Policy Process - an overview (2024)

The Policy Process

The policy process is normally conceptualized as sequential parts or stages. These are (1) problem emergence, (2) agenda setting, (3) consideration of policy options, (3) decision-making, (5) implementation, and (6) evaluation (Jordan and Adelle, 2012). According to this ‘textbook’ view of policy, environmental groups must first get a particular problem on the agenda for discussion and, if possible, consideration by policy makers. Policy makers then select the best course of action based on specialist advice, make the policy, then hand it to administrators for implementation. This stage-based view emphasizes that policy is a process involving many different parts of government. But in practice, policy issues are interconnected, policy makers fumble around for solutions in the context of great uncertainty and many internal and external constraints. Past practice often has a determining effect on how new issues are processed. To counter such uncertainty, increasing use is being made of scientific evidence to guide environmental policy development. Multiple policy ‘tools’ such as expert reports, consultation, and cost–benefit analysis are employed by governments to provide such decision support (Jordan etal., 2015).

A multitude of different models and theories have been developed to explain policy making (see Hill, 2009; Dryzek and Dunleavy, 2009). One strand is pluralist in its assumptions. Pluralists believe that political power is widely, although unevenly, spread throughout society. Although powerful groups exist in particular policy sectors, no single group is continuously capable of shaping the entire policy process. In policy terms, pluralists assume that agenda setting is open and competitive, with the government acting as an honest broker. Once adopted, though, policies must still be steered through the implementation process. Because of the competitiveness of the policy process, outcomes are unpredictable.

Neo-pluralists meanwhile argue that business occupies a ‘privileged’ position compared to other groups. Instruments like the mass media help to structure environmental politics by removing ‘grand majority’ issues concerning the fundamentals of the political order from the agenda, leaving citizens to debate residual ‘secondary’ concerns (Lindblom, 1977). Whereas pluralists assume that grievances are openly debated, neo-pluralists argue that they are organized out of politics by institutional rules and routines. Policy making occurs within small and stable groups of actors (or networks) clustered around particular government departments. Policy outcomes then generally reflect business preferences rather than those of environmentalists, who find it difficult to access decision-makers or are deterred from even trying.

Finally, structuralists believe that the state is under powerful structural pressure to nurture economic growth regardless of the environmental implications (Benton, 1996). On this view, most environmental controls are nothing more than a sham, introduced to pacify critics and keep the conflict between economic classes to manageable levels. For Marxist scholars, environmental problems are rooted in the unequal distribution of resources within society. There can be no lasting solution to such problems until the social system is structured more equally.

2.3 The Policy Process

The policy process normally is seen as having a series of sequential parts or stages. These are (a) problem emergence, (b) agenda setting, (c) consideration of policy options, (d) decision making, (e) implementation, and (f) evaluation. According to this ‘textbook’ view of policy, the first task facing environmental groups is to get a particular problem on the agenda for discussion and, if possible, consideration by policy makers. Policy makers then select the best course of action based on specialist advice, make the policy, then hand it on to administrators to be implemented. This stage-based view emphasises that policy is a process involving many different parts of the Government. It is also simple and intuitively appealing. But in practice, policy issues are interconnected, policy makers fumble around for solutions in the context of great uncertainty and many internal and external constraints. Often what was done in the past has a determining effect on how new issues are processed.

There is a multitude of different models and theories which try to explain how the machinery of government makes policy (Ham and Hill 1993, Parsons 1995, John 1998), each presenting a slightly different account of how the constituent elements interrelate. Pluralists believe that political power is widely, although by no means evenly, spread throughout society. Although there are very powerful groups in particular policy sectors, no single group is successful continuously or capable of distorting the entire policy process to its advantage. In policy terms, pluralists assume that the agenda-setting process is open and competitive, with the government acting as an honest broker. Once adopted, though, policies must still be steered through the reefs and shoals of the implementation process. Because of the competitiveness of the policy process policy outcomes tend to be unpredictable.

Neopluralists on the other hand argue that business is in a ‘privileged’ position compared to other groups. Instruments like the mass media help to structure environmental politics by removing ‘grand majority’ issues concerning the fundamentals of the political order from the agenda, leaving citizens to debate an endless range of ‘secondary’ concerns (Lindblom 1977). Whereas pluralists assume that grievances are brought fully into the open, neopluralists argue that they are organized out of politics by institutional rules and routines. Policy is made and implemented within fairly small and stable groups of actors (or networks) clustered around particular government departments. According to neopluralists, policy outcomes generally reflect business preferences rather than those of environmental groups, who find it difficult to gain access to decision makers or conclude that the chance of bringing about change is so slim as to be not worth fighting for.

Finally, structuralists (e.g., Marxists) believe that the state is under powerful structural pressure to nurture economic growth regardless of the environmental implications (Benton 1996, Pepper 1996). On this view, the welfare state and most environmental controls are nothing more than a sham, put in place to pacify critics and keep the conflict between economic classes to manageable levels. For Marxists, environmental problems are rooted in the unequal distribution of resources within society. There can be no lasting solution to such problems until the social system is structured more equally. Although longer-term outcomes inevitably reflect the needs of business, there may, however, be limited, short-run concessions to environmental demands.

Definitions

The public policy process, in simplified form, can be understood as a sequence of four phases: agenda setting, formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Agenda setting is the first phase, the issue-sorting stage, during which some concerns rise to the attention of policy makers while others receive minimal attention or are neglected completely. The importance of this phase lies in the fact that there are thousands of issues that might occupy the attention of policy makers, but in practice only a handful actually do gain their consideration.

Research in this field investigates how issues emerge on the policy agenda, defined (Kingdon, 1984, p. 3) as ‘the list of subjects or problems to which governmental officials, and people outside of government closely associated with those officials, are paying some serious attention at any given time.’ Kingdon (p. 4) distinguishes between the governmental agenda, the list of subjects that are getting attention, and the decision agenda, the subset of issues on the governmental agenda that are ‘up for an active decision.’

The Policy Cycle Model of the Policy Process

The idea that the policy process can be thought of as a series of steps in a cyclical model of decision making was first broached systematically in the work of Harold Lasswell, a seminal figure in the development of the policy sciences at the University of Chicago and Yale University in the early 1950s (Lasswell, 1956, 1971). At present, a five-stage model of the policy process is the most commonly used, although many other versions exist with more fewer substages. In this model, ‘agenda setting’ refers to the first stage in the process when a problem is initially sensed by policy actors and a variety of solutions put forward (see Agenda Setting, Public Policy in). ‘Policy formulation’ refers to the development of specific policy options within government when the range of possible choices is narrowed by excluding infeasible ones and efforts are made by various actors to have their favored solution ranked highly among the remaining few. ‘Decision making’ refers to the third stage in which formal actors in government adopt a particular course of action. In the fourth stage of ‘policy implementation,’ governments put their decisions into effect using some combination of the tools of public administration in order to alter the distribution of goods and services in society in a way that is broadly compatible with the sentiments and values of affected parties. Finally, ‘policy evaluation’ refers to the fifth stage in the processes in which the results of policies are monitored by both state and societal actors, often leading to the reconceptualization of policy problems and solutions in the light of experiences encountered with the policy in question and the start of a new iteration of the cycle (Howlett etal., 2009).

This idea of policy making existing as a set of interrelated stages provides a general ‘framework’ for understanding the policy development process and points to several of the crucial temporal activities and relationships that should be examined in furthering the study of the issue. Although a useful conceptual or analytical tool, the policy cycle model has some limitations as an empirical description of policy-making reality due to its simplification of highly contingent and complex policy processes. The reality of policy making is not as systematic and linear as the model might suggest. Also, the stages are often compressed, skipped, or change their order entirely. For example, policy formulation can sometimes precede agenda setting, as ‘solutions seek problems’ to which they can be applied (Kingdon, 1984; Howlett etal., 2009). It also does not answer several key questions such as the actual substance of policy, the number and type of relevant actors involved in the process, the exact manner and sequence in which actual policy development processes occur, and whether there exist basic patterns of development in different issue areas, sectors, or jurisdictions (Sabatier, 1991).

Overall, when using the policy cycle idea, diligent attention has to be paid to the fact that the model is a guideline for the analysis of a far more complex reality.

Education Policy Actors

Actors engaged in the education policy process can be classified according to their location inside or outside of government, whether they hold their positions due to election or appointment, and the extent to which they are visible. Visible actors often fulfill prominent roles in placing problems on the policy agenda while less visible and hidden actors are typically more involved in developing proposed policy solutions for problems (Kingdon, 2011).

Government actors include elected and appointed officials and civil servants at the national and subnational levels. Nongovernmental actors include political parties, interest groups, foundations and think tanks, and the mass media. Some of the most active interests in education politics include teachers, business, and foundations. Parents are key stakeholders in education but are not well organized for sustained, broad involvement in education policy. A threat of a school closure or a proposal to cancel a beloved school sports program can mobilize parents for temporary engagement in the education policy process. Once such issues are resolved, parent involvement in policy typically recedes. While schools exist to serve students and prepare them for life in their communities, their voices and potential roles of students in school systems are widely neglected in education policy (Mitra, 2009).

Philanthropic foundations are located outside of government and, thus, lack authority to adopt government policy. However, foundations can wield significant influence and power over education policy. Foundations distribute private funds to encourage government actors to support foundation policy agendas. Contemporary foundations have engaged in two key strategies. First, they provide direct financial support to initiatives such as school choice and online education in order to help ensure project success. Second, foundations fund information dissemination and policy advocacy. In both strategies, foundation funding is a mechanism for persuading policymakers to allocate public funds in accordance with foundation agendas.

Many foundation leaders have backgrounds in the business sector and promote policies that incorporate business practices in public education. In the United States, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation are prominent actors in the education policy arena. Sometimes called ‘the Big Three,’ their education reform activism is welcomed by some interests and opposed by others. The Big Three favor market-based approaches in education policy including school choice, competition, deregulation, and merit pay for teachers.

Voluntary state applications to the federal ‘Race to the Top’ competitive grant program in the United States offer recent evidence that states will change their education policies in order to win federal government funds. Just as jurisdictions typically do not want to forego public funds, they may also be willing to align their policies with the priorities of private foundations in return for foundation grants. Opponents of Race to the Top can participate in democratic processes for holding the federal and state governments accountable. However, as private institutions, foundations are not subject to the accountability mechanisms of publicly funded, democratic government institutions. Critics concerned about the influence of private foundations assert that foundations are able to shape education policy development free from public accountability (Ravitch, 2010).

Some analysts argue that top-down foundation efforts to develop education policy are less likely to take hold and endure than policies developed at the grassroots level (Reckhow, 2013). When stakeholders participate actively in policy development, as opposed to having policy developed externally and imposed upon them, they are more like to view the policy as legitimate, develop a sense of ownership and commitment to robust implementation, and act to protect the policy from threats over the long-term.

Another type of education policy actor is the policy entrepreneur. Located inside or outside of government, the policy entrepreneur is energetic and persistent in advocating a particular idea or policy. Policy entrepreneurs invest time, energy, reputation, and money in pursuit of their policy objectives. They have a claim to a hearing based on their expertise or leadership position. Policy entrepreneurs are politically savvy and skilled at networking and negotiating (Kingdon, 2011). Education policy entrepreneurs have been successful in promoting market-based policy ideas such as school choice (Mintrom, 2000).

In recent years, there has been an increase in the activities of international and transnational actors attempting to influence education policy development around the world. International actors are intergovernmental entities such the OECD, UN, and World Bank. Transnational actors are nongovernmental entities that operate internationally including philanthropic foundations (e.g., Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Open Society Foundations), advocacy networks (e.g., Global Campaign for Education), and businesses (e.g., Hewlett Packard).

Some analysts observe that OECD transitioned rapidly from a forum for information dissemination and learning to an international policy actor purposefully engaged in judging school systems and advising education policymakers. Critical observers have raised questions about OECD influence on global education policy development and the willingness of governments to develop education policy in accordance with OECD values and priorities (Meyer and Benavot, 2013). Similar to philanthropic foundations, OECD is not accountable to voting publics. The precise roles of international and transnational actors – including when, where, and why they are able to influence specific education policies – merit greater attention from the education research community (Mundy and Ghali, 2009).

Abstract

Systematic use of rigorous evidence in the policy process is widely expected to produce more accurate policy advice. However, these scientific aspirations will always be limited by democratic political debates, stakeholder lobbying, and popular opinion. Policy analysts in government agencies attempt to utilize research and evaluation evidence relevant to the feasibility and effectiveness of current and proposed service programs and regulatory regimes. But their capacity to provide policy advice enriched by ‘evidence-based’ analysis is dependent on the availability of reliable socioeconomic data, use of advanced analytical techniques, investment in program evaluations, and support for transparent policy processes by administrative and political elites.

2. Assess Internal Control Adequacy

Once you have implemented the various policies, processes and procedures and have obtained your SOX compliance, you will need to sustain your new environment. This is where you will find that the various Open Source tools we've identified can pay additional dividends with regard to continuance of your SOX compliance. Since COBIT developed their guidelines in 1996, a lot of the Internal Control Adequacy assessing activities they recommended that an organization perform have been incorporated into SOX compliance. One could assume that since it will be part of the normal SOX compliance audit, there is no need for an organization to perform the assessments. Technically they would be correct. However, unless they like and live for surprises, it would not be advisable to take that approach. Later in this chapter we will introduce specific tools and configurations in the “Monitoring Domain”.

Understanding Policy and Science

Skill 3: Seek to better understand the policy process, which can never be as simple as a ‘policy cycle’ with linear stages. Effective teams adapt their strategies to a ‘messier’ context.

As discussed in Chapter 1, policymaking is far from an orderly linear process described by a cycle metaphor.

The nature of policymaking has profound implications for researchers seeking to maximise the impact of their evidence. First, it magnifies the ‘two communities’ problem, covered in more detail in Chapter 1. In this (simplified) scenario, science and politics have fundamentally different goals, rhythms and expectations of data and of each other. See Chapter 1 for an elaboration of these contradictions.

These problems would be acute even if the policy process were easy to understand. In reality, one must overcome the two communities problem and decipher the many rules of policymaking. A general strategy is to engage for the long term to learn the ‘rules of the game’, understand how best to ‘frame’ the implications of evidence, build up trust with policymakers through personal interaction and becoming a reliable source of information and form coalitions with people who share your outlook (Cairney etal., 2016; Weible etal., 2012; Stoker, 2010, pp. 55–57).

More collaborative work with policymakers requires contextual awareness. Researchers need to understand the political context and its drivers, identify and understand the target audience, including the policymaking organisations and individual stakeholders who are influential on the issue, and understand their motives and how they respond to their policy environment. Although effective policymakers anticipate what evidence will be needed in the future, effective researchers do not wait for such demand for evidence to become routine and predictable.

Chapter 5 shares our detailed advice on how to gather policy intelligence in a science for policy institution.

2.5 The Politics of Ideas

An important component of business participation in the policy process focused on changing public attitudes toward business in general and specific policy issues in particular (Blumenthal 1986). Corporations and trade associations made considerable use of ‘advocacy advertising,’ a specialized form of institutional or corporate advertising whose purpose is to influence the public's attitudes on issues of public policy. During the 1970s, more than 35 corporations and trade associations launched public advocacy campaigns and by the end of that decade, major corporate advertisers were spending about one-third of their advertising dollars on campaigns aimed at the public in their role as citizens rather than consumers.

The oil industry made extensive use of this advertising strategy during the 1970s to explain its position on antitrust policy, government regulation and industry profitability—all issues then much in the public spotlight as a result of the energy crisis. Steel firms purchased advertising space to explain their positions on import restrictions and pollution controls, the American Electric Power Company ran a multimillion dollar campaign opposing the use of scrubbers and the Caloric Control Council employed advocacy advertising to build a successful grass-roots campaign to enact legislation overruling the Food and Drug Administration's ban on saccharin. During the 1990s, the Health Insurance Association of America waged a highly effective television camping against the Clinton Administration's proposed health care plan.

The business community and its supporters also sought to influence the terms of public debate by funding research on public policy. Financial support from corporations and conservative foundations played a critical role in creating and expanding private research centers that issued and sponsored books, studies and reports that challenged liberal and left of center views on public policy. In contrast to advocacy advertising, these efforts were aimed at influencing the views of elites such as politicians, government regulators, academics, and journalists.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy research institute, employed several dozen policy analysts who worked closely with the staffs of sympathetic members of Congress, tracking the progress of particular policy proposals and preparing detailed positions papers on them. The American Enterprise Institute, which became a kind of right-of-center counterpart to the more liberal and older Brookings Institution, released scores of studies, held numerous conferences, and prepared several analyses of legislative proposals—in addition to publishing seven journals and newsletters—primarily focusing on government regulation and tax policy. This research helped contribute to a more skeptical attitude about the role of government and a more positive attitude about the role of markets—first among elites and then among the public as a whole. More liberal research institutes also became more sympathetic to business perspectives.

5 Cultural Styles in Using Scientific Expertise

The way that knowledge and expertise are included in policy processes depends on many factors. Comparative research on the influence of systematic knowledge in policy processes emphasizes the importance of cultural context and historic developments (Solingen 1993). In addition, state structures and institutional arrangements significantly influence the type of inclusion of expertise into the decision-making processes. There has been a major shift in modern states to an organized and institutionalized exchange of science organizations with policy-making bodies (Mukerji 1989, Jasanoff 1990). Although science has become a universal enterprise, the specific meaning of what science can offer to policy-makers differs among cultures and nations (Solingen 1993). The situation is even more diverse when one investigates the use of science in different countries for advising policy-makers. Scientific and political organizations partially determine what aspects of life are framed as questions of knowledge and what of “subjective” values. In addition, national culture, political traditions, and social norms influence the mechanisms and institutions for integrating expertise in the policy arenas (Wynne 1992).

In one line of work, policy scholars have developed a classification of governmental styles that highlight four different approaches to integrating expert knowledge into public decisions (Brickman et al. 1985, Jasanoff 1986, O'Riordan and Wynne 1987, Renn 1995). These styles have been labeled inconsistently in the literature, but they refer to common procedures in different nations. The ‘adversarial’ approach is characterized by an open forum in which different actors compete for social and political influence in the respective policy arena. The actors in such an arena need and use scientific evidence to support their position. Policy-makers pay specific attention to formal proofs of evidence because policy decisions can be challenged on the basis of insufficient use or neglect of scientific knowledge. Scientific advisory boards play an important role as they help policy-makers to evaluate competing claims of evidence and to justify the final policy selection (Jasanoff 1990).

A sharp contrast to the adversarial approach is provided by the fiduciary style (Renn 1995). The decision-making process is confined to a group of patrons who are obliged to make the ‘common good’ the guiding principle of their action. Public scrutiny or involvement is alien to this approach. The public can provide input to and arguments for the patrons but is not allowed to be part of the negotiation or policy formulation process. Scientists outside the policy-making circles are used as consultants at the discretion of the patrons and are selected according to prestige or personal affiliations. Their role is to provide enlightenment and information. Patrons' staff generate instrumental knowledge. This system relies on producing faith in the competence and the fairness of the patrons involved in the decision-making process.

Two additional styles are similar in their structure but not identical. The consensual approach is based on a closed circle of influential actors who negotiate behind closed doors. Representatives of important social organizations or groups and scientists work together to reach a predefined goal. Controversy is not visible and conflicts are often reconciled before formal negotiations take place. The goal of the negotiation is to combine the best available evidence with the various social interests that the different actors represent. The corporatist style is similar to the consensual approach, but is far more formalized. Well-known experts are invited to join a group of carefully selected policy-makers representing major forces in society (such as employers, unions, churches, professional associations, and environmentalists). Invited experts are asked to offer their professional judgment, but they often do not need to present formal evidence for their claims. This approach is based on trust in the expertise of scientists.

These four styles are helpful in characterizing and analyzing different national approaches to policymaking. The American system is oriented toward the adversarial style and the Japanese system toward the consensual. The policy style of northern Europe comes closest to the corporatist approach, whereas most southern European countries display a fiduciary approach. All these systems, however, are in transition. Interestingly the United States has tried to incorporate more consensual policies into its adversarial system, while Japan is faced with increasing demands for more public involvement in the policy process. These movements towards hybrid systems have contributed to the genesis of a new regulatory style, which may be called ‘mediative.’ There has been a trend in all technologically developed societies to experiment with opening expert deliberations to more varied forms of stakeholder or public participation. In the United States, it has taken the form of negotiated or mediated rule making, in Europe it has evolved as an opening of corporatist clubs to new groups such as the environmental movement. It is too early to say whether this new style will lead to more convergence among the countries or to a new set of cultural differentiations (Renn 1995).