by Mammotsa Makhene
Policy makers have through the years, tried to find policy making strategies that are usable and relevant. The stages model of policy making has historically been popular but has also faced many criticisms. In his analysis of the stage model, Rochford shows how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which emerged from the stages model, improved on its predecessor by analysing the decision to ban fracking by the New York State. He qualifies his assertion by acknowledging the limitations of AFC and by not writing off the stages model. In my discussion I will focus on showing how the AFC framework and the incremental approach somewhat compliment each other and speak to some similar basic values.
The incremental or non- comprehensive analysis, simplifies complex problems by comparing policies that have observable differences in terms of outcomes but have relatively small differences with current policies. Comparison of policies that are marginally different and whose outcomes may be hard to differentiate are avoided . This method also uses resources sparingly as it can pull from previous observations of past models making it easier to utilise in the real world as policy changes often take place incrementally and not by huge strides (Lindblohm, 84-5). Due to its simplification, this method may leave out important values or factors, but according to Lindblohm because of varying priorities and preferences of people and agents, most important values have “watchdogs” that ensure their recognition (85).
According to Etzioni, the incremental approach is one of give and take, which requires partisan “mutual adjustment”. Failure to reach such an adjustment or compromise often lead to these decisions being altered or blocked later (387). More succinctly put, “The measure of a good decision, is the decision makers’ agreement about it” (Etzioni, 387).
As per Jenkins- Smith et al, policies often reflect the compromised beliefs of one or more coalitions. Put in another way, policies may reflect the beliefs of those who were responsible for their design.(192). As coalitions are formed to strengthen and further the cause/s of a particular group, it would not be presumptuous to assume that decisions or policies agreed upon by varying coalitions, often entail compromise and eventual changes as opposed to great strides. This is in fact not too far removed from certain aspects of policy formation in the incremental approach.
Add to this, the incremental approach fits well into the multiple pressure pattern. As most policy changes are only incremental and decisions made are also only incremental, it is easier for one group to anticipate the reaction of the next group (Lindblohm, 86). Coalitions often anticipate the next moves that various opposing groups will make in planning their own strategies. In this way the incremental approach overlaps and complements the AFC approach.
Both models require cooperation and compromise from various parties in order for the policy to be implemented or setup. While the AFC approach does not explicitly state that most values or ideas have watchdogs, the fact that each coalition does not have the same agenda, means that more likely than not, a varying amount of interests will be considered in this approach. For Lindblohm, a smart and realistic policy maker can only expect their policy to have some of his or her desired outcome (86). Partisan adjustments are thus a more realistic way of achieving goals as both sides understand that their desired outcome will not be fully reached. In a similar fashion people form coalitions as they are aware of others who may have opposing ideas and beliefs and thus want to strengthen their cause. The mere formation of a coalition alludes to the fact that those in the coalition are cognizant that they will have to face opposing forces and compromises may need to take place.
In conclusion, the argument made by Rochford for the AFC approach is one that I tend to agree with. By pointing out possible overlaps and similarities that this approach has with the incremental approach, I hope to further critically analyze the AFC approach and possible complementary approaches.
----------------
Works Cited
Policy makers have through the years, tried to find policy making strategies that are usable and relevant. The stages model of policy making has historically been popular but has also faced many criticisms. In his analysis of the stage model, Rochford shows how the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), which emerged from the stages model, improved on its predecessor by analysing the decision to ban fracking by the New York State. He qualifies his assertion by acknowledging the limitations of AFC and by not writing off the stages model. In my discussion I will focus on showing how the AFC framework and the incremental approach somewhat compliment each other and speak to some similar basic values.
The incremental or non- comprehensive analysis, simplifies complex problems by comparing policies that have observable differences in terms of outcomes but have relatively small differences with current policies. Comparison of policies that are marginally different and whose outcomes may be hard to differentiate are avoided . This method also uses resources sparingly as it can pull from previous observations of past models making it easier to utilise in the real world as policy changes often take place incrementally and not by huge strides (Lindblohm, 84-5). Due to its simplification, this method may leave out important values or factors, but according to Lindblohm because of varying priorities and preferences of people and agents, most important values have “watchdogs” that ensure their recognition (85).
According to Etzioni, the incremental approach is one of give and take, which requires partisan “mutual adjustment”. Failure to reach such an adjustment or compromise often lead to these decisions being altered or blocked later (387). More succinctly put, “The measure of a good decision, is the decision makers’ agreement about it” (Etzioni, 387).
As per Jenkins- Smith et al, policies often reflect the compromised beliefs of one or more coalitions. Put in another way, policies may reflect the beliefs of those who were responsible for their design.(192). As coalitions are formed to strengthen and further the cause/s of a particular group, it would not be presumptuous to assume that decisions or policies agreed upon by varying coalitions, often entail compromise and eventual changes as opposed to great strides. This is in fact not too far removed from certain aspects of policy formation in the incremental approach.
Add to this, the incremental approach fits well into the multiple pressure pattern. As most policy changes are only incremental and decisions made are also only incremental, it is easier for one group to anticipate the reaction of the next group (Lindblohm, 86). Coalitions often anticipate the next moves that various opposing groups will make in planning their own strategies. In this way the incremental approach overlaps and complements the AFC approach.
Both models require cooperation and compromise from various parties in order for the policy to be implemented or setup. While the AFC approach does not explicitly state that most values or ideas have watchdogs, the fact that each coalition does not have the same agenda, means that more likely than not, a varying amount of interests will be considered in this approach. For Lindblohm, a smart and realistic policy maker can only expect their policy to have some of his or her desired outcome (86). Partisan adjustments are thus a more realistic way of achieving goals as both sides understand that their desired outcome will not be fully reached. In a similar fashion people form coalitions as they are aware of others who may have opposing ideas and beliefs and thus want to strengthen their cause. The mere formation of a coalition alludes to the fact that those in the coalition are cognizant that they will have to face opposing forces and compromises may need to take place.
In conclusion, the argument made by Rochford for the AFC approach is one that I tend to agree with. By pointing out possible overlaps and similarities that this approach has with the incremental approach, I hope to further critically analyze the AFC approach and possible complementary approaches.
----------------
Works Cited
- Forester, John, “Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through,” Public Administration Review, 44(1), 1984.
- Lindblohm, Charles E., “The Science of ‘Muddling Through’,” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 1959.
- Sabatier and Weible, Chapter 6: “The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundation, Evolution, and Ongoing Research,” by Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Daniel Nohrstedt, Christopher M. Weible and Paul A. Sabatier.