Social Policy in Political Context

Topics: Lawyers

Policy is the result of interactions among different organizations – with particular interests and ideas – about what course of action should be taken. The sum of these interactions constitutes the policy process. And the policy process – the interactions among organizations that promote advocacy– is part of a wider environment, or context. Understanding context is vital to understanding and engaging more effectively in policy processes.

Political context shapes the ways in which policy processes work. To engage effectively in policy processes, advocacy organizations and others need to understand political context.

In some contexts, policymakers are keen to receive evidence and ideas from advocacy organizations: there are established channels through which advocacy organizations can make their inputs. In other contexts, advocacy organizations are excluded from formal policy processes. To be effective, advocacy organizations need to take different approaches in different contexts.

Context refers to those aspects of the world that are relevant to action: context is the arena for action. Context matters for policy for a range of interrelated reasons.

First, context shapes the likelihood of change – a policy reform, for instance – taking place. Secondly, context shapes the positions and perspectives of those organizations with an interest in the policy reform. And thirdly, context shapes the effectiveness or appropriateness of different actions. In some contexts, it will be more effective to act in a certain way; in other contexts, acting in the same way would be ineffective.

Political context refers to the political aspects of the environment that are relevant to action. This includes aspects such as the distribution of power, the range of organizations involved and their interests, and the formal and informal rules that govern the interactions among different players.

Get quality help now
Marrie pro writer
Verified

Proficient in: Lawyers

5 (204)

“ She followed all my directions. It was really easy to contact her and respond very fast as well. ”

+84 relevant experts are online
Hire writer

For development actors seeking to influence policy, political context matters because it determines the feasibility, appropriateness and effectiveness of their actions.

For advocates seeking to influence policy and practice, context shapes the effectiveness of particular strategies. As Research and Policy in Development (RAPID) work has shown, the influence of advocacy organizations on policy has been limited. If advocates can better understand the contexts for their actions, then they will be in a better position to devise more effective strategies, which may allow them to have more influence on policy.

Stakeholders, in terms of their power in relation to the issue, and in terms of their interest in relation to the issue measure their ‘interest’ to the degree they are likely to be affected by the research project or policy change, and the degree of interest or concern they have in or about it. Their ‘Power’ measures the influence they have over the project or policy, and to what degree they can help achieve, or block, the desired change.

Stakeholders with high power, and interests aligned with the project, are the people or organizations it is important to engage with fully and to bring on board. If trying to create policy change, these people are the targets of any campaign. At the very top of the ‘power’ list will be the ‘decision makers’, usually members of the government. Beneath these are people whose opinion matters – the ‘opinion leaders’. This creates a pyramid sometimes known as an Influence Map.

Stakeholders with high interest but low power need to be kept informed; if organized, they may form the basis of an interest group or coalition that can lobby for change. Those with high power but low interest should be kept satisfied and ideally brought around as patrons or supporters for the proposed policy change. Steps in policy development include:  Identify and define the problem or issue that necessitates the development of a policy;  Appoint a person or person(s) to co-ordinate the policy development process; Establish the policy development process; Conduct research; Prepare a discussion paper; Consultation – Stage 1;  Prepare a draft policy; Consultation – Stage 2; Adoption; Communication; Review and evaluate.

Recent talk about gun control is an area that affects me in the sense that I have school age children and guns are becoming an increased problem at an alarming rate. Recent federal policy in this area is marked by the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed largely in response to public outrage over the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy, and the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Highly publicized incidents of gun violence, including the wounding of President Reagan and Jim Brady as well as multiple shootings with assault weapons, led to the 1993 Brady Act and the Assault Weapons Ban of the following year. Though at least symbolically contested, both are relatively modest measures, in many cases less stringent than the patchwork of state laws that crisscross the nation.Opponents of more gun control argue that there are already some 20,000 gun laws in the United States, and that, as more laws pass, more gun violence occurs. Proponents argue that these are largely state and local laws with limited impact, and that without them incident rates would be even higher.

Another area of dispute involves the use of guns in self-defense. Gun control opponents cite studies that say guns are used up to 2.4 million times per year for protection, while proponents cite data that say the number is more like 80,000 times. How can this be, you ask? Different data sets, different methodologies, extrapolations from limited samples. Both sides use comparative data from other countries to bolster their arguments. Gun control advocates draw comparisons with countries that have stricter gun laws and much lower levels of gun violence. Opponents cite countries like Switzerland, with high levels of gun ownership and much lower gun-homicide rates, as evidence of the protective benefit of guns.5

Clearly, gun-related crime has more than a single cause, and measurements and trends are subject to manipulation by both sides. For example, while decreasing adult homicide rates in urban areas with tough gun laws are cited as proof of the effectiveness of control, increasing youth homicide rates in the same areas are cited as proof of its futility. With such wildly divergent sets of statistical ammunition, one wonders if it even makes sense to prepare for this debate by arming oneself with facts and figures. At a minimum, it seems useful to try to quantify the problem, if not its exact nature.

When the Supreme Court has ruled, it has been more likely to allow regulation than to prohibit it, at least at the state level. Even Daniel Polsby, a lawyer and one of the most eloquent and persuasive opponents of gun control, suggests that seeking constitutional protection under the Second Amendment is a flawed approach. He argues that a guaranteed right to bear arms under any circumstances, including those that might endanger public safety, would provide grounds for repeal of the amendment rather than a case for respecting it. Instead, Polsby argues that the best reason for opposing gun control is that ‘gun control laws don’t work.’

The terms, but not the tenor, of the debate have changed. Some of the most persuasive of the gun control opponents employ economic arguments, using rational choice theory to demonstrate the inability of regulation to stop the flow of guns into neighborhoods where crime is the dominant employer in local labor markets. Gun control advocates argue from a public health standpoint, noting that while guns may not cause violence, they do cause violence to be far more lethal. This ‘lethality,’ in suicide and accidents as well as homicide, is the imperative from a public health perspective for regulating guns like other deadly substances.

Opponents of regulation argue that laws are not the primary arbiter of behavior. ‘Rational gun control,’ Polsby says, ‘requires understanding not only the relationship between weapons and violence, but also the relationship between laws and people’s behavior.’8 If such laws are ineffectual, one might ask, why oppose them? On the other hand, there is surely a social cost when ‘bad’ laws are disregarded, divert resources, or produce a false sense of security. Others would argue that the role of law is not primarily to change behavior, but to reflect the behavioral norms that a society professes. Even when these norms conflict, the process by which they are negotiated suggests a value in accepting the outcomes.

Cite this page

Social Policy in Political Context. (2022, Feb 23). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/social-policy-in-political-context/

Let’s chat?  We're online 24/7