Thematic Lecture: Wieger Bakker
Reading: Theories of the Policy cycle
Policy analysis views policy as evolving through a series of distinct stages or phases. However, it
has also been criticized for its theoretical construction as well as its empirical validity. (p. 43).
The policy cycle – a simplified model of the policy process
There have been many different variations to the stages that describe the policy cycle.
Right now, the most common one is the:
1. Agenda-setting
2. Policy formulation
3. Decision making
4. Implementation
5. Evaluation (p. 43)
Real world decision-making usually does not follow this sequence of discrete stages however. They
provide an ideal-type of rational planning and decision making. (p. 44).
Still, the stages of policy-making were designed as evolving in chronological order:
1. Problems are defined and put on the agenda
2. Policies are developed, adopted and implemented
3. These policies will be assessed against their effectiveness and efficiency and either terminated
or restarted. (p. 44).
This cycle is combined with the input-output model (feedback loops), which then together forms the
policy cycle. Outputs of policy processes at time 1 are the impacts on wider society, which will later
be transformed into inputs (demands and support) to a succeeding policy process at time 2.
It also allows reflection on unintended consequences or side-effects. (p. 44)
In reality, these stages aren’t this chronological, but the stages are all meshed together (p. 44). Policy
succession highlight a key problem that new policies develop in a dense environment of already
existing policies, where these other policies are key obstacles to the newer ones (p. 45).
The policy cycle focusses attention on generic features of the policy process rather than on specific
actors or institutions or particular substantial problems and respective programs -> limitations (p. 45).
The stages of the policy cycle
Agenda setting: problem recognition and issue selection
In this stage, the social problem has been defined, and is then actually put on the agenda. (p. 45)
Agenda-setting results in a selection between diverse problems and issues. What is the policy
problem? And why are other problems excluded from the agenda?
Agenda-setting emerges from 1) political debates where one actor seeks to raise attention to the issue
through policies, 2) from a process of filtering issues and problems, resulting in non-decisions. These
are critiques of pluralism (p. 46).
The actual process of agenda-setting is characterized by different patterns in terms of actor
composition and the role of the public.
1. The outside-initiation pattern: social actors force governments to place an issue on the
systemic agenda by way of gaining public support
2. The inside-initiation pattern: processes where interest groups have direct access to
government agencies and are capable of putting topics on the agenda without major
interference
, 3. The mobilization pattern: pattern of mobilization within the public by the government when
the initial-agenda setting has been accomplished (p. 46)
4. Consolidation: the state actors initiate an issue where public support is already high (p. 47)
Often agenda-setting involves forced choice situations:where they cannot ignore public sentiment
without risking the loss of legitimacy or credibility. These policies frequently have a short life cycle.
(p. 47)
A few factors determine whether a policy issue becomes a major topic
1. Material conditions of the policy environment (economic development)
2. The flow and cycle of ideas and ideologies (policy proposals).
Often the economic and social aspects are used as explanatory variables of policies, but more recent
approaches stress the roles of ideas, expressed in public and professional discourses (p. 47).
Policy formulation and decision-making
During this stage expressed problems, proposals, and demands are transformed into government
programs. It includes the definition of objectives and the consideration of alternatives.
This stage is particularly theory oriented.
It involves the establishment of clearly defined goals, output targets within the budget statement, and
the application of cost-benefit analysis to political programs as long-term political priorities. (p. 48).
The civil servants who work to formulate these policies are not necessarily separated from society.
They are constantly interacting with social actors. (p. 49)
Many studies have argued that the preliminary stages of decision-making strongly influence the final
outcomes of the policies. These make a strong case against the rational model of decision-making.
Instead of rational selection between alternative policies, decision-making results from bargaining
between diverse actors within a policy subsystem. Governments still play a role in policy formation,
but recently social actors got more venues into the policy making system. (p. 49).
Iron triangles: state bureaucracies, parliamentary sub committees and organized interest generally
sharing objectives and ideas. (p. 50).
With the final decision making of a particular policy option, the formal institutions of the
governmental system move into the centre. Which policy will be chosen depend on two highlighted
factors:
1. The feasible set of policy options is reduced by substantial parameters (resources).
2. The allocation of competencies between different actors play a crucial role in decision making
(p. 50).
Think tanks and international organizations are regarded as a catalyst for fostering the exchange and
transfer of policy ideas, solutions and problem perceptions between governments and beyond. (policy
transfer) (p. 51).
Implementation
The fact that there was a decision based on the adoption of a program, does not meant that the action
will strictly follow the policy makers’ aims and objectives.
Implementation: what happens between the establishment of an apparent intention on the part of the
government to do something, or to stop doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of
action. (p. 51).
Policy implementation would ideally involve the following three elements:
1. Specification of program details
2. Allocation of resources
, 3. Decisions (how will this be carried out?)
Implementation was regarded from a perspective which was later called the top-down approach. It
evaluated how far the centrally defied goals and objectives were achieved. (p. 52).
Policy instruments have been classified into regulatory, financial, informational, and organizational
policy tools, and different types of policy instruments are vulnerable to specific types of
implementation problems (p. 52).
These top-down perspectives have been increasingly challenged on analytical grounds in terms of
their normative implications.
Bottom-up perspective: central role of implementation agencies and their personnel in shaping the
actual policy outcome, and highlights policy implementation as resulting from the interaction of
different actors and different programs. This increasingly widespread recognition of linkages and
networks between a number of actors within a policy goes against hierarchical understanding of
state/society interaction (p. 53).
Evaluation and termination
Policy-making is supposed to contribute to problem solving or at least to the reduction of the problem
load. During the evaluation stage of the policy cycle, these intended outcomes of policies move into
the center of attention (p. 53).
One problem with evaluation is how to isolate the influence and impact of a policy measure on policy
outcomes.
Moreover, the evaluation of the policy progress goes beyond scientific evaluation studies, but also
includes government reports, the public debate, and activities.
Evaluation of policies are also exposed to political processes in two major ways:
1. The assessment of policy outputs and outcomes is biased according to the position and
substantial interest, as well as the values, of a particular actor.
2. The flawed definition of policy aims and objectives present a major obstacle for evaluation.
(p. 54)
Evaluations may also lead to the termination of a policy (p. 54). The primary idea of policy
termination (either the policy solved the problem, or the measures were ineffective) seems rather
difficult to enforce. Efforts at policy termination aren’t widespread and are also not successful in
overcoming resistance of influential actors (p. 55).
Critique
The critique of this article is mainly based in the differentiation of the policy process into separate and
discrete stages and sequences. Implementation studies reveal that a clear-cut separation between
policy formation and implementation is hardly reflecting real-world policy making (p. 55).
This staged process is a text-book, ideal world approach. The model has outlived its usefulness and
should be replaced by more advanced models.
Critiques:
With regards to description, the stages model suffers from descriptive inaccuracy because
empirical reality does not fit with the classification of the policy process into discrete stages
In terms of its conceptual value, the policy cycle lacks defining elements of a theoretical
framework. No causal explanations for the transitions between stages.
The policy cycle is based on an implicit top-down perspective and as such policy-making will
be framed as hierarchical steering by superior institutions
, By adopting the policy cycle perspective, the elements of the policy process that are not
related to problem-solving are systematically ignored
The policy framework ignores the role of knowledge, ideas, and learning in the policy process
as influential independent variables affecting all stages of the policy process.
The whole process is reduced to initiating and continuing programs. (p. 56)
Alternatives are: the multiple-stream framework, the institutional rational choice approach, policy
diffusion models, and the punctuated equilibrium theory.
Limitations and utility of the policy cycle perspective
Limitations:
The policy cycle draws an extremely simplified picture of reality
Policy research is not primarily concerned with the application of the analytical scientific
theory.
Utility
The policy is an excellent heuristic device: it has enhanced our understanding of complex
preconditions, central factors influencing, and diverse outcomes of the policy process -> it
offers useful tools
The cycle framework also fulfils a vital role in structuring the vast amount of literature, the
abundance of theoretical concepts, analytical tools, and empirical studies, and therefore is not
only crucial for learning purposes. (p. 57).
In terms of democratic governance and from the perspective of public administration
research, it remains of central relevance in which stage which actors are dominant and which
are not.
The policy cycle therefore does not only provide a yardstick for the evaluation of the success
or failure of a policy, but also a perspective against which the democratic quality of these
processes can be assessed. (p. 58)
