In this first chapter, Peters tackles these two primary questions "How do we define public policy?" and "What policy tools does government have at its disposal?" In reference to the first question, Peters defines public policy as "the sum of government activities, whether pursued directly or through agents, as those activities have an influence on the lives of citizens" (p. 4). This is certainly not the only way to define public policy, but lets pull apart this definition a bit.
- The sum of government activities: Peters define public policy as the totality of government action. This definition is broad in the sense that it includes implementation, all levels of government, and action on a variety of substantive issues. It can be interpreted as somewhat narrow by today's standards, however, as many have sought to redefine what it means to be public versus private. Many scholars want to extend the definition to activities taken by corporations or NGOs working on their own behest. We can draw from history for an example. At the turn of the 20th century many workers were living in company towns where healthcare, housing, schools etc. were provided by the company. In Peters' definition this would not be considered public policy even though the services provided by the companies are very similar to what government provides today.
- Pursued directly or through other agents: Peters broadens his definition back out here. He allows for businesses and non-profits to be public policy actors if they working on behalf of the state. "Contracting out" to for-profit or non-profit organizations has become an increasingly popular strategy for delivering government services so this is an important part of the definition.
- As those activities have an influence on the lives of citizens: Peters restricts his definition once again to those activities that affect the citizenry. I think that this is unintentionally narrow. We have foreign policies, trade policies, and immigration policies that directly affect individuals who are not citizens. As a world leader, American public policies also affect non-citizens indirectly. Further, our policies have an effect on the animal and natural world. I doubt that Peters would argue that foreign policies are not public policies so I think the use of citizen here is just poor word choice.
Hopefully, you came into this class with at some ideas about what public policy might be. How did your definition differ from Peters? Do you think his definition is too broad, just right, or too narrow?
Okay, second shot at this after a loss of my last set of comments.
ReplyDeletePrior to beginning this class, and particularly prior to reading Peters' first chapter, my definition of public policy was limited to the set of activities by federal, state and local governments in the form of laws and statutes. After reading the chapter, I am far more interested in the nuances of discussing public policy as an engaging topic.
While I can see how Peters' definition of the activities of public policy being those influencing the lives of citizens as being unintentionally narrow, I think another way of viewing it is to see him using a broader definition of citizen and not a narrower definition of the activities. In particular, at the site http://www.thefreedictionary.com/citizen, we see that the fourth definition of "citizen" is "a native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place". Using this definition we can conclude that we are all citizens of the world community, and as such Peters' definition not only becomes workable but highly effective in discussing public policy as regards U.S. foreign policies.
Overall, Peters presents a definition for public policy that creates a framework within which we can begin an intelligent conversation about public policy. No definition is ever perfect, but Peters presents one that is neither too broad to be unworkable, nor too narrow to be limiting.
Brian Miller
PAF340P11
I have never tried to isolate exactly what “Public Policy” is. I have always considered it a black and white issue with a lot of grey in the middle. So for me to try and explicitly state what is or is not “public” made me think a moment. I thought his definition was a good one though. Granted it was a pretty broad definition but with a term like “Public Policy” a broad term is needed. I liked how he included “Pursued directly or through other agents”. This illustrates how integrated corporations are into all aspects of our lives including areas typically considered in the public sphere. Jobs that the government “contracts out”, while a combination of both public and private are still part of the governments influence and affect on its citizens.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that the part of the definition that states it “have an influence on the lives of citizens” may unintentionally narrow the definition. A public policy will affect citizens from other countries as well as the environment around us, I believe the reason he chose that term is because it is meant to reflect the perspective of the citizenry of that public policy. It is a poor choice of words however as it leaves an opportunity to point out other effects of public policy pother than on the “citizens”. For it to be completely accurate it would have to be rephrased as “those activities have an influence on citizens within that country, any citizen in another country that is directly or indirectly affected by those policies, or has any effect on the environment”. That small difference is the only change I would make to Peters definition.
Travis Gorney PAF340
When you use a genuine service, you will be able to provide instructions, share materials and choose the formatting style. יחסי ציבור קוסמטיקה
ReplyDelete