Module 10.

The Public Policy Process

Module 10. Outline

A. Definition of Public Policy and the Public Policy Process

B. The Objectives of Public Policy

C. The Forms of Public Policy

D. The Public Policy Process: Theory and Structure

E. Models of the Public Policy Process

1. The Classical Democratic Model
2. Group Equilibrium Model
3. The Official Elite Model
4. Business as a Dominant Interest Group Model
5. Other Special Interest Group Models
6. Rational Models

Module 10. Text

Public policy refers to the decisions, actions, and inactions of government and other
public and quasi-public institutions, usually formalized in laws, programs, standards, and
guidelines which “operationalize” the goals and principles of a society. Through the
public policy process, individuals, intermediate organizations (interest groups, NGOs and
other organizations), political parties, corporations, etc.) and governmental bodies and
officials interact to (1) express these goals and principles, (2) develop an agenda of public
concern, (3) define the content and form of public policy, and (4) specify the means by
which public policy will be attained.
The central, but not exclusive, arena within which the public policy process is
played out is the formal structure of our political and governmental institutions.
However, public policy also arises directly or indirectly in the actions of other public and
quasi-public institutions, such as schools, universities, and corporations, and loosely-knit
social groups, such as social classes and minority and religious groups. But politics and
government remain the center stage of public policy and it is here where the main
business of public policy making is transacted.

The Objectives of Public Policy

The primary purpose of public policy is to “operationalize” the goals and principles
of a society. These goals and principles evolve out of the history and tradition of a
society and thus have close ties to the society's underlying cultural system.
In most societies, there is nothing particularly surprising or profound in their
national goals. Societies consistently seek social stability, national security, a high and
rising standard of living, equality of opportunity, political among their most important
societal objectives. Many societies also seek freedom, justice, and equality of outcomes
and other goals. However, within any society, we often see sharp divisions over the
relative ranking and operational meaning of these goals. For example, we can probably
find near-universal agreement on the importance of achieving "equality" in our society,
but individual segments of the society do not agree on whether the term means "equality
of opportunity" or "equality of results."
One of the purposes of public policy becomes resolving differences in perspective
so as to enable the formation of coherent and politically acceptable public policy in a
variety of social welfare areas, including those that have considerable impact on business.
Similarly, societies want both national security and a healthy economy. But we
understand that large defense expenditures can draw away from economic development
programs and lead to budget deficits with potentially damaging consequences for the
economy. This awareness often engenders a national security vs. economic growth
debate - "guns vs. butter" - with national budget.
Were the ranking and interpretation of national goals not enough to confound the
public policy makers, both can shift over time, frustrating efforts to establish consistent,
long-term public policy goals in a particular area. One area that has seen major shifts in
the recent past has been the interpretation of what constitutes a healthy economy - growth
vs. debt reduction, inflation vs. unemployment, protectionism vs. open global markets,
etc. In sum, the goals of any society at best give a general outline, but not precise
direction to public policy.
While national goals are important in setting general goals for public policy, public
policy's deepest roots are found in the cultural system which underlies the structure of the
society. The norms, values, and beliefs therein give rise to a set of principles which form
the basis for public policy.
Previous modules described some of the underlying principles that characterize the
corporate social-cultural, economic, and political-legal environments respectively. Public
policy in many respects represents the translation of these abstract principles into explicit
legal constructions, such as laws to protect the belief in the sanctity of private property,
programs to promote employment for as many people as possible, and standards and
guidelines to ensure access to clean air and water. However, some principles, such as
individualism, the work ethic, and private production are expressed more implicitly than
explicitly in public policy. Whether implicit or explicit, few if any of these principles
give absolutely clear guides for action.
As in the case with societal goals, substantial room remains for preference ranking
and interpretation of societal principles. For example, the relative ranking of
individualism vs. paternalism pervades the debate over establishment of social welfare
programs, employment policy, and consumer protection legislation. Similarly, the
meaning of "freedom" in the context of implementing a variety of labor laws is subject to
a wide spectrum of interpretation.
Because of this latitude, considerable energy of public policy makers and those
who seek to influence public policy is spent in the business of interpreting and ranking
these same goals and principles. For example, as a legislature is deciding how to allocate
resources between national defense and social welfare, an individual defense contractor
or legislator will be urging that a part of the budget intended for national defense be spent
on extending an existing weapons production program. Simultaneously, a milk producers
association and a number of legislators may be stressing a child's right to good nutrition,
thereby hoping to maintain a milk subsidy in the school lunch program. In the effort to
understand and express societal goals and principles and their prevailing ranking and
interpretation resides the main substance of public policy.

The Forms of Public Policy

As noted above, all that is public policy is not limited to be specific actions of
governmental bodies. There are certain implicit norms and principles of conduct which
have not taken legal form because:
-they are so generally accepted as to make formalization unnecessary
-their substance and application is so broad or general as to make legal
specification, interpretation, and adjudication extremely difficult
-the cost of enforcement is too great enforcement would require the
violation of higher values in the society, e.g., those embodied in the first
amendment to the Constitution.
Law is the explicit, formal statement of a society's principles and norms in the form
of binding rules of conduct, enforceable by governmental authority. A recent example on
the translation of an implicit principles into an explicit prohibition is found in our
treatment of the ethical conduct of American corporations in overseas business dealings.
For many years, bribery was outlawed in the United States, but there were no legal
prohibitions against payment of overseas bribes, except that they could not be deducted
as a legitimate business expense for tax purposes. The fact that the general public still
opposed all bribery in principle was dramatized by the outrage at the revelation in the
1970s of the extent of overseas bribery by American companies, and the subsequent US
public policy decision to formalize this principle in the Foreign Corrupt Practices of
1978.
In certain instances specific guidelines and standards, often of a quantifiable nature,
are established by legislative bodies or governmental agencies to make even more
explicit the intentions of public policy. For example, in order to leave no uncertainty as
to the government's commitment to clean air, legislatures throughout Europe have
established a precise schedule of auto emission standards that had to be met by various
sized cars. Occasionally, However, public policy is ambiguous as to whether guidelines
and standards are intended to be general objectives, as the term guidelines implies, or
hard and fast standards.

The Public Policy Process: Theory and Structure

The formal process by which public policy is created in our society is defined by
a country’s constitution and system of government. In the electoral process, eligible
voters of the society elect political officials to make laws in the legislative branch. In
turn, these laws are enforced and implemented in the executive branch where an elected
executive--mayor, governor, or president in the US system (or the Prime Minister in a
parliamentary system)--oversees a bureaucracy of hired government officials headed by
Ministers who are considered as members of the “Cabinet.” The judicial branch is
available to interpret statutes, resolve disputes, and mete out appropriate punishment to
law violators. The special nature of certain categorizes of governmental responsibility
has led to the creation of a fourth branch of government -- what are called administrative
or regulatory agencies -- in which these three functions are combined. Two types of
regulatory commissions have evolved ion most countries--the first regulating a single
industry, the second regulating a particular function in all industries.
One important feature of public policy making in a democratic society is the
committee system. Because of the complex nature of law-making, the formulation of
public policy in the legislative branch at the state and federal level typically involves the
extensive use of specialized committees. These committees are usually chaired by a
senior legislator with their membership roughly representative of the political party
distribution in the body as a whole. In these committees, proposed legislation - a "bill" -
is initially reviewed, analyzed, and debated in considerable detail prior to being sent to
the full legislative body for final debate and a vote.

If a bill passes in the legislature and is signed into law, it becomes the
responsibility of the executive branch and administrative agencies to interpret the intent
of the law and formulate specific plans and actions for its implementation if they are not
already clearly spelled out in the bill. Historically, bills left considerable latitude for
executive interpretation of legislative intent. With the growing power of legislative
bodies, the considerable expertise in legislative staffs, and legislative unhappiness with
executive and administrative implementation of legislation in recent years, many
legislatures are beginning to write laws and specify programs, guidelines, and standards
which leave far less room for unrestrained interpretations it did not intend and cannot
control.
The evaluation of public policy is an ongoing process, both in the legislative and
executive branches, although the level of intensity varies considerably, depending on the
prevailing public policy agenda. Policies such as railroad regulation can, sit relatively
unstudied and unchanged for decades, while others, such as financial regulation, seem to
be under constant scrutiny and attack in many countries in recent years. Still others seem
to go in cycles.
Thus there is a formalized process of policy proposal, enactment, implementation,
and evaluation which define the broad outlines of the public policy process in this
country. But this is only a very general approximation of the real world of politics and
public policy. First, political parties, intermediate institutions, and a variety of special
interest groups interject themselves into the electoral process and the business of
legislative, executive, and administrative agencies. Second, the theoretical separation of
the executive and legislative branches has become blurred, especially in European
countries with parliamentary systems where the lead party in the parliament, often with
coalition partners, assumes executive authority.
Legislation often originates in the executive branch as all administration's
proposed budgets, laws, and programs, at the same time that the legislative branch and
individual legislators involve themselves in the implementation of responsibilities of
executive and administrative agencies, often well beyond the "oversight" responsibilities
such as exist for many legislative bodies. Sometimes, the entire process seems either
non-rational or biased.
 In sum, as we approach the public policy process, we find that our assumptions
that the system works the way it was designed to work--that the process is rational and
fair, that politicians and governmental officials are conscious of societal goals and
principles and in constant pursuit of "the public interest" may not be valid. As we view
the various deviations from our formal idealized model of the public policy process, we
often find recurring patterns emerging. Political scientists and other observers of public
policy have sought to generalize as to these deviations and patterns and in so doing have
postulated a number models of how the public policy process does in fact work.

Models of the Public Policy Process

A model is an abstraction of some part of the real world we wish to study, in our
case, the public policy process. A public policy model simplifies the features of the
public policy process in order that we may better (1) understand and explain past and
present events, (2) anticipate and predict future changes and outcomes in this part of the
real world, and (3) formulate and implement strategies to influence the outcome. A
model should be specific enough to give a clear picture of the world it seeks to describe,
yet general enough to have applicability to a significant number of activities.
In studying the models of the public policy process described here, we find that
some will have a broader application to public policy that affects business than others.
We also find that some offer a better approximation of specific features of public policy
making, e.g. some better describe the workings of the legislative branch, or a particular
administrative or regulatory agency; others better describe policy making in a particular
issue area, such as consumer protection or financial policy .
Newton, Darwin, Einstein were scientists who developed new models of the world
they studied because the existing models failed to explain crucial events and observations
or reliably predict outcomes in that world. These same concerns led Adam Smith and
Karl Marx to develop their models of the economic and social world. As with these
scientists, political scientists examining the world of politics and public policy seek to
develop public policy models which can help us understand, explain and predict the
public policy process or that part of the process we wish to study. Like models in
physical science and economics, these models are continually being studied and reviewed
for the ability to predict and explain outcomes in the public policy process.
From a managerial perspective, a model of the public policy process is the
beginning point in (1) understanding how the various public policy measures which have
an impact on the firm originated and are sustained, (2) expectations on the firm as to its
appropriate role in the policy making process, (3) anticipating policy interventions by
other actors in the process, and (4) planning and executing a strategy of intervention in
the process to maximize the firm's effective contribution to changes in policy.

The Classical Democratic Model

One model which potentially ought to be able to predict and explain public policy
outcomes is that derived from the fundamental principles and structure of a democratic
system. These principles assert that the citizens are in complete control of government.
They elect government officials who are then held directly accountable for their actions.
Failure to meet citizen expectations is a signal that an elected official could be voted out
of office in the next election. Using this model, political actors who wished to influence
the outcome of public policy would direct their energies and resources to the
"grassroots"--to the mass of people that make up the electorate in our society. But few
political scientists believe our system works according to this theory. As a result,
they have offered in its place various theories.

NOTE: There are no cases in this course where this classical

democratic model is appropriate in your analysis!

Group Equilibrium Model: Pluralism

A number of models stress the distribution and utilization of power among actors in
the political process to explain public policy formation. One power model which stresses
the interaction among multiple political actors seeking to define an equilibrium closest to
their views we call the group equilibrium model. According to group equilibrium
theorists, public policy shifts as the relative power of various groups and their willingness
to use that power shifts in society. The process is a dynamic one in which coalitions are
formed and dissolved as victories are won and lost and the agendas of actors change. The
role of government in this process is to define the rules by which the game will be played,
to promote, effect, and enforce bargaining and compromise, and to ratify and record the
outcomes of the process in the form of law, programs, standards, and guidelines.
The group equilibrium model has frequently been applied
to the legislative process wherein a business or industry actor
would find itself lobbying on a piece of proposed legislation in
which one or more other actors -- unions, consumer or
environmental interest groups, other government agencies,
other businesses, etc. -- would also have an interest and be
active in trying to influence the decision maker. If you don’t
see multiple actors present, working for or against our
company, then this model may not be appropriate for your
analysis.
The group equilibrium model is sometimes referred to the pluralistic model of
democracy. A "pluralist" democracy is one in which the individual citizens in the society
do not interact directly with their legislators in the public policy making process, but
rather through intermediary organizations such as political parties, employers, unions,
NGOs and other special interest groups, and other forms which express their will.

Official Elite model

Many observers have rejected the group equilibrium or pluralistic model of
democracy, arguing instead that one particular group dominates the policy making
process to the exclusion of the others. When one's focus on the process is narrowed to a
single policy making body and issue, strong arguments can be made that the group
equilibrium model no longer is applicable. Since policy making is formally lodged with
a small group of publicly elected and appointed officials, this group is often seen as a
ruling official elite. This idea is reflected in the view of many citizens that they cannot
affect what goes on in their nation’s capital because government officials make
decisions independent of outside influences. The use of the terms, "government
bureaucrat" and "bureaucracy" often connote this sentiment, when they are used in
reference to the national government.
Just because a government entity has power, this
does not mean its decision-making fits an all-
powerful and independent “official elite” model.
Business as a Dominant Interest Group Model
An analogous theory sees power concentrated in one of the special
interest groups external to government who have narrow fields of concern.
Prominent among the elite models is the idea that business elites, specifically large
corporations and their management, control the policy process. The classical model here
is that of Marx, who argued that the class who controlled the means of production was
able to control the state. The idea of business control of the policy making process has
also been applied to policy making in specific agencies and on specific issues. In these
instances, it is usually the firms in single industries or group of allied industries which are
cited, e.g., the auto industry on auto safety issues, large banks and other large financial
institutions on financial regulation issues, etc.

Special Interest Group Models

Historically, business has charged labor unions were a dominant force in the
policy-making process on issues in which, labor and management were on opposite sides.
More recently, a major adversary of concern in the policy making process is “special
interest groups”(which is often a “code name” for NGOs) external to government.
Special interest groups are seen as dominant in policy areas and agencies of particular
concern--environmentalists on wilderness, wildlife and pollution issues, particularly in
environmental protection agencies; consumer groups in consumer protection agencies. If
you identify this model as a fit for a government decision maker, you must identify
who the “special interest group” is.

Two points to make here are: (1) other government agencies are NOT “special
interest groups;” (2) just because a government agency has the same goals as an
NGO or other special interest does not mean that NGO or special interest dominates
the agency. Government agencies have legislative mandates of their own, e.g.,
especially those in areas related to science and technology. (If there are scientific or
technical issues, this suggests a new class or rational model, as below.)

New Class Elite Model: Technical Experts

In the 1970s, the idea arose the concept of a New Class elite that dominated public
policy by virtue of their control of information and their technical expertise. The group
would include a staff economist in the central bank, a physicist working as a national
security analyst, or an attorney on the staff of a parliamentary committee writing tax
legislation. These people work at critical points in the decision-making process,
sometimes in formal positions of authority but more often in staff positions to important
decision makers.

Note: If you want to propose one of the foregoing elite models

as appropriate for the government decision-maker in your case
analysis, you must specify (and of course explain) which “elite”
you are talking about!

Rational Models (note the limitations of a rational model below, i.e., policy makers all
claim to follow a rational process, so the policy making process must be scrutinized
closely to see what the reality is.)
One assumption often underlying public policy analysis is that the process is
rational--that it proceeds from a full understanding of the benefits it delivers weighed
against the social, economic, and political costs it incurs. Rational policy in this sense
can be equated to efficient policy or to policy that has been subjected to extensive
benefit/cost analysis. Although these terms often are used to imply purely economic or
numerical considerations, here they are intended to cover all the value preferences of a
society.
To reach a "rational" solution to a public policy problem, knowledge must be
available to policy makers regarding: (1) the relative weighting of the society's value
preferences, (2) the policy alternatives available, (3) the consequences
of each policy alternative. The policy maker should then be able to (4) rigorously (and
preferably quantitatively) calculate the benefit/cost ratio for each alternative, and (5)
rationally select the most efficient policy alternative.
Unfortunately, there are problems associated with each step in this process:

1. There is a general consensus on certain values in our society, but many others
are held by only a portion of the population or are interpreted in widely
different ways. As an example, we noted earlier that while we might agree
on the value of equality or egalitarianism, we are split on whether it should be
interpreted as "equality of opportunity" or equality of outcome." Further,
many values in our society cannot be measured, making comparison difficult;
for example, how do we compare the value of clean air or water in a small
community against the value of employment when closing a polluting steel or
paper mill is at issue. In sum, the relative weighting of society's value
preferences becomes difficult.

2. It is difficult to sweep the entire universe into public policy making without
overloading policy makers with information. Thus, only a limited number of
policy alternatives and data to support them can be considered. For example,
choosing a new tax policy to encourage capital formation in the private sector
 must of necessity focus on a limited number of options presented to a
parliament in an abbreviated and substantially simplified form.

3. The future is not highly predictable. Policy which appears inefficient and
irrational in retrospect may have seemed efficient and rational, given the
information at hand and prevailing assumptions about the future, at the time it
was formulated. For example, China’s committing its people transportation
system to the automobile and internal combustion engine may seem irrational
and inefficient given with the high cost of building infrastructure and serious
air pollution in many major metropolitan areas. But public policy supporting
an automobile-based transportation system evolved at a time when China was
not concerned about pollution and the environment and imported oil was
relatively inexpensive. In sum, we cannot always foresee the consequences of
each policy alternative.

Note: If you want to propose a “rational” model as appropriate

for the government decision-maker in your case analysis, you
must specify (and of course explain) how that rational process
proceeds without significant external power and ideology
influencing the decision-making process.

Strategy Formulation in the Public Policy Arena

For the business firm, the challenge is to formulate an implement a political

strategy to achieve its goals. To do so, it must first determine how the particular arena of
public policy it wishes to influence is formulated, i.e., what model best describes public
policy making in that arena. This is the focus of the next module.

Entry-level Employee Perspective

As an entry-level employee, you could be asked by your supervisor or a senior
manager in your company to explain the goals, perspective and behavior of a legislative
committees, ministry, or regulatory agency whose decisions directly impact your
company or have the potential to impact your company’s operations in the future,
especially if it is moving into a new arena of operations, e.g., a new technology, a new
country, or a new market.

Further, you could be asked how your company might influence the decision making of
that governmental body. If asked, could you frame a “white paper” in such a way that you
would be clearly understood, beginning from the critical point of departure—what model
will best describe how decisions are made in that governmental body? Many of these
governmental bodies are staffed by young people, college graduates only a few years out
of college, like yourself. Could you make the necessary connections with these cohorts
to help understand how the governmental body operates? In the political environment, it
is often not only what you know but also who you know that is the key to success.
A Further Comment on Public Policy Model Choices

Power Models
7. Group Equilibrium Model
8. Special Interest Group Models
a. Business as a Dominant Interest Group
b. NGOs as a dominant Interest Group
c. Experts as a Dominant Interest Group
9. The Official Elite Model
10. The Classical Democratic Model

Rational Models
1. The decision-maker is supremely rational and not
influenced by the exercise of power by external actors
2. Data drives public policy
3. Science drives public policy

Some models emphasize the power of political actors,

others emphasize the importance of data, science and
rationality. Visualize these models as along a spectrum
from power dominated decision-making to data, science
and rationality-dominated decision making.

POWER-------------------------------------RATIONALITY

They key for the enterprise is to understand where on this

spectrum the government decision makers lie and to
formulate a strategy to influence the public policy process
based on that assessment. Here is some advice, based on
the shortcomings of model choices by previous students.
1. The group equilibrium model is the default model.
To argue the group equilibrium model, you mut cite
opposing forces that form a potential equilibrium,
even though you may conclude one side dominates in
the case
2. To argue a rational model, you must argue that the
decision making is science- and data-driven, and the
various actors trying to influence the decision maker
do so by submitting their best science-based and data-
driven arguments, NOT by trying to exercise political
power. NOTE: All government policy makers claim
to be “rational.”
3. The argument for an interest group elite model
means you are arguing that particular interest group
dominates the public policy making process:
a. Business
b. NGOs
c. Experts (this is close to the purely rational model
as the experts bring data and scientific expertise
and presumed rationality to the decision-making
process.) hese experts could be independent (the
most persuasive) or within the government, or
from business or NGOs. Often competing
interests will bring their experts and data to a
policy decision, arguing my expert and data are
better than your expert and data!
4. To argue an official elite model is very difficult, as
you must cite evidence that the governmental decision
maker is relatively immune from efforts of external
actors to exert power pressures on it. This can be a
good model choice, but it is not very frequent.
5. We rarely see public policy formulation that fits the
classical democratic model.