Editing Public policy (section)

==Public policy making and implementation==
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.<ref name="Analysing Public Policy">{{cite book|last=John|first=Peter|title=Analysing Public Policy|year=1998|publisher=Continuum}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy">{{cite journal|last=Sharkansky|first=Ira|author2=R. Hofferbert |title=Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy|journal=The American Political Science Review}}</ref>

A 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.<ref>{{Cite journal | doi=10.1007/BF01430691|title = Max Weber's conception of the state| journal=International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society| volume=3| pages=71–105|year = 1989|last1 = Dusza|first1 = Karl|s2cid = 145585927}}</ref>

===Public policy visualization===
A topology model can be used to demonstrate the types of and implementation of public policy:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ The Types of Government Action<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last=O'Hare |first=Michael |date=1989 |title=A Typology of Governmental Action |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3325054 |journal=Journal of Policy Analysis and Management |volume=8 |issue=4 |pages=670–672 |doi=10.2307/3325054 |jstor=3325054 |issn=0276-8739}}</ref>
|-
!!! Direct !! Indirect
|-
| Money || Trade: Make and Buy || Transfer: Tax and Subsidize
|-
| Other || Regulation: Oblige and Prohibit|| Knowledge: Inform and Implore
|-
|}
Direct government action involving the use of money can be classified into 2 subsections. A government can either use its available resources to address the issue (Make), or can contract out to the private sector (Buy).

Indirect government action involving money is the use of fiscal policy to indirectly affect behaviours. These come in the form of levying taxes (Tax) or by subsidizing an alternative (Subsidize).

Other direct government action falls under the category of regulation. This is when a government uses its authoritative power to make persons behave a certain way (Oblige) or by making a behaviour illegal (Prohibit).

Indirect government action without the use of money can again be classified into 2 types. A government can provide information to its citizens on a particular issue, with hopes it affects their behaviour (Inform), or by appealing to their morality as a human or as a stakeholder in society (Implore).<ref name=":5" />

=== 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>

=== Responsibility of policymakers ===
Each system is influenced by different public problems and issues, and has different stakeholders; as such, each requires different public policy.<ref name="Public Policy: The 21st Century Perspective">{{cite journal|last=Thei|first=Geurts |title=Public Policy Making: The 21st Century Perspective|year=2010}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Kilpatrick">Kilpatrick</ref> 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."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Potůček |first=Martin |title=Public policy: a comprehensive introduction |publisher=Karolinum Press |year=2018 |location=Prague |pages=83–84}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Page |first1=Benjamin I. |last2=Shapiro |first2=Robert Y. |date=March 1983 |title=Effects of Public Opinion on Policy |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/effects-of-public-opinion-on-policy/856B172A7DC19A7EB72C569A7F6F2104 |journal=American Political Science Review |language=en |volume=77 |issue=1 |pages=175–190 |doi=10.2307/1956018 |jstor=1956018 |s2cid=143782308 |issn=0003-0554  |access-date=2022-12-21 |archive-date=2022-12-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221160736/https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/effects-of-public-opinion-on-policy/856B172A7DC19A7EB72C569A7F6F2104 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Burstein |first=Paul |date=2003 |title=The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda |url=https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600103 |journal=  Political Research Quarterly|volume=56 |issue=1 |pages=30|doi=10.1177/106591290305600103 |s2cid=154497611 }}</ref> Furthermore, public policy is also affected by social and economic conditions, prevailing political values, the publics mood and the structure of government<ref>Kraft, Michael E., and Scott R. Furlong. Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Cq Press, 2019.</ref> which all play a role in the complexity of public policy making.

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.<ref name="Dimensions of State Politics, Economics, and Public Policy"/> The use of effective tools and instruments determines the outcome of a policy.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hupe |first1=Peter L |last2=Hill |first2=Michael J |date=April 2016 |title='And the rest is implementation.' Comparing approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0952076715598828 |journal=Public Policy and Administration |language=en |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=103–121 |doi=10.1177/0952076715598828 |s2cid=153391005 |issn=0952-0767 |access-date=2022-12-21 |archive-date=2022-12-21 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221221160741/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0952076715598828 |url-status=live }}</ref>

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.<ref name="Public Policy: The 21st Century Perspective"/>

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.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stanley|first=Liam|date=2016-03-07|title=Legitimacy gaps, taxpayer conflict, and the politics of austerity in the UK|journal=The British Journal of Politics and International Relations|volume=18|issue=2|pages=389–406|doi=10.1177/1369148115615031|s2cid=156681378|issn=1369-1481|url=http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88642/1/Stanley%20BJPIR%20article%20July%202015.pdf|access-date=2020-01-02|archive-date=2021-11-29|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211129193220/https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/88642/1/Stanley%20BJPIR%20article%20July%202015.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> 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".<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/rebuild-our-public-services/|title=Rebuild our Public Services|website=The Labour Party|access-date=2019-12-31|archive-date=2020-01-26|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200126120608/https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/rebuild-our-public-services/|url-status=live}}</ref> Furthermore, in the US, Members of Congress have observed that partisan rancour, ideological disputes, and decreased willingness to compromise on policies have made policy making far more difficult than it was only a decade ago.<ref>Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Oleszek, Frances E. Lee, and Eric Schickler. Congress and Its Members. 17th ed. CQ Press. 2020</ref> These are good examples 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.<ref name="Public Policy: The 21st Century Perspective"/>

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.<ref name="The Process and Effects of mass communication">{{cite book|last=Schramm|first=Wilbur|title=The Process and Effects of mass communication|date=165|isbn=978-0-252-00197-0|url-access=registration|url=https://archive.org/details/processeffectso00wilb|publisher=Urbana, University of Illinois Press}}</ref> This is because there is a new level of scrutiny which the 'tabloid society' provides of the decisions made by politicians and policy makers, often concentrating on the 'people story' side of these decisions.<ref>Bovaird, Tony, and Elke Löffler. "The changing context of public policy." In Public management and governance, pp. 13-26. Routledge, 2003</ref> The changes pose new challenges to the current public policy systems and pressures leaders to evolve to remain effective and efficient.<ref name="Public Policy: The 21st Century Perspective"/>

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.<ref name=":1">{{Cite book|title=Public Policy: Continuity and Change|last=Wilson|first=Carter|publisher=Waveland Press|year=2006|isbn=1-4786-3671-8|location=Illinois|pages=18}}</ref>

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.<ref name=":1" />