Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
Compare and Contrast Rational and Incremental Policy Making
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 1934 Views: 2879 Comments: 0
In this essay I intend to investigate both rational and incremental policy making, identifying the differences between them. Despite the notable differences I also intend to draw comparisons between the two in order to establish which is the more favourable method to use when introducing public policy. Rational models of policy making assume policy makers identify all problems, then gather and review all the data about alternative possible solutions and their consequences and select the solution that best matches their goals. The incremental model of policy making involves taking small steps which are based on previous policies or previous...
who may have different goals. Both models are developed to find the best possible decision available. Both Simon's rational model and Lindblom's incremental model are very different but both share a common goal and both methods can be effective under different circumstances. Using the rational decision making model, there is a high level of control over policy allocated to planners as opposed to the incremental which allows solutions to evolve over time. However, no single type of model can do everything, the rational model provides an ideal model whilst the incremental model provides a realistic view of the world.
Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

On October 25, 1993 the Progressive...On October 25, 1993 the Progressive Conservative party suffered the biggest political defeat in Canadian history. Under the leadership of Kim Campbell, the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced from one of the biggest majority governments in Canadian history to only two seats in the House of Commons. It is said that a lot of responsibility for this loss lies in the faulty government of Brian Mulroney. However, Kim Campbell was given the rare opportunity of running a country. For a period of seven months, Kim Campbell made all ultimate decisions that lead to the fate of Canada. Kim Campbell was the first female Prime Minister of Canada and even this fact alone could be used to draw votes from Canadians. In Fact, Kim Campbell had high approval ratings when her party chose her to be the leader of the Progressive Conservatives: "Poles said how well a renewed Conservative Party would do in an election, specifically with Kim Campbell as the new Tory leader. She would, said one of the first poles, win 43 percent of the vote compared to 25 percent for Jean Chrétien." How did she manage to lose these ratings? How did she manage to bring the Progressive Conservative Party to its lowest number of seats in history? Brian Mulroney was not responsible for the Progressive Conservative Party's defeat in 1993, unlike many would make him out to be. In the election, Canadians no longer needed to consider the power or opinion of Brian Mulroney. The fact is that on the date of the election, Canadians had a choice between Jean Chrétien and Kim Campbell to be the next Prime Minister of Canada. It was Kim Campbell's actions that lead to the devastating defeat of the Progressive Conservative Party on October 25, 1993. Kim Campbell was not elected Prime Minister of Canada by the Canadian people because she had a massive ego that offended the Canadian public, and she did not run a smooth and successful election campaign. Throughout her career in politics, many people were offended due to Kim Campbell's obvious idealism that she was better then the average person. Kim Campbell had a large ego and let it be known through her actions words during her career. She had a strong past record of being unable to see any other points of view on something she felt strongly about. This factor was definitely considered as Canadians took the polls in 1993. Kim Campbell's feeling of superiority was shown in reflection to her defeat on the Charlottetown accord. Instead of accepting the decision that the Canadian people had made through a democratic vote, Kim Campbell decided to insult the people who voted against her. She told a Harvard University audience that only the "civically competent" people decided to vote yes on this referendum: "They simply cannot relate to what it means to allow a provincial government to do something as opposed to the federal government... The 'yes' side had a very, very preponderant representation of people who have responsibility for decision making. These were people that played elite rolls"¦ positions of responsibility in Canadian society. [Their vote] reflected the attitudes of people who had a specific competence" The Politics of Kim Campbell, 53. Campbell was so confident in her own opinion on the situation that she failed to even consider the idea that she could be wrong. She spoke of how the people who voted yes, like herself were of a much higher intellect level and understood the issue more, while the no voters were simply ignorant and unable to process the information. Kim Campbell also showed this suspicion of the ignorant Canadian people at a municipalities convention in Whistler. John Turner, the leader of the Reform Party, was criticizing the Canada-U.S Free Trade Agreement. Since Campbell did not agree with what he was saying, she found herself in need to protect the ignorant Canadians who she believed were not worthy of their own opinion and would absorb anything that John Turner said. Campbell recounts her thoughts as she listened to Turner's speech: "I sat in the audience and realized that the people around me had no basis to judge what he was saying"¦ I couldn't stay outside that fight." The Politics of Kim Campbell, 26 Once again Kim Campbell shows that she believes she is more intelligent and more educated than other Canadian people. Kim Campbell not only believed herself to be more intelligent than the average Canadian person, but also more intelligent than those among her in politics. This was shown during her campaign for the Vancouver Centre Riding against Liberal candidate Tex Enemark. During a televised candidates' debate, Kim Campbell shut down Ted Enemark's in a condescending manner as she tried to avoid a question he asked of her: "The TV host, Jim Hart asked her about her party's promise of a national child care program. She replied, 'It's not a promise, it's a commitment.' When asked to explain the difference she replied, 'A promise is a promise, a commitment is a commitment.' I said, 'Wait a minute- a promise refers to something in the future and a commitment is for something that has already been provided for. There's no money in the fiscal framework for this program- and it's too big to be hidden anywhere else.' She just sneered. 'You don't know what you're talking about.'" The Politics of Kim Campbell, 29. At the threat and realization of being proven wrong, Kim Campbell was unable to admit it and instead decided to simply disagree with her fellow candidate. She had no basis behind her argument but her ego caused her to try and maintain her pride by continuing in ignorance.The job of Prime Minister of Canada is a position that holds a tremendous amount of power. When democratically voting for the person to run the country, Canadians must consider how the candidates will be able to relate to the Canadian people. Kim Campbell showed Canadians that she thought of herself as more intelligent, better informed and superior in nature to the average Canadian. The election campaign of the Progressive Conservative party did not run well because it was poorly organized and involved an offensive, attack add which caused Kim Campbell to lose her only edge. The organization and inconsideration of details contributed to Kim Campbell's loss in the 1993 election. Although the Progressive Conservative campaign was the most heavily funded, the party could not get literature to the local campaigns, causing these ridings to have to print out their own rushed material and preventing the party from creating a unified message of their ideas and values. Kim Campbell could not even handle her campaign well enough to distribute pamphlets. Her election campaign was simply not thought out as well as the liberals. Kim Campbell was the first woman Prime Minister of Canada and the second women to sit at the table of the Group of Seven. She could have used this to ensure the female vote, and the diversified vote but she did not take advantage of this opportunity. Money was simply not enough to keep things organized. The Party's platform, 'A Taxpayers Agenda' was considered rushed and substandard to the Liberal's 'Red Book' which had obviously had a lot of time put into it. Kim Campbell could not get her act together enough to compete with the campaign that the liberals were fighting with, even though they had a smaller budget. As the election approached and support in the polls dropped, The Progressive Conservatives took drastic measures that would result in the loss of their only edge on the Liberals. At the beginning of the campaign, Kim Campbell was well liked as a person over Jean Chrétien who Canadian voters were not as comfortable with. This gave Kim Campbell encouragement as it was one of the few advantages she had in the campaign: "What increased our optimism was that my personal support as leader was 57 per cent, 10 per cent higher than the level of support for Liberal leader Jean Chrétien." Time and Chance, 352 The Progressive Conservative party was only a few points behind in the polls, and at many points such as September they were actually ahead: "Our own polls showed us now six percentage points ahead of [the Liberals] among decided voters-35 percent to 29 per cent." Time and Chance, 352 If Kim Campbell could bank on one thing it was that people could not feel a personal relationship with Jean Chrétien like they felt with her. Many Canadians were disgruntled with Brian Mulroney and thus the Progressive Conservative government but believed that the new and friendly attitude of Kim Campbell could solve this. This was disproved on October 14: "Believing they had no other way to keep the Liberals from winning a majority, [The Progressive Conservatives] decided to launch a series of commercials attacking Chrétien. The second ad"¦ showed unflattering close-ups of Chrétien with lines like 'I"d be embarrassed if he were Prime Minister.'" Britannica Online As the backlash from the prejudice and offensive adds poured in, Kim Campbell pulled the adds. However, the damage was already done. Kim Campbell was no longer seen as the friendly Prime Minister she was made out to be. On top of this, she never even apologized for the adds and this gave Chrétien a chance to become more personal with Canadians as well as evoking pity: "Chrétien turned the situation to his advantage, comparing his opponents to the children who teased him when he was a boy. 'When I was a kid people were laughing at me,' he said at an appearance in Nova Scotia. 'But I accepted that because God gave me other qualities and I"m grateful.' Chrétien"s approval ratings shot up." Brittanica Online On the other hand, Progressive Conservative support plummeted into the teens as the only benefit left to Kim Campbell was now gone due to her lack of supervision in her campaign. Only eleven days later, the Conservatives lost 175 of their seats in parliament and were left with only two. The Progressive Conservative campaign was out of control in both organization and ethics and in the end it all comes down to the one person who is in charge of the party; Kim Campbell. Kim Campbell was given a lot of opportunity in her campaign with monetary means, yet she was unable to prosper in it. In many ways her campaign hurt her more than it helped her. A Prime Minister's campaign is one of the most important elements to be focused on if they are hoping for re-election and Kim Campbell simply could not create a successful campaign. On October 25, 1993, Kim Campbell had ensured the Progressive Conservative Party an overwhelming defeat due to her actions as a politician. The disrespect she put towards Canadian voters at Harvard University and her condescending manner while dealing with fellow politicians were both samples of Kim Campbell as a person as well as an example of what Kim Campbell could be as a Prime Minister. Kim Campbell's massive ego definitely contributed to her loss of the election. While campaigning for the election, Campbell's offices were unorganized and the campaign visibly suffered from this. They decided to create offensive ads that Kim Campbell approved, and this caused Kim Campbell's approval rating to drop even further. In the election of October 1993, Kim Campbell lost the Canadian public. She suffered the worst loss in Canadian political history and even through only seven months of being Prime Minister, her approval rating plummeted due to her actions. The Canadian public made a good decision by not electing her, because her irresponsibility as a politician and as a person makes her a bad candidate for Prime Minister of Canada.   

On October 25, 1993 the Progressive Conservative party suffered the biggest political defeat in Canadian history. Under the leadership of Kim Campbell, the Progressive Conservative Party was reduced from one of the biggest majority governments in Canadian history to only two seats in the House of Commons. It is said...

Words: 1979 View(s): 215 Comment(s): 0
Numerous experts in modern time regard...Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed with improving the society in which they were part of during their existence. It is necessary therefore to analyze their different theoretical approaches regarding their philosophical perspectives, such as ethics and psychology. This paper however will mainly concentrate on Aristotle's views on friendship and how it impacts today's society. The main objective in Plato's philosophy is a creation of a perfect society. He constructs a foundation for a utopian society in his book "The Republic". The purpose of his thought process was to cleanse his society of the woes he felt plagued it and construct a new one. Plato lived during the Peloponnesian War, which consequently lead to the end of the Athenian democracy. He had eyewitness account of his mentor's Socrates trial and execution. Bitter and angered by the political corruption that gripped the Athenian democratic government, he disengaged from participating in politics. He strongly felt that neither a moral individual nor a state that is rational could be established in a democratic environment. Plato felt that the common man wasn't intelligent or capable of dealing with concepts that influence the state such as economics, policy of foreign affairs and other relative matters. He viewed political incumbents in Athens government as being elected for matters that were irrelevant to main factors that affected the state. Another danger was that excessive liberty for the people of the democratic society could potentially lead to anarchy. In Plato's perfect society, he forged ahead to eliminate the disease pluralism of friendship that plagued the human character and society Class Notes. Essentially, Plato wanted to establish the perfect form of society, linked by one single entity. Aristotle, unlike Plato, was not focused or concerned about the idea of a perfect society, instead he wanted to improve upon the one that he was part of during his existence. Rather than develop a framework for a society that is perfect, he suggested that society should, in it self, strive to utilize the best system it can attain. He felt that utopia was abstract and superficial. It wouldn't allow for realistic problem solving solutions. He felt that Plato's view of a strict overhaul of society in general wasn't necessary. He believed that society was at its optimum and you can only improve upon the existing one. Plato's perfect society would consist of three basic groups, which are Guardians Gold, Auxiliaries Silver, and the Artisan Bronze. The highest of these classes are the gold people, which consist of rulers and non-rulers. Those that are rulers are society's decision & policy makers and non-rulers occupy levels of civil servants. The fundamental prerequisite to becoming a genuine philosopher is to have knowledge of forms, thus enabling you to know the truth. Plato's theory of the forms is partly logical and part metaphysical. Armed with the truth, he believed that philosophical ruler will always make the right decision, and rule with total wisdom, justice and virtue. The rulers, he felt, wouldn't posses any money or property, they would be free of desires, excesses, and vices. The Auxiliaries Silver are people of strength, courage, and military capacity; they occupy a small sector of society. All auxiliaries would be subjected to a series of tests, which will check their powers of resistance to self-interest, pleasure and other temptations. The last level, Artisan Bronze, are the workers which might be composed of farmers and artist, essentially non-skilled workers. They would produce all the consumable and non-consumable goods deemed necessary for consumption and the continued economic viability of the society. Plato whole-heartedly felt that if ever the bronze or iron people rule the state would collapse Class Notes. He sought to establish the concept of the gold class having wisdom, thus they should be wise and good rulers. It was imperative that those who rule be philosophers and skilled in areas that pertained to the interest of the state. Aristotle's disagreed with Plato in regards to allowing one particular class to govern the state politically for indefinite period of time. He felt that to not allow interaction among the various classes would inhibit those who posses the ability to engage in political life, an injustice. He feels Plato's structure of classes is politically incorrect for the state. He quotes "It is a further objection that he deprives his Guardians even of happiness, maintaining that happiness of the whole state which should be the object of legislation", ultimately he is stating that those who rule Guardians, sacrifice their happiness for control and absolute power. Those who are of the gold class, lead such a rigid life, that it will become necessary to impose the same strict way of life on those being governed. He places the idea of moderation on a high pedestal. Many individuals come to favor the concept of moderation because it is flexible, part liberal and part conservative. Plato's ideal society is so difficult to conceive that Aristotle believes that no human being can achieve its rudimentary requirements. He decided to express in the "Republic" how men should conduct it self in a perfect society and what attitude they should posses. In retrospect, Aristotle felt by using real world experience along with real people, he can see first hand how and what way can he improve society. Plato and Aristotle both agreed on justice and viewed it objectively; that is it controls the belief a life of good nature would be provided for all people no matter their ranking in society. Aristotle's states " In democracies, for example, justice is considered to mean equality, no oligarchies, again inequality in the distribution of office to considered just". Plato views the idea of law and justice as what sets the standard for society's behavior in a state. Aristotle puts emphasis on the institution of the polis or civilized community. The polis was structured to allow the average individual in society to participate in political matters. This institutional forum is not the city-state or the community, but merely the larger of the two entities. It is rather a partnership between households, clans, and villages for the sake of a fully developed and self-sufficient life. The polis enables those individuals who naturally posses moral intellect and wisdom an opportunity to rise to higher positions Class Notes. Justice is the political good within the polis, and it must promote the common interest of the people of the state. What is seen as good must be distributed and regulated through out the state. The law is also the regulating factor that arises from equal and free people in civil institution. The well being of a society is solely based upon the connection between the effort in which the citizens of the state adhere to the law of the land. A good citizen of the state will posses prudence, moderation, and justice, and above all to rule and be ruled. His belief contradicts Plato theory of one controlling class, governing the political matters and decisions that effect the state. The Theory of Democracy that Aristotle states is that democracy is a "perversion" form of government of "polity" Class Notes. He clearly states "The people at large should be sovereign rather than the few best". Plato on the other hand, wouldn't permit citizens to engage in public participation concerning governmental issues, as Aristotle would have enjoyed. Plato also felt that public judgments of disapproval and approval were based on emotional belief, instead of factual knowledge. He believes that if a revolution occurred it would happened within the corridors of the palace, hence palace revolution. This type of revolution happens when there is a transmission of power from one holder of power to another. Aristotle perceives such an event occurring between the wealthy and less fortunate in society. He feels to prevent such actions, one must participate in them. Plato thinks that in a utopia a disgruntled group of Guardians will emerge and disengage themselves from the ruling law of the state. He feels that an oligarchy two things may initiate a possible revolution: the first one is the ruler and their offspring would grow to be weak, sympathetic, and second is that the number of poor individuals will grow larger and there for be taken advantage of by the ruling class. Aristotle states that to know the factors that caused the revolution, which destroys the constitution, is to also know the principal of effect, which in turn ensure its preservation. Aristotle and Plato also have contrasting views on ethics, psychology and metaphysics. In regards to ethics, Aristotle believes that virtue is necessary for happiness, while Plato says virtue is enough for happiness. The psychological difference between the two is that Plato feels the body is a prison for the soul; body and soul are two different entities, capable of maintaining independence from one another. As for Aristotle, he claims that the body and soul are two different things, one consisting of matter the other form. He sees everything in the universe being composed of matter and form, so its not surprising that he perceives human being are too. To him form is simply the way matter is arranged. For example, a cat is composed in a feline way; that's what makes a cat. Human being for that matter, have a unique method of structure, too; that's their form. In fact, Aristotle strongly feels that nothing in existence can be without form and matter. If you eliminate its structure and form you have nothing left. So for Aristotle, the concept of soul without body or body without soul is incoherent. In regards to form, Plato expressed how things should be through utilizing vague language and poetry. In respect to friendship, I firmly believe that Aristotle's views on friendship holds value in today's society. First we will touch on the various points that Aristotle makes regarding friendship, then expand on his main principle in connection to modern time, if possible. Aristotle distinguishes between three types of friendship: friendships of utility, friendships of pleasure and friendships of virtue. The idea behind friendship of utility is that it is founded on the idea of usefulness. The interaction among friends is only valued if there is usefulness between the two individuals. An example of this would be any automobile dealer and car buyer. Factoring in that they know each other, both need what the other can provide. The bond that unites the two people is based on usefulness. As long as they each can provide what the other needs, it satisfies the friendship. The second concept would be friendship of pleasure, which is basically the amount of pleasure generated between the participants. An example of this would be two people engaging in a social event, such as an outdoor festival. Each of the participant's enjoys the others company. They are friends because of the pleasure they bring to themselves. The last kind of friendship is the friendship of virtue. This friendship is special and unique, such that it can only be between two people. Rather than utility and pleasure, where it can establish a group of people, this type of friendship is connected solely between two people. This type of friendship is also unique based on the fact that it can only hold any true value if both individuals are of the same virtue. People in general might regard these definitions of friend objective. Some believe that doing something for someone is solely based on the act of self "“fulfillment. Aristotle, I believe is not incorrect in stating that the idea in friendship in utility and pleasure is for our own sake, and the concept behind friendship of virtue is for the sake of the friend. These three categories are arranged in a certain format that there are influenced by the next level. These bonds of friendship can arise from various forms of potential fraternal groupings. Present day possibilities can include: various college organizations, union members, national communities and any other form of group's that people find a common denominator. For Aristotle Aristotle is more philosophically inclined than Plato; he tends to get rid of ideas that are irrelevant, and he believes that the concept of forms existing separate from matter is somewhat superfluous. He dives right into the heart of the matter. You can see Aristotle as someone who believes the world in which he occupies very satisfying just the way it is. His main focus is always connected with things that are consistent with ideal experience, without introducing unnecessary notions of concepts that can't be proven. Plato's vague, poetic language in metaphysics and physics didn't stimulate inspiration; it made him uncomfortable. Both Plato and Aristotle were two men who envisioned methods on ways to improve their existing society. Plato, the political philosopher, was basically in pursuit of philosophical truth. Aristotle was more concerned with citizenship and institutional politics. They both had developed ideas and concepts to improve society as a whole. Aristotle and Plato have had a tremendous impact on political scientists of today. In Aristotle case, he was responsible for developing various democratic ideas. Even in modern democracies like our own Aristotle's ideas hold true. When we vote in the election of the ruler of our country we, theoretically, are voting for the single most "excellent" citizen of our nation. That is we are voting for that citizen who can do the best job of working toward our common interest. The citizen of a state who has the greatest ability to work towards the salvation of the constitution has a great gift that can benefit all citizens. It only makes sense to allow that particular individual to lead the rest of the citizens in working towards the common interests of the state. In conclusion, these men were great thinkers. Their opinions on society and its function were quite different, but they both had the same concern, to build a better way of life for their societies they in lived in and for the societies that would come to be in the future.   

Numerous experts in modern time regard Plato as the first genuine political philosopher and Aristotle as the first political scientist. They were both great thinkers in regards to, in part with Socrates, being the foundation of the great western philosophers. Plato and Aristotle each had ideas in how to proceed...

Words: 2387 View(s): 177 Comment(s): 0