Transcript LR 23

Lecture No 23
Theories of Public Policy &
Public Policy-Making Process
Theories of Public Policy
• Outline
– Uses of Models
– Types of Models
– Group Work
Dye: Uses of Models
• Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and
public policy
• Identify important aspects of policy problems
• Help us to communicate with each other by focusing
on essential features of political life
• Direct our efforts to understand public policy better
by suggesting what is important and unimportant
• Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its
consequences
1. Who participates in policy making?
2. How are policy decisions made?
3. What are the underlying assumptions of the
theory/model?
4. If the author is right, what are the
consequences for the general public of policy
decisions made in accordance with the particular
theory/model?
Types of Models
There are 4 questions you should be able to
answer about each of the theories or
models you will be exposed to:
1. Institutionalism
Public policy as institutional output
• Who: executive, legislative, and judicial branches
• How: policy is authoritatively determined,
implemented, and enforced by these institutions
(legitimacy, universality, and coercion)
• Implications/assumptions: individuals have little
impact; structure/design affects outcomes
2. Process Model
Public policy as political activity
• Who: voters, interest groups, legislators,
presidents, bureaucrats, judges
• How: ID problem, set agenda, formulate policy
proposals, legitimate policies, implement policies,
evaluate policies
• Implications/assumptions: who participates has
a critical or determinant impact on the process
3. Group Theory
Public policy as group equilibrium
Who: interest groups, their allies in government
• How: struggle among interest groups with
legislature/executive as referee to manage group
conflict and establish rules of the game
• Implications/assumptions: groups will always
join to press for particular issues, all interests will
have an opportunity for representation
4. Elite Theory
Public policy as elite preference
• Who: elites that have power, ability to allocate
value
• How: implementation of the preferences and
values of the governing elite; public officials
merely carry out policies decided on by the elites
• Implications/assumptions: public is apathetic
elites agree upon norms; political action is merely
symbolic; protects the status quo
5. Rationalism
Public policy as maximum social gain
Who: decision makers (all social, political, economic
values sacrificed or achieved by a policy choice)
irrespective of dollar amount (Bentham, Mills)
• How: select policy alternative(s) that allows gains
to society to exceed benefits by the greatest
amount
• Implications/assumptions: assumes that the
values preferences of the society as a whole can
be known and weighted
6. Incrementalism
Public policy as variations on the past
• Who: policy makers, legislators, others with a stake
in ongoing programs or problems
• How: continuation of past government activities
with only incremental modifications
• Implications/assumptions: accepts the legitimacy of
established programs; fear of unintended
consequences; sunk costs in other programs may
minimize the opportunities for radical change
7. Game Theory
Public policy as rational choice in competitive
situations
• Who: players/decision makers who have choices to make
and the outcome depends on the choice made by each
(assumes rationality in making choices)
• How: each player has goals and resources, a strategy
developed given possible moves of opponent, and payoff
values that constitute the outcomes of the game
• Implications/assumptions: repeated plays should lead to
better policy outcomes
8. Public Choice
Public policy as collective decision making by
self-interested individuals
• Who: rational self-interested individuals will in both
politics and economics cooperate to achieve their goals
• How: individuals come together in politics for their own
mutual benefit; government must respond to market
failures
• Implications/assumptions: individuals have sufficient
information to know what is in their best interest
9. Systems Theory
Public policy as system output
• Who: individuals, groups, or nations depending upon the
scope of the problem
• How: environment may stimulate inputs into political
system, producing outputs and feedback
• Implications/assumptions: systems implies an
identifiable set of institutions and activities in society that
functions to transforms demands into authoritative
decisions requiring the support of the whole society;
implies that the elements of the system are interrelated,
that the system can respond to forces in its environment,
and that it will do so to preserve itself
10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model
• Who: participants inside and outside government
• How: choice opportunity is a garbage can into which various
kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants as
they are generated; policy outcomes are a function of the mix
of the garbage: problems, solutions, participants, and
participant resources in the can and how the can is processed
• Implications/assumptions: each of the actors and processes
can operate either as an impetus or as a constraint; streams
operate largely independent of one another
1. Institutionalism
2. Process
3. Group Theory
4. Elite Theory
5. Rationalism
6. Incrementalism
7. Game Theory
8. Public Choice Theory
9. Systems Theory
10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model
Public Policy Making Process
Overview
• Two conclusions.
– No one is clearly in charge of implementation.
– Domestic programs virtually never achieve all that is
expected of them.
• Eight generalizations.
– No one individual or group is in charge.
– Domestic programs never achieve all that is expected of
them.
– The first two are true because of the political structure and
conflicting values of the participants.
Public Policy Making Process
Overview
• Eight generalizations (contd.).
– Bureaucrats are the most influential actors, but do
not control implementation.
– Patterns of implementation vary depending on the
different social purposes of policies.
– Decentralization influences implementation.
– The meaning of effective implementation varies
across situations.
– Effectiveness does not necessarily translate into
desired impacts.
Implementation in the Policy Process
• Definition – the set of activities that follow
statements of intent (laws, court decisions,
executive orders) about program goals and
desired results by government officials.
– Implementation encompasses actions (and
nonactions) by a variety of actors, especially
bureaucrats, designed to put programs into effect,
ostensibly in such a way as to achieve goals.
Implementation in the Policy Process
• Actions
– Acquire resources.
– Interpret statutes, laws, decisions and plan
activities.
– Organize.
– Extend benefits or restrictions.
The Nature of Implementation
• Generalizations.
– There are a very large number of external factors that can
influence implementation.
– For implementation to proceed without any major hitches,
all or virtually all of these external factors must be
supportive or at least neutral. Any one or few that are
nonsupportive can derail the entire implementation
process in a variety of ways.
– There are also a large number of factors internal to
implementation processes that inevitably provide
obstacles to smooth implementation.
The Nature of Implementation
• Most important features.
– Implementation processes involve many
important actors holding diffuse and competing
goals and expectations who work within a context
of an increasingly large and complex mix of
government programs that require participation
from numerous layers and units of government
and who are affected by power factors beyond
their control.
The Nature of Implementation
• Many actors.
– Number and identity.
• The basic point is that executives, legislatures,
bureaucrats, a variety of private or non-governmental
groups and individuals, and courts at all of the three
major territorial levels in the U.S. (federal, state, and
local) can and do get involved in the implementation of
domestic policies.
• Actors in the implementation process (next slide).
The Nature of Implementation
TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process
Level
Executive Officials and
Organizations
Legislative
Officials and
Organizations
Bureaucratic
Officials and
Organizations
Nongovernmental
Individuals and
Organizations
Judicial
Officials and
Organizations
Federal
President
Executive Office of the
President
Staff
Congress
(committees and
individual
members)
Congressional
staff and support
agencies
Department and
agency heads
Staff-civil
servants
(Washington and
regional)
Corporations
Labor unions
Interest groups
Advisory bodies
Nonprofit agencies
Media
Federal judges
Law clerks
Marshals
Masters, experts
US Attorneys
State
Governor
Governor’s staff
State legislature
(Committee and
individuals)
Staff and support
agencies
Department and
agency heads
Staff-civil
servants (state
capitol and
regional
(Same as above with
state focus and
impact)
State judges
Law clerks
Miscellaneous
state judicial
officials
Local
Mayor
County commissioners
Other local elected officials
Staff
City councils,
board of
commissioners,
other local elected
officials, staff
Department and
agency heads
Staff-civil
servants (central
and field offices)
(Same as above with
local focus and
impact)
Local judges
Law clerks
Miscellaneous
local judicial
officials
The Nature of Implementation
• Many actors (contd.).
– The role of private actors.
• Interest groups.
– Groups attempt to influence implementation. Influence does
not stop with formulation and legitimation.
– Not only can interests help create policies, but policies can
create interests.
– Bureaucracies will sometimes take the initiative in creating
groups around the policies that they implement. Both allies
and opposing groups.
• The blurring of public and private sectors.
• Advisory groups contribute to this phenomenon.
The Nature of Implementation
• Many actors (contd.).
– The role of courts.
• Decisions that limit, channel, mandate implementation.
• Program administrators, sometimes.
– Lack of hierarchy.
• Promotes bargaining, competition, and compromise.
• Even in hierarchies, this is true.
The Nature of Implementation
• Many actors (contd.).
– Conflict and compromise.
• Policy formulation and legitimation are typically characterized by
some conflict over both goals and means to attain them.
• Conflict reduced or resolved through series of compromises that
allow legislation to pass.
• Conflict does not end with the passage of the legislation. Carries
over into implementation. Losers attempt to change the outcome;
winners attempt to maintain advantage.
• Multiple opportunities for influence and access.
• No decisions are final.
The Nature of Implementation
• Goals and Expectations.
– Goals embedded in programs are diffuse, numerous, and usually fuzzy.
• No single clear goal – confusion.
• Competition among goals.
• Unexpected costs – unintended consequences.
• Growth of government and complexity of programs.
– Increases in budget outlays.
– Increases in government expenditures as a percentage of GDP.
– Slow increases in federal employment, rapid increases in state and local
employment.
– Greater use of nonprofit and private sector.
– Rise of grants-in-aid to 1970.
• External uncontrollable factors.
– Economic changes.
– Social changes.
Policy Implementation
• Public policies are not self-executing.
– Since people who formulate and adopt are usually
not the same as those who implement, much
room for slippage and distortion.
– Policy implementation is the stage of policy
making between the establishment of a policy and
the consequences of the policy for the people it
affects.
Policy Implementation
• Public policies are not self-executing (contd.).
– Implementation activities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Issue and enforcing directives.
Disbursing funds.
Making loans.
Awarding grants.
Signing contracts.
Collecting data.
Disseminating information.
Analyzing problems.
Assigning and hiring personnel.
Creating organizational units.
Proposing alternatives.
Planning for the future.
Negotiating with private citizens, businesses, interest groups, legislative
committees, bureaucratic units, and even other countries.
Policy Implementation
• What are the conditions that produce
effective or ineffective implementation?
– Communication.
– Resources.
– Dispositions.
– Bureaucratic structure.
Communication.
• First requirement for effective policy
implementation is that those are to
implement a decision must know what they
are supposed to do. Policy decisions and
implementation orders must be transmitted to
the appropriate personnel before they can be
followed. Naturally, these need to be accurate,
and they must be accurately perceived. They
must be clear, they must be consistent.
Communication.
• Transmission.
– Implementers must be aware that the decision
was made.
– Obstacles.
• Disagreement.
• Multiple layers of bureaucracy.
• Selective perception.
Communication
• Clarity.
– Vague laws.
•
•
•
•
Example – “maximum feasible participation.”
Vagueness allows leeway
Inhibits change, but can also expand it.
Finding the true intentions.
– Reducing discretion can provide some remedy.
– Ambiguous court decisions.
• Death penalty.
• Brown vs. Board of Education.
– But, flexibility has some value.
– Reasons for lack of clarity.
•
•
•
•
•
Complexity of policy-making.
Competing goals and the need for consensus.
Unfamiliarity of new programs.
Avoiding accountability.
Nature of court decisions.
Communication
• Consistency.
– Example – Economic Development Administration.
• Help jobless by attracting or expanding industry.
• Could not subsidize competitors to existing businesses.
– Inconsistency can also lead to discretion.
– Causes.
• Increases as levels and offices increase.
• Many of the conditions affecting clarity also affect consistency.
• Desire to appear consistent while making a change can lead to
inconsistent communication.
Resources
• Adequate resources are essential.
• Staff – most essential.
– Size.
• Most programs are understaffed.
• 1968 HEW – supervise school desegregation with 48 enforcement officers in 23,000
school districts.
• To avoid, feds have transferred implementation to state and local governments,
which are also understaffed.
– Michigan – Staff of 10 to consider funding requests of 462 school districts.
• Example environmental protection.
– 62,000 primary sources of water pollution plus sewers, irrigation, agriculture. 150 million
polluting motor vehicles, 2,000 toxic dump sites, 2,000 to 40,000 sources of industrial air
pollution, 50,000 pesticides.
– State environmental protection agencies have 15 to 200 inspectors – and can examine 3
to 30 sources per day.
• Why? Fear of totalitarian monster, allocate personnel for direct services. Scarcity of
funds combined with zeal to create new programs.
Resources
• Staff (contd.)
– Skills.
• Lack of skills critical.
• Poorly trained staff can create hazards. Seven of ten nuclear
power plant operator applicants in 1978 in Michigan failed
licensing exam and were hired anyway.
• Implementation by state agencies is also a problem.
• Few management people with skills.
• New programs.
• Difficult to hire.
Resources
• Information.
– Knowing what to do.
• Especially new or technical like air pollution.
• Consequences.
– Responsibilities not met.
– Not met on time.
– Inefficiency.
» Mistakes.
» Inappropriate.
– Monitor compliance.
•
•
•
•
•
Information on compliance.
But, lack of staff critical.
Reliance on information from regulated industry.
Limited authority.
Reliance on private sector – private citizens.
Resources
• Authority.
– Authority to give aid, but less to constrain.
– Limitations.
• Exercising authority – many agencies simply do not have the authority. Or
it exists only on paper.
– Withdrawal of funds – potential weapon, rarely used. Why?
» Embarrassing.
» Antagonizes implementers.
» Alienates members of Congress.
» Intervention by powerful state and local authorities.
» May hurt those it is designed to help.
» May injure innocent persons – loss of jobs.
– Sanctions can be useful. Gives agency excuse to comply.
• Result: Service orientation – higher level officials ask for assistance rather
than issue orders. Rarely challenge lower level decisions.
Resources
• Facilities – Physical.
– Building, equipment, supplies.
– Shortage of sophisticated equipment.
• Logistics system on one military base purchased from
Radio Shack.
– But many people oppose the building of facilities
in their area (NIMBY).
Dispositions (Attitudes)
• Well-disposed to policy, more likely to be
carried out according to intentions. If not,
implementation more complicated. Since
implementers have discretion, their attitudes
can be obstacles.
Dispositions (Attitudes)
• Effects.
– Many policies fall in zone of indifference, will be
implemented. Others excite opposition, will be
more difficult.
– Sources of parochialism.
•
•
•
•
•
In-breeding.
Careerism in one agency.
Narrow range of responsibility.
Reward distribution supports status quo.
Committee and interest group pressure.
Dispositions (Attitudes)
• Effects (contd.).
– Dispositions hindering implementation.
• Opposition
– Can prevent consideration of ideas.
– Can defeat immediate goals.
– But, can be beneficial if used to ignore orders issued in haste.
• Competing policy interests.
• Selective perception.
• Differences in organizational outlook.
– Between organizations.
– Within organizations, between sections.
– Outlooks that affect implementation.
» Dominant opinion as to function.
» Turf-building.
» Program raids.
» Protection of autonomy.
» Private dispositions.
Dispositions (Attitudes)
• If dispositions limit implementation, why not hire
new personnel?
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Time.
Politics.
Interest groups.
Internal opposition.
Lack of knowledge of skilled personnel.
Subcabinet discretion.
Civil service rules.
Bureaucratic complexity.
Dispositions (Attitudes)
• Incentives.
– Rewards and punishments can work, but generally
only on individual projects.
– Rewards.
• Merit pay – rarely used
• Promotion – usually seniority.
• Peer group pressure can mitigate rewards.
– Goal displacement – trying to beat system.
Bureaucratic Structure
• Standard operating procedures (SOPs).
– Routines to handle everyday situations.
– Reasons.
•
•
•
•
Save time.
Uniformity of application.
Lack of resources requires simplification.
“Tunnel” vision.
– Problems.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inhibit change.
Prevent acceptance of responsibility for new programs.
Delay.
Waste resources.
Undesired actions.
New policies more likely to be hindered.
But, SOPs can help change.
Bureaucratic Structure
• Fragmentation.
– Congress has created multiple programs and
agencies to improve oversight, maximize
intervention, and divide turf.
– Agencies possessive of jurisdiction.
– Interest groups favor status quo.
– Consequences.
• Diffusion of responsibility.
• Lack of coordination.
Problems and Prospects
• Poorly communicated directives in the wrong
structure can aggravate preexisting dispositions
against the policy leading to wasted resources and
ineffective implementation.
• Policies apt to face difficulties in implementation.
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
New policies.
Decentralized implementation.
Controversial.
Complex.
Crisis.
Judicial decisions.
Combinations of the above factors.
Thank You