 |
Business | Industries | Finance | Tax |
| Index: > A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
|
|||||
| First Prev [ 1 2 3 4 ] Next Last |
According to Thomas A. Birkland's book An Introduction to the Policy Process, there is a "lack of a consensus definition of public policy. Thomas Dye argues that this search for a definition of public policy can degenerate into a word game." (p. 19)
That said, here is a starting point. Public policy is the study of policy making by governments. A government's public policy is the set of policies (laws, plans, actions, behaviors) that it chooses. Since governments claim authority and responsibility (to varying degrees) over a large group of individuals, they see fit to establish plans and methods of action that will govern that society.
Table 1.3 in Birkland's book outlines a few definitions of public policy (p. 21):
According to the Encarta definition of political science:
The field of public policy involves the study of specific policy problems and governmental responses to them. Political scientists involved in the study of public policy attempt to devise solutions for problems of public concern.
According to Merriam Webster's online dictionary, policy is defined as:
2a : definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions. 2b : a high-level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body.
Birkland offers up these common traits of all definitions of public policy (p. 20):
- The policy is made in the "public's" name.
- Policy is generally made or initiated by government.
- Policy is interpreted and implemented by public and private actors.
- Policy is what the government intends to do.
- Policy is what the government chooses not to do.
Public policy, of course, overlaps with many other subject areas. Other related areas include: political science, government, philosophy, economics, law, social welfare, public administration, public health, and statistics.
According to "An Introduction to the Policy Process" (2001, BooksEnthsiast.com) by Thomas A. Birkland:
While the study of politics has a long history, the systematic study of public policy, on the other hand, can be said to be a twentieth century creation. It dates, according to Daniel McCool, to 1922, when political scientist Charles Merriam sought to connect the theory and practices of politics to understanding the actual activities of government, that is public policy." (p.4) (see McCool, Daniel C. Public Policy Theories, Models, and Concepts: An Anthology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995.)
People of different political persuasions have varying ideas about the proper purpose of government. (See liberalism and conservatism. Also see democratic, republican, libertarian, socialist, communist, and authoritarian political ideologies.)
One way to evaluate the success of public policy is to examine the extent to which it increases the well-being of its citizens. But how is well-being defined? Should governments strive for equality of condition, i.e. to eliminate poverty and hunger? Or should governments strive for equality of opportunity, i.e. that all people have access to the tools they need to shape their own future?
An interesting way to illustrate differences in public policy approaches is to consider the tradeoff between equality and efficiency:
A government policy that seeks to increase equality (of condition) usually does so by redistributive means, i.e. taxing the rich and channeling the funds to help low-income people.
To some, such redistribution seems unfair. For example, consider a rich person who feels that he has earned every penny of his income. He would ask, "why should my income be taxed away and given to the poor, who did not work for it?" His argument has two key underlying points. First, the government's philosophy of giving money to the poor is wrong, because it will not encourage the poor to work harder. Second, the government's taxation process is relatively inefficient and therefore money is wasted as it passes through layers of government bureaucracy.
To others, redistribution is the humane thing to do. Government should provide a safety net to keep society running smoothly. There are empathetic as well as practical reasons for this. One, these believers in social welfare argue that not all poor people are lazy. Everyone has rough times and needs some help from time to time; one cannot always rely on private charity, so it makes sense for the government to step in. Two, a civil society tends to have less crime and allows stronger economic growth. Three, do wealthy people really deserve to keep 100% of their profits? Does not the government provide roads, national defense, stability, and a good climate for economic activity? How could anyone become wealthy if there was no rule of law? Proponents of redistribution would say that paying taxes is a simple matter of reimbursing government for the services that it provides. (See also: theories of taxation .)
| Politics | Business | Finance |
 |
 |
 |
|