for A plus writer only

G et

ty Im

ag es

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Explain the role of theory in the policy process.

• Be able to compare and contrast the dominant theoretical frameworks for the policy process.

• Describe the series of activities that make up the policy process.

Diverse Theoretical Frameworks for Understanding the

Policy Process

3

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 83 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.1 The Role of Theory in the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

To understand the policy process—the method by which policy develops, changes, and is executed—requires frameworks as a means of viewing the process. If pol-icy making is a game, then theoretical frameworks may serve as explanations of how the game is played. Within the field of public policy, many theoretical perspectives and schools of thought describe or explain the policy process, but no one theoretical approach is accepted universally. On the contrary, a diverse set of frameworks competes with one another to provide different perspectives on the policy process (for a review of selected readings, see McCool, 1995; Sabatier, 1999; Theodoulou & Cahn, 2012). In large part this diversity is due to the complexity of the policy process and the many factors that influence it.

Some of the theories, or frameworks, that best clarify and describe the process of pol- icy making are: the stages-heuristic (or policy cycle) approach, the advocacy coalition framework, the punctuated equilibrium model, the multiple streams model, the social construction of target populations framework, the institutional analysis and devel- opment framework, policy diffusion, incrementalism, and the rational choice model. These theories specifically try to explain the process of policy making. They should not be confused with theories that try to explain why decision makers enact certain deci- sions and choices. Chapter 13 will discuss those decision-making models, which policy scientists use to explain policy outcome.

3.1 The Role of Theory in the Policy Process

Simply, the particular theoretical framework is critical to how an individual under-stands areas of public policy and the policy process as a whole (for an overview, see Hill, 1997; McCool, 1995; Sabatier, 1999, 2010). The ultimate role of theory is to help us better understand the complexity of social, economic, and political phenomena. Theory strives to illuminate the simple elements and dynamics intrinsic to any given policy issue. Additionally, theory provides an explanation of how phenomena may develop and offers a basis with which to evaluate these explanations through empirical validation (Kuhn, 1970; Nachmias & Nachmias, 1996). Theory also helps guide and focus the analysis of policy problems and issues. Yet, no theory perfectly illustrates any phenomenon or reality.

Most, if not all, theories are intrinsically weak in describing and explaining the dynam- ics of the political and policy process. Each theoretical framework is based on a set of assumptions that seeks to explain the phenomena in question. Every theory has its respec- tive strengths and weaknesses. That does not mean viewing differing theoretical perspec- tives, however, in polemical arguments of right and wrong. Rather, applying differing theories to the same phenomena in question affords an analytical value. The challenge is in deriving valid insights from the variety of theoretical perspectives. Table 3.1 matches each theory described in this chapter to the applicable stages laid out in the stages- heuristic conception of the policy process. Clearly, confining a theory to a single stage of the policy process is difficult. In the end, although some policy practitioners discount the- orizing’s explicit value—suggesting it is more of an academic than a practical exercise— both theory and theorizing are fundamental to improving understanding of the policy process, in addition to improving the content, purpose, and impact of public policy.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 84 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Table 3.1: Theories and applicable stages of the policy process

Stages

Th eo

ri es

Problem Identifi- cation

Agenda Setting

Policy Formation

Policy Adoption

Policy Imple- mentation

Policy Evaluation

Change or Termi- nation

Stages- Heuristic

• • • • • • •

Rational Choice

• • • •

Incre- mentalism

• • • • • •

Institutional Analysis and Development

• • • • • • •

Advocacy Coalition

• • • • • •

Multiple Streams

• • • •

Punctuated Equilibrium

• • • • •

Social Construction

• • •

Policy Diffusion

• • • •

3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process

Theorists have developed a variety of competing frameworks to explain the dynam-ics and evolution of the policy process. This chapter discusses the dominant theo-retical frameworks of the policy process. Stages-Heuristic (Policy Cycle) Framework

To many scholars, the policy cycle represents the theoretical paradigm which best explains the policy process (others who have applied this approach are Anderson, 1997; Dye, 1992; Lester & Stewart, 2000; Peters, 1996; Theodoulou & Cahn, 1995). As Chapter 1 discusses, the stages-heuristic, or policy cycle, framework imagines the policy process as an interre- lated series of stages. This theoretical perspective originated in the works of Harold Lass- well, who sought to provide a conceptual map with which to describe the evolution of policy as a “decision process” (Lasswell, 1971). Since Lasswell’s work, the stages-heuristic

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 85 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

approach has evolved into a cycle of recognized policy stages that include the emergence of a problem and continue through enactment of the policy solution to evaluation and possible policy change. Figure 3.1 identifies the commonly agreed-on stages of the policy process. (There are variants on the stage-heuristics approach, with some authors collaps- ing the stages, and others adding or not emphasizing others.)

Figure 3.1: Lasswell’s stages-heuristic model of the policy process

This model recognizes that the policy process is a series of interrelated stages.

The analytical value of this approach derives from dividing the policy process along a series of fluid stages in order to better dissect the policy process as a whole (Bobrow & Dyrzek, 1987; Edwards, 1988; Kingdon, 1995; Schneider & Ingram, 1997). The theoretical strength of the approach is to help simplify the imposing complexities of the overall policy process.

As Chapter 1 discussed, each policy stage can be grouped into three distinct phases: prede- cision, decision, and postdecision. These divisions make clearer the predecision dynamics of problem identification, agenda setting, and policy formulation; the decision dynamics of adoption; and the factors that shape the postdecision stages of implementation, evalu- ation, and termination or change.

Policy Formulation

Policy Adoption

Policy Implementation

Policy Evaluation

Policy Change or Termination

Problem Identification and Agenda

Setting

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 86 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Essentially, the stages-heuristic approach assumes each stage of the policy process has “a distinctive characteristic and mannerism and process that give the individual stage a life and presence of its own” (Deleon, 1999, p. 21). Each stage represents an integral part of an interlocking and ongoing policy process. Table 3.2 summarizes some of the key theoretical insights that derive from this approach (Deleon, 1999).

Table 3.2: Using the stages-heuristic framework

Key Theoretical Insights • Helps deconstruct what is a complex abstract policy-making process • Provides a conceptual framework for the policy process based on different stages • Assumes policy making is the product of a dynamic political and policy process • Assumes an evolutionary character to public policy making (i.e., there is a beginning and identifi-

able end to the stages of policy making, but the policy process continues) • Emphasizes the significance of a series of interrelated policy stages

· Problem Identification · Agenda Setting · Policy Formulation or Design · Policy Adoption · Policy Implementation · Policy Evaluation · Policy Termination/Change

• These stages can be divided into three additional phases: Predecision Phase→ Decision Phase→ Postdecision Phase

• Serves to focus attention/understanding to dynamics relevant within a specific policy stage (i.e., theories of Agenda Setting)

• Highlights the unique impact of differing stages or phases on the entire policy process (i.e., impor- tance of policy implementation for effective policy making)

Nevertheless, the stages-heuristic approach has gathered its share of scholarly criticism for what some argue is a lack of theoretical specificity, an absence of empirical validation, and an inaccurate description of the “actual” policy process (Sabatier, 1999). For critics, the theory’s main weakness is that the public policy process does not operate in the step- by-step manner as described. The critiques highlight that Lasswell’s initial identification of a series of policy stages does not mirror actual stages identifiable within the public policy process. Moreover, policy makers rarely even discuss the policy process in such a clearly defined manner. More severe critics suggest that stages heuristic is not a theory at all because no causal assumptions exist that can be verified empirically. Still, although the actual policy process may not operate in a perfect set of step-by-step stages, the stages- heuristic approach provides the necessary direction, clarity, and structure to understand what otherwise would be a jumbled maze by which policy evolves.

The stages-heuristic approach offers a critical framework for exploring the evolution of public policy. Figure 3.2 illustrates how the U.S. policy-making process applies the stages- heuristic approach.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 87 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.2: Applying the stages-heuristic framework to U.S. policy making

The U.S. policy process might not perfectly mirror the stages-heuristic framework, but the framework helps provide clarity and structure to the overall process.

Legislators develop soluations to deal with a policy problem and initiate the process

of passing the bills.

Interest groups and bureaucrats can influence the legislators in their development of the policy.

Policy Formulation

Congress will vote on a bill. If it passes it moves to the President,

who signs or vetoes the bill.

Interest groups try to influence Congress and the President.

White House staff pressure Congress to vote for or

against a bill with a veto threat.

Policy Adoption

Bureaucracy is vital and can drift from implementing out of self-

interest.

Bureaucrats can also be captured by interest groups delaying

implementations.

Congress has oversight of bureaucracy to ensure they

implement the policy accordingly.

Policy Implementation

Bureaucracy is very important as they are first to examine how

effectively policy works.

Policy Evaluation

Congress determines which issues get prioritized for possible policy action through debating in

committees and subcommittees.

Interest groups can lobby to get issues prioitized too.

Problem Recognition

Policy Change or Termination

Agenda Setting

Congress has oversight and can try to fix a policy if it’s not

working effectively.

Interest groups and professionals in fields affected by a policy are

influential.

Congress and the President examine a problem facing the nation and try to devise a policy idea that will help

solve the problem.

Once it’s determined how effective a policy is then a decision will be made by Congress or the President, with the influence of bureaucracy and interest

groups, to alter or terminate a policy.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 88 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

The Rational Choice Model

The rational choice model provides analysis of the policy process by focusing on assump- tions of rationality, the impact of context on rationality, and the consequences of groups’ or individuals’ rational pursuits. The analytical utility of rational choice is based on an assumption of how individuals or groups will act and decide within a given decision context. Although some political scientists reject rational choice as an approach to under- standing politics and policy, it has theoretical value because the approach allows ana- lysts to understand the way rational actions often dictate how the policy process operates (Stone, 1997).

Rational theorists understand policy making to be the product of policy actors taking rational actions dictated by rational policy decisions. In this context (drawing heavily on microeconomic theory), rationality may be defined as “transitivity and consistency of choice” (McLean, 1996). In other words, the model assumes that groups or individuals will act in a certain way given their environment, and their actions will always promote their self-interest. Rational-choice theorists believe that in any given situation, we must consider what individuals value and what they perceive to be at stake, along with the level of information they possess and their understanding of others’ expectations (Ostrom, 2007). Thus, individuals select actions in response to their estimation of others’ actions and then calculate the possible outcome based upon the actions that are taken. In so doing, predicting the propensity of individuals’ behavior in a variety of settings and conditions is possible. The policy-making process thereby has predictability.

For authors such as Herbert Simon, policy making is a sequence of rational decision stages and may be characterized as bounded rationality (Simon, 1976). In essence, Simon argues that though humans are by nature rational, real-world forces such as lack of time, lack of information, and their own cognitive capacity impede them from always acting in a rational manner. Policy mak- ers’ self-interest drives them to agree about what the problem is and how to solve it. The desired solution is one that maximizes the benefits of a policy while limiting its costs. Each policy decision, made in isolation, has its origins in what policy mak- ers hope to achieve in a situa- tion. They then make a decision about how best to achieve that outcome. Charles Lindblom (1959) characterizes this as the “root” method of policy mak- ing, which is comprehensive in nature. Policy makers are not restrained by past decisions related to the issue; the goal is to arrive at the best decision.

AFP/Getty Images

Rational choice assumes groups or individuals will act in a way that promotes their interests.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 89 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Within the literature, a number of subdivisions of the rational choice model exist, includ- ing public choice, game theory, and expected utility, each of which is often used to explain policy decision making. (Chapter 13 will discuss these models.) The power of the rational choice framework is to provide a logical basis with which to understand, analyze, and predict the context of the policy process. The approach garners specific criticism for its high level of abstraction, simplicity, and assumptions of rationality (Stone, 1997). Clearly, this broad theoretical approach is by no means flawless, as it carries practical weaknesses given the significant abstraction involved. Nevertheless, rational models can prove an invaluable tool with which to better understand the effect of context, the impact of actor preferences, the rational calculations underscoring political decisions, and the resulting consequences of pursuing individual actions within a greater community or societal con- text. In sum, the rational approach suggests that the entire policy process can be described as a rational exercise that logically leads to the best policy decisions in relation to the problems observed.

Incrementalism

Charles Lindblom, the architect of incrementalism, sought to develop an alternative to the rational model of understanding the policy process. Lindblom questioned whether public policies can ever be formulated in a rational, calculating process. For Lindblom, rational calculation, comprehensive understanding, and effective analysis were beyond the capacities of those in the policy process. At best, they could apply only to the simplest problems (Lindblom, 1959). Rather than a rational exercise, the incrementalist approach suggests that the policy process operates within an inefficient political and institutional environment where decisions naturally favor minimal over dramatic policy change.

For Lindblom, any model of the policy-making process must examine power and the plu- ralistic interaction and mutual adaptation among multiple actors representing different interests, values, and information capacity. Policy emerges from a complex, interactive process with no discernible start or end and one that forces policy makers to build upon past policies (Lindblom, 1959).

Policy making is a slow-moving process that evolves over time. Policy decisions are usu- ally made on the basis of relatively small adjustments to existing situations. Policy mak- ers do not have an ideal goal in mind as they make new policy because their focus is on past policies. Little agreement exists regarding policy goals or how to achieve them. In addition, policy makers have scant interest in a comprehensive search for alternative solu- tions. Therefore, Lindblom argues, policy makers look at how they can work within the existing policy and the influence of current political forces. These forces include elections, bureaucracies, elected officials, political parties, and interest groups, as well as corpora- tions, which structure and distort the policy process. Thus, policy makers consider only a limited number of policy options, making changes at the margin. In short, political influ- ence causes policy decisions to favor minimal over dramatic policy change.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 90 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Incrementalism views policy making as a branching-off from previous policy. Lindblom argues that the policy-making process is characterized by a process of successive, limited comparisons, with each decision building upon a previous decision. Such a foundation makes it easier for policy makers to come to consensus (Lindblom, 1959). For Lindblom, successive, limited comparisons better describes the policy process because this character- ization emphasizes the practical nature of the policy and political process, as opposed to conceiving it as a rational ideal.

The Lindblom model of incrementalism offers a theoretical description of the policy pro- cess that is quite telling. Simply, the realities of the process lead to small, rather than bold, changes to policy. However, in striving to critique the rational comprehensive approach, the incremental approach raises some questions and doubts. For instance, is the test of good policy really based on broad agreement among analysts, or does it also require broader agreement among the critical institutional and noninstitutional policy actors? For example, even if all the economic analysts within the government were to suggest that the right course of policy action to redress an economic downturn was to substantially increased taxation, would that be deemed a “good” policy?” Is the public’s approval of a policy action a mitigating factor in how incremental the policy process may be? Moreover, how does one judge what constitutes sufficient analysis of any given issue?

In many policy cases, such as airline security before September 11, the government con- ducted substantial studies and analyses, gained understanding, and proposed options, but the recommended changes were not deemed politically acceptable or possible at the time these reports were published. In the case of airline security, what was lacking was the political will to pursue more dramatic actions that the evidence suggested were necessary and warranted. Finally, some cases, such as the New Deal programs of the 1930s and civil rights in the 1960s, show dramatic policy changes distinct from previous directions. Argu- ably, incrementalism may best describe a process that leads to small changes—not because of inadequate rational calculations, poor analysis, or limited information, but because the underlying political conditions that justify dramatic changes have yet to materialize.

Overall, the incremental approach represents an attempt to describe the “true” nature of the policy process. Above all, it offers a potent rebuke to the claims of rational decision making: how decisions are the product of calculations of costs and benefits that result in the best policy action being adopted. As an approach to understanding the entire policy process, incrementalism offers analytical value. In terms of the predecision and decision stages, incrementalism may help explain why the policy process seems to produce so few actual solutions to seemingly persistent and endemic public problems. Moreover, the the- ory offers an explanation of why dramatic policy actions are rare, even in circumstances where they are warranted (Lindblom, 1959).

Lindblom describes incrementalism as present-oriented and frequently remedial, focused on making necessary changes and adaptations to existing practices. As policies begin to fail or to produce unsatisfactory or undesirable situations, decision makers concentrate on implementing small changes in policy.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 91 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

This broad school of thought, developed by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues at Indiana University, theoretically focuses on actor-centered institutionalism and on understanding the policy process as interplay between the rational actions of individuals and groups. The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework encompasses three prin- ciples (Ostrom, 1999):

1. Humans are rational. 2. Behavior is strongly influenced by institutional rules. 3. Institutional rules alter rational behavior.

IAD theorists argue that understanding the policy process requires analyzing the behav- ior of individuals who make decisions and the way in which the institutions of which they are a part affect their decision making. In other words, the theory focuses on how institu- tions shape social interactions and decision-making processes. Specific concerns include analyzing institutional power, how actors within institutions make policy decisions, how institutions and actors interact within and across institutions, the rate at which the institu- tions help the political system respond to problems, the effect of institutional rules, and the efficiency with which institutions and the political system aggregate preferences.

IAD contends that the structures and rules within which policy actors operate in large part determine which kind of policy making occurs. Ostrom (1999) argues that the inter- action of actors within and across institutions is also crucial in determining what policy emerges from a formal institution such as a legislature. All policies must be formulated, adopted, implemented, and enforced. The job of formal institutions such as executives, legislatures, judiciaries, and political parties is to make policy through interaction with informal institutions (Anderson, 1990). Policy decisions are the output of large govern- ment organizations’ functioning according to regular behavioral patterns and interacting with other nongovernmental institutions.

Incrementalism In history as in public policy, big changes don’t happen as a result of giant leaps but instead through a process of gradual change. Incrementalism offers an alternative process in which each step is small but moving in the right direction toward a long-term objective. This process helps businesses and gov- ernments be reactive rather than proactive. For a discussion about incrementalism in business and sustainability policy, watch the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAmnnTbmUkc.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. How does incrementalism apply differently in the realm of public policy than it does in the

world of business? 2. What are the keys to its success in the real world? 3. Are there other areas, such as education, where incrementalism could be applied? How?

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 92 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Advocacy Coalition Framework

The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) for understanding the policy process emerged in light of questions and concerns about the validity of the stages-heuristic approach. The ACF approach was an attempt by Paul Sabatier in the late 1980s to develop a theoreti- cal model of the policy process that better reflected its complexity and reality. The initial premises of the ACF approach emphasized the following factors:

• The role of technical information on the understanding of the problem. • A time frame in which policy change occurred over a decade. • A focus on the policy subsystem—or the collection of actors and groups that

develop around a policy issue—as the analytical center for the policy process; such subsystems come together to act as coalitions of advocacy.

• An expansion of the traditional notion of the iron triangle (discussed in Chapter 2) to include all levels of governmental actors and noninstitutional actors.

• An understanding that programs reflect an implicit belief system.

Based on these five broad factors, the ACF defines the policy process as a broad structure in which both stable and dynamic elements outside a specific policy subsystem affect that subsystem (see Figure 3.3). The stable class of external elements includes those that will be difficult to change over time, such as the constitutional structure of the state or political system; the sociocultural values within the polity; and the natural resources available to the state (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1993, 1999). These factors represent the stable context in which a policy subsystem is framed.

Figure 3.3: The policy subsystem within Sabatier’s advocacy coalition framework

The advocacy coalition framework defines the policy process as a broad structure affected by both stable and dynamic elements outside a specific policy subsystem.

Adapted from Sabatier, P. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change. Policy Sciences, 21(3), 129–168.

Policy subsystem Contraints and resources of subsystem

Events external to system

Stable parameters

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 93 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

In contrast, the dynamic factors reflect those elements that do change over time. For example, the election of a new presidential administration and changes in the majority party within Congress can and do alter the political landscape. Additionally, socioeco- nomic changes, brought on by economic downturns or social cleavages, also redefine the greater context in which policy develops. Finally, policy decisions, once adopted and implemented, can alter the context by redefining both the problem and policies that deci- sion makers explore within a given policy subsystem.

According to the ACF approach, the notion of a policy subsystem is the core by which to understand the policy process. Such subsystems develop around various policy issues, and the policy actors involved coalesce and interact with set groups defined as advocacy coalitions. Advocacy coalitions involve both institutional and noninstitutional actors who share beliefs and engage in “a nontrivial degree of coordinated activity over time” (Saba- tier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999, p. 120). Within each advocacy coalition, the role of beliefs is used to explain the cohesiveness and the actions of the groups that operate in the policy subsystem. The case of airline regulation in the United States in the 1970s offers an exam- ple of advocacy coalitions. During this period of airline regulation, three clear advocacy coalitions emerged. Each was made up of interest groups, administrative agencies, and legislators and academics, all of whom held similar beliefs for relatively long periods (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999). These coalitions included:

• the pro-regulation coalition, made up of major airlines, airline unions, and small airports, as well as the Civil Aeronautics Board and their congressional allies;

• the anti-regulation group, composed of small airline carriers, large airports, most consumer groups, some economists and congressional allies;

• a deregulation coalition, made up of academics, some consumer groups, and key members of Senator Edward Kennedy’s staff (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1999).

The ACF model posits three lev- els of beliefs: deep core, policy core, and secondary. Deep core beliefs represent the coalition members’ fundamental beliefs about society and the politi- cal system. Policy core beliefs represent the coalition mem- bers’ perception of the issue and how it should be dealt with—in other words, their policy prefer- ence. Policy core beliefs make up the “fundamental glue of coalitions” (Sabatier & Jenkins- Smith, 1999, p. 122). Coali- tion members hold secondary beliefs about other aspects of the policy issue and society; not everyone in the coalition may

Time & Life Pictures/Getty Images

Plane crashes prompted the formation of three advocacy coalitions in the 1970s. The above crash is being inspected by the Civil Aeronautics Board, a member of the pro-regulation coalition.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 94 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

share these beliefs. Overall, deep core beliefs remain difficult to change, whereas policy core and secondary beliefs are open to change as new information and pressures alter the basis for such beliefs.

Each advocacy coalition pursues strategies to alter the outcomes and decisions of govern- ing agencies, with the goal of changing policies so that they conform to coalition members’ beliefs and preferences. As new information emerges, coalitions may rethink their strate- gies and preferences for certain policy goals. However, members are unlikely to change their views concerning deep core and policy core beliefs. For example, a coalition that holds deep ideological views about the Second Amendment and whose policy core beliefs do not favor gun control is unlikely to change those positions, even if valid information exists that undermines such policy positions.

As a theoretical approach, the advocacy coalition framework has been applied within a wide variety of policy arenas, including the environment, education, drug policy, forest policy, and gender discrimination. In addition, insight from research over the last decade has led to subsequent modifications in the ACF model. An updated version of the ACF approach incorporates the role of public opinion as an external factor that shocks the policy subsystem. The newer approach also factors in the political consensus required for policy change, which differs depending on the institutional context. Still, even this prom- ising school of thought raises concerns.

The ACF approach strives to capture the complex context, dynamics, and structure of the policy process but presents an image of the process that is arguably as abstract and unrealistic as any other model—if not more so. For example, do groups and actors recog- nize themselves as part of an advocacy coalition framework? Moreover, in the pursuit to address the various aspects of the policy process, whether the assumptions made by the ACF approach are indeed theoretically accurate remains unclear. For example, can deep core, policy core, and secondary beliefs be readily distinguished? If so, how, and can such beliefs be defined nonarbitrarily? Additionally, are stable factors—such as sociocultural values—really that stable, or is the judgment of stability itself subjective? Finally, what effects do dynamic or stable factors have on beliefs, strategy, and information? Clearly, the ACF model poses many persistent questions. However, this framework remains one of the most promising theoretical paradigms in the field of public policy and may in the future, with additional refinements, offer the most cogent and persuasive theory of the policy process.

Multiple Streams Framework

The multiple streams framework, a theory developed by John Kingdon in the 1980s, attempts to explain both the dynamics of how issues enter the agenda and how policy is made within U.S. politics. As an approach to explaining the policy process, multiple streams may be best considered a partial theory. For example, Chapter 4 will use King- don’s theory as a specific explanation of the agenda-setting process. Nonetheless, a dis- cussion of the theory offers a theoretical explanation of both the predecision and decision phases of the policy process.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 95 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

For Kingdon, policy making is not the result of rational choice but rather the product of organizational anarchy. Using the garbage can model of decision making developed by Cohen, March, and Olsen, Kingdon views the agenda-setting process as a garbage can into which policy makers “dump” problems and possible solutions. Because the resulting mixture is chaotic, solutions often attach to problems for which they might not necessarily have been designed (Cohen, March, & Olsen, 1972).

The multiple streams paradigm emphasizes how issues and policy solutions emerge out of the complex interplay of three policy streams within policy institutions and processes: the problem stream, the policy (alternatives) stream, and the politics stream (Kingdon, 1984). According to Kingdon’s concept, these streams highlight how certain issues and policy proposals gain greater attention than others within the broad political and policy environ- ment. The streams are broad, separate, continuously active, and independent. At critical times and in certain contexts, the streams converge, and a solution attaches to a problem, turning it into policy. Kingdon (1984) calls the process by which the streams converge coupling (see Figure 3.4). Coupling can be partial or pervasive; it is brought about by chance events or the work of policy entrepreneurs. Policy entrepreneurs are individu- als or groups who act as advocates for a particular action or solution and who invest resources to ensure the policy solution that they favor is adopted; they might be elected officials, bureaucrats, lobbyists, academics, or journalists.

Policy entrepreneurs dramatize an issue by highlighting indicators of the problem. They also push for a problem definition they favor and present specific policies as solutions to the problem as they define it. Entrepreneurs often achieve their goal by “softening up” policy makers, using such means as public hearings and media coverage. The job of a policy entrepreneur is to convince policy makers to see a problem the way the entrepre- neur sees it and then adopt the solution the entrepreneur favors. Usually, for coupling to occur, a focusing event must take place. This event allows policy entrepreneurs to merge the streams by attaching an idea from the policy stream to an issue in the problem stream, a pairing that allows for policy opportunities Kingdon refers to as policy windows. Theo- rists using a multiple streams model view the policy process as a series of opening and closing policy windows that result from interplay between problems, policies, and pol- itics at any given time. Windows can close easily, so policy entrepreneurs must make the most of the opportunity to move the policy solution forward. The policy process, in other words, is marked by the opening and closing of policy windows that result from the evolving confluence between streams of problems, policies, and politics.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 96 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Figure 3.4: Kingdon’s coupling model within the multiple streams framework

According to Kingdon, policy making is the product of organizational anarchy. Issues and possible solutions emerge from the interplay of the politics stream, the problems stream, and the policy stream to create policy opportunities.

The problem stream is the way in which decision makers become aware of certain socio- economic conditions or events and how the decision makers and citizens then view these conditions or events as problems. For an issue to be considered a problem, a general feel- ing must exist that something should be done to change the situation. This feeling depends on how the problem is framed or brought to the forefront through a focusing event that determines whether the issue is placed upon or eliminated from the agenda (Kingdon, 1984). In this way not all issues become problems, and decision makers can choose to ignore some issues. The only issues policy makers act upon are those that decision makers and citizens want addressed and that are politically feasible (Zahariadis, 2007). Problems come to the policy makers’ attention through three mechanisms: indicators, measurements

Influences

• Power

• Resources

• Symbolism

• Timing

• National mood

• Organized power

Influences

• Alternatives

• Policy communications

• Advocacy

• Feasibility

• Policy entrepreneurs

• Consensus

Policy Window

Influences

• Indicators

• Focusing event

• Definitions

• Values

• Comparisons

• Categories Policy Stream

Problems Stream

Politics Stream

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 97 11/21/12 12:46 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

that assess the scale and change in the problem; events that bring attention to the problem; and feedback, which provides information about how the problem is being addressed.

The policy stream is the constant flow of policy solutions and proposals that intermingle throughout the political system in response to the presence of an identified problem. For Kingdon, policies are by-products of

a wide variety of ideas floating around in a policy primeval soup . . . [and] are generated by specialists in policy communities—networks that include bureaucrats, congressional staff members, academics, and researchers in think tanks who share a common concern in a single policy area, such as health or environmental policy. (as cited in Zahariadis, 1999, p. 77)

Some solutions float to the top while others sink to the bottom. What determines these floating hierarchies of policy solutions are policy entrepreneurs, who link ideas and policy decision makers.

The politics stream operates separately from the other two streams and at times deter- mines a problem’s status on the agenda. The politics stream can be defined as the political factors influencing the agenda, such as national mood, current political climate, organized political forces, change in elected officials, and consensus about what solution is proposed and enacted. The politics stream represents what the political system and policy actors are willing to place on the agenda; it is where solutions emerge as policy outcomes (Zaharia- dis, 1999). In sum, the politics stream emphasizes the broad culture in which policy and solutions operate (Zahariadis, 1999).

The significance of these three streams—problem, policy, and politics—emerges as policy windows open intermittently within U.S. politics. Policy windows, as Kingdon conceives them, occur and open at “critical moments in time” (as cited in Zahariadis, 1999, p. 77). Either the nature of a problem or politics opens such windows. Hence, for policy actors and policy entrepreneurs, action and reaction to the emergence of such windows is critical because policy solutions will be selected during these periods. For example, consider the suc- cessful ban on public smoking in New York State and the policy- window opening that helped facilitate this policy outcome. Under Mayor Michael Bloom- berg, the city of New York’s health department mounted a concerted public campaign highlighting the negative health effects of secondhand smoke. In short, a public health agency, acting as a policy advocate, framed the issue not as a poten- tial health risk to smokers but to everyone else in the city. As a

Getty Images

The successful ban on public smoking in New York City was facilitated by a policy window opening.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 98 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

result, the city adopted a public-smoking ban, which provided the policy-window open- ing that allowed New York governor George Pataki to act as a policy entrepreneur in initiating a similar statewide ban. Framing the issue in terms of the risks to nonsmokers freed legislators from fears of losing the smokers’ vote because smokers represented less than 20% of the public, and the ban was already in effect in one of the state’s most visible cities. For Kingdon, the policy process and policy action revolve around the opening of these critical policy windows.

In recent years a number of theorists have refined the multiple streams model (Ness, 2010). They argue that any model utilizing multiple streams must take into account insti- tutional and structural factors. Additionally, some theorists have altered the policy stream into a policy field by joining the problem stream and the politics stream (Ness & Mistretta, 2009). These revisions have shifted the focus from agenda setting to policy design and formulation.

The theoretical value of multiple streams stems from its emphasis on the interrelation- ship between political and policy dynamics evident in the beginning phases of the policy- making process. Furthermore, the theory may explain why some problems and certain policy solutions are not recognized politically as important issues or relevant solutions. Evidently, for Kingdon, the character of the policy process reflects a seemingly constant competition. This competition manifests among policy actors who must struggle over who will define the nature of the problem, set the agenda, formulate solutions, and influ- ence the adoption of policy actions.

Although the multiple streams model offers valuable insights into the beginning stages of the policy process, as a theoretical approach, it raises some questions about its assump- tions. The multiple streams paradigm does not make effective distinctions among the three streams and whether they are independent or interdependent. Additionally, the notion of policy windows—why they result and whether they are fleeting—remains unclear. In practical terms, how does one ascertain when a policy window has or has not opened? Also unclear is the exact impact actors and policy entrepreneurs make on the resulting selection of certain solutions over others. Even more important is the question of how multiple streams aid in understanding the entire policy process—including the implemen- tation and evaluation of policy solutions. For instance, how do these streams strengthen or weaken policy solutions that have been adopted? Again, the specific role of implemen- tation and evaluation within the multiple streams framework remains obscure.

Punctuated Equilibrium Framework

Although the policy process can be incremental and relatively stable in nature, dramatic changes in policy can occur, and the punctuated equilibrium framework attempts to explain rapid or bold changes. The policy process has a seemingly contradictory nature: Dynamic and stable policy changes coexist, depending on the greater socioeconomic or political conditions that emerge. As with multiple streams, the theory of punctuated equi- librium may best explain the beginning stages and phases of the policy process.

According to political scientists Frank Baumgartner and Bryan Jones, who developed the theory, the policy process is framed by political institutions and by bounded rationality, or the focus on a single aspect of an issue rather than on its totality. In terms of the policy

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 99 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

process, whereas the theory centers on the issue-attention and agenda-setting stages, it does help explain both policy formulation and adoption. In general, the theory attempts to resolve why the focus on certain policy issues changes over time and how certain policies reinforce the status quo. In addition, punctuated equilibrium also aims to show how certain periods emerge within the polity in which the issues, the status quo, and the policies once deemed acceptable change dramatically (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Baumgartner, Jones, & Jones, 1999). For example, states such as Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hamp- shire, New York, and Vermont now allow same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, various national polls show that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage, enabling President Obama to be the first U.S. president in office to declare public support for the legalization of same-sex marriage. This situation represents a drastic policy change from a decade ago, when marriage laws in every state prohibited or did not recognize same-sex marriage.

Punctuated equilibrium theory suggests that the diffuse governing nature of U.S. politics—the divisions resulting from its unique institutional, constitutional, and subsystems—favors a general stability in the policy process, but still provides an opportunity for dramatic change (Baumgartner, Jones, & Jones, 1999). In other words, this same institutional structure provides a path through which actors can and do mobilize to alter the status quo. Although dramatic change is not necessarily the norm of the policy process, it is possible when cooperation or clarity about a particular policy issue’s immediacy emerges. A better understanding of the agenda-setting process explains the tendency for both stability and dramatic change in the status quo.

For Baumgartner and Jones (1999), a series of policy subsystems continuously operates within and across the institutional and constitutional confines of U.S. politics. These pol- icy subsystems can surround single or multiple issues, be dominated by specific interests, or involve competition among a variety of special interests. As the issues the subsystem

confronts increase in number, the tendency is toward incremental, rather than dramatic, policy solu- tions. However, this incremen- tal nature can fuel dissatisfaction among groups and interests dis- pleased with current policy pro- posals and solutions. As a result, the mobilization of the disaffected can force an issue onto a visible agenda, such as the institutional agenda of Congress or the execu- tive branch. Fueling this mobili- zation, according to punctuated equilibrium theory, are changing policy images that surround the issue. New information redefines the policy image, leading to an increased number of disaffected

iStockphoto/Thinkstock

Same-sex marriage represents drastic policy change, which may be explained by punctuated equilibrium theory.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 100 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

people. One example of such an image shift is health-care reform, which became an issue concerning legislators and Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, when large num- bers of the middle class realized that health care was becoming something they could not afford. Baumgartner and Jones (1999) explain these “bursts of change and policy punctua- tions as arising from the interaction of images and institutions” (p. 103).

The image of a policy—how it is perceived within the policy process—is critical to explain- ing which subsystems remain stable. Policy images that foster consensus about how to understand or describe policy issues are more often associated with a stable agenda. In contrast, as a new image gains adherents, new opportunities exist to challenge the static nature of a policy subsystem—either within the subsystem, or, more dramatically, at the macro level. Overall, the defining nature of U.S. politics is that gridlock and general incre- mentalism coexist with opportunities for punctuated change in the direction and content of public policy.

Punctuated equilibrium assumes a bounded rationality in how individuals or groups come to decisions. The consequence of this dynamic is that shifts in attention can lead to different understandings and preferences among policy actors. New information and new images can lead to schisms in how policy issues or problems are viewed. These schisms, in turn, can spur new policy solutions and results in the direction of public policy. Thus, rather than classic incrementalism, punctuated equilibrium offers an explanation of the policy process that is both static and dramatic: The nature of change depends, in large part, on the degree of new information that can alter the image of the policy problem and mobilize the various interests within the policy process.

Overall, as a theory of policy change, punctuated equilibrium offers an innovative expla- nation of the policy process. One of the most fruitful areas of research using this approach has been an evaluation of the national budgeting process (Baumgartner, Jones, & Jones, 1999). Because budgets are negotiated yearly, they provide a fertile empirical ground for observing dramatic shifts in policy images that result in changes to fiscal allocations (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993). Yet, even though the equilibrium theory is intuitively appeal- ing, and its theoretical explanation of policy change elegantly extends classic incremental- ism, it remains somewhat limited in offering insight into all aspects of the policy process.

Punctuated equilibrium can help us understand how problems are identified, issues develop, and the agenda is set. It explains as well how certain issues may become the center focus for various policy actors; however, the theory does not address what happens after a policy adopted. Failures in implementation—as consistently poor pub- lic administration of government programs highlights—may be a critical cause of perceptual changes in an issue’s image. For example, federal funding of welfare pro- grams underwent a dramatic change with the 1996 passage of welfare reform. In part, fueling this growing political desire to reexamine welfare policy was the perception that current government welfare programs and policies were inefficient and ineffective. Hence, poor implementation made a negative image of public welfare programs legiti- mate and drove, to some extent, the dramatic change in welfare policy that occurred in the late 1990s.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 101 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Criticisms of the Transportation Security Administration The techniques used by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to prevent terrorist attacks are constantly evolving, and overall the organization has been largely successful. The TSA was formed after 9/11 and has since prevented the recurrence of such a large-scale terrorist attack. But the administration is not without its flaws. Learn about some complaints and criticisms about the TSA in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic1rj9CdzTw.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. How might you use the punctuated equilibrium framework to explain the federalization of

airport security? 2. Was such change in policy reasonable? 3. Over a decade after 9/11, views about airport security continue to influence how policy makers

react. What are some examples of this?

Social Construction of Target Populations Framework

Theorists advocating the framework known as social construction of target populations argue that specific segments of the population affect policy formulation. Thus, societal attitudes about a target population influence the type of policy formulated, and decision makers take into account how policy will affect target populations. The originating theo- rists, Schneider and Ingram, argue that understanding a policy’s effects on a particular segment of the population is an important aspect of policy design. Schneider and Ingram (1993) believe a relationship between pervasive stereotypes and policy making exists. They argue that a policy’s justification and substance can be understood by recognizing how the groups a given policy targets are socially constructed.

The term social construction refers to the way in which individuals in the political arena and society in general perceive a segment of the population. The theory suggests that within society, some segments (target popu- lations) have culturally constructed images that are positive or negative. These images influence the types of benefits—as well as burdens—policy makers are willing to distribute to the groups through policy design. For example, until the late 1980s, the story of AIDS was one of policy delay. The public agenda did not entertain AIDS policy adoption and formulation because the general per- ception of the issue was one of a dis- ease that affected homosexuals, drug users, and sex workers—all groups outside of mainstream America with negative socially constructed images. Thus, such groups—labeled a devi- ant target population—were not

Getty Images

Societal attitudes about a target population, such as AIDS victims, can influence the policy process.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 102 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

“deserving” of policy benefits. Change came about in the late 1980s only because elected representatives found it more difficult to ignore the epidemic; the social construction of AIDS victims had changed, as celebrities including Rock Hudson and Magic Johnson, not to mention children like Ryan White, were diagnosed with the disease. In addition, homo- sexual men and women started to mobilize and become politically visible, which resulted in a more positive social construction. Subsequently, policy makers and society at large acknowledged AIDS as a public health problem that needed addressing. The result was that AIDS sufferers started to receive more policy benefits than burdens.

The effects of such image construction are visible in electoral periods, as incumbents hope to maximize their electoral advantage through prior policy choices (Donova, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1998). Under ideal circumstances, positively constructed groups receive ben- efits from policy, while their negative counterparts receive burdens. The danger for policy makers is in incorrectly perceiving the social construction and political power of some target populations, thereby giving benefits and burdens to the wrong groups. This type of misperception can affect policy makers’ electoral success. Thus, policy makers hope to distribute the most benefits to those groups with the most political power and most positive social construction. Adopting AIDS policy in the 1980s would have cost policy makers the support of voters who believed AIDS victims to be the “deviants” of society and the cause of their own plight. To justify these kinds of policy actions, Schneider and Ingram argue (1993), policy makers rely on rationalizations that maximize the benefits and minimize the burdens for favored groups.

Policy Diffusion Framework

Theorists who champion the policy diffusion framework focus on policy emulation and learning across political units, such as states or nations. These theorists assume that a policy adopted in one setting can serve as a model for policy makers in another setting; the theory posits that states and nations will design and adopt similar policies to deal with similar problems and that these political units will vary their policies because of lessons learned from other states and nations (Karch, 2007). The framework owes much to the work of political scientist Jack Walker (1969), who explored why some states are quicker to adopt policy than other states. The framework also has its origins in the literature of state policy innovation. However, the use of the policy diffusion framework as a way to under- stand the policy process became more common after the publication of Berry and Berry’s (1990) work on policy making related to state lotteries in the United States. Political sci- entists Berry and Berry, using event history analysis, demonstrated how policy makers in one state were influenced by prior policy choices in other states.

Studies using a policy diffusion framework are for the most part quantitative and lon- gitudinal; thus, states or nations are tracked over a period of time until policy adoption occurs. The framework views adoption as a function of the characteristics of a political system and the diffusion processes that exist. Policy diffusion’s main drivers are inter- nal factors and external forces. Internal factors include socioeconomic markers, election cycles, partisanship, policy entrepreneurs, group conflict, and political institutions; exter- nal forces include, but are not limited to, competition and social learning (Boehmke, 2005; Mintrom, 1997; Volden, Ting, & Carpenter, 2008). The social learning process explains why states or nations feel pressure to adopt policies that other states or nations have adopted. Sometimes nations adopt what others have implemented because the policy is cost- and

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 103 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Section 3.2 Dominant Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process CHAPTER 3

Policy in Practice: National HIV/AIDS Strategy and Policy Innovation The beginnings of U.S. policy on HIV/AIDS dates back to May, 1983, when Congress first funded AIDS treatment and research. Over the following 3 decades, policy makers at all levels of government have worked to control the HIV/AIDS epidemic. While many of their efforts have been innovative and effective, the overall national response has been a patchwork of uncoordinated and duplicative poli- cies. This has undermined our national ability to fully combat HIV/AIDS. But in July 2010 the White House sought to alter this dynamic.

With bipartisan support, and building on the significant HIV/AIDS achievements of his immediate pre- decessor, former president Bush, President Obama released his National HIV/AIDS Strategy (NHAS). NHAS emphasized three critical objectives: reduce new HIV/AIDS infections, improve access to care and improve the health of those living with HIV/AIDS, and reduce the disparities in diagnosis and treatment of HIV/AIDS, especially among Hispanics and Blacks. Ambitious targets for each of these goals were also announced, along with new funding and policy reforms to enhance coordination. Ongoing White House attention to HIV/AIDS refocused the nation’s attention on a disease on the verge of falling off the nation’s collective radar.

Additional federal funding soon followed with greater emphasis on involving state and local policy makers. These programs focused more directly on populations at risk (including Hispanic and Black, both gay and straight), tied increased funding to tangible policy results, and redirected money to the most effective prevention strategies. Under NHAS, policy makers are obligated to track and learn from the best HIV/AIDS programs in the country, and to do their best to apply lessons learned to their own efforts. Initially meant to foster better federal coordination of HIV/AIDS programs, NHAS has catalyzed coordination, consultation, and competition among policy makers and practitioners working at the local, state, and national levels.

By most accounts NHAS has been a policy success, but there have been some bumps in the road along the way. Syringe exchange programs championed by NHAS for their significant impact on HIV/ AIDs prevention were ultimately prohibited by Congress, and efforts to focus HIV/AIDs efforts on urban epicenters via the 12 Cities Project have been hindered by underfunding and intergovernmen- tal squabbles. Nevertheless, NHAS has produced impressive progress in the fight against HIV/AIDs. It is now easier than ever before to obtain a free screening test, to find accessible and professional counseling, and to be assured of competent and affordable care. For socioeconomic groups that are especially at risk to HIV/AIDS there have been significant growths in education, prevention, and outreach efforts tailored to each groups’ unique needs. And for scholars, activists, and practitioners working or hoping to work in the HIV/AIDS field it is easier to connect with colleagues across the country and to learn from their policy successes and disappointments.

The success of NHAS naturally raises questions for students of the public policy process. What factors, for instance, best explain the rise and success of NHAS? What does NHAS teach us, moreover, about how to best design, promote, and analyze other public policy efforts? At first glance, it might seem as if social construction of target populations theory best explains NHAS since the nearby explanation of this theory draws on HIV/AIDS as an example, but three other theories might better explain the policy dynamics underlying NHAS. One is the multiple streams process theory. In much the same way that former president Clinton worked the policy system to drive welfare reform, President Obama corralled a several policy streams to launch NHAS. Another applicable framework is

time-effective or because there is a feeling that the state or nation will be left behind or viewed as less advanced than other states or nations.

(continued)

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 104 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Summary CHAPTER 3

Summary

A persistent quest within the field of public policy is the holy grail of public policy theory: a theory that captures the true dynamic and nature of the entire public policy process. The value of such a theory, of course, is self-evident. With perfect understanding comes perfect analysis, and with perfect analyses come perfect policies to address the many socioeconomic problems that have seemingly endured for generations. Although such a goal is admirable, it will likely prove elusive. Instead of a perfect theory, the goal should be a better theory, clearer understanding, and more insightful analysis.

Choosing among theories, models, and frameworks should not be viewed as an either/ or proposition. Rather, the challenge should be to apply the approaches where warranted, derive analytical value from them where applicable, compare and contrast the insights each affords, and employ the best theory or theories with which to understand the intrin- sic complexity of the policy process. Above all, one should avoid becoming so wedded to a single approach that it becomes the sole prism through which to understand public

Policy in Practice: National HIV/AIDS Strategy and Policy Innovation (continued) the punctuated equilibrium process, since sudden policy change is often driven by policy entrepre- neurs most adept at driving multiple policy streams in one unified direction. Finally, the policy diffu- sion process s is also an applicable framework given the NHAS strategy’s focus on coordination and learning across local, state, and federal levels.

As a springboard for theory-building, the NHAS teaches us that no single window into the public policy process shows us the whole story. The best policy analysts draw from multiple and overlapping frameworks to understand the reality of public policy in action.

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Policy formation is rarely as straightforward as the policy cycle framework described at the beginning of this chapter suggests. Nevertheless, the stages heuristic can help us identify criti- cal moments in the formation and persistence of any policy. Which stage or stages, in your view, might have been most critical to the formation and presentation of NHAS by the Obama Administration?

2. Details on NHAS can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/onap/nhas. As you peruse this website, pay particular attention to the NHAS “Vision,” especially its focus on a small number of “high payoff action steps” that involve multiple stakeholders. How might this vision enhance the policy success of NHAS? And what problems might emerge as a result of NHAS’s narrow focus, multiple-participant model?

3. The NHAS follows a science-based approach to policy. Programs that demonstrably succeed are expanded, and those that do not are curtailed. One example is NHAS’s syringe exchange program, under which drug addicts could exchange their dirty or used syringes for new, sterile ones at local HIV/AIDSs clinics. This program had a significant effect on preventing the trans- mission of HIV/AIDs among addicts, at relatively low cost. The program was terminated by Congress, however, over concerns that it condoned drug addiction. In light of this controversy, what do you see to be the strengths and weaknesses of a “science-based” approach to HIV/ AIDs prevention that focuses on demonstrated success and cost effectiveness?

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 105 11/27/12 3:26 PM

Summary CHAPTER 3

policy. Despite a perceived intrinsic need to find the best theory, each theory has its own value within the framework provided by the stages-heuristic model. In the end, how to apply these differing schools of thought to better understand the public policy process is open to wide debate.

Determining the best theory of the policy process will remain an openly contentious and subjective exercise. Clearly, even if no one theory provides all of the answers, none should be immediately discounted or ignored. Moreover, although many of these theories were not designed to explain all facets and stages of the policy process, deriving theoretical knowledge and practical value from them is quite possible. In fact, subsequent exten- sions of these theories may indeed offer even more promising explanations of the policy process. The goal for students, analysts, and policy makers should be to use each of the theories to build on their overall understanding of the policy process.

Understanding the overall policy process is necessary before developing greater theo- retical insight into its overall complexity and fluidity. This difficult task is accomplished by first using the stages-heuristic approach to establish the conceptual foundation and framework for understanding the basic policy process. Although other approaches have utility and may offer a more promising theoretical analysis of specific stages or phases of the policy process, the stages-heuristic approach continues to prove instrumental to a bet- ter understanding of the overall policy process.

One could argue that better understanding requires a structured and diverse path of thinking. To that end, an arguably better method of understanding the place and pur- pose of the theories discussed in this chapter is to view each of them as providing greater understanding of specific phases and stages outlined by the stage-heuristic framework. IAD models, for example, supply an understanding of the dynamics of decision making and strategic negotiations that pervade the policy formulation and adoption stages. The multiple streams and punctuated equilibrium theories help explain the dynamics of prob- lem identification and agenda setting, as well policy adoption. The ACF framework can be used, in part, to understand how the many stages of the policy process are intimately interrelated and affected by so-called advocacy coalitions. Social construction can illu- minate why certain policy choices are made. Finally, policy diffusion helps clarify why problems in different settings are met with similar policy actions.

Despite the relevance of each theory discussed in this chapter, the dominant theory for understanding the policy process’ overall structure remains the stages-heuristic approach. Over time, this theoretical exercise may lead to a new theory that evolves from all or parts of the theories that have been discussed. At a minimum, a good student of public policy must consider the value and insight that all of these theories—as well others not discussed—offer in understanding a complex field and process.

The remaining chapters will describe the policy process using a stages-heuristic model. Although the approach is by no means perfect, it remains an essential part—a first step— in understanding how policies develop and change. As noted political scientist Randall Ripley (1995) once suggested, the stages-heuristic theory proves an invaluable organiza- tional tool for the student who wishes to understand how policy develops and evolves.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 106 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Key Points to Remember CHAPTER 3

Key Points to Remember

• Each theoretical framework offers valuable insights into the workings of the policy process.

• Many competing frameworks exist because of the policy process’s complexity and the many factors that influence policy making.

• The stages-heuristic theory adds to the collective theoretical insights and base of knowledge by allowing exploration of each policy stage, phase, and the overall policy process in various manners and directions.

• The significance of the stages-heuristic framework is evident, from research into issue identification as a policy problem to the dynamics that explain which problems enter the political agenda, and from analysis of forces that shape policy design and policy formulations to the actors and elements that affect policy implementation and evaluation. (For a review of various articles expanding on the stages of the policy process, see Theodoulou & Cahn, 1995.)

• Within rational choice models (public choice, game theory, and expected utility), policy making is the product of policy actors’ taking rational actions dictated by rational policy decisions.

• Incrementalism argues against the idea that policy is the product of rationality and comprehensive change; it views policy making as either a slowing or step- ping up of existing policy over time.

• The institutional analysis and development (IAD) framework identifies three tiers of decision making: constitutional, collective choice, and operational, con- sidered valuable elements for analysis and evaluation of government decisions and policy outcomes (Theodoulou & Cahn, 1995).

• The value of the IAD approach is in offering a rational basis with which to explore the policy process and decision making both theoretically and practically (Theo- doulou & Cahn, 1995).

• The advocacy coalition framework (ACF) is the most aggressive of recent attempts to develop a comprehensive theory of the entire policy process.

• Although certain concerns may persist, ACF still represents a promising approach and a valuable foil to the stage-heuristic approach.

• ACF highlights the importance of information and beliefs in the policy process. • ACF expands the traditional notions of the policy subsystem to include an array

of noninstitutional and institutional actors. • The most significant insights of the ACF model lie in the assumption that certain

held beliefs do not change readily and that dramatic or differing directions in policy require external shocks to such beliefs.

• The multiple streams framework offers a promising approach to understanding the seemingly chaotic nature of the policy process.

• Specifically, the multiple streams framework may explain why certain policy problems and solutions emerge and dominate individuals’ attention at a given time and not at other times.

• The multiple streams model explains that the understanding of problems and the emergence of certain policy solutions are not the product of straightforward ratio- nal analysis, but are rather products of rational decisions and policy ideas, borne from the policy and political process’ intrinsic ambiguity and seeming chaos.

• The multiple streams approach seems to provide a potent theoretical explanation for understanding the predecision and decision stages of the policy process.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 107 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 3

• The punctuated equilibrium framework offers an important extension of the incrementalist approach to the policy process.

• Although not a complete theory of the policy process, the punctuated equilib- rium framework does provide theoretical insight into the predecision and deci- sion phases of the policy process.

• The punctuated equilibrium framework explains why dramatic changes can occur in the early phases of the policy process.

• The value of the social construction of the target populations framework is to demonstrate how societal attitudes about a target population influence the types of policies formulated.

• The more positive the construction of a group’s image, the more the group will receive policy benefits. Conversely, the less positive the image construction, the more that group will receive costs or burdens.

• The policy diffusion framework assumes that policy makers will use a policy adopted in one setting as a model for policy in another setting.

• The policy diffusion model argues that nations will design and adopt similar policies for dealing with similar problems or that nations will vary their policies because of lessons learned from other nations.

Key Terms

advocacy coalition framework (ACF) An approach to the policy process that focuses on the interaction of advocacy coalitions within a policy subsystem. This approach maps the belief systems of policy elites and analyzes the conditions under which policy-oriented learning across coalitions can occur.

advocacy coalitions Institutional and noninstitutional actors who join together because they share common beliefs and engage in coordinated activity around an issue area that affects them.

coupling Integral to multiple stream model, this process matches problems and solutions by policy entrepreneurs with receptive audiences.

deep core beliefs Critical normative beliefs of the members of an advocacy coalition.

garbage can model of decision making An approach to decision making that disconnects problems, solutions, and deci- sion makers from one another, resulting in problems and possible solutions being dumped into the agenda-setting process. What emerges is chaos, often with solu- tions attached to problems they were not designed for.

institutional analysis and development (IAD) Framework approach to the policy process that focuses on the behavior of individuals who make decisions and the way in which the institutions they are part of affect their decision making.

multiple streams framework Analytical model that explains how policy problems are recognized, how and why they are added to the agenda, and how they are matched with policy solutions.

policy core beliefs An advocacy coali- tion’s basic normative commitments and causal perceptions across an entire policy subsystem.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 108 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions CHAPTER 3

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Compare the advocacy coalition framework with the institutional analysis and development framework. Which framework is more persuasive as a model to describe policy making? Why?

2. Do you agree that the trouble with all of the theories put forward is that none is rooted in reality? Also, do such theories have any practical value for the real- world policy actor? Discuss.

3. In your opinion, which of the theories discussed best explains the policy process? Conversely, which theory offers the weakest explanation of the policy process?

policy entrepreneurs Individuals or groups who act as advocates for a particu- lar action or solution and invest resources in ensuring the policy solution they favor is adopted.

policy diffusion framework An approach to the policy process that explains varia- tion or similarity in the adoption of specific policy innovations across different locali- ties. This approach argues that adoption is a function of both the characteristics of the specific political systems and a variety of diffusion processes.

policy stream The constant flow of pol- icy solutions and proposals that weave throughout the political system as a response to the presence of an identified problem.

policy windows Opportunities to push policy solutions that are opened by the nature of a problem or by politics, open at critical moments, and that provide an opening for policy actors to try to push through certain policy solutions over others.

politics stream The political factors that influence a policy agenda, such as national mood, current political climate, organized political forces, change in elected officials, and consensus about what solution is pro- posed and enacted.

problem stream How a decision maker becomes aware of certain socioeconomic conditions or events and how these con- ditions or events are then viewed as a problem.

punctuated equilibrium framework An approach to the policy process that is designed to explain stability and change in policy making. Argues that policy making is characterized by long periods of incre- mental change punctuated by brief periods of major change.

secondary beliefs An advocacy coalition’s shared narrow beliefs about the policy issue.

social construction of target popula- tions An approach to the policy process that focuses on how attitudes about a policy’s target population influence the type of policy formulated and how policy affects how target populations are viewed.

stages-heuristic (or policy cycle) frame- work An approach to the policy process that conceives it as an interrelated series of stages, including problem identifica- tion, agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, policy evaluation, and policy change or termination.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 109 11/21/12 12:47 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 3

4. All of the theories discussed never really answer Harold Lasswell’s age-old ques- tion of “Who gets what, when, and how?” Are such political questions important for a theoretical discussion of the policy process?

5. The trouble with the theories advanced to explain policy making is that they all more or less say the same thing. Discuss why you agree or disagree with this statement.

Applied Internet Exercises: Policy Theory Applications

1. You’ve just been hired as a policy expert for a U.S. Senate committee, and the first task the staff director (your boss) assigns is to determine which of the various policy theories discussed in this chapter does the best job of explaining the policy process. Follow these steps:

a. Go to the Senate Committee website and choose the committee for which you work: http:// www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_ home.htm

b. After you’ve decided on your committee assignment, research and review the various pieces of legislation that the committee may be currently discussing or has discussed within a 6 month time frame.

Each of these committees has a unique website with the latest information on its activi- ties. Also use your preferred search engine to conduct additional research among interest groups, think tanks, and experts.

c. Select the legislation you will analyze. Remember it can be either a legislation that has not yet been adopted, or one that has, for which the committee may be evaluating the legisla- tion’s impact.

d. Select one theory and use that theory to explain the policy process. Whichever theory you choose, remember that it—not your opinions—must guide your research and analysis of this policy and the policy process.

e. Prepare your written memo. Your memo cannot exceed 3 pages.

2. As discussed, punctuated equilibrium theory is unique in its attempt to explain how the sta- tus quo and public policy can change dramatically. The theory also helps explain how, at other times, change can be incremental or nonexistent. What fuels this dramatic change is the effect of new information and new images on political decision making. An area that helps identify this dynamic is federal budgets and changes to specific allocations (i.e. defense, education, etc).

Your task is the following: Prepare a short analysis of two different fiscal year periods within President Barack Obama’s first term in office that examines a proposed dramatic (or signifi- cant) change to federal funding within two of the president’s proposed budgets.

For comparison, you may choose a specific agency or a specific program. Remember, you must provide an explanation of what specifically changed over that period to result in this change in funding. You must apply the equilibrium theory to help guide your analysis.

As a resource, you can use information provided by the Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget), which provides a helpful breakdown of the presi- dent’s proposed budgets over his term in office.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 110 11/27/12 3:26 PM

Suggested Readings CHAPTER 3

Suggested Readings

Cohen, M., March, J., & Olsen, J. (1972, June). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

Gilardi, F. (2010, July). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science, 54 (3), 650–666.

John, P. (2003). Is there life after policy streams, advocacy coalitions and punctuations: Using evolutionary theory to explain policy change? Policy Studies Journal, 31(4), 481–497.

Jones, B. D., Sulkin, T., & Larsen, H. A. (2003, February). Policy punctuations in Ameri- can political institutions. American Political Science Review, 97, 151–169.

Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Meier, K. (2005). From perception to public policy: Translating social constructions in policy designs. In Anne L. Schneider & Helen M. Ingram (Eds.), Deserving and Entitled: Social Constructions and Target Populations (pp. 223–242). Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2005.

Ostrom, E. (1991, March). Rational choice theory and institutional analysis: Toward complementarity. American Political Science Review, 85(1), 237–243.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2007.

Schlager, E., & Blomquist, W. (1996). A comparison of three emerging theories of the policy process. Political Research Quarterly, 49.

Theodoulou, S., & Cahn, M. (2012). Public policy: The essential readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 111 11/21/12 12:47 PM

the80472_03_c03_083-112.indd 112 11/21/12 12:47 PM