By Rita Sandoval
In the arena of public policy, decision-making processes are influenced and constrained by a multiplicity of actors, institutional arrangements, and legal frameworks. Since the 1970's there has been a growing interest in establishing models and frameworks to better understand the decision making processes through which public policy is modified and created. Despite the evolution of the scholarship in this field, the frameworks that dominate the study of public policy fails to provide insight into how an actors participation in multiple policy subsystems (commonly referred to as issue areas) effects their actions within each subsystem.
The models of Rationalism and Incrementalism reviewed by Howlett et al. in “Public Policy Decision Making” provide little insight into the interactions between actors across policy subsystems. The Rational model focused on choosing and implementing public policy that was a means to a specific end—a desired public policy outcome. As its name eludes to, the Incremental Model refers to the processes that seeks to evolve public policy by implementing gradual shifts in policy without challenging a policy’s foundations. These models have fallen out of popularity due to their limited ability to help explain the actions of the various actors in the decision-making process.
As Jason Rochford states in his precis, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) seeks to further the understanding of the decision making processes by acknowledging and attempting to explain the role of actors beyond the state bureaucracy. I find the ACF to be insightful in understanding how actors within coalitions interact with each other and the state in a particular policy subsystem. However, the ACF does not recognize how actors interact across subsystems. The framework assumes that the actors, and the subsequent coalitions they form, only participate in one subsystem or perhaps less naively their participation in one system does not effect their engagement in another. In reality, strong advocacy coalitions purposefully participate in multiple subsystems to varying degrees.
An example of this type of actor would be the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is first and foremost a union. However, the ACLU has expanded its activities over time and has become a formidable force in the decision making processes related to public policy and legal reforms. The Union currently engages in advocacy efforts in a plethora of policy American subsystems, including labor regulation, immigrant rights, criminal justice and voting. The ACLU is just one actor, which represents a large coalition of collectives and individuals, that operates in more than one policy subsystem. The ACF does not account for how actors engaged in multiple subsystems negotiate the political climate in which they function, their organizational limits, and potential conflict of interest. Exploring the ways in which actors and coalitions negotiate their interactions between subsystems is central to understanding how and why actors engage in the decision-making processes.
In the arena of public policy, decision-making processes are influenced and constrained by a multiplicity of actors, institutional arrangements, and legal frameworks. Since the 1970's there has been a growing interest in establishing models and frameworks to better understand the decision making processes through which public policy is modified and created. Despite the evolution of the scholarship in this field, the frameworks that dominate the study of public policy fails to provide insight into how an actors participation in multiple policy subsystems (commonly referred to as issue areas) effects their actions within each subsystem.
The models of Rationalism and Incrementalism reviewed by Howlett et al. in “Public Policy Decision Making” provide little insight into the interactions between actors across policy subsystems. The Rational model focused on choosing and implementing public policy that was a means to a specific end—a desired public policy outcome. As its name eludes to, the Incremental Model refers to the processes that seeks to evolve public policy by implementing gradual shifts in policy without challenging a policy’s foundations. These models have fallen out of popularity due to their limited ability to help explain the actions of the various actors in the decision-making process.
As Jason Rochford states in his precis, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) seeks to further the understanding of the decision making processes by acknowledging and attempting to explain the role of actors beyond the state bureaucracy. I find the ACF to be insightful in understanding how actors within coalitions interact with each other and the state in a particular policy subsystem. However, the ACF does not recognize how actors interact across subsystems. The framework assumes that the actors, and the subsequent coalitions they form, only participate in one subsystem or perhaps less naively their participation in one system does not effect their engagement in another. In reality, strong advocacy coalitions purposefully participate in multiple subsystems to varying degrees.
An example of this type of actor would be the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU is first and foremost a union. However, the ACLU has expanded its activities over time and has become a formidable force in the decision making processes related to public policy and legal reforms. The Union currently engages in advocacy efforts in a plethora of policy American subsystems, including labor regulation, immigrant rights, criminal justice and voting. The ACLU is just one actor, which represents a large coalition of collectives and individuals, that operates in more than one policy subsystem. The ACF does not account for how actors engaged in multiple subsystems negotiate the political climate in which they function, their organizational limits, and potential conflict of interest. Exploring the ways in which actors and coalitions negotiate their interactions between subsystems is central to understanding how and why actors engage in the decision-making processes.