By José Gálvez Contreras,
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy, The New School University
Rochford's comparison of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the stages-heuristic approach is sophisticated and robust, but ultimately, his conclusion still leaves something to be desired. Rochford concludes the stages-heuristic approach is still useful. This is a thought that is only limited to academic circles. For sure, the stages-heuristic provides the necessary direction, clarity, and structure upon which to build a critical analysis of the evolutionary process of public policy-making. The model also follows a logical sequence of stages (agenda setting, policy formation, legitimation, implementation, evaluation, etc.). Nonetheless, as deLeon explicitly points out, the stages-heuristic approach lacks a causal theoretical base, can be overly simplistic and even inaccurate. The policy stages-heuristic process approach does not provide all that is needed in the public policy decision-making process and has served much more just like a guide. Perhaps its value is in understanding operational insights. “Better intelligence leading to better government” is an acceptable alternative to empty theorizing. (Laswell, as quoted in Brunner, 1991)
Aside from the political, economic, social, and technological factors that Rochford describes, one must consider the interests of the various bureaucratic entities that exist in an ecosystem. Neither the ACF nor the stages-heuristic approach take into account the ecosystem of bureaucracy that exists in this environment. In many cases, a state bureaucracy is just as well organized and more influential than the coalitions that the ACF describes. In fact, the ACF emerged out of a search for an alternative to the stages-heuristic approach. This approach resulted as a desire to synthesize the best features of the top-down and bottom-up approaches and also as commitment to incorporate technical information into a more prominent role in the policy process. However, although this approach takes into account far more than just the linear and causal relationship described in the stages-heuristic approach, it recognizes policymaking as a network of actors that includes stakeholders with no expertise in the subject matter, i.e. the vast majority of voters who will weigh in at the polls. For example, electoral politics are also an important consideration in the New York State fracking case study beyond the coalitions that formed. In that sense, the force of electoral politics should not be discounted as an important pressure on the decision-making framework. Ultimately, influencing the decision maker, in this case Governor Cuomo, is much more than just a causal relationship. It involves a complex web of interests that are vying for a limited resource: the decision makers time before a decision must be made.
All in all, from Rochford’s discussion, it can be said that trying to make sense and explain the policy decision making process is not easy. The policy decision making process needs an understanding of the relationships among a complex number of factors in dynamic systems with nested levels of interactions and uncertain inputs and outputs. In the policy decision making process, hundreds of government officials at its various levels and people outside of government with different beliefs and interests interact, and their interactions are entrenched in a community with its own history, geography, and formal and informal institutions. Given the enduring reality that people’s cognitive limitations fundamentally constrain their ability to observe the world fully, it is very difficult for individuals to possibly make sense of a complex, often interactive phenomena and their effects on the public policy.
Ph.D. Student in Public and Urban Policy, The New School University
Rochford's comparison of the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) and the stages-heuristic approach is sophisticated and robust, but ultimately, his conclusion still leaves something to be desired. Rochford concludes the stages-heuristic approach is still useful. This is a thought that is only limited to academic circles. For sure, the stages-heuristic provides the necessary direction, clarity, and structure upon which to build a critical analysis of the evolutionary process of public policy-making. The model also follows a logical sequence of stages (agenda setting, policy formation, legitimation, implementation, evaluation, etc.). Nonetheless, as deLeon explicitly points out, the stages-heuristic approach lacks a causal theoretical base, can be overly simplistic and even inaccurate. The policy stages-heuristic process approach does not provide all that is needed in the public policy decision-making process and has served much more just like a guide. Perhaps its value is in understanding operational insights. “Better intelligence leading to better government” is an acceptable alternative to empty theorizing. (Laswell, as quoted in Brunner, 1991)
Aside from the political, economic, social, and technological factors that Rochford describes, one must consider the interests of the various bureaucratic entities that exist in an ecosystem. Neither the ACF nor the stages-heuristic approach take into account the ecosystem of bureaucracy that exists in this environment. In many cases, a state bureaucracy is just as well organized and more influential than the coalitions that the ACF describes. In fact, the ACF emerged out of a search for an alternative to the stages-heuristic approach. This approach resulted as a desire to synthesize the best features of the top-down and bottom-up approaches and also as commitment to incorporate technical information into a more prominent role in the policy process. However, although this approach takes into account far more than just the linear and causal relationship described in the stages-heuristic approach, it recognizes policymaking as a network of actors that includes stakeholders with no expertise in the subject matter, i.e. the vast majority of voters who will weigh in at the polls. For example, electoral politics are also an important consideration in the New York State fracking case study beyond the coalitions that formed. In that sense, the force of electoral politics should not be discounted as an important pressure on the decision-making framework. Ultimately, influencing the decision maker, in this case Governor Cuomo, is much more than just a causal relationship. It involves a complex web of interests that are vying for a limited resource: the decision makers time before a decision must be made.
All in all, from Rochford’s discussion, it can be said that trying to make sense and explain the policy decision making process is not easy. The policy decision making process needs an understanding of the relationships among a complex number of factors in dynamic systems with nested levels of interactions and uncertain inputs and outputs. In the policy decision making process, hundreds of government officials at its various levels and people outside of government with different beliefs and interests interact, and their interactions are entrenched in a community with its own history, geography, and formal and informal institutions. Given the enduring reality that people’s cognitive limitations fundamentally constrain their ability to observe the world fully, it is very difficult for individuals to possibly make sense of a complex, often interactive phenomena and their effects on the public policy.