Table of Contents
Explaining the problems of public policy requires an approach of interdisciplinary essence. For this reason, when comparing the approaches, there would also be an apparent need to refer to the methodological problems of the framework policies. The relevant public frameworks that refer to the methodology, and specifics of public policy functioning are being explored. The IAD framework is referred to in relation to the SES Multiple Framework Approach, where their functioning is most proficient exclusively in relation to each other. At large, one is able to claim that an interdisciplinary approach to public policy investigation appears to be one of the most relevant essences.
The academic articles are being taken as the ground for the investigation of public policy, approaches of its functioning, and relevant considerations with regard towith regard to the efficiency of public policy principles at large. At this point, the levels of political, social, legal, and economic are adequately considered within the scope of the presented comparison. Constructing the approaches, one is able to come to the conclusions of the fact that the overall objective that appears to be common to all methods is an objective of the efficiency of public policy performance.
Strengths of IAD and Multiple Streams Approach
In the article “Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory?” by the authors Paul Cairney and Michael D. Jones (2016), the Multiple Streams Approach appears to be investigated. The evaluation of the MSA approach in the article is conducted on the grounds of its policy advancement. The policy within the Multiple Streams Approach is called an “evolutionary” one. The methodological approach to study the policy itself is an empirical technique of address. The authors define the IAD framework to be a valuable asset when referred to in relation to the MSA policy. The analytic technique that is used in the IAD framework is a functional element that allows it to communicate with the MSA particularly well.
127 our experts are availableright now
In another article that refers to the specifics of Public Policy functioning “Comparison of Theory” by the authors Tanya Heikilla and Paul Cairney (2017), refers to the specifics of policy processes in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. The authors succeed in presenting the criteria of the analysis of the policy at large. The authors point out to the main strength of the IAD, claiming that “the IAD framework explores more precise relationships through related modeling, such as game theory and laboratory experiments” (Heikilla and Cairney, 2017).
Weaknesses of IAD and SES
Considering the functioning of the Multiple Streams Approach the Paul Cairney and Michael D. Jones (2016), refer to the need to learn how to make its performance efficient in the first place, which in turn makes them arrive towards the conclusion that there is no need to enhance the performance of the system, while it appears to be functioning quite well at large.” The IAD encountered a very practical problem when the numerous studies, produced by diverse scholars applying varied methods and focusing on assorted theoretical elements of the framework, proved difficult to compare” (Cairney and Jones, 2016). As for the SES framework
Interdisciplinary Approach
At the same time assessing the frameworks, the authors also point out that it is not the key objective of the research to identify the most efficient framework of the public policy functioning, rather provide alternative criteria to compare and evaluate the frameworks of public policy terms. “We need to know what information to pay attention to and what to ignore and to ensure that the information we receive can be meaningfully compared with our own” (Heikilla and Cairney, 2017). At this point, it comes to be apparent that the most proficient address of the public policy functioning does not only conclude in the interdisciplinary approach. However, it also benefits from the diversity of a theoretical basis as well.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Smart Grid technology
In the article “The salience and complexity of the building, regulating, and governing the smart grid: Lessons from a statewide public-private partnership” that is written by the authors Christopher Koliba, Mercy DeMenno, Nancy Brune, and Asim Zia (2014), the researchers present smart grid technology. The technology itself is a beneficial part of socio-political variables when referring to public policies. The authors suggest the Salience–Complexity Model, which “is used to assess whether the smart grid raises or lowers the level of public scrutiny caste upon the industry (issue salience) and the level of technical capacity needed to execute and utilize the smart grid (technical complexity)” (Koliba, DeMenno, Brune & Zia, 2014). At this point, the technical complexity appears to be benefiting from the regulations in the public policy at large.
Conclusion
To sum up, it comes to be apparent that in terms of evaluating the public policies and their performance, in particular, an interdisciplinary approach is rather beneficial. However, public policy functioning also has to benefit from a theoretical base that would, in turn, allow it to be studied with alternative criteria. For this reason, it appears to be reasonable to claim that the IAD framework comes of a more proficient functioning when it is related to the SES multiple streams framework in particular.
References
- Cairney, P., & Jones, M. (2016). Kingdom’s Multiple Streams Approach: What Is the Empirical Impact of this Universal Theory?, Policy Studies Journal, 44(1), 37-58. doi: 10.1111/psj.12111
- Heikilla, T., & Cairney, P. (2017). “Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process.” In Theories of The Policy Process (4th ed.). edited by Christopher M, Weible and Paul A. Sabatier, 301-327. Boulder, CO: Westview Press
- Koliba, C., DeMenno, M., Brune, N., & Zia, A. (2014). The salience and complexity of building, regulating, and governing the smart grid: Lessons from a statewide public–private partnership. Energy Policy, 74, 243-252. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2014.09.013
