Public policy
What is a Public Policy?
A course of action made in response to a problem requiring attention, made on the “public” behalf, oriented toward a goal: giving a solution to a problem
A “policy” is a tool used to solve a problem
There is always going to be a winner and a loser, one who gets more out of a policy and one who loses more, but the idea is for a solution to be somewhat equal/good for all parties
What actors are involved in public policy?
Class + Reading notes
Examples of Public Policy in International Relations
Trump's tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will benefit some (the American economy, as American steel and aluminum will be cheaper) and impact others (foreign steel and aluminum makers losing the American market as well as American sectors and industries who use foreign steel and aluminum to manufacture their products who will have to increase their prices and thus lose customers). Public Policies, in this case including tariffs will always benefit some (the winners) and affect others (the losers)
What is a Public Policy?
A course of action made in response to a problem requiring attention, made on the “public” behalf, oriented toward a goal: giving a solution to a problem
POLITY: Institutional structures such as state institutions where politics take place
POLITICS: Processes by which decisions are made by formulating and applying policies
POLICIES: Outputs of the process being plans, laws, regulations, rules or guidelines
Defining Public Policy
“The relations between people living in a society”
“Whatever the government chooses to do or not to do”
“Political decisions for implementing programs to achieve societal goals”
“The sum of government activities having an influence on the lives of citizens”
PUBLIC policy - What makes public policy public
The dimension regarded as requiring governmental/social regulation/intervention
The interest in public policy is the public, at the interest of the public and benefitting the public however, it is controversial as different groups have different interests
In commonwealth countries (US, Canada, Australia) political decisions are based on classical liberalism (the philosophy that believes in:
Individual freedoms: people should have rights and make their own choices
Limited government: government should not control everything
Free markets: Governments should operate with little government interference
Classical liberalists believe people and not the government should decide how to run their businesses, they argue governments slow down innovation and economic growth
The Role of the Private in Public Policy
Needs to provide society with the minimum
Create conditions in which the public’s interest can be secured, creating a framework in which people can do whatever they want (legally)
3 Example Questions on Public Policy according to Paul Cairney:
Does government action include what policymakers say they will do as well as what they actually do?
Parties always produce manifestos/speeches describing their plans however, it is never guaranteed that those plans will follow through, it is never guaranteed
Every party, such as Trumps, have plans that don’t always go through
Does Policy include the effects of a decision as well as the decision itself?
Not everything is always going to have the expected outcome; policy outcomes, as well as policy decisions, are extremely important however when implementing policies, there exist factors that cannot be controlled by policymakers.
Sometimes a policy can be put in place. However, it is possible that what was once thought was the problem was, in reality, not the problem
Does Public Policy include what policymakers do not do? Why are there issues that are not regarded/ignored, completed, or solved?
A problem becomes a political question when it has a dimension affecting many people when a problem has a lot of outside/public support from people supporting and pressuring the government for the concern of a problem/topic. However, problems may not seem important enough to prioritize in comparison to others.
Sometimes, problems are ignored as policymakers do not have the means or resources to solve the issues at hand. Therefore, priorities need to be made
Sometimes, policymakers may not want to dissatisfy people or receive opposition, this can happen when a policy is passed at a time when there is no agreement on a problem in this sector, and changing the policies of a sector may affect people more than they may benefit. Therefore, when there is not an agreement large enough to introduce a policy, policymakers would rather ignore the policy than be received with criticism
What is the nature of Public Policies?
A problem solving activity: regarding governmental actions in response to societal or political problems
A power activity: a means of exerting power by one group over another in which a groups interests are protected over another. This is an example of clientalism, protecting someone’s interests over someone elses
The different scopes of Public Policies
Sectors need to be identified in order to decide what sector will be focused on, to then decide on the targets
Sector specific measures
Eg. environmental policy, social policy and fiscal policy
Subfield specific measures
Eg. Environmental policy: water, air and waste policy
Specific issues/targets within the subfields
Eg. Air policies: urban air quality and car exhaust emissions
Types of Public Policies
Used to distribute and redistribute in order to subsidize (providing financial support) public goods and services
Regulatory policies
Specifying conditions and constraints for individual and collective behavior designed to control or influence economic and social behavior to protect public interests, ensure fair competition, promote safety and manage risks in various sectors
Eg. Environmental protection, migration policy, consumer policy
Distributive policies
Policies distributing new (state) resources, eg. money
Money and subsidies is usually collected through budgets/taxes, receiving it and distributing it to specific groups in need of help
Eg. Farm subsidies, local infrastructure, public education, social programs
Redistributive policies
Policies modifying the distribution of existing resources, when money is cut, less budget is attributed or when resources are transferred from one (typically high income) group to another (low income) in order to promote economic equality and reduce disparities
Eg. Welfare, land reform, progressive taxation (higher income = higher tax)
Constituent (constitutional) policies
Policies creating or modifying the state’s institutions,
Eg. Change of procedural rules of parliaments, creation of new governmental agencies, organization of public administration, distribution of power
Bonus: Morality policies
Regulating conflicts among social fundamental values
Eg. Abortion, capital punishment (death penalty), LGBT, euthanasia
Typologies of Public Policies according to beneficiaries
Based on: Cost and Benefit either concentrated or diffused
Costs | Benefits Concentrated | Diffuse |
Concentrated | Interest group Politics | Entrepreneurial politics |
Diffuse | Clientalist politics | Majoritarian Politics |
Interest group politics - Concentrated Costs/Concentrated Benefits
Costs and benefits are concentrated within specific groups, therefore, the effects of these policies are not widely distributed across society. Instead, certain organized groups such as businesses and labor unions benefit significantly while others bear the costs
Zero sum game: Resources are limited, one group’s gain comes at the expense of another creating a high level of competition and conflict among interest groups
Influence of interest associations: is shaped by lobbying and advocacy efforts from relevant interest groups who use their influence to push for policies that serve their needs
Opposition and conflict: As one group is favored and the other isn’t, a consequwnce is the conflict leading disputed between opposing groups forcing governments to make policy a contested process
Eg. Agricultural policy where the interests of farmers is prioritised through subsidies, tariffs or regulations but may come as a consequence to consumer groups environmental orgs or competing industries who’s costs become higher
Summary:
Highly contested, groups compete for favorable policies, govs face pressure from both groups
Entrepreneurial Politics - Concentrated Costs/Diffused benefits)
Often difficult to implement as they face initial resistance from those bearing the costs, however, they ultimately provide social benefits
Costs are concentrated, meaning a small group such as corporations or polluting industries bear the cost of the regulation or reform
The policies are difficult to implement as they often strong opposition from the small groups resisting change, eg. industries opposing environmental regulations (benefits the public but not the industries)
NGO’s and advocacy groups tend to play a role in raising awareness and pushing issues onto the agenda
Initially disruptive as they may be seen as unnecessary however as time goes on she changes are seen to benefit and become accepted
Eg. Nuclear power and environmental degradation faced resistance from industries and the pubblic, when recycling policies were introduced they were seen as inconvenient and faced criticism from society however, today recycling is normalized after the shift of conscience thanks to persistent efforts by NGO’s and policy innovators
Clientalist - Diffuse costs/Concentrated benefits
Policies are designed to benefit specific groups rather than the general public, policies emerge from a relationship between legislators, administrative agencies and interest groups, “Iron Triangle”, where these actors work together to share policies that benefits their interests
Policies are designed to serve the interests of a particular sector
Interest groups, due to their close relationships have direct access, allowing them to bypass policy making procedures, ensuring their interests
Eg. Health programs may benefit specific industries, most likely private industries (small groups) however, not exactly in the interest of the public as not only does it not ensure access but it just sets the rules for how the industry operates, essentially interest groups manipulating policies for their own benefits (subsidies, covering treatments
Majoritarian group politics - Diffuse costs/Diffuse benefits
Costs and benefits are widely distributed across society, affecting a large part of the population (rather than specific groups) since the benefits are shared, along with the fact there is little to no opposition or resistance
Eg. Universal healthcare provides benefits to the entire population, ensuring access to medical services
Relies on public support
)
2) Actors in Public Policy + text notes (Theories of Decision Making)
Theories of Decision Making
4 Theories
Rational Actor Models (Bounded Rationality)
Based on the idea that humans make decisions by logically and deliberately choosing the best option for the most benefit as well as on “utility” (value/satisfaction), decisions are chosen based on their utility being maximum pleasure and minimum pain
Utalitarianism (utility): individuals act in pursuit of self interest and in search of satisfaction calculated in utility maximization, in this context it evaluates laws, institutions and policies
Using the process in which: the reason for a problem is identified, a goal is set based on individual preferences, the available means in terms of effectiveness, reliability, a decision is made through selecting the means likely for the desired outcome show clear objectives exist, humans are able to pursue them in a rational and consistent manner
However, although it is attractive, reflecting how people think decisions should be made, it has serious flaws when applying it to real life policy making (1) being that it is suitable for individuals and not groups (policies are decided by debating, negotiating in groups, conflicting objectives)
(2) decisions are usually made on the basis of inaccurate information, costs and benefits aren’t easy to compare making rationality unrealistic therefore, in response an idea (bounded rationality) was introduced
(3) People see reality differently depending on their values and ideologies, decisions are not always neutral and objective, they are influenced by personal or political biases, the model ignores peoples beliefs and assumptions
Incremental models - alternative to rational decision making
Decisions made gradually, policymakers work with low levels of understanding avoiding bold, risky decisions, there are no clear long term goals, decisions are adjusted based on feedback, it is exploratory and reactive not visionary or strategic which can lead to avoiding or evading problems
The model is good considering it reflects how decisions are made in the real world based on limited knowledge and constant change however the model encourages flexibility, consultation, compromise and the expression of different views
However, it is seen as conservative and resistant to change
The idea of mixed scanning was brought forth being a middle ground between rational thinking and incrementalism where there are two phases (1 - rational) a broad scanning of the available (existing) policy options then (2 - incremental) a more narrow approach is brought forward based on evaluation and specific areas or programmes affected
Bureaucratic organization models - a critique of the rational and incremental model
Brought forth as the rational and incremental model are “black box” theories as neither pays attention to the impact of the policy process on the decisions whereas bureaucratic models try to get inside the black box by highlighting how the process influences the decisions
Two models, (1) The Organizational Process Model focuses on how behaviors, values and assumptions inside government departments affect decisions instead of rational analysis and objective evaluation and (2) the Bureaucratic Politics Model focuses on the impact of individuals and organizations within the government pursuing their own interests, rejecting the idea of the state being unified
However, this model assumes decisions are routine or bureaucratic, ignoring how powerful leaders CAN shape major decisions such as Roosevelt’s New Deal or Hitler invading Poland as well as ignoring the idea that officials follow personal beliefs and emotions when making decisions and not following their roles or organizations interests and finally, how it focuses on internal government processes avoiding how outside forces (economy, politics, ideologies) affect decisions
Belief system models
Explains how decisions are shaped by people’s deep values, ideologies and belief systems
People filter information through beliefs making some options seem unthinkable, not appreciated or even considered and others acceptable which leads to biases and misunderstandings (eg. calling someone a second hitler), groupthink (conformity) can make people within groups feel pressure to conform to ideas and ways of thinking
Paul Sabatier’s policy subsystems explains that within each policy subsystem advocacy coalitions (groups sharing similar beliefs and values) are formed through:
Deep Core Beliefs (moral or philosophical, hardest to change)
Near Core Beliefs (policy preferences, more flexible)
Secondary Beliefs (how policy should be applied, easiest to change) and how political change often comes from shifting alliances between coalitions
Criticism based on (eg. marxism and feminism) the idea belief systems reflect power structures with marxists saying policymakers beliefs support ruling class interests and feminists arguing male dominated policies reinforces a system of patriarchal power
Actors are those who try to input into the policy process, to identify problems and to raise concerns
6 categories divided in two sections
Institutional actors - Politicians and
Politicians
Role is to govern and legislate, to solve problems and create laws, they are in charge of functions, eg. President, PM, Ministers, Ministers of parliament: They are the agenda builders
They battle over agenda setting between the Executive (the government) and the Legislative (the parliament) where ideological conflicts exist
Eg. On Trump’s first day in office he signed over a hundred executive orders, people in legislation can make an impact on these policies being either good or bad
In some states, governments have more agenda setting powers than in other regimes, eg. in France and the UK, the government is less constraint by the parliament, making it easier for governments to achieve outcomes they prefer
In Italy and the Netherlands the parliament has the capacity to modify the government’s proposals
When the government (the executive) and the parliamentary (the parliament ) are of the same political alignment (partidsan congruence), the executive (the government) has more freedom to set the agenda since the parliament will legitimize its decisions, however, if the parliament is controlled by the opposition, the president or prime minister must negotiate to pass laws, leading to potential deadlock
In coalition governments, multiple political parties share power since no single party has won a majority of seats in parliament, meaning the party of the prime minister is usually the one controlling the agenda which can lead to divides as even though the prime minister leads the government, they do not have full control over decision making as they need to consider interests of the other parties, as well as the fact this can create conflicts due to different priorities and ideologies and could lead to the collapse of a government
Bureaucrats
They can impact both the formulation and implementation stage as well as placing issues on the agenda, however, their primary concern in terms of the implementation stage is the execution and enforcement of the laws
they only do what is asked of them therefore although they have low amounts of priority or power they remain an essay part of the system
“Governments may change, bureaucrats don’t”
When politicians are being passive when making decisions, such as lacking interest or facing problems, “not filling the vacuum”, bureaucrats can come in and fill this vacuum
According to Niskanen: Bureaucrats control the information they provide to the legislature, they obtain information from others and hold the power of the decision being chosen based on the information they present
They work in an “automatic” way, they already know the demands, if they were to be told something they’d already know what they’d be told
(Functions of the bureaucracy)
Administration
Bureaucracies are not part of the government, their main role is to implement and carry out laws and policies - administering government business
They handle welfare, licenses, economic resulation as well as giving information and advice to citizens as well as politicians
They often decide how policies are carried out as decisions are complex
Senior civil servants are often used as policy advisers due to their expertise and experience as bureaucrats, they can help shape policies that will be implemented
Policy Advice - 2 functions
They serve as the main source of policy advice and information for the government, senior civil servants work closely and often as a policy advisers whereas junior civil servants focus on routine tasks
Although policy is officially made by politicians, bureaucrats play a key role be outlining policy options for ministers as well as revieweing proposals for the impact and consequences they may cause
Senior officials are required to be politically neutral
The flow of information is the responsibility of bureaucrats, therefore decisions and information shaping what politicians see and consider is based on the information bureaucrats offer, in some cases they may even filter or present information in ways reflecting their own preferences
However, the true power they hold is the expertise and knowledge they build over time, meaning amateur politicians, although holding higher roles, come to depend on senior bureaucrats
Articulating Interests
Governments and politicians change whereas bureaucrats don’t, they stay in office as long as they decide to be bureaucrats, meaning when governments change, they can offer consistency and help in governing in an orderly and reliable way
However, lack of accountability is easily found within bureaucrats and in developing countries, corruption, permanence can also lead to arrogance or resistance to change as they may believe they know better than eleced politicians and resist reform or innovation, seeing themselves as sort of guardians of the states long term interest
Organization of the bureaucracy (text)
The organization of bureaucracy is important for affecting the degree to which public accountability and political control over the bureaucracy can be achieves as well as influencing its efficiency and the cost of public services
Most bureaucracies are organized by departments who have a different purpose or function (eg. education, health, tax, in the US the White House Office Of Homeland Security joining departments of immigration, customs and domestic security)
Some bureaucracies are highly centralized like in France where there is tight control and in Germand and the Uk they have more decentralized systems rhat are able to adapt over time
Since the 1980’s many countries adopted a new private-sector style reform in public management in which governments should stick to concerning itself with policy making and leaving the delivery of services or policy implementation to others
In certain countries this was taken aboard where executive agencies (body operating within a governmental department but having a certain amount of managerial and budgetary independence)
Eg. Quangos (quasi autonomous non governmental organization) are organizations that operate independently (meaning they can take decisions without political intereference) from government control but are funded and appointed by the government to oversee specific functions, provide expert advice in different departments
Eg. of a Quango, the NHS, responsible for overseeing the national health serivce in england manage a portion of the healthcare budget (gov funding)
Sources of Bureaucratic Power
Strategic Position
Bureaucrats build strong networks with other organized interests like businesses and professional groups giving them a crucial role in formulating and reviewing policy options since they can delay, interpret or even block policies
Logistical Relationships
Politicians heavily rely on bureaucrats
Bureaucrats are permanent while ministers and politicians come and go
Full time policy professionals while ministers focus on many things at a time meaning they are part time departmental leaders, this gives them more influence over daily operations
Status and expertise
Senior bureaucrats are regarded as a meritocratic elite, they have status and respect from their expertise as they are usually tried in elite institutions (they come from money)
Politicians are selected based on popularity or party loyalty instead of policy knowledge, they are less equipped to run large complex departments meaning civil servants are trusted to act in the national interest, giving them authority and autonomy in shaping policies
How can Bureaucracies be controlled
Bureaucrats may be holding such a high power while being responsible to no one that this may increase the risks of corruption, maladministration and abuse of authority with critics arguing they need external controls preventing them from dominating decision making
Political Accountability
Bureaucracies can be made accountable to the political executive, assembly, judiciary o or the public, the political executive is the most important due to its responsability for government administration and close working with the civil service
In liberal democracies, ministers are supposed to be responsible for the actions of their departments however, bureaucracies are large, complex and technically skilled making ministerial oversight hard, as well as politicians won’t want to take hits for bureaucratic failures
In the UK and US congress, legislative committees can investigate bureaucracy, citizens can file complaints about bureaucratic wrongdoing and media and interest groups may also expose scandals or failures
Politicization
The idea that bureaucrats are appointed on political loyalty rather than neutrality, recruiting senior officials into the ideology of the government
In the US, thousands of civil service posts change hands with each new administration, in Germany, ministers can dismiss officials and replace them with preferred ones
Politicized bureaucrats may show loyalty and commitment to the governments ideologies and agenda, however, this undermines neutrality, weakens their expertise and causes instability when governments/administrations change as well as that politicians might be surrounded by yes men which limits honest advice
Counter bureaucracies
Structures decided to support or assist politicians as well as balancing bureaucratic power through the use of political advisers who unlike bureacrats who aren’t controlled by anyone, word directly for them, somewhat like personal bureaucrats
This is the case in the UK, France and the USA
More specifically they support new leaders, leaders who lack expertise or staff, sharing ministers/leaders workload as well as helping on advice with economic policy as well as to compensate for the imbalance of amateur, temporary, polititicians and the expert permanent politicians
This may be negative as this puts leaders at risk of only hearing what they want to hear from LOYAL advisers
Non-institutional actors
Citizens
Interest groups (structured around certain interests): non profit organizations NGO’s
Epistemic communities: experts in public policy
Mass media: can condition public opinion, some governments use mass media to inform the public about policies, eg. trump
Citizens
Citizens influence public policy through various mechanisms, including elections, referenda, legislative initiatives, and public opinion.
Election results shape policies indirectly as people vote for candidates who align with their interests.
Referenda (direct votes on issues) can be binding or non-binding, depending on a country’s constitution.
Eg. Spain’s constitutional referendum was non-binding, while France’s was binding.
Risk: Unexpected results (e.g., Brexit) can lead to unintended negative consequences.
Popular legislative initiatives allow citizens to push for policy discussions by gathering signatures.
Eg. In Spain, 500,000 signatures were required to debate an euthanasia law.
In the EU, 1 million signatures are needed to bring a topic to discussion.
Public opinion plays a major role in legitimizing government decisions.
Governments may use opinion polls to gauge public sentiment when making difficult decisions.
However, public opinion is highly volatile, influenced by social media and rapid shifts in perception.
According to Bernstein (author), governments act based on ideologies and interests, but public support remains crucial.
Interest groups
Aim to raise awareness and gain public support for specific issues or policies
Defend particular interests by influencing public perception and decision makers, acting as mechanisms of political activism
They frame issues in a way that benefits their interests, shaping how people perceive topics through language, facts, images and emotion
Framing: The information they present condition public beliefs, affecting how others perceive an issue or specific issues, eg. pushing the idea of linking migrants to crime growth can influence societal views
Can be considered “Lobbies”, a way of influencing those in charge of making policies. Lobbies are recognized and regulated, therefore, they are given access to government institutions allowing them to impact policy decisions
Types of Lobbying (Baumgartner’s Model)
Inside Advocacy:
Having access to and therefore directly lobbying to policymakers such as civil servants, government officials and members of parliament
This is to influence decisions from within the system by providing arguments that can affect policies
Outside Advocacy:
Instead of direct lobbying, groups instead, focus on doing something through public awareness, through press conferences, media campaigns and petitions trying to raise people’s concerns about issues
Raising awareness so that issues are so focused on and supported by the public that they will be one of the most important issues in the polls
Grassroots Mobilization
Using mass movements, protests and social activism to spread awareness and pressure policymakers
This expands the reach of outside advocacy by directly involving the general public in campaigns
Factors affecting an interest groups influence are:
Resources and budget: Lobbying requires resources, expertise and trained staff to conduct research, gather data and draft reports
Insider Status: Some groups have direct access to policymakers and know who to contact to push their agenda which means interest groups are, actors in the sense that they are getting people to consider their issues
Access to the Media: (Outside Advocacy) This is how they present their information to the public, by manipulating narratives to gain public sympathy or opposition towards certain policies
Typologies of Interest groups
The public is both their scope and their goal, they to create benefits for the entire society (somewhat acting as NGO’s) in the sense that they defend or support a topic from a perspective that will be able to defend everyone, to work on behalf of the public
Private/Economic interest groups formed to defend the economic interests of their members and to represent corporate and industry interests, promoting policies that will benefit specific sectors such as pharmaceutical, tobacco and oil industry associations lobbying for regulations favoring their businesses
Eg. EU goal to eliminate gasoline powered card by 2025 was opposed by german car manufacturers as it would hurt their industry
Professional groups try to protect the interests of working categories (lawyers, doctors, teachers, and trade unions)
Eg. Latin American dentists in Spain faced restrictions because professional associations made it harder for foreign trained professionals to practice, essentially protecting the interest and business interests of spanish doctors
Epistemic Communities
A group of experts who know a lot about a specific issue who are trusted because they have specialized, scientific or technical knowledge which the government rely on to help make informed decisions about policy
Their role is to give neutral, fact based policies to shape good policies, they are trusted as they really understand the subject
They are controversial as although they’re meant to be unbiased, they still represent knowlledge elites such as scientists or academics which can leave out different perspectives such as ordinary citizens, frontline workers or marginalized groups as well as that they may not always stay neutral
People worry democracy is weakened though them as although they are not elected, this still group of individuals can highly influence decisions that affect everyone
Mass Media
The media plays a powerful role in shaping narratives, influencing opinions and setting political agendas through selective reporting, framing, priming and strategic polling
The media highlights certain issues based on political agendas or due to pressure from interest groups, therefore, some stories recieve more attention (eg. ukraine and gaza) while others are underreported (eg. congo)
The media is used to/can shape public discourse and influences public opinion which is highly volatile, therefore, public opinion becomes an actor much more than it is an agent
Media serves as a bridge between governments and the public, sometimes the media is used to test public reactions to potential policies (floating trial baloons)
Priming: Media exposure activates subconscuous thoughts that shape attitudes and behaviors, eg. negative coverage of fast food can make people instinctively reject it (predisposition in people)
Manipulation of/Influence of Polls in the way questions are worded can influence how people respond, sometimes a question might be framed in a way that makes you agree on something, even if you wouldn’t normally support it meaning poll results can be misleading as they may not fully reflect what people truly believe
D’Anieri’s 3 models of influence
Executive: the government settles the media and how they address some issues. The media legitimizes the support of the government’s perspective (even if they don't know). Public opinion supports what the government wanted in the beginning. (people follow the media)
Media lead: the media sets the agenda, so the public opinion follows whatever they say, and seeing this movement, the government is obliged to do what the people want.
Public leads: public opinion is highly volatile. When they focus on a specific topic, they set the agenda to “solve” the issue, the media covers it (for lucrative reasons) and the government follows the public pressure.
3) The Policy Cycle - Text notes
A Public Policy can be questioned, reassessed and modified. It's not static, but it evolves and structures around the national interest.
A political process is an input - output process
Input: Demands, a problem that is looking to be solved usually with the help of support Output: The result of the initial demand, decisions that respond to a process
This process is somewhat similar to a loop as once a problem has been given a solution, with time a problem can arise from a past solution without meaning the past solution was wrong, however, a new problem arising makes way for the possibility of restructuring
It is a cyclical perspective, outputs and impacts on society and will become inputs
According to Harold Laswell there are 5 stages to the policy cycle
Agenda Setting
Policy Formulation
Decision Making
Policy Implementation
Policy Evaluation
Agenda-setting:
Systemic agenda (unofficial): all issues perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention (crime, health care, water quality, etc).
Institutional agenda(formal): only deals with 10 issues at a time, a limited number of issues to which attention is devoted by policy elites
There are 3 basic patterns of Agenda Setting according to Cobb, Ross and Ross
Outside initiation pattern: Non Governmental Groups (NGO’s) are expanded to reach the systematic agenda and then eventually the institutional agenda
Mobilization: Issues are placed in the formal agenda by the government through its own kind of ideology, being that certain issues go to the agenda
Inside initiation patten: Where interest groups have direct access to those in charge of making decisions and their influence in initiating a policy. Certain interest groups are well connect and are able to achieve this without needing to resort to bribery, these groups work silently as they don’t want to make the public concerned about issues they want to push for
(Eg. American car companies have found access to Trump in order to ask for a delay in the implementation of tariffs which has granted them an extra month to move forward)
2) Policy Formulation (Design) identified by Hogwood and Gunn
The most important stage of the policy cycle
Decisions need to be made on the procedures (how to do things) as well as political actors who will be involved in the analysis and elaboration of the policy
issuing a definition: What is the problem? This is important as the way a problem is defined may affect the solution (output) as those formulating the policy may view the problem differently from those who first raised the issue
For this, the political resultant is the result of a process in which a set of actors with different interests debate and reach a solution that benefits everyone but is not satisfactory for all
Once defined, objectives, priorities and solutions need to be established, once the interest is established, policy options need to be established as there are different ways of addressing a problem
Analysis and review of the policy options where for each of the options, identifying the pros and cons of each needs to be done as well as the consequences and impacts of the options the policy is specifically targetting as well as the probability of each option happening (the likelihood depends on various factors, eg. cost)
After assessing, a final decision is made = the result (output) of a process
Typologies of the Policy Formulation Processes
Policy making requires careful planning and consistency rather than a reaction to a problem, some governments ask for public opinion while others make decisions directly however, it is a fact that policies should serve the people and not just political interests
Based on Consultation: Asking people for their opinions before making a policy, helping make sure people accept and support the policy
Based on Imposition: Making a decision without asking anyone, when leaders or experts decide what's best without public input
Long term planning: Thinking ahead about how a policy will affect the country and its citizens by assessing consequences
Eg. In Spain, governments are constantly changing and therefore the education system in spain is always changing due to the different governments different ideas, however, schools should have a system that stays stable for a long time
Short term reaction: When the government reacts to a problem having little time or little resources available
Eg. In case of a sudden economic crisis, leaders may rush to create policies that help, even if they aren’t perfect
3) 4 Decision making models based on two criteria
Selected objectives vs available resources
Radical Rational Process:
Having a clear idea of what to do and the resources to do so. Based on the idea that out decision is optimal (eg. Low cost). It's a process that can be used as a guideline but it is too perfect to exist. In theory it works pretty well, but it falsely assumes that each variable can be controlled, therefore when confronted with reality (where other actors are involved), the realization is its too perfect
Critiques to the Radical Rational Process:
An actor cannot consider all the possible alternatives and assess them, there is neither the time or resources to do so
During the process there are different actors in charge of intervening who may have different perspectives regarding a problem, possibly being contradictory
It doesn’t take into account that public policies are decided according to political/ideological elements that influence decision makers.
Bounded Rationality (limited):
Objectives are well defined but the resources at disposal are not the ones expected, they try to do as best as possible by following the radical rational as a guideline, assuming shit happens, lots of problems will be found that will prevent the “perfect solution” from being found meaning the result will never be optimal, it will at best be satisfactory
Acknowledging those in charge of decisions may face constraints/limitations, the objectives and information may not be clear, the resources may be scarce and there may not be enough time, decisions made are bounded by uncertainty
There exist limitations here, being the human factor with different kinds of values, interest, people don’t face the same issue in the same way, these problems arise from international (stress, motivations) or external (environmental factors or eg. international threats)
Incremental(ism) Process (compromise):
The result of our decision is a compromise, the situation is neither good nor bad but it is not clear what needs to be done
We don't have an idea of what we want to obtain, how to respond to a problem. In this scenario, the usual way of addressing it is to do what had been done before (if it worked)
When having incomplete knowledge as well as time constraints, policy makers usually tend to continue with a limited change as it is decided to increase resources in search of wanting to make the situation look like it has improved but in reality it hasn’t
“Inertia”, Bureaucrats are aligned with the idea of incrementalism, they don’t like innovation as it means the need to create something from scratch, investing time and resources, they don’t like to change things therefore, they provide the minimum as providing more could potentially bring more good than bad, bringing criticism to the model calling it “conservative”
Responses are quick, short term and not goal oriented, rather avoid problems than solving them, policy makers more concerned with day to day problems rather than long term
Changes are tiny and slow, they are possible but they are done step by step
It is more realistic than the Bounded Rationality model, solutions don't come from analysis, but they are rather shaped by political negotioations and results of partisan mutual adjustment among various actors. It will be a decision that benefited neither party
Understandingof the issue: Being either high or low
Type of change: Changes in policy being incremental (small steps, slow) or nonincrementally (large, sudden shifts)
High Understanding + Incremental Change:
Rational decision making is possible for small, technical problems where policymakers have enough knowledge to make gradual improvements over time
Eg. Adjusting regulations on air pollutipom based on specific research
High Understanding + Nonincremental Change
No real cases, decisions rarely based on perfect knowledge, unrealistic
Low Understanding + Incremental Change
Most common scenario in public policy
Most decisins involve uncertainty, conflicting interests and limited knowledge, changes happen gradually through small adjustments
Eg. Education reforms that slowly change over time due to different political parties and shifting priorities
Low Understanding + Nonincremental Change
Where sudden, large scale changes happen, but under extraordinary circumstances like crises or wars
Eg. During financial crises, wars or major global events where decisions are necessary despite limited information
Garbage Can Process model
Decisions are not always rational, problems are often poorly understood and resources may not be available, therefore solutions and decisions are made randomly or coincidentally
A process where the means (what is used to reach the decision) and the ends (the decision) have nothing to do or very little to do with the actual problem
Decisions are made in Organized anarchies (large institutions) operating in a disorganized way, making decision making unclear and unstable
Ambiguity: People may not fully understand the problem or their own preferences when making decisions
Unclear technology: Rules and procedures exist but people don’t always know how to apply them
Fluid Participation: People enter and exit the decision process creating instability and complications
Therefore, decisions are a result of problems, solutions, participants and opportunities than randomly interact, there is no structure, problems and solutions get matched by change rather than through rational analysis
Large institutions constantly create solutions which are often applied only when a relevant problem appears, a pre defined solution assigned to a problem once it arises and if it fits
Types of decisions in an organization
Programmed decisions
A protocol designed for situations that may repeat themselves, such as a fire escape plan or other emergency situations Not political as they are not the result of a discussion, they are programmed, so not negotiated.
Typically the job of a bureaucrat, lower management
Non programmed decisions
Unique decisions, non repetitive requiring a new solution/decision.
These are political as they try to solve complex problems and must be solved by a higher level of management
4) Implementation
Broadly defined as “what happens between the establishment of an apparent intention on the part of the government to do something, or to stop doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of action”.
To be an ideal process if policy implementation, it should follow:
Specification of program details
Allocation of resources
Decisions
First, policy implementation was not recognized as a separate stage from the policy-making process (taken for granted). Civil servants could afford to be sloppy and inefficient because they didn’t need to keep the customer satisfied.
It was after Pressman and Wildavsky that the implementation process was defined as a core and often critical stage on its own. Later on, in the mid 70s, it became the central field of policy research.
Top-down approach:
Implementation studies followed the hierarchical and chronological path of a particular policy and sought to assess how far the centrally defined goals and objectives are achieved when it comes to implementation. Most studies centered on those factors leading to deviations from these objectives.
Unsuccessful policy implementation could not be only the result of bad implementation but a bad policy design based on wrong assumptions on cause-effect relationships.
Take account of the importance of the relationship between tool selection and policy implementation. Different instruments are vulnerable to specific types of implementation problems.
Also there is the reliance on wrong theories of cause effect relations, that frequently leads to negative side-effects or even reverse effects on the desired outcome of state interventions.
Bottom-up approach:
Suggests a number if analytical reorientations:
Central role of implementation, shaping the actual policy outcome being acknowledged.
Focus on single policies regarded as inputs into the implementation process, replaced by a perspective of policy as the outcome of implementation as a result of actors and their interactions.
Increasingly widespread recognition of linkages and networks between a number of actors, cutting the traditional hierarchical understanding.
Implementation research played a major role in triggering the move of policy research away from a state-centered endeavor, which was only interested in enhancing the internal governmental capacities. Now, policy research is interested in patterns of state-society interaction and has shifted its attention toward the institutional set-up of organizational fields. The classic hierarchical governance has been abandoned.
5) Evaluation
Evaluation is not only associated with the final stage in the policy cycle (meaning it is not restricted to a particular stage). During the evaluation stage of the policy cycle, these intended outcomes of policies move into the center of attention.
It forms a separate subdiscipline in the policy sciences that focuses on the intended results and unintended consequences of policies. It is about the maintenance, succession or termination of the policy in question.
In the 1960s, evaluation was perceived as a way to systematically apply the idea of experimental testing of policy options in a controlled setting. The problem with focusing on a specific problem, isolating the influence and impact of a specific policy and its outcomes, is that it doesn’t take into account the bigger picture, the variables surrounding the specific policy.
Policy evaluation takes place as a regular and embedded part of the political process and debate. It has been distinguished from evaluations conducted or initiated by the public administration, and the ones carried out by diverse actors in the political arena (media).
The technique applied to addressing such issues is the “cost-benefit analysis”, that may shed a light on procedural issues like how is the formulation stage organized: who is consulted and when, how is implementation controlled.
Activities of evaluation are particularly exposed to the specific logic and incentives of political processes in at least two major ways:
Assessment of policy outputs and outcomes is biased according to the position and substantial interest.
Given the strong incentive of blame-avoidance, governments avoid the precise definition of goals because politicians would risk taking the blame for an obvious failure.
Evaluations can lead to diverse patterns of policy-making such as successful policies being reinforced. This uses the idea of pilot projects, basically model experiments to measure a problem and correct the possible outcomes if necessary.
They can also lead to the termination of a policy: a problem has been solved or the adopted policy measures have been recognized to be ineffective in dealing with set policy goals.
But given what we can observe in decision making in our daily lives, attempts of policy termination are neither widespread nor successful in overcoming resistance of influential actors. These termination efforts may face counter-strategies to stop the process.
Politicians face greater incentives towards the declaration of new programs rather than the termination of old ones that include the admission of failures.
What is clear is that the evaluation process can end in some outcomes that are often very different from what was intended by those who formulated and made the decisions. Thes only proves further the point of how important an open government is, where there is an effective work in translating inputs into appropriate outputs, open to criticism and scrutiny.What is a Public Policy?
A course of action made in response to a problem requiring attention, made on the “public” behalf, oriented toward a goal: giving a solution to a problem
A “policy” is a tool used to solve a problem
There is always going to be a winner and a loser, one who gets more out of a policy and one who loses more, but the idea is for a solution to be somewhat equal/good for all parties
What actors are involved in public policy?
Class + Reading notes
Examples of Public Policy in International Relations
Trump's tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum will benefit some (the American economy, as American steel and aluminum will be cheaper) and impact others (foreign steel and aluminum makers losing the American market as well as American sectors and industries who use foreign steel and aluminum to manufacture their products who will have to increase their prices and thus lose customers). Public Policies, in this case including tariffs will always benefit some (the winners) and affect others (the losers)
What is a Public Policy?
A course of action made in response to a problem requiring attention, made on the “public” behalf, oriented toward a goal: giving a solution to a problem
POLITY: Institutional structures such as state institutions where politics take place
POLITICS: Processes by which decisions are made by formulating and applying policies
POLICIES: Outputs of the process being plans, laws, regulations, rules or guidelines
Defining Public Policy
“The relations between people living in a society”
“Whatever the government chooses to do or not to do”
“Political decisions for implementing programs to achieve societal goals”
“The sum of government activities having an influence on the lives of citizens”
PUBLIC policy - What makes public policy public
The dimension regarded as requiring governmental/social regulation/intervention
The interest in public policy is the public, at the interest of the public and benefitting the public however, it is controversial as different groups have different interests
In commonwealth countries (US, Canada, Australia) political decisions are based on classical liberalism (the philosophy that believes in:
Individual freedoms: people should have rights and make their own choices
Limited government: government should not control everything
Free markets: Governments should operate with little government interference
Classical liberalists believe people and not the government should decide how to run their businesses, they argue governments slow down innovation and economic growth
The Role of the Private in Public Policy
Needs to provide society with the minimum
Create conditions in which the public’s interest can be secured, creating a framework in which people can do whatever they want (legally)
3 Example Questions on Public Policy according to Paul Cairney:
Does government action include what policymakers say they will do as well as what they actually do?
Parties always produce manifestos/speeches describing their plans however, it is never guaranteed that those plans will follow through, it is never guaranteed
Every party, such as Trumps, have plans that don’t always go through
Does Policy include the effects of a decision as well as the decision itself?
Not everything is always going to have the expected outcome; policy outcomes, as well as policy decisions, are extremely important however when implementing policies, there exist factors that cannot be controlled by policymakers.
Sometimes a policy can be put in place. However, it is possible that what was once thought was the problem was, in reality, not the problem
Does Public Policy include what policymakers do not do? Why are there issues that are not regarded/ignored, completed, or solved?
A problem becomes a political question when it has a dimension affecting many people when a problem has a lot of outside/public support from people supporting and pressuring the government for the concern of a problem/topic. However, problems may not seem important enough to prioritize in comparison to others.
Sometimes, problems are ignored as policymakers do not have the means or resources to solve the issues at hand. Therefore, priorities need to be made
Sometimes, policymakers may not want to dissatisfy people or receive opposition, this can happen when a policy is passed at a time when there is no agreement on a problem in this sector, and changing the policies of a sector may affect people more than they may benefit. Therefore, when there is not an agreement large enough to introduce a policy, policymakers would rather ignore the policy than be received with criticism
What is the nature of Public Policies?
A problem solving activity: regarding governmental actions in response to societal or political problems
A power activity: a means of exerting power by one group over another in which a groups interests are protected over another. This is an example of clientalism, protecting someone’s interests over someone elses
The different scopes of Public Policies
Sectors need to be identified in order to decide what sector will be focused on, to then decide on the targets
Sector specific measures
Eg. environmental policy, social policy and fiscal policy
Subfield specific measures
Eg. Environmental policy: water, air and waste policy
Specific issues/targets within the subfields
Eg. Air policies: urban air quality and car exhaust emissions
Types of Public Policies
Used to distribute and redistribute in order to subsidize (providing financial support) public goods and services
Regulatory policies
Specifying conditions and constraints for individual and collective behavior designed to control or influence economic and social behavior to protect public interests, ensure fair competition, promote safety and manage risks in various sectors
Eg. Environmental protection, migration policy, consumer policy
Distributive policies
Policies distributing new (state) resources, eg. money
Money and subsidies is usually collected through budgets/taxes, receiving it and distributing it to specific groups in need of help
Eg. Farm subsidies, local infrastructure, public education, social programs
Redistributive policies
Policies modifying the distribution of existing resources, when money is cut, less budget is attributed or when resources are transferred from one (typically high income) group to another (low income) in order to promote economic equality and reduce disparities
Eg. Welfare, land reform, progressive taxation (higher income = higher tax)
Constituent (constitutional) policies
Policies creating or modifying the state’s institutions,
Eg. Change of procedural rules of parliaments, creation of new governmental agencies, organization of public administration, distribution of power
Bonus: Morality policies
Regulating conflicts among social fundamental values
Eg. Abortion, capital punishment (death penalty), LGBT, euthanasia
Typologies of Public Policies according to beneficiaries
Based on: Cost and Benefit either concentrated or diffused
Costs | Benefits Concentrated | Diffuse |
Concentrated | Interest group Politics | Entrepreneurial politics |
Diffuse | Clientalist politics | Majoritarian Politics |
Interest group politics - Concentrated Costs/Concentrated Benefits
Costs and benefits are concentrated within specific groups, therefore, the effects of these policies are not widely distributed across society. Instead, certain organized groups such as businesses and labor unions benefit significantly while others bear the costs
Zero sum game: Resources are limited, one group’s gain comes at the expense of another creating a high level of competition and conflict among interest groups
Influence of interest associations: is shaped by lobbying and advocacy efforts from relevant interest groups who use their influence to push for policies that serve their needs
Opposition and conflict: As one group is favored and the other isn’t, a consequwnce is the conflict leading disputed between opposing groups forcing governments to make policy a contested process
Eg. Agricultural policy where the interests of farmers is prioritised through subsidies, tariffs or regulations but may come as a consequence to consumer groups environmental orgs or competing industries who’s costs become higher
Summary:
Highly contested, groups compete for favorable policies, govs face pressure from both groups
Entrepreneurial Politics - Concentrated Costs/Diffused benefits)
Often difficult to implement as they face initial resistance from those bearing the costs, however, they ultimately provide social benefits
Costs are concentrated, meaning a small group such as corporations or polluting industries bear the cost of the regulation or reform
The policies are difficult to implement as they often strong opposition from the small groups resisting change, eg. industries opposing environmental regulations (benefits the public but not the industries)
NGO’s and advocacy groups tend to play a role in raising awareness and pushing issues onto the agenda
Initially disruptive as they may be seen as unnecessary however as time goes on she changes are seen to benefit and become accepted
Eg. Nuclear power and environmental degradation faced resistance from industries and the pubblic, when recycling policies were introduced they were seen as inconvenient and faced criticism from society however, today recycling is normalized after the shift of conscience thanks to persistent efforts by NGO’s and policy innovators
Clientalist - Diffuse costs/Concentrated benefits
Policies are designed to benefit specific groups rather than the general public, policies emerge from a relationship between legislators, administrative agencies and interest groups, “Iron Triangle”, where these actors work together to share policies that benefits their interests
Policies are designed to serve the interests of a particular sector
Interest groups, due to their close relationships have direct access, allowing them to bypass policy making procedures, ensuring their interests
Eg. Health programs may benefit specific industries, most likely private industries (small groups) however, not exactly in the interest of the public as not only does it not ensure access but it just sets the rules for how the industry operates, essentially interest groups manipulating policies for their own benefits (subsidies, covering treatments
Majoritarian group politics - Diffuse costs/Diffuse benefits
Costs and benefits are widely distributed across society, affecting a large part of the population (rather than specific groups) since the benefits are shared, along with the fact there is little to no opposition or resistance
Eg. Universal healthcare provides benefits to the entire population, ensuring access to medical services
Relies on public support
)
2) Actors in Public Policy + text notes (Theories of Decision Making)
Theories of Decision Making
4 Theories
Rational Actor Models (Bounded Rationality)
Based on the idea that humans make decisions by logically and deliberately choosing the best option for the most benefit as well as on “utility” (value/satisfaction), decisions are chosen based on their utility being maximum pleasure and minimum pain
Utalitarianism (utility): individuals act in pursuit of self interest and in search of satisfaction calculated in utility maximization, in this context it evaluates laws, institutions and policies
Using the process in which: the reason for a problem is identified, a goal is set based on individual preferences, the available means in terms of effectiveness, reliability, a decision is made through selecting the means likely for the desired outcome show clear objectives exist, humans are able to pursue them in a rational and consistent manner
However, although it is attractive, reflecting how people think decisions should be made, it has serious flaws when applying it to real life policy making (1) being that it is suitable for individuals and not groups (policies are decided by debating, negotiating in groups, conflicting objectives)
(2) decisions are usually made on the basis of inaccurate information, costs and benefits aren’t easy to compare making rationality unrealistic therefore, in response an idea (bounded rationality) was introduced
(3) People see reality differently depending on their values and ideologies, decisions are not always neutral and objective, they are influenced by personal or political biases, the model ignores peoples beliefs and assumptions
Incremental models - alternative to rational decision making
Decisions made gradually, policymakers work with low levels of understanding avoiding bold, risky decisions, there are no clear long term goals, decisions are adjusted based on feedback, it is exploratory and reactive not visionary or strategic which can lead to avoiding or evading problems
The model is good considering it reflects how decisions are made in the real world based on limited knowledge and constant change however the model encourages flexibility, consultation, compromise and the expression of different views
However, it is seen as conservative and resistant to change
The idea of mixed scanning was brought forth being a middle ground between rational thinking and incrementalism where there are two phases (1 - rational) a broad scanning of the available (existing) policy options then (2 - incremental) a more narrow approach is brought forward based on evaluation and specific areas or programmes affected
Bureaucratic organization models - a critique of the rational and incremental model
Brought forth as the rational and incremental model are “black box” theories as neither pays attention to the impact of the policy process on the decisions whereas bureaucratic models try to get inside the black box by highlighting how the process influences the decisions
Two models, (1) The Organizational Process Model focuses on how behaviors, values and assumptions inside government departments affect decisions instead of rational analysis and objective evaluation and (2) the Bureaucratic Politics Model focuses on the impact of individuals and organizations within the government pursuing their own interests, rejecting the idea of the state being unified
However, this model assumes decisions are routine or bureaucratic, ignoring how powerful leaders CAN shape major decisions such as Roosevelt’s New Deal or Hitler invading Poland as well as ignoring the idea that officials follow personal beliefs and emotions when making decisions and not following their roles or organizations interests and finally, how it focuses on internal government processes avoiding how outside forces (economy, politics, ideologies) affect decisions
Belief system models
Explains how decisions are shaped by people’s deep values, ideologies and belief systems
People filter information through beliefs making some options seem unthinkable, not appreciated or even considered and others acceptable which leads to biases and misunderstandings (eg. calling someone a second hitler), groupthink (conformity) can make people within groups feel pressure to conform to ideas and ways of thinking
Paul Sabatier’s policy subsystems explains that within each policy subsystem advocacy coalitions (groups sharing similar beliefs and values) are formed through:
Deep Core Beliefs (moral or philosophical, hardest to change)
Near Core Beliefs (policy preferences, more flexible)
Secondary Beliefs (how policy should be applied, easiest to change) and how political change often comes from shifting alliances between coalitions
Criticism based on (eg. marxism and feminism) the idea belief systems reflect power structures with marxists saying policymakers beliefs support ruling class interests and feminists arguing male dominated policies reinforces a system of patriarchal power
Actors are those who try to input into the policy process, to identify problems and to raise concerns
6 categories divided in two sections
Institutional actors - Politicians and
Politicians
Role is to govern and legislate, to solve problems and create laws, they are in charge of functions, eg. President, PM, Ministers, Ministers of parliament: They are the agenda builders
They battle over agenda setting between the Executive (the government) and the Legislative (the parliament) where ideological conflicts exist
Eg. On Trump’s first day in office he signed over a hundred executive orders, people in legislation can make an impact on these policies being either good or bad
In some states, governments have more agenda setting powers than in other regimes, eg. in France and the UK, the government is less constraint by the parliament, making it easier for governments to achieve outcomes they prefer
In Italy and the Netherlands the parliament has the capacity to modify the government’s proposals
When the government (the executive) and the parliamentary (the parliament ) are of the same political alignment (partidsan congruence), the executive (the government) has more freedom to set the agenda since the parliament will legitimize its decisions, however, if the parliament is controlled by the opposition, the president or prime minister must negotiate to pass laws, leading to potential deadlock
In coalition governments, multiple political parties share power since no single party has won a majority of seats in parliament, meaning the party of the prime minister is usually the one controlling the agenda which can lead to divides as even though the prime minister leads the government, they do not have full control over decision making as they need to consider interests of the other parties, as well as the fact this can create conflicts due to different priorities and ideologies and could lead to the collapse of a government
Bureaucrats
They can impact both the formulation and implementation stage as well as placing issues on the agenda, however, their primary concern in terms of the implementation stage is the execution and enforcement of the laws
they only do what is asked of them therefore although they have low amounts of priority or power they remain an essay part of the system
“Governments may change, bureaucrats don’t”
When politicians are being passive when making decisions, such as lacking interest or facing problems, “not filling the vacuum”, bureaucrats can come in and fill this vacuum
According to Niskanen: Bureaucrats control the information they provide to the legislature, they obtain information from others and hold the power of the decision being chosen based on the information they present
They work in an “automatic” way, they already know the demands, if they were to be told something they’d already know what they’d be told
(Functions of the bureaucracy)
Administration
Bureaucracies are not part of the government, their main role is to implement and carry out laws and policies - administering government business
They handle welfare, licenses, economic resulation as well as giving information and advice to citizens as well as politicians
They often decide how policies are carried out as decisions are complex
Senior civil servants are often used as policy advisers due to their expertise and experience as bureaucrats, they can help shape policies that will be implemented
Policy Advice - 2 functions
They serve as the main source of policy advice and information for the government, senior civil servants work closely and often as a policy advisers whereas junior civil servants focus on routine tasks
Although policy is officially made by politicians, bureaucrats play a key role be outlining policy options for ministers as well as revieweing proposals for the impact and consequences they may cause
Senior officials are required to be politically neutral
The flow of information is the responsibility of bureaucrats, therefore decisions and information shaping what politicians see and consider is based on the information bureaucrats offer, in some cases they may even filter or present information in ways reflecting their own preferences
However, the true power they hold is the expertise and knowledge they build over time, meaning amateur politicians, although holding higher roles, come to depend on senior bureaucrats
Articulating Interests
Governments and politicians change whereas bureaucrats don’t, they stay in office as long as they decide to be bureaucrats, meaning when governments change, they can offer consistency and help in governing in an orderly and reliable way
However, lack of accountability is easily found within bureaucrats and in developing countries, corruption, permanence can also lead to arrogance or resistance to change as they may believe they know better than eleced politicians and resist reform or innovation, seeing themselves as sort of guardians of the states long term interest
Organization of the bureaucracy (text)
The organization of bureaucracy is important for affecting the degree to which public accountability and political control over the bureaucracy can be achieves as well as influencing its efficiency and the cost of public services
Most bureaucracies are organized by departments who have a different purpose or function (eg. education, health, tax, in the US the White House Office Of Homeland Security joining departments of immigration, customs and domestic security)
Some bureaucracies are highly centralized like in France where there is tight control and in Germand and the Uk they have more decentralized systems rhat are able to adapt over time
Since the 1980’s many countries adopted a new private-sector style reform in public management in which governments should stick to concerning itself with policy making and leaving the delivery of services or policy implementation to others
In certain countries this was taken aboard where executive agencies (body operating within a governmental department but having a certain amount of managerial and budgetary independence)
Eg. Quangos (quasi autonomous non governmental organization) are organizations that operate independently (meaning they can take decisions without political intereference) from government control but are funded and appointed by the government to oversee specific functions, provide expert advice in different departments
Eg. of a Quango, the NHS, responsible for overseeing the national health serivce in england manage a portion of the healthcare budget (gov funding)
Sources of Bureaucratic Power
Strategic Position
Bureaucrats build strong networks with other organized interests like businesses and professional groups giving them a crucial role in formulating and reviewing policy options since they can delay, interpret or even block policies
Logistical Relationships
Politicians heavily rely on bureaucrats
Bureaucrats are permanent while ministers and politicians come and go
Full time policy professionals while ministers focus on many things at a time meaning they are part time departmental leaders, this gives them more influence over daily operations
Status and expertise
Senior bureaucrats are regarded as a meritocratic elite, they have status and respect from their expertise as they are usually tried in elite institutions (they come from money)
Politicians are selected based on popularity or party loyalty instead of policy knowledge, they are less equipped to run large complex departments meaning civil servants are trusted to act in the national interest, giving them authority and autonomy in shaping policies
How can Bureaucracies be controlled
Bureaucrats may be holding such a high power while being responsible to no one that this may increase the risks of corruption, maladministration and abuse of authority with critics arguing they need external controls preventing them from dominating decision making
Political Accountability
Bureaucracies can be made accountable to the political executive, assembly, judiciary o or the public, the political executive is the most important due to its responsability for government administration and close working with the civil service
In liberal democracies, ministers are supposed to be responsible for the actions of their departments however, bureaucracies are large, complex and technically skilled making ministerial oversight hard, as well as politicians won’t want to take hits for bureaucratic failures
In the UK and US congress, legislative committees can investigate bureaucracy, citizens can file complaints about bureaucratic wrongdoing and media and interest groups may also expose scandals or failures
Politicization
The idea that bureaucrats are appointed on political loyalty rather than neutrality, recruiting senior officials into the ideology of the government
In the US, thousands of civil service posts change hands with each new administration, in Germany, ministers can dismiss officials and replace them with preferred ones
Politicized bureaucrats may show loyalty and commitment to the governments ideologies and agenda, however, this undermines neutrality, weakens their expertise and causes instability when governments/administrations change as well as that politicians might be surrounded by yes men which limits honest advice
Counter bureaucracies
Structures decided to support or assist politicians as well as balancing bureaucratic power through the use of political advisers who unlike bureacrats who aren’t controlled by anyone, word directly for them, somewhat like personal bureaucrats
This is the case in the UK, France and the USA
More specifically they support new leaders, leaders who lack expertise or staff, sharing ministers/leaders workload as well as helping on advice with economic policy as well as to compensate for the imbalance of amateur, temporary, polititicians and the expert permanent politicians
This may be negative as this puts leaders at risk of only hearing what they want to hear from LOYAL advisers
Non-institutional actors
Citizens
Interest groups (structured around certain interests): non profit organizations NGO’s
Epistemic communities: experts in public policy
Mass media: can condition public opinion, some governments use mass media to inform the public about policies, eg. trump
Citizens
Citizens influence public policy through various mechanisms, including elections, referenda, legislative initiatives, and public opinion.
Election results shape policies indirectly as people vote for candidates who align with their interests.
Referenda (direct votes on issues) can be binding or non-binding, depending on a country’s constitution.
Eg. Spain’s constitutional referendum was non-binding, while France’s was binding.
Risk: Unexpected results (e.g., Brexit) can lead to unintended negative consequences.
Popular legislative initiatives allow citizens to push for policy discussions by gathering signatures.
Eg. In Spain, 500,000 signatures were required to debate an euthanasia law.
In the EU, 1 million signatures are needed to bring a topic to discussion.
Public opinion plays a major role in legitimizing government decisions.
Governments may use opinion polls to gauge public sentiment when making difficult decisions.
However, public opinion is highly volatile, influenced by social media and rapid shifts in perception.
According to Bernstein (author), governments act based on ideologies and interests, but public support remains crucial.
Interest groups
Aim to raise awareness and gain public support for specific issues or policies
Defend particular interests by influencing public perception and decision makers, acting as mechanisms of political activism
They frame issues in a way that benefits their interests, shaping how people perceive topics through language, facts, images and emotion
Framing: The information they present condition public beliefs, affecting how others perceive an issue or specific issues, eg. pushing the idea of linking migrants to crime growth can influence societal views
Can be considered “Lobbies”, a way of influencing those in charge of making policies. Lobbies are recognized and regulated, therefore, they are given access to government institutions allowing them to impact policy decisions
Types of Lobbying (Baumgartner’s Model)
Inside Advocacy:
Having access to and therefore directly lobbying to policymakers such as civil servants, government officials and members of parliament
This is to influence decisions from within the system by providing arguments that can affect policies
Outside Advocacy:
Instead of direct lobbying, groups instead, focus on doing something through public awareness, through press conferences, media campaigns and petitions trying to raise people’s concerns about issues
Raising awareness so that issues are so focused on and supported by the public that they will be one of the most important issues in the polls
Grassroots Mobilization
Using mass movements, protests and social activism to spread awareness and pressure policymakers
This expands the reach of outside advocacy by directly involving the general public in campaigns
Factors affecting an interest groups influence are:
Resources and budget: Lobbying requires resources, expertise and trained staff to conduct research, gather data and draft reports
Insider Status: Some groups have direct access to policymakers and know who to contact to push their agenda which means interest groups are, actors in the sense that they are getting people to consider their issues
Access to the Media: (Outside Advocacy) This is how they present their information to the public, by manipulating narratives to gain public sympathy or opposition towards certain policies
Typologies of Interest groups
The public is both their scope and their goal, they to create benefits for the entire society (somewhat acting as NGO’s) in the sense that they defend or support a topic from a perspective that will be able to defend everyone, to work on behalf of the public
Private/Economic interest groups formed to defend the economic interests of their members and to represent corporate and industry interests, promoting policies that will benefit specific sectors such as pharmaceutical, tobacco and oil industry associations lobbying for regulations favoring their businesses
Eg. EU goal to eliminate gasoline powered card by 2025 was opposed by german car manufacturers as it would hurt their industry
Professional groups try to protect the interests of working categories (lawyers, doctors, teachers, and trade unions)
Eg. Latin American dentists in Spain faced restrictions because professional associations made it harder for foreign trained professionals to practice, essentially protecting the interest and business interests of spanish doctors
Epistemic Communities
A group of experts who know a lot about a specific issue who are trusted because they have specialized, scientific or technical knowledge which the government rely on to help make informed decisions about policy
Their role is to give neutral, fact based policies to shape good policies, they are trusted as they really understand the subject
They are controversial as although they’re meant to be unbiased, they still represent knowlledge elites such as scientists or academics which can leave out different perspectives such as ordinary citizens, frontline workers or marginalized groups as well as that they may not always stay neutral
People worry democracy is weakened though them as although they are not elected, this still group of individuals can highly influence decisions that affect everyone
Mass Media
The media plays a powerful role in shaping narratives, influencing opinions and setting political agendas through selective reporting, framing, priming and strategic polling
The media highlights certain issues based on political agendas or due to pressure from interest groups, therefore, some stories recieve more attention (eg. ukraine and gaza) while others are underreported (eg. congo)
The media is used to/can shape public discourse and influences public opinion which is highly volatile, therefore, public opinion becomes an actor much more than it is an agent
Media serves as a bridge between governments and the public, sometimes the media is used to test public reactions to potential policies (floating trial baloons)
Priming: Media exposure activates subconscuous thoughts that shape attitudes and behaviors, eg. negative coverage of fast food can make people instinctively reject it (predisposition in people)
Manipulation of/Influence of Polls in the way questions are worded can influence how people respond, sometimes a question might be framed in a way that makes you agree on something, even if you wouldn’t normally support it meaning poll results can be misleading as they may not fully reflect what people truly believe
D’Anieri’s 3 models of influence
Executive: the government settles the media and how they address some issues. The media legitimizes the support of the government’s perspective (even if they don't know). Public opinion supports what the government wanted in the beginning. (people follow the media)
Media lead: the media sets the agenda, so the public opinion follows whatever they say, and seeing this movement, the government is obliged to do what the people want.
Public leads: public opinion is highly volatile. When they focus on a specific topic, they set the agenda to “solve” the issue, the media covers it (for lucrative reasons) and the government follows the public pressure.
3) The Policy Cycle - Text notes
A Public Policy can be questioned, reassessed and modified. It's not static, but it evolves and structures around the national interest.
A political process is an input - output process
Input: Demands, a problem that is looking to be solved usually with the help of support Output: The result of the initial demand, decisions that respond to a process
This process is somewhat similar to a loop as once a problem has been given a solution, with time a problem can arise from a past solution without meaning the past solution was wrong, however, a new problem arising makes way for the possibility of restructuring
It is a cyclical perspective, outputs and impacts on society and will become inputs
According to Harold Laswell there are 5 stages to the policy cycle
Agenda Setting
Policy Formulation
Decision Making
Policy Implementation
Policy Evaluation
Agenda-setting:
Systemic agenda (unofficial): all issues perceived by members of the political community as meriting public attention (crime, health care, water quality, etc).
Institutional agenda(formal): only deals with 10 issues at a time, a limited number of issues to which attention is devoted by policy elites
There are 3 basic patterns of Agenda Setting according to Cobb, Ross and Ross
Outside initiation pattern: Non Governmental Groups (NGO’s) are expanded to reach the systematic agenda and then eventually the institutional agenda
Mobilization: Issues are placed in the formal agenda by the government through its own kind of ideology, being that certain issues go to the agenda
Inside initiation patten: Where interest groups have direct access to those in charge of making decisions and their influence in initiating a policy. Certain interest groups are well connect and are able to achieve this without needing to resort to bribery, these groups work silently as they don’t want to make the public concerned about issues they want to push for
(Eg. American car companies have found access to Trump in order to ask for a delay in the implementation of tariffs which has granted them an extra month to move forward)
2) Policy Formulation (Design) identified by Hogwood and Gunn
The most important stage of the policy cycle
Decisions need to be made on the procedures (how to do things) as well as political actors who will be involved in the analysis and elaboration of the policy
issuing a definition: What is the problem? This is important as the way a problem is defined may affect the solution (output) as those formulating the policy may view the problem differently from those who first raised the issue
For this, the political resultant is the result of a process in which a set of actors with different interests debate and reach a solution that benefits everyone but is not satisfactory for all
Once defined, objectives, priorities and solutions need to be established, once the interest is established, policy options need to be established as there are different ways of addressing a problem
Analysis and review of the policy options where for each of the options, identifying the pros and cons of each needs to be done as well as the consequences and impacts of the options the policy is specifically targetting as well as the probability of each option happening (the likelihood depends on various factors, eg. cost)
After assessing, a final decision is made = the result (output) of a process
Typologies of the Policy Formulation Processes
Policy making requires careful planning and consistency rather than a reaction to a problem, some governments ask for public opinion while others make decisions directly however, it is a fact that policies should serve the people and not just political interests
Based on Consultation: Asking people for their opinions before making a policy, helping make sure people accept and support the policy
Based on Imposition: Making a decision without asking anyone, when leaders or experts decide what's best without public input
Long term planning: Thinking ahead about how a policy will affect the country and its citizens by assessing consequences
Eg. In Spain, governments are constantly changing and therefore the education system in spain is always changing due to the different governments different ideas, however, schools should have a system that stays stable for a long time
Short term reaction: When the government reacts to a problem having little time or little resources available
Eg. In case of a sudden economic crisis, leaders may rush to create policies that help, even if they aren’t perfect
3) 4 Decision making models based on two criteria
Selected objectives vs available resources
Radical Rational Process:
Having a clear idea of what to do and the resources to do so. Based on the idea that out decision is optimal (eg. Low cost). It's a process that can be used as a guideline but it is too perfect to exist. In theory it works pretty well, but it falsely assumes that each variable can be controlled, therefore when confronted with reality (where other actors are involved), the realization is its too perfect
Critiques to the Radical Rational Process:
An actor cannot consider all the possible alternatives and assess them, there is neither the time or resources to do so
During the process there are different actors in charge of intervening who may have different perspectives regarding a problem, possibly being contradictory
It doesn’t take into account that public policies are decided according to political/ideological elements that influence decision makers.
Bounded Rationality (limited):
Objectives are well defined but the resources at disposal are not the ones expected, they try to do as best as possible by following the radical rational as a guideline, assuming shit happens, lots of problems will be found that will prevent the “perfect solution” from being found meaning the result will never be optimal, it will at best be satisfactory
Acknowledging those in charge of decisions may face constraints/limitations, the objectives and information may not be clear, the resources may be scarce and there may not be enough time, decisions made are bounded by uncertainty
There exist limitations here, being the human factor with different kinds of values, interest, people don’t face the same issue in the same way, these problems arise from international (stress, motivations) or external (environmental factors or eg. international threats)
Incremental(ism) Process (compromise):
The result of our decision is a compromise, the situation is neither good nor bad but it is not clear what needs to be done
We don't have an idea of what we want to obtain, how to respond to a problem. In this scenario, the usual way of addressing it is to do what had been done before (if it worked)
When having incomplete knowledge as well as time constraints, policy makers usually tend to continue with a limited change as it is decided to increase resources in search of wanting to make the situation look like it has improved but in reality it hasn’t
“Inertia”, Bureaucrats are aligned with the idea of incrementalism, they don’t like innovation as it means the need to create something from scratch, investing time and resources, they don’t like to change things therefore, they provide the minimum as providing more could potentially bring more good than bad, bringing criticism to the model calling it “conservative”
Responses are quick, short term and not goal oriented, rather avoid problems than solving them, policy makers more concerned with day to day problems rather than long term
Changes are tiny and slow, they are possible but they are done step by step
It is more realistic than the Bounded Rationality model, solutions don't come from analysis, but they are rather shaped by political negotioations and results of partisan mutual adjustment among various actors. It will be a decision that benefited neither party
Understandingof the issue: Being either high or low
Type of change: Changes in policy being incremental (small steps, slow) or nonincrementally (large, sudden shifts)
High Understanding + Incremental Change:
Rational decision making is possible for small, technical problems where policymakers have enough knowledge to make gradual improvements over time
Eg. Adjusting regulations on air pollutipom based on specific research
High Understanding + Nonincremental Change
No real cases, decisions rarely based on perfect knowledge, unrealistic
Low Understanding + Incremental Change
Most common scenario in public policy
Most decisins involve uncertainty, conflicting interests and limited knowledge, changes happen gradually through small adjustments
Eg. Education reforms that slowly change over time due to different political parties and shifting priorities
Low Understanding + Nonincremental Change
Where sudden, large scale changes happen, but under extraordinary circumstances like crises or wars
Eg. During financial crises, wars or major global events where decisions are necessary despite limited information
Garbage Can Process model
Decisions are not always rational, problems are often poorly understood and resources may not be available, therefore solutions and decisions are made randomly or coincidentally
A process where the means (what is used to reach the decision) and the ends (the decision) have nothing to do or very little to do with the actual problem
Decisions are made in Organized anarchies (large institutions) operating in a disorganized way, making decision making unclear and unstable
Ambiguity: People may not fully understand the problem or their own preferences when making decisions
Unclear technology: Rules and procedures exist but people don’t always know how to apply them
Fluid Participation: People enter and exit the decision process creating instability and complications
Therefore, decisions are a result of problems, solutions, participants and opportunities than randomly interact, there is no structure, problems and solutions get matched by change rather than through rational analysis
Large institutions constantly create solutions which are often applied only when a relevant problem appears, a pre defined solution assigned to a problem once it arises and if it fits
Types of decisions in an organization
Programmed decisions
A protocol designed for situations that may repeat themselves, such as a fire escape plan or other emergency situations Not political as they are not the result of a discussion, they are programmed, so not negotiated.
Typically the job of a bureaucrat, lower management
Non programmed decisions
Unique decisions, non repetitive requiring a new solution/decision.
These are political as they try to solve complex problems and must be solved by a higher level of management
4) Implementation
Broadly defined as “what happens between the establishment of an apparent intention on the part of the government to do something, or to stop doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of action”.
To be an ideal process if policy implementation, it should follow:
Specification of program details
Allocation of resources
Decisions
First, policy implementation was not recognized as a separate stage from the policy-making process (taken for granted). Civil servants could afford to be sloppy and inefficient because they didn’t need to keep the customer satisfied.
It was after Pressman and Wildavsky that the implementation process was defined as a core and often critical stage on its own. Later on, in the mid 70s, it became the central field of policy research.
Top-down approach:
Implementation studies followed the hierarchical and chronological path of a particular policy and sought to assess how far the centrally defined goals and objectives are achieved when it comes to implementation. Most studies centered on those factors leading to deviations from these objectives.
Unsuccessful policy implementation could not be only the result of bad implementation but a bad policy design based on wrong assumptions on cause-effect relationships.
Take account of the importance of the relationship between tool selection and policy implementation. Different instruments are vulnerable to specific types of implementation problems.
Also there is the reliance on wrong theories of cause effect relations, that frequently leads to negative side-effects or even reverse effects on the desired outcome of state interventions.
Bottom-up approach:
Suggests a number if analytical reorientations:
Central role of implementation, shaping the actual policy outcome being acknowledged.
Focus on single policies regarded as inputs into the implementation process, replaced by a perspective of policy as the outcome of implementation as a result of actors and their interactions.
Increasingly widespread recognition of linkages and networks between a number of actors, cutting the traditional hierarchical understanding.
Implementation research played a major role in triggering the move of policy research away from a state-centered endeavor, which was only interested in enhancing the internal governmental capacities. Now, policy research is interested in patterns of state-society interaction and has shifted its attention toward the institutional set-up of organizational fields. The classic hierarchical governance has been abandoned.
5) Evaluation
Evaluation is not only associated with the final stage in the policy cycle (meaning it is not restricted to a particular stage). During the evaluation stage of the policy cycle, these intended outcomes of policies move into the center of attention.
It forms a separate subdiscipline in the policy sciences that focuses on the intended results and unintended consequences of policies. It is about the maintenance, succession or termination of the policy in question.
In the 1960s, evaluation was perceived as a way to systematically apply the idea of experimental testing of policy options in a controlled setting. The problem with focusing on a specific problem, isolating the influence and impact of a specific policy and its outcomes, is that it doesn’t take into account the bigger picture, the variables surrounding the specific policy.
Policy evaluation takes place as a regular and embedded part of the political process and debate. It has been distinguished from evaluations conducted or initiated by the public administration, and the ones carried out by diverse actors in the political arena (media).
The technique applied to addressing such issues is the “cost-benefit analysis”, that may shed a light on procedural issues like how is the formulation stage organized: who is consulted and when, how is implementation controlled.
Activities of evaluation are particularly exposed to the specific logic and incentives of political processes in at least two major ways:
Assessment of policy outputs and outcomes is biased according to the position and substantial interest.
Given the strong incentive of blame-avoidance, governments avoid the precise definition of goals because politicians would risk taking the blame for an obvious failure.
Evaluations can lead to diverse patterns of policy-making such as successful policies being reinforced. This uses the idea of pilot projects, basically model experiments to measure a problem and correct the possible outcomes if necessary.
They can also lead to the termination of a policy: a problem has been solved or the adopted policy measures have been recognized to be ineffective in dealing with set policy goals.
But given what we can observe in decision making in our daily lives, attempts of policy termination are neither widespread nor successful in overcoming resistance of influential actors. These termination efforts may face counter-strategies to stop the process.
Politicians face greater incentives towards the declaration of new programs rather than the termination of old ones that include the admission of failures.
What is clear is that the evaluation process can end in some outcomes that are often very different from what was intended by those who formulated and made the decisions. Thes only proves further the point of how important an open government is, where there is an effective work in translating inputs into appropriate outputs, open to criticism and scrutiny.