Editing Public policy (section)

=== 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''.<ref>{{Citation|last=Cairney|first=Paul|title=Introduction: Theories and Issues|date=2012|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3_1|work=Understanding Public Policy|pages=1–21|place=London|publisher=Macmillan Education UK|doi=10.1007/978-0-230-35699-3_1|doi-broken-date=24 January 2025 |isbn=978-0-230-22971-6|access-date=2021-01-10}}</ref>

==== 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.<ref name=":3">{{Cite book|last=Dorey|first=Peter|url=http://sk.sagepub.com/books/policy-making-in-britain|title=Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction|date=2005|location=London|doi=10.4135/9781446279410|isbn=978-0-7619-4904-6|access-date=2021-01-22|archive-date=2022-01-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118031758/https://sk.sagepub.com/books/policy-making-in-britain|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Citation|last=Wilson|first=William|title=Can Sociology Play a Greater Role in Shaping the National Agenda?|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483325484.n1|work=Sociology and the Public Agenda|year=1993|pages=3–22|location=Thousand Oaks, CA|publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc.|doi=10.4135/9781483325484.n1|isbn=978-0-8039-5083-2|access-date=2021-01-22}}</ref>

===== 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.<ref name=":3" /> 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<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Béland|first1=Daniel|last2=Howlett|first2=Michael|date=2016-05-26|title=The Role and Impact of the Multiple-Streams Approach in Comparative Policy Analysis|journal=Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice|volume=18|issue=3|pages=221–227|doi=10.1080/13876988.2016.1174410|s2cid=156139395|issn=1387-6988|doi-access=free}}</ref> suggests the policy window appears through the emergence and connection of problems, politics and policies, emphasizing an opportunity to stimulate and initiate new policies.<ref name=":3" />

===== Issue attention cycle =====
The ''issue attention cycle'' is a concept developed by Anthony Downs (1972) where problems progress through five distinct stages.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Gupta|first1=Kuhika|last2=Jenkins-Smith|first2=Hank|editor1-first=Martin|editor1-last=Lodge|editor2-first=Edward C|editor2-last=Page|editor3-first=Steven J|editor3-last=Balla|date=2016-07-07|title=Anthony Downs, 'Up and Down with Ecology: The "Issue-Attention" Cycle'|url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.34|journal=Oxford Handbooks Online|doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199646135.013.34}}</ref> 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.<ref name=":3" /> Its key stages include:

# ''Pre-problem stage'': The problem is not recognized by the public, media or policy makers.
#  ''Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm'': Something is identified as a problem, supported awareness by media to pursue seriousness of problem
# ''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.
# ''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.
# ''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|Enforcement}}
Enforcement mechanisms are a central part of various policies.{{additional citation needed|date=October 2022}} Enforcement mechanisms co-determine natural resource governance outcomes<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Yeboah-Assiamah |first1=Emmanuel |last2=Muller |first2=Kobus |last3=Domfeh |first3=Kwame Ameyaw |title=Institutional assessment in natural resource governance: A conceptual overview |journal=Forest Policy and Economics |date=1 January 2017 |volume=74 |pages=1–12 |doi=10.1016/j.forpol.2016.10.006 |bibcode=2017ForPE..74....1Y |language=en |issn=1389-9341}}</ref> and [[pollution]]-related policies may require proper enforcement mechanisms (and often substitutes) to have a positive effect.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Dhanshyam |first1=M. |last2=Srivastava |first2=Samir K. |title=Effective policy mix for plastic waste mitigation in India using System Dynamics |journal=Resources, Conservation and Recycling |date=May 2021 |volume=168 |pages=105455 |doi=10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105455 |bibcode=2021RCR...16805455D |s2cid=233569368 |language=en |issn=0921-3449}}</ref> Enforcement may include [[law enforcement]] or combine incentive and disincentive-based policy instruments.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Börner |first1=J. |last2=Wunder |first2=S. |last3=Wertz-Kanounnikoff |first3=S. |last4=Hyman |first4=G. |last5=Nascimento |first5=N. |title=Forest law enforcement in the Brazilian Amazon: Costs and income effects |journal=Global Environmental Change |date=1 November 2014 |volume=29 |pages=294–305 |doi=10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.021 |bibcode=2014GEC....29..294B |language=en |issn=0959-3780}}</ref> 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]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Most international treaties are ineffective, Canadian study finds |url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/most-international-treaties-are-ineffective-canadian-study-finds-1.6013086 |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=CTVNews |date=3 August 2022 |language=en |archive-date=15 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915095030/https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/most-international-treaties-are-ineffective-canadian-study-finds-1.6013086 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hoffman |first1=Steven J. |last2=Baral |first2=Prativa |last3=Rogers Van Katwyk |first3=Susan |last4=Sritharan |first4=Lathika |last5=Hughsam |first5=Matthew |last6=Randhawa |first6=Harkanwal |last7=Lin |first7=Gigi |last8=Campbell |first8=Sophie |last9=Campus |first9=Brooke |last10=Dantas |first10=Maria |last11=Foroughian |first11=Neda |last12=Groux |first12=Gaëlle |last13=Gunn |first13=Elliot |last14=Guyatt |first14=Gordon |last15=Habibi |first15=Roojin |last16=Karabit |first16=Mina |last17=Karir |first17=Aneesh |last18=Kruja |first18=Krista |last19=Lavis |first19=John N. |last20=Lee |first20=Olivia |last21=Li |first21=Binxi |last22=Nagi |first22=Ranjana |last23=Naicker |first23=Kiyuri |last24=Røttingen |first24=John-Arne |last25=Sahar |first25=Nicola |last26=Srivastava |first26=Archita |last27=Tejpar |first27=Ali |last28=Tran |first28=Maxwell |last29=Zhang |first29=Yu-qing |last30=Zhou |first30=Qi |last31=Poirier |first31=Mathieu J. P. |title=International treaties have mostly failed to produce their intended effects |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |date=9 August 2022 |volume=119 |issue=32 |pages=e2122854119 |doi=10.1073/pnas.2122854119 |doi-access=free |pmid=35914153 |pmc=9372541 |bibcode=2022PNAS..11922854H |language=en |issn=0027-8424}}
* University press release: {{cite news |title=Do international treaties actually work? Study says they mostly don't |url=https://phys.org/news/2022-08-international-treaties-dont.html |access-date=15 September 2022 |work=[[York University]] |language=en |archive-date=15 September 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220915095030/https://phys.org/news/2022-08-international-treaties-dont.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

====Policy-Implementation gap====
The Policy-Implementation gap refers to the difference between policy ideas and goals on paper relative to how they are carried out and implemented in practicality.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=GUNN |first=L. A |date=1978 |title=Why is Implementation so Difficult? |url=https://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=12776722 |journal=Why is Implementation So Difficult? |volume=33 |issue=4 |pages=169–176}}</ref> This gap arises when the goals, objectives, or provisions of a policy fail to be fully realized in practice, often due to challenges, inefficiencies, or unforeseen obstacles in the implementation process. As an issue, it is often overlooked by governments, with implementation seen as an afterthought, sometimes referred to as 'the rest'.<ref>{{Cite journal |title='And the rest is implementation.' Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond ''Great Expectations'' |url=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0952076715598828 |access-date=2025-01-22 |journal=Public Policy and Administration |doi=10.1177/0952076715598828 | date=2016 | last1=Hupe | first1=Peter L. | last2=Hill | first2=Michael J. | volume=31 | issue=2 | pages=103–121 }}</ref>

====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.<ref>{{cite web |title=Top-down and Bottom-up Approaches within Implementation |url=https://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-approaches-within-implementation/ |website=Political Pipeline |date=21 February 2013 |access-date=25 January 2021 |archive-date=18 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118191035/https://politicalpipeline.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/top-down-and-bottom-up-approaches-within-implementation/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

==== 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.<ref>{{Cite web|title=StackPath|url=https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Policy%20making%20in%20the%20real%20world.pdf|access-date=2021-01-22|publisher=Institute for Government|archive-date=2022-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220214165450/https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Policy%20making%20in%20the%20real%20world.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2018-08-02|title=Understanding policy cycles|url=https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/55155/Understanding-policy-cycles|access-date=2021-01-22|website=EgyptToday|archive-date=2022-01-18|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220118214606/https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/1/55155/Understanding-policy-cycles|url-status=live}}</ref>

==== Criticism of the "policy studies" approach ====
The mainstream tradition of [[policy studies]] has been criticized for oversimplifying the processes of public policy, particularly in use of models based on [[rational choice theory]], failing to capture the current dynamics in today's society as well as sustaining ambiguities and misunderstandings. In contrast, an anthropological approach to studying public policy deconstructs many of the categories and concepts that are currently used, seeking to gain a deeper understanding of the configurations of actors, activities, and influences that go into shaping policy decisions, implementations and results.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wedel |first1=Janine R. |last2=Shore |first2=Cris |last3=Feldman |first3=Gregory |last4=Lathrop |first4=Stacy |date=July 2005 |title=Toward an Anthropology of Public Policy |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716205276734 |journal=The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science |language=en |volume=600 |issue=1 |pages=30–51 |doi=10.1177/0002716205276734 |s2cid=56466867 |issn=0002-7162 |access-date=2023-01-17 |archive-date=2023-01-17 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230117164801/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716205276734 |url-status=live }}</ref>