for A plus writer only

nosyistypesif

soc320_chapter_13.pdf

Home >History homework help >for A plus writer only

G et

ty Im

ag es

Learning Objectives

In this chapter you will learn to:

• Explain the text's approach of merging theory and application.

• Identify and discuss the most common decision-making models as applied to policy choices.

• Compare and contrast the different decision-making models as applied to policy choices.

Understanding Choices and Decisions about Policy

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 407 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

The goal of this text is to provide a well-balanced and broad understanding of the field of public policy that also gives additional insight into the political dynamics of U.S. social policymaking. This book has provided a well-balanced discussion of the policy-making game—its language, the what, the who, the where, and the stages of the process. More ambitiously, it has endeavored to merge the practical and theoretical to assist you in understanding the complexity of the policy process.

Essentially, public policy and the policy-making process are not as hard as they seem. What makes policy making difficult is the inescapable reality of politics throughout the policy process. Such politics are sometimes institutionalized and exist within a variety of actors, but they can and do change over time. As such, policy is not fixed. Rather it is dynamic and can change for the better or the worse. The key challenge is becoming aware of how policy is made so that the next generation of policy makers can make better decisions.

It is often the case that perfect decisions and perfect policy are an impossibility given political and policy dynamics. Still it is important to strive to achieve that elusive goal of the perfect public policy: a well-identified problem that is set on the agenda with appro- priate priority, and a solution formulated and designed, implemented to achieve intended impacts, evaluated with a purpose to improve the policy, and changed or terminated when deemed necessary.

Policy making is a complex process with distinct overlapping stages. Different theories of the policy process have been formulated to explore the complexity of each stage of the process. In addition, an array of applied tools—such as policy analysis, agenda-setting methods, policy design, legislative and lobbying strategy, implementation analysis, and program evaluation models—allow policy makers to apply theory to real-world policy arenas. From such theoretical and real-world perspectives come better understanding, the skills to make policy better, and the ability to make the “right” decisions throughout the policy process.

As discussed in previous chapters, policy can be created from within any part of the politi- cal system, each policy arena is to some extent distinctive (although there are discernible similarities within various stages), and somehow all the actors come together and make decisions about which policy alternative best deals with an issue or problem. How all of these actors come together and make the choices that they do can best be understood through a discussion of decision making.

13.1 Decision-Making Models

Policy making requires that actors make choices between different solutions for problems. How this is achieved is best explained and understood through vari-ous decision-making models. None of the models were specifically developed to study public policy, but they do look at the decision-making process that is at the heart of policy making. What follows are the models most commonly used to understand the decision-making process:

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 408 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

Public Choice Theory Public choice theory is “the study of collective decisions made by groups of individuals through the political process to maximize their own self-interest” (Cochran et al., 1999, p. 55). The theory was originally advanced by Buchanan and Tullock (1962) in the 1960s. This approach applies the assumptions of rationality, self-interest, and maximization to understand the policy and political arenas. It assumes that individuals have preferences, and that they pursue a course of action that seeks to maximize the benefits of their optimal

The Economics of Crime Rational people think about the consequences of their action and weigh costs vs. benefits. This pro- cess also occurs when people chose to commit crimes. The economics of crime are logically dis- cussed in this interesting look at why people commit minor everyday crimes like jaywalking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf31bjeloFk

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. How does rational choice theory explain the “logic” of criminal behavior? 2. What is the contagion effect? 3. What role does risk play in rational behavior?

• rational choice models • incremental decision making model • group theory • elite theory • subgovernments model • bureaucratic corporatist model • systems model

Each of these can offer a last degree of focus in understanding the stages and dynamics of the policy process. Which theory one subscribes to will influence his or her view on why certain types of policy are enacted over others. Various authors have summarized these various theories and models as attempts to explain “who rules?” through an analysis of who controls or dominates the policy process and who benefits from policy making (Domhoff, 1967).

Rational Choice Models

Rational choice models provide analysis of the policy process based on assumptions of rationality—how context affects rationality and the consequences of the rational pursuits undertaken by groups or individuals. Although some scholars criticize the rational choice model, it is valuable theoretically because it allows analysts to understand how rational actions often dictate decision making in the policy process (Stone, 1997). There are a vari- ety of rational choice models, including public choice theory, game theory, expected utility approach, and institutional rational choice.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 409 11/21/12 1:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf31bjeloFk

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

preferences (Cochran et al.,1999, p. 55). However, public choice theory, and the assump- tion of rationality, does not assume that individuals make the best decisions or are inca- pable of making moral or immoral decisions. Rather, it assumes that decisions by policy actors are often made based on limited information and that actions taken will be based on the maximization of benefits as calculated by the decision maker.

Public choice theory suggests that individuals will act in a predictable manner given cer- tain incentives or disincentives. In particular, it is assumed that individuals will not “knowingly choose a higher-cost means of achieving a given end when a lower cost alter- native is available” (Cochran et al.,1999, p. 59). This assumption provides the means with which to predict the effect that policies, programs, and governmental structure may have on individual behavior. In short, most individuals respond in predictable ways when given incentives and when they perceive that the benefits to them personally outweigh the costs (Cochran et al.,1999, p. 58).

Also, public choice provides fur- ther insight into the collective consequences that arise from indi- vidual decisions. Given that public policy operates in a political forum in which individuals and groups decisions interact, it is invaluable to understand that individuals’ decisions, when taken collectively, can have negative consequences for the individual, group, and soci- ety. These collective negative con- sequences are highlighted by the notion of the tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons describes how individuals may pursue decisions that maximize their benefits, even while exploit- ing others or over-consuming cer- tain resources, because the direct costs are distributed within and across the society. A common example is the negative effects of driving cars. Driving results in many nega- tive social consequences, including traffic congestion, traffic accidents, and air pollution. Yet, individuals choose to drive despite these negative consequences because driving provides clear benefits for the individual and the consequences are spread among many people. Yet, the individuals are also negatively affected because they also get stuck in traf- fic, get into car accidents, and are harmed by pollution. Hence, the resulting consequences of individual rationality, if left unchecked or unregulated, may prove damaging to the individual and the society.

The implication of this assumption has profound consequences for understanding the purpose and role of public policy within a society. For instance, public policy can be assumed to be necessary to address failings arising from the natural interactions of indi- viduals pursuing their self-interest. Government regulation and oversight, as well as laws

Image 100/Superstock

Public choice theory is the study of collective decisions made by groups of individuals through the political process to maximize their own self-interest.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 410 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

Game Theory Game theory views policy making as a series of games that have strategies and pay- offs and provides a mathematical framework for analyzing individuals’ mutually interdependent interaction. Game theory can be defined as a “theory of interdependent decisions—when the decisions of two or more individuals jointly determine the out- come of a situation” (Morrow, 1994, pp.1–2). Thus, game theorists see policy decisions as the product of the interaction of two or more rational actors and assume that deci- sion makers are rational and will pursue actions that optimize their desired policy ends (Morrow, 1994, pp. 17–18). The aim of game theory is to study the strategic interactions and decisions of individuals, as well as predict the outcomes that arise from any specific decision. Game theory has often been utilized to explore many issues within foreign policy, national security, and economic policy.

As with other rational choice approaches, game theory assumes decision makers are ratio- nal and will pursue a course of action that seeks to optimize the ends desired. Again, the rationality assumption does not necessary assume that decision makers will make “good” choices or that actors will make decisions that are truly best for them. Rather, the rationality assumption presumes that individuals will make the best decision for them- selves based on the information available and given the goal they want to obtain. One can indeed make “bad” decisions because of poor information, limited information, or goals that may be poorly defined or poorly thought through. Thus, rational behavior should not be thought of as always achieving the best outcome but, rather, as goal-directed because actors are assumed to prefer “more desired outcomes rather than less desired outcomes” (Gates & Humes, 1997, p. 17).

Game theory permits an understanding of political decision making that can be both sim- plistic and complex. Theorists utilizing game theory to explain policy making commonly do so through one of three types of games: cooperative games in which actors jointly benefit from the same outcomes; competitive games in which the gain of one actor or group of actors

The Lessons of Public Choice Theory Public Choice Theory argues that markets are highly imperfect institutions, but assuming that gov- ernment intervention will fix them is wrong. The Theory suggests that the imperfect institution is still better than the imperfect fix. To learn more about public choice theory and how it comes to its conclusions watch the following video featuring Dr. Mark Pennington: http://www.youtube.com /watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. Why does market failure necessitate government action? 2. What is the argument behind Public Choice Theory? 3. A fair analysis of market failure vs. government failure demands one to consider what factors?

and policies governing individual behavior, can be assumed necessary to address certain decisions that do not rationally calculate the adverse effect that private actions have on the greater public interest.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 411 11/21/12 1:07 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAbDrP7whqw

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

is the loss of another actor or group; and mixed games in which there are varied motives of cooperation and competition. The numbers of actors in such games range from the simple two-person game to the more complex games involving iterated steps and many actors.

Game theory helps explain the potentially negative effects that arise if individuals make decisions based on poor information, poor analysis, and a poor understanding of future consequences. Moreover, such games also provide a basis with which to explore the theo- retical conditions under which policy actors, even those with diverse interests, could and would choose to cooperate.

Expected Utility Approach The expected utility approach argues that the actions of individuals in a decision context are driven by a desire to maximize the expected utility, or usefulness, of benefits versus the costs of a decision. Essentially, the expected utility model “is concerned with explain- ing how policy positions of competing interests evolve over time” (De Mesquita, 1997, p. 236). The value of this approach is that it can be used to explain, and even predict, polit- ical decisions at any level of analysis, the outcomes of certain policy actions, the effect of various actors on the policy process, and the strategies that can help one achieve desired policy goals (De Mesquita, 1997, p. 236).

The insights derived from this model are based on understanding how the potential power of the actors involved, their respective policy positions, and their salience for the issue can lead to a dynamic outcome that can be roughly forecasted. This approach has already been used in government and by various consulting firms to address a range of economic, political, and social policy issues. As of yet, this model has not gained wide acceptance within the field of public policy.

Institutional Rational Choice The institutional rational choice school of thought is theoretically focused on actor- centered institutionalism and on how the policy process can be understood as an inter- action between the rational actions of individuals and groups. Three main elements are associated with this theoretical approach (Ostrum, 1999):

• Humans are rational. • Behavior is strongly influenced by institutional rules. • Institutional rules alter rational behavior.

This approach can be used to analyze institutional power, how institutions make policy decisions, how institutions and actors interact within and across institutions, the rate at which the institutions help the political system respond to problems, and the efficiency with which institutions and the political system aggregate preferences. The focus of the approach is upon how institutions are arranged and how rules allow them to operate.

Within this model, policy making is determined in large part by the structures and rules that policy actors operate within. Ostrom (1999) argues that the interaction of actors within and across institutions is also crucial to determining what policy emerges from a formal institution, such as a legislature. All policies have to be formulated, adopted,

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 412 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

implemented, and enforced. It is the job of formal institutions such as executives, legisla- tures, judiciaries, and political parties to make policy through interaction with nonformal institutions (Anderson, 1990, p. 31). Policy decisions are the output of large government organizations that function according to regular behavioral patterns and interact with other nongovernmental institutions.

The power of rational choice is that it provides a logical basis with which to attempt to understand, analyze, and predict the decisions of individuals within a political and policy context. The approach garners specific criticism over its high level of abstraction, sim- plicity, and assumptions of rationality (Stone, 1997). 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 that can follow from the pursuit of individual actions within a greater community or societal context.

Governments make policies that promote maximum social gain. In short, the benefits of a policy should exceed the costs. A rational policy is one that produces the greatest benefit over cost in comparison with alternative policies dealing with the same problem. One of the basic axioms of the rational choice model is that issues and problems are approached in a well-ordered sequence. Problems are identified and isolated, and then the goals, val- ues, and objectives of pertinent solutions are identified and ranked according to saliency. Next, various alternatives are formulated and weighted, and finally decision makers choose an alternative that will be the most appropriate means to secure described ends. The assumption is that decision makers consider all possible courses of action, work out each of their consequences, and evaluate them before selecting the “best” choice, which is the one most likely to achieve stated goals.

Incremental Decision Making Model

Charles Lindblom, the architect of incrementalism, sought to develop an alternative to the rational model of understanding the policy process. Lindblom questioned the very notion that public policies could ever be formulated in a rational and calculating process. For Lindblom (1959), rational calculation, comprehensive understanding, and effective analysis were beyond the capacities of those in the policy process, and were at best pos- sible only with the simplest problems. Rather than a rational exercise, the incremental decision making model suggests that the policy process operates within an inefficient political and institutional environment, where policy decisions naturally favor minimal over dramatic change.

According to Lindblom, the rational comprehensive approach suggests that policy deci- sions are made in a clear and logical manner. By extension, the rational approach suggests that the entire policy process can be described as rational exercise that logically leads to the best policy decisions in relation to the problems observed. In contrast, incrementalism describes the process of policy development as a series of “successive limited compari- sons.” For Lindblom, this term better described the policy process because it emphasized the practical nature of the policy and political process rather than the rational ideal desired for the process. This contrast is striking and is best evident in comparing the rational com- prehensive approach with that of successive limited comparisons (Table 13.1).

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 413 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

Table 13.1: A comparison of the rational and incremental approaches

Rational comprehensive approach Incremental approach

• Clarification of values and objectives. • Selection of values goals and empirical analy- sis are not distinct but are closely intertwined.

• Policy formulation approached through means-ends analysis. First, the ends and then the means to achieve them are sought.

• Because means and ends is not distinct, means-ends analysis of often inappropriate or limited.

• Test of a good policy is that it is shown to be the most appropriate means to the desired ends.

• Test of a good policy is determined by the extent of agreement among analysts for a particular policy.

• Analysis is comprehensive—every important factor is taken into account.

• Analysis is drastically limited, resulting in the neglecting of possible outcomes, alternative policies, and values.

• Theory is often heavily relied on. • A succession of comparisons greatly reduces the reliance on theory.

The rational approach suggests that values and objectives can be clearly specified. The incremental approach, however, assumes that the selection of values eludes clear articu- lation because a number of values may be put forth, and clarity of the goals of policy remains open to contention. As such, incremental adjustment to present policies is pre- ferred in light of the lack of clarity over what is the better policy. In other words, the policy process will not result in dramatically better policy solutions because it is unclear within this policy process what is a better policy solution. For Lindblom, agreement and con- sensus among analysts are the criteria for determining the “best” policy. Hence, in lieu of more information, marginal or incremental change is preferred to dramatic change.

For Lindblom, rather than an all-encompassing analysis demanded by the rational method, the successive limited comparisons approach highlights the notion that only policies that differ marginally and differ from the status quo are considered. Finally, the notion of succession of comparison assumes that rather than seek the best policy, policy makers confront the political and institutional reality that policy is an ongoing process and that mistakes in policy action should be mitigated where possible. Thus, the inclina- tion for the analyst and policy maker is to pursue limited policy change via a series of incremental changes.

However, in striving to critique the rational comprehensive approach, the incremental approach raises some questions and doubts. For instance, how does one judge when or how means-ends analysis is limited in nature? 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 policy action to redress an economic downturn was substantially increased taxation, would this be deemed a “good” policy? Isn't whether the public approves a policy action a mitigating factor in how incremental the policy process may be? Moreover, how does one judge what sufficient analysis is of given issue?

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 414 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

In many policy cases, such as airline security before September 11, 2001, substantial gov- ernment studies and analyses were conducted, understanding was gained, and options were proposed, but the changes were not deemed politically acceptable or possible at the time reports were published. What was lacking, in the case of airline security, was the political will to pursue more dramatic actions which, based on the evidence, did rationally suggest that dramatic actions were necessary and warranted. Finally, it is clear that in some cases, such as with the New Deal programs and civil rights, dramatic policy changes can be made that are distinct from previous directions in policy. Arguably, incrementalism may best describe a process that leads to small changes, not because of inadequate ratio- nal calculations, poor analysis, or limited information, but because the underlying politi- cal conditions that can justify dramatic changes have yet to clearly materialize.

Overall, the incremental approach represents an attempt to describe the “true” nature of the policy process. Above all, it is a potent rebuke to the claims of rational decision

making and to how decisions are the product of calculations of costs and benefits that result in the best policy action being adopted. Clearly, as an approach to understanding the entire policy pro- cess, incrementalism does offer analytical value. In terms of the pre-decision and decision stages, incrementalism may help explain why the policy process would seem to produce so few actual solutions to what are seemingly persistent and endemic public problems. Moreover, the theory offers an explanation of why dramatic policy actions are rare, even in circumstances when dra- matic policy actions are warranted.

Lindblom outlines incrementalism as present- oriented and frequently remedial in nature, focus- ing on making necessary changes and adaptations in existing practices. Therefore, incrementalism can be viewed as a fine-tuning of existing policy. The incremental model is seen as a simpler and more realistic way of making policy because it is not a comprehensive type of response. It allows decision makers to make small changes in policy as policies begin to fail or produce unsatisfactory or undesirable situations.

Group Theory

The tenet of the group theory decision-making model is that public policy is the product of the struggle among competing groups or, specifically, interest groups. Group theorists attempt to answer who governs within a democratic state (Dahl, 1978; Truman, 1971). This question raises many issues regarding the political forces and dynamics that intermingle within a democratic state and the policy process. Do circles of political power, the legis- lative process, and the policy direction of a state remain open or closed even within the democratic state? Clearly, any state that is not governed as a direct democracy ensures

Tetra Images/Superstock

Airline security before September 11 is one area where there is substantial government studies and analysis conducted on policy.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 415 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

that circles of power, politics, and policy will be potentially limited to those elected to represent the people, as well as those attempting to influence the elected representatives. Still, debate endures as to how accessible and how representative elected officials are, as does the question of whether all people from all classes enjoy similar access or influence in the policy process. Group theory is associated with the work of David Truman (1971) and the pluralist model associated with Robert Dahl (1978).

The central argument of both group theory and the pluralist model is that democratic soci- eties are plural in nature because they are made up of social, ethnic, or economic groups who are more or less well organized and who compete politically with one another to put pressure on government to produce policies favorable to each of them. The public interest emerges out of these competing individual and group claims. On any given issue, specific policies reflect the relative influence of the different affected interests. Therefore, each pol- icy area is unique because it brings with it a distinctive set of problems and separate sets of political agents and forces. Thus, policy making is the outcome of a distinctive process of interaction. Pluralist and group theorists argue that there are multiple centers of power within society, which results in optimum policy developments emerging through com- peting interests. No one group controls because each group is counterbalanced by other groups with different agendas within the same policy sector. For example, labor unions are counterbalanced by corporate interests. One of the chief results of group competition is that the policy solution that garners the most support is the one adopted, whether the policy is good or bad.

Elite Theory

Theorists who subscribe to an elitist perspective to explain decision making perceive the political and policy process as dominated by the few rather than the many. This model maintains that policies are made by a relatively small group of influential leaders who share common goals and outlooks (Miliband, 1969, pp. 131–7; Mills, 1956, pp. 3–15, 276–94). Policy is not seen as the product of group conflict and demands, but rather as determined by the preferences of the power elite or ruling class. The preferences of the elite are adopted by policy makers, and policies reflect their values and serve their interests. Thus, according to the elite theory, public policy is determined not by the masses but by a minor- ity who have political and eco- nomic power.

In general, elite theory proposes that society is divisible along class lines, in which the power of the masses (whose power is derived simply by their multi- tude) confronts the power of the

Bounce/Getty Images

Elite Theory suggests that the political and policy processes are dominated by the few rather than the many.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 416 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

elite (whose power is derived by wealth and status within the polity). According to elite theory, the preeminence of class, wealth, and education are the basis by which a select number of individuals possess a disproportionate political influence over the governing institutions and policy process. Specific political decisions are influenced and determined by a “small, cohesive elite class” of individuals (Parenti, 1995). Consequently, the govern- ment remains a prisoner to the driving interests of the few over the many.

In contrast, pluralism takes an entirely different view of governing and the policy pro- cess. Pluralism assumes that a democratic governing system can operate even in light of an unquestionable inequality of resources between classes. Pluralism suggests that politics and policy are the consequence of the interaction and conflict amongst groups. Underscoring pluralism is an assumption that all individuals possess the opportunity and ability to organize and collectively influence the political and policy process. More- over, pluralism contends that the political competition and conflict among such groups— coupled with the divided nature of the U.S. political system, the degree of political access assumed available to all constituents, and the critical nature of political representation— ensure a path by which consensus, compromise, and negotiation can permit a variety of constituent groups to check the influence of other groups.

Within pluralism theory, the power of the elite is counterbalanced with the realization that organized and impassioned groups possess the power to overcome elite interests and actions. As a result, the ruling elite cannot entirely divorce themselves from the consider- able power of a mobilized and active public. Robert Dahl summarizes the ambiguity that seems to underscore the concept of pluralism and the critical question of who governs by acknowledging that some see the influence of leaders as so large that they are a kind of ruling elite, whereas others see leaders as the captives of their constituents (Dahl, 2000, p. 100).

Both elitism and pluralism capture a critical dimension and a seemingly powerful contra- diction within U.S. democracy and politics. Even though a ruling and political elite may be evident within the political and policy process, it is also apparent that such an elite can be constrained by a variety of constituent groups that may not be elitist. Of course, debate persists as to whether the promise of pluralism effectively counters the power of elite. Overall, it may be best to recognize that the political process is marked by the interplay of pluralism and elite dynamics.

Subgovernments Model

The subgovernments model argues that the government alone does not make policy choices but endorses decisions made by sections of the government in alliance with inter- est groups. This partnership has been referred to as the subgovernments, or the iron tri- angle (Freeman, 1979; Gais, Peterson, & Walker, 1984; Jordan, 1981). All those involved in a subgovernment have similar interests. These structures develop around particular policy areas and involve coalitions of the relevant legislators, bureaucrats, and interest groups. Policy outcomes are determined by various subgovernments and revolve around their interests. Subgovernments, therefore, tend to develop around those specialized areas of policy that have a low level of public interest and awareness.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 417 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

In recent years this perspective has become outmoded among political scientists who argue that there are now larger numbers of interested actors than the three posited by the subgovernment model (Walker, 1991). For example, Hugh Heclo (1978) argues that one should view the process as being dominated by issue networks, all of whom have sub- stantial expertise in the policy area. Issue networks, also referred to as policy communities, are informal coalitions of the public, interest groups, and public and private organizations who unite around a particular issue that they share an interest in and who apply pressure on the policy-making process by proposing policy alternatives and solutions that reflect their interest and serve their agendas. The visibility of an issue determines the issue net- works’ level of visibility and activity.

Bureaucratic Corporatist Model

Theorists who subscribe to the bureaucratic corporatist model argue that policy can only be understood if it is recognized that interest groups and other organizations are incorporated into the policy-making process by the government through the bureaucracy (Schmitter & Lehmbruch, 1979). Government behavior and policy making is the outcome of bargaining or negotiation among interest groups and the bureaucracy. Corporatism views interests groups as having both representation and control within the policy pro- cess. In return for being involved in policy formation, corporate interest groups are also seen as assisting in policy implementation.

Policy is not made by rational choice but through a push-pull system of politics (Lehm- bruch & Schmitter, 1982). Thus, policy emerges from bargains and compromises made by government ministers and bureaucrats representing different government departmental interests and affected interest groups. In return for this negotiation, interest groups secure compliance from their members for the agreed upon policy solution. Decisions might not be in the best national interest but will serve the interests of the involved bureaucrats and interest groups.

Systems Model

The systems model views public policy as a political system’s response to demands and supports arising from the political environment composed of general and special factors (Easton, 1965). General factors are the structural, social, political, technological, environ- mental, and economic systems in which policy making occurs. Specific factors are the level of competition, cooperation, and linkages present in the political system. Demands are the system’s inputs and are basically requests that the system do something about a prob- lem, and outputs are the actions taken by government about a problem. Policy actors and institutions functioning as gatekeepers who filter inputs and thus determine the political agenda at any point in time.

Basically Easton argues that the political system is a mechanism through which popular demands and supports for the state are combined to produce policy outputs that best ensure the long-term stability of the system. Policy outputs may produce new demands that lead to further outputs, and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy. The basic assumption is that political systems are analogous to mechanical operating systems with feedback loops and clear goals. Hence the political system functions as a black box, or

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 418 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

a system that is seen primarily in terms of inputs and outputs (Figure 13.1). The model stresses the interrelationship of the various actors and institutions in the policy process. The actors and institutions basically come together to turn inputs (demands and sup- ports) into outputs (policy).

Over the last two decades or so, systems theory has often been dismissed as being innately conservative because it stresses stability rather than change. However, this should not detract from the usefulness of the theory’s attempt to view the interrelationship of the various actors and institutions in the policy process. The major weakness of the systems model is that it pays little attention to the details of how decisions are determined.

Figure 13.1: Adaption of David Easton’s black box that explains the policymaking process

Easton argues the political system is a mechanism through which demands and supports for the state are combined to produce policy outputs.

Adapted from D. Easton, A Systems Analysis, 1968.

Which Decision-Making Model Best Explains Policy Choices

In many ways, the best model to explain policy choice and decision making is dictated by one’s own ideological orientation. Each model provides a different answer and focus, and sometimes combinations of the models can be used to explain particular policy-making situations. Table 13.2 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each of the models explored in this chapter. What is true at each stage of the policy process is that decisions have to be made. The decisions that are arrived at determine not only the direction of policy, but also what will be addressed on the agenda and what will be ignored.

Environment

General factors

Specific factors

Evaluation

Demands

Supports

Inputs Gatekeepers

Feedback Loop

Implementation

Political System

Conversion of demands into

outputs

Outputs

Laws Rules

Regulations

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 419 11/21/12 1:07 PM

Section 13.1 Decision-Making Models CHAPTER 13

Table 13.2: Decision-making models: Advantages and disadvantages

Advantages Disadvantages

Rational 1. Sharply defined focus. 2. Can cover routine bureaucratic

decision. 3. Cost and benefit alternatives make

it useful for reform, efficiency, and so on .

1. Assumptions are nearly impossible to fulfill.

2. Narrow scope. 3. Time constraints often make it

hard to use.

Incremental 1. Sharp focus on bureaucracy and specific decisions.

2. Predictive value high. 3. Easy access to information makes

statistical analysis easier.

1. Narrow scope. 2. Cannot cover innovations, and

rapid or massive change not well accounted for.

3. Nongovernmental actors or factors often ignored or missed.

Group 1. Broad focus on process and actual actors.

2. Highlights the conflict nature of decision-making process.

1. Tends to ignore routinized deci- sions.

2. Ignores impact of unique person, event, or situation.

Elite 1. Sharp focus on power resources. 2. Highlights the “rules of the game.” 3. Can be applied to both routine

and nonroutine policy. 4. Primarily explanatory.

1. Danger of “circularity.” 2. Assumes power resources equals

influence. 3. Assumes power resources can be

applied equally across issue areas. 4. Data often difficult to get. 5. Predictive value low.

Subgovernments 1. Sharp focus on the particular. 2. Governmental institutions and

relevant interest groups. 3. Shows role of interest groups as

active and not reactive.

1. Ignores size and number of inter- est groups.

2. Ignores routinized decisions.

Bureaucratic corporatist

Same as group model. Same as group model.

Systems 1. Broad focus on the entire process, and its ongoing nature, action, and reaction of environment on policy and vice versa.

2. Highly flexible. 3. Easy to grasp heuristic. 4. Good for both explanation and

prediction.

1. Focus is difficult to empirically apply and measure.

2. Linkages often unclear. 3. Tends to ignore routine bureau-

cratic decisions.

Adapted from materials supplied by Professor Michael LeMay, California State University, San Bernardino

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 420 11/21/12 1:08 PM

Key Points to Remember CHAPTER 13

Summary

Public policy represents an especially challenging field of study. As much as “good” policy can resolve issues, improve quality of life, and utilize scarce public resources in the most efficient and effective manner, it is just as easy for “bad” policy to make the state of society worse. It matters that we improve decisions and policy because it is only through better policies that substantial societal problems can be redressed and the polity can improve.

In the future, questions as to the role and responsibility of government, and of the nature of public policy that necessary, will continue. What may change, however, is the array and nature of issues that society could have to contend with. These issues will no doubt be related to poverty, the environmental, education, immigration, healthcare, and many other social issues not discussed in this book. The next generation of leaders and decision makers will face formidable challenges in developing the appropriate policy solutions in a future where governments may face limited public resources and other difficulties.

The challenge for students of policy making is appreciating the complexity of each stage of the policy process while coming to an understanding of why particular policies are made and whom they benefit.

Key Points to Remember

• Essentially, public policy and the policy-making process are not as hard as they seem. What makes policy making difficult is the inescapable reality of politics throughout the policy process.

• It is often the case that perfect decisions and perfect policy are an impossibility given the political and policy dynamics inherent within the policy-making process.

• Policy can be created from within any part of the political system. • Each policy arena is to some extent distinctive, although there are discernable

similarities within various stages • Policy making requires that actors make choices between different remedies for

dealing with problems. How this is achieved is best explained and understood through various decision-making models.

• The models discussed are rational choice models, the incremental decision-making model, group theory, elite theory, the subgovernments model, the bureaucratic corporatist model, and the systems model.

• All these models offers a distinct way of answering the question who makes policy and why.

• An individual’s own ideological orientation dictates which decision-making model that explains policy choice he or she subscribe to.

• Rational choice models (public choice theory, game theory, the expected utility approach, and institutional rational choice) understand policy making to be 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, and instead views policy making as either a slowing or stepping up of existing policy over time.

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 421 11/21/12 1:08 PM

Key Terms CHAPTER 13

bureaucratic corporatist model A decision- making model that argues that policy can only be understood if it is recognized that interest groups and other organizations are incorporated into the policy-making process by the government through the bureaucracy.

elite theory A decision making model that posits that the political and policy process is dominated by the few rather than the many and, thus, that policies are made by a relatively small group of influential lead- ers who share common goals and outlooks that benefit the elite.

expected utility approach A rational choice model that emphasizes how indi- viduals decide their actions based on the expected benefits they will receive versus the expected costs they will confront.

game theory A rational choice model that views policy making as a series of games that have strategies and payoffs and that provides a mathematical framework for analyzing individuals’ mutually interde- pendent interaction.

group theory A decision-making model that argues that public policy is the prod- uct of the struggle among competing groups or, specifically, interest groups.

incremental decision making model A decision-making model that views the policy process as operating within an inefficient political and institutional envi- ronment where policy decisions natu- rally favor minimal over dramatic policy change.

institutional rational choice A ratio- nal choice model that focused on actor- centered institutionalism and on how the policy process can be understood as an interaction between the rational actions of individuals and groups.

public choice theory A rational choice model that assumes individuals have pref- erences and that they pursue a course of action that seeks to maximize the benefits of their optimal preferences.

• Group theorists view public policy as the product of group struggle or, specifi- cally, interest groups.

• Elite theorists argue that policy is made by a small group of influential leaders who share common goals and outlooks, and thus is not determined by the public at large but by a minority who has political and economic power.

• Subgovernments theorists argue that the government alone does not make policy choices but endorses decisions made by sections of the government in alliance with interest groups.

• Corporatist theorists argue that policy making involves the incorporation of interest groups into the policy-making process by the bureaucracy.

• Systems theory views the political system as a mechanism to convert popular demands and popular support for the state into policy outputs that best ensure the long-term stability of the political system.

• Each decision-making model provides a different answer and focus, and some- times combinations of the models can be used to explain particular policy- making situations.

Key Terms

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 422 11/21/12 1:08 PM

Applied Internet Exercises CHAPTER 13

Critical Thinking and Discussion Questions

1. In your opinion, which of the decision-making models or theories described in this chapter best explains how social policy is made?

2. For policy making to be successful, do you think it is a game that must be played in a certain way?

pluralist model The theory that demo- cratic societies are plural in nature because they are made up of social, ethnic, or economic groups who are more or less well organized and who compete politi- cally with one another to put pressure on government to produce policies favorable to each of them.

rational choice models Decision-making models focused on assumptions of ratio- nality, the impact of context on rationality, and the consequences that result from the rational pursuits undertaken by groups or individuals.

subgovernments model A decision- making model that argues that the govern- ment alone does not make policy choices but endorses decisions made by sections of the government in alliance with interest groups.

systems model A decision-making model that views the political system as a mecha- nism through which popular demands and supports for the state are combined to produce policy outputs that best ensure the long-term stability of the system.

Applied Internet Exercises: Understanding Policy Decisions 1. Understanding how decisions are made according to the theory and models of decision making

is critical to understanding why the policy process evolves as it does. Your task is to choose one policy discussion that has or is currently capturing the public discussion and apply three differ- ent decision-making models or theories to it to determine the likely policy outcome. a. Using key news and political sites, determine one policy issue that policy actors are currently

debating. You may choose an issue that is in the headlines at the moment or one that was in the headlines over the last few months. You can use the following sites to research and determine which policy issues is currently capturing public and political attention:

http://www.cnn.com/ http://www.nbcnews.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ http://online.wsj.com/home-page http://www.politico.com/ http://thehill.com/ (continued)

the80472_13_c13_407-424.indd 423 11/21/12 1:08 PM

http://www.cnn.com/

http://www.nbcnews.com/

http://www.nytimes.com/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

http://online.wsj.com/home-page

http://www.politico.com/

http://thehill.com/