Theories of

policy
Process

Ferdous Arfina Osman

Professor
Department of Public
Administration
University of Dhaka
Multiple Stream Framework (MSF):

• Kingdon (2011) offered MSF as a tool for the analysis of agenda setting
process. It explains how three streams (problem, political and policy) merge
together and creates an opportunity for agenda setting
• The underlying assumption of MSF is that inclusion of policy ideas/problems
into policy agenda is a complicated task since policy issues/problems are
plagued with many complexities (ambiguity, time constraints, unclear
technology, fluid participation, stream independence)

• Consensus building in different streams take different ways as the mode of interaction varies:
• Political Stream: Bargaining
• Policy Stream: Persuasion
• Problem stream: Group mobilization, lobbying
Five Structural Elements of MSF
i) Problem Stream: Problems refer to the conditions which needs action to be
resolved.
Problems are generally social constructs rather than objective facts
ii) Policy Stream: Policy alternatives are generated in policy communities.
Policy community refers to a loose connection of civil servants, interest groups,
academics, researchers and consultants who engage in working out alternatives to
the policy problems of a specific field (Herweg, 2016)
iii) Political Stream: Policy issues are originated from the political system.
Three core elements in the political stream : national mood, interest groups,
government
iv) Agenda (Policy) Window: Opportunities to get an issue on the agenda when
all three streams (policy, problem, politics) are coupled in a single package
(terrorist attacks/ natural disasters)
v)Policy Entrepreneur: Advocates who are willing to invest their resources-time,
energy, reputation, money to promote a position in return for anticipated future
gain in the form of material benefits are the key actors in MSF
Punctuated
Equilibrium • Baumgartner and Jones borrowed the concept
of “punctuated equilibrium” from evolutionary
Theory (PET) biology to describe the policy process.

PET was developed to • Policy change is characterized by long run

understand the dynamics stability punctuated with short term shocks
of policy change in that makes policy change more likely.
subsystems • They argue that the balance of political
power between interest groups remains
relatively stable over long periods of time,
Stability and change are
punctuated by relatively sudden shifts in
important elements of the
public understanding of problems and in the
policy process and the PET
balance of power between the groups
encompasses both.
seeking to fight entrenched interests.
•
Punctuated Equilibrium Theory
• Stasis, rather than crisis, typically characterizes most policy areas.
• Although generally marked by stability and incrementalism, political processes
occassionally produce large scale departures from the past.
• PET includes periods of equilibrium or near stasis, when an issue is captured by
a subsystem, and periods of disequilibrium, when an issue is forced onto the
macropolitical agenda.
• When an issue is on the macropolitical agenda, small changes in objective
circumstances can cause large changes in policy and we say the the system is
undergoing a positive feedback process.
• Positive feedback occurs when a change, sometimes a fairly modest
one, causes future changes to be amplified. Negative feedback , on
the other hand, maintains stability in a system, somewhat like a
thermostat maintains constant temperature in a room.
Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF)
• Developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins Smith, ACF is a model or
framework for understanding the interactions of groups and coalitions of
groups called advocacy coalitions.
• ACF is based on the idea that interest groups are organized in policy
communities within a policy domain.
• Based on shared beliefs on policy issues, two to four coalitions are
formed
• These groups get engaged in policy debates, compete and compromise
policy solutions based on their core values and beliefs.
• Policy change is less likely if polarization of advocacy coalitions that the
groups’ peripheral beliefs provide little or no opportunity for shared
interests.
In the ACF, policy making is influenced both by “relatively
stable” system parameters and by “dynamic (system) events”.
Interaction between the two promotes or inhibits policy
making.

Stable Parameters Dynamic (system) events

• Distribution of natural • Changes in socioeconomic

conditions and technology,
resources in the society,
changes in public opinion,
fundamental cultural values changes in systemic governing
and social structure and the coalitions (partisan balance in
basic legal structure the legislature or executive
branch) and policy decisions
(constitution).
and impacts from other
subsystems.
• Changes in governing coalition corresponds to
the change in the politics stream in Kingdon’s
model, while changes in socioeconomic and
technological conditions influence the
problem and policy streams
ACF offers four conceptual pathways to policy
change:

1. External source that are outside the control of subsystem

participants like regime change, natural disasters

2. Internal events that occur inside the territorial boundaries

(including crises, policy debacles, scandals, failures)

3. Policy oriented learning may cause minor policy change but it

happens incrementally

4. Negotiated Agreement among the warring coalitions may result in

substantial change in policy.
 Garbage Can Model
• The Garbage Can model of decision-making, proposed by Cohen, March, and Olsen in
1972, suggests that decisions within organizations are often chaotic and can involve
multiple streams of problems, solutions, participants, and choices.

• The term "garbage can" in the Garbage Can model of decision-making was coined
metaphorically to capture the chaotic and somewhat disorganized nature of decision-
making processes within organizations.

• In the Garbage Can model, problems, solutions, participants, and choices are all
metaphorically thrown into a "garbage can" where they mix together.

• Just as different types of waste might be mixed together in a literal garbage can, various
issues and solutions become intertwined in the decision-making process, making it
difficult to discern clear patterns or rational sequences. (withdrawal of scholarships during
the university admission process considering the non availability of resources),
Contd…
• Three elements/streams of garbage can model: Problem, Solutions and
Participants
• decisions are made in a somewhat chaotic manner, with problems, solutions,
and participants coming together in an unpredictable way.
• the decision-making process is characterized by ambiguity, uncertainty, and the
simultaneous presence of multiple problems, solutions, and participants. The
Garbage Can model helps us understand how decisions emerge from this
complex interplay of factors within organizational and institutional contexts.
• The Garbage Can model helps us understand that decisions are not always
made through a rational, linear process but can instead be influenced by
various factors interacting in a dynamic organizational environment.
Theory of Social Construction and Policy
Design
• Developed by Anne Schneider and Helen Ingram. The theory incorporates the
social construction and power of target populations to understand the
development and implications of policy design.

• The theory focuses on the socially constructed values applied to target

populations and knowledge, and the consequent impact these values
have on people and democracy.

• a given target population is classified along two dimensions—social construction

and power.
• On the social construction dimension, individuals are perceived as being on a
gradient of undeserving to deserving.
• Similarly, on the power dimension, individuals are viewed on a gradient of powerful
to lacking power.
• The four quadrants in the 2 × 2 matrix correspond to four categories of target
populations: advantaged, contenders, dependents, and deviants.
Four categories of populations under Social
Construction Theory
• Those who are advantaged have a relatively high amount of power and
are positively constructed. They are expected to receive a
disproportionate share of benefits and few burdens.
• Contenders have a relatively high amount of power, but are negatively
constructed, and are expected to receive sub-rosa benefits and few
burdens that are highly visible but easily undermined.
• The dependents have a relatively low amount of power but are
positively constructed and are expected to receive rhetorical and
underfunded benefits and few but often hidden burdens.
• Finally, deviants have a relatively low amount of power and are
negatively constructed and are expected to receive limited to no
benefits and a disproportionate share of burdens (Schneider & Ingram,
1993).
quadrants

Positive Power
High Low

Advantaged Dependent
(Armed Force) (Disadvantaged
women)

Image

Contender Deviant
Powerful corrupt officials (Slum dwellers)

Negative
Pathway Model
• Policies follow different paths. Which path the policy follows determine which
actors will be influential in the process.
• All actors are not equally influential in all the policies (ICT policy vs education
policy). Type of actor influential in the policy process and the politics inherent
among them determine the nature of policy decisions and their stability
• Pathway model offered by Timothy et.al., (2014) helps understand the role
and influence of policy actors in choosing a policy option in a policy and
thereby helps conducting actor analysis.
Contd..
• Pathway model analyzes the policy process by concentrating on the methods through
which the policy advocates/actors build/mobilize support for their proposals

• The focus here is on mobilization, i.e. how the advocates mobilize support for their
policy options

• This effort to mobilize support has two different dimensions-

• Scope and scale of mobilization, i.e. whether the policy advocates tend to limit access
to policy process to accommodate only the specialized groups or facilitate access for
broader publics/mass people or other actors.

• Forms of mobilization, i.e. whether the policy advocates rely on organized interest
(partisan/group/individual) or ideas (scientific/evocative) to push forward their policy
proposals.
 Contd..
• These dimensions eventually suggest that policies are being developed through four discrete
‘pathways of power’ –
• Pluralist: policies are formed largely by the processes of mutual adjustment among
contending organized interests, through bargaining , compromise and vote trading.
Unorganized, poorly represented interests (public) typically exert less influence. Policy
change is mostly incremental.

• Partisan: refers to a non-incremental policy change brought by a strong party leader

• Expert: this pathway is dominated by the field experts and professionals in bureaucracy,
academia and think tanks and provides a route for both incremental and non-incremental
policy change.

• Symbolic: Built around the power of ideas, which tend to be simple and value laden
(right/wrong). It relies on policy entrepreneurs and communications through the mass
media to bridge the gap between policy makers and the general public.
Contd..
Contd..
• Each of these pathways tends to function best in a certain environment, favors particular tools
of decision making, employs a unique style of coalition building, and is associated with a
characteristic type of policy outcome.

• Each also tends to appeal to particular actors in the policy system, who seek to steer issues
onto a path most familiar to them and conducive to their success

• Of these four, the pluralist and partisan pathways are reflection of traditional models of
incrementalism and Presidential leadership respectively. In both cases, the forms of
mobilization rely on organization and interests.

• However, the pluralist path tends to appeal to the interest groups and the policy making is
viewed as adjustment among contending interest groups. The possibility of involvement of
broader public remains low and scope of mobilization is highly specialized.

• On the other hand, in partisan pathway, the political parties play the most significant role in
developing policies and the pathways allows provision for mass mobilization.
• The expert and symbolic pathways make an effort to incorporate the role played by ideas as
major instrument of shaping policy decisions.

• In the expert pathway, the policy experts play the pivotal role and scope of mobilization
remains highly specialized.

• Similarly, the symbolic pathway emphasizes on ideas, however, the ideas are quite different
in nature and mostly simple, evocative and emotional.

• Mass mobilization prevails in this pathway and ideas and roles of broad public appeal
determines the policy decision

• A policy may emerge from one pathway and it may shift to another pathway. With the
change of pathway, stakeholders also change and consequently, policy focus also changes.
Thus, pathway change leads to policy change.
Summary of Key Characteristics
• Four pathways of power successfully captures the diverse ways that new issues reach the
agenda and take the form of a policy, draws upon different political resources, appeals to
particular actors and elicits its own unique strategies and styles of coalition building.
• Since different pathways tend to favour different actors and values, it is suggested that
policy actors attempt to steer the framing of issues, coalition building, and institutional
design in ways that capitalize on the pathways that best promoted their goals and
interests.
• Pathways model can be utilized to understand the types of mobilization strategies
deployed by the actors and also the policy outcomes that may evolve over time.
• Thus, pathway model can be effectively used for actor analysis through which
acceptability/implementability of policy options can be assessed.