PA 763 Kristen O’Donovan & Shantanu Basu 21 st  March 2007 Models of the Policy Process
The Policy Frameworks Overview & Comparison PA 763 Shantanu Basu 21 st  March 2007
The Pioneer Model – David Easton Policy Environment Structural Social Economic Political Government Parties Legislature De...
Easton’s Systems Theory Inputs Election results Public opinion Communications to elected officials Media coverage of issue...
The Policy Models <ul><li>Elinor Ostrom </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Analysis and </li></ul><ul><li>Development Framewo...
The Policy Stages Issue emergence Agenda setting Alternative selection Enactment Implementation Evaluation F e e d b a c k...
Inputs and Outputs Inputs 1. Voting 2.   National opinion 3. Communications 4. Mass Media 5. Interest Groups Decisions 1. ...
The Importance of Models <ul><li>Edella Schlager </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on unfolding than on decision, i.e. process ra...
The Criteria for Comparison CRITERIA Levels of Analysis Variables and  relationships between actors Scope Types of actors ...
Types of Actors <ul><li>Unit of analysis in frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>remains the individual </li></ul><ul><li>IAD fram...
Variable Development Between FWs <ul><li>IAD most clearly specifies individual as actor and provides general variables tha...
Variable Development Between FWs <ul><li>PI variables for individual are motivation, obstacles in innovation and resources...
Units of Analysis <ul><li>IAD & Hofferbert FWs leave unit of analysis choice to analyst </li></ul><ul><li>Both FWs are fle...
Levels of Analysis <ul><li>Changing alignments of individual actors </li></ul><ul><li>Graduating to collective-choice acti...
Scope of Framework <ul><li>General variables and the relations between them not developed for any policy stage </li></ul><...
<ul><li>THEORIES </li></ul><ul><li>Overview & Comparison </li></ul>
Comparison of Theories MULTIPLE STREAMS PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM ADVOCACY COALITION COMMON POOL THEORIES
Criteria for Comparison BLOMQUIST Model of the individual Collective  Action Policy change Institutions Boundaries and sco...
Model of the Individual - I <ul><li>Each theory uses rationality models </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals assumed to be goal-o...
Model of the Individual-II <ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity of situations determines behavior in common pool resour...
Model of the Individual-III <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Belief systems, instead of information, determines individual cho...
Collective Action -I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Least attention to collective action </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on policy e...
Collective Action -II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>High degree of coordination not always present </li></ul><ul><li>Outcom...
Institutions - I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on individual behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional implication ind...
Institutions - II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on individuals in institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Roles and structu...
Policy Change <ul><li>AC, MS & PE : Major policy change </li></ul><ul><li>No guarantee of policy change </li></ul><ul><li>...
Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Limited to explaining pre-decision processes in policy maki...
Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Focuses on both decision and pre-decision </li></ul><ul><l...
Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - III <ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Explains specific action situation with reference to rule...
Why Institutional? <ul><li>INSTITUTIONAL </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent  and representative entities </li></ul><ul><li>Simila...
The Models Follow Thank you
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Public policy analytical models

8,360 views

Published on

An Overview of selected Public Policy analysis Models

  • Be the first to comment

Public policy analytical models

  1. 1. PA 763 Kristen O’Donovan & Shantanu Basu 21 st March 2007 Models of the Policy Process
  2. 2. The Policy Frameworks Overview & Comparison PA 763 Shantanu Basu 21 st March 2007
  3. 3. The Pioneer Model – David Easton Policy Environment Structural Social Economic Political Government Parties Legislature Demographics Transfer paytts Tax expend. National mood
  4. 4. Easton’s Systems Theory Inputs Election results Public opinion Communications to elected officials Media coverage of issues Personal experiences of decision makers THE POLITICAL SYSTEM or The Black Box Translates inputs to outputs. Environments influence policy making and politics Outputs Laws Regulations Decisions Adapted from Birkland, Thomas, A. (2005): Introduction to the Policy Process. ME Sharpe, New York. P. 202
  5. 5. The Policy Models <ul><li>Elinor Ostrom </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Analysis and </li></ul><ul><li>Development Framework (IAD) </li></ul><ul><li>Paul A. Sabatier </li></ul><ul><li>Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) </li></ul><ul><li>John Kingdon </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple Streams Metaphor (MS) </li></ul><ul><li>Frank A. Baumgartner & Bryan D. Jones </li></ul><ul><li>Punctuated Equilibrium </li></ul><ul><li>William D. & Frances Stokes Berry </li></ul><ul><li>Policy Innovations (PI) </li></ul><ul><li>Richard I. Hofferbert </li></ul><ul><li>Elite Behavior </li></ul>
  6. 6. The Policy Stages Issue emergence Agenda setting Alternative selection Enactment Implementation Evaluation F e e d b a c k Adapted from Birkland, Thomas, A. (2005): Introduction to the Policy Process. ME Sharpe, New York. P. 225
  7. 7. Inputs and Outputs Inputs 1. Voting 2. National opinion 3. Communications 4. Mass Media 5. Interest Groups Decisions 1. Rational Comprehensive 2. Incrementalism & Bounded Rationality 3. Garbage Can 4. Organizational Process & Governmental Politics <ul><li>Outputs </li></ul><ul><li>Laws </li></ul><ul><li>2. Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>3. Evaluation </li></ul>
  8. 8. The Importance of Models <ul><li>Edella Schlager </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on unfolding than on decision, i.e. process rather than decision </li></ul><ul><li>Attention to structure </li></ul><ul><li>Context and constraints of processes </li></ul><ul><li>Actual decisions and events </li></ul><ul><li>= Policy process analysis </li></ul>
  9. 9. The Criteria for Comparison CRITERIA Levels of Analysis Variables and relationships between actors Scope Types of actors Units of Analysis
  10. 10. Types of Actors <ul><li>Unit of analysis in frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>remains the individual </li></ul><ul><li>IAD framework most clearly specifies individual as actor and provides general variables that structure the individual </li></ul><ul><li>ACF structures individual by a hierarchically ordered set of beliefs, goals and ability to process information </li></ul><ul><li>PI variables for individual are motivation and obstacles to innovate and resources to overcome obstacles </li></ul><ul><li>Hofferbert does not identify variables for elite behavior </li></ul>
  11. 11. Variable Development Between FWs <ul><li>IAD most clearly specifies individual as actor and provides general variables that structure the individual </li></ul><ul><li>Action arena most developed though not action situation </li></ul><ul><li>No variables for analyzing community features (Easton’s environments?) </li></ul><ul><li>ACF structures individual by a hierarchically ordered set of beliefs, goals and ability to process information </li></ul><ul><li>ACF’s developed variables include forums </li></ul>
  12. 12. Variable Development Between FWs <ul><li>PI variables for individual are motivation, obstacles in innovation and resources to overcome obstacles </li></ul><ul><li>Hofferbert’s elite behavior does not identify variables </li></ul><ul><li>Hofferbert well-developed except for elite behavior and govt. institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Poorly specified variables = ad hoc theorizing and model building </li></ul>
  13. 13. Units of Analysis <ul><li>IAD & Hofferbert FWs leave unit of analysis choice to analyst </li></ul><ul><li>Both FWs are flexible </li></ul><ul><li>ACF and PI specify units of analysis </li></ul><ul><li>But units are flexible for application </li></ul>
  14. 14. Levels of Analysis <ul><li>Changing alignments of individual actors </li></ul><ul><li>Graduating to collective-choice actions </li></ul><ul><li>Only IAD FW pays explicit attention to levels </li></ul><ul><li>Other FWs pay implicit attention </li></ul><ul><li>ACF & PI’s primary focus is on collective- choice action only & individual by implication </li></ul><ul><li>Hofferbert by implication collective choice for govt. institutions and elite behavior – the rest is historical-geographic conditions and socio-economic composition </li></ul>
  15. 15. Scope of Framework <ul><li>General variables and the relations between them not developed for any policy stage </li></ul><ul><li>IAD alone encompasses all stages primarily due to attention to levels of action </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive policy stage action situations dovetail into collective-choice that, in turn, fits into implementation with constant feedback between levels that again, would affect operational-level rules </li></ul><ul><li>ACF focused on initiation, estimation and selection, i.e. policymaking </li></ul><ul><li>PI and Hofferbert relate primarily to policy adoption or selection, i.e. policy adoption </li></ul>
  16. 16. <ul><li>THEORIES </li></ul><ul><li>Overview & Comparison </li></ul>
  17. 17. Comparison of Theories MULTIPLE STREAMS PUNCTUATED EQUILIBRIUM ADVOCACY COALITION COMMON POOL THEORIES
  18. 18. Criteria for Comparison BLOMQUIST Model of the individual Collective Action Policy change Institutions Boundaries and scope of enquiry
  19. 19. Model of the Individual - I <ul><li>Each theory uses rationality models </li></ul><ul><li>Individuals assumed to be goal-oriented and boundedly rational </li></ul><ul><li>Contexts of policy making drive bounded rationality </li></ul><ul><li>Uncertainty, complexity & weak selective pressures characterize those contexts (Ostrom and Zahariadis) </li></ul><ul><li>Major variations in theories – updater (Ostrom), selective attender (B&J), belief-er (Sabatier), satisficer (Zahariadis) </li></ul>
  20. 20. Model of the Individual-II <ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Complexity of situations determines behavior in common pool resource setting </li></ul><ul><li>Results in poorly defined problems and poor reactive preferences that cannot eliminate uncertainties </li></ul><ul><li>Situational variables are therefore all-important than assumptions about internal calculation process (Ostrom) </li></ul><ul><li>PE </li></ul><ul><li>Similarity with IAD in that preferences relatively fixed and slow to change; therefore change is large </li></ul><ul><li>Decisions grounded in situational factors than individual preferences </li></ul>
  21. 21. Model of the Individual-III <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Belief systems, instead of information, determines individual choice and action </li></ul><ul><li>Results in incremental change as belief systems act as information filters </li></ul><ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Grounded in garbage can model of choice </li></ul><ul><li>= Interesting twists on </li></ul><ul><li>boundedly rational model </li></ul>
  22. 22. Collective Action -I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Least attention to collective action </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on policy entrepreneurs and conditions for change </li></ul><ul><li>PE </li></ul><ul><li>Policy makers plus collective action make for change </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on consequences of such organization & activity, not modes of organization </li></ul>
  23. 23. Collective Action -II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>High degree of coordination not always present </li></ul><ul><li>Outcome result of congruence of various common interests rather than conscious coalition (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith) </li></ul><ul><li>Empirical measures of action not developed – existing measures not adequate </li></ul><ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Supports collective action and inhibits free-riding behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Focuses on characteristics of physical world, community and the rules-in-use to explain collective action </li></ul>
  24. 24. Institutions - I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on individual behavior </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional implication indirect in policy entrepreneurs – affects only political stream </li></ul><ul><li>Needs more attention to institutions for greater structure and consistency </li></ul><ul><li>This is required to facilitate comparison across policy communities </li></ul><ul><li>PE </li></ul><ul><li>Structure sets policymaking context </li></ul><ul><li>Multiple venues that influence decision-making </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptualized as one whole institution – micro-level processes and macro-level outcomes overlooked </li></ul><ul><li>Identify rule configuration using IAD and replace venues with changes in rules (Schlager) </li></ul>
  25. 25. Institutions - II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on individuals in institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Roles and structures of institutions need to be spelt out – present framework only gross like PE </li></ul><ul><li>Required to establish link between institutions and belief systems of coalitions to assess relative influence of individual actors </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis shift required to institutions </li></ul><ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Emphasis on individuals using institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Micro-level analysis creates individual rules </li></ul><ul><li>Rules too many and configurations difficult to determine </li></ul><ul><li>Absence of any meta rules – good judgment only possible for analyst </li></ul>
  26. 26. Policy Change <ul><li>AC, MS & PE : Major policy change </li></ul><ul><li>No guarantee of policy change </li></ul><ul><li>Ambiguity over what is major and minor policy change </li></ul><ul><li>Major change for one subsystem could be minor for another – definition of subsystem loose </li></ul><ul><li>How does the secondary core of a belief system become the core of another – nested systems? </li></ul><ul><li>Catalysts required for action </li></ul><ul><li>Not possible to predict specific issues on which there would be policy changes </li></ul><ul><li>CP : Incremental policy change </li></ul><ul><li>Substantial change to come thorough series of incremental changes </li></ul>
  27. 27. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - I <ul><li>MS </li></ul><ul><li>Limited to explaining pre-decision processes in policy making process </li></ul><ul><li>Primary DVs are agenda-setting and specification of policy alternatives </li></ul><ul><li>Uses exogenous variables to explain DVs without explaining the policy stream content and context – Why do we see the types of policies or ideas that we do in the policy stream? </li></ul><ul><li>PE </li></ul><ul><li>Uses DV of agenda setting and explains by using IVs such as interest group activity, mass mobilization, media images, etc. </li></ul>
  28. 28. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - II <ul><li>AC </li></ul><ul><li>Focuses on both decision and pre-decision </li></ul><ul><li>Based primarily on case study and difficult to generalize </li></ul><ul><li>Sabatier & Jenkins Smith approach using DVs as advocacy coalitions and IVs of policy actors, coordination, types and venues </li></ul>
  29. 29. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - III <ul><li>CP </li></ul><ul><li>Explains specific action situation with reference to rules implemented </li></ul><ul><li>DVs are outcomes of situation and IVs are rules-in-use, resource, community and individual characteristics </li></ul><ul><li>CP can also explain origins of rules-in-use by reversing IVs and DVs. </li></ul><ul><li>IVs remain the same except for rules (collective and constitutional choice) that structure operational-level rulemaking activities </li></ul>
  30. 30. Why Institutional? <ul><li>INSTITUTIONAL </li></ul><ul><li>Permanent and representative entities </li></ul><ul><li>Similar subsystems </li></ul><ul><li>Function within FW of specified rules </li></ul><ul><li>Predictable forward and backward integration with policy by rules </li></ul><ul><li>Possible to devise common micro and macro measures </li></ul><ul><li>Theories generalizable across geog. boundaries </li></ul><ul><li>INDIVIDUALS </li></ul><ul><li>Uncertain preferences </li></ul><ul><li>Unpredictable behavior </li></ul><ul><li>No predefined rules </li></ul><ul><li>No orgn. culture </li></ul><ul><li>Std. rules not possible </li></ul><ul><li>Wide interest group variations </li></ul><ul><li>No fixed time frame </li></ul><ul><li>Fluidity of human relations– therefore cross generalizations may not always be possible </li></ul>
  31. 31. The Models Follow Thank you

×