Policy Implementation Is Different From Agenda Setting And...

Policy implementation is â€Å"the application of the policy by the government s administrative machinery† (Anderson, 2011, 4). Policy implementation is different from agenda-setting and policy formulation. Policy implementation deals with applying the government’s policy into effect to the problem that it is trying to solve. While the first part of the policy process, agenda-setting, is deals more with trying to get the government to consider action on the problem you are addressing. After the government has considered a course of action to fix or alieve the problem, policy formulation comes next. The second part of the policy process, policy formulation, deals with proposing a certain solution to the problem. In most cases, the person, group or organization that identifies the problems, also recommends a solution to the problem. No action is needed when dealing with self-executing, while other forms of policy require decision making and alterations. â€Å"A complex array of administrative agencies also known as bureaucracies† (Anderson, 2011, 232) participate in policy implementation. Since bureaucratic agencies participate in policy implementation, the agencies major role is to implement public policy. Actionable-action must be taken. The formula for knowing who participates in policy implementation is quite simple. It is in the shape of a droplet, with the top being few elected officials. In the bottom of the droplet are the numerous of career government employees. For the mostShow MoreRelatedThe Four Stages Of Policymaking Essay1720 Words   |  7 PagesWhen it comes to policy making in the US, it can be very complex. The policy making involves numerous steps and its interaction of the various political institutions. When we talk about Policymaking, there’s a process and it has four stages. The four stages go as followed; Agenda Setting, Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation. After I discuss these four stages, I will talk about the Political Institutions. They’re categorized as Congress, The President, The Bureaucracy, and The Courts. I willRead MoreThe Policy Process: Formulation, Legislation and Implementation1151 Words   |  5 PagesThe Policy Process: Formulation, Legislation and Implementation HCS/455 24 November, 2014 The Policy Process: Formulation, Legislation and Implementation In order to first start a policy process, the problem for which a policy is to be created must be identified and the policy holding a solution to the problem. Researchers and stakeholders will investigate the problem to identify if the policy will reach the policy making agenda. Policies must be to improve society’s health andRead MoreForeign Public Policy Essays689 Words   |  3 PagesForeign Public Policy Analysis Directions: Choose one specific foreign policy issue in American government and complete a public policy analysis of how the problem was addressed. Stage I Agenda Setting: How did this issue arrive on the public policy agenda? Identify specific linkage institutions and describe their roles and influence in placing this issue on the policy agenda. The Ebola virus was first discovered in the year 1976 in Africa. Since then, there have been countless outbreaks of thisRead MoreGlobal Perspective on Health Policy Essay1612 Words   |  7 Pagesmacro perspective on health policy issues can be helpful to identify how problems become policy issues and how these issues result in the creation of health care policy. The neglected epidemic of Chronic Disease also known as non- communicable diseases are a controversial issue that needs to be addressed in the world. In this paper, the writer will provide an explanation of how this issue has resulted from a policy’s creation. Identify the steps in the state and federal policy development process. FurthermoreRead MorePolicy Is The Pursuit Of Goals819 Words   |  4 Pagesdefined policy as â€Å"The exercise of authority to achieve collective purposes. Policy is the pursuit of goals. The assumption is that policy is a purposive course of action†. Therefore, policy is processes acquired and followed by organisations to prevent and resolve contemporary difficulties. Pub lic policy is policy for a public area or shared intent. It is when an organisation owns the policy (Baker, 2015). The stages model performs the duty to organise the different parts of the policy processRead MorePublic Policy Analysis: Gun Control Essay1246 Words   |  5 PagesPublic policies are developed in response to the existence of a perceived problem or an opportunity. The analysis delves into a public issue or problem and assesses a set of proposed government action for addressing the issue. The job of the analyst is to describe the background and status of an issue and then, using research and analysis, determine a proper government action to resolve the issue. By comparing options and weighing their expected benefits, the analyst should conclude with a recommendedRead MoreArticle Review : Politics And The Policymaking Process778 Words   |  4 Pagesdecision making and funding public policies. The article deciphers the policymaking process while identifying the policy problems and the contributors that influence change in public policy. The scholars that contributed to the articl e, identified five steps in the policymaking process; (1) Identifying policy problems, (2) Formulating policy proposals, (3) Legitimizing public policy, (4) Implementing public policy, and (5) Evaluating public policy. In order to identify policy problems, one must identifyRead MoreThe Policy Process1582 Words   |  7 PagesThe Policy Process HCS/455 05/28/13 Jay Littleton The Policy Process In today’s health care system it is constantly improving and changing, due to the demands of the health care system. For this to happen new policies must be created or even improving old policies. Congress is involved in the process of policy making; including three stages such as foundation stage, legislative stage, and implementation stage. When a health care topic is in processRead MoreRepresentation Of The Real World1682 Words   |  7 Pagessimplified representation of the real world† (Stewart, Hedge and Lester 2008:52). Peter John describes the policy process as â€Å"complex and apparently chaotic†, therefor in need for establishing â€Å"conceptual order on the policy process in order to comprehend it† (John 1998:22) Therefor â€Å"models of the policy process† inherently abstract reality, in order to understand it. Considering that models of the policy process abstract reality by nature, what is their utility? In other words, where do they misrepresentRead MoreHealth Care Is A Controversial Matter That Unceasingly1502 Words   |  7 Pagesbecause they fear what an independent analysis from the government s Congressional Budget Office would show (Leonard 2017). The Democrat members contrasted the process with how the Affordable Care Act had been negotiated eight years ago, citing several hundreds of hour’s hearings and bipartisan amendments, which has not been done with this new bill. The policy process is the sequence of events that occurs when a political system considers different approaches to public problems, adopts one of them

World History hw essay2 - 2316 Words

Korey Neal Dr. Eric Mayer World History to 1500-51337 February 24, 2015 Rise of Civilizations Egypt and Mesopotamia were two civilizations existing during the time period of 2000-1200 BCE. These civilizations were shaped by their environment, involved with trade, and faced changes in government after the 100 year drought; however, they differed in that Egypt was shaped by the Nile, traded goods for goods and changed their outlook on the pharaoh who was ruler of all; whereas, Mesopotamia was shaped by the Tigris and Euphrates, traded money for goods, and had a ruler over rulers. It is undeniable that the natural environment of ancient Mesopotamia had a profound effect on the earliest civilizations known to the world. Humankind’s ability†¦show more content†¦Wandering groups of people happened to come upon this fertile land. The warm temperatures allowed a permanent civilization to begin. Mesopotamia is a region which has a huge variety of geography combined into one expanse of land. There are rivers, valleys, mountains, floodplains, deserts, and marshes splotch ed around the region. Mesopotamia was known in antiquity as a seat of learning, and it is believed that Thales of Miletus (known as the first philosopher) studied there. As the Babylonians believed that water was the first principle from which all else flowed, and as Thales is famous for that very claim, it seems probable he studied in the region. Intellectual pursuits were highly valued across the region, and the schools (devoted primarily to the priestly class) were said to be as numerous as temples and taught reading, writing, religion, law, medicine, and astrology. Men and women both worked, and because ancient Mesopotamia was fundamentally an agrarian society, the principal occupations were growing crops and raising livestock. Other occupations included those of the scribe, the healer, artisan, weaver, potter, shoemaker, fisherman, teacher, and priest or priestess. The temple, at the center of every city (often on a raised platform), symbolized the importance of the cityâ€℠¢s patron deity who would also be worshipped by whatever communities that city presided over. Mesopotamia gave birth to the

Religious Freedom Free Essays

Religious freedom occupies a special place in contemporary political discussions. It should not. This is not because religious freedom is not important but because it is no more and no less important than other forms of freedom of conscience, belief and practice. We will write a custom essay sample on Religious Freedom or any similar topic only for you Order Now 2 Many believers point out that faith plays a unique role in their lives. That is often true. Those atheists who dismiss belief in God as no more credible than belief in Santa Claus or in fairies miss the point. Religion is more than an intellectual exercise or a matter of logic; it often has, for believers, a vital social and spiritual function. But acknowledging the vital and unique role of faith in the lives of believers does not commit us to providing it with a privileged position in society. 3 The reason that religious freedom has a special place in contemporary political debate is historical. Ideas of tolerance and of freedom of expression developed in Europe from the seventeenth century onwards primarily within a religious framework. Questions of toleration and expression were at heart questions of how, and how far, the state, and the established church, should accommodate religious dissent. We can see this in the arguments of John Locke, whose Letter Concerning Toleration is a key text in the development of modern liberal ideas about freedom of expression and worship. Locke’s starting point was the insistence that the duty of every individual was to seek his own salvation. The means to do so were his religious beliefs and the ability openly to worship. The power of the political authorities could not rightfully extend over either sphere. Written at a time when Europe was rent by tempestuous religious strife, and when intolerance and persecution were the norm, Locke’s was a powerful argument for religious freedom. It was also an exceedingly narrow conception of liberty. Locke’s toleration was rooted primarily in the desire to extend freedom of worship and theological discussion to nonconformist congregations and placed little emphasis on wider issues of freedom of thought or conscience. Indeed Locke was emphatic in refusing to extend toleration to many other groups. Neither Catholics not atheists were, in Locke’s view, deserving of tolerance, the former because they gave their allegiance to a ‘foreign prince’, the latter because their opinions were ‘contrary to human society’ and ‘to the preservation of civil society’. 4 Locke’s near contemporary, the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, whose views influenced the Radical Enlightenment, proposed a different concept of tolerance. Spinoza’s starting point, was not, as it was for Locke, the salvation of one’s soul, or the coexistence of churches, but the enhancement of freedom, and the quest for individual liberty and freedom of expression. All attempts to curb free expression, he insisted, not only curtailed legitimate freedom but was futile. ‘No man†¦ can give up his freedom to judge and think as he pleases, and everyone is by absolute natural right master of his own thoughts’, Spinoza wrote, so ‘it follows that utter failure will attend any attempt in a state to force men to speak only as prescribed by the sovereign despite their different and opposing opinion. ’ ’The right of the sovereign, both in the religious and secular spheres’, he concluded, ‘should be restricted to men’s actions, with everyone being allowed to think what he wishes and say what he thinks’. It is a more inclusive vision of freedom than Locke’s, and a more useful starting point – and conclusion – when thinking about contemporary freedom. 5 Modern ideas of freedom and tolerance are usually seen, particularly in the West, as having derived from Locke. In fact they draw upon both Locke and Spinoza. The US First Amendment owes much to Spinoza’s conception of freedom. Even in Europe, where freedom of expression is construed in narrower terms, Spinoza’s influence remains important, if unacknowledged. However, despite the broadening of the conception of liberty and tolerance, the idea that freedom of religion is a special freedom, an idea that derives primarily from Locke, remains entrenched. 6 Today, we live in very different world from that in which concepts of religious freedom first developed. Religion is no longer the crucible within which political and intellectual debates take place. Questions of freedom and tolerance are not about how the dominant religious establishment should respond to dissenting religious views, but about the degree to which society should tolerate, and the law permit, speech and activity that might be offensive, hateful, harmful to individuals or undermine national security. We can now see more clearly that religious freedom is not a special kind of liberty but one of a broader set of freedoms. If we were think about religious freedom from first principles today, it would not have a special place compared to other forms of freedom of conscience, belief, assembly or action. 7 Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be complete freedom to express them, short of inciting violence or other forms of physical harm to others. Whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to assemble to promote them. And whatever one’s beliefs, secular or religious, there should be freedom to act upon those beliefs, so long as in so doing one neither physically harms another individual without their consent, nor transgresses that individual’s rights in the public sphere. These should be the fundamental principles by which we judge the permissibility of any belief or act, whether religious or secular. 8 Many on both sides of the debate about religious freedom continue to treat religion as special. Many atheists want to deny religion the rights accorded to others forms of belief. Many religious believers want to retain privileges for religion. Both are wrong. 9 Some atheists argue that secularism requires that religion be kept out of the public sphere. It is an argument that cannot be right any more than the claim that the views of racists, conservatives, communists or gay activists must be kept out of the public sphere. A secular space cannot be one in which religion is not permitted to be present. It is, rather, a space in which one religion is granted no advantage over another, nor over any secular philosophy or ideology. It must also be one, however, in which no religion is disadvantaged with respect to another religion, or with respect to secular philosophies and ideologies. 10 Many atheists demand also that religious symbols be banned in the public sphere. Many states and corporations have imposed such bans, from the refusal to allow the wearing of the cross in the workplace to the outlawing of the burqa in public places. Such bans are infringements of the basic freedoms set out in #7. An employer has every right to ban kinds of clothing that might be, say, dangerous in a particular workplace. He or she also has the right, in certain circumstances, and within limits, to insist that employees wear a particular uniform, or to desist from wearing something inappropriate. But there should be no general ban on particular forms of clothing or adornment, and certainly no general ban on specifically religious clothing or symbols. 11 The real dilemmas with religious freedom arise out of questions not of beliefs or symbols but of practices. Many beliefs, religious and secular, imply particular practices. The belief that homosexuality is a sin requires that one refrain from gay relationships or gay sex. The belief that life begins at conception requires that one does not have an abortion or help anyone else to do so. And so on. As a society we should tolerate as far as is possible the desire of people to live according to their conscience. But that toleration ends when someone acting upon his or her conscience causes harm to another without consent, or infringes another’s genuine rights. 12 It is not just in the case of religion that there is a strong relationship between belief and practice. Racists, communists, Greens, New Age mystics – all could claim that their beliefs enforce upon them certain actions or practices. We do not, however, allow racists, communists, Greens, or New Age mystics to act upon their beliefs if in so doing they harm others or deny them their legitimate rights. A racist pub owner cannot bar black people from his pub, however deep-set his beliefs. It would be a criminal offence for Greens to destroy a farmer’s field of legally grown GM crops, however strongly they might feel about such agriculture. There is a line, in other words, that cannot be crossed even if conscience requires one to. That line should be in the same place for religious believers as for non-believers. Society should accommodate as far as is possible any action genuinely required by conscience, but not where such acts harms another or infringes their rights. Of course, a religious believer might claim that he or she faces a different kind of compulsion to that felt by a racist, a communist or anyone else attached to secular beliefs. He or she may feel commanded by God to act in a particular way. It may well be true that a believer feels a different kind of compulsion. But the reason for which someone feels compelled to act in a particular way is not necessarily relevant to whether or not such acts should be legally permitted. 13 The fact that acts of conscience may sometimes have to be curbed does not mean that in these cases there is a ‘conflict of rights’. Just as there is a right to free speech but no right not to be offended, so there is a right not to be harmed and to equal treatment, but no right to harm or to discriminate. This is essential to protect religious freedom. An atheist bar-owner should have no right, whatever his conscience may say, to bar people of faith, any more than a Christian bar-owner has the right to bar gays. Such curbs on acts of conscience simply mean that we live not alone on a desert island but together in a crowded society. 14 How would the argument so far throw light on recent conflicts over matters of religious freedom? Should religions have the right to prevent the publication of cartoons or books or plays that are deemed offensive? No. Religious freedom requires that people of faith be allowed to speak or act in ways that might offend others. It does not that require others do not cause offence or promote blasphemy. Is it legitimate for a state to ban the burqa? It is not. Wearing a burqa neither harms, nor discriminates against, others. Of course, one might well believe that the burqa harms the woman who wears it and is an expression of discrimination against women. A liberal society accepts, however, that individuals should free to make choices that may not be in their interest and that, to liberal eyes, demean them. This applies even to particularly distasteful expressions of degradation, such as the wearing of the burqa. If women are forced to wear the burqa against their will, the law should protect them against that coercion. It should not, however, impose a ban on those who have chosen to wear the burqa. Some suggest that burqas cause harm because they may pose security problems, or be incompatible with the needs of particular jobs. Such practical problems can usually be solved on a case-by-case basis without the need for draconian legislation. Should an employee be allowed to wear a cross at work? In almost every case the answer should be ‘Yes’. There may be a pragmatic case for, say, banning loose chains that in certain workplaces may be dangerous; but it is difficult to see what right an employer has simply to ban the wearing of a cross as a religious symbol. Should gay marriage be legalized? Yes. This is a matter both of secular equality and of religious freedom. On the one hand, the state should not exclude gays from the civil institution of marriage simply because of religious hostility. On the other, some faith groups wish to bless to gay marriage. For the state to deny them that right because other faith groups disagree would be to undermine religious freedom. What the state should not do is to force religious bodies to accept or consecrate gay marriage. Should a Catholic adoption agency be allowed to turn away gay prospective parents? If the agency receives public funding, or performs a service on behalf of the state, then the answer is ‘No’. It would then be legitimate for the state to insist that the agency does not discriminate, despite Catholic views on homosexuality. If, however, it is a private agency – if it is simply performing a service for Catholic parents who subscribe to its views on homosexuality – then the answer should be ‘Yes’. Should Christian bed and breakfast owners be allowed to turn away gays? Such owners, even if they are turning their own home into a b’n’b, are providing a service from which a gay couple could reasonably expect equal treatment. The answer, therefore, is ‘No’. Should Catholic-run hospitals or schools be forced to give employees health insurance that includes free contraception? This is, of course, a source of major controversy in the USA. The answer is ‘Yes’. This is not a matter of religious freedom, but of employee rights. Churches are not being forced to provide contraception. In their role as secular employers, they are being asked to provide employee benefits that all employers must provide. To exempt Church-run organizations would be to deny those benefits to a particular group of employees. 15 Having said all this, many of these conflicts would be better resolved through the pragmatic use of common sense than through the strict application of principle, particularly when those principles remain socially contested. A religious believer should not normally have the legal right to discriminate. But if it is possible to arrange matters so that a believer can act according to conscience without causing harm or discrimination to others, then it might be worthwhile doing so. In principle, a Christian marriage registrar should expect to have to perform gay civil partnerships, whatever their religious beliefs. However, it might make pragmatic sense to roster others to perform ceremonies for gay couples, not because we should accept prejudice – prejudice, whether religious or secular in form, should always be challenged – but in acknowledgement of the fact that genuine social conflict exists on this issue. We should not give an inch to bigotry. Someone whose ‘conscience’ would not allow them to work with gays, or to marry Jews, should clearly not be indulged. Nevertheless, many oppose gay partnerships or marriages as a matter of conscience and not simply through homophobia (albeit that ‘conscience’ can, of course, often be a cover for homophobia). We can both challenge such attitudes and accept that on matters of genuine conscience, a little leeway or accommodation that allows someone to live by their principles may be desirable. The law should not make any such accommodation. But as individuals, or as organizations, it may be wise to, though not at the cost of causing harm, allowing discrimination or endorsing bigotry. 16 There are exceptional cases in which we should set aside these basic principles. A marriage registrar should be expected in principle, if not necessarily in practice, to perform gay civil partnerships. But we should not expect a doctor or a nurse, even in principle, to perform an abortion, if they feel to do so is against their beliefs. Whatever we may think of the belief that life begins at conception, it would be unreasonable in the extreme to expect those who do hold that belief to commit what they consider to be murder. 17 A pragmatic approach to matters of religious conscience is neither a sign of ‘weakness’ nor a matter of ‘accommodating’ the devil. Standing by political principle is vitally important, including the principle that people should have the right to act upon their conscience if possible. Why is that principle important? Because we recognize with Spinoza that ‘No man can give up his freedom to judge and think as he pleases, and everyone is by absolute natural right master of his own thoughts’. To recognize that is to recognize also that it is better if people are persuaded to act in a particular way, by exercising their freedom to judge and think, than being forced to do so by the power of the state. There are times when the state has to wield the big stick, particularly if ‘acts of conscience’ lead to physical harm or discrimination. But such occasions, as a matter of principle, should be minimized as far as possible. To be pragmatic in this matter is to keep to one’s principles. 18 The aim of rethinking religious freedom is to strengthen, not weaken, it. It is to establish it not as a special privilege arising out of the turmoil of seventeenth century Europe but as one of a set of indispensible freedoms rooted in the needs and possibilities of the twenty-first century world. To defend religious freedom in this manner is not to defend religion. It is to defend freedom. How to cite Religious Freedom, Papers