German Officials and the Federal Policy Process: The Decline of Sectional Leadership

2007 ◽  
pp. 164-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Klaus Goetz
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Federal Policy

Washington Watch

1986 ◽  
Vol 8 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 20-20 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Native Americans ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Government Printing ◽  
Federal Regulations ◽  
Language Choices

This first issue of the Watch plunges into a crucial phase of the Federal policy process known as rulemaking or regulation. Several factors prompted the choice of this topic. For one, effective intervention in the policy process requires familiarity with "policy culture," that is, with the scenarios, language, choices, etc. of all its interactive phases, from policy formulation and implementation to monitoring, evaluation and change. Rulemaking, one type of policy formulation, is especially important, not just because it can have widespread implications but also because it is amenable to anthropological input without major investments of time or funds. Anthropological involvement means writing responses to draft rules made by particular agencies, say the Department of Education, or rules covering actions about particular peoples, perhaps Native Americans, or topics, such as the natural environment. Involvement can also mean incorporating rulemaking issues into policy or American culture courses; students could be asked to track laws and subsequent draft and final rules (if time permits) or to write comments and track agency responses. Another factor prompting this discussion is the availability of Robert M. Wulff's paper, "Federal Rulemaking: Process and Access," based on his experience drafting HUD regulations. First published in Practicing Anthropology, Special Issue: Public Interest Anthropology (Vol.1, no.3, 1979), it is reprinted here somewhat more briefly as a springboard to the Federal Register and its published rules. Bob tells us that: "To understand and influence Federal decision-making, one must master and impact two arenas: Congress, and increasingly, the Executive branch agencies. This article will introduce the latter. … The Executive branch agencies include the twelve Cabinet Departments (e.g. HUD, HHS, Interior) plus fifty-one assorted sub-cabinet or quasi-independent agencies ranging from Action to the Veterans Administration. The scope and power of these agencies is great. (For a good synopsis of their programs and goals see the latest United States Government Manual—order from U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C. 20402). Agency power derives from their authority to issue rules or regulations (these words are synonymous but the latter will be used hereafter). Federal regulations have little visibility outside Washington D.C., but they are an extremely important instrument of Federal policy. The primary import of regulations is that they have the force and effect of law. Federal regulations can be thought of as "delegated legislation." Regulations are also important because they are ubiquitous and proliferating to the point where they rival Congressional legislation as instruments of Federal policy. This state of affairs is the result of a gradual shift in the decision-making role of Congress.

Black Interests, Black Groups, and Black Influence in the Federal Policy Process: The Cases of Housing and Education

1970 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 875-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold L. Wolman ◽  
Norman C. Thomas
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Federal Policy

Rehabilitation psychologists: A place in the policy process?

1990 ◽  
Vol 45 (6) ◽  
pp. 766-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea L. Solarz
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process

POLICY CHANGE – THE ROLE OF IDEAS AND POLICY ENTREPRENEURS

2018 ◽  
pp. 63-72
Author(s):  
Arwanto Arwanto ◽  
Wike Anggraini
Keyword(s):  
Policy Change ◽  
Significant Role ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Entrepreneurs ◽  
Multiple Streams ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Problem Framing ◽  
Exogenous Factors ◽  
The Relationship

ABSTRACT Understanding policy process involves many distinctive approaches. The most common are institutional, groups or networks, exogenous factors, rational actors, and idea-based approach. This paper discussed the idea-based approach to explain policy process, in this case policy change. It aims to analyse how ideas could assist people to understand policy change. What role do they play and why are they considered as fundamental element? It considers that ideas are belong to every policy actor, whether it is individual or institution. In order to answer these questions, this paper adopts Kingdon’s multi streams approach to analyse academic literatures. Through this approach, the relationship between ideas and policy change can be seen clearer. Ideas only can affect in policy change if it is agreed and accepted by policy makers. Therefore the receptivity of ideas plays significant role and it emerges policy entrepreneurs. They promote ideas (through problem framing, timing, and narrative construction) and manipulate in order to ensure the receptivity of ideas. Although policy entrepreneurs play significant role, political aspects remains the most important element in the policy process. Keywords: policy change, ideas, idea-based approach, Kingdon’s multiple streams, policy entrepreneurs.

Dammed If You Don’t, But What If You Do? Breaching the Lower Snake River Dams in Washington State

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Elizabeth C. Lopardo ◽  
Clare M. Ryan
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Food Source ◽  
Washington State ◽  
Federal Agencies ◽  
Snake River ◽  
Environmental Groups ◽  
Steep Decline ◽  
Mitigation Techniques ◽  
Economic Analyses

Four dams on the lower Snake River in Washington State generate hydropower and allow for regional agriculture and barge shipping to Portland OR. However, the dams impede the migration of local salmon populations (Oncorhynchus spp.), which are in steep decline, and drastically impact the populations of salmon and orca whales, for whom salmon are a primary food source. For years, environmental groups have argued for breaching the dams; other interests counter that the dams are too critical to the economy of the region to lose; and federal agencies assert that the dams can remain and salmon populations will recover with mitigation techniques. Scientific and economic analyses, litigation, and elected officials’ efforts have not been able to move the issue towards a solution. Readers will examine the interests of primary actors in the issue, how they influence the policy process, the role of scientific and economic analyses, and possible approaches for resolving the issue.

Why Adjudicate?

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Davis
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Steel Industry ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Trade Disputes ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
Chinese Intellectual ◽  
Trade War

The World Trade Organization (WTO) oversees the negotiation and enforcement of formal rules governing international trade. Why do countries choose to adjudicate their trade disputes in the WTO rather than settling their differences on their own? This book investigates the domestic politics behind the filing of WTO complaints and reveals why formal dispute settlement creates better outcomes for governments and their citizens. It demonstrates that industry lobbying, legislative demands, and international politics influence which countries and cases appear before the WTO. Democratic checks and balances bias the trade policy process toward public lawsuits and away from informal settlements. Trade officials use legal complaints to manage domestic politics and defend trade interests. WTO dispute settlement enables states and domestic groups to signal resolve more effectively, thereby enhancing the information available to policymakers and reducing the risk of a trade war. The book establishes this argument with data on trade disputes and landmark cases, including the Boeing-Airbus controversy over aircraft subsidies, disagreement over Chinese intellectual property rights, and Japan's repeated challenges of U.S. steel industry protection. The book explains why the United States gains better outcomes for cases taken to formal dispute settlement than for those negotiated. Case studies of Peru and Vietnam show that legal action can also benefit developing countries.

Weiterentwicklung der «Waldpolitik 2020» aus Sicht der Schweizer Waldstakeholder

2016 ◽  
Vol 167 (4) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrid Zabel ◽  
Eva Lieberherr
Keyword(s):  
Policy Process ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Sustainable Forest Management ◽  
Forest Policy ◽  
Legislative Process ◽  
Expert Interviews ◽  
The Past ◽  
Conflicting Interests ◽  
Forest Act

Advancement of the Swiss Forest Policy 2020 from stakeholders' perspectives In light of the ending of the Swiss “ Forest Policy 2020”, this article assesses the goals, challenges and concerns of Swiss forest stakeholders in relation to forest policy post 2020. The data were collected through expert interviews and an online survey. The results show that securing an economically sustainable forest management and economically viable silvicultural businesses are key concerns for many stakeholders. Apart from these issues, several further and sometimes conflicting interests were mentioned. The study concludes that a debate on an adjustment of the weights given to goals in the Swiss Forest Policy 2020 may be commendable. However, there does not appear to be need for a complete change of course in order to address the stakeholders' needs and concerns. In terms of policy process, most stakeholders positively evaluated the past planning and development process of the Swiss Forest Policy 2020, but also provided suggestions for improvements. Finally, a network analysis revealed that the Swiss Federal Agency for the Environment, the Swiss Forest Owners Association and the Conference of Cantonal Foresters played a central role in the amendment of the Swiss Federal Forest Act. The analysis also showed that more stakeholders find each other as important than actually work together in a legislative process.

Should Public Health and Policy Communities Interact With the Food Industry? It Depends on Context Comment on "Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool"

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Cullerton ◽  
Jean Adams ◽  
Martin White
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Food Industry ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
World Health ◽  
Business Goals ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Intractable Problem ◽  
Policy Communities

The issue of public health and policy communities engaging with food sector companies has long caused tension and debate. Ralston and colleagues’ article ‘Towards Preventing and Managing Conflict of Interest in Nutrition Policy? An Analysis of Submissions to a Consultation on a Draft WHO Tool’ further examines this issue. They found widespread food industry opposition, not just to the details of the World Health Organization (WHO) tool, but to the very idea of it. In this commentary we reflect on this finding and the arguments for and against interacting with the food industry during different stages of the policy process. While involving the food industry in certain aspects of the policy process without favouring their business goals may seem like an intractable problem, we believe there are opportunities for progress that do not compromise our values as public health professionals. We suggest three key steps to making progress.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document