Class 6_7 PP

Approaches to Public Policy Analysis

In political studies, an approach helps organize and make sense of complex data by using a
structured set of concepts. It can be a detailed theory or a simulation model, acting as a mental
framework to represent real or hypothetical situations, like a city or government. These
frameworks, called models, use categories, assumptions, and principles to sort data, find
connections, and explain or predict outcomes. According to Jay Forrester, a policy modeling
expert, everyone carries a mental model—a simplified set of ideas and relationships that
represent the real world.
Policy models vary in purpose and type. Descriptive models focus on explaining or predicting
the causes and effects of policy choices, while normative models go further by suggesting rules
to achieve specific goals, like maximizing benefits in public investments. For example, a
benefit-cost model helps identify the best return on investment. In public policy, both leaders
and citizens use these models to decide whether to change or maintain policies, asking key
questions: Is the policy good or bad? What are the costs? Who benefits, and who might lose
out?
Charles Jones, in his book An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, shares key insights
about public policy through what he calls "Propositional Assumptions." These ideas offer a
clear starting point for understanding policy analysis.
i) Different people have different interpretations
One key assumption is that people interpret events differently. Individuals view societal events
through their own lens, often driven by self-interest. At any given time, people justify their
perspectives with reasons that suit their goals, even if others disagree. Even "facts" are
interpreted in varied ways, as people shape them to support their own viewpoints.
Imagine a city government decides to build a new highway through a neighbourhood.
• Some people living nearby see this as a positive development because it will reduce
traffic congestion and make commuting faster. They interpret the policy as beneficial
for the community’s growth.
• Others living in the same neighborhood might see it as negative because it will increase
noise, pollution, and could force some families to move. They interpret the policy as
harmful to their quality of life.
• A local business owner might support the highway because it could bring more
customers, while an environmental activist opposes it, worrying about damage to green
spaces.

ii) Many "Problems" may result from the same event:

The problem of unemployment could be a good illustration of this assumption. As a problem,
it is only one, but it has its effects on so many events. The lifestyle of the education of children
and other dependents, the frustration caused to the person concerned, his attitude towards
society and polity, the chances of his becoming anti-social and anti-national, etc., could be a
few effects of one particular event or problem.
Consider the global COVID-19 pandemic
• The pandemic caused widespread unemployment when many businesses shut down or
reduced their workforce.
• This unemployment affected families' lifestyles, as many people struggled to afford
basic needs like food, housing, and healthcare.
• Children's education was disrupted worldwide because schools closed and shifted to
online learning, which was not accessible to all.
• The unemployed individuals experienced frustration, stress, and mental health
issues due to job loss and uncertainty about the future.
• Some people developed a negative attitude towards the government and society, feeling
neglected or unsupported during the crisis.
iii) People have varying degrees of access to the policy process in government:
Wealthy groups and organizations often have greater access to the government’s policy-making
and implementation processes. They use their influence and resources to shape policies in their
favor. However, many citizens lack organized groups or the power to impact these processes,
making it hard for their legitimate needs and demands to reach policymakers. This creates a
significant challenge. Meanwhile, governments strive to balance these dynamics by reducing
the dominance of powerful groups to create policies that serve the broader public interest..
Example
In many countries, large corporations and wealthy business groups often have strong
connections with government officials and can influence policies related to taxes, trade, or
regulations. For example, in the United States, major tech companies like Google or Amazon
have lobbyists who regularly meet with lawmakers to shape policies that affect their industries.
On the other hand, low-income communities or small farmers may struggle to get their voices
heard. They often lack organized groups, resources, or direct access to policymakers. For
instance, small-scale farmers in developing countries may face challenges in influencing
agricultural policies that affect subsidies, market access, or land rights.
iv) Government does not act on all public problems:
John Dewey, in The Public and its Problems, argues that any private transaction with indirect
effects on others becomes a public issue. Whether the government addresses it depends on the
ability and willingness of those affected to push for action. Thomas R. Dye defines public
policy as "whatever the government chooses to do or not to do." A key challenge is ensuring
that the problems faced by marginalized, unorganized groups—often the most vulnerable—
make it onto the government’s policy agenda. Governments must find ways to identify and
prioritize these issues, possibly through outreach, public consultation, or mechanisms like
community advocacy, to ensure inclusive policymaking that addresses the needs of all citizens,
especially those with less influence.
Consider the issue of homelessness in many cities around the world.
• Homelessness affects many people indirectly, including neighbors, businesses, and the
general public due to concerns about public health and safety. According to John
Dewey’s idea, this is a public problem because it has wider social consequences.
 • However, governments do not always take strong or immediate action to solve
homelessness. This can happen because homeless people often belong to weaker
sections of society and do not have organized groups to effectively demand government
intervention.
• Meanwhile, governments might prioritize problems that have stronger public pressure
or political support, such as infrastructure projects or business development.
• As Thomas R. Dye said, the government’s public policy includes both what it chooses
to do and what it chooses not to do. So even if homelessness is a serious issue, it may
remain unaddressed due to lack of political will, resources, or influence from affected
groups.

v) Government acts on many private problems:

If a person cannot afford to buy petrol, that is a personal problem. However, if a person has the
money but still cannot get petrol because the government has failed to ensure an adequate
supply over a long period, then it becomes a public problem.
When powerful and organized interest groups influence policy decisions to serve their own
benefit, the government ends up addressing private problems instead of public ones. This kind
of policymaking often creates more problems than it solves.
For instance, increasing the purchase price of sugarcane to benefit certain groups or removing
licensing requirements for specific items may seem helpful but often serve narrow interests and
overlook broader public concerns.
Take the case of India in 2023: even though many people were struggling with high fuel costs,
the minimum selling price (MSP) of sugarcane stayed at ₹31 per kg—the same since 2019—
despite rising costs for farmers. This shows how policies can sometimes favor strong sugar mill
lobbies instead of addressing widespread rural distress.
vi) Most problems are not solved by the government though many are acted on by it:
There is no denying the fact that the present-day governments are grappling with highly
complex problems and invariably there are no fool-proof or permanent alternatives to solve
these problems.
Governments have proliferated in innumerable areas to deal with these problems. For that, it
neither has the resources nor the required training. This leads to further adding to the
unsuccessful or failure of policies that have been enacted by the government.
vii) Policy makers are not faced with a given problem:
Professor Charles Lindblom observed that policymakers often do not receive problems in a
clearly defined way. As a result, when they attempt to solve one issue, several other related
problems may emerge. Sometimes, the visible problem is actually a symptom of deeper,
underlying causes. Therefore, unless the root causes are addressed, the policy outcomes are
unlikely to be effective.
For example, consider the challenge of controlling riots or disturbances in different parts of a
country. Merely drafting policies to suppress riots or prevent terrorist activities will not bring
lasting results if the core issues behind the unrest are ignored. These root causes could include
widespread unemployment, poverty, rising inflation, unmet expectations, and growing social
frustrations. Addressing only the symptoms without tackling these fundamental problems will
not lead to sustainable peace or stability.
viii) Problems and demands are constantly being defined and redefined in the policy
process:
Change is a natural and constant feature of society. The problems and demands that concern
people today may evolve over time due to development, rising expectations, and greater
awareness—especially among groups that were once less influential. As these shifts occur,
governments are often compelled to redefine existing policies to better respond to new realities.
Historically, policies that were formulated and implemented without careful analysis have
frequently failed to deliver the intended results. Therefore, it is the responsibility of
policymakers to continually reassess and adapt their perspectives. Policies should not be made
in haste. Every policy demand and public issue must be thoroughly examined before a final
decision is made. Importantly, policymakers should not impose definitions of problems on
people who have not recognized those problems themselves.
A clear example of this is seen in the evolution of climate change policy:
• In the 1980s and 1990s, climate change was not widely recognized as an urgent public
issue. Public demand for climate action was limited, and most governments did not
prioritize it in their policy agendas.
• However, as scientific evidence became stronger and public awareness increased, there
was growing pressure from citizens, environmental groups, and even businesses for
more serious climate policies.
• In response, governments gradually shifted from minimal regulation to more
comprehensive strategies—introducing climate action plans, carbon pricing
mechanisms, and international frameworks like the Paris Agreement.
• Many early policies had to be revised or replaced because they were hastily designed
or failed to consider the growing and changing demands of society.
• This case highlights that effective policymaking requires policymakers to closely listen
to how people define their problems and adjust policies as expectations and awareness
change over time.
In summary, problem identification and policy formulation are dynamic and ongoing processes
that must evolve in step with societal change.
ix) Policy systems have a bias:
Wherever human beings are involved, their personal preferences, opinions, and biases are
likely to influence their actions. This is also true in the case of policymaking, because policies
are created and implemented by individuals—not by perfect or neutral machines. Policymakers
are not superhuman; they have their own likes and dislikes, and these can unintentionally shape
the policies they create. As a result, the outcomes of such policies may not always be as
effective or fair as they should be.
However, this problem can be reduced if there is an objective and systematic way to analyze
policies. Using different tools and methods of policy analysis can help make better, more
balanced decisions. Charles Jones, in his book An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy,
introduces "Propositional Assumptions" as foundational ideas for understanding public policy
analysis. One key assumption is that people interpret societal events differently, driven by self-
interest. Individuals justify their perspectives with reasons that align with their goals, even if
others disagree, and they often interpret "facts" in ways that support their own viewpoints. This
highlights how subjective interpretations shape policy discussions and decisions.

Different approaches
Martin Rein in the book, 'Social Science and Public Policy' has referred to the approaches to
policy analysis. To understand the same in more clear terms, let us discuss some of the different
approaches mentioned by him:
Historical Approach
Functional Approach
Investigative-Substitutive Approach
Innovative Approach
Historical Approach
The Historical Approach focuses on understanding policies in the context of the cultural,
social, and political environment in which they were created. Policies are not made in a
vacuum—they reflect the values, priorities, and problems of their time. By examining how
similar policies were made and received in the past, we can better predict how current or future
policies might perform.
For example, if a policy introduced twenty years ago faced strong public opposition, a similar
policy today might meet the same reaction unless conditions have changed. The historical
approach emphasizes learning from the past, but it also recognizes that past solutions may not
work today due to changing circumstances. Society evolves, and so do the challenges it faces.
Therefore, policy knowledge is not always cumulative like in natural sciences—what worked
before might not work now.
Another key idea is that no single policy operates in isolation. It is always influenced by other
policies and by long-standing norms and values in society. Thus, analyzing policies historically
helps anticipate potential impacts and avoid repeating past mistakes.
Case Example: Germany’s Minimum Wage Policy
• Germany introduced its first national minimum wage in 2015, set at €8.50/hour.
• Over time, it was gradually increased to €12.00/hour by 2022.
• Studies from institutions like the Institute for Employment Research (IAB) and the
German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs examined employment,
wages, and poverty trends before and after these changes.
• Findings showed that modest increases in the minimum wage improved incomes for
low-wage workers and helped reduce poverty—without causing major job losses or
harming small businesses.
• This historical evidence is now being used to guide future decisions on wage policy—
not just in Germany but across Europe.
This example shows how the historical approach helps policymakers build on what has worked
in the past while being mindful of current conditions.
Functional Approach to Policy Analysis
The Functional Approach focuses on how policies are actually put into practice, not just
what is written in laws or official documents.
Often, the goals of a policy or law are unclear, broad, or open to many interpretations. This
is sometimes done on purpose so different groups can agree on the policy, even if they have
different ideas about what it means. As a result, when the law is implemented, people at lower
levels—like local officials or administrators—end up deciding how the policy will work in real
life.
As Martin Rein said:
“When the purposes of policy are unclear and incompatible, each stage of implementation
becomes a new chance to clarify them.”
This means that to truly understand a policy, we must study how it works on the ground, not
just what the law says. Two policies that seem different on paper might work the same in
practice, while two similar-looking programs might have very different effects when applied.
Example: Social Safety Net Programs (SSNPs) in Bangladesh
Bangladesh has many social programs to help poor and vulnerable people, such as:
• Old Age Allowance
• Vulnerable Group Development (VGD)
• Gratuitous Relief
These programs aim to reduce poverty, but their goals are often broad or vaguely defined,
which leaves room for different interpretations at the local level.
• In some areas, local officials manage these programs well. People get their allowances
on time, and their living conditions improve.
• In other areas, problems like delays, favoritism, or poor management make the
programs less effective. Many poor people don’t get the support they need.
This shows that the same policy can work very differently in different places, depending on
how it is implemented.
Investigative-Substitutive Approach to Policy Analysis
This approach focuses on closely examining the actual purpose and performance of a public
policy—rather than just accepting what the policy claims to do.
Public policies are meant to meet human needs, but in reality, there is often no clear or agreed
definition of what those needs are. On top of that, policies usually have conflicting or vague
objectives, and the way governments try to meet them can vary a lot and change quickly over
time.
What is seen as a good or “correct” policy in one decade may be questioned or rejected in
another. That’s why it’s important to investigate policies to see what they are really trying to
achieve and how well they are doing it.
Martin Rein suggests that we should treat the goals of a policy as unsettled or open-ended.
Instead of assuming the stated purpose is correct or complete, we should ask questions like:
 • What inputs (resources) were used?
• What outputs (activities) were delivered?
• What outcomes (results) were achieved?
If the policy isn't delivering good results, we need to question its original goals and look for
better alternatives. This might mean redefining the objectives or changing how the policy is
implemented.
Key Idea:
Don’t just take the policy’s goals at face value.
Investigate the real-world impact and be willing to substitute or adjust elements of the
policy to improve it.
Example (hypothetical):
Suppose a youth employment policy is introduced to reduce unemployment. The policy says
its goal is to "empower youth through skill development." However:
• If training centers lack quality or don’t match job market demands,
• If youth still can't find jobs after training,
• Or if funding is being misused,
...then clearly, the actual outcome doesn't match the stated purpose. In this case, analysts
need to re-examine the goals and suggest changes based on real data—not just stick with
what the policy claims to achieve.
Innovative Approach in Public Policy
Most public policies are created through compromises between different interest groups. While
this makes them politically acceptable, it often limits how effective they can be. Traditionally,
once a policy is made, it is implemented and reviewed using standard, well-established
methods—leaving little room for creativity or adaptation.
The Innovative Approach encourages breaking out of this routine. It calls for rethinking and
redesigning policies to fit the unique needs of specific communities or sectors. Instead of
relying only on old models, this approach supports flexible, creative, and context-specific
solutions that can lead to better outcomes.
For example, if a healthcare policy mainly focuses on long-term care, the innovative approach
might suggest shifting some attention to short-term services or changing how institutional care
is delivered—based on current needs.
Real-World Example: Innovative Approach in Bangladesh’s Education Policy
Traditional Approach:
• Bangladesh’s education system has long focused on formal schooling: building schools,
training teachers, and running fixed classroom sessions—especially in rural areas.
• However, this traditional method faced serious challenges: high dropout rates, low
enrollment in remote regions, and unequal access to quality education.
Innovative Response:
 • The government introduced Non-Formal Education (NFE) programs aimed at
children who couldn't attend regular school due to poverty or other barriers.
• These programs provided:
o Flexible learning hours
o Community-based classes
o Vocational and life skills training
Impact (as reported by BANBEIS):
• Literacy rates improved in marginalized areas.
• Dropout rates decreased because children found the flexible system more suitable for
their circumstances.
• During the COVID-19 pandemic, the government also launched mobile schools and
digital learning tools, ensuring continued access to education despite school closures.

Examples of innovative policy approach

Marshall Plan
Country Aid Received (m US$) GDP Growth 1949–1952 (%)
United Kingdom 2,826 2.18
France 2,445 17.11
Italy 1,316 24.89
West Germany† 1,297 41.15
Netherlands 877 7.88
Austria 561 2.20
Belgium & Luxembourg 547 10.62
Greece 515 8.17
Denmark 257 9.73
Norway 237 14.45
Turkey 153 38.15
Ireland 146 5.96
Sweden 119 8.75
Portugal‡ 51 7.58
Iceland 24 –
Thailand’s Car Manufacturing Policy and Industry Evolution
The following table presents a comprehensive overview of the evolution of Thailand's
automotive manufacturing policy alongside key outcomes, industry realities, and
connections to public policy at each major stage:
Period Major Policy Key Industry Impact/Reality Public Policy
Action Developments on the Ground Connections
1960– Import Foreign Domestic Tax breaks and
1970 substitution: assemblers begin assembly replaces tariffs to attract
import tariffs, (Ford, Nissan, imports; supplier investment;
tax incentives; Fiat); assembly base begins protectionist
local assembly plants launch forming; limited measures boost local
encouraged backward linkages industry
1971– Local content Growth of Domestic LCR policies
1977 requirements domestic parts components sector directly regulate
(LCR) suppliers; forms; stricter manufacturer–
introduced; increased in- LCR enforces supplier
higher local house production more Thai-made interactions; forced
content by manufacturers content localization
mandated
1978– Strengthened Expansion of Supplier industry State-backed cluster
1990 LCR; focus on component matures, policies; integration
complex local manufacturing; agglomeration of technical
parts production; tech transfer from near Bangkok; assistance/training
import ban on Japanese Thai production with policy aims
finished cars suppliers; exceeds local
(1978–1991) supplier networks demand by late
cluster in 1980s
industrial zones
1991– Liberalization: Major foreign Exports surpass Deregulation,
1999 import bans investment domestic sales; export-promotion,
removed, tariffs (especially US, Thailand becomes cluster support;
reduced, foreign Japanese firms); regional export adoption of free
ownership new plants open; base; policy trade agreements;
allowed; export domestic price attracts shift to global value
incentives competition rises multinational chains
investment
2000s– Export-driven Focus on small, Thailand becomes Targeted tax policy,
2010s growth; 'Eco fuel-efficient, Asia's largest car regulatory
Car' program ecological exporter; strong relaxations;
(2007); targeted vehicles; new supplier network; selective support for
FDI incentives tech and R&D; no national brand eco/EV markets;
(tax, surge in Japanese but top producer 30% EV production
infrastructure) investment; shift for global brands goal by 2030
to EV production
begins
 2020– Acceleration of Growing Chinese Decline in total Fiscal/production
Present EV policies; automaker output due to incentives, export
shift toward presence (BYD, market facilitation; ongoing
sustainability; MG); headwinds; industrial upgrading
incentives for modernization of significant for sustainability
high-tech, supply chains; realignment
electric vehicles integration with toward EVs and
global e-mobility advanced vehicles
trends

Timeline of Political Instability and Military Coups in Thailand

Year Event / Coup Details & Outcome
1932 Siamese Revolution End of absolute monarchy; start of constitutional monarchy
led by military and civilian elites.
1933 First Coup Attempt Failed royalist counter-coup against the People's Party
(Khana Ratsadon).
1947 Coup by Royalist Return to military dominance after civilian governance.
Military
1957 Coup by Field Backed by the monarchy and U.S.; beginning of strongman
Marshal Sarit rule with U.S. Cold War support.
Thanarat
1971 Self-coup by Thanom Abolished constitution and parliament to consolidate
Kittikachorn power.
1973 Mass Uprising Student-led uprising overthrew military rule; brief civilian
rule followed.
1976 Military Coup After violent crackdown on students at Thammasat
University, military seized power.
1977 Another Coup by Internal military reshuffle—continued rule under military
Military Junta guidance.
1991 Coup Against Military claimed corruption; led to mass protest in 1992
Chatichai (Black May).
Choonhavan Govt.
1992 "Black May" Crisis Mass protests against military-backed PM led to return to
civilian rule.
2006 Coup Against Military ousted elected PM Thaksin over alleged
Thaksin Shinawatra corruption and abuse of power.
2014 Coup by General Military overthrew Yingluck Shinawatra's government
Prayuth Chan-ocha after protests and court rulings. Prayuth became PM under
junta rule.
 2019 Military-Backed Prayuth returned as PM through a contested civilian
Election election under a military-drafted constitution.
2023– Political Uncertainty Reformist party Move Forward won the most seats, but
24 after Election military-aligned Senate blocked its PM candidate.
Coalition led by Pheu Thai took power, raising legitimacy
concerns.

Decade-by-Decade Revenue Analysis

Period Average Revenue Peak Revenue

1990s $3.2 billion $5.5B (1996)

2000s $16.3 billion $26.8B (2008)

2010s $32.5 billion $38.2B (2013)

2020s $31.5 billion $35.2B (2022)