Component -I Personal Details
Role Name Affiliation
Subject Coordinator Prof. I. Ramabrahmam University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad
Paper Coordinator Prof. Manoj Dixit University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Content Writer Nandita Kaushal University of Lucknow, Lucknow
Content Reviewer Prof. A Prasanna Kumar Andhra University, Vishakapatnam
Language Editor Prof.G Sreenivas Reddy Kakatiya University,Warangal
Component-II Description of Module
Items Description of Module
Subject Name Public Administration
Paper Name Public Policy
Module Name/ Title 3. Approaches to the Study of Public Policy
Module Id
Pre-requisites
Component-III
Module Introduction
The module deals with various approaches to the study of public policy such as group approach,
rational choice approach, incremental approach, and policy networks approach. The first part
deals with the study of public policy as a relatively new field of inquiry and major approaches to
its study. Group approach, rational choice approach, incremental approach, and policy networks
approach have been explained in the second, third, fourth and fifth parts respectively.
After reading this module you will get a broad idea regarding various approaches to the study
and understanding of public policies.
Keywords: Public policy approaches, Interaction of Groups, Adjustment and Equilibrium, One
Best Policy Alternative, Efficiency Maximization, Incremental Changes, Mutual Adjustment,
Policy Networks, Institutional Linkages.
1
Section 1: Introduction
Public policy is a key instrument in the hands of the State for securing public interest. The policy
process is a long and strenuous one comprising a number of successive stages. The policy
process begins with the identification of problems and issues for policies and continues till
assessment of their outcome and impact. In this context it is important to study the approaches of
public policy as they provide quick and efficient means of collecting, arranging, evaluating and
drawing out meaning from data in the sophisticated form. They give order to a diverse range of
political phenomena by fitting them within a limited set of concepts.
The study of public policy is a relatively new field of inquiry. This study involves a multi-
disciplinary perspective and applied dimension. According to William Dunn(1981), policy
analysis is an applied social science discipline which uses multi-disciplinary methods of inquiry
and argument to produce and transform policy relevant information that may be used in political
settings to resolve public policy problems. Michael E. Kraft and Scott R. Furlong(2010) have
categorized policy analysis into three approaches – scientific, professional and political. The
objectives of scientific, professional and political approaches are to search for truth and build
theory about policy actions and effects; analyze policy alternatives for solving public problems;
and advocate and support preferred policies respectively.
Section 2: Approaches to the Study of Public Policy
Approaches are significant tools which help in the formulation of a body of knowledge which
enables the study of all possible dimensions of policy process. Major approaches to the study of
public policy include group approach, rational choice approach, incremental approach and policy
networks approach.
2.1 Group Approach
Group approach or group theoretic approach seeks to explain political behavior largely through
the study of the nature and interaction of social and political groups. It presupposes that the
cardinal feature of political life is the interaction and struggle among diverse societal groups.
David B. Truman in his book The Governmental Process (1951) has described an interest group
as a shared-attitude group that makes certain claims upon other groups in the society and it
becomes political when it makes a claim through or upon the institutions of government. The
fundamental nature of politics is the controversy and conflict derived from the activities of
interest groups.
Public policy is the result of negotiations, bargaining and compromises resulting from
competition between diverse groups and individuals with common and shared interests /
demands form groups to strengthen their support. Group interventions involve building coalitions
or forming political action committees. The groups pressurize the government to formulate and
implement those policies that favour their goals and suit their ends. The mission of the political
system is to manage group struggle by laying down rules of the game, arranging compromises
and balancing interests, making compromises in the form of public policy and enforcing them.
Public policies are formulated on the basis of adjustment and equilibrium reached at in the
2
struggle of variety of groups engaged in the policy process. This group struggle maintains
equilibrium in the system. Various groups keep a check on each other’s activities due to which
no group becomes enormously powerful in a system for all times. In the ongoing process of
struggle groups gain and lose power and influence. At any point of time the interests and
demands of dominant groups are revealed in public policy.
2.2 Rational Choice Approach
Rationality in policy making is considered a benchmark of wisdom. Rational policy making
involves choosing the one best policy alternative from several alternatives on rational grounds.
Rational choice approach is an efficiency maximization approach. It proposes the calculation of
policy efficiency on the basis of all social, economic and political values achieved and / or
sacrificed by the adjudication of public policy. In framing a policy all pertinent values have to be
precisely considered.
The champions of rational choice approach are Robert Haveman, Thomas R. Dye and Herbert A.
Simon. Robert Haveman, a Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Economics at University of
Wisconsin-Madison, views that a rational policy is one which is designed to maximize net value
achievement. Thomas R. Dye, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Florida State
University, has equated rationality with efficiency. For him a policy is rational when it is most
efficient, that is, if the ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive
and higher than any other policy alternative.
Herbert A. Simon (1947), an American political scientist and Professor at Carnegie Mellon
University, in his famous book ‘Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making
Processes in Administrative Organization’ has described rationality as one which is concerned
with the selection of preferred behavior alternatives in terms of some systems of values whereby
the consequences of behavior can be evaluated. He disregards the concept of total rationality in
administrative behavior. Human behavior is neither totally rational nor totally non-rational.
Rather it involves bounded rationality. In a rational decision-making process policy makers do
not go after an ideal decision. They break the complex issues involved in problems into small
and understandable parts, opt for one option that can be regarded as satisfactory and avoid
unnecessary uncertainty by doing so. He notes that although individuals are by intention rational,
their rationality is bounded by limited capacities of cognition and emotions. The human being,
who is making efforts for rationality and is constrained within the bounds of his knowledge, has
developed some working procedures that enable him to partially overcome these difficulties.
These procedures involve the assumption that he can isolate from the rest of the world into a
closed system which contains a limited number of variables and a limited range of consequences.
Simon, in his work ‘The New Science of Management Decision’ (1960), has mentioned the three
kinds of activities involved in a rational policy making process. These are intelligence activity,
design activity and choice activity. The first phase of decision making process is searching the
environment for conditions calling for decision (intelligence activity); the second one involves
3
inventing, developing and analyzing possible courses of action (design activity); and the third
one consists of selecting a particular course of action from those available (choice activity).
Rational policy making involves several stages:
i. Identification of underlying problem.
ii. Formulation and setting of goal priorities.
iii. Identification of a range of policy alternatives.
iv. Cost-benefit analysis of policy alternatives.
v. Selection of most efficient policy alternative.
Once the rational policy is formulated it enters the implementation phase. The implementation of
policy is systematically monitored to find out the accuracy of estimates and expectations. On the
basis of feedback obtained the policy maker may modify the policy or give it up altogether. If the
feedback is used to monitor and accustom policy, the policy system tends to become self-
correcting or cybernetic.
Even though rational choice approach is regarded as a logical and scientific one but there are
many barriers to rational policy making. Some of these constraints are: difficulty in
accomplishing goals as rational policy making turns out to be a mere exercise; maximization of
net goal achievement is missing; conflict between rational choice and need for action; dilemma
of political feasibility; inaccurate calculation of cost-benefit ratios; and limited capacity of
bureaucracy to frame rational policies.
2.3 Incremental Approach
Incremental approach of the policy making process is associated with Charles Edward Lindblom
(1959), a Sterling Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Economics at Yale University,
who has developed it as an alternative to the rational model of decision-making. His views
appeared in his article “The Science of Muddling Through” which was published in 1959 in
Public Administration Review, a journal of the American Society of Public Administration. He
rejects the idea that decision-making is something about defining goals, and selecting and
comparing alternatives. For him rational decision-making is not workable for complex policy
questions as there are constraints of time, intelligence, cost and politics which prevent policy
makers from identifying the full range of policy alternatives and their consequences. He proposes
his approach of “successive limited comparisons” which he regards as more pertinent and
realistic in conditions of bounded rationality. On the basis of his wide-ranging studies of welfare
policies and trade unions in the industrialized world, Lindblom comes to the view that under
most circumstances policy change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
The incremental approach or branch approach of decision-making involves a process of
continuously building out from the current situation, step-by-step and by small degrees. This
4
approach points out the real life constraints on public administration such as cost, information,
time and politics. According to Lindblom, the prescribed functions and constraints of the public
administrators restrict their attention to relatively few values and alternative policies.
Democracies change their policies almost entirely through incremental adjustments. Policy does
not move in leaps and bounds. Policy making involves marginal and uncoordinated adjustments
in conditions of inconsistent demands and interests and in the fear of unforeseen consequences
that might emerge from actual division. The key features of incremental decision-making are
succession of incremental changes; mutual adjustment and negotiation; and trial and error
learning.
Charles Lindblom and David Braybrooke in their work A Strategy of Decision: Policy
Evaluation as a Social Process (1963) have introduced the idea of disjointed incrementalism.
They regard disjointed incrementalism as a method of decision-making in which comparison
takes place between policies which are only marginally different from one another and in which
there is no great goal or vision to be achieved. Objectives are set in terms of existing resources
and policy making takes place by a trial and error method. In his work The Intelligence of
Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment (1965), Lindblom argues that decision
making is a process of adjustment and compromise which facilitates agreement and coordination.
Martin Rein in his book Social Science and Public Policy (1976) has commented “the concept of
political feasibility is often closely associated with an idea of incremental change. The theory of
disjointed incrementalism holds that, in the end, muddling and compromise are the only rational
approaches to the management of conflicting multiple and ambiguous goals. The incrementalists
see resistance to change not as stupidity but as the muffled rationality which is the outcome of
political bargaining.”
Lindblom, along with Robert A. Dahl, was a supporter of the polyarchy or pluralistic view of
political elites and governance in the late 1950s and early 1960s. According to this view, a series
of specialized elites compete and bargain with one another for control. The competition and
compromise between elites drive free-market democracy and enable it to thrive. But soon he was
aware of the limitations of polyarchy in democratic governance. This polyarchy can be easily
converted into corporatism when certain groups of elites become highly successful and begin
collusion with one another. In his work Politics and Markets (1977) Lindblom notes the
privileged position of business in polyarchy and introduces the concept of circularity or
controlled volitions. Even in the democracies, masses are persuaded to ask from elites only what
latter wish to give former. In this manner in real life choices and competition are limited.
Development of alternative choices and serious discussion on them are discouraged. In his later
work The Market System: What It Is, How It Works, and What to Make of It (2001) he has
elaborated several concerns raised in his work Politics and Market.
In his subsequent article Still Muddling, Not Yet Through (1979), published in Public
Administration Review, Lindblom makes clear that the central idea in an incrementalist approach
is the belief in skill in solving complex problems, and he intends to suggest new and improved
ways of muddling through. He makes a distinction between incrementalism as a political pattern
with step-by-step changes and incrementalism as policy analysis. Analytical incrementalism is a
5
mode for securing the balance of power in a pluralist polity in which business and large
corporations have tremendous influence over the policy-making process. He mentions three
forms of incremental analysis – simple incremental analysis, strategic analysis and disjointed
incrementalism.
Charles Lindblom and Edward J. Woodhouse in their work The Policy Making Process (1993)
have challenged the assumption that political elites and policy analysis professionals hold the
keys to improved social problem solving. They argue that policy evolves through complex and
reciprocal relations among all bureaucrats, elected functionaries, representatives of interest
groups and other participants.
Incrementalism has been criticized on the ground that the governments are encountering so
serious and critical problems that mere incremental changes in the public policies are not ample
enough to cope with them. Amitai Etzioni, an Israeli-American Sociologist; and Yehezkel Dror, a
former professor of Political Science at Hebrew University, Jerusalem do not regard that the
incremental approach is a realistic and suitable normative account of decision making. A. Etzioni
regards that models based on pluralist decision making are biased due to pre-existing imbalances
in the power of the participating interests and individuals. Y. Dror in his book Public Policy Re-
examined (1968) has said that a sudden transformation of the public policy making system is not
possible. Improving public policy making must be a continuing endeavor, requiring sustained
effort over a long period. The most harmful effect of the incremental change argument is that it
paralyses efforts and thus, tends to be self-fulfilling prophecy. Granted the difficulties exist what
we need is an even stronger effort to overcome them. The difficulties of the problems faced by
public policy making make improvements in it necessary, and the knowledge we are now
developing makes such improvements possible; we must therefore mobilize energy needed to
carry out these difficulties.
2.4 Policy Networks Approach
Modern democratic governance makes use of the concept of policy networks to make public
policies. A range of different actors, who are linked together in political, social and cultural
aspects, are involved in policy formulation. The term policy network connotes a cluster of
actors, each of whom has an interest or a stake in a given policy sector and the capacity to help in
determining policy success or failure. Policy outcomes are often explained by analysts of modern
governance by considering the way the networks are structured in a particular sector. The three
basic assumptions of policy network analysis are:
i. Modern governance is frequently non-hierarchical. Few policy solutions are simply
imposed by public authorities. Governance involves mutuality and interdependence
between public and nonpublic actors, as well as between different kinds of public
actors.
ii. The policy process must be disaggregated to be understood because relationships
between groups and government vary between policy areas.
6
iii. Governments remain ultimately responsible for governance, but that is not the whole
story. Before policies are ‘set’ by elected political actors, policy choices are shaped
and refined in bargaining between a diverse range of actors, including some who are
non-governmental, all of whom have an interest in what policy is chosen (John
Peterson: 2003).
R.A.W. Rhodes, a professor of political science, is a pioneer in analyzing policy networks in
British government. The term policy networks refers to sets of formal and informal institutional
linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared interests in public
policy making and implementation. These institutions are interdependent. Policies emerge from
the bargaining between the networks’ members. The other actors commonly include the
professions, trade unions and big business (R.A.W. Rhodes, Wikipedia). His model of policy
networks assumes that three variables determine the type of policy network which exists in a
specific sector. These variables are the relative stability of a network’s membership; the
network’s relative insularity; and the strength of resource dependencies. A continuum emerges
with tightly integrated policy communities on one end, who are capable of single-minded
collective action, and loosely-affiliated issue networks on the other, who find it far more difficult
to mobilize collectively. The internal structure of policy networks is usually considered an
independent variable, in that the structure of a policy network will help determine policy
outcomes (John Peterson: 2003).
David Marsh and Martin Smith (2002), in their work Understanding Policy Networks: Towards
a Dialectical Approach, have developed a dialectical model of policy networks. They emphasize
that the relationship between networks and outcomes is not a uni-dimensional. They argue for
three interactive or dialectical relationships which are involved between the structure of the
network and the agents operating within them; the network and the context within which it
operates; and the network and the policy outcome.
Section 3: Summing up
The study of public policy is a relatively new field of inquiry in public administration. Various
approaches have been developed for its study. Each approach studies public policy from a
different perspective and this enables a comprehensive study of public policy from various
dimensions. In this module, four approaches have been discussed: group approach, rational
choice approach, incremental approach and policy networks approach. Group approach
presupposes that political life is interaction and struggle among diverse societal groups; and
politics is characterized by controversy and conflict due to the activity of interest groups. Public
policy is the result of negotiations, bargaining and compromises resulting from competition
between diverse groups.
Rational choice approach is about maximizing efficiency. Rational policy making involves
choosing the one best policy alternative from several alternatives on rational grounds. In framing
a policy all pertinent values (social, political and economic) have to be precisely considered. A
7
rational policy is one which is design to achieve net vale achievement. According to incremental
approach, policy change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The reason is that decision-
making involves the process of continuously building out from the current situation, step-by-step
and by small degrees. The key features of incremental policies are succession of incremental
changes; mutual adjustment and negotiation; and trial and error learning.
Modern democratic governments use a range of different approaches to make public policies.
Policy networks include formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and
other actors. They include state, market, and civil society etc. These institutions are
interdependent. They are linked together in political, social and cultural aspects. They are also
involved in policy formulation.
