See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/366971902

Public Policy Analyses and Practice Examples

Chapter · October 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 688

2 authors:

Abdullah Uzun Bülent Savas Furat

Karadeniz Technical University Ministry of National Education Turkey
35 PUBLICATIONS 70 CITATIONS 3 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Abdullah Uzun on 09 January 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE
HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION
Vol. 1

Editors
Prof. Dr. Bekir PARLAK
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir Caner DOĞAN

Lyon 2022
The Handbook of Public Administration, Vol. 1

Editors •. Prof. Dr. Bekir PARLAK • Orcid: 0000-0002-9173-7563

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir Caner DOĞAN • Orcid: 0000-0002-3476-8865
Cover Design • Motion Graphics
Book Layout • Mirajul Kayal
First Published • October 2022, Lyon

ISBN: 978-2-38236-299-0

copyright © 2022 by Livre de Lyon

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by an means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written
permission from the Publisher.

Publisher • Livre de Lyon

Address • 37 rue marietton, 69009, Lyon France
website • http://www.livredelyon.com
e-mail • [email protected]
 PREFACE

Public administration, as an indisciplinary field, is based on a wealth of theory.

As a matter of fact, a detailed analysis of public administration with different
concepts, approaches and theories will confirm this determination. With this
book, which contributes to public administration from quite different fields as a
handbook, public administration has been subjected to a detailed examination.
In this book, public administration is explained at the concept-theory-practice
level with articles from different disciplines. In this book, public administration
is a handbook prepared by academics working at many different universities in
Turkey. Almost all important issues related to public administration are covered
in the book.
In our age, public administration has emerged with very different
dimensions with paradigm shifts, great transformation and change. In this regard,
concepts and approaches such as postmodernism, new public management and
governance are particularly important.
In this respect, the discipline of public administration has been dealt with
in different articles in this work at the theoretical and practical level. On the
other hand, analyzing this great transformation with a handbook will make a
great contribution to the discipline and practice of public administration. This
book has emerged as a very comprehensive work of interest to undergraduate,
graduate and other researchers. With this handbook, which includes structural
and functional analyzes of the political, social, economic and cultural analyzes
of public administration, it is aimed to contribute to the field of public
administration in the world, especially in Turkish public administration. As a
matter of fact, in this study, theoretical and practical sections are included.
We would like to express our deepest gratitude to both the esteemed authors
and the representatives of the publishing houses for the preparation of this work.
Finally, we hope that this book will be of great use to all readers.

Prof. Dr. Bekir Parlak & Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir Caner Doğan
Editors

I
 CONTENTS
Preface I
Reviewers IX

THEME I
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: CONCEPTUAL AND THEORETICAL ROOF

Chapter 1 Interdisciplinary Relationship with the Concept and

Phenomenon of Public Administration 1
Bekir Parlak; Kadir Caner Doğan
1. Concept of Public Administration 1
1.1. Definition of Public Administration 2
1.2. Characteristics of Public Administration 4
1.3. Purpose and Elements of Public Administration 6
2. Relationship of Public Administration with Other Disciplines 8
2.1. The Relationship of Public Administration with Political Science 8
2.2. The Relationship of Public Administration with Sociology 8
2.3. The Relationship between Public Administration and Business 9
2.4. The Relationship of Public Administration with Administrative Law 9
2.5. The Relationship between Public Administration and Economics 11
References 11

Chapter 2 Historical Development of Publıc Administration Teaching 15

Nazlı Özcan Sarıhan; İmren Pınar Dülgar
1. Introduction 15
2. On The Administration and Its Teaching 17
3. Public Administration Teaching Tradition of Continental Europe and America 18
4. Public Administration in Turkey: Development and Teaching 23
5. Conclusion 29
References 30

Chapter 3 Constructing the Theory in Public Administration 33

Bekir Parlak; Kadir Caner Doğan
1. Scientificity of Public Administration Theory 33
1.1. What is a Theory? 33
1.2. Is a Theory of Public Administration Possible? Classification of Public
Administration Theories 34
2. A Brief Introduction to Public Administration Theories 36
References 37

III
IV   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

THEME II
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 4 Public Administration and Bureaucracy 39

Erhan Örselli; Ahmet Tayfur Küçüktığlı
1. Introduction 39
2. The Concept of Bureaucracy: Definition and Features 40
3. Bureaucracy Theories 42
3.1. Weberian Bureaucracy 42
3.2. Marxist Theory of Bureaucracy 44
4. Advantages and Disadvantages of Bureaucracy 45
5. Development of Bureaucracy in Turkey 46
6. Result 48
References 48

Chapter 5 A Structural Examination of Public Administration

From Past To Present 51
Arzu Yıldırım
1. Introduction 51
2. Restructuring in the Public Administration 53
3. Factors That Make Restructuring Compulsory in the
Turkish Public Administration 55
4. Developments in the Turkish Public Administration After 1980 57
5. A Model Proposal For Restructuring Work In Turkish Public Administration 61
6. Conclusion 65
References 66

Chapter 6 Structural and Legal Developments in Public Administration in The

Cases of European Countries 69
Soner Akın; Demet Dönmez
1. Introduction 69
2. Eastern European countries’ cases 71
3. Review of Western countries 78
4. Northern countries in Europe 82
5. The review of Southern countries 87
6. Conclusion 94
References 96
 CONTENTS   V

THEME III
CURRENT AND FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Chapter 7 Public Policy: Concept and Theory 103

Bülent Savaş Furat; Abdullah Uzun
1. Introduction 103
2. Public Policy in General 103
2.1. Scope and Elements of Public Policy 105
2.2. Types of Public Policy 106
3. Public Policy in Terms of Historical Development 108
4. Public Policy Process and Classical Approach 109
4.1. Agenda-setting 111
4.2. Policy Formulation 113
4.3. Decision Making 114
4.4. Policy Implementation 114
4.5. Policy Evaluation 115
4.6. General Evaluation of the Public Policy-Making Process 116
5. Conclusion 117
References 117

Chapter 8 Public Policy Analyses and Practice Examples 121

Abdullah Uzun; Bülent Savaş Furat
1. Introduction 121
2. What is Public Policy Analysis? 122
2.1. Scope and Dimensions of Policy Analysis 123
2.2. Policy Analysis Forms 125
2.3. Use of Approaches and Models in Policy Analysis 126
3. Public Policy Analysis Practice Examples 130
4. Conclusion 132
References 133

Chapter 9 Climate Policies in Public Administration: The Case of Turkıye  137

Seda H. Bostancı
1. Introduction 137
2. The Effects of Climate Change in Türkiye 140
3. Climate Policies of Central Government 141
3.1. Climate Policies in Ministries 142
3.2. Climate Policies of Regional Development Agencies 146
VI   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

4. Climate Policies of Local Governments 147

4.1. Climate Policies of Metropolitan Municipalities and Provincial
Municipalities 148
4.2. Climate Policies of District Municipalities 150
5. Conclusion 151
References 152

Chapter 10 mIgratIon PolIcIes In turkIYE and france: a revIew on hIstorIcal

Process and Current Situation 157
Hicran Hamza Çelikyay; Semih Nargül
1. Introduction 158
2. Literature Review 160
3. Short History Of Migration of Countries 161
3.1. Turkiye 161
3.2. France 165
4. Regulations In the Context of Migration Policies 168
4.1. Turkiye 168
4.2. France 175
5. CONCLUSIONS 180
Acknowledgements 183
References 183

Chapter 1 1 Evaluation of Cultural Heritage in Terms of Sustainable Tourism:

The Case of Harran Cultural House 189
Onur Akgül; Şefik Okan Mercan
1. Introduction 189
2. Conceptual Framework 190
2.1. Cultural Heritage 190
2.2. Sustainable Tourism 192
2.3. Harran Culture House 194
3. Objectives and Methods of the Research 195
4. Findings 196
5. Conclusion and Recommendations 199
References 201

Chapter 12 Rethinking Governance: Governance for State, Private Sector and

cIvIl socIety organIzatIons 207
Eyüp Şen; Bayram Coşkun
Introduction 207
1. Governance: Together for All 208
 CONTENTS   VII

2. Whose Governance? 209

2.1. The Governance of Governmental Organizations and Stakeholders 211
3.2. The Governance of Civil Society Organizations and Stakeholders 212
3.3. The Governance of Private Sector Organizations and Stakeholders 213
4. How to Practice Governance as a public policy process? The Contributions of the
Governance to the Public Policy Process 214
4.1. The Power to Understand and Anticipate 215
4.2. The Power to Work Together 217
4.3. The Power to Monitor and Evaluate: Monitoring, Evaluation,
Accountability, And Learning (MEAL) 218
5. Conclusion 219
References 220

Chapter 13 E-Governance and E-State Relationality and Functionality 223

Handan BOYALI
1. Introduction 223
2. Governance 224
3. Concept of E-Governance as the Digital Dimension of Governance 227
4. E-State as the Site of the practice of Governance 229
5. Relationship Between E-Governance and E-State 233
6. Conclusion 235
References 236

Chapter 14 The New Public Governance: Is it a Paradigmatic Way to

Overcome the Wicked Problems? 243
Çağrı Çolak
1. Introduction 243
2. The NPG as a post-NPM Model 244
3. Is the NPG a New Paradigm? 250
4. Can the NPG Overcome the Wicked Problems? 253
5. Conclusion 259
References 260

Chapter 15 The Interaction of “New Public Service” and “New Public

Management” Approaches 265
Mısra Ciğeroğlu Öztepe; Sevinç Soyocak Özalp
1. Introduction 265
2. Transition from Traditional Public Administration (TPA) to New Public
Management (NPM) 267
VIII   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

3. The New Public Service Approach and Its Relationship with the
New Public Management 270
4. Conclusion 275
References 276

Chapter 16 Development from Traditional Approaches in Public Administration

to New Public Administration 279
Cüneyt Telsaç
1. Introduction 279
2. Classic Concept of Management 280
2.1 Mainstreams Directing the Classical Management Approach  283
3. An Overview of Neo-Classical Theory 287
3.1 Mainstreams Guiding the Neo-Classical Management Approach 288
4. The Concept of New Public Administration (NPM) 291
4.1 The Development Process of the New Public Administration 292
4.2 Factors Leading to the Emergence of the New Public Administration 294
4.3 Features of New Public Administration 298
5. Conclusion 300
References 301

Chapter 17 Neoliberalism and New Public Administration 331

Sedat Karakaya
1. Introduction 311
2. Break From the Keynesian Policy and Neoliberalism 313
3. Neoliberalism and the New Paradigm 316
4. New Public Management (NPM) 319
5. Principles and Criticisms of the New Public Management 323
6. Result 325
References 326
 REVIEWERS

1- Prof. Dr. Bekir PARLAK-Bursa Uludağ University/Turkey

2- Prof. Dr. Bayram COŞKUN-Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University/Turkey
3- Prof. Dr. H. Tuğba EROĞLU-Selçuk University/Turkey
4- Prof. Dr. Mithat Arman KARASU-Harran UniversityTurkey
5- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir Caner DOĞAN-Gumushane University/Turkey
6- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ömer UĞUR-Gumushane University/Turkey
7- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Vedat YILMAZ-Malatya Turgut Özal University/Turkey
8- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Şükrü Mert KARCI-Manisa Celal Bayar University/Turkey
9- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Erhan ÖRSELLİ-Necmettin Erbakan University/Turkey
10- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Aziz BELLİ-Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam University/
Turkey
11- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir SANCAK-Gumushane University/Turkey
12- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kürşad Emrah YILDIRIM-Anadolu University, Turkey
13- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Berat AKINCI-Adana Alparslan Türkeş Bilim ve Teknoloji
University/Turkey
14- Assoc. Prof. Dr. Hasan Mahmut KALKIŞIM-Gumushane University/Turkey
15- Asst. Prof. Dr. Emrah FİRİDİN-Karadeniz Teknik University/Turkey
15- Asst. Prof. Dr. Arzu YILDIRIM-Şırnak University/Turkey
17- Res. Asst. Dr. İmren Pınar DÜLGAR-Gumushane University/Turkey
18- Lecturer Mehmet MECEK-Afyon Kocatepe University/Turkey

IX
 CHAPTER VII

PUBLIC POLICY:
CONCEPT AND THEORY*
Bülent Savaş FURAT1 & Abdullah UZUN2
(Dr.), Ministry of National Education,
1

[email protected], ORCID: 0000-0003-3716-9515

(Assoc. Prof.), Karadeniz Tecnical University,
2

[email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-8657-4587

1. Introduction

O
ne of the main tasks of governments is to improve their ability
to solve social problems and respond to the needs of the people.
The embodiment of this task is public policies. In this context,
public policy is defined as “the art of creating and solving problems
worth solving” (Akdoğan 2015a: 214).
As a result of the change and development of societies, social problems
also diversify and deepen. This causes the studies in public policy to gain new
qualifications and to be associated with many disciplines such as politics, law,
economy, and sociology, especially public administration. Thus, the public
policy literature has become rich and complex.
This study aims to create a conceptual and theoretical framework for the
developments in the public policy literature. For this purpose, first of all, the
definition, features, elements, scope, and types of public policy are discussed.
The historical course of public policy is examined, and then prominent theories
in this field are explained in the axis of the public policy process.

2. Public Policy in General

Examining the etymology of the word “policy,” Dunn (2008: 34) made the
following analysis: The word “policy” emerges from the Greek “polis” (city-
_______________________
This chapter was produced from the first part of the thesis titled "A Policy Analysis in the
Context of Policy Networks Approach: Vocational and Technical Education Policies in
Turkey After 2000", prepared by Bülent Savaş FURAT and supervised by Associate
Professor Abdullah Uzun.
103
104   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

state), the ancient Sanskrit “pur” (city), and the Latin “politia” (state) words.
These words eventually evolved from the medieval English word “policie”
meaning “actualization of public activities” or “administration of government.”
The concept of politics in Turkish is used in two different ways. The first of these
is the usage in the sense of political science (politics). The second one is used
in terms of purpose and how to handle a job (policy) (Altınok & Gedikkaya,
2016: 244). Security policy, education policy, and similar uses are examples of
secondary use.
There are various studies on public policy in the literature, and many
scholars have tried to define public policy from different perspectives. This has
created a richness of definition in terms of characteristics. The most well-known
definition of public policy is the definition of “everything that governments
choose to do or not do” made by Dye (2013: 3). With this definition, Dye has not
limited the scope of public policy to the actions taken by the public, but has also
included the things that the public does not prefer to do, into the public policy.
Even this inactive state of government has a huge impact on society. While the
government’s inaction on any issue may positively affect one part of society, it
may negatively affect another. On the other hand, according to Kraft & Furlong
(2018: 38), public policy is a series of actions or inactions that governments
develop in response to public problems. Public policy also encompasses official
policy objectives, policy instruments, the actions of policy actors, and the actual
behavior of these actors.
It is possible to examine the characteristics of public policy through
definitions. Anderson (2003) claims that the definition mentioned above of
Dye is not descriptive enough. According to Anderson, public policy should be
evaluated systematically based on some concepts. These concepts are that public
policy consists of purposeful actions, is carried out by actor(s), and includes
determination. Birkland (2011: 9) argues that a policy can be a set of legal
regulations governing a particular problem area or problem. On the other hand,
Akdoğan (2015b: 77), emphasizing the policy actors, defined public policy as
any activity carried out by a public institution or officially authorized in any
matter by the legal power of the state. Similarly, Çevik & Demirci (2012: 13)
stipulate that public policy should be formed by a public institution or handled
within the framework of public administration. Usta (2013: 24) emphasized that
public policies are “an expression of public power.” The main features of public
policy can be listed as follows (Anderson, 2003: 5; Birkland, 2011: 8; Yıldız &
Sobacı, 2015: 18):
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   105

Authorized government action: It is the action implemented by the

government body with public policy and political and financial authority.

· Response to real-world needs or problems: Public policy aims to respond

to the concrete needs or problems of society or groups (citizens, non-
governmental organizations, or government bodies).
· Goal-oriented: Public policy represents initiatives and actions to meet a
social need or solve problems and envisages reaching a specific goal.
· A course of action: Public policy is often not a single decision, action, or
reaction but a detailed approach or process.
· A decision to do or not to do something: A detailed public policy can either
attempt to resolve a problem or be based on the belief that no action will
be taken.
· A decision made: Public policy is a predetermined decision, not an intention
or a promise. The purpose of public policy can be explained beforehand
and left for later.
· Distribution of resources: Public policy is the equitable distribution of
resources, eliminating social conflicts, and protecting individual rights.

2.1. Scope and Elements of Public Policy

Elements of public policy were identified by Usta (2013: 82) as actors,
descriptions, processes, institutions, and outcomes. Actors are bodies that
have certain powers, can use resources, and can set policy. Descriptions are
the background on which the basic normative and cognitive values that guide
policies are based. The descriptions are abstract. Institutions are the rules and
standards upon which political action is based. Processes involve the interaction
of actors over time and the explanation of changing actions. Outcomes are
the outputs or effects of public action. Addressing public policies includes the
spiritual dimension as well as the material dimension. Therefore, a policy that
gives positive results in one country may not produce the same result in another.
Smith & Larimer (2009: 5) point out the impossibility of defining
the discipline of public policy as a whole and state that each field develops
independently. Considering public policy as an umbrella concept from this
point of view, Smith & Larimer divide public policies into three areas. These are
policy process, policy evaluation, and policy analysis. While the policy process
is concerned with how and why the policy is made, policy analysis is about what
needs to be done. On the other hand, policy evaluation systematically considers
106   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

the results of the studies carried out. Similarly, Çevik & Demirci (2012: 105)
expressed three main ways of public policy. The first is the policy process,
which is getting stronger and progressing to become a discipline and focuses
more on the implementation phase. With the analytical methods he developed,
policy analysis was specified as the second way, while specific policy areas were
considered the third way. Analysts who want to specialize in specific areas such
as education, health, social security, homeland security, transportation, and the
environment can be seen as representatives of the third way.
There is no general framework that binds together public policies. In
addition to building scientific theories, it should be added that public policies
are value-oriented. Value-oriented theories may not reveal universal truths, but
they make it easier to understand the different perspectives underlying conflicts.
Describing the public policy as a loosely organized structure, Smith & Larimer
(2009: 1) made the analogy of “mood rather than science” for public policy. In
other words, public policy can be expressed as a set of rules rather than a tightly
associated systematic set of knowledge and art rather than facts.
The public policy literature has a dispersed structure. Sabatier (2007: 3)
proposes a solution to this messiness with two basic approaches. According to the
first approach, to make sense of complexity, certain issues should be simplified
for certain purposes, and complexity should be made understandable from an
appropriate point of view. Secondly, it is necessary to take complexity and make
sense of the causal relationships that underlie it. If these causal relationships can
be identified, a logical framework for how the world works can be established.
With field studies, information about a certain policy process can be obtained,
but it is difficult to generalize based on this information.

2.2. Types of Public Policy

As stated above, public policy has different dimensions and complex structures.
This situation has led to the classification of public policy according to various
variables. Hughes (2013: 193-196) characterizes the positioning of public policy
against public administration as reactionary and critical and classifies public
policy in three contexts. These are policy analysis, political public policy, and
public economic policy. Emphasizing the methodological dimension of policy
analysis, Hughes defines the correct understanding of the public policy process
and presenting accurate and useful information to decision-makers as the main
purpose of policy analysis. For this, policy analysis explores viable patterns of
action. Although public policy is considered an interaction between individuals,
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   107

it would not be wrong to state that this interaction is open to social and cultural
influences. Political public policy theorists generally analyze policy outcomes
by considering political interactions in a policy area. Consequently, Hughes
argues that treating the public policy process as a dispersed structure is a more
realistic formulation.
Anderson (2003: 6) dimensioned public policies according to their domains
and made four different classifications. The first of Anderson’s classifications
is the distinction between “substantive and procedural policies.” Substantive
policies directly provide advantages and disadvantages to citizens and affect
daily life. On the other hand, procedural policies determine the principles of
how and by whom action will be carried out. Substantive policies parallel the
values and norms of society, and procedural policies reflect the preferences of
decision-making mechanisms.
Anderson’s (2003) second classification is “distributive, regulatory, self-
regulatory and redistributive public policies.” This classification differentiates
policies according to their impact on society and the relationships among those
involved in the policy process. Distributive policies provide services or benefits
to different segments of society. In general, these policies use the government
budget as a resource. For example, the government provides private school
support to those who meet certain conditions and micro-credits to entrepreneurs
who want to start their businesses. Regulatory policies, however, impose certain
restrictions on the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups. Policies
regulating commercial and industrial life generally are included in this group. In
addition, there are regulatory policies that regulate individual responsibilities and
social life. While distributive policies are policies that can produce immediate
results, regulatory policies are those that are effective in the longer term. Legal
regulations regulating compulsory education or preventing air pollution are
included in this group.
Self-regulatory policies aim to protect the interests and regulate the rights
of members of a particular group. For example, work permits, certification, and
licensing procedures in a certain profession are included in this group. Finally,
redistributive policies can change social balances, such as the reorganization
of welfare among different social masses, the reorganization of privileges
provided in favor of some groups, and the transfer of some powers by the central
government to local governments.
Anderson’s (2003) third classification is based on the material-symbolic
distinction. Material public policies provide a positive or negative financial
108   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

benefit or power to target audiences. Symbolic public policies, as the name

suggests, are policies that provide moral rather than material advantages to those
they benefit from. Social justice, patriotism, and the promotion of human rights
are included in this category. Anderson’s final classification is the distinction
between collective goods and private goods. While national services such as
education, advocacy, or local services such as a streetlight are collective goods,
solid waste collection, health care, or postal service are private goods.

3. Public Policy in Terms of Historical Development

Public policies are as old as governments. Regardless of the form of government
in the historical process, all governments have formulated and implemented
various public policies to cope with the people’s demands. The historical course
of public policy studies has been handled by Yıldız et al. (2016: 136) in three
stages.
The first stage is the dominance of the developing consultancy institution
in societies where the “ruling-ruled” structure based on the division of labor
is effective. The first public policy records are found in Mesopotamia in the
21st century BC. The Laws of Hammurabi in the 18th century BC, the works
of Confucius in China, the works of Aristotle in Greece, and Kautilya in India
are ancient public policy documents (Dunn, 2008: 34). In this period, wise
people, advisers of governments, generally advised senior managers to solve
social problems. These recommendations have been of partial and local quality
and remained as personal comments (Akdoğan, 2015b: 79). For example,
Plato’s proposition that philosophers should be kings or those kings should be
philosophers is important in terms of public policy understanding. Machiavelli’s
statements about the characteristics of the actors in the policy-making process
can be considered in this sense.
Orkhon Monuments, written in the 8th century, are important documents in
Turkish history. In his work “El Medinetül Fazila,” Farabi discusses the qualities
that rulers should have. In Ibn Khaldun’s Mukaddime, there are evaluations
related to the public policy, such as the theory of the state and the classification
of services (Yıldız & Sobacı, 2015: 32). The advice given to Osman Gazi by
Sheikh Edebali, which later became the spiritual constitution of the Ottoman
Empire, is an example of these.
The second period, which started in the 18th century, is the systematic data
collection and processing of these data with scientific methods. For example,
cameralism, which aims to establish a modern management structure, has
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   109

been shaped according to the principles of public policy analysis in terms of

its theoretical background and implementation. In addition, the “Progressive
Movement” implemented by the President of the United States (USA) Wilson is
another important example of this period.
The third period after the Second World War is considered the starting
point of the public policies and is the most cited period. This period was shaped
mainly by studies using analytical methods that started in the USA (Yıldız et
al., 2016: 136-142). The most important of these is the work of Harold Lasswell
(DeLeon & Martel, 2006: 31; Birkland, 2011: 7). Lasswell (1951) defined
political sciences as “a science that produces knowledge about the problems
of the society and tries to explain the policy-making processes of the society”
(Altunok & Gedikkaya, 2016: 21). The USA’s questioning of its public order
against the world order that emerged after the Second World War is the main
theme of Lasswell’s works. Lasswell highlighted public policy as the most
important response of governments to problems. Since this period, public policy
has developed rapidly in the USA. The first of the basic assumptions of this
development is that political science is considered based on a problem. Secondly,
because each problem area consists of different components, it requires an
interdisciplinary approach. The last one is based on values (Hupe & Hill, 2016:
16; Köseoğlu, 2013: 8).
While the public policy was under the influence of the behavioral paradigm
in the 1960s, it has been influenced by the disciplines of public choice, economics,
and sociology since the 1970s (Akyıldız & Akman, 2012: 294). Concepts such
as public management, governance, participation, and negotiation have gained
importance since the last quarter of the 20th century and have given a new
impetus to public policy studies. Positivist analysis techniques such as strategic
management, cost-benefit analysis, and system analysis became effective again
in decision-making processes (Köseoğlu, 2013: 11-12). It is seen that problem-
oriented studies and field studies have gained weight since the 1990s (Akyıldız
& Akman, 2012: 294).

4. Public Policy Process and Classical Approach

Heywood (2011: 506) attributes the treatment of public policy as a process
to the fact that it covers many stages, such as a chain of interrelated actions,
determination of solutions to problems, and implementation of the decisions
taken. Since the public policy is considered a process, the decisions, actors,
events, and movements in the process should be considered. Although he
110   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

criticizes the incremental model, Sabatier (1999: 3) also explains the policy
process under the incremental model as follows: “In the process of creating
public policy, problems are conceptualized, brought to the agenda for a solution,
government agencies formulate solution alternatives, select the most appropriate
solution, implement, evaluate and revise these solutions”
The understanding of the public policy process started in the 1950s
and gained an important place in the public administration in a short time.
Undoubtedly, one of the main reasons for this development is its positive
effect on increasing the quality of public service. Many theories have been
produced to understand the public policy process. Stage Heuristics, which is
based on the work of Laswell (1951), is the most well-known of the theories that
systematically explain the public policy process and has been developed over
time.1. According to Lasswell, the public policy process is divided into seven
main stages. These stages are (1) intelligence, (2) promotion, (3) prescription,
(4) invocation, (5) application (6) termination and (7) appraisal (Cited by: Hupe
ve Hill, 2016: 16).
The policy process has been considered by Birkland (2011: 25-26) as a kind
of system that transforms policy ideas into real policies with positive effects.
Birkland considers the policy process based on Easton’s systems approach.
Easton designed politics and policy making as a system with input-output and
feedback dimensions in 1965. The system takes inputs and requests affected by
the characteristics of the policy environment and transforms them into policies.
Thus, systems models see politics as the product of many influences inside and
outside of government.
Smith & Larimer (2009: 31) suggest a similar method. A problem must
first come to the attention of the government. Policymakers then develop
solutions to solve the problem, specifying what they perceive to be the most
appropriate solution, and then evaluate whether they serve their purpose. Since
a public policy rarely produces a complete solution to the problem, the stage of
redefining the problem is started according to the results of the evaluation.

1 In the literature, there are nomenclatures such as the Classical approach, the Stage Heuristic
Model, and the Progressive Model.
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   111

Figure1: Public Policy Process

Agenda-setting

Policy Policy
Evaluation Formulation

Policy
Implementation Decision Making

Source: Dye, 2013: 51.

Studies conducted since the 2000s show that the public policy process is mainly
examined in five stages.2 (Figure 1). These stages consist of (1) agenda-setting,
(2) policy formulation, (3) decision-making, (4) policy implementation, and (5)
evaluation (Dye, 2013: 5; Anderson, 2003: 27; Çevik & Demirci, 2012: 54-55;
Yıldız & Sobacı, 2015: 24-25). As mentioned above, the public policy process
is mainly handled through the classical approach. For this reason, detailing the
classical approach with its stages will benefit understanding the public policy
process.

4.1. Agenda-setting
Governments are faced with a myriad of problems to be solved and a variety of
demands that must be met. Out of this sea of problems, those that the government
will bring forward, those that will be postponed, or those that will not be taken
into account form the basis of this stage. (Birkland, 2011: 169). Akdoğan (2015a:
213) defines agenda setting as “the examination of how important or prioritized
a particular public policy issue is for a particular public policy actor.” While
agenda setting is mainly handled as an initiative of civil society, defining the
problem -as in other stages of the policy process- is characterized as a process in
which the state is more effective.

2 This concept is expressed as “public policy processes” in policy analysis and as

“stages” in the classical approach..
112   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

The way the problem is defined also affects the solution policies to be
created. Groups that want possible solution proposals to develop under their
interests want to be more active in defining problems. In addition, the first step
in the struggle to keep rival groups out of the solution is to exclude them from
the definition of the problem. For this reason, hard struggles are experienced
between rival groups during the agenda-setting (Demir, 2011: 111).
Dunn (2008: 84), who takes the definition of the problem from a broader
perspective, proposes a four-stage problem structuring process. These are
problem research, problem definition, identification of problem characteristics,
and problem perception. In structuring the problems, the groups affecting the
problem and affected by the problem should be determined in detail. Through
this gradual process, a fundamental problem becomes a formalized problem. The
main goal here is to understand the nature of the problem. A proper understanding
of the nature of the problem can help discover hidden assumptions, diagnose
causes, map potential targets, synthesize conflicting views, and design new
policy options.

Figure 2: Phases of the Policy Agenda

Agenda Universe

The Decision Agenda

The Institutional Agenda

The Systemic Agenda

Source: Birkland, 2007: 65.

On the other hand, Cobb & Elder (1983) defined the policy agenda by dividing
it into stages (Figure 2). The most general level of the agenda is the agenda
universe, which includes all the ideas that can be put forward and discussed in
a society or political system. The systemic agenda consists of all the problems
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   113

generally perceived by the members of the political community, which attract the
public’s attention and include issues related to the legitimate scope of the current
government authority. The institutional agenda is the sum of the items listed for
active and serious consideration of the institution’s decision mechanisms. The
last phase is the decision agenda. Undoubtedly, very few of the problems that
make up the agenda universe reach the decision agenda (Cited by: Birkland,
2007: 65-66).

4.2. Policy Formulation

Policy formulation is the development of policy alternatives to produce solutions
to the problems on the public agenda and respond to the needs. The formulation
of policies is usually made by middle managers, not top managers (Dye: 2013:
44; Anderson, 2003:101). Pressure groups, bureaucracy, commissions formed
in the parliament, and think tanks play a role in interacting with each other.
The strength of these actors’ ideas, and especially the stability of their policy
subsystems, has attracted great interest in policy-making in recent years.
Contrary to defining and bringing up the problems, the public is not directly
influential in formulating the policy (Howlett & Giest, 2013: 19).
Çevik & Demirci (2012: 59) define policy formulation as the stage in which
the policy program is made, and the goals and objectives are determined. Kaptı
(2013: 34), referring to being scientific, lists the features that a good policy
formulation should have as follows:

· Public policy should be simple for everyone to understand and clearly

defined.
· The public policy that is considered to be formed should be supportive of
other public policies in force and at least should not conflict with other
policies.
· While formulating public policies, the real situation should be taken into
account, and the competencies of those who will implement the policies
should not be overlooked.
· Policy formulation should be open to new situations and should be able to
update itself constantly.

Anderson (2003: 80) characterizes policy formulation as merely processing

alternatives or options to deal with a problem. Demir (2011: 111) adds positive
and negative externalities to these elements. Recent studies highlight that policy
114   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

formulation “depends on the configuration of a particular policy community”

(Howlett & Giest, 2013: 19).

4.3. Decision Making

Kaptı (2013: 35) defines decision-making as moving the policy draft to the
legislative ground. Decision-making includes one or more of the alternatives to
reject, change and adapt. Tools such as legislative approval, executive approval,
seeking consent through consultation with interest groups, and referendum
are used to provide support for selected policy tools (Cairney, 2012: 33). The
importance of this stage for policy analysis is that the context that determines the
policy choice of decision-makers can be determined at this stage. Therefore, this
stage attracts great attention from policy analysts, researchers, and academics
(Demir, 2011: 112). Political scientist Heywood (2011: 506) describes the
decision-making phase as the central element of the policy process.
Decision-making models are discussed under three headings: rational
decision-making, incremental, and hybrid, per Anderson’s (2003: 119-125)
classification. The rational model in decision-making is based on the “economic
man” thesis, deciding on the policy in which the maximum possible benefit can
be achieved. Rationality, which emerged under Weberian understanding and was
later developed by Herbert Simon, plays an important role in decision-making,
especially after WWII. However, it was subjected to significant criticism
afterward (Köseoğlu, 2015: 246-247). Building on Lindblom’s criticisms of
the rational model, the incremental model includes only certain adjustments.
Policy goals and tools are constantly cyclically adjusted so optimal decisions
can be made without seeking the “best.” On the other hand, the hybrid model is
a generally more abstract one that reconciles the rational and incremental model.
When describing the hybrid model, Anderson (2003: 125) gives an example of
using a wide-angle camera that can see the whole and a close-lens camera that
can see the details together.

4.4. Policy Implementation

The policy implementation stage is defined as the action or series of actions
that take place from the government’s declaration of a formal intent to do
something to the emergence of results (Smith & Larimer 2009: 157). Based
on the implementation of public policies and the achievement of determined
targets, this stage constitutes the most emphasized dimension of the public policy
process literature (Birkland, 2011: 264). The key role of the implementation
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   115

process is whether the success or failure of the policy is revealed in this process.
Another issue is that those who investigate the cause of policy failures focus on
the implementation phase.
Although many perspectives have been developed to understand the
implementation of public policy, there are two main approaches. These are the
“top-down implementation model,” which assumes that policies are formed as
a result of a hierarchical top-down activity or interaction, and the “bottom-up
implementation model” that focuses on the qualities of the lower segments
(Anderson, 2003: 195; Hill, 2013: 176; Birkland, 2011: 265).
According to the top-down implementation model, implementation starts
with the top managers. The success of the implementation directly depends
on the harmony between the decisions made by the top managers and the
policy results (Kaptı & Alaç, 2015: 230). On the other hand, the bottom-up
implementation model is mainly based on the work done in the early 1980s. The
basis point is the audience’s motivation, capacities, and performance in the last
link of the implementation process. In other words, the most influential actors in
the implementation process are the actors in the last link. Lipsky (1980) defines
the public officials in this last circle as “street bureaucrats.”3 (Cited by: Kaptı &
Alaç, 2015: 234).

4.5. Policy Evaluation

Evaluation is the mechanism established to monitor, systematize and rate ongoing or
recently completed government interventions (Vedung, 2013: 387). Dye (2013: 63),
who defines evaluation as the objective, systematic and empirical examination of
policies in terms of the goals to be achieved, suggests investigating the policy effects
and considering the goals. Of course, the objectives of every policy are not clearly
stated. With the impact evaluation, the social and political impact of the policy is
investigated (Çevik & Demirci, 2012: 63).
The evaluation stage provides important contributions to the policy process.
Evaluation has a cognitive dimension as well as a dimension involving public
actions. It informs the actors about the process. Evaluation includes normative
features as well as descriptive features. Contributing to the production of social
values about the process is another dimension. The most important contribution of
the evaluation stage to the public policy process is that it facilitates the decision-

3 Public employees such as judges, prosecutors, lawyers, police, teachers, and health
workers who have legal powers.
116   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

making stage (Usta, 2014: 23). In addition, the evaluation needs to be carried out in
two different dimensions that deal with both the process and the results. While the
process evaluation deals with what has been done, the outcome evaluation examines
what has been achieved (Smith & Larimer, 2009: 135).

4.6. General Evaluation of the Public Policy-Making Process

Early public policy studies viewed decision-making as an important rational
tool for achieving optimal policy outcomes. For this reason, mathematical
models were used predominantly in this period (Hughes, 2013: 199). Since the
1990s, the criticisms brought to the main public policy trends have led to the
developing of more comprehensive approaches. It has come to the fore as a
deficiency that the analyses and evaluations to be made in the public policy are
only made with approaches fed by structuralism and behaviorism theories. This
new approach synthesizes multiple approaches by emphasizing complexity and
fragmented, and Orhan (2015) named this as the interpretative approach.
The concept of the process was shown as the best way to understand public
policies until the 1980s and has been subjected to severe criticism since these
years (Nakamura, 1987; Sabatier, 1999: 7; Kaptı, 2013: 42; Gültekin, 2014: 47).
These criticisms can be listed as follows:

· Process understanding is not causal theory, as it deals with the policy

process in a general way and does not define a causal theory set.
· There is no consistent set of hypotheses between the stages. The
descriptiveness of the proposed sequence of stages is questionable.
· Stages are overly formal and top-down oriented. This orientation ignores
the interaction of applications.
· Stages assumed to have taken place in theory do not actually occur. The
transition between stages is not evident.
· The process model ignores internal and external factors, socio-cultural
structure, and actors that affect the process.
· Policy actors influence each other at every stage.
· Political actors are affected positively or negatively by past experiences.
However, the policy process ignores political learning.

As a result, as Gültekin (2014) and Sabatier (1999) pointed out, more descriptive,
experimental, testable, and descriptive models are needed to understand the
policy process fully. However, it is possible to say that the process model, as
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   117

the most cited approach in the literature, continues to be the mainstream in

understanding public policies.

5. Conclusion
Since public policy interacts with various disciplines, it remains up-to-date
and rich in theory. On the other hand, since other disciplines carry their own
terminology to the public policy, it causes a dispersed structure. In order to
develop and deepen the Turkish literature, the number of policy analyses based
on field studies should be increased. Policy actors, who constitute another pillar
of public policy, should not ignore the impact of public policy studies built on
economic, legal, and sociological foundations on policy processes.

References
Akdoğan, A. A. (2015a), Gündem Belirleme, M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı, In Kamu
Politikası Kuram ve Uygulama (s. 210-227), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Akdoğan, A. A. (2015b), Türkiye’de Kamu Politikası Disiplininin Tarihsel
İzleri, F. Kartal (Ed.), In Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi ve Kamu Politikaları
(s. 75-98), Ankara: TODAİE.
Akyıldız, F. & Akman, E. (2012), Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Kamu Politikası
Öğretimi, B. Parlak (Ed.), In Kamu Politikalarında Dönüşüm (s. 291-328),
Ankara: TODAİE.
Altunok, H. & Gedikkaya F. G. (2016), Kamu Politikaları Ansiklopedisi, Ankara:
Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
Anderson, J. E. (2003), Public Policy Making: An Introduction 5th Edition,
Newyork: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Birkland, T. A. (2007), Agenda Setting in Public Policy, F. Fischer et al. (Ed.),
In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory, Politics, and Methods (s.
63-78), CRC Press.
Birkland, T. A. (2011), Policy Process: Theories,Concepts, and Models of Public
Policy Making 3rd Edition, M.E. Sharpe.
Cairney, P. (2012), Understanding Public Policy: Theories and Issues, Palgrave
Macmillan.
Çevik H. & Demirci, S. (2012), Kamu Politikası 2nd Edition, Ankara: Seçkin
Kitabevi.
DeLeon, P. & Martell, C. R. (2006), The Policy Sciences: Past, Present and Future,
B.G. Peters & J. Pierre (Ed.), Handbook of Public Policy, London: Sage.
118   THE HANDBOOK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Demir, F. (2011), Kamu Politikası ve Politika Analizi Çalışmalarının Teorik

Çerçevesi, Dumlupınar Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 30, 107-120.
Dunn, W. N. (2008), Public Policy Analysis an Introduction 4th Edition, Pearson.
Dye, T. R. (2013), Understanding Public Policy 14th Edition, Pearson.
Gültekin, S. (2014), Understanding Policy Process: Is There a Single Best Way,
Yönetim Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(24), 43-74.
Heywood, A. (2011), Siyasi İdeolojiler, Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Hill, M. (2013), The Public Policy Process 6th Edition, Pearson.
Howlet, M. & Giest, S. (2013), The Policy-Making Process, Eduardo Araral Jr.
(Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Policy, Routledge.
Hughes, O. E. (2013), Kamu İşletmeciliği & Yönetimi 4th Edition, Ankara:
Bigbang Yayınları.
Hupe, P. L. & Hill M. J. (2016), The Three Action Levels of Governance:
Re-framing the Policy Process Beyond the Stages Model, B. G. Peters & J.
Pierre (Ed.), Handbook of Public Policy, Sage.
Kaptı, A. (2013), Kamu Politika Sürecinde Klasik Yaklaşım Modeli, A. Kaptı
(Ed.), In Kamu Politika Süreci (s. 25-46), Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
Kaptı, A. & Alaç, A. E. (2015), Kamu Politikalarının Uygulama Aşaması, M.
Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), In Kamu Politikası Kuram ve Uygulama 2nd
Edition (s. 228-243), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Kraft, M. E. & Furlong, S. R. (2018), Public Policy: Politics, Analysis, and
Alternatives 6th Edition, CQ Press.
Köseoğlu, Ö. (2013), Meslek Sanat ve Disiplin Olarak Kamu Politikası: Türkiye
İzdüşümleri, Bilgi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 1, 4-36.
Köseoğlu, Ö. (2015), Kamu Politikası Sürecinde Karar Verme Modelleri, M.
Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), In Kamu Politikası Kuram ve Uygulama 2nd
Edition (s. 244-264), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Nakamura, R. T. (1987), The Textbook Policy Process And Implementation
Research, Policy Studies Review, 7(1), 142-154.
Orhan, G. (2015), Kamu Politikasına Yorumsamacı Yaklaşımlar, M. Yıldız &
M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), In Kamu Politikası Kuram ve Uygulama 2nd Edition
(s. 66-87), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Sabatier, P. A. (1999), Theories of The Policy Process: Theoretical Lenses on
Public Policy, Westview Press.
Sabatier, P. A. (2007), The Need for Better Theories, Paul A. Sabatier (Ed.), In
Theories of the Policy Process (s. 3-121), Westview Press.
 PUBLIC POLICY: CONCEPT AND THEORY   119

Smith, K. B. & Larimer, C. W. (2009), The Public Policy Theory Primer,

Westview Press.
Usta, A. (2013), Kamu Politikaları Analizine kuramsal Bir Bakış, Yasama
Dergisi, 24, 78-102.
Usta, A. (2014), Yeni Kamu Yönetiminde Politikaların Değerlendirilmesi:
Tipolojiler, Boyutlar ve Ölçütler, Sayıstay Dergisi, 94, 5-27.
Vedung, E. (2013), Six Models of Evaluation, Eduardo Araral Jr. (Ed.), In
Routledge Handbook of Public Policy (s. 387-400), Routledge.
Yıldız, M. & Sobacı M. Z. (2015), Kamu Politikası ve Kamu Politikası Analizi
Genel Bir Çerçeve, M. Yıldız & M. Z. Sobacı (Ed.), In Kamu Politikası
Kuram ve Uygulama 2nd Edition (s. 16-42), Ankara: Adres Yayınları.
Yıldız, M. et al. (2016), Kamu Politikasını Türk İdare Tarihi Üzerinden Çalışmak,
Hacettepe Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2),
133-158.

View publication stats