Theories of the Policy Process

Introduction

This paper will review and explain some theories of public policy formation. It will also explain two major differences evident in many of these theories. Finally, the paper will discuss which of the theories is most compelling. It will be the argument of this paper that the pluralist theory has the strongest explanatory power in policy creation. This paper will be divided into four sections. The next section will present a discussion of some models of policy formation. Section three will discuss how these theories are different and offer a critical assessment. The fourth and final section is the conclusion.

Theories of Policy Formation

Overview. Public policies are the means by which societal and institutional values are officially formulated. Indeed, such policies can be understood with reference to laws, official documents, political and social practices, signs and communications that are used to define and institutionalize values. Policy governs transactions involving the sale of goods and services. Public policy is expressed as regulations and can include prescriptions related to income, status and other valued attributes that may have either a positive or negative connotation.

Public policy designs are easily discernible and thus explicable through statistics, regulatory guidelines, judicial decrees, administrative programs and even such phenomena as the policy approaches of street-level bureaucrats formed in their interactions with policy recipients. Policy designs usually contain several central features:

First, they include the target populations who will receive the policy.

Second, are the goals or problems that require solutions.

Third, are the rules that restrict action.

Fourth, are the rationales that provide explanations for, or legitimize, the policy.

Finally, are the assumptions that give the reasons which connect these features into a coherent form.

Policy designs are more than an institutionalization of the methods needed to accomplish certain objectives. This is because such designs contain aspects that are both interpretive and symbolic. Public policies have logic and patterns that undergird the political process. The concepts they manifest serve a number of interests and thus have established constituencies.

Policy Theories. According to Kingdon and Birkland, certain ideas become issues due to a regular set of processes. These processes include,

1.Agenda setting

2. A menu of alternatives are identified from which one option will be selected

3. The selected option becomes authorized commonly by way of a legislative vote, presidential decision or popular referendum.

4. The final decision moves to implementation and this is not always successful.

There is a broad delineation between what can be called the governmental agenda and what is called the decision-agenda. The former refers to the list of subjects that are currently attracting the attention of interest groups and state actors. However, the latter refers to the list of subjects within the governmental agenda that are awaiting an official decision. In general, two categories of factors affect agenda-setting. The first, are the participants who are active around the particular policy under review. The second is the processes by which agenda items and alternatives come into serious consideration.

Participants include members both inside and outside government such as the president, law-makers and the bureaucracy. Participants outside the government include such institutional actors as interest groups, the media, academia, and public opinion. When joined in a collective, these various actors all play roles in determining how the agenda for a particular policy is established. The impact of each participant, while important, is variable and based on differences in resources available to each actor.

The critical factor that explains the distinction of an item on the agenda is not its source. Rather it's the climate in government or the receptivity to ideas of a specific type in the policy community. As a result, what is most significant is not the source of the idea, but the context in which an idea or issue obtains consideration as an item on the agenda.

Kingdon argues that a comprehensive and rational model of agenda-setting, including elucidating a method to achieve goals and systematic consideration of all viable alternatives, does not occur in agenda-setting. Neither is agenda setting an orderly process involving a logical progression directly from problem definition to prescription, implementation, and evaluation. Instead, the preferred approach to agenda-setting is Incrementalism. That is massive changes to the social and political system are usually not popular and less likely to be accepted by policy-makers. The more acceptable change involves small adjustments implemented in incremental phases with as little disruption to the system as possible. Kingdon argues this is a normative suggestion of how change should work. Initially, there are sudden “shocks to the system,” as an idea becomes well known and popular. After this phase, the system seeks to discern a assimilate this new idea while at the same time maintaining stability and administrative effectiveness.

There are three categories of processes in national government agenda-setting. These are problems, policies, and politics. Thus, first people recognize problems, then they propose public policies to solve them, and third, employ campaigns, elections and lobbying to see that their proposals are placed on the agenda for the benefit of public interest. There are certain institutional actors that are involved in only one category. On the other hand, other actors are active across more than one stream. The constraints on considering a proposal are usually due to any inherent expense or political risk involved in a particular policy area.

A crisis, disaster, scandal or emergency can sometimes focus attention on a particular policy problem. Moreover, problems can have acute indications. But there may also be chronic indications as well that all stakeholders are aware of on a continuous basis. Such problems include the rising cost of health care or the ballooning US federal budget deficit. A focusing event, such as a man-made disaster, can help create a policy window. This window includes a period of time during which a particular piece of legislation will be submitted for consideration. A policy window may also occur during a presidential campaign. Focusing events can also occur as the result of an event that mobilizes support around a particular policy program such as the terrorist incidents on 9/11 and the issue of national security.

Rochefort and Cobb agree that problem definition is the central topic of public policy analysis. The authors argue for a connection between social conflict and public policy formation. In their view, the outcome of a conflict is dependent upon how many actors or stakeholders are involved. Thus the weaker faction usually seeks to extend its influence through the recruitment of new members to its cause. Whichever faction is the most successful in expanding its membership, it is usually the most successful in the outcome of social conflict. Those institutions capable of defining the menu of alternatives possess the greatest instrument of authority. Thus issue definition and redefinition can serve as instruments used by conflicting groups to gain a political advantage. In order to reduce participation, issues can be defined in procedural or narrowly technical terms. However, to increase participation, issues can be connected to sweeping social themes. In this way, policy-making can be conceived of as a struggle between alternate realities.

Stone argues that there are four prominent forms of language and symbolic representation in political discourse. These are:

Stories or narratives which provide explanations for the policy.

Synecdoches, where sections of a whole are said to represent the whole.

Metaphors, where likenesses are claimed between objects or subjects.

Ambiguity, where multiple meanings are shared and simultaneously evoked.

Thus if policy formation is a political struggle between alternate conceptions of reality, then language is the medium that reflects, advances and interprets these alternatives. Language can be used as a tool to structure decision-making so as to favor one result over another.

Causal models of policy formation include, 1) multiple and simultaneous causation; 2) sequential causation; and 3) component causation. Thus emphasis, which refers to which cause is emphasized, plays a key role in problem definition. The level of analysis, especially in reference to causal models and complexity, suggests it's not possible to know all and process all possible alternatives and variables in problem definition. Measurement refers to whether a problem exists, how severe it is and who or what is responsible for creating a solution. It also refers to what the future trends will be depending on the measuring approach assigned. An example of a measurement would be mean versus median family income in a discourse on growing inequality. Finally, which forms of taxation are included and which programs are classified as social spending. Finally, interconnections refers to how an issue is named and what type of associations it has. Thus, an issue, rather like a target population, can have negative, positive or fluctuating attributes. These attributes can greatly influence the efficacy of the type of policies formed.

Thus the policy-making process involves a struggle for problem ownership. In this case, ownership is defined as a paradigm of shaping policy development that proceeds without serious challengers or where challengers are kept on the fringes of the policy development process. Some policy areas still see struggles over policy ownership and thus with adequate problem solutions. For instance, homelessness has been defined variously as due to a housing shortage, economic dislocation and as a product of the de-institutionalization of mental hospitals. Solutions to this problem will vary depending on which factor is isolated as the main cause.

The main argument of Baumgartner and Jones is that US policy-making is punctuated by bursts of activity that modify issue understandings and lead to non-incremental phases of policy change. This is also known as the punctuated equilibrium model of policy change. It refers to an interaction between the manner in which issues are publicly portrayed and the institutions that have policy jurisdiction. This interaction is the driving force behind the mechanism of punctuated equilibrium. In addition, these periods of equilibrium are punctuated by systemic changes. These changes sometimes adversely affect elites. This model also holds that policy monopolies are inherently unstable because new ideas are being constantly developed. Finally, significant political decisions are often made without the existence of any counter mobilization. This is notably against what pluralists argue about policy formation.

Some examples of a policy monopoly include bankers who claim their lending practices are based on neutral rules, doctors who argue that accepted medical practices give them a clear guide on complex issues of life and death, and generals who argue they are the best judge of the nation’s defense requirements. Experts in these, and all other areas, spend a great deal of time convincing outsiders they are not qualified to make decisions in their policy area. In addition, participation is limited because the formal or informal rules of access discourage the participation of “outsiders." Moreover, the prevalent understanding of the policy is so positive that they evoke only support or indifference by those not involved. This process ensures the ongoing non-involvement of outsiders.

There are two ways in which the public's attention can be focused on a policy problem. The first is, Downs's theory that the public is focused on a problem until the costs of resolving it are discovered. In this case, public attention is lost as either the prohibitive costs or a new more urgent problem arises. The final result is that nothing gets done. The second is Schattschneider's argument that the solution to an existing problem, such as nuclear power, is thought to be the problem. The issue is thought to be the problem and, thus, the issue must be expanded beyond the confines of the existing policy-making system.

Hayes identifies or describes supply and demand patterns. Thus within demand patterns, he distinguishes between consensual and conflictual inputs, categories analogous to non-zero sum and zero-sum conflicts. Within supply patterns, Hayes distinguishes between no action, delegation (policy without law), and allocation (rule of law). The difference between consensual and conflictual issues is determined by whether there is an organized response or not and whether it is susceptible to disaggregation.

Valence issues elicit a fairly strong uniform emotional response. In contrast, position issues do not. But instead, these issues engender alternative and sometimes highly conflictual responses. Many fewer concerns can be characterized as valence issues in electoral terms. But the two implied characteristics of such issues are a lack of specificity and an attempt to reaffirm the ideals of civic life. Economic growth is really a synonym for the public choice approach. Nelson settles for the organizational approach and comes to the early conclusion that in all political systems, large groups of people do not participate. In addition, policy outcomes are biased in favor of the already powerful.

March and Olsen are proponents of the behavioral theory of organized anarchy. This theory holds that organized anarchies are decision situations or organizations characterized by three general principles:

Problematic preferences: preferences are poorly defined and revealed through action rather than as the basis for action.

Unclear technology: the organization’s processes are not well understood by its members. Procedures are trial and error, interventions are pragmatic, past experiences are accidents that contribute to the learning process

Fluid participation: the membership of the organization is transitory, as is the audience and the decision-makers.

Four basic variables are considered in the garbage can model simulation. These are choices, problems, solutions and participants. Each variable is dependent on the entry time allocated for a decision. There is generally only one choice, solution, problem and participant which can exist at any given time. Organizational decisions are made in three different ways under this model. The first is resolution, where problems are worked on and solved. The second is oversight, where one choice out of many is activated and applied with a minimum of time and energy. The third is flight, where a new choice is sought and consequently no decision is made.

Policy Formulation Theories discussion

The theories presented in this paper fall under two main categories of theory. These categories are the pluralist theory and the elite theory. The pluralist theory holds that public policy decisions are formulated with the inputs of a diverse number of stakeholders including non-governmental organizations and public opinion. Baumgartner and Jones present the clearest example of a pro-pluralist argument in their discussion of unstable policy monopolies. In the view of the authors, such instability indicates a political system that is both competitive and pluralistic. Although, even these authors acknowledge, that some issue areas lack countervailing organizations and thus are likely not entirely pluralistic.

The elite view is the argument that most policy decisions are formulated by a fairly small group of individuals at the summit of the political and economic hierarchy. In this view, a policy is formulated without much substantive input from diverse societal actors or policy stakeholders. Nelson and Schneider and Ingram assess that the US political process follows the elite view of policy formulation. These authors argue that most policy designs fail precisely because they enlist an elite and are thus anti-democratic. As a result, policy creation lacks the corrective input that diverse stakeholders can contribute to the design process.

Of the two theories under consideration, the pluralist theory is likely the most compelling perspective. It is true that policy-making is often heavily influenced by elites. But there are examples in which grass-roots political activism has successfully achieved major changes in how policy is formulated. Two examples of such changes include the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s in the US and the sweeping social changes currently underway by the movement for same-sex marriage in both Canada and the US. These transformative events suggest a political process that may have elements of both elitism and pluralism. For this reason, the Baumgartner and Jones model of punctuated equilibrium is particularly compelling.

Conclusion

In conclusion, policy formulation arises by way of a complex process that often includes focusing events that highlight the need for official intervention. However, the type of policies formulated are heavily determined by which stakeholders participate in the process and what influence they are able to gain over official policymakers. It's evident from this discussion that policy designs are crucial to the successful implementation of a program. If the designs are poorly considered then the results of its implementation will be poor as well.

Bibliography

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Jones, Bryan D. Agendas and instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press, 1993.

Birkland, Thomas. After Disaster, Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events. Georgetown University Press, 1997.

Cohen, Michael D., March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P. "A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice." Administrative Science Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1972): 1-25.

Downs, Anthony. "Up and Down with Ecology: The Issue Attention Cycle." Public Interest 28, no. 1 (1972): 38-50.

Kingdon, John W. Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown & Co., 1995.

Nelson, Barbara J. Making an Issue of Child Abuse Political Agenda-Setting for Social Problems, University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Rochefort, David A. and Cobb, Roger W. Politics of Problem Definition. University Press of Kansas, 1994.

Schattschneider, Elmer E. The Semi-Sovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy America. N.p.: Cengage Learning, 1975.

Schneider, Anne Larason and Ingram, Helen M. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1997.

Stone, Deborah. The Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-Making. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1997.