Public Policy-Making Process Public Policy

Public Policy-Making Process PUBLIC POLICY MAKING and the POLICY-MAKING PROCESS Public policy-making or the policy-making process that occurs in governmental organizations is a complex process that involves many organizations and entities and is inclusive of several stages in the policy-making process.

Charles Lindblom published an article entitled: "The Science of Muddling Through" in 1959 and is 'one of the most highly cited articles in the Social Science Citation Index" (Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992, p.267; as cited by Kantor, 2000) and continues to generate debate and insights into policy making which are valuable to analysts (e.g.

Lessman, 1989; Weiss and Woodhouse, 1992; Albaek, 1995) The Nature of Policy The argument of Lindblom was that the process of policy development is both a systematic and rational process and that "policy makers are constrained in their ability to develop policies on a blank sheet of paper.

As a result, they pursue an approach which makes incremental changes to existing policies." (Kantor, 2000) the suggestion of Lindblom was that "with skill, this type of policy-making can result in better outcomes than attempts at comprehensiveness." (Kantor, 2000) While others have confirmed that "incrementalism is the only realistic approach, as the rational-comprehensive ideal would paralyze the policy process due to the costs of undertaking the necessary research, consultation etc.

required to attain completeness (John, 1998)." Lindblom held that since policy-maker do not generally have all the required information that comprehensiveness was not realistic in ideal and as well policy-makers deal with constraints on resources such as limitations on time and rarely ever is a single objective of policy agreed upon.

Lindblom held that intentional incompleteness was much preferred to the "Inevitable, unplanned oversights which occur when policy-makers aspire to the rational-comprehensive ideal (Lindblom, 1979)." (Kantor, 2000) Lindblom acknowledged issues that were intentionally ignored in the view of incrementalism that were addressed through later policy revisions and that policy making is "serial and remedial, never producing once-and-for-all solutions to social problems (Lindblom, 1965)." (Ibid) Lindblom held that "incremental policy development delivers good outcomes when there are multiple decision makers within the system who represent a diversity of views.

These decision makers protect particular values within the policy process and ensure that the serial process outlined above does not overlook important concerns. This ensures that no major value is neglected and that policy decisions are broadly acceptable to all stakeholders." (Ibid) Different kinds of policy analysis Lindblom and Woodhouse hold that there are problems that are too complex for the human being to conceive and comprehend or too complex for human beings to perceive.

Lindblom and Woodhouse state that "there is a deep and persistent unwillingness in Western culture to acknowledge difficulties. These authors further hold that the failure to take the limitations of humans serious, makes it impossible to make an assessment of the."..the magnitude of the task facing a political system. Unless political action accounts for the inability to fully comprehend complex problems, policy making will not fare well.

Some of the social limits they feel define cognitive limitations are the existence of arbitrary standards, inadequate schooling, and a lack of competition of ideas in the media." (Bibliography: Lindblom & Woodhouse, 1993) Lindblom and Woodhouse stress "the need for balance between analysis and the exercise of power. Policy making is by definition an exercise of power, in that involves the use of authority.

The role of analysis is to keep that power in check, not to replace it." (Ibid) it is held by Lindblom and Woodhouse that the best path to the truth is the competition of ideas and that democracy opens up the marketplace for ideas providing the best opportunity for policy-making that is both reasoned and informed.

The problem is that competition may result in both reason and contention creating the question then of where does the balance lie between the "...power of politics and the politics of analysis?" (Ibid) Lindblom and Woodhouse explain that policy studies cannot be considered to be a 'linear, step-wise process" but is an environment that is static in which policy may arise from compromise, as a byproduct of other actions, emerge gradually, or even come into being through inaction and precedent.

Lindblom and Woodhouse state that: "Policy making is a complexly interaction process without beginning or end." [p,11] How Perceived Problems gets on the Public Agenda In Lindblom's 1959 work the term 'watchdog' was used describing the representations of a particular value or interest represented within the system. Lindblom stated that: "Almost every interest has its watchdog.

Without claiming that every interest has a sufficiently powerful watchdog it can be argued that our system often can assure a more comprehensive regard for the values of the whole society than any attempt at intellectual comprehensiveness. (Lindblom, 1959, p. 85) Group interaction is stated by some to be that which drives public policy. The argument is that the individual has little effect on policymaking however, groups are able to succeed in effecting policy change due to size, political effectiveness and their financial resources.

This is the method by which the agriculture policy of the U.S. is debated the agenda of the legislature is decided and the regulations of the administration are announced and its programs administered. One of the group models of public policymaking is the "Iron Triangle" which states that three points of power in the policy (in this case agricultural policy) are those of: The Executive - the secretary of agriculture, administrators of the USDA agencies, and the director of the budget.

The Congress - the chairman of the congressional agriculture and appropriations committees, and the Farm Lobby - the leaders of a few key farm organizations and relatively new commodity groups. (Cokrell, nd) The following labeled Figure 1 illustrates the Iron Triangle Model of Policy-making. The Iron Triangle The following chart shows the basic decision-making styles adapted from the work of Michael Howlett entitled: "Analyzing Multi-Actor, Multi-Round Decision-Making Processes in Government: Preliminary Findings from Five Canadian Cases." Howlett states that Lindblom's decision-making style falls under Type II: Incremental Decision-Making.

Basic Decision-Making Styles Severity of Constraints on Low High Decision Makers [Limited Actor, Single Level, Multi-Actor, Multi-level Single Round] Multi-Round] Low Type I Type III Clear Problem Definition, Rationale Decision-making Decision Accretion, Available Information, Decision Making Available Time] High Type II Type IV Poor Problem Definition, Incremental Decision-making Garbage Can Decision Limited Information, making Limited Time] The Major Players in the Process Lindblom and Woodhouse in the work entitled: "The Policy Making Process" state that policy occurs as much through a system as through the policy makers themselves although the policy-makers focus on a range of options that has already been narrowed down and that fit into a basic type of agreement.

Different groups that impact policy-making are those of: 1) Legislators; 2) Interest Groups; 3) Governmental Agencies; and 4) Broader influences such as human limitations, conflict between reasoned judgment and exercise of power, role of business and inequality. The Decision-Making Processes used to adopt Policies Policymaking in the view of Lindblom is the complete range of decision-making processes to include the individual, group and democratic processes within a community or organization that makes the decision of whether to react or alternatively not react to a specific problem, opportunity or issue which arises.

Lindblom holds that there are several phases that are passed through when making decisions or alternatively non-decisions which are those as follows: Collection of information and creation of knowledge; Selection and promotion of proposals Making decisions Preparation of laws, regulations, decrees (includes articulation) Announcement and association Introduction (implementation of laws/regulations) Checkpoint: achieved results vs. expected results Evaluation of achieved results vs. The expected results over the time period regulations have been under enforcement.

(Lindblom 1993) The Environment within which policy must take place Policy analysis is stated to have its limitations in the work of Lindblom and Woodhouse and the policy-makers are generally given too much advice or information which is incidentally extensive but does not offer a contrary or different point-of-view. Another limitation exists in the fact that while one group would hold that the correct action was taken yet another group would believe that the action was incorrect and this is based on individual reasoning.

Stated is: "There runs a deep and wide river of information and opinion fed by many springs, from formal research projects to letters to the editor, some of which makes it way into the thinking of those with direct influence over policy." [p.15] How Federalism Impacts the Policy-Making Process The view of Lindblom and Woodhouse on the limitations within the policy process is a little cynical as they state that: "To the extent that democratic systems do work, it is largely because they half-wittingly utilize strategies that render complex social problems far more manageable than could be achieved via analysis alone." [p.24] Lindblom and Woodhouse hold that disagreement in the review process is positive because it means that more information is made available and that the making of policy will occur in an atmosphere or agreement and compromise which is preferable to policy-making by decree.

The pluralist school is believed to have best "captured the dynamics of the bargaining process among different interest groups trying to influence the policy process, and between these groups and policy makers (Lindblom and Woodhouse, 1993; as cited by Rosetti, 1999) in the view of Lindblom and Woodhouse the limitations that exist in terms of limitations on knowledge is readily available during the electoral process in the U.S.

These authors believe that public policy making by the mass public is unrealistic because so many people are unlikely to come to any agreement however the elected officials often lose touch with the pulse of the voters. The bureaucratic system which is responsible for implementation of the policies that have been developed is that which keeps check on elected officials.

The Bureaucrats have more experience in the policy function and actually end up in the role of policy maker when the elected officials have either intentionally or unintentionally set policies that are vague, and sometimes with the intent of protection of special interests. Assessment of the Process Using the Thesis of Lindblom and Woodhouse External forces are the special interest groups and businesses. Lindblom and Woodhouse believe that the most "extra governmental obstruction to democratic, intelligent steering of society is the business sector's influence over public policy.

Since private enterprise and democracy have been somewhat inseparable in the U.S. The business groups receive more consideration from the policy-makers in the government than do other groups. Stated is: "Business people usually exercise control without great expenditure of attention of deliberation.

They simply operate under circumstances in which both they and government officials know that continued performance depends on business indulgences, benefits, privileges, and incentives." [p.95] Also stated by Lindblom and Woodhouse is: "They warn about " the pernicious effects [of] political inequality" on the policy making process and, "especially the possibility that policy ideas are systematically misshaped by the pro-business cultures of market-oriented democracies." Stated to be another example of the ineffective process of democracy is the imbalanced state of equality in the current democratic system which includes social inequality but also includes equality to participate.

If democracy is to be truly effective then the citizenry must be both active and responsive. Inequality exists due to the difference in individual ability in processing and use of information. Educational and social conditioning favors the 'elite' leaving the largest part of society with the tendency to never question that which fundamentally underpins society therefore keeping them aligned with the issues that are smaller, less important and easier to understand. In fact, there is very little disagreement on the larger.