Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sabatier, Paul A. Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Chapter 1: The Need for Better Theories by Paul Sabatier
I. Simplifying a Complex world with theories and frameworks
The policy process is enormously complex:
1) involving 100s of actors
2) sometimes spanning decades
3) involving dozens of different programs in any specific policy domain (i.e., pollution) over
multiple levels of government (local, state, federal)
4) involving policy debates that are often quite technical
5) involving deeply held values and interests
A policy analyst must find a way to simplify the process if there is ever a hope to understand it.
How is this done? Through a set of presuppositions (that later can be described as conceptual
frameworks or theories).
These set of presuppositions help in 1) figuring out what to look for and 2) how to classify or
categorize the information
For example, institutional rational choice tells us to look at institutions, individual actors and
how they strategically maneuver institutional rules to pursue self-interested goals.
How do we develop these presuppositions?
1) common sense: via experience we can set up assumptions and expectations
2) science: developing a set of propositions and relationships via a public method of deata
collection and analysis and clearly defining the concepts and logically connecting them.
The scientific method is considered superior because it is more open and provides a method that
produces propositions that are clear enough to be proven wrong (note key term: empirically
falsifiable) and is designed to be self-consciously, error seeking, and thus self-correcting.
Terminology:
Conceptual Framework: a set of variables and description of how they are related used to
account for a phenomena.
Theory: A theory provides a denser and more logically coherent set of relationships.
Model: A representation of a specific situation. It is usually much more narrower in scope than a
theory but more precise in its assuptions.
What is a good theory: 1) scientific (open, clear, well-defined, give rise to falsifiable
hypotheses); 2) should be subject to recent use and empirical testing; 3) be a positive theory
(explain something), not just normative (judging something); 4) should address a broad range of
factors considered important to political scientists.
II. Theoretical Frameworks of the Policy Process
The book discusses 7 conceptual frameworks:
1. The Stages Heuristic: divides the policy process into stages (agenda setting, policy formation,
legitimation, implementation, evaluation, etc.). Popular in the 1970s and early 80s, but is now
considered to lack a causal theoretical bases and overly simplistic and even inaccurate.
2. Institutional Rational Choice: how institutional rules alter the behavior of rational and strategic
actors pursuing self-interested goals. Arguably the most developed and most widely used in the
U.S.
3. The Multiple-Streams Framework: Views the policy process as composed of three streams of
actors and processes: a problem stream (consisting of problems and their proponents); a policy
stream (containing a variety of policy solutions and their proponents); and a politics stream
(consisting of public officials and elections). These streams often operate independently except
during windows of opportunities when some or all of the streams may intersect (and cause
substantial policy change).
4. Punctuated-Equilibrium: policy process tends to feature long periods of incremental change
punctuated by brief periods of major policy change. The latter come about when opponents
manage to fashion a new policy image or images and exploit the multiple policy venues of the
U.S. (courts, legislatures, executives at the local ,state and federal level.
5. The Advocacy Coalition Framework: focuses on the interaction of advocacy coalitions (each
consisting of actors from a variety of institutions who share a set of policy beliefs). Policy
change is a product of the competition and interaction between these coalitions.
6. Policy Diffusion Framework: developed to explain variation in the adoption of specific policy
innovations, such as the lottery, across political jurisdictions.
7. The Funnel of Causality and other Frameworks in Large-N Comparative Studies: Describes a
set of studies that use a variety of variables (institutional, socioeconomic, public opinion) to
explain variation in policy outcomes across a large number of states.
1. Arenas of Power: Developed by Lowi (1964, 1972), describes 3 or 4 policy types (regulatory;
distributive; redistributive) and describes the different political dynamics and actors that each
type has. Recently there has been little interest in this framework.
2. Cultural Theory: policy outcomes influenced by four different general ideologies
(individualism; hierarchicalism; egalitarianism; fatalism. Critical concepts remain ambiguous.
3. Constructivist Framework: focuses on the social construction of policy problems, policy
belief systems, and frames of references. Tends to be more popular in Europe than in U.S. True
aspects of our reality are socially constructed but they are also connected to real phenomenon
(socioeconomic conditions, political institutions and rules, etc.).
4. Policy Domain Framework: a rather complex set of concepts for guiding network analysis. It
argues that within a given policy domain/subsystem, organizations with an interest in a given
policy area develop patterns of resource exchange and seek to influence policy events.
The nested structure of rules within rules, within further rules is a particularly difficulty
analytical problem to solve for those interested in the study of institutions. Those who study
institutions at the macro level may examine the constitutional structure. These affect collective
choice decisions the micro level. Example voter turnout in Belgium and the United States, why
is Belgium much higher? Constitutional factors, local political structures, individual
socialization (individualism vs. communitarianism).
e. Configural relationships
Rules are not independent or additive. When rules are adopted they my interact with other rules
in complex ways. Examples: Campaign finance with Constitutional protections of freedom of
speech, Affirmative action with norms of fairness and equality, welfare in a capitalistic, free
market system. A quorum rule requiring a high proportion of membership and a simple majority
rule may be more restrictive than the pairing of a 2/3 majority combined with a quorum rule
specifying a low proportion of membership attendance.
III. INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORKS, THEORIES, AND MODELS
Research should be conducted at three levels: frameworks; theories, and models. The
development and use of a framework helps identify the elements and relationships that need to
be considered for institutional analysis (i.e. a general list of variables)
Theories enable the analyst to specify which elements of the framework are particularly relevant
to certain kinds of questions.
A model makes precise assumptions about a smaller set of parameters and variables.
Ostrom wants one common framework that will help organize a large and diverse discipline in
analyzing institutions. Within that framework there will be a family of theories and within those
theories models can be tailored to particular problems at hand.
For policymakers and scholars interested in issues related to how different governance systems
enable individuals to solve problems democratically, the IAD framework helps to organize
diagnostic, analytical, and prescriptive capabilities. It also aids in the accumulation of
knowledge from empirical studies and in the assessment of past efforts at reforms.
IV. THE IAD FRAMEWORK
One part of the framework is the identification of an action arena and the resulting patters of
interactions and outcomes and the evaluation of these outcomes.
The first step in analyzing a problem is to identify a conceptual unitcalled an action arena
that can be utilized to analyze, predict, and explain behavior within institutional arrangements.
An action situation can be characterized by seven clusters of variables:
1) participants; 2) positions; 3) outcomes; 4) action-outcome linkages, 5) the control that
participants exercise; 6) information; 7) the cost and benefits assigned to outcomes
All of these variables define the structure of the action area. Analysis proceeds toward the
prediction of the likely behavior of individuals in such a structure.
d. Evaluating outcomes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Multiple Streams
Kingdons 3 Streams
Problems
Policies
Politics
o These streams are independent of one another, and in certain
situations the streams are coupled with policy entrepreneurs
o Moreover, sometimes the streams do converge and the
development of policy formation is greatly enhanced
1st Stream: Problems
o Given various conditions that exist, policy makers further
define those conditions as problems by the following criteria
Indicators such as statistics are used to determine the
importance of that condition
i.e. # of highway deaths over x amount of years
infant mortality rates
dramatic events or crises may prompt more scrutiny to
the condition
feeding of current programs in place may warrant
additional attention to the condition
not all conditions become problems
some conditions are views as problems due to the
individuals perception and how they choose to
interpret the condition. Their evaluation may
categorize it as a problem or leave it as a
condition
nd
2 Stream: Policies
o Policies are ideas generated by various groups (think tanks,
bureaucrats, congressional staff, academia)
o There are a large number of ideas in the policy arena however
only a small percentage are considered due to technical
feasibility and value acceptability
rd
3 Stream: Politics
o consists of:
national mood
overall sentiment of a country at any given time
which may or may not change
pressure group campaigns
the consensus of the interest group is indicative of
the political arena
administrative or legislative turnover
new administrative staff is likely to create an
environment of change
o national mood and administrative change are most important
in having an effect on agendas
Coupling
o An important aspect in Kingdons argument
o During critical moments in time, there are opportunities when
a stream may converge with another. At this time, which is
defined as a policy window there opportunities for advocates
to push their pet solutions
o It is during these times that great policy change is made
o If the opportunities pass and the policy maker refuses to
invest the time, money, or energy, then they must usually
wait until another policy window presents itself
Differences between Kingdon and Zahariadis
Z uses MS to explain full policy formation whereas Kingodn applied
it to a pre-decision process
Zs interpretation of MS may be used at the comparative study of
policy
May shift the unit of analysis due to interpretation
o Kingdon entire national government
o Z may be framed in privatization
Specific issues and concerns
Are streams independent?
o Some argue that no they are not
Changes in one stream may trigger change in another;
therefore, the concept of coupling is less fortutitous
and more purposive and strategic
o Independent streams allow researchers to uncover rather
than assume rationality
What is the precise role of the policy window in coupling?
o Kingdon defines 2 areas in which policy windows open
Problems streams
i.e. airplane crash
Politics stream
Outcome of an election
o When these two streams converge, there is a greater
possibility for policy change
Do solutions always follow an incremental evolution in the policy
stream?
o Critics see MS as ahistorical and does not place enough
emphasis on previous solutions to current situations
Future Research
MS needs to generate more falsifiable hypotheses
Further research may question as to why some decisions tend to
become garbage cans
Chapter 3
Multiple Streams Framework
Structure, Limitations, Prospects
Nikolaos Zahariadis
A good theory of choice provides answers to three questions
1) How is attention rationed?
2) How and where is the search for alternatives conducted?
3) How is selection biased?
Definition Multiple Streams (MS) - is a lens, perspective, or framework (may be used
interchangeably) that explains how policies are made by national governments under
conditions of ambiguity. Examined here only in its capacity to explain policy formation
(Agenda setting and decision making)
Theorizes at the systemic level, and it incorporates an entire system or a separate decision as the
unit of analysis.
In the tradition of the garbage can model of organizational choice. Collective choice is not
merely the derivative of individual efforts aggregated in some fashion, but rather the combined
result of structural forces and cognitive and affective processes that are highly context
dependent.
Definition ambiguity a state of having many ways of thinking about the same circumstances
or phenomena. These ways may not be reconcilable, creating vagueness, confusion, and stress.
Problems with ambiguity within organizations or governments :
1) Participation is fluid turnover is high and participants drift form one
decision to the next, and non-governmental actors exercise significant
influence over the form certain decisions will take.
2) People often do not know what they want
3) Technology an organizations process that turns input into products is unclear
participants may know their parts but not the big picture
Choice is the collective output formulated by the push and pull of several factors.
MS achieves this by assuming a temporal order adoption of specific alternatives depends on
when policies are made and by proposing a theory of political
manipulation.
Who pays attention to what and when is critical. Time is a unique, irreplaceable resource,
whose supply is totally inelastic because a primary concern of decision makers is to manage
time effectively rather to manage tasks, it is reasonable to pursue a lens that accords significance
to time rather than rationality.
Assumptions
1) Individual attention or processing is serial, systemic attention or processing is parallel.
Individual can only attend one issue at a time. Creates small number that a policy maker
can actually consider/ however division of labor allows for more issues to be attended to
simultaneously
A. the sequence in which solutions are considered strongly affects
the decision outcome
B. Parallel processing the ability within political systems with
many subsystems that facilitate attention to many issues
simultaneously
2) Policy Makers operate under significant time restraints suggests a sense of urgency in
addressing them. Time constrains limit the range and number of alternative to which
attention is given
3) The Streams flowing through the system are independent if systems can do in parallel,
then each element or stream may be conceived as having a life of its own
Manipulation is the attempt to control ambiguity. Including the generation of facts to change
peoples minds
Three streams are identified as flowing through the policy system
1) Problems various conditions that policy makers and citizens want addressed Policy
makers find out about them through Indicators, focusing events, and feedback
2) Policies a soup of ideas that compete to win acceptance in policy networks. Ideas are
generated by specialists in policy communities and are considered in various forums and
forms. Only a few ideas will ever receive serious consideration on the basis of technical
feasibility and value acceptability
3) Politics
A. National mood the notion that a large number of individuals in a given
country tend to think along common lines and that the mood swings from time
to time
B. pressure group campaigns
C. Administrative or legislative turnover
Each is conceptualized as separate form the others at critical points in time, termed policy
windows, the streams are coupled by policy entrepreneurs. The combination of all three streams
into a single package dramatically enhances the chances that a specific policy will be adopted by
policy makers.
1) Policy Windows - choices are made when the three streams are coupled or joined
together at critical moments in time fleeting opportunities for advocates of proposals
to push their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems Can be opened
by a compelling problem or by events in the political stream.
2) Policy Entrepreneurs individuals or corporate actors who attempt to couple the three
streams. They are more than mere advocates of a particular solution, they are power
brokers and manipulators of problematic preferences and unclear technology.
Definition coupling attaching problems to their solutions and find politicians
receptive to their ideas a policys chances of being adopted dramatically increase when
all 3 streams are coupled in a single package.
Processes combination of the elements to produce choice
1) Attention policy makers need to ration their attention among a limited number of
issues. MS argues this is resolved by institutional structure, the type of policy window
that opens, and they symbols used to attract attention. Attention to particular issues is a
function of opportunity, bias, formal position in an organization or government, and the
number of issues competing for policy maker attention.
2) Search - the search for solutions and their availability are heavily influenced by the
structure of policy networks within which the search is taking place where policy
makers search for solutions and how ideas germinate depends on the degree of
integration of the policy communities
3) Selection biased by the manipulating strategies and skills of policy entrepreneurs.
Strategies include framing, affect priming, salami tactics, and the use of symbols. Not
merely a function of perception but a question of skill at coupling.
Limitations
General Concerns
1)
2)
3)
4)
Specific Concerns
What is a policy network? Clusters of actors, each with an interest, or stake in a given
policy, and the capacity to determine policy success or failure.
Governmental organizations are no longer the central steering actors in the policy
process. Networks are self-organizing they are autonomous and self-governing and
they resist governmental influences.
Network Management: a form of public management consisting of coordinating
strategies from different participants with varied goals and preferences in regards to a
problem/policy measure within an interorganizational network.
o Success depends on: Number of actors involved, Complexity of policy networks,
Degree that network is self-referential, Absence of conflicts of interest, and the
Cost involved.
Arguments
Type of Interaction
Conflict
Bargaining Cooperation
Asymmetric Hierarchical
Concentration
Dominance bargaining cooperation
Symmetric Horizontal
Fragmentation
Competition bargaining cooperation
Dominance: where a dominant coalition with a policy monopoly is challenged by a
minority coalition.
Competition: where the power differential between the challengers and the dominant
coalitions is less pronounced.
Horizontal Cooperation: cooperation on equal terms between countries/institutions.
Hierarchical Cooperation: tiered cooperation, not equal.
Asymmetric bargaining: Unbalanced, disproportionate bargaining
Symmetric bargaining: Equal, proportionate bargaining
Actors are regarded as mutually interlinked.
The type of interaction within a policy network determines the form of policy change.
Type of Interaction
Distribution of Power Conflict
Bargaining
Cooperation
Low to
Moderate
moderate
potential for potential for
Low potential for
rapid (serial) incremental
change- maintenance
Concentration
shift
change
of status quo
Moderate to
high potential Low to moderate
High potential for
potential for changefor rapid
incremental
maintenance of
Fragmentation
(serial) shift change
status quo
Distribution of
Power
Findings
PolicyRecommendations
Adam and Kriesi suggest that future research delve into showing whether and how
network analysis improves our understanding of policy outcomes and change.
Future hypotheses need to account for complex interactions of transnational, national and
policy-domain specific context. With that being said, future research should not
Since the network approach is not exactly a theory, it draws upon hypotheses and models
from other theories. There is a risk of relying on factors that are arbitrarily included.
One must be careful when linking approaches in order to create information that will
increase the potential of network approaches.
Future research should no longer aim at national-level generalizations across all domains,
but needs to look at the combined impact of different types of determinants.
Type of Interaction
Conflict
Bargaining Cooperation
Asymmetric Hierarchical
Concentration
Dominance bargaining cooperation
Symmetric Horizontal
Fragmentation
Competition bargaining cooperation
Dominance: where a dominant coalition with a policy monopoly is challenged by a
minority coalition.
Competition: where the power differential between the challengers and the dominant
coalitions is less pronounced.
Horizontal Cooperation: cooperation on equal terms between countries/institutions.
Hierarchical Cooperation: tiered cooperation, not equal.
Asymmetric bargaining: Unbalanced, disproportionate bargaining
Symmetric bargaining: Equal, proportionate bargaining
Distribution of
Power
o Findings:
Distribution of Power
Concentration
Type of Interaction
Conflict
Bargaining
Cooperation
Low to
Moderate
moderate
potential for potential for
Low potential for
rapid (serial) incremental
change- maintenance
shift
change
of status quo
Moderate to
high potential Low to moderate
High potential for
potential for changefor rapid
incremental
maintenance of
(serial) shift change
status quo
Fragmentation
o
o
o
o PolicyRecommendations
Adam and Kriesi suggest that future research delve into showing whether and how
network analysis improves our understanding of policy outcomes and change.
Future hypotheses need to account for complex interactions of transnational, national
and policy-domain specific context. With that being said, future research should not
Since the network approach is not exactly a theory, it draws upon hypotheses and
models from other theories. There is a risk of relying on factors that are arbitrarily
included. One must be careful when linking approaches in order to create
information that will increase the potential of network approaches.
Future research should no longer aim at national-level generalizations across all
domains, but needs to look at the combined impact of different types of determinants
Chapter 7: The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF): An Assessment by Paul Saatier and
Hank Jenkins-Smith
The ACF emerged out of 1) a search for an alternative to the stages approach, 2) a desire to
synthesize the best features of the top-down and bottom-up approaches, 3) a commitment to
incorporate technical information into a more prominent role in the policy process.
The Initial Version of ACF
Based o n5 premises
1) need to address the role played by technical information (the role of the media, think tanks,
etc.)
2) requires a time perspective of at least a decade so that information can be disseminated,
absorbed, and evaluated.
3) the most useful unit of analysis is the policy subsystem (or domain) rather than any particular
political institution or organization.
4) conception of coalitions needs to break the traditional ideas of iron triangles and include 1)
journalists, researchers and policy analysts and 2) actors at all levels of government (local, state,
international).
5) public policies/programs incorporate implicit theories about how to achieve their objectives
and can be conceptualized in much the same way as belief systems.
Structural Overview of ACF
OUTSIDE THE POLICY SUBSYSTEM
Two set of variables:
1. Relative Stable Parameters constitution, sociocultural values, natural resources
Hypotheses:
1. lineup of allies and opponents tends to be stable
2. actors within a coalition will have substantial consensus on issue pertaining to the policy
core
3. will admit to defects in secondary aspects of belief system but unlikely to admit policy
core errors
4. Policy remains stable as long as the coalition structure remains the same
5. Policy core attributes of a governmental program are unlikely to change in the absence of
significant external changes.
6. Policy learning across coalitions will more likely occur if the coalition has the technical
resources to engage in an informed debate and if the debate is not simply about deep core
beliefs
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Strategies of Coalitions
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
3. Meso-level
These foundation stones affect our belief and policy change through two critical paths:
1. Policy Subsystem Consisted of participants who routinely look to influence policy
within a policy subsystem: including the traditional iron triangle (legislators, agency
officials, and interest group leaders), researchers (assumed to be the central player in a
policy process), and journalists.
2. External Factors The behavior of policy participants are affected by two set of
exogenous factors:
Fairly Stable Factors rarely change within periods of a decade or so and therefore
rarely providing the impetus for behavioral or policy change within a policy
subsystem.
Dynamic External Factors include changes in socioeconomic conditions, changes
in the governing coalition, and policy decisions from other subsystems. Their
ability to change substantially over periods of a decade or so make them critical
factors in affecting major policy change.
The ACF argues that:
Policy participants strive to translate components of their belief system into actual policy
before their opponents can do the same, which can lead to devil shift.
Policy participants will seek allies with people who hold similar policy core beliefs.
Advocacy coalitions provide the most useful tool for aggregating the behavior of the
hundreds of organizations and individuals involved in a policy system over periods of a
decade or more.
The ACF conceptualizes a three-tiered hierarchical structure:
1. Deep core basic normative belief such as the relative valuation of individual freedom
versus social equality.
2. Policy core basic normative commitments and causal perception across an entire
domain or subsystem (e.g., relative importance of economic development versus
environmental protection).
3. Secondary aspects a set of narrower beliefs regarding specific attributes of a policy.
One criticism of ACF is that it provides insufficient justification that actors with similar policy
core beliefs actually coordinate their behaviors into coalitions.
Three important additions to the ACF since 1999 are:
1. The context within which coalitions operate.
In addition to the existing two sets of variables external to the policy subsystem
(stable system parameters and external events), a new category of variables was
created known as coalition opportunity structures to mediate between stable
system parameters and the subsystem.
2. A typology of coalition resources
Policy-relevant resources that policy participants can use in their attempt to
influence public policy (e.g., public opinion, information, skillful leadership).
3. Two new paths to major policy change (Internal Shocks and Negotiated Agreements)
The new revision to the ACF acknowledges that major internal shocks can also
occur from within a policy subsystem and can lead to major policy change.
The basic principles of the ACF have not changed since its inception but they have been
expanded and clarified:
1. The model of the individual has remained rooted in social psychology.
2. The focus of policymaking has always been the policy subsystem.
3. The key political actor has always been the advocacy coalition held together by common
beliefs.
4. The concern with the role of science in policy the core stimulus for developing the ACF
in the first place has remained, but theres better use of professional forums to facilitate
learning across coaltions.
Assumptions
Outside actors or interactions with other states or the federal
government have not effect on policy within a state
o Testing Internal determinates:
Cross-sectional regression (probit or logit)
Causes problems with independent variables due to timing issues and the
ability to capture the true picture of characteristics within a state when
policies are adopted
Can not definitively determine if a states actions are a cause of internal
characteristics or diffusion
States that are near each other tend to be very similar and have
policies that address similar issues
Policy Diffusion
o Several different types of diffusion models
National Interaction
State leaders communicate with other leaders in similar positions
from other states and share information and policy ideas
Heavy emphasis on the assumption of learning (discussed below)
Model is based on a linear equation that, when graphed based on
time, shows an S-shaped pattern of policy adoption
o Assumes that all states that do not have a given policy are
equally likely to adopt it
o The dependent variable (the proportion of new states
adopting a policy in a given time period) limits the depth of
analysis
Ignores state characteristics and outside actions by
other states
Regional Diffusion
presence or absence of other policies in a state that would effect their likelihood to
adopt the policy in question
o 4 anticipated outcomes
Independent: the policy being adopted is independent of all other actions
Complementary: one policy increases the chance of another policy being
adopted
Contingent: one policy will not be adopted without the adoption of
another policy (B will not be enacted if A is not enacted)
Substitute: a policy is enacted as a substitute for a similar but less
attractive policy (cigarette tax instead of making cigarettes illegal; passing
the tax makes it less likely that the ban will be passed)
The benefit is that, while still testing diffusion, this model takes into
consideration internal factors that affect the decisions of policymakers
Chapter 9: The Policy Process and Large-N Comparative Studies by William Blomquest
Early political science simply described institutions. The examination of the policy process was a
much later event. The comparative policy studies occurred even later (1960s i.e., Thomas Dye).
They generally used an approach to examine similarities and differences in the operation and
elements of a system in a large number of governmental units and how it influenced policy
outcomes (referred to as DSH approach).
1. A focus on the U.S. States. Why?
2. a debate of which is important: external (environmental) or internal (political) factors
3. early studies suggested environmental factors dominated
4. until new methods were used to fish out the importance of political factors
5. Much of the studies follow a Systems theory approach (David Easton) where inputs are
translated by a black box into policy outputs.
6. There have been attempts to open up the black box, or at least elaborate on the process of
inputs and outputs (e.g., Hofferberts funnel).
Critiques of the DSH approach
1. often examines variation in public expenditure levels. Why is this problematic?
2. Alternatively, the approach may look at a single policy event. Why is this a problem?
3. Often cross-sectional, with only limited examination of long term processes, therefore it
cannot explain policy trends over time.
4. the variable oriented approach does tell us much about why these variables matter.
III. Reasons Why DSH has failed to provide a theory of Policy Analysis
Policy output typically depicted as public expenditure (a troublesome yet unavoidable measure)
o Doesnt account for cost/price variation among localities, nor spending efficiency, nor
corruption
Policy measured as an event
o Which policy-adoption event should be selected? Every single bill, court decision, and
administrative regulation?
o Context of the policy (ie OSHA)
Primary, if not exclusive, focus on policy formation and adoption
o Data-selection bias of initial policy adoptions limit study of policy change over time
o Others contend most policy change occurs after in a category called policy modification
or policy replacement, also policy abandonment
Under-Described Political Systems
o Failure to incorporate existence of multi-organizational governments, multi-governmental
systems, and possibility of joint/sequential action among multiple actors
o Black Box criticism- and idealized, single, abstracted decisionmaker
Lack of Human Agency
o Outputs presented as automatic (incorrect explanations of variables)
o Level of Action fixed (no account for additional levels of structure or institutional
framework)
o Scope of Conflict fixed (no account for policy proponent to maneuver policy through
different channels)
o Tendency to neglect the importance of belief, ideas, and information; individuals treated
as statistical cyphers
IV. Merits of DSH Approach
Early pioneer in shifting attention from only institutions and political actors in policy analysis
Showed that economic development, region, and culture matter
Yielded some empirical base, reliable patterns in policy studies
type of actors
variable development identifying a general class of factors
Units of analysis
level of analysis
5. scope
Theories: Theories place values (or weights) on some of the variables identified as important in
a framework, posit relationships among variables, and make predictions.
Theories may vary or be compared on the following traits:
1. model of the individual how individuals behavior, are motivated, organized, etc.
(bounded rationality)
2. collective action policy change occurs as a result of collective action
3. Institutions
4. Policy change some focus on major policy change, some single events, laws,
regulations, etc.
5. Boundaries and scope of inquiry
Models
According to Ostrom Models make precise assumptions about a limited set of parameters and
variables. Models allow for a test of specific aspects of a theory. But models can sometimes be
created outside a specific or well-developed theory (example?)
Chapter 11: Fostering the Development of Policy Theory by Paul Sabatier
Scientific theory development should be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
logical
clear causal drives
empirically falsifiable
scope should be clear but also broad
should be fertile, not obvious and lead to interesting predictions
provide clues as to how to move from simple frameworks to developed frameworks and theories,
because Sabatier said so. He later elaborates and suggests that IAD and the ACF have been so
successful and elaborated on so much, because they are both such clearly established frameworks
(concepts and propositions), whereas other more vague frameworks such as Kingdons multiplestreams framework (1984), have attracted much less elaboration and empirical testing.
Recommendations:
Traditionally there are 2 processes of theory development: inductive and deductive. Inductive
being an accumulation of "facts" from empirical studies, and deductive the author begins with a
set of fundamental axioms and definitions and logically derives from them a more elaborate set
of propositions, some of which are falsifiable. Sabatier believes inductive is not a complete form
of theory of development because the theory starts from a positivist view of perception that
assumes we can observe facts unmediated by prior beliefs or presuppositions. Deductive seems
to error in that it assumes theories are developed in a vacuum, unconstrained by perceived
regularities in portions of the phenomena of interest. Sabatier suggests a third scenario in theory
development, which entails a scholar becoming dissatisfied with an existing conceptual
framework or body of theory, develops an alternative framework to address its shortcomings, and
then progressively elaborates that framework until it becomes a more fully developed theory
over time. He believes IAD and ACF serve as a general guideline, as they set out the clearest
frameworks, and are able to be added upon and reworked because of this. Clear, explicit
hypotheses attract serious scrutiny by other scholars. However, the concepts within the theory
should be abstract, because broader propositions are more likely to be falsified in some
situations, and confirmed in others. That, in turn, should lead to identifying intervening variables
or conditional relationships that is to an elaboration of a theory.
Another modification to the current theory developing process would be to think in terms of
causal process. That is, identifying the mechanisms by which A affects B, which, in turn, affects
C, and so on. Next, a coherent model of the individual must be developed. Such a model should
include the goals or rules fundamentally driving the actor's capacity to acquire and process
information, their decision rules, and their politically relevant resources. Once a framework and
model are set up correctly, it should be an important goal to work out internal inconsistencies and
interconnections. Here is another fundamental task in developing minimum frameworks into
much denser, internally consistent frameworks and theories. This process usually involves both
empirical work that identifies inconsistencies and anomalies and then logically thinking about
how to resolve them. It seems the best way to work out inconsistencies and interconnections
would be to develop a long-term research program involving both theoretical elaboration and
empirical testing among a network of scholars. This may be the most important guideline. This
should stimulate revision and elaboration of the theory, although this may take some time--at
least a decade! Finally, it is likely advantageous to use multiple theories. First, this guideline
provides some guarantee against assuming that a particular theory is the valid one. Second, it
leads to an appreciation that different theories may have comparative advantages in different
setting. Third, knowing other theories should make one much more sensitive to some of the
implicit assumptions in one's favored theory. As a side note, funding and publication, as
institutional incentives, would have to be integral in the development of more dense theories.