Introduction

We shall shift concentrate more on theories or conceptual frameworks used in describing how
and why public policy makers behave within specific policy milieu ( legal or institutional). These
models are good tools for describing the behavior or public policy makers within specified
contexts, taking into consideration the socio political, economic and physical factors within the
communities in which they operate. They can equally be useful in explaining why such
policymakers act in certain ways as opposed to others.
Institutionalism subscribes to the proposition that public policy is a direct reflection of the
external forces within the environment that impinge on the actors in making the appropriate
choice.in a nutshell, models under under the institutional school of thought, in varying terms,
examine the role of the individual, groups and institutions on the the habit formation, rules and
regulation and associated behavior of various actors in their struggle over scarce resources.
These groups and institutions can be informal in character and orientation, but their activities by
and large could affect profoundly the formal decisions in the economy.

INSTITUTIONALISM
In general terms an institution is a routinized pattern of action, which implies ideas that have
been developed, accepted and sustained in society. It is in this light that Gohler (1987) defines it
as “ internalized, persistent behavioral patterns and orientation of thought with a regulating
social formation” Peter Hall, advanced this perspective by asserting that institutions “are the
formal rules, compliance procedure, and standard operations practice that structure the
relationship between individuals in various units of the economy”. Institutions are formed and
shaped by the continued relationship between actors that have some degree of common
understanding or shared values and are subjected to pressure to conform to such values.
Institutionalism was popularized by an American economist and social scientist Thorstein
Veblen, who “ tried to replace the concept of people as the makers of economic decisions with
the idea that people are continually affected by changing customs and institutions” In this
connection rational choice as a basis for assessing the quality of policy decision is relegated to the
background in preference for exogenous factors as the main determinants of policy choice. The
unit of analysis here is the trend of adaptive behavior in any society are usually codified into
norms and rules that are acceptable in that society. It is in this light that John Commons argues
that the collective actions of different groups in society are better understood “ within a system
of continually evolving institutions and laws”.
This model has been adopted by policy analysts who desire is to provide answers to questions
raised in respect of the probable causes of success or failure in public policy. In other words
policies are likely to be faulted not purely in terms of the logics of their formulation, nor in terms
of their content, but rather in terms of the inability of the institutional framework laid out for
their implementation to conform to modern principles. March and Olsen (1989) label this
proposition as the “ logic of appropriateness”, which implies the degree of congruence between
the expected acts of policy actors and the actual acts they exhibit. In the policy making situation,
the law of appropriateness provides that policy makers are more inclined to behave in
accordance with their individual preferences as rational actors. This falls squarely in the concept
of bounded rationality as developed by Herbert A. Simon.
The works of structural functionalist such as Gabriel Almond(1956), S.Verba(1963) and David
Easton (1965) have adopted similar assumptions in their analysis of public policy. Central to their
argument is the claim that appropriate cultural adaptation and effective communication pattern
are the hallmark of effective policy making. It is assumed that the process of political socialization
and communication is linked to the capability of a political entity to perform effectively the
interest articulation and aggregation of its citizenry, which would further be linked to the rule
making, rule execution and adjudication in the polity, This model views public policy as the sum
total of the activities carried out by key organs of political system. Therefore, examining the
structures and functions of governmental institutions such as the legislature, executive, the
judiciary, mass media, civil society organizations, Non-governmental organizations and traditional
institutions can serve as effective basis for public policy analysis.

Usefulness of the model

- Firstly Institutionalism generally is a useful descriptive model. As the proponents argue,the

model is tied to variables that the policy analyst is already familiar with, as such it is easy to apply
to practical situations.
- The model is a useful heuristic device as its aids clear comprehension of how rules or norms
mould behavior of policy makers and how the forces in the environment affect such behavior
- It is claimed that this model is accommodative of other models; as such it is quite flexible. For
example, the institutional analysis development framework accommodates elements of rational
actor model and those of classical game model.
Be that as it may, the model suffers from lack of concrete formula for action. The variables
contained in the model are too broad and in some cases fluid, especially when they relate to
cultural values or norms. There is therefore too much subjectivity involved in the model. As has
been pointed out earlier. This model can at best be used for descriptive and analytical purposes,
but not as a tool for extrapolation or predicting of phenomena.

Strength and weakness of the institutional model

The group equilibrium model like any pluralist theory is a good descriptive tool in policy analysis,
it describes the procedure for democratic practice and creates the impression that plural
societies are not necessarily destined to the inevitability of instability. This is so because there are
mechanisms built into the system that are ostensibly intended to check and limit fissured in the
society, this assumption could assist in providing hope for the weak groups in a democracy, and
hence serve as a platform for political stability.
Somehow this model is idealistic because hardly are the forced that guide the process of
dynamic equilibrium fair to all contending groups. By the mere fact that legislature that serves as
the umpire in deciding the loss and win of the contending groups is also composed of elements
of these groups, it is expected that the group with the largest membership in parliament would
dominate the policy process for long. Therefore, for the model to operate smoothly as an
instrument of equity in the distribution of resources through policy intervention, it has to be
complemented by deliberate policy that would guarantee effective participation of disadvantaged
groups. The adoption of affirmative action that would guarantee special quota for representation
of the disadvantaged groups could do this.
SYSTEM MODEL
The system model has several varieties. Ludwig von
Bertalanffy (1968) and his colleague in the field of
Biology developed the first perspective on system. In this
respect a system is seen as analogous to living organisms
that is maintained and sustained by its internal
components. For instance, all the anatomical features
that perform vital functions are developed in the
organism such as the heart,brain, eyes and ears. These
organs must work in harmony to enable the organism
put effective resistance against pressures exerted on it
by exogenous forces. Through homeostatic adjustment
process the organism can continue to cope with the
periodic disturbances from the environment. In other
words, the survival of the organism depends on the
extend to which it can maintain a form of dynamic
equilibrium with the ever changing environment in
which it operates.Laszlo(1972) developed this
perspective which is referred to as general system or
open system model, and applied it to the understanding
political and economic issues in a society.
if the open system model is applied in public policy
analysis the issues to reflect include the nature of the
components of the system, which constitute the
subsystems, and the outside environment that impinges
on the system directly, which is referred to as the Supra-
system. The Supra-system can have indirect impact on
the system. This interpretation of Influence from the
environment the Supra-system is referred to as the
Supra-Supra-system influence on the organism
The other perspective of system theory is from the
view that operates on the basis of input-conversion-
output concept.Norbert wiener (1954) and William
Ashby(1956) pioneered this perspective under what was
referred to as cybernetics lay emphasis on the ability of
a system to communicate effectively within itself, by the
use of internal feedback mechanisms, as well as
between it and lager society the system is seen as
analogous to a self-controlling servomechanisms which
has component that regulates the flow of information
and signals in and out of the system. Any signal
transmitted to the system from outside is received and
processed by component of the system referred to as
memory. The memory is a device into which processed
information is stored and retrieved anytime for the
purpose of future decision making. This can take the
form of official files in open and secret registry or
electronic device such as tapes, computer flash disk,
computer diskette or data bank of electronic and hard
copy types.
The general theory of systems would be a useful tool providing, on the one hand, models
that can be used in, and transferred to, different fields, and safeguarding, on the other hand,
from vague analogies which often have marred the progress in these fields.
There is, however, another and even more important aspect of general system theory. It can be
paraphrased by a felicitous formulation due to the well-known mathematician and founder of
information theory, Warren Weaver. Classical physics, Weaver said, was highly successful in
developing the theory of unorganized complexity. Thus, for example, the behavior of a gas is the
result of the unorganized and individually untraceable movements of innumerable molecules; as
a whole it is governed by the laws of thermodynamics. The theory of unorganized complexity is
ultimately rooted in the laws of chance and probability and in the second law of
thermodynamics. In contrast, the fundamental problem today is that of organized complexity.
Concepts like those of organization, wholeness, directiveness, teleology, and differentiation are
alien to conventional physics. However, they pop up everywhere in the biological, behavioral and
social sciences, and are, in fact, indispensable for dealing with living organisms or social groups.
Thus a basic problem posed to modern science is a general theory of organization. General
system theory is, in principle, capable of giving exact definitions for such concepts and, in suitable
cases, of putting them to quantitative analysis.
If we have briefly indicated what general system theory means, it will avoid

misunderstanding also to state what it is not. It has been objected that system theory amounts to
no more than the trivial fact that mathematics of some sort can be applied to different sorts of
problems. For example, the law of exponential growth is applicable to very different phenomena,
from radioactive decay to the extinction of human populations with insufficient reproduction.
This, however, is so because the formula is one of the simplest differential equations, and can
therefore be applied to quite different things. Therefore, if so-called isomorphic laws of growth
occur in entirely different processes, it has no more significance than the fact that elementary
arithmethic is applicable to all countable objects, that 2 plus 2 make 4, irrespective of whether
the counted objects are apples, atoms or galaxies.
But general system theory is not a search for vague and superficial analogies. Analogies as such
are of little value since besides similarities between phenomena, dissimilarities can always be
found as well. The isomorphism under discussion is more than mere analogy. It is a consequence
of the fact that, in certain respects, corresponding abstractions and conceptual models can be
applied to different phenomena. Only in view of these aspects will system laws apply. This is not
different from the general procedure in science. It is the same situation as when the law of
gravitation applies to Newton's apple, the planetary system and tidal phenomena. This means
that in view of certain limited aspects a theoretical system, that of mechanics, holds true; it does
not mean that there is a particular resemblance between apples, planets, and oceans in a great
number of other aspects
A third objection claims that system theory lacks explanatory value. For example, certain aspects
of organic purposiveness, such as the so-called equifinality of developmental processes, are open
to system-theoretical interpretation. Nobody, however, is today capable of defining in detail the
processes leading from an animal ovum to an organism with its myriad of cells, organs, and highly
complicated functions.
Here we should consider that there are degrees in scientific explanation, and that in complex and
theoretically little-developed fields we have to be satisfied with what the economist Hayek has
justly termed "explanation in principle." An example may show what is meant.

Theoretical economics is a highly developed system, presenting elaborate models for the
processes in question. However, professors of economics, as a rule, are not millionaires. In other
words they can explain economic phenomena well "in principle" but they are not able to predict
fluctuations in the stock market with respect to certain shares or dates. Explanation in principle,
however, is better than none at all. If and when we are able to insert the necessary parameters,
system-theoretical explanation "in principle" becomes a theory, similar in structure to those of
physics.

Aims of General System Theory

We may summarize these considerations as follows.

Similar general conceptions and viewpoints have evolved in various disciplines of modern
science. While in the past, science tried to explain observable phenomena by reducing them to
an interplay of elementary units investigatable independently of each other, conceptions appear
in contemporary science that are concerned with what is somewhat vaguely termed
"wholeness," i.e., problems of organization, phenomena not resolvable into local events, dynamic
interactions manifest in the difference of behavior of parts when isolated or in a higher
configuration, etc.; in short, "systems" of various orders not understandable by investigation of
their respective parts in isolation. Conceptions and problems of this nature have appeared in all
branches of science, irrespective of whether inanimate things, living organisms, or sacial
phenomena are the object of study. This correspondence is the more striking because the
developments in the individual sciences were mutually independent, largely unaware of each
other, and based upon different facts and contradicting philosophies. They indicate a general
change in scientific attitude and conceptions.
Not only are general aspects and viewpoints alike in different sciences; frequently we find
formally identical or isomorphic laws in different fields. In many cases, isomorphic laws hold for
certain classes or subclasses of "systems," irrespective of the nature of the entities involved.
There appear to exist general system laws which apply to any system of a certain type,
irrespective of the particular properties of the system and of the elements involved.
These considerations lead to the postulate of a new scientific discipline which we call general
system theory. Its subject matter is formulation of principles that are valid for "systems" in
general, whatever the nature of their component elements and the relations or "forces" between
them.
General system theory, therefore, is a general science of "wholeness" which up till now was
considered a vague, hazy, and semimetaphysical concept. In elaborate form it would be a
logicomathematical discipline, in itself purely formal but applicable to the various empirical
sciences. For sciences concerned with "organized wholes," it would be of similar significance to
that which probability theory has for sciences concerned with "chance events"; the latter, too, is
a formal mathematical discipline which can be applied to most diverse fields, such as
thermodynamics, biological and medical experimentation, genetics, life insurance statistics, etc.
This indicates major aims of general system theory:
(1) There is a general tendency towards integration in the various sciences, natural and

social.
(2) Such integration seems to be centered in a general theory of systems.
(3) Such theory may be an important means for aiming at exact theory in the nonphysical fields of
science.
(4) Developing unifying principles running "vertically" through the universe of the individual
sciences, this theory brings us nearer to the goal of the unity of science.
(5) This can lead to a much-needed integration in scientific education.

The strengths and weaknesses of systems theory are summarised below: 

 
Strengths
Incorporates the role of the environment
Includes the satisfaction of needs for survival
Needs of sub system satisfied within overall system 
 
Weaknesses
View the organisation and environment as concrete items
Functional unity and harmony not always possible
Metaphor of an organism becomes an ideology

Reference

Berman, M. 1996, "The Shadow Side of Systems

Theory", Journal of Humanistic Psychology, vol. 36,
issue 1, pp27-55.
 Pondy, L.R, Mitoff, I.I 1980, "Beyond Open System Models of Organization", in
T.G Cummings (ed), Systems Theory for Development, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester. 

Almond,G.A (1956), “Comparative political system”,journal of politics, volume 28.

Anderson, J.E (1984),Public policy making,New York: Holt Reinhardt and Winston.
Dror, Y (1968), public policy making Re-examined, Chandler:Scranton.