-The coursework is a 4 questions for discussion.
-Answer each part of each question as required using the given references and other references if required.
-Use proper citation.
-Answer the questions separately.
Q1: The following is from Maddison and Dennis (2013, page 59), An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
It is often asserted that ‘free markets’ deliver the most efficient outcomes. However, a number of conditions need to exist to ensure that this occurs. These include, for example: a large number of buyers; a number of sellers (no monopolies); everyone has free and complete access to information about all products; everyone behaves rationally (that is, they pay attention to the marginal cost and marginal benefit of their actions, and always act in their own self-interest); the production and consumption of a product has no external, or spillover costs, that affect other citizens (e.g. pollution or impact the health or others); there are no economies of scale (that is, mass production delivers no benefits); and there is nothing preventing new competition (e.g. patents, regulatory restrictions, other barriers to entering a market) . In the absence of all of these conditions, market failure is said to exist, and a case may be made for government intervention to improve efficiency and equity.
Part A. The following document discusses market failure in regard to legal services for survivors of domestic violence in the United States, and argues that because of market failure, government intervention is required. Briefly outline how the market “fails” in this situation (see Part IV of the document).
Rosenberg J.S. Grab D.A. Supporting survivors. Institute for Policy Integrity. New York University School of Law. July 2015.
Part B. give some examples of government intervention in the public health field in Australia, where market failure may have been the rationale for action?
Q2: “Given the large array of factors that influence health outcomes, most of which are outside the health system, public health policies require inter-sectoral collaboration, or a whole of government approach. This means that public health policies are subject to numerous other considerations besides the health and well-being of the community. It makes public health policy-making particularly contentious and complex”
(p155, Lin V., Smith J., Fawkes S., 2nd Edit. Public Health Practice in Australia: The organized effort. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin Australia, 2014.
What is your understanding of “a whole of government approach”? Can you give examples of a whole of government approach in the area of health policy? And, what does this mean for domestic violence policy?
Q3: The following paper uses Kingdon’s model of agenda setting to understand how gender-based violence became legitimized as a health policy issue in Nepal. Briefly outline the different frames, describe the three streams, and the process of the opening of the policy window.
Using the same information, give an example of how you may have applied the Hall model of agenda setting to this health policy story.
Colombini, M., Mayhew, S. H., Hawkins, B., Bista, M., Joshi, S. K., Schei, B., & Watts, C. (2015). Agenda setting and framing of gender-based violence in Nepal: how it became a health issue. Health Policy Plan. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czv091
Q4: The following is from Maddison and Dennis (2013, page 24), An Introduction to Australian Public Policy: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
“Federalism is defined by a division of powers between central or ‘federal’ government and a number of constituent states or provinces. An established federal system involves agreement between a number of sub-national jurisdictions to come together as one, in an arrangement where they are united but remain distinct, with relationships built on coordination rather than subordination….Federalism creates a system of multiple jurisdictions that contain possible tensions in the policy process.”
The article below discusses federalism and domestic violence policy. Read the article and discuss how our system of government might impact on the way “government” addresses the issue of domestic violence.
Chappell, L., & Curtin, J. (2013). Does Federalism Matter? Evaluating State Architecture and Family and Domestic Violence Policy in Australia and New Zealand. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 43(1), 24-43. doi: 10.1093/publius/pjs030
Place your order now for a similar paper and have exceptional work written by our team of experts to guarantee you A Results
Why Choose US
6+ years experience on custom writing
80% Return Client
Urgent 2 Hrs Delivery
Your Privacy Guaranteed
Unlimited Free Revisions