MGSC03 LEC 3 - HOW THE GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY DOES THINGS

What is Public Policy? (The Foundation)

Simple definition: The decisions and actions (or intentional inactions) taken by government to address a problem.

Story to remember: Imagine your city has too much traffic. The government could:

• Do something: Build a new subway line, add bus lanes, charge a congestion fee.

• Do nothing: Decide traffic is not their problem (that's still a policy choice – just a passive one).

Key insight: Policy includes inaction. When government ignores homelessness or climate change, that's still a policy decision. Your exam might ask: "Is choosing not to act a form of public policy?" The answer is yes.

Connects to: Week 2's "systems/dynamics" – policy is the output of those systems.

Policy Cycle / Policy Process (VERY IMPORTANT)

This is your roadmap. Six stages. Learn them in order, but know that in reality they loop and overlap.

Stage	What happens	Canadian example
1. Problem identification	Someone notices an issue.	Data shows opioid overdose deaths are rising.
2. Agenda setting	The issue gets government attention.	Media covers it. Opposition raises it in Question Period.
3. Policy formulation	Bureaucrats draft possible solutions.	Health Canada officials write options: safe supply, more treatment beds, decriminalization.
4. Decision-making	Politicians choose an option.	Cabinet approves a safe supply pilot program.
5. Implementation	Public servants execute the policy.	Bureaucrats distribute funding to clinics, train staff, monitor prescriptions.
6. Evaluation	Did it work?	Data is collected. Report goes to Minister. Cycle begins again.

Why this is HUGE: An exam question might say "Why did a policy fail?" You can now answer: "It failed at implementation" OR "The problem was never properly identified" OR "Evaluation was skipped." That's a sophisticated answer.

Connects to: Week 2's "Good Public Policy" slide (set priorities → advise → decide → implement). This cycle is the expanded version.

Agenda Setting (Why Some Problems Get Attention)

Simple definition: The process by which a problem becomes something government feels it must act on.

Not all problems become policy. Millions of things are wrong at any moment. Why do some rise to the top?

What pushes an issue onto the agenda?

• A crisis: A bridge collapses. A pandemic hits. A video of police brutality goes viral.

• Media attention: Continuous coverage keeps pressure on.

• Interest groups: Lobbying, protests, lawsuits.

• Political leadership: A new Prime Minister or Premier makes something their personal priority.

• Policy entrepreneurs: Dedicated individuals (inside or outside government) who champion an issue for years.

Canadian example: Climate change was on the fringe in the 1990s. Then came extreme weather events (crisis), Greta Thunberg and media coverage, and a Liberal government making it a central platform. It moved from "problem" to "agenda."

Connects to: Policy actors (different groups fight for agenda space), constraints (government can only handle so many issues at once).

Policy Actors (Who is in the Room)

Policy is not made by one person. It's a crowded stage.

Actor	Role	Interest
Politicians (elected)	Make final decisions, face re-election	Stay popular, win next election
Bureaucrats (public servants)	Provide advice, draft options, implement	Neutral competence, career stability
Interest groups	Lobby for specific outcomes	Their members' benefit (unions, business associations, environmental groups)
Public / citizens	Vote, protest, write letters, use services	Their own wellbeing
Media	Report, investigate, frame issues	Ratings, influence, public trust

Key insight: These actors have different goals. A bureaucrat wants evidence-based policy. A politician wants re-electable policy. An interest group wants policy that helps their members. Policy is the product of their struggle.

Canadian example: When Canada legalized cannabis, actors included: politicians (Trudeau's campaign promise), bureaucrats (drafting regulations), interest groups (medical cannabis patients, police associations, alcohol industry worried about competition), media (endless coverage), and the public (polls showing support).

Connects to: Week 2's "individuals" in government (elected, bureaucrats, political staff). Also connects to agenda setting (actors compete to put issues on the agenda).

Role of Bureaucracy / Public Servants

What public servants do in the policy process:

Stage	Bureaucrat's role
Problem identification	Collect data, write reports, flag issues to Minister
Agenda setting	Brief Minister on what's urgent (but Minister ultimately decides)
Policy formulation	This is their biggest power – they write the options
Decision-making	Provide neutral advice (but can subtly shape choices)
Implementation	This is their core job – make it happen
Evaluation	Collect data, measure outcomes, recommend changes

The tension: The dichotomy says bureaucrats should just implement. But in reality, they formulate options and evaluate outcomes. That means they have enormous influence over what politicians even get to choose from.

Canadian example: A Minister says "fix housing affordability." Bureaucrats write three options: (1) tax foreign buyers, (2) give rent subsidies, (3) build social housing. The Minister picks one. But the bureaucrats decided what was "possible" – they shaped the menu.

Connects to: Week 2's political-administrative dichotomy (theory vs. reality), policy cycle (bureaucrats are active in almost every stage).

Decision-Making in Policy (Not Always Rational)

The rational ideal: Identify problem → gather all evidence → list all options → choose the best one based on data. Clean, logical, perfect.

The real world: Messy, political, rushed, and limited.

What gets in the way?

• Information limits: You never have all the data you need.

• Time constraints: A crisis demands an answer now.

• Politics: The best solution might be unpopular or hurt key voters.

• Budget: The best option might cost too much.

• Institutional rules: The Constitution or laws block certain choices.

• Bounded rationality: Humans can only process so much information. We satisfice (pick "good enough") rather than optimize (pick "perfect").

Canadian example: During COVID-19, governments made rapid decisions about lockdowns, vaccines, and school closures. Were they rational? Partially. But they had incomplete data (new virus), time pressure (hospital beds filling), and political pressure (businesses demanding to reopen). They did their best with what they had.

Connects to: Incrementalism (small steps are safer when information is limited), constraints on policy-making (this whole section is about constraints).

Policy Instruments (Tools of Government)

When government decides to act, how does it act? These are the tools in the toolbox.

Instrument	What it is	Canadian example
Regulation	Rules backed by law	Criminal Code, environmental emissions standards
Spending (grants, subsidies)	Government gives money to achieve a goal	Child Care Benefit, research grants to universities
Taxation	Use taxes to discourage behavior or raise revenue	Carbon tax, sin taxes on alcohol/cigarettes
Direct service delivery	Government provides the service itself	Canada Post, public healthcare, RCMP
Public ownership	Government owns the asset	Crown corporations (VIA Rail, CBC)
Information / persuasion	Campaigns to change behavior without force	Anti-smoking ads, "Drink responsibly" campaigns

Key insight: Choosing the right instrument is as important as choosing the right policy. A carbon tax (price signal) works differently than a regulation (command and control). Governments often use multiple instruments together.

Connects to: Implementation (some instruments are harder to implement than others), policy formulation (this is what bureaucrats debate when writing options).

Implementation (Where Policy Lives or Dies)

Simple definition: Turning a policy decision into actual results on the ground.

The brutal truth: A policy can be brilliant on paper and fail completely in practice.

Why does implementation fail?

• Unclear goals: "Fix healthcare" – what does that mean?

• Poor coordination: Federal, provincial, and municipal governments don't talk.

• Lack of resources: Great policy, no budget to execute it.

• Resistance from front-line workers: Teachers, nurses, police officers have discretion and can quietly undermine a policy.

• Unintended consequences: Policy solves Problem A but creates Problem B.

Canadian example: The Phoenix pay system for federal public servants. On paper, it was supposed to modernize payroll. In implementation? Disaster. Thousands of employees were overpaid, underpaid, or not paid at all. The policy idea was fine. The implementation failed.

Connects to: Policy cycle (Stage 5), political-administrative dichotomy (implementation is the bureaucrat's world), policy instruments (some tools are harder to implement than others).

Policy Evaluation (Did It Work?)

Simple definition: Assessing whether a policy achieved its intended outcomes.

Key questions:

• Did we solve the problem? (effectiveness)

• Was it worth the cost? (efficiency)

• Were the benefits distributed fairly? (equity)

• Can this be sustained long-term? (viability)

Who evaluates?

• Internal: Government auditors, bureaucrats (can be biased)

• External: Academics, journalists, NGOs, international bodies

• Legislative: Parliamentary committees, Auditor General of Canada

What happens after evaluation?

• Continuation: Policy worked, keep going.

• Adjustment: Policy mostly worked, tweak it.

• Termination: Policy failed, end it.

• Scaling: Policy worked, expand it.

Canadian example: The federal government evaluates the Canada Child Benefit regularly – does it reduce child poverty? If yes, keep it. If no, change it. That's evaluation driving the next cycle.

Connects to: Policy cycle (Stage 6), incrementalism (evaluation often leads to small tweaks, not radical changes).

Constraints on Policy-Making

You cannot make just any policy. There are hard limits.

Constraint	What it means	Canadian example
Budget	No money, no policy	A province can't build high-speed rail if it's in debt
Political pressure	Voters, donors, opposition parties push back	A government abandons a tax hike after public outcry
Institutions	The Constitution, laws, and rules block action	A province tries to create a criminal law – struck down (federal jurisdiction)
Public opinion	Policy that is deeply unpopular is risky	Most governments won't legalize hard drugs unless polls support it
Interest groups	Powerful lobbies can block change	Pharmaceutical companies influence drug pricing policy
Time	Some policies take decades	Constitutional reform is incredibly slow
Information	You can't solve a problem you don't understand	Early pandemic policy was constrained by lack of data

Connects to: Week 2's Constitution and federalism, decision-making (constraints are why policy is never perfectly rational).

Incrementalism (VERY IMPORTANT THEORY)

Simple definition: Policy change happens in small, cautious steps – not big, radical leaps.

Why incrementalism?

• Risk aversion: Big changes can have big failures. Small changes are safer.

• Political reality: Radical change upsets powerful interest groups. Small steps are easier to pass.

• Information limits: You don't know what will work. So you try something small, evaluate, then adjust.

• Budget constraints: Big changes cost big money. Small changes fit within existing budgets.

• Institutional friction: The Westminster system is designed to slow things down (multiple veto points).

The opposite of incrementalism: A revolution. A complete rewrite of the healthcare system overnight. That almost never happens in stable democracies.

Canadian example: Cannabis legalization. Did Canada just flip a switch overnight? No. There was medical cannabis first (2001). Then decriminalization in some cities. Then a task force. Then a phased rollout. Then adjustments to driving laws, packaging rules, etc. Small steps over years. That's incrementalism.

Another example: Carbon pricing. First in British Columbia (2008) as a small tax. Then Quebec. Then a federal backstop. Then increasing prices over time. Not a single "shock" – a gradual ratchet.

Why this matters for your exam: If a question asks "Why does policy change slowly in Canada?" – incrementalism is your answer. If it asks "Is policy-making rational?" – you say "No, it's incremental."

Connects to: Decision-making (bounded rationality), policy evaluation (evaluation enables incremental adjustment), constraints (incrementalism is a response to constraints).

Rational vs. Non-Rational Policy-Making

This is a spectrum, not two boxes.

	Rational Model (Ideal)	Real-World (Non-Rational)
Process	Comprehensive, logical, step-by-step	Messy, political, overlapping stages
Information	Complete, perfect	Limited, biased, uncertain
Goals	Clear, agreed, stable	Conflicting, vague, shifting
Choice	Optimize (pick the absolute best)	Satisfice (pick "good enough")
Time	Unlimited	Urgent, crisis-driven
Actors	One rational decision-maker	Multiple actors with competing interests

The key insight for your exam: Do not pretend the rational model is real. It is an ideal – a way to think about what should happen. But in your answers, acknowledge that real policy-making is non-rational because of politics, limited information, and time pressure.

Canadian example of rational (rare): Bank of Canada interest rate decisions. They have data, models, time, and independence from politics. Close to rational.

Canadian example of non-rational (common): A minority government scrambling to pass a budget before an election, with incomplete economic forecasts, opposition parties demanding changes, and a media cycle screaming about one small clause. That's the real world.

Connects to: Incrementalism (non-rational leads to small steps), decision-making constraints (all of them).

✅ Final Exam Prep – The Most Important 5 (If Overwhelmed)

1. Policy Cycle (Problem → Agenda → Formulation → Decision → Implementation → Evaluation) – memorize this sequence. It will organize every exam answer about "how policy happens."

2. Agenda Setting (Why do some problems get attention while others are ignored?) – expect a short answer about crises, media, or interest groups.

3. Policy Instruments (Regulation, spending, taxation, direct service) – be able to list them and give a Canadian example of each.

4. Implementation (Policy can fail here even if well-designed) – Phoenix pay system is your go-to example.

5. Incrementalism (Small steps, not radical leaps) – this is the single most important theory in Week 3. Connect it to cannabis, carbon pricing, or any slow-moving policy.