Theories of the Policy Process

by Christopher M. Weible

Berry and Berry’s (1990) initial application of EHA to the study of policy innovation assumed that the probability of adoption is constant over time. Yet, it is unlikely that the true policy process conforms to this assumption.

More recent studies have allowed the probability of adoption to vary over time

Although the “unified” model (Equation 3) is sufficiently flexible to serve as a framework for studies of numerous aspects of policy diffusion, some interesting and important avenues for research require modifying, or even abandoning, the unified model.

Scholars compare theories, frameworks, and models (or generally “theoretical approaches”) to consider how to combine their insights or accept some and reject others (Sabatier 2007a, 330). They often do this implicitly or in an ad hoc way. Our aim is to add some rigor to this process by examining three of the criteria used by Weible (2017, see Introduction in this volume):

1. To what extent does the approach cover the basic elements of a theoretical approach, such as a shared vocabulary and defined concepts? 2. Are the scholars who are applying the theoretical approach developing an active research program? 3. Does the theoretical approach explain a large part of the policy process?

The first criterion is the extent to which the basic elements of a theory are covered.

The second criterion is the development of an active research program.

Developing indicators of the third criterion—whether the theory explains a large part of the policy process—is the most challenging

We are interested in how each theory describes the following elements and explains the interactions between them to provide an overall explanation of policymaking systems:

1. Actors making choices:

2. Institutions: These are the rules, norms, practices, and relationships that influence individual and collective behavior.

3. Networks or subsystems: These are the relationships between actors responsible for policy decisions and the “pressure participants” (Jordan, Halpin, and Maloney 2004),

4. Ideas or beliefs: This broad category captures how theories deal with ways of thinking or the knowledge that plays a role in the policy process.

5. Policy context: This category describes the wide array of features of the policymaking environment that can influence policy decisions.

6. Events: Events can be routine and anticipated, such as elections that produce limited change or introduce new actors with different ideas.

The main complication is that policy theories do not treat these concepts in the same way.

Table 8.1 presents a brief summary of the indicators we use to explore our first criterion: key elements of a theory. These indicators include: (1) a defined scope and levels of analysis; (2) shared vocabulary and defined concepts; (3) defined assumptions; (4) the model of the individual; and (5) identified relationships among key concepts.

Scope and levels of analysis. Each of the approaches in this volume has a relatively well-defined scope and provides a different lens on the policy process. They all, to some degree, address questions related to policy formulation and change within their scope.

TABLE 8.1 What Elements of a Theoretical Approach Are Included?

Shared vocabulary and defined concepts. All of the theories or frameworks presented have developed shared vocabulary and a set of concepts that inform the research scope.

Defined assumptions. All of the theories in this volume offer at least implicit assumptions that underlie their theoretical logic.

Model of the individual. The model of the individual in many theories is part of the stated assumptions. Most theories in this book adopt a broad focus on bounded rationality. People do not have the time, resources, and cognitive ability to consider all issues and act optimally, so they use informational shortcuts and other heuristics or emotional cues to produce what they perceive to be good-enough decisions.

We argue there is a trade-off in the level of specificity underlying the model of the individual. On the one hand, more detailed models of the individual are likely to offer more accurate representations of the underlying drivers of human decision making.

On the other hand, adding too many layers of complexity to models of the individual may lead to problems of internal inconsistencies with parent theories and can make it difficult to establish clear linkages or rationale for the hypotheses or models that they should inform.

Multiple streams analysis. Kingdon’s (1984) focus was on the interaction between two kinds of ideas: the type of policy solution that could draw attention and catch on quickly and the established set of beliefs in a policy community that would slow a policy solution’s progress.

Focusing events can be important to shift levels of attention to a problem, but the MSF is about the need for other processes to occur before the event has more than a fleeting importance.

TABLE 8.3 What Elements of the Policy Process Are Explained or Emphasized?

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. The PET emphasizes the interaction between two types of ideas: (1) the “monopoly of understandings” underpinning established subsystem relationships, and (2) the new solutions that could “catch fire” following successful venue shopping or prompt endogenous change (when attention shifts and issues are reframed).

The concept of institutional friction describes the amount of effort required to overcome established rules. High friction suggests that a major or cumulative effort is required to secure institutional change, which may produce a pressure-dam effect and a major policy punctuation.

Policy Feedback Theory. The PFT has its roots in historical institutionalism, which suggests that policy commitments made in the past produce increasing returns and make it costly to choose a different path (Pierson 2000; Cairney 2012b, 76).

Advocacy Coalition Framework. According to the ACF, people engage in politics to translate their beliefs into action (Chapter 4). There are three main types of beliefs: core, policy core, and secondary. Actors with similar beliefs become part of the same advocacy coalition, and coalitions compete with each other.

its focus is on how coalitions interpret and respond to events—as external or internal shocks.

Narrative Policy Framework. The NPF seeks to measure how actors both use narratives and are influenced by narratives in policymaking.

Institutional Analysis and Development framework. The IAD framework focuses on the ways in which actors make choices within institutional environments that structure (or at least help explain) their behavior, namely, when engaged in collective action dilemmas. The focus is on providing tools to explore how different sets of actors and institutions produce different outcomes,

Innovation and diffusion models. Innovation is the adoption of a policy that is new to the individual government, and both determinants that are internal to a government and external—via diffusion—factor into innovation, according to IDM’s unified model.

In the third edition of this book, we focused on the extent to which these theories should be treated as complementary or contradictory (Cairney and Heikkila 2014).

actors form coalitions to cooperate with each other and compete with their opponents (ACF); they exploit cultural stereotypes and cognitive biases to tell stories with heroes and a policy moral (NPF); the policy system dampens the effect of most stories and amplifies some (PET); the small number of amplified issues prompt policy change during a window of opportunity (MSF); and subsequent policies create feedback, or the rules that constrain and facilitate future coalition activity (PFT).

we highlight where we see the strengths and weaknesses, broadly speaking, when we look across the chapters in this volume using our three overarching criteria: (1) inclusion of basic elements of a theoretical approach (i.e., well-defined scope and levels of analysis, shared vocabulary, clear assumptions, model of the individual, and relationships among key variables); (2) development of an active and coherent research program (inclusive of broad substantive and geographic applications); and (3) explanation of a large part of the policy process (i.e., coverage of actors, institutions, networks/subsystems, ideas/beliefs, context, and events).

the theoretical approaches discussed in this book all largely include the basic elements we identified.

In comparing the theories on the second criterion, we find an impressive level of activity with respect to the extent of publications and adaptation of the theories over time. Whereas most have well-developed research protocols and methods, some have room to develop on this front (MSF, PFT).

Finally, in examining how the theories meet our third criterion, we find that most at least pay attention to the six major elements of the policy process we included as part of their explanations of policy processes. However, the emphasis on specific factors varies on the basis of the scope of each theory in terms of which primary phenomenon the theory seeks to explain or which key factor it considers important in shaping policy outcomes.

problem definition: a causal story that identifies harm, describes what causes the harm, assigns blame to those causing it, and claims that the government is responsible for stopping the activity in question.

First, policy process research has been carried out for a growing number of cases, which allows for identifying general empirical patterns and a more demanding test of theoretical expectations. Second, theoretical perspectives in policy process research have become noticeably comparative, including classic comparative approaches such as cross-country studies and newer ones such as comparisons of different policy sectors in one country.

There are, however, nontrivial risks in applying a theory outside its scope. Theories are lenses designed to see some aspects of the policy process and ignore others. Studying a theory outside its scope may inadvertently lead a researcher to force observations into predefined conceptual categories, ignore vital aspects of the policy process, and misinterpret the magnitude and constancy of interactions.

applications of theory can also provide client-oriented advice for a policy decision.

One way to begin to grasp the issue is to understand the partition of public policy studies into policy analysis and policy process research. Policy analysis is the science and craft of providing client-oriented advice, usually for a particular policy decision. Tools of the trade in policy analysis include cost-benefit analysis, multicriteria analysis, equity analysis, and logic models.

In contrast, policy process research has traditionally emphasized the theoretical, focused more on describing and explaining a policy issue rather than on making a recommendation about a particular policy decision, and has often been conducted without a client.

Given the demands on academia today, policy process research needs to be conducted, both for science’s sake and with attention to broad impacts.

Policy process theories can be used to achieve broad impacts in multiple ways.

The first is to use policy process theories to portray the context of a policy issue by collecting the data and sharing the insight with people involved in the policy process,