scholarly journals Thought Centers and their Impact on Public Policy Making in the Kurdistan Region (Critical Study)

2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 77
Author(s):  
Omed Rafiq Fattah
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Critical Study ◽  
Kurdistan Region ◽  
Policy Makers

Today, think tanks and research centers are the most important indictors to assess the state development and expect the possibilities for the future. According to academic and scientific perception, these think tanks offer scientific research and analysis for all the issues and problems facing the state. From this perspective, the think tanks deals with the causes of the problems, offer recommendations and solutions. This research is mainly an attempt to investigate the obstacles and opportunities of the think tanks in Kurdistan region. By doing this, we can determine the capability of Kurdistan in terms of research, and also we can inform the Kurdish decision makers in Kurdistan that in today's world the process of making decision is not related with the personal mood or personalization, but rational. For instance, the policy makers in the modern countries such as the United States, in their decisions and public policy largely depend on the recommendations and solutions that are given by think tanks, which is why the United States allocates large amounts of money for think

Public Policy Making and Public Policy Analysis

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee S. Friedman
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Policy Analysis ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Public Policy Analysis ◽  
Professional Class ◽  
The Many

This chapter reviews the development and growth of the policy-analytic profession. Historically, government decision makers have often called upon those with expertise to assist them in reaching their decisions. This chapter, however, concerns a new professional class of advisors that began developing during the 1950s in the United States. This new profession assists policy makers in understanding better their alternatives and relevant considerations for choosing among them. From here, the chapter offers some perspective on the research to date that has attempted to assess the effects of the profession—a perspective that emphasizes some important differences across the many types of governmental settings that utilize policy analysis, and the methodological difficulties that assessment efforts confront.

Following Suit or Falling Behind? A Comparative Analysis of Think Tanks in Canada and the United States

1998 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-555 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald E. Abelson ◽  
Christine M. Carberry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Decisive Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
The Political ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Political Landscape ◽  
Parliamentary Systems ◽  
Economic Barriers

AbstractPolicy institutes, or think tanks, have become increasingly visible on the political landscape. However, their policy role has varied in different countries. This article seeks to explain why, compared to think tanks in the United States, Canadian institutes have maintained a relatively modest presence in the policy-making community. Although many Canadian think tanks have made concerted efforts to replicate the strategies of their American counterparts, they have had far less success employing them in an effective and meaningful manner. While many American think tanks have both the resources and the opportunities to convey ideas to policy makers, Canadian organizations must overcome institutional, cultural and economic barriers before they can play a decisive role in policy-making circles. This article also makes reference to the experiences of think tanks in some parliamentary systems, notably Great Britain, to demonstrate that although these barriers are formidable and need to be addressed in some detail, they are not insurmountable.

Academic Analysis and U.S. Policy-Making on Africa: Reflections and Conclusions

1991 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-48
Author(s):  
David S. Wiley
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Think Tanks ◽  
Scholarly Community ◽  
Private Foundations ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Voice

Late in the 1980s, several major U.S. private foundations concluded that the concern for Africa in the country was weak. This weakness was reflected in the faint focus on U.S. foreign policy toward Africa in all three branches of government, in the halting voice for Africa or for U.S. interests there in the non-governmental organizations (think-tanks, religious organizations, lobbies), and in the small concern for U.S. policy or for affecting it in the African studies scholarly community. Indeed, the voice for Africa in the United States was neither strong nor effective.

Untangling the Concept of Adversarial Legalism

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 473-487
Author(s):  
Jeb Barnes ◽  
Thomas F. Burke
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Public Administration ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Law And Society ◽  
Everyday Practice

The concept of adversarial legalism has been widely used by scholars of law, public administration, public policy, political science, sociology, and Law and Society, but the varying ways in which the concept has been employed raise concerns that it has become stretched to the point of incoherence. We argue that adversarial legalism entails both a style, an everyday practice of dispute resolution and policy making with distinct attributes, and a structure of governance that can be compared to other structures of authority. Untangling these aspects of adversarial legalism allows us to make sense of its different uses and identify future avenues of inquiry. Despite its wide application, adversarial legalism is in fact underutilized, especially in studies aimed at understanding consequences of judicialization, legalization, and juridification in the United States and abroad.

Exile within the United States

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Brent T. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Agency

The Utah Board of Pardons, an executive agency, releases some Utah prison inmates by an order of "conditional termina tion," which directs the recipient to leave the state immediately and remain away permanently. The Supreme Court of Utah has recently held this order to be valid and constitutional, a ruling attacked by this article, which cites cases wherein rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are violated. Public policy, sound penology, and constitutional law all militate against use of conditional termination.

Maximizing Autonomy: Reforming Personal Support Laws in Sweden and the United States

1995 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 213-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley S. Herr
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Support Services ◽  
The United States ◽  
Mental Disabilities ◽  
Related Services ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Personal Support ◽  
Personal Assistants ◽  
The Impact

Reforming outmoded systems of guardianship requires that governments assess personal support and related services. U.S. policy-makers and reformers in individual states have begun to question how current guardianship laws may disempower individuals with mental disabilities. This article explores some remarkable legal and public policy innovations in Sweden that replace guardianship with personal support services such as mentors, administrators, “kontakt” persons, and personal assistants. It then examines the impact of Sweden's reforms on the autonomy, independence, and integration of its citizens and discusses possibilities for similar changes worldwide.

The competing meanings of “biopolitics” in political science: Biological and postmodern approaches to politics

2012 ◽  
Vol 31 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 2-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurette T. Liesen ◽  
Mary Barbara Walsh
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Annual Meeting ◽  
Michel Foucault ◽  
Political Behavior ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
American Political Science

The term “biopolitics” carries multiple, sometimes competing, meanings in political science. When the term was first used in the United States in the late 1970s, it referred to an emerging subdiscipline that incorporated the theories and data of the life sciences into the study of political behavior and public policy. But by the mid-1990s, biopolitics was adopted by postmodernist scholars at the American Political Science Association's annual meeting who followed Foucault's work in examining the power of the state on individuals. Michel Foucault first used the term biopolitics in the 1970s to denote social and political power over life. Since then, two groups of political scientists have been using this term in very different ways. This paper examines the parallel developments of the term “biopolitics,” how two subdisciplines gained (and one lost) control of the term, and what the future holds for its meaning in political science.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document