Public Policy

UNIT 2 PUBLIC POLICY: MODELS*

Structure
2.0 Objectives
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Systems Model for Policy Analysis
2.3 Institutional Model and Public Policy
2.4 Rational Policy - making Model
2.5 Incremental Model
2.5.1 Two Models of Decision-making
2.5.2 Features of Incremental Model
2.5.3 Criticism and Conclusion
2.6 Elite Model of Policy Process
2.6.1 Propositions and Implications of the Elite Model
2.6.2 Criticism and Conclusion
2.7 Public Choice Model
2.7.1 Introduction
2.7.2 Major Contributors
2.7.3 Critical Observations
2.8 Conclusion
2.9 Glossary
2.10 References
2.11 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises

2.0 OBJECTIVES
After reading this Unit, you should be able to:
Understand the Eastonian model for policy analysis;
Discuss the Rationality model for policy-making;
Highlight the Institutional approach, which addresses the role that state and
social institutions have in defining and shaping public policies;
Describe Lindblom’s Incremental approach to policy-making; and
Examine the Political Public Policy approach.

2.1 INTRODUCTION
Before we examine and discuss public policy from the perspective of models, it
is good to know as to what we mean by model. In general terms, a model is a
representation of a person or thing. When one is considering political systems or
elitism in terms of public policy, one is abstracting from the real situation in an
effort to simplify and identify significant aspects of public policy. In other words,
in the field of public policy, models help to classify our ideas about public policy
environment. They not only identify issues but also suggest explanations for
public policy and its effects. In this Unit an attempt is made to examine public
policy-making models which have been developed over the years.
* Contributed by Dr. R.K. Sapru, Professor of Public Administration (Retired), Panjab University,
26
Chandigarh
 Public Policy: Models
2.2 SYSTEMS MODEL FOR POLICY ANALYSIS
The Policy-making process has been regarded by David Easton as a ‘black box’,
which converts the demands of the society into policies. While analysing political
systems David Easton (1965) argues that the political system is that part of the
society, which is engaged in the authoritative allocation of values. Inputs are
seen as the physical, social, economic and political products of the environment.
They are received into the political system in the form of both demands and
supports. Demands are the claims made on the political system by individuals
and groups to alter some aspect(s) of public policy.

The supports of a political system consist of the rules, laws and customs that
provide a basis for the existence of a political community and the authorities.
Support is rendered when individuals or groups accept the decisions or laws.
Supports are the symbolic or material inputs of a system (for example, obeying
laws, paying taxes, or even respecting the national flag, etc.) that constitute the
psychological and material resources of the system.

At the heart of the political system are the institutions and actors for policy-
making. These include the chief executive, legislators, judges and bureaucrats.
In the system’s version they translate inputs into outputs. Outputs, then, are the
authoritative value allocations of the political system, and these allocations
constitute what is called public policy or policies. The system theory portrays
public policy as an output of the political system. Thus, in brief, the systems
model relies on information from feedback, inputs and outputs as being cyclical.
Policy is originated, implemented, adjusted, and readjusted.
Limits of Systems Model
The systems model is a useful aid in understanding the policy-making process.
However, its use is limited owing to several factors. It is argued that this input-
output model appears to be too simplistic to serve as a useful aid to understanding
the policy-making process. This model is accused of employing the value-laden
techniques of welfare economics. Another shortcoming of the traditional input-
output model is that it ignores the fragmentary nature of the ‘black box’. Lineberry
(1984) observes that political decision-makers are often constrained by economic
factors in the environment in the political system. The Estonian model also ignores
the fact that the policy-makers (including institutions) have considerable potential
in influencing the environment within which they operate. Easton considers his
model operating in a neutral structure, but critics argue that structural variations
in the systems do have direct causal effects on public policy.

Further, it is argued that both the political and bureaucratic elite fashion mass
opinion more than masses shape the leadership’s views. Although it is
acknowledged that the bureaucracy has become a powerful institution, and plays
a critical role the bureaucracy in formulating policy, inputs by way of demands
and supports tend to be equally important in a democratic context. Finally, it is
stated that it is difficult to pinpoint the extent to which different inputs such as
the demands & supports of the public, the influence from the environment and
the values and perceptions of the policy makers (the political elites and the
bureaucracy in particular) influence the outcomes, i.e., public policy.

27
Public Policy On the whole the work of David Easton (1965), although not regarded as primarily
‘public policy’, has made a vital contribution to the establishment of policy
approach in that it provided a systems model for policy analysis.

2.3 INSTITUTIONAL MODEL AND PUBLIC

POLICY
Institutional model focuses on the government as an institution for policy analysis.
It covers the realms of key government institutions – Parliament, Executive
(including government departments) and Judiciary. In other words, a policy
does not take the shape unless it is adopted and implemented by governmental
institutions. The government institutions endow public policy with three distinct
characteristics. Firstly, the government invests legal authority to policies.
Secondly, application of a public policy is universal. Only public policies extend
to all citizens in the state. Thirdly, public policy involves coercion. It is applied
to the acts of government in backing up its decisions. A policy conveys the
possibility for imposing penalties, through coercion, if necessary. Only the
government can legally impose negative sanctions on violators of its policies.
As such, there is a close tie-up between public policy and governmental
institutions. The institutional approach to public policy, which depends on the
interactions of those institutions created by the constitution, legislature or
government, has gained significance.

In policy-making, different individuals and groups, such as, the Executive or

Cabinet, the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, or leaders of
interest groups exercise power. Each exercise of power constitutes one of the
influences, thus becoming an input to the policy-making process, generally
consisting of a series of related decisions often made under the influence of
political elites and powerful groups. The institutional approach is also concerned
with explaining how social groups and governmental institutions bring influence
to bear on those authorised to take and implement legally binding decisions.
Such decision-makers include those who hold office within the formal/
constitutional system of rules and regulations, which give formal authority and
power to them.

Institutionalism, with its focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions,
can be applied in policy analysis. According to Thomas Dye (2004), governmental
institutions are structured pattern of behaviour of individuals and groups, which
persist over a period of time. Traditionally, the focus of study was the description
of governmental structures and institutions. The approach did not, however, devote
adequate attention to the linkages between government structures and the content
of public policy. Further, the institutional approach was not backed by any
systematic enquiry about the impact of these institutional characteristics on public
policy decisions. The study of linkage between government structures and policy
outcomes, therefore, remained largely unanalysed and somewhat neglected.

Despite its narrow focus, the structural approach is not outdated. Government
institutions and structures, in fact, have enormous influence on decision-making
and the content of public policy. The institutional approach suggests that
government institutions may be structured in such ways as to facilitate certain
policy outcomes. These patterns may give an advantage to certain interests in
society and withhold this advantage to others. Rules and institutional arrangements
28
are usually not neutral in their impact. In fact, they tend to favour some interests Public Policy: Models
in society over others. Some individual groups may enjoy, therefore, greater
power or access to government power under one set of structured patterns than
under another set. In other words, institutional characteristics have an impact on
policy outcomes. Under the institutional approach one can study the relationships
between the institutional arrangements and the content of public policy. Therefore,
specific policy issues can be examined in a systematic fashion with a focus on
institutional arrangements. Carl J. Friedrich’s Constitutional Government and
Democracy (1941) is a representative work on the institutional approach.

The value of the institutional approach to policy analysis lies in asking what
relationships exist between institutional arrangements and the content of public
policy, and also in investigating these relationships in a comparative fashion.
However, it would not be right to assume that a particular change in institutional
structure would automatically bring about changes in public policy. Without
investigating the underlying relationship between structure and policy, it is
difficult to assess the impact of institutional arrangements on public policies. In
this context, Thomas Dye says, “both structure and policy are largely determined
by environmental forces, and that tinkering with institutional arrangement will
have little independent impact on public policy if underlying environmental forces
– social, economic, and political – remain constant” (Dye, 1980).

2.4 RATIONAL POLICY-MAKING MODEL

The idea of ‘rationality’ has an important place in the study of policy and decision-
making in the post-World War II era. Two sources are mainly responsible for this
rational approach: (i) the idea of economic ‘rationality’ as it grew in economic
theory, and (ii) the idea of ‘bureaucratic’, rationality, as advocated in sociological
theories of organisation.

The concept of rationality, as it has been applied in public policy, has its roots in
the construction of ‘economic man’, a ‘calculating self-interested individual’.
The Weberian model (formulated by Max Weber, a German Sociologist) of the
rational imperative, or the choice of the most appropriate means to achieve the
desired ends, has transformed the analytical approach to decision making studies.
This approach emphasises that policy decisions involve a choice among policy
alternatives on rational grounds. Rational policy-making is “to choose the one
best option” (Dror, 1968). Thomas Dye equates rationality with efficiency. “A
policy is rational when the difference between the values it achieves and the
values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other policy alternative”. He
further observes that the idea of efficiency involves the calculation of all social,
political, and economic values sacrificed or achieved by a public policy, not just
those that can be measured in monetary terms.

Conditions and Stages for Rational Analysis

Rational decision-making model is a “model of decision-making in which it is
assumed that decision-makers have nearly all information about a problem, its
causes, and its solutions at their disposal, whereupon a large number of alternatives
can be weighted and the best one selected” (Birkland, 2011).

Thomas Dye prescribes a few requirements to policy-makers in selecting a rational

policy. They must: 29
Public Policy i) know all the society’s value preferences and their relative weights,
ii) know all the policy alternatives available,
iii) know all the consequences at each policy alternative,
iv) calculate the ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative, and
v) select the most efficient policy alternative” (Dye, 2004).
Rational policy-making is a very difficult exercise. It requires capacity to know
the consequences of alternative policies, and the intelligence to calculate correctly
the ratio of costs to benefits. Herbert Simon further notes, “although individuals
are intendedly rational, their rationality is bounded by limited cognitive and
emotional capacities”. Rational policy-making, thus, requires making hard choices
among policy alternatives. It entails a sequential approach of many stages before
the most efficient policy alternative is selected.

Once a policy choice is selected, the rational policy-maker is required to monitor

its implementation systematically to ensure the accuracy of the expectations and
estimates. If necessary, the policy-maker may modify the policy or give it up
altogether. This is called ‘the feedback stage’ of rational policy-making.
Constraints to Rationality
The concept of rationality is bandied about so much and so indiscriminately that
it threatens to lose its value. It is more widely found in theory than in practice.
Some of the important constraints to rational policy-making are:

i) Accomplishing Goals: Rational policy-making is a very difficult exercise.

The expectation that a rational policy will always emerge is limited. By the
time the policy-maker recommends a rational policy, the problem in question
may, at times, become so complex that the prescriptions become decisions
that are made on the basis of other goals. It is also possible that the decision
makers try to maximise their own rewards, such as power, status, money and
prospect of re-election. Therefore, rational policy-making might turn out to
be more an exercise than the actual realisation of a set a goals.

ii) Securing Optimisation: The rational policy-making model is expected to

produce optimal results. But in reality, it does not always happen. The public
interest is considered to be more important than being merely the sum of
individual interests in the policy. If air pollution control is a public interest,
because all share in its benefit, then the strategy might require that every
automobile sold is to be fitted with an expensive set of anti-pollution emission
control devices, making it to cost more. Yet, few citizens are willing to pay
more from their pockets to reduce automobile emissions. Thus, the motivation
for various stakeholders in a policy to try to maximise net goal achievement
is not always uniformly present. Further, policy makers in government merely
try to satisfy certain demands. They do not strive to search until they find the
one best way or the most efficient alternative.

iii) Conflict Between Rational Choice and Need for Action: There is often a
conflict between the search for rational behaviour and the need for action.
As already stated, policy-makers are not motivated to make decisions on the
basis of rationality, but try instead to maximise their own rewards. Secondly,
the time for a thorough analysis of impending legislation may be short. In an
30
 emergency situation, action is sought immediately. There is also no consensus Public Policy: Models
on the societal values. The prevalence of any conflicting values among
specific groups and individuals make it difficult for the policy-maker to
compare and weigh the available alternatives before taking a decision.

iv) Dilemma of Political Feasibility: The dilemma of political feasibility also

confronts every policy maker. The best decision may not be politically
desirable. It may not be a vote-getter. Politicians too often resolve the dilemma
of political feasibility by avoidance of conflict, a safe bet for them. Uncertainty
about the consequences of different policy alternatives may also force
politicians to stick to previous policies. Elected officials do not want to
sacrifice their chances of re-election at the cost of rationality in policy-making.

v) Problem of Cost-Benefit Analysis: It is difficult for the policy-makers to

calculate the cost-benefit ratios accurately when many diverse social,
economic, political and cultural values are at stake. Apart from these, policy-
makers have personal needs, inhibitions and inadequacies, which render them
incapable of assessing all possible alternatives to arrive at a rational decision.

vi) Segmented Nature of Bureaucracy: Another important obstacle to rational

policy-making is what Thomas Dye refers to as the segmented nature of
policy-making in large bureaucracies, which “makes it difficult to coordinate
decision-making so that the input of all of the various specialists is brought
to bear at the point of decision.” Fragmentation of authority, satisfying
personal goals, conflicting values, limited technology, uncertainty about the
possible policy alternatives and consequences thereof, and other factors limit
the capacity of bureaucracies and other public organisations to make rational
policies.

The pursuit of a rational model by analysis would often be undemocratic. Denhardt

observes that policy analysts typically apply technical solutions to the immediate
problems. Under such circumstances, Denhardt notes, “technical concerns would
displace political and ethical concerns as the basis for public decision-making,
thereby transforming normative issues into technical problems”. For-example,
on 7 July 2015 the National Green Tribunal banned all commercial activities
including horse-riding, snow biking and paragliding at Rohtang, Solang and
Marhi. It was not a wise decision. It stands to reason that the rational policy-
making model sets up goals and procedures involving a very difficult exercise. It
is not always an impossible exercise, at least in some policy arenas. Indeed, it is
desirable in the public interest that policy makers attempt to maximise the
outcomes. As such, this model remains one of critical importance for analytic
purposes as it also helps to identify the constraints to rationality.
Check Your Progress 1
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the Unit.
1) Outline the characteristics of the institutional approach to policy-making
and point out its shortcomings.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
31
Public Policy 2) Critically examine the policy-making models and suggest best suitable model/
models for a democratic country.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

2.5 INCREMENTAL MODEL

Charles Lindblom (1917- 2018) is a critic of the traditional rationality model. In
criticising the rational model as advocated by Simon and others, Lindblom rejected
the idea that decision-making was essentially something which was about defining
goals, selecting alternatives and comparing alternatives. Lindblom wanted to
show that rational decision-making was simply “not workable for complex policy
questions”. To Lindblom, constraints of time, intelligence, cost and politics prevent
policy-makers to identify societal goals and their consequences. He drew the
distinction between Herbert Simon’s concept of comprehensive (or root)
rationality and his own idea of ‘successive limited comparisons’ (or branch
decision-making).

2.5.1 Two Models of Decision-Making

The incremental approach (branch method) of decision-making involves a process
of “continually building out from the current situation, step-by-step and by small
degrees”. Noted below is a detailed comparison of the Rational and Incremental
approaches:

Rational Approach (Root) Incremental Approach (Branch)

(i) Identification of societal values or Selection of values or goals and

goals is necessary to empirical empirical analysis of the needed
analysis of alternative policies. action are interlinked.(Footnotes)
(ii) Policy-making is approached Means-ends analysis is often
through means-ends analysis. inappropriate.

(iii) The test of a ‘good policy’ is that it The test of a ‘good policy’ is that
is a means to an agreed end. various analysts find themselves
directly agreeing on a policy.
(iv) Analysis is comprehensive Analysis is limited.
involving every relevant factor.

(v) Theory is often heavily relied upon Successive limited comparison

reduces dependence on theory.

Source: Lindblono,1959.

32
In contrast, the ‘root’ approach as favoured by the policy analysts was to start Public Policy: Models
from “fundamentals anew each time, building on the past only as experience
embodied in a theory, and always prepared to start from the ground up”. According
to Lindblom, the method of “successive limited comparison” is both more relevant
and more realistic in a situation of “bounded rationality”. To Simon’s problem,
Lindblom’s answer is that we do not need to search out new techniques; we need
to be more appreciative of the benefits of ‘non-comprehensive analysis’.

Lindblom calls the rational comprehensive method of decision making the ‘root’
method, because decisions start from the “root” of the issue or problem.
Incrementalism is the “branch,” he argues, because it uses and builds on what is
already known, without relying on reanalysing everything about what is currently
being done. In this way, the incremental method allows the decision maker to
take a fair number of shortcuts: it eliminates the need to explicitly separate means
from ends, to pick the analytically “best” policy, and to rely heavily on theories
that the decision maker may have neither the time nor the inclination to use.

2.5.2 Features of Incremental Model

The following features characterise the decision-making in terms of ‘muddling
through’. First, it proceeds through a succession of incremental changes, often
to the existing policies because of the uncertainty about the consequence of new
or different policies. Second, it involves mutual adjustment and negotiation. The
test of a good decision is agreement rather than goal achievement. Agreement
tends to be easier in policy-making when the items in dispute increase or decrease
in budgets, or modifications to existing programmes. Thus incrementalism is
significant in reducing political-tension and maintaining stability. Third,
incremental approach involves trial and error method. It is superior to a “futile
attempt at superhuman comprehensiveness”. Human beings rarely act to maximise
all their values; on the contrary, they act to satisfy particular demands. They
seldom search for the “one best way”, but instead search to find “a way that will
work”. In his subsequent writings Lindblom develops his theory further. In this,
he notes that there are three main forms to incremental analysis: (i) Simple
incremental analysis, (ii) Strategic analysis, and (iii) Disjointed incrementalism.

i) Simple Incremental Analysis: It is a form of analysis in which only those

alternative policies which are marginally different to the existing policy are
analysed.

ii) Strategic Analysis: Lindblom suggests reliance on“informed thoughtful”

use of methods to “simplify problems” so as to make better choices. These
methods include: “trial and error learning; systems analysis; operations
research; management by objectives; programme evaluation and review
technique”.

iii) Disjointed Incrementalism: It is an analytical strategy which involves

“simplifying and focussing” on problems by six methods: (i) the limitation
of analysis for a few familiar alternatives; (ii) intertwining values and policy
goals with empirical analysis of problems; (iii) focussing on ills to be remedied
rather than on goals to be sought; (iv) trial-and-error learning; (v) analysing
a limited number of options and their consequences; (vi) fragmenting of
analytical work to many partisan participations in policy-making.
33
Public Policy 2.5.3 Criticism and Conclusion
Since 1959, when Lindblom advocated incremental decision-making, there had
been shifts in his in his arguments. He began as a pluralist, but two decades
later, he attacks the idea of pluralism, offers a radical critique of the business,
and believes that there is a need for drastic radical change in a whole range of
policy areas, and that the whole world is in dire need of more than simply
incremental change. Such statements contradict his earlier idea of the impossibility
of drastic change. Lindblom also turned out to be a critic of incrementalism as a
‘political ideology’. He has almost discarded many of his earlier ideas about the
policy-making process.

Both Y. Dror and A. Etzioni, are not convinced that incremental model is either
realistic or a satisfactory normative account of decision-making. To Dror, this
model is profoundly conservative and is suitable in those situations where policy
is deemed to be working or is satisfactory where problems are quite stable over
time, and where there are resources available.

Taken as a whole, the central concern of Lindblom’s work has been to explore
the constraints that shape decision-making in the modern policy process. At best,
he is a critique of Simon’s rationality model. One should appreciate Lindblom’s
concern that the policy-making process can be improved and that we have to
find ways for effective policy making.

2.6 ELITE MODEL OF POLICY PROCESS

In political science there is a widely shared view that the policy-making process
is dominated by the most powerful elites. Elite theory of the policy process is
based on the proposition that power is concentrated in the hands of a few elites.
Policy-making, according to the elite theory, is a process which works to the
advantage of these elites. The theory holds that in the real world there are those
at the top with power and others at the bottom - the mass - without power. The
theory also contends, that the elite whose members share common values and
have more money, education and power, governs the masses who are apathetic
and ill-informed about public policy. In an environment, which is characterised
by apathy and information distortion, elites influence mass opinion on policy
issues more than masses influence elite opinion. In this framework policy flows
downward from the elite to the mass. Thus, public policy is viewed as “the
preferences and values of governing elite”. Public officials and administrators
merely implement the policies decided on by the elites

The theory has its origins in the work of Mosca and Pareto. They argued that,
contrary to Marx, elitism is inevitable and that classless society is a myth. Later
Mosca modified his view and argued that democracy could be viewed as a form
of politics in which elites compete for the people’s vote in order to secure
legitimacy for the elite rule. Drawing upon Mosca’s ideas, Robert Michels, in a
study of political parties, argued that there was an iron law of oligarchy which
operated in organisations (Michels, 1915).Joseph Schumpeter observed that
elitism would be legitimated in a democracy by a political market composed of
competing parties and rival elites. To the development of the elite theory,
Lasswell’s contribution is significant. He took the view that: “the study of politics
is the study of influence and the influential…. The influential are those who get
34
the most of what there is to get… Those who get the most are elite, the rest are Public Policy: Models
mass” (Lasswell, 1936).

2.6.1 Propositions and Implications of the Elite Model

A brief summary of the propositions of the elite theory is as follows:
1) Society is divided into (1) the elites who govern and have the power to decide
on public policy, and (2) the masses who are governed and do not have
power to decide on public policy.
2) Elites share common values and have money, education and power whereas
the masses are apathetic and ill-informed. Elite members are drawn
disproportionately from the higher socio-economic strata of the society.
3) Public policy does not reflect the demands of masses, but rather the
preferences and values of governing elite.
4) The bases of elites, who share consensus on the basic values of the social
system, are the sanctity of private property, limited government and individual
liberty.
5) Elites shape mass opinion on policy issues more than masses shape elite
opinion.
6) Elite theory recognises the possibility of elite-mass conflict.

2.6.2 Criticism and Conclusion

First, decision-making, according to the elite theory, is a process which works to
the advantage of elites in whom power is concentrated. As such, public policy
seldom reflects the demands of the masses as it does of the elite. Therefore,
changes in public policy occur as a result of redefinitions by elites of their own
values and choices. Because elite share a consensus in preserving the social
system, changes in the public policy are brought about through reforms
(incremental in nature) when events threaten the system. The stability of the
system, therefor, depends on elites sharing in a consensus about fundamental
values underlying the system, and only policy alternatives that fall within the
shared consensus would be given serious consideration.

The values of elites may be oriented towards the welfare of the public. The welfare
of the masses may be an important element in elite decision-making, but the
responsibility for the welfare rests on the shoulders of elites rather than masses.

Second, elite theory purports that masses are apathetic and ill-informed about
public policy, and that elites manipulate mass opinion and sentiments on policy
flows downward to the disadvantage of the mass. Therefore, policy questions
are seldom decided by the masses through popular elections or through the
presentation of policy options by political parties. For the most part, elections
and political parties play symbolic roles. Elitism views the masses as largely
apathetic having at best an indirect influence over the policy-making process of
elites.

35
Public Policy
2.7 PUBLIC CHOICE MODEL
2.7.1 Introduction
Public choice and political economy are terms coined by scholars that became
popular in the literature of social sciences since the early 1960s. It has its base in
the rational choice theory. It is oriented towards an understanding of the realm of
public choice, that is, politics and bureaucracy. D Mueller defines the public
choice approach as “… simply the application of economics to political science.
The subject-matter of public choice is the same as that of political science… The
methodology of public choice is that of economics, however (Muller, 1979).

The origins of this approach may be found in the works of Gordon Tullock,
Anthony Downs and William Niskanen. Public choice theory rejects the traditional
idea of policy as the search for public welfare. Like private entrepreneurs, who
are intent upon maximising profits, politicians are guided by private concerns to
the same extent in their roles in public policy. A maximisation of politician’s
objectives results in the selection of those policies that tend to meet citizen’s
expectations. The intent of the politicians is to maximise the likelihood of winning
elections. In the political business cycle model, it predicts that the politicians in
governments will attempt to manipulate and stimulate the economy before an
election and deflate the economy after the election. Often the government spending
on programmes would be huge, highly attractive and visible to the people before
an election, only to impose more taxes or bring down deficits after the election.

2.7.2 Major Contributors

Anthony Downs, in his book Inside Bureaucracy, assumes that decision-making
in bureaucracies is based on the pursuit of self-interest. Downs argues that the
motivations of individual officials are diverse such as power, money, income,
prestige, personality, loyalty, security, etc. Different types of bureaucrats may
have different motivations and approaches, but they have a common goal -
maximisation of self-interest. One common result is increase in the size of their
respective Departments.

William Niskanen, in his book, Bureaucracy and Representative Government,

observes that those who work in bureaucracies seek to maximise their budgets
and the size of the Departments or offices under their control. He contends that it
is only by increasing the budget that they can maximise their self-interest. He
also argues that like markets the Departments allocate resources and make
decisions.

Buchanan, another Public Choice theorist, notes, instead of committing

themselves distributional ideals, persons in the decision making system “…are
likely to seek to further their own well-defined interests”. Gordon Tullock’s
work is considered to be amongst the earliest contributions to the Public Choice
approach. For him the study of politics, policy-planning and bureaucracy should
be based on the same assumptions which might be used to explain the behaviour
of firms, business people and consumers in a market economy. The following set
of generalisations emerges from Tullock’s studies:

36
i) Political parties contesting elections make excessive promises to get votes. Public Policy: Models

ii) Politicians in power maximise the likelihood of winning elections through

manipulating the economy.

iii) The power of bureaucracy has increased by serving itself rather than the
public interest.

iv) The political processes of liberal democracy are failing to supervise and
control the growth of political and bureaucratic power.

These propositions emphasise the importance of market forces in exercising

control over political and bureaucratic power. Tullock, in common with other
advocates of public choice theory, recommended the introduction of competition
into bureaucracy through contracting-out, privatisation and increasing competition
between government departments by rewarding performance.

2.7.3 Critical Observations

There is a lot of criticism about the basic assumptions on which public choice
models are built. Public choice models score low on moral attractiveness as public
policy is modified as being only rent-seeking behaviour from special interest
groups.

The main weakness of these models lies in the lack of empirical validation as the
evidence is mixed. The view that bureaucratic decision-making is prompted by
the pursuit of self-interest which can only find expression in increased budgets
and bigger bureaux or Departments needs empirical support. Moreover, we know
little about the utility of personnel who work in government offices in contrast to
those who work in profit maximising firms. The size of bureaux or Department
was also questioned. The experience of the 1990s in many developed and
developing countries was that there was no reduction in the number of civil
servants when a number of activities were transferred from government
bureaucracy to private agencies. It is, therefore, argued that the public choice
approach scores low on objectivity as it is primarily oriented towards market
values.
Check Your Progress 2
Note: i) Use the space given below for your answers.
ii) Check your answers with those given at the end of the Unit.
1) Differentiate Lindblom’s incremental approach from comprehensive
Rationality.
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................

2) Critically examine Elite Model of the Policy Process.

.......................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................
37
Public Policy
2.8 CONCLUSION
The Unit dealt with the various approaches and models of public policy. It
emphasises public policy as an important area of politics and public management.
As a separate approach it is useful in studying the interaction between government
that produces policies, and its people for whom the policies are intended. There
are now two public policy approaches, each with its own methods and emphases.
The first is labelled as ‘Policy Analysis’; the second, ‘Political Public Policy’.

From a policy analysis perspective, Putt and Springer (1989) argue that the
function of policy research is to facilitate the analysis of public policy process
by providing accurate and useful decision-related information. The skills required
to produce information, which is technically sound and useful, lie at the heart of
the policy research process, regardless of the specific methodology employed.
Attempting to bring modern science and technology to bear on societal problems,
policy analysis searches for appropriate methods and techniques that help the
policy-makers to choose the most advantageous action.

There is another approach (Lynn) that emphasises on political interaction from

which policy is derived. Here, it is rather more difficult to separate public policy
from the political process and sometimes it becomes difficult to analyse whether
a particular study is one of public policy or politics. Public Policy, in this sense,
is seen to be different from the traditional model of public administration. Public
Policy is, therefore, more ‘political’ than ‘public administration’. It is an effort
to apply the methods of political analysis to policy areas (for example health,
education, and environment). But this approach cannot escape from an analysis
of the processes inside the bureaucracy. As such, it is also related to public
administration. The policy analysts use statistical methods and models of
outcomes of public policy. Whatever may be, both public policy and policy
analysis remain useful in bringing attention to what governments do, in contrast
to the public administration theorist’s concern with how they operate, and in
applying empirical methods to aid policy-making. Public policy-making, as
distinct from its study, now seems to be a mixture of both of these perspectives.

2.9 GLOSSARY
Black Box: It is a model of systems analysis popularised by David Easton (1965).
It is suggested that within the black box the processing of inputs takes place to
produce outputs/outcomes. David Easton, like other positivist thinkers, assumes
and believes that there is a definable cause and effect relationship between
supports, demands, and outputs. However, critics argue that the approach is too
mechanical and rigid.

Incrementalism: A model of decision-making in which policy change is

accomplished through small, incremental steps that allow decision makers to
adjust policies as they learn from their successes and failures.

2.10 REFERENCES
Anderson, J.E. (1984). Public Policy-Making. New York: CBS College
Publishing.
38
Birkland, T.A. (2011). An Introduction to the Policy Process. New Delhi, India: Public Policy: Models
PHI Learning.

Braybrooke, D. & Lindblom, C.E. (1963). A Strategy of Decision. New York:

Free Press.

Buchanan, J.M. (1988). Market Failure and Political Failure. Cato Journal. 8(1).

Dror, Y. (1964). Muddling through-science or inertia? Public Administration

Review.24.

Dror, Y. (1989). Public Policy-Making Re-examined. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction Publishers.

Dye, T.R. & Gray, V. (Eds.). (1980). The Determinants of Public Policy. Toronto.

Dye, T.R. (2004). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Easton, D. (1957). An approach to the analysis of political systems. World Politics.

9(1).

Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.

Friedrich, C.J. (1941). Constitutional Government and Democracy. Boston: Little,

Brown & Company.

Hogwood, B.W. & Gunn, L.A. (1987). Policy Analysis for the Real World.
London: Oxford University Press.

Lane, J-E. (2000). The Public Sector. London: Sage Publications.

Lindblom, C. (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-

Hall.

Lindblom, C. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration

Review.19.

Lindblom, C. (1965). The Intelligence of Democracy. New York: Free Press.

Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and Markets. New York: Basic Books.

Lindblom, C. (1979). Still Muddling Through. Not Yet There. Public

Administration Review. 39.

Lindblom, C., & Woodhouse, E.J. (1993). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood
Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Lineberry, R.L. (1984). American Public Policy: What Government does and
What Difference it Makes. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Michels, R. (1959). Political Parties. Retrieved from https://socialsciences.

mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/michels/polipart.pdf

Mill, C.W. (1956). The Power Elite. London: Oxford University.

Mueller, D. (1979). Public Choice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

39
Public Policy Niskanen, W.A. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. Chicago:
Aldine.

Putt, A. & Springer, F. (1989). Policy Research: Concepts, Methods and

Appreciations. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Sahni, P. (1987). Public Policy: Conceptual Dimensions. Allahabad, India: Kitab

Mahal.

Simon, H. (1957). Administrative Behaviour. London: Macmillan.

Tullock, G. (1965). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs

Press.

2.11 ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS

EXERCISES
Check Your Progress Exercise 1
1) Your answer should include the following points:
Definition of institutional approach
Perspective of institutional approach
It’s characteristics
2) Your answer should include the following points:
Systems model
Rational policy making model
Best suitable Model
Check Your Progress Exercise 2
1) Your answer should include the following points:
A brief about Incremental Approach
Differences between Incremental and Rational Approach (both root and
branch)
2) Your answer should include the following points:
Brief about elite model
Propositions and implications

40