Models of Public Policy

Decision Making in India

Introduction
Public policy making process in India, like any other country in the world, has become
more complex and intensive in the recent times. This is a dynamic and ever evolving
process where different actors and institutions are involved. The idea of desirable role of
the state in the society and economy is also changing and along with it changing is the
nature of public policy. Policies are outcome of the complex interactions between
prevalent value systems of governing actors and existence and role of various civil society
groups in any specific period.

Public policy is like a strategic framework which the government uses to deliver its public
role. The assessment of public policies and their models are very important to understand
the relationship of the state to its people. Public policies also reflect the prospects of
betterment of society in terms of economic development, social justice and political
empowerment. It also highlights the intention and nature of the government in terms of its
commitment to welfare of all sections of society.

In the next section, we will discuss the various analytical models of public policies
whichare prevalent worldwide including India.
Models of Public Policies
1) Process Model
Process model attempts to generalise the pattern of political actions
or steps which occur during the different stages of policy making.
The main question researched in this model is 23‘what’, ‘when’ and
‘how’ of the policy making than ‘who’ and ‘why’ particular outcomes
occur of policy making. These models are widely used in policy
education. The various stages of process models are:

Problem Identification : Various groups of the society demand

intervention or action of the government in their interests and the
identification of such problem is the first stage of policy making
process.
Agenda setting: After identification of problem, a particular
course of action is deliberated with the participation of different
stakeholders like administrative officials, media etc.\

Policy formulation: Various stakeholders of policy making

develop policy proposals.

Policy legitimation: Selection of a particular course of action and

enactment of the policy through legislature, executive and
administrative system. Policy implementation: Execution of the
policy through government institutions and officials.
Policy legitimation: Selection of a particular course of
action and enactment of the policy through legislature,
executive and administrative system.

Policy implementation: Execution of the policy through

government institutions and officials.

Policy Evaluation: The evaluation of the outcome of the

policies and its further implications are analysed not only by
the government agencies themselves, by the media, think
tanks, private consultancies, civil society groups etc.
2) Institutional Model

This approach highlights the integral relationship between government institutions

and public policies. In the various stages of making and implementing public policy
various government institutions and political representatives like President, the
Prime Minister and members of Parliament, Urban and Rural Government,
Judiciary, Bureaucrats and leaders of interest groups are involved. The main
argument of this model is that the public policy is mainly outcome of the internal
efforts of the Government institutions rather than the result of external pressures
and influences. In this regard, the view of Thomas Dye is noteworthy;
“The relationship between public policy and government institutions is highly
interrelated. A policy converts into public policy when it is formulated and
implemented by government institutions.” (Dye 2004)
The Government institutions give the following three distinctive characteristics to
public policy:
a) Legitimacy: Public policies are formulated by the law
making agencies and it give it the legal authority. Citizen’s
compliance is sought by making public policies legally
obligatory.

b) Universality: The Government institutions give universal

character to public policies by making it applicable to the
entire society.

c) Coercion: Government can impose legal sanctions against

the violations of various public policy regulations and as
such can authoritatively enforce the public policies.
3. Rational Model
This model is related to the decision making process of a
policy on rational ground. The main protagonists of this
model are Herbert Simon, Yehezkel Dror and Thomas R.
Dye. This is an efficiency maximisation model defined
differently as ‘net value achievement’ (Robert Haveman)
‘maximum social gain’ (Thomas Dye). Thomas Dye says
that government should choose those policies which yield
more societal gains than the input costs. According to Dye
maximisation of social gain depends on two conditions:
# Input costs should not exceed the output benefits.
# The policy which gives maximum gain in compare to
input costs should be chosen among alternative policies.
Dye equates rationality with efficiency. A rational policy is that policy in which
“The ratio between the value it achieves and the value it sacrifices is positive
and higher than the any other policy alternatives” (Dye: 2004). In his view,
efficiency is not measurable only on monetary terms but involves the
calculation of achievement and sacrifices of political, social and economic
values.

In this model, inferences are draws on logical evidences as in form of facts

and information. Objectivity and economy of efforts are sought to be achieved
by giving lesser importance to subjectivity and intuition. Herbert Simon
developed the rational model by separating values from facts and
incorporating new scientific techniques. He argues that rational decision
making process involves three kinds of activities- intelligence activity, design
activity and choice activity. Intelligence activity involves the searching the
problem for decision making, design activity identifies and develops of all
possible course of action and choice activity involves the selecting of one
particular course of action.
He puts forward the concept of ‘bounded rationality’ while stressing the limitations of
individuals and organizations to act in a complete rational manner.

Various steps of Rational Decision Making Models are:

Framing or identifying the problem is the first step of rational decision-making.

Establishing the criteria of decision by measuring elements like stakeholders

who are involved, their requirement, preferences and other relevant facts.

Ordering the various information by assessing their relevant weights.

Exploring all the policy alternatives that are available.

Evaluation of all alternatives on various parameters such as feasibility, possible

outcome etc. Calculation of the cost-benefit ratio of each policy alternative.

Selection of the most suitable and efficient policy alternative and state it as
decision.

Implementation of the policy or decision.

Evaluation of the results of the decision.

Assumptions of the Rational Model of Decision Making

The model assumes that the people choose the best alternative by
assuring the minimization of costs and maximization of benefits among
various policy alternatives. As such, this model is based on certain
assumptions. These are as follows:

Decision makers have the correct knowledge about the problem

and value preferences of the people.

They have all the related factual information to measure cost-

benefit analysis of the policy alternatives.

Decision makers have the cognitive ability to process the data and
evaluate all possible combinations against each other.

They have the logical ability to choose the best possible alternative.
Limitations
Herbert Simon argues that the condition of perfect rationality is not always possible.
According to Simon,

“The Rational-Economic Model (Classical decision theory) assumes the manager

faces a clearly defined problem, he knows all possible action alternatives and
their consequences, and then chooses the optimum solution. Whereas in
Administrative Model (Behavioural), the Behavioural decision theory accepts the
notion of bounded rationality. It assumes the manager acts only in terms of what
is perceived about a given situation, and then chooses a satisfying solution”
(Simon 1947)

His concept of ‘bounded rationality’ provides holistic understanding of how decisions

are taken. Simon argues that decision maker lack the basic cognitive ability and
because of many other limitations like time constraints, lack of information,
organizational procedure etc. decision makers are not able to obtain optimal decisions
which can maximise benefits.

In such cases, the decision maker makes ‘good enough’ or most suitable course of
action basing on his/ her rationality. The rationality here implies the acknowledgment of
one’s own limitations than opting for the most suitable possible alternative.
Rational Model
This model is related to the decision making process of a policy on
rational ground. The main protagonists of this model are Herbert
Simon, Yehezkel Dror and Thomas R. Dye. This is an efficiency
maximisation model defined differently as ‘net value achievement’
(Robert Haveman) ‘maximum social gain’ (Thomas Dye). Thomas
Dye says that government should choose those policies which
yield more societal gains than the input costs.
According to Dye maximisation of social gain depends on two
conditions:
Input costs should not exceed the output benefits.
The policy which gives maximum gain in compare to input
costs should be chosen among alternative policies.
Dye equates rationality with efficiency. A rational policy is that policy in
which “The ratio between the value it achieves and the value it sacrifices
is positive and higher than the any other policy alternatives” (Dye: 2004).

In this model, inferences are draws on logical evidences as in form of

facts and information. Objectivity and economy of efforts are sought to be
achieved by giving lesser importance to subjectivity and intuition. Herbert
Simon developed the rational model by separating values from facts and
incorporating new scientific techniques. He argues that rational decision
making process involves three kinds of activities- intelligence activity,
design activity and choice activity. Intelligence activity involves the
searching the problem for decision making, design activity identifies and
develops of all possible course of action and choice activity involves the
selecting of one particular course of action.
Incremental Model
The main advocate of this model is Charles E. Lindblom as discussed in
his book ‘Policy Making Process’. This model while criticising the rational
decision making approach argues that public policy is a continuation of
previous government activities with only incremental modification.
According to Lindblom, policy makers do not annually review the whole
range of existing and proposed policies because of the constraints of time,
intelligence and cost it involves. New policies are introduced only at
smaller level for the first time than it is subsequently developed by the
successive governments. Policy makers are more likely to legitimise the
previous policies than bringing about radically new policies because of
uncertainty involved in the latter. This approach is also politically expedient
to avoid conflicts among different interest groups. Modification of existing
policies will fulfil the particular demands and maintain stability of the
political system. As such the incremental approach which he considered
as the branch method of decision making involves a process of ‘continually
building out from the current situation, step by step and by small degrees’
as different from the root approach of rational decision making,
This approach is one of the most popular approaches easily adopted
by the policy makers. In the absence of any agreed upon societal
goals or values, it is easier for the government to continue existing
programmes rather than engaging in overall policy planning towards
specific societal goals.
In his later writings, Lindblom incorporates the critique of his theory of
incremental pluralism while accepting that models based on pluralistic
decision making is biased towards powerful individuals and interest
groups. He made a distinction between incrementalism as a pattern
and incrementalism as a policy analysis. In his article “Still Muddling,
Not yet through” (1979), Lindblom makes a case for analytical
incrementalism as a method of securing power in the pluralistic
society.
In this work, he discusses three main forms to incremental analysis which are as
follows:
I. Simple Incremental Analysis: In this form of analysis, only those policy
alternatives which are marginally different from the existing policies are
discussed.
II. Strategic Analysis There are many constraints in complete analysis of policy
alternatives and as such many methods are used to make better choices. These
are operation research, trial and error learning, and system analysis,
management by objectives and programme evaluation and review techniques.
III. Disjointed Incrementalism:In this analytical strategy, six methods are
followed for simplification of problems. Restraining the analysis for a few familiar
alternatives, Interlinking values and policy goals with empirical analysis of
problems, Directing attention to the removal of problems than achieving of goals,
Bid-and-error learning, Evaluating a restricted number of options and their
outcomes, Dividing the analytical work to many partisan participants in policy
making. The notion of disjointed incrementalism was introduced by Lindbolm and
Davis Braybrooke in their work ‘A Strategy of Decision’ (1963).
Group Theory
Group theory view public policy as the equilibrium reached among the interests of
different groups. It gives an account of the influential role of the groups made of
common interests of individuals.

Earl Latham states,

“What may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached in this ‘group’
struggling at any given moment and it represents a balance which the
contending factions or groups constantly strive to weight in their favour.”
Groups work as link between individuals and government. These
groups struggle for their conflicting interests. The political system
try to manage those conflicts by accommodative policies.
However, what is seen most of the time is that actual policy tends
to incline towards the groups that are gaining in influence. Thus,
public policy at any given time tend to reflect the interests of the
dominant groups. The group strength may derive from various
aspects such as organization capacity, networking links, numerical
superiority etc.
By stressing on the role of groups this theory underestimates the
role of ideas and institutions and independent role of public
officials in public policy making.
Elite Model
Elite Theory highlights the importance and influence of few individuals in contrast to
the general masses in different aspects of life. The power of the few can be based of
various factors. The ideas of elitism was first expressed by three Italian scholars
Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca and Robert Michels. Vilfredo Pareto discussed the
intellectual superiority of two types of elites; governing and non-governing. Similarly,
Gaetano Mosca says that because of their intellectual and moral characteristics the
organised minority form the political class, whereas the majority are unorganised.
Robert Michels also highlights the fact that all social and political organizations are run
by the few individuals. This elitist theory was further developed into different areas by
different scholars. One of the most influential works in this regard is the book Power
Elite published in 1956 by C. Wright Mills. Mill’s work presents a sociological
perspective to the systems of power by pointing out the three distinguishable power
building body of political, economic and military in the United States.
In regards of public policy making, elitist theory highlights the importance of
ruling elites in making public policies. Public policies reflect the interests,
preferences and values of governing elite which are carried forward by the
bureaucrats. Public policies are made for the masses, but masses have very
limited or no influence in policy formulation. The policy problem is shaped by
the governing elites. Competition to influence public policy is mainly between
those who are holding political power and those who want to hold public
power. The huge masses are unaware or ill-informed and their opinion about
the policy problem is shaped by the elites. Thus this theory point outs the
downward flow of public policies from elites to masses.

According to Dye, “Public policy shows elite values, serves elite ends, and is
a product of the elite”.
Thomas Dye discusses the following main arguments of elite theory.
1. In regards of policy making, masses have very limited influence. The
powerful minority and the powerless majority divides the society where the
powerful minority allocates values for society.
2. The power of the elites mainly derive from their superior socio-economic
status.
3. The elite class is not static, there is continuous but slow movement of non
-elites to the elite position. Mostly, those non elites who supported the basic
elite consensus are slowly admit to the governing circles.
4. Elite preferences rather than the public demand is the basic of public
policies.
System Model
The main theorist of System model is David Easton who applies this model to public policy process. Public policy is
viewed as a response of a political system to the demands coming from the environment. Political system consists of
interrelated institutions and activities in society that make binding decisions in a society.

Demands and support flow is considered as inputs to political system. Demands are the claims made by individuals
and groups for fulfilling their interests in the form of public policies or actions. When such actions and policies are
acceptable to the individuals and groups they support the system. David Easton defines environment as social,
economic and all other conditions and events external to the political system. Public policy here refers to the
administrative or authoritative allocation of values. The concept of feedback in this model indicates that the
subsequent impact that alters environment and the demands generated therein. This theory points out the unending
or cyclical process of policy making since each policy generate new demands which lead to further policy output.
Thus, the policy making process has been regarded as a ‘black box’ which converts the demands of society into
Policies. However, this model is regarded as highly generalised model and mainly used to have basic understanding
of public policy process.
Game Theory
Game theory of public policy making is about taking decisions in situations of
interdependence of the more than one player. Each individual player has its own goals
and interests which may be conflictual with the goals of other’s. One’s decision or action
affects the other and in this situation, the ‘game’ is how to achieve maximum of one’s
objectives. Thus, this theory highlights the point that decision makers are involved in a
situation of interdependence. All would have to make their independent choice, but the
outcome would be conditioned by the choices made by each actor. This model is
applicable in situations where the best choice is not defined and the ‘best’ course of
action depends upon actions of others. Hence, this is a theory of rational decision making
in an interdependent and often conflictual situation.
Conclusion
From the discussion of various models in the preceding sections, we can conclude that each
model has its own advantages and disadvantages. Each mode highlights specific aspect of
public policy process. As such, it is very difficult to assert which model better reflects the
policy making process in independent India. It is difficult to claim the existence of a specific
model which applicable to policy making process throughout this period. As for example, in
terms of economic policies we can say that in the last two decades the different political
regimes have followed the incremental model in response to the forces of globalization. But
in terms of foreign policies, the game theory better explains the nature of a specific decision
as a response to the changing nature of foreign policies of other countries in an
interdependent political environment. The bargaining capacity of different sections of society
represented by different organizations and political parties can determine how much their
interests will be reflected in the policies of the current government. This in turn, also depends
how much accommodative and independent are different political institutions and how is
general political environment of the state.