Recently, There Have Been Many Discussions About When/How States Will Make Decisions About Reopening Parts of Their Economies, With Debates About the Appropriate Role of State Policymakers, Such as Governors, Versus Federal Officials Such as the President of the United States: What Power/Authority Do These Different Actors Have in Addressing This Issue?
Public opinion is the summation of individual attitudes, sentiments or views held by grown-up people. Public opinions can be swayed by public associations and political media. Mass media uses a broad range of advertising techniques to get their message out and change the peoples’ opinions. By assessing the opinions at the personal level and combining them, the percentage of the population with particular views and preferences can be established. Public opinions affect policy both positively and negatively depending on the overall general public view on the policy. Governments have in many occasions devised the use of public opinions for guiding their public information and helping in the making of government policies.
The state as an authoritative being. It is regarded as legitimate as long as it achieves what he calls ‘collective goal’, which are to care for the society. He looked at it from the electoral perspective where that “the deposit of power by constituents are revocable, if not at will by the politician, by the constituents at the next election”. In contrast, the Marxist believes that the state should be in the hands of the minority in society. According to Engels, this means that the minorities provides the basis of the state’s dominance, because it’s the only way to return to the power to the people. However, the real power would always be resting in the ‘owners of the means of production’ or as Karl Marx call them, the Bourgeoisie. He added that in the primitive societies, there is no such thing as a state, because all individuals share the same interest and there is no existing class system. Additionally, the classical pluralist sees the state as a constant concept. There seem to be a fixed amount of power which is distributed among the society. This is similar to the Marxist belief on the state, except that they believe that there exist a class system, whether it be age, gender, religion or ethnicity, there is a class system present. According to the French writer, each arm of the society is required to have a large and equal interest in the state business. He believed that the state would become selfish if one class decides to dominate the other classes. Nevertheless, the state as ‘the factor of cohesion of social formation’; in other words the state was vital for maintaining the stability of capitalism. As part of the superstructure, it would automatically tend to serve the interest of the ruling class. Therefore, the elite or ruling class does not have to become members of the state, because the capitalist system is benefiting them. Members of the state, no matter if they backgrounds are from humble beginnings, would never take harmful action against the ruling class. The role of the state in modern contemporary societies or ‘Human Community’ is to address the current issues of its people regardless of geographical region, identity and culture. The features of the state interconnects the idealist, functionalist and organization perspectives as it acts in unison in relation to its sovergnity, private and public sectors, legitimating, domination and territorial aspects. This involvement is characterized by at least three fundamentals; increasing human interconnection (networking globally), examining the pace and depth of human evolution (history) and linking the scale of anthropological and ecological transformation (social, cultural, economic and technological).
A lot of this research addresses whether these administrative reforms have been implemented according to the original objectives, and what consequences – intended or unintended – the reforms have produced. The main focus of this literature is on different aspects of the managerial autonomy of public agencies, for example agencies’ accountability toward politicians and stakeholders; the use and effects of performance management techniques; and problems of coordination across organizational borders. Yet much of this research lacks an explicit link to the literature on the policy-making functions of public bureaucracies and their interactions with elected politicians. There is an implicit assumption in the NPM agencification model that, in return for enhanced managerial autonomy, agencies will refrain from becoming involved in policy-making. If this proposition has been fulfilled, agency policy autonomy should be more restricted after NPM reforms. But has this indeed been so? What are the consequences of agencification for the policy process at large? What policy-relevant tasks do agencies perform? To what extent are they involved in policy-making? What factors influence the quality and quantity of their participation? These are the general questions addressed by the introductory article and the individual articles in this themed issue. All these questions touch upon the perennial question of democratic control of the bureaucracy (Aberbach & Rockman, 2006; Painter & Yee, 2011; Svara, 2006). This question is concerned with what the division of labor between democratically supported political leaders and the civil service looks like and whether it conforms to some kind of ideal-type. Researchers on these fields are far from reaching an agreement on what the ideal should be, whether different ideals can in fact be reached (and in that case how), and how close to the ideals we are today. Our hope is primarily that this issue will shed some more light on the last of these questions. However, before taking a closer look at the ideals that have been suggested, we clarify what we mean by “public agencies” and by “policy autonomy”.
Overall, the sample was not designed to represent all policymakers but was selected to represent those likely to be active in health professions education policy— the focus of the three projects examined. While many survey respondents would have been included in a survey asking about another health policy issue, others would not have been. In this area, foundations are viewed favorably as policy players and appear to be reaching their target audiences. We cannot generalize the results to other issues and target audiences, but we believe nonetheless that our effort is an important first step in recognizing the role of foundations in policy making. We hope that our survey will spawn more empirical work to substantiate their role in other policy areas.
J. Aberbach , B. Rockman . The past and future of political–administrative relations: Research from “bureaucrats and politicians” to “in the web of politics” and beyond. International Journal of Public Administration. 29(12): 2006; 977–995.
T. Bach . The involvement of agencies in policy formulation: explaining variation in policy autonomy of federal agencies in Germany. Policy and Society. 31(3): 2012; 211–222.
J. Bendor , A. Glazer , T. Hammond . Theories of delegation. Annual Review of Political Science. 4 2001; 235–269.
P.L. Berger , T. Luckmann . The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. 1966; Penguin Books: Middlesex, UK