The Process Model in Policy Changes

The Process Model in invent _or_ system of politics ChangesThis paper advances the theoretical mannikin of the stagist heuristic part pretence or slightlytimes known as the touch warning in attempting to explain and dismantle the insurance insurance activities which led to the enactment of Quebecs baccy Act1of 1998. The main inclose of this paper is to evaluate the physical exercisefulness of the subprogram mold in cause the form _or_ system of presidential term making attend through a comparative carry between this fashion work and the protagonism concretion framework (ACF). I employ, and borrow, the moorage study of Bretton et al., (2008) that offers an alternative exposelook to the betterments of the tobacco plant Act using the Advocacy Coalition Framework. This paper concludes with a discussion of the beats which satisfactorily reflect the macrocosm of how policies be formulated and enforced.1. IntroductionThis paper is organized into 4 secerns. off get star sketches the theoretical perspectives of the stagist heuristic model and examines the factors and processes leading to the adoption of the tobacco Act. Crucially, this part allow for highlight the critical role of indemnity actors in affecting constitution processes and verbotencomes. Part Two argues a critical digest to the authorization of the model by elaborating the advantages of the model. Part Three will go on to pull up stakes criticisms of the model by comparing it with the advocacy compression framework used in analyzing the Tobacco Act of 1998. This part will present the m both criticisms of the stagist model, using mainly contributions offered by Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) and Sabatier (1999). Finally, Part quaternion concludes with a brief overall assessment of the framework, considering in particular, its term as an analytical tool for intellectual insurance making in the rattling world.In the context of this paper, polity abridgment is re paird as a set of be decisions taken by a group of governmental scienceal actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the ply of those actors to chance on (Jenkins, 1978 35). From Jenkinss (1978) interpretation above, which acknowledges universal insurance constitution as a set of interrelated decisions taken by numerous individuals and organizations in government, I will form the cornerstone of this paper. I will focus solely in understanding the processes or what Jenkins (1978) referred to as interrelated decisions leading to the adoption of the Tobacco Act. His translation overly correlates to Lass easilys conceptualization of knowledge of earlier than knowledge in indemnity making, in which the latter (i.e. knowledge in), is more than(prenominal) than substantive and prescriptive (Dunn, 1981 Hogwood Gunn, 1984, Hill, 1993).The inde mnity domain is built-inly complex, and so analysts have made use of variant models of simplification to compreh cobblers last the overwhelming situation and to understand it more thoroughly. through with(predicate) the lens of the stagist heuristic model, indemnity analysts have been able to synthesize the complexity of such process into a series of becomeal breaker pointcoachs, which frame this overtly insurance polity-making process as a continuous process of insurance polity making.1.1. The Stagist Heuristic FrameworkAs pioneered by Lasswell (1956), and modified by Jones (1970), mackintosh (1971), Rose (1973), Anderson (1975), Jenkins (1978), Brewer De Leon (1983) and Hogwood Gunn (1984), this ideal-type framework adopts a technocratic cuddle to common form _or_ system of governmentmaking, embracement linear and logical progression from agendum r individually and concluding with indemnity military rank and termination. The chronological orders of the for m _or_ system of government life cycle atomic number 18 ordinarily categorized as occupation definition, schedule-setting, constitution grooming, execution and finally military rating (Dunn, 1981 Hogwood Gunn, 1984 Sabatier, 1999 Dye, 2002 Colebatch, 2002).1.1.2. trouble recognition and definition.Hitherto, the greatest impetus to the developments of policy science crystallizes on a response to a myriad of social chores within, what Lasswell terms as policy orientation (cited in Dunn, 1981 Hogwood Gunn, 1984 Howlett Ramesh, 2003). Similarly, the process model presupposes the recognition of line of work triggered by a felt existence of b some opposites or opportunities (Dunn, 1981). A problem is defined as an unrealized value, need, or opportunity which, however identified, whitethorn be attained through humanity attention (Dunn, 1981 44) which needs to do something about as pointed out by Wildavsky (1979) a difficulty is a problem only if something butt joint be t hrough with(p) about it (Wildavsky, 197926).However, problem recognition and definition atomic number 18 non straight forward activities. correspond to Birkland (2007) because a problem is a process of social construction, as reflect by Dunn (1981) who states how the problem is in the eye of the beholder (Dunn, 1981 27), it numbers on subjectiveness of interpretations held by various stakeholders. And so, the majority ruling may be exhausted and, at times, may plane be misframed2(Baker, 1977). In addition, as Steiss Deneke (1980) suggests, problems are seldom mutually exclusive because they often exist in a hierarchical kinship to one another, and the solution of one may depend on the solution of another, either higher or lower in the hierarchy (Hogwood Gunn, 1984 124) because may often lead to a upgrade redefinition and modification of the problematical situations (Wohlestetter, 1976 Wildavsky, 1979 McRae Wilde, 1985), which, in turn, lead to the creation and realizati on of more problems (Wildavsky, 1979), which I go on to address in the following paragraph.Quebecs Tobacco Act was primarily enacted as a response to the growing concerns of the unrestricted towards the hump of passive smokers or secondary smokers. As reported by Breton et al. (2008), the Tobacco Act was enacted to protect the fundamental right of non smokers to enjoy a smoke free environment than by the harms to health (Breton, et al., 2008 1682). However, the definition of the come forth leads to the discovery of more social problems. On one hand, problems such as addictiveness of take, prevalence of youth smokers (which have significantly lead to raising educational awareness of the hazards of smoking), how the majority of the population are non smokers and, finally, the financial burden to the public health care system are brought to attention. On the other hand, protesters of the measurement have contested the lethality to passive smokers, arguing that such intervention m ajor cater impede the competitiveness of the tobacco industry (through the performance of tax) and, thus, affect the economic system of the province.In liberal democracies, such as Quebec, problem denomination and definition are conceptualized as highly pluralistic, involving diverse policy stakeholders such as the public (population, retailers), individuals ( government minister of wellness), organizations (e.g. Quebec Division of Cancer society, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of health, Hospital industry), interest groups (e.g. Tobacco manufacturers, Non Smokers estimable Association, Tobacco workers union, Events Rallying for the Freedom of Sponsorship group), the media, policy communities (Regional Public Health Directorates RPHD, columnists and journalists, Quebec Coalition for Tobacco Control CQCT and too mentioned U.S administration) (Dunn, 1981 Sabatier, 1991 Kingdon, 1995 Dye, 2002 Howlett Ramesh, 2003) the actual agenda setting is characterized by different patt erns in terms of actor composition and the role of public. at that place are after-school(prenominal) initiation as well as within initiation3(May, 1991 cited in Fisher, Miller Sidney, 2007) mobilization and consolidation4(Howlett Ramesh, 2003). In this theme, the tobacco control adheres to Howlett Ramesh (2003) concept of consolidation whereby due to the impending agitation of the issue amongst the public and subsequent contraband crisis of cigarettes smuggling in the US, policy elites (prominently the bare-assed Minister of Health and the National Assembly NMA) have seized the opportunity for government legitimacy in tobacco control by, effectively, propagandizing the issue to the public via regularly intervening in the media on different aspects of tobacco control and visit MNAs cabinets (Breton et al., 2008 1685).1.1.3. Agenda settingNext, I explore the agenda setting phase which Birkland (2007) defined as the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention (cited in Fisher, Miller Sidney, 2007 63). The prime from systemic agenda into institutional agenda5is usually dominated by power struggles between groups competing to elevate or block issues from r for apiece oneing the institutional agenda (Cobb Ross, 1997) acting singly or, more often, by building strategic coalition with others (Sabatier, 1991 Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993).From the case study, this process is signaled by the agenda of the raw Minister of Health and the tabling of the notation by the Council of Ministers at the legislative meeting. As part of his strategy in building a winning coalition, the Minister triple-crownly gathers allies and supporters for the bill by establishing the CQCT embracing Sabatiers ACF model. In addition, Breton et al. (2008) mentioned that the Minister of Health has also announced plans to allow in the bill provisions that annihilate active reckonment of tobacco companies in sponsoring arts and sports ev ents. Spearheaded by the change coordination of the CQCT, the winning coalitions which compose of Non Smokers Association and various municipalities through representatives from the RPHD, effectively debated the bill and gathered political support from the Council of Ministers at the parliamentary commission meetings, which resulted in the official adoption of the bill on February, 1998.1.1.4. policy formulation and decision-making.In the traditional phase model of the public policy process, policy formulation is part of the pre-decision phase of policy making in which the political swop described by Lindblom (1993) as competition of ideas emanates. It shams makeing and/or crafting a set of policy alternatives to address a problem, and narrowing that set of solutions in education for the final policy decision. This attack to policy formulation, embedded in a stages model of the policy process, assumes that participants in the policy process recognize and define a policy prob lem, consequently moving it onto the policy agenda.During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals and demands are transformed into government programs. At the same time, studies of policy formulation have been strongly dominated by the effort to emend practices within governments by introducing the techniques and tools of rational decision making. In all political systems people gather facts, interpret them and debate issues. This stage is when the Minister establishes alter command through CQCT to formulate the policy to tackle the issue of public smoking. In addition, the continuous dialogue and consultation involved in an proportionateness of the bill with nongovernmental organizations, municipalities, health institution, local and regional organizations as well as oppositions falls into this stage. Crucially, the bill was also amended to streamline the phasing out of tobacco industry sponsorship but offered no alternative solution to youth smoking and di d not contest the actual harms on health of tobacco use (Breton, et al., 2008 1686).Brewer DeLeon (1983) usefully define decision making as the selection among policy alternatives that have been generated and their likely effects on the problem estimatedit is the around overtly political stage in so far as the m whatever potential solutions are winnowed cumulation and but one or a select few picked and readied for use. (Howlett Ramesh, 2003162). The models on decision making are classified as rationalism which asserts utility maximization to complex policy problems in which policy relevant information was gathered and then pore in a scientific fashion on the assessment of policy options (Howlett Ramesh, 2003166) and incrementalism which describes policy making as a political activity of maintaining the status quo through gradual and continuation of past policies.1.1.5. Implementation.Dye (2002) defined implementation as the implementation of policies through organized bureaucr acies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies (Dye, 2002 15). Intra- and inter- organizational coordinating problem and interaction of field of agencies with the target group ranked as the most prominent variables accounting for implementation failures (MacRae Wilde, 1985 Howlett Ramesh, 2003). Another bill focuses on the policy itself, acknowledging that unsuccessful policy implementation can be, though by no means the only, result of bad implementation, but also bad policy design, based on wrong assumptions about the cause-effect relationship (Hogwood Gunn, 1984 Fisher et al., 2007 52).The study of implementation is dominated by the concept of top-down centralized implementation and bottom-up implementation. The top-down school or the tumid dimension represented, for instance, by scholars like Van Meter Van trumpet (1975), Hood (1976), Gunn (1978), Nakamura Smallwood (1980) and Mazmanian Sabatier (1983), conceive of implementation as the hierarchic al execution of centrally defined policy intentions (Fisher et al., 200789). Proponents of the bottom-up or horizontal approach embarrass Lipsky (1971, 1980), Ingram (1977), Elmore (1980), and Hjern Hull (1983) who have emphasized the fact that implementation consists of everyday problem strategies of street-level bureaucrats (Pressman Wildavsky, 1973 Colebatch, 2002 Fisher et al., 2007). In this case, the policy implementation correlates closely with the top-down approach because the implementation is based on the commitments and directives from the top echelon of the government i.e. Minister of Health and Ministry of Health.1.1.5. paygrade.Finally, evaluation is the post hoc abridgment of policies and programmes carried out by government agencies themselves, outside consultants, the press, and the public (Dye, 200215) through collecting, testing, and interpreting information about the implementation and effectiveness of subsisting policies and public programmes (Majone, 1989 167). The plausible normative rationale is that policy making should be appraised against intended objectives and impacts form the starting point of policy evaluation, which forms the basis for justifying government actions for continuation or termination of public programmes and enables accountability of government offices peculiarly in democratic setting (Majone, 1989). However, from the case study, it is unclear whether any form of evaluation was carried out or not.2. Advantages.Despite depicting the developments of the Tobacco Act in a series of stages, as mentioned by Hogwood Gunn (1984) in the dividing lines between the various activities are artificial and policy makers are unconvincing to perform them consciously or in the implied logical order (Hogwood Gunn, 58), Lasswell, as Hudson Lowe (2004) note, did not conceptualized these stages as real, in the sense that they encompass clear beginnings and ends. Rather, their function being merely analytic-to help us explore d ifferent dimensions of the policy process. He Lasswell is more concerned with the value systems, institutions and wider social processes that shaped policy in the real world (Hudson Lowe, 2004 5). Therefore the process model does provide valuable descriptive analysis of the policy process.As explained above, the process model helps to disaggregate an otherwise seamless web of public policy transactions, as each segment and transition are distinguished by differentiated actions and exercises. Furthermore, the accumulative analyses of the various stages, arguably, contribute to the disentangling of the intricate political and social interdependencies, manifested in the policy arena, to bring about an ordered and manageable system6(DeLeon, 1983).Furthermore, this process framework has significant strategic implications. Firstly, by analyzing the policy actors and processes in discrete stages, it assists in identifying how stakeholders may support or resist health policies (ODI, 2007) and then develop strategies in building winning coalitions as mentioned by Easton (1979) which states how the process model lend themselves to the identification and study of interactions, not only among the various stages in the process but also among various participating organizations and between organizations and the lager beer social and economic environment (cited in Hogwood Gunn, 1989 25). Although this big businessman be more applicable to the ACF, such advantage also applies to the process model especially during the agenda setting phase. As described above, in the agenda setting phase, the process model highlighted and identified various policy stakeholders and analyzed the relationship of policy advocacies which resisted (Tobacco Manufacturers and Tobacco Workers Union) against those whom supported the bill (Minister of Health and Non Smokers Association) thereby alter the assessment of the cumulative effects of various actors7, forces, and institutions that interac ts in the policy process and therefore shape its outcome(s) (Jann Wegrich 2007 cited in Fisher, Miller, Sidney, 2007 44).Secondly, it also helps in identifying and addressing various obstacles that misdirect successful implementation of policies (ODI, 2007). The process model follows the assumption of how public policy making is a goal oriented process aimed to reach a goal or realize an objective or a purpose (Anderson, 1984 cited in Colebatch, 200285), indeedforth policy makers are able to identify constraints, which in this case, a negotiation with oppositions and accumulation public support for the bill ensured the successful adoption of the bill.Finally as pointed out by Hogwood Gunn (1984), the process framework is sooner flexible in the sense that it enables us to systematize existing knowledge without precluding the integrating of future insights (about stages, influences, interactions, etc) to the framework (Hogwood Gunn, 1984 25). In other words, it improves the pro spects of expert evidence considered during policy formulation leading to evidence based policy making. The most common method in the British government in gathering technical information for systematic analysis of policies is through ravel and error achieved by carrying out a pilot test before actual implementation of policies.3. Criticisms A better understanding in policy making.On the contrary, Parkinson (2008) in his lecture, quite rightly so, argue that the process model resembles a mechanistic tool that describes checklists of parts present in the policy making arena parallel to Nakamuras (1987) notion of a textbook approach (Sabatier, 1999).Henceforth, the top down legalistic framework is an artificial portrayal of the policy process (Dunn, 1981 Sabatier, 1999) as stated by Lindblom (1993) that deliberate, orderly steps are therefore not an accurate portrayal of how the policy process actually works. Policy making is, instead, a complexly inter-active process without begin ning or end (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993 11). In other words, these processes do not evolve in a pattern of clear cut sequences instead the stages are constantly booked and entangled in an ongoing process which is more accurately resembles a primeval soup (Kingdon, 1995 Howlett Ramesh 1995). Therefore, the process model leads to the imposition of hypothetical score of future events which may be inappropriate or misleading with actions occurring fitfully as problems become matched with policy ideas considered to be in the political interests of a working majority of the partisans with influence over the policy domain (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993 10).3.1. rationalisation of processes.Hogwood Gunn (1984) question the coherence and rationality of the process model as a blueprint for action by giving rational score or justification of past acts, even when the acts in question do not lend themselves to such treatment (Hogwood Gunn, 1984 26). Furthermore, Lindblom (1993) also argue that the stages are not hierarchical which proceeds from agenda setting and concluding with evaluation rather they often overlap loop with each other as analysis proceeds. This is further elaborated to a lower place.Firstly, Lindblom (1993) argue that there may not even be a stage when problem definition occurs, since participants often pull up stakes widely in their ideas about the problem (Lindblom Woodhouse, 199310). He explains that this is because policy sometimes is formed from a compromise among political participants, moreover, none of whom had in sagaciousness quite the problem to which the agreed policy responds (Lindblom Woodhouse, 199310).Secondly, Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) also point out the inaccuracy to suggest that the decision-making phase exist. As suggested by Heclo (1972) a policy can consist of what is not being done (Hogwood Gunn, 1984 21) and, thus, equally measurable, are the decisions to observe issues, that would be inconvenient, firmly off the agenda for political success in winning the disputes that arise. In other words, policy may emerge without any explicit decision, by failure to act as or the power of nondecision making (Bachrach Baratz, 1962 Heclo, 1972). Bachrach Baratz (1962) which exhibits the existence of institutional bias so that key groups are excluded in what is termed as the three dimensional view of power, in which power is used to exercise to control over the agenda of politics and of the slipway in which potential issues are kept out of the political process (Lukes, 2005 25). Furthermore, stating decisions are taken exclusively in the decision-making phase is rather inaccurate, because in reality, decisions are constantly being made regardless of the stages you are in. For example, during the policy formulation, policy makers makes decisions on which alternatives to adopt for consideration and hence to implement and during the implementation stages, policy makers make decisions on the choices of policy inst ruments to be utilized (Hill, 1993 Howlett Ramesh, 2003).Thirdly, Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) also argued that implementation and evaluation cannot be separated from the other steps. As mentioned by Lindblom Woodhouse (1993) an attempt to implement one policy almost always brings virgin problems onto the agenda, meaning the implementation and the step called agenda building collapse into each other (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993 10). An example from the case study is that during the implementation of the Quebec Tobacco Act, to include taxation on tobacco and a ban on tobacco sponsored arts and sports event, subsequently led to the discovery that such measure might impinge the competitiveness of tobacco industries and affect the economy of the province.Finally, policy evaluation often regarded as the end of the line, does not actually constitute a step in policy making unless it throws light on potential next moves in policy, in which case evaluation becomes intertwined with all other attempts to appraise and formulate options for reshaping government activity (Lindblom Woodhouse, 1993 10). Moreover, I think that the evaluation phase overlaps with the agenda setting phase and the policy formulation phase. During the agenda setting and policy formulation phase, policies are also evaluated needed to twine and influence people in adopting and supporting the bill.3.2. Multiplicity of interactions.On the other hand, Sabatier (1999) note the framework oriented scholars towards looking at just one stage at a time, thus neglecting the entirety of the process by stating that they portrayed a disjointed, episodic process rather than a more ongoing, continuous one (Sabatier, 1999 23). In addition, Sabatier Jenkins Smith (1999) set out 5 major deficiency of the heuristic approach it provides little description of how policy moves from one stage to another it cannot be tested empirically it is basically a top down which fails to take account of street-level and other acto rs and it disregards quaternary levels of governmental interactions. Finally, it does not provide an integrated view on the gathering of policy related information, apart from the evaluation phase (Parsons, 1995 Sabatier, 1999) as pointed out by (Majone, 1989) the effectiveness in solving social problems centres in manner of speaking more information and systematic analysis into the policy making process.From the case study, it is clear that the process model is hold in in its capacity to provide institutional analysis of government interactions because it is primarily conceived to provide systematic analysis of the overall policy making process, unconnected institutionalism perspective which focuses on the role and relationship of government institutions which regards public policy as an institutional getup of the mechanisms of the government where it is authoritatively determined, implemented and enforced by these institutions (Dye, 200212). Furthermore, the process model adh eres to the view that policy making is a hierarchical top down process which initiates from agenda setting and finally ends with evaluation stage and therefore only takes account of authorized decision makers. Finally it is also rather limited in empirical research on each stage and only makes an attempt to describe systematic gathering of information in the evaluation phase only. However, on the other hand, I would have to disagree with Sabatier (1999) in that the process model does not provide clear line between the stages and the progression from one phase to another. I think the primary feather distinction of the stagist model lies in the context of policy environment and policy stakeholders involved8. Henceforth taking the definitions which I presented above of each stage and the ones offered by Dye (2002 14-15), the demarcations between the stages are summarized in the table belowPhasePolicy Stakeholder (i.e. who are involved)Policy Environment (i.e. where does it take plac e)1. Problem identificationIndividuals, public and private organizations, interest groups, think tanks, mass media and policy communities.Public debates, consultation with public, and sometimes top level government officials identify it themselves.2. Agenda settingPublic officials acting as gatekeepers as well as involvement of policy entrepreneurs.Mostly done by the executive branch of the government and in government offices.3. Policy formulation in the beginning done by government officials in Executive agencies, but may also involve interest groups, congressional committees, and think tanks.Again done in Executive government offices but may also involve the Legislative branch of the government i.e. Parliament or Senate.4. Implementation in the first place street-level bureaucrats and occasionally involving public participation.Carried out in formal government institutions.5. EvaluationDone by government agencies but may also involve the public through medias, consultants and thi nk tank organizations. Also very heavy is the use of citizen juries to evaluate public programmes.Evaluation is carried out in government offices, but also may be carried out in NGO organizations (such as EU, UN etc) and non-governmental institutions.In addition, Breton et al., (2008) successfully utilize the ACF to explain how the interactions of multiple policy advocacies have impacted policy change, which is another major deficiency of the stagist heuristic model. As mentioned by Majone (1989), both continuity and change are inherent in the conception of policy (Majone, 1989 35) and therefore should be accounted for in the models in its capacity to comprehensively capture the policy making process.For example, the ACF manage to show how the changes in the external events directly impact the core beliefs of tobacco subsystems and hence resulted in the adoption of Tobacco Act (Refer to Fig.2 in Breton et al., 2002 1683). However unlike the ACF, process model does not provide descr iption on how policies are impacted by change. Moreover the process model assumes that every policies starts from breadstuff i.e. always starts by identification of problems. Conversely, policies may be enacted not from new problems or opportunities that emerge, rather continuation of past policies in which case, the problem identification phase may be invalid.4. ConclusionIn conclusion, the process model provides valuable insights in directing analysts attention to critical features in the policymaking process, and on elucidating the policy process paradigm. Furthermore, although the ACF model is conceived to account for the entire policy process, it is limited in its capacity to explain only the policy formation (i.e. agenda setting and decision making). In other words, both models differ in their level of analysis, which I hope have been successfully demonstrated above.On the other hand, the idea of breaking down the making of public policy into phases, may well impose stages on reality that is infinitely more complex, fluid and interactive but to adopt a cyclical metaphor, it is not necessarily an unreasonable or unrealistic way of looking at what happens when public policy is made. Nonetheless, the process model does still provide some useful insights in public policy making. In my opinion, the most important thing is not to look at one best model to explain a particular policy rather a gang of models is needed as pointed out by Dye (2002 12)These models are not competitive in the sense that any one of them could be judged best. separately one provides a separate focus on political life, and each can help us to understand different things about public policy. Although some policies appear at first glance to lend themselves to explanation by one particular model, most policies are a confederacy of rational planning, incrementalism, interest group activity, elite preferences, game playing, public choice, political processes, and institutional influences .