How is Policy Formulated

Public_Policy_Preferences_and_Outcomes_----_Part_II_Dimensions_of_Public_Policy.pdf

Home >Human Resource Management homework help >How is Policy Formulated

Policy Formation

CHAPTER OVERVIEW

Demands on government are legitimized through the agenda-setting process. In the policy formation process, attention is focused on outlining alternative methods of meeting demands. Policy formation is one of the most challenging processes government faces. When an issue is adopted as an agenda item, it is often with a sense of urgency. Policy formation is our attention at work as we identify what government ought or ought not to do, does or does not do (Gutierrez 2005).

The specific goals for the chapter are:

• Discuss how policy is formulated. • Identify the major participants in policy formation. • Use policy theories to explain policy formation.

HOW IS POLICY FORMED?

Policy formation is the detailed process of using normative and empirical meth- ods to define a policy goal, explore alternatives to achieve the goal, and then choose a preferred policy solution. Defining, exploring, choosing, planning—the basic elements of policy formation. The issue of defining a policy goal is often highly normative. For example, classical liberals might say that health care ought not be provided by government; a modern liberal would likely say just the opposite. Given these divergent views, it comes as no surprise that policy goal definition is challenging for policymakers. Through political compromise, Congress and the president create generally defined policy goals. Other participants in policy forma- tion, such as bureaucrats and pressure groups, often focus on specific policy goals.

A major hurdle in defining a policy problem is developing a convincing argument that public policy is needed. Problems must be generally accepted as being beyond the control of any individual. For example, acts of nature— tornados, hurricanes, earthquakes—are obviously out of the control of any individual. Communicable diseases are also seen as legitimate public policy goals. Policy problems are often tied to market failures. Water contamination

111

Simon, C. A. (2017). Public policy : Preferences and outcomes. ProQuest Ebook Central <a onclick=window.open('http://ebookcentral.proquest.com','_blank') href='http://ebookcentral.proquest.com' target='_blank' style='cursor: pointer;'>http://ebookcentral.proquest.com</a> Created from capella on 2021-05-03 07:56:42.

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

from hydraulic fracking, for instance, is labeled a market failure—a marginal social cost borne by society rather than industry. Other policy problems, if they are to be successfully labeled as problems, could conceivably be tied to beha- vioral choices. Very cynical individuals, critics of certain health policies, might argue that obesity is a function of individual choice, therefore a behavioral risk. Conversely, a proponent of progressive nutrition policies would more likely label obesity a policy problem due to food additives used by agribusiness firms. Either way, problem definition walks a fine line in the attempt to avoid moral judgments of individuals and behaviors (Abiola et al. 2013).

Once a policy goal has been defined, the process of exploring policy alternatives begins. Policy analysts play a major role in identifying alternatives to achieve particular policy goals. Whether quantitative or qualitative methods are used to explore and identify policy alternatives, the primary concern of policy analysis is to explore various ranges of potential policy benefit (i.e., to what degree and in what manner will the policy goal be achieved?) in relation to various levels of financial commitment.

Economic analysis aids in the uniform comparison of alternatives because money-based comparisons of benefits and costs is understandable. For example, if I have to choose between a gyro served at a restaurant on one side of campus and a sandwich served at another restaurant on the other side of campus, I can make the choice on the basis of a couple of factors. What are the goals I am trying to achieve? I am trying to relieve hunger and I want to enjoy the meal. In my mind, a gyro is (at least) twice as good as a sandwich. Additionally, the sandwich costs twice as much. So, two strikes against the sandwich idea. I’m heading for the gyro—my plan in action. The whole process was quantified in terms of costs and benefits and there was a goal and there were at least two alternatives, the third being that I would choose not to eat. (See Photo 6.1.)

Policy analysis is a bit more complicated than my lunch choice. The goals are often vaguely defined; a myriad of choices exist; and multiple actors make collective choices, which complicates decision-making. For example, let us say that a city wants to clean up its air pollution problem—its goal. As you might guess, there are several causes of air pollution, not all of which could be solved quickly. So, the city decides to narrow its goal to just limiting air pollution produced by city buses. There are a series of choices to address the problem, two of which might be: (1) get rid of all city buses permanently and (2) replace old buses with new buses that do not produce air pollution. First, the policy analyst would have to determine the costs and benefits of each alternative. Second, assuming that alternative (2) was chosen, the policy analyst would then study and price out a series of bus configurations and compare the bus price with expected pollution reductions. The costs and the benefits of each alternative would be compared and a choice would be made. (See Figure 6.1.)

One method of developing a better sense of the costs and benefits of a policy alternative is through demonstration projects. Demonstration projects are often grant-funded projects of modest size and scope. The projects implement a promising policy alternative to determine the impact of the policy. At times, the policy as implemented does not produce anticipated benefits or level of benefit,

112 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

which poses a quandary for policy analysts (see DeLeon and Williams 1997). In other cases, the policy produces benefits not previously considered, some of which might be controversial leading to questions about policy analysts intentions (see Robertson 1980). Demonstration projects also offer a better understanding of the costs of a policy alternative and the roadblocks to implementation. One of the roadblocks is competition from other policy ideas. Demonstration projects prove to be an opportunity for coalition building that will lead to greater success in

PHOTO 6.1 Much more than an economic choice—for me, at least!

Issue Reaches Agenda

Law-Making Process – Congress – President – Courts –Interest Groups – Bureaucrats

Exploring Alternatives – Policy Analysts, Working for/with Political Actors

Policy Choice Influenced by: – Empirical Analysis – Political Priorities – Normative Issues

Planning – Often Completed by Policy Analysts, Bureaucrats

DEFINING EXPLORING CHOOSING PLANNING

"There ought to be a law . . ."

"Uh, okay you're an agenda item . . . what exactly is the problem, the goal?"

"So, here are some alterna- tives and the costs and benefits expected."

"We'll do this . . ."

"Now, how are we going to do it? I think we need a plan."

FIGURE 6.1 Policy formation process

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 113

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

growing policy (Sa et al. 2008). Demonstration projects help guide large-scale policy-planning efforts.

Policy planning, the final stage in the policy formation process, is extremely time-consuming. Policy plans are shaped by empirical analysis leading to the adoption of a particular policy alternative, built around certain assumptions about policy methods, costs, and benefits. Frequently, policy is not funded at the level assumed in analysis, forcing formulators to produce the level of expected benefit with fewer resources.

Policy planning requires that goals and methods are strictly adhered to in meeting policy requirements. The creation of rules and procedures is, therefore, a critical part of policy planning. Planning also requires that a clear sense of future needs be determined for successful policy continuation. With long-term vision, policy planning considers the issue of goal enlargement or goal drift/shift, which occur when goals are more broadly defined over time or when policy goals evolve as policy problems change.

In the previous examples, the policy formation was fairly simple. Imagine, however, a situation where there are a multitude of individuals and groups identifying the goal differently, pursuing different alternatives, trying to choose one of the myriad alternatives, and then struggling to establish a policy plan. In essence, this is an uncomplicated description of the complicated process by which policy formation occurs. A brief reminder: the earlier chapter on policy analysis provides a general sense of the tools used throughout the policy process.

MAJOR ACTORS IN POLICY FORMATION

There are a variety of institutional and extra-institutional actors involved in policy formation. The national-level institutional actors were discussed in earlier chap- ters: Congress, president, and federal judiciary. Within the institutions of govern- ment there are also public bureaucracy and personal staffers, who play a significant role in illuminating policy alternatives for institutional actors.

Pressure groups, particularly groups that have advanced a particular policy agenda, often seek to play a role in the policy formation process if their goals are adopted as agenda items. Interested individuals (e.g., clientele) may also con- tribute to policy formation.

Congressional Policy Formation

With its committee system, Congress is a highly specialized branch of government. In its initial stages, congressional policy formation occurs within the confines of a committee or committees to which the policy concern has been assigned. Congressional committees will then assign policy formation responsibility to sub- committees. Subcommittees define and explore the policy issue by requesting policy analysis or more detailed policy exploration by associated administrative agencies. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Congressional Research Service (CRS), and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conduct a significant portion of the technical work for congressional policy formulators.

114 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Created in 1974 to help Congress establish greater control over the budget- ing process, the CBO studies the costs-related factors associated with policy formation and may, if requested, discuss the financial feasibility of policies pro- posed in legislative bills. The CBO also analyzes policy proposals within the president’s budget as reported to Congress. Using its own economic and budget- ary assumptions, the CBO studies the president’s budget to determine the feasi- bility of proposed policies in terms of costs and benefits compared with other policy goals. Ultimately, public policies cost money; therefore, policy formation is tempered by budgetary constraints and the fiscal demands of other policy prio- rities. Given budget limitations, CBO evidence regarding new policy feasibility is particularly critical.

Initially created in 1914 as the Legislative Reference Service, the Congres- sional Research Service (renamed following the 1970 Legislative Reorganization Act) conducts the bulk of policy research for members of Congress and congres- sional committees. The CRS deals with policy areas in both domestic and foreign policy and is committed to conducting timely and impartial analyses of existing policy areas as well as providing information and assistance for elected representa- tives seeking to build effective policy in new policy areas.

CRS is organized into six interdisciplinary research divisions: American Law; Domestic Social Policy; Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade; Government and Finance; Information Research; and Resources, Science and Industry. Within each division, CRS staff are organized into smaller sections, which focus on specific areas of public policy.1

The CRS plays a critical role in congressional policy formation. CRS person- nel help legislators craft policy, provide assistance in the drafting of legislation, and aid in the development of committee hearing questions and topics.

Created in 1921, the GAO focuses attention on policy evaluation and audit- ing, which is closer to the end of the policy process rather than the early stages of policy formation. Nevertheless, GAO analyses of past policy events and outcomes can have a tremendous impact on future policy formation. The GAO’s recom- mendations can help policy formulators avoid potential pitfalls that could lead to policy failure. Additionally, the GAO’s auditing process provides guidance to policy formulators as they consider ways of defining measurable policy goals.

The personal staff of congresspersons also play a role in policy formation. As elected representatives, members of Congress often contemplate policy formation in light of the parochial demands of constituents as well as the national interests. Congressional staffers tend to be more attuned to constituency and contribute to the policy formation process by crafting legislation to meet local needs. Staffers make recommendations regarding committee hearing proceedings and develop questions their boss (i.e., the elected representative) might consider asking during congressional committee hearings. Staffers identify expert witnesses whose testi- mony will help the elected representative promote particular policy alternatives.

Staffers often act as liaisons between elected officials and government agencies—both the aforementioned congressional agencies and Executive

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 115

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Branch agencies—requesting information and reports that will advance a repre- sentative’s policy preferences. With a multitude of time commitments, congres- spersons rely heavily on their staff in the policy formation process.

Congressional policy formation is often highly detailed, often conducted within committees and subcommittees. In the end, however, choices must be made based on the exploratory studies conducted and analyzed, and legislative bills must be reported to the parent chamber for a floor vote. In the floor vote process, representatives who were not a part of the detailed committee policy formation discussions and debates are able to consider the proposed policy and must decide to support it as is, amend it, or reject it. Amendments may be made for normative reasons—for example, a philosophical disagreement regarding a policy—or perhaps just pure self-interest. In the Senate there are very limited rules of debate and proposed policies are much more likely to be assailed by a stream of germane and non-germane amendments, undoing months of committee research intended to define, explore, and choose a good policy plan. Congressional policy formation allows for a great deal of normatively driven debate and reformation of policy proposals. While an important part of policymaking, these “last minute” reconfigurations of public policy formation may actually increase the likelihood of policy failure or, at the very least, reduce its effectiveness.

Presidential Policy Formation

In the nineteenth century, the president did not have the powers nor did he have the bureaucratic structures needed to help him in the area of domestic policy formation. In the twentieth century, however, the powers of the presidency in the domestic policy formation arena grew tremendously, and public bureaucracies sprouted up to help the president accomplish his new policy tasks.

In 1920, Congress established the Bureau of the Budget (BOB), giving the president the power to submit a proposed national budget annually. A larger role in budgeting meant that the president also had greater say in the policy formation process. Budget allocation proposals often translate as policy choices.

In the mid-1930s, the Brownlow Commission on Economy and Efficiency was tasked with determining the administrative support needs of a modern presidency. The commission recommended the establishment of a major bureaucratic support structure now known as the Executive Office of the President (EOP). Currently, the EOP contains more than 16 different suboffices and departments.2 In establishing the EOP, Congress and the president recog- nized the chief executive’s growing responsibility in policy formation. EOP policy analysts develop public policies for a president’s policy agenda, eventually pro- posed in draft form for congressional review, revisions, and approval or disap- proval. The structure of the EOP facilitates effective policy formation.

Courts and Policy Formation

The Court studies public policy formation in terms of its impact on individual rights and its breadth and potential impact on intergovernmental relationships. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Court began to more actively constrain policy formation that limited

116 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

individual rights or negatively impacted citizen privacy. The Court saw a role for itself in examining the differential impact of public policy on minority groups and through its decision process let policymakers in the elected branches and public bureaucracy focus greater attention on the need for greater equity in public policy.

Policy could be nondiscriminatory in a legal sense, but could unintention- ally produce greater inequality. For modern liberals, the Courts’ role in shaping equitable outcomes, effectively demanding an emphasis on social justice, is viewed as a positive development. By focusing on policy formation that produces fair outcomes, the courts demonstrate concern for all members of society, parti- cularly those individuals and groups not effectively represented through the political process (see Fredericksen 1971).

Reviewing public policies and the policy formation process, the courts seek to confirm or negate the constitutionality of policies, essentially guiding policy- makers’ future plans. At times, elected policymakers have resisted the courts’ role in policy formation, leading judges to establish court-mandated policy goals; supervising policy implementation; and scrutinizing policy outcomes.

The scope of national public policy formation is impacted by the courts’ vision of the proper scope of powers of the national government in relation to state governments—in other words, the federal relationship. In the nineteenth century, the national courts generally adopted a dual federalism model. National public policy was limited to the powers of the national government as enumerated in the Constitution. Over time, the national courts envisioned a broader role for the national government. Commerce Clause decisions in the 1930s effectively expanded the role of national public policy in shaping economic and social conditions of individuals within states. The courts legitimized cooperative feder- alism (see chapter on Federalism and IGR), with overlapping state and national policy responsibilities.

Courts evolve as judges and justices retire and new members of the judiciary are appointed by presidents. Many judges and justices appointed by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. and George W. Bush sought to limit the scope of national public policy through application of the Tenth and Eleventh Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As those judges and justices either retired or died in office, they were replaced by President Obama’s judicial appointees. President Obama’s judicial appointees tended to support an enlarged scope for national government in public policy. The 2016 presidential election outcome—the election of Donald Trump—will have a significant impact on the future of court decisions and the scope and direction of public policy.

A good policymaker will understand the role of the courts and legal pre- cedents, hoping to avoid potential pitfalls. Policy formation is a proper place to design public policy that will succeed rather than be found to be unconstitutional in application.

Interest Groups and Policy Formation

Established interest groups frequently employ policy analysts who formulate policy alternatives. Policy analysts are able to access and comprehend government data

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 117

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

that serve as the basis of policy recommendations. If an interest group is able to get an issue on the policy agenda, then it is likely to gain access to the formation process, offering testimony, presenting predrafted legislative bills, and detailing prospective costs and benefits of attractive policy alternatives.

Interest groups use similar strategies to shape presidential policy formation, although direct access to the president is often more limited. Interest group leaders may serve as members of a presidential commission or task force, devel- oping policy solutions for pet agenda items. The political preferences of a sitting president determine the membership of executive commissions and task forces— not all interest groups have equal access to Executive Branch policy formation.

Interest groups may influence policy formation through the courts. As a party to a court case, interest groups try to shape policy formation via litigation. If not a party to case, interest groups may choose to file amicus curiae briefs, detailing reasons why the case should be decided in a particular manner. The amicus brief might include policy alternatives consistent with the group’s preferences.

Many of the details associated with policy formation are written by bureau- crats and codified into a system of rules and regulations known as administrative law. The process of rule-making is subject to oversight by the three branches of government and is designed to respond to public concerns, often expressed during administrative rule-making hearings or meetings. Interest groups have the motivation and expertise needed to attend and actively participate in the rule-making process.

Public Bureaucracies and Policy Formation

Departments and agencies within public bureaucracy are often staffed by indivi- duals with particular policy interests. It is not surprising to find that they are often advocates for a particular policy direction. Bureaucrats may intentionally or inad- vertently imprint policy with their personal values. While bureaucrats are often careerists, there are changing patterns of employment. Individuals serving in key roles in bureaucratic policy formation retire, replaced by individuals with different values, beliefs, and opinions. Personnel changes may lead to differences in policy formation.

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are two examples of how personnel changes impacted agency rules and procedures. In the early twentieth century, both agencies were driven largely by the traditional interests of logging, livestock grazing, and mining. Public bureaucrats who operated these agencies created a system of rules that made the public lands accessible to their clientele. By the late twentieth century, the USFS and BLM were beginning to change. A new generation of organiza- tional leaders, often more post-materialist in their value orientation, were less friendly to traditional interests, preferring instead to see the public forests and lands preserved for the use of all citizens. The new bureaucratic elites tended to be more sensitive to the issue of environmental protection. Building on statutory changes such as the Wilderness Act of 1964, bureaucrats crafted administrative

118 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

rules and regulations, guided by new values and scientific evidence, advancing efforts at environmental protection.

International Influences on Policy Formation

We live in a world that is being transformed by globalism. Domestic policy forma- tion is heavily influenced by international bodies, such as the United Nations, and treaty agreements made with other nations (Gillespie 1998). The influence of internationalism on domestic public policy became more evident following the collapse of the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc nations. The United States, identified as the last remaining superpower, found itself operating in a multilateral world rather than the bilateral context of the Cold War.

The Cold War ended during the George H. W. Bush administration and the new multilateralism quickly became apparent. In 1992, President Bush attended the Rio Summit, an international conference dealing with world environmental conditions and the need to reduce greenhouse emissions. Representing the most economically powerful nation, President Bush faced a highly contentious situa- tion. While evidence regarding the volume of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions was not seriously contended, proposals for improving environmental conditions would have seriously impacted U.S. domestic policy in areas ranging from agri- culture to energy use. Farmers would be forced to reduce or eliminate their use of high-nitrogen fertilizers, which damage aquatic life in streams, rivers, and in estuaries. The use of fossil energy would be severely limited.

In another bow to globalism, President Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Alliance (NAFTA) in 1993, an agreement initially developed during the George H. W. Bush administration. The agreement has impacted the domestic economy in a number of ways, lowering trade barriers to Canadian and Mexican goods flowing into the United States and vice versa. A new system built on the ideas of “free market” capitalism will force domestic economies to be less reliant on government social and economic policy, widening exposure to international competition. The emergence of globalism means that policy formation must consider goals and impacts beyond national boundaries: does the policy as formulated advance an international policy agenda or work against the forces of globalism? Policy formation will have to balance national interests with the gen- eral principles of ratified treaties promoting cooperative economic, social, and political alliances with other nations.

Globalism makes policy formation very challenging. Elected representatives serve at the behest of American voters, yet they must also consider other respon- sibilities that extend beyond the nation’s borders. At times, that means putting aside domestic interests in order to receive the benefits associated with being part of the global community.

Globalism and its impact on policy formation are applauded by both classi- cal and modern liberals, but for very different reasons. Classical liberalism is based in a belief that government should primarily work to preserve our basic individual freedoms—our right to life, liberty, and property. Beyond that, government should not take an active role in economic planning or social engineering. Many

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 119

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

free market capitalists argue that classical liberal principles are consistent with their intentions. The use of economic barriers to free trade are seen as examples of government efforts to restrict the economic freedom of individuals and corpora- tions to pursue their economic self-interest and expand their property in ways they find desirable. Therefore, the new globalism—particularly efforts to open markets and eliminate barriers to free trade—are welcomed by many classical liberals/free market advocates. Conversely, global policies that restrict free trade (for example, international environmental agreements) are rejected by classical liberals.

Modern liberals tend to see globalism as one solution to international economic disparity. Economic and social disparity is viewed as a significant source of global tension, which manifests itself in the form of international and civil wars, terrorism, starvation, malnutrition, disease proliferation, and various other social, economic, and political maladies. International aid organizations and the redistribution of income is seen as a solution to the grave inequalities that exist. A world without borders—a world focused on the principles of global justice—is seen by modern liberal thinkers as one solution to the many tensions that exist in the world today. Given the complexities of working with multiple national governments, there is movement towards a more powerful role for global governance bodies to formulate overarching policies. The zero-sum game of nation-focused policies may work against modern liberal policy goals favoring equality, fairness, human rights, and environmental justice.

Citizen Stakeholders and Policy Formation

Citizens can shape policy through interest group membership and elections, but they may also choose direct participation in the policy formation process. Significant citizen or interest group impacts on policy formation at the grassroots level are sometimes referred to as bottom-up policymaking. By way of distinc- tion, top-down policymaking is policy created by one level of government (frequently national and state government) and imposed on lower levels of government and citizens.

Open meeting law requirements require administrative policymakers to seek public input and demonstrate administrative action in response to public concerns or demands. If they cannot act on the citizen input, administrators must explain why the public suggestions are not feasible. A citizen stakeholder—an individual who has a stake in policy formation and outcomes (i.e., all of us, whether we take an interest or not)—may or may not be a direct beneficiary of a particular policy. Some stakeholders believe that their involvement is critical to prevent problems from arising that might influence them in a negative manner—or, ensuring that policy has some type of secondary positive benefit for them individually or the community in which they reside. Citizen stakeholders do not always approach the open meeting sessions to offer hostile criticisms of public policy. For the most part, citizens are genuinely interested in policy success, but they are also often interested in balan- cing individual and collective interests and making policymakers aware of unique sub-cultures and community needs (see Korsmo 1990).

120 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Open meetings do not attract regular citizen participation in the policy forma- tion process. For the most part, open meetings are a venue for one-way commu- nication between policy formulators and citizen stakeholders. Policymakers listen and take notes on the public input, but are generally not able to provide immediate feedback. The communication pattern often leaves citizen stake- holders frustrated.

Citizen advisory boards and collaborative policymaking are two important venues for citizen participation. The approaches offer a unique opportunity for citizens to play a more active role in setting the policy agenda and formulating public policy, in the process defining and, in some cases, coproducing public goods via policy formation. Professional policymakers provide some level of policy education to citizen participants so they can understand the complexities and limitations faced by policymakers in the policy formation process. Absent such educative function, policymaking can deteriorate into a series of “buzz- words” that do not enhance a clear dialogue between citizen stakeholders and policy analysts (Loughlin 2002). Professional policymakers may also provide general guidelines regarding the limitations placed on citizen advisory board participants—they may not be allowed by law to participate in formulating all aspects of a particular policy. Advisory board member input often illuminates problems unique to a community being served.

Policy Entrepreneurs, Change Drivers, Ideological Drivers and Policy Formation

Within the Congress, the Executive Office of the President, pressure groups, and bureaucracy and among citizen stakeholders and advocacy coalitions (comprised of a wide variety of groups and individuals), there is a special group of policy experts who understand potential policy directions. Not only do these individuals have a depth of knowledge, they are also very capable networkers. They under- stand the policy positions of other actors, the institutional constraints facing various actors, and existing policy direction and condition. These individuals are the policy entrepreneurs.

Many policy entrepreneurs have varied backgrounds. Some have worked in government agencies and now work for private industry, representing the inter- ests of their employer. Others work for non-industry pressure groups or policy think tanks seeking to reduce the marginal social costs of industry—clean air, clean water, etc. Still others are social and economic elites (see Duffy et al. 2010). A good example is the Irish singer, Bono, who has played an important role in international policy. Billionaire investors George Soros and the Koch brothers are members of an economic elite and also key policy entrepreneurs. While often discussed in terms of partisan political activity, these individuals often advise and broker policy formation because of their vast knowledge and experience. In some cases, these entrepreneurs work to shape policy without any personal benefit to themselves, beyond “keeping a hand in the game.” Academic elites, for example, will often serve in an entrepreneurial role because of their scientific and/or policy knowledge.

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 121

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Having crossed many organizational borders in their careers, policy entre- preneurs are difficult to place within any single category, but their influence is enormous. They have the unique capacity to move policy formation in particular directions, defining problems, identifying particular solutions, and embedding values within the policy formation process.

Because of their network capacity, entrepreneurs often choose to find compromise within the process. The goal is to promote particular methods and goals within policy formation but not at the cost of destroying their network or diminishing their influence. While elected officials will often put on a show for media attention, drawing lines beyond which compromise will not occur, com- promise usually does occur if elected officials are interested in showing their constituency that they accomplished something for the public good.

Entrepreneurs face limits to their influence in the policy formation process. In part they are limited by their institutional memberships. A member of Congress, for instance, has different levels of influence when compared with a policy entrepreneur working outside of government but seeking to contribute to policy formation. Bureaucrats working within the policy formation process are con- strained by the direction and funding of the organizations for which they work, as well as public law and administrative rules.

Social and economic elites have some influence, but their influence is similarly constrained. The media often portrays social and economic elites as “controlling” the government, but there is no evidence that such a thing exists. There are many stakeholders and organizational actors involved in the policy formation process; thus, any single policy entrepreneur is limited in his or her influence over policy formation.

Finally, policy entrepreneurs with pressure group or think tank affiliations face limitations. Pressure groups and think tanks often have political leanings. The Brookings Institution, for instance, is known for its progressive stance. The Heritage Foundation, alternatively, is more closely associated with conservative leanings.

Depending upon political majorities in Congress and party control of the presidency, policy entrepreneurs affiliated with think tanks will have greater or less influence in the policy formation process. A good example is that of policy entrepreneurs advocating the wide use of school choice as a solution to improved K-12 education outcomes. Many Democrats are opposed to school choice and would be less likely to incorporate school choice in K-12 policy formation. In other cases, a policy problem high on the policy agenda does not garner as much partisan conflict, although there will always be differences of opinion. Scientific evidence linking HPV with more serious forms of cancer led to widespread concern. Policy entrepreneurs representing pharmaceutical companies proffered vaccination options. Evidence indicates that entrepreneurs are most successful when they appeal to the common good and downplay the profit motive that might undergird the policy options they advocate (see Abiola et al. 2013).

You might ask yourself if you have ever seen or met a policy entrepreneur other than a politician. The answer is that you probably have! If you have attended a breakfast, lunch, or dinner meeting of a local community group, you will

122 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

undoubtedly remember that there was a guest speaker. The guest speaker might have been a retired police chief who was talking about drug problems in U.S. cities and rural areas. The speaker probably told you about their background, the statistics that describe a policy problem, and the methods by which they addressed and solved the problem in their community. In discussing the success- ful solution, the speaker might have told you about the effectiveness of the policy and the need to bring together political, economic, and social stakeholder groups in arriving at an agreed upon solution. They might have also discussed the importance of policy leaders in promoting and implementing the policy. The story would likely end with a discussion of the successes. All of this was followed by applause and good feeling. You might even walk away saying, “Gee, we ought to try that in our city, state, nation.”

Guess what? You just met a policy entrepreneur! Sometimes, these folks travel around the state, the country, perhaps even around the world, discussing and promoting their policy solution. In other words, policy entrepreneurs believe in a message, a particular policy as formed, and they want to spread this message as broadly as possible. Elected officials or bureaucrats (active or retired) have ways of doing the same thing—spreading the good word about particular policy strategies.

While entrepreneurs promote, change drivers take things a step further. Change drivers seek to shape the formation process through network building that often crosses organizational and ideological boundaries. Change drivers identify veto points and veto players in the policy formation process and try to overcome the limitations posed by veto points. Collaborative policy processes may overcome limitations, but it does not always work (Linnefell et al. 2014).

Like policy entrepreneurs, ideological drivers seek to introduce new policy ideas into the policy formation process and generate enthusiasm. Unlike policy entrepreneurs, ideological drivers are often particularly driven to address issues narrowly defined. They work cooperatively with other policy actors so long as it fits their purpose. If they encounter resistance to their ideas, ideological drivers “are always willing to provoke against government policies, manipulate adminis- trators, and use every possible measure to promote their idea” (Alfasi and Fabian 2008).

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES AND POLICY FORMATION

In times past, policy analysts looked for a “one size fits all” solution and policy formation took on a generic approach to meeting citizen needs. As public policy has become more sophisticated, policy analysts and elected officials see the need to properly link policy goals and methods with clientele being served.

Policy decision-makers must balance current and future needs. Immigration patterns have been of particular interest. An improved understanding of Hispanic immigration in the southwestern United States, for instance, has had a tremendous influence on social welfare, health, housing, labor, and education policy for- mation. Many individuals emigrating from Mexico and other Latin American nations acquire low-salaried employment in service industries, agriculture,

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 123

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

and production plants. Individuals employed in these economic sectors may find it difficult to obtain affordable housing and health care. Labor conditions are regulated to protect workers. Additionally, educational opportunities for the children of the Hispanic population require greater awareness of bilingualism.

Beyond the issue of Hispanic immigration patterns, is the issue of unex- pected demographic change. A good example is the impact of immigration patterns on political and economic conditions in the U.S. and E.U. Currently, Europe and the United States are experiencing large waves of immigrants—or more properly, refugees—from the Middle East and Africa. With refugee popula- tions and immigration from Latin America, U.S. policymakers must tailor public policy to the needs of people from diverse cultural and religious backgrounds.

Social trends within society shape policy formation. Two-parent families are no longer the norm in American society. Divorce rates have risen to approxi- mately 50 percent. Family courts may award joint custody to parents, impacting children’s socialization and education experiences. The percentage of children born to unwed parents or to nontraditional families (e.g., same-sex parents) has become a recognized part of the American social fabric. Policy formation related to children and to families, such as, education, welfare, physical and mental health care, drug, crime, and housing policy must consider the condition and changing needs of the American family in order to develop policies that work.

Another demographic change is the “graying” of the U.S. There is a larger segment of Americans who are retired and increasingly in need of assistance in their daily lives—for example, dealing with traditional household activities, and transportation to and from medical appointments. The trend is a growing issue due to the retirement and aging of the Baby Boom population. Public policy formation increasingly responds to this long-term demographic phenomenon.

Demographic change implies a time element. Change over a single time period—for example, a month or a year—may appear to be quite small. Change over a decade or multiple decades might be enormous. Demographers, therefore, must consider small change and determine if it is the beginning of a trend toward long-term change. Policymakers must make the case for policy formation that takes this change into account, planning and budgeting accordingly. In practice, planning for long-term change of any type faces many roadblocks, political and otherwise. Trends that are based in scientific evidence such as climate change and disease that yield widespread marginal social costs are more likely to be taken seriously, but misinformation or policy priority diversions remain a threat to policy formation.

EXPLAINING POLICY FORMATION

Advocacy Coalition Framework and Policy Formation

The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) offers a good explanation of the policy formation process. Within the ACF, recall that there are a set of basic stable characteristics or parameters, such as the constitutional governance structure and general acceptance of a policy problem. The model recognizes certain stable

124 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

and possibly changing conditions with the decision, such as general agreement that a problem exists and can be properly managed through public policy.

Once basic agreement on rules and level of commitment to reaching a solution has been more broadly defined, coalitions of voters represent different policy solutions, each holding a different view of the need for a policy solution, and each with a different resource capacity. Policy leaders decide on policy direction. Policy outputs and impacts shape future iterations of policy formation.

The ACF involves multiple policy formation actors. Elected and appointed officials choose policy formation and direction and even define the rules govern- ing the political process. The ACF is used to describe policy formation within policy subsystems. A subsystem is a substantive policy area or a territorially defined policy system, such as policy governing a reservoir (see Weible et al. 2009). The ACF accounts for and describes the impact on rules, changing govern- ing coalitions, and definitions of the public goods aspects of a subsystem. It also describes how individual subsystem actors—elected and appointed officials, citizen stakeholders, policy entrepreneurs of various types—coalesce into advo- cacy coalitions trying to shape the direction and formation of public policy. The model accounts for the role of values, changes in socioeconomic conditions and public opinion. The ACF helps us understand how the various actors in the policy formation process, as described in the chapter, interact in policy formation, moving from individual preferences to collective preference sets in seeking to move policy formation in particular directions within a subsystem. Beyond that, the model illustrates how subsystems themselves influence and interact with each other in the broader public policy environment.

Policy Diffusion Model

The policy diffusion model is a great tool in thinking about policy formation, particularly in a federal system such as the United States. More broadly, and in some ways beyond the scope of this textbook, policy diffusion helps us to under- stand how public policy ideas and strategies can spread globally. Unlike the ACF, which helps us to understand, in this case, policy formation within subsystems, the policy diffusion model gives a more macro-level understanding of how policy ideas spread and why they spread.

Recall that policy diffusion is more likely to occur in political jurisdictions that are socioeconomically advantaged and where resources are available for policy innovation. Policy diffusion usually involves a geographic element—an awareness of what neighboring jurisdictions are doing in terms of policy inno- vation and the impact of those innovations. When a public policy works in a neighboring jurisdiction, possibly one with similar political culture (Lawton 2012) or perhaps a same-sized jurisdiction, then policymakers may become interested in adopting similar policies.

If, for example, an anti-smoking policy leads to more people going to restaurants and sports bars for food and drink, thus leading to greater tax revenue, in one jurisdiction, then the policy appears attractive to other jurisdictions with similar political and social values. If child safety seat use enforcement leads to a

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 125

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

significant reduction in child deaths in car accidents in one jurisdiction, then other jurisdictions will also seek to adopt the policy.

As noted earlier, policy entrepreneurs spread their policy messages far and wide. A retired police chief who has formed a proven policing strategy that leads to a significant reduction in officer involved shootings or significant improve- ments in police relations with ethnic or racial minority communities will be a highly sought-after policy consultant and speaker in US cities. The policy diffusion model might offer insights into which jurisdictions are the most likely to adopt such innovative policies.

Institutional Analysis and Design Framework

The institutional analysis and design (IAD) framework is a very detailed approach to thinking about public policymaking. Recall from the policy theory chapter: the action arena is a highly dynamic environment where policy stakeholders engage in policy formation. The arena has defined rules and allowable actions. Policy actors represent different positions in the process and have access to information that help them gauge the costs and benefits of each possible action or policy for the participants in the policy formation process. The goal of the IAD framework, as is generally the case for good public policy, is to produce Pareto optimal outcomes in the access and use of common pool resources. Pareto optimality means that while not all participants may gain equally, no stakeholders experi- ence a net loss. Ultimately, of course, the goal is to maintain a common pool resource for long-term use and avoid resource depletion or degradation.

Policy formation in the action arena may involve all of the policy actors previously discussed. IAD helps policy students understand the role of each actor or interest in the process. For example, statutes, administrative rules and regula- tions, and court decisions often identify and define a common pool resource and the rules governing the ownership of the resource, but these rules may not help in the management of the resource. Resource management and protection might require the development of local agreements so as to prevent depletion and to prevent conflict around the use of the resource. Nevertheless, the “rules” estab- lished by statute, administrative law, and court decisions become important “rules” governing the IAD process in particular applications.

For example, federal and state water law and water masters will play significant roles in governing what is feasible in terms of water management decisions made when an IAD framework is used to govern the use of water in the Lake Tahoe basin. And rules, laws, political majorities, and social and eco- nomic conditions/demands change. A court case that recognizes a claim to treaty- based water rights for a Native American tribe, requiring water masters to reallo- cate available water would likely change the dynamics of the action arena, changing the way the costs and benefits of policy alternatives are considered.

The IAD model offers a logical basis for making policy choices related to common pool resources. Various policy actors might play an important role in policy formation it is often the individual policy stakeholders most closely engaged in managing or accessing a common pool resource who are the most

126 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

closely involved in the policy formation process. The IAD model helps us to understand that policy formation involves a continual dialog and commitment to a policy direction, and the need to find ways to produce optimum outcomes under ever-changing conditions.

Lessons Learned from Chapter 6

SPECIFICS

• The policy formation process involves four major steps: defining, exploring, choosing, and planning. Each step involves normative and empirical issues, what we ought or ought not to do, and what government does or does not do (see Grafton and Permaloff 2005).

• Policy formation is conducted in different ways by different political institu- tions. Congress and the Executive Branch have different constituencies and different methods and goals in policy formation. The courts are primarily concerned with policy formation that meets standards of political and social justice, but are cognizant of the public’s values and opinions.

• The ACF, policy diffusion, and IAD are three policy models that help illustrate the policy formation process.

THE BIG PICTURE

Policy formation is a very challenging part of the policy process. Unlike the policy agenda-setting or adoption stage, which is at its foundation a normatively driven process related to the question of “ought” or “ought not,” policy formation relates to issues of what government does or does not do. Formation requires that policy- makers develop some level of understanding of problems and realistic solutions.

A central issue in policy formation is the ability of a particular solution to affect change. In many instances, the policy formation process is not determinis- tic, meaning that policymakers cannot be entirely confident that a particular solution will produce a desired outcome. Policy phenomena are often organic, not mechanistic.

While in one sense policy formation is really about determining the best and most efficient manner of solving an identified policy problem, it is, ultimately, a matter of preference. Due to the limited capacity of information to provide decision-makers with a clear empirically based set of alternatives, choice is often clouded by personal and group values. Policy formation is often shaped by interest groups, citizen stakeholders, and political parties who find a particular policy alternative to be most desirable given their values and preferences. These individuals and groups frequently play a role in policy formation, providing decision-makers with information and policy alternatives they believe will match their personal or group values and priorities. Policy formation is a cyclical process. As policy goals evolve, so too must policy solutions.

Decision-makers continually make adjustments to public policies already in operation as new information and new demands shape or reshape policy goals.

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 127

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Political institutions respond differently in the policy formation process. Each institution has its own particular powers and methods of operation and each institution has different resources available to it.

Key terms

bottom-up policy formation goal drift/shift Brownlow Commission on Economy and

Efficiency goal enlargement

Congressional Budget Office policy entrepreneurs

Congressional Research Service policy formation

Executive Office of the President (EOP) stakeholder

Government Accountability Office top-down policy formation

Questions for Study

1. What are the major steps in policy formation? Discuss and provide examples. 2. Identify and discuss three major influences/actors that shape the policy for-

mation process. 3. Use three policy models to describe and explain the policy formation process.

Bibliography

Abiola, S. E., J. Colgrove, and M. M. Mello. 2013. The politics of HPV vaccination policy formation in the United States. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 38(4): 645–81.

Alfasi, N., and R. Fabian. 2008. Ideological developers and the formation of local development policy: The case of inner-city preservation in Tel Aviv. Journal of Urban Affairs 30(5): 489–505.

Congressional Budget Office. CBO fact sheet. www.cbo.gov, (Accessed August 17, 2007).

Congressional Research Service. 2005. CRS: History and mission. www.lcweb.loc. gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#hismiss (accessed August 17, 2007).

DeLeon, P. H., B. E. Bennett, and P. M. Bricklin. 1997. Ethics and public policy formation: a case example related to prescription privileges. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 28(6): 518–25.

DeLeon, P. H., and J.G. Williams. 1997. Evaluation research and public policy formation: are psychologists collectively willing to accept unpopular findings? American Psychologist 52(5): 551–12.

Duffy, M. M., A. J. Binder, and J. D. Skrentny. 2010. Elite status and social change: Using field analysis to explain policy formation and implementation. Social Problems 57(1): 49–73.

Dye, T. 2001. Top-down policymaking. New York: Chatham House. Easton,D.1965.Aframeworkforpoliticalanalysis.EnglewoodCliffs,NJ:PrenticeHall.

128 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.cbo.gov

http://www.lcweb.locgov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#hismiss

Edwards, G., S. Shull, and N. Thomas, Norman, eds. 1985. The presidency and public policy making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Epstein, G. S., Y. Mealem, and S. Nitzan. 2013. The efficacy and efforts of interest groups in post-elections policy formation. Economics of Governance 14: 77–105.

Eyestone, R., ed. 1984. Public policy formation. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Fast, I. 2016. Understanding educational policy formation: the case of school

violence policies in Israel. Sociology of Education 89(1): 59–78. Freed, G. L., M. C. Andreae, A. E. Cowan, and S. L. Katz. 2005. The process of

public policy formulation: the case of Thimerosal in vaccines. Pediatrics 109(6): 1153–9.

Fredericksen, H. G. 1971. New public administration. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press.

Gillespie, A. 1998. The formation of climate change policy in New Zealand 1992– 95: The conflict between international and domestic responses. Environmental Politics 7(3): 134–43.

Grafton, C., and A. Permaloff. 2005. The behavioral study of political ideology and public policy formation. The Social Science Journal 42: 201–13.

Gutierrez, D. 2005. John Rawls and policy formation. Review of Policy Research 22(5): 737–42.

Hirota, H. 2013. The moment of transition: state officials, the federal government, and the formation of American immigration policy. Journal of American History 99(4): 1092–108.

Hoekstra, A., and M. Kaptein. 2014. Understanding integrity policy formation processes: a case study in the Netherlands of the conditions for change. Public Integrity 16(3): 243–63.

Howlett,M.,A. McConnell, and A.Perl. 2015. Streams and stages: reconciling Kingdon and policy process theory. European Journal of Political Research 54: 419–34.

Hsiao-Chin, H., and L. Shu-Ching. 2014. The formation of gender education education policies in Taiwan, 1995–1999. Chinese Education and Society 47(4): 5–13.

Jones, C. 1970. An introduction to the study of public policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Korsmo, F. L. 1990. Problem definition and the Alaska natives: Ethnic identity and policy formation. Policy Studies Review 9(2): 294–306.

Lawton, S. B. 2012. State education policy formation: The case of Arizona’s English language learner legislation. American Journal of Education 118: 455–87.

Linnefell, W., A. Hallin, and M. Lagergren. 2014. E-government policy formation: Understanding the roles of change drivers, veto players, and advocacy coali- tions. Electronic Journal of eGovernment 12(2): 131–41.

Loughlin, M. 2002. On the buzzword approach to policy formation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 8(2): 229–42.

Ripley, R., and G. Franklin. 1975. Policy-making in the federal executive branch. New York: Free Press.

Robertson, L. S. 1980. Fact and fancy in the formation of public policy. American Journal of Public Health 70(6): 627.

Chapter 6 • Policy Formation 129

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

Sa, C. M., R. L. Geiger, and P. M. Hallacher. 2008. Universities and state policy formation: Rationalizing a nanotechnology strategy in Pennsylvania. Review of Policy Research 25(1): 3–19.

Sabatier, P., ed. 1999. Theories of the policy process. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.

Schull, S.A. 1983. Domestic policy formation: presidential-congressional partner- ship? Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Sharkansky, I. 2002. Politics and policymaking: In search of simplicity. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.

Shull, S. 1999. Presidential policymaking: An end-of-century assessment. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.

Urslaner, E., M. 1978. Comparative state policy formation, interparty competition, and malapportionment: A new look at V.O. Key’s hypotheses. Journal of Politics 40(2): 409–32.

Van Beuren, E., E. H. Klijn, and J. Koppenjan. 2003. Dealing with wicked pro- blems in networks: Analyzing an environmental debate from a network perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13(2): 193–212.

Vigoda-Gadot, E., H. Cohen, Y. Zalmanovitch. 2014. Does the privatizing of policy formation threaten democracy? Arguments from the Israeli experience. Policy Studies 35(5): 484–97.

Weible, C. M., P. A. Sabatier, and K. McQueen. 2009. Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 121–40.

Endnotes

1. www.lcweb.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#hismiss (accessed March 22, 2009).

2. The Executive Office of the President (EOP) is composed of the following offices: Council of Economic Advisers; Council on Environmental Quality; Office of Administration; Office of Management and Budget; Office of National Drug Control Policy; Office of Science & Technology Policy; President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board; United States Trade Representative; and White House Office. www.whitehouse.gov/govern ment/eop.html (accessed March 22, 2009).

130 Part 2 • Dimensions of Public Policy

C o p yr

ig h t ©

2 0 1 7 . T

a yl

o r

& F

ra n ci

s G

ro u p . A

ll ri g h ts

r e se

rv e d .

http://www.lcweb.loc.gov/crsinfo/whatscrs.html#hismiss

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/eop.html