Two other styles are similar in structure, but are not identical. The consensual approach is based on a closed circle of influential actors negotiating behind closed doors. Representatives of large organizations or social groups and scientists work together to achieve a predefined goal. Controversies are not visible and conflicts are often resolved before formal negotiations take place. The aim of the negotiation is to combine the best available evidence with the different social interests represented by the different actors. The corporatist style is similar to the consensual approach, but is much more formalized. Renowned experts are invited to join a carefully selected group of policy makers representing leading social workers (such as employers, trade unions, churches, professional associations and environmentalists). Invited experts are asked to give their professional judgment, but they often do not need to provide formal evidence for their claims. This approach is based on trust in the expertise of scientists.
Policy-making is often an instinctive response to the current problem. Many policies are the result of local efforts to make a difference in their communities. For example, suppose it is juvenile delinquency in our city. Children roam the streets like packs of wild dogs, making fun of the elderly and usually making us feel insecure. One proposed policy could be to hold parents accountable for their child`s misconduct. If parents are responsible, they will take better care of their children, won`t they? Take Little Skippy, for example. He`s a bit of an idiot. He smokes, curses and recently stole his neighbor`s car. Arrested after hitting the Drive Thru sign at the local Taco Bell, his mother and father are responsible for his reckless driving fiasco under the Parental Responsibility Act.
Let us look at the political process. Process evaluations take into account the implementation of a policy or program and involve determining the procedure used to implement the policy. These are detailed and descriptive reports on the implementation of the policy, including program objectives, who is involved, the level of training, the number of clients served, and changes to the program over time. [2] Unfortunately, process evaluations do not focus on the actual impact of the policy on the crime problem, but only on what has been done in relation to a particular problem or on the people who have participated in it. While this is indeed a limitation, it is important to know the inner workings of a program or policy if it is to be replicated. Policy formulation means developing an approach to solving a problem. Congress, the executive branch, the courts and interest groups may be involved. Often, contradictory proposals are made. The president could have one approach to immigration reform, and members of the opposition party in Congress could have another. Policy formulation has a tangible result: a bill takes precedence over Congress or a regulator drafts proposed rules. The process continues with adoption. A policy is adopted when Congress passes laws, regulations become final, or the Supreme Court makes a decision in a case.
The Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research institute, employed several dozen policy analysts who worked closely with the staff of sympathetic members of Congress, monitored the progress of certain policy proposals, and prepared detailed position papers on them. The American Enterprise Institute, which became a sort of center-right counterpart to the more liberal and older Brookings Institution, published numerous studies, held numerous conferences, and prepared several analyses of legislative proposals — in addition to publishing seven journals and newsletters — that focused primarily on government regulation and tax policy. This research has contributed to a more skeptical attitude toward the role of government and a more positive attitude toward the role of markets – first among elites, and then in the public sphere as a whole. More liberal research institutes have also become more supportive of business prospects. A policy defined and implemented by the government goes through several phases from beginning to end. These are the creation, formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation and completion of the programme. The idea that the political process can be seen as a series of steps in a cyclical model of decision-making was first systematically addressed in the work of Harold Lasswell, a pioneer in the development of political science at the University of Chicago and Yale University in the early 1950s (Lasswell, 1956, 1971). Currently, a five-step model of the political process is most commonly used, although there are many other versions with more understorey.
In this model, “agenda setting” refers to the first phase of the process, during which a problem is first identified by political actors and a variety of solutions are proposed (see Agenda Setting, Public Policy in). “Policy formulation” refers to the development of specific policy options within government when the range of possible decisions is limited by the exclusion of impracticable options and various actors strive to rank their preferred solution among the few others. “Decision-making” refers to the third phase, during which formal government actors adopt a certain course of action. In the fourth phase of “policy implementation”, governments implement their decisions with a combination of public administration instruments to change the distribution of goods and services in society in a way that is broadly compatible with the feelings and values of the parties involved. Finally, “policy evaluation” refers to the fifth phase of processes in which policy outcomes are monitored by state and social actors, often leading to the reconceptualization of policy problems and solutions in light of experiences with the policy in question and at the beginning of a new iteration of the cycle (Howlett et al., 2009). These problems would be acute, even if the political process were easy to understand. In reality, the problem of both communities must be overcome and the many rules of policy-making deciphered. A general strategy is to make a long-term commitment to learning the “rules of the game”, understanding how best to “frame” the implications of evidence, building trust with decision-makers through face-to-face interactions, becoming a trusted source of information, and forming coalitions with like-minded people (Cairney et al., 2016; Weible et al., 2012; Stoker, 2010, pp. 55-57). Finally, the evaluation examines the effectiveness of the policy. There are three types of evaluation: impact analysis, process analysis and cost-benefit analysis. Impact assessments (outcomes) focus on changes that change after the introduction of crime policy.
[1] Changes in police patrol practices aimed at reducing the level of residential burglaries in an area are assessed based on subsequent burglaries […].