The Policy Cycle

Policy Process: Policy Making, Implementation and Evaluation

(see Theories of the Policy Cycle by Werner Jann and Kai Wegrich and The Policy Making Process by
Thomas Dye)

Policy Process
-Policy studies often focus on how policies are made rather than their content or their causes
and consequences. (Dye)
-The idea of modelling the policy process in terms of stages was first put forward in the seven
stages model of Harold Lasswell. This became the starting point of a variety of typologies of the policy
process. (W. Jann and K. Wegrich)

Linear Model of Policy Process

Harold Lasswell describes the decision process as comprising a “sequence of seven phases”,
which include the phases of intelligence, promotion, prescription, invocation, application,
termination and appraisal (1971, p 28). It is a linear process.

1. The Intelligence Phase describes the process of gathering, processing and disseminating
information that is used by decision makers.
2. The Promotion Phase involves a process of advocating for a specific policy alternative by
generating support from decision makers for that particular policy choice. In short, this phase
is about promoting one policy alternative over another.
3. The Prescription Phase describes the process of enacting and enforcing
policies or rules that carry the weight of law and which are subject to sanctions
if the policy is violated.

4. The Invocation Phase describes the initial process in which permissible

activities and behaviors are permitted with relation to the law or policy that has
been prescribed.

5. Application describes the final part of the process in which disagreements

over the prescription are resolved and may involve the imposition of specific
sanctions against those individuals whose behavior has not complied with the
prescription.

6. The Termination Phase involves the cancellation of the prescription or

policy.

7. The Appraisal Phase evaluates the policy prescription in relation to the entire
Cyclical Model of Policy Process (Policy Cycle Model) (widely adopted model)

• agenda-setting-policy formulation-decision making-implementation-evaluation-

termination

Cyclical model: emphasize the feed-back (loop) process; continual perpetuation of

policy process;
policy processes usually overlap.
• Simplified, ideal type model
• The policy cycle focuses attention on generic features of the policy process.

The Policy cycle has developed into the most widely applied framework to
organize and systematize the research on the public policy. (Jann and Wegrich)
cf.
problem identification –agenda setting –policy formulation –policy
legitimation –
policy implementation –policy evaluation
• Although it might be helpful to think about policy making in this
fashion, in the real world these activities seldom occur in a neat,
step-by-step sequences. Rather these processes often occur
simultaneously, each one collapsing into the processes at the same
time.
• Nonetheless, it is often useful for analytical purposes to break
policy making into component units in order to understand better
how policies are made. (Dye)
Policy Cycle

Agenda
Setting

Policy Policy
Change/ Formulation/
Legitmizatio
Termination n

Policy Policy
Evaluation Implementation
Agenda-setting (Jann and Wegrich, pp.45-48)
• Problem recognition
-Problem recognition itself requires that a social problem has been defined as such and that
the necessity of state intervention is expressed.
• Agenda-setting
-recognized problem is actually put on the agenda of serious consideration of public action.
-The agenda is nothing more than “the list of subjects or problems to which government
officials are paying serious attention at any given time”(Kingdon, 1995). What is crucial is the
move from recognition to the formal political agenda.

-factors or nature of the problems likely to be put on the agenda (Horie)

-urgency -seriousness -scale of effect
-visibility -concerns of major actors -feasibility of solution

*Frequently, governments are confronted with forced choice situations (Lodge and Hood, 2002)
where they simply cannot ignore public sentiment without risking the loss of legitimacy or
credibility, and must give the issue some priority on the agenda.
-The confluence of a number of interacting factors and variables determines
whether a policy issue becomes a major topic on the policy agenda. These factors
include, but are not limited to:
-material conditions of the policy environment (like the level of economic
development, budget, political priorities of the elite, etc.)
-flow and cycle of ideas and ideologies (which are important in evaluating problems
and connection them with solutions). Within that context, the constellation of
interest between the relevant actors, the capacity of the institutions in charge to act
effectively, and the cycle of public problem perception as well as the solutions that
are connected to the different problems are of central importance.
How the different variables – actors, institutions, ideas and material conditions-interact
is highly contingent, depending on the specific situation. This implies that agenda-
setting is far from a rational selection of issues in terms of their relevance as a problem
for the wider society.

* “Policy Window Model” (Kingdon)

The “policy window” opens when three usually separate and independent
streams intersect.

Problem stream – attention lurches to a policy problem. Problems are policy

issues which are deemed to require attention. There are no objective indicators
to determine which problems deserve attention, and perceptions of problems
can change quickly. Problems get attention based on how they are ‘framed’ or
defined by participants who compete for attention – using evidence to address
uncertainty and persuasion to address ambiguity. In some cases, issues receive
attention because of a crisis or change in the scale of the problem. Only a tiny
fraction of problems receive policymaker attention. Getting attention is a
major achievement which must be acted upon quickly, before attention shifts
Policy stream – a solution to that problem is available. While attention lurches
quickly from issue to issue, viable solutions involving major policy change take
time to develop. Kingdon describes ideas in a ‘policy primeval soup’, evolving as
they are proposed by one actor then reconsidered and modified by a large
number of participants (who may have to be ‘softened up’ to new ideas).

Politics stream – policymakers have the motive and opportunity to turn it into
policy. They have to pay attention to the problem and be receptive to the
proposed solution. They may supplement their own beliefs with their perception
of the ‘national mood’ and the feedback they receive from interest groups and
political parties.
Policy Formulation and Decision Making (Jann and Wegrich, pp48-51)
(Policy Formulation)
 During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals, and
demands are transformed into government programs.
 Policy formulation and adoption includes the definition of objectives – what
should be achieved by the policy - and the consideration of different action
alternatives. Efforts have been made to improve practices by applying techniques
and tools of more rational decision-making such as cost benefit analysis
 Decision-making comprises not only information gathering and processing
(analysis), but foremost consist of conflict resolution within and between public
and private actors and government departments.
 Policy formulation proceeds as a complex social process, in which state actors
play an important but not necessarily decisive role.
 Factors affecting the policy formulation and decision making
-policy analysis (an ex-ante analysis), feasibility study and/or other preparatory work is
usually made on the following factors.
-efficiency, effectiveness
-cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness (analysis)
-feasibility: legal feasibility (acceptability), political feasibility, fiscal (financial) feasibility
-ethical appropriateness

(Policy Decision)
-Public policies are decided through formal and informal process and procedure.
Actors or participants in the process are different from country to country and in different
policy area even in the same country. They are not only in the government but also out of the
government.
-Most of public policies are decided and authorized by laws
-Details of public policies or less important parts of public policies can be decided by the
lower legislations (such as ordinance, department orders, etc.)
Policy Implementation (Jann and Wegrich, pp. 51-53)

 Policy Implementation is broadly defined as “what happens between the

establishment of an apparent intention on the part of the government to do
something or to stop doing something, and the ultimate impact in the world of action”
 This stage is critical as political and administrative action at the frontline are hardly
ever perfectly controllable by objectives, programs, laws and the like. Therefore,
policies and their intentions will very often be changed or even distorted; its execution
delayed or even blocked altogether.

 An ideal process of policy implementation would include the following core elements:
1. Specification of program details – how and by which agencies should the program
be executed and how should the law/program be interpreted?
2. Allocation of resources – how are budgets allocated and distributed? Which
personnel will execute the program? Which units of an organization will be in charge for
the execution?
3. Decisions – how will decisions of single cases(s) be carried out?
 The reality of implementation is different from what is expected beforehand.
 Studies show intra- and inter-organizational coordination problems and the interaction
of field agencies with the target group ranked as the most prominent variables leading
to deviations from the centrally defined goals and objectives. (such as the cases of
“street level bureaucrats”)
 Unsuccessful policy implementation could not only be the result of bad
implementation, but also bad policy design, based on wrong assumptions about
cause-effect relationship.

* Implementation studies revealed that a clear-cut separation between policy

formulation and implementation is hardly reflecting real-world policy-making, neither in
terms of any hierarchical or chronological sequence, nor in terms of the involved actors.
 Evaluation and Termination

 Policy-making is supposed to contribute to problem solving or at least reduce problem load.

 Policy implementation should be appraised against intended objectives and impacts.
 Policy evaluation takes place as a regular and embedded part of the political process.
 Evaluations can lead to diverse patterns of policy-learning. One pattern would be successful
policies will be reinforced. While another pattern would lead to termination of a policy.
 The primary idea of policy termination – a policy problem has been solved or the adopted
policy measures have been recognized as ineffective in dealing with the set policy goals-
seems rather difficult to enforce under real-world conditions of policy-making.
 Attempts at policy termination is neither widespread nor successful in overcoming
resistance of policy actors, allowing for the growth of a “Jurassic Park of programs” (Pollit,
2003). Programs often “live on” even though they have “outlived their usefulness”
 Policy termination may sometimes result to just budget cuts and window-dressing activities.
And anti-termination coalitions usually forms, especially from beneficiary groups.
 Politicians face greater incentives to start new programs rather than terminate old ones
because it might be admission of failures. The short-term political, as well as financial, costs
of termination may outweigh the long-term benefits (Geva-May, 2004)
 Criticisms of the Policy Process Model
 Under real-world conditions,
 Policy process rarely features clear-cut beginning and endings,
 Policies ae constantly reviewed, controlled, modified, and even terminated
 Policies are perpetually reformulated, implemented, evaluated and adapted
 These processes do not evolve in a pattern of clear-cut sequences
 Policies do not develop in a vacuum, but are adopted in a crowded policy
space and new policies modify, change, or supplements older policies or
more likely compete with them or contradict each other
 Limitations and Utility of the Policy Process Models (Jann and Wegrich,55-57)

 The cycle framework draws an extremely simplified picture of reality, highlighting

some aspects while disregarding others.
 However, policy research is not only and frequently not primarily concerned with
the application of the analytical scientific theory. Instead, the detailed and
differentiated understanding of the internal dynamic and peculiarities of complex
processes of policy-making counts as a distinctive and relevant policy research.
Against these objectives, the policy cycle perspective has proven to provide an
excellent heuristic devise. Studies following the policy cycle perspective have
enhanced our understanding of the complex preconditions, central factors
influencing, and diverse outcomes of the policy process. The diverse concepts
developed in studies seeking to understand specific parts of the policy cycle have
offered a number of useful tools to classify various elements of the whole process.
 Limitations and Utility of the Policy Process Models (Jann and
Wegrich,55-57)

 Central research questions in the academic policy literature as well as in

applied research are still derived from the heuristic offered by the
policy cycle framework.
 The policy cycle framework does not only offer a yardstick for the
evaluation of the success or failure of a policy: it also offers a
perspective against which the democratic quality of these processes
could be assessed.
The Policy Cycle
14 January 2017