Policy Based-Models

Policy Based-Models

A model is a representation of an idea, object, process, or system used to describe and explain phenomena that cannot be experienced directly.

It can be used as a tool for understanding the organisation.

A model is simply an abstraction or representation of real-life…

Types of Models for Public Policy
Rational Policy-Making model
Lindblom’s Incremental approach
Elite model
Public Choice approach
Game Theory model
Mixed Approach
Group model

Models can be Descriptive or Prescriptive

Descriptive Models
Explain or Predict the Causes & Consequences of Policy Choices
Focuses on the way the Policy Process Occurs
It looks at what happens in Decision-Making, Planning, Policy Making and Understanding the element of the policy process.

They are concerned with how and why people think and act the way they do.
It is highly empirical and requires validity.

Types of Descriptive Models - The Elite Model, The Group Model, The Systems Model & The Mixed Approach Model.

Elite Model - Based on Plato's Oligarchy
It assumes decisions are made by groups with political and other forms of power.
Asserts Group rather than Individual Approach
Unit of Analysis is the Group not the Individual
It focuses on who sets the agenda. Top political & Economic Hierarchies set the agenda.
The Elites include Political Officials, Corporate Representatives & Other Influential people & institutions.
Society's Elties select issues that serve their own interests. Ignorning Public Interest

Key Assumptions

• There exist a dominant class that Monopolize Political Powet
• Ordinary Citizens have relatively little power in matters that concern elites.

Limitations

• Disregards Individuals as Unit of Analysis
• Assumes Larger Citizen Body is not as Influential.

Political Elites - Superior Part of Society. Small Group Size, Dominant with Society. Puts Itself to Lead. Power
inequitably distributed. Causes the System to have an inverse proportion to the Population.

The Main Premise is that only a Small Number of People in any society holds power & authority and this fact puts
them in opposition to the rest of society who are subordinate to them.

Group Model - The product of Group Struggle
Group theory in public policy suggests that politics revolves around groups vying for influence.
Individuals form these groups based on shared interests.
When these groups make demands on government institutions, they become political interest groups.
Individuals pursue their political goals through these collective groups rather than acting independently.

In group theory, "access" is crucial.
To influence government decisions, it needs the opportunity to convey its perspectives to decision-makers.
This access stems from factors like the group's organization, status, effective leadership,
or resources like financial contributions for campaigns.
Access is the gateway for a group to wield influence on governmental choices.

Social lobbying

• Wining, dining, entertaining officials
• Aims to create access and foster obligation
• Builds relationships for preferential treatment

Shortcoming:
Access to policymakers varies among groups, influencing whose interests shape public policy.
Dominant groups often influence policy, reflecting their interests.
As power shifts among groups, policy changes to favor the influential.
The disadvantaged, lack representation, leading to inadequate advocacy for their interests in the political arena.

The Systems Model
Views the Public Policy Process as akin to the Political System.
Where there are inputs, decision-making & outputs

David Easton's "Political System Model" views the policy process as a "political system" responding to the demands arising from its environment.
Easton defines the 'political system' as the network of institutions making binding decisions in society. It receives inputs—demands and support—from the environment. External interests, like pressure and consumer groups, provide inputs. The political system processes these inputs to generate policies or outputs.

The Mixed Approach also referred to as the Mixed Scanning Approach
It encompasses technique application and the political process, delving into policymaking knowledge. It combines prescriptive and descriptive methods in decision-making analysis.

The mixed model integrates the good characteristics of the rational comprehensive model with those of the incremental model by reviewing the overall public policy; concentrating on specific needs for public policy; and focusing on public policy results or public policy impact

These are the key stages in the policy-making process:

1. Deciding to decide: Recognizing the need for action.
2. Deciding how to decide: Choosing the approach for decision-making.
3. Issue Filtration: Identifying and selecting the most critical problems.
4. Forecasting: Predicting potential outcomes and implications.
5. Setting Objectives and Priorities: Defining goals and ranking them by importance.
6. Options Analysis: Assessing various possible courses of action.
7. Policy Implementation, Monitoring, and Control: Executing the chosen policy while overseeing and managing its progress.
8. Evaluation and Review: Assessing the effectiveness and impact of the policy.
9. Policy Maintenance, Succession, or Termination: Sustaining, replacing, or ending the policy as needed.

Public Choice Approach
James Buchanan is associated with the Public Choice theory. It's an economic examination of decision-making outside the market.

In this model:

• Assumption 1: All political actors aim to maximize personal benefits, similar to behaviour in the marketplace.
• Assumption 2: Individuals unite in politics for mutual gain, akin to their interactions in the marketplace.

Individuals pursue self-interest in both arenas, yet collective decision-making can still lead to mutual benefits despite these self-centred motives.

Prescriptive Models
Prescriptive models are judged based on their practical usefulness and capacity to improve decision-making. They outline how planning and policy-making ought to happen by:

• Prioritizing goals, values, and objectives.
• Gathering data to inform decision-making processes.

Types of Prescriptive Models
Rational Policy Making Model, Bounded Rational Policy Making Model Lindblom’s Incremental Approach, Game theory Approach

Rational Model
Rationalism in policymaking considers all impacts, not just monetary ones.

Decision-makers strive to optimize choices by selecting the best alternative. The rational model, according to Fox et al. (2006:67), offers a wide array of policy options for policymakers. It encourages considering multiple factors in shaping public policies. This decision-making model assumes comprehensive knowledge of a problem and its solutions, evaluating numerous alternatives to pick the best one. However, it's an ideal model rarely achieved in reality (Levine, Peters, Thompson 1990).

To establish a rational policy following this model, policymakers must:

1. Understand all societal value preferences and their significance.
2. Identify and comprehend the consequences of each policy option.
3. Evaluate the benefit-to-cost ratio for each alternative.
4. Opt for the most efficient policy when needed.

The rational policy approach necessitates:

1. Understanding alternative policies and accurately predicting their outcomes.
2. Intelligence to calculate cost-benefit ratios.
3. Expertise in specific subject matters.
4. A decision-making system that supports rational policy formation.

Rationalism in policymaking includes evaluating all social, political, and economic impacts of a policy beyond monetary measures.

To be rational, it's crucial to:

• Define and prioritize goals.
• Rank goals based on significance.
• Identify policy alternatives.
• Analyze the costs and benefits of these alternatives.

To choose a rational policy, policymakers should:

1. Understand societal value preferences and their significance.
2. Identify all available policy alternatives.
3. Understand the consequences of each alternative.
4. Calculate the ratio of achieved versus sacrificed societal values for each option.
5. Opt for the most efficient policy alternative.

Lindblom (1968) described the rational model as the one used when:

1. Confronted with a problem.
2. Clarifying and prioritizing goals or values.
3. Generating a list of potential policy approaches.
4. Assessing the significant consequences of these alternatives.
5. Comparing the consequences of each policy with the established goals.
6. Choosing the policy with consequences aligning closest with the goals.

The stages for analyzing rationality in policy making involve:

1. Identifying the problem and setting goal priorities.
2. Identifying various policy options to achieve goals.
3. Conducting cost-benefit analyses of these policy alternatives.
4. Comparing alternatives to identify those with the highest benefits.
5. Selecting the most efficient policy alternative.

The limitations of rational models in policymaking include:

1. Difficulty in achieving goals due to trade-offs.
2. Conflict between rational choice and the need for immediate action.
3. Challenges in cost-benefit analysis, considering diverse societal values.
4. Barriers to accessing relevant data.
5. Bureaucratic complexities.
6. Lack of consensus on societal benefits.
7. Consideration of sunk costs.
8. Uncertainty surrounding policy alternatives.

Lindblom notes that in practice:

1. Defining values and objectives is complex, with inherent trade-offs.
2. Separating means from ends (policy recommendations from objectives) is challenging.
3. Aggregating various stakeholders' preferences is impractical.
4. The virtue of a policy lies in its broad support rather than abstract efficiency criteria.
5. Analyzing every policy option is inefficient due to time and resource constraints for administrators, making exhaustive analysis burdensome.

Bounded Rationality Model - Built on the premise that the rationality of individuals is limited by the information they have, cognitive limitations and time constraints (Kalantari, 2011)

Herbert Simon's theory of bounded rationality, as outlined in "Administrative Behavior" (1957), challenges the notion that policy actors consistently operate with complete rationality.

He argues that when individuals face problems and need to make decisions, limitations in cognitive capabilities and environmental constraints hinder them from behaving entirely rationally, despite their rational intentions.

Simon (1997) summarizes why achieving complete rationality is unattainable:

1. Acting rationally assumes having complete knowledge and foreseeing consequences, which is seldom possible.
2. Full rational decisions require considering all available options, which rarely happens due to constraints in time, cognition, and organizational limitations.

In essence, factors like time constraints, limited information processing abilities, and organizational limitations make it nearly impossible for an individual's behaviour to achieve high degrees of rationality (Simon 1997, p. 92).

Exactly, in Simon's theory of bounded rationality, policy actors face similar limitations. Instead of engaging in exhaustive calculations or collecting comprehensive information, they tend to adapt by employing a "satisficing" approach (1957, p. 76).

"Satisficing" entails settling for the best available decision outcome within the constraints of time and resources, rather than aiming for an optimal solution that might be unattainable due to limitations in information or cognitive capacity.

According to Fox et al. (2006:14), the satisficing model in policymaking focuses on finding satisfactory and sufficient solutions to public policy issues.

This model implies that once an acceptable alternative is identified, the search process ends, and that alternative is adopted. It suggests minimal change in the policy process.

The satisficing model is characterized by:

1. Bounded rationality: Decision-making is confined to a basic understanding of the problem, limiting consideration of complex alternative solutions.
2. Incrementalism: Policymakers tend to explore alternatives that only slightly differ from the current choice rather than seeking radically different options.

Heuristics are mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making by reducing the cognitive load. They rely on minimal information and streamline the decision-making process in a few ways:

1. Focused attention: Heuristics allow users to concentrate on a limited number of signals or choices during decision-making, avoiding information overload.

2. Memory ease: They lessen the need to retrieve and store vast amounts of information in memory. This simplifies decision-making by reducing the quantity of information necessary to make a choice or form a judgment.

Incremental Model of Decision-Making
Exactly, the incrementalism model in public policy, associated with Charles Lindblom, views policymaking as an evolution of past government actions with only incremental adjustments or additions.

This model acknowledges the impracticality of achieving complete and rational policymaking and instead presents a more conservative decision-making process. It's both descriptive and prescriptive in nature.

By advocating for small, gradual changes rather than radical transformations, incrementalism emphasizes building upon existing policies. It's seen as a reaction to the comprehensive and rational model of policymaking.

One of its key strengths lies in avoiding major errors or drastic policy shifts by favouring cautious, step-by-step adjustments to ongoing government activities.

Policymakers often uphold established programs for various reasons:

• Time constraints, limited information, and scarce resources hinder the pursuit of new policies.
• Sunken costs and heavy investments in existing programs, discourage shifts to new initiatives.
• Political expediency: Continuing existing policies reduces conflict, upholds stability, and preserves the political system.
• Continuing established programs is often easier than engaging in comprehensive planning towards specific societal goals.

The Incremental Model offers several advantages:

• Instead of one major leap, it divides decision-making into small, manageable steps.
• This method, known as "muddling through," combines experience, intuition, and various techniques.
• Considering only a few alternatives and consequences at each stage minimizes decision-making costs.
• Each step proposes a small change, causing minimal and non-disruptive immediate effects.
• Simplicity and flexibility: The gradual differences between the current state and proposed solutions ease consensus-building among stakeholders and help in conflict avoidance.

Muddling through

• Taking small, manageable steps rather than comprehensive solutions.
• Uses a blend of experience, intuition, and problem-solving techniques.
• Focuses on limited alternatives and their immediate consequences.
• Embraces flexibility and adaptation rather than seeking perfect solutions.
• Navigates complex issues by dealing with immediate concerns and learning from experience.