining, as well as compromising by a number of fractions that are within the government. Actually, sometimes when the problem may appear intractable, the process may include the appointment of a study commission, which may ultimately avoid decision, or pass resolutions that condemn the undesirable activity, leading to the issue identified. More importantly, negotiations may have crux for the issues that are not directly associated with the policy problem, since congressional logrolling often governs the policy formulation process. Inherently, the process of negotiation along with bargaining does not end at the passage of the initial legislation, but however, it continues through to the formulation of subsequent amendments as well as reauthorization of the initial legislation.
Legitimate policies often contain the authority of the state, attached to them. More importantly, legitimacy is not only psychological, but also substantive and procedural, as well as variable. It is psychological, because the government is not expected to do anything, in order to force citizens accept its policies, whereas it is substantive and procedural, since there are certain areas, where the government is not expected to meddle by the citizens either. Moreover, legitimacy is regarded as variable for the reason that governments may lose legitimacy, if they violate public trust. Inherently, the administrative decision process involves the secondary legislation. Essentially, there are a number of chances, where the public input along with influences during the administrative decision process is observed, where they act as the fourth branch of government. Additionally, court decisions are also considered as legitimate. More importantly, the final source of legitimacy rests on the direct democracy and is mostly expressed in initiatives or referenda.
Evidently, implementation occurs after the policy goals are translated into governmental actions that consequently impact on other branches of government or the citizens. However, implementation process may be affected, when the policymakers lack commitment, or through poor policy design. Actually, when handing the policy to administrators, other factors also come into play. These factors include the bureaucratic resources along with administrative discretion. Actually, bureaucracy has a great influence on the implementation process; this is through their initial power, which comes from their legal authority. Moreover, bureaucracy is advantaged by the technical expertise of both senior and mid-level administrators. Another factor that is crucial in the implementation process, is the administrative discretion. Actually, discretion offers the administrators a chance to fit the policy decisions to individual cases, which enhance flexibility, and consecutively allow the administrative law to evolve incrementally.
To see more articles like this, check out the site https://elitewritings.com/buy-essays.html.