- Tags:
- Show more
- Pages:
- 1
- Words:
- 275
Policy Analysis Peer’s Review Student’s Name Institution Date Policy Analysis Peer’s Review Montina Moye’s post adequately discusses the issues regarding policy analysis discussed in the three articles. In the first article, ‘37 million land deals question Gwinnett’ Moye rightly observed that the article’s authors did not use Kraft and Furlong policy analysis system. Moye further identified Kraft and Furlong’s steps as identification of the problem with a purpose of defining and analyzing it, coming up with different policy alternatives, establishing the criteria for evaluation, assessing the different generated alternatives and finally coming up with the conclusion (Guess & Farnham, 2011). Public sector individuals such as legislators are known to disregard such important processes as compared to private sector stakeholders in policy analysis. Though Moye identified the problem as the unorthodox purchase of land, the article’s authors did not link this to the first step in Kraft and Furlong Model. In the second article ‘a seductive influence; Lobbyist-legislator intimacy is longtime part of Capitol culture.; Calls to end that costly, cozy bond are old, too,’ Moye details the problems associated with the lobbyist-legislator relationship. Though these problems are well discussed, they do not adequately borrow from Kraft and Furlong Model. Moye tries to associate the author’s approach to the model, but the details do not point to so much correlation with Kraft and Furlong Model. Basically what the article dwells on is a single issue of undue influence from Lobbyists on legislators. Lobbyists have taken advantage of legislators greed and
Leave feedback