Component -I Personal Details

Role Name Affiliation

Subject Coordinator Prof. I. Ramabrahmam University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Manoj Dixit University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Content Writer Dr. Roopinder Oberoi Kirori Mal College, Delhi
Content Reviewer Prof. A Prasanna Kumar Andhra University, Vishakapatnam
Language Editor Prof. G Sreenivas Reddy Kakatiya University,Warangal

Component-II Description of Module

Items Description of Module

Subject Name Public Administration
Paper Name Public Policy
Module Name/ Title 5.Policy Making Process
Module Id
Pre-requisites

Component-III
Module Introduction
This module attempts to define policies, examine different typologies of policies and
seeks to introduce the policy cycle perspective to the learners. It also analyses
different stages or phases of the policy cycle.

Key words
Public Policy Making Process: Policy Agenda, Policy Formulation, PolicyAdoption,
Policy Evaluation.

Section 1: Introduction

The policy process is characterized as a "black box" which converts inputs into
outputs. However; it might be useful to regard the policy process as incorporating the
determination of what constitutes a policy issue in the first place, and as continuing
during the implementation stage. The conceptualization of policy as a set: of decisions
serves to raise questions relating to which decisions are parts of the problem or goal
identification stage, which part of the selection of options stage, and which part of the
implementation of the policy. ""Policy" has the same linguistic root as ""politics”-and
indeed, in, some languages the same word is used-and the notion of politics conjures
up the prospect of conflict, power struggles, and clashes of ideas and interests.

A policy cycle is a guide, or heuristic aid, for policy development; it ' brings a system
and a rhythm to a world that might otherwise appear chaotic and unordered' (Althaus
et al., 2013, p. 32). The policy process is an elaborate and complex process. It
involves a large number of choices made by a possibly large number of individuals
and organizations. It also involves complex interactions between state and non-state
1
actors. The policy process is divided into five stages: agenda-setting, policy
formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy assessment. To date,
various models and approaches in studying the policy process have been proposed.
Although scholars have agreed on certain aspects of the policy process, there is no
particular model that is considered the best. Those who study the policy process often
focus on particular aspects or stages of the process and apply a specific model or
approach. (Jann and Kai, 2007).

Policy studies have to deal with complex issues of ‘How’ and ‘why’ a particular
problem gets attention of policy makers. One way in which this process is understood
is closely aligned with the understanding of policy work as authoritative choice. In
this view the transition from problem to policy occurs during the stage of issue
identification or agenda setting. Problem identification also can be understood as a
process of social construction. This view holds that pre-determined values by the
policy makers influences their views about what is valid and relevant and what should
command the attention. Policy work in this sense is understood as being concerned
with the construction of meaning.(Colebatch, 2006). Both of these frameworks
recognise the inherently political nature of determining what issues governments take
up and the sort of policy responses they develop. Analysis of this area of policy work
goes to the heart of what is known as policy capacity; that is, a government’s ability
to choose and implement its preferred course of action. Policy capacity often
determines the effectiveness of a policy. Jänicke (as cited by Maddison & Denniss,
2013) has outlined three elements of policy capacity: the strength, competence and
intellectual understanding utilised by a government to tackle a problem; the skills and
strategy used by that government; and the urgency of a policy problem and its relative
amenability to the available policy instruments.

Section 2: Public Policy Defined

Hogwood and Gunn specify ten uses of the term 'policy', that is policy as a label for
the field of activity; an expression of desired state of affairs; specific proposals;
decisions of government; formal authorization; a programme; an output; an outcome;
a theory or model; and a process. (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984) Eulau and Prewitt also
observe that "policy is distinguished from policy goals, policy intentions, and policy
choices." (Eulau & Prewitt, 1973). What this suggests is that it is helpful to
distinguish the several components of public policy. For example:
a) Intentions: The true purposes of an action
b) Goals: The stated ends to be achieved
c) Plans or proposals: Specified means for achieving the goals
d) Programs: Authorized means for achieving goals
e) Decisions or choices: Specific actions taken to set goals, develop plans, implement
and evaluate programs.
f) Effects: The measurable impacts of programs (intended and unintended; primary
and secondary)

In analyzing the policy process, it is important to recognize that different actors will
be using the word policy in different ways, often with the specific objective of

2
influencing how others view their actions. Policy involves a course of action or a web
of decisions, rather than just one decision. There are several aspects to this:

1. A decision network (web of decisions) may be involved in producing action taking

place over a long period of time and, sometimes, extending far beyond the initial
policy making process.
2. Policy is not usually expressed in a single decision, but is defined in terms of a
series of decisions.
3. Policies invariably change over time. Policy process is dynamic rather than static.
4. It is important to acknowledge that the policy process is not to be seen as being all
alone on a desert island. Rather, it will be entering a crowded policy space, impacting
upon and being influenced by other policies.
5. Much of policy making is concerned with attempting the difficult task of ‘policy
termination’ or determining ‘policy succession’.
6. Analyzing the fact of ‘non-decisions’ is one of the main concerns of the study of
policy. The reasons for not taking decisions need to be analyzed as much of inactions
in decisions are aimed at maintaining the status quo and resisting challenges.
7. Policy may be seen as an outcome, which actors may or may not want to claim as a
consequence of purposive activity. (Hill, 2005)

Section 3: Typologies of Public Policy

The classic policy analysis literature approaches these questions by using policy
typologies as ‘analytical shortcuts’ for the underlying processes. The most influential
approach to this has been the typology developed by Lowi. According to Lowi
(1964), Public policies can be categorized into three groups.
(1) Distributive policies (i.e. measures concerning the distribution of new resources),
(2) Redistributive policies that is, measures that modify the distribution of
existing resources),
(3) Regulatory policies (i.e. measures that specify conditions and constraints for
individual or collective behaviour).
E.g., standards for car exhaust emissions or requirements applicants have to fulfil for
obtaining an authorization to trade goods or offer specific services on the national or
international market.

Another widely used concept is Wilson’s (1973, 1995) typology in which costs and
benefits related to a policy are either widely distributed or narrowly concentrated.
There are four possible combinations with different implications that may arise from
cost-benefit analysis of public policy.
i. When both costs and benefits of a certain policy are widely distributed, a
government may encounter no or only a minor opposition, indicating
majoritarian politics as the likely outcome.
ii. When both costs and benefits of a certain policy are concentrated, a
government may be confronted with opposition of rivaling interest groups,
which signals interest-group politics; i.e., political processes are dominated by
the lobbying activities and strategic interaction of the involved interest groups.
iii. If costs are concentrated and benefits diffused, a government may encounter
opposition from dominant interest groups. In this case, entrepreneurial politics
3
 are the probable outcome. This implies that policy change requires the
presence of ‘political entrepreneurs’ who are willing to develop and put
through political proposals despite strong societal resistance.
iv. When costs are diffused and benefits concentrated, a government is likely to
face a relevant interest group favorable to its endeavor, which makes
clientelistic politics the likely outcome.

Another related concept is the analysis of policy instruments, which links instrument
choice – i.e. the selection among voluntary, compulsory, or mixed instruments – to
the likelihood of resistance to a particular policy (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003, 195).

Section 4: Policy Cycle

Formation of public policy is shaped through several stages. In each stage, there are
multi interaction involving more than one actor and components. The notion of a
policy cycle, prominent in the classical view, has its origin in the systems theory and
the pioneering work by David Easton on political systems. May and Wildavsky
(1979) described a policy process as comprising of: (1) agenda setting, (2) issue
analysis, (3) implementation, (4) evaluation, and (5) termination. Similarly, Brewer
and deLeon (1983) based their understanding of the policy process on a series, they
define as: (1) initiation, (2) estimation, (3) selection, (4) implementation, (5)
evaluation, and (6) termination. Hogwood and Gunn (1984) also envisage a cycle:
issue search or agenda setting; issue filtration; issue definition; forecasting; setting
objectives and priorities; options analysis; policy implementation; evaluation and
review; and policy maintenance, succession or termination. According to Colebatch
(1998) the policy cycle imagines the policy process as an endless cycle of policy
decisions, implementation and performance assessment. Howlett and Ramesh (2003)
conceive of a similar cycle but with more steps: agenda setting (problem recognition);
policy formulation (proposal of a solution); decision-making (choice of a solution);
policy implementation (putting the solution into effect); and policy evaluation
(monitoring results).

The policy cycle framework takes into account the feedback between different
elements of the policy process. Therefore, it draws a more realistic picture of the
policy process than earlier stages models. Under real-world conditions, policies are
not the subject of comprehensive evaluations that lead to either termination or
reformulation of a policy. Policy processes rarely feature clear-cut beginnings and
endings. At the same time, policies have always been constantly reviewed, controlled,
modified, and sometimes even terminated. Sometimes, policies are perpetually
reformulated, implemented, evaluated, and adapted. But these processes do not evolve
in a pattern of clear-cut sequences. Instead, the stages are constantly meshed and
entangled in an ongoing process (Frank Fischer, Gerald J.Miller, and Mara S. Sidney;
2006). Hogwood and Peters (1983) suggested the notion of policy succession to
highlight that new policies develop in a dense environment of already existing
policies. Moreover, policies do not develop in a vacuum, but are adopted in a crowded
policy space that leaves little space for policy innovation. Instead, new policies (only)
4
modify, change, or supplement older policies, or—more likely—compete with them
or contradict each other. The policy cycle focuses attention on generic features of the
policy process rather than on specific actors or institutions or particular substantial
problems and respective programs.

This "clumping" of related steps into a sequential order is very useful for analyzing
public policymaking (as presented in the figure 1) but it does not mean that every
policy must take every one of these steps in this order.

Figure 1 Policy Process Cycle

Section 5: The Stages of the Policy Process

5.1 Agenda Setting

The first stage in policy making refers to the identification of a public problem, which
requires the state to intervene. In fact, there are many problems, but only a small
number will be given official attention by legislators and executives. Those public
problems that are chosen by the decisions makers constitute the policy agenda. It will
always be the case that many issues compete for the attention of government. From
the myriad of concerns that are brought to government attention, the limitations of
time and resources will ensure that only a few are chosen for policy attention
(Anderson, 2005, 87). Making it onto the policy agenda means that what was once a
private concern is now transformed into a policy issue, commanding the resources of
government and becoming a part of the policy cycle. To make it onto the agenda,
however, an issue must meet at least four conditions:

1. There must be agreement on a problem. A problem only exists when

significant interests agree that there should be a change in current
circumstances. To achieve this agreement will usually require a coalition of
voices inside and outside government.
2. There must be the prospect of a solution. Policy makers prefer issues to which
there appears to be a plausible solution. Few politicians are drawn to issues
that promise certain failure.

5
 3. The issue must be appropriate for government expenditure. Every rupee spent
on one issue is a rupee not available to another issue.
4. For whom is the issue a problem? The government’s own ideology may
influence ministers’ decisions on whether they want to deal with an issue at all
(Althaus, Bridgman & Davis, 2013).

Hogwood and Gunn have also established a set of criteria to guide the process of what
they call ‘issue filtration’. Hogwood and Gunn’s criteria make it clear that the
competition for a place on the policy agenda does not take place in a politically
neutral environment. To understand why some ideas come to ‘have their time’ while
others are left to languish, John Kingdon (1995) made an important study of the
agenda-setting process in his book Agendas, alternatives and public policies. Kingdon
developed his theory of agenda setting from the so-called ‘garbage-can’ model
devised by March and Olson, who suggested that policies accumulate in the same way
that rubbish accumulates in a garbage can. Kingdon argued that the agenda-setting
process is composed of three distinct streams: problems, policies and politics.

The problem stream is made up of the issues upon which policy makers choose to
focus their attention, as opposed to those they choose to ignore. Issues will receive
attention if they are framed by indicators (that is, measures that are used to assess the
scale and change in an issue area), events (such as disasters, which focus policy
makers’ attention on a particular problem) and feedback (about current performance)
that indicate a failure to meet goals. In the policy stream, some ideas float to the top
and others sink.

The political stream is quite separate from the problem and policy streams. The
political stream also has a number of elements, including: national mood and public
opinion; organized political forces such as political parties and pressure groups; the
government itself; and the capacity for consensus building around a particular issue.
Kingdon suggests that at critical times these three streams come together, providing a
unique window of opportunity in which ‘A problem is recognized, a solution is
developed and available in the policy community, a political change makes the right
time for policy change, and potential constraints are not severe.

In most cases, the policy agenda is set by four types of actors: (1) public officials, (2)
the bureaucracy, (3) the mass media, and (4) the interest groups (Gerston 2004: 52).
However, actual agenda-setting is related to the larger political game in terms of
power and the intensity of ideological conflict both within and between the (coalition)
government and parliament.

Section6: Policy Formulation

During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals, and demands are
transformed into government programs. Policy formulation and adoption include the
definition of objectives, what should be achieved with the policy and the
consideration of different action alternatives. Some authors differentiate between
formulation (of alternatives for action) and the final adoption (the formal decision to
6
take on the policy). Policies will not always be formalized into separate programs. A
clear-cut separation between formulation and decision-making is very often
impossible. Therefore, they are treated as sub stages in a single stage of the policy
cycle.

Policy formulation implies the definition of policy objectives and the selection of the
most appropriate policy instruments as well as their settings. It takes place within the
broader context of technical and political constraints of state action. The political
constraints can be either substantive or procedural. Substantive constraints refer to the
nature of the problem, while procedural constraints are about procedures involved in
adopting a policy adoption. These procedural constraints are related to both
institutional and tactical constraints (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003, 147– 48). Policy
formulation occurs in government bureaucracies; interest group offices; legislative
committee rooms, meetings of special commissions; and policy-planning
organizations otherwise known as “think tanks”. The details of policy proposals are
usually formulated by staff members rather than their bosses, but staffs are guided by
what they know their leaders want. (Dye, 2005, 42).

Another aspect of policy formulation refers to the impact of policy advice and
scientific knowledge. Their functioning is related to ideas about policy networks,
epistemic communities and policy learning Most studies dealing with the role of
knowledge in policy formulation agree that, in the contemporary age, knowledge is
more widely spread beyond the boundaries of (central) governments than some
decades ago. Therefore, the perception of a monopoly of information on the side of
the bureaucracy is obsolete. Policy formulation proceeds as a complex social process,
in which state actors play an important but not necessarily decisive role. (Jann and
Kai; 2007).

Section 7: Policy Adoption

In contrast to preliminary stages of decision-making, the final adoption of a particular

policy alternative is determined by government institutions. The adoption of a policy
option is determined by a number of factors. Of these, two sets of factors are of major
relevance. First of all, the set of feasible policies can be reduced by the necessity to
build majorities for the approval of a policy option. They imply considerations about
values, party affiliation, constituency interests, public opinion, deference, and
decision rules (Anderson 2003: 126).

Party loyalty is an important decision-making criterion for most members of

parliament. Therefore, party affiliation is an important indicator for the likelihood of a
member of parliament to approve a policy draft. Nevertheless, there is a considerable
variation in the cohesion of parties within national parliaments.

Another important decision criterion is given by the expected costs and benefits of a
policy proposal for the constituency. In this context, Weingast et al. (1981) show in
the case of distributive politics, a strong reliance on a re-election constituency may
imply larger projects and programs than are economically efficient. Generally, a
member of parliament is expected to adopt a policy option, if the benefits for the
7
constituency prevail. Further, considerations about the public opinion also affect
policy choices as well as decision rules, values and perception of deference.

Generally, however, policy adoption should be dominated by bargaining and

compromise, and, therefore, the most plausible decision-making theory appears to be
incrementalism rather than rational models. The second set of factors refers to the
allocation of competencies between the actors involved in policy making. Cross-
national research concludes that the type of state organization, whether federal or
unitary, affects the success, speed and nature of governmental policy-making. (Jann
and Kai, 2007).

Section 8: Policy Implementation

Policy implementation is broadly defined as “what happens between the establishment

of an apparent intention on the part of the government to do something, or to stop
doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of action” (O’Toole 2000,
266). According to Althaus et al., 'good policies are meaningless unless implemented.
Policy analysts must consider implementation needs early in the development of a
proposal', and be aware during the policy development process of 'implementation
traps': incomplete specification, conflicting objectives, conflicting directives, limited
competence, inadequate administrative resources, communication failures , instrument
choice.

Generally speaking, governments tend to develop specific implementation styles

which combine various kinds of instruments into a more or less coherent whole which
is then applied in particular sectors. Linked to implementation, policy tools provide
the substance or content to what was planned in the formulation stage and decided
upon afterwards in the decision-making stage of the policy process (Howlett, 2011).

According to Araral Jr. Fritzen, Howlett , M Ramesh and Xun Wu (2013) these tools
fall into two types. Substantive instruments are those directly providing goods and
services to members of the public or governments. They include a variety of tools or
instruments relying on different types of governing resources for their effectiveness.
A useful way to classify these is according to the type of governing resource upon
which they rely: nodality or information; authority, treasure or financial resources, or
administrative or organizations ones. Procedural instruments are different from
substantive ones in that their impact on policy outcomes is less direct. Rather than
affect the delivery of goods and services, their principal intent is to modify or alter the
nature of policy processes at work in the implementation process. Each tool mix
decision combines advantages and disadvantages of each tool in its relationship to
other tools as well as the effect it has on costs and benefits for government (Howlett,
2011).

An ideal process of policy implementation would include the following core

elements:
• Specification of program details (i.e., how and by which agencies/organizations
should the program be executed? How should the law/program be interpreted?);

8
• Allocation of resources (i.e., how are budgets distributed? Which personnel will
execute the program? Which units of an organization will be in charge for the
execution?);
• Decisions (i.e., how will decisions of single cases be carried out?).

At the first glance, implementation appears as an automatic continuation of the

policy-making process. Nevertheless, there often exists a substantial gap between the
passage of new legislation and their application, which reveals that the relationship
between decision making and implementation is tenuous at best. For successful
implementation, there must be an entity with sufficient resources, which is able to
translate the policy objectives into an operational framework and that is accountable
for its actions (Gerston 2004: 98).

Section 9: Policy Evaluation and Termination

The last stage of the cycle is policy evaluation. David Nachmias (1979) defined policy
evaluation as “the objective, systematic, empirical examination of the effects ongoing
policies and public programs has on their targets in terms of the goals they are meant
to achieve.”

Policy-making is supposed to contribute to problem solving or at least to the reduction

of the problem load. During the evaluation stage of the policy cycle, these intended
outcomes of policies move into the center of attention. Evaluation studies are not
restricted to a particular stage in the policy cycle; instead, the perspective is applied to
the whole policy-making process and from different perspectives in terms of timing
(ex ante, ex post). Carol Weiss, an evaluation specialist, defines project evaluation as
the methodical assessment of the process and/or upshot of a project weighed against
to a set of unequivocal or embedded values, as a means of contributing to the
upgrading of the project. Project evaluation is a key constituent of successful project
management and understanding the stages of evaluation is the first step. (p. 4).
According to Althaus et al., ' integrating evaluation into policy design and
implementation adds rigour, consistent with the idea of carefully considered decisions
made by a well-informed, accountable decision maker. Evaluation is essential if
programs are to improve' (Jann and Kai; 2007).

The systematic evaluation of a policy – or more specifically of a program – comprises

five areas, namely (1) the need for a particular problem, (2) the program’s design, (3)
its implementation, (4) its impact or outcomes, and (5) its efficiency (Rossi et al.
2004: 18). These domains are mainly dealt with in scientific evaluation, which must
be distinguished between administrative evaluations conducted or initiated by the
public administration and political evaluation carried out by diverse actors in the
political arena, including the public and the media (Howlett and Ramesh 2003: 210–
16). However, while analysts often resorted to concepts such as “success” or “failure”
to conclude their evaluation, as Ingram and Mann cautioned: [T]he phenomenon of
policy failure is neither so simple nor certain as many contemporary critics of policy
and politics would have us believe. Success and failure are slippery concepts, often
highly subjective and reflective of an individual’s goals, perception of need, and
9
perhaps even psychological disposition toward life. (Ingram and Mann, 1980) That is,
public policy goals are often not stated clearly enough to find out if and to what extent
they are being achieved, nor are they shared by all key policy actors.

Policy evaluation provides a feedback loop, which enables decision makers to draw
lessons from each particular policy in operation. This feedback loop identifies new
problems and sets in motion the policy making process once again, creating an
endless policy cycle. This turns policy evaluation into a powerful tool of the policy
making process: it possesses the potential to reframe an issue once thought to be
resolved by policy makers, but, it can also lead to the termination of public policies.
In this respect, policy evaluations can pave the way for policy learning and evidence-
based policy making (Sanderson, 2002).

Section10: Summary

The policy cycle perspective provides an excellent heuristic device. Studies following
the policy cycle perspective have enhanced our understanding of the complex
preconditions, central factors influencing, and diverse outcomes of the policy process.

The diverse concepts developed in studies seeking to understand specific parts of the
policy cycle have offered a number of useful tools to classify various elements of the
whole process. Hence, the policy cycle perspective will continue to provide an
important conceptual framework in policy research. The policy cycle framework does
not only offer a yardstick for the evaluation of the (comparative) success or failure of
a policy; it also offers a perspective against which the democratic quality of these
processes could be assessed.

The policy cycle idea also helps to answer many key questions about public policy-
making regarding the effectiveness of different tools and the identification of
bottlenecks in policy processes. The stages allow for the identification of typical
actors and actions in different phases of tackling a problem which makes it easier to
identify independent and dependent variables in the study of policy processes and
behaviour and moves thinking forward by helping to identify the relatively limited
range of styles of activity possible at each stage of the cycle.

10