Too many reforms may indicate the instability of the state, the disturbance of its power, and the low standard of living. At the same time, reforms are necessary and inevitable because they empower the development of the state. The strong government implements the reforms which are carefully designed and verified according to the particular needs. The unstable nature of policy can lead to dangerous consequences for the state. Thus, I agree with the Light’s assertion supposing that there should be a limitation instrument for reforms. The quality, not the quantity, of the changes matters.
Public opinion is a complex of collective mass representations, assessments, and ideas that reflect the positions and interests of citizens reflecting their attitude to the country’s political life. Political views and estimates constitute only a part of public opinion, indicating the most significant political problems for citizens (Krimmel & Rader, 2020). The political component of public opinion is the most dynamic element, reflecting the high activity of the political sphere of society, the change in the mood of citizens. The influence of public opinion on politics is reflected as the regulating power that exists in the country to control the policy (Krimmel & Rader, 2020). It demonstrates the authority of society, the people, their actual ability to influence the policy of the ruling elite or party.
Public opinion acts as a spiritual mediator between civil society and state power, the most important means of legitimizing power. The ratio of public opinion and the state includes several categories (Krimmel & Rader, 2020). The first one addresses the legitimizing of the authorities and assessing the most important events and phenomena of political life. The second is related to socialization citizens’ consciousness and mobilization and management of citizens’ behavior. The political opinion also empowers the stabilization of socio-political processes and serves as the interaction between the state and society.
The paper is devoted to discussing the successive limited comparison method. There are two essential aspects of this method that are necessary to consider when formalizing a particular policy. The first is evaluation and empirical analysis, while the second focuses on the marginal and incremental values (Lindblom, 1959). The means and ends for this method are usually simultaneously chosen (Lindblom, 1959). In order to execute a good policy, the administrator should hold the test for its reliability through the effective discussion of policy correctness (Lindblom, 1959). It can be tested through the agreement on policy and collective discussion. The simplification process is an essential component of the successive limited comparison method. Successive limited comparison also implies that the decisions can be re-made accordingly to the situation. Even though this method has various disadvantages, it is best suited for decision-making in complex problems.
The article provides the comparison of the successive limited comparison and the rational-comprehensive methods. The main differences are in the order of choosing the means and end: simultaneously and consistently (Lindblom, 1959). The rational-comprehensive method is impossible to apply efficiently in practice, while the successive limited comparison helps analyze the current situation and change the short-term planning when necessary. The other model which can be compared with the successive limited comparison is the administrative man model. It focuses on finding the only satisfactory decision contrary to the first model. The decision should not be re-made, and means should coincide with the desired ends. This model is also only theoretically correct and challenging to implement in practice. The means and ends are chosen consistently similar to the rational-comprehensive method. Another differentiation feature of these two models is that the first one implies the search of the different alternatives, while the second requires the close examination of the satisfactory chooses.
References
Krimmel, K., & Rader, K. (2020). Substantive divergence: The meaning of public opinion on government spending in red and blue. Perspectives on Politics, 19(3), 824–837. Web.
Lindblom, C. (1959). The science of “muddling through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79–88.