week 10 environment

I believe we live in an ever pressing time in history where the environment is a key policy area which must be carefully developed. We have had several administrations that have caused awareness and have laid the foundation to further pursue environmental equity and efficiency, and safeguard global issues. What I find intriguing within environmental policy is the notion of the global approach and equitable reforms. I find it hard to believe that nation’s that do not have the resources that more developed nations will contribute to securing policy measures that support other nations. Basically because their concerns may not be of the same, nation a maybe directing its resources towards a policy area they feel is important, while nation B is trying to regulate air emissions. Both nations may need to regulate air emissions, but not necessarily share the same goals or responsibility. And of responsibility, how can nations reach accord and agreement on something like air quality, how they for certain tell who is responsible for what, even with advanced technology, there is still room for question within it? In this regard is where I feel it is definitely easy to see that environmental policy has a dynamic that makes a concept not as feasible as other policy concepts, it does not lend itself to easy comparative study, and or measure. Although we can develop theories through comparative measure, the environmental landscape and quality within each nation is different and unique with other issues of impact upon them, that create a complex issue, although it may be the same issue, be uniquely examined and solved.

Don't get me wrong, if we can reach compacts and treaties with other nations and create a feasible global landscape of policy that protects the environment I am all for it. In fact I really liked what Adolino & Blake state, "This phenomenon...known as globalization of the environment...This awareness has resulted in the development of a substantial number of international agreements," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 372). I believe we point to a general systemic agenda overall for the protection of resources worldwide, but it will take the efforts of the more developed countries to aid the total effort because less developed nations have more pressing issues on their plate, not that the environment is not of major importance, but some nations are on the more essential levels of necessities. Thus, fiscal resources and policy development may in fact continue on an incremental path, also due to the fact that technology development is needed in a lot of phases of environmental policy, and be positioned by the influence of the developed nations across the global stage.

References:

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

week 9 education

Education in the United Sates is quite an interesting operation. It is intriguing on one end as to the curriculum practiced, and the policies developed to promote such policy and factoring in as well is the policy to provide access and opportunity to education. At the very root of U.S. education policy, if there is such a platform, rests upon the Constitution, as Adolino & Blake state, "education is a state responsibility," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 322). Fiscal responsibility rests upon property tax primarily, and some federal mandates to create level opportunity throughout (pp. 322). This approach seems destined to be a haves and have not type scenario, that is because more affluent sectors of the population will invest in their children's education, while lower income sectors cannot; creating un-equal opportunity. Although there exist federal money to aid schools, it is not enough because there are still clear scenarios where access, curriculum, and stakeholders will be biased on varying levels. I would argue that the main difference that affects U.S. education policy as opposed to other developed countries would the decentralization of power; there is no direct authority that dictates where resources should be and what policy to fully integrate. I would also argue that the U.S. focuses more so on k-12 because these grades based education years are seen as a basic need provided, a high school diploma, or GED IS the benchmark or basic measure most people use to assure themselves of basic life necessities like a job to provide for themselves and or family. Higher education is a selection and excellence measure (pp. 327). In other words the strife to reach higher education in the U.S. by many is seen as either a hurdle that cannot be accomplished, or a criteria that most be possessed in order to have access. This differs from other perspectives where higher education, as stated by Adolino & Blake state, "Education policy is a domain in which countries are very protective of their national sovereignty and in which a high degree of policy flexibility and independence is maintained," (pp. 329).
Being a teacher in our society is a quality career choice, but most see it as being relatively low paid. The policy choices that impact teachers are a direct impact to the way can be successful in educating. Teachers have small room for error when it comes to delivery of education goals, they must follow state policy and achieve goals to help further fund their respective districts and institutions, so the pressure is steep. Coincidentally students also feel the pressure because the quality of education they receive rests upon performance of their fellows, district, and selves to charter a course to keep funding their efforts. Policy is centered steeply on fiscal concepts, instead of necessity and future value of educated innovators changing and creating better societies. The future sees little change within this policy topic, and like most other policy will only change incrementally. My main reason would be that the system of education is too large to be overhauled, so much is vested in public schooling, and the daily routine of life revolves around what we are accustomed to that any major changes would seem to be more of a disrupt than as improvement. So if it is to be reformed it would have to do so over time, incrementally, and with attention to other policy areas it will affect.

References:

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Week 8 assignment 7

At the heart of this immigration debate is a real chance to develop policy that can impact, positively, domestically and nationally. Immigration is an issue which has no simple resolve, in particular becasue it is an issue that is intermestic (Rose, 2007, pp. 4). Rose states, "While politicians remain responsible to a national electorate for economic conditions, these conditions are increasingly influenced by the movement of goods, services, and money across national borders," (pp. 4). The Arizona legislature passed Senate Bill 1070, and recently there was its limited, by judicial review, implementation. Although Arizona has stepped up and created action, in my opinion did so hastily. More importantly,and at the center of the debate, the legislation was drafted without careful thought to the delivery, meaning, and implementation of its core initiatives. No one debates that immigration policy needs to be reformed, but it most be done so from a careful and studious policy directive inclusive of impacting factors. What I feel hurt this legislation the most was the application of knowledge (pp. 5). A faction of Arizona legislation, and Governor Brewer's administration marched forth quickly and with no regard to the people who this legislation would impact. The target, well described, by many dergrees of demographics, but this violates civil rights, not to mention human rights. No argument, illegal is illegal, but the legislation does not have any stipulation as to the families, children, and in general the socio-economic factors that exist within our society for these people. Lives and families would crumble at every turn, and how would we deal with that as it is happening? Thus this policy fails to take into account important policy criteria to make it succesful and deliver a true impact that does not de-stabilize civil and societal norms in the communities in Arizona.

What seems key to this issue is the demand for cheap labor, and its availability. The economic conditions in Mexico force the decison to make the sacrifice to illegally come to the U.S. Yet, we may only be speculating and seeing a singula rperspective. What needs to remedied is a decison across a National policy as to what immigration policy is defined as. Ther in the policy action that can be taken to enforce its purpose. This would be the first step needed before state's could develop their own policy stipulations. What would be key is to undertand what our current population of immigration needs and can we provide it to them by legal measures, and help them create legal opportunities domestically. From then we need to collaborate with forieng governments and design joint policy that enables and alleviates problems that create illegal immigration to and fro. Can we reform the process by which to apply for entry? what problems currently exist that do not address the purveyors and people who choose to immigrate illegally? Then we must consider case by case what circumstances exist to those already here, can we help, or are they creating additional problems? Then we can really develop an overly encompassing policy. It must be multi-faceted not all cases are equal or of similar circumstances, so our policy must be able to create flexibility.

Along with some of this recommendaton I would urge Gov. Brewer to keep pressuring the Federal legislature for immigration reform. At the same adopt a coalition of stateS that support reform to keep pressuring and jointly discuss develop, research, and draft alternatives to the current system. Develop smilar relationship with Mexico and foreign nations who have support to reform, or have an interest in the issue. The more alternatives that can be drafted, the more possibility of creating one that does addres the issue whole-heartedly. Although this issue is long standing, if we remember we must be prpeared for incremental changes over periods of time. This too Brewer did not take into account, a complete overhaul to immigration and a sweep of its violators can not work, it disrupts the status quo to abruptly and chaotically for legal and illegals. Minor changes, and analytical attention to those changes and helping improve the agenda, from a Federal mandate, will be key.

My final point and alternative would be to consider our different forms of immigration policy, in particular humanitarian. AIt has been suggested that illegal immigration limits citizenry access to our very own resources such as work and welfare. Well, we know that there illegal immigrants and we know where they are, why not instead of wasting financial and political resources on eliminating the problem, we use them to reform the problem, and create better relationships. We could develop policy that has postentry controls (Adolino & Blake. 2010, pp. 104). Seems less time consuming, and would lessen the burden on revamping an entire society to new socio-economic trends. why not reward the immigrants who are working towards a better life, seems that that is their goal. We could view their economic hardships in their home country as type of asylum or refugee clause, it is not imminently life threatening to them, but in the long term it could be if conditions do not improve, which it seems don't.


References:

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Rose, R. (2007). Learning from Comparative Public Policy: A Practical Guide. New York:Routledge

Week 7 Assignment 6

The challenges of policy making, across national lines rest among the social strata of diverse societies and cultures. The vast landscape of cultures and societal differences between nations, countries, and governments is an important factor that helps characterize the way policy is shaped; and why it the outcomes are at times different and similar across identical objectives. The fundamental method of comparative analysis is something that I personally have mixed feelings about. On the one hand it gives you a good way to see how objectives fail and succeed from other perspectives. What I find troublesome is trying to implement any methodology gained from comparative analysis that is directly. What creates unique and progressive success is the ability to adapt and to be innovative. Comparative analysis should be used to create perspective which leads to innovation, at least in my opinion.

For instance from the readings I found the immunization article by Gary L. Freed quite interesting. He states, "the United States enforces behavior (immunization)for the public good through legislation, while the United Kingdom relies on the individual’s sense of responsibility to society to promote the same outcome," (Freed, 2005, pp. 755). This type of analysis is key because it exposes the legitimacy of policy decision making. Although you result in the same basic outcome, to provide people with accessible immunization, you do not have the same basic societal premise. That societal premise that is part of any group, country, nation, and or government is a driving factor which cannot be simply changed at any given time. This factor was developed over time, through experience, and culture. Thus for example, if either country analyzed the others and saw an opportunity for change, it could not simply integrate the change, I believe it would have to modify from its own perspective a way to innovate the change it wants within its own system, to attempt to produce the outcome it desires.

Within health policy it is interesting to see the different dynamics that influence changes or keeping constant in different nations. With the case of the U.S. and England I have a new gauge of comparative policy analysis. For example Adolino & Blake state, "The structural decentralization of decision making in the United States made it easier for opponents of reform to block new proposals that had considerable support...," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 276). Decision making within any one policy seems in many ways to always have an impact, or be impacted from some other arena, be it fiscal policy, or even politics, or cultural divides. Adolino & Blake state, "As we have seen in other policy areas, decision making and implementation are subject to a variety of influences beyond general public opinion and political trends," (pp. 276).

I suppose what I refer back to even more is that comparative analysis is just a tool to begin to design policy changes, or policy in general. I would still argue that it does not favor any type of direct implementation of ideas, yet a basis to reform ideas to reach desired outcomes.

References:

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Freed, Gary L. (2005). Vaccine Policies Across The Pond: Looking At
The U.K. And U.S. Systems Health Affairs, 24(3), 755-757. Retrieved from http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/24/3/755

Week 6 assigment 5

What I find most interesting within the statistics about the world nations are embedded in the society frame. It seems quite interesting to measure the literacy rates and notice that there is little disparity between any two nations; all nations seem to at least reach the high 90 percentile mark (Central Intelligence Agency The World FactBook, 2010). Yet, how does this criterion explain anything about the policy dynamics these countries develop and implement? It would make sense to think that the higher level of literacy a population exhibits the better its societal framework, fiscal, and political policy bodies would be engaged. The ability to be literate would translate into education, maybe it would good to investigate how educated people within a country are and not just the literacy rate, the ability to read can be attained early in education, although literacy can develop later in life for some. My point is that education leads to increased life successes, such as career, financially, and health, among other important life matters. Yet what really strikes a poignant difference between all these countries is the poverty rates.

Russia has a poverty line of 15.8%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010) As of 2008, Mexico has a poverty line very similar and increasingly high at 18.2%(Central Intelligence Agency The World Factbook, 2010). My best estimation would be that policy in these two countries centers around fiscal problems that limit the opportunity to create growth and also to provide educational resources. Perhaps fiscal policy centers on larger crisis issues such as conflicts or poor policy analysis that address economic stability of its citizens. According to Adolino & Blake, "Poverty can be defined in a relative sense...relative poverty in industrialized countries...the relative poverty rate as the percentage of households that earn less than 50 percent of the median household income," (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 318). The need to educate in many ways would seem to be a standard of all countries; it would be a limiting factor if a country did not provide educational parameters for its people in some fashion. Adolino & Blake explain access to schooling and equality of opportunity (pp. 321). These two concepts can help gauge this perspective of Russia and Mexico, perhaps. Access to schooling endures a great financial investment, educated individual who can teach, places to learn, resources to use to educate, transportation, and general structuring and implementation of a school system/routine would be some investments needed. The financial resources for these needs might not be available for these two countries, and general economic growth may be moving too slow to afford them at a later time?

What can help gauge the problem of decreasing poverty and increasing educational opportunities rest upon design a policy on reform and re-invest in its citizens future capabilities. Adolino & Blake explain, “Social policy broadly defined is the largest single category of government spending in an industrialized country,” (pp. 319). Thus if these two countries are financially spending significant budget capital within education and reducing poverty it would incline us to at least investigate the merit that this spending is producing? It seems that the allocation of resources is not fully realizing a positive result within the population, because the poverty level is too high, and if it’s not the cause poor education, the n it needs to be derived to what is causing these high poverty rates.

References:

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Central Intelligence Angency: The World Factbook (2010). Retrieved from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html

Week 4 Assignment 3

The first thought that comes to mind for some reason when considering multi-member districts and proportional voting is the European Union. If you dig deep enough the European Union operates in this fashion to some degree. Not in the sense that there is representative voting for all interested parties, but that there is representation to a great degree for participating members and that policy formulation rests upon total cooperation on trade and economic affairs, common foreign and security policy, and justice on domestic affairs (Adolino & Blake pp. 95). This criterion is a managed form and direct authoritative way of functioning as multi-member districts, in my opinion. Within the context of creating multi-member districts in the United States I can see the decrease in power the States to self-govern because they would be forced to participate upon a national agenda of issues, between a larger section of representatives and policy designs.

To answer this topic more directly I would have to argue along the lines of polarization. According to Adolino & Blake, “ Countries with multi-party systems have a greater tendency toward government instability because of the difficulties associate with either forming or maintaining a governing coalition,” (pp. 54). Too many opinions and decentralized power can corrupt the system, so even though inclusion is created it has its fault in causing chaotic order, and or fractionalizing order. This also adds fuel to incremental change because now more options and policy decisions must be considered. Single member districts, according to Adolino & Blake, “ …are often valued for the strong legislative majorities they produce, resulting in a politically stable legislature, and for the clear and direct ties they create between elected representatives and their constituents,” (pp. 59). Although multi-member districts create a type of equity and representation among the officials selected, to me it will eventually not matter because someone will shift the power through strong decision making and policy implementation. Or as Adolino & Blake suggest no one will be the clear advocate or leader, causing confusion among the constituency (pp. 61).

In my opinion I would argue that would lead to even a much slower process of policy development. As inclusion is manifest more time will be assigned to create representative results. I prefer strong leadership by the elected majority because it creates results and within a less time consuming time frame. There must be another alternative to crate inclusion and increase voting representation, in order to support more causes and policies, under which strong leaders can move outcomes along a resolute framework.

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Week 5 assignment 4-Fiscal policy

Within the walls of each country’s political domain there is a mechanism that drives the policy framework, money. The fiscal policy of individual governments helps ensure the policy decisions that are being made. Adolino & Blake state, “Fiscal policy is perhaps the most fundamental macroeconomic policy pursued by governments,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 159). Let us focus upon the United States, historically, and within the context of the past decade between 2000-2010. According to Adolino & Blake, “…the United States has a decidedly pluralist fiscal policy process,” (pp. 169). Adolino & Blake continue their analysis by developing the idea that United States fiscal policy not only rests upon Constitutional doctrines, but upon executive-legislative relations (pp. 169). The governmental structure in the United States becomes the machine within which policy formulation and fiscal decisions are developed and produced (pp. 169). Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, is entering its bicentennial anniversary this month and is capitalizing on growth within its fiscal sectors, but amid a revolving crisis of crime at war type levels. According to Angel Gurria, in Supporting Fiscal Policy in Mexico for a Strong and Sustainable Recovery, online at Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development , Mexico is following trends that will strengthen its fiscal structures, “Our analysis starts by acknowledging the undeniable progress Mexico has made in terms of expenditure formulation, approval and execution, in line with international practices. Important legislation has been passed since 2006, particularly in the federal budget and fiscal responsibility law (LFPRH) (leading to the balanced budget rule and the 2007 Tax Reform, which focused on ways of strengthening fiscal responsibility and transparency, and, lastly, the 2008 General Fiscal Accounting Law),” (Gurria, 2010). Furthermore, Gurria explains that the fiscal policies of the past have not been successful and amid further crisis new reforms need to be enacted (Gurria, 2010). Finally Gurria states, “This time, in the context of a fragile economic recovery, we hope that all political players are now convinced of the need to provide the Mexican State with sufficient resources to grow and overcome its social deficits,” (Gurria, 2010).

In order to review the fiscal policy of these two countries we must analyze a current similarity and the attention to fiscal policy this issue has received and how much impact it has upon the socioeconomic agenda within the countries. “The inauguration of George W. Bush in January 2001 placed tax cuts firmly on the institutional agenda while fiscal conservatism took a back seat…,” (pp. 171). The bush administration planned to cut taxes and invest in defense, the economic outlooks of the early 2000’s helped to increase spending cutting into the surplus that was in place; now a deficit was evident (pp. 171). More importantly as the war in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to date, there is an impact that has been evident created by the executive-legislative decision making-process in the United States. Adolino & Blake state, “Preliminary estimates for 2008 said that the deficit would exceed 5 percent of the GDP as the country entered a recession,” (pp. 173). With the new administration of Barack Obama and the continual economic problems facing the United States we see how executive-legislative decisions impact the fiscal climate, “Barack Obama’s transition team discussed proposals for an additional spending package designed to reactivate the economy and avoid further financial panic,” (pp. 173). Adolino & Blake further demonstrate how fiscal policy is affected through the relationship between executive order and the legislative process (pp. 173). So where does Mexico compare to the United States? Well, the similarities always exist because, although Mexico and the United States are sovereign states and create solidarity within their governmental structures, the unique framework of the open-market system always joins them and links the countries by a bond to create commonalities, and feasible structures of interdependent relationships; within fiscal policy they mirror each other in execution and investment. Currently, the Mexican crisis lies within the crime and drug wars being played out all across the country, not war per say, but a heavy battle within its own infrastructure, that requires very careful fiscal and social policy attention. As found in the New York Times article, by Enrique Krauze, In Mexico, A War Every Century,

"Today, a handful of powerful criminal groups has unleashed a blood-soaked and utterly illegitimate wave of violence against the Mexican government and Mexican society. This “war,” which rages in too many cities and states of my country, has created a truly Hobbesian situation of human brutality," (Krauze, 2010).

As outlined in article there is a new frontier that faces Mexican diplomacy and fiscal management, that which the country must create economic reforms that instill growth, openness, and design efficient outcomes. Krauze states, “This war, though, will have to be won — and economic growth will have to be revivified — within the rules of democracy,” (Krauze, 2010).

Both countries have futures that will need to captivate new policy designs that address the wars they battle, while actively and efficiently creating a fiscal model that drives governmental relationships and commitments to its constituencies.

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Gurria, Angel (January 7, 2010). Supporting Fiscal Policy in Mexico for a Strong and Sustainable Recovery. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/document/1/0,3343,en_2649_37405_44362433_1_1_1_1,00.html

Krauze, Enrique (September 14, 2010). In Mexico, a War Every Century. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/opinion/15krauze.html?_r=1&hp

assignment 2 week 3

Assignment two asks us to compare two countries through a policy lens of preference. Of particular interest from the reading was the range in spending and government involvement with environmental impact. The two countries for comparison are Germany and the United States.
According to Adolino and Blake Germany and the United States both have a marginally high percentage, 94%, favoring government responsibility for environmental impact (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 33). This percentage of attitude towards government responsibility is similar to other countries in the world, with the average topping 90%, which calculates to an average of 94% (pp. 33). What is striking is that both countries seem to have a general public that favors government involvement on protecting the environment and the percentage rests on par with other countries, yet both rank the lowest when it comes to spending on the environment. Germany is relatively low in attitude towards increasing spending at 38%, the lowest of the countries sampled (pp. 34). The United States came in a moderate 54% in the same category, but still ranked second lowest for the sampled countries (pp. 34). This may cause some eye brow raising because it clearly contrasts the previous study in which government responsibility was a favorable agenda to seek for environmental protection policy and action. What really stands out is when the figures for increased spending and some spending are combined. Germany has a relatively higher score at 52%, which takes their attitude toward spending on environmental protection up to 90%; which is comparable to the other countries sampled (pp.34). The U.S. ranks lowest and below the countries sampled, in particular when compared to Germany it only has a combined percentage of 87% (pp. 34). The United States also has the highest percentage for decreasing spending for environmental protection at 13 percent (pp. 34).
So what can we interpret from this data? According to Adolino and Blake, “A recession breeds a decline in government revenues that forces governments to borrow money if they want to maintain or increase spending,” (pp. 35). What would seem of interest is to specifically define what areas of environmental protection are being considered for government responsibility and, or spending. This would also be of particular interest with current financial conditions, both in Germany and the United States and determine whether recessions are causing any effects to the attitudes toward responsibility and, or spending. According to the Environmental News Service, in the article, Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending, “The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency budget request for Fiscal Year 2011 is $10 billion, an overall budget reduction for the agency of $278 million,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). Although it shows a decrease in spending for an agency that services environmental protection, the news service also reports, “Three of the federal agencies that handle environmental issues had their budgets cut - the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - while the Department of Energy budget was increased by $1.8 billion,” (Ens-newswire.com, 2010). So here we can see the trend represented by the data in the tables from Adolino and Blake. The United States favors government involvement in environmental protection, spends some money, and has increased spending in some areas, but also decreased spending in some. This approach would seem to favor a strong economical approach and emphasize the individual’s role. The approaches by both countries fall in-line with their cultural approaches and family of policy trends. Germany, according to Adolino and Blake, “…a deeply rooted federalist approach to political organization that serves as check on government expansion,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 32). As per the data Germany supports this ideology because it supports involvement by the government in environmental impact, but not necessarily increase spending, just spend some. The United States also fits it family of cultural policy because it they seem to emphasize government contraction, thus the attitude to decrease spending for government spending on the environment (pp. 32).
Bottom line in this comparative policy analysis would be that both countries emphasize their policy approach to environmental protection by means of economic factors. This is mostly characterized in Adolino and Blake’s statement, “the economic resources available to a country shape the expectations of citizens and policymakers, alike,” (pp. 34) Evidently according to the tables in chapter 2 there are varying issues that take importance to the country and each issue varies in support, within responsibility and spending, thus it must be analyzed economically because the financial resources a country produces and utilizes have exhausting points, and thus create levels or priority, as evidence by the responses to each issue by each country. In relevance to environmental protection Germany and the U.S, are not greatly different, just have economical factors that create unique scenarios and policy actions to uptake to resolve particular environmental issues. It seems it usually leads back to finances, no matter how remote from it, it may seem.


Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press

Ens-newswire.com (2010, February 1) Obama's 2011 Budget Trims Environment, Fattens Energy Spending. Retrieved from: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-01-02.html

assignment 1 week 2

The topic of illegal immigration has become a front-page issue in local and national news in recent months. In Arizona, this issue takes center stage, as most residents, legal or not, are now quite familiar with the infamous debate and current legal fight over senate bill 1070. As we enter a period of critical and legal debate over the bill, it would seem essential to give the issue some evaluation under the scope of policy formulation and thus unravel some of the controversy it has developed, primarily how the agenda was set. This short piece will not cover the latter stages of policy making, as it will not be lengthy enough to do, so we will explore the initial stage and try to understand how this issue has grown and become institutionalized.

According to Adolino and Blake, in their book Comparing Public Policies, policy formulation consists of a government’s management of problems and solutions, “…governments are working on all fronts simultaneously-continually shifting gears from the identification of problems to the creation of potential solutions and then back again,” (Adolino & Blake, 2010, p. 8). This would seem the case in this debate, more so at the local level within the framework of Arizona policy. The timetable of this legislation was created through years of smaller attempts to curb illegal immigration, certainly centered around the enforcement of supposed policy by the local law enforcement and specifically the Maricopa County Sherriff’s Office. These attempts consisted of raids on businesses, police enforcements of day labor centers, curbing day labor gatherings, and specific round ups by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office. For example, recent news reports from local media, ABC 15, show the following from July 31st 2010, “The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office arrested 36 people in a crime and immigration sweep Thursday and Friday, and six are suspected to be illegal immigrants,” (abc15.com, 2010) These types of events have ultimately helped set the agenda and create a systemic agenda evolving into more forefront and institutionalized agenda, which took it from an issue with potential resolution to an issue with real policy making and outcomes (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 11). According to Governor Jan Brewer, quoted in the New York Times, on April 23rd, 2010, “said the law, ‘represents another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.’ ”, (Archibold, 2010). This is at least a reference that expresses show previous policy that has stymied. Nevertheless it seems that legislation is needed, just not necessarily the proposals in S.B. 1070. This is evident by the passing of S.B. 1070. Thus, what this constitutes is that through years of events and pressure from outside and inside initiation the decision to address more formally, illegal immigration became a reality; these pressures resulted from policy stakeholders in government and interest groups creating awareness and pressures to make policy decisions. (Adolino & Blake, 2010, pp. 12). There seems to be little evidence to support any type of mobilization initiation as the issue is a basic institutionalized issue across the national platform, no current evidence supports, unless currently unearthed, that government brought the issue forth because it was not being addressed at some level (pp. 12). Consolidation could be considered a method for the agenda set because there is a base of policy that exists, and some policy makers work form that platform and expand upon it, which helped create S.B 1070. (pp. 13).
The initial stage in policy formulation is critical, most importantly in providing an emphasis as to how the issue has come to be. With illegal immigration, it has become recently controversial, but it rests upon the past policy that has developed, now it just involves some resolution of the legality and the degree of impact it will have on the communities it supposedly protects-legal or not.

Abc15.com (2010, July 31). MCSO: 36 arrested in Arizona crime and immigration
sweep. Retrieved from: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/mcso%3A-36-arrested-in-arizona-immigration-sweep

Adolino, Jessica R. & Blake, Charles H. (2010). Comparing Public Policies: Issues and Choices in Industrialized Countries. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.

Archibold, Randal C. (2010, April 23). Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration.
New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html

Week 1

Hello,

My name is Fabian-Look forward to a great semester and working with fellow classmates online!