This is because politik is base on some form of power and its sources may be highly varied and complex . The use of power in politic is something that is difficult to measured precisely how and when it is exercised. The need of power in politic is to influence or control the behavior of people. Walter Annenberg theory said that “the greatest power is not money power, but political power” . Political power mean an authority held by a group within a society that allows for the administration of public resources and implement policies for society.
The advocacy planning model takes the perspective that there are large inequalities in the political system and in the bargaining process between groups that result in large numbers of people unorganized and unrepresented in the process. It concerns itself with ensuring that all people are equally represented in the planning process by advocating for the interests of the underprivileged and seeking social change. (Ananya, 2008) (Oren, 1995) emphasises that public participation is a central tenet of the advocacy planning model. A variety of public interests is assumed, and the role of planner is essentially the one as a facilitator who either advocates directly for underrepresented groups directly or encourages them to become part of the process. The most interesting part of this theory of planning is that makes public participation the central dynamic in the decision-making process.
It draws on two basic sources – work on political processes and behavior of political agents, and work on information asymmetry. Unlike the first generation theory which largely assumed public officials work for the common good to maximize social welfare, this work takes as its point of departure the assumption that participants in political processes (both voters and officials) have their own objective functions that they seek to maximize in a political setting that provides the constraints on their behavior. It basically emphasizes much more on the public-choice approach introduced above. The outcomes from collective choice institutions depend in fundamental ways on the information that the various agents possess. In particular, in settings of asymmetric information, some participants have knowledge of certain things such as preferences, cost functions, or effort; knowledge that is not available to other participants, and hence optimality decisions in this setting would be quite different from those under perfect information.
In his American Commonwealth 1888, he concentrated on three main features of public opinion, the competence of public, the constitution of public opinion, and the relationship of public opinion with opinion leaders (i.e. the function of public opinion in the political procedure). In that research Bryce observed the insufficiency of attentiveness that is showed by public in politics, so that he did not trust that public opinion could or ought to decide the subtle elements of policy. However, he observed that this latter in America was dominated by the mass public through political parties. Studies about the public opinion that showed up in that period were comparable in focus to Bryce's work, but they did not reach the same conclusion, the two authors A. Lawrence Lowell and Walter Lippmann respectively wrote two books, Public opinion and Popular Government (1913) and Public Opinion (1922).
While elites such as corporate elites, and military elites can influence policy with regards to the ethnic constitution of their respective organizations. However, it should be noted that their opinions are not necessarily accepted by the public discourse at large. Instead, there is a specific group of elites who have the ability to influence proceedings at a larger public scale. They are usually referred to as ‘opinion leaders’ in public circles. These are in essence symbolic elites as their opinion can cause considerable debate to occur on issues such as ethnicity and immigration (Dijk page
. According to Jacobs and Shapiro (2000) political leaders are more responsive to public opinion when elections are near-term, rather than in times between the elections. Notwithstanding, public opinion can be used also by non-elected representative. But it can be tied to elections as well. Thus, different interest group may use public opinion during the build-up to election, for instance in formulation of party platforms.
Furthermore, relating to the decision about levels of participation in Hillman and Hitt (p.831), firms with stronger financial resources or knowledge/ social capital will tend to individually pursue political strategies rather than act collectively. Also, firms tend to act collectively on election issues, issues that may influence voting behaviour of the public (Hillman and Hitt, p. 832). However, decisions of a firm are not only shaped internally, but also by the wider societal environment they belong
SLBs, as defined by Lipsky (1980), are public servants who directly interact with citizens on the behalf of the government (i.e. those who work on the frontlines) and use their discretion in the implementation of policy, which in turn effects how the public experiences and understands a political act. Although SLBs may not always be involved in the formal creation of public policy, they are integral in how the policy is implemented, shaped, modified, and experienced.5,6 SLBs are often faced with serious restrictions, such as limited resources and high volume of clients, which directly influence their ability to provide proper services.7 Consequently, the flawed circumstances under which SLBs must work cause them to develop coping mechanisms. Coping mechanisms are behaviours or practices that help SLBs manage the limitations and stress they
Introduction Civil service institutions (CSI’s) have a huge distinguish in comparison to organizations. Thus, organizations are set apart from institutions, as institutions are able to describe what is meant by the civil service becoming institutionalised. Thus, civil service as a government institution plays a vital role in making sure that the policies from the government result to tangible services within a population group or civil society. As a matter of fact, the national government cannot effectively and efficiently operate, without the bodies of professional civil servants with minimised problems. In Nigeria, the Federal Civil Service has been entangled in multitudes of problems, namely: lack of accountability, corruption, weak governance
Indeed, such transformational change can by definition only be achieved by national actors since it will most likely depend on the political will of governments – national, regional and local – which have the power to legislate, develop policies and programmes, and to allo¬cate resources – financial and human – to imple-ment them. However, in order to be successful and sustainable, truly transformational change must also embrace civil society stakeholders, both in the commercial and the non-profit sec-tors, including community-based organizations. This underlines the importance of broad-based national ownership. For the same reasons stated above International partners are far less