Policy Making in Politics Essay (Article)

Policy making is one of the integral processes in the modern world in general and politics in particular. Its goal is to recognize influential groups of interests, define analytical frameworks, and develop policies and standards for guiding decision-making and achieving required outcomes. Many methods and discussions are developed to explain the worth of policy making, and this paper is based on the article by Stanley A. Feder about the models to be applied for forecasting in policy making.

The author underlined that there are many processes that may challenge policy making, including globalization, technological progress, migration, international relationships, environmental issues, population growth, and the emergence of non-governmental organizations.¹ Therefore, it is not enough to specify probabilities or respect varieties. It is important to define theories, ask correct questions, and indicate applicable outcomes. Today, people are in need of clear forecasting activities and successful policy making. Feder’s discussion of two models, political expected utility and multiple scenario analysis, contributes to a better understanding of political events and their influential factors.

Despite the intentions of people to predict dangers and threats to society, policy making is weakened due to the impossibility to differentiate such concepts as prediction, forecasting, and probability. Relying on his solid background as a foreign and national security policy maker, political scientist, and analyst, Feder identified several steps to enhance policy making in American politics, which requires the indication of outcomes, the use of analytical methods, and the relation to complexity theory.² His ideas help improve the current state of affairs in the United States.

On the one hand, there is a quantitative, deterministic model offered by Bueno de Mesquita, the essence of which is to promote political expected utility through exploring long-term implications of changes in a systematic way.³ On the other hand, there is a qualitative, deliberately open model developed by Herman Kahn and known as evidence-based multiple scenario analysis.⁴ In terms of the Mesquita’s model, policy makers must recognize the interests of groups and leaders to predict policy decisions, agendas, and resources and change regimes in regards to these opinions following simple mathematic rules.

Multiple scenario analysis consists of a logical line of events when a policy maker defines drivers, identifies interactions, and determines consequences. Regarding this model, the idea of prediction in policy making is diminished because it presupposes the possibility of one outcome only. Forecasting is characterized by several applicable (not possible outcomes), which removes the necessity of probability in policy making as well.

In general, both models identified in the article and general recommendations given by Feder make significant contributions to improve political science and policy making. In today’s world, these activities cannot be ignored because they demonstrate what national security is, how foreign policy and diplomatic relationships have to be developed, and why alternative regimes matter. Policy making either in the post-cold war period or nowadays requires a number of skills and knowledge with the help of which ordinary people with specific backgrounds define the standards according to which many nations cooperate.

Feder succeeded in explaining two different models in his article and came to the conclusion that the application of theories and past experience plays a role in policy making. Still, to be professional and effective, policy maker must understand that the creation of correct questions also results in positive outcomes.

Bibliography

Feder, Stanley A. “Forecasting for Policy Making in the Post-Cold War Period.” Annual Review of Political Science 5, no. 1 (2002): 111-125.

Footnotes

1. Stanley A. Feder, “Forecasting for Policy Making in the Post-Cold War Period,” Annual Review of Political Science 5, no. 1 (2002): 111-112.
2. Feder, “Forecasting for Policy Making,” 112.
3. Feder, “Forecasting for Policy Making,” 120.
4. Feder, “Forecasting for Policy Making,” 121.