Policy, Power, And Politics Management: A Discussion

The Policy Cycle and Its Stages

Discuss about the Policy, Power and Politics Management.

A policy cycle is an essential method consisting six distinct stages, which problem definition/agenda setting, policy formulation, policy selection/decision making, implementation of policies and policy evaluation. According to Wyatt (2015), policy-making is a continuous as well as a complex process for which a concrete and convenient framework is required. A relevant plan can be acquired through using the stages of policy cycle as each of the stages helps from understanding the key issues to finally implement and evaluate a particular policy, which is worthy enough to mitigate the identified issues.

Elaborately, it is to justify that prior to develop a new policy, it is essential to gather all the information related to the issue, which are required to be mitigated by the policy. In the initial stage of policymaking, the issues, their barriers and implications have been identified under the name of problem definition or agenda setting. The second important work for developing a policy is to formulate all the possible and convenient policy options, which is covered through the second stage of policy cycle under the name of policy formulation (Prpi? et al., 2014). The third most necessary part of making a policy is to take a proper decision to consider the most fruitful one among the options, which has the potentiality to work against all the identified issues. With the third stage of policy cycle, which is the decision making process; this required process can be accomplished.

The next two significantly required processes for developing a policy are implementing the chosen option and evaluating its effectiveness in terms of achieving the desired outcomes. Fortunately, final two stages of policy cycle are policy implementation and policy evaluation through which the desired activities regarding policymaking can be fruitfully accomplished. Therefore, it is justified to state that policy cycle is an important tool for establishing a new one.

A government policy document is a set of regulations implemented by government to guide decisions and to accomplish any rational outcome regarding the welfare of the society. A health policy unlike a government policy is a distinct decision or plan that is undertaken for achieving health care goals. It is to say in this regard that both of the plans are constructed for the welfare of the society though it should also be contemplated that the span of government policy is comparatively wider than the health care ones’ (Furrow et al., 2013). More specifically, government policy document is a statement that declares the political activities, decisions and intension regarding assumption of office or related with an entire legislative segment. Most significantly, the term government policy is used to denote a set of rules or strategy fundamentally taken for economic and social causes like immigration, taxation, monetization, employment, education and health. Therefore, it is understandable that health policies are most of the time a part of government policies.

Differences between Health Policies and Government Policies

Furthermore, unlike the governmental policies, health policies concentrate only on the physical and mental health of the human beings. The focus is therefore to enhance the standard of care service. For example, health policies are considered fundamentally to cover premises like health research, health systems, care development, health accounts, diagnosis and information and evidence confidentiality. As per the evidence, it can be said that one of the Australian health policies known as OECD health policy covers numerous health initiatives and it particularly concentrates on health reforms. On the other hand, the government policies of Australia chiefly cover rights for the indigenous people, educational justice, child protection, communication and media, the ageing society, business growth and climate change (Hayek & Caldwell, 2014). Hence, it is to conclude that health policies can be considered as a potential part of government policy though each of its aspects and objectives are different from a government policy document.  

The phrase “old public health” indicates the scientific art of promoting health through preventing diseases by the organized efforts and the informed choices of the society. However, on the other hand, the phrase “new public health” has been considered as a philosophical approach rather than a mere concept that is designed to maximize the previous understanding regarding health coined by the old public health (Rosen & Imperato, 2015). Therefore, elaborately, the new public health unlike the old public health concentrates on individual health, which the approach believes as an essential addition to the old concept of the health of the population. One of the chief differences between new public health approach and the old public health approach is old public health has been more concerned with the threats or risks those have been related with the population health analysis. Nevertheless, unlike the old public health, the new public health approach demands multi-disciplinary teams, which would be comprised of physicians and health workers those have specialized in the community health and medicines (Fried, 2015).

In this context, it is significant enough to denote that the rise of new public health is the consequence of the old public health turning obsolete. The reason behind the old public health becoming an option of obsolete is the continuous change in the health patter and the increasing development of health knowledge. Therefore, it can be established concretely that the sole aim of old public health has been to address the health threats, whereas the new public health aims at reforming the groundwork of contemporary health promotion and addressing the changing health patterns. It is unfortunate that the new public health gives less focus on those determining aspects, which are biological like the old public health (Fried, 2015). Therefore, it is to denote that the new public health prioritize more upon the socio-cultural, environmental and behavioral determinants of human health, such as employment, financial status and education.

Old Public Health vs. New Public Health

It is well considered fact that people stay healthy both physically as well as mentally when they become more content in terms of befitting into a society. Poor and unhealthy society and economic circumstances are detrimental for human health. In other words, a person’s social orientation is related with his economic status (Rubin, 2016). On the other hand, stressful circumstances around people make them anxious and depressed, which turn them vulnerable to insecurity and they repeatedly loose self-esteem and their ability to cope with a particular situation. Henceforth, living in such an environment turns a person mentally ill, which simultaneously deteriorate the person’s physical strength (Gerald, 2012). One of the main sociological constraints of the present times is supposed to be the problem of illiteracy. It is to state in this context that when people stay uneducated about the increasing environmental pollution and relative health hazards, they easily become more vulnerable towards unhygienic environment and unhealthy food consumptions.

On the other hand, one of the potential curses of the society – poverty is considered as a pivotal health detrimental. The reason behind such statement is relative deprivation, discrimination and social exclusion, which cumulatively reduce the chances for maintaining a balanced health. Furthermore, lack of basic elements and amenities for existence due to immense poverty consequently creates deficiency and imbalance among the essential components of a human health. Most importantly, a sociological curse like unemployment is harmful for both an individual’s physical and mental health (Braveman & Gottlieb, 2014). More elaborately, unemployment is the reason forthcoming poverty, which leads to mental illness such as inferior complexity, anxiety and chronic trauma. On the other hand, poverty in terms of unemployment brings inability to afford nutritious foods and a healthy and sanitized neighborhood, which is essential for having a

As per Meyer and Benavot (2013), in order to understand the importance of policymaking, it is significant understand the fundamental nature of power and it is distribution process. It is essential to denote the meaning of the term prior to understand its reference to policy development and change. In the context of policy development, the term power can be interpreted as the ability to reach to a desired outcome. More specifically, in the premise of policymaking, the perspective of power is regarded in the relational sense of possessing power over others. In this respect, it is to mention that power has three particular dimensions, which are power as non-decision making, as decision-making and as thought control.

Therefore, power as decision-making refers to the ability to evaluate and identify the acts of individual and the capacity to find out convenient options for establishing an apt policy. Most importantly therefore, power in terms of developing decision acts an aspect for influencing the decision making process of policy development. On the other hand, power is a potential facet for shaping and controlling others’ preferences (Kahler, 2015). Furthermore, this characteristic feature of power enables the process of changing policies. In case of policy development there is a potential role of traditional authority whose responsibility is to establish the convenient ways of doing things. Without having the aspect of power, the entire dimension of traditional authority could not have been accomplished. Therefore, it can be established that power plays the key role to succeed two of the most crucial stages of decision making, which are decision-making and implementing policies. Moreover, in the sense of policy changing, power works as the medium of enforcement (Chatterjee & Finger, 2014).

References

Braveman, P., & Gottlieb, L. (2014). The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes. Public Health Reports, 129.

Chatterjee, P., & Finger, M. (2014). The earth brokers: power, politics and world development. Routledge.

Fried, L. (2015, March). Get Old: Essential competencies to promote health into the oldest ages in Public Health’s 21st century. In 2015 Annual Meeting (March 22-25). Aspph.

Furrow, B. R., Greaney, T. L., Johnson, S. H., Jost, T. S., & Schwartz, R. L. (2013). Health Law: Materials and Problems.

Gerald, L. (2012). Social determinants of health. NC Med J, 73(5), 353-357.

Hayek, F. A., & Caldwell, B. (2014). The road to serfdom: Text and documents: The definitive edition. Routledge.

Kahler, M. (Ed.). (2015). Networked politics: agency, power, and governance. Cornell University Press.

Meyer, H. D., & Benavot, A. (Eds.). (2013, May). PISA, power, and policy: The emergence of global educational governance. Symposium Books Ltd.

Prpi?, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J. (2014). Crowdsourcing the Policy Cycle. Prpi?, J., Taeihagh, A., & Melton, J.(2014). Crowdsourcing the Policy Cycle. Collective Intelligence.

Rosen, G., & Imperato, P. J. (2015). A history of public health. JHU Press.

Rubin, I. L. (2016). Social Determinants of Health. In Health Care for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities across the Lifespan (pp. 1919-1932). Springer International Publishing.

Wyatt, A. (2015). 3 Policy cycle models. Creating and Implementing Public Policy: Cross-sectoral Debates, 41.