Participants in the policy process Answer to Problem No. 3 of the Take Home Exam By Rogelio Alicor L.

Panao

What role do non-official actors (NGOs, academics, interest groups) play in the policy process vis--vis official actors (e.g., bureaucrats and politicians)? How does this role vary with each policy approach? Who are the key players in the policy dynamics and how are they viewed in the various policy approaches? This paper discusses the role key actors in the policy process play by comparing three approaches to policy analysis: the Multiple Stream Framework, the Network Approach, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. It looks at how each approach treats policy actors and the relationship between them as policy participants. It assesses the degree to which non-official actors play a role in the policy process alongside the official actors according to the assumptions laid out by each framework. Unofficial actors are so-called because their participation in the policy process is not a function of their duties under an institution or law (e.g., the Constitution). This does not mean, however, that these actors have no legal right or standing to participate in the policy dynamics; only that their participation is not specified in law. Their role, in other words, evolved and grown in much the same way as society has grown and matured. Unofficial actors include the individual citizens, the political parties (which operate along the boundary between state and societal actors), interest or pressure groups (including business), think tanks and research organizations, mass media, and academic policy experts and consultants. Official actors, on the other hand, are those involved in public policy by virtue of their statutory or constitutional responsibilities. As such, they wield the power to make and enforce policies. The actors in the three branches of governmentthe executive, legislative, and the judiciaryare typical examples of official actors. They include elected politicians (including members of the executive and the legislature), the bureaucracy or the civil service, and the courts. Actors as policy entrepreneurs: The multiple stream approach To understand the role of policy participants in the Multiple Stream (MS) Framework, it is essential to first look its basic assumptions. The Multiple Stream

approach captures the complexities of the policymaking process by focusing on the flow and timing of policy action than its component steps. Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) refers to it as a garbage can model because it tries to explain why some issues and problems become prominent in the policy agenda while others never even achieve prominence. In the multiple stream approach, particular emphasis is placed on three distinct but complimentary streams in policymakingthe problem stream, the policy stream, and the politics streamwhich move independently through the policy system. At critical points in time, referred to as policy windows, the streams are coupled by policy entrepreneurs. The combination of the three streams into a single package enhances the chances that policymakers will adopt a specific policy. The problem stream is made up of various conditions that policymakers and citizens want addressed (e.g., budget deficits, environmental degradation, medicare, lack of public housing, etc). Policymakers find out about these conditions through indicators (e.g., cost of a public health program, homelessness rate, etc.), which are used to assess the magnitude of a condition and the scope of solution. Not all conditions become problems, and those not defined as a problem or (for which alternatives are proposed) will never be converted into policy. The stream of problem includes those that individuals inside and outside the policy system have. The policy stream is concerned with the formulation of policy alternatives and proposals, and includes the soup of ideas that compete to win acceptance in policy networks. Ideas are not built initially to resolve a given problem. Instead, they float until given consideration and tied to a problem. How an idea or proposal is selected depends on its technical feasibility and value acceptability. A variety of actors can participate in the elaboration of such solutions and alternatives, and in the drafting of proposals for policy reform. The politics stream refers to the broader political discourse within which policy is made. It includes the national mood, pressure group campaigns, and administrative and legislative turnover. For instance, an impending election or change in government can lead a given topic and policy to be included or excluded from the agenda. In the political stream, consensus is usually obtained as a result of bargaining rather than persuasion. Thus, more attention is paid to assessing the costs and benefits of a policy proposal than to underlining its analytical importance and relevance. It is also important to mention how the MS views organizational choice and the assumptions it makes in order to have a better understanding of the policy actors.

The MS approach views organizations as operating in a variety of inconsistent and ill defined preferences, or what Zahariadis (2007) refers to as conditions of ambiguity. Organizations also operates with unclear technology, that is, it runs on trial-and-error procedures, learning from past experience, pragmatic invention and necessity. Since organizations are seen as organized anarchies members (e.g. national government, the university) may be aware of their individual responsibilities but only exhibit rudimentary knowledge of how their job fits in the overall mission of the organization. Finally, participation is fluid. Turnover is high and participants drift from one decision to the next. The MS theorizes at the systemic levelthat is, it incorporates the whole system and looks at a separate decision or choice as its unit of analysis. As such, key players refer not to the individual actors per se (politicians, bureaucrats, researchers, or interest groups) but the relationship between policymakers and the policy entrepreneurs in the different policy communities. Because policymakers (politicians) at the top are overwhelmed by the number and complexity of problems they encounter, the entire system is organized into sectors called policy communities (networks) or subsystems. These communities or subsystems act as filters where problems and solutions typically incubate before they are taken by top level politicians. But because there are many policy communities but only one government, an attention bottleneck results when solutions become too many for the policymakers to handle. This is where policy entrepreneurs play a crucial role by capturing the attention of policymakers and manipulating it to their advantage. Here is where MS differs from Rational Choice (I deem this is worth mentioning even though I did not include the Rational Choice theory in this paper). Under the Rational Choice Theory, policymakers attend to problems first then develop policy to fix them (problem-solution sequence). But under MS, opportunities ration attention. If a window opens in the problem stream, solutions are developed in response to specific problems (e.g., a flood or hurricane may call attention to deficiencies in disaster mitigation and management). If a window opens in the politics stream, attention is focused on solutions first before problems can be clearly defined (that is, what matters is the solution rather than the rationale, owing to the fact that the process is ideological). Non-official actors such as NGOs, members of academia, think tanks, and interest groups play a significant role in that they can act as policy entrepreneurs.

Non-official actors can engage in political manipulation in order to couple problems, policies and politics into a single package. Research-based evidence, for instance, can contribute to policies that have a dramatic impact on peoples lives. Manipulation involves not only language (framing) but also emotion. As political fixers, academics, civil society and interest groups must not only be able to identify other key players but able to synthesize compelling stories to catch the attention of policymakers. Policy entrepreneurs refer to individuals or corporate actors who attempt to couple the three streams. By definition, it is obvious that non-official actors are not the only ones capable of being policy entrepreneurs. It is possible that sometimes bureaucrats and legislators themselves can act as policy entrepreneurs and play an active role in getting attention to a problem and opening policy windows. In the Philippines, for instance, left-leaning party-list representatives (these are seats in Congress won by parties representing supposedly marginalized sectors such as women, youth, and labor) are credited for a number of social legislations whose bills they sponsored without waiting for lobby groups to call their attention. Interest groups easily come to mind, however, because policy entrepreneurs have to be necessarily good storytellers and good networkerstraits that have long characterized interest groups in all societies. Social activist, for instance, are effective policy entrepreneurs because they draw their claims from higher order symbolsthat is, symbols which apply to the entire community (e.g., nationalism), have more potency of affect, more uniformity of meaning across individuals, and greater durability of attention. However, not all academics or experts, NGOs or civil society, and interest groups would be successful policy entrepreneurs all the time. The more successful would be those who have greater access to policymakers. The Philippine-based pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS), for example, had been a very influential policy driver during former President Joseph Estradas administrationserving as the unofficial think tank guiding numerous government programsnot only because preelection polls conducted by SWS correctly predicted his victory in 1998 (or rather, in some accounts, conditioned voters to a bandwagon victory) but because the head of the research firm was purportedly Estradas distant relative.

Moreover, researchers, nonprofit organizations or interest groups that have more volunteers, money or energy to push their proposals have greater rates of success than their less endowed counterparts. Interdependent actors: The policy network approach The policy network approach views policymaking as taking place in domainspecific subsystems consisting of a large number of actors dealing with specific policy issues (Adam and Kriesi 2007). Here, not only are actors interdependent of each other, they also engage in regular communication and frequent exchange of information to coordinate their mutual interests. Policy networks, in other words, constitute stable patterns of social relations between interdependent actors which take shape around policy problems or programs. As such, governmental organizations (the formal actors in the policy process) are no longer the central steering actors in the policy process. This is one of the major features of the Network Approach that distinguishes it from the Multiple Stream Framework. Whereas in the Multiple Stream Framework policy entrepreneurs such as experts and interest groups merely propose a theory of political manipulation (policy selection is still left to policymakers who soup what for them appears to be the most viable and acceptable ideas), in the network approach the actors who are formally responsible for political decisions is neither the only nor the most influential decision maker. The policy process, according to the network approach, is not completely and exclusively structured by formal institutional arrangements. The Network Approach ascribes two important dimensions to policy actors. The first refers to attributesactors have specific capabilities, perceptions and preferencesthe distribution of which determines whether power is concentrated in the hands of one dominant actor or coalition or whether it is shared between actors or coalitions. However, the Network Approach does not take into account only the various types of interdependent actors and their attributes, but also the interactions between them. Rhodes (1997) defines a policy network as a cluster or complex of organization connected to one another by resource dependencies. Informal actors such as political parties, NGOs, social movement organizations, and interest groups, along with state actors (formal actors) comprise the actors in the system of interest mediation. A coalition under the network approach can

be composed of one type of actors only (homogenous), or different types of actors (heterogenous). Recall that the involvement of actors is a consequence of the fact that they possess resources that require their involvement in the handling and solution of a particular problem. Actors, in effect, have veto power (or what Rhodes refers to as discretion) and can block interaction processes by withdrawing their resources. Their basic interaction is one involving bargaining between actors with resources. There is balance of power, not necessarily one in which all members receive equal benefits, but one in which all members see themselves as in a positive-sum game. As such, the policy monopoly of a dominant coalition or actor will remain intact unless destabilized by exogenous shocks or the mobilization of competing actors or coalitions. Here is where the role of researchers and experts as non-official actors become significant. Another possible source of exogenous shocks to policy network, according to Adam and Kriesi (2007), are ideas, values and knowledge. New ideas, say empirical studies that change that change the publics perception or redefine an existing condition, can present a very serious challenge to existing policy communities and networks. New ideas, knowledge or values can dissolve existing relations between actors in a network, pave way for new actors, or make established actors adopt new issues. Another important concept relates to governance as opposed to government. In the network approach, as mentioned earlier, policy outcomes are not the product of actions by central government. The formal actors such as the national government, legislators and politicians may be responsible for order in the policy area but policy per se emerges out of the negotiations of several affected parties, both in the public and private sphere. Whereas government refers to activities that are backed by formal authority, governance embraces not only governmental organizations but also informal non governmental mechanisms. Hence, there is governance even without government when regulatory mechanisms in a sphere of activity are able to function effectively though they are not endowed with formal authority. Governance then blurs the distinction between the official and the non-official, the public (the state) and the private (e.g., civil society). The network approach, in effect, puts equal weight to both official and non-official actors. The state becomes a

collection of inter-organizational networks made of government and societal actors but no sovereign actor that steers or regulates. Within these networks are found think tank experts, legislative staff, policy analysts, public administrators, interest groups, process generalists, even elected officials, participating together to work out possibilities for how to solve a policy issue. Non-official actors as coalitions: The Advocacy Coalition Framework

Conclusion The three approaches analyzedthe Multiple Stream Framework, the Network Approach, and the Advocacy Coalition Frameworkoffer different explanations to how policy change takes place, and ascribe varying roles to the participants in the policy process. For instance, one framework may focus on a particular set of actors, while the other shifts its attention on another. The three approaches also vary in their level of analyses. A summary of the approaches is presented in Table 1. There are also similarities. Both Multiple Stream and Advocacy Coalition for instance, share a focus on major policy change. Likewise, both point to similar types of events and factors that set the stage for major policy changedramatic events or crises (external or internal perturbations under the ACF), changes in the governing coalitions, and administrative and legislative turnover that afford a policy window (MS approach). Network analysis, on the other hand, is being used by a number of ACF scholars to show coordinated activities between and among actors and coalitions. As to which of these models best explain the dynamics of the policy process, however, is an entirely different concern. It is presumptuous to conclude one particular approach best captures the complexities and intricacies of policymaking. Each attempts to explain the reality of the policy process. Likewise, each has its own particular strengths and weaknesses. Scholars, researchers, and those interested in the study of public policy are better off choosing one according to the nature and direction of their research problem, while keeping an open mind about the other approaches as alternatives.

Table 1: Summary of how the three approaches of policy process look at policy actors
Multiple Stream Framework Level of analysis System Network Approach Advocacy Coalition Framework Collective

Meso-level or interaction between interest groups and government (Rhodes 1997) Policy networks (but neither official nor non-official actor dominates)

Key participants

Policy entrepreneurs

Coalitions (which can be made up of official or non-official actors)

Role of official actors

Have veto power and resources that make them important in the policy process. acts But do in the context of not have monopoly in ambiguity, lack of decision-making. technology, and trial-anderror erally scoop from a soup of ideas or garbage can

gen

Share a policy core belief and work to translate it into policy. Have subunits which specialize in a policy domain.

Role of non-official - As policy entrepreneurs, actors connects the policy, problems and politics stream (coupling). - Engage in political manipulation and framing. When policy change occurs - When there is coupling upon the opening of a policy window.

- Have resources that make Share a them important in policy policy core belief and work to process. translate it into policy. - Have veto power (discretion) - See official actors as potential vis--vis official actors. members of advocacy coalitions, hence, a major source of resource for the coalition. - When there is negotiation or bargaining by policy participants. - When there is consensus as a result of external or internal perturbations, policy-oriented learning, or hurting stalemate. Coalitions can have both official and nonofficial actors. Actors engage in non-trivial coordination.

Relationship between the official and nonofficial actors

- Policy entrepreneurs merely suggest, but decision ultimately rests on policymakers.

Official actors (government) are not the only, nor the most influential among actors (balance of power) There is governance, instead of government.

References Adam, Silke, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2007. The Network Approach. In Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press, 129-148. Cobb, Roger, Jennie-Keith Ross, and Mare Howard Ross. 1976. Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process. American Political Science Review 70(1): 126-138. Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olson. 1972. A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1-25. Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Jones, Michael D., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 2009. Trans-Subsystem Dynamics: Policy Topography, Mass Opinion, and Policy Change. Policy Studies Journal 37(1): 37-58. Rhodes, Rod A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexibility and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sabatier, Paul A. Ed. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition. Boulder: Westview Press. Weible, Christopher, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2009. Coalitions, Science, and Belief Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy. Policy Studies Journal 37(2): 195-212. Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2007. The Multiple Stream Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects. In Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press, 65-91.