Conceptual contestation has been causing a lot of difficulties in the study of politics. The analysis has been maturing and with that the typologies have increasingly been given priority. Public policies are usually analyzed as the result of interests’ interplay or institutional structure. This essay aims to explain and summarize the existing conceptual debate on the question, ‘What is public policy?, by identifying the different analytical dimensions of public policy framework. I will do so by attempting to lay out the nature of public policy by demonstrating different policy approaches. I too aim to concretely illustrate the debate and its perspectives via relevant empirical cases.
Public policy is a key instrument in the hand of the state for securing public interest. The process starts with the identification of problems and issues for policies and continues till assessment of their outcome. Below are some definitions of what is basically meant by public policy.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
A first definition is given by Dye, stating that public policy is: “Whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (Dye in Birkland, 2005). This means that the government can choose to either intervene or not to intervene when it comes to certain subjects in society. A second definition is given by Howlett and Ramesh, stating the following: “Decisions by governments to retain the status quo are just as much policy as are decisions to alter it” (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003). In other words, Howlett and Ramesh mean that the decision of the government to stay in the current state of things is also a decision on policy, just like policy that proposes change or action.
First, the rationalist approach is an approach that understands that policy-making is a process of problem solving. Within this approach lies optimal solutions to hidden policy problems. It lays down an ideal interpretation of how policy-making should be organized and evolve in order to achieve, optimal solutions to the underlying policy problems. Thus, this approach calls somewhat for a normative rather than a positive outlook on policy-making (Knill and Tosun, 2012). When the problem is defined and isolated, information is collected, alternatives are recognized and in the course of time a solution is established. Lasswell (1956) claims that hypothetically speaking the policy process is built on different stages that are orchestrated in a logical progression: intelligence, promotion, invocation, termination and appraisal. The decisions that are made are depending on preferences, goals and values.
Secondly, the incrementalist perspective gives a reason for the fact that in reality this ideal is hardly ever reached (Knill and Tosun, 2012). This is a hypothesis of the policy making process that is associated with Charles Edward Lindblom. He is an admirable Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Economics at Yale University. This perspective was developed by him as a possible choice to the rational model of decision-making. In his article ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, published in 1959 in Public Administration Review, he refuses the idea that decision-making is about describing goals, and selecting and comparing alternatives. According to him rational decision-making is not feasible to work with for complicated policy questions (Lindblom, 1979). This is because there are constraints of intelligence, time, cost and politics. Because of these constraints, policy makers are not able to identify alternatives for policy and anticipate their outcome (Lindblom, 1979). Organizations use simplified strategies, like trial and error. An example would be if the outcome on what Merkel believed is good, considering the ‘Energiewende’, was respected and the continue policy would build up from that point on.
Thirdly, a more radical view is that of the ‘garbage can’ model. This model highlights that public policy often tells the opposite pattern to that anticipated by rationalist models (Knill and Tosun, 2012). John Kingdon adjusted the 'garbage can model' to a different situation of organizational choice in order to explain the agenda-setting process in the making of public policy (Mucciaroni, 1992). Cohen, March and Olsen define this as an organization that is made of a collection of choices looking for problems that fits their solutions. They seek to find issues for which they think to have the answer to (Cohen, March and Olsen, 1972). A good example for this approach would be the nuclear ‘Energiewende’ that was put into action by Angela Merkel. There is no methodical process from problem to solution, but the decision made by Merkel is the outcome of several independent streams of events. In other words, the combination of problems, solution, choice opportunities and participants (Knill and Tosun, 2012).
The various models reflect different fundamental beliefs about human interaction and behavior. Each has its own durability and deficiency. The rationalist approach is a powerful model that fails to accurately describe almost all actual decision making. Because when it becomes more descriptive than predictive it loses its realistic perspective. According to the incrementalist model public policy should not fully support on the rational decision making (Knill and Tosun, 2012). It rises the assumption that policy-making is characterized by a rational process, in there one can find existing problems and solutions are being invented for it. The garbage can model is unlike the other models. Whereas one usually finds solutions for its problem, with this model there are solutions beforehand, they only have to look for a soothing problem. People only work on problems in particular situations that contain of combined problems, solutions and participants. This causes disconnection of the problems, solutions and decision-makers from each other. Decisions do not pursue a traditionally regulated process from problem to solution, this only occurs in the rationalist and incrementalist approach.
References
- Gary Mucciaroni. 'The Garbage Can Model & the Study of Policy Making: A Critique'. Polity, 1992: p. 459-482.
- Knill, Christoph, and Jale Tosun. ‘Public Policy: A New Introduction. New York: Palgrave Macmillan’. 2012. Print.
- Michael Cohen, James March, and Johan Olsen. 'A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice'. Administrative Science Quarterly 17, 1972: p. 1-25.
- Stone, Deborah A. ‘Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making’. New York: Norton, 2002. Print.
Stuck on your essay?
