What is policy

A plan of action. Includes identifying a problem and then a viable

solution
A set of policies in a specific area (example the environment)
Outputs of the political process - the formal or stated decisions
of government bodies - the result
The political decision-making process, where actors decide the
content of political decisions, lobbying, bargaining between
parties, persuading voters
Connected to policy-area: the substantive and jurisdictional
area that the policy is related to, financial regulation, labour
market or health care, foreign policy
Policy process: linked series of decisions through which government
policy is made
Also: the linkage between the intentions, actions and impacts of
government action

Important issues for the policy making: rationality (are demands

ignored, do politicians ignore major problems --> lack of rationality),
power, democracy, efficiency (complicated process), bureaucrats own
interests
Stages of policy making process
1 Agenda setting: setting the political agenda - what should be
focused on, one of the most powerful roles to play, key actors:
government, parties, bureaucracy, interest groups, social
movements, media
2 Policy formulation: translation into specific and detailed
recommendations, needs experts, key actors: officials, advisers,
politicians, consulted groups

Policy adoption: formal acceptance of a policy, key actor:

legislature
4 Policy implementation: policy is carried out. Difference
between what politicians say it will do and what it in the end
does - (power struggle, lack of funds), key actors: bureaucracy,
sometimes also industry self-regulation
1 Evaluation: review of whether policy goals are attained - feeds
into the next policy-making process, did it work or did it not, key
actors: bureaucrats, commissions, consultants, media (powerful
evaluator)
Theory of policy making: advocacy coalition networks and
multiple streams
Sabatier: advocacy coalition network
Starting point: critique of rationalist-functional model
Policy making is not rational reaction to changing circumstances
Something needs to interpreted as a political problem to become
a political problem
Formal institutional actors are not necessarily the most
important political actors, according to the state legislator or
executive important institution. Policies often created by various
slightly more informal institutions come together and create
policy
Critics: advocacy coalition framework
1 A problem needs to be interpreted as a political problem - in the
model it is not clear how policy gets on the agenda
2 Not only political actors from formal political institution also
other agents are part of the policy system
3 Policy is not only formed within the structures of government
4 Easton focuses a lot on input side - ignores the power of
expertise, certain groups are specialised in certain areas of
politics and are crucial to the policy making process
Critics: Multiple streams problem
1 Model does not show
Basic arguments:
1

Specialization: The complexity of modern society and the

technical nature of most policy problems leads to pressures for
specialization, the complexity = very dependant on bureaucrats
that are more specialised and knowledgeable in specific policy
areas

Policy subsystems: Policymaking takes place in policy

subsystems of actors from different institutions with long-term
interest in a policy area, e.g. politicians, bureaucrats, interest
groups, social movements, scientists, etc. In finance a policy
subsystem: head of ministry of business/economic regulate
banks, the general director --> creating policies for years and
years= knowledgeable, certain politicians who have invested

time and resources in understanding this area of politics,

academics who provide input to policy making, interest groups,
maybe even social movements. We should focus on people who
are part of process and not only the institutions
3

Policy beliefs: Policy communities employ shared beliefs both

deep core (basic values, causal assumptions, e.g. economic
(wo)man) and more secondary and policy-specific beliefs. An
example: deep core belief in finance: the market is efficient, and
a secondary policy-specific belief = people act as rational actors
and respond economically efficient for themselves

External constraints and opportunities: Both relatively stable and

more dynamic (e.g. amount of oil vs. price of oil, amount of
houses vs. price of houses but also sociocultural values and
constitutional structures).

A number of advocacy coalitions composed of actors that share

normative and causal beliefs and that act together to further
their policies using their resources (money, expertise, legal
authority, etc.) and a common strategy

Policy brokers that try to mediate between advocacy coalitions

to create compromise typically top ranking politicians or civil
servants

Through policy learning, coalitions over time change their beliefs

incrementally (often) or fundamentally (rare) learning may be
based on cognitive activity in the coalition or as a result of real
world changes.

The framework rejects the view that actors are primarily

motivated by short-term interest instead they are motivated by
their core beliefs

Dodd-Frank Deal: Context: reform in wake of financial crisis - signed

into law July 2010 - the largest reform of financial regulation since the
New Deal.
Financial regulation as policy area: a highly technical area, a lot
of revolving doors between industry and the political system, heavily
lobbied policy-area - regulation has concentrated costs for firms, but
diffuse benefits for consumers, taxpayers
Advocacy coalition- case Dodd-Frank

Approach: Preservationist, stabilize the system strong connections

to financial industry

Obama White House team: Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner,

Rahm Emanuel, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers

Regulatory agencies (e.g. the Fed, FDIC, SEC, etc.)

Congress: Senate and House committees, notably Barney Frank and

Christopher Dodd (both Democrats)

Enjoyed support from large Wall Street firms (that spent $4 billion
on lobbying between 1998 and 2010)

A new coalition of critical voices across party lines started to form

that demanded more aggressive reform:

Individual senators and congress members

About 250 consumer and labour organisations

Policy entrepreneurs

Received some support from White House to increase legitimacy of

White House policy approach

Outcome:
Congress and White House brokered a compromise between

contending groups
In some areas financial industry interest dominated, in others policy

and entrepreneurs and grass roots

Kingdom: Multiple streams model
Main points:
What makes people in and around government attend to some

subjects and not others

How do issues get attention from policy makers

When does a policy idea "have its time"

The agenda: the list of subjects to which government officials and people
outside government are paying some serious attention at any one time
Government agenda: subjects that are officials and people in
government are interested in
Decision agenda: the subset of questions subject to government
decision
The policy entrepreneur aims to move policy idea to the decision
agenda
Three independent streams:
1 Problems: what society feels need to be done something about, often
through focus on events (9/11, Katrina, financial crisis) indicators
(government or think tank) and feedback (information on
performance, evaluation)
2 Policies: the primeval soup of policy ideas, a bunch of ideas floating
around in society --> - success depends in technical, cultural,

economic and political viability. Solutions are looking for problems?

The idea is out there and may be picked up later if the time is right
Politics: the political climate and the national mood - elections,
interest group pressure, media coverage, polls

Significant change most often happens when the three streams meet they are joined by policy entrepreneurs
They often meet when a window of opportunity arises, which happens in
either politics, or problem-stream
Sometimes predictable (elections) other times unpredictable
Three points for further reflection
1 As policy making is increasingly specialised, knowledge becomes an
important source of power
2 However no actor can singlehandedly control the creation of policy
from idea to implementation, the policy making process is still
characterised by significant inequalities of power
3 There is a very long way from policy idea to final implementation,
opening possibility for ideas being watered down or strengthened by
the processes