POLICY PROCESS

PA 150 2nd Semester 2016-2017

The Policy Process
Problem Definition
Agenda Setting
Formulation
Legitimization
Implementation
Evaluation
The Demand for Action

PROBLEM DEFINITION
The specific demands resulting from
awareness of problems become the
“stuff” of government in a
democratic society.

-Charles Jones 1977, 26

The Policy Process Begins

 The policy process begins with a problem.

 Some problems are large; some are small.
 Some affect many people; some affect only a
few.
 Some are endured, but others are intolerable.
 Some arise from scientific discoveries and
inventions (e.g. automobiles/vehicles).
 Problems are condition or situation that
produces dissatisfaction among people.
The Policy Process Begins

 Problems also arise from the tension

between the desires of individuals and the
needs of the community.
 This tension can be characterized as a conflict
over the “commons”- natural, social, and
economic resources to which everyone has
free and equal access.
 The commons is terminology referring to
resources that are collectively owned or shared
between or among populations. These resources
are said to be "held in common" and can include
everything from natural resources and land. The
commons were traditionally defined as the
elements of the environment - forests,
atmosphere, rivers, fisheries or grazing land -
that are shared, used and enjoyed by all.
 The commons can also include ‘public goods’
such as public space, public education, health
and the infrastructure that allows our society to
function (such as electricity or water delivery
systems).
Problem Perception

 Occurs when someone becomes aware of a

situation or an event that he or she considers
undesirable and in need of change.
Problem Definition

 Its function is at once to explain, describe,

recommend, and above all, persuade;
 It entails some statement about its origin (Peters
1996); and
 It focuses on what is identified as a public issue
and how different groups within the public think
and talk about the issue.
 Cultural values, interest group advocacy,
scientific information, and professional advice all
help shape the definitions of problem.
Problem Definition

 Is a critical stage in the policy process

because it lays the foundation for all the later
stages.
 An incorrect problem definition can keep it
off the government agenda or limit the
effectiveness of a solution.
 The definition of the problem may be
incorrect because of gaps in knowledge,
multiple causes, or strong belief systems that
limit policy options.
Social Issues & Problems

 UNEMPLOYMENT
 POVERTY
 POLLUTION
 STREET CHILDREN
 ILLITERACY
Taking the Demand to Government

AGENDA SETTING
The demands that policy-makers
choose to or feel compelled to act
on at a given time, or at least
appear to be acting on, constitute
the policy agenda.

-James E. Anderson 1997, 99

Agenda setting

 The policy process deals only with public

problems.
 Some issues are considered private problems
and not appropriate for public action.
 Other issues have been viewed as public
problems and the legitimate responsibility of
the government.
 Agenda setting involves deciding which
problem should receive governmental
attention.
Agenda setting

 Focus on specific problems to decide what

will be decided
 Identification and definition of problems,
crises and advocacy of action
 Elected and appointed officials place
problems on the public agenda. Many
problems are not acted at all, while others are
addressed only after long delays.
Agenda Setting

Types of Agendas:
1. Systematic Agenda
2. Institutional Agenda
Systematic Agenda

 Consist of all issues that are commonly

prescribed by members of the political
communities as meriting public attention and
as involving matters within the legitimate
jurisdiction of existing governmental
authority (Cobb and Elder, 1984).
 “There oughtta be a law!” characterizes the
public outcry on these issue.
 Usually known as discussion agenda.
 Ex. Drug abuse or environmental degradation
Systematic Agenda

 A problem moves onto the systematic

agenda after it has been perceived and
defined as a problem.
 Advocacy coalitions play key roles in moving
issues from the systematic to the institutional
agenda. They educate the public, media and
policymakers about their perception of the
problem and its solution to stir up interest,
enthusiasm, and support for the issue.
Institutional Agenda

 More specific and concrete than the

systematic agenda.
 It consists of whatever the government is
actually doing (or thinking) about an
identified problem.
 Includes problem that is explicitly receiving
active and serious attention by decision
makers (e.g. the Philippine Congress: HOR &
Senate)
Institutional Agenda

 Government can research the matter, analyze

plans, submit proposals, debate policies,
enact laws, write regulations, authorize
spending, enforce rules, and evaluate
programs.
 Legitimate actions of authoritative policymakers
seeking to address public problems (Cobb and
Elder, 1984)
Agenda Setting

 Viewed as comprising three mostly independent

streams of activity: problems, proposals, and
politics which occasionally converge (Prof. John
Kingdom)
 Opens a “policy window” and permitting some
matters to reach a governmental agenda;
 POLICY WINDOW is an opportunity for
advocates of proposals to push their pet solution
or to push attention to their special problems.
Agenda Setting

 A random or chancy process to which much

depends upon timing and luck...at any given
time, many problems and issues will be
competing for attention of public officials,
who will also have their own preferred ideas
to push. Only a portion of these problems will
succeed in securing agenda status because
officials lack the time, resources, interest,
information, or will to consider many of
them. (Kingdom’s Theory)
Agenda Setting

Factors that can determine if an issue gets on an

agenda:
a) How the problem or issue is defined;
b) Interest groups seek to maintain themselves in
a state of equilibrium and that if anything
threatens this condition, they react accordingly;
c) Political leadership. Political leaders, whether
motivated by thoughts of political advantage,
the public interest, or their political reputations
may seize upon problem, publicize them, and
propose solution.
Agenda Setting

 In the study of Presidential Agenda Setting,

Prof. Paul Light found that in selecting major
domestic issues on which to advocate action,
Presidents are usually motivated by three (3)
primary considerations:
1. Electoral Benefits
2. Historical Achievements
3. Good Policy
Agenda Setting

 The president role as an agenda setter for

congress is diminished when the opposition
party controls it. The majority party leaders are
then reluctant to accept the president’s agenda
as the starting point of policy dialogue.
 Prof. Jack L. Walker concludes that there are
some activist legislators, motivated by a desire
to promote social change, and anxious to gain
reputations as reformers who constantly search
for issues that might be transformed into new
items on the Congress’ discretionary agenda.
Agenda Setting

How problems become an agenda:

1. Courts decision interpreting and applying
legislation triggers congressional responses to
overcome their effects;
2. Sensational events – items may achieve agenda
status and be acted upon a result of some sort
of crises, natural disasters – for events serves to
dramatize an issue and attract wide attention
compelling public officials to respond. Ex.
Typhoons or an airplane disaster.
Agenda Setting

3. Triggering event – that stirred action. Ex.

Killings
4. Protest activity, which includes threatened
violence, is another means by which problems
may be brought to the attention of policy
makers.
5. Communication media – issues may attract the
attention of the media.
6. Change in statistical indicators also produce
awareness of problems and help move them
into the agenda. Ex. Disease rates, population
growth, highway deaths, and etc.
Agenda Setting

7. Political change – like election results,

change in administration and shifts in the
public mood make possible in moving of
agenda or reduce the agenda opportunities
for some items.
8. Items may gain agenda status in rather
peculiar ways.
Agenda Denial

 The competition for agenda space occurs

not only among those pushing favored
proposals but also between those favoring
and opposing action and wanting to
maintain the status quo. The business
sector are often involved in this. In fact
they tend to be advantaged in the agenda-
status struggle.
Opponents Tactics

1. Deny that a problem exists;

2. Argue that the problem is not appropriate fro
government action;
3. Expression and action of fears about the
societal consequences of proposed government
actionclction;
The Loss of Agenda Status

 Nondecision-making is defined as a means

by which demands for change in the existing
allocation of benefits and privileges in the
community can be suffocated before they are
even voiced; or kept covert; or killed before
they gain access to relevant decision-making
arena; or falling all these things, maimed or
destroyed in decision-implementing stage of
the policy process (Backrach and Baratz).
The Loss of Agenda Status

 Anthony Downs a policy analyst states that

an “Issue-Attention Cycle” causes some
problems to fade from public view.
 4-Stages in the Cycle that vary in duration:
1. The pre-problem stage. At this time a quite
undesirable social condition exists but has not
received much public notice.
2. Alarmed Discovery and Euphoric Enthusiasm.
Something causes the public to quickly solve the
problem; strong desire to quickly solve the
problem.
The Loss of Agenda Status

 4-Stages in the Cycle that vary in duration:

3. Gradual decline in the intensity of public
interest. As people realize how difficult and
costly it will be to solve the problem, many
become discouraged while others feel
threatened, and some bored.
4. The post-problem stage. The issue moves into a
“twilight realm” of less attention.
From Idea to Law

FORMULATION
Formulation

 Involves developing pertinent and acceptable

proposed courses of action (often called
alternative proposed, or options) for dealing
with public problems.
 Initiation and development by interest
groups, Congress, President, bureaucracies
Formulation

 Development of specific proposals or series of

alternative proposals in response to emerging
crisis
 Officials formulate alternative policies to deal
with a problem. Alternative policies does not
always culminate in executive orders, court
decisions, and legislative acts.
Formulation

 There are two steps in policy formulation:

1. Alternative policy proposals are put forth, claiming
rationality and technical analysis within the process.
Policy analysts bring these alternatives to the
attention of political decision makers with their
recommendations.
2. The policy prescription is chosen among the
alternatives, including the no-action option. This is
usually accomplished by building the support of a
majority. What is produced here is a binding decision
or series of decisions by elected or appointed
officials who are not necessarily experts but who are
presumably accountable to the public.
Actors in Policy Formulation

1. President with his chief aides and advisers.

This is known as “executive drafts bill” to which
the congress wanted draft bills embodying the
executive recommendations.
2. Officials both career and appointed in the
administrative departments and agencies
develop many policy proposals. Agency
officials, because of their specialization,
expertise, and continued involvement in
particular policy areas, are in a good technical
position to engage in formulating policy.
Actors in Policy Formulation

3. The president to study particular policy

areas and to develop policy proposals may
establish presidential organizations-
temporary organizations, sometimes
called adhocracies. Ex. Presidential
Commissions, task forces, interagency
committees. Membership may include both
legislative and executive officials as well as
private citizens.
Actors in Policy Formulation

4. Legislators. In the course of congressional

hearings and investigations, through
contracts with administrative officials and
interest group representatives, and on the
basis of their own interest and activities,
legislators receive suggestions for action on
problems and formulate proposed course of
action.
Actors in Policy Formulation

5. Interest Groups. Has major role in policy

formulation often going to the legislators
with specific proposals for legislation. They
may develop and enact an officially
proposed policy, perhaps with some
modifications to suit their interest. At the
state level, interest groups play big role in
formulating legislation especially on
complex and technical issues, because the
legislators, sometimes, lack time.
Adopt or not to adopt?

LEGITIMIZATION
LEGITIMIZATION

 Legitimization is the official authorization

of the policy decision or policy program
 As the formulation process moves toward the
decision stage, some provisions will be
rejected, others accepted and still other
modified, differences will be narrowed,
bargains will be struck, until ultimately the
final decision will only be formality.
LEGITIMIZATION

 Policy decisions made by the legislature are

usually accepted as legitimate, thus binding
on all.
 Policy legitimization involves decision-making
whether officials choose to adopt, modify or
reject a preferred policy alternative.
 Decision-making involves making a choice from
among the alternatives.
Theories of Decision Making

1. Rational-Comprehensive Theory
2. Incremental Theory
3. Multiple Advocacy
Rational-Comprehensive Theory

 It specifies the procedures involved in making

well considered decisions that maximize the
attainment of goals, whether personal or
organizational.
Elements of R-C Theory

1. The decision makers are confronted with a

problem that can be separated from other
problems or at least considered meaningfully in
comparison with them.
2. The goals, values, or objectives that guides the
decision makers are known and can be clarified
and ranked according to their importance.
3. The various alternatives for dealing with the
problem are examined.
Elements of R-C Theory

4. The consequences (costs, benefits, advantages

and disadvantages) that would follow from
selecting each alternative are investigated.
5. Each alternative, and its attendant
consequences, is then compared with the other
alternatives.
6. The decision makers will choose alternative, and
its consequences, that maximize attainment of
his or her goals, values, or objectives and
acceptance for both government and the policies
that it adopts, Public Officials must be cognizant
of this importance.
Incremental Theory

 Avoids many of the problems of the rational-

comprehensive theory and at the same time,
is more descriptive of the way in which public
officials actually make decisions.
 Is a typical decision making procedure in
pluralist societies such as the US. Decisions
and policies are the product of give and take
and mutual consent among numerous
participants in the decision process.
Incremental Theory

 Is a politically expedient because it is easier to

reach agreement when the matters in dispute
among various groups are only limited
modifications of existing programs rather than
policy issues of great magnitude or of an all-or-
nothing character.
 Is also realistic because it recognizes that
decision makers lack the time, intelligence, and
other resources needed to engage in
comprehensive analysis of all alternative
solutions to existing problems.
Process of Incrementalism

1. The selection of goals or objectives and the

emperical analysis of the action needed to
attain them are closely entered with, rather
than distinct from one another.
2. The decision maker considers only some of the
alternatives for dealing with a problem, which
will differ only incrementally from existing
policies.
3. For each alternative, only a limited number of
important consequences are evaluated.
Process of Incrementalism

4. The problem confronting the decision maker

is continually redefined.
5. Incrementalism allows for countless ends-
means and means-ends adjustments that
help make the problem more manageable.
6. There is no single decision or “right” solution
for a problem.
7. Incremental decision making is essentially
remedial and is geared more to ameliorating
present, concrete social imperfections than
promoting future social goals.
Multiple Advocacy

 Presented as a theory to guide presidential decision making.

 It rests on the premise that a competition of ideas and view
points is the best method of developing policy not
unregulated entrepreneurial advocacy, but orderly,
systematic, and balanced competition.
 It accepts the fact that in large, complex organizations there
will inevitably be conflicts and disagreements over policy.
 Consequently, the decision making process should be
structured to ensure that the president or some other
decision maker will be supplied with adequate information
about all of the important view points on issue.
Multiple Advocacy

 Decision maker should adopt the stance of a

magistrate, one who listens to the arguments
made, evaluates them, poses and ask
questions and finally judges which action to
take either from among those articulated by
advocates or as formulated independently by
himself after hearing them. Decision makers
should avoid conveying his policy preferences
because this might skew the debate. (Prof.
Alexander George)
Decision Criteria

 Decision making can be studied either by

 Individual – focus is on the criteria individuals
use in making choices.
 Collective – focus is the processes by which
majorities are built, or by which approval is
otherwise gained, for specific decisions.
Includes: Values, Political Party Affiliation,
Constituency Interest, Public Opinion,
Deference, and Decision Rules
Values

 Help decision maker decide what is good or

bad, desirable or undesirable.
1. Organizational values – decision makers
especially the bureaucrats, may be influenced by
organizational values. (ex. Increase original
budget, agency survival, and etc. That may
enhance or expand its program or maintains its
power and prerogatives. This sometime led to
conflict among agencies with competing or
overlapping jurisdiction.
Values
2. Professional values – professionals tend to form
distinctive preferences as to how problem should be
handled.
3. Personal values – urge to protect or promote their
physical or financial well-being, reputation or
historical positions.
4. Policy values – decision makers may well act
according to their perceptions of the public interest
or their belief about what is proper, necessary or
morally correct, public policy.
5. Ideological values – ideologies are sets of coherent
or logical related values and beliefs that present
simplified pictures of the world and serves as guides
for actions.
Political Party Affiliation

 Party loyalty is an important decision making

criterion fro most members of congress even
though it is difficult to separate that loyalty
from such other influences as party
leadership pressures, ideological
commitments, and constituency interest.
 The best single predictors as to how
members of congress will vote on legislative
issues.
Constituency Interest

 Conventional wisdom in congress holds that

when party interest and state/distinct
constituency interest, conflict on some
issues, members should “vote their
constituency”.
 Representatives may act as either a delegate,
carrying out their actual or percieved
instructions or a trustee, exercising his best
judgement in their behalf when voting on
policy questions.
Public Opinion

 Those public perspectives or viewpoints on

policy issues that public officials consider
or take into account in making decisions.
 Can be expressed in the following ways:
Letters to the editor and to public officials,
meetings, public demonstrations, editorials,
election results, forum, plebiscites, radio talk
shows, and social networks.
Deference

 Officials confronted with the task of

making a decision may decide how to act
by deferring to the suggestions or
judgements of members of congress as
department officials.
 Members of the congress often have to
vote on issues that are of little interest to
them such as those that do not affect the
members constituents.
Decision Rules

 Those confronted with decisions

often devise rules of thumb or
guidelines to focus on facts and
relationship and thereby both simplify
and regulating decision-making.
 “No decision – rules” is the same as
decision-making also.
The Public Interest

 The task of government, as often proclaimed,

is to serve or promote the public interest.
 It is a guide for agency action.
 “one cannot justify a policy recommendation
on the grounds that it would make me and
my friends rich” (Prof. Charles Anderson)
Policy Paper

Identify a social problem

I. Establish the existence of the social problem
II. What are government’s intervention/s
III. Recommendations
 May 15 – FINAL EXAM
 May 22 – PP Presentation & Deadline of
submission