DEDALUS - Acervo - FFLCH-FiL 21000004591 Public Policy Theories, Models, and Concepts De An Anthology Daniel C. McCool University of Utah S8D-FFLCH-USP a a PRENTICE HALL, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632wb Eatogagtict reece, agielo gage Paltaing. 1 Meco Duh Editorial production supervision: Judy Hartman Eaiterial director: Charlyce Jones Owen Cover design: DeLuca Design Buyer: Bob Anderson © 1995 ky Prentice Hall, Ine. ‘ATSimon & Schuster Company Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 Allis ear. No prt ofthis book may be ‘reproduced, in any form or by any means, ‘without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America wos 7654321 ISBN 0-13-737867-X Pranvnice-Hatt CANADA INC., Toronto Presmice-Hat (OAMERICANA, S.A. Mexico Prevnce Hat PRIVATE inate, New Delhi Pemvnce-Hat (INC, Tokyo SIMON & SCHUSTER ASIA PIE. 10, Singopore ‘Do Beast, LTDA, Rio de jansiro I dedlicate this book to my parents, Jack W. McCool and Olivia Grace McCool.Preface xi Section1 The Theoretical Foundation of Policy Studies 1 Early Voices 1 Policy Theory Today 6 Definitions 8 Criteria fora Good Theory 12 Thinking Theoretically 18 The Plan of the Book 21 Section 2 The Scope of Participation in Public Policy Making 28 Introduction 28vil, Interest Groups and the Nature of the State David B. Truman 32 Three Types of Pluralism William Kelso 41 The Golden Eva of Interest Group Theory—Its Rise and Passage G. David Garson 55 Introduction: The Comparative Study of Political Elites Robert D. Putnam 63 A Critique of the Elitist Theory of Democracy Jack L. Walker 80 Discussion by Daniel McCool 96 ~ Section 3 The Process of Public Policy Making 105 Introduction 105 The Political System under Stress David Easton 111 Fiscal Behavior of the Modern Democratic State: Public Choice Perspectives and Contributions William C. Mitchell 125 The Science of Muddling Through Charles E. Lindblom 142 Stages of the Policy Process Randall B. Ripley 157 Discussion by Daniel McCool 162 Contents Section 4 Policy Typologies 174 Introduction 174 : t ‘American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory Theodore J. Lowi 177 f Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice ‘Theodore J. Lowi 181 ; Developing Public Policy Theory: Perspectives from Entpirical ery Chabes Jeffrey Miller, Lawrence Mohr, and Bruce Viadeck 201 Typologies of Public Policy: Meaning Construction and the Policy Process Peter J. Steinberger 220 Promoting Policy Theory: Revising the Arenas of Power Robert J. Spitzer 233 Discussion by Daniel McCool 244 Section5 Policy Subsystems 251 Introduction 251 ‘The Subsystem in Perspective J.Leiper Freeman 256 Issue Netwoorks and the Executive Establishment Hugh Heclo 262 Patterns of Influence among Committees, Agencies, and Interest Groups Keith Hamm 288‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein Paul Sabatier 339 Discussion by Daniel McCool 380 Section 6 Conflict and Choice in Policy Theory 390 Introduction: The Age of Dead Ideas? 391 ‘The Future: Theoretical Choices 393 ‘The Contingent Approach 404 Condlusion 406 On the first day of my policy theory class, I pull a toy car out of my brief- case-—a two-inch-long replica of a fancy Italian sports car. “Those of you ‘who know something about cars: What is this?” The students study it. ‘Some look puzzled, but a few are quick to demonstrate their expertise. “It's a Lamborghini,” one of them says. realizing that the difference between a car and @ model of a cari after all, a significant distinction. Next, without realizing it, we begin discussing theoretical validity ormeaning, Then I bring out another toy car, but this one isa very simple model of carved wood. “Is this a model of a Lamborghini?” I ask. Some say yes, oth- xai Preface ‘rs say no, still others say that it could be. “What isthe difference between these two models?” Many answers are offered, usually in reference to spe- cific parts of each car. I then place the two model cars side by side. “The dif- ferences between these two toys provides a lesson in theoretical validity, ‘economy, replication, and generalization. If you are thinking about these models and what they represent, then you are already beginning to theo- rize.” To use a phrase coined by my students, they are beginning to “think theoretically.” Using toys is an unusual way to begin a class in policy theory, But stuc dents are often intimidated by theory, and starting with a lesson that is vi- sually verifiable informs them immediately that it relly does make sense— there is no magic—and they are quite capable of conceptualization. The first lesson of theory is to convince students that they engage in abstraction on an almost daily basis—that they have been thinking theoretically all along. Ball notes that, “Even our most ‘direct’ observations are impregnated with ‘expectations; thus there is no natural dividing line between ‘basic’ or ‘ob servational’ propositions and ‘theoretical’ ones.”" Every generalization, every notation of patterned response, every analogy, isa form of Duncan MacRae points out, “Any public argument for a policy in terms of its expected results implies atleast an intuitive causal model. ..."? By definition theory is abstract, But that does not mean itis irrelevant, other worldly, or too arcane for practical use. Thus the second lesson of the- cory building is that, if the theory has no relevance or usefulness, and cannot be understood, then itis not much of a theory. As Frankfort Nackimias and. ‘Nachmias point out, ”... theory is of practice, and in this sense it will be ac- cepted or rejected. ... In principle there is no contrast between theory and practice’ (1992, 37) ‘Theory has gotten a bad rap, and an important task in any theory course is to convince students that much of what they have heard about theory is not true. The popular misconception of theory is fed by common phrases such as, “Well, that’s how it’s supposed to work in theory, but in re- ality...” It seems that in the popular mind all theory is bad theory. ‘This is especially true in the social sciences. Students with a well-de- veloped need for exactitude quickly become frustrated with social science theory. They want correlations of 99.5 percent, not moderate levels of proba- bility; they can always think of exceptions to any theory offered; they can cite many examples of theories that appear to be lacking in “common sense,” or that merely belabor the obvious. They do, of course, have a point. "Ball, Terence (1975, “Prom Paradigms to Research Toward a Post-Kunnian Polii- cal Science” American Jura of Poa! Since XX Geb) 151-75. ‘MacRae, Duncan (1976). Tie Social Function of Social Seence, New Haven: Yale University Pres. Preece sti Thus, in any theory class, itis best to start not with theory, but with the students’ antagonism to theory—a “theory anxiety” akin to math anxi- ty. Talking with students about this, one quickly discovers they do not like theory because, to phrase it bluntly, itis too theoretical; they prefer policy substance—something that is “real.” The task, then, is to convince students that theory is real—an abstraction of real ‘This book exposes students to a wide variety of real theories and con- cepts of public policy. It begins by providing students with the criteria for evaluating theory. The goal is to help them study theory tion, so they will ultimately discover that theory, even social science theory, can serve as a guide rather than an impediment to reasoned inquiry. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ‘This book is a direct result of my interaction with graduate students in the Executive Master of Public Administration Program at the University of Utah. These students taught me a great deal about teaching theory and about the theories themselves. Once they got the hang of it, they could quickly discern any weaknesses in the theories presented in this book, and they often conceived of revisions to the theories that were insightful and constructive. I am especially grateful for the contribution made by the first executive cohort: Frank Bell, Kathy Hobby, Sheldon Elman, John Harbert, Joanne Milner, Dan Parker, Rosiland McGee, Debbie Wynkoop-Green, June Skollingsberg, Alan Nichols, Terry Holzworth, Ron Daniels, Pat Fleming, and Rayce Tucker. This book is much improved as a result of their sugges: tions. I also received helpful feedback from colleagues Peter Diamond, Susan Olson, F. Ted Hebert, Ibrahim Karawan, and Peri Schwartz-Shea, and from Ira Sharkansky and Donna Gelfand and the following reviewers: ‘Michael E. Kraft, University of Wisconsin-Green Bay; and Jolan F. Whitney, Js, Lincols Land Community College. 1 also want to thank Joiaine Randall and ‘he Center for Public Policy and Administration at the University of Utah. ‘And finally, T am very appreciative of the authors whose work appears in ‘his book. They have, in a very real sense, given us a lot to think about. DCM_ The Pros of abl Pliy Maing j The rcs of Publi Poly Mating Fe icy analysis? And because it will be superior to any other decision-mak } lating for an administrator to seek out a policy analyst whose recent expe- rlgamip’ antics oat ander | __gh oy i ee tainly superior to a futile atter superhuman comprehensiveness. The "This raises again a question only briefly discussed above on the merits Neactlon of the public administrator to the exposition of method doubtless of likemindedness among government administrators. While much of orga- ‘ll be lous a discovery of a new method than a better acquaintance with an nization theory argues the virtues of common values and agreed organiza- ld. But by becoming more conscious of their practice of this method, ad~ { tional objectives, for complex problems in which the root method is inap- oe elrateze might practice it with more skill and know when to extend oF plicable, agencies will want among their own personnel two types of ffectively and sometimes diversification: administrators whose thinking is organized by reference to : policy chains other than those familiar to most members of the organization. and, even more commonly, administrators whose professional or personal values or interests create diversity of view (pethaps coming from different specialties, social classes, geographical areas) so that, even within a single agency, decision-making can be fragmented and parts of the agency can serve as watchdogs for other parts, i STAGES OF THE POLICY PROCESS ‘work given by our view of Se ee Syn capert bath 1 Randall B. Ripley? the present. One's thinkin; \ppropriate policies with respect, say, thereat On ing seat BOP eng eee Sa it a el int oan mental steps taken up to the present. An administrator enjoys an intimate with various nominal labels attached, in order to help organize discussion Knowledge of his past sequences that “outsiders” do not share, and his and analysis. Such stage-oriented discussions do not form the direct basis for thinking and that ofthe “outsider” will consequently be different in ways hypothesizing causal relationships, although such hypotheses may emerge {hat may puzzle both. Both may appear to be talking intelligently, yet each Rather they are rough chronological and logical guides for observers who Inay find the other unsatisfactory. The relevance ofthe policy chain of suc. ‘want to see important activities in some ordered pattern or sequence. Such Tretion is even more clear when an American tres to discuss, say, antitrust ‘organizational helpers are useful and, in fact, essential for anyone trying to policy with a Swiss, fr the chains of policy in the two countries are stk: plow through the complexities of policy making and policy analysis. At best, Riel different and the two individuals consequently have organized their such maps—even with their rough spots and simplifcations—lend some knowledge in quite different ways. ‘arity to the observer /reader/student as he or she grapples with a compl this phenomenon is a barrier to communication, an understanding | cated and sometimes murky set of interactions and processes. of it promises an enrichment of intellectual interaction in policy formulary see no point to repeating a lot of diferent authors’ versio icy Gion, Once the source of difference is understood, it will sometimes be stim- | stages. There are many versions. Most of them have some es. Many analysts agree pretty well on the central activities requirin Instead, [will offer my guide to the stages of the policy process. ne Aa i ens teecicinaenay ome Major Stages ikhas been hae Foy om ircnedite policy questions, dep the tendencies to deci heir E yet mya eforts az though they were the rationa-compredensive method with a 2Pe, 4 Figure 3-4 lays out the basic flow of policy stages, major functional ac- Sy hese ae of theory, Smarty, this sme method is tevitaby resorted toh personal tivities that occur in those stages, and the products that can be expected at Foblemsshne wher eas re pmeand where ese senpeaton oe tach stage if a product is forthcoming, Naturally, a policy process may be besaetd oe seal weet plems are to be solved in the time that can be given % al at any st i a does not guarantee that products cre craigsa freecan team emmtemse ng “ned Savy Sage Eegiminga pres dwt noi , oR acon, the central desi the mchod i that both evaluation and empirical aa 3 market proces ah cndingly Ihave referred to the method elsewhere a5 “the inctemental Se csai shiek ates oes sane aoe alc method” ‘3 Uintty pete eee ooThe Process of Public Pbiry Mating Stages (Functional Activites) ee ‘Roenda seting Perception of ‘protiors Produces: “Agenda of Definition of problem || ————— government Mobization of sup ‘port for inclucing problem on agenda, Allows, [Fomulation andlegt | vation of goals and Poly statements programs eluding goal for Information cotiec- echioverent and de- tion, analysis, and —Preeets | sign of programs) for sissemination ‘echioving them, often ‘Aternatve develop- in ‘Advocacy and coal tion building ‘Compromise, nogoth ation, decision flow of stages, activities, and prod- ‘a policy that is generated and transformed into a viable and ongoing program. “Stages” are the names attached to major aoe soa Suites thet revult in identifiable products if they reach concli- 3 “completed” and s0 lead to the next | The Procs of Puli Policy Maing 19 sion. “Functional activities” are the major subroutines of actions and inter- actions engaged in by policy actors. “Products” are the output, or end re- sult, of any general stage. Agenda setting Somehow the organs of government must decide for some individuals and/or groups to perceive a problem to exist, to de- cide the government should be involved in the problem, to define the prob- lem, and to mobilize support for including the problem on the governmen- ties in several ways. First, different tion of Goals and Programs Not all cation is collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information for purposes of assessing alternatives and projecting likely outcomes and for purposes of persuasion, ‘Alternative development is one of the successor subroutines to the one sion is reached. If the compromise and negotiation process breaks down, no decision is reached,160 ‘The Process of Public Policy Making ‘that might otherwise disagree. lack of specificity and clarity in program design are more it ter of not proliferating details that might also isagreements, and partly itis a matter of time on the part of , since program designs usually appear first in a {ress hundreds, even thousands, of agenda items te. Congress tion by Congress will not change. Program Implementation The next stage (assuming that a policy has been stated and a program created) is program implementation. In order to ‘The Proves of Public Policy Making ry image of “objective” social scientists applying rigorous analytic techniques and Jetting the chips fall where they may. Some of that may transpire. But, as used in this book, evaluation is a much broader concept and refers to the as- sessment of what has happened or, in many cases, what is thought to have happened. The “what” can refer to implementation, to short-run results Decisions about the Future of the Policy and Program The evalua tive processes and conclusions, in all of their diversity, lead to one or more ‘of many decisions about the future (or nonfuture) of the policy and pro- ‘gram being evaluated. The necessity for such decisions means that the cyde ‘an be entered again at any of its major stages. Conceivably, a problem will bbe taken off the agenda either because it has been “solved” or because itis viewed as no longer relevant. Or the nature of its most salient features as an agenda item may be changed. Thus, decisions about the future might reset the cycle to the agenda setting stage. “Those decisions may lead back to policy formulation and legitimation. ments to existing legislation, but they may require some adjustments in pro- gram implementation. Principal Limits on and Utility of a Stage Conception of the Policy Process Remember when looking at the policy process as a succession of stages that any such conception is artificial. It may also not be true to what happens. It has a logical appeal, and itis presented chronologically, but chronologicaloa ‘The Process of Public Poy Making some go throu atany point Zs 1h short, reality is messy. Models, particularly a nice listing of stages with an implied tidy chronology, are not messy. In a collision between tidiness and tuntidiness the analyst must not be so struck by the values of order as to force reality into a model in which it might not it “These are only caveats, however The tity of organizing dau and thoughts about complicated reality in this way is great. It allows to look for patterns and, more important, to explain the causes of different patterns. at any time, ———— DISCUSSION Daniel McCool DawielMeCool Perhaps the greatest omission in the model is the conspicuous blank space labeled “the political system.” Easton tells us this is where the “con ‘The Process of Public Poliy Making 16 version of demands into outputs” occurs. This conversion process is really the heart of what goes on in politics, but the systems model tells us little ‘about causal relationships that shape this conversion. Easton admits that systems model has provoked a great deal of discussion and prompted nu- ‘merous attempts to apply—and improve—the theory” In contrast to systems theory public choice attempts to explain the policy-making process. of public choice are legion (see, ¢g,, Ball 1976; Lyons and Lowery 1989; Petracca 1991; Dunleavy 1992). In a comment that accompa- "ean tring appt fein tens model sda a ee Wee ‘27, For more gneal applcaion of systems thery to public adunietatc, see Shtiannky 1978, recent spin of yteme hry oud