Guidelines for Informing Policy via Data

CHAPTER 2 - THE POLICY PROCESS: CREATING POLICY WITHIN GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER TYPES OF ORGANISATIONS (page 2)

2.2.2 The Streams Model

J. W. Kingdon's (1984) multiple streams model focuses more on the flow and timing of policy action than on its component steps, and may help in understanding the complexities and realities of policy-making. In this model, particular attention is paid to three streams: the problem stream, the policy stream, and the political stream, which move independently through the policy system.

For in-depth information, please refer to the "streams model" entry in the Encyclopedia of Terms.

Kingdon’s model underlines the existence of three distinct, but complementary, processes, or streams, in policy-making. It is the union of those streams that allows, at a given time and in a given context, for a particular issue to be turned into a policy. These three streams are [3]:

• The stream of problems. The rationale behind this stream is that a given situation has to be identified and explicitly formulated as a problem/issue for it to bear the slightest chance of being transformed into a policy. A situation that is not defined as a problem/issue, and for which alternatives are never envisaged or proposed, will never be converted into a policy issue.

• The stream of policies. The second stream is used to explain how an issue rises or falls on an agenda. This stream is concerned with the formulation of policy alternatives and proposals.

• The stream of politics. This refers to political events, such as an impending election or a change in government, which can cause a given topic and policy to be included or excluded from the agenda. Indeed, the dynamic and special needs created by a political event may change the agenda.

As mentioned above, Kingdon visualises these three streams as separate and independent; problem recognition, the formulation of policy proposals, and political events have their own dynamic and pace. As such, no stream is decisive to the overall policy process, though all streams are important. It is when they meet and coincide, partially or entirely, that an issue is transformed from a topic and/or problem into a concrete policy.

The major strength of this model is that it recognises that the policy process is fluid and non-linear, and that it involves a vast number of actors and forces. It captures the dynamics behind the transformation, or otherwise, of a given issue into a specific policy. This model is presented here as a complement to the more traditional and common stages model.

Still, the stages model is highly relevant to our work since it allows for the conceptualisation and understanding of the various steps that make up the policy process, and thus points towards where and how data can improve the relevance and impact of policy making. However, one should remember that the stages model is precisely that, a model that describes the policy-making process in an idealised way. Policy-making is by no means an automatic process and relies on many different factors; policy, or policy change, will not be implemented simply by following the stages model steps diligently.

Given the complexity of the policy process, and bearing in mind the advantages and limits of the stages model, we will rely on it here when discussing how and when data can be used to inform policy-making. Before doing so, several elements relating to the policy process, and to policy formulation and decision-making, need to be presented.

2.3 THE POLICY PROCESS IS HIGHLY CONTEXT-SPECIFIC

The various theories and approaches to the study of policy-making, particularly decision-making, are dependent both on the ideology of their authors and also on the specific context in which policies are developed and implemented. Factors such as the political regime, the relations between actors, sometimes even the existence or non-existence of certain actors (i.e., NGOs, civil society, etc.), the history and cultural traditions may help explain why a particular way of making policy is predominant in a location, while in another priority might be given to a totally different approach.

Without favouring a specific model of decision-making here, we will briefly present a sample of existing approaches. Readers will not be given directions as to what approach should or should not be used; rather, they will be made aware of the diversity of methods and situations that exist. When trying to influence policy-making in a specific place at a particular time, it is important to understand the specificities of the location.

As we have seen, the policy process involves a number of stages that are neither mutually exclusive, nor merely linear, and that feed into each other. To simplify our discussion, we will focus on three main stages in the policy process, namely policy formulation, policy implementation, and policy monitoring and evaluation.

Each phase can occur differently, through different structures, processes and the inclusion or exclusion of various stakeholder groups, all of which will affect the different phases and thus the overall policy process.

Individuals and organisations often misconceive policy, viewing it either as a purely technical exercise or as a broad statement of belief. Arguably, policy is an expression of goals and detailed objectives to modify and improve a given state of affairs, often informed by competing and conflicting interests and sets of assumptions that do not necessarily accord with the intended beneficiaries’ needs and demands. Whatever the situation, the policy process does not take place in a vacuum and must be understood within particular historical, cultural, institutional, and political contexts.

Hereafter, we will focus on the main models used to describe decision making and on the importance of political regimes in defining policy processes.

3. For more information, see Boussaguet, L., Jacquot, S., and Ravinet, P., eds., Dictionnaire des Politiques Publiques, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 2004, pp. 217-225.