Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 4

Q1. A course of action taken by a government body Q2.

Science policy is an area of public policy concerned with the policies that affect the conduct of the science and research enterprise, including the funding of science, often in pursuance of other national policy goals such as technological innovation to promote commercial product development, weapons development, health care and environmental monitoring. Science policy also refers to the act of applying scientific knowledge and consensus to the development of public policies. Q3. An approach used in determining the ideal size of a sales force based on the difference between the expected gross profit that will be earned by the addition of an extra salesperson and the cost of hiring, training and maintaining that salesperson. Q4. the institutional approach to marketing problems focuses attention on the who. Marketing institutions are the wide variety of business organizations that have developed to operate the marketing machinery. The institutional approach considers the nature and character of various middlemen and related agencies and also the arrangement and organization of marketing machinery. In this approach the human element receives primary emphasis. Q5. System approach is the study of inter-related variables forming one system, a unit, a whole which is composed of many facts, a set of elements standing in interaction. Q6. The rational planning model is the process of realizing a problem, establishing and evaluating planning criteria, creating alternatives, implementing alternatives, and monitoring progress of the alternatives. Q7. Bureaucracy is the sovereign factor in public administration. It is also called manpower management, personnel management, labour welfare management and so on. But bureaucracy has wider meaning; it deals with classification, recruitment promotion compensation, discipline and retirement benefits of the personnel in government. Q8. Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as [1] answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. Q9. A bureaucracy is a group of non-elected officials of a government or organization that implements the rules, laws, ideas, and functions of their institution. Q10. A non-governmental organization (NGO) is any non-profit, voluntary citizens' group which is organized on a local, national or international level. Q11(a) A public policy is typically described as a principle or rule to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. The term is not normally used to denote what is actually done, this is normally referred to as either procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an organization whereas procedures or protocols would be developed and adopted by senior executive officers. Policies can assist in both subjective and objective decision making. Policies to assist in subjective decision making would usually assist senior management with decisions that must consider the relative merits of a number of factors before making decisions and as a result are often hard to objectively test e.g. work-life balance policy. In contrast policies to assist in objective decision making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested e.g. password policy. A Policy can be considered as a "Statement of Intent" or a "Commitment". For that reason at least, the decision-makers can be held accountable for their "Policy". The term may apply to government, private sector organizations and groups, and individuals. Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome. Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, management, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals. In public corporate finance, a critical accounting policy is a policy for a firm/company or an industry which is considered to have a notably high subjective element, and that has a material impact on the financial statements. Q12(a) System defined. Before we discuss the System Approach, it is important that we should have a clear understanding of the concept 'System'. There is no unanimity on the exact meaning and implications of the term 'system'. However, it refers to a structure of its own, having different parts which are inter-related and inter-dependent, which undergoes various processes to maintain its existence. A system, therefore, implies not only the inter-dependence of parts but also the acceptance of influence from environment and vice versa. Inter-dependence means that when the properties of a component in a system change, all other components and the system as a whole are affected. There are various kinds of systems. David Easton and G. A. Almond have used this approach for the study of political system while Mortan Kaplan has used it for the study of international system. International System. Defining international system, Stanley Hoffman regards it as "a pattern of relations among the basic units of world politics, characterised by the scope of the objectives pursued by those units and of the task performed among them as well as by the means used to achieve those goals and perform these tasks." Spiro holds that the idea of international system is abstract, descriptive and theoretical. It contributes a perspective. The international system constitutes an expression to stimulate thought about a certain generalised image. Thus the nations of the world are conceived to be in contact and association in a complicated framework of relationships which is formed through the process of interaction." In this way, we find that the systems theory regards the world phenomenon in its totality through those processes of interaction operating at various levels. It is on this account that Mc Cleland calls Systems Theory "as a way of thinking having the proportion of a world view."

The Systems Theory views the world as a system involving an organised complexity. This system is regulative and adoptive. Each system exists for certain purposes. And, it is for the attainment of these purposes that it adopts and regulates itself to the environment. The Systems Approach conceives of nations which come in contact to form a complicated relationship resulting from the phenomenon of interaction. The activities of a nation are always directed towards the preservation of its national interest. Q13(b) Models Many models exist to analyze the creation and application of public policy. Analysts use these models to identify important aspects of policy, as well as explain and predict policy and its consequences. Some models are: Institutional model Public policy is determined by political institutions, which give policy legitimacy. Government universally applies policy to all citizens of society and monopolizes the use of force in applying policy. The legislature, executive and judicial branches of government are examples of institutions that give policy legitimacy. Process model Policy creation is a process following these steps: Identification of a problem and demand for government action. Formulation of policy proposals by various parties (e.g., congressional committees, think tanks, interest groups). Selection and enactment of policy; this is known as Policy Legitimation. Implementation of the chosen policy. Evaluation of policy. This model, however, has been criticized for being overly linear and simplistic. [5] In reality, stages of the policy process may overlap or never happen. Also, this model fails to take the multiple actors attempting the process itself as well as each other, and the complexity this entails. Rational model See Rational planning model for a fuller discussion The rational model of decision-making is a process for making logically sound decisions in policy making in the public sector, although the model is also widely used in private corporations. Herbert A. Simon, the father of rational models, describes rationality as a style of behavior that is appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given conditions and constraints.[6] It is important to note the model makes a series of assumptions in order for it to work, such as: The model must be applied in a system that is stable, The government is a rational and unitary actor and that its actions are perceived as rational choices, The policy problem is unambiguous, There are no limitations of time or cost. Indeed, some of the assumptions identified above are also pin pointed out in a study written by the historian H.A. Drake, as he states: In its purest form, the Rational Actor approach presumes that such a figure [as Constantine] has complete freedom of action to achieve goals that he or she has articulated through a careful process of rational analysis involving full and objective study of all pertinent information and alternatives. At the same time, it presumes that this central actor is so fully in control of the apparatus of government that a decision once made is as good as implemented. There are no staffs on which to rely, no constituencies to placate, no generals or governors to cajole. By attributing all decision making to one central figure who is always fully in control and who acts only after carefully weighing all options, the Rational Actor method allows scholars to filter out extraneous details and focus attention on central issues.[ Q14(b) Pressure groups are a vital part of a healthy democracy. Indeed the sustained and rapid expansion of pressure group activity and involvement in the political process is often heralded as a sign of growing political involvement among many thousands of people. Among the role played by pressure groups, large and small, we can identify the following: Pressure groups Promote discussion and debate and mobilise public opinion on key issues Performa a role in educating citizens about specific issues Groups can enhance democratic participation, pluralism and diversity Groups raise and articulate issues that political parties perhaps won't touch because of their sensitivity They provide an important access point for those seeking redress of grievance They represent minorities who cannot represent themselves Groups can be an important and valuable source of specialist information / expertise for an overloaded legislature and civil service Many groups play an important role in implementing changes to public policy Pressure groups encourage a decentralisation of power within the political system. They act as a check and balance to the power of executive government An illustration of the policy-making process is shown in the chart above. Groups can become involved in influencing and shaping public policy at many different points. For example, groups can seek to raise issues up the political agenda. This might speed up a process of political reform that might already be in the minds of the government or the opposition. Groups can be brought into the consultative process (see the distinction between insider and outside pressure groups) and may try to have an impact when a bill reaches the stage of Parliamentary drafting, debate and amendment. Finally as mentioned above, many groups are actively involved in implementing political decisions and evaluating their relative success or failure.

Q15(a) A pressure group is any group of people who endeavour to persuade the government or government decision making, without becoming the decision makers or apart of the decision making process. Pressure groups do not seek to form government nor do they develop comprehensive policy platforms. There are two different types of pressure groups; they are either sectional or altruistic pressure groups. Sectional pressure groups operate on the specific interests of their members. They are identifiable sub groups of society that centre on achieving selective benefits for their members. An example of a sectional group is the Australian Hotels association. An altruistic or promotional pressure group exists and functions in the interest of and focuses on community values. They work for the public good as they believe it will benefit the broader community. An example of an altruistic pressure group is the Australian Wilderness Society. The Australian Hotel Association is a sectional pressure group which was formed to protect and develop the interests of Australias hotel industry. They function to promote the interests of its members such as taxation, excise duty, industrial relations and tourism. Q18. In a parliamentary system, legislature assumes a pivotal role, as the executive is also a part of the legislature. It comes out of the legislature, remains responsible to it and exercises powers of gover-nance only on its behalf. Under the provisions of the Constitution, the parliament is not sovereign and the judiciary (Supreme Court) is not supreme except in its own domain. The parliament and the judiciary come into contact with each other in many ways. Their interface and interrelationship, therefore, assumes greater significance. In a democratic set up, parliament, no doubt, is the repository of the will of the people and it is the supreme representative institution in the country possessing great powers. Pandit Nehru believed in the primacy of parliament in the Indian polity, and once said that "no Supreme Court and no judiciary can sit on judgment over the will of the Parliament representing the entire will of the community" (Constituent Assembly Debates, 1949). In these words, we see a clear hint about the possible relationship between the parliament and the judiciary. Pandit Nehru further added "but we must respect the judiciary, the Supreme Court and other High Courts in the land". The founding fathers of the Constitution tried to strike a balance between parliamentary supremacy (as prevalent in Britain) and judicial supremacy (as prevalent in United States of America), and arrived at middle course. We are governed by the rule of law and judicial review of administrative action is an essential part of rule of law. The parliament is expected to keep in view the judicial pronouncements and rulings. This assumes importance due to three reasons. Firstly, the power of the judiciary to interpret the parliamentary legislature, to give meaning to the words used in a statute and to fill in the gaps, secondly, the judicial power to declare a statute unconstitutional and thirdly, tine power of the courts to invalidate constitutional amendments. The system of governance in India has witnessed phases of close contact between the legislature and the judiciary, the legislature swearing by the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the judiciary seeking to assert its independence and power of judicial review. In the initial years, (1950-1964) when there was dominance of the Congress Party, both at the centre and in the states; the judiciary had pursued 'harmonious construction' and adopted the attitude of judicial restraint. It gave a strict and literal interpretation of the Constitution. Hence confrontation between the legislature and the judiciary was avoided. In A.K. Gopalan case, the judiciary accepted the principle of judicial subordination to legislative wisdom. In this case, Justice Dash observed that "the parliament and state legislatures are supreme in their respective fields. The judiciary will not question the wisdom or policy or legislative authority in enacting the particular law, however harsh, unreasonable, or archaic the provisions of that law may be." The judiciary also accepted the power of legislature with regard to amending the Constitution as supreme. During the second phase (1967-1977), a series of changes in the political system brought about recurrent conflicts between the two. In the Golak Nath case, we witnessed open conflict between the judiciary and the legislature. The legislature asserted its supremacy and the judiciary asserted its power of judicial review. It resulted in a series of constitutional amendments in which the legislature tried to limit the power of judicial review. In the Golak Nath case, the court declared that the parliament has no right to take away or abridge the fundamental rights. It cannot even do so by amendment of the Constitution. The court further held the nationalization of banks and the President's order derecognizing the princes and abolishing their privy purses as unconstitutional. These judgments' were criticized by the legislature and the ruling elite as detrimental to the socio-economic progress of the country. The confrontation between the two was further witnessed in the Keshavananda Bhakti case, Maneka Gandhi case, Minerva Mills's case etc. During the Emergency, the authority of the judiciary was undermined and was made subservient to the legislature and the executive. The judges whose judgments were not liked by the executive were transferred or denied promotion or even reverted. The 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act was also passed putting new limitations on the judiciary. However, after the Emergency, the 44th Constitutional Amendment Act was passed which restored the position of judiciary. Thus, the 1980s saw the emergence of judiciary as a powerful factor in the governance of Indian polity. The judiciary was no longer exercising, judicial restraint. During the present times (i.e. the era of coalition government), the judiciary is seen becoming more and more active and assertive. It has become so active and expanded its area of jurisdiction so much that the decade of 1990s, can easily be described as the decade of judicial activism. In a coalition government, the legislature as well as the executive is so weak that the judiciary automatically becomes powerful and supreme. Q20. The very mention of the world bureaucracy often conjures up a memory of an important document lost, or a scolding for some alleged misconduct of personal business. Bureaucratic power is felt in almost all areas of American life, and yet bureaucracies are

barely mentioned in the Constitution. Bureaucratic agencies are created and funded by Congress, but most of them report to the president, who supervises them as he takes "care that the laws shall be faithfully executed" (Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution). This dual responsibility to Congress and to the president is an indication of the complex nature of the organization and functioning of federal government bureaucracies. BUREAUCRACY IN MODERN GOVERNMENTS A bureaucracy is a large, complex organization of appointed, not elected, officials. Bureaucracies exist in many countries in many areas of life, including corporations, universities, and local and state governments. The term actually comes from the French word bureau, a reference to the small desks that the kings representatives set up in towns as they traveled across the country doing the kings business. So bureaucracy literally means something like government with small desks. MAX WEBERS BUREAUCRACY Max Weber was one of the first people in modern times to think seriously about the importance of bureaucracy. He wrote in Germany during the early 20th century, when developing capitalism was spawning more and more large businesses. The changing economic scene had important implications for government. He created the classic conception of bureaucracy as a well-organized, complex machine that is a "rational" way for a modern society to organize its business. He did not see them as necessary evils, but as the best organizational response to a changing society. According to Weber, a bureaucracy has several basic characteristics: hierarchical authority structure - A chain of command that is hierarchical; the top bureaucrat has ultimate control, and authority flows from the top down. task specialization - A clear division of labor in which every individual has a specialized job extensive rules - Clearly written, well-established formal rules that all people in the organization follow clear goals - A clearly defined set of goals that all people in the organization strive toward the merit principle - Merit-based hiring and promotion; no granting of jobs to friends or family unless they are the best qualified impersonality - Job performance that is judged by productivity, or how much work the individual gets done Weber emphasized the importance of the bureaucracy in getting things done and believed that a well-organized, rational bureaucracy is key to the successful operation of modern societies. THE GROWTH OF THE FEDERAL BUREAUCRACY The Constitution made little mention of a bureaucracy other than to make the president responsible for appointing (with the advice and consent of the Senate) public officials, including ambassadors, judges, and "all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law" (Article II, Section 3). No provisions mentioned departments or bureaus, but Congress created the first bureaucracy during George Washingtons presidency. PATRONAGE The bureaucracy began in 1789 when Congress created a Department of State to assist the new Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson. From 1789 to about 1829, the bureaucracy was drawn from an upper-class, white male elite. In 1829, the new President Andrew Jackson employed a spoils system to reward party loyalists with key federal posts. Jackson believed that such rewards would not only provide greater participation by the middle and lower classes, but would insure effectiveness and responsiveness from those who owed their jobs to the president. The spoils system ensured that with each new president came a full turnover in the federal service. THE PENDLETON ACT Late in the nineteenth century the spoils system was severely criticized because it allowed people with little knowledge and background to be appointed to important government positions. Some accused presidents of "selling" the positions or using them as bribes to muster support for their election campaigns. After President James Garfield was assassinated in 1881 by a disappointed office seeker, Congress passed the Pendleton Act, which set up a limited merit system for appointing federal offices. Federal service was placed under the Civil Service Commission, which supervised a testing program to evaluate candidates. Federal employees were to be selected and retained according to merit, not party loyalty, but in the beginning the merit system only covered about 10 percent of all federal employees. THE MODERN BUREAUCRACY By the 1950s the merit system had grown to cover about 90 percent of all federal employees, and in 1978, the functions of the Civil Service Commission were split between two new agencies: The Office of Personnel Management administers civil service laws, rules, and regulations. The OPM administers written examinations for the competitive service, which includes about two-thirds of all appointed officials. The OPM is in charge of hiring for most agencies. When a position opens, the OPM sends three eligible names to the agency, and the agency must hire one of them, except under unusual circumstances. Once hired, a person is assigned a GS (General Schedule) Rating, ranging from GS 1 to GS 18, which determines salaries. At the top of the civil service system is the Senior Executive Service, executives with high salaries who may be moved from one agency to another. The Merit Systems Protection Board protects the integrity of the federal merit system and the rights of federal employees. The board hears charges of wrongdoing and employee appeals against agency actions and orders disciplinary actions against agency executives or employees. The federal bureaucracy grew tremendously as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal programs and World War II, but the number of federal bureaucrats has leveled off in the years since then. Whereas the number of employees of state and local governments has grown tremendously in the past fifty years, the number of federal employees has remained a relatively constant three percent of all civilian jobs. One reason for the growth on the state and local levels is that many recently created federal programs are administered at the lower levels of government, not by federal employees.