Analyzes the various models of public policy

1. PA 763
Kristen O’Donovan & Shantanu Basu
21st March 2007

2. The Policy Frameworks
Overview & Comparison
PA 763
Shantanu Basu
21st March 2007

3. The Pioneer Model – David Easton
Policy
Environment
Structural Social Economic Political
Government
Transfer paytts National
Parties Demographics
Tax expend. mood
Legislature

4. Easton’s Systems Theory
THE POLITICAL SYSTEM
or The Black Box
Translates inputs to outputs.
Inputs Environments influence
Election results policy making and politics
Public opinion
Communications to elected
officials
Media coverage of issues
Personal experiences of Outputs
decision makers
Laws
Regulations
Decisions
Adapted from Birkland, Thomas, A. (2005): Introduction to the Policy Process. ME Sharpe, New York. P. 202

5. The Policy Models
Elinor Ostrom
Institutional Analysis and
Development Framework (IAD)
Paul A. Sabatier
Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)
John Kingdon
Multiple Streams Metaphor (MS)
Frank A. Baumgartner & Bryan D. Jones
Punctuated Equilibrium
William D. & Frances Stokes Berry
Policy Innovations (PI)
Richard I. Hofferbert
Elite Behavior

6. The Policy Stages
Issue emergence Agenda setting
F
e
e Alternative selection
d
b Implementation
Enactment
a
c
k
Evaluation
Adapted from Birkland, Thomas, A. (2005): Introduction to the Policy Process. ME Sharpe, New York. P. 225

7. Inputs and Outputs
Inputs
1. Voting Decisions
2. National opinion
1. Rational
3. Communications Comprehensive
4. Mass Media 2. Incrementalism &
Bounded Rationality
5. Interest Groups
3. Garbage Can
4. Organizational
Process &
Governmental
Outputs
Politics 1. Laws
2. Oversight
3. Evaluation

8. The Importance of Models
Edella Schlager
Emphasis on unfolding than on
decision, i.e. process rather than
decision
Attention to structure
Context and constraints of processes
Actual decisions and events
= Policy process analysis

9. The Criteria for Comparison
CRITERIA
Types Units of
of actors Analysis
Variables and
Levels
relationships Scope
of Analysis
between actors

10. Types of Actors
Unit of analysis in frameworks
remains the individual
IAD framework most clearly specifies
individual as actor and provides general
variables that structure the individual
ACF structures individual by a
hierarchically ordered set of beliefs, goals
and ability to process information
PI variables for individual are motivation
and obstacles to innovate and resources
to overcome obstacles
Hofferbert does not identify variables for
elite behavior

11. Variable Development Between FWs
IAD most clearly specifies individual as
actor and provides general variables that
structure the individual
Action arena most developed though
not action situation
No variables for analyzing community
features (Easton’s environments?)
ACF structures individual by a
hierarchically ordered set of beliefs,
goals and ability to process information
ACF’s developed variables include
forums

12. Variable Development Between FWs
PI variables for individual are
motivation, obstacles in innovation
and resources to overcome obstacles
Hofferbert’s elite behavior does not
identify variables
Hofferbert well-developed except for
elite behavior and govt. institutions
Poorly specified variables = ad hoc
theorizing and model building

13. Units of Analysis
IAD & Hofferbert FWs leave
unit of analysis choice to
analyst
Both FWs are flexible
ACF and PI specify units of
analysis
But units are flexible for
application

14. Levels of Analysis
Changing alignments of individual actors
Graduating to collective-choice actions
Only IAD FW pays explicit attention to
levels
Other FWs pay implicit attention
ACF & PI’s primary focus is on collective-
choice action only & individual by
implication
Hofferbert by implication collective choice
for govt. institutions and elite behavior –
the rest is historical-geographic conditions
and socio-economic composition

15. Scope of Framework
General variables and the relations between
them not developed for any policy stage
IAD alone encompasses all stages primarily
due to attention to levels of action
Interactive policy stage action situations
dovetail into collective-choice that, in turn,
fits into implementation with constant
feedback between levels that again, would
affect operational-level rules
ACF focused on initiation, estimation and
selection, i.e. policymaking
PI and Hofferbert relate primarily to policy
adoption or selection, i.e. policy adoption

16. THEORIES
Overview & Comparison

17. Comparison of Theories
COMMON
COMMON
POOL
POOL
MULTIPLE
MULTIPLE ADVOCACY
ADVOCACY
THEORIES
THEORIES COALITION
STREAMS
STREAMS COALITION
PUNCTUATED
PUNCTUATED
EQUILIBRIUM
EQUILIBRIUM

18. Criteria for Comparison
BLOMQUIST
Boundaries and
Institutions
scope of enquiry
Model of the
Collective Action
individual
Policy change

19. Model of the Individual - I
Each theory uses rationality models
Individuals assumed to be goal-oriented and
boundedly rational
Contexts of policy making drive bounded
rationality
Uncertainty, complexity & weak selective
pressures characterize those contexts (Ostrom
and Zahariadis)
Major variations in theories – updater
(Ostrom), selective attender (B&J), belief-er
(Sabatier), satisficer (Zahariadis)

20. Model of the Individual-II
CP
Complexity of situations determines behavior in
common pool resource setting
Results in poorly defined problems and poor
reactive preferences that cannot eliminate
uncertainties
Situational variables are therefore all-important
than assumptions about internal calculation process
(Ostrom)
PE
Similarity with IAD in that preferences relatively
fixed and slow to change; therefore change is large
Decisions grounded in situational factors than

21. Model of the Individual-III
AC
Belief systems, instead of information,
determines individual choice and action
Results in incremental change as
belief systems act as information filters
MS
Grounded in garbage can model of choice
= Interesting twists on
boundedly rational model

22. Collective Action -I
MS
Least attention to collective
action
Focus on policy entrepreneurs
and conditions for change
PE
Policy makers plus collective action
make for change
Emphasis on consequences of such
organization & activity, not modes of
organization

23. Collective Action -II
AC
High degree of coordination not always present
Outcome result of congruence of various common
interests rather than conscious coalition (Sabatier &
Jenkins-Smith)
Empirical measures of action not developed – existing
measures not adequate
CP
Supports collective action and inhibits free-riding
behavior
Focuses on characteristics of physical world,
community and the rules-in-use to explain collective
action

24. Institutions - I
MS
Focus on individual behavior
Institutional implication indirect in policy entrepreneurs –
affects only political stream
Needs more attention to institutions for greater structure and
consistency
This is required to facilitate comparison across policy
communities
PE
Structure sets policymaking context
Multiple venues that influence decision-making
Conceptualized as one whole institution – micro-level
processes and macro-level outcomes overlooked
Identify rule configuration using IAD and replace venues with
changes in rules (Schlager)

25. Institutions - II
AC
Emphasis on individuals in institutions
Roles and structures of institutions need to be spelt
out – present framework only gross like PE
Required to establish link between institutions and
belief systems of coalitions to assess relative influence
of individual actors
Emphasis shift required to institutions
CP
Emphasis on individuals using institutions
Micro-level analysis creates individual rules
Rules too many and configurations difficult to
determine
Absence of any meta rules – good judgment only
possible for analyst

26. Policy Change
AC, MS & PE : Major policy change
No guarantee of policy change
Ambiguity over what is major and minor policy
change
Major change for one subsystem could be minor
for another – definition of subsystem loose
How does the secondary core of a belief system
become the core of another – nested systems?
Catalysts required for action
Not possible to predict specific issues on which
there would be policy changes
CP : Incremental policy change
Substantial change to come thorough series of
incremental changes

27. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - I
MS
• Limited to explaining pre-decision processes in
policy making process
• Primary DVs are agenda-setting and specification of
policy alternatives
• Uses exogenous variables to explain DVs without
explaining the policy stream content and context –
Why do we see the types of policies or ideas that we
do in the policy stream?
PE
• Uses DV of agenda setting and explains by using IVs
such as interest group activity, mass mobilization,
media images, etc.

28. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - II
AC
• Focuses on both decision and pre-
decision
• Based primarily on case study and
difficult to generalize
• Sabatier & Jenkins Smith
approach using DVs as advocacy
coalitions and IVs of policy actors,
coordination, types and venues

29. Boundaries & Scope of Inquiry - III
CP
Explains specific action situation with
reference to rules implemented
DVs are outcomes of situation and IVs are
rules-in-use, resource, community and
individual characteristics
CP can also explain origins of rules-in-use by
reversing IVs and DVs.
IVs remain the same except for rules
(collective and constitutional choice) that
structure operational-level rulemaking
activities

30. Why Institutional?
INSTITUTIONAL INDIVIDUALS
Permanent and Uncertain preferences
representative entities
Unpredictable behavior
Similar subsystems
No predefined rules
Function within FW of
specified rules No orgn. culture
Predictable forward and Std. rules not possible
backward integration with Wide interest group
policy by rules variations
Possible to devise No fixed time frame
common micro and macro
measures Fluidity of human
relations– therefore cross
Theories generalizable generalizations may not
across geog. boundaries always be possible