Public Policy

By the end of this chapter on public policy, you should be able to

Explain what is meant by the term ‘public policy.’

Outline the stages of the public policy paradigm.

Analyze why some policy-making decisions have few or no fiscal implications.

* Evaluate the reasons why the controversy over voter ID laws has remained at the forefront of public policy debate.

DE: Pick a quote

“There can never be anyone too poor to vote”
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

“I always avoid prophesying beforehand, because it is a much better policy to prophesy after the event has already taken place.”
-Winston Churchill
“By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.”
-Albert Camus

A number of states have followed Texas’ lead in passing what has come to be known as a “Castle Law.” In general terms, these laws loosen restrictions on citizens’ ability to lawfully carry concealed handguns on or about their persons and while in public places. It goes without saying that the laws have been controversial, and newsworthy events serve to ensure the controversy will continue. The 2012 shooting incidents in Sanford, Florida in which Andrew Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin and the movie theatre incident in Aurora, Colorado are cases in point.

Elected officials monitored these and other incidents as closely- and maybe even closer – than anyone else, including the media. They view these occurrences though a public policy lens and are concerned about all the implications, and they include constitutional interpretation, crime rates, gun violence, issues of self-defense, and even racial implications. What will be the outcries and demands of various groups, segments, and communities? How and for how long will the media play a role? What will public opinion be after the dust settles? What have other states done in terms of legislation, public awareness, and community relations? What lessons were learned and how will future events be monitored, evaluated, and interpreted? All these questions and many more represent the incredible universe political scientists have termed “public policy.” The implications in our example are constantly evolving and dynamic.

(I found this image at: http://reuters.tumblr.com/post/19732720980/the-shooting-death-of-trayvon-martin-has-drawn. It is the most accurate one I have located. The website says the source is from the Brady Campaign to Prevent handgun violence. The same image appears on that website but I was unable to copy it.

So then, what will be the settled course of action adopted or followed by the government of Texas? We may not know the answer, but whatever it is, it will be known as public policy. In this chapter we consider why some problems reach the public agenda, why some solutions are adopted while others rejected, and why some policies appear to succeed while others appear to fail. We will primarily examine policymaking at the state government level, but we will look at examples from the local level as well.

Public Policy

12.1 Explain why public policy is the cornerstone of politics.

Public policy can be defined as any course of action taken by the government that affects any segment of the public. It takes its form in laws, statutes, regulations, rules, and legislation. Although the legislative branch is formally responsible for “making the laws,” public policy is actually created by every branch of government. The executive branch, through executive orders and policy initiatives, produces public policy, often without the input—or the approval—of the legislative branch. The courts, through judicial review and precedent, establish public policies that affect all Texans.

Public policy is the very essence of government because it is made at all levels of government. The federal government regulates foreign trade and domestic spending. State governments create public policies such as speed limits and motorcycle helmet laws. Local governments, county commissioners’ courts, city councils, and school districts affect public policy by determining how land should be used, what hours the public library should operate, and how many students should be allowed to enroll in a particular class.

The study of public policy represents an entire subfield of political science. Public policy analysts probe the interaction resulting from the dynamics among the institutions of government and the public. Like politics itself, public policy analysis is the study of power, distribution, and outcomes. Public policy takes into consideration the various choices available to solve a problem or issue. We often find that the final product—the resulting policy—represents a compromise among competing interests.

Public Policy, as Distinguished from Company Policy

Before examining public policy, we should take a moment to point out the critical distinctions between public and private-sector policy. Virtually all companies and private corporations have policies, practices, operating procedures, and other rules. Surely you’ve heard the term “company policy,” as in “the store’s company policy requires a receipt for all returns.” You may even have established some personal policies, such as “I always fill up my gas tank when the gauge reads ¼.”

In the most basic form, policies are decisions about what to do or not to do in a given situation. In that context, there is no difference between a government-made (or, as we prefer to call it, “public policy”) and a policy made by your company’s CEO. Aside from the basics, however, there is a world of difference between the private and the public sector when it comes to making policy. The key difference is contained in the definition. Public policy, by definition, affects everyone.

In sweeping terms, all policies attempt to do the greatest good for the clients, company, or community. They also tend to clear up conflict and confusion by allowing us to follow a pre-designated course of action when faced with a particular set of circumstances. Policies are almost always intended to improve the organization whether by increasing productivity, enhancing morale, or preventing loss or injury. Students with an eye toward running a private sector corporation would be well-served to seek a degree in business, such as an MBA (Master of Business Administration). The coursework prepares them for the challenging responsibilities that come with running a corporation, and includes classes in management, finance, marketing, and leadership. By contrast (and perhaps by comparison) individuals seeking to administer government programs are advised to seek a MPA (Master of Public Administration) degree. The basic principles of these degree plans are consistent and there is some overlapping of coursework, but there is also one very notable exception, The public sector is grounded in money; whereas public sector administration is grounded in law.

There are several lesser distinctions between public policy and private-sector policy. The first one is that public policy does not generally reflect personal values, because it involves so many inputs. It would be more accurate to say that in many instances public policy reflects societal values, or at least those values embraced by the stakeholders. A notable exception may be found in the event of an executive order, which is a unilateral action taken by a single individual. The second distinction is that public policies can be studied, compared, and analyzed using a long-standing model developed by political scientists. This model is aptly called the Stages of Public Policy Model.

Types of Policy

Political scientists have identified three broad categories of public policy: redistributive, distributive, and regulatory. Redistributive polices are typically the most controversial because they often cause divisions among social classes. Examples of redistributive policies include most forms of welfare and subsidized school lunches. Recently, funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has been a source of legislative debate, and with declining federal dollars for federal programs like Medicaid, more parents will be relying on state-funded programs like CHIP to cover their children’s medical needs. By-and-large, when we think of redistributive policies we focus on national programs, such as unemployment benefits, Temporary Aid to Needy Families, and the Affordable Healthcare Act. Since Texas is not a “welfare friendly” state, local governments – particularly cities - are looked upon to fill the void. Such attempts are often met with strong opposition. In Bexar County, where one in four children lives in poverty, advocates cite the continuing “tug-of-war” that policy makers must face in setting priorities. Growing cities have turned to lobbying the national government for funding incentives designed to assist low-income and otherwise disadvantaged segments. In 2011, nearly a dozen Texas Panhandle cities’ housing authorities — including Borger, Memphis, Spearman and McLean — received about $648,500 for the projects, according to US Department of Urban Development statistics.

Distributive policies are those that are intended to be neutral for taxpayers. Everyone pays, and everyone benefits. Gasoline tax used to build and maintain highways are a classic example of distributive polices. One way of distinguishing among redistributive and distributive policy is by looking at the perceived winners and losers. Redistributive polices are often regarded as the haves contributing to the have-nots. Distributive policies are generally looked upon as having no winners or losers. Social Security is a distributive policy because those who contribute see a benefit. The GI Bill of Rights is another example of a distributive policy, because beneficiaries have made a choice to serve.

While local governments occasionally provide redistributive policies, such as city-subsidized housing, these policies are more frequently put into place by state government. By and large, distributive policies are implemented by local governments in the form of providing public safety services, recreation opportunities, and public works projects. In the case of local governments, everyone pays for these services through a combination of property and other types of taxes, and all enjoy the results.

Regulatory policies are the most common and are enacted by state and local governments alike. As the name implies, they are created to regulate, and often to limit, specific activities. At the state level, policies that relate to environmental issues legalized gambling, sales and distribution of alcoholic beverages and motor vehicle registration provide examples of the state’s regulatory power. Castle laws provide us with an excellent example of a regulatory policy. Cities create zoning boards, inspection services, and ordinances restricting the operations of certain businesses, all in an effort to protect property values, enhance safety, or ensure a better quality of life.

Figure 12.1Types of Public Policy.

THE POLICY-MAKING MODEL

12.2 Outline the stages of the public policy paradigm.

Political scientists use the term “paradigm” to explain what we have come to understand abstract ideas. A paradigm is a structural model that shows how things work. In physics and other “hard” sciences, they identify laws, such as the “laws of gravity.” Since the social sciences cannot realistically establish such hard and fast laws, they have created paradigms.

Paradigms take what we know about a subject and place it into a simple conceptual model. The paradigm used to explain the stages of public policy illustrates the sequence brilliantly. In essence, the paradigm, (or – if you prefer – model) involves five distinct stages: agenda setting, formulation, implementation, evaluation, and change. The section that follows explores each of these stages and, using the “Castle Law” example and other policy arenas, provides real-world examples of how public policy is born and evolves.

Figure 12.2 (new)

Stages of the Policy Process

Policy analysts use the following model.

Stage
Agenda Setting / Actions
Identifying a problem or an issue that requires attention. This can be a single event or a string of events that brings an issue to the public’s attention. / Example
The Trayvon Martin case.
A sudden rise in child abductions
Formulation / Deciding a course of action and determining which agency will be responsible. Research is carried out and options are explored.
Policy is finalized, formerly announced, and (when necessary) funded. / Legislative action in the form of laws.
Delegating authority to carry out, oversee, and enforce the policy.
Final passage through the legislature.
Implementation / New – or revised - policy takes effect. / Public service announcements.
Training for responsible agency employees.
Evaluation / Assessing the outcomes, ensuring there are no unintended consequences. / Sunset Advisory.
Recommendations for modification made.
Change or termination / adjusting or modifying the policy to enhance effectiveness, or to terminate the policy / DWI laws enhanced,
Repeal of the 55 MPHspeed limit

Agenda Setting

On October 16, 1991, a man with a gun drove through the window of Luby’s Cafeteria in Killeen, Texas and opened fire, killing 24 people. This event sparked debate over a handgun bill which was passed in 1996 and which we know as the “right to carry” law.

Before any government agency initiates action, the need for such action must be recognized. During the agenda-setting stage, the matter is brought to the attention of the government and a resolution is sought. Sometimes a single event can place an issue on the government’s agenda. For example, in 1999, the Texas legislature passed a bill that became known as the “Amber Alert,” which required law enforcement agencies to coordinate with local media outlets for the purpose of alerting citizens about child abductions. Prior to the Amber Alert’s passage, several police departments and local media outlets established a voluntary program that was widely successful. The Texas Amber Alert made this a statewide network, and it was so successful that it was adopted by the U.S. Congress and extended nationwide. The bill is named after Amber Haggerman, a young Texas girl whose abduction caused an outcry among citizens.

In other instances, pressure from ordinary citizens and interest groups like the National Rifle Association can put issues on the front burner. Such was the case with the “Castle Law” passed by the Texas legislature in 2007. Major events are not exclusive to this stage, as evidenced by the Andrew Zimmerman case in 2012. That event renewed discussions in states that already had Castle Laws and generated a new agenda for states that were considering them.

The agenda-setting stage is important not only to those who wish to create new policies, but also to those who oppose governmental action. An individual, corporation, or group opposed to governmental intervention will often attempt to abort the policy process at this stage. Sometimes these groups are successful in the short term. In other words, some folks work very hard at keeping matters off the public agenda. For example, although public opinion polls identified the popularity of a law allowing Texans to carry concealed handguns in their cars, various groups—including law enforcement and educational groups—managed to keep the issue on the back burner, or “off the agenda.”