Lecture No 23 Theories of Public Policy & Public Policy-Making Process

Lecture No 23

Theories of Public Policy &Public Policy-Making Process

Theories of Public Policy

• Outline– Uses of Models

– Types of Models

– Group Work

Dye: Uses of Models

• 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 unimportant• Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its

consequences

1. Who participates in policy making?

2. How are policy decisions made?

3. What are the underlying assumptions of the theory/model?

4. If the author is right, what are the consequences for the general public of policy decisions made in accordance with the particular theory/model?

Types of Models

There are 4 questions you should be able to answer about each of the theories or models you will be exposed to:

1. InstitutionalismPublic policy as institutional output

• Who: executive, legislative, and judicial branches

• How: policy is authoritatively determined, implemented, and enforced by these institutions (legitimacy, universality, and coercion)

• Implications/assumptions: individuals have little impact; structure/design affects outcomes

2. Process ModelPublic policy as political activity

• Who: voters, interest groups, legislators, presidents, bureaucrats, judges

• How: ID problem, set agenda, formulate policy proposals, legitimate policies, implement policies, evaluate policies

• Implications/assumptions: who participates has a critical or determinant impact on the process

3. Group TheoryPublic policy as group equilibrium

Who: interest groups, their allies in government

• How: struggle among interest groups with legislature/executive as referee to manage group conflict and establish rules of the game

• Implications/assumptions: groups will always join to press for particular issues, all interests will have an opportunity for representation

4. Elite TheoryPublic policy as elite preference

• Who: elites that have power, ability to allocate value

• How: implementation of the preferences and values of the governing elite; public officials merely carry out policies decided on by the elites

• Implications/assumptions: public is apathetic elites agree upon norms; political action is merely symbolic; protects the status quo

5. RationalismPublic policy as maximum social gain

Who: decision makers (all social, political, economic values sacrificed or achieved by a policy choice) irrespective of dollar amount (Bentham, Mills)

• How: select policy alternative(s) that allows gains to society to exceed benefits by the greatest amount

• Implications/assumptions: assumes that the values preferences of the society as a whole can be known and weighted

6. IncrementalismPublic policy as variations on the past• Who: policy makers, legislators, others with a stake

in ongoing programs or problems

• How: continuation of past government activities with only incremental modifications

• Implications/assumptions: accepts the legitimacy of established programs; fear of unintended consequences; sunk costs in other programs may minimize the opportunities for radical change

7. Game TheoryPublic policy as rational choice in competitive

situations

• Who: players/decision makers who have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choice made by each (assumes rationality in making choices)

• How: each player has goals and resources, a strategy developed given possible moves of opponent, and payoff values that constitute the outcomes of the game

• Implications/assumptions: repeated plays should lead to better policy outcomes

8. Public ChoicePublic policy as collective decision making by

self-interested individuals

• Who: rational self-interested individuals will in both politics and economics cooperate to achieve their goals

• How: individuals come together in politics for their own mutual benefit; government must respond to market failures

• Implications/assumptions: individuals have sufficient information to know what is in their best interest

9. Systems TheoryPublic policy as system output• Who: individuals, groups, or nations depending upon the

scope of the problem• How: environment may stimulate inputs into political

system, producing outputs and feedback • Implications/assumptions: systems implies an

identifiable set of institutions and activities in society that functions to transforms demands into authoritative decisions requiring the support of the whole society; implies that the elements of the system are interrelated, that the system can respond to forces in its environment, and that it will do so to preserve itself

10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model

• Who: participants inside and outside government

• How: choice opportunity is a garbage can into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants as they are generated; policy outcomes are a function of the mix of the garbage: problems, solutions, participants, and participant resources in the can and how the can is processed

• Implications/assumptions: each of the actors and processes can operate either as an impetus or as a constraint; streams operate largely independent of one another

1. Institutionalism

2. Process

3. Group Theory

4. Elite Theory

5. Rationalism

6. Incrementalism

7. Game Theory

8. Public Choice Theory

9. Systems Theory

10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model

Public Policy Making ProcessOverview

• Two conclusions.– No one is clearly in charge of implementation.– Domestic programs virtually never achieve all that is

expected of them.

• Eight generalizations.– No one individual or group is in charge.– Domestic programs never achieve all that is expected of

them.– The first two are true because of the political structure

and conflicting values of the participants.

Public Policy Making Process Overview

• Eight generalizations (contd.).– Bureaucrats are the most influential actors, but do

not control implementation.– Patterns of implementation vary depending on the

different social purposes of policies.– Decentralization influences implementation.– The meaning of effective implementation varies

across situations.– Effectiveness does not necessarily translate into

desired impacts.

Implementation in the Policy Process

• Definition – the set of activities that follow statements of intent (laws, court decisions, executive orders) about program goals and desired results by government officials.– Implementation encompasses actions (and

nonactions) by a variety of actors, especially bureaucrats, designed to put programs into effect, ostensibly in such a way as to achieve goals.

Implementation in the Policy Process

• Actions– Acquire resources.– Interpret statutes, laws, decisions and plan

activities.– Organize.– Extend benefits or restrictions.

The Nature of Implementation

• Generalizations.– There are a very large number of external factors that can

influence implementation.– For implementation to proceed without any major hitches,

all or virtually all of these external factors must be supportive or at least neutral. Any one or few that are nonsupportive can derail the entire implementation process in a variety of ways.

– There are also a large number of factors internal to implementation processes that inevitably provide obstacles to smooth implementation.


• Most important features.– Implementation processes involve many

important actors holding diffuse and competing goals and expectations who work within a context of an increasingly large and complex mix of government programs that require participation from numerous layers and units of government and who are affected by power factors beyond their control.


• Many actors.– Number and identity.

• The basic point is that executives, legislatures, bureaucrats, a variety of private or non-governmental groups and individuals, and courts at all of the three major territorial levels in the U.S. (federal, state, and local) can and do get involved in the implementation of domestic policies.

• Actors in the implementation process (next slide).


TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation ProcessLevel Executive Officials and

OrganizationsLegislative Officials and Organizations

Bureaucratic Officials and Organizations

Nongovernmental Individuals and Organizations

Judicial Officials and Organizations

Federal President

Executive Office of the President

Staff

Congress (committees and individual members)

Congressional staff and support agencies

Department and agency heads

Staff-civil servants (Washington and regional)

Corporations

Labor unions

Interest groups

Advisory bodies

Nonprofit agencies

Media

Federal judges

Law clerks

Marshals

Masters, experts

US Attorneys

State Governor

Governor’s staff

State legislature (Committee and individuals)

Staff and support agencies


Staff-civil servants (state capitol and regional

(Same as above with state focus and impact)

State judges

Law clerks

Miscellaneous state judicial officials

Local Mayor

County commissioners

Other local elected officials

Staff

City councils, board of commissioners, other local elected officials, staff


Staff-civil servants (central and field offices)

(Same as above with local focus and impact)

Local judges

Law clerks

Miscellaneous local judicial officials


• Many actors (contd.).– The role of private actors.

• Interest groups.– Groups attempt to influence implementation. Influence does

not stop with formulation and legitimation.– Not only can interests help create policies, but policies can

create interests.– Bureaucracies will sometimes take the initiative in creating

groups around the policies that they implement. Both allies and opposing groups.

• The blurring of public and private sectors.• Advisory groups contribute to this phenomenon.


• Many actors (contd.).– The role of courts.

• Decisions that limit, channel, mandate implementation.• Program administrators, sometimes.

– Lack of hierarchy.• Promotes bargaining, competition, and compromise.• Even in hierarchies, this is true.

The Nature of Implementation• Many actors (contd.).

– Conflict and compromise.• Policy formulation and legitimation are typically characterized by

some conflict over both goals and means to attain them.• Conflict reduced or resolved through series of compromises that

allow legislation to pass.• Conflict does not end with the passage of the legislation. Carries

over into implementation. Losers attempt to change the outcome; winners attempt to maintain advantage.

• Multiple opportunities for influence and access.• No decisions are final.

The Nature of Implementation• Goals and Expectations.

– Goals embedded in programs are diffuse, numerous, and usually fuzzy.• No single clear goal – confusion.• Competition among goals.• Unexpected costs – unintended consequences.

• Growth of government and complexity of programs.– Increases in budget outlays.– Increases in government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.– Slow increases in federal employment, rapid increases in state and local

employment.– Greater use of nonprofit and private sector.– Rise of grants-in-aid to 1970.

• External uncontrollable factors.– Economic changes.– Social changes.

Policy Implementation

• Public policies are not self-executing.– Since people who formulate and adopt are usually

not the same as those who implement, much room for slippage and distortion.

– Policy implementation is the stage of policy making between the establishment of a policy and the consequences of the policy for the people it affects.

Policy Implementation• Public policies are not self-executing (contd.).

– Implementation activities.• Issue and enforcing directives.• Disbursing funds.• Making loans.• Awarding grants.• Signing contracts.• Collecting data.• Disseminating information.• Analyzing problems.• Assigning and hiring personnel.• Creating organizational units.• Proposing alternatives.• Planning for the future.• Negotiating with private citizens, businesses, interest groups, legislative

committees, bureaucratic units, and even other countries.

Policy Implementation

• What are the conditions that produce effective or ineffective implementation?– Communication.– Resources.– Dispositions.– Bureaucratic structure.

Communication.

• First requirement for effective policy implementation is that those are to implement a decision must know what they are supposed to do. Policy decisions and implementation orders must be transmitted to the appropriate personnel before they can be followed. Naturally, these need to be accurate, and they must be accurately perceived. They must be clear, they must be consistent.

Communication.

• Transmission.– Implementers must be aware that the decision

was made.– Obstacles.

• Disagreement.• Multiple layers of bureaucracy.• Selective perception.

Communication• Clarity.

– Vague laws.• Example – “maximum feasible participation.”• Vagueness allows leeway• Inhibits change, but can also expand it.• Finding the true intentions.

– Reducing discretion can provide some remedy.– Ambiguous court decisions.

• Death penalty.• Brown vs. Board of Education.

– But, flexibility has some value.– Reasons for lack of clarity.

• Complexity of policy-making.• Competing goals and the need for consensus.• Unfamiliarity of new programs.• Avoiding accountability. • Nature of court decisions.

Communication

• Consistency.– Example – Economic Development Administration.

• Help jobless by attracting or expanding industry.• Could not subsidize competitors to existing businesses.

– Inconsistency can also lead to discretion.– Causes.

• Increases as levels and offices increase.• Many of the conditions affecting clarity also affect consistency.• Desire to appear consistent while making a change can lead to

inconsistent communication.

Resources• Adequate resources are essential.• Staff – most essential.

– Size.• Most programs are understaffed.• 1968 HEW – supervise school desegregation with 48 enforcement officers in 23,000

school districts.• To avoid, feds have transferred implementation to state and local governments,

which are also understaffed.– Michigan – Staff of 10 to consider funding requests of 462 school districts.

• Example environmental protection.– 62,000 primary sources of water pollution plus sewers, irrigation, agriculture. 150 million

polluting motor vehicles, 2,000 toxic dump sites, 2,000 to 40,000 sources of industrial air pollution, 50,000 pesticides.

– State environmental protection agencies have 15 to 200 inspectors – and can examine 3 to 30 sources per day.

• Why? Fear of totalitarian monster, allocate personnel for direct services. Scarcity of funds combined with zeal to create new programs.

Resources

• Staff (contd.)– Skills.

• Lack of skills critical.• Poorly trained staff can create hazards. Seven of ten nuclear

power plant operator applicants in 1978 in Michigan failed licensing exam and were hired anyway.

• Implementation by state agencies is also a problem.• Few management people with skills.• New programs.• Difficult to hire.

Resources• Information.

– Knowing what to do.• Especially new or technical like air pollution.• Consequences.

– Responsibilities not met.– Not met on time.– Inefficiency.

» Mistakes.» Inappropriate.

– Monitor compliance.• Information on compliance.• But, lack of staff critical.• Reliance on information from regulated industry.• Limited authority.• Reliance on private sector – private citizens.

Resources• Authority.

– Authority to give aid, but less to constrain.– Limitations.

• Exercising authority – many agencies simply do not have the authority. Or it exists only on paper.

– Withdrawal of funds – potential weapon, rarely used. Why?» Embarrassing.» Antagonizes implementers.» Alienates members of Congress.» Intervention by powerful state and local authorities.» May hurt those it is designed to help.» May injure innocent persons – loss of jobs.

– Sanctions can be useful. Gives agency excuse to comply.• Result: Service orientation – higher level officials ask for assistance rather

than issue orders. Rarely challenge lower level decisions.

Resources

• Facilities – Physical.– Building, equipment, supplies.– Shortage of sophisticated equipment.

• Logistics system on one military base purchased from Radio Shack.

– But many people oppose the building of facilities in their area (NIMBY).

Dispositions (Attitudes)

• Well-disposed to policy, more likely to be carried out according to intentions. If not, implementation more complicated. Since implementers have discretion, their attitudes can be obstacles.


• Effects.– Many policies fall in zone of indifference, will be

implemented. Others excite opposition, will be more difficult.

– Sources of parochialism.• In-breeding.• Careerism in one agency.• Narrow range of responsibility.• Reward distribution supports status quo.• Committee and interest group pressure.

Dispositions (Attitudes)• Effects (contd.).

– Dispositions hindering implementation.• Opposition

– Can prevent consideration of ideas.– Can defeat immediate goals.– But, can be beneficial if used to ignore orders issued in haste.

• Competing policy interests.• Selective perception.• Differences in organizational outlook.

– Between organizations.– Within organizations, between sections.– Outlooks that affect implementation.

» Dominant opinion as to function.» Turf-building.» Program raids.» Protection of autonomy.» Private dispositions.


• If dispositions limit implementation, why not hire new personnel?– Time.– Politics.– Interest groups.– Internal opposition.– Lack of knowledge of skilled personnel.– Subcabinet discretion.– Civil service rules.– Bureaucratic complexity.


• Incentives.– Rewards and punishments can work, but generally

only on individual projects.– Rewards.

• Merit pay – rarely used• Promotion – usually seniority.• Peer group pressure can mitigate rewards.

– Goal displacement – trying to beat system.

Bureaucratic Structure• Standard operating procedures (SOPs).

– Routines to handle everyday situations.– Reasons.

• Save time.• Uniformity of application.• Lack of resources requires simplification.• “Tunnel” vision.

– Problems.• Inhibit change.• Prevent acceptance of responsibility for new programs.• Delay.• Waste resources.• Undesired actions.• New policies more likely to be hindered.• But, SOPs can help change.

Bureaucratic Structure

• Fragmentation.– Congress has created multiple programs and

agencies to improve oversight, maximize intervention, and divide turf.

– Agencies possessive of jurisdiction.– Interest groups favor status quo.– Consequences.

• Diffusion of responsibility.• Lack of coordination.

Problems and Prospects• Poorly communicated directives in the wrong

structure can aggravate preexisting dispositions against the policy leading to wasted resources and ineffective implementation.

• Policies apt to face difficulties in implementation.– New policies.– Decentralized implementation.– Controversial.– Complex.– Crisis.– Judicial decisions.– Combinations of the above factors.

Thank You

Documents

Lecture No 23 Theories of Public Policy & Public Policy-Making Process