Discussion Thread: Advocating for public Policy
Identify one or more official policy actor(s) most responsible for the public policy
issue that you are exploring and assess their role(s) in
evaluating/implementing/blocking this public policy issue. Be specific.
Identify one or more unofficial policy actor(s) most responsible for the public policy
issue that you are exploring and assess their role(s) in
evaluating/implementing/blocking this public policy issue. Be specific.
Consider what kind of research may be useful in assessing your current policy or
issue and tailoring it to the relevant actor or audience. (For example, is there a lack of
current or relevant data on this issue? Are there externalities that have not been fully
understood? Are there new academic perspectives that have not been taken into
account in the policy process?)
1. Birkland (2015) explains that official policy actors are involved in public policy because
of the expressed responsibilities laid out in laws or the Constitution which give the actors
the power to make and enforce policies. The public policy issue I am interested in is
racial equity in all arenas. The official actors, such as, the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches all play a role in the public policy of racial equity. However, the two I
find to be the most responsible for racial equity would be the judicial branch and the
legislative branch. This is not to say I do not think the executive branch plays an
important role in racial equity. However, it seems as though the power of the executive
branch to set an agenda for their term, create executive orders, and veto power would not
make this the most responsible official policy actor for racial disparity reform (Birkland,
2015). In Donnelly’s (2017) study on racial disparity reform finds that when the judicial
branch is not taking an initiative in corrective efforts then elected officials are more likely
to pursue racial disparity reform. This study also comes to the conclusion that
partisanship has an influence on whether racial disparity reform is pursued or not
(Donnelly, 2017). It also shows that states are less likely to adopt stronger forms of
policy, such as, policy-specific reform and comprehensive reform (Donnelly, 2017).
These findings demonstrate that the stance the judicial branch is taking strongly
influences whether or not elected officials pursue racial disparity reform. Therefore, I say
the judicial branch is one of the official policy actors most responsible for racial disparity
reform. The judicial branch is responsible for evaluating whether laws or policies are
unconstitutional and making corrective efforts. If they are not evaluating certain laws or
policies groups are suggesting do not promote racial equality/equity or evaluating them
but not changing anything – it will influence other branches to take action. This will
especially happen because, generally speaking, the other branches are full of elected
officials who rely on the people to be re-elected. I propose that the legislative branch is
more responsible for racial disparity reform than the executive (even though this article
by Donnelly groups the elected branches together) because it is stated that unified
Democratic control or Democratic governor does not significantly influence the
likelihood of policy change, but a more Democratic legislature increases the likelihood of
racial disparity reform (Donnelly, 2017). The legislative branch’s main responsibility is
making laws (Birkland, 2015). Since the legislative branch is responsible for making
laws, I feel they would be the next most responsible official policy actor. Donnelly’s
(2017) study also showed that elected officials are more likely to pass exploratory
policies. These policies are more informative and do not necessarily on their own make
changes to practices (Donnelly, 2017). Since this is the case, it would seem like the
legislative branch in a way tries to save face by not outright passing/supporting big policy
changes, instead, passing policies that will explore whether there is an issue of racial
disparity. Also, since the legislative branch is made up of elected officials from all over
the United States and there are many checks and balances even within the legislative
branch alone, this makes it easy for policies to be blocked from moving forward. This is
especially the case since partisanship within elected officials does significantly impact
whether racial disparity reform is pursued (Donnelly, 2017).
2. Some of the unofficial policy actors I find to be most responsible for racial disparity
reform are social movements, political parties, and the media. These are called unofficial
policy actors because unlike the actors discussed above, they are not explicitly specified
in the Constitution (Birkland, 2015). In the last couple of decades social movements and
mobilization have been used frequently and have been successful at enacting change.
From the civil rights movement to the women’s rights movement and the LGBTQ+ rights
movement the United States has seen many policy changes that were influenced by these
social movements. Racial disparity has been a popular topic over the last couple of years,
especially with COVID-19 showing these disparities within the healthcare system
(Grigsby et al., 2020) and these disparities being shown in the criminal justice system
(Pettit & Gutierrez, 2018) and in policing (Epp et al., 2017). These three mentioned racial
disparity issues, specifically the last, have led to the mobilization of many protests and
the creation or increased popularization of social movement organizations. This then
allowed those organizations to reach and have more influence over elected officials,
which is how this unofficial actor plays a major role in advancing policy (Birkland,
2015), specifically speaking on racial disparity reform here. Another unofficial policy
actor that I believe works together with social movements is media, specifically social
media. I would argue that, similarly to the Arab Spring, over the recent years social media
has played a significant role in bringing more people into social movements and to have
political engagement (Fortson, 2021). The third unofficial actor I consider to be most
responsible for racial disparity reform is political parties. As mentioned above,
partisanship matters when trying to pursue and pass policies concerning racial disparity.
Donnelly (2017) mentions how a more Democratic legislature is more likely to pursue
racial disparity reform than a legislative branch that is more Republican. Birkland (2015)
also mentions how historically social movements have come from a more liberal
perspective and ideology, but that recently conservative groups have mobilized, typically
to counter liberal movements. This shows how partisanship is very much so responsible
for policy change concerning racial disparity reform. If the elected officials lean more
one way or the other than can either hinder or help get the policy change.
3. From what I have read through so far, concerning the policy topic I am interested in, it
seems most use a case study approach (Earp et al., 2021; Farahmand et al., 2020; Hart &
Hart, 2019; Polomarkakis, 2017). Only a few studies conduct quantitative studies using
data and methods (Rosino & Hughey, 2018; Beckett & Brydolf-Horwitz, 2020) I am not
saying that articles and research using case studies is not important or relevant; however,
when the legislative branch holds a lot of the responsibility of effecting policy change in
racial disparity I believe the research used to show it is needed should be more
quantitative in nature and less about how other places have changed something or the
historical context of an issue. The elected officials in the legislative branch need to see
that this is a problem now, in today’s world, and they need numerical evidence that
supports the accusations. They then need realistic reform options of what will help fix the
presented issue. This is also true when trying to reach the individual people who
participate in social movements and mobilize. Some people connect more with data and
numerical evidence that supports a claim and others connect more with case study
support or showing situations that have been created. Racial disparity/inequity/inequality
in any area is a difficult task. There are many things to look at, such as, some studies use
the raw number of, for instance, Black people shot by the police and compare it to the
adjusted per capita population size; however, others claim using the whole population
size is not accurate because White and Black people are not involved in crime to the same
extent (Cesario, 2018). There needs to be more consensus in how to measure racial
disparities. Another issue consistent in the research I have read is that Hispanics are
usually included as White and therefore the data on people of color compared to White
people is skewed. The way we record race to examine racial disparities need to be
corrected. Even though I have said that we need more quantitative data and studies there
is a part of this equation that can only be explained using the history of racial disparity
and where the current issues stem from. Certain forms of racial disparity are not because
the individuals involved are racist but because the system was created in a racist way.
Therefore, future research needs to include both aspects, quantitative methods of showing
racial disparity and historical/situational/case study methods. This will help get the full
picture to those who make the laws and policies and to those who mobilize to get support
from elected officials.
References:
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge.
Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Terrill, W. (2018). Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police
Use of Deadly Force? Analyses of Officer-Involved Fatal Shootings in 2015–
2016. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(5), 586–595.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618775108
Donnelly, E. A. (2017). The Politics of Racial Disparity Reform: Racial Inequality and Criminal
Justice Policymaking in the States. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 42(1), 1–27.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9344-8
Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. (2017). Beyond Profiling: The
Institutional Sources of Racial Disparities in Policing. Public Administration
Review, 77(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12702
Fortson, A. (2021). Social Media’s Influence on Political Engagement. ProQuest Dissertations
Publishing, 1–42.
Grigsby, S., Hernàndez, A., John, S., Jones-Smith, D., Kaufmann, K., Patrick, C., Prener, C.,
Tranel, M., & Udani, A. (2020). Resistance to Racial Equity in U.S. Federalism and Its
Impact on Fragmented Regions. The American Review of Public Administration, 50(6-7),
658–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942063
Pettit, B., & Gutierrez, C. (2018). Mass Incarceration and Racial Inequality. American Journal of
Economics and Sociology, 77(3-4), 1153–1182. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12241
Replies:
Christan,
I like that you picked this policy to use for this discussion. It is a very interesting policy topic
that has a lot of controversy around it. One thing that has made me wonder is the fact that
Republicans/conservatives are more likely to doubt the severity of climate change and the need
to do something about it (Hazboun et al., 2020). You mention this in your discussion, and you
bring up a good point as to why Republicans/conservatives would be opposed to policies that
would bring stocks in fossil fuels down. I also appreciate your acknowledgement that energy tax
incentives do need to be pursued and your willingness to (in whatever capacity) to work with
those who not the same party as you.
I did not know about those special interest groups who use those tactics to really undermine
climate change models. The fact that there are so many of these interest groups against climate
change claims and that interest groups hold a lot of power/sway with the legislative branch
(Birkland, 2015) it is no wonder there has not been more that has been able to be done for
states/nationwide to go greener.
To stabilize global temperatures, the net emissions of C02 need to near zero (Davis et al., 2018).
Like you point out, this goal has many challenges. I found it interesting to see that to reach this
goal, we would have to reduce or eliminate aviation travel/trade, long distance transpiration and
trade, etc. (Davis et al., 2018). This seems very unlikely since long distance traveling and trade
are nott likely going anywhere. However, other solutions could be the creation of new
technologies and/or the monitoring of essential energy services (Davis et al., 2018).
In response to your sentence, “How much effort should be made "saving" a planet that God is
eventually going to obliterate and replace with a planet so amazing and wonderful that the
current earth pales in comparison?”, I would argue against this theory. God created this planet we
live on. He spent his time creating and perfecting and naming everything here and what He
made, He saw it was good (Genesis 1:1, 31). In Job it talks about how everything under heaven
belongs to God and that “In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind”
(Job 12:10). To me these versus and the way they create this picture of a God who deeply cares
about his creations would want his people created in his image to respect what he gave them and
the world he created for them, regardless of the fact this is not the final place. Just because an
apartment you live in is not the last place you will live does not mean you do not clean and care
for it while you are there. Also, we do not know when Jesus is coming back and the Bible says
we will not know when he is going to return (Matthew 24:35-37), so why not make sure all of
God’s creations and people have a safe place to be until he does return? In my opinion, this
should be something followers of Jesus should be focusing on – taking care of all of God’s
creations.
References:
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge.
Davis, S. J., Lewis, N. S., Shaner, M., Aggarwal, S., Arent, D., Azevedo, I. L., Benson, S. M.,
Bradley, T., Brouwer, J., Chiang, Y.-M., Clack, C. T. M., Cohen, A., Doig, S., Edmonds,
J., Fennell, P., Field, C. B., Hannegan, B., Hodge, B.-M., Hoffert, M. I., & Ingersoll, E.
(2018). Net-zero emissions energy systems. Science, 360(6396).
https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aas9793
Hazboun, S. O., Howe, P. D., Layne Coppock, D., & Givens, J. E. (2020). The politics of
decarbonization: Examining conservative partisanship and differential support for climate
change science and renewable energy in Utah. Energy Research & Social Science, 70,
101769. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101769
Andrew,
The policy issue you have chosen to examine in this discussion is so incredibly important and I
appreciate your perspective put into this.
I would agree that the legislative branch is the official actor that is much responsible for the issue
of the Chinese expansionism into Latin America, and I would say it is a major factor in this issue
because of the committees in Congress dedicated to identifying the problem(s) and possible
solution(s) (Birkland, 2015).
It then seems you bring in another policy issue that could have some bearings on the previous
issue and discuss the executive administration’s role in the Central America migration crisis. I
agree that the poor economic conditions in these areas are a root cause of honestly, I am sure a
lot of issues, migration being a big one. The United States seems to care about this root issue
every once in a while, and not consistently (The White House, 2021). However, the issue will not
be fully addressed and combated unless we take a consistent interest and strategy. The issue here
is that it seems like the legislative branch should take the more responsible role in this policy
issue, instead it changes each time there is a new executive administration. This is an interesting
topic to discuss for sure, with many opposing viewpoints on how to fix it and used in presidential
elections as campaign points/promises – which just adds to why the legislative branch should
take real lead in this encouraging the same strategic plan be carried out consistently. Maybe then
we will see some real change over years in migration and boarder control and even help in
preventing other countries from trying to take advantage of their situation. I do agree with your
point, though, that there does need to be a clear and detailed strategy about how this money is
going to fund these places, where it is going exactly, and how that will help in the long run. Also,
though another point of view I came across while reading about the Chinese expansionism into
Latin America is that comparatively China is not a major actor in when considering the other
countries expanding into Latin America, such as, the US, EU, Argentina, and Japan (Oliveira,
2017). So, maybe there are other reasons as to why the United States does not want the Chinese
to be expanding?
This is not a subject I know a whole lot about, so I am just speculating with some of the
information given here by you and a little reading I did today.
References:
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of
public policy making. Routledge.
Oliveira, G. de L. T. (2017). Chinese land grabs in Brazil? Sinophobia and foreign investments in
Brazilian soybean agribusiness. Globalizations, 15(1), 114–133.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2017.1377374
The White House. (2021, July 29). Vice President’s Cover Letter: U.S. Strategy for Addressing
the Root Causes of Migration in Central America. The White House.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/07/29/u-s-strategy-
for-addressing-the-root-causes-of-migration-in-central-america/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
