| Part of thePolitics series |
| Politics |
|---|
Government branches |
 Politics portal |
Policy is a deliberate system ofguidelines to guidedecisions and achieverational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by agovernance body within an organization. Policies can assist in bothsubjective andobjectivedecision making. Policies used in subjective decision-making usually assist senior management with decisions that must be based on the relative merits of a number of factors, and as a result, are often hard to test objectively, e.g.work–life balance policy. Moreover, governments and other institutions have policies in the form of laws, regulations, procedures, administrative actions, incentives and voluntary practices. Frequently, resource allocations mirror policy decisions.
Policy is a blueprint of the organizational activities which are repetitive and routine in nature.
In contrast, policies to assist in objective decision-making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested, e.g. password policy.[1]
The term may apply to government, public sector organizations and groups, as well as individuals,Presidential executive orders,corporate privacy policies, and parliamentaryrules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs fromrules orlaw. While the law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome.[2]
Policy orpolicy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political,managerial, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals. In public corporate finance, acritical accounting policy is a policy for a firm or company or an industry that is considered to have a notably high subjective element, and that has a material impact on thefinancial statements.[citation needed]
It has been argued that policies ought to be evidence-based. An individual or organization is justified in claiming that a specific policy is evidence-based if, and only if, three conditions are met. First, the individual or organization possesses comparative evidence about the effects of the specific policy in comparison to the effects of at least one alternative policy. Second, the specific policy is supported by this evidence according to at least one of the individual's or organization's preferences in the given policy area. Third, the individual or organization can provide a sound account for this support by explaining the evidence and preferences that lay the foundation for the claim.[3]
Policies are dynamic; they are not just static lists of goals or laws. Policy blueprints have to be implemented, often with unexpected results. Social policies are what happens 'on the ground' when they are implemented, as well as what happens at the decision making orlegislative stage.[4]
When the term policy is used, it may also refer to:[4]
The actions an organization actually takes may often vary significantly from its stated policy. This difference is sometimes caused bypolitical compromise over policy, while in other situations it is caused by lack of policy implementation and enforcement. Implementing policy may have unexpected results, stemming from a policy whose reach extends further than the problem it was originally crafted to address. Additionally, unpredictable results may arise from selective or idiosyncratic enforcement of policy.[4]
The intended effects of a policy vary widely according to the organization and the context in which they are made. Broadly, policies are typically instituted to avoid some negative effect that has been noticed in theorganization, or to seek some positive benefit.[citation needed]
Ameta-analysis ofpolicy studies concluded thatinternational treaties that aim to fosterglobal cooperation have mostly failed to produce theirintended effects in addressingglobal challenges, and sometimes may have led to unintended harmful or net negative effects. The study suggestsenforcement mechanisms are the "only modifiable treaty design choice" with the potential to improve theeffectiveness.[5][6]
Corporatepurchasing policies provide an example of how organizations attempt to avoid negative effects. Many large companies have policies that all purchases above a certain value must be performed through a purchasing process. By requiring this standard purchasing process through policy, the organization can limit waste and standardize the way purchasing is done.[7]
The State ofCalifornia provides an example of benefit-seeking policy. In recent years, the numbers ofhybrid cars in California has increased dramatically, in part because of policy changes inFederal law that provided USD $1,500 in tax credits (since phased out) and enabled the use ofhigh-occupancy vehicle lanes to drivers of hybrid vehicles. In this case, the organization (state or federal government) created an effect (increased ownership and use of hybrid vehicles) through policy (tax breaks, highway lanes).[8]
Policies frequently have side effects orunintended consequences. Because the environments that policies seek to influence or manipulate are typicallycomplex adaptive systems (e.g. governments, societies, large companies), making a policy change can havecounterintuitive results. For example, a government may make a policy decision to raise taxes, in hopes of increasing overall tax revenue. Depending on the size of the tax increase, this may have the overall effect of reducing tax revenue by causingcapital flight or by creating a rate so high that citizens are deterred from earning the money that is taxed.[a][9]
The policy formulation process theoretically includes an attempt to assess as many areas of potential policy impact as possible, to lessen the chances that a given policy will have unexpected or unintended consequences.[10]
Inpolitical science, thepolicy cycle is a tool commonly used for analyzing the development of a policy. It can also be referred to as a "stages model" or "stages heuristic". It is thus a rule of thumb rather than the actual reality of how policy is created, but has been influential in howpolitical scientists looked at policy in general.[11] It was developed as a theory fromHarold Lasswell's work. It is called the policy cycle as the final stage (evaluation) often leads back to the first stage (problem definition), thus restarting the cycle.
Harold Lasswell's popular model of the policy cycle divided the process into seven distinct stages, asking questions of both how and why public policies should be made.[12] With the stages ranging from (1) intelligence, (2) promotion, (3) prescription, (4) invocation, (5) application, (6) termination and (7) appraisal, this process inherently attempts to combine policy implementation to formulated policy goals.[13]
One version by James E. Anderson, in hisPublic Policy-Making (1974) has the following stages:
Anderson's version of the stages model is the most common and widely recognized out of the models. However, it could also be seen as flawed. According to Paul A. Sabatier, the model has "outlived its usefulness" and should be replaced.[14] The model's issues have led to aparadoxical situation in which current research and updated versions of the model continue to rely on the framework created by Anderson. But the very concept of the stages model has been discredited, which attacks the cycle's status as a heuristic.[15]
Due to these problems, alternative and newer versions of the model have aimed to create a more comprehensive view of the policy cycle. An eight step policy cycle is developed in detail inThe Australian Policy Handbook by Peter Bridgman andGlyn Davis: (now with Catherine Althaus in its 4th and 5th editions)
The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model isheuristic anditerative. It isintentionallynormative[clarification needed] and not meant to bediagnostic[clarification needed] orpredictive. Policy cycles are typically characterized as adopting a classical approach, and tend to describe processes from the perspective of policy decision makers. Accordingly, somepost-positivist academics challenge cyclical models as unresponsive and unrealistic, preferring systemic and more complex models.[16] They consider a broader range of actors involved in the policy space that includescivil society organizations, themedia,intellectuals,think tanks or policyresearch institutes, corporations,lobbyists, etc.
 | This sectiondoes notcite anysources. Please helpimprove this section byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved.(June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Policies are typicallypromulgated through official written documents. Policy documents often come with the endorsement or signature of the executive powers within an organization to legitimize the policy and demonstrate that it is considered in force. Such documents often have standard formats that are particular to the organization issuing the policy. While such formats differ in form, policy documents usually contain certain standard components including:
Some policies may contain additional sections, including:
The American political scientistTheodore J. Lowi proposed four types of policy, namelydistributive,redistributive,regulatory andconstituent in his article "Four Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice" and in "American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies and Political Theory". Policy addresses theintent of the organization, whether government, business, professional, or voluntary. Policy is intended to affect the "real" world, by guiding the decisions that are made. Whether they are formally written or not, most organizations have identified policies.[4]
Policies may be classified in many different ways. The following is a sample of several different types of policies broken down by their effect on members of the organization.[4]
Distributive policies involve government allocation of resources, services, or benefits to specific groups or individuals in society. The primary characteristic of distributive policies is that they aim to provide goods or services to a targeted group without significantly reducing the availability or benefits for other groups. These policies are often designed to promote economic or social equity. Examples include subsidies for farmers, social welfare programs, and funding for public education.
Regulatory policies aim to control or regulate the behavior and practices of individuals, organizations, or industries. These policies are intended to address issues related to public safety, consumer protection, and environmental conservation. Regulatory policies involve government intervention in the form of laws, regulations, and oversight. Examples include environmental regulations, labor laws, and safety standards for food and drugs. Another example of a fairly successful public regulatory policy is that of a highway speed limit.[4]
Constituent policies are less concerned with the allocation of resources or regulation of behavior, and more focused on representing the preferences and values of the public. These policies involve addressing public concerns and issues that may not have direct economic or regulatory implications. They often reflect the broader values and beliefs of the society. Constituent policies can include symbolic gestures, such as resolutions recognizing historical events or designating official state symbols. Constituent policies also deal with fiscal policy in some circumstances.[4]
Redistributive policies involve the transfer of resources or benefits from one group to another, typically from the wealthy or privileged to the less advantaged. These policies seek to reduce economic or social inequality by taking from those with more and providing for those with less. Progressive taxation, welfare programs, and financial assistance to low-income households are examples of redistributive policies.
In contemporary systems of market-oriented economics and of homogeneousvoting of delegates and decisions, policy mixes are usually introduced depending on factors that include popularity in the public (influenced viamedia and education as well as bycultural identity), contemporary economics (such as what is beneficial or a burden in the long- and near-term within it) and a generalstate of international competition (often the focus ofgeopolitics). Broadly, considerations include political competition with other parties and social stability as well as national interests within the framework of global dynamics.[17][additional citation(s) needed]
Policies or policy-elements can be designed and proposed by a multitude of actors orcollaborating actor-networks in various ways.[18] Alternative options as well as organisations and decision-makers that would be responsible for enacting these policies – or explaining their rejection – can be identified. "Policy sequencing" is a concept that integrates mixes of existing or hypothetical policies and arranges them in a sequential order. The use of such frameworks may make complex polycentric governance for the achievement of goals such asclimate change mitigation and stoppage ofdeforestation more easily achievable or more effective, fair, efficient, legitimate and rapidly implemented.[19][20][21][22][additional citation(s) needed]
Contemporary ways of policy-making ordecision-making may depend on exogenously-driven shocks that "undermine institutionally entrenched policy equilibria" and may not always be functional in terms of sufficiently preventing and solving problems, especially when unpopular policies, regulation of influential entities with vested interests,[22] international coordination and non-reactive strategic long-term thinking and management are needed.[23] In that sense, "reactive sequencing" refers to "the notion that early events in a sequence set in motion a chain of causally linked reactions and counter-reactions which trigger subsequent development".[24] This is a concept separate to policy sequencing in that the latter may require actions from a multitude of parties at different stages for progress of the sequence, rather than an initial "shock", force-exertion or catalysis of chains of events.
In the modernhighly interconnected world, polycentric governance has become ever more important – such "requires a complex combination of multiple levels and diverse types of organizations drawn from the public, private, and voluntary sectors that have overlapping realms of responsibility and functional capacities".[25] Key components of policies include command-and-control measures, enabling measures, monitoring, incentives and disincentives.[19]
Science-based policy, related to the more narrow concept ofevidence-based policy, may have also become more important. A review about worldwidepollution as amajor cause of death – where it found littleprogress, suggests that successful control of conjoined threats such as pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss requires aglobal, "formalscience–policy interface", e.g. to "inform intervention, influence research, and guide funding".[26] Broadly, science–policy interfaces include both science in policy and science for policy.[27]
This article incorporates text available under theCC BY 4.0 license.