List and explain your three principles here.
This is a bonus, in-class, ten point assignment.
You can reply to your own posting to state your three principles. Be sure to explain the principles.
A blog for Public Policy Analysis students
List and explain your three principles here.
This is a bonus, in-class, ten point assignment.
You can reply to your own posting to state your three principles. Be sure to explain the principles.
Public Policy Analysis, Fall 2013 
Lesson #1 Policy making becomes nonrational when symbolism and religious undertones are apparent in the story. (How can you explain the “angel” and the gust of wind that carried the newspaper in the air)
Lesson #2 Disconnect between policy makers and those influenced by policy (the Milagro town population) create confusion and inability to come to a solution that both parties agree with (disconnected elites from the Mayor up and poor citizens that even have divisions amongst themselves). The process becomes very nonrational amidst so many competing views.
Lesson #3 Focusing events create a venue by which ideas that were once ignored now become the overarching narrative of the problem. These events can either assist or delay actions by elites to carry out their efforts. (Citizen ideas of water rights are largely ignored until Jose starts to grow a bean field) Unexpecting elites are forces to react but are unsure how to rationally do so. Once again, it becomes a very non rational process with unpredictable outcomes.
though the developer side knows their interests and seem united. The towns people are largely divided as the community meeting showed.
First, policy is not always rational and cannot be viewed as such because people are irrational. In the movie, the developers were so persistent on what they wanted to do that they were blind to what was best for everyone. Not only are people irrational, they just don’t always use rationality when they expect others to use rationality.
Second, policy cannot always be seen as rational because you never know who your allies are and “politics makes strange bedfellows”. In the movie, the sheriff and governor ends up siding with those who are against the laws and regulations, primarily because they end up being allies against the developer and in favor of the locals who have been established in the area for a longer period of time.
Third, policy cannot always be seen as rational when a large group is involved. Yes, the developers wanted to and had the money to do their own thing, but they ultimately were stopped by those directly affected, which is also the majority. In the movie and at the end, the larger group really came together to support each other, and those for preserving their way off life were able to make those who were not their friends yet their allies.
people are probably more non-rational than irrational. People can have beliefs and even be emotional without being irrational.
The first theme of irrational policy making was shown with the angel that amarante was talking to. This means that it is what people believe that makes a huge difference in their feelings of policy.
The second is portrayed with the elected officials not understanding what their people want. They simply do what the people with money want without knowing what the law says.
The third theme is at the meeting when ruby tries to get everyone as emotionally charged as she is by calling them all family and recalling days past when things were better. Emotions are not rational but they are extremely powerful.
good point on emotions, I think that the elected officials were portrayed as mainly self-serving. There was confusion over law, etc. which is normal.
The rational model is not applicable. There were a few examples of this. When the town meeting took place. The concern of the townspeople was not focused on traditional economic concerns. The focusing event of the water coming to Joes land. The bean field that came after represented the community making a stand to oppose the development. The community did not want to
The community division was not rational. It was made clear that the effect of miracle valley development would drive them off of their land. Still there was division mainly because of the different personalities and attitudes toward the project. Another irrational part of the movie was the mysterious nature of occurrences. The gust of wind that sent the papers flying was serendipitous and defied any rational explanation. The final irregularity was during the chase where joe is rescued by the cowboy of the opposing side. You can’t count on people to remain committed to one side or another.
the community division led to a lot of disagreement what was interesting was that the other coalition did not seem to understand that there were these divisions.
3 examples of how policy isn’t rational: 1. The developing company had used money to circumvent the law and instill fear. No one knew who owned the water rights but because the developer was involved, the people believed that it wasn’t their water. This allowed the land developer to move forward on their project. They utilized the mayor who didn’t want to have conflict to facilitate their needs/wants. The owner felt justified in building the resort because he believed he was doing a good thing for the community.
2. The issue came to a head because Joe kicked the head gate in anger and it opened the head gate, flooding his field. This water represented his ability to feed and provide for his family. If he had other means, if he had known he had rights to the water, or any number of details had changed, it could have changed the entire trajectory of the problem. Additionally, if the townspeople hadn’t felt deprived of water, his alleged defiance would not have been as symbolic to the community. 3. The way that Ruby wanted to ensure the town meeting was in the paper represents the media’s role in policy making. She wanted a MUCH stronger narrative in the article and the activist didn’t want to be used for libel. The developer tried to buy all the papers to prevent the media being involved. Also, the activist
Became a symbol to the developer because of his involvement, which began with his article.
notice how the other coalition misses the nature of the true policy entrepreneur and blames Charlie Bloom,
The concept of a focusing event is very important when creating and deciding upon public policy. As a successful policy analyst, it is helpful to fully understand the elements of the focusing event in a matter, and how it shapes the ideas and perspectives of the affected populace.
When the bean field was inadvertently irrigated, The rational model would have deemed it as unimportant, while the irrational model would have deemed it very important due to the considerations of peoples’ backgrounds and reverence of the concept of breaking the unknown water laws.
Another important concept to understand in the irrational model is that of how a difference in political belief and standing can affect one’s outlook on a matter. In the movie, the political rights that supported the bean field shut down, were completely unaware of and misreading the intentions and actions of the more left wing lower class that supported the bean field.This is seen in vice-verse as well.
Another theme in the irrational model is seen during the town meeting. Although the arguments of both people conveyed the same belief, how they were put together changed the outcome of the support. One relied on heavy emotional community bonding without explicitly naming an “enemy”. The other was more fact based, but construed in a more black-and-white manner, leaving a political rift that divided the community.
was this focusing event intentional, accidental or inadvertent? Does that matter in terms of rationality or non-rationality?
The movie demonstrated how politics and policy decisions can happen as the result of a focusing event. The development was on track and it was believed that there was no opposition until Joe kicked the irrigation head and inadvertently watered his land. This event led him to question whether or not he needed to shut the gate and if he could instead water his field.
It was interesting that no one would sign the petition even though they were warned that the development would lead to them being priced off of their land (scientific data) yet everyone signed when Joe signed (emotional appeal). This demonstrates how emotions may have more influence of policy choices than more rational appeals.
Ruby demonstrated how stakeholders try and use the power of the story to rally support and build coalitions. She tried to get the town to rally around the idea of the town being a family, something that they needed to protect.
notice how Charlie Bloom’s story led to in-fighting whereas Ruby kept them united.
Policy is sometimes made by the elite without input from key stakeholders. The example of this is the developers making key decisions without even notifying the people of the town or telling them the impact of the development (high taxes).
Simple rational solutions are not always chosen as the path of action. This is shown by the developers not just fixing the head gate and fining Joe for using water that did not belong to him.
Focusing events have power over policy direction as it can pull on emotions – emotions have more power over policy direction than rationality.
Focusing events can either unite or divide people. An example of a focusing event that divided people in the movie was when Joe kicked the head gate and broke it so that water flowed into his bean field. The people were divided on whether this was good or bad. Some people believed that it would bring violence or the loss of jobs while others thought that it was good to “stick it to the man”.
An example of a focusing event that united people was the shooting of Amarante. All the people became united against the developers after that happened. Joe’s wife even lamented that when they are mad at others they end up hurting one of their own.
Different narratives evoke different emotions depending on the story. An example of this is the two stories presented at the town meeting by Ruby and Charlie. Ruby’s narrative was one of decline and all about the importance of family. She was afraid to see the end of her people because she loved them. This made the people emotional and united.
Charlie’s narrative was one of warning, stating that the people would suffer from the development and that everyone would have to end up moving away because of high taxes and no jobs. This created an uproar and the tension was high. People began to pick fights with one another over the details.
Policy is not always a result of rational action. There are a lot of instances in the movie where things just happen. An example of this is when Joe kicks the head gate and the water starts flowing. He did not mean to start a water rights war and he did not even mean to break the head gate. He was merely venting his frustration by kicking the object closest to him. However, everyone else thought he did it to make a statement.
My favorite example of things just happening is when the newspapers still got distributed to the people because of the windstorm after they were all bought up in order to keep the article from being seen by the people. The result was that everyone got the paper and everyone went to the town meeting after reading the article in the paper.
but others interpret his actions as an intentional event that triggers everything that follows in the movie.
The Milagro bean field war is chockful of symbolism. Symbols have different meanings to different people. joes bean field symbolizes hope and defiance to the townspeople while it symbolizes and represents the townspeople as being obstructive to progress.
The focusing event was when joe released the water by accident. He didn’t
Mean to let the water out, but then decided to use it for the bean field.
Politics are portrayed by the developers, rich people and the governor as being greedy and not caring what happened to the townspeople.
The local sheriff was on the fence but eventually helped joe and did the right thing. The mayor was a pawn for the developers, and was very no combative, can’t we all just go home?
The power of the story was shown by the stories told by ruby and Charlie bloom, each had Different stories but each story resonated with the townspeople, eventually resulting in conflict a s the townspeople were divided On the development idea.
Charlie Bloom’s story was a villain-victim story and it helped show the divisions in the group. Ruby’s story was more uniting.
the religious undertones throughout the movie shows symbolism which is non-rational. We may think that policy should flow rationally, however, when real people are involved with all their traditions and religious upbringing, then policy really becomes non-rational.
Policy just happens was also shown in the movie. Serendipity and happenstance really started the whole idea, not Joe. The towns people show their fear of the “big guy” and also the classic fight between the rich and the poor, the bad guys against the good guys. In this story the commoners won, but that is not always the case as with the big mart case.
The forming of coalitions show the differences between the developers and the towns people. Is shows a value conflict, subjunctive and objective opinions, they needed something to bring them together through compromise and find shared values and shared interests.
yes, policy occurs it is not made.
The Milagro Bean Field War clearly illustrates non-rational policy through many instances. One example of this is through the focusing event that takes place right off the bat (had to get a baseball reference in there someone, considering…). Joe, out of frustration with not getting a job, heads to the river near where he owns what used to be his father’s bean field. He kicks a water head gate and, without knowledge or intent, starts the flow of water from the river to the bean field. Since the sign attached to the gate head says that the gate cannot be opened, Joe starts to panic. He *thinks* about turning off the water, but then changes his mind. While the consequent of his kick was not planned out or even anticipated, Joe is well aware of the likely result of his CHOICE to not turn the water off. As unintended as it was, Joe’s kick starts the action which makes up the plot line of the movie.
Another way the movie illustrates the idea of non-rational policy is through the constant misunderstanding of motives between the two opposing parties (elites v. townspeople). Even thought neither side KNOWS what the other side is thinking or doing, they continue to assign motives. For example, Charlie Bloom, a transplant to the area, wants nothing to do with the whole bean field/watering issue. In fact, when approached about it by Ruby, he resists involvement more than once. However, the elites assign the motive behind the rebellious action to Charlie. One even says, “Joe couldn’t have come up with this on his own.” So, the elites assign motive/action where none really exists, and, as a result, they change the way the events unfold (and not even in their own favor!).
A third way this movie illustrates non-rational policy is through the use of serendipity. Many things happen that just happen. There is no reason; no one is in control. For instance, when the elites try to hide the newspaper by buying it up and then burning it, they are thwarted by the wind. No one controls the wind, but through the serendipitous turn of events, the wind picks up right when the paperweight is lifted off of the stack of papers. The wind becomes the best paperboy around, as it more effectively delivers the paper far and wide and does it FOR FREE!
The movie ends after yet another focusing event takes place (through a number of serendipitous events) which, unlikely as it is, unites the townspeople. Joe finds Lupita, his friend’s pig, eating the bean sprouts in the symbolic bean field. He tries to shoo her away by running at her and shooting near her, when it doesn’t work, he ends up shooting her. Amarato, the pig’s owner, starts shooting at Joe in retaliation for the shooting of his beloved Lupita. Joe then shoots at Amarato and hits him. While this act is not likely to unite the town, it actually does. The townspeople know that Joe did not mean to hurt Amarato and they all set out to protect him. Even his cousin who is the sheriff of the town and has, thus far, been more cooperative with the elites than he has been with his own people.
Another interesting illustration of non-rational policy making is the use of narrative. When there is a standoff between reps of the elites and Joe and a few townsfolk, the sheriff steps in and uses narrative to change the story and offer both parties a non-violent way out that saves face for everybody. I could go on with examples (there are many more to choose from), but I should probably just STOP!!
Excellent, narrative plays an important part both in the cow scene and the town meeting. The final focusing event was conspiracy or intentional as the old man seemed to setting up a lot of things in that scene and earlier –the bullet through the window for example.
In the film “The Milagrow Beanfield War”, there are many parallels to the subject of public policy analysis, namely non-rational processes. These parallels can be seen throughout the film in the form of symbolism and strong character acting. For the first example of this, you have Amerante, an elderly man who brandishes a sheriff’s star on his clothing. This character speaks to an Angel like figure throughout the film and is influenced to action by this Angel. Amerante is swayed into non-rational thinking by his Angel companion, and acts irrationally throughout the film. He is intentionally wreaking havoc upon this town, at the suggestion of his constant companion. His actions throughout were commendable, but extremely dangerous and could have killed someone.
Throughout the film there is a strong narrative woven around a once proud town, which has come full circle to see its true current state. Most citizens of this small town are oblivious to this because they have enough to get by or they’re too intoxicated to care. It takes a major focusing event, like Joe kicking the valve cover and breaking the line, and then defying the supposed water rights owners’ wishes. This refusal to comply to the water right owners wishes causes a focusing event among the town. The town as a whole comes to realize that they have lost control of their town, and they need to find a way to recover.
The town finds a way to come together. Towards the end of the film, Joe finds his bean field being eaten by Amerante’s pet pig. This leads to a shootout that no one saw coming. This accidental shootout was a natural reaction to protecting one’s own property, and what Joe didn’t know prior, was that Amerante had just thwarted a resorts representative’s effort to destroy the bean field. This caused in my opinion what was the major focusing event of the film. The aftermath of the shootout put the one of the main characters, Joe, on the run from the land developers and their hired henchman.
This film had symbolism, focusing events, and a strong narrative. These multiple focusing events, allowed the town to see what was happening right under their noses. The symbolism was seen throughout the film and had multiple meanings, the most important in my opinion being the symbolic breaking of the water line that runs through Joe’s family farm land. The binding power of the overall narrative brought the town together, and the townspeople were able to take the power back from the elite business developers, and its henchman who was bent on making an example of Joe, by bending the laws to suit his ends.
was the last major scene an intentional action by the old man? Was he trying to set up a focusing even to unite the people.
The first political element of public policy making as seen in The Milagro Beanfield War is the influence of power and money. The influence brought into public policy making when power and money are introduced will have the potential to prevent rational decision making. If rational decision making is to be like asking a group of people a question and finding the best answer, power and money would be the one voice yelling above all others and making it difficult or impossible to hear all answers to find the best one. In the movie the developers bring in power and the potential for money into the community of Milagro which causes a rift amongst the community. Come community members begin to follow that power in to hopes of becoming more powerful or rich themselves such as Mayor Sammy Cantu. Other townspeople such as Ruby and Charlie Bloom seek to disrupt that power and protect the community from outsiders.
The second political element is that of vague responsibilities. The rational model is built upon the ideal of complete knowledge, defined goals, and defined responsibilities. The movie shows how there can be confusion about what a current law says, relating to the water laws, and who should be tasked with enforcing the laws, state or local, can lead to inaction or improper action.
Finally there is also a randomness to public policy making which we have seen in Kingdon’s multiple streams theory. In this movie we see a focusing/political event of the random destruction of the water head gate by Joe and the confusion as to what his intentions were by the community, developers, and government. What at one time may have not been a problem, water rights in the area, was now a public issue and Joe’s political event would have impacts which the rational model could not have predicted. We even see Mr. Montana attempt to be the rational model by asking what is the problem and provide the goal of having Joe arrested and as he worked to that end was thwarted by all sides.
The watergate is itself a symbol of power and past wrongs by the developer coalition.
The movie started out as kind of mystical with a strange man, much like a pied piper of chance or fortune, comes into the town of Milagro. We are taken into a story of the development of a recreation area and an unlikely bean field. The plot takes on a David versus Goliath feel with overtones of religion and serendipity and starts to give us the foundation that policy is non-rational (things just happen, much like policy). We are shown the contrast of private resort owners plotting their plunder (rich) versus the local tight-knit small towns people of Milagro eking out a living on meager resources (poor).
Because of Joe’s frustration with the regulation of resource use, he by chance breaks the small canal levee and floods his field and gives birth to his idea and much more. As he continues to use the water and grow beans some of the other towns people are inspired by his bravery to shake the status quo and believe that Joe’s bean field could potentially garner attention from others around the region. For this unregulated use of water rights Joe catches the attention of elites like the Mayor, police and other bigwigs that are becoming sly to Joe’s game, though they are hesitate to arrest Joe otherwise they can end up in a racial hornets nest yet they want the owners, who are poor, to be unable to pay property taxes and thus sell their property.
Because of the attention of Joe’s endeavors he get’s a local town activist on his side named Ruby who reluctantly gets the town lawyer on their side as well to get Joe’s story out to public only to be thwarted by the rich who want the cat left in the bag. Again serendipity rears it’s head and get’s the news out anyway by scattering the paper throughout the town via zephyr.
Ruby then tries to coordinate the towns people to come together and unite and get their voices heard and get polices changed before someone get hurt in all the chaos and confrontation that is being caused by resource use and blockading between the rich and poor. But to her dismay, no one can find a happy medium and the meeting dwindles down and not much is accomplished.
Another catalytic event happens when the old man crashes the tractor and Joe is blamed for an accident. It seems to get the people to finally agree and some unlikely friend unknown to Joe helps him as he is getting pursued to the death. Finally he town unites against the resort/recreation area.