1. Lecture No 23 Theories of Public Policy & Public Policy-Making Process

2. Theories of Public Policy Outline – Uses of Models – Types of Models – Group Work

3. Dye: Uses of Models Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy Identify important aspects of policy problems Help us to communicate with each other by focusing on essential features of political life Direct our efforts to understand public policy better by suggesting what is important and unimportant Suggest explanations for public policy and predict its consequences

4. 1. Who participates in policy making? 2. How are policy decisions made? 3. What are the underlying assumptions of the theory/model? 4. If the author is right, what are the consequences for the general public of policy decisions made in accordance with the particular theory/model?

5. Types of Models There are 4 questions you should be able to answer about each of the theories or models you will be exposed to:

6. 1. Institutionalism Public policy as institutional output Who: executive, legislative, and judicial branches How: policy is authoritatively determined, implemented, and enforced by these institutions (legitimacy, universality, and coercion) Implications/assumptions: individuals have little impact; structure/design affects outcomes

7. 2. Process Model Public policy as political activity Who: voters, interest groups, legislators, presidents, bureaucrats, judges How: ID problem, set agenda, formulate policy proposals, legitimate policies, implement policies, evaluate policies Implications/assumptions: who participates has a critical or determinant impact on the process

8. 3. Group Theory Public policy as group equilibrium Who: interest groups, their allies in government How: struggle among interest groups with legislature/executive as referee to manage group conflict and establish rules of the game Implications/assumptions: groups will always join to press for particular issues, all interests will have an opportunity for representation

9. 4. Elite Theory Public policy as elite preference Who: elites that have power, ability to allocate value How: implementation of the preferences and values of the governing elite; public officials merely carry out policies decided on by the elites Implications/assumptions: public is apathetic elites agree upon norms; political action is merely symbolic; protects the status quo

10. 5. Rationalism Public policy as maximum social gain Who: decision makers (all social, political, economic values sacrificed or achieved by a policy choice) irrespective of dollar amount (Bentham, Mills) How: select policy alternative(s) that allows gains to society to exceed benefits by the greatest amount Implications/assumptions: assumes that the values preferences of the society as a whole can be known and weighted

11. 6. Incrementalism Public policy as variations on the past Who: policy makers, legislators, others with a stake in ongoing programs or problems How: continuation of past government activities with only incremental modifications Implications/assumptions: accepts the legitimacy of established programs; fear of unintended consequences; sunk costs in other programs may minimize the opportunities for radical change

12. 7. Game Theory Public policy as rational choice in competitive situations Who: players/decision makers who have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choice made by each (assumes rationality in making choices) How: each player has goals and resources, a strategy developed given possible moves of opponent, and payoff values that constitute the outcomes of the game Implications/assumptions: repeated plays should lead to better policy outcomes

13. 8. Public Choice Public policy as collective decision making by self-interested individuals Who: rational self-interested individuals will in both politics and economics cooperate to achieve their goals How: individuals come together in politics for their own mutual benefit; government must respond to market failures Implications/assumptions: individuals have sufficient information to know what is in their best interest

14. 9. Systems Theory Public policy as system output Who: individuals, groups, or nations depending upon the scope of the problem How: environment may stimulate inputs into political system, producing outputs and feedback Implications/assumptions: systems implies an identifiable set of institutions and activities in society that functions to transforms demands into authoritative decisions requiring the support of the whole society; implies that the elements of the system are interrelated, that the system can respond to forces in its environment, and that it will do so to preserve itself

15. 10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model Who: participants inside and outside government How: choice opportunity is a garbage can into which various kinds of problems and solutions are dumped by participants as they are generated; policy outcomes are a function of the mix of the garbage: problems, solutions, participants, and participant resources in the can and how the can is processed Implications/assumptions: each of the actors and processes can operate either as an impetus or as a constraint; streams operate largely independent of one another

16. 1. Institutionalism 2. Process 3. Group Theory 4. Elite Theory 5. Rationalism 6. Incrementalism 7. Game Theory 8. Public Choice Theory 9. Systems Theory 10. Kingdon-Garbage Can Model

17. Public Policy Making Process Overview Two conclusions. – No one is clearly in charge of implementation. – Domestic programs virtually never achieve all that is expected of them. Eight generalizations. – No one individual or group is in charge. – Domestic programs never achieve all that is expected of them. – The first two are true because of the political structure and conflicting values of the participants.

18. Public Policy Making Process Overview Eight generalizations (contd.). – Bureaucrats are the most influential actors, but do not control implementation. – Patterns of implementation vary depending on the different social purposes of policies. – Decentralization influences implementation. – The meaning of effective implementation varies across situations. – Effectiveness does not necessarily translate into desired impacts.

19. Implementation in the Policy Process Definition – the set of activities that follow statements of intent (laws, court decisions, executive orders) about program goals and desired results by government officials. – Implementation encompasses actions (and nonactions) by a variety of actors, especially bureaucrats, designed to put programs into effect, ostensibly in such a way as to achieve goals.

20. Implementation in the Policy Process Actions – Acquire resources. – Interpret statutes, laws, decisions and plan activities. – Organize. – Extend benefits or restrictions.

21. The Nature of Implementation Generalizations. – There are a very large number of external factors that can influence implementation. – For implementation to proceed without any major hitches, all or virtually all of these external factors must be supportive or at least neutral. Any one or few that are nonsupportive can derail the entire implementation process in a variety of ways. – There are also a large number of factors internal to implementation processes that inevitably provide obstacles to smooth implementation.

22. The Nature of Implementation Most important features. – Implementation processes involve many important actors holding diffuse and competing goals and expectations who work within a context of an increasingly large and complex mix of government programs that require participation from numerous layers and units of government and who are affected by power factors beyond their control.

23. The Nature of Implementation Many actors. – Number and identity. The basic point is that executives, legislatures, bureaucrats, a variety of private or non-governmental groups and individuals, and courts at all of the three major territorial levels in the U.S. (federal, state, and local) can and do get involved in the implementation of domestic policies. Actors in the implementation process (next slide).

24. The Nature of Implementation TABLE 8.1. Actors in the Implementation Process LevelExecutive Officials and Organizations Legislative Officials and Organizations Bureaucratic Officials and Organizations Nongovernmental Individuals and Organizations Judicial Officials and Organizations Federal President Executive Office of the President Staff Congress (committees and individual members) Congressional staff and support agencies Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (Washington and regional) Corporations Labor unions Interest groups Advisory bodies Nonprofit agencies Media Federal judges Law clerks Marshals Masters, experts US Attorneys State Governor Governor’s staff State legislature (Committee and individuals) Staff and support agencies Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (state capitol and regional (Same as above with state focus and impact) State judges Law clerks Miscellaneous state judicial officials Local Mayor County commissioners Other local elected officials Staff City councils, board of commissioners, other local elected officials, staff Department and agency heads Staff-civil servants (central and field offices) (Same as above with local focus and impact) Local judges Law clerks Miscellaneous local judicial officials

25. The Nature of Implementation Many actors (contd.). – The role of private actors. Interest groups. – Groups attempt to influence implementation. Influence does not stop with formulation and legitimation. – Not only can interests help create policies, but policies can create interests. – Bureaucracies will sometimes take the initiative in creating groups around the policies that they implement. Both allies and opposing groups. The blurring of public and private sectors. Advisory groups contribute to this phenomenon.

26. The Nature of Implementation Many actors (contd.). – The role of courts. Decisions that limit, channel, mandate implementation. Program administrators, sometimes. – Lack of hierarchy. Promotes bargaining, competition, and compromise. Even in hierarchies, this is true.

27. The Nature of Implementation Many actors (contd.). – Conflict and compromise. Policy formulation and legitimation are typically characterized by some conflict over both goals and means to attain them. Conflict reduced or resolved through series of compromises that allow legislation to pass. Conflict does not end with the passage of the legislation. Carries over into implementation. Losers attempt to change the outcome; winners attempt to maintain advantage. Multiple opportunities for influence and access. No decisions are final.

28. The Nature of Implementation Goals and Expectations. – Goals embedded in programs are diffuse, numerous, and usually fuzzy. No single clear goal – confusion. Competition among goals. Unexpected costs – unintended consequences. Growth of government and complexity of programs. – Increases in budget outlays. – Increases in government expenditures as a percentage of GDP. – Slow increases in federal employment, rapid increases in state and local employment. – Greater use of nonprofit and private sector. – Rise of grants-in-aid to 1970. External uncontrollable factors. – Economic changes. – Social changes.

29. Policy Implementation Public policies are not self-executing. – Since people who formulate and adopt are usually not the same as those who implement, much room for slippage and distortion. – Policy implementation is the stage of policy making between the establishment of a policy and the consequences of the policy for the people it affects.

30. Policy Implementation Public policies are not self-executing (contd.). – Implementation activities. Issue and enforcing directives. Disbursing funds. Making loans. Awarding grants. Signing contracts. Collecting data. Disseminating information. Analyzing problems. Assigning and hiring personnel. Creating organizational units. Proposing alternatives. Planning for the future. Negotiating with private citizens, businesses, interest groups, legislative committees, bureaucratic units, and even other countries.

31. Policy Implementation What are the conditions that produce effective or ineffective implementation? – Communication. – Resources. – Dispositions. – Bureaucratic structure.

32. Communication. First requirement for effective policy implementation is that those are to implement a decision must know what they are supposed to do. Policy decisions and implementation orders must be transmitted to the appropriate personnel before they can be followed. Naturally, these need to be accurate, and they must be accurately perceived. They must be clear, they must be consistent.

33. Communication. Transmission. – Implementers must be aware that the decision was made. – Obstacles. Disagreement. Multiple layers of bureaucracy. Selective perception.

34. Communication Clarity. – Vague laws. Example – “maximum feasible participation.” Vagueness allows leeway Inhibits change, but can also expand it. Finding the true intentions. – Reducing discretion can provide some remedy. – Ambiguous court decisions. Death penalty. Brown vs. Board of Education. – But, flexibility has some value. – Reasons for lack of clarity. Complexity of policy-making. Competing goals and the need for consensus. Unfamiliarity of new programs. Avoiding accountability. Nature of court decisions.

35. Communication Consistency. – Example – Economic Development Administration. Help jobless by attracting or expanding industry. Could not subsidize competitors to existing businesses. – Inconsistency can also lead to discretion. – Causes. Increases as levels and offices increase. Many of the conditions affecting clarity also affect consistency. Desire to appear consistent while making a change can lead to inconsistent communication.

36. Resources Adequate resources are essential. Staff – most essential. – Size. Most programs are understaffed. 1968 HEW – supervise school desegregation with 48 enforcement officers in 23,000 school districts. To avoid, feds have transferred implementation to state and local governments, which are also understaffed. – Michigan – Staff of 10 to consider funding requests of 462 school districts. Example environmental protection. – 62,000 primary sources of water pollution plus sewers, irrigation, agriculture. 150 million polluting motor vehicles, 2,000 toxic dump sites, 2,000 to 40,000 sources of industrial air pollution, 50,000 pesticides. – State environmental protection agencies have 15 to 200 inspectors – and can examine 3 to 30 sources per day. Why? Fear of totalitarian monster, allocate personnel for direct services. Scarcity of funds combined with zeal to create new programs.

37. Resources Staff (contd.) – Skills. Lack of skills critical. Poorly trained staff can create hazards. Seven of ten nuclear power plant operator applicants in 1978 in Michigan failed licensing exam and were hired anyway. Implementation by state agencies is also a problem. Few management people with skills. New programs. Difficult to hire.

38. Resources Information. – Knowing what to do. Especially new or technical like air pollution. Consequences. – Responsibilities not met. – Not met on time. – Inefficiency. » Mistakes. » Inappropriate. – Monitor compliance. Information on compliance. But, lack of staff critical. Reliance on information from regulated industry. Limited authority. Reliance on private sector – private citizens.

39. Resources Authority. – Authority to give aid, but less to constrain. – Limitations. Exercising authority – many agencies simply do not have the authority. Or it exists only on paper. – Withdrawal of funds – potential weapon, rarely used. Why? » Embarrassing. » Antagonizes implementers. » Alienates members of Congress. » Intervention by powerful state and local authorities. » May hurt those it is designed to help. » May injure innocent persons – loss of jobs. – Sanctions can be useful. Gives agency excuse to comply. Result: Service orientation – higher level officials ask for assistance rather than issue orders. Rarely challenge lower level decisions.

40. Resources Facilities – Physical. – Building, equipment, supplies. – Shortage of sophisticated equipment. Logistics system on one military base purchased from Radio Shack. – But many people oppose the building of facilities in their area (NIMBY).

41. Dispositions (Attitudes) Well-disposed to policy, more likely to be carried out according to intentions. If not, implementation more complicated. Since implementers have discretion, their attitudes can be obstacles.

42. Dispositions (Attitudes) Effects. – Many policies fall in zone of indifference, will be implemented. Others excite opposition, will be more difficult. – Sources of parochialism. In-breeding. Careerism in one agency. Narrow range of responsibility. Reward distribution supports status quo. Committee and interest group pressure.

43. Dispositions (Attitudes) Effects (contd.). – Dispositions hindering implementation. Opposition – Can prevent consideration of ideas. – Can defeat immediate goals. – But, can be beneficial if used to ignore orders issued in haste. Competing policy interests. Selective perception. Differences in organizational outlook. – Between organizations. – Within organizations, between sections. – Outlooks that affect implementation. » Dominant opinion as to function. » Turf-building. » Program raids. » Protection of autonomy. » Private dispositions.

44. Dispositions (Attitudes) If dispositions limit implementation, why not hire new personnel? – Time. – Politics. – Interest groups. – Internal opposition. – Lack of knowledge of skilled personnel. – Subcabinet discretion. – Civil service rules. – Bureaucratic complexity.

45. Dispositions (Attitudes) Incentives. – Rewards and punishments can work, but generally only on individual projects. – Rewards. Merit pay – rarely used Promotion – usually seniority. Peer group pressure can mitigate rewards. – Goal displacement – trying to beat system.

46. Bureaucratic Structure Standard operating procedures (SOPs). – Routines to handle everyday situations. – Reasons. Save time. Uniformity of application. Lack of resources requires simplification. “Tunnel” vision. – Problems. Inhibit change. Prevent acceptance of responsibility for new programs. Delay. Waste resources. Undesired actions. New policies more likely to be hindered. But, SOPs can help change.

47. Bureaucratic Structure Fragmentation. – Congress has created multiple programs and agencies to improve oversight, maximize intervention, and divide turf. – Agencies possessive of jurisdiction. – Interest groups favor status quo. – Consequences. Diffusion of responsibility. Lack of coordination.

48. Problems and Prospects Poorly communicated directives in the wrong structure can aggravate preexisting dispositions against the policy leading to wasted resources and ineffective implementation. Policies apt to face difficulties in implementation. – New policies. – Decentralized implementation. – Controversial. – Complex. – Crisis. – Judicial decisions. – Combinations of the above factors.

49. Thank You