Policy Process Models

There are almost as many models of the policy process as there are public
policy theorists, all deriving to some extent from Lasswell(1971).  Anderson’s
model of the policy process has five stages: Problem identification and agenda
formation, formulation, adoption, implementation and evaluation
(1984,p.19).  Quade (1982) also sees five elements: Problem formulation,
searching for alternatives, forecasting the future environment, modelling the
impacts of alternatives and evaluating the alternatives.  Stokey and
Zeckhauser(1978) also set a similar model of five steps.  There are problems
in using any model, not the least of which would be the temptation to simply
follow a menu, rather than to really analyse what is happening.
Policy Process Models  Patton and Sawicki (1986) put forward a six-step
model, and although, as they say, there is no single agreed-upon way of
carrying out policy analysis, theirs remains one of the more helpful
frameworks for looking at a particular policy problem. The basic aim of their
approach is to assist someone who is required to analyse a given situation and
to derive a policy to deal with it. They derive a list of headings under which
particular parts of the policy process can be formulated.

Patton & Sawicki Six Step Model Verify & Define Problem Establish Evaluation
Criteria Identify Alternative Policies Evaluate Alternative Policies Select among
Alternative Policies Monitor Policy Outcomes

Step -1 (Verify, define and detail the problem)

Before starting to look at any policy problem, the first step is, of course, to
specify what the problem actually is. This is not is not necessarily a
straightforward point as public policies are often interrelated. It is often hard
to define the problem in the public sector, where policy objectives may not be
clear or aim to do several things at once. Public agencies often have several
missions at once and need to respond to differing interest groups.  It is
particularly hard to define problems in large areas of policy such as health or
welfare. But without being able to define the problem it becomes impossible
to design a policy.  At this point of the policy process, the analyst should be
able to set out the policy problem in a way that separates this particular
problem into something discrete which can be tackled.
After this first step, analyst should know ‘ whether a problem exists which can
be solved by the client, should be able to provide detailed statement of the
problem and be able to estimate the time and resources the analysis would
require’ (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, p.29)  This point is related to the ‘agenda
setting’ of some of the other models. It would be a mistake to see the agenda
as being set only from the outside, or only by groups. Public servants have
policies they keep submitting to the political leadership, until they find a
receptive audience.

Step-2 Establish evaluation criteria

This step allows other evaluation criteria to be considered instead of always
referring to cost. Other valued criteria could include effectiveness, political
acceptability or even votes and equity.  The criteria may derive from the
statement of the problem, or from whom the analysis is being carried out for.
Adding this stage in the policy process may reduce some of the criticisms of
the rational policy analysis model.
Step-3 Identify alternative policies
Once the goals are known and evaluation criteria specified, it should be
possible to develop a set of alternative ways of getting to known goals. These
may, perhaps even should, vary enormously, although there is no one way of
find the alternatives.  Patton and Sawicki offer as possible way of finding the
alternatives: ‘thinking hard may be the most profitable way to identify
alternatives, especially when time is short’; it can also be identified through
‘researched analysis and experiments, through brainstorming techniques, and
by writing scenarios’.  For the beginner analyst trying to solve a problem this
may not be particularly helpful, and underlines, perhaps, one limitation of any
model in a real political world in which art may be more helpful than science.

Step-4 Evaluate alternative policies

This step is regarded as the most important. The idea is that once alternative
policies are identified, each can be rigorously evaluated, by deciding the
particular points in favor or against each of the alternative proposals. Patton
and Sawicki do warn against being too rigid in how this evaluation is carried
out. The nature of the problem and the types of evaluation criteria will suggest
the methods that can be used to evaluate the policies. Avoid the tool-box
approach of attacking every evaluation with your favorite method, whether
that is decision analysis, linear programming, or cost-benefit analysis. It has
been said that when the only tool an analyst has is a hammer, then all
problems will look like nails. Some problems will call for quantitative analysis,
other will require qualitative analysis, most will require both.

Step-5 Select among alternative policies

The results of the evaluation may be presented to the client as a list of
alternatives, or a preferred alternative rather than only one. No alternative is
likely to be perfect, instead, all of the alternatives will have good points and
bad points, particularly if the difference between ‘a technically superior
alternative and politically viable one’ is borne in mind.  Implementation of
the programmed occurs at this point as well; tasks and responsibilities
assigned and how the implemented policy is to be monitored.

Step-6 Monitor Policy outcomes

No policy is complete at this point. There are often unintended consequences,
possible difficulties in implementation or changes in circumstances. 
Monitoring or evaluation of progress is, or should be, fundamental to any
policy no matter how it is derived.  The nature of public policy will probably
be that the original problem evolves into others, so that rather than any one
discrete analysis there will be many iterations.

Limitations
The use of the Patton and Sawicki (or any similar) model can bring benefits in
analyzing a matter of public policy. Perhaps there could have been more
attention paid to implementation and to policy termination. It is even possible
that the results of the analysis may be better than without any such model. 
In general, though, there are some difficulties with the model approach. In
some circumstances a model like this could be helpful to making public policy;
in other circumstances it would not. At the end of the process, what we have
is a framework rather than a method: a set of headings rather than a concrete
approach. The fact is that someone could follow the headings perfectly and
derive a disastrous policy, while someone else could follow none of the rules
and derive a better one.
A fundamental question of policy analysis is whether it is art or science, of
whether it is an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable or rationalize the quasi-
rational. Models may help but provide no guarantee to making better policy.
 Policy models do not deal very effectively with policy change or with the
prediction of future action.

Limitations (Quantitative methods)

Numbers are useful and provide information to decision-makers but public
policy gives them too much emphasis. It is very easy to decry formal
mathematical approaches as being unrealistic if applied to the world of policy
and politics, and to argue that politics is not necessarily rational in a strict
numbers sense. However, the problem is not the use of numbers, but in levels
of abstraction leading far beyond any conceivable policy relevance.  There
has also been no attempt to delineate the areas in which policy analysis can
work very well, such as road traffic studies, from one in which the political and
societal problems are far more contentious, such as welfare. There are only
some areas of the government in which numbers are available for work at the
highest level of abstraction.

Limitations (Over emphasis on decisions)

In practice a relatively small proportion of a manger’s time or effort is taken
up by making decisions amenable to analytical processes. Successful
managers are less analysts than organizers, less technocrats than politicians.
Too much emphasis is put on the concern managers on matters related to
decision making efforts. In fact, the managers are in reality less concern with
it.

Limitations (Not used, or used less)

There is little evidence that formal methods are actually followed. Or, if they
were followed at one time, they are not followed as much. The fact is that
‘many studies of public policy determination are quite general and abstract
and distant from the operating reality of government’ (Lynn, 1987, p.13). 
Day-to-day management activities involve many things other than making
decisions and ‘a high proportion of the activities in which public managers
engage are not amenable to the application of analytic techniques; a small
proportion are’ (Elmore, 1986).  There are no ‘correct’ answers in practice
and trying to find a single answer is akin to embracing the old ‘one best way’
thinking of public administration.