Characteristics Of Public Policy Models Public policy has several kinds of characteristics, traits and characteristics of its own. These characteristics include: 1. The model in public policy must be simple and clear 2. Accuracy in identifying aspects of policy problems (precise) 3. Assist in communication (communicable) 4. Direct efforts to understand public policy better (manageable) 5. Provide explanations and predict consequences (consequences) In addition, according to experts there are several models used in making a policy, including: 1. Yhekzkel Dror (1971) 1. Pure Rationality Model, which is a policy-making model based on pure rationality in model making. 2. Economically Rationality Model, which is a policy-making model based on emphasizing efficiency and economy. 3. Sequential-Decision Model, which is a policy-making model based on making experiments for the determination of alternatives so that the most effective decisions are achieved. 4. Inceremental Model, which is a policy-making model based on change little by little. 5. Satuisfycing Model, which is a policy-making model based on the first most satisfactory alternative. 6. Extra-Rational Model, which is a policy-making model based on the most rational and most optimal 7. Optimal Model, namely policy with an integrative model, namely policies to identify problems, practical uses, pay attention to the allocation of resources, determine the goals to be achieved, selection of alternative programs, forecasting results and evaluating the best alternatives. 2. Wiemer &; Vinning (1998)
Efficiency and The Idealized Competitive Model, an example of a general equilibrium model — finds the price of input factors and goods that wipe out all markets in the sense that the quantity demanded is exactly equal to the quantity supplied (pareto efficiency). Stages Of Policy Formulation Patton And Savicky (1986) In general, the stages passed in policy formulation according to Patton and Savicky (1986) are as follows: Policy Analysis Process Patton and Savicky suggest that policy analysis can be done before and after policy. Post-policy analysis is usually descriptive and is usually called ex-post (a term from Michael Carley, 1980), post-hoc (a term from Lineberry, 1984), or retrospective (a term from William N. Dunn, 1987). Policy analysis performed before policy is called ex ante (term from Carley, 1980), pre-hoc (term from Lineberry, 1984), anticipatory (term from Teitz, 1971), or prospective (term from Dunn). This form of analysis is divided into two, namely predictive and prescriptive. Predictive analysis is on projections of future conditions as a result of policy adoption. Prescriptive analysis refers to policy recommendations. Policy recommendations that are general in nature and do not provide a particular focus are called advice, while recommendations that pressure policymakers to choose a policy are called persuative advice. Meanwhile, citing Hok Lin Leung (1985), Patton offers a systematic way to recognize the natural subjectivity of value judgment and policy options in policy making before, during, and after policy is implemented. The answer is drawn from the question: What do policy actors gain? Is it obtained effectively? How much does it cost? Whether the policy will be accepted and can be implemented effectively. A political strategist should pay attention to identifying windows of opportunity, estimating the size of those windows, and expanding those windows of opportunity. Patton and Savicky provide the following tips for policy analysts who work as political analysts :
1. determine wheter the obvious problem is only a symptom of a large controversy. 2. make sure you look for underlying issues and related problems. 3. Check your source of information. Much political data are anecdotal, second- hand, and vague. Use several sources if possible, and questions the validity of sensational data. 4. Take advantage of internal review. Does your account of political situation ring true to the other analysis? Do they interpret past events in the same way? The issue paper method. Issue paper: is it necessary to conduct a feasibility study of policy analysis research or not? Policy analysis research is a traditional research method where each phase is examined in detail, in-depth, and comprehensively. When a policy analyst faces a policy problem, he should not necessarily limit his analysis to paper research, but also open the possibility of conducting policy research to study policy problems. Implementation analysis. Most policy analysis focuses on the policy-forming process rather than policy implementation. This fact is quite strange, considering that we are fully aware that every policy alternative must be implementable. Therefore, Patton and Savicky assert that implementation is part of the policy process. A policy supported by the highest authority is not necessarily effective because it can be so that the implementing bureaucracy at the lower levels of street-level bureaucrats is unable or unwilling to implement it due to constraints at their level. Even a policy that cannot be implemented is categorized as a policy that fails in the category of program failures, distinguished from policies that can be implemented but do not produce benefits as desired or referred to as theory failure. Patton and Savicky, citing the ideas of Streiss and Danekee (1980), say that one of our mistakes is that we consider policy implementation to be only a matter of management so that it does not need to be included in policy analysis. So, policy implementation analysis is part of policy analysis. According to Steiss and Danekee, in policy implementation analysis, policy analysts need to focus on two main issues: the degree of consensus among policy-making actors, policy implementers, and policy targets; and the magnitude of change of the chosen policy alternative.
Harty, et al. (1976) created a checklist to analyze the feasibility of policy implementation, including the number of institutions involved, threats to implementers, behavior change from bureaucracy, availability of funds, legal problems, and level of public support. Robert T. Nakamura and Frank Smallwood (1980) introduced a method of implementation analysis using indicators of the political climate (key actors, their beliefs, and the risorsis they master), the basis of risorsis (the ability to mobilize actors), potential mobilization (sources of resistance, support, and compromise), and assessment of indicators (success measurement criteria). Bardach (1980) introduced implementation analysis with a game model, making assumptions that policy implementation is a process of political interaction between actors. Helen Ingram (2006) suggests that policy implementation analysis depends on the type of policy. Ingram said there are two types of implementation challenges: (1) the implementing agency must have will, competence skill, or resources to carry out implementation, and (2) the agency must be able to succeed at constituency politics. Soren Winter (1990) identified four key variables that influence successful implementation: (1) policy formation processes, (2) organizational behavior of implementers, (3) behavior of implementing bureaucrats at the lower level (street-level bureaucrats), and (4) response of target groups of policies and changes in society. Harvey Brightman (1980) uses the worst-case scenario model to conduct implementation analysis with the credo "every solution breeds new problems".