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