Policy Making at the Local and State Level: A Detailed Analysis

This essay delves into the intricacies of policy making at the local and state levels within the American confederate system, highlighting the roles of local, national, and state governments in shaping policies that impact citizens' lives. It underscores the importance of adapting policies to unique local situations and discusses the structural differences between county and municipal governments, including their modes of governance such as council-administrator systems, commissioning, mayor-council structures, and council governance. The essay also addresses the advantages and shortcomings of decentralized policy making, such as increased local influence and potential inefficiencies, and touches upon the dynamics within municipalities, including townships and their decision-making processes. It emphasizes the importance of inclusive decision-making and the utilization of local talent in shaping effective policies.

Running head: POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 1
Policy Making At the Local and State Level
Name
Institution

POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 2
Policy Making At the Local and State Level
In essence, Policymaking is the process of inventing plans or ideas that guide a country or
a body in the decision-making process. It is often undervalued whereas it’s the backbone of any
decision making process. Local and state leaders have a duty to ensure that they carefully come
up with policies that will better the lives of their citizens. The American state is a Confederate
one, which means is divided into local, national and state government. Each government has a
role in planning and executing decisions that affect their locality and the future of the state
respectively.
However, in as much as they all set laws and policies, some policies tend to differ from
state to state such as speed limits on local roads. These subdivisions allow response to unique
situations among different localities. In 1997, America had 50 states, 3,043 county, and 19,372
metropolitans and 16,629 township managements (Gurney, 2015). Recently there have been new
trends within the state and local governments that have seen them increase their budget and
development of schools that are publicly funded. This is due to the broad scope of activities that
these governments have focused on.
County and municipal government are important in the entire administrative structure.
Not only do they act as a bridge between the citizens but also their services are of convenience
(McLaughlin, 2015). For example; citizens easily access medical services and other amenities in
their locality. They are always in direct contact with their leaders. The two governments are
different when it comes to the structural settings of governance and purpose (Baskaran, Feld, &
Schnellenbach, 2016). The county government has two modes of governance council
administrator system and commissioning while the municipal has mayor-council and in council
governance. The voter elects the council to serve within a specified period. On the other hand,

POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 3
the administrator is appointed by the council to undertake the operations of the government.
He/she serves at the directive of the council and can be terminated by the council.
The purpose of this is to delegate the organizational and policy-making responsibilities
between those appointed and those who are elected into the system. Under the commissioning
structure, a commission is elected is to oversee all legislative as well as executive works a rather
desirable condition. Such cases include; adopting a budget, hiring and firing of county staff
(Cancela & Geys, 2016). At the county level, the mayor-council system, a mayor, and the
council are voted in. The council undertakes legislative activities while the mayor performs
executive occupations. The mayor may be handed over a great deal of power where he can
appoint and fire members or limited power where he/she is termed a ceremonial leader.
“My experience in government is that when all things are not controversial, there is
nothing much going on” John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Therefore, each system has its strengths and
weaknesses. In local government, voter turnout tends to be low compared to the turnout in the
county and national elections. There may be the emergence of conflict between the local and
national government with the emergence of different issues leading to the suffering of a locality.
Advantages include local influence permits issues to be run at the lowest suitable level giving a
range for different results (Blöchliger & Kim, 2017).
County-level keeps checks and balances on the National government. Control in a
dominance of the central government is curbed each region is able to focus on its own interests.
Citizens are more active in policy making giving them a clear view of the services being offered
to them. The county government gives a chance for all due to a rise in new opportunities and
increases the flexibility of change. This means that local talent and expertise is utilized (Cancela
& Geys, 2016). Shortcomings include; discriminating powers contracted, therefore, creating

POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 4
wasteful inefficiencies such as on medical covers by states instead of having one national
standard.
The state and local have two different forms of governing for the state council
governance and commissioning this ensure that the decision and policy formulation is done to
the latter (Cancela & Geys, 2016). It’s all-inclusive since the council and mayor have a different
duty which brings about better decision making without more of the mayor's influence. It gives
space for independence.
Municipalities are further divided into townships, the borough, and villages.IN townships
meetings take place at least once a year and the board elected together with the public pass bills
such as taxes, budget, and building of roads. Its shortcoming is that in as much as members have
involved in debates only the mayor and board members can vote (O'connor, 2017). This may be
in favor or not of the people.

POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 5
References
Baskaran, T., Feld, L. P., & Schnellenbach, J. (2016). Fiscal Federalism, Decentralization, and
Economic Growth: A Meta‐Analysis. Economic I
Blöchliger, H., & Kim, J. (2017). Fiscal federalism 2016. ECONOMICS, 41(2), 289-293.
Cancela, J., & Geys, B. (2016). Explaining voter turnout: A meta-analysis of national and
subnational elections. Electoral Studies, 42, 264-275.
Gurney et al., (2015). Integrated conservation and development: evaluating a community-based
marine protected area project for equality of socioeconomic impacts. Phil. Trans. R. Soc.
B, 370(1681), 20140277.nquiry, 54(3), 1445-1463.
McLaughlin, M. W. (2015). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy
implementation. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 9(2), 171-178.
O'connor, J. (2017). The fiscal crisis of the state. Routledge.

POLICY MAKING AT THE LOCAL AND STATE LEVEL 6