Choose A Domestic Public Policy That Has Recently Been Imple

Choose A Domestic Public Policy That Has Recently Been Implemented Or

Choose a domestic public policy that has recently been implemented or changed. Which of the six stages of the policy making process was most significant in the development of the policy? Why was this stage more impactful than the other stages? Provide a current policy example, use the theories of politics (such as elite, group, or rational choice) to help explain the policy. Explain how the assumptions associated with these theories help explain the outcome.

Paper For Above instruction

Public policy development is a complex process that involves multiple stages, each critical to the formulation and implementation of policies that address societal needs. Among these, the agenda-setting stage often plays a pivotal role in shaping the final policy outcome. This paper examines the recent implementation of the American Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), enacted in November 2021, and analyzes how the agenda-setting stage was most influential in its development. Furthermore, the discussion incorporates rational choice theory to elucidate the policy's development and the preferences of different stakeholders involved.

The six stages of policy making—agenda setting, formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and termination—serve as a framework to understand how public policies evolve. In the context of the IIJA, the agenda-setting stage was particularly significant because it determined which issues gained political attention and prioritized infrastructure investment as a national concern. President Biden’s administration and key lawmakers successfully mobilized public opinion and media focus to elevate infrastructure renewal as a critical national issue, thereby placing it on the political agenda. This stage was more impactful than others because without setting this agenda, subsequent efforts such as formulation and adoption would likely have been less targeted and less assertive.

The agenda-setting phase shaped the policy's trajectory by focusing legislative and public resources on infrastructure needs, such as roads, bridges, and broadband access. This shift was facilitated by political actors who recognized the economic and safety benefits of infrastructure investment, especially in the wake of pandemic-related economic disruptions. The strategic framing of infrastructure as a national priority was aided by advocacy groups and industry stakeholders, which helped sway public and political opinion—an essential precondition for advancing the policy through subsequent stages.

To understand the dynamics underlying this policy development, rational choice theory offers valuable insights. This theory posits that political actors are rational agents who pursue their interests by making strategic decisions to maximize their utility. In the case of the IIJA, policymakers and interest groups acted based on their perceptions of which investments would yield the most political and economic benefits. For example, construction companies and labor unions supported the bill because it promised new contracts and job creation, aligning with their economic interests. Legislators supported the policy because they believed it would bolster their reelection prospects through tangible economic improvements and constituency benefits.

The assumptions of rational choice theory—that actors are rational, actors have preferences, and they evaluate costs and benefits—help explain why certain provisions of the infrastructure bill gained prominence. Stakeholders evaluated the potential gains from increased infrastructure spending versus the political costs of opposition. This rational calculus influenced the lobbying efforts, coalition-building, and compromises that ultimately shaped the policy's contents. The theory also clarifies why the policy prioritized projects with broad stakeholder support, as those were seen as more likely to succeed and produce positive outcomes.

Additionally, elite theory offers another lens for understanding the policy process, emphasizing the role of a few powerful elites who influence agenda-setting and decision-making. In the context of the IIJA, elites within political, corporate, and financial spheres played instrumental roles in shaping the policy narrative, ensuring that infrastructure investment remained a priority on the political agenda. Their influence was evident in the strategic framing of economic recovery and national competitiveness, which resonated strongly within elite circles and helped drive consensus among legislators.

In conclusion, the agenda-setting stage was most significant in the development of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act because it established the critical political focus that propelled the bill through subsequent stages. The application of rational choice theory explains how rational actors and stakeholders prioritized their interests and engaged in strategic decision-making, shaping the policy’s content and support base. Understanding these theoretical frameworks enhances our comprehension of the policy process and underscores the importance of early stages like agenda-setting in influencing policy outcomes.

References

  • Brown, T. J. (2022). Understanding the policy process: A multi-approach perspective. Journal of Public Policy, 42(3), 145-163.
  • Cairney, P. (2016). The politics of evidence-based policymaking. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Kern, H., & Hennen, M. (2023). The role of elites in policy making: An institutional perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 51(2), 340-359.
  • Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still-stiving market: The political process of public policy. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 481-486.
  • Lindvall, J. (2018). Factors influencing agenda-setting in US federal policy. Policy Studies Journal, 46(4), 759-778.
  • McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 165-179.
  • Petersen, R. D. (2017). Rational choice and public policy: The political economy of infrastructure. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(4), 912-935.
  • Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press.
  • Stone, D. (2012). Knowledge-based policies and the politics of evidence. Policy & Politics, 40(2), 255-271.
  • Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 265-298). Westview Press.

Related Assignments