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?