| Guidelines for Informing Policy via Data CHAPTER 2 - THE POLICY PROCESS: CREATING POLICY WITHIN GOVERNMENTS AND OTHER TYPES OF ORGANISATIONS
This chapter reviews the policy process – how policy is made – by presenting some of the most common theories about and approaches to policy making. 2.1 INTRODUCTION The study and analysis of the policy process has drawn on a variety of disciplines and fields of study. As a result of this diversity and given the multi-faceted nature of such a process, there is no clear and unanimous definition of what a policy,(more specifically, a public policy) is, nor how it is made. Rather, there is a vast body of literature relating to policy and policy-making. Definitions of the term "policy" are varied, but a number of key elements recur. They relate to actors, activities, problems and solutions. As a summarised version of available definitions, policy can be defined as “a plan of action to guide decisions and actions oriented towards solving problems or tackling issues. The term may apply to government, private sector organisations and groups, and individuals.” This chapter will analyse, the importance and relevance of evidence-based data in elaborating and designing policies, and in the overall policy-making process. Special attention will be paid to existing theories and models of policy-making, and to the relevance and influence of context-specific features on the overall process. As a conclusion to the chapter, the importance and advantages of using data to orient policy-making, and the risks associated with the use of other criteria and methodologies, will be highlighted. 2.2 MODELS OF THE POLICY PROCESS: FOCUSING ON STAGES AND STREAMS Our aim is not to present an exhaustive review of the different models and theories that explain the policy-making process, but rather to present some of the most common approaches and to highlight those that appear as most useful for illustrating how policy is made and how and when it can be influenced. We will highlight the diversity of actors, elements, and forces of which the policy process consists, and which interact, confront and influence each other. This will help us to understand how and when data and indicators can contribute to the overall policy-making process, thus making it more transparent, efficient and democratic. 2.2.1 The Stages Model One of the oldest and most common approaches to the study of policy-making derives from the early work of H. Lasswell (1951). He is the first to have analysed policy as a process, i.e., as a set of phenomena organised in time and led by a number of specific and self-induced mechanisms. Lasswell's model is usually referred to as the stages model of policy, since it separates policy-making into its component steps, or stages, and analyses each in turn. The original version of the model included seven stages, though more recent versions have reduced the process to fewer steps, usually between four and six. Broadly speaking, such stages include [1]:
Although this model is extremely important in the policy-making literature, and is put forth as the traditional approach by many authors, it has also been subject to criticism. The main criticism revolves around the so-called linearity of the model. Far from being linear, the policy process is dynamic and, at times, even chaotic. Stability, order, unity, and comprehensiveness are often only theoretical. For instance, a policy can end without having been subject to evaluation, and another can be implemented before having been formally or legally adopted. It also has been said that the stages model gives the illusion that policy-makers arrive at a decision through a rational and systematic approach (i.e., problem definition, the analysis of alternative solutions, the adoption of a solution, and testing and evaluation). However, real-life situations are somewhat different. A vast number of players is usually involved in the policy process and this tends to lead to a process in which decisions are collective and events take place in an environment characterised by opportunities, conflicting interests, and bargaining. The Lasswell-inspired models, which stress the importance of stages in the policy process, are useful “for identifying the times and places in the policy process where different tactics for [influencing and] shaping policy come into play.” [2] This is of particular interest to us here. However, for enhanced knowledge of the policy process, it is also important to review and analyse other models to better understand the dynamics of policy-making. In other words, the Lasswell model and its more recent versions help us understand what the policy process consists of, but without providing us with any information as to how and why, or why not, a given policy proposal is transformed into a concrete policy. For this, other models of the policy process might prove useful. Most authors focusing on policy-making have built into their conceptual frameworks many of the terms and concepts of the stages model, whilst at the same time trying to deepen and improve the analysis. They highlight the complexity and dynamic nature of the policy process and focus on identifying the variety of factors, whether contextual or self-induced, that weigh on the behaviour and decisions of policy actors at different moments of the process. The multiple streams model discussed below is one such attempt. 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]:
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. 2.3.1 Who Makes Policy and How? There are several models that explain the processes of decision-making and policy formulation, examining who determines public policy and how. Some of the most common models are discussed below [4]. 2.3.1.1 The Elite Model The elite model of decision-making is based on the idea that almost all political power is held by a relatively small and wealthy group of people – an elite – that shares similar values and interests. This elite uses its power to advance its common interests and policy preferences, usually to the detriment of the rest of society. Consequently, it is in a position to dictate the main goals and objectives of all important government policy, but not always its practical measures and details. This elite is seen as inherently conservative, and ready to sanction only incremental changes in policy. 2.3.1.2 The Pluralist Model This theoretical model of how policy decisions are made assumes that the power is "plural," i.e., that it is broadly distributed among many different groups in society that compete to control policy. This model is based on the belief that politics are the result of struggles between these competing interests, though it is not possible to identify a particular group as occupying a constant dominant position. In this model, decision-making consists largely of bargaining and compromise between multiple competing power centres. Such an approach tends to view government not so much as an initiator of policies, but rather as a mediator between different group interests, allowing for compromise and agreements to be reached, and policies and programmes to be developed. 2.3.1.3 The Technocratic Model This model describes a decision-making and policy formulation system where technocrats, or experts, have a predominant role. The technocratic approach is based on the notion that those people with the power to make decisions and make policy do not necessarily understand the problems confronting them, nor do they systematically have solutions to solve them. The process to answer the needs of society is thus entrusted to technocrats and bureaucrats with the relevant expertise for "scientific" policy implementation. The above-mentioned models of policy-making refer essentially to its actors. Now we will present two approaches of decision-making that concentrate more on how policy-making and policy decisions are reached than on who was involved. 2.3.1.4 The Rational-Comprehensive Model The rational-comprehensive model of policy-making is based on the assumption that policies are selected and implemented after a thorough analysis of all alternatives. This analysis is based on clearly defined and objective criteria, and is aimed at achieving the most effective ends. Alternatives are invariably compared and assessed in relation to goals and costs, and the best option is then chosen. The main criticism of this model is that it is often very costly in time and resources, and takes for granted that perfect information both exists and is available. 2.3.1.5 The Incrementalism Model The main concept behind this model is that policies evolve gradually. Decision-makers are seen to implement modest policy changes that only slightly, if at all, affect the situation. This model emerged as a reaction to rationalist theories and is based on the idea that it is impossible, because of time and financial constraints, to look at all alternatives exhaustively before making a decision. Here, decision-makers only make a limited comparison of policy alternatives with what is already in place; when they do select an alternative, it tends to be only a slight variation on the current policy. Different models can be seen as more or less democratic, efficient, participatory, etc., and involving varying numbers of actors, whether politicians, experts, pressure groups or the media. Particular individuals might favour distinct models. Beyond the virtues or defects of such models, policy must be based on correct and relevant assumptions and needs. Before analysing the latter aspect in detail, it is important to underline that policy-making is highly context-dependent. 2.3.2 Role and Influence of the Political Regime As we have seen, there are a variety of models that explain how decisions are reached and policy is formulated. This diversity results from the combination of the concrete situations on the ground and authors' ideological beliefs. Countries live under different political regimes and these differences affect the way in which public policy is made. Traditionally, three main distinctions exist with regard to political regimes [5]: regimes may be central or federal; they may be presidential or parliamentary; and systems may be unicameral and bicameral. The policy process varies considerably from one place to another, depending on the nature and characteristics of the regimes in place, among other elements. In central regimes, for instance, the regulation of public affairs will, to a great degree, be carried out centrally and concentrated in one single actor, whilst in federal regimes it will be under the responsibility of peripheral and sometimes multiple political entities. This distinction is of great relevance when it comes to shaping the policy-making process [6]. Policy-making is context-dependent: anyone wishing to influence a policy-making process will first have to analyse it in all its intricacies to understand where the power to make decisions lies. This will enable one to concentrate efforts where they might be fruitful. However, that implies that the political structure is open to participatory processes, i.e., that access to decision-makers is feasible, whether directly or indirectly. Unfortunately, this is a huge assumption that is not always true, especially in the case of human rights violations. In real life, many governments and decision-makers do not welcome suggestions or empirical data that are potentially relevant to the policy process. This is especially the case with authoritarian regimes, though when it comes to the issue of human rights, it can also be true in countries that are not usually considered to be authoritarian. Raising this point is not meant to discourage or deny the potential role of various actors in the policy making process; rather, it is intended to draw attention to possible complications and obstacles, and give examples of how they can be overcome. In the book by M.E. Keck and K. Sikkink, Activists beyond Borders [7], we can see how individuals and/or organisations have managed, especially in the field of democratic governance and human rights, to influence and shape policy-making, despite the absense of open doors or space for them to conduct discussions in their countries. In this book, the authors argue that the emergence of transnational advocacy networks can help to bring about and sustain changes in democratic governance and human rights-related issues and policies. Transnational advocacy networks are defined as transnational “forms of organisations characterised by voluntary, reciprocal and horizontal patterns of communication and exchange,” where “advocates plead the causes of others or defend a cause or proposition.” [8] Such networks are seen as possible alternative channels of communication for those voices that are suppressed within their own societies. Indeed, by projecting into the international arena the concerns and data made available by locally-censored voices, transnational advocacy networks increase and strengthen their influence, even ultimately in their own societies [9]. As explained by M.E. Keck and K. Sikkink, the production, exchange, and strategic use of information is at the core of network activity. By overcoming the authoritarian and intentional suppression of data that helps sustain abuses of power, networks can help reframe debates and thus policies at both the international and national levels. The major success of networks is to give an international voice to actors who are not heard at a local level. This helps to raise new issues and persuade and pressure local decision-makers (i.e., governments or powerful organisations) to adopt evidence-based policy-making and enhance the democratic governance and human rights situation. The authors emphasise several areas in which advocacy networks can have influence over a specific policy-making process or human rights situation. Those areas include “issue creation and agenda setting; influence on discursive positions of States and international organisations; influence on institutional procedures; influence on policy change in target actors; and influence on State behaviour.” [10] For networks to be successful, they must rely on individuals and/or structures capable of transmitting specific messages and pressuring relevant actors. The actors targeted must be either sufficiently vulnerable to material incentives or sanctions, or sensitive to pressure regarding the difference between stated commitments and actual practice. As presented by M.E. Keck and K. Sikkink, most governments’ human rights policies have emerged as a response to pressure from outside organisations and actors, and have depended to a large extent on network information. Argentina is a good example of how a human rights network led to the recognition and sanction by the international community of the problem of "disappearances," and to a growing awareness of democratic governance and human rights issues. Trials were organised for the first time in Argentina in the 1980s for former leaders accused of human rights abuses. Please also refer to the article by A.Pollard and J.Court for in-depth information on the specific role of civil society organisations in influencing policy processes. Just as the political regime in place influences the way in which actors can have an impact on policy processes, the presence of a number of actors is also crucial. Influencing the policy-making process greatly depends on a series of actors, whether academics, human rights activists, non governmental organisations, or the media, being present, and on them wanting and having the capacity to take action. As seen above, this mobilisation and action can be direct or indirect, through transnational advocacy networks, for example, but it is essential. 2.4 POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION, AND MONITORING AND EVALUTATION The policy process is, to a certain degree, context-specific. The formulation of policy is probably the stage of the process most affected by a country’s or area’s particular characteristics. However, the other stages of the policy process and their specific features are also context-dependent; indeed, the implementation, monitoring and evaluation phases can be carried out differently depending on the particular characteristics of the area where a given policy is to be applied. 2.4.1 Policy Formulation The policy-formulation stage covers, among other aspects, the activity known as "agenda-setting." In simple terms, agenda-setting refers to a series of procedures whereby facts are transformed into problems or issues. For an issue to be included on an agenda, relevant decision-makers have to be convinced of its relevance and importance. This stage also includes the elaboration of policy proposals, which, in both content and framing, is highly dependent on the process and characteristics of agenda-setting itself. 2.4.2 Policy Implementation Phases are separate activities that depend on each other and are not systematic; until the very last moment, they can disappear. For instance, policy implementation implies the existence of a policy proposal and therefore of a previous exercise of policy formulation. Moreover, a policy proposal does not automatically pass from the state of formulation to that of implementation; to do so, it needs to remain on the agenda long enough to be transformed – with all the technical and administrative detail that this can imply – from a mere proposal to a tangible policy. Policy proposals that appear only briefly on the agenda will disappear as quickly as they came. The implementation phase is essential to the policy process because it constitutes the course of action through which the decisions that have been made are enforced and put into practice. In other words, it represents a moment in which decisions are transformed into reality. Most studies reveal that once adopted, policies are not necessarily implemented as planned. On the contrary, there is usually quite a bit of room for maneuvering, and policies tend to be reformulated during the implementation process. Policies can be implemented with different scopes of application, i.e., a policy can be general or specific, applied to the entire population or aimed at specific and clearly defined sub groups, etc. Further information on these different applications can be found in Chapter 5 of this manual. 2.4.3 Policy Monitoring and Evaluation Since they are connected, policy monitoring and evaluation will be considered here as belonging to the same stage in the policy-making process. Indeed, though separate activities, they encompass the same logic and aims. In the same way that monitoring and evaluation feed into each other, they also feed into and rely on the formulation and implementation phases. For instance, policy monitoring and evaluation depend to a great degree on the implementation phase. The monitoring of policy aims to check, for example, whether the policy and activities implemented have contributed towards the fulfilment of the initial goals and objectives of the policy and, if not, what has happened instead. This information can later be used to assess and evaluate the policy, perhaps even readjusting it if necessary. In fact, the only way in which some kind of evaluation and assessment is feasible without the implementation phase is when it aims to study and assess not the way in which a policy was carried out, but the way in which it was formulated. This phase is, by nature, always dependent on another one. Evaluation is not a uniform and unique process; rather, it follows different methods. E. Suchman points to five criteria that can be helpful to assess and measure the "value" of a given policy [11]. Such criteria, which will be analysed in more detail later, consist of: the effort provided, the performance obtained, the relevance and adequacy of the performance, efficiency, and the overall functioning of the process. Most authors and evaluators have added complementary criteria (such as coherence, efficacy, etc.) to this list. Special attention will be paid to the evaluation of policies in Chapter 14 of this document. The monitoring and evaluation phase is different from that of formulation and implementation in that its activities are different in nature. Indeed, though monitoring and evaluation is, in our view, absolutely necessary to evidence-based policy-making, in contrast to policy formulation or implementation, the monitoring and evaluation phase is not vital to the policy process. It can be absent from a policy or carried out on all or part of the process, either after or while a policy is being implemented. 2.5 CONCLUDING REMARKS The belief underlying these guidelines is that, despite the complexity of the policy process, action can be taken to influence the process, and relevant and forward-looking policies can be implemented. Policies can be based on a long list of criteria. As mentioned by C. Scott, choices and policies are shaped by a variety of elements such as: power and the influence of vested interests, corruption, political ideology, arbitrariness, and the use of anecdotal evidence [12]. As stressed by the author, the problem with resorting to such criteria when elaborating policy is that none is “fully consistent with a democratic political process characterised by transparency and accountability” [13], nor likely to lead to equitable, efficient and effective policy outcomes. Far from leading to transparent and democratic policy-making processes, such elements commonly fail to make policy meet society’s needs and demands. A possible and favourable alternative is evidence-based policy making. This type of decision-making relies on careful and rigorous analysis using sound and transparent data. Chapter 3 of this manual is devoted to explaining what data are and how they can be collected, and their relevance to and potential use in policy-making, particularly informed policy-making in the fields of human rights and democratic governance. While policy-makers may know, or think they know, what they wish to achieve, they may lack sufficient and focused information on how to achieve it. In order for policy-makers to make better and better-informed decisions, it is important that they use relevant and up-to-date data. Thus, researchers, activists, non governmental organisations, governmental institutions and organisations [14], and the media can play a crucial role in the policy process, informing and fostering evidence-based policy making. In an increasingly complex world, detailed knowledge of the policy environment is required if policies and choices are to be made that advance society’s goals and interests. In other words, as navigators of states and institutions, policy-makers need a map that tells them where they are, or should be, departing from, where they are, or should be, going, and what obstacles they might encounter en route. Evidence is crucial in providing that information.
2.6 RECOMMENDED READING In English Johnson, P.M., A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, Department of Political Science, Auburn, 1994-2004. Keck, M.E., Sikkink, K., Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1998. Porter, R.W. with Hicks, I., Knowledge Utilization and the Process of Policy Formulation: Toward a Framework for Africa, 1995, also at http://pdf.dec.org/pdf_docs/PNABX317.pdf. Reyes, G.E., The Policy Making Process and Models for Public Policy Analysis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, 2001. Scott, C., Measuring up to the Measurement Problem. The Role of Statistics in Evidence-Based Policy-Making, London School of Economics, London, 2005, shorter version at http://www.paris21.org/documents/2086.pdf. Sutton, R., The Policy Process: an Overview, Overseas Development Institute, London, 1999. On the specific role of civil society organisations in influencing policy: Pollard, A., and Court, J., How Civil Society Organisations Use Evidence to Influence Policy Processes: A literature review, Overseas Development Institute, London, 2005. In French Boussaguet, L., Jacquot, S., and Ravinet, P., eds., Dictionnaire des Politiques Publiques, Presses de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, Paris, 2004. Conseil Scientifique de l’Evaluation, Petit Guide de l’Evaluation des Politiques Publiques, La Documentation Française, Paris, 1996. Lemieux, V., L’Etude des Politiques Publiques, 2e edition, Les Acteurs et leur Pouvoir, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Canada, 2002. Meny, Y., Thoenig, J.-C., Politiques Publiques, Imprimerie des Presses Universitaires de France, Vendôme, 1989. Muller, P., Surel, Y., L’Analyse des Politiques Publiques, Editions Montchrestien, Paris, 1998.
1. Porter, R.W. with Hicks, I., Knowledge Utilization and the Process of Policy Formulation: Toward a Framework for Africa, 1995, p. 8. 2. Ibid, p. 9. 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. 4. See Johnson, P.M., A Glossary of Political Economy Terms, Department of Political Science, Auburn, 1994-2004. 5. For further information, see Lemieux, V., L’Etude des Politiques Publiques, 2e edition, Les Acteurs et leur Pouvoir, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, Canada, 2002. 6. Ibid. 7. Keck, M.E., Sikkink, K. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Cornell University Press, Ithaca and London, 1998. 8. Ibid, p. 8. 9. For further information on this "boomerang effect," ibid. 10. Ibid, pp. 28-29. 11. See Lemieux, V., op.cit. 12. Scott, C., Measuring up to the Measurement Problem. The Role of Statistics in Evidence-Based Policy-Making, London School of Economics, London, 2005, pp.7-8. 13. Ibid, p. 8. 14. Governmental organisations such as national statistical offices (NSOs) can play an extremely important role in collecting data and contributing to evidence-based policy-making, as has been the case in several Metagora activities. However, such agencies and organisations need to answer a certain number of conditions, including legitimacy and efficiency, to do so. For further information, please refer to the "Lessons Learned" document created by Metagora.
|