· · ·

Dynamics of Public Policy Development

Public policy is the structured course of action governments take to address specific public issues, such as healthcare reform, environmental protection, education standards, or financial regulation, shaped by political, economic, and social contexts. 

Public policies shape decisions and consequently incorporate decision governance. It is interesting to understand how public policy develops and changes, as this helps understand how decision governance can develop and change.

This text is an outline of various theories of public policy development.

This text is part of the series on the design of decision governance. Decision Governance refers to values, principles, practices designed to improve the quality of decisions. Find all texts on decision governance here, including “What is Decision Governance?” here.

Incrementalism

Incrementalism, introduced by Charles E. Lindblom in 1959, posits that policymakers tend to make modest adjustments to existing policies rather than implementing sweeping changes. This theory suggests that decision-makers operate under bounded rationality, meaning they are constrained by limited information, time, and cognitive capacities. Incrementalism emphasizes that policy changes result from negotiations and compromises among stakeholders, reflecting a step-by-step evolution rather than radical transformation.

Key research supporting incrementalism includes Lindblom’s foundational work “The Science of Muddling Through” (1959), which established the principles of bounded rationality and practical decision-making. Subsequent studies, such as Wildavsky’s exploration of budgeting processes, illustrate incrementalism’s application in public administration. Critics, however, such as John Forrester (1993), argue that incrementalism may fail in addressing systemic issues or crises requiring comprehensive solutions.

Factors favoring incrementalism include its suitability in environments with high uncertainty or limited information, where gradual adjustments allow for iterative learning and risk mitigation. Incrementalism is also effective in systems characterized by political pluralism, where consensus-building is essential for policy adoption. However, incrementalism can be inadequate in situations demanding urgent action or transformational change, such as during economic crises, environmental emergencies, or technological disruptions. Its emphasis on stability and small adjustments may perpetuate inefficiencies and delay necessary reforms.

To implement incrementalism, decision-makers should:

  • Review existing policies to identify areas requiring small, manageable adjustments rather than complete overhauls.
  • Engage stakeholders to understand the concerns and perspectives of those affected.
  • Pilot incremental modifications to test their viability before broader implementation.
  • Establish feedback loops to monitor outcomes and refine approaches.
  • Document incremental changes clearly to build institutional knowledge and ensure transparency.

This approach is evident in bureaucratic settings, where institutional inertia and risk aversion encourage policymakers to favor gradual adjustments. While incrementalism ensures stability and reduces the likelihood of policy failures, it can also perpetuate inefficiencies by avoiding comprehensive reform.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (PET), developed by Frank R. Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, challenges the incrementalist view by highlighting the coexistence of periods of policy stability and abrupt change. According to PET, policy subsystems, which involve networks of stakeholders, institutions, and actors interacting within specific policy domains, typically operate in equilibrium, maintaining consistency in policymaking.

Policy subsystems are characterized by their relative stability over time, driven by shared norms, established relationships, and institutional arrangements. These subsystems include government agencies, advocacy groups, think tanks, academic experts, and industry representatives, each contributing to the policy discourse and decisions within areas such as healthcare, education, or environmental regulation. Stability is maintained by entrenched institutional structures, stable stakeholder networks, and societal consensus on policy objectives.

However, significant shifts occur when external shocks or changing societal preferences disrupt these subsystems. Factors that destabilize equilibrium include:

  • Crises: Events like economic recessions, natural disasters, or public health emergencies.
  • Public opinion shifts: Advocacy campaigns or media focus elevating neglected issues.
  • Technological advancements: Innovations that render existing policies obsolete.
  • Political changes: Leadership shifts or institutional realignments.

For instance, climate change policies often experience stability until external events like extreme weather spur public demand for change. PET illustrates the importance of understanding the interplay between stability and disruption in policymaking.

Multiple Streams Framework

The Multiple Streams Framework (MSF), proposed by John W. Kingdon, conceptualizes policy development as the convergence of three streams: problems, policies, and politics. The problem stream refers to societal issues requiring attention, the policy stream comprises available solutions, and the politics stream includes the political will and support necessary for action. Policy change occurs when these streams align, creating a “policy window” that facilitates action.

A policy window represents an opportunity for decision-makers to enact significant policy changes. For example:

  • The COVID-19 pandemic opened a window for investments in public health and vaccine development.
  • Environmental disasters like oil spills led to stricter regulations.

To create a policy window, stakeholders can:

  • Raise awareness through advocacy and strategic framing.
  • Couple viable solutions with recognized problems.
  • Mobilize political support using effective communication and coalition-building.

Policy entrepreneurs play a key role in leveraging these opportunities, advancing agendas by aligning streams effectively.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), developed by Paul Sabatier and Hank Jenkins-Smith, focuses on coalitions in shaping public policies. Coalitions form when stakeholders share beliefs and values, collaborating to influence policymaking.

Creation of Coalitions:

  • Environmental advocacy groups uniting NGOs and scientists against climate change.
  • Business groups aligning to push for deregulation.

Dissolution of Coalitions:

  • Internal conflicts or resource constraints.
  • Achievement of goals or emergence of competing coalitions.

For instance, stricter emissions standards often result from dominant coalitions advocating environmental protection in response to public and scientific demands. ACF highlights the dynamic nature of coalition formation, maintenance, and dissolution in contested policy domains.

Institutional Theories

Institutional theories emphasize the role of rules, norms, and structures in public policy. Historical institutionalism examines path dependency, where past decisions constrain future choices. For example, social security systems persist due to high switching costs and complementary practices. Rational choice institutionalism focuses on strategic behavior, where actors navigate constraints to achieve goals. For instance, a policymaker may form alliances or frame initiatives to align with institutional priorities. Sociological institutionalism considers how cultural norms shape policy, such as Sweden’s egalitarian parental leave policies.

Rational Choice Theory

Rational Choice Theory (RCT) views policymaking as rational, cost-benefit decision-making. Critics argue that it oversimplifies complex dynamics, but refinements from behavioral economics have enhanced its applicability by incorporating cognitive biases.

Policy Diffusion Theory

Policy Diffusion Theory examines how policies spread across jurisdictions through learning, imitation, competition, or coercion. For instance, renewable energy policies have diffused within the European Union, influenced by shared cultural and economic ties. However, diffusion must consider local contexts to avoid suboptimal outcomes.

Narrative Policy Framework

The Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) explores the role of storytelling in policy. Narratives frame issues, influencing public opinion and priorities. For instance, narratives around climate change as an existential threat mobilize support for global initiatives.

Conclusion

Theories of public policy development offer insights into how policies emerge, evolve, and impact society. Incrementalism and PET address stability and change, while MSF and ACF focus on alignment and coalition-building. Institutional theories highlight the influence of norms, while RCT and diffusion theories emphasize decision-making and globalization. NPF underscores the importance of narratives.

Integrating these theories enables policymakers to address societal needs effectively and adapt to evolving challenges.

References
  1. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. University of Chicago Press.
  2. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Little, Brown.
  3. Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of “Muddling Through.” Public Administration Review, 19(2), 79-88.
  4. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Westview Press.
  5. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.
  6. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). Free Press.
  7. Stone, D. (2002). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making. W.W. Norton & Company.
  8. Wildavsky, A. (1979). The Politics of the Budgetary Process. Little, Brown.
  9. Forrester, J. (1993). Critical perspectives on incrementalism. Policy Sciences, 26(1), 71-88.
  10. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251-267.
Definitions
  1. Bounded Rationality: The concept that decision-makers operate within the limits of available information, time, and cognitive capacity (Simon, H. A., 1957).
  2. Policy Entrepreneurs: Individuals or groups who promote specific policy ideas and work to align problems, policies, and politics to create opportunities for change (Kingdon, 1984).
  3. Policy Subsystems: Networks of stakeholders and institutions involved in specific policy domains, characterized by stability and periodic change (Baumgartner & Jones, 1993).
  4. Path Dependency: The idea that past policy decisions constrain future choices, reinforcing existing trajectories (Pierson, 2000).