Reference no: EM133321595

Assignment:

Introduction: Public Policy and Policy Makers

In the previous chapter, we discussed the costs and benefits of relying on political appointees versus civil servants for helping to develop and implement public policy. Similarly, at the educational level, there are costs and benefits to analyzing public policy practices from a "practical" versus a more "academic" perspective. What does the book tell us about the differences between these two perspectives and why is it important to consider such differences as we continue our own investigations of the subject? As previously mentioned, Woodrow Wilson in 1887 challenged academics to further explore the topic of public administration as a major area of study. In his view, the chance to seriously study public administration would help generate highly educated-and therefore qualified-individuals to tackle the big policy problems of society. Fast forward to today and consider where we are at with this course.

We have already discussed, to some extent, the difference between those who seek to study PA for the purpose of going out and being practitioners in the field of public service. Others are more interested in academic questions that can be debated, sometimes on a theoretical rather than more immediately applicable manner, in order to help other researchers as well as practitioners think outside of the box and find ways of improving PA practices.

Given that this is a political science course, it should not be surprising that our discussions continually explore varying theoretical concepts and push for debate over competing perspectives promoted by key scholars. Similarly, PA scholars have their own perspectives. For some scholars, like Henry, the hope is that such competing ideas will lead to a bridging of ideas that practitioners may find helpful for day-to-day application. For the next section, we explore the Political Science-friendly "Incrementalist" paradigm and compare/contrast it to the Public Administration-friendly "Rationalist" paradigm.

Question A:

1. Given our previous discussions and the more recent topics of discussion, where do you stand currently in terms of these two perspectives-do you believe "practical" or "academic" is the way to go? Do they go hand in hand? Does it depend on how you personally feel about your future goals-does either career track seem interesting to you?

2. What three primary homes does public policy have in universities? How would you categorize each in order of importance? Why so? Where does our class fit in?

3. What is the general difference between Incrementalist paradigm and the rationalist paradigm discussed?

Incrementalist Paradigm of Public Policy Making and the Elite/Mass Model

Charles E. Linblom is, for some, a rock star of scholarly proportions. Though reading his work may put most people to sleep, for those that find the topic of policy making an exciting and invigorating exercise, he is huge. Born in 1917, he is today Sterling Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Economics at Yale University. Like Woodrow Wilson, he is a former president of the American Political Science Association. Impressed? If so, great! Not so impressed? That's okay-it should at least help provide an insight into how important Lindblom and other mentioned scholars are to many of today's researchers and practitioners in their daily exercises to further master the topics of public administration and public policy. Charles Linblom came up with the term "disjointed incrementalism" as a description of how the policy making process works. He also use the term "muddling through" as a way to describe the kind of progress generally made by those involved with the policy process. Essentially, he argues that it is difficult and unlikely that enormous changes in public policy can be thought up or pushed through institutions (e.g. Congress) in broad scopes.

Rather, most changes in policy are based on previous policies, with small adjustments applied in an effort to improve on past practices. When thinking in terms of expertise, you might consider that civil servants spend many years learning and trying different approaches, eventually improving their applications and garnering a better understanding of both policy direction and manner of implementation. Likewise, when it comes to politically minded actors, their debates and compromise over policy direction, as well as their past failures and successes, often lead to slightly different policies in the future that demonstrate some level of adjustment, be it adjusting to bureaucratic expertise, public opinion shifts, and/or levels of competition from opposing political forces in the political arena. In considering how incrementalism works, scholars have also considered where exactly those incremental changes come from.

One highly popular view is the Elite/Mass Model, which suggests that those with greater money, education, and power (often those in office or with a strong voice through the media) have a greater level of influence over policy direction than do the general masses, many of whom are highly dependent on elites for information, if not outright apathetic and uninvolved with the process. Indeed, proponents of this model suggest that some members of the mass public take a keen interest in the policy process; their dependence on elites for information shapes their decision making in a manner that benefits and follows elite preferences. Does this perspective sound plausible to you? Below is an illustration of the Elite/Mass Model: Aside from the Elite/Mass Model, there are numerous alternative models one might consider as well: the Group Model, the Systems Model, the Institutionalist Model, the Neo-Institutionalist Model, and the Organized Anarchy Model. Self-Reflection and Understanding

Question B:

1. Do you buy into the Elite/Mass Model as it applies to the policy making process? Why or why not?

2. How does Henry define the other remaining models: the Group Model, the Systems Model, the Institutionalist Model, the Neo-Institutionalist Model, and the Organized Anarchy Model? Which one (along with the Elite/Mass Model) do you find most convincing? Is there only one that comes closest to explaining reality or does it depend on the circumstances?

3. What does Henry mean when he describes "windows and agendas" as it pertains to the policy making proce