Public policy

Public policy is an institutionalized proposal or a decided set of elements like laws, regulations, guidelines, and actions[1][2] to solve or address relevant and real-world problems, guided by a conception[3] and often implemented by programs. The implementation of public policy is known as public administration. Public policy can be considered to be the sum of a government's direct and indirect activities[4] and has been conceptualized in a variety of ways.

This article is about government action. For use of the phrase in legal doctrine, see Public policy doctrine.
Part of the Politics series
Politics
Primary topics
Political systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
icon Politics portal

They are created and/or enacted on behalf of the public typically by a government. Sometimes they are made by nonprofit organizations[5] or are made in co-production with communities or citizens,[6][7] which can include potential experts,[8][9][10] scientists, engineers and stakeholders or scientific data, or sometimes use[11][12] some of their results. They are typically made by policy-makers affiliated with (in democratic polities) currently elected politicians. Therefore, the "policy process is a complex political process in which there are many actors: elected politicians, political party leaders, pressure groups, civil servants, publicly employed professionals, judges, non-governmental organizations, international agencies, academic experts, journalists and even sometimes citizens who see themselves as the passive recipients of policy."[13]

A popular way of understanding and engaging in public policy is through a series of stages known as "the policy cycle", which was first discussed by the political scientist Harold Laswell in his book The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis, published in 1956. The characterization of particular stages can vary, but a basic sequence is agenda setting, policy formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation. "It divides the policy process into a series of stages, from a notional starting point at which policymakers begin to think about a policy problem to a notional end point at which a policy has been implemented and policymakers think about how successful it has been before deciding what to do next."[14]

Officials considered as policymakers bear responsibility to reflect the interests of a host of different stakeholders. Policy design entails conscious and deliberate effort to define policy aims and map them instrumentally. Academics and other experts in policy studies have developed a range of tools and approaches to help in this task.

Varying conceptions of public policy

Public policy can be conceptualized in varying ways, according to the purposes of the speaker or author, and the characteristics of the situation they are concerned with.

One dividing line in conceptions of public policy is between those that see it primarily in terms of ideas (principles and plans of action) and those that see it as a collection of empirical phenomena (the things that are done, and their outcomes). The first of these conceptualizations is suitable when the matter of concern is relatively simple and unambiguous, and the means of enactment are expected to be highly disciplined. But where the matter is complex and/or contested – where intentions are confused and/or disguised – it may not be possible to define the policy ideas clearly and unambiguously. In this case it may be useful to identify a policy in terms of what actually happens.[15]

David Easton in the USA of the 1950s provided an illustration of the need he found to broaden his conceptualization of public policy beyond stated ideas: "If the formal policy of an educational system forbids discrimination against Negroes but local school boards or administrators so zone school attendance that Negroes are segregated in a few schools, both the impartial law and discriminatory practices must be considered part of the policy." Easton characterized public policy as "a web of decisions and actions that allocates values".[16]

Other definitions of public policy in terms of a broad range of empirical phenomena include that of Paul Cairney: "the sum total of government action from signals of intent to the final outcomes".[17]

An example of conceiving public policy as ideas is a definition by Richard Titmuss: "the principles that govern action directed towards given ends".[18] Titmuss' perspective was particularly one of social contract ethics.

More recently, Antonio Lassance has defined public policy as "an institutionalized proposal to solve a central problem, guided by a conception" (Lassance, 2020: 7).[3] Lassance's perspective and concerns are grounded in a theory of change or program theory[19][20] which he believes can be empirically tested.

One of the most known and controversial concepts of public policy is that of Thomas R. Dye, according to whom "public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do" (Dye, 1972: 2).[21] Although widely used, Dye's concept is also criticized as being an empty concept.[3] Dye himself admitted that his concept "discourages elaborate academic discussions of the definition of public policy - we say simply that public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do".[22]

In an institutionalist view, the foundation of public policy is composed of national constitutional laws and regulations. Further foundational aspects include both judicial interpretations and regulations which are generally authorized by legislation. Public policy is considered strong when it solves problems efficiently and effectively, serves and supports governmental institutions and policies, and encourages active citizenship.[23]

In his book Advanced Introduction to Public Policy, B. Guy Peters defines public policy as "the set of activities that governments engage in for the purpose of changing their economy and society", effectively saying that public policy is legislation brought in with the aim of benefiting or impacting the electorate in some way.[24] In another definition, author B. Dente in his book Understanding Policy Decisions explains public policy as "a set of actions that affect the solution of a policy problem, i.e. a dissatisfaction regarding a certain need, demand or opportunity for public intervention. Its quality is measured by the capacity to create public value."[25]

Other scholars define public policy as a system of "courses of action, regulatory measures, laws, and funding priorities concerning a given topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its representatives".[26] Public policy is commonly embodied in "constitutions, legislative acts, and judicial decisions".[27] Transformative constitutions of Global South considers judicial actions for Public policy as paramount, since the political forces that facilitate legislative decisions may run counter to the will of the people.[28]

Public policy focuses on the decisions that create the outputs of a political system, such as transport policies, the management of a public health service, the administration of a system schooling and the organization of a defense force.[29] The directly measurable policy outputs, "actions actually taken in pursuance of policy decisions and statements," can be differentiated from the broader policy outcomes, "focus[ing] on a policy's societal consequences."[30]

In the United States, this concept refers not only to the result of policies, but more broadly to the decision-making and analysis of governmental decisions. As an academic discipline, public policy is studied by professors and students at public policy schools of major universities throughout the country. The U.S. professional association of public policy practitioners, researchers, scholars, and students is the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.

Much of public policy is concerned with evaluating decision-making in governments and public bureaucracies.[29]

Public policy making and the implementation of public policy

Public policy making can be characterized as a dynamic, complex, and interactive system through which public problems are identified and resolved through the creation of new policy or reform of existing policy.[31]

Public problems can originate in endless ways and require different policy responses (such as regulations, subsidies, import quotas, and laws) on the local, national, or international level. The public problems that influence public policy making can be of economic, social, or political nature.[32]

The Government holds a legal monopoly to initiate or threaten physical force to achieve its ends when necessary. For instance, in times of chaos when quick decision making is needed.[33]

Public policy making

Public policy making is a time-consuming 'policy cycle'.

The policy cycle as set out in Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues.[34]

Agenda setting

Agenda setting identifies problems that require government attention, deciding which issue deserve the most attention and defining the nature of the problem.

Social construction of problems

Most public problems are made through the reflection of social and ideological values. As societies and communities evolve over time, the nature in which norms, customs and morals are proven acceptable, unacceptable, desirable or undesirable changes as well.[35] Thus, the search of crucial problems to solve becomes difficult to distinguish within 'top-down' governmental bodies.

Policy stream

The policy stream is a concept developed by John Kingdon as a model proposed to show compelling problems need to be conjoined with two other factors: appropriate political climate and favorable and feasible solutions (attached to problems) that flow together to move onto policy agenda. This reinforces the policy window, another concept demonstrating the critical moment within a time and situation that a new policy could be motivated.[36]

Problem stream

Because the definition of public problems are not obvious, they are most often denied and not acted upon. The problem stream represents a policy process to compromise for how worthy problems are to create policies and solutions.[35] This is represented in five discrete factors:

  • Indicators: Scientific measurements, qualitative, statistical data using empirical evidence is used to bring relevance to particular phenomena.
  • Interpretation: Policymakers make judgements whether an issue constitutes a problem worthy of action.
  • Ideology: Elements of dominant values, customs, beliefs are crucial to devising problems needed for attention.
  • Instances: Media coverage supports by drawing attention to issues, thus prompting policymakers to respond and address changes.

Therefore, John Kingdon's model[37] suggests the policy window appears through the emergence and connection of problems, politics and policies, emphasizing an opportunity to stimulate and initiate new policies.[35]

Issue attention cycle

The issue attention cycle is a concept developed by Anthony Downs (1972) where problems progress through five distinct stages.[38] This reinforces how the policy agenda does not necessarily lead to policy change, as public interest dissipates, most problems end up resolving themselves or get ignored by policymakers.[35] Its key stages include:

  1. Pre-problem stage: The problem is not recognized by the public, media or policy makers.
  2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm: Something is identified as a problem, supported awareness by media to pursue seriousness of problem
  3. Realization of costs which will be incurred by the solutions: Investigating through cost-benefit analysis, bringing awareness of financial, environmental, structural curbs to consider solutions and what makes for their consequences.
  4. Decline in public interest in issue: Citizens acquire acceptance of the problem and it becomes normalized. Newer issues attract the attention of the public. Limited attention span encourages policymakers to delay developing policy to see which public troubles demand necessary and worthwhile solving.
  5. Issue slips off, or back down, the policy agenda: The issue effectively disappears, although it has the possibility to re-emerge in other pressing circumstances.

Policy formulation

This is the setting of the objectives for the policy, along with identifying the cost and effect of solutions that could be proposed from policy instruments.

Legitimation

Legitimation is when approval/ support for the policy instruments is gathered, involving one of or a combination of executive approval, legislative approval, and seeking consent through consultation or referendums.

Implementation

Policy implementation is establishing or employing an organization to take responsibility for the policy, making sure the organization has the resources/legal authority to do so, in addition to making sure the policy is carried out as planned. An example of this would be the department of education being set up.

Enforcement
Further information: Enforcement

Enforcement mechanisms are a central part of various policies. Enforcement mechanisms co-determine natural resource governance outcomes[39] and pollution-related policies may require proper enforcement mechanisms (and often substitutes) to have a positive effect.[40] Enforcement may include law enforcement or combine incentive and disincentive-based policy instruments.[41] A meta-analysis of policy studies across multiple policy domains suggests enforcement mechanisms are the "only modifiable treaty design choice" with the potential to improve the mostly low effectiveness of international treaties.[42][43]

Implementation gap

As stated by Paul Cairney, the implementation gap are the stages a policy must go through before an authoritative decision is made and carried out. As an example, the agenda setting stage is followed by the policy formulation, this will continue until the policy is implemented. [44]

Top-down and bottom-up implementation

"Top-down" and "bottom-up" describe the process of policy implementation. Top-down implementation means the carrying out of a policy at the top i.e. central government or legislature. The bottom-up approach suggests that the implementation should start with the target group, as they are seen as the actual implementers of policy.[45]

Evaluation

Evaluation is the process of assessing the extent to which the policy has been successful, or if this was the right policy to begin with/ was it implemented correctly and if so, did it go as expected.

Policy maintenance

Maintenance is when the policy makers decide to either terminate or continue the policy. The policy is usually either continued as is, modified, or discontinued.

Composition

This cycle will unless discontinued go back to the agenda-setting phase and the cycle will commence again. However, the policy cycle is illustrated in a chronological and cyclical structure which could be misleading as in actuality, policymaking would include overlapping stages between the multiple interactions of policy proposals, adjustments, decision-making amongst multiple government institutions and respective authoritative actors.[46] Likewise, although its heuristic model is straightforward and easy to understand, the cycle is not totally applicable in all situations of policymaking due to it being far too simple as there are more crucial steps that should go into more complex real life scenarios.[47]

Criticisms

Anthropologists have criticised the popular approaches to public policy including the rational choice theory. They state that understanding human behaviour such as the actors, activities, and influences that go into shaping policy decisions, implementations and results.[48] They argue that other policy methods fail to capture the current dynamics in today's society as well as ambiguity the understanding of many policy processes

Responsibility of policymakers

Each system is influenced by different public problems and issues, and has different stakeholders; as such, each requires different public policy.[49]

In public policy making, numerous individuals, corporations, non-profit organizations and interest groups compete and collaborate to influence policymakers to act in a particular way.[50] Therefore, "the failure [of public policies] is possibly not only the politician's fault because he/she is never the lone player in the field of decision making. There is a multitude of actors pursuing their goals, sometimes complementary, often competing or contradictory ones."[51] In this sense, public policies can be the result of actors involved, such as interest organization's, and not necessarily the will of the public.[52][53]

The large set of actors in the public policy process, such as politicians, civil servants, lobbyists, domain experts, and industry or sector representatives, use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue.[32] The use of effective tools and instruments determines the outcome of a policy.[54]

Many actors can be important in the public policy process, but government officials ultimately choose public policy in response to the public issue or problem at hand. In doing so, government officials are expected to meet public sector ethics and take the needs of all project stakeholders into account.[49]

It is however worth noting that what public policy is put forward can be influenced by the political stance of the party in power. Following the 2008/2009 financial crisis, David Cameron's Conservative party looked to implement a policy of austerity in 2010 after winning the general election that year, to shore up the economy and diminish the UK's national debt.[55] Whilst the Conservatives saw reducing the national debt as an absolute priority, the Labour Party, since the effects of Conservative austerity became apparent, have slated the policy for its 'needless' pressure on the working classes and those reliant on welfare, their 2019 election manifesto stating "Tory cuts [have] pushed our public services to breaking point" and that "the Conservatives have starved our education system of funding".[56] This is a good example of how varying political beliefs can impact what is perceived as paramount for the electorate.

Since societies have changed in the past decades, the public policy making system changed too. In the 2010s, public policy making is increasingly goal-oriented, aiming for measurable results and goals, and decision-centric, focusing on decisions that must be taken immediately.[49]

Furthermore, mass communications and technological changes such as the widespread availability of the Internet have caused the public policy system to become more complex and interconnected.[57] The changes pose new challenges to the current public policy systems and pressures leaders to evolve to remain effective and efficient.[49]

Public policies come from all governmental entities and at all levels: legislatures, courts, bureaucratic agencies, and executive offices at national, local and state levels. On the federal level, public policies are laws enacted by Congress, executive orders issued by the president, decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court, and regulations issued by bureaucratic agencies.[58]

On the local, public policies include city ordinances, fire codes, and traffic regulations. They also take the form of written rules and regulations of city governmental departments: the police, fire departments, street repair, or building inspection. On the state level, public policies involve laws enacted by the state legislatures, decisions made by state courts, rules developed by state bureaucratic agencies, and decisions made by governors.[58]

Policy design

Policy design entails conscious and deliberate effort to define policy aims and map them instrumentally.[59] Policy design proposes critical analysis of policy instruments and their implementation. Uncertainties policy designers face include (in brief):

  • Technical difficulties: mechanism, design, constituency, environment of public policies
  • Cost issues: resources, materials, products, etc.
  • Political problems: selection process of solutions and decision making. Policies require tedious and rigorous research on advice for its feasibility, legitimacy and choice.
  • Compliance: Understanding the target market and discovering data for those dependent, disadvantaged or deviant on policy change.
  • Effectiveness: There is a possibility of spillovers, complementariness and inconsistencies.

Nevertheless, policy design is elemental for the succession of public policy, with it comes intricate and multi-level approaches but it is necessary for good, careful policy design to be considered before implementing the policy.[59]

Data-driven policy

Data-driven policy is a policy designed by a government based on existing data, evidence, rational analysis and use of information technology to crystallize problems and highlight effective solutions.[60] Data-driven policy making aims to make use of data and collaborate with citizens to co-create policy.[61] Policy makers can now make use of new data sources and technological developments like Artificial Intelligence to gain new insights and make policy decisions which contribute to societal development.

In the 2020s, policymakers will use data for policies and public service design, while responding to citizen engagement demands. The Anticipatory Governance model is particularly important when considering the sheer amount of data available. In terms of using new technology to collect, analyze, and disseminate data, governments are only just beginning to utilize data science for policy implementation.[62] With new technologies implemented in government administration, a more complete visualization of current problems will emerge, allowing for more precision in targeted policy-making.[63] Data science involves the transformation, analysis, visualization, and presentation of data, and potentially improve the quality of life and society by providing a more informational environment for public debate and political decision-making. Some examples of utilizing data science in public policy making are resource optimization, improving current public services, and fraud and error mitigation.[64]

Data sets rarely merge between government agencies or within agencies or countries' governments. This is beginning to change with the COVID-19 pandemic spreading globally in early 2020.[65] Forecasting and creating data models to prevent the propagation of the virus has become a vital approach for policy makers in governments around the world.[66]

User-centered policy design

User-centered policies are policies that are designed and implemented with the end-users, or those who are impacted by the policy, as co-designers.[67][68] Policymakers using this design process utilize users' knowledge of their lived experiences.[67] This can allow for policymakers focus on including both comprehensiveness and comprehension within policies to aid in clarity for end-users, such as workers or organizations.[67]

Small system dynamics model

The small system dynamics model is a method of condensing and simplifying the understanding of complex issues related to overall productivity.[69]

Evidence-based policy

Evidence-based policy is associated with Adrian Smith because in his 1996 presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society, Smith questioned the current process of policy making and urged for a more "evidence-based approach" commenting that it has "valuable lessons to offer".[70]

Some policy scholars now avoid using the term evidence-based policy, using others such as evidence informed. This language shift allows continued thinking about the underlying desire to improve evidence use in terms of its rigor or quality, while avoiding some of the key limitations or reductionist ideas at times seen with the evidence-based language. Still, the language of evidence-based policy is widely used and, as such, can be interpreted to reflect a desire for evidence to be used well or appropriately in one way or another – such as by ensuring systematic consideration of rigorous and high quality policy relevant evidence, or by avoiding biased and erroneous applications of evidence for political ends.[71]

In the U.S.

Unlike the UK, the U.S. has a largely devolved government, with power at local, state and federal level. Due to these various levels of governance, it can often be difficult to coordinate passing bills and legislation, and there is often disagreement. Despite this, the system allows citizens to be relatively involved in inputting legislation. Furthermore, each level of government is set up in a similar way with similar rules, and all pump money into creating what is hoped to be effective legislation. Policy creation in America is often seen as unique to other countries.[72]

Artificial intelligence and public policy

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been used in recent years by public administrators to deliver services and for the general improvement of government operations. In the realm of policy making in the public sector, AI will also be used to optimize outcome forecasting, pattern perception, and most importantly for the development of evidence-based programs to generate sound policy.[73]

Using AI in government will continue to be used as an e-governance tool through virtual assistance on government websites and the automation of public online services. This will free public employees of answering frequently asked questions about government services or querying databases for information.

A drawback of using AI in public policy making and implementation is the concept of "algorithmic bias".[74] Algorithmic bias can cause the government use of AI to have errors in decision making and create distrust in government entities.

Academic discipline
Main article: Policy studies

As an academic discipline, public policy brings in elements of many social science fields and concepts, including economics, sociology, political economy, social policy, program evaluation, policy analysis, and public management, all as applied to problems of governmental administration, management, and operations.[75] At the same time, the study of public policy is distinct from political science or economics, in its focus on the application of theory to practice. While the majority of public policy degrees are master's and doctoral degrees, there are several universities that offer undergraduate education in public policy. Notable institutions include:

CIGI Campus, home to the Balsillie School of International Affairs
The Blavatnik School of Government building on Walton Street

Traditionally, the academic field of public policy focused on domestic policy. However, the wave of economic globalization that occurred in the late 20th and early 21st centuries created a need for a subset of public policy that focused on global governance, especially as it relates to issues that transcend national borders such as climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation, and economic development.[76] Consequently, many traditional public policy schools had to adjust their curricula to better suit this new policy landscape, as well as develop entirely new curricula altogether.[77]

Controversies

The Austrian and Chicago school of economics criticise public policymakers for not "understanding basic economics". In particular, a member of the Chicago school of economics, Thomas Sowell writes "Under popularly elected government, the political incentives are to do what is popular, even if the consequences are worse than the consequences of doing nothing, or doing something that is less popular".[78] Therefore, since "Economics studies the consequences of decisions that are made about the use of land, labour, capital and other resources that go into producing the volume of output which determines a country's standard of living";[79] this means that artificially tampering with the allocation of scarce resources such as implementing certain public policies such as price controls will cause inefficiency in the economy and decline in the standard of living within society.[80][81][82][83]

One of the biggest controversies of public policy is that policy making is often influenced by lobbyists such as big corporations in order to sway policies in their favour. The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) is an organisation that lobbies United States lawmakers to oppose stricter gun laws.[84]

Another controversy surrounding public policy is that much like anyone, policymakers can sometimes hold bias and end up looking for facts that can prove their preconceptions to be true.[85] In a study of politicians in Denmark, which was published in the British Journal of Political Science, it was established that they interpreted data between two groups in a case study more successfully when there was no labeling based on class or status as opposed to when they were labeled according to their class or status; their preconceptions affected how they viewed data.[86]

See also
Wikiquote has quotations related to Public policy.

References
  1. Martinez, Jessica. "What is Public Policy?". civiced.org. Archived from the original on 12 October 2022. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  2. "What is Public Policy? Why It's Important? | UoPeople". University of the People. 1 June 2021. Archived from the original on 12 October 2022. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  3. Lassance, Antonio (2020-11-10). "What Is a Policy and What Is a Government Program? A Simple Question With No Clear Answer, Until Now". Rochester, NY. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3727996. S2CID 234600314. SSRN 3727996. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. Peters, B. Guy (2 August 2018). American Public Policy: Promise and Performance. CQ Press. ISBN 978-1-5063-9957-7. Archived from the original on 27 January 2023. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
  5. Rinfret, Sara; Scheberie, Denise; Pautz, Michelle (2018). "Chapter 2: The Policy Process and Policy Theories". Public Policy: A Concise Introduction. SAGE Publications. pp. 19–44. ISBN 978-1-5063-2971-0.
  6. Bovaird, Tony; Loeffler, Elke. User and Community Co-production of Public Services and Public Policies through Collective Decision-making: the Role of Emerging Technologies. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  7. Brandsen, Taco; Steen, Trui; Verschuere, Bram. "Co-Creation and Co-Production in Public Services: Urgent Issues in Practice and Research". Co-Production and Co-Creation (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 July 2022. Retrieved 12 October 2022.
  8. Blomkamp, Emma (December 2018). "The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy: The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy". Australian Journal of Public Administration. 77 (4): 729–743. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.12310.
  9. Deroubaix, J. F. (26 August 2008). "The co-production of a "relevant" expertise – administrative and scientific cooperation in the French water policies elaboration and implementation since the 1990s". Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 12 (4): 1165–1174. Bibcode:2008HESS...12.1165D. doi:10.5194/hess-12-1165-2008. ISSN 1027-5606.
  10. Morgan, M. Granger (20 May 2014). "Use (and abuse) of expert elicitation in support of decision making for public policy". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (20): 7176–7184. Bibcode:2014PNAS..111.7176M. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319946111. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4034232. PMID 24821779.
  11. National Research Council; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy (31 October 2012). Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. National Academies Press. ISBN 978-0-309-26164-7. Archived from the original on 27 January 2023. Retrieved 22 October 2022.
  12. Ritter, Alison (1 January 2009). "How do drug policy makers access research evidence?". International Journal of Drug Policy. 20 (1): 70–75. doi:10.1016/j.drugpo.2007.11.017. ISSN 0955-3959. PMID 18226519.
  13. Hill, Michael (2021). The public policy process (8th ed.). Milton: Taylor & Francis Group. p. 4. Archived from the original on 2022-12-21. Retrieved 2022-12-21.
  14. Cairney, Paul (2019). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. p. 26.
  15. Nawarat, Nongyao; Medley, Michael (2018). "The Public Regime for Migrant Child Education in Thailand: Alternative Depictions of Policy". Asian Politics & Policy. 10 (3): 412–415. doi:10.1111/aspp.12408. S2CID 158615070.
  16. Easton, David (1953). The political system: An enquiry into the state of political science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. p. 130.
  17. Cairney, Paul (2012). Understanding public policy: Theories and issues. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 5.
  18. Titmuss, Richard (1974). Social Policy. London: George Allen & Unwin. p. 23. ISBN 0-394-49447-4.
  19. Weiss, Carol H. (1972). Evaluation. London: Pearson. pp. 46–70. ISBN 978-0-13-292193-0.
  20. Kathryn E. Newcomer; Harry P. Hatry; Joseph S. Wholey (2015). Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. 62–88. ISBN 978-1-118-89360-9.
  21. Dye, Thomas R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-205-71685-2.
  22. Dye, Thomas R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Upper Saddle, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-13-613147-2.
  23. "Characteristics of Successful Public Policy". Norwich University Public Administration. Archived from the original on 1 December 2015. Retrieved 24 November 2014.
  24. Peters, B. G. (2015). Advanced Introduction to Public Policy. Edward Elgar. p. 3. ISBN 978-1-78195-576-5.
  25. Dente, Bruno (2013-12-05), "Understanding Policy Decisions", SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology, Springer International Publishing, pp. 1–27, doi:10.1007/978-3-319-02520-9_1, ISBN 978-3-319-02519-3 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  26. "Definitions of Public Policy and the Law". mainweb-v.musc.edu. Archived from the original on 2022-01-20. Retrieved 2018-12-18.
  27. Schuster, W. Michael (31 December 2008). "For the Greater Good: The Use of Public Policy Considerations in Confirming Chapter 11 Plans of Reorganization". SSRN 1368469. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  28. Pellissery, Sony (2019). Transformative Law and Public Policy. New Delhi: Routledge. ISBN 9780367348298.
  29. John, Peter (1998). Analyzing Public Policy. London: Continuum. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-203-13621-8.
  30. Anderson, J. E. (2003). "Chapter 1: The Study of Public Policy". Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
  31. John, Peter (1998). Analysing Public Policy. Continuum.
  32. Sharkansky, Ira; R. Hofferbert. "Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy". The American Political Science Review.
  33. Dusza, Karl (1989). "Max Weber's conception of the state". International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society. 3: 71–105. doi:10.1007/BF01430691. S2CID 145585927.
  34. Cairney, Paul (2012), "Introduction: Theories and Issues", Understanding Public Policy, London: Macmillan Education UK, pp. 1–21, doi:10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3_1, ISBN 978-0-230-22971-6, retrieved 2021-01-10
  35. Dorey, Peter (2005). Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction. London. doi:10.4135/9781446279410. ISBN 978-0-7619-4904-6. Archived from the original on 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2021-01-22.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  36. Wilson, William (1993), "Can Sociology Play a Greater Role in Shaping the National Agenda?", Sociology and the Public Agenda, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., pp. 3–22, doi:10.4135/9781483325484.n1, ISBN 978-0-8039-5083-2, retrieved 2021-01-22
  37. Béland, Daniel; Howlett, Michael (2016-05-26). "The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis". Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 18 (3): 221–227. doi:10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410. ISSN 1387-6988. S2CID 156139395.
  38. Gupta, Kuhika; Jenkins-Smith, Hank (2016-07-07). Lodge, Martin; Page, Edward C; Balla, Steven J (eds.). "Anthony Downs, 'Up and Down with Ecology: The "Issue-Attention" Cycle'". Oxford Handbooks Online. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.34.
  39. Yeboah-Assiamah, Emmanuel; Muller, Kobus; Domfeh, Kwame Ameyaw (1 January 2017). "Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview". Forest Policy and Economics. 74: 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.006. ISSN 1389-9341.
  40. Dhanshyam, M.; Srivastava, Samir K. (May 2021). "Effective policy mix for plastic waste mitigation in India using System Dynamics". Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 168: 105455. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455. ISSN 0921-3449. S2CID 233569368.
  41. Börner, J.; Wunder, S.; Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S.; Hyman, G.; Nascimento, N. (1 November 2014). "Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: Costs and income effects". Global Environmental Change. 29: 294–305. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.021. ISSN 0959-3780.
  42. "Most international treaties are ineffective, Canadian study finds". CTVNews. 3 August 2022. Archived from the original on 15 September 2022. Retrieved 15 September 2022.
  43. Hoffman, Steven J.; Baral, Prativa; Rogers Van Katwyk, Susan; Sritharan, Lathika; Hughsam, Matthew; Randhawa, Harkanwal; Lin, Gigi; Campbell, Sophie; Campus, Brooke; Dantas, Maria; Foroughian, Neda; Groux, Gaëlle; Gunn, Elliot; Guyatt, Gordon; Habibi, Roojin; Karabit, Mina; Karir, Aneesh; Kruja, Krista; Lavis, John N.; Lee, Olivia; Li, Binxi; Nagi, Ranjana; Naicker, Kiyuri; Røttingen, John-Arne; Sahar, Nicola; Srivastava, Archita; Tejpar, Ali; Tran, Maxwell; Zhang, Yu-qing; Zhou, Qi; Poirier, Mathieu J. P. (9 August 2022). "International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 119 (32): e2122854119. Bibcode:2022PNAS..11922854H. doi:10.1073/pnas.2122854119. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 9372541. PMID 35914153.
  44. Howlett Michael, Giest Sarah (2013). "Chapter 2: The policy-making process". Routledge Handbook of public policy. London; New York: Routledge.
  45. "Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches within Implementation". Political Pipeline. 21 February 2013. Archived from the original on 18 January 2022. Retrieved 25 January 2021.
  46. "StackPath" (PDF). Institute for Government. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-02-14. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
  47. "Understanding policy cycles". EgyptToday. 2018-08-02. Archived from the original on 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2021-01-22.
  48. Wedel, Janine R.; Shore, Cris; Feldman, Gregory; Lathrop, Stacy (July 2005). "Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 600 (1): 30–51. doi:10.1177/0002716205276734. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 56466867. Archived from the original on 2023-01-17. Retrieved 2023-01-17.
  49. Thei, Geurts (2010). "Public Policy Making: The 21st Century Perspective". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  50. Kilpatrick
  51. Potůček, Martin (2018). Public policy: a comprehensive introduction. Prague: Karolinum Press. pp. 83–84.
  52. Page, Benjamin I.; Shapiro, Robert Y. (March 1983). "Effects of Public Opinion on Policy". American Political Science Review. 77 (1): 175–190. doi:10.2307/1956018. ISSN 0003-0554. JSTOR 1956018. S2CID 143782308. Archived from the original on 2022-12-21. Retrieved 2022-12-21 – via JSTOR.
  53. Burstein, Paul (2003). "The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda". Political Research Quarterly. 56 (1): 30. doi:10.1177/106591290305600103. S2CID 154497611.
  54. Hupe, Peter L; Hill, Michael J (April 2016). "'And the rest is implementation.' Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations". Public Policy and Administration. 31 (2): 103–121. doi:10.1177/0952076715598828. ISSN 0952-0767. S2CID 153391005. Archived from the original on 2022-12-21. Retrieved 2022-12-21.
  55. Stanley, Liam (2016-03-07). "Legitimacy gaps, taxpayer conflict, and the politics of austerity in the UK" (PDF). The British Journal of Politics and International Relations. 18 (2): 389–406. doi:10.1177/1369148115615031. ISSN 1369-1481. S2CID 156681378. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-11-29. Retrieved 2020-01-02.
  56. "Rebuild our Public Services". The Labour Party. Archived from the original on 2020-01-26. Retrieved 2019-12-31.
  57. Schramm, Wilbur (165). The Process and Effects of mass communication. Urbana, University of Illinois Press. ISBN 978-0-252-00197-0.
  58. Wilson, Carter (2006). Public Policy: Continuity and Change. Illinois: Waveland Press. p. 18. ISBN 1-4786-3671-8.
  59. Howlett, Michael (2010-12-17). Designing Public Policies. doi:10.4324/9780203838631. ISBN 978-0-203-83863-1.
  60. Esty, Daniel; Rushing, Reece (Summer 2007). "The Promise of Data-Driven Policymaking". Issues in Science and Technology. 23 (4). Archived from the original on 2022-01-21. Retrieved 2020-01-08.
  61. van Veenstra, Anne Fleur; Kotterink, Bas (2017). "Data-Driven Policy Making: The Policy Lab Approach" (PDF). Electronic Participation. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer International Publishing. 10429: 100–111. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-64322-9_9. ISBN 978-3-319-64321-2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-01-18. Retrieved 2020-01-12.
  62. Maffei, Stefano; Leoni, Francesco; Villari, Beatrice (2020-04-02). "Data-driven anticipatory governance. Emerging scenarios in data for policy practices". Policy Design and Practice. 3 (2): 123–134. doi:10.1080/25741292.2020.1763896. S2CID 219423835.
  63. Esty, Daniel; Rushing, Reece (1970-01-01). "The Promise of Data-Driven Policymaking". Issues in Science and Technology. Archived from the original on 2022-01-21. Retrieved 2022-03-29.
  64. "Research in Data Science and Applied to Public Administration" (PDF). Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologi. 2020. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-19. Retrieved 2022-05-09. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  65. "Covid-19: How unprecedented data sharing has led to faster-than-ever outbreak research | Research and Innovation". ec.europa.eu. Archived from the original on 2022-05-09. Retrieved 2022-05-06.
  66. Hasan, A.; Putri, E. R. M.; Susanto, H.; Nuraini, N. (2021-01-20). "Data-driven modeling and forecasting of COVID-19 outbreak for public policy making". ISA Transactions. 124: 135–143. doi:10.1016/j.isatra.2021.01.028. ISSN 0019-0578. PMC 7816594. PMID 33487397.
  67. Ranney, Frances (11 March 2009). "Beyond Foucault: Toward a user‐centered approach to sexual harassment policy". Technical Communication Quarterly. 9 (1): 9–28. doi:10.1080/10572250009364683. S2CID 143856976.
  68. Moilanen, Stephen (May 15, 2019). "When to Use User-Centered Design for Public Policy". Stanford Social Innovation Review. Archived from the original on 2022-01-26. Retrieved 2020-11-06.
  69. Ghaffarzadegan, Navid; Lyneis, John; Richardson, George P. (2011). "How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process". System Dynamics Review. 27 (1): 22–44. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.407.8702. doi:10.1002/sdr.442. ISSN 1099-1727.
  70. Boaz, Ashby, Young (2002). "Systematic Reviews: What have they got to offer evidence based policy and practice?" Archived 2020-08-14 at the Wayback Machine ESRC UK Centre for Evidence Based Policy and Practice. Retrieved 7 May 2016
  71. Parkhurst, Justin (2017). The Politics of Evidence: from Evidence Based Policy to the Good Governance of Evidence (PDF). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315675008. ISBN 978-1-138-93940-0. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-01-24. Retrieved 2020-08-28.
  72. Peters, B. Guy (30 September 2015). American public policy : promise and performance (Tenth ed.). Los Angeles. ISBN 978-1-4833-9150-2. OCLC 908375236.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  73. Thierer, Adam; Castillo, Andrea; Russell, Raymond (2017-08-23). "Artificial Intelligence and Public Policy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-03-31. Retrieved 2022-05-09.
  74. Valle-Cruz, David; Alejandro Ruvalcaba-Gomez, Edgar; Sandoval-Almazan, Rodrigo; Ignacio Criado, J. (2019-06-18). "A Review of Artificial Intelligence in Government and its Potential from a Public Policy Perspective". Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. dg.o 2019. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 91–99. doi:10.1145/3325112.3325242. ISBN 978-1-4503-7204-6. S2CID 189926890.
  75. Pellissery, Sony (2015). "Public Policy". The SAGE Encyclopedia of World Poverty. Sage.
  76. "Global Public Policy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-04-26. Retrieved 2011-11-29.
  77. Stone, Diane. "Global public policy, transnational policy communities, and their networks". Policy Studies Journal 36, no. 1 (2008): 19–38
  78. Sowell, Thomas (2014). Basic Economics. Basic Books. p. 416.
  79. Sowell, Thomas (2014). Basic Economics. Basic Books. p. 4.
  80. Hazlitt, Henry (1988). Economics in one lesson.
  81. Rothbard, Murray (1963). America's Great Depression.
  82. Mises, Ludwig Von (1936). Socialism. pp. 99–113.
  83. Mises, Ludwig Von (1949). Human Action.
  84. "How the NRA, a powerful influence on American politics, found itself under attack". CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). 2020-09-03. Archived from the original on 2022-01-25. Retrieved 2022-01-18.
  85. Tom Sasse, 2018, ‘Government must tackle bias in decision making’, Institute for Government
  86. Baekgaard, M., Christensen, J., Dahlmann, C., Mathiasen, A., & Petersen, N. (2019). The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians. British Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 1117-1140. doi:10.1017/S0007123417000084

Further reading
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.