Theories of the Policy Process

by Christopher M. Weible

Regardless of the structure of the policy community, it is by no means random which proposals survive in the primeval soup. To the extent that proposals fulfill certain criteria, they are more likely to become viable policy alternatives.

various “criteria for survival”: technical feasibility, value acceptability, public acquiescence, and financial viability.

!

Finally, path dependence can be incorporated in the selection criteria. If an idea strongly deviates from a previous policy path that is characterized by increasing returns, its chances of becoming a viable alternative are very low

The policy stream can be defined as ready for coupling when at least one viable policy alternative exists that meets the criteria of survival. If no such alternative is available, the MSF leads us to expect that coupling is unlikely.

bargaining and powering dominate in the political, as majorities for proposals are sought here. Kingdon identified three core elements in the political stream: the national mood, interest groups, and government.

The national mood refers to the notion that a fairly large number of individuals in a given country tend to think along common lines and that the mood swings from time to time. Kingdon suggested that government officials sense changes in this mood and act to promote certain items on the agenda according to the national mood. Thus, the national mood is characterized by a strong element of perception on the part of policymakers. Accordingly, Kingdon advises not to confound the national mood with the results of opinion polls because the latter lack the perceptual element.

Interest group campaigns are the second element of the political stream. Quite evidently, the more interest groups are opposed to an idea and the more powerful these interest groups are, the less likely it is that that idea will make it on the agenda.

Governments and legislatures, in particular, changes in their composition, constitute the third element of the political stream. For example, some ministers or members of parliament might be more open-minded with regard to some policy proposals, or certain ideas match better with the ideology of one party than with that of another one,

When is the political stream ready for coupling? For two reasons it is slightly more difficult to answer this question regarding the political stream than for the problem and policy streams—at least as far as agenda setting is concerned.

First, the three elements of the political stream do not need to point in the same direction for a given policy proposal.

Herweg, Huß, and Zohlnhöfer (2015) argue that government and legislatures are the most relevant actors in the political stream—because ultimately these are the actors who have to adopt a policy change. At the same time, their position may well be influenced, but not determined, by the national mood and interest group campaigns.

Second, it is not yet necessary at the agenda setting stage to build political majorities that may eventually be needed to adopt legislation.

In contrast to policy entrepreneurs, political entrepreneurs are neither necessarily members of the policy community nor do they have to be involved in the development of the policy proposal at an early stage. Rather, once a policy entrepreneur has convinced a political entrepreneur of the project, the political entrepreneur, because of the individual’s formal leadership position, can further the idea from inside the formal governmental system and work for its adoption.

Even when all three streams are ready for coupling agenda change may not come about automatically.

A policy window is defined as a fleeting “opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push attention to their special problems” (Kingdon 2011, 165).

To distinguish opportunities to get an issue on the agenda from opportunities to get policies adopted, Herweg, Huß, and Zohlnhöfer (2015) have suggested calling the former “agenda window” and the latter “decision window.”

Agenda windows are rare (at least with regard to a particular policy proposal) and ephemeral; they can be predictable (elections, budgets) or unpredictable (disasters). They can open in two of the three streams: the problem or the political stream.

A window in the political stream opens if the partisan composition of government changes or new members enter legislature.

significant shift in the national mood can open an agenda window.

an agenda window opens in the problem stream when indicators deteriorate dramatically

focusing events like natural disasters or terrorist attacks can open an agenda window.

Depending on the stream in which the window opens, coupling differs.

the case of a window that opens in the political stream,

The main task is finding a problem to a given solution.

Coupling in response to windows opening in the problem stream is called “consequential coupling” (Zahariadis 2003, 72) or “problem surfing” (Boscarino 2009, 429).

the duration during which the window is open is shorter in the former than in the latter case because response to a problem must be more or less immediate (Keeler 1993).

Second, in the case of a window that opens in the problem stream, a solution needs to be found that fits the problem that is on the agenda.

When the three streams are ready for coupling and issue competition is low, the likelihood is high that these kinds of windows can be used for coupling.

Policy entrepreneurs, that is, “advocates who are willing to invest their resources—time, energy, reputation, money—to promote a position in return for anticipated future gain in the form of material, purposive, or solidary benefits” (Kingdon 2011, 179), are key actors in the MSF.

Policy entrepreneurs push their proposals (“pet projects,” in MSF parlance) in the policy stream and adapt them in order to find broad support among the members of the policy community and make them viable alternatives.

Policy entrepreneurs are thus more than mere advocates of particular solutions; they are also manipulators of problematic preferences and unclear technology

They must be able to attach problems to their solutions and find politicians who are receptive to their ideas, that is, political entrepreneurs.

The MSF has mostly been applied to the policy stages of agenda setting and decision making. But it has also been applied to policy implementation and policy termination,

Agenda change becomes more likely if (a) a policy window opens, (b) the streams are ready for coupling, and (c) a policy entrepreneur promotes the agenda change.

agenda setting, a large number of actors compete for attention for various proposals, whereas decision making is about obtaining a majority for a specific proposal.

the relevance of the institutional setting increases as we move from agenda setting to decision making

Herweg, Huß, and Zohlnhöfer’s (2015) main idea is to distinguish two windows, and consequently two coupling processes (see Figure 1.1): one for agenda setting, which they label agenda window, with its associated agenda coupling (see above); and one for decision making, called decision window, with the related decision coupling.

a decision window opens once agenda coupling succeeds.

The main question during decision coupling is how to build the necessary majorities to adopt a proposal that has already been coupled to a specific problem during agenda setting. Political entrepreneurs, that is, those who hold an elected leadership position and who actively support a proposal (see above), are the key actors in this process.

institutional settings circumscribe whose support is needed.

Thus, in systems with few or no veto actors, decision coupling will be smoother in most instances because the adoption of a policy that is supported by the responsible minister is almost certain.

What can a political entrepreneur do to win over enough support to secure a majority for adoption of a proposal? The literature (Herweg, Huß, and Zohlnhöfer 2015; Zohlnhöfer, Herweg, and Huß 2016) suggests three instruments: package deals, concessions, and manipulation.

The basic idea of package deals in an MSF context is that more than one policy proposal can be coupled to any given problem.

it might be necessary to make some concessions, that is, to adopt the proposal in a diluted version. Less far- reaching changes are generally easier to adopt for a variety of reasons (see Zohlnhöfer 2009) that may also help political entrepreneurs obtain majorities for their proposals.

political entrepreneurs could try to manipulate policymakers. There are numerous ways to do so.

MSF has not been widely used in implementation research largely because ambiguity raises the specter of purposeless laws and symbolic practices that can be very expensive and conflict prone

the few implementation studies that have taken MSF seriously agree on the importance of policy entrepreneurs coupling three streams during open policy windows

The implication in both cases is that coalitions that support policy during the policy formation phase may be different from the ones that implement it

Boswell and Rodrigues (2016) focus on the department or ministry level, arguing that organizations rather than political parties are more important because implementation needs to take into account mainly those who execute policy.

Depending on how much the political system analyzed differs from the US presidential one, it is necessary to adapt the framework to different degrees.