One of the big problems in the world that has never been fully addressed is the practice of using skin color as a mean to differentiate honest and dishonest people; a belief going back at least to the Colonial era that has been left so inherently embodied in the beliefs of a large spectrum that they continue to use that as a sign of the stability of innocence. This is rooted in one-sided policy, where you are required to do something a particular way, but the downside is you could be blinded to another side, for every element of nature has two sides. In this case, using skin tone as a sign of morality is WRONG; skin tone is not a policy condition but one based on the nature of the Earth's climate, which is totally different; being darker-skinned is just a sign you're descended from people in warmer climates where the Sun's radiation baked the skin surface over time. The real question is judging people under individual terms. If one must establish a good policy of course you can emphasize with the perspective most relevant by inheritance, but you have to show an openness to another one and give fair consideration to that and not just assume the one important to you matters in all cases. Samuel F.
I agree. Race and racialization were spread by the European colonization process as part of its system of cultural domination and has become embedded in the modern world system in ways that shape intercultural relations in contemporary times. Race complicates policy formation and implementation in all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Race is particularly a problem for policy implementation
I don't have a specific citation I can offer, if that's what you are looking for. This is a standard model we've been teaching at Miami University for more than 15 years.
@@AnthroProf001 or ok. Was asking if it followed the kingdom or Walt and Gilson. Or another. It's good. I used it though and I am still awaiting results. Thanks for the help
The concept of "bias" makes no sense when it comes to policy. When Pakistan sets policy, it doesn't seek to be "unbiased"--it seeks to forward Pakistan's interests. When the US or India or China sets policy, they don't seek to be "unbiased"--they each seeks to forward their national interests. All problems are problems for some specific stakeholder, so all policy analysis is "biased" toward the stakeholder for whom it is prepared. Since the stakeholder in this case is the US House of Representatives, the policy analysis is oriented toward their interests and capacities. If the client were a Pakistani agency, or an Indian agency, the orientations would be different because success looks different to Pakistan than to the US or India. Kashmiri insurgents who want an independent Kashmir also have different orientations than Kashmiri insurgents who want Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan or to be a a Pakistani client state. In this case. I lay out several options which might appeal to different stakeholders but since the client is a US agency, the recommended solution is oriented toward their interests and capabilities (if the client were the US Department of State, the recommendations might be different still since it has different goals and capacities than the US Congress).
Thanks, this was helpful for my MPA class.
Thanks. Glad you found it useful
This is great. what a practical summary
policy analysis is an important in indentify the policy..thanks
Beautifully explained with the help of real life example. Thank you
Thank you for the kind words
very very informative and helpful lecture. thank you very much.
Thanks for the explanation. Really helps in my postgraduate subject.
Thanks. Glad you found it useful
Very good info. Thank you
You're welcome. Thanks for the compliment
nicely done Mark!
Thanks
Thank you. This is very useful
helps a lot with my MPM, Thanks.
Thanks. Glad you found it useful
thank you for the explanation
You're welcome
Hi mark, do you have a specific pdf format about that?
Do you have a sample of policy analysis report?
Can you discuss about Need for Advocacy:Is there one best way? This is under Section 8: Make Recommendations... Please
Thank you
One of the big problems in the world that has never been fully addressed is the practice of using skin color as a mean to differentiate honest and dishonest people; a belief going back at least to the Colonial era that has been left so inherently embodied in the beliefs of a large spectrum that they continue to use that as a sign of the stability of innocence. This is rooted in one-sided policy, where you are required to do something a particular way, but the downside is you could be blinded to another side, for every element of nature has two sides. In this case, using skin tone as a sign of morality is WRONG; skin tone is not a policy condition but one based on the nature of the Earth's climate, which is totally different; being darker-skinned is just a sign you're descended from people in warmer climates where the Sun's radiation baked the skin surface over time. The real question is judging people under individual terms. If one must establish a good policy of course you can emphasize with the perspective most relevant by inheritance, but you have to show an openness to another one and give fair consideration to that and not just assume the one important to you matters in all cases. Samuel F.
I agree. Race and racialization were spread by the European colonization process as part of its system of cultural domination and has become embedded in the modern world system in ways that shape intercultural relations in contemporary times. Race complicates policy formation and implementation in all kinds of subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Race is particularly a problem for policy implementation
Hi Mark. Who's framework are you using to analyze this policy?? Let me know asap please thanks
I don't have a specific citation I can offer, if that's what you are looking for. This is a standard model we've been teaching at Miami University for more than 15 years.
@@AnthroProf001 or ok. Was asking if it followed the kingdom or Walt and Gilson. Or another. It's good. I used it though and I am still awaiting results. Thanks for the help
Biased about Kashmir
The concept of "bias" makes no sense when it comes to policy. When Pakistan sets policy, it doesn't seek to be "unbiased"--it seeks to forward Pakistan's interests. When the US or India or China sets policy, they don't seek to be "unbiased"--they each seeks to forward their national interests. All problems are problems for some specific stakeholder, so all policy analysis is "biased" toward the stakeholder for whom it is prepared. Since the stakeholder in this case is the US House of Representatives, the policy analysis is oriented toward their interests and capacities. If the client were a Pakistani agency, or an Indian agency, the orientations would be different because success looks different to Pakistan than to the US or India. Kashmiri insurgents who want an independent Kashmir also have different orientations than Kashmiri insurgents who want Kashmir to be a part of Pakistan or to be a a Pakistani client state. In this case. I lay out several options which might appeal to different stakeholders but since the client is a US agency, the recommended solution is oriented toward their interests and capabilities (if the client were the US Department of State, the recommendations might be different still since it has different goals and capacities than the US Congress).