Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Public policy-making is rarely a purely rational or technical exercise. It is deeply embedded in the political context, and the success of any policy alternative hinges on its ‘political feasibility’ – the degree to which it is likely to gain and maintain political support. This concept isn’t absolute; it’s probabilistic, varying with each policy option and the specific political landscape. Yehezkel Dror, a prominent scholar of public administration, significantly contributed to understanding this dynamic. His work, particularly his concept of ‘imperative policy-making’, directly addresses the statement by acknowledging that political feasibility is not a fixed attribute but a variable dependent on numerous factors and requiring proactive management.
Dror’s Framework: Imperative Policy-Making
Yehezkel Dror, in his seminal work “Public Policymaking Reconsidered” (1983), challenged the traditional rational-comprehensive model of policy-making. He argued that in complex modern societies, achieving optimal policies through exhaustive analysis is often impractical. Instead, he proposed ‘imperative policy-making’, which prioritizes achieving significant societal goals even in the face of uncertainty and incomplete information.
Key Elements of Dror’s Framework
- Policy Analysts: Dror emphasized the crucial role of specialized policy analysts who possess both technical expertise and political acumen. These analysts are not merely objective advisors but active participants in shaping policy alternatives and assessing their political feasibility.
- Strategic-Incremental Approach: Dror advocated for a strategic-incremental approach, combining broad strategic vision with small, manageable steps. This allows for adaptation and learning as political realities unfold.
- Political Reality as a Constraint & Opportunity: Dror recognized that the political environment is both a constraint and an opportunity. Understanding the power dynamics, interest groups, and prevailing ideologies is essential for crafting feasible policies.
- Emphasis on Leadership: Imperative policy-making requires strong political leadership capable of mobilizing support and overcoming opposition.
Political Feasibility as a Probabilistic Concept
Dror’s work inherently views political feasibility as a probabilistic concept. He argues that assessing feasibility isn’t about determining whether a policy is ‘politically possible’ or ‘impossible’ but rather about estimating the probability of its success. This probability is influenced by a multitude of factors:
- Political Actors: The attitudes and actions of key political actors (legislators, bureaucrats, interest groups, public opinion) significantly impact feasibility.
- Institutional Context: The rules of the game – constitutional provisions, legislative procedures, bureaucratic structures – shape the political landscape.
- Societal Values & Beliefs: Policies that align with deeply held societal values are more likely to be accepted.
- Timing & External Events: Political feasibility can change rapidly due to unforeseen events or shifts in public mood.
Dror and the Statement: A Detailed Analysis
The statement, “The concept of political feasibility in policy alternative is a probabilistic concept and is related to each policy alternative,” is central to Dror’s contribution. He doesn’t see feasibility as a static characteristic of a policy but as a dynamic relationship between the policy and the specific political context. Each policy alternative will have a different probability of success depending on these contextual factors.
For example, a policy to introduce universal basic income (UBI) might have high political feasibility in a Scandinavian country with a strong welfare state tradition but low feasibility in a country with a deeply ingrained belief in individual responsibility and limited government intervention. Dror’s framework provides tools for analyzing these contextual differences and tailoring policy proposals accordingly.
Limitations of Dror’s Framework
While influential, Dror’s framework isn’t without its critics. Some argue that it places too much emphasis on the role of policy analysts and political leadership, potentially downplaying the importance of citizen participation and democratic deliberation. Others contend that the ‘imperative’ approach can justify policies that are ethically questionable or infringe on individual rights. Furthermore, the complexity of his framework can make it difficult to apply in practice.
| Concept | Traditional Rational Model | Dror’s Imperative Model |
|---|---|---|
| Policy-Making Approach | Comprehensive, Objective | Strategic-Incremental, Politically Aware |
| Role of Analyst | Neutral Advisor | Active Participant, Political Strategist |
| Political Feasibility | Often Assumed | Central Consideration, Probabilistic |
Conclusion
Yehezkel Dror’s contribution to public administration lies in his realistic assessment of the policy-making process. He moved beyond the idealized notion of rational decision-making to acknowledge the pervasive influence of politics. His concept of imperative policy-making, with its emphasis on political feasibility as a probabilistic and context-specific variable, remains highly relevant today. Understanding and proactively managing political feasibility, as Dror advocated, is crucial for effective governance in complex and dynamic societies. Future research should focus on refining Dror’s framework to better incorporate citizen participation and ethical considerations.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.