The case study narrates a situation where Envigood shows concerns for environmental issues. Furthermore, senators are responsible for necessitating the needs for policy leadership created in the legislature. However, people have heavily criticized ecological regulations, thus, requiring the need for consensus building, research and development, and resource mobilization. In this case, it is clear that cooperation between the incoming senator who will be responsible for the environmental committee and the chief of staff for the committee is very crucial. Therefore, the collaboration will ensure publication of public policies on ecological policies within a short period.
Challenges in the case study
The primary problem in the case study is to create a non-regulatory framework to improve environmental quality. Many people criticize government-imposed environmental regulations that utilize sanctions and fines (Kochenkova et al. 2016). Moreover, in the free market, leaders consider existing legislation targeted towards those who do not comply with regulations as a form of government interference (Head & Alford, 2015). Consequently, the incoming senator and the chairman of the environmental committee need to develop nonregulatory measures for improving the quality of drinking water, climate change, and air quality.
Consensus building is an integral part of the decision-making framework. It is essential because it creates a sense of coordination and comprehensive knowledge of the issues experienced. As such, right-wing senators and left-wing senators must come to a consensus to ensure that people understand and implement passed legislation (Bennett & Raab, 2017). Furthermore, consensus building is an essential element to make sure that the chief of staff and the Senate environmental committee chair liaise to solve emerging challenges (Howlett, 2019). Resource mobilization is equally necessary to ascertain that the Senate persuades the finance committees and executives to provide funds for the new environmental policy (Pülzl & Treib, 2017). However, the decision by the committee to find nonregulatory ways to implement environmental protection policies is only possible through engaging in research and development. Additionally, an examination of existing journal material and research on how to properly regulate government activities is vital (Rijcke et al. 2016). Therefore, collaborative problem-solving techniques will assist the parties to agree.
The effectiveness of Tools (strengths and weaknesses)
Consensus building is a strategic tool in decision-making and formulating environmental policies. One of the benefits of consensus building is that it brings together stakeholders from different agencies in the government sector and the private sector (Vedung, 2017). Coordination efforts guarantee the passage of bills in the Senate to improve environmental quality (Sharma & Bhatia, 2015). However, one disadvantage of consensus building is that it involves consultation at different levels, thereby, making it difficult and challenging for faster development of policies.
Resource mobilization is an essential tool, which is useful in improving environmental quality. After passing the bills, it is critical to the Senate to lobby the government to increase funds allocated to the regulatory procedure (Vedung, 2017). Conversely, the disadvantage of resource mobilization is that some policies ensure the failure of the government to allocate funds so that they can impact the proposed system. As such, this becomes a challenge to improve environmental quality.
Research and Development
Furthermore, research and development are other essential measures that the Senate can use. The Senate can use this department to gather critical information or non-regulatory methods to improve environmental quality (Birkland, 2015). The challenge of research and development is that it tends to be a long and tedious process which can delay the creation of bills. Hence, the research and development department is useful for gathering the required information.
Leadership tools are essential in the creation of policies. In this case, the significant challenge is transitioning from regulatory means to land regulatory mechanisms for improving environmental quality. Additionally, the use of democratic tools can increase the effectiveness of proposed policies. One of the strategies is consensus building where members of different political parties liaise to discuss the proposed legislation. Also, resource mobilization ensures the availability of funds to create environmental regulatory policies. Research and development is a critical tool to gather information from the public domain. Besides, it projects the magnitude of environmental policies to improve air quality and climate change.
Bennett, C. J., & Raab, C. D. (2017). The governance of privacy: policy instruments in global perspective. New York. Routledge.
Birkland, T. A. (2015). An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making.London. Routledge.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Howlett, M. (2019). Designing public policies: principles and instruments. London. Routledge.
Kochenkova, A., Grimaldi, R., & Munari, F. (2016). Public policy measures in support of knowledge transfer activities: a review of academic literature. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 41(3), 407-429.
Pülzl, H., & Treib, O. (2017). Implementing public policy. In Handbook of public policy analysis (pp. 115-134).New York. Routledge.
Rijcke, S. D., Wouters, P. F., Rushforth, A. D., Franssen, T. P., & Hammarfelt, B. (2016). Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use—a literature review. Research evaluation, 25(2), 161-169.
Sharma, D., & Bhatia, A. (2015). Role and need of modern public relation practices in Policing: mapping a pathway. Editorial Board Contents, 16.
Vedung, E. (2017). Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In Carrots, sticks and sermons (pp. 21-58). New York. Routledge.
Vedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. New York. Routledge.