The Concept of Policy Cycle - Coursework Example

Policy Cycle Definitions There is no universally agreed definition of policy cycle. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration (2013, p.3) defines policy cycle as the pattern presented by steps that finally lead to the formulation of a public policy. The benefits of analyzing these processes by splitting them into steps lies in the way it provides explanatory clues into the decision-making process. In particular, it provides approach for thinking about the sectoral facts of public policy processes. Lester and Stewart define policy cycle as a conveyor belt where issues are first identified as a challenge, subsequent courses of action deliberated on, and policies formulated, implemented, improved, and eventually terminated due to their successes or lack of it (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Main Stages of Policy Cycle Agenda Setting The process of policy formulation starts from agenda setting, through policy formulation, implementation, evaluation and change, to its eventual termination. Agenda setting is often the first stage in policy cycle. This stage majorly dwells on the identification of the challenges which urgently require government and public attention. Problem identification requires the definition of the social problem, and the need of government intervention shown. Once that is done, the identified problems are placed on the agenda for serious government action (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). An agenda is usually referred to as the list of highlighted issues or challenges to which bureaucrats and members of the public sphere closely working with those officials are concerned with at any particular point in time. The government’s agenda is often distinct from the broader media and public agenda. Whereas the government’s agenda shows the heart of urgent attention of inquiry into agenda setting, the modes of problem identification and issue selection are closely related with how a social challenge is identified and viewed on the public agenda (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Studies have indicated that problem identification and agenda setting are basically political processes where political attention is linked to a subset of all the possibly appropriate policy challenges. Players within and outside the government constantly look for ways of influencing and collectively framing and shaping the agenda. The involvements of certain players, the selection of organizational venues in where the challenges are debated upon and the strategic utilization of media coverage have been recognized as techniques of defining problems. While some key players take part in such activities of agenda shaping, most of the factors and modalities dictating agenda setting rest beyond the direct control of any one player (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Agenda-setting leads to a choice among a diverse array of challenges or problems. It is the process of organizing the policy issues concerning possible techniques and tools that shape the progress of a policy in the entire stages of a policy cycle. The policy makers may seek to answer questions as to what is viewed as a policy problem and when and how a policy problem affords the government’s agenda (Porras-Gomez, Barzelay and Levy, pp.1546-1567). Another question that they may grapple with is why other serious challenges are not given attention in the agenda. The relevant elements of policy formulation concerned with agenda-setting are the issue attention cycles and tides linked to the specific problems. A methodological study on agenda setting first surfaced as part of the critique of pluralism in Britain and United States. One classic methodology supposed that the political debates and, thus agenda-setting, came up from conflict between two players, with the less politically empowered player attempting to seek attention to the matters being debated upon (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). There are some scholars who suggest that agenda-setting come from a series of sieving of issues and challenges, bringing about non-decisions. From the influential community power literature, researches in policy making noted that non-decisions are a consequence of asymmetrical spread of influence through organizational structures that overlook some issues from urgent consideration. The vital step in this procedure of agenda-setting is the pushing of an issue in from its recognition to the official political agenda. This push comprises various sub-stages, where successive selection of issues under the context of scarce capacities of problem identification and problem solving are undertaken (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Various researches on environmental policy development reveal that it is not the objective challenge burden that explains the depth of problem identification and solving activities on the part of governments. Rather, a likely definition of the challenge and the establishment of specific policy image that enables the association of a specific solution to the problem, have been pointed out as major variables influencing agenda-setting (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). While problem-spotting and definition in liberal democracies are believed to be mainly undertaken in public, by the press or among domain-specific professional groups, the real agenda-setting has diverse patterns in form of content and the public’s duty (Howard, 2005, pp.3-13). The external initiation pattern, in which the community players push governments to put an issue on the systemic agenda through acquiring public support provides but one of the many diverse forms of agenda-setting. Equally important are the policy procedures that lack public input like when pressure groups have direct access to government bodies and are capable of forwarding issues on the agenda without disturbances and interferences or public recognition (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Policy Formulation In this phase of the policy cycle, the identified problems, demands and suggestions are changed into government programs. Policy formulation and adoption comprises of the definition of the goals or objectives and the contemplation of various options. Some scholars separate the process of policy formulation from its eventual adoption (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Since policies cannot always be formalized into different programs and clear distinguishing of formulation from decision-making is in many cases difficult, it is important that they be regarded as sub-phases within a given phase of the policy cycle (Mendez and Krause, 2005, pp.752-767). In seeking to account for the different techniques, patterns and results of policy formulation, researches on this phase of the cycle have been specifically theory-based (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). In the last 20 years, a successful linking of policy formulation with institutional decision making theories has been developed. Diverse techniques and explanations have been made use of, from the pluralistic and corporatist interest intermediation, to aspects of incrementalism as well as the garbage can methodology. Others are the broadly used neoinstitutionalist model and the public choice techniques (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). In the same breadth, inquiries into policy formulation have for a long time been firmly dictated by attempts to progress activities within governments by presenting methodologies and instruments of more rational decision-making. This manifested itself more in1960s and 70s, during the halcyon days of political planning and reform policy formulation. During this time, policy analysis formed an integral part of a reform alliance focused on developing instruments and modes of identifying efficient and affordable policies. European and American governments strongly welcomed these ideologies owing to the widespread confidence in the need and feasibility of planning in the long-run (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The formation of clear-cut objectives, targets, within the budget report, and the use of cost-benefit analysis to political programs were viewed as instruments necessitating the definition of long-standing political priorities. According to this standpoint, an ex-ante, rather rationalistic segment of policy analysis as analysis for policy came up, aroused by micro-economics and operational studies. Just from the start, these approaches of decision-making and political planning were highly refuted from a political science setting as being over-ambitious and technocratic (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The importance of political science-oriented analysis and economics in the broader development discourse of political planning presented a substantial foundation for the successful development of the sub-discipline. As soon as policy analysis became a key perspective of the planning excitements, experiential research on decision-making actions was introduced (Skok, 1995, p.325). In particular, political scientists asserted that decision-making is composed of not only information collection and processing, but also conflict resolution in and among the key private and public players and government bodies (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). With regard to patterns of interdepartmental communication, Mayntz and Scharpz asserted that these usually come after the form poor coordination rather than ambitious and sophisticated efforts of proper coordination, thereby resulting to the normal procedures of responsive policy-making. The goal of political science-oriented policy analysis is, therefore, to propose organizational structures that are supportive of intensive policy making. In as much as the aforementioned researches indicated the vital role of ministerial bureaucracy in policy formulation, governments and bureaucrats are not separated from the broader communal members in the policy formulation process (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). On the contrary, they continuously coordinate with social influences to form more strong patterns of associations. Implementation Policy implementation is the activity that occurs between the time of creating an apparent plan by the government to do something or quit doing it, and the final consequence in the world of action. This phase is vital since the political and administrative action at the fore are rarely excellently controllable by goals, programs and rules. As a result, policies and their objectives will usually be altered or modified and its execution postponed or even intercepted altogether. The archetypical model of policy implementation has the following key aspects: Specification of program details, resources allocation, decision and decision making (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The achievements or failures of any given policy can be owed to the implementation phase of the policy cycle. This stage describes the conversion of the policy into actionable steps, inclusive of the efforts, information and resources that are provided by policy actors to perform the act. The discovery of the implementation phase as the lacking link in the policy-making research can be described as one of the most significant theoretical developments in policy-making studies in 1970s (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78) . Before that, policy implementation was never regarded as a separate step within or outside the policy-making procedure (Austin and Moore, 2002, p.45). Whatever transpires following the enforcing of a bill into law was not viewed as a core problem for the decision makers. For this very reason, the people involved in policy analysis cannot perceive it as a major challenge to them. The principle assumption was that governments enact laws and that is where the central agendas of the policy-making process ends. This understanding has drastically changed following the decisive research by Pressman and Wildavsky on the implementation of programs aiming at unemployment among the marginalized groups in Oakland, California. Consequently, the research on implementation as a key and usually serious phase of the policy cycle went viral (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The beginning of Pressman and Widavsky’s examination of the sub-stages undergone in the implementation of the federal program, that formed component of the social policy transformation agenda brought forward by President Johnson, was the unanticipated drawback of the program. Founded on the assessment of the multitude of decision and clearing points where participants were able to control the policy on the basis of their personal interests, any successful policy implementation appeared to be more astonishing than their respective failures. After the ground-breaking study, implementation research progressed into the core discipline of policy research in 1970s. Earlier, implementation was viewed from the angle that was thereafter referred to as the top-down methodology (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Implementation studies used the hierarchical pathway of a given policy and strived to examine the extent to which the centrally defined objectives are realized when it reaches the implementation phase. Most researches focused on the above variables resulting to departure from these goals (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Inter- and intra-organizational communication challenges and the coordination of field groups with the target agencies were rated as the most outstanding factor resulting to implementation failures (Everett, 2003, pp.65-70). Another reason centered on the policy itself, accepting that failure in policy implementation could not only be a consequence of poor implementation, but also poor policy formulation, founded on wrong assumptions concerning the cause-effect links. Implementation researches of the first generation therefore used a hierarchical top-down insight of governance, as an avenue of examining the results of implementation. Implementation studies were focused on coming up with theories on what works best. One of the means of achieving this was to examine the efficiency of different forms of policy tools based on certain theories concerning cause and effect relations (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Evaluation and Termination Policymaking is intended to aid in problem solving or lowering of the burden of challenges. In the evaluation phase of the policy cycle, the anticipated outcomes of the policies go into the heart of attention. The logical normative rationale that eventually policymaking ought to be valued against the intended purposes and effects, become the beginning of policy evaluation (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). However, evaluation is not solely focused on the ultimate phase in the policy cycle that either stops with the termination of the policy or its restructuring depending on the modified problem view and agenda-setting. Similarly, evaluation studies constitute a separate subject in the policy studies that dwell on the wanted outcomes and unintended impacts of policies (Subroto, 2011 pp.1-12). Evaluation is not confined to a given phase in the policy cycle. On the contrary, the approach is employed to the entire policymaking process from diverse angles with regard to timing. Evaluation studies surfaced in US against a backdrop of political controversies focused on the social reform programs of the Great Society in early 1960s.The first debates were focused on methodological issues and looked for ways of showing its own importance. Consequently, evaluation studies spread across OECD states and was primarily dwelling on the operations of the interventionist welfare state and transformational policies (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). For instance, evaluation was viewed as a way of systematically employing the idea of empirical testing of policy alternatives within a controlled environment (Tosun, 2008, pp.1-59). The main idea of policy termination appears hard to put into force in modern times. Policy termination arises when a policy problem has been addressed or the enacted policy frameworks have found to be inefficient and ineffective in realizing the highlighted policy goals. Factors such as large-scale budget cuts and other windows of opportunity encourage policy termination (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). These processes are regularly linked to bipartisan motivations such as the fulfillment of election pledges (Sachs and Alesiana, 1988, pp.65-86). However, the scholarly studies on policy termination indicate that efforts of policy termination are neither common nor effective in overpowering opposition from key players, creating room for the development of a Jurassic Park of projects. Researches on policy termination, therefore, are often focused on reasons policies and procedures move on even if they have outlived their worth. Countermeasures against termination moves range from window-dressing operations to the creation of crosscutting anti termination alliances by the advantaged groups of the programs. Such alliances can heavily be reliant on a comparative advantage since they are easily able to overpower the entire action challenges than any termination proponents (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The political class is prone to greater motivations in the formation of new programs as opposed to the termination of the already existing ones that are inclusive of the acceptance of failures (Guo, Gomme and Auray, 2013, pp.244-264). The short-run political and fiscal costs of termination may overpower the long-term financial advantages (Karakas, 2013, pp.244-264). Besides the instances of fruitless termination, dynamic progress of policy benefits coupled with the observable fact of extinction and reversal are options of policy progress (Sturn, 2013, pp.200-215). Strengths and Weaknesses of the Concept Strengths The benefits that come with the use of policy cycle method are far and wide. First, it literally reduces the complexity of policy making process by breaking down and simplifying the process into stages and sub-phases. Each of these sub-steps can be further tackled separately in terms of its links with other phases or the entire process. This is beneficial since it not only gives room for many case studies and comparative research on the various steps to be undertaken, but it also assists in the process of theory development (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Secondly, the idea of policy cycle puts together the conceptual and practical issues in a fashion embraced by the drafters of policy sciences but not achieved by other methodologies. This is because the model aids in spotting the key features of policy making at distinct phases of the process. It recognizes the complexity and diversities of policy making procedures and actors while at the same time offering a common premise for their comparison. Moreover, it provides a framework within which various departments and government bodies can be assessed in the same approach (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Finally, most public servants are always expected by the government to make policies yet they did not study political science of policy making while in campus. To them, the policy cycle can be of benefit especially if it assists them to make sense of the policy assignment at hand. Drafting a series of stages to convert ideas into Cabinet recommendations, can present a framework in the otherwise boring environment of policy-making (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Policy cycle therefore brings the motivation to pursue the tedious policymaking process, especially to the junior civil servants who are always under pressure from their bosses to undertake policy making under strict timelines and deadlines (Bridgman, 2003, pp.98-102). Weaknesses While the many experiential studies and theoretical arguments related to the single steps of the policy cycle have immensely contributed a better understanding of the prerequisites, aspects and impacts of policy-making, they have sparked an increasing refutation of the underlying policy cycle model (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). To begin with, Sabatier views the use of the stages model as barring scientific progress rather than developing it. In particular, the increased call for the use of the alternative frameworks and theories has opposed the stage heuristic on the following grounds: The stages model is perceived to be prone to descriptive inaccuracy since the experiential reality does not match with the categorization of the policy procedure into discrete and sequential phases. For instance, if implementation affects agenda-setting, the policy will have to undergo a fresh formulation. In some cases, the policy may be terminated. In other instances, it is hard to understand and distinguish one stage from another. Worse still, the series of stages may be reversed or be omitted from the entire cycle (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). With regard to its conceptual value, the cycle does not have defining perspectives of a theoretical framework. To be precise, the phases’ model does not provide the underlying explanations for the transitions between the successive phases. Therefore, researches of given stages are derived from various theoretical concepts that have not been developed from the cycle itself (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). Additionally, the specific methodologies drawn brought up to give provide an explanation of the process within single steps were not linked to other techniques leading to other phases of the cycle (Bridgman, 2003, pp.98-102). The policy cycle is founded on an inherent top-down perspective. As such, policymaking will be coined as a hierarchical course-plotting by powerful organizations. The center of attention will always be on single programs and decision making on the official actualization of such programs (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). For that reason, the less powerful individuals or organizations who the policies to be made aim, are not given their voice. This leads to the formation of a rather elitist policy, which befits the learned and people of high socio-economic status (Bridgman, 2003, pp.98-102). Finally, the policy cycle model overlooks the important roles that knowledge, learning and ideas play as important independent variables influencing the whole process of policymaking. The cycle framework results to an oversimplified and unrealistic perception of the world. It seems to be too straight and forthright. The entire model has been lowered to actualizing the policies and continuing the set programs. The role of previous policies in determining policymaking and the coordination between different cycles, steps and players is not methodically taken into consideration (Sidney, Miller and Fischer, pp.43-78). The core characteristic of the policy process in the contemporary context is the coordination between policy related operations at various levels. References Austin, R., and Moore, J., 2002. The Behavior of Federal Funds Future Prices over the Monetary Policy Cycle. Economic Review, [e-journal] 87 (2) p.45. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Bridgman, P., 2003. What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, If the Aim is Clear. Australian Journal of Public Administration, [e-journal] 62 (3), pp.98-102. .Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Everett, S., 2003. The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration , [e-journal] 62 (2), pp.65-71. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Guo, S., Gomme, P., and Auray, S., 2013. Normal Rigidities, Monetary Policy and Pigou Cycles. The Economic Journal, [e-journal] 123, pp. 455-473. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Howard, C., 2005. The Policy Cycle: A Model of Post-Machiavellian Policy Making? Australian Journal of Public Administration, [e-journal] 64 (3), pp.3-13. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed May 5 2014]. Karakas, M., 2013. Political Business Cycles in Turkey: A Fiscal Approach. Journal of Management and Economics, [e-journal] 20 (1), pp. 244-264. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Mendez, F., and Krause, S., 2005.Policymaker’s preferences, Party Ideology, and the Political Business Cycle. Southern Economic Journal, [e-journal] 71 (4), pp. 752-767. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Porras-Gomez, A., Barzelay, M., and Levy, P.R., 2011. The Reform of Financial Management in the European Commission: A Public Management Policy Cycle Case Study. Public Administration, [e-journal] 89 (4), pp.1546-1567. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Sachs, J., and Alesiana, A., 1988. Political Parties and the Business Cycle in the United States. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, [e-journal] 20 (1), pp.65-86. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Sidney, S.M., Miller, J.G., and Fischer, F., eds., 2007. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theories, Politics and Methods. [e-book] New York: CRC Press. Available through: Google Books < http://www.books.google.com >. Skok, E.J., 1995. Policy Issue Networks and the Public Policy Cycle: A Structural- Functional Framework for Public Administration. Public Administration Review, [e-journal] 55 (4), p.325. . Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Sturn, R.S., 2013. Economic Policy and the Presidential Election Cycle in Stock Returns. Journal of Economics and Finance, [e-journal] 37, pp.200-215. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Subroto, A., 2011. Understanding Complexities in Public Policy Making Process through Policy Cycle Model: A System Dynamic Approach. World Complexity Science Academy, [e- journal] , pp.1-12 . Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration, 2013. Policy Cycles. [online]. Ottawa: Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration (Canada). Available through < http://www.dictionaire.enap.ca > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Tosun, J., and Knill, C., 2008. Policy Making. Comparative Public Policy and Administration, [e-journal] , pp.1-59. Available at < http://www.ebscohost.com > [Accessed 5 May 2014]. Read More