By Samantha Cocco-Klein
In his piece on Advocacy Coalition Frameworks, Jason Rochford asks us to compare and contrast the different models of policy decision-making with a view to identifying their strengths and weaknesses. In order to do this, however, it is important to ask ‘by what criteria should they be judged’. Is the value of a model derived solely from its ability to accurately simplify and describe the messy reality of the policy process (which few models have achieved to date) – or should its merit be based on something more? As a policy practitioner, my instinct is to look for models that provide a starting point for influencing or improving the decision-making process. Taking up the tenets of Harold Lasswell, one of the pioneers of policy science, I would argue that the models should also be judged by their usefulness to policy practitioners for solving problems in the real world (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009).
This precis will examine some of the major models of policy decision-making, examining how well they meet the two criteria of providing 1) an accurate and accessible description of the policy process, and 2) guidance for practitioners looking to influence policy decisions on pressing social challenges. For the later, the challenge in mind is child poverty in developing countries, grounded in the assumption that a strong practical model should work across settings. The examples of how the models have and continue to influence the design of policies to reduce child poverty in developing countries come from my personal experience working with international child rights organizations.
The first attempts to map the policy process were done by Laswell in the 1950s. He described a decision process, in which policy is “proposed, examined, carried out and perhaps terminated.” This foundational concept, describing a “delineated, sequential policy process”, influenced a generation of researchers (deLeon, 1999). The approach was highly rational, assuming that policy could be improved by providing the right information at the right time to decision-makers. For child rights practitioners, the stages provide clear windows in which to use to influence decision-making, and this approach lives on in studies measuring child poverty, the preparation of briefs reviewing and recommending policy options, and the push to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of poverty reduction programs. Improving policy for children becomes a matter of providing the right ‘inputs’ within a linear process.
By the late 1980s, however, the stages model was losing its luster. As noted by Herbert Simon, there were simply too many hurdles in decision-making for it ever to be fully ‘rational’. Decision-makers face time and cognitive limits in considering all of the possible options, so instead they focus on those which are feasible or likely, with pre-decisions based on ideological, professional or cultural biases. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). Decisions are carried out in the midst of “organizational rivalries, completion and turf struggles” within and between government bureaucracies (Forester, 1984). Building on these observations, Charles Lindblom proposed as an alternative, the incremental model, in which policy makers ‘muddle through’ the policy process based on incomplete analysis and political bargaining. In this model, the best approach to decision-making is to build up from the current situation in small steps, learning from trial and error and prioritizing political agreement. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). This inherently conservative approach, which never strays far from the status quo, is evident in work on child poverty in multiple contexts. In development circles, it is seen in efforts to remove conditionalities from cash transfers to families, not a bold new solutions to ending child poverty, but instead an incremental, ‘do what one can’ approach. (Forester, 1984).
The ‘incremental model’ has been criticized for its lack of goal orientation, promotion of short-sighted solutions and lack of analytic usefulness. But it highlights a critical truth of policy making, that it is highly dependent on context and invariably influenced by the actors involved. Noting this, John Forester proposed that the rational approach and the incremental one are both options for policy-makers, and exist among a repertoire of strategies. The type of decision-making ‘style’ to use is contingent on the number of actors involved, the organizational setting and its openness to external influences, the completeness of information and the amount of time available. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). For international child rights practitioners, operating in situations that range from open democracies to closed, totalitarian systems and everything in between, the notion that policy decision-making is not a one-size fits all is not new. In some situations, long-term evidence-based campaigns with a broad participation by civil society organizations influence policies, in other situations ‘just-in-time’ information provided straight to decision-makers behind closed doors has greater impact – and may be the only feasible option. This perspective is gaining ground in international development circles, under the title of ‘doing aid differently’ and ‘thinking and working politically’, which ask for a more informed and nuanced approach to policy making for development than the traditional, linear model still widely used.[1]
The Advocacy Coalition Framework takes the variables described by Forester, including actors and settings, and develops this into a more comprehensive framework “to provide a shared research platform that enables analysts to work together in describing, explaining and sometimes predicting phenomena within and across contexts.” (Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A., 2014) In this quote it is clear that ACF aims to meet the first criteria of providing an accurate and clear description of the policy process – and one which is far more comprehensive than earlier models. However, the quote leaves it questionable as to whether or not it has been developed with practitioners in mind. As the initial post cover the model in greater detail, I will focus on two novel aspects that can provide some type of guidance. The first is the idea of learning, that the belief systems of actors, including their understanding of a problem and its solutions along with the use of political strategies to achieve those objectives, changes over time. Forums provide a place for this learning to occur – and can be used by practitioners to influence and improve policy making for children. I have seen this approach in practice by UNICEF in advancing Public Finance for Children, bringing together officials from social sector ministries with their counterparts from Ministries of Finance to ‘learn’ together from experiences in theirs and neighboring countries. Another novel aspect is an articulation of the nature and causes of change in policy, which can be large or small in magnitude. The four pathways to change can be attributed to 1) external sources, including shocks and disasters outside the control of the policy actors, 2) internal events, such as policy crises or scandals, that heighten beliefs and attention to government programs, 3) through policy-oriented learning, often a slower and more incremental process, and 4) negotiated agreement between conflicting parties facilitated by collaborative institutions. (Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A., 2014) For practitioners looking to end child poverty, each of these pathways provides an opening for influencing policy. The tendency is to rely on the last two options, with studiously apolitical child rights practitioners able to position themselves as neutral institutions who can broker agreements in the best interest of children. Practitioners, however, often struggle to respond effectively to the first two, which require constant scanning and a nimble response.
As this precis has shown, almost all of the models have proven relevant to child rights practitioners, even those that are considered long out-of-date by policy researchers. This highlights the continued need for simplified tools and approaches directly applicable to social problems. On the other hand, policy science struggles to provide this guidance due to the sheer complexity of the policy process. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). In conclusion, no model yet has met the two criteria – and there is still a wide open space for pragmatic researchers and thinkers to provide analysis and tools to practitioners to influence and improve the policy process.
[1] Green, D. (2016) Where have we got to on adaptive learning, thinking and working politically, doing development differently etc? Getting beyond the People’s Front of Judea, https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/where-have-we-got-to-on-adaptive-learning-thinking-and-working-politically-doing-development-differently-etc-getting-beyond-the-peoples-front-of-judea/
In his piece on Advocacy Coalition Frameworks, Jason Rochford asks us to compare and contrast the different models of policy decision-making with a view to identifying their strengths and weaknesses. In order to do this, however, it is important to ask ‘by what criteria should they be judged’. Is the value of a model derived solely from its ability to accurately simplify and describe the messy reality of the policy process (which few models have achieved to date) – or should its merit be based on something more? As a policy practitioner, my instinct is to look for models that provide a starting point for influencing or improving the decision-making process. Taking up the tenets of Harold Lasswell, one of the pioneers of policy science, I would argue that the models should also be judged by their usefulness to policy practitioners for solving problems in the real world (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009).
This precis will examine some of the major models of policy decision-making, examining how well they meet the two criteria of providing 1) an accurate and accessible description of the policy process, and 2) guidance for practitioners looking to influence policy decisions on pressing social challenges. For the later, the challenge in mind is child poverty in developing countries, grounded in the assumption that a strong practical model should work across settings. The examples of how the models have and continue to influence the design of policies to reduce child poverty in developing countries come from my personal experience working with international child rights organizations.
The first attempts to map the policy process were done by Laswell in the 1950s. He described a decision process, in which policy is “proposed, examined, carried out and perhaps terminated.” This foundational concept, describing a “delineated, sequential policy process”, influenced a generation of researchers (deLeon, 1999). The approach was highly rational, assuming that policy could be improved by providing the right information at the right time to decision-makers. For child rights practitioners, the stages provide clear windows in which to use to influence decision-making, and this approach lives on in studies measuring child poverty, the preparation of briefs reviewing and recommending policy options, and the push to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of poverty reduction programs. Improving policy for children becomes a matter of providing the right ‘inputs’ within a linear process.
By the late 1980s, however, the stages model was losing its luster. As noted by Herbert Simon, there were simply too many hurdles in decision-making for it ever to be fully ‘rational’. Decision-makers face time and cognitive limits in considering all of the possible options, so instead they focus on those which are feasible or likely, with pre-decisions based on ideological, professional or cultural biases. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). Decisions are carried out in the midst of “organizational rivalries, completion and turf struggles” within and between government bureaucracies (Forester, 1984). Building on these observations, Charles Lindblom proposed as an alternative, the incremental model, in which policy makers ‘muddle through’ the policy process based on incomplete analysis and political bargaining. In this model, the best approach to decision-making is to build up from the current situation in small steps, learning from trial and error and prioritizing political agreement. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). This inherently conservative approach, which never strays far from the status quo, is evident in work on child poverty in multiple contexts. In development circles, it is seen in efforts to remove conditionalities from cash transfers to families, not a bold new solutions to ending child poverty, but instead an incremental, ‘do what one can’ approach. (Forester, 1984).
The ‘incremental model’ has been criticized for its lack of goal orientation, promotion of short-sighted solutions and lack of analytic usefulness. But it highlights a critical truth of policy making, that it is highly dependent on context and invariably influenced by the actors involved. Noting this, John Forester proposed that the rational approach and the incremental one are both options for policy-makers, and exist among a repertoire of strategies. The type of decision-making ‘style’ to use is contingent on the number of actors involved, the organizational setting and its openness to external influences, the completeness of information and the amount of time available. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). For international child rights practitioners, operating in situations that range from open democracies to closed, totalitarian systems and everything in between, the notion that policy decision-making is not a one-size fits all is not new. In some situations, long-term evidence-based campaigns with a broad participation by civil society organizations influence policies, in other situations ‘just-in-time’ information provided straight to decision-makers behind closed doors has greater impact – and may be the only feasible option. This perspective is gaining ground in international development circles, under the title of ‘doing aid differently’ and ‘thinking and working politically’, which ask for a more informed and nuanced approach to policy making for development than the traditional, linear model still widely used.[1]
The Advocacy Coalition Framework takes the variables described by Forester, including actors and settings, and develops this into a more comprehensive framework “to provide a shared research platform that enables analysts to work together in describing, explaining and sometimes predicting phenomena within and across contexts.” (Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A., 2014) In this quote it is clear that ACF aims to meet the first criteria of providing an accurate and clear description of the policy process – and one which is far more comprehensive than earlier models. However, the quote leaves it questionable as to whether or not it has been developed with practitioners in mind. As the initial post cover the model in greater detail, I will focus on two novel aspects that can provide some type of guidance. The first is the idea of learning, that the belief systems of actors, including their understanding of a problem and its solutions along with the use of political strategies to achieve those objectives, changes over time. Forums provide a place for this learning to occur – and can be used by practitioners to influence and improve policy making for children. I have seen this approach in practice by UNICEF in advancing Public Finance for Children, bringing together officials from social sector ministries with their counterparts from Ministries of Finance to ‘learn’ together from experiences in theirs and neighboring countries. Another novel aspect is an articulation of the nature and causes of change in policy, which can be large or small in magnitude. The four pathways to change can be attributed to 1) external sources, including shocks and disasters outside the control of the policy actors, 2) internal events, such as policy crises or scandals, that heighten beliefs and attention to government programs, 3) through policy-oriented learning, often a slower and more incremental process, and 4) negotiated agreement between conflicting parties facilitated by collaborative institutions. (Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C.M., & Sabatier, P.A., 2014) For practitioners looking to end child poverty, each of these pathways provides an opening for influencing policy. The tendency is to rely on the last two options, with studiously apolitical child rights practitioners able to position themselves as neutral institutions who can broker agreements in the best interest of children. Practitioners, however, often struggle to respond effectively to the first two, which require constant scanning and a nimble response.
As this precis has shown, almost all of the models have proven relevant to child rights practitioners, even those that are considered long out-of-date by policy researchers. This highlights the continued need for simplified tools and approaches directly applicable to social problems. On the other hand, policy science struggles to provide this guidance due to the sheer complexity of the policy process. (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009). In conclusion, no model yet has met the two criteria – and there is still a wide open space for pragmatic researchers and thinkers to provide analysis and tools to practitioners to influence and improve the policy process.
[1] Green, D. (2016) Where have we got to on adaptive learning, thinking and working politically, doing development differently etc? Getting beyond the People’s Front of Judea, https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/where-have-we-got-to-on-adaptive-learning-thinking-and-working-politically-doing-development-differently-etc-getting-beyond-the-peoples-front-of-judea/