What is Haldane Principle?

- Decisions regarding the funding and allocation of resources for scientific research should be
made by experts within the scientific and academic community rather than by politicians or
government officials

Why Policy Models?

- Parsimony 俭朴: Real-world is complicated and messy with many actors potentially involved, so
inevitably want to introduce some degree of parsimony to focus on a smaller number of critical
variables
- Futures Thinking: To anticipate future policy outcome need to be able to identify evolution of
key drivers
- Understanding Recommendations: Different disciplines will explain the process drawing on the
assumptions and approaches commonly used in their disciplines (e.g., economics, politics,
sociology) leading to very different perspectives and recommendations
- Policy-based evidence: Policy models often underpin or betray a particular view of how society
(and politics) operate and lead to policy recommendations that support or reinforce this is
overarching view

Policy models might help us explain

- Past, present future
- Disruption
- Preferences

Discuss Policy Process

1. Institutionalism (John, 2003):
• Description: Institutionalism focuses on the formal structures and rules that influence
policymaking. It emphasizes the role of institutions, such as legislatures, bureaucracies,
and courts, in shaping policy decisions. In part, institutions are formal arrangements,
such as electoral systems, the division of powers, and the salience of the higher courts;
but there are also the practices embedded in formal organizational arrangements,
which are sometimes called standard operating procedures (SOP)
• Critique: Institutionalism can be overly focused on formal processes and may not
adequately consider informal networks and power dynamics that influence
policymaking. Bad at explaining large scale change. But institutionalists find it harder
to explain bursts of change, such as improvements in policy performance or the
imminence of policy disasters, which are some of the crucial issues
• Example: The passing of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) in the United States can
be analyzed through institutionalism by examining the role of Congress and the formal
legislative process in shaping the policy.
2. Rationalism:
• Description: Rationalism assumes that policymakers make decisions based on a rational
assessment of costs and benefits. It emphasizes the role of economic and quantitative
analysis in policymaking. Decisions are choices between alternatives
• Critique: Rationalism may oversimplify the complex nature of policymaking by assuming
that decisions are always made based on objective, rational criteria. Also, it fails to
clarify Whose values? Does rational = best?
 • Example: The decision by a government to invest in a public infrastructure project, like a
high-speed rail system, can be analyzed using rationalism by assessing the expected
economic benefits and costs.
3. Incrementalism (a critique of rationalist approach):
• Description: Incrementalism suggests that policymaking is characterized by small,
incremental changes to existing policies rather than dramatic shifts. It assumes that
policymakers prefer to make gradual adjustments.
• Critique: Incrementalism can be criticized for being slow to address major societal
challenges and for not adequately responding to changing circumstances.
• Example: Social security policy adjustments in many countries often follow incremental
changes to gradually adapt to demographic shifts.

Incrementalism vs. Rationalism

- Incrementalism suggests that policymaking is more evolutionary, with changes occurring slowly
and incrementally, while the rationalist model portrays a more deliberate and calculated
process.
- Incrementalism tends to lead to less policy conflict because it does not challenge the existing
order significantly. It is seen as a pragmatic and less disruptive approach to policy change.
Rationalist decisions can sometimes lead to higher levels of policy conflict because they may
challenge existing practices and established interests. Rationalists are willing to make major
policy changes if supported by evidence and analysis.

4. Group:
• Description: Group models emphasize the role of interest groups, stakeholders, and
advocacy groups in shaping policy decisions. They view policymaking as the result of
competition and negotiation among these groups.
• Critique: Group models may neglect the broader societal interests and values that
should inform policymaking. They can also lead to concerns about undue influence by
well-funded interest groups. What is the definition of ‘group’ and ‘interest? What is the
role of individuals in these theories? How do they take part of the policy process? What
is the role of society?
 • Example: The debate over environmental policies, such as climate change mitigation,
often involves the influence of various interest groups, like environmental organizations
and fossil fuel industry representatives.

•
5. Elite:
• Description: The elite model suggests that a small, influential group of individuals or
organizations has a disproportionate influence on policymaking, often to the detriment
of broader public interests.
• Critique: The elite model can be overly pessimistic, assuming that policymakers are
consistently driven by self-interest and disregard the needs of the general population.
• Example: Some critics argue that the financial industry elites had significant influence
in shaping government responses to the 2008 financial crisis.

•
6. Public Choice:
• Description: Public choice theory applies economic principles to policymaking and
assumes that individuals and groups act in their self-interest. It examines how policies
are influenced by rational choices made by policymakers and the public. Assumes all
actors seek to maximize their personal benefits in both the political and the market
spheres. Policy is collective decision making by self-interested individuals
• Critique: Critics argue that public choice theory may oversimplify the complexity of
political decision-making and ignore issues of equity and justice.
• Example: Public choice theory can be applied to analyze the design of tax policies and
how they reflect the preferences of different interest groups.
7. ACF - Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier, 1988):
• Description: The advocacy coalition framework focuses on the role of competing
coalitions of actors with differing beliefs and interests. It emphasizes how these
 coalitions work together and against each other to shape policy outcomes. According to
the ACF, people engage in politics to translate their beliefs into action (Chapter 4).
There are three main types of beliefs: core, policy core, and secondary. Actors with
similar beliefs become part of the same advocacy coalition, and coalitions compete
with each other. We can identify a role for institutions as venues when coalitions
compete for influence in multiple arenas. However, the main focus of the ACF is the
sub-system, which represents a key venue (with particular rules of engagement) for
coalition interaction. The ACF’s conceptualization of subsystems is distinctive, focusing
on actors beyond government and interest groups, to include, for example, academics
and analysts. The ACF flow diagram identifies spillover effects from other policy
subsystems and events, such as a change in government or a shift in governmental
priorities, on subsystems. However, its focus is on how coalitions interpret and respond
to events—as external or internal shocks. Major responses to shocks are far less
frequent than policy learning and the revision of secondary aspects of coalition beliefs.
Overall, the ACF covers all the major elements of the policy process as well as
interactions among these elements, although the role of institutions is addressed less
directly than the other elements.
• Critique: Critics argue that this model can be overly complex and challenging to apply in
practice. It may also underemphasize the role of individual policymakers and
institutions.
• Example: The development and evolution of education policies, influenced by teacher
unions, parent groups, and education reform advocates, can be analyzed through this
framework.
8. PET - Punctuated Equilibrium (John, 2003 & Baumgartner and Jones, 1993):
• Description: This model suggests that policy changes occur sporadically and in
significant shifts, with long periods of stability in between. It emphasizes that policies
tend to remain stable until they face a crisis or external shock.
Baumgartner and Jones write, “Policy diffusion, with its S-shaped curve, is remarkably
like the punctuated equilibrium model in which the system shifts rapidly from one stable
point to another” (1993, p. 17).
• Critique: Punctuated equilibrium may understate the role of incremental changes and
routine policymaking in shaping public policy. But there may be some important
questions unanswered: at what point do these external processes impact on decision
making; what is the exact shape of the S-shaped relationship between external change
and policy outputs and outcomes; at what point in the bend does the punctuation
start to emerge; what is the relationship between the nature of the policy input and the
character of the policy-output; and does the punctuated equilibrium tell us what kind
of policies emerge or is it just about the quantity of them? The last question is the
most crucial one of them all.
• Example: Changes in immigration policy, such as the introduction of the Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the United States, can be understood
through punctuated equilibrium during moments of policy disruption.
9. MS - Multiple Streams (Kingdon, 1997):
• Description: The multiple streams model suggests that policy changes result from the
convergence of problem recognition, policy proposals, and political opportunities.
These streams come together at specific points, creating windows for policy change.
Policy windows: opportunities for advocates of proposals to push their solutions, or to
push attention to their special problems; The three streams are joint by ‘policy
 entrepreneurs’, individuals or corporate actors that are interested in pushing for their
policy ideas.

•
• Critique: Critics argue that the model can be challenging to apply in practice and may
not explain all policy changes, especially those driven by long-term planning. Are the
streams really independent?
• Example: The passage of laws related to public health during a pandemic, such as
COVID-19, can be analyzed through the multiple streams framework, considering the
convergence of public health crises and political opportunities.

Major criticisms of MS, PET and ACF approaches

“[all] suffered from the inability to state clearly underlying processes nor do they pay attention to the
end results; policy outputs of policy decisions”
The three reference approaches in policy studies, namely the multiple streams approach (MS), advocacy
coalition framework (ACF), and punctuated-equilibrium theory (PET), have faced criticisms in three
major levels:
1. They don't thoroughly explain how small-scale actions affect the policy process or how
institutions influence individual behavior within this process. The MS and PET neglect issues
related to collective action and coordination during policy changes, whereas the ACF has
addressed some of these concerns but requires further development. Additionally, these
approaches do not adequately consider the role of institutions in shaping participants'
behavior.
2. They lack a strong theoretical framework for understanding how different parts of the policy
process interact, including how influences cross boundaries between policy subsystems and
how specialized decision-making groups within these subsystems interact.
3. Each approach tends to favor a specific explanation for policy change, limiting their ability to
comprehensively understand the complex process. For example, the MS focuses on external
environmental factors, the PET emphasizes strategic behavior, and the ACF is more open to
various causal paths. However, they generally do not consider the actual policy designs
implemented as part of their explanatory scope.
 10. Synthetic Framework (Real-Dato 2009)
• Synthetic framework takes the positive aspects of each of these three models, paying
special attention to the mechanisms to understand what happens when policy
changes, not just how we get to that change to occur;
• The new framework suggests focusing on policy designs, which are the observable
aspects of policies found in laws, guidelines, court decisions, programs, and practices.
This shift allows for a more comprehensive assessment of policy change by examining
changes in these observable components over time. To address the criticisms of
incomplete generative causal processes, the framework draws from Ostrom's
Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework. The IAD framework
emphasizes the role of institutions and actors' interactions in explaining phenomena. It
helps overcome the limitations related to micro-level processes and institutional
specification seen in the reference approaches. The framework's conceptual elements
include the action arena, participants, action situation, rules, exogenous factors, and
levels of analysis. It places the policy subsystem at the center, where participants
interact to influence policy implementation, decision-making, and policy designs. The
participants can be categorized as public decision makers, insiders, and outsiders. The
framework pays attention to the connections between different action arenas, both
within and outside the subsystem, as these interactions influence policy dynamics. It
introduces the concept of policy space, which encompasses related action arenas that
significantly affect the policy process. The boundaries of this space depend on the
relevance of the links among these arenas to the event being studied. The framework
explains how policy subsystems can be autonomous but are not entirely isolated from
their environment. Material conditions, community attributes, and exogenous factors
may affect them. Policy subsystems can also be permeable, with influences crossing
their boundaries through vertical and horizontal relationships. Vertical relationships
involve hierarchical institutional components, while horizontal relationships are based
on functional dependencies, structural similarities, and participants' cognitive
interpretations.
• Overall, the synthetic framework aims to provide a more comprehensive and flexible
way to understand policy change, drawing from the strengths of existing approaches
while addressing their limitations. It emphasizes the role of institutions, actors, and
their interactions in shaping policy outcomes and provides a more detailed account of
the generative causal processes behind policy change and stability.

11. Stages (Dye, 2011)

 • Description: The stages model divides the policy process into distinct phases, such as
problem identification, agenda-setting, policy formulation, legitimation (adoption),
implementation, and evaluation. It provides a structured framework for understanding
how policies progress through these stages.

•
• Critique: Critics argue that the stages model can oversimplify the dynamic and messy
nature of policy development, with many processes occurring simultaneously.
• Example: The implementation of environmental regulations, from the initial proposal
to the enforcement of standards and monitoring of compliance, can be analyzed using
the stages model.

Relevant Readings:
Cairney, P. and T. Heikkila (2018). A Comparison of Theories of the Policy Process, In
Sabatier, P.A and Weible, C.M., ed. Theories of the Policy Process, 4th ed.
Hill, M. (2012), The Public Policy Process 6th ed.
John, P. (2003). Policy Studies Journal 31(4).
Kingdon, J. (2013). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.
Real-Dato, J. (2009). Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 11(1).
van der Heijden, J., et al. (2021). Public Policy and Administration 36(2).

Discuss why it is difficult to have evidence-based policy in practice

- Evidence-based policy (EBP) is an approach to policymaking that emphasizes the use of
empirical evidence, data, and rigorous research to inform and guide the development and
implementation of public policies. The fundamental idea behind evidence-based policy is to
 ensure that government decisions and actions are grounded in the best available information
and that policies are designed to be effective, efficient, and responsive to real-world challenges.
Implementing evidence-based policies is challenging due to several factors:
1. Political Considerations: Policymaking is influenced by political interests,
and decisions may prioritize party ideology or public opinion over evidence.
Political cycles and the desire to appeal to voters can lead to short-term
policy changes.
2. Complexity of Issues: Many policy issues are complex and multifaceted.
The available evidence may not provide clear-cut solutions, making it difficult
to base policies solely on evidence.
3. Timeliness: Research and evidence collection can be time-consuming, while
policymakers often require quick decisions. The time lag between gathering
evidence and making policy decisions can be a barrier.
4. Interest Group Influence: Powerful interest groups, including businesses
and NGOs, often exert significant influence on policymaking. Their financial
resources and lobbying efforts can shape policy outcomes.
5. Ideological and Values Differences: Policymakers and the public may
have ideological or values-based differences that influence policy decisions.
Evidence may not always align with these ideological positions.
6. Resource Constraints: Policymakers and government agencies may lack
the resources, expertise, or capacity to access, interpret, and use evidence
effectively in decision-making.
7. Lack of Consensus: Even when evidence is available, there may be
disagreements among experts or stakeholders on how to interpret and apply
the evidence to policy decisions.
8. Public Opinion: Public opinion and media influence can sway policymakers,
even if the evidence supports a different course of action.

Draw on theories of the policy process to discuss examples of how

business or other stakeholders such as NGOs have effectively lobbied
government.

Businesses and NGOs often employ theories of the policy process to lobby
government effectively. Here are examples of how each group leverages these
theories to influence policymaking:

Business Stakeholders:
- Public Choice Theory: Businesses often apply public choice theory to lobby
government. This theory assumes that individuals act in their self-interest.
Businesses engage in lobbying and campaign financing to promote policies
that align with their interests. For example, the pharmaceutical industry
lobbies for favorable drug pricing policies to protect its profits and
investments in research and development.
- Interest Group Influence (Group Model): Interest groups, including
industry associations, collaborate to exert collective influence. The American
Petroleum Institute (API) represents the interests of the oil and gas industry.
They lobby for policies that favor fossil fuel production, tax incentives, and
reduced regulations. By forming coalitions, these business stakeholders
increase their influence.
 - Elite Model: Corporate elites wield considerable influence by virtue of their
financial resources and connections. Tech giants like Google, Amazon, and
Facebook have significant sway over digital privacy policies and regulations.
They employ their resources to shape policies that protect their business
models and data practices.

NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations):

- Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF): ACF highlights the role of
advocacy coalitions in influencing policy. Environmental NGOs often form
coalitions with shared beliefs to lobby for policies addressing climate change.
These coalitions conduct research, mobilize public support, and engage in
advocacy campaigns to push for environmentally friendly policies.
- Interest Group Influence (Group Model): NGOs representing various
causes, such as human rights, healthcare, and environmental conservation,
form alliances to lobby for their respective issues. For example, organizations
like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch collaborate on human
rights policies, advocating for changes in international law and government
practices.
- Public Opinion and Social Movements: NGOs often leverage public
opinion and social movements to create policy change. The #MeToo
movement, led by NGOs like the Time's Up Legal Defense Fund, pushed for
changes in policies addressing sexual harassment and gender equality. Public
opinion and social mobilization can drive legislative and regulatory changes.
- Multiple Streams Model: The multiple streams model suggests that policy
changes occur when three streams converge: problems, policies, and politics.
NGOs can seize opportunities when these streams align. For instance, during
a health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, healthcare-focused NGOs can
advocate for policy changes that address immediate health needs, such as
vaccine distribution and public health measures.
- Stages Model: NGOs often engage at various stages of the policy process,
from agenda setting to policy implementation. They work to get their issues
on the policy agenda and provide input during the policymaking process. For
example, NGOs like Doctors Without Borders engage in humanitarian
healthcare policy discussions at the international level, influencing policies
related to global health crises.
These examples demonstrate how businesses and NGOs utilize different policy
process theories to effectively lobby government. Their strategies depend on the
nature of their interests, the policy issues at hand, and the resources at their
disposal. Lobbying plays a significant role in shaping policies and regulations at the
local, national, and international levels.

Go into more depth by exploring what can be learned about the use of evidence and stakeholder
engagement in a particular case (topic and country) that might be of interest to you

Net Neutrality in the United States:

Use of Evidence: The net neutrality debate, revolving around the equal treatment
of internet traffic by ISPs, involves the use of substantial evidence. Advocates of net
neutrality argue that it is essential for maintaining an open and competitive
internet. They cite studies showing that net neutrality rules help prevent anti-
competitive behavior by ISPs, ensuring fair access to online content and services.
Researchers provide evidence demonstrating that the absence of net neutrality can
lead to discrimination against specific content, impacting innovation and
competition.

Stakeholder Engagement: Internet companies, such as Google, Amazon, and

Netflix, have actively engaged in public campaigns and lobbying efforts to support
net neutrality. They've leveraged their influence, financial resources, and extensive
user bases to mobilize public opinion and advocate for regulations that align with
their business interests. Advocacy coalitions, comprising tech companies and
consumer advocacy groups, have formed to advance the cause. They've conducted
research and organized campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of net
neutrality, effectively engaging the public and policymakers.

Policy Outcomes: The net neutrality debate has seen policy shifts in the United
States. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has alternated between
implementing and repealing net neutrality rules. These policy changes have been
influenced by shifts in political power and lobbying efforts from both business
interests, such as ISPs, and advocacy groups. Evidence and stakeholder
engagement have played a crucial role in shaping policy outcomes.

Lessons Learned: The case of net neutrality in the U.S. demonstrates that while
evidence plays a significant role, policy outcomes are influenced by political
dynamics, stakeholder influence, and ideological differences. The battle over
net neutrality is ongoing, highlighting the challenges of evidence-based
policymaking in a politically charged environment.
This case underscores the complexity of policymaking and the importance of a
nuanced understanding of evidence and stakeholder engagement in shaping policy
outcomes.