ESPAM FORMATIVE UNIVERSITY

LEVEL: 200

COURSE: PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

COURSE CODE: 218

LECTURER: FARANPOJO BUKOLA PEREZ

1
PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS 218

COURSE OUTLINE

1 PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS: DEFINITIONS.

2 BASIS OF PUBLIC POLICY

3 PUBLIC POLICY AS POLICY SCIENCES

4 NATURE, SCOPE AND UTILITY OF POLICY SCIENCE

5 IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY

6 TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICIES

7 CONCEPT OFAPPROACHES, MATHODOLOGYAND MODEL

8 CONCEPT OF MODELS

9 THEORETICAL APPROACHES

10 SYSTEM THEORY AND PUBLIC POLICY

2
PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS 218

Over 5 decades ago, Thomas Dye defined ‘public policy’ as “anything a government chooses to do or not
to do.” Although Dye oversimplified the term, his definition did capture the extensive scope of the
subject matter.“Policy-making is the fundamental activity of governments. It is through the public
policy-making process that governments establish the framework within which all citizens (human and
corporate) must function; and it is the process via which governments decide both which societal goals
to pursue and how to (best) pursue them.

Policymaking is the art of developing responses to public problems. As public problems appear to be
increasing in quantity and complexity (e.g. the security shocks since September 11, 2001, the ongoing
global financial crises, climate change), there is renewed interest in public policy , as evidenced by the
Occupy Wall Street, Arab Spring and Idle No More movements.

David Easton noted that the actions of government are the authoritative allocation of values for a
society. This observation suggests another rationale for the study of public policy, being that civil society
must, when parsing government actions, consider underlying ideologies as well as policy determinants,
contexts, structures and processes to truly appreciate the policy framework.

There are numerous definitions of Public Policy. Following are some examples.

According to Brooks, “Public Policy is the broad framework of ideas and values within which decisions
are taken and action, or inaction, is pushed by governments in relation to some issues or problems”.

Marshall Dimock defines it as “consciously acknowledged rules of conduct a guide of administrative

decisions”.

According Frederich, Public Policy is “A proposed course of action of a person, group or government
within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to
utilise and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or purpose”.

Dodd, in a similar vein, defines Public Policy as “commitment to a course or plan of action agreed to by a
group of people with the power to carry it out”.

Daneke and Steiss emphasise the available alternatives to Public Policy and regard it as a broad guide to
present and future decisions, done in light of the given conditions from a number of perspectives; the
actual decision or set of decisions designed to carry out the chosen course of actions – a projected
programme consisting of desired objectives (goals) and the means of achieving them.

James Anderson defined the Public Policy as a course of action followed by an actor or set of actors to
deal with a public problem.

Some texts define Public Policy as simply “what government does” others say that it is the stated
principles which guide the actions of the government. Public Policy can be conceptualised as a purposive

3
and consistent course of action produced as a response to a perceived problem of a constituency
formulated by a specific political process, and adopted, implemented, and enforced by a public agency.
William Jenkins offered more complex and more conceptualized definition. According to him Public
Policy is a “set of decisions connected together made by a policy actor or by a set of actors, referring to
selecting objectives, and means and reaching them in a specific situation in which these actors should, in
principle have the power to make these decisions.

The above definitions imply the following:

i. Public Policy is what government actually decides or chooses to do and is the relationship of the
government units to the specific filed of political environment in a given administrative system.

ii. Public Policies are goal oriented. In order to attain the objectives which the government has in view
for the ultimate benefit of the masses in general, the Public Policies are formulated and implemented.

iii. These are value laden and arise as sequel of the programmes of the government in action overtly.

iv. Public Policy is a pattern or course of activity of the governmental officials and actors collectively
rather than being termed as their discrete and segregated decisions.

v. Public Policy is positive in the sense that it depicts and concern of the government and involves its
action to a particular problem on which the policy is made. Negatively, it involves a decision by
governmental actors not to take any action on a particularly issue unilaterally without deliberations.

vi. Public Policy in its positive form has the action of law and authority behind it and that is why it is
called as authoritative.

vi. Public Policy is a choice or decision made by government that guides subsequentactions in similar
circumstances.

vii. Public Policy stems from a well defined procedure wherein the power control, gaming and bargaining
concepts play a significant role.

The proceeding analysis reveals that Public Policy is a goal oriented action of the government.It is clearly
defined as a course of action adopted by the political agencies and actors inorder to achieve certain
goals.

BASIS OF PUBLIC POLICY

Public Policy in the broad term refers to the policy (plan of what to do) that is formulated and
implemented for the benefit of the public. If read in light of the narrow view of Public Policy then it
relates to plan of action to be pursued by the Government (because Public is also used as a synonym for
Government in many places). There is no unanimity on the definition of Public Policy. However, Public
Policy can be described as the overall framework within which the actions of the government are
undertaken to achieve its goals. It is a purposive and consistent course of action devised in response to a

4
perceived problem of a constituency, formulated by a specific political process, and adopted,
implemented, and enforced by a public agency.

Goals, policies and programmes are different and should not be used as synonyms of each other or
interchangeably. Policies are devised to achieve certain goals by the government.

For example the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan is a government programme to achieve the Policy of Free and
compulsory education to all children in the age of 6-14 in India that was established through the Right to
Education Act 2009 is a part of Meta policy of Education for All by UNESCO. Another example is the
policy of poverty alleviation for which several programmes have been designed like the Integrated Rural
Development Programme (IRDP), MGNREGA, etc. Poverty alleviation also comes under a bigger goal of
overall socio-economic growth of the country. Each of these programmes has their own goals to achieve
which then all taken collectively achieve the unified goal of the original policy.

There can be a number of programmes established for achievement of a single policy goal. And there
are a number of policies that are formulated as well to achieve the goals of the government once a
policy is declared (statement of goals) then programmes are devised within/under it to take action
through it to achieve those overall goals.

Public Policy is a document that contains the broad outline as well as the detailed description of
formulation as well as implementation of various government programmes and plans that are taken out
for the goal/objective of public benefit and implemented through the

constitutional authorities, bureaucracy and government organizations/institutions in collaboration with

civil society organizations. It takes a variety of forms like law, ordinances, court decisions, executive
orders, decisions, etc. It is the authoritative declaration of the intentions of the government of what it
intends to do and to not do and the success of Public Administration as well as government in a country
is linked with the success of its Public Policy.

Once a goal is determined then the government has to develop a broad outline/policy document to
show how it will be worked towards and then once that is done, programmes are developed which are
the executive wing of the government to achieve those goals.

✓ SCOPE OF PUBLIC POLICY

The term scope means area of activity. It also means the extent to which area of Public Policy extends. It
also involves the causes for the expansion of the subject and content of public policy. Before we discuss
the scope of public policy, it is important to remember how Public Policy emerged as an inter-
disciplinary area. Earlier Public policy as a branch of Political Science or Public Administration as studied
as the laws made by the formal governmental structures. In the field of Political Science the three
organs of the government namely the executive, legislative and judiciary were regarded as the law
making bodies.

However, during post 1950s distinction was drawn between a law and a policy. Law is loose and general
term, while the policy is a specific concerned in a well-defined area having implications to the present

5
and future generations. In the recent past Political Science has come to be seen mainly as a policy
science because of policy concerns emerged in the discipline of Political Science.

There are different factors that contributed for the widening of the scope of Public policy. Mention may
be made of science and technology, industrialization, urbanization, developmental role of the modern
state, and increased emphasis on welfare activity of the state etc. Industrialization promoted
urbanization. These two established a complex network of socio-economic relationship. Its impact could
be seen in the expansion of markets and migration of people. The process is also accentuated by high
degree of specialization in all spheres of human life. The advancement of science the technology
revolutionized the life of modern man, through communications and transport. These developments
have underlined the need to formulate specialized policies to face the challenges and meet the needs of
modern society. Agriculture, industry, information technology, research in the field of life sciences, etc.,
presupposed policy formulations to cope with the advancement. As a part of this the state is formulating
different types of policies, like, population, agriculture, industrial, urban policy, development policies,
environmental policy etc. These policies are formulated on the basis of well researched knowledge
acquired by the specialist data collected by the various agencies including specialized institutions and
governmental organizations. All these developments strengthened the thread towards Public Policy
studies and their evaluation. Added to it the modern state initiated large number of welfare activities in
the form of anti-poverty programmes, and other ameliorative measures. The increased welfare activity
of the state directly contributed to the enhanced significance of public policy. It includes polices relating
to rural development, urban governance, economic

development, etc. The same trend is also witnessed among the western countries. This is mainly on
account of complex nature of specialization in society, economy, ecology, and polity.

PUBLIC POLICY AS POLICY SCIENCES

Prior to the revolution propounded by the Behaviouralists, the study of Political Science was largely
dominated by the Traditionalists who borrowed a lot from the historical method of analysis (descriptive
method). Consequently, the pre-Second World War Political Scientists did not concern themselves with
the scientific study of events. However, there has undoubtedly been an increased interest over the past
twenty years in the analysis of policy as a focus (as opposed to specific disciplinary or professional
focuses). This increased interest has been accompanied both by grandiose claims for how “policy
science” can improve the decision-making capacity and the outputs of government, and imitative
retailing as “public policy” of traditional courses in government or public administration. A. study of the
origins of this interest can help us to understand the current status of policy science and policy analysis.
In brief, past studies on public policy have been mainly dominated by scholars of Political Science and
Public Administration and have tended to concentrate more on the content of policy, the process of its
formulation and its implementation. The study of public policy has evolved into what is virtually a new
branch of the social sciences — the so called policy sciences. This concept of policy sciences was first
formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951. Today, the policy sciences have gone far beyond new and native
aspirations for societal relevant knowledge.

6
@WORKING DEFINITION

The conception of the policy sciences is more refined as extended today than at any time in the
colourful history of man. As a working definition, we say that the policy sciences are concerned with
knowledge of and knowledge in the decision processes of the public and civic order.

Knowledge of the decision process implies systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and
put into effect. When knowledge is systematic, it goes beyond the aphoristic remarks that are strewn
through the “Wisdom” literature of the past. The systematic requirement calls for a body of explicitly
interconnected propositions such as we have inherited in the Western world from Aristotle, Machiavelli,
and their successors. The conception of the policy sciences is more refined and extended today than at
any time in the history of human. As a working definition, we say that the policy sciences are concerned
with knowledge’ of and in the decision processes of the public and civic order.

Knowledge of the decision process implies systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and
put into effect. When knowledge is systematic, it goes beyond the aphoristic remarks that are strewn
through the “Wisdom” literature of the past. The systematic requirement calls for a body of explicitly
interconnected propositions such as we have inherited in the Western world from Aristotle, Machiavelli,
and their successors. To insist on the empirical criterion is to specify that general assertions are subject
to the discipline of careful observation. This is a fundamental distinction between science and non-
science.

The emphasis on decision process underlines the different between policy sciences and other forms of
intellectual activity. By focusing on the making and execution of policy, one identifies a relatively unique
frame of deference, and related disciplines. However, these public order decisions do not exhaust the
field of policy. In complex societies the agencies of official decision do not account for many of the most
important choices that affect men’s lives. In the interest of realism, therefore, it is essential to give full
difference to the study of semi-official and nonofficial processes. The dividing line between public and
civic order is more a zone than a line, and in totalitarian states the civic order is almost entirely
swallowed up by public order. The separation is most visible in bodies politic where the activities
assigned to the formal agencies of government are relatively few and where the collective activities of
businesses, churches, and other active participants in society are independent of detailed direction from
government.

CHARACTERISTICS OF POLICY SCIENCES

The practical application of all relevant knowledge in the social, physical and natural sciences, to specific
policy problems identified well ahead of time. The rationalist model involves a “commitment to scientific
planning”. This means as overhaul of the traditional approaches to making of decisions. However, the
spectre of Duncan MacRae is warded off by the suggestion that a policy analysis culture be created in
order to achieve greater rationality in policy-making. This policy analysis Culture has ‘three main
features as found in Dror’s pioneering writings:

1. Technical experts who are sensitive to the ethical implications of decisions.

7
2. Close cooperation between researchers in government

3. An informed citizenry to fend off the anti-democratic spectre of a ruling class.

NATURE, SCOPE AND UTILITY OF POLICY SCIENCE

The policy science movement grew out of a quest for a science of policy. Its key proponents among
others were YehezkelDror and Harold Lasswell. According to Dror, ‘policy science is a new supra-
discipline, oriented towards the improvement of policy-making and characterized by a series of
paradigms different in important respects from contemporary normal sciences.

Policy Science was conceived as a supra-discipline-which will integrate several disciplines, such as:
Political Science, Public Administration, Economics, Psychology, Sociology and tools of operational
research and build multi-disciplinary knowledge, skills and techniques to resolve social problems. It is
aimed at improving the knowledge, methods and analysis in policy making.

LASSWELL ANALYSIS

Knowledge of the decision process implies systematic, empirical studies of how policies are made and
put into effect. When knowledge is systematic it goes beyond the aphoristic remarks that are stream
through the wisdom of literature of the past. The systematic requirements call for a body of explicit
linter-connected propositions. Policy Science attempts to apply the scientific, systematic knowledge and
methods, such as: observation, verification, validation, explanation and prediction to policy studies. It’s
goal is better policy-making. However, policy sciences also accept other sources and forms of knowledge
in so long as they contribute to better policy-making. For example, personal experience, intuition, value-
judgment and extra-rational resources are accepted.

In so doing, attention is, therefore, directed more comprehensively to qualitative and normative
methods and to non-economic rationality such as political feasibility Policy Science is regarded as higher
transition from policy analysis. It believes in the enhancement of methods, techniques and
systematization. However, the line delineating policy analysis from policy science is blurred.

Most advocates of policy sciences are policy analysts and the shift of emphasis to policy science is
nothing but to create identity as a discipline for solving social problems.

The empirical aspects of policy sciences have also been stressed by Lasswell thus: “to insist on the
empirical criterion is to specify that general assertions are subject to the discipline of careful
observation. This is a fundamental distinction between science and non-science”. He declared that the
policy sciences were not to be equated with “applied social science” or “applied social and psychological
science”. “Not”, he cautioned, “are the ‘policy sciences’ to be thought of as identical with what is
studied by the political scientists”.

Like other social sciences, a policy science is also not an exact science because substantive science is
concerned with the pursuit of truth which it seeks to understand and predict. It is merely an approach
which is concerned with improved methods of knowledge and systems for better policy-making; a

8
technique which helps the decision-maker to take decisions with improved methods of knowledge. It is,
thus concerned with more, effective manipulation of the real world, leaving open the possibility of not
understanding the phenomena.

@Carol Weiss describes a policy science as a decision-driven model of research use. This sequential
model has the following stages:

1. Definition of the social problems.

2. Identification of missing knowledge,

3. Acquisition of the relevant data using social research techniques,

4. Interpretation of a problem solution, and

5. Policy choice.

Policy science may contribute to the selection of policy options. Like conceptualization, it has two’
aspects: one, it contributes to the way in which policy-making is done; two, its policy options may
percolate into society, influencing “the way that a, society thinks about issues, the facets of the issues
that are viewed as susceptible to alteration, and the alternative measurers that it considers”.

In sum, policy sciences can have an enduring influence on the political agenda through sensitizing both
policy-makers and the mass of people. Nagel also argues that policy analysis provides “new insights” and
enables policy-makers to make better-informed choices and, by implication, a better policy. Also, Stakey
and Zeekhauser declare that “no sensible policy choice can be made without careful analysis of the
advantages and disadvantages of each course of action.”

@KEY FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS IN PUBLIC POLICY DEVELOPMENT

A number of factors and considerations must be kept in mind at the time of development. These factors
will be used by others to judge whether the policy and the process of developing the policy, is or has
been sound.

(i)Public Interest: What is the interest of society as whole? How is the common good balanced against
any private or special interests? Is the process fully inclusive, especially of those who are often
overlooked or unable to participate?

ii) Effectiveness: How well a policy achieves its goals?

iii) Consistency: Degree of alignment with broader goals and strategies of government with constitution,
legislature and regulatory regime.

(iv) Fairness and Equity:Degree to which the policy increases equity of all members and sectors of
society. This may link directly to consideration of public interest.

9
v) Reflective: Of other values of society and or the community, such as freedom security, diversity,
community, choice and privacy.

OBJECTIVES AND TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY

The public policy acts as the oxygen for growth and development of a country and its people. Good
policies take a country to great heights and without a detailed policy no goals of a country and its
government can ever achieve. Without Public Policy and Planning a country would become stagnant and
lag behind the rest of the world and never evolve and keep up with the ever changing times and global
scenario. Policy studies are therefore of utmost importance as it helps scholars, administrators,
politicians and political scientists analyze every policy in depth and its pros and cons and help improve
its choices, formulations, implementation.

The different parts of society like interest and pressure groups, civil society, mass media, international
organizations, etc as well as political parties put forward some demands in front of the government for
action, the agenda for policy formulation is then set. The goal and objective setting for the same is
prepared realistically.

OBJECTIVES AND ROLE OF PUBLIC POLICY

In fact the scope of Public Policy is determined by the kind of role that the State adopts for itself in a
society. In the classical capitalist society, State was assigned a limited role and it was expected that the
state would merely act as a regulator of social and economic activity and not its promoter. With the
advent of planned view of development, State began to be perceived as an active agent in promoting
and shaping societies in its various activities.

This was considered as a great change in the role of a State. Public policies expanded their scope from
merely one of regulation to that of development. Public Policy plays an important role in socio-economic
development of a country. Wide ranging policies were formulated in the area of industrial and
agricultural development. Many policies were converted into Statutes like industrial Development and
Regulating

Act or Land Tenancy Act. Others were kept as directives in various plan documents. For all policy
directions, the Five Year Plans became the major source. These policies were of two types, one of
regulation and the other of promotion. Laws laid down what could be done or not done by the
entrepreneurs.

IMPORTANCE OF PUBLIC POLICY

These days policy analysis is acquiring a lot of importance in the realm of the study of public
administration. This strand is observable all over the world. The success of policy formulation, execution
and monitoring ultimately depends on the success of policy analysis. In India, this trend emerged with
the launching of our Five Year Plans. This five year plan was prepared by the Planning Commission which
set the goals of socio-economic development of the country.

10
Most governments of developing countries are engaged in the momentous task of kindling nation
resurgence through socio-economic development. They are struggling hard to develop, their economy,
to sustain improvements in the social system and to increase the capacity of their political system with a
view to achieve the major objective of national development. They seek to improve the relevant
policies. It is, therefore, taken for granted that the studies of approaches, strategies and concepts which
will contribute towards this end are essential. The study of public policy represents a powerful approach
for this purpose. Public policy is an important mechanism for moving a social system from the past to
the future. It helps to shape the future. In other words, the study of public policy helps the development
of professional advice about how to achieve particular goals.

Public policy can also be an important issue for political and administrative machinery in order to ensure
that governments select and adopt appropriate policies. The study of public policy has much to offer to
the development of administration in different sectors of the economy. It will enable the administration
to engage in such issues as are of public importance and are concerned with the transformation of
values into public policy making and demanding the meaningful actions of public servants.

Public policy, as a field, is an important mechanism for shaping the future. It is conditioned by the past
and concerned with such questions as how the present dimensions of public policy in the developing
countries emerged, how they appear now, and how the present sustains them? In these countries, the
scope and size of the public sector has grown enormously in response to the increasing complexity of
technology, social organization, industrialization, urbanization and environmental protection. The
growth of public functions has paralleled the growth of public policies. The study of the past is very
important as it helps in explaining the present policy system. The past policies perpetuate themselves
into present and future policies. The study of public policy is of vital importance even for the present, as
it deals with defusing policy problems. Thus, present policy-making can be thought of as a problem-
solving method and the definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power.

The study of public policy helps shape the future, which requires new policies and choices. What is trivial
today may be of colossal importance in the future. We can understand the future, by extrapolation of
the present trends. The idea of projecting some key social trends into the future may be of great help in
this regard. Our collection of data for these purposes may include changes in population growth rates,
education, public health and the like. We can carry the process further by forecasting what these
projections might look like after a decade, since people cannot avoid being concerned with the
consequences of public policies.

Finally, the field of public policy has assumed considerable importance in response to the increasing
complexity of the society. It is not only concerned with the description and explanation of the causes
and consequences of government activity, but also with the development of scientific knowledge about
the forces shaping public policy. The study of public policy helps to understand the social ills of the
subject under study. *****************

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY

11
Public policies are as old as governments. Whatever be the form, oligarchy, monarchy, aristocracy,
tyranny, democracy etc., whenever and wherever governments have existed, public policies have been
formulated and implemented. To cope with the varied problems and demands of the people, the
government has to make many policies.

Thus, policy making process is a part of politics and political action. According to Gabriel Almond,
political system is a set of interactions having structures, each of which performs its functions in order to
keep it like an ongoing concern, it is a set of processes that routinely converts inputs into outputs.
Almond classified inputs of political system into generic functional categories like political socialization
and recruitment, interest aggregation, interest articulation and political communication. Output
activities are those which are carried on by a political system in response to demands or stresses placed
upon the system in the form of inputs. Outputs can take the form of governmental policies,
programmes, decisions etc.

Another model on politics and policy relationship is the Feedback or the Black Box Model coined by
David Easton. According to this model the remaining demands which have not been included in the
decisions and policies will again be back through the same process for the purpose of its conversion into
decisions. These two models establish clearly, the relationship between politics and polices in a political
system.

POLICY AND GOALS

To understand the meaning of policy in a better manner, it is very important to make a distinction
between policy and goals. Goals are what policies aim at or hope to achieve. A goal is a desired state of
affairs that a society or an organization attempts to realize. Goals can be understood in a variety of
perspectives. These can be thought of as abstract values that a society would like to ‘acquire. There are
also goals that are specific and concrete.

Removal of poverty is a goal that the government wants to pursue. Public policies are concerned with
such specific goals. They are the instruments which lead to the achievement of these goals. If the
government announces that its goal is to provide housing to all the members of the deprived sections of
society it does not become a public policy. It is a statement of intention of what the government wants
to do. Many a time, for achieving the goal the government has to translate its announcements into
action. Programmes have to be designed to achieve specific objectives. As an illustration, let us look at
the policy of poverty alleviation. Several programmes have been designed for this, e.g. the Integrated
Rural Development Programme (IRDP), National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) etc. Each
programme has certain goals to achieve within a specified time and each programme is provided with
financial resources and administrative personnel. These become concrete efforts to achieve a goal.
Policy spells out the strategy of achieving a goal. Thus policy is essentially an instrument to achieve a
goal. Statement of a goal does not make it a policy.

COMPLEX PROCESS OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING

12
Policy making involves many components, which are interconnected by communication and feedback
loops and which interact in different ways. Some parts of the process are explicit; and directly
observable, but many others process are very difficult, and often impossible to observe. Thus, guidelines
are often formed by a series of single decisions that result in a ‘policy’ without any one of the decision
makers being aware of that process.

It is a Dynamic Process: Policy making is a process, that is a continuing activity taking place within a
structure: for sustenance, it requires a continuation input of resources and motivation, it is a dynamic
process, which changes with time, the sequences of its sub processes and phases vary internally and
with respect to each other.

Policy Making Comprises Various Components: The complexity of Public Policy Making as we-know, is an
important characteristic of policy making. Public Policy formulation often involves a great variety of
substructures. The identity of these substructures and the degree of their involvement in policy making,
vary because of different issues circumstances and societal values. Policy Structure makes Different
Contributions: This characteristic suggests that every substructure makes a different, and sometimes
unique, contribution to Public Policy. What sort of contribution substructures make, depends in part on
their formal and informal characteristics which vary from society to society. Decision-Making: Policy
making is a series of decision taken in a proper process.

Lays down Major guidelines: Public Policy, in most cases, lays down general directives, rather than
detailed instructions, on the main lines of action to be followed. After main lines of action have been
decided for, detailed sub-policies that translate the general theory into more concrete terms are usually
needed to execute it.

Result in Action: Decision-making can result in action, in changes in the decision-making itself, or both or
neither. The policies of most socially significant decision-making, such as most Public Policy making are
intended to result in action. Also policies directed at the policy making apparatus itself such as efficiency
drives in government, are action oriented.

Directed at the Future: Policy making is directed at the future. This is one of its most important
characteristics since it introduces the ever present elements of uncertainty and doubtful prediction that
establish the basic tone of nearly all policy making.

Actual Policy making tends to formulate policies in fragile and elastic terms: because the future is so
uncertain, it permits policy makers to adjust their policy according to emerging facts and enables them
to guard against unforeseen circumstances. Mainly Formulated by Governmental Organs: Public Policy is
also directed, in part, at private persons and non-governmental structures, as when it calls for a law
prohibiting a certain type of behaviour or appeals to citizens to engage in private saving. But public
policy, in most cases, is primarily directed at governmental organs, and only intermediately and
secondarily at other factors.

Aims at Achieving what is in the Public Interest: However difficult it might be to find out what the “public
interest” is, the term nevertheless conveys the idea of a “general” orientation and seems therefore to

13
be important and significant. There is good evidence that the image of public interest influences the
Public Policy making process and is therefore at least, as conceived by, the various Public Policy making
units, a real phenomenon, and an important operational tool for the study of policy making. Use of Best
Possible Means: In abstract terminology, Public Policy making aims at achieving the maximum net
benefit. Benefits and costs can be analyzed by measuring the maximum benefit from the minimum cost
employed.

TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICIES

Because public policies are in place to address the needs of people, they are often broken down into
different types and categories as they relate to society. Looking at some examples of these types should
give you an idea of how public policy fits into each area of society.

1) Substantive Public Policy: These are the policies concerned with the general welfare and development
of the society like provision of education and employment opportunities, economic stabilization, law
and order enforcement, anti-pollution laws, etc. It does not cater to any particular or privileged section
of society and have to be formulated dynamically keeping in mind the goals and characteristics of the
constitution and directive principles of state policy as well as the current and moral claims of society.

2) Regulatory Public Policy: These policies are concerned with regulation of trade, business, safety
measures, public utilities, etc performed by independent organizations working on behalf of the
government like LIC, RBI, SEBI, STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDS, etc. Policies pertaining to these services and
organizations rendering these services are known as regulatory policies.

3) Distributive Public Policy: These are the policies meant for specific segments of society especially the
needy ones. Public assistance and welfare programmes, adult education programme, food relief, social
insurance, vaccination camps, public distribution systems, etc are all examples of such policy.

4) Redistributive Public Policy: These policies are concerned with rearrangement of policies concerned
with bringing basic social and economic changes. Certain assets and benefits are divided
disproportionately amongst certain segments of society and so those need to be redistributed so it
reaches where it is needed and does not lie about surplus somewhere else.

5) Capitalization Public Policy: These policies are related to financial subsidies given by the Centre to
state and local governments and central and state business undertakings, and is not directly linked to
public welfare as the others listed above, though it does contribute to it but indirectly. It is basically
infrastructural and development policies for government business organizations to keep functioning
properly.

6) Constituent Public Policy: It is the policies relating to constituting new institutions/ mechanisms for
public welfare.

7) Technical Public Policy: It relates to the policies framed for arrangement of procedures, rules and
framework which a system shall provide for discharge of action by various agencies on the field.

14
LEVELS OF PUBLIC POLICIES FORMULATION

THE POLICY PROCESS: HOW POLICIES ARE MADE

One of the most simplifying policy studies has been to simplify the public policy making process by
disaggregating it into different levels and sub levels. The resulting sequence of each level is referred as
the policy cycle. There are six levels of public policy process.

1. Identification of problems 2. Agenda setting 3. Policy formulation

4. Policy legitimation 5. Policy implementation 6. Policy evaluation

In this model, problem identification is the first level of policy process which deals with assessing the
situation which create problem for the people, agenda setting refers to the process by which problem
came to the attention of the government; policy formulation referred how policies are formulated
within the government; decision making is the process by which government adopt a particular course
of action or non action; policy implementation relates to how government put policies into effect; and
policy evaluation is the process by which the results of the policies are monitored by both state and
societal actors, the outcome of which may be re-conceptualization of policy problems and solutions.

The most important advantage of this conception of the policy levels is that it facilitate the
understanding of public policy making by breaking the complexity of the process into any number of
stages and sub stages; each of which can be investigated alone or in terms of its relationship to any or all
the other levels of the policy process.

IDENTIFYING POLICY PROBLEMS

For an analytical approach the first step is to identify why and weather there is a problem at all. Defining
the problem involves moving from mundane description to more abstract, conceptual plan. Here the
attempt is made to diagnose the form of policy failure, which is confronted. For example, an
environmentalist who is investigating alternative pollution control measures for Ganges will find that the
water is being polluted by the dumping of industrial waste and untreated sewage to the water. Similarly,
the observer who is keenly observing the pathetic situation of the rural population will find that lack of
education, lack of employment, lack of proper support from the government and inactivity of the
administrative agencies are responsible for this pathetic condition of the masses. Media plays a
significant role in the problem identification. Media highlights the problems of the masses in the political
arena so that it can become an agenda item.

PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

CONCEPT OFAPPROACHES, MATHODOLOGYAND MODEL

Although various approaches to policy analysis exist, three general approaches can be distinguished—
the analycentric, the policy process, and the meta-policy approach. The analycentric approach focuses
on individual problems and their solutions; its scope is the micro scale and its problem interpretation is

15
usually of a technical nature. The primary aim is to identify the most effective and efficient solution in
technical and economic terms [e.g., the most efficient allocation of resources]. The policy process
approach put its focal point onto political processes and involved stakeholders; its scope is the macro-
scale and its problem interpretation is usually of a political nature. It aims at determining what
processes and means are used and tries to explain the role and influence of stakeholders within the
policy process. By changing the relative power and influence of certain groups (e.g., enhancing public
participation and consultation), solutions to problem may be identified.

The meta-policy approach is a systems and context approach; i.e., its scope is the macro-scale and its
problem interpretation is usually of a structural nature. It aims at explaining the contextual factors of
the policy process; i.e., what are the political, economic and sociocultural factors influencing it. As
problems may result because of structural factors (e.g., a certain economic system of political
institution), solutions may entail changing the structure itself.

CONCEPT OF METHODOLOGY

Policy analysis is methodologically diverse using both qualitative methods and quantitativemethods,
including case studies, survey research, statistical analysis, and model buildingamong others. One
common methodology is to define the problem and evaluation criteria; identify all alternative; evaluate
them; and recommend the best policy agenda.

CONCEPT OF MODELS

Many models exist to analyze the creation and application of public policy. Analysts use these models to
identify important aspects of policy, as well as explain and predict policy and its consequences. A model
is commonly known as a working intellectual construct by which social or physical situations, real or
hypothetical, can be represented. A model sometimes connotes an ideal to be achieved or a pattern to
be followed, such as a model of State Constitution. But as it is generally used in Political Science such
value connotation is lacking. Most models are simply intellectual constructs used to organize thought
and direct research. Models typically include sets of data, analyze it, determine relationships and help
the model builder to explain or predict. The following are some of the models of policy making.

Policy is a product of legitimate authorities. These policies are determined, implemented and, evaluated
by the government institutions like state assembly, parliament, other official and the bureaucracies,
both the local and national. In this model, a policy will not become a public policy until it is legitimized
by government entity concerned. Government policy provides legal powers that demand obligations
from and command loyalty of the citizens.

This type of policy has its co commitment punitive components. The structure of the various
government institutions contribute to the context of public policy. The constitutions serve as the highest
kind of policy to which all other policies, must, subscribe. Laws passed by parliament, executive orders

16
and judicial decisions come second in terms of relevance and priority. The relationship among these
political and administrative institutions of government determine a large, the content of public policy.

This also clearly describes and visualizes how the doctrine of separation of power operates as well as the
politics administration dichotomy. Administrative scientist have developed many model, theories,
approaches, concepts and schemes for analyzing policy making and its related component, decision
making. Indeed,political scientists have often displayed more facility and zeal for theorizing about public
policy making than for actually studying policy and the policy making process. Nonetheless, theories and
concepts are needed to guide the study of public policy, to facilitate communication, and to suggest
possible explanations for policy actions.

Those who aspire to systematically study the policy making process need some guide lines and criteria of
relevance to focus their effort and to prevent aimless wandering through the fields of political data.
What we find when we engage in research depends partly upon what we are looking for; policy
concepts, models, and theories give direction and structure to our inquiry. Theories of decision-making
deal with the criteria and processes used in making such choices. A policy, as defined earlier, is “a
relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a
problem or matter of concern.”

Policymaking thus typically encompasses a flow and pattern of action that extends over

time and includes many decisions, some routine and some not so routine. Rarely will a policy be
synonymous with a single decision. Here is a mundane illustration: it would not be accurate for a person
to state that it was his policy to bath on Saturday nights, it in fact he did so infrequently, however
elegant and thoughtful the decision-making process that led to his doing so on a rare Saturday. It is the
course of action, the pattern or regularity that defines policy, not an isolated event. In the example, the
policy is best thought of asgoing dirty.

The theoretical approaches discussed here include political systems theory, group theory, elite theory,
institutionalism, and rational-choice theory. Although most of these approaches were not developed
specifically for analyzing policy formation, they can readily be bent to that purpose. They are useful to
the extent that they direct our attention to important political phenomena, help, clarify and organize
our thinking, and suggest explanations for political activity or, in our case, public policies. Limitations
and criticisms are mentioned as the discussion proceeds.

ACTORS OF POLICY MAKING

Participants vary in how they view the policy process and in what they seek to gain from rationalists,
technicians, incrementalists, and reformists. All four types of actors will typically be involved in any
complex issue. However, at any one time or for any one issue, one or more of the groups may dominate.
The four types of participants vary in the roles they play in the policy process, the values they seek to
promote, the source of goals for each, and their operating styles.

RATIONALISTS

17
“The main characteristic of rationalists is that they involve reasoned choices about the desirability of
adopting different courses of action to resolve public problems. This process of reasoned choice 1)
identifies the problem, 2) defines and ranks goals, 3) identifies all policy alternatives, 4) forecasts
consequences of each alternative, 5) compares consequences in relationship with goals, and 6) chooses
the best alternative. This approach is associated with the role of the planner and professional policy
analyst, whose training stresses rational methods in treating public problems.

Often the methods themselves are valued by the rationalist and therefore are promoted. It is assumed
that goals are discoverable in advance and that “perfect information” is available. The operating style
tends to be that of the comprehensive planner; that is, one who seeks to analyze all aspects of the issue
and test all possible alternatives by their effects and contribution to the stated goals. Most readers
probably find this approach appealing. It strikes one as commonsensical to be as comprehensive as
possible. Unfortunately, both institutional and political characteristics frequently interfere with the
realization of so-called rational goals.

TECHNICIAN

A technician is really a type of rationalist, one engaged in the specialized work associated with the
several stages of decision making Technicians may well have discretion, but only within a limited sphere.
They normally work on projects that require their expertise but are defined by others. The role they play
is that of the specialist of expert called in for a particular assignment. The values they promote are those
associated with their professional training, for example, as engineers, physicists, immunologists, or
statisticians. Goals are typically set by others, perhaps any of the other three types identified here (or a
mix of them) the operating style of the technician tends to be abstracted from that on the rationalist
(who tends to-.be comprehensive). The technician displays confidence within the limits of training and
experience but considerable discomfort if called upon to make more extensive judgments.

INCREMENTALIST

Charles Jones associates incrementalism with politicians in our policy system. Politicians tend to be
critical of or impatient with planners and technicians, though, dependent on what they produce.
Incrementalists doubt that comprehensiveness and rationality are possible in this most perfect world.
They see policy development and implementation as a “serial process of constant adjustment to the
outcomes (proximate and long-range) of action. For incrementalist, information and knowledge are
never sufficient to produce a complete policy program. They tend to be satisfied with increments, with
building on thebase, with working at the margins. The values associated with this approach are those of
the past or of the status quo. Policy for incrementalist tends to be a gradual unfolding. Goals emerge as
a consequence of demands, either for doing something new or, more typically, for making adjustments
in what is already on the books. Finally, the operating style of incrementalists is that of the bargainer-
constantly hearing demands, testing intensities, and proposing compromises.

REFORMISTS

18
Reformists are like incrementalist in accepting the limits of available information and knowledge in the
policy process, but are quite different in the conclusions they draw. Incrementalist judge that these
limits dictate great caution in making policy moves. As David Bray Brooke and Charles Lindblom note,
“Only those policies are considered who’s known or expected consequences differ incrementally from
the status quo this approach is much too conservative for reformists who, by nature, want to see social
change, They would agree with David Easton that “we need to accept the validity of addressing
ourselves directly to, the problems of the day to obtain quick, short-run answers with the tools and
generalizations currently available, however inadequate they may be”.

The emphasis is on acting now because of the urgency of problems. This is the approach taken by self
styled citizen lobbyists. The values are those related to social change, sometimes for its own sake but
more often associated with the special interests of particular groups. Goals are set within the group by
various processes, including the personal belief that the present outcomes of government action are just
plain wrong. The operating style of reformists has become very activist, often involving demonstrations
and confrontation. Given the striking differences among these four types of participants it is not
surprising that each group in highly critical of the others. It is alleged, for example, that rationalists
simply do not understand human nature. Baybrooke and Lindblom state that the rationalist’s ideal is not
adapted to man’s limited problem solving capacities.” Technicians are criticized for their narrowness.
Incrementalists rely too much on the status quo and fail to evaluate their own decisions. Reformists are
indicted for their unrealistic demands and uncompromising nature.

Different eras do appear to evoke different perspectives: the incrementalism of the 1950s, the
reformism of the 1960s and 1970s, the rationalism of the late 1970s and the early 1980s (particularly in
energy, environmental, and economic planning). But in every era our politics is characterized by a mix
participants within and among the institutions. Thus each group is forced at some point to deal with or
encounter the others. The product may favour one perspective at a given stage of the policy process,
but the multiplicity of institutions, governments, and decision making insures a melding over time. Over
the years, a variety of theoretical approaches have been developed by political scientists and policy
analysts to assist their study and analysis of public policy. Although these approaches have not been
developed specifically for the policy formation, they can be readily converted to that purpose. It is
important to note that the choice of any approach by a particular analyst depends on his or her
inclination, ideological outlook and or training. It may also depend on the nature of the policy under
discussion or the level of analysis whether it is at the level of the state, national or international. Equally
worthy of note is that these approaches areuseful in and to the extent that they direct our attention to
important political phenomena. Help clarify and simplify our thinking, and suggest possible, explanations
for Public policy.

THEORETICAL APPROACHES

Comparative public policy studies have usually tried to show why one explanation of policy is correct
and others are false. To be worthwhile, empirical policy analyses need to combine different approaches.
The more sophisticated the conceptualization and measurement of the dependent (policy) variables, the

19
more likely it is that a satisfactory policy explanation will require more than one theory. Hence, in the
following section, you will study some of the important theories used in the study of Public Policy.

THE INCREMENTALIST THEORY

The incremental theory of decision making or more simply, incrementalism, is presented as decision
theory that avoids many of the problems of the rational-comprehensive theory

and, at the same time, is more descriptive of the way in which public officials actually make decisions.
Incremental can be summarized in the following manner.

1. The selection of goals or objectives and the empirical analysis of the action needed to attain them are
closely intertwined with, rather than distinct from, one another.

2. The decision maker considers only some of the alternatives for dealing with a problem, and these will
differ only incrementally from the existing policies.

3. For each alternative only a limited number of important consequences are evaluated.

4. The problem confronting the decision maker is continuously redefined. Incermentalism allows for
countless ends-means, means- ends adjustments that have the effect of making the problem more
manageable.

5. There is no single decision or right solution of the problem. The test of the good decision is that
various analysists find themselves directly agreeing on it, without agreeing that decision is the most
appropriate means to the agreed objective.

6. Incremental decision making is essentially remedial and is geared more to the amelioration of
present, concrete social imperfections than to the promotion of future social goals.

Lindblom contends that incrementalism represents the typical decision making process in pluralist
societies such as United States. Decisions and the policies are the product of give and take and mutual
consent among numerous participants in the decision making process. Incrementalism is politically
expedient because it is easier to reach agreement when the matter in dispute among various groups are
only modifications of existing programs rather than policy issues of great magnitude or an “ all or
nothing” character. Since decision maker operate under conditions of uncertainty with regard to future
consequences of their actions, incremental decisions reduce the risk and cost of uncertainty.
Incrementalism is also realistic because it recognizes that decision maker lack the time, intelligence and
other resources needed to engage in comprehensive analysis of all alternative solutions to existing
problems. Moreover people are essentially pragmatic, seeking not always the single best way to deal
with a problem but modestly, “something that will work.” Incrementalism, in short, yields limited,
practicable, and acceptable decisions.

MIXED SCANNING THEORY

20
 Sociologist Amatai Etzioni agrees with the criticism of the rational theory but also suggests there are
some shortcomings in the incremental theory of decision making. For instance decisions made by the
incrementalists would reflect the interest of the most powerful and organized section of the society,
while the interest of the underprivileged and politically unorganized would be neglected. Moreover by
focusing the short run and seeking only limited variations in current policies, incrementalism would
neglect basic social innovation.

Great or fundamental decisions such as declaration of war do not come within the ambit of
incrementalism. Although limited in number, fundamental decisions are highly significant and often
provide the context of numerous incremental decisions. Etzioni presents mixed-scanning as an approach
to decision making, which takes into account both fundamental and incremental decisions and provides
for “high order fundamental policy processes which prepare for fundamental decisions and work them
out after they have been reached.” He provides the following illustration of mixed scanning:

Assume we are to set up a worldwide weather observation system using weather satellites. The
rationalistic approach would seek an exhaustive survey of weather conditions by using cameras capable
of detailed observations and by scheduling reviews of the entire sky as often as possible. This would
yield an avalanche of details, costs to analyze and likely to overwhelm our action capacities.
Incrementalism would focus on areas in which similar patterns developed in the recent past and,
perhaps, on a few nearby regions; it would thus ignore all formations which might deserve attention if
they arose in unexpected areas.

A mixed scanning strategy would include elements of both the approaches by employing two cameras: a
broad range camera: that would cover all parts of the sky but not in great detail, and a second one
which would zero in those areas revealed by the first camera to require a more in-depth examination.
While mixed scanning miss areas in which only a detailed camera could reveal trouble, it is less likely
that incrementalism to miss obvious trouble spots in unfamiliar areas.

Mixed scanning permits the decision maker to utilize both the rational-comprehensive and incremental
theories in different situations. In some instances, incrementalism would be inadequate; in other a more
through approach along rational-comprehensive lines will be needed. Mixed scanning also takes into
account differing capacities of decision makers. Generally speaking, the greater the capacity of the
decision maker to mobilize the power to implement the decisions, the more scanning they can
realistically engage in; and the more encompassing the scanning is, the more effective decision making is
going to be.

Mixed scanning is thus a kind of compromise approach that combines use of incrementalism and
rationalism. It is not really clear from Etzioni’s discussion, however, just how would it operate in
practice. This is something on which the reader can ponder and speculate. Certainly, though, Etzioni
does help alert us to the significant facts that decisions vary in their magnitude and that different
decisions processes may be appropriate as the nature of decisions varies.

GROUP THEORY

21
According to the group theory of politics, public policy is the product of the group struggle. One writer
states, “What may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached in this (group) struggle at any given
moment, and it represents a balance which the contending factions or groups constantly strive to
weight in their favour.” Many public policies do reflect the activities of groups. Group theory rests on
the contention that interaction and struggle among, groups are the central facts of political life. A group
is a collection of individuals that may, on the basis of shared attitudes or interests, make claims upon
other groups in society. It becomes a political interest group “when it makes a claim through or upon
any of the institutions of government”. And many groups do just that. The individual is significant in
politics only as a participant in or a representative of groups. It is through groups that individuals seek to
secure their political preferences.

A central concept in group theory is that of access. To have influence and to be able to help shape
government decisions, a group must have access, or the opportunity to express, its view points to
decision-makers. Obviously, if a group is unable to communicate with decision-makers, if no one, in
government will listen, its chances of affecting policymaking are slim. Access may result from the group’s
being organized, from its having status, good leadership, or resources such as money for campaign
contributions. Social lobbying the wining, dining, and entertaining of legislators and other public officials
can be understood as an effort to create access by engendering a feeling of obligation to the groups
involved.

Then, when a group wishes to discuss policy matters, with an official, it will have an opportunity to
present its case or have its telephone calls returned. In the nature of things, some groups will have more
access than others. Public policy at any given time will reflect the interests of those who are dominant.
As groups gain and lose power and influence, public policy will be altered in favor of the interests, of
those gaining influence against the interests of those losing it.

The role of government (“official, groups”) in policy formulation is described by one proponent of group
theory: The legislature referees the group struggle, ratifies the victories of the successful coalitions; and
records the, terms, of the surrenders, compromises, and conquests in the form of statutes. Every statute
tends to represent compromises because the process of accommodating conflicts of group interests is
tone of deliberation and consent. The legislative vote on any issue tends to represent the composition of
strength, i.e. the balance of power, among the contending groups at the moment, of voting.

Administrative agencies of the regulatory kind are established to carry out the terms of the treaties that
the legislators have negotiated and ratified. The judiciary, like the civilian bureaucracy, is one of the
instrumentalities for the administration of the agreed rules. treaties that the legislators have negotiated
and ratified. The judiciary, like the civilian bureaucracy, is one of the instrumentalities for the
administration of the agreed rules.

Group theory focuses on one of the major dynamic elements in policy formation, especially in pluralist
societies such as the United States, but it seems both to overstate the importance of groups and to
understate the independent and creative role that public officials can play in the policy process. Indeed,
many groups have been generated by public policies. The

22
American farm Bureau Federation, which developed around the agricultural extension program, is a
notable example, as is the National Welfare Rights Organization. Public officials also may acquire a stake
in particular programs and act as an interest group supporting their continuance. In the United States
some welfare-agency employees, including social workers, prefer current programs, with their emphasis
on supervision and services (as well as benefits), to a guaranteed annual income, which would probably
eliminate some of their jobs.

Another shortcoming, of group theory is that in actuality many people (e.g., the poor and
disadvantaged) and interests (such diffuse interests as natural beauty and social justice) are either not
represented or only poorly represented in the group struggle. As Professor E.E. Schattschneider remarks
about the under organization of the poor, “the flaw in the pluralist heaven is that the heavenly chorus
sings with strong upper-class accent.” Those who are not represented will have little voice in policy
making and thus their interests are likely to be unarticulated therein.

Finally, from a methodological perspective, it is misleading and inefficient to try to explain politics and
policy making solely in terms of interests and the group struggle. This bias leads to neglect of many
other factors, such as ideas and institutions, which abound and which independently affect the
development of policy. The reductionism or uncaused explanation that results when all political
phenomena are crammed into the group concept should therefore be avoided.

SYSTEM THEORY AND PUBLIC POLICY

The origin of general systems theory can be traced back to the natural sciences. Lidwig von Bertallanfy, a
biologist in the 1920’s may be regarded as the earliest exponent of the General systems theories. In
social sciences, the demand for unification of sciences, a key concept of general systems theories, was
made only after the Second World War. In its operational forms its roots are found in anthropology. It
was later adopted in Sociology, Psychology and last of all in Political Science. Among political scientists,
David Easton is considered as forerunner, to apply the systems approach o political analysis. Its links can
be traced in social anthropology, especially in the works of Emile Durkheim, A.R. Radcliffe Brown and
Bronsisalw Malinowski, Robert K.Merton and Talcott Parsons who have made significant contribution to
systems theory framework. If David Easton and Gabriel A.Almond have made significant contributions in
the arena of politics at the level of the nations, Kaplan has applied it in the field of international politics.

The central proposition of the systems theory is that all social phenomena which include political
phenomena are interrelated. Society witnesses activities in spheres like social, economic, cultural,
political and religious actions. They affect each other. In the light of this approach it is assured that it is
not possible to understand one part of social action in isolation from the other parts which affect its
operation. For example, to know about the formulation of laws we must study more than just the
legislative machinery. We must also study such factors as the pressure tactics applied to decision-
makers and the way they think about the possible effect of a law on the citizens. Hence any political
question must be related to a broader social context.

The systems theory covers all types of public policy. In its broadest sense, the term system denotes any
set of inter-related elements. For example, when we speak of a university system it includes all the

23
buildings, teachers, students, administrators and supporting personnel and machinery to run the
educational institutions which are closely related to each other. Like political, economic, social and other
systems, the political system also has to be analysed from the point of view of its functions like policy
making, policy implementation etc.

Politics as a social activity manages political conflict. People in the society are directly affected by
political actions and they oppose all those political actions, if they are adversely affecting them. The
decision-makers have to take the conflicting points of view of the citizens into consideration at the time
of taking decisions. The diverse socio-economic backgrounds of the individuals give rise to conflict of
interest among them. The conflicts have to be resolved through political regulations, which penetrate
into the different strata of the society. The extent to which political action and penetration would be
effective would depend on the prevailing social situation. The political action and penetration result in
positive and negative reactions from the society.

The system approach views politics as the activities and structures of a system. The political leaders are
faced with demands of the people in a particular political system. The success of the system depends on
how these demands are fulfilled. These demands take the form of public policies. The decision-makers
for these purposes have to make public policy decisions and supervise their implementation of the
policies. The different parts of the political system are coordinated through the mechanism of
communications. While people benefited from the policies render support to the political system, others
demand benefits from the system.

ELITE THEORY

Approached from the perspective of elite theory, public policy can be regarded as reflecting the values
and preferences of governing elite. The essential argument of elite theory is that public policy is not
determined by the demands and actions of the people or the “masses” but rather by ruling elite whose
preferences are carried into effect by public officials and agencies.

Professors Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler provide a summary of elite theory:

1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many that do not. Only a small number of
persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy]

2. The few who govern are not typical of the masses that are governed. Elites are drawn
disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society.

3. The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and
avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to
governing circles.

4. Elites share consensus on the basic value of the social system and the preservation of the system. The
United States, the elite consensus includes private enterprise; private property, limited government, and
individual liberty 5. Public policy does not reflect demands of masses but rather the prevailing values of
the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather, than revolutionary. Incremental changes

24
permit responses to events that threaten a social system with a minimum of alteration or dislocation of
the system.

6. Elites may act out of narrow self-serving motives and undermining mass support and interest. In order
to please the public they may initiate reforms, curb abuse, and undertake public-regarding programs to
preserve the system and their place in it

7. Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence form apathetic masses. Elites influence
masses more than masses influence elites. As stated, elite theory is a challenging theory of formation.
Policy is the product of elites, reflecting their values and serving their ends, one of which may be desire
to provide in some way, for the welfare of the masses. Dye argues that development of civil right
policies in the United States during 1960 can be suitably explained by elite theory. These polices was “a
response of a national elite to conditions affecting a small minority of Americans rather than a response
of national leaders to majority sentiments.” Thus, for examples, the “elimination of legal discrimination
and the guarantee of equality of opportunity in civil right act of 1964 was achieved largely, through the
dramatic appeals of middle class black leaders to the consciences of white elites.

This interpretation presents a narrow perspective of the both who is affected by or interested in civil
rights policy and the explanation for adoption of the civil right act 1964. Certainty leadership in congress
and the executive branch was very important, but so too were civil right protests and marches, public
opinion, and support from an array of non-black organizations. The civil-right movement of the 1960s
was far more than an effort by leaders to appeal to the conscience of white elites.

Elite theory focuses our attention on the role of leadership in policy formation and on the reality that, in
any political system, a few govern the many. Whether elites rule and determine policy, with little
influence from the masses, is a difficult proposition to handle. It cannot be proved merely by assertions
that the “establishment runs things,” which has been a familiar plaint in recent years, Political scientist
Robert Dahl argues that to defend the proposition successfully one must identify a controlling group,
less than a majority in size, that is not a pure artefact of democratic rules of minority of individuals
whose preferences regularly prevail cases of differences of preferences on key political issues. It may be
that elite theory has more utility for analysis and explanation of policy formation in some political
systems, such as developing or Eastern European countries, than in others, such as the pluralist
democracies of the United States and Canada. Sociologist William Domoff has long argued, that there is
an American upper class, based on the ownership and control of large corporations, which is in fact a
governing class.

INSTITUTIONAL THEORY

The study of government institutions (or organizations) is one of the oldest concerns of political science.
This is not surprising, since political life generally revolves around governmental institutions such as
legislatures, executive, courts, and political parties; public policy, moreover, is authoritatively
determined and implemented by these institutions.

25
Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrated on describing the more formal and legal aspects of
governmental institutions: their formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and functions or
activities. Formal relationships with other institutions might also be considered, such as legislative-
executive relations. Usually little was done to explain how institutions actually operated as opposed to
how they were supposed to operate, to analyze public policies produced by the institutions, or to
discover the relationships between institutional structure and public policies:

Subsequently, political scientists turned their attention in teaching and research to the political
processes within governmental or political institutions; concentrating on the behaviour of participants in
the process and on political realities rather than formalism. In the study of the legislatures, interest
shifted from simply describing the legislature as an institution to analyzing and explaining its operation
over time, from its static to its dynamic aspects. Thus in the academic curriculum the course on the
legislature often came to be about the legislative process.

Institutionalism, with its emphasis on the formal or structural aspects of institutions, can nonetheless be
usefully employed in policy analysis. An institution is in part, a set of regularized patterns of human
behaviour that persist over time and perform some significant social function or activity. It is their
differing patterns of behaviour that really distinguish courts from legislatures, from administrative
agencies, and so on These regularized patterns of behaviour, which we often call rules or structures, can
affect decision-making and the content of public policy. Rules and structural arrangements are usually
not neutral in their effects; rather, they tend to favor some of the senate rules (and traditions, which
often have the effect of rules), such as those relating to unlimited debates and action by unanimous
consent, favour the interests of legislative minorities over majorities. Many actions in the senate, such
as bringing bills up for consideration and closing off debate on them, are done by unanimous consent.
Thus one senate, so inclined, can block action by the senate.

In the American federal system, which allocates governmental power among the national and state
governments, several arenas of action are created. Some groups may have more influence if policy is
made at the national level, whereas others may benefit more from state, policy making. Civil rights
groups, for example, have received a better response in Washington, B.C., than in the capitals of the
southern states. Groups advocating adoption of English as the nation’s official language, however, have
fared better at the state level.

Between 1983 and 1997, twenty states adopted such laws, but the congress has been unsympathetic.
Indeed, the Voting Rights Act provides that in some states ballots must be printed in foreign language as
well as English. In summary, institutional structures, arrangements, and procedures often have
important consequences for the adoption and content of public policies. They provide part of the
context for policy making which must be considered along with the more dynamic aspects of politics,
such as political parties, groups, and public opinion, in policy study. By itself, however, institutional
theory can provide only partial explanations of policy. It has little to say about what drives the policy
process.

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

26
The rational-choice theory, which is sometimes called social choice, or formal theory, originated with
economists and involves applying the principles of micro-economic theory to the analysis and
explanation of political behaviour (or non-market decision-making). It has now gained many adherents
among political scientists.

Perhaps the earliest use of rational-choice theory to study the political process is Anthony Downs’s
Economic Theory of Democracy. In this influential book, Downs assumes that voters and political parties
act as rational decision-makers who seek to maximize attainment of their preferences. Parties
formulated whatever policies would win most votes, and voters sought to maximize the portion of their
preferences that could be realized through government action. In attempting to win elections, political
parties moved towards, and the centre of the ideological spectrum to appeal to the greatest number of
voters and maximize their voting support.

Thus, rather than Rational choice theory both alerts us to the importance of self interest as a motivating
force in politics and policy making, and provides a better understanding of decision-making processes.
Many contend, however, that politics is not merely as devoid of altruism and concern for the public
interest as the rational-choice theorists assume. The adoption of “good public policy,” for example, is
frequently a goal of members of congress and public-interest groups, such as the National wildlife
Federation, which are motivated by more than immediate self-interest.

CLASS THEORY

The class theory is most closely associated with the work of Marx and Engels. The main proposition of
the class theory is that public policies in a capitalist society reflect the values and interests of the
dominant and ruling class. It states that capitalist societies are characterized by the presence of classes
that have opposing values and interests. According to Lenin “the large groups of people differing from
each other by the place they occupy in a historically determined system of social production, by their
relation (in, most cases fixed and formulated in law) to the means of production, by their role in social
organizations of labour, and consequently, by the dimensions of the share of social wealth of which they
dispose and the mode of acquiring it

The class theory argues that the mode of production and distribution in every society defines the
character of the society. Thus, the class to which an individual belongs could be identified on the basis of
his role in the social organization of labour, and his position to the means of production. Two broad
classes have been identified by the class theory - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The bourgeoisie
are the owners of the means of production, while the proletariat is the working class, whose labour is
often exploited by the bourgeoisie. According to the Class theory, conflict between these two classes is
inherent in the capitalist society. According to Marx, “the history of class struggle - freemen and slave,
patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journey men, in a word, oppressor and
oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another”. These conflicts often arise due to resistance of
the proletariat to exploitation by the bourgeoisie.

The class theory argues that the bourgeoisie due to their economic power also control political power
and use it to protect their socio-economic interests. This is often reflected in the type of policies they

27
make. Thus, public policies often reflect the interests of the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the
proletariats attempt to influence public policies to their advantage through industrial conflict, such as
strikes, work to rule, etcetera,

POLITICAL SYSTEMS THEORY

The political system theory is most closely associated with the work of David Easton (1953). According to
this model, public policy is the response of the political system to demands arising from its environment.
The political system as defined by Easton composed of those identifiable and interrelated institutions a
activities in a society that make authoritative decisions allocation of values) that are binding on society.
The environment consists of all those socio-cultural, economic, and political Conditions or factors within
and outside the boundaries of the political system which shape the political process, and whose
activities are influenced by the political system.

The political system receives inputs from the environment. Inputs consist of demands and supports.
Demands are the claims made by individuals and groups on the political system for action to satisfy their
interests. Support is rendered when groups and individuals abide by the rules or laws of the country,
pay their taxes, and accept the decisions and actions of the authoritative political system made in
response to demands. These authoritative allocations of values constitute public policy. The concept of
feedback indicates that the political system receives information about the policy outcomes. The
political systems theory has certain limitations. First, it does not explain the origin of public policies, nor
is it concerned with how decisions are made and policies developed with in the political system. Again, it
is not concerned with evaluation of past and present policies. Nonetheless, systems theory is a useful
aid in organizing our inquiry into formation.

Systems theory draws our attention to the influence of puts on the content of public policy Public policy
may be viewed as a political systems response to demands arising from its environment. The political
system, as Easton defines it, comprises those identifiable and interrelated institutions and activities
(what we usually think of as governmental institutions and political processes) in a society that make
authoritative allocations of values (decisions) that are binding on society. The environment consists of all
phenomena – the social system, the economic system, the biological setting – that are external to the
boundaries of the political system. Thus at least analytically one can separate the political system from
all the other components of a society. Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of
demands and supports.

Demands are the claims for action that individuals and groups make to satisfy their interests and values.
Support is rendered when groups and individuals abide by election results, pay taxes, obey laws, and
otherwise accept the decisions and action undertaken by the political system in response to demands.
The amount of support for a political system indicates the extent to which it is regarded as legitimate, or
as authoritative and binding on its citizens.

Outputs of the political system include laws, rules, judicial decisions, and the like. Regarded as the
authoritative allocations of values, they constitute public policy. The concept of feedback indicates that
public policies (or outputs) made at a given time may subsequently alter the environment and the

28
demands arising there from, as well as the character of the political system itself. Policy outputs may
produce new demands, which lead to further outputs, and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy.

The usefulness of systems theory in studying public policy_ is limited by its highly general and abstract
nature. It does not, moreover, say much about the procedures and processes by which decisions are
made and policy is developed within the “black box” called the political system. Indeed, systems theory
depicts government as simply responding to demands made upon it, and its results are sometimes
characterized as “input-output studies.” (For an illustration, see the discussion in the section headed
socioeconomic conditions.)

Nonetheless, this approach can be helpful in organizing inquiry into policy formation. It also alerts us to
some important facts of the political process, such as these: How do inputs from the environment affect
the content of public policy and the operation of the political system?

How in turn does public policy affect the environment and subsequent demands for policy action? ‘How
well is the political System able to convert demands into public and preserve itself over time?

THE ECONOMIC APPROACH

The econometric approach, sometimes called the public choice approach or the political economy
approach, is primarily based on economic theories of politics in which human nature is assumed to be
“rational” or motivated preference gain. This approach assumes that people pursue their own fixed
weighted preferences regardless of collective outcomes. Essentially, it integrates the general insight of
public research with the method of public finances. For examples, it assume that the preferences of
individuals are narrow and diverse, which requires that these individuals aggregate, or “logroll” their
preferences into majorities that can command governmental action. For examples, john Chubb has used
such an approach to study policy implementation.

THE PARTICIPATORY APPROACH

The participatory approach, recently associated with Peter Deleon and others, is closely related to the
post positivist challenge and involves a greater inclusion of the interests and values of the various
stakeholders in the policy decision-making processes. It is presumably closer to what Harold Lasswell
called the “policy sciences of democracy”, in which an extended population of affected citizens would be
involved in the formulation and implementation of public policy through a series of discursive dialogues.
It would involve extensive open hearings with a broad range of concerned citizens, in which these
hearings would be structured in such a way as to prompt individuals, interest groups, and agency
officials to contribute to policy design and redesign. The declared purpose of participatory policy analysis
is to gather information so that policy makers can make better (i.e., more completely informed)
recommendations and decisions. As an approach to analysis, it encourages consideration of a greater
number of players and values in the policy making process and to thus have a better catalogue of the
various perspectives being brought to bear on the policy under consideration.

THE IDEOLOGICAL APPROACH

29
Thomas Sowell calls these ideological approaches “visions” and identifies two competing perspectives.
The “constrained vision” is a picture of egocentric human beings with moral limitations: The
fundamental social and moral challenge, therefore, is to make the best of possibilities that exist within
that constraint, rather than to dissipate energies in a vain attempt to change human nature. By this
logic, then, one should rely on incentive, rather than dispositions, to obtain the desired behavior. The
prospect of rewards or the fear of punishments provides the incentives to obtain, desirable behavior.
Fundamentally, then, this results in a conservative view of human nature and will lead to more
conservative policy positions if one assumes that the primary constraints come from within the
individual rather than being imposed from the environment outside the individual. The “unconstrained
vision”, on the other -hand, provides a view of human nature in which understanding and human
dispositions are capable of intentionally creating social, benefits.

Under this perspective, humans are capable of directly feeling other people’s needs as more important
than their own and therefore are capable of consistently acting impartially, even when their interests or
those of their family are involved. This view of human, then, is often associated with the liberal view
that human nature is no constraint; rather constraints are imposed by the environment outside the
individual.

CRITIQUE OF POLICYAPPROACHES AND MODELS

Under the ‘model’ certain institutions in society are seen as competent institutions for determining
public policy objectives and processes. The institutions are chosen on the basis of democratic
participation; bureaucratic specification and judicial adjudication and the functions performed by these
certain institutions are the most major determining factor to implement various policies. This model also
specifies and suggests the relationship between various institutions and how they all work together and
collectively contribute to a successful policy implementation.

Systems Model Proposed by David Easton, Rational Model Herbert Simon,Bounded Rationality Model by
Herbert Simon, Incrementalism Model by Charles E. Lindblom’s, Game Theory the Optimal-Normative
Model by Yehezkel Dror’s Elite Model: Public Administrators and politicians belong to the elite club of
knowledge possessing group that is fully equipped to frame and implement policies and people are to
follow it as they are not equipped to understand and know the same. A few groups and lobbies
possessing power and organized stronghold over the bureaucracy and legislature get their way in policy
selection, Implementation. Market Exchange Model: It believes in a free market with minimum
regulations by the State in the affairs market and’ a lot of public-private partnership as well as a lot of
private organizations’ taking over the government’s functions and directing the policy making. It
isbelieved that this will lead to higher competition and thus higher economic growth and this will in turn
benefit the government, in funds for its policies.

30