Defensible justification for government intervention

This is a paper that is focusing on Defensible justification for government intervention. The paper also provides additional information to use in writing the assignment paper well.

Defensible justification for government intervention

Public Administration and the American Political Economy – WRITE IN YOUR WORDS

  1. Firstly, identify the most defensible justification for government intervention in each of the four policies below (more information about each policy is provided in the background information section), using the frameworks discussed in Weimer and Vining (i.e., select market failure or/and non-market failure justifications). Explain your choice.

1.1. Interstate Highway Grants

1.2. Environmental Protection

1.3. Media Regulation

1.4. Temporary Aid to Needy Families

Defensible justification for government intervention

2a. Secondly, identify the publics (directly or indirectly affected) that pressure the government for action in each of the four policies. To what extent do these publics meet Dewey’s definition?

2b. Thirdly, discuss whether these four policies are good examples of the policy types described by Ripley and Franklin. Is there any poor fit to their typology? Why? (Your “why” should be at least partially grounded in the scholarly literature on this topic.)

2c. Wilson, Gormley, and also Schneider and Ingram all discuss participation in the policy process through the use of typologies. Identify the major participants, and also the nature of their participation, in each of the four policies from the perspective of these three frameworks. Explain your selections for each policy within each framework.

  1. Thirdly, discuss the relationship between capitalism and democracy within the context of Lindblom’s Politics and Markets. How might the political/economic system influence both majoritarian and pluralist sources of public influence? In what direction will this push government policies in a capitalist system?

4. Fourthly, most students are familiar with the notion of the “separation of powers” delineated in the U.S. Additionally, constitution. Richard Neustadt argues that this phrase is misleading; that what we have in the United States is separate institutions sharing powers. Does public administration contribute to this notion? Also, place the discussion within the context of John Rohr’s To Run a Constitution. Is the blending of powers constitutionally legitimate and why?

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount “GET12” for 12%

Calculate the price of your order

Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support