* Policies are the main products of the polical system. 

    * Public policies are governmental action addressing economic, political, and social concerns. 

    * Policies often conflict with one another. 

    * There are policies on things ranging from environment and defense to civil rights and family. 

    * Critics believe policy making would be more profitable if it "emulated the private sector models". 

    * Critics believe that policy making should incorporate : 
            a. clear, realistic, specific objectives are established. 
            b. all possible means for reachin the stated objectives are presented. 
            c. the best course of action is selected based on examination of possible results and costs. 

    * This approach is called the rational- comprehensive model. 

*       public policy 
*       is a governmental course of action addressing matters of economic, political or social concern.
*       main product or output of the political system

*       American public policy making
*       messy because of separation of powers, electoral terms of office, and federalism
*       policies tend to be the outcome of political compromise, piecemeal adjustments, temporary coalitions, and partial solutions
*       often they conflict w/ one another
*       may be internally incoherent as well

*       Rational-Comprehensive model 
*       Critics and reformers, wanting to emulate private sector models favor
*       Sequential steps for policymaking
*       Clear, realistic objectives are established
*       All possible means or techniques for achieving the objectives are presented
*       An optimal course of action is selected

Why do some subjects rise on governmental agendas while others are neglected? Kingdon answers:

1. The subject is recognized as an important problem
2. The subject is emphasized in the politics of the day (National mood, elections)
3. The subject is put forward by a visible cluster of policy advocates who attract significant media attention

1. Problems 
      Problems come to occupy the attention of government officials by means of  
      the ways the officials learn about conditions and the ways in which the 
      conditions become defined as problems.
      Three ways in which government official are made aware of conditions which 
      may lead to problems-

• Indicators (assess magnitude or discern changes in conditions)
• Focusing events (something which draws attention to conditions)
• Feedback both through formal (internal monitoring and evaluation) and informal (external complaints) methods
      Conditions do not rise to prominent places on policy agendas until they     become defined as problems at which time action should be taken to change conditions. Conditions are transformed into problems in three ways-
• Violation of important values
• Comparison with other countries or other relevant units
• Classification into one category rather than another
Problems not only rise, but also fade on government agendas for various reasons-
• Government may address the problem or fail to address it
• Conditions which highlight a problem may change
• People may become accustomed to a condition or relabel a problem
• Other items emerge and push the highly placed items aside
• Inevitable cycles in attention

Problem recognition is critical to agenda setting, and some problems defined as pressing may set agendas by themselves. Once a problem is defined as pressing, whole classes of approaches are favored over others and some alternatives are highlighted while others fall from view.

Political stream composed of- 
• Swings of national mood- Perceptions of the national mood affect governmental agendas. Serves as both impetus and constraint.
• Election turnover- Changes of administration have powerful effect on agenda setting.
• Organized political interests- Governmental officials try to judge the degree of consensus of organized political interests, but balance of forces do not always determine outcomes. Consensus building occurs through a bargaining process- participants sense movement, move in to protect their own interests, and their entry can sharply change agendas.

     Visible cluster of participants who receive considerable press and public   
      attention. These are the participants who have most influence to affect the   
      agenda.
• President and high-level appointees (most powerful agenda setter)
• prominent members of Congress (party leaders, key committee chairs)
• the media
• election-related participants (campaigners, political parties)

1. Hidden Participants: Specialists 
Alternatives, proposals, and solutions are generated in communities of 
specialists from different disciplines and backgrounds. They share specialization and acquaintance in a particular policy area. These specialists usually do no attract press or public attention.

• academics
• researchers
• consultants
• career bureaucrats
• congressional staffers
• interest group analysts

2. The Policy Stream
Policy alternatives are generated and narrowed down in the policy stream. Specialists share and sometimes combine ideas to generate proposals. Then they impose criteria on the proposals such as technical feasibility, congruence with the values of the community, and the anticipation of future constraints (budgetary, public acceptance, political receptivity) to eliminate those that are judged infeasible.
A softening-up process is important to allow these policies to come to fruition. In the process of policy development, recombination (the coupling of already-familiar elements) is more important than mutation (the appearance of wholly new forms).

 Decision Agendas- A list of subjects that is moving into position for authoritative 
 decision such as a legislative enactment or presidential choice. The probability of 
 an item rising on the decision agenda is dramatically increased if the three  elements- problem recognition, policy proposal, and political receptivity- are  linked in a single package. Partial couplings of the elements are less likely to rise  on decision agendas.
 Policy Windows- A policy window is an opportunity for policy advocates to push  for their solutions or bring attention to their special problem. They have solutions  waiting for the right opportunity to attach them to policy and achieve their  pet  agenda.
 Windows open by events in the political stream or when new problems appear.

• Political window- turnover of elected officials, swing of national mood, vigorous lobbying
• Problem window- a new problem captures attention of governmental officials 

Policy windows can be either predictable (legislation comes for renewal, change of administration after an election) or unpredictable (crisis, unexpected turnover of elected official). Policy windows are scarce and of short duration. When one opens, it presents an opportunity for the linkage of problems, proposals, and politics, to move a policy towards the decision agenda. Advocates of pet proposals look for these opportunities to take advantage of the situations in the political stream.
Policy Entrepreneurs- People who are willing to invest their resources in return for future policies that they favor. They may have any number of motives for their actions. These entrepreneurs are found at every level of policy-making.

• As to problems, entrepreneurs highlight indicators, push on focusing events, and prompt certain kinds of feedback.
• As to proposals, entrepreneurs are central to the softening-up process. They formulate and pass along ideas in many ways and over long periods of time.
• As to coupling, entrepreneurs appear when windows open. They have their pet proposals or their concerns about problems ready to push them at the right moments.

In the pursuit of their own goals, policy entrepreneurs perform the function for the system of coupling solutions to problems, problems to political forces, and political forces to proposals. The joining of the separate streams depends heavily on the appearance of the right entrepreneur at the right time. An item’s chances for moving up on an agenda are enhanced considerably by the presence of a skilled entrepreneur, and dampened considerably if no entrepreneur takes on the cause, pushes it, and makes the critical couplings when policy windows open. 

The two methods for making policy decisions.

A.      "Successive limited comparisons"
1.      public administrators tend to implement
2.      policy change is incremental
3.      characteristics
a.      selection of value goals and empirical analysis of the needed action
are not distinct from one another but are closely intertwined
b.      since means and ends are not distinct, means-end analysis are often
inappropriate or limited
c.      the test of a "good" policy is typically that various analysts find
themselves directly agreeing on a policy
d.      succession of comparison greatly reduces or eliminates reliance on theory
A.      Rational-Comprehensive approach
1.      all plausible policy alternatives are thoroughly analyzed before any choices are made
2.      characteristics
a.      clarification of values or objectives distinct from and usually
prerequisite to empirical analysis of alternative policies 
b.      policy-formulation is therefore approached through means-end
analysis: first, the ends are isolated, then the means to achieve them are sought
c.      the test of a "good" policy is that it can be shown to be the
appropriate means to desired ends 
d.      analysis is comprehensive; every important relevant factor is taken into account 
e.      theory is often heavily relied upon

-Corruption within political endeavors including policy making,
campaigning and elections, the economy, and businesses result in the
publics best interest being compromised and ignored.
-All too often politicians are out to win elections and not properly
fulfill their duties as a public servant.  This results in creating an
environment for "fools and drunkards." (Nivola, 559)
-Banfield is basing his study and observations on Chicago, Illinois.
-Says the biggest problem with Chicago's political system is that there
is no central direction; no one is looking out for the community as a
whole.
-Special interest groups work solely for their own advantage and
largely dictate policy on public affairs.
-Banfield says a central public authority, that will unbiasedly survey
the city, needs to exist.  This survey would result in actions being
taken that will benefit the city as a whole.
-Because of Chicago's metropolitan existence, problems occur between
planning and organization.  Organization is desperately needed but
there is no one in the position to plan it, including the Mayor. (Banfield
suggests this is because of the lack of support from the governor)
-He says that big businesses have too much of an influence on political
leaders carrying out plans of actions.  The advantages of being a
community business leader gives citizens the power to delay and
sometimes even stop policies from being put into action.
-In recent years, Chicagoans have begun to put more power in the hands
of the executive branch.  However, the system in Chicago is that people
want consistent and viable legislation but they also want bargaining
power with their representatives.  With so many special interest groups
and businesses, this is a impossible to achieve.
-It seems that political leaders should just find solutions to civic
problems but this is not an easy task.  No two opinions are alike.
-The problem lies within "central decisions" and "social choices."
Central decisions are actions for the betterment of the whole and
social choices are for the betterment of a particular segment/segments.
-The solution is to take into consideration what will benefit the most
people. (special interest groups included)
-A great amount of time and effort is put into making these decisions.
-There will always be influence in politics by those who have outside
power. (business leaders, influential non politicians)
-Advantages of social choice: deals with all the elements (both factual
and value), real influence is a result (who the decision is going to
directly effect and how).
-Advantages of central decision: public values are addressed,
essentially the majority of the community will benefit.
-If no decisions are made or not much is done to solve problems, this
is because it is the publics interest not to demand action/solutions.
 
 

                Analysis based on six case studies of policy making in Chicago.

I.   Nature of Political System V. Requirements of Planning
                A. Tensions
                                1.      Decentralization - no one is in a position to survey the city and to 
                                formulate and carry out public policy
                                2.   Tension between the two is ineradicable
B. Policy making decisions/choices
1.      "Central decision"
a.      in some sense purposeful or deliberate
b.      made by someone who, in making the selection, is trying to realize
some intention of the group
c.      selection of an action, or a course of action, for the group,
represents a "solution" to the "problem"
1.      "Social choice"
a.      the accidental by-product of the actions of two or more actors
b.      "interested parties," who have no common intention and make their
selections competitively, without regard to each other
c.      each actor seeks to attain his own ends
d.      situation produced by all actions together - constitutes an outcome
for the group, but it is an outcome which no one has planned as a "solution"
to the "problem, " rather a "resultant"
e.      single, ultimate criterion...the distribution of influence
1.      may be viewed as an outcome of a continuing "game" which has been
going on, under rules that a majority of the players have been free to change at any time
2.      also reflects the intensity with which the competing values are held
3.      the character of the influence exercised may afford additional
grounds for considering the distribution of influence to be an appropriate criterion
a.      limitations of great importance
1.      takes into account only such ends as actors of influence see fit to assert
2.      may exist an outcome which represents the "greatest total benefit"
of the parties to the choice process but which is not likely to be found if
each party seeks only his own advantage
                3. Mixed decision-choice process
a.      central decisionmaker may regulate the selection process so that
"public values" are achieved of, or, negatively, not disregarded
b.      central decisionmaker may coordinate the activities of the
interested parties in order to help them find positions optimal in terms of their ends
c.      central decisionmaker merely records the relative influence
exercised by the competing interested parties

Does politics make policy or does policy drive politics?

I.      Three generic categories of public policy
A.      Distributive
1.      certain kinds of government decisions can be made without regard to
limited resources
2.      includes most contemporary public land and resource policies; rivers
and harbors (pork barrel) programs, defense procurement and research and
development programs 
3.      characterized by the ease with which they can be disaggregated and
dispensed unit by small unit
4.      primary political unit - individual firm, corporation
5.      relation among units - log-rolling, mutual noninterference, uncommon
interests
6.      power structure - non-conflictual elite with support groups 
7.      stability of structure - stable
8.      primary decisional locus - congressional committee and/or agency
9.      implementation - agency centralized to primary functional unit
A.      Regulatory
1.      specific and individual in their impact too
2.      not capable in the almost infinite amount of disaggregation typical
of distributive policies
3.      impact, one of directly raising costs and/or reducing or expanding
the alternatives of private individuals
4.      primary political unit - group
5.      relation among units - "the coalition" shared subject-matter
interest, bargaining
6.      power structure - pluralistic, multi-centered, "theory of balance"
7.      stability of structure - stable 
8.      primary decisional locus - congress, in classic role
9.      implementation - agency decentralized from center by "delegation,"
mixed control
A.      Redistributive
1.      relations among broad categories of private individuals are
involved, individual decisions must be interrelated (similar to regulatory)
2.      categories of impact much broader, approaching social classes
3.      not determined by the outcome of a battle 
4.      primary political unit - association
5.      relation among units - the "peak association" class, ideology
6.      power structure - conflictual elite, elite and counterelite
7.      primary decisional locus - executive and peak associations
8.      stability of structure - stable
9.      implementation - agency centralized toward top, elaborate standards