Explain the six step model for public policy

formation as prescribed by Patton and Sawacki

(1986). Also describe the limitations of the

mentioned model.By: Syed Salman Jalal

Msc.DS (4th Semester)

IM-Sciences

What is Public Policy?

Public policy can be generally defined as a system of laws, regulatory

measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning a given

topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its

representatives. (Dean G. Kilpatrick, Medical University of South

Carolina)

Policy is about decisions – series of decisions in fact- and decisions are

about power. Sometimes such expressions of power may be revealed

in the capacity not to act, the “non-decision”.

Public policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue

by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertinent to the

problem at hand.

Key attributes of Public Policy Public policy is simply what government does or does not do about a problem

that comes before them for consideration and possible action.

Policy might take the form of law, or regulation, or the set of all the laws and regulations that govern a particular issue or problem.

Policy is made on behalf of the "public."

Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a problem.

Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside government or through the interaction of government and the public.

Policymaking is part of an ongoing process that does not always have a clear beginning or end, since decisions about who will benefit from policies and who will bear any burden resulting from the policy are continually reassessed, revisited and revised.

An Introduction to the Policy Process, by Thomas A. Birkland (2011, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, NY)

Public Policy Implementation

There is a persistent myth or perhaps naive assumption that

politicians make policy and public servants implement it rationally ‘as

if implementation was something utterly simple and automatic’ (

Lane,1993, p.93). While both politicians and bureaucrats are

frequently active in promulgating and maintaining this myth, the

reality is somewhat different. Implementation is not easy and

straightforward and cannot be simply classified as a technical exercise

involving calculated choices of appropriate techniques.

Implementation is frequently a highly political process. It is an arena

where those with interests in a policy engage in negotiation over the

goals of the policy and conflict over the allocation of resources.

Continued….

Policy implementation may thus be seen as an arena in

which those responsible for allocating resources are

engaged in political relationships among themselves and

with other actors intent on influencing that allocation.

The cast would typically include national level planners;

national, regional and local politicians, economic elite

groups; military; recipient groups; groups seeing

themselves as suffering adverse consequences from the

policy; multilateral agencies such as the World Bank; and

bureaucratic implementors.

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.

Step -1: Cont...

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 favour 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 favourite 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 programme 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 bringbenefits in analysing a matter of public policy. Perhaps there couldhave been more attention paid to implementation and to policytermination. It is even possible that the results of the analysis may bebetter than without any such model.

In general, though, there are some difficulties with the modelapproach. In some circumstances a model like this could be helpful tomaking public policy; in other circumstances it would not. At the endof the process, what we have is a framework rather than a method: aset of headings rather than a concrete approach. The fact is thatsomeone could follow the headings perfectly and derive a disastrouspolicy, while some one else could follow none of the rules and derivea better one.

Cont…

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.

Thank You

Questions………????