Explain the six step model for public policy

formation as prescribed by Patton and Sawacki

(1986). Also describe the limitations of the
mentioned model.
By: Syed Salman Jalal
Msc.DS (4th Semester)
IM-Sciences

What is Public Policy?

Public policy can be generally defined as a system of laws, regulatory

measures, courses of action, and funding priorities concerning a given
topic promulgated by a governmental entity or its
representatives.(Dean G. Kilpatrick, Medical University of South
Carolina)

Policy is about decisions series of decisions in fact- and decisions are

about power. Sometimes such expressions of power may be revealed
in the capacity not to act, the non-decision.

Public policy is an attempt by a government to address a public issue

by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertinent to the
problem at hand.

Key attributes of Public Policy

Public policy is simply what government does or does not do about a problem that
comes before them for consideration and possible action.

Policy might take the form of law, or regulation, or the set of all the laws and
regulations that govern a particular issue or problem.

Policy is made on behalf of the "public."

Policy is oriented toward a goal or desired state, such as the solution of a

problem.

Policy is ultimately made by governments, even if the ideas come from outside
government or through the interaction of government and the public.

Policymaking is part of an ongoing process that does not always have a clear
beginning or end, since decisions about who will benefit from policies and who
will bear any burden resulting from the policy are continually reassessed, revisited
and revised.

An Introduction to the Policy Process, by Thomas A. Birkland (2011, M.E. Sharpe,

Armonk, NY)

Public Policy Implementation

There is a persistent myth or perhaps naive assumption that

politicians make policy and public servants implement it rationally as
if implementation was something utterly simple and automatic
( Lane,1993, p.93). While both politicians and bureaucrats are
frequently active in promulgating and maintaining this myth, the
reality is somewhat different. Implementation is not easy and
straightforward and cannot be simply classified as a technical
exercise involving calculated choices of appropriate techniques.
Implementation is frequently a highly political process. It is an arena
where those with interests in a policy engage in negotiation over the
goals of the policy and conflict over the allocation of resources.

Continued.

Policy implementation may thus be seen as an arena in

which those responsible for allocating resources are
engaged in political relationships among themselves and
with other actors intent on influencing that allocation.
The cast would typically include national level planners;
national, regional and local politicians, economic elite
groups; military; recipient groups; groups seeing
themselves as suffering adverse consequences from the
policy; multilateral agencies such as the World Bank; and
bureaucratic implementors.

Policy Process Models

There are almost as many models of the policy process as there are
public policy theorists, all deriving to some extent from
Lasswell(1971).

Andersons model of the policy process has five stages: Problem

identification and agenda formation, formulation, adoption,
implementation and evaluation (1984,p.19).

Quade (1982) also sees five elements: Problem formulation, searching

for alternatives, forecasting the future environment, modelling the
impacts of alternatives and evaluating the alternatives.

Stokey and Zeckhauser(1978) also set a similar model of five steps.

There are problems in using any model, not the least of which would
be the temptation to simply follow a menu, rather than to really
analyse what is happening.

Policy Process Models

Patton and Sawicki (1986) put forward a six-step model, and

although, as they say, there is no single agreed-upon way of carrying
out policy analysis, theirs remains one of the more helpful
frameworks for looking at a particular policy problem. The basic aim
of their approach is to assist someone who is required to analyse a
given situation and to derive a policy to deal with it. They derive a
list of headings under which particular parts of the policy process can
be formulated.

Patton & Sawicki Six Step Model

Verify & Define
Problem
Monitor Policy
Outcomes

Select among
Alternative Policies

Establish Evaluation
Criteria

Identify Alternative
Policies

Evaluate Alternative
Policies

Step -1
(Verify, define and detail the problem)

Before starting to look at any policy problem, the first step is, of course, to
specify what the problem actually is. This is not is not necessarily a
straightforward point as public policies are often interrelated. It is often hard
to define the problem in the public sector, where policy objectives may not
be clear or aim to do several things at once. Public agencies often have
several missions at once and need to respond to differing interest groups.

It is particularly hard to define problems in large areas of policy such as

health or welfare. But without being able to define the problem it becomes
impossible to design a policy.

At this point of the policy process, the analyst should be able to set out the
policy problem in a way that separates this particular problem into something
discrete which can be tackled.

Step -1: Cont...

After this first step, analyst should know whether a problem exists
which can be solved by the client, should be able to provide detailed
statement of the problem and be able to estimate the time and
resources the analysis would require (Patton and Sawicki, 1986, p.29)

This point is related to the agenda setting of some of the other

models. It would be a mistake to see the agenda as being set only
from the outside, or only by groups. Public servants have policies they
keep submitting to the political leadership, until they find a receptive
audience.

Step-2
Establish evaluation criteria

This step allows other evaluation criteria to be considered instead of

always referring to cost. Other valued criteria could include
effectiveness, political acceptability or even votes and equity.

The criteria may derive from the statement of the problem, or from
whom the analysis is being carried out for. Adding this stage in the
policy process may reduce some of the criticisms of the rational
policy analysis model.

Step-3
Identify alternative policies

Once the goals are known and evaluation criteria specified, it should
be possible to develop a set of alternative ways of getting to known
goals. These may, perhaps even should, vary enormously, although
there is no one way of find the alternatives.

Patton and Sawicki offer as possible way of finding the alternatives:

thinking hard may be the most profitable way to identify
alternatives, especially when time is short; it can also be identified
through researched analysis and experiments, through brainstorming
techniques, and by writing scenarios.

For the beginner analyst trying to solve a problem this may not be
particularly helpful, and underlines, perhaps, one limitation of any
model in a real political world in which art may be more helpful than
science.

Step-4
Evaluate alternative policies

This step is regarded as the most important. The idea is that once alternative
policies are identified, each can be rigorously evaluated, by deciding the
particular points in favour or against each of the alternative proposals. Patton and
Sawicki do warn against being too rigid in how this evaluation is carried out.

The nature of the problem and the types of evaluation

criteria will suggest the methods that can be used to
evaluate the policies. Avoid the tool-box approach of
attacking every evaluation with your favourite method,
whether that is decision analysis, linear programming, or
cost-benefit analysis. It has been said that when the only
tool an analyst has is a hammer, then all problems will
look like nails. Some problems will call for quantitative
analysis, other will require qualitative analysis, most will
require both.

Step-5
Select among alternative policies

The results of the evaluation may be presented to the client as a list of

alternatives, or a preferred alternative rather than only one. No alternative is
likely to be perfect, instead, all of the alternatives will have good points and
bad points, particularly if the difference between a technically superior
alternative and politically viable one is borne in mind.

Implementation of the programme occurs at this point as well; tasks and

responsibilities assigned and how the implemented policy is to be monitored.

Step-6
Monitor Policy outcomes

No policy is complete at this point. There are often unintended

consequences, possible difficulties in implementation or changes in
circumstances.

Monitoring or evaluation of progress is, or should be, fundamental to

any policy no matter how it is derived.

The nature of public policy will probably be that the original problem
evolves into others, so that rather than any one discrete analysis
there will be many iterations.

Limitations

The use of the Patton and Sawicki (or any similar) model can bring
benefits in analysing a matter of public policy. Perhaps there could have
been more attention paid to implementation and to policy termination.
It is even possible that the results of the analysis may be better than
without any such model.

In general, though, there are some difficulties with the model

approach. In some circumstances a model like this could be helpful to
making public policy; in other circumstances it would not. At the end of
the process, what we have is a framework rather than a method: a set
of headings rather than a concrete approach. The fact is that someone
could follow the headings perfectly and derive a disastrous policy, while
some one else could follow none of the rules and derive a better one.

Cont

A fundamental question of policy analysis is whether it is art or

science, of whether it is an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable or
rationalize the quasi-rational. Models may help but provide no
guarantee to making better policy.

Policy models do not deal very effectively with policy change or with
the prediction of future action.

Limitations
(Quantitative methods)

Numbers are useful and provide information to decision-makers but

public policy gives them too much emphasis. It is very easy to decry
formal mathematical approaches as being unrealistic if applied to the
world of policy and politics, and to argue that politics is not
necessarily rational in a strict numbers sense. However, the problem
is not the use of numbers, but in levels of abstraction leading far
beyond any conceivable policy relevance.

There has also been no attempt to delineate the areas in which policy
analysis can work very well, such as road traffic studies, from one in
which the political and societal problems are far more contentious,
such as welfare. There are only some areas of the government in
which numbers are available for work at the highest level of
abstraction.

Limitations
(Over emphasis on decisions)

In practice a relatively small proportion of a mangers time or effort

is taken up by making decisions amenable to analytical processes.
Successful managers are less analysts than organizers, less
technocrats than politicians. Too much emphasis is put on the concern
managers on matters related to decision making efforts. In fact the
managers are in reality less concern with it.

Limitations
(Not used, or used less)

There is little evidence that formal methods are actually followed. Or, if they
were followed at one time, they are not followed as much. The fact is that
many studies of public policy determination are quite general and abstract
and distant from the operating reality of government (Lynn, 1987, p.13).

Day-to-day management activities involve many things other than making

decisions and a high proportion of the activities in which public managers
engage are not amenable to the application of analytic techniques; a small
proportion are (Elmore, 1986).

There are no correct answers in practice and trying to find a single answer is
akin to embracing the old one best way thinking of public administration.

Thank You
Questions????