Week 2 Presentation

For Department of Public Policy,
M.O.P. Vaishnav College for Women, Ch-34
Week 2
UNIT- II: Public Policy Analysis
POLICY CYCLE FRAMEWORK

POLICY PROCESS NETWORK
POLITICAL FEASIBILITY
Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants,

activists, and others to examine and evaluate the available options to implement the
goals of laws and elected officials. The process is also used in the administration of large
organizations with complex policies.
From being an exclusive domain of Political Science, Public Policy has been slowing
moving into an area where the policy scientists, sociologists and management
professionals are also taking lot of interest in the nature, scope and significance of Public
Policy and its analysis.
Public policy making constitutes the core of politics and government in any nation. The
implementation of public policies is directly related to the growth of the countries. The
field of public policy has been evolving into a major sub- discipline in political science
since the 1970s.
Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Kamaraj IAS Academy, Ch-40 1
Policy Cycle Framework
Policy cycle is the most optimal model through which policies are made, put
into action and evaluated. It is described usually in six stages, which are: agenda
setting, policy formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation
and policy maintenance. It is understood as a cycle, as the outcome of the
implementation of the policy will help in determining any alteration in the existing policy
or the creation of a new one.
The process is descriptive, that is, merely a given method to organize policy making,
however it faces trouble as it is too simple and straightforward for a complex world. It
appears as an ordered process with a beginning where the policymakers first identify an
issue, and an end, where they assess how successful the implementation and its impact
have been in resolving the issue, however, policy making can begin, be altered or be
discarded at any of these stages. Further, thousands of policy cycles interact in the
policymaking system which makes it even more complex and unpredictable.

Policy Cycle
Agenda Policy Implementatio

Evaluation
setting formulation n
The policy cycle is a summary of the process in which policies are

initiated, developed, negotiated, communicated, implemented, and
evaluated.
The first step in the policy cycle is agenda setting. A policy agenda is a list
of issues to which an organization or government is giving serious
attention at any one time, with a view to taking some sort of action.
The next step is policy formulation. As mentioned previously, policy is

based on beliefs, goals, or values. Policy formulation also, hopefully, takes
into account research and data. We’ll talk more about setting the
agenda and policy formulation in the next session.
After policy is created it is implemented (programs) and then evaluated.
This course will discuss the role evaluation plays in the policy cycle—
evaluation results provide necessary data to inform agenda setting and
policy formulation and evaluations are a critical component of
evaluating policies, providing accountability and informing future policy
and programs.

Phases in the Policy Cycle

Policy formulation:
 Problem identification
 Design – developing solutions and setting goals
 Dialogue/negotiations
 Transparent or non-transparent
Incentives for actors: patronage, public interest,

transcendence of management
Policy
Agenda setting Implementation Evaluation
formulation
As noted previously, a policy agenda is the list of issues to which an

organization is giving serious attention. Agenda setting is the process by
which certain issues came onto the policy agenda from the larger
number of issues.
One theoretical model for understanding agenda setting is the Hall

model. This model looks at the legitimacy, feasibility, and support for the
agenda.
The first steps in policy formulation are: (1) problem identification; (2)
designing/developing solutions; and (3) setting goals.
This process includes negotiation between actors; stronger policies are

made when there is effective coordination between actors. These can
include both formal and informal actors.
(Ask group for examples of both: [formal: executive, congress, courts,

bureaucracy, political parties; informal: social movements, industry,
media].)
The process of defining public policy can be either transparent or

nontransparent. Different actors will also have different levels of influence

based on the context. Incentives for actors include patronage systems,

public interest, and transcendence of management.
Each of the steps involves a number of actors. Each step may be

characterized by dialogues, negotiations, and power plays in reaching the
decision for action.
A decision has to be made on the criteria for decision-making. Evidence-

based decisions then gain legitimacy and become the norm and practice
in each of the four steps.

Successful Public Policy

To create strong policy, you must first:
1 2 3
Define the Gather Identify
problem evidence causes
6 5 4
Select best Develop Evaluate
solution solutions policy
7 8 9
Evaluate benefits Utilize the prince Develop political
and costs system strategies
Source: https://online.norwich.edu/academic-programs/masters/public-administration/resources/infographics/characteristics-of-successful-public-policy
What are the main features of what we could describe as public policies of
excellence?
• Evidence-based is among their main attributes; in general recognizing the
relevance of using broadly existing knowledge to support their approach
• Including, from the beginning, a perspective that takes costs into
consideration and the mechanism that would allow for the resources to
implement them
• Including an explicit comparison of the costs versus the benefits that are
expected
• Having an explicit design that is logical within itself but also with the broader
policy context and constraints
• Include the participation of all relevant stakeholders, with an explicit analysis
of their relevance, position, and leverage
• Timing to promote them that is adequate in terms of public priorities,
resources, overall context
• Clear process to implement, with each phase described
• Tools for implementation that are well established and operative And, very
relevant:
• Having defined indicators of success and an evaluation plan

Institutional Rational Choice

approach,
Various
Approaches Policy network approach,
and
Policy
Models Advocacy Coalition Framework and
Punctuated Equilibrium Approach
Uses of Models
The models we shall use in studying policy are conceptual models. These are word
models that try to
• Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy.
• Identify important aspects of policy problems.
• Help us to communicate with each other by focusing on essential features of political
life.
• Direct our efforts to understand public policy better by suggesting what is important
and what is
unimportant.
• Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its consequences.
These models are not competitive in the sense that any one of them could be judged
"best." Each one provides a separate focus on political life, and each can help us to
understand different things about public policy. Although some policies appear at first
glance to lend themselves to explanation by one particular model, most policies are a
combination of rational planning, incrementalism, interest group activity, elite
preferences, game playing, public choice, political processes, and institutional
influences.

Elite Model
C. Wright Mills
Traditional Model
Minority in Society
Heterogeneous
Group
Elite theory can be summarized briefly as follows:
• Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do not. Only a small
number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.
• The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn
disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata of society.
• The movement of nonelites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain
stability and avoid revolution. Only nonelites who have accepted the basic elite
consensus can be admitted to governing circles.
• Elites share consensus on behalf of the basic values of the social system and the
preservation of the system. In America, the bases of elite consensus are the sanctity of
private property, limited government, and individual liberty.
• Public policy does not reflect the demands of masses but rather the prevailing values
of the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.
• Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses.
Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.

Example
International Trade and Immigration: Elite-Mass Conflict
◦ CHANGING ELITE PREFERENCES FOR WORLD TRADE: Tariffs, Quotas,
Protectionism, Multilateralism.
◦ ELITE GAINS FROM TRADE: Comparative Advantage, Trade Benefit,
WTO, IMF, FTA, Anti-Dumping; Market Access, Investment and IPR
Protection.
◦ MASS LOSSES FROM TRADE: Inequality, Immigrant Surge, Cultural
Conflicts.
Civil Rights: Elite and Mass Interaction
◦ Affirmative Action, Remedies for past discrimination, Equal Opportunity.
The elite model portrays public policy as a reflection of the interests and values of elites.
The model does not necessarily require that elites and masses be locked in conflict-
conflict in which elites inevitably prevail at the expense of masses. Rather, the model
envisions elites determining the direction of public policy, with the masses largely
apathetic and poorly informed and/or heavily influenced by elite views. The model also
acknowledges that elites may choose to pursue "public regarding" policies that benefit
masses. Nonetheless, critics of the elite model often demand proof of elite-mass conflict
over public policy and the subsequent shaping of policy to reflect elite preferences over
mass well~ being. Indeed, critics often demand proof that elites knowingly pursue
policies that benefit themselves while hurting a majority of Americans. While this is not
a fair test of elite theory, there is ample evidence that on occasion elites do pursue
narrow, self-serving interests.
Race has been a central issue in American politics over the long history of the nation. In
describing this issue we have relied heavily on the elite model-because elite and mass
attitudes toward civil rights differ, and public policy appears to reflect the attitudes of
elites rather than masses. Civil rights policy is a response of a national elite to conditions
affecting a minority of Americans rather than a response of national leaders to majority
sentiments. Policies of the national elite in civil rights have met with varying degrees of
mass resistance at the state and local levels. We will contend that national policy has
shaped mass opinion more than mass opinion has shaped national policy.

Group Theory
Numerous groups
in the Society
Maximize their
Benefits.
Favours the
Dominant Group
Continue…..
In this view, some groups provide countervailing power to others—for

example, labor unions versus manufacturing interests —as they lobby
legislators and executive officials and appeal to the broader public through
issue advocacy campaigns. This balance helps to ensure that no one group
dominates the policy process. It is reasonable to assume, however, that the
groups with greater financial resources, recognition, access to
policymakers, and prestige are likely to have more influence than others. At
the opposite end of the spectrum are those people—such as the
poor and homeless—who are not well organized, lack significant political
resources, and are inadequately represented in the policymaking process.
The task of the political system is to manage group conflict by

1. establishing rules of the game in the group struggle,
2. arranging compromises and balancing interests,
3. enacting compromises in the form of public policy, and
4. enforcing these compromises.

Advocacy Coalition Framework Policy subsystem – a ‘set of actors’

including advocacy coalitions, ‘who are
involved in dealing with a policy problem’
(1988: 138; McCool, 1998).
Advocacy coalitions –‘people from a
variety of positions (elected and agency
officials, interest group leaders,
researchers) who share a particular belief
system – i.e. a set of basic values, causal
assumptions, and problem perceptions –
and who show a nontrivial degree of
coordinated activity over time’ (Sabatier,
1988: 139).
Policy brokers – the actors present within
many (not all) subsystems that seek to
minimize conflict and produce workable
compromises between advocacy coalitions.
Sovereign – the governmental authority or
ultimate decision-maker in a subsystem.
Continue…..
The advocacy coalition framework (ACF: Sabatier 1986; Sabatier & Jenkin-Smith 1988)
tells a simple story of policy action within a complex policymaking system. People
engage in politics to turn their beliefs into policy. As policy actors, they form advocacy
coalitions with actors who share their beliefs, and often compete with other coalitions.
The action takes place within a subsystem devoted to a specific policy issue, and a wider
policymaking environment that can influence the subsystem dynamic and provide
constraints and opportunities to policy actors. Things get more complicated when we
consider the scale of policy activity contained within such analysis. The policy process
contains multiple actors and levels of government. It displays a mixture of intensely
politicized disputes coupled with technical and routine policy learning.
• Relatively stable parameters are the factors that we would least expect to fluctuate
over a decade or so, such as the ‘social values’, ‘constitutional structure’, and
‘distribution of natural resources’.
• These stable parameters influence the system’s long term coalition opportunity
structures, which relate to the ‘societal cleavages’, ‘openness of the political system’
and ‘degree of consensus needed for major policy change’ in each system.
• Dynamic external events are more likely to fluctuate and have an impact on
subsystems, including socio-economic or technological change, a change in
government, or the impact from decisions made in other subsystems.
• These events and opportunity structures help facilitate the ‘short term opportunities’
that coalitions may exploit to reinforce their position or promote policy change.

Two Critical Path to Belief and Policy

Change
Policy Oriented Learning:
The ACF defines policy-oriented learning as "relatively enduring alternations of

thought or behavioral intentions that result from experience and/or new information
and that are concerned With the attainment or revision of policy objectives." The
capacity of policy-oriented learning to bring about belief and policy. change has been
hypothesized to vary depending on the level of the ACF's belief system.
External Perturbations or Shocks:
The ACF has also argued that a necessary but not sufficient condition for major policy
change within a subsystem is significant perturbations external to the policy
subsystem. Significant perturbations include changes in socioeconomic conditions,
regime change, outputs from other subsystems, or disaster. These external shocks can
shift agendas, focus public attention, and attract the attention of key decision-making
sovereigns.
Policy Oriented Learning

Deep core beliefs regard an actor’s ‘underlying personal philosophy’ about nature and
human nature. Examples include: whether people are evil or socially redeemable; how
we should rank values such as freedom and security; whose welfare should count the
most; and, the left/right wing divide.
Policy core beliefs regard ‘fundamental policy positions’ that relate to a specific
subsystem issue. They are some combination of ‘empirical’ (what is happening?) and
‘normative’ (what should happen?) Examples include: what causes this policy problem;
whether or not society can, and should attempt to, solve it; how a government should
solve it (‘policy core policy preferences’); the proper balance between the government
and market when solving this problem; and the proper distribution of power across
levels of government
External Perturbations or Shocks.
The most important effect of external shock is the redistribution of resources or opening
and closing venues within a policy subsystem, which can lead to the replacement of the
previously dominant coalition by a minority coalition. External shocks might also change
components of the policy core beliefs of a dominant advocacy coalition.
For example, during an economic recession, a pro-regulatory coalition may
reconsider any adverse economic effects on target populations from stringent
controls. The causal links between an external shock and policy change is an
ongoing effort among some ACF Scholars.

Example
Education: Group Struggles
Parents
Students & Assessment Standards
Citizen & Literacy
Institutions
Teachers & Performance.
Enrolment and Dropouts.
Tax Policy: Battling Special Interests,
Continue…..
Perhaps the most widely recommended "solution" to the problems that confront
American society is more and better schooling. If there ever was a time when schools
were expected only to combat ignorance and illiteracy, that time is far behind us. Today,
schools are expected to do many things: resolve racial conflict and inspire respect for
"diversity"; provide values, aspirations, and a sense of identity to disadvantaged
children; offer various forms of recreation and mass entertainment (football games,
bands, choruses, cheerleading, and the like); reduce conflict in society by teaching
children to get along well with others and to adjust to group living; reduce the highway
accident toll by teaching students to be good drivers; fight disease and poor health
through physical education, health training, and even medical treatment; eliminate
unemployment and poverty by teaching job skills; end malnutrition and hunger through
school breakfast, lunch, and milk programs; fight drug abuse and educate children about
sex; and act as custodians for teenagers who have no interest in education but whom we
do not permit either to work or to roam the streets unsupervised. In other words, nearly
all the nation's problems are reflected in demands placed on the nation's schools. And,
of course, these demands are frequently conflicting.

Institutional
Model
Policy originates from

Government
Organization.
Structural Change
brings Policy Change.
Universalistic in its
Approach.
Institutional models look at the ways governments are arranged, their legal powers, and
their rules for decision making. These rules include basic characteristics such as the
degree of access to decision making provided to the public, the availability of
information from government agencies, and the sharing of authority between the
national and state governments under federalism.
The term institution can have many meanings. It refers to “both the organizations and
the rules used to structure patterns of interaction within and across organizations”.
Therefore, in addition to a focus on organizations such as legislatures, courts, or
bureaucracies, the term encompasses how people within organizations relate to one
another and to those in other organizations—that is, the rules that govern their
behavior.
The Constitution of India establishes the fundamental institutional structure for

policymaking. It is "the supreme Law of the Land". Its key structural components-
separation of powers and checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and
judicial branches of the national government-together with federalism--dividing power
between the nation and the states-were designed by the Founders in part "to form a
more perfect Union.“

Schools of institutionalism
Nicholas Henry has identified two schools of institutionalism. These are ‘old
institutionalism’ and the ‘new institutionalism’. Old institutionalism is of 19th century
vintage whereas the new institutionalism is the twentieth century phenomenon. Old
institutionalism is descriptive and focuses on formal institutions where as new
institutionalism is explanatory and focuses on informal political institutions and
behavioural aspects. Carl J. Frederich subscribes to old institutionalism while Theodore
Lowi is a proponent of new institutionalism.
Focus of Institutionalism
Institutional approach seeks to understand public policies as well as politics focusing on

the following aspects of government institutions.
1. Organisational structures of government institutions.
2. Functions of government institutions, both official/formal and unofficial/informal
3. Processes of government such as policy formulation, policy implementation policy
adjudication, interest articulation, interest aggregation and interest assertion etc.
4. Behaviour of people within governmental institutions.
5. Interrelations between various individuals and organizations both formal and informal.
The institutional model of public policy is presented in the following diagram. This
diagram seeks to capture the key institutions in the public policy making in India.
According to this model the constitution of India provides the fundamental framework to
which all public policies in India have to conform. It also implies that public policy making
is a multi-institutional exercise involving the Government of India, State Government,
Union Territory administrations and independent or autonomous government
establishments mentioned in the diagram. The policy making is mainly, but not
exclusively, done by the legislative and executive branches. Further, policy making also
involves several informal institutions such as the political passes, pressure groups, Elite,
Media, academia and so on. Furthermore there are also some inter- governmental and
global organizations such as the UNO, World Bank, IMF, WTO and the like which impact
on the public policy making. The following chart gives an idea of the configuration of
government institutions in India.

Example1
Federalism and State Policies: Institutional Arrangements and Policy
Variations
Virtually all nations of the world have some units of local government-states, provinces,
regions, cities, counties, towns, villages. Decentralization of policymaking is required
almost everywhere. But nations are not truly federal unless both national and
subnational governments exercise separate and autonomous authority, both elect their
own officials, and both tax their own citizens for the provision of public services.
Moreover, federalism requires the powers of the national and subnational governments
to be guaranteed by a constitution that cannot be changed without the consent of both
national and subnational populations.*
Protection Against Tyranny, Policy Diversity, Conflict Management, Dispersal of Power,

Increased Participation, Improved Efficiency, Ensuring Policy Responsiveness,
Encouraging Policy Innovation.
Institutional Arenas and Policy Preferences, Concentrating Benefits to Organized

Interests, Dispersing Costs to Unorganized Taxpayers.

Criticism on
Institutional
Approach
The institutional model helps us to
understand the role of various
governmental organizations in the
policy process. With this approach,
we can understand how government
institutions play a key role in the
policy process. There are also several
criticisms against the institutional
model or approach to public policy
analysis.
Institutionalism is termed by
Nakamura (1987) as the “text-book
approach”. A text-book approach,
here means that it is an approach or
model not based on practical realities.
Institutionalism tends to focus excessively or solely on formal political institutions. On

the other hand, the forces outside the official government structures shape the policy
process along with the wider political process.
Some critics would argue that institutionalism as a model of public policy ignores the
insights of several alternate policy analysis models such as incrementalism, elite theory,
pressure group theory, systems theory etcetera.
This model, in its bid to locate policy making in powerful institutions, ignores the
influence of individuals and leaders like Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr B R
Ambedkar, Narendra Modi and the like on the public policy making in India.
The term “institution” refers to many different types of entities, including both
organizations and the rules used to structure patterns of interaction within and across
organizations. Although the buildings in which organized entities are located are quite
visible, institutions themselves are invisible.
To develop a coherent approach to studying diverse types of institutional arrangements,

including markets, hierarchies, firms, families, voluntary associations, national
governments, and international regimes, one needs multiple inputs from diverse
disciplines.

Rational Choice
Theory
Root Model
Absolute Rationality
Heuristic “One Best
Way”
Prescriptive and
Universalistic.
State is bounded by the
Total Situation (Barnard)
Rational choice theory, also called public choice and formal theory, draws
heavily from economics, especially microeconomic theory, and often uses
elaborate mathematical modeling. A highly developed and rigorous theory,
rational choice has been widely applied to questions of public policy. The
theory suggests that analysts consider what individuals' value, how they
perceive a given situation, the information they have about it, various
uncertainties that might affect the outcome, and how a particular context
or the expectations of others—for example, rules and norms—might affect
their actions. The goal is to deduce or predict how individuals will behave
under a variety of conditions.
Constraints to Rationality
1. Accomplishing Goals.
2. Securing Optimization.
3. Conflict between Rational Choice and Need for Actions.
4. Dilemma of Political Feasibility.
5. Problem of Cost Benefit Analysis.
6. Nature and Environment of Bureaucracy.

Rational Policy Model
Simon’s Bounder Rationality: The idea of bounded rationality, developed by Herbert

Simon, suggests that searching for all possible policy options and information is
impossible. It means that policymakers have to constantly filter out what to
focus and what to ignore. Under bounded rationality, cognitive biases and
institutional friction, policymakers process information disproportionately and
that results in a series of positive and negative feedbacks in the policy process.
The limits of rationality are the central theme that is addressed in this document.
Rationality requires a choice between all possible alternative behaviors, in reality
only a few of those alternatives come to mind. Complete rationality is "bounded" by
the lack of knowledge.
For example, US economists say that to persuade individuals to significantly reduce their
fuel consumption would take a hike in the gasoline tax of fifty cents or more per gallon.
Anything less would likely not alter the consumers’ behavior because they would see the
incentive as too small to make a difference in their personal welfare. Recent fluctuations
in gasoline prices, although not tax related, seem to support this idea. As gas prices
increased and passed four dollars per gallon in many places a few years ago, people
turned more to mass transit, bicycles, car pools, and more efficient automobiles to get
around. But when gasoline prices plummeted in 2015 and 2016 because of a global oil
surplus, people not only returned to their cars; they began purchasing large and
inefficient sport utility vehicles once again.

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that developed from the

study of taxation and public spending. It emerged in the fifties and
received widespread public attention in 1986, when James Buchanan,
one of its two leading architects (the other was his colleague Gordon
Tullock), was awarded the Nobel Prize in economics. Buchanan started
the Center for Study of Public Choice at George Mason University, and
it remains the best-known locus of public choice research.
Public choice takes the same principles that economists use to analyze
people's actions in the marketplace and applies them to people's
actions in collective decision making. Economists who study behavior
in the private marketplace assume that people are motivated mainly
by self-interest.
In the past many economists have argued that the way to rein in
"market failures" such as monopolies is to introduce government
action. But public choice economists point out that there also is such a
thing as "government failure." That is, there are reasons why
government intervention does not achieve the desired effect.

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that developed from the study of taxation
and public spending. Alternatively, one could trace out the predecessors to
contemporary public choice theory. They include Borda and Condorcet’s rational choice-
based analysis of alternative voting rules which came out some time before the French
Revolution. The alternative voting rules by politicians in Europe in 19th century and
political theorists like Thomas Hare, Victor D’Hondt and Charles Dodgson focused on
contemplation of constitutional. Public Choice approach emerged in the fifties and
received widespread public attention in 1986, when James Buchanan, one of its two
leading architects and the other was his colleague Gordon Tullock was awarded the
Nobel Prize in economics. Buchanan started the Centre for Study of Public Choice at
George Mason University, and it has been the best-known centre of public choice
research. Other well-known institutions are Florida State University, Washington
University (St. Louis), Montana State University, the California Institute of Technology,
and the University of Rochester.

EXAMPLES for RATIONAL

POLICY APPROACH
Welfare: The Search for

Rational Strategies
A rational approach to social welfare policy requires a clear definition of objectives, the
development of alternative strategies for achieving them, and a careful comparison and
weighing of the costs and benefits of each.
Examples:
Criminal Justice: Rationality and Irrationality in Public Policy
Crime is a central problem confronting any society. The rational strategy of crime fighting
is known as deterrence. The goal of deterrence is to make the costs of committing
crimes far greater than any benefits potential criminals might derive from their acts.
With advanced knowledge of these costs, rational individuals should be deterred from
committing crimes.
Measuring Crime, Trends in Crime Rates, Victimization, Juvenile Crime, White-Collar

Crime, Corruption, Hate-Crime
Social Heterogeneity, Socialization & Control, Deterrence, Law Enforcement, Public-

Police Interaction, Remedial Measure, Punishments.
Health Care: Attempting a Rational-Comprehensive Transformation

The first lesson in health policy is understanding that good medical care does not
necessarily mean good health. Good health correlates best with factors over which
doctors and hospitals have no control: heredity, lifestyle (smoking, obesity, drinking,
exercise, worry), and the physical environment (sewage disposal, water quality,
conditions of work, and so forth). Most of the bad things that happen to people's health
are beyond the reach of doctors and hospitals. In the long run, infant mortality, sickness
and disease, and life span are affected very little by the quality of medical care.
Leading Causes of Death, Costs & Benefits, Ageing Population, Health care system, Health
Care workers, Patient's Rights, Affordable Drugs, Insurance Policy, Medical Aide and
Standards.
Energy and the Environment: Externalities and Interests,
All human activity produces waste. As soon as we come to understand that we cannot
outlaw pollution and come to see pollution as a cost of human activity, we can begin to
devise creative environmental policies.
Environmental Externalities (Third Party Impacts: Solid Waste Disposals, Hazardous

Waste, Air & Water Pollution), Cost of Regulations, Laws and Enforcement Agencies,
Interest Group and Public Welfare, International Conventions & Protocols, Energy &
Environmental Policies, Carbon Emission and Carbon Credits.

System Theory
David Easton
Black Box
Policy as a product
of Political Process.
Throughput and
Within-puts.
Absolute
Rationality
Political systems theory is more comprehensive, but also more general, than the other
theories. It stresses the way the political system (the institutions and activities of
government) responds to demands that arise from its environment, such as the public
opinion and interest group pressures. Systems theory emphasizes the larger social,
economic, and cultural context in which political decisions and policy choices are made,
such as a general preference for limited government or low taxes.
Systems theory is a formal way to think about the interrelationships of institutions and
policy actors and the role of the larger environment. It also supplies some useful terms,
such as input, demands, support, policy outputs, policy outcomes, and feedback. In
systems theory, these terms operate in formal models. Input into the political system
comes from demands and support. Demands are the claims individuals and groups
seeking to further their interests and values make on the political system.
In this theory, the political system responds to demands and support in the process of
policymaking and produces outputs (decisions, law, and policies) that over time may
create real changes (called policy outcomes) in the situations that prompted the
demands and support in the first place. Systems models incorporate yet another
element—feedback from these kinds of outputs and outcomes—that can alter the
environment and create new demands or support.

Example
Centre – State relationship and Policy Outcomes:
Federal setup of Indian Administration
In this theory, the political system responds to demands and support in the process of
policymaking and produces outputs (decisions, law, and policies) that over time may
create real changes (called policy outcomes) in the situations that prompted the
demands and support in the first place. Systems models incorporate yet another
element—feedback from these kinds of outputs and outcomes—that can alter the
environment and create new demands or support. An example is strong public support
for additional policies to protect nonsmokers, such as bans on smoking in restaurants
and bars, which followed other antismoking policies over the past four decades. In this
example, an important policy outcome is that exposure of nonsmokers to dangerous
secondhand smoke was reduced.
Systems theory is a simple way to portray how governments respond to society’s

demands on them. It proposes an almost biological model of politics suggesting that
governments and public officials react to the political climate much as organisms
respond to environmental stimuli. As the environment changes—for example, the
economy deteriorates or the public becomes distressed with crime rates or corporate
malfeasance— individuals and groups are moved to make demands on government to
deal with the situation. Once government acts, the system readjusts in light of the
particular decisions and their effects.

Science of
Muddling Through
Charles Lindblom
Critical of Rational
Model.
Branch Model –
Marginal
Incrementalism.
Strategic Public Policy
Model
Criticised to be
inherently conservative
Incremental Model (1959) - Continuation of Past Policies.

Root Method (Comprehensive Rationality) – Advocated by Simon
Branch Method (Successive limited comparisons) – continually building out form the
current situation, step-by-step and by small degree.
Muddling through Experience & Intuition.
Stability of Political System
Merits:
Simplicity,
Flexibility,
Less Disruption, and
Consultative
Demerits:
Limited Alternatives
Poor Quality
No Radial Shift

Still Muddling Through (1979)

Analytical Incrementalism – Partition – Mutual Adjustment Model.
Improved Strategic Policy Making – Incrementalism as POLITICLA PATTERN and as

POLICY ANALYSIS.
Three main form of Incremental Analysis.
1. Simple Incremental Analysis: Alternative policies of marginal difference are analysed.
2. Strategic Analysis: Trail & Error, Operations Research, MBO, Programme Evaluation,
Review Technique.
3. Disjointed Incrementalism: Continuum of understanding and scale of change,
Consensus of different stakeholders, cooperation, and Better Implementation.
Partition –Mutual Adjustment Model

Democratic and Practical Alternative to centralized hierarchical controls.
Alternative to Rational Policy Model.
Focus on Adjustment and Compromise.

Example
ECONOMIC POLICY:
CHALLENGING
INCREMENTALISM
Traditionally, fiscal and monetary policies were made

incrementally; that is, decision makers concentrated their
attention on modest changes-increases or decreases-in
existing taxing, spending, and deficit levels, as well as the
money supply and interest rates. Incrementalism was
especially pervasive in annual federal budget making. The
president and Congress did not reconsider the value of all
existing programs each year or pay much attention to
previously established expenditure levels. Rather last year's
expenditures were considered as a base of spending for
each program; active consideration of the budget focused
on new items or increases over last year's base.

Normative Optimal
Model
Yehezekel Dror (1969)

Alternative Model
 Need for Rationality (in Simon’s
Definition)
 Need for introduction of
Management Techniques for enhancing
rationality of decision-making at low
level;
 Policy Science Approach (in Lasswell’s
term) for dealing with complex problems
requiring decisions at the higher levels;
and
 Need to take account of values and
irrational elements in decision making;
Core dimension of Decision Making (e.g. Cost-Benefit measurement)

Extra- Rational dimensions of Decision Making (Motive to maximize effort for better
policies) – based on tacit knowledge & experience.
Complex model of 18 Stages (under 3 heads)
Meta Policy-making Stage
Processing Value, Processing reality, Processing Problems.
Surveying, Processing and Developing resources, Design, Evaluation and
redesigning the policy making system;
Allocating Problems, values and resources.
Determining policy-making strategy.
Policy-making Stage
Sub-allocating resources.
Establishing operational goals (with priorities)
Set of alternative policies.
Preparing reliable predication of cost and benefits.
Post-Policy-making Stage
Motivating the execution
Executing
Evaluation
Communication & Feedback

Mixed Approach
Hogwood &
Gunn
What is public policy? Hogwood and Gunn
(1984)
identify different ways to understand ‘policy’:
as a label for a field of activity (e.g. health
policy);
an expression of intent (e.g. ‘we will improve
healthcare’);
specific proposals (e.g. a manifesto or white
paper);
decisions of government and the formal Application of two approaches
authorization of decisions (e.g. legislation);
1. Technique-oriented
a programme, or package of legislation, Approach.
staffing and funding; intermediate and
ultimate outputs (e.g. more doctors, better 2. Political-Process Approach
medical care);
outcomes, or what is actually achieved
(better societal health); and a process and
series of decisions, not an event and single
decision.
What Is the Delphi Method?

The Delphi method is a forecasting process framework based on the results of multiple
rounds of questionnaires sent to a panel of experts. Several rounds of questionnaires are
sent out to the group of experts, and the anonymous responses are aggregated and
shared with the group after each round. The experts are allowed to adjust their answers
in subsequent rounds, based on how they interpret the "group response" that has been
provided to them. Since multiple rounds of questions are asked and the panel is told
what the group thinks as a whole, the Delphi method seeks to reach the correct
response through consensus.

Organizational Process
Model/ Bureaucratic
Politics Model
Graham Tillet Allison
Rational Actor Model

Organizational Process
Model
Government Politics
Model
Rational Actor Model: Governments are treated as the primary actor. The government
examines a set of goals, evaluates them according to their utility, then picks the one that
has the highest "payoff.“ Organizational Process Model: When faced with a crisis,
government leaders don't look at it as a whole, but break it down and assign it according
to pre-established organizational lines. Because of time and resource limitations, rather
than evaluating all possible courses of action to see which one is most likely to work,
leaders settle on the first proposal that adequately addresses the issue, which Simon
termed "satisficing.“ Leaders gravitate towards solutions that limit short-term
uncertainty (emphasis on "short-term").Organizations follow set "repertoires" and
procedures when taking actions. Because of the large resources and time required to
fully plan and mobilize actions within a large organization (or government), leaders are
effectively limited to pre-existing plans. Government Politics Model: A nation's actions
are best understood as the result of politicking and negotiation by its top leaders. Even if
they share a goal, leaders differ in how to achieve it because of such factors as personal
interests and background. Leaders have different levels of power based on charisma,
personality, skills of persuasion, and personal ties to decision-makers. If a leader is
certain enough, they will not seek input from their advisors, but rather, approval.
Likewise, if a leader has already implicitly decided on a particular course of action, an
advisor wishing to have influence must work within the framework of the decision the
leader has already made. If a leader fails to reach a consensus with his inner circle (or, at
least, the appearance of a consensus), opponents may take advantage of these

disagreements. Therefore, effective leaders must create a consensus. Because of the

possibilities of miscommunication, misunderstandings, and downright disagreements,
different leaders may take actions that the group as a whole would not approve of.

Game Theory
Model
Strategic Decision
Making
Mathematical Model of
Conflict and
Cooperation
Competition and
Bargaining of Interest
Groups.
Example:
Prisoner’s Dilemma:
Merril Flood and Melvin
Dresher.
Albert W. Tucker.
Most of today's public policies are formulated and implemented in multi-actor

networks. Game theory has long been around as a method that supports a careful
analysis of interaction processes among actors. So far, it has not been widely applied in
the evaluation field. Currently, the policy networks is one of the most promising
approaches to studying of public policy, however, there are drawbacks. For this reason,
this study proposes to combine policy networks with coalitional game theory to create
an interdisciplinary model. Because, with the appearance of cooperation as new way of
communication, the need to analyze the behavior and interactions of decentralized
structures with the government, as well as analysis of the impact of such networks on
the process of developing and implementing solutions becomes apparent. Using of such
a model will allow the actors to develop effective strategies for conflict resolution and
will allow more accurately analyze the interaction of a large number of both state and
non-state actors who share common goals and interests. The study proved that the
model can be used to predict the behavior of actors, depending on whether they have
the determining characteristics and resources.
Game Theory can be defined as “part of the theory of management, in which explores
the problems of existence and finding the optimal control in the conflict conditions (in
terms of the collision of the parties, each of which seeks to influence the development
of the conflict in their own interests).”

Game-theoretic approach to network research allows us not only to consider the

situation from different perspectives, but also to develop a Pareto-optimal strategies, that
will meet the participants of the communication process and will allow the state and non-
state actors to reach a new level of relations, taking into account all available resources,
interests and possible winnings.

Example
Defense Policy: Strategies
for Serious Games
Game theory provides an interesting way of thinking about defense policy. The defense
policies of major world powers are interdependent. Each nation must adjust its own
defense policies to reflect not only its own national objectives but also its expectations
of what other powers may do. Outcomes depend on the combination of choices made in
world capitals. Moreover, it is not unreasonable to assume that nations strive for
rationality in defense policymaking. Nations choose defense strategies (policies) that are
designed to achieve an optimum payoff even after considering all their opponents'
possible strategies. Thus, national defense policymaking conforms to basic game theory
notions. Our use of game theory is limited, however, to suggesting interesting questions,
posing dilemmas, and providing a vocabulary for dealing with policy making in a
competitive, interdependent world.
Game Theory can be defined as “part of the theory of management, in which explores
the problems of existence and finding the optimal control in the conflict conditions (in
terms of the collision of the parties, each of which seeks to influence the development
of the conflict in their own interests).”
In the political science, the Game Theory has been used to predict election results,
determining the optimal electoral platform of a political party with a known political
spectrum voters, for analysis of political coalition and for analysis of decision-making in
the collective bodies (including quotas).

Public Choice
Approach
Public choice theory is often used to explain how political decision-making results in
outcomes that conflict with the preferences of the general public. For example,
many advocacy group and pork barrel projects are not the desire of the
overall democracy. However, it makes sense for politicians to support these projects. It
may make them feel powerful and important. It can also benefit them financially by
opening the door to future wealth as lobbyists. The project may be of interest to the
politician's local constituency, increasing district votes or campaign contributions. The
politician pays little or no cost to gain these benefits, as he is spending public money.
Special-interest lobbyists are also behaving rationally. They can gain government favors
worth millions or billions for relatively small investments. They face a risk of losing out to
their competitors if they don't seek these favors. The taxpayer is also behaving rationally.
The cost of defeating any one government give-away is very high, while the benefits to
the individual taxpayer are very small. Each citizen pays only a few pennies or a few
dollars for any given government favor, while the costs of ending that favor would be
many times higher.

Policy Process
Model
Agenda setting
Policy formulation
Policy legitimation
Policy
implementation
Policy and program
evaluation
Policy change
The Policy Process

• Problem Identification. The identification of policy problems through demand from
individuals and groups for government action.
• Agenda Setting. Focusing the attention of the mass media and public officials on
specific public problems to decide what will be decided.
• Policy Formulation. The development of policy proposals by interest groups, White
House staff, congressional committees, and think tanks.
• Policy Legitimation. The selection and enactment of policies through actions by
Congress, the president, and the courts.
• Policy Implementation. The implementation of policies through government
bureaucracies, public expenditures, regulations, and other activities of executive
agencies.
• Policy Evaluation. The evaluation of policies by government agencies themselves,
outside consultants, the media, and the general public.
The process model is useful in helping us to understand the various activities involved in
policymaking. We want to keep in mind that policymaking involves agenda setting
(capturing
the attention of policymakers), formulating proposals (devising and selecting policy
options), legitimating policy (developing political support; winning congressional,

presidential, or court approval), implementing policy (creating bureaucracies, spending

money, enforcing laws), and evaluating policy (finding out whether policies work,
whether they are popular).

Week 2
UNIT- I: Theoretical Perspectives
P O LIC Y C Y C LE FR A M E W O R K
P OL I C Y P R O C E S S N E T W O R K
P O LIT IC A L FE A S IB ILIT Y
Policy network analysis is a field of research in political science focusing on the links and
interdependence between government's sections and other societal actors, aiming to
understand the policy-making process and public policy outcomes.
Policy communities vs. Issue networks:

The most widely used paradigm of the 1970s and 1980s only analyzed two specific types
of policy networks: policy communities and issue networks. Justifications of the usage of
these concepts were deduced from empirical case studies.
Policy Communities in which you refer to relatively slowly changing networks defining
the context of policy-making in specific policy segments. The network links are generally
perceived as the relational ties between bureaucrats, politicians and interest groups. The
main characteristic of policy communities – compared to issue networks – is that the
boundaries of the networks are more stable and more clearly defined. This concept was
studied in the context of policy-making in the United Kingdom.
In contrast, issue networks – a concept established in literature about United States

government - refer to a looser system, where a relatively large number of stakeholders
are involved. Non-government actors in these networks usually include not only interest
group representatives but also professional or academic experts. An important
characteristic of issue network is that membership is constantly changing,

interdependence is often asymmetric and – compared to policy communities – it is

harder to identify dominant actors.
As the field of policy network analysis grew since the late 20th century, scholars
developed competing descriptive, theoretical and prescriptive accounts. Each type
gives different specific content for the term policy network and uses different
research methodologies.

Example
The Policymaking
Process: Decision-
Making Activities
Policy Evaluation:
Finding Out What
Happens After a
Law Is Passed.
Policy evaluation is learning about the consequences of public policy. Other, more
complex, definitions have been offered: "Policy evaluation is the assessment of the
overall effectiveness of a national program in meeting its objectives, or assessment of
the relative effectiveness of two or more programs in meeting common objectives.
"1 "Policy evaluation research is the objective, systematic, empirical examination of the
effects ongoing policies and public programs have on their targets in terms of the goals
they are meant to achieve.
"2” Some definitions tie evaluation to the stated "goals" of a program or policy. But since
we do not always know what these "goals" really are, and because we know that some
programs and policies pursue conflicting "goals," we will not limit our notion of policy
evaluation to their achievement. Instead, we will concern ourselves with all of the
consequences of public policy, that is, with "policy impact.“
The impact of a policy is all its effects on real,world conditions, including:

• Impact on the target situation or group
• Impact on situations or groups other than the target (spillover effects)
• Impact on future as well as immediate conditions
• Direct costs, in terms of resources devoted to the program
• Indirect costs, including loss of opportunities to do other things

Policy Formulation
Policy Legitimation
Policy
Implementation
Policy Evaluation
Policy Change
Policy Typology
The stage logically next to the agenda setting is the policy formulation stage. Policy
formulation should not be confused with policy making. The former (policy formulation)
is just one stage of the broader process of policymaking whereas policy making is a
wider process covering stage one to stage seven.
According to James Anderson there are four stages in policy formulation. They are; 1)
problem identification,2) putting the problem identified on the policy agenda, 3)
formulating the alternative proposals to deal with the problem and identifying the best
alternative, and 4) making the policy decision.
The formal participants in the policy process are not free agents. They have to weigh the
pros and cons of various policy options before arriving at policy decisions. They also
have their own conscious or unconscious preferences, predilections, reservations and
interests in taking policy decisions. They have to contend with unlimited problems,
competing demands and limited resources. Thus, policy formulation is a complex process
and the policy formulators are not free agents.

Policy
Formulation &
Legitimisation
Understanding Public Policy

Thomas Dye
The policies are initially formulated in a draft form as

legislative proposals, Bills, policy dossiers or white papers.
Later they become Acts, Constitutional amendments,
Statutes or Ordinances when they go through the due
process of law making.
All public policies that are formulated may not get

implemented. Some may be implemented, some may be
partially implemented and some may be totally left
unimplemented. Successful implementation requires policy
legitimacy or legitimation. Policy legitimacy or
legitimization is the process of winning popular
acceptability for the policies. It is also called policy
validation. Policies gain legitimacy when people welcome

policies as those made with their good and welfare in mind.
There are several ways and means of policy legitimation.

They are consensus building, publicity campaigns, using
mass media, engaging social media, organising public
meetings, establishing mass contacts, using websites and
party cadres to reach out to people are a few of these.

Policy Implementation
& Evaluation
Policy implementation in modern democracies, including India, is typically the job of the
Political Executive. The Political Executive (Ministry) implements the policies with the
help of bureaucracy or civil services. At the highest level of government there are
various ministries, departments, directorates and bureaus that deal with the
implementation of policies of the government. The real implementation of public
policies in India however happens at the level of the district and below (Division, Taluk,
Mandal, Village/Town or City). The district is headed by the District Collector upon
whom the major burden of implementation falls. All departments of government at the
district level - Central, State and local – directly or indirectly- work under his or her
supervision, direction or control. The Central government policies are also largely
implemented at the district level.
Policy formulation is one thing and its implementation is another. The latter is a more
formidable thing. As was mentioned earlier not all public policies that are adopted by
the legislatures or other appropriate public bodies are implemented. Some of them
cannot be implemented for various reasons. There is, many times, a lag or gap between
the policy intent and policy effect due to problems in implementation. Prominent
scholar of comparative politics Fred W. Riggs calls this gap as ‘formalism’. He also says
that this gap is a peculiar feature of the developing countries like India.

Policy Typology
Approaches to implementation: There are different approaches to policy

implementation. They are:
1) Top- down or centralized approach
2) Bottom-up or decentralized approach
3) Managerial or business-like approach.
Prerequisites for successful implementation: From the earlier studies on policy

evaluation it is found that there are certain prerequisites for effective implementation of
public policies.
These prerequisites can be summarized as follows:
1. Political commitment at the highest level i.e., at the level of the Chief Minister or the
Prime Minister.
2. Policy legitimacy backed by favourable public opinion or the popularity or popular
appeal of the policy.
3. Broad political consensus across the political spectrum regarding the desirability of a
policy.
4. Availability of financial resources and their timely release to the implementing
agencies.
5. Alignment of public policy with other policy processes or its congruity and consistency

with already existing public policies. This secures the advantage of synergetic effect.
6. Partnership building with or co-optation of other collateral agencies.
7. Proper evaluation and the timely feedback of the evaluation findings to the policy
making and implementing agencies.
8. Well-oiled and clear institutional anchorage and clarity regarding the machinery
responsible for the policy implementation are also important.
9. Proper ground work by government like issuing necessary executive orders (GOs),
setting realistic targets, allocating needed funds, assessing the progress of
implementation from time to time, coordinating and trouble-shooting.

Theodore Lowi (1964)

Policy Classification by Objective
The American political scientist Theodore J. Lowi proposed four types of policy,
namely distributive, redistributive, regulatory and constituent in his article "Four
Systems of Policy, Politics and Choice" and in "American Business, Public Policy, Case
Studies and Political Theory". Policy addresses the intent of the organization, whether
government, business, professional, or voluntary. Policy is intended to affect the "real"
world, by guiding the decisions that are made. Whether they are formally written or not,
most organizations have identified policies.

Distributive
policies
Distributive policies extend goods and services to members of an organization, as well as

distributing the costs of the goods/services amongst the members of the organization.
Examples include government policies that impact spending for welfare, public
education, highways, and public safety, or a professional organization's policy on
membership training.

Regulatory
policies
Regulatory policies, or mandates, limit the discretion of individuals and agencies, or

otherwise compel certain types of behavior. These policies are generally thought to be
best applied in situations where good behavior can be easily defined, and bad behavior
can be easily regulated and punished through fines or sanctions. An example of a fairly
successful public regulatory policy is that of a speed limit.

Protective
Policy
Criminal justice policy is public policy that addresses criminal justice needs and
problems. As criminal justice involves so many issues, actors, organizations, and systems,
criminal justice policy is complex and quite broad. It involves rules, regulations,
procedures, programs, strategies, and decisions at the federal, state, and local levels and
involves the police, courts, corrections, private agencies, criminal offenders, victims, and
the public. Criminal justice policies have different aims. Some of them are designed to
improve or deliver justice for defendants, offenders, and victims.

Redistributive
Policy
Redistributive policies involce deliberate efforts by the government to shift the allocatio
of wealth, income, property or rights among broad classes or groups of the population,
such as haves and have-notes etc.
Redistributive policies are difficult to enact because they involce the reallocation of
money, rights, or power. Ex: Progressive Taxation, Social Welfare policy, Health Care
Policy, Civil Rights Policy.

Harrold D Lasswell
Harold Lasswell and others expected Policy Sciences to replace traditional political
studies, integrating the study of political theory and political practices without falling
into the sterility of formal legal studies. Lasswell proposed that the policy science had
three distinct characteristics :
Multi-disciplinary
Problem Solving
Explicitly Normative – not cloaked in the guise of scientific objectivity.
However, the passage of time has led to some changes in the three specific components
of the policy orientation. First - While emphasis on multi-disciplinary approach remains,
policy science is much more a discipline by itself with a unique set of concepts,
concerns, and a vocabulary and terminology all of its own. Second the virtually exclusive
concern of many policy makers with concrete problem solving has waned as government
often proved intractable and resistant to expert advice.
The call for policy sciences to remain explicitly normative also changed over time. Yet,
most policy scholars have refused to exclude values from their analysis and have insisted
upon evaluating both the goals and the means of policy. More emphasis of late on
efficiency or effectiveness in achieving stated goals. Question of associating policy
sciences with an era of unrealised hopes and expectations for social engineering and
government planning. This criticism is to some extent justified and should serve as a
warning against premature or ill founded prescriptions or excessive conceptual
sophistry. However, this should not be taken as a rejection of the need to undertake
systematic study of government action.

Public Policy: Set of Interrelated Decision
Thomas Dye defines public policy as “Anything a Government chooses to do or not to

do”. This formulation is perhaps too simple and fails to provide the means for
conceptualising public policy. It would include as public policy every aspect of
governmental behaviour from purchasing or failing to purchase paper clips to waging or
failing to wage nuclear war. Further there might be a divergence between what
governments decide to do and what they actually do.
William Jenkins defines public policy as “ a set of interrelated decisions taken by a

political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of
achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle,
be within the power of those actors to achieve.” Jenkins views public policy as a process
unlike Dye who defines it as a choice (which presumes the existence of an underlying
process but does not state that explicitly. Jenkins also explicitly acknowledges that public
policy is a ‘set of interrelated decisions”. Jenkins also improves upon Dye by suggesting
that the question of a government’s capacity to implement its decisions is also
significant. Internal and external constraints on government make public policy difficult.
Jenkins also introduced the idea of public policy making as goal-oriented behaviour on
the part of the Government, an idea which provides a standard by which to evaluate
public policies. This says nothing about the nature of the goals or the means to achieve
it provides several avenues for evaluating policies which are missing from Dye’s
definition. These include the relevance of the goal, the congruence of the goals and
means and the degree to which means succeed in reaching the goals.

Carl Friedrich defines public policy as “ … a proposed course of action of a person, group,
or government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which
the policy was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realise an
objective or a purpose.” Friedrich adds the requirement that policy is directed toward
the accomplishment of some purpose or goal. Goal and purpose may not always be easy
to discern.
James Anderson defines public policy as “a purposive course of action followed by an

actor or a set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern”. Two important
additions namely : it notes that policy decisions are often taken by sets of actors rather
than a sole set or actor within a government. Policies are often the result of not only
multiple decisions but of multiple decisions taken by multiple decision makers.
Anderson’s definition highlights the link between government action and the perception,
real or otherwise, of the existence of a problem or concern requiring action.

All illustrate that studying public policy is a complex task because
Mere description is not sufficient.
Dependence on government record does not provide information about potential

choices or choices not made.
Records of decisions do not reflect the unencumbered will of government decision

makers.
It would be well to spell out some of the implications of our concept of public policy.
These are purposive and goal oriented rather than random or chance behaviour.
Policy consists of courses or pattern of action by governmental officials rather than

their separate discrete decisions. Policy is what governments actually do in regulating
trade, controlling inflation, or promoting public housing not what they intend to do or say
they are going to do.
Public Policy may be either positive or negative. Positive may involve some form of
overt government action to affect a particular problem, Negatively, it involves a decision
by government officials not to take action or to do nothing. Public policy, at least in its
positive form, is based on law and is authoritative. Members accept it as legitimate.
The special characteristics of public policies stem from the fact that they are formulated
by what David Easton has called the ‘authorities’ in a political system namely elders,
paramount chiefs,
executives,
 legislators,
 judges,
administrators,
 councillors,
monarchs and the like.

Nature of Public Policy

Very Complex.
Dynamic Process. Formally aims at achieving Public Interest
Various Components/ Sub-structure.
Security: Responding to needs
Make Different Contributions: Efficiency: Greatest return.
◦ Representative Parliament,
◦ Merit-Selected Civil Services. Liberty: Freedom to choose.
Democracy: Doing for the people
Decision Making
Equity: Fairness in burdens & benefits
Major Guidelines
For Action By the Best Possible Means
Directed at the Future
Nature of Public Policy
Very Complex:
Policy making involves many components which are interconnected by
communication and feedback loops and which interact in different ways. Some parts of
the process are explicit and directly observable, but many others proceed by hidden
channels and even actors themselves are often partly aware of. Series of single decisions
that result in a policy without any one of the decision makers being aware of that
process.
Dynamic Process:
Policy making is a process, that is, a continuous activity taking place
within a structure. To be sustained it requires a continuing input of resources and
motivation.
It is a dynamic process, which change with time. The sequence of its sub processes and
phases vary internally and with respect to each other.
Various Component:
Nearly all public policymaking involves a great variety of substructures.
The identity of these substructures, and degree of their involvement in policymaking
vary among different issues, times and societies. E.g.. the role of President, Legislature,
role of Military elite. The substructure most involved in policy making constitute the
‘political institutions’ or ‘political system’ of a society.

Make Different Contributions:

Every substructure makes a different and sometimes unique contribution
to public policy. What sort of contribution substructures make depends in part on their
formal and informal characteristics which vary from society to society. For instance
Representative Parliament : sensitive to public opinion and pressure
groups is low or medium on ‘expertness’, takes short or medium range points of view and
shows low or medium.
Merit- Selected Civil Service: Moderately insensitive to public opinion and
pressure groups, has a high level of expertness, takes a medium range and sometimes
longer points of view and shows medium or high consistency in its decisions.
Courts: Highly insensitive to public opinion and pressure groups, have a
high level of limited legal expertness, take short- or medium range point of view, and
show high or very high consistency in their decisions.
Decision Making:
Policymaking is a species of decision making. Lets us use decision making
models for dealing with policy making. Yet important to remember that public policy
making is an aggregative form of decision making and differs in important respects from
the discrete decisions that most decision-theory literature deals with.
Major guidelines
Public policy, in most cases, lays down general directives rather than
detailed instructions, on the main lines of action to be followed. It is thus not identical
with the game-theory definition of strategy as a detailed set of decisions covering all
possible situations. After main lines of action have been decided on detailed sub-policies
that translate the general policy into concrete terms are usually needed. General policy is
built up by a complex, interacting set of secondary policies and decisions. In many cases
these two flows of decision making from top down and from the bottom up, proceed
simultaneously and even partly overlap; Policy is partly formed and partly executed by
the same sub-decisions. E.g., if a developing country has declared a policy “to encourage
all private investment” Day-to-day decision making provides incentives mainly to private
investment in heavy industry. This results in an actual policy of “encourage private
investment mainly in heavy industry”. This results from high level decisions interacting
with middle-level operational decisions. How specific or general a public policy seems to
be depends on differing conditions. The same process can often be viewed from higher
level as execution of a policy by sub-decisions, and from a lower level as policymaking.
This ambiguity makes it impossible to draw clear lines between ‘policymaking’, ‘policy
execution’ and ‘administration’.
For Action:
Decision making can result in external action, in changes in the decision
maker himself, or in both or neither. The policies of most socially significant decision
making, such as most public policymaking, are intended to result in action. Also policies
directed at the policymaking apparatus itself, such as efficiency drives in government, are
action-oriented.
A special case is policies whose intent is to have someone other than the policymaker

take action. E.g., aggressive declaration against an unpopular neighbour may be intended
to make an internal population render support to the policymakers. Another special case
is policies directed to prevent action by an adversary (deter aggression), mislead
opponent, reassure partner, trial balloon the will test reaction or feel good.
Directed at the future:
Policy making is directed at the future. This is one of the most important
characteristics since it introduces the ever-present elements of uncertainty and doubtful
prediction that establish the basic tone of nearly all policy making. Policy makers tend to
formulate policies in vague and elastic terms; to be continuous, to seek defensibility
(often incremental) and not to make any policy about many issues.
Mainly by Government Organs:
One of the main difference between making private policy and making
public policy is that the latter mainly concerns actions to be taken by governmental
organs. Of course, this is a matter of degree – public policy can also be directed in part at
private persons and non-governmental structures, as when it calls for prohibiting a
certain type of behaviour or appeals to citizens to save.

Policy studies often

focus on how
policies are made
rather than on their
content or their
causes and
consequences. The
study of how
policies are made
generally considers
a series of activities,
or processes, that
occur within the
political system.
The policy process model focuses on how policies are made, rather than on the
substance or content of policies. The model identifies a variety of activities that occur
within the political system, including identification of problems and agenda setting,
formulating policy proposals, legitimating policies, implementing policies, and evaluating
their effectiveness.
1. Agenda setting is deciding what will be decided; that is, what issues will be covered by
the media, brought to the attention of decision makers, and identified as problems
requiring
government solutions.
2. A "bottom-up" portrayal of policymaking emphasizes the role of public opinion in
setting the agenda for policymakers. Events, and media reporting of them, can focus
public opinion
on issues, problems, and "crises." But it is not always clear whether opinion molds policy
or policy creates opinion.
3. A "top-down" model of policymaking emphasizes the role of national leadership in
creating issues and formulating policy. The general public does not have opinions on
many
specific policy questions. In opinion polls, Americans express doubt about whether the
government understands their thinking or acts for the benefit of all.
4. The mass media, particularly the television networks, play a major role in agenda

setting. By deciding what will be news, the media set the agenda for political discussion.
The
continuing focus on the dramatic, violent, and negative aspects of American life may
unintentionally create apathy and alienation television malaise.
5. A great deal of policy formulation occurs outside the formal governmental process.
Prestigious, private, policy-planning organizations-such as the Council on Foreign
Relations-explore policy alternatives, advise governments, develop policy consensus, and
even supply top governmental leaders. The policy-planning organizations bring together
the leadership of the corporate and financial worlds, the mass media, the foundations,
the leading intellectuals, and top government officials.
6. The activities of the proximate policymakers the president, Congress, executive
agencies, and so forth-attract the attention of most commentators and political scientists.
But nongovernmental leaders, in business and finance, foundations, policy-planning
organizations, the mass media, and other interest groups, may have already set the policy
agenda and selected major policy goals. The activities of the proximate policymakers tend
to center around the means, rather than the ends, of public policy.
7. Congress is designated in the Constitution as the principal instrument of policy
legitimation. Congress members are influenced by the views of their cash constituents as
much or more than by the views of their voting constituents back home. Big-money
campaign contributors usually enjoy direct access to members of Congress during the
Law making process.
8. Partisanship is on the rise in Congress. Party line voting now occurs on more than half
of all roll call votes in Congress. Party divisions have occurred on many key votes in
Congress in
recent years.
9. Presidents are expected to provide the initiative for congressional law making.
Presidential initiatives are usually outlined in the annual State of the Union message and
followed up in
the presidential Budget of the United States Government. Presidents are more successful
in getting their legislative proposals enacted when their own party controls Congress.
10. A great deal of policymaking occurs in the budgetary and appropriations processes.
The president, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has the
responsibility
for preparation of the Budget of the United States Government each year for submission
to Congress. Congress may have authorized policies and programs in legislation, but it
must
continually appropriate funds to implement legislation.
11. Policy implementation is an important component of the policymaking process.
Bureaucrats make policy as they engage in the tasks of implementation-making
regulations, adjudicating cases, and exercising their discretion. Professional and personal
motives combine to bias bureaucrats toward expanding the powers and functions of their
agencies and increasing their budgets, especially their discretionary funds.

Policy Content
Purpose Statement
Background
Applicability & Scope
Time Frame
Responsibilities
Regulation &
Modification
Policies are typically promulgated through official written documents

A purpose statement, outlining why the organization is issuing the policy, and what its
desired effect is.
A applicability and scope statement, describing who the policy affects and which actions
are impacted by the policy. The applicability and scope may expressly exclude certain
people, organizations, or actions from the policy requirements
An effective date which indicates when the policy comes into force. Retroactive policies
are rare, but can be found.
A responsibilities section, indicating which parties and organizations are responsible for
carrying out individual policy statements. These responsibilities may include
identification of oversight and/or governance structures.
Policy statements indicating the specific regulations, requirements, or modifications to
organizational behavior that the policy is creating
Some policies may contain additional sections, including
Background indicating the reasons and history that led to the creation of the policy,
which may be listed as motivating factors
Definitions, providing clear and unambiguous definitions for terms and concepts found
in the policy document.

Stages of Public Policy

Policy Demand
Policy Decision
Policy Statement
Policy Implementation
Policy Output
Policy Demand: Demands or claims made upon public officials by other actors, private
or official, in the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problem.
These demands can range from a general insistence that government ought to do
something to a proposal for specific action on the matter.
Policy Decision: Decisions made by public officials that authorise or give directions and
content to public policy actions. Included are decisions to enact statutes, issue
executive orders or edicts, promulgate administrative rules, or make important judicial
interpretations of law.
Policy Statement: Formal expressions or articulations of public policy. Included are
legislative statutes, executive orders and decrees, administrative rules and regulations,
and court opinions as well as statements and speeches by public officials indicating the
intentions and goals of government and what will be done to realise them.
Policy Outcome: Tangible manifestations of public policies the things actually done in
pursuance of policy decisions and statement. Policy outputs are what a government
does, as distinguished from what it says it is going to do. An examination of policy
outputs may indicate that policy in actuality is somewhat or greatly different from what
policy statements indicate it should be.
Policy advocacy requires skills of rhetoric, persuasion, organisation and activism.

Policy analysis encourages scholars and students to examine critical policy issues with
the tools of systematic inquiry.

Week 2
UNIT- I: Theoretical Perspectives
P O LIC Y C Y C LE FR A M E W O R K
P O LIC Y P R O C ES S N E T WO R K
P OL I T IC A L F E A S I B I L IT Y
Political feasibility, a criterion for evaluating suggested policy changes, as discussed

earlier in the chapter, is the extent to which elected officials and other policy actors
support the change. No formula is available for estimating political feasibility. Even
experienced and thoughtful observers of politics acknowledge how difficult it is to
determine the level of support that might be forthcoming for a proposal in local or state
government, or at the national level. It may be easier to recognize the actions that are
unlikely to fly politically, particularly in a time of intense political polarization in the
nation that often makes it extremely difficult to build support for controversial actions
(Mann and Ornstein 2012; Persily 2015; Thurber and Yoshinaka 2015). Examples are
plentiful. The Affordable Care Act passed Congress with not a single Republican vote in
favor, and a Republican House voted over sixty times to repeal the act. Comprehensive
immigration reform, which the Senate managed to pass in 2013, was blocked by
concerted Republican opposition in the House. This kind of polarization and gridlock lies
behind the sharp rise in public frustration with government today.
Public policy formulation is a dynamic process in any society. Beginning from the
problem identification to till its evaluation, forms the policy cycle. The entire mechanism
of a policy process is engaged by various actors who influence the policy outcomes.
Apart from the policymakers, institutions, think tanks, lobbyists, political parties, interest
groups, non-governmental organizations and judiciary have a greater say in the
formulation, particularly in democratic nations.

At the margins of policy debate, however, it may be possible to anticipate how slight
changes in proposed legislation or regulations, or an alteration in the political or
economic environment, can create a majority in favor of action. Sometimes a shift on
the part of a few legislators or a marginal change in policymaker perceptions of what the
public will support make the difference in the success or failure of a policy proposal.
Some simple determinations can provide a good idea of political feasibility. Analysts
could begin by identifying the policy actors who will likely play a significant role in the
decision. These actors may be members of a city council or a state legislature, or they
may be members of Congress. To the formal policymakers, analysts would add other
players, such as representatives of major interest groups and administrative officials—
for example, the mayor, the governor, and top officials in a pertinent bureaucracy.
Finally, an estimate can be made of their level of interest in the particular decision (how
salient it is to them), and the intensity of their views or their motivation to get involved
in the decision. These factors are likely to be shaped by the level of interest and
preferences of the constituencies they represent, which in turn are influenced by how
much the media cover the controversy and how the issues are presented. All of this
information can be pulled together to estimate political feasibility.

Political
Feasibility
Government Type and Stability.
Law and Levels of Bureaucracy
and Corruption.
Regulation and de-Regulation
trends.
Social and Employment
Legislations.
Tax Policy, Trade & Tariff
controls.
Legislations related to
Environment & Consumer
Protections.
Likely Political Changes.
We need to bear in mind that not all policy actors are equal in influencing feasibility.
Relatively small groups with intensely held views on a subject are often capable of
defeating proposals that have the broad support of the U.S. public. As noted, gun control
is a policy area where this has long been the case, but there are many other examples.
For a great many public policy disputes, especially those that do not rise to the highest
levels of visibility, political feasibility is likely to depend on the views of a small number
of people and organizations.
Political feasibility assesses how key stakeholders in the organization view the proposed
system.This is especially important if the system affects distribution of information which
impacts the distribution of power within the institution.Stakeholders not supporting the
project may take steps to block, disrupt or change the focus of the project. The word of
advice: know what you are dealing with up fron to avoid conflict and confrontation later.


Week 2 Presentation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Week 2 Presentation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Department of Public Policy,

M.O.P. Vaishnav College for Women, Ch-34

UNIT- II: Public Policy Analysis

POLICY CYCLE FRAMEWORK

Policy analysis is a technique used in public administration to enable civil servants,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Policy Cycle Framework

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Agenda Policy Implementatio

The policy cycle is a summary of the process in which policies are

The next step is policy formulation. As mentioned previously, policy is

After policy is created it is implemented (programs) and then evaluated.

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Phases in the Policy Cycle

Incentives for actors: patronage, public interest,

As noted previously, a policy agenda is the list of issues to which an

One theoretical model for understanding agenda setting is the Hall

This process includes negotiation between actors; stronger policies are

(Ask group for examples of both: [formal: executive, congress, courts,

The process of defining public policy can be either transparent or

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

based on the context. Incentives for actors include patronage systems,

Each of the steps involves a number of actors. Each step may be

A decision has to be made on the criteria for decision-making. Evidence-

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Successful Public Policy

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Institutional Rational Choice

Punctuated Equilibrium Approach

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Elite theory can be summarized briefly as follows:

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

In this view, some groups provide countervailing power to others—for

The task of the political system is to manage group conflict by

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Advocacy Coalition Framework Policy subsystem – a ‘set of actors’

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Two Critical Path to Belief and Policy

The ACF defines policy-oriented learning as "relatively enduring alternations of

External Perturbations or Shocks:

Policy Oriented Learning

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Tax Policy: Battling Special Interests,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Policy originates from

The Constitution of India establishes the fundamental institutional structure for

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Institutional approach seeks to understand public policies as well as politics focusing on

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Protection Against Tyranny, Policy Diversity, Conflict Management, Dispersal of Power,

Institutional Arenas and Policy Preferences, Concentrating Benefits to Organized

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Institutionalism tends to focus excessively or solely on formal political institutions. On

To develop a coherent approach to studying diverse types of institutional arrangements,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Rational Policy Model

Simon’s Bounder Rationality: The idea of bounded rationality, developed by Herbert

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that developed from the

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,

Karthik M, Teaching Faculty,