![]()
Chapter 1
The policy process
Learning Objectives
To have an understanding of interrelated policy cycles
To appreciate that interrelated policy cycles are situated and contextualized within interdependent environments of globalization, governance, political systems, organizations and the activities of key actors
To understand the theories and models of the policy process
Key Points in this Chapter
An explanation of the models and cycles used to explain the policy process
How descriptive, normative and alternative approaches to public policy analysis differ
An emphasis on the importance of the âreal worldâ when explaining policy process: interrelated problems, âwicked issuesâ, globalization and governance, multiplicity of actors and stakeholders
Introduction
On a warm summerâs day in 1994 in Hamilton, New Jersey in the US, a seven-year-old girl, Megan Kanka, was coaxed by a neighbour to play with a puppy. The neighbour was Jesse Timmendequas, a twice-convicted paedophile. On that day, 29 July 1994, he raped, murdered and then dumped Meganâs body in a park. Meganâs family began a campaign to ensure notification of paedophiles living within a community. There was public outrage and anger that a convicted paedophile was allowed to live in proximity to children without notification to the local population. The public outcry was articulated into New Jersey state legislation and then enacted by Congress in 1996 as US federal legislation. The Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act, commonly known as Meganâs Law, allows US states discretion in establishing criteria to disclose information about registered sex offenders. It was deemed that the public notification of registered sex offenders would assist law enforcement investigations, would deter sex offenders from committing new offences and offer citizens information to protect children from victimization. Although, there was public sympathy and support for such a law, the passage of the law was not without opposition. Many argued that it violated the rights of sex offenders, such as a right to privacy, that offenders would be victimized and once they had served their conviction they should be not be convicted again by society. Various other countries around the world, through a form of policy transfer, introduced similar legislation.
There have been mixed results in the US with states implementing the law in different ways. Opponents of the law argue that sex offenders are victimized and consequently âgo undergroundâ, moving to different locations, making it difficult for law enforcement to trace them â a negative, unintended outcome. Proponents of the law argue that in some states in the US there has been a decline in sexual offences against children, although opponents of the law argue that this is perhaps due to some sex offenders moving to another jurisdiction. This tragic story is a policy process story: how there is a concern or issue in the environment, external to government; how it becomes a demand for government action; how there are various support or contestations of the policy; how a government decision-making process becomes a public policy or a law; its implementation in society; and how perhaps the effectiveness of the public policy is evaluated and debated with a view of its outcome for society.
Most books will explain the public policy process as policy formulation (the process of making public policy), policy implementation (the application of the public policy in society) and policy evaluation (reviewing, measuring, assessing and/or investigating the effectiveness of public policy). For example, see Clemons and McBethâs work (2001), where the structure of the book is based on public policy as stages: problem or issue awareness (stage 1), policy determination (stage 2) and policy implementation (stage 3). As discussed in the introductory section of this book, this process is described in a linear manner or at best as a cycle. It is often simplistic in description, but policy in the real world is more complex. Thus, this chapter provides an overview of concepts, models and theories of the policy process. The overview is offered to aid the understanding and conceptualization of the complexities of public policy. The chapter also explores the roles of key actors in the process although this will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 3. The conventionally accepted theories such as rationalism and incrementalism are discussed and more recent perspectives of public policy will also be explored. Thus, while this chapter provides a discussion of extant theories to provide a context of the policy process, you are encouraged to critically reflect upon its real world applicability. As such, we provide some critical discussion of the theories towards the development of a more contemporary perspective of the public policy process. Before we proceed to discuss policy cycles, we first need to discuss types of public policies in order to understand the policy process.
Types of Public Policies
Regulation is perhaps the most obvious of government policies as it seeks to exert some form of control over society or individual citizens to achieve a societal outcome. However, policies can be more than merely regulatory, policies can be classified as distributive, constituent, and redistributive as well (Lowi 1972). Lowi (1972) developed a taxonomy of policies along the dimensions of likelihood and applicability of coercion. Although Lowi (1972) does not explicitly define coercion, he argues (1972: 299) that the âmost significant political fact about government is that government coercesâ. We assume he is referring to power and authority of government to act (see discussion in the introductory chapter of this book). He argues that the likelihood of government to coerce can be immediate or remote: it can be remote if sanctions are absent, or if there is a subsidy where the coercive element is displaced, it encourages certain behaviours, and coercion can be immediate if the policy directly affects behaviours (ibid). Lowiâs (1972) classification of types of policies is illustrated in Figure 1.1 overleaf.
Figure 1.1 Types of policies
The classification by Lowi draws upon the US political system and the evidence for his research is based upon US Presidential and Congressional historical records. Nonetheless, without holding his classification up to a robust standard of external validity, there is relevancy to the taxonomy of policies. Governments can enact policies that have a direct or immediate bearing on our lives such as eliminating substandard goods, which would require individuals or private sector businesses at a decentralized level to remove the goods from sale or being produced. This would take place at a decentralized level and act in a groupâs (e.g. consumersâ) interests. This we would regard as regulation. Thus regulative policies impose restrictions or place limits on behaviour of individuals or groups of individuals and reduce the freedom to act (Anderson 1997). An example of this would be banking regulation in order to reduce high-risk behaviour, which may have implications for the economy â there has been an increased call for more banking regulation since the 2008 banking and consequent financial crisis. Other examples include pollution control, property rights, censorship, reproductive rights, etc. Individuals or groups will always resist regulation or attempt to reduce its impact, but governments have to make a choice or balance the interests between those of society and individuals or groups. As Anderson (1997) argues, the formation of regulatory policies usually features conflict between two groups or coalitions of groups, with one side seeking to impose some sort of control (e.g. banning pornography), and the other side, which customarily resists regulation, arguing that control is either unnecessary or that the wrong kind of control is being proposed (e.g. pornography constitutes a freedom of expression or resistance to imposed age restrictions).
Government can also enact policies that operate at a more centralized level that benefit a group (e.g. those living below the poverty line) and that have an immediate and broader effect. Lowi (1972) classifies these as redistributive policies such as welfare benefits. Thus, redistributive policies involve deliberate efforts by government to shift or reallocate wealth, income, property or rights among broader groups in the population (Anderson 1997). Typically in Western liberal democracies redistributive policies are social and welfare benefits for the poor or elderly. Redistribution can also take place on a global scale such as foreign aid being provided to impoverished communities or countries e.g. food aid to Somalia. Redistributive policies attempt to address an imbalance or achieve a level of equality and fairness in society. But as Anderson (1997) notes, redistributive policies are difficult to enact because they involve the reallocation of resources and those who possess wealth and power, sometimes the political class, rarely yield the resources willingly and possess ample means to resist their diminution.
Then there are policies that have a remote or indirect effect. This may be on an individualized and decentralized basis, such as subsidies to farmers, but are in a party political interest to do so â these are distributive policies (ibid). Finally, Lowi (1972) refers to constituency policies which are also in the party interest to enact a policy, such as setting up an agency to deal with particular constituency concerns. Thus, distributive policies involve allocation of services or benefits to particular individuals in the population with some benefits being accrued to individual citizens or a few beneficiaries (Anderson 1997). Distributive policies typically involve using public funds to assist particular individuals or groups such as flood barriers to protect those living in high-risk areas (ibid), while constituent policies benefit a potential voting bloc or support base for the political party as an incumbent government.
Anderson (1997) provides other categories of public policies. He argues that policies can be substantive or procedural. Substantive policies involve government action that directly distributes to the population advantages and disadvantages, benefits and costs (ibid). Anderson (1997) provides the example of constructing a highway, which is substantive and tangible with obvious economic benefits of creating transport infrastructure, but also incurs costs such as taxes to pay for the highway and levels of pollution. Procedural policies in contrast are policies that concern the process: how something is going to be done or who is going to take the action (ibid). The procedural policies relate to, for example, creating a public agency, determining matters over jurisdiction, specifying the process and techniques employed and allowing for procedures of accountability (ibid). Most public organizations involved in protective and care services, such as law enforcement or social care agencies, have a number of procedur...
