CHAPTER-I

INTRODUCTION

The study of the products of government, namely Development through

an understanding of public policies* has been dominated by students of
Political Science first and Public Administration later. Today the study of
Public Policy has acquired a new dimension and is struggling to acquire the
status of a new discipline called Policy Science. It is no exaggeration to
suggest that Development

parse proposes analysis of policies of government

as a substitute for politics. Stephen Brooks maintains: While not anti

democratic, the analytical approach to public policy making aspires to the de
politicization of the policy process1. Although the term policy science is
mostly associated with Lasswell and Y.Dror, a policy orientation was evident in
the very beginnings of American social science, the concern which informs the
policy science writings of Laswell and Dror is evident in the work of American
social scientists today. Education and sociological training for legislators were
measures stressed by Lester Ward with a view to embedding rational decision
making into the very culture and political institutions of American society. The
tradition of rationalism runs from Ward to Dror. Brooks writes: These visions
of a new politics share a conviction that the institutionalization of scientific
analysis into the policy-making processes is a necessary condition for the
attainment of democratic government in a modern society2. Thus,

it is

clear that the study of development process while a government is at

work (More so a coalition) is basically an American way of measuring the
working/ functioning of government.

The Dewyism which pervades policy science has been acknowledged by

Lasswell when he wrote: Policy sciences are a contemporary adoption of the
general approach to public policy that was recommended by John Dewey and
his colleagues in the development of American Pragmatism3. Similarly Sidney
Hook explains, for Dewey the survival and expansion of democracy depends
upon its use of scientific method or creative intelligence to solve its Problems4.
It is for this reason that he laid stress on the study of developmental agenda of a
government. However, even then this subject of study was not given a status
that it desired. But it was at a later date that the concept of Policy Science was
first formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951 in his co edited work The Policy
Sciences. This work is regarded as the first systematic effort towards building
a new field of enquiry to deal with social problems as governments do through
their so called `developmental activity.

The writings of Scotta and Shore, Horowitz, and Tribe provide a more
detailed picture of the emergence of policy science. A group of converging
factors, such as war, poverty, crime, race relations, and pollution are seen to be
responsible for producing a great interest in policy science vis-a-vis
governments in the late 1960s. Brooks therefore adds: Policy science is the
most recent and certainly the most explicit, manifestation of this quest for an

independent vantage point, above the political fray, affording objective criteria
upon which policy decisions can be made5.

Public Policy Studies and Developmental Process; Inter Connections

Questions of policy ultimately rest on the application of knowledge to

political decisions. Such knowledge is generated both within and outside the
government agencies and other institutions connected to public affairs. An
understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions permits us to
apply the knowledge of social science to find the solutions to problems
confronting development. The acquisition and dissemination of information
about public policies has become a major theme in social sciences, especially in
the discipline of public administration. The use of such knowledge for making,
managing and evaluating public policy is generally termed Policy Analysis.
Policy analysis is a technique to measure organizational effectiveness through
the examination and evaluation of the effect of a programme. Public policy
analysis is thus nothing more than estimating the impact of public policy on the
developmental programmes of a government. It is in this sense an instrument
through which the success and failures of subsequent governments are
measured and continuity and change is observed and analyzed.

The study of public policy thus, prepares and helps us to cope better
with the future. It improves our knowledge about the society and their needs.

An important part of the study of public policy is concerned with societys

future. As Bibson Winter has observed:

The problem of policy is ultimately how the future is grasped

and appraised. The essential meaning of responsibility is
accountability in human fulfillment in shaping of the societys
future. In spite of the importance of the public policy, thinking
about the future is quite primitive, both among social scientists
and policy makers, especially in India. However, there has
been considerable growth in the research and training in policy
analysis since the early 1970s in many developed countries. In
most

developed

countries,

policy

analysis

has

been

substantially stimulated by the governments increased

concern for public policy problems. The attractiveness of the
government as a research sponsor has also been enhanced6.

However, as Gibson Winter has pointed out this is not the case in
developing countries and therefore the depth of this kind of study in countries
like India? For example if we take a look at the Dictionary of Public
Administration it defines policy analysis as a systematic and data-based
alternative to intuitive judgments about the effects of policy or public options7.
It uses further the following instruments of assessment and monitoring, decision
tool and the process called evaluation, to measure public policy.

Policy analysis encourages social scientists and policy makers to

examine policy issues and decisions with scientific tools. Thomas Dye labels
policy analysis as the thinking mans response to demands. He observes that
specifically public analysis involves: A primary concern with explanation
rather than prescription. Policy recommendations if they are made at all are
subordinate to description and explanation8.

Policy science is rational approach to the processes of policy making.

V.Subramaniam characterizes policy science as the practical application of all
relevant knowledge in the social, physical and natural sciences, to specific
Developmental problems identified well ahead of time9. The rationalist model
involves a commitment to scientific planning. This means an overhaul of the
traditional approaches to making of decisions. However, the specter of Duncan
MacRae is warded off by the suggestion that a policy analysis culture be
created in order to achieve greater Development through policy making. This
policy analysis culture has three main features as found in Drors pioneering
writings: They include Technical experts who are sensitive to the ethical
implications of decisions; Close cooperation between researchers in
government; and developmental plans and lastly an informed citizenry to fend
off the anti democratic specter of an expert ruling class so that they take part in
the process of development irrespective of their political choices.

From Lass well to Dror to the present, the central idea in policy science is
that it entails a theory of choice for development and an approach to the

determination of policy accelerates development. As Nagel expresses it, social

science does more analysis of hypotheses, predictions, causation, and
optimizing, and thus develops a body of potential premises that can be used in
deducing conclusions, just as chemistry was able to deduce the existence of
new Clements before they were empirically discovered. 10 Thus as one goes
on to understand the scope of policy studies and the process of development
one finds that there is an organic linkage between the two and that it needs to be
unleashed delicately (especially) when thee is coalition government at work.

Relevance of the Study of Public Policy*

Most governments of Third World courtiers are engaged in the

momentous task of kindling national resurgence through socio-economic
development. They are struggling hard to develop their economy, to sustain
improvements in their social system and to increase the capacity of their
political system with a view to achieving the major objective of national
development. They seek to improve the relevant policies. It is, therefore, taken
for granted that the studies of approaches, strategies and concepts which will
contribute towards a better understanding of this are essential. The study of
public policy represents a powerful approach for this purpose.

Public policy is an important mechanism for moving a social system

from the past to the future. It helps to shape the future. Alvin Toffler exposed
the problem of adjustment to rapid change in his popular sociological book

Future Shock11. The future requires new policies and choices. What is trivial
today may be of colossal importance in a future decade. We can understand the
future by extrapolation of the present trends.

We may take the idea of

projecting some key social trends into the future. Our collection of data for
these purposes my include changes in population growth rates, education,
public health and the like. We can carry the process further by forecasting what
these projections might look like in a decade. People cannot avoid being
concerned with the consequences of public policy. As Gibson Winter observes;
the problem of policy is ultimately how the future is grasped and appraised. The
essential meaning of responsibility is accountability in human fulfillment in
shaping of the societys future12.

Public policy is at times conditioned by the past. However the present

dimensions of Public Policy that has emerged in the developing countries or as
how they now appear, and how the present sustains them are important
questions in the study of public policy. In these countries, the scope and size of
the public sector has grown enormously in response to the increasing
complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization, urbanization
and environmental protection etc., the growth of public functions has paralleled
the growth of public policies. The study of the past is very important as it helps
in explaining the present policy system. The past policies perpetuate themselves
into present and future policies. The question of continuity or change in them
affects directly or indirectly the growth and development of a nation/State.

Further, the study of public policy is of vital importance for the present
to tune the future. It deals with the definition of a policy problem. The
definition of a problem that may generate more conflict then consensus. In
policy making, political power tends to impose upon the definitions of a
problem. In this context Schatt Schneider says; He who determines what
politics is about runs the country, because the definition of alternatives is the
choice of conflicts, and the choice of conflicts allocates power. Thus, present
policy making can be thought of as problem solving behavior, realizing that the
definition of the alternatives is the supreme instrument of power that may in
future bring about the space needed for the development process to achieve the
goal set for it from time to time.

An understanding of these linkages contributes to the development of

policy science. Not only this, an understanding of the causes and consequences
of public policy helps us to apply scientific knowledge to find the solutions to
the practical problems of development. The professionals, if they understand
and know something about public policy, are in apposition to say something
useful concerning how governments or public authorities can act to achieve
their policy goals. Such advice can either be on what policies can be pursued
for achieving particular goals or what environmental factors are conducive to
the development of a given policy. Indeed factual knowledge is a prerequisite to
solving the problems of society. In other words, the study of public policy helps
the development of professional advice about how to achieve particular

development goals in the light of a democratic process of change of guards at

the state level as and when elections takes place.

To wind up this discussion of why one needs to study public policies

while researching on the Developmental process thus justifies the fact that they
are interconnected. Further, it can be noted that the field of public policy has
assumed considerable importance in response to the increasing complexity of
the society. It is not only concerned with the description and explanation of the
causes and consequences of government activity, but also with developing
scientific knowledge about the forces shaping public policy. The study of
public policy helps to understand the social ill of the subject. Under this study
of public policy, an important mechanism for moving a social system from the
past to the future is well followed to explain in scientific terms the question of
continuity or change in them keeping in focus the development process under
the coalition government in the state of Karnataka.

Scope of the Study

A significant part of the study of public policy consists of the study of

development of scenarios and extrapolations of contemporary trends, when the
scope and sheer size of the public sector has grown enormously in all the
developing countries in response to the increasing complexity of technology,
social demands and need for supply. Countries in response to the increasing
complexity

of

technology,

social

organization,

industrialization

and

urbanization are focusing their attention to fulfill the demands that emanate
from them. At present the functions of practically all governments, especially of
the developing countries, have significantly increased in manifolds. They are
now concerned with the more complex functions of nation building and socio
economic progress. Today the government is not merely the keeper of peace,
the arbiter of disputes, and the provider of common goods and day to day
services. For better or worse, government has, directly or indirectly, become the
principal invocator, the major determiner of social and economic programmes
and the main financer as well as the main guarantor of large scale enterprises
that ensures that the process of development traverses without hindrances to
achieve the goals desired by the Governments.

To quote a United Nations publication,

in countries where the problem of poverty is less

serious, there is great pressure on governments to
accelerate national development, make use of up to
date and relevant technological innovations, adopt and
facilitate necessary institutional changes, increase
national production, make full use of human and other
resources, and improve the level of living. These trends
and developments have therefore enhanced both the
size and scope of the public policy in a democratic set
up where the study of development process involving

10

various bodies of government and political institutions

in tandem to achieve goals of development (and to see
that change and continuity one negotiated) 13.

Michael Teitz on the other hand describes the outreach of public policy
in terms of the citizens life cycle: Modern urban man is born in a publicly
financed hospital receives his education in a publicly supported school and
university, spends a good part of his time traveling on publicly built
transportation facilities, communicates through the post office or the quasi
public telephone system, drinks his public drinking water, disposes of his
garbage through the public removal system, reads his library books, in public
library picnics in

public parks, is protected by public policies, fire and

health system, eventually, he dies, again in a public hospital and may even be
buried in a public cemetery. Ideological conservatives notwithstanding, his
everyday life is inextricably bound up with government decisions on these and
numerous other public services14.

A study of the process of this kind of complex mechanism in changed

forms of the government (from Single party dominated Political System to a
coalition) is no easy task.

The line of argument developed here is that all of us are greatly affected
by the myriad public policies in our everyday lives. The range of public policy

11

is vast: from the vital to the trivial. Today public policies may deal with such
substantive areas as defense, environment protection, medical care and health,
education, housing, taxation, inflation, science and technology, and so on. The
expanding sphere of public policy is reflected in the plan documents such as of
the Planning Commission of India etc, and the scientific study of the same at
the state level and its understanding in terms of its implications as a process of
development in the newly (experimented) formed coalition government in
Karnataka ** forms the scope of this study.

Statement of the Problem

In most developing countries, however, the actual policy outputs have

continued to be governed by ad hoc* and incremental concerns. To some
extent, this is inevitable, and more so in the least developed countries which do
not have sufficient resources. A larger private sector compacting for resources
with the public sector causes a high degree of unpredictability regarding policy
outputs. In some mixed economies, there are as yet few full-fledged attempts
to involve the private sector in development planning. The fiscal and monetary
policy instruments which exist now do not appear to be adequate for these
purposes. It would therefore be necessary to institute new mechanisms to
coordinate the operations of the two sectors public and private. Joint ventures in
agricultural, industrial and transport operations may be one such mechanism.

12

While much experience has been gained in planning and policy

formulation, the records of their successful implementation are meager.
Planning can be made more operational by strengthening the linkages between
the agencies active in the process and by improving the instruments for policy
formulation and implementation. The public administration system must
develop sensitivity to factors affecting policy implementation and also be
sufficiently flexible to adopt alternative strategies with changes in these factors.

The building up of institutions is a major policy concern in developing

countries. The lack of an environment of stable political conventions seems to
be a major obstacle to institutional development. The rapid turnover in the
ranks of top political criteria for the evaluation of policies and administrative
obstacles also tend to affect the development of institutions for planning and
perspective policies adversely. A rational and technical analysis has to be the
basis of political decision makers in order to reach realistic and feasible policy
outputs. The effectiveness of this approach, however, would depend upon the
availability of qualified and motivated personnel and establishing proper
linkages.

In some developing countries because of the weakness of the

legislatures, planning and policy processes have tended to be concentrated in
executive departments. Attempts have occasionally been made to increase the
interaction between the different departments and legislative bodies of people
when considering specific development proposals and policies. But these have

13

hardly been sufficient to overcome the administrative obstacles affecting the

quality of planning and policies on account of the weakness of central guidance
institutions, a weak information base, lack of consensus on developmental goals
and priorities among the various institutions. At the functional level, there have
sometimes been serious problems of administration involving the relations
between planning agencies and functional and sectoral agencies. To make
planning and policy making more effective, it is necessary to strengthen the
linkages among the various agencies and to establish other linkages for
evolving a consensus on operational polices and their implementation.

Attempts have been made to link policy making, planning and

budgeting to constitute a systems approach. In developed countries such an
approach has already gained recognition; in most developing countries, it is still
in the process of development. In the wake of the new challenges for
development, efforts must be made not only to link planning and budgeting
together but also to ensure that both development plans and budgets are not
inconsistent with the development polices of the government.

Broadly speaking, the structure of public policy making involves the

whole political system. The ultimate authority in policy making, planning and
budgeting rests with those who hold the power to legitimize policies. In view of
the technicalities and complexity of various policy questions today, a
President/Prime Minister/Chief Minister or a political party alone cannot make
public policies. There is, therefore, the necessity for the establishment of

14

special central/State policy units to carry out the work of policy formulation
and policy analysis, to ensure the fact that there is some amount of continuity
in the policies formulated and implemented by the democratically elected
governments in view of planned development, while there remains scope to
include or exclude a programme or programmes under the canopy of such
policy in order to reach out the developmental goals of a new government
which is democratically elected.

In most developing countries, the executive branch of government has;

the policy-making bodies such as the Cabinet, National development Council, a
State palmary board etc.; a planning commission; or a planning unit; and a
budgeting unit. An important question here is, whether these units work
together with an integrated approach or independently of each other. From the
point of view of institutional development, it is important for these units to be
organized into an integrated central/State policy cluster. This cluster should
consist of the head of the government, the cabinet ministers, and their key
political advisers. Under the political advisers in the central/State policy cluster,
there must be economists, statisticians, public administrators, planners, and
specialists, financial and other experts to analyze the policies and advice on
them and the policy alternatives on an interdisciplinary basis.
Further, with the central/State policy cluster appropriate machinery
should also be established for; Policy and plan implementation, Reporting and
feedback, Reviewing, and the adjustment and revision of policies and plans.

15

The central/State policy cluster must ensure that adequate machinery is

provided for policy and plan implementation, that the progress of policy and
plan implementation shall be reported back to the center/State.

That the

feedback will be enough for the central policy cluster to provide evaluation and
control and that, on the basis of such an evaluation, adjustments and revisions
will be made on the policies and plans. These four aspects viz., implementation,
reporting reviewing and readjustment are interdependent, and must be treated as
whole. In brief, it must be emphasized that policy making, planning and
budgeting should be approached as an integrated whole to control government
performance and there by measure the scope for continuity/change of a policy
for development therefore the need for the study of policies and the relevance
of understanding it. In this sense one can clearly conclude to state that the
Development process as it unfolds invariably exposes the government
preferences to continue or change the policies that previously existed and thus
makes the study socially relevant and academically innovative.

Objectives of the Study

Objectives of research are invariably varied. It is seen as extension of

knowledge, a tool to establish generalization and general laws that contribute to
the very building, an instrument to verity facts analyze inter-relationships.
Applied research with in this vast world of research aims at finding solutions to

16

the problems of society. It brings out the factual data and enables those at the
help of affairs of government to find alternation in decision making. Although
the objectives of research explained above are manifold, it is important to note
that these objectives vary from one research subject to the other. In this sense,
the objectives of this particular research in five fold;

a. To Study and understand the interrelationship between development

process and public policies.
b. To measure the extent of Development in Karnataka under coalition
governments keeping in view the public policy output.
c. To understand and estimate the effectiveness of governance under
coalition system.
d. To explain the possible relationship between different partners of
coalition in decision making and development continuity or change.
e. And lastly to explore the quantum of continuity and change in the policy
output under coalition vis--vis the development process.

A sincere effort is made to figure out these taking few policy issues of
common concern under the coalition government of Karnataka.

Survey of Literature

A large number of articles and books devoted to the teaching of policy

studies and the training of policy analysts reveal the fact that policy science is a

17

scientific approach centering on the development of professional analysts who

are expert in rational decision making. The evidence for the orientation of these
professionals can be found in Nagels discussion of the methods of policy
analysis, which consists mainly of a review of the principles of optimization of
decision theory. Nagel advocates the development of a code of ethics,
professionalism, and institutionalized checks15.

Y. Dror and most writers on the subject seem to agree on the fact that
policy science constitutes an interdisciplinary approach which is concerned
mainly with improving the policy process through the use of systematic
knowledge, structural rationality, and organized activity. What Dror emphasizes
is that the policy science is not directly concerned with the substantive contents
of discrete policy problems but rather with improved methods of knowledge,
and systems for better policy-making. In a similar way, Lass Well also stresses
the knowledge of the decision process implies systematic and empirical studies
of how policies are made and put into effect to get the desired development,
While most authors on the subject seem to agree on the basic aims of policy
science, they generally do not provide an operational definition of the concept
due to the cross disciplinary nature of knowledge involved in the formulation,
implementation and evaluation of policy issues. Its boundaries are not precisely
delineated.16 They cut across such disciplines as sociology, psychology,
political science, public administration, management science, etc. on the other
hand

Some writers on the subject argue that policy science, like physics and

chemistry, is a science. For example, Dror himself in his writings emphasizes

18

that policy science constitute a breach in the solid wall separating contemporary
sciences from ethics and philosophy of values, and should build up an
operational theory of values including value morphology, taxonomy,
measurement, etc (but not the substantive norms themselves) as part of policy
science.17 The empirical aspect to policy science is stressed by Lass well thus:
to insist on the empirical criterion is to specify that general assertions are
subject to the discipline of careful observation. This is a fundamental
distinction between science and non-science. 18

The term model is commonly used in physical sciences and policy

science is a term that is used to apply to both a description of some part of the
real world, which has explanatory and predictive properties, or to a process
using simulations to explain what really is. Like other social sciences, policy
science is also not an exact science because substantive science is concerned
with the pursuit of truth which it seeks to understand and predict. Lass well is
of the view that policy science is merely an approach which is concerned with
improved methods of knowledge and systems for better policy making. It is a
technique which helps the decision maker to take decisions with improved
methods of knowledge. It is, thus, concerned with more effective manipulation
of the real world leaving open the possibility not understanding phenomena.19
Carol Weiss describes policy as a decision driven model of research use. This
sequential model has the following stages; Definition of the social problems,
Identification of missing knowledge, Acquisition of the relevant data using

19

social research techniques, Interpretation for problem solution, and Policy

choice and Development alternatives. 20

Policy science may contribute to the selection of policy options. As

conceptualization, it has two major to thrusts; It contributes to the way in
which policy making is done; and its policy options may percolate into society,
influencing the way that a society thinks about issues, the feats of the issues that
are viewed as susceptible to alteration, and the alternative measures for
development as it considers.

In all sum, policy science can have an influence upon the political
agenda of Development through sensitizing both policy makers and the mass of
people. Nagel and others also argues that policy analysis provides new insights
and enables policy makers to make better informed choices and by implication
better policy.21 Stokey and Zeckhauser also declare that no sensible policy
choice can be made without careful analysis of the advantages and
disadvantages of each course of action.22 Dror, in fact being the most forceful
advocate of policy sciences, argues that the maturation of policy science would
effect the state of knowledge in three ways: It would lead to bringing the gap
between basic and applied research through a synergic relationship between
normal science and policy science. With the emergence of policy scientist, a
specialist in general approach and method, the dichotomy between specialist
and generalist would be irrelevant; and Interdisciplinary in policy research
would finally give way to supra-disciplinary, in consequence of: (a)

20

continuous exchange between social, natural, and administrative scientists

working on common policy problem, and (b) deliberate development of
professionals trained in the policy orientation. Improved methods and
techniques occupy the central position in the analytical approach to policymaking and the form of governance in Drors writings.23 What Dror emphasizes
is that policy science is not directly concerned with the substantive contents of
discrete policy problems but rather with improved methods of knowledge, and
systems for better policy-making Scott and Shore remark, policy analysis
implies that such procedures will lead to more frictionless situations that we
now have, situations that maximize the good and minimize harm done to those
affected by them. To them, policy science is concerned with better achievement
of goals through the use of structural rationality. The rationalist model involves
a commitment to scientific planning. This implies an overhaul of the traditional
patterns of policy making. MacRae advocates greater rationality in policy
making which can be achieved through the deliberate creation of a policy
analysis culture. 24

For Laden it is felt that policy science is with utilitarian assumptions.23

Tribe argues that policy science aims at exaltation of utilitarian and self
interested

individualism,

efficiency

and

maximized

production.

Notwithstanding these characterizations, the ideal of the use of policy science

as an approach to the selection of policy choice remains vigorous. Policy
science involves primarily the development of professional analysts who are
expert in rational decision-making. It is an interdisciplinary approach which is

21

intended to afford these analysts objective criteria upon which policy decisions
can be made.25

The analytical approach that has developed a substantial body of

criticism has some the main currents which are represented by Scott and Shore,
Tribe, and Lindblom and Chohen. Lindblom and Chohen criticize the analytical
approach to policy-making in their recent book, Usable Knowledge. Their
criticism is threefold: Analysis is but one approach to dealing with social
problems; the policy process is too amorphous to allow for the rational model
of policy-making proposed by policy science; the knowledge generated by
policy relevant social research is dependent upon ordinary knowledge to an
extent unacknowledged by policy science.26

Lindblom and Chohen have compared the analytical and interactive

approaches to social problem solving and suggest that the latter is frequently
more appropriate. They write: the problem solving capacity of interaction is
obscured because the interactions often do not result in a decision by an official
or collective authority explicitly resolving a recognized problem. Resource
allocation by buying and selling requires no decision about resource allocation
by anyone, nor need anyone articulate the problem of resource allocation or
articulate the answer. Though the process is more reactive than analytical,
analysis may well contribute to the decision making processes at the level of the
interacting actors so that analysis need only attend to limited questions. The

22

significance of the interactive model has been described by Lindblom in his

book Politics and Markets.27

Lindblom and Chohen also criticize the analytical approach to policy

making on its assumption of the existence of decision makers. Analytical
problem solving implies the identification of managerial decision makers whose
choice are decisive.28 Dror advocated a decentralized network of policy science
centers and the deliberate promotion of a policy science culture.29 However,
Lindblom and Chohen suggest that the policy analysis approach is misleading
in that it identifies problem understanding as both necessary and prior to
problem solving, and that thereby it rules out the role of the interactive and
social learning approaches to social problem solving. They suggest that
interactive and social learning approaches are more appropriate to the reality of
the policy process.30

Lindblom and Cohens their criticism denies that policy involves a

distinct and superior way of dealing with social problems, but concede that it is
simply more systematic in approach. They argue that the knowledge generated
by policy relevant social research is dependent upon ordinary knowledge that is
based upon common sense, casual empiricism, or thoughtful speculation and
analysis.31 On the other hand; Cohen and Weiss argue that the intensive
research of a policy problem generally produces a picture of greater complexity
rather than clarity. This, they suggest, is unavoidable, on the expectation of
developments in a physical science as compared to social sciences.32

23

If the result of scientific improvement in some aspects of physical

science is convergence at least for a time, within important conceptual limits
the result of improvement in the social science is a richer, more diverse picture
of things. By this reasoning, the expectation that policy relevant research will
provide unambiguous guidance for policy is misplaced. Cohen and Weiss
suggest a more modest role for social research, stating that it can contribute to
social wisdom.33

Despite the fact that the analytical approach to policy-making is bound

by several limitations, it is of great value. This approach, mainly advocated by
Dror is entrenched, though it is often described as policy analysis rather than
policy science. Lindblom and Cohens argue that the increasing awareness of
the competing attractions of science and art in problem solving has tempered
the enthusiasm for policy science. Social recognition through cultural design, as
suggested by both Vickers and Janttsch, and interactive problem solving, as
advocated by Lindblom and Chohen, give much needed recognition to the art of
policy making. Vickers observes Policy making may be regarded as the by
product of a situational process; a process, that is, by which the conjunction of a
particular situation in the world of events and the world produces a new
situation in both worlds, which in turn gives rise to new acts of judgment and
decision. Vickers considers communication as the major obstacle to more
effective policy-making. This stress upon societys communication network
leads Vickers to identify social learning as the key to improved policy-making.

24

Form small organizations to entire systems of organizations anticipate

Lindblom and Chohens advocacy of interactive problem solving as an
alternative to analysis.34

Jantsch, following Vickers,

35

is critical of analytical approaches to

policy, arguing that they are informed by an unrealistic separation between

regulators and the system being regulated. Policy science and the analytical
approach are located squarely within the orbit of western rationalist though.
According to Jantsch, this means that human systems can be understood merely
as networks for processing information and making decisions. This approach to
human systems gives rise to two related distortions:

It stresses technological solutions to social problems, to the exclusion of

cultural design (i.e., social change through value adaptation; and it is
reductionism in that it denies that human systems are more than the sum of
individual expressions for their members36. Jantsch contends that society and
its sub systems possess a life far richer and deeper a life which heightens,
magnifies, focuses, and restrains the life of all the human members which
express themselves s through these systems. Thus Jantsch suggests an
alternative approach to policy-making, involving social regulation through
deliberate adaptation of the appreciative system. In this way, the entire survey
of literature, which is mostly originating from the west, as much of the work of
this kind is done there clearly indicates to the fact, that the attempt to study
development process through policy science studies frame work is a less

25

explored area, more so, when there is an attempt to relate is with coalition
government under these circumstance one can confidently argue that this
research will contribute chicly to the existing literature and that thee is enough
scope for further research in this area.

These statements and that of Drors belief that institutionalized policy

science would result in improved policy options are some of literature that are
currently going around is circles which deal with policy sciences. There is
however hardly any work that presents development process as distinguishingly
connected to the kind of government in vogue. In this sense, this study is
unique and contributes to a difference in the understanding of government
functioning and process of development so as to allow the
researcher to make a judgment about how much of development as a process
and product of government is continued as a policy or is experiencing change in
a coalition system of government, which has to have its axis on the mutual
trust, commonality of beliefs, common minimum agreement on programmes
and such other normative issues.

Hypotheses

26

Formulation of Hypotheses or propositions as possible answers to the

research questions is an important step in the process of formulation of the
research problem. It is in this direction that the following hypotheses are drawn
after careful analysis under of the problem chosen. They are three fold;

a. That the Development process under the coalition government in

Karnataka faced hurdles in realizing their policy options.
b. That these policy options were both innovative and traditional and
c. That those innovative policies were the changes that coalition
governments experimented with and those that were traditional were
actually the ones that can be categorized as continuation of the old
policies.

Methodology

There is an implicit judgment that understanding is a prerequisite to

prescription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis
rather than rhetoric or polemics. In fact methodologically this needs a
meticulous and specialties of knowledge. A rigorous search for the causes and
consequences of public policies. This search involves the use of scientific
standards of inference. Sophisticated quantitative techniques may be helpful in
establishing valid inferences about causes and consequences, an effort to
develop and test general propositions about the causes and consequences of
public policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of general relevance

27

therefore is a challenge to this kind of study and this could well turn out to be
its limitation also. Yet the object is to develop general theories about public
policy that are reliable, and that apply to different governmental agencies and
different policy areas. Policy analysts clearly prefer to develop explanations
that fit more than one policy decision or case study explanations that stand up
over a time in a variety of settings.

Policy analysis as a technique puts data to use in, or deciding about,

estimating and measuring the consequences of public policies. Its purpose is
two fold. It provides maximum information with minimal cost about the likely
consequences of proposed policies, and secondly, the actual consequences of
the policies already adopted.

To achieve these two purposes, various methods or approaches are

applied. Among the principal methodologies that are employed here are;
Systems analysis and simulation; Policy experimentation; and Policy
evaluation. Policy analysis in this sense is an inter-disciplinary subject drawing
upon data from other disciplines as well. It is essentially an impact research.

A number of trends have occurred in policy analysis research since the

early 1970s. Stuart S.Nagel has identified four key elements to it which have
been undergoing a change over the past 38 years. These are:

i)

The goals with which policy analysis is concerned,

28

ii)

The means for achieving those goals,

iii)

The methods for determining the effects of alternative means on

goal-achievement, and

iv)

The Profession of policy analysis, which is applying these methods

in relation to goals of development.

Goals of development here refer to the societal benefits minus the

societal costs that one is seeking to achieve through public policy decisions.
There is a greater trend towards considering goals as given hypotheses and then
attempting to determine what policies will maximize or optimize them. This
whole process is essentially called as development process. The crime reduction
field provides a good example of the need for an approach to this problem. On
the means element, there is a growing need for means that are politically and
administratively feasible. The environmental policy provides a good example of
this approach. There is also an increasing concern to draw upon the various
social sciences to suggest alternative policies or means. As regards the methods,
they refer to the procedures whereby one can determine the relations between
alternative policies and given goals. Policy analysis is developing in increased
precision in its methods, but at the same time, it recognizes the fact that simple
methods may be all that is necessary for solving numerous policy problems that
are directly or indirectly connected to development. How to provide counsel to
the poor in civil cases is a good example to illustrate this point. Finally on the
element of the profession of policy analysis, there is a substantial growth in the
policy analysis training programmes, research centers, funding resources,

29

scholarly associations and other government institutions. Policy analysis is not

a discipline like economics, or sociology. It is thriving as a sub discipline of the
various social sciences

paternally of Political Science and as an inter

disciplinary subject it is

depending on the existing fields of economics,

Sociology, political science, and other social and even natural sciences. As
Eugene Bardach observes; unlike most social science research, most policy
research is derivative rather than original. That is, it is produced by creative
play with ideas and data already developed by other. Hence in this study it is
proposed employ documentary analysis besides those mentioned earlier as a
primary method and to strengthen it though the case studies method involving
some specific and some general policies that have been experimented and
evaluated to measure the change or continuity of such policies in the short term
coalition that Karnataka Government has had reinforcing such study through
interviews* wherever possible only helps us to format the study in its fullness.
This of course is the proposed methodology employed in this study. It is not to
state that this kind of maiden study is not without its limitations. As a
researcher, this awareness is with me and an attempt is made to overcome it
here.

Chapterisation

Following is the pattern of Chapterisation, Chapter I is Introduction.

This essentially is an introduction and legitimizing kind of a chapter which
briefly speaks about the topic chose, statement of the problems, objectives,

30

hypotheses and Methodological issues. Chapter II is public policy: theoretical

perspectives. This is a brief chapter throwing insights in to the public policy as
a concept. Chapter III is titled as Coalition government: Reflection on
theoretical aspects. This also is essentially aimed at briefing the theory about
coalition and the related issues. Chapter IV is Analysis of Development process
during coalition government in Karnataka. This quintessentially is the core
chapter which analyses the question of continuity or change in the Development
process during coalition era. Chapter V is the last concluding chapter which of
course is an inference chapter. This is basically a result sheet.

Thus the pattern chosen to present the research out put is provided here
to the reader to enable a fuller understanding of the subject chosen for research.
End Notes:

*Public policies in developing countries are often seen as outputs for

development. Hence in this study, the (Scientific) terminology of policy
is seen, understood and used as relating to the consequence of
development.

Quoted in Garry D.; Brewer, Politicians, Bureaucrats, and the

Consultant: A Critique of Urban Problem Solving (New York: Basic
Books, 1973), pp.50-51.

Ralph C. Chandler and Jack C. Plano, The Public Administration

Dictionary (New York: John Wiley, 1982), p.88

31

Robert L. Lineberry, American Public Policy: What Government Does

and What Difference it Makes (new York: Harper & Row, 1977),
pp.120-133

Eugene Bardach, Gathering data for policy research, Urban Analysis,

Vol, 2,1974, p.120.

Stuart S. Nagel, P)policy analysis, in G.Ronald Bilbert (ed.) Making

and Managing Policy (new York: Marcel Dekker, 1984), pp.87-106

Robert L. Lineberry, op.cit. p. 135.

See for example, Stokey and R.Zeckhauser, A Primer for policy

Analysis (New York: Norton, 1978).

M.R.Burt, Policy Analysis: Introduction and Applications to Health

Programs (Washington: Information Resources Press, 1974).

10

Thomas R.Dye, Understanding Public Policy (New Jersey: Prentice Hall,

3rd ed., 1980), pp.7-8.

Development Process.

11

Thomas R.Dye, Understanding Public Policy Englewood Cliffs: Prentice

Hall, 3rd ed., 1980, p.39

12

Robert L. Lineberry, American Public Policy: What Government does

and What Difference it Makes New York: Marcel Dekker, 1984, p.47.

13

F.Cortses and others, Systems Analysis for Social Scientists New York:
Wiley, 1974, p.11

14

Y.Dror, Public making Re-examined (new York: Intext, 1968), pp.132141.

32

**

Under Kumaraswamys (JD(S)) government. Coalition government in

Karnataka for all

practical purposes of this study is taken as the

government formed by JD(S) and BJP during the period headed by Sri.
Kumaraswamy as the Chief Minister.
*

Because, mostly political parties in India plan and wish to execute them
during their regime and when there is a change for any political reason it
is unlikely that such policies/programmes of the previous

governments

are carried forward.

15

C.Lindblom, The Policy-Marking process (Englewood Cliffs: Prenticehall, 1968), p.12

16

Herbert Simon, Administrative Behavior, 2nd edition (London:

Macmillan, 1957).

18

Laurence Lynn, Managing Public Policy (Boston: Little Brown, 1987),

p.84.

19

Thomas Dye, Op.cit., p.28

20

20Robert L. Lineberry, op.cit., p. 27

21

Herbert Simon, Madels of man: Social and Ratioinal (New Yorki: John
Wiley, 1957), p.198.

22

James Buchanan, Public goods and public bads, in John p.Crecine

(ed.,) Financing the Metropolis (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1970),

23

See L.L.Wade and R.L.Curry, A Logic of Public Policy: Aspects of

Political Economy (Belmont: Wadsworth, 1970).

24

Se, David Braybrooke and Charles E.Lindblom, A Strategy of Decision

33

(new York: Free Press, 1963); Thomas Dye, op.cit.

25

Robert L.Lineberry, op.cit.

26

Simon, Administrative Behaviour, op.cit., p.241.

27

Simon, Reasons in Human Affairs (California: Stanford University

Press, 1983).

28

Ibid., p. 105

29

Ibid.

30

Ibid., p.106

31

Ibid., p.105

32

Brian Hog wood and Lewis Gunn, Policy Analysis for the Real World
(Oxford: Oxford University press, 1984),p.6.

33

James E.Anderson, Public Policy Making, 3rd edition (New York: Holt
Rinehart, 1984),p.19

34

Charles Lindblom and E.J. Woodhouse, The Policy-Making Process 3rd

ed. (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-hall, 1993), p.68.

35

C.Hewitt, Policy-making in Post war Britain: A Nation level test of

elitist and pluralist hypotheses, British Journal of Political Science,
Vol.IV, No.2, 1974.

36

C.Lindblom, The Policy Making Process (Englewood Cliffs: prentice

Halla, 1968), p.21
* Is kept as an option and not necessarily a major method/Tool

34