policy making process essay

Policymaking Process

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Agenda setting, formulation, decision-making, implementation, reference list.

US$ 20, 000 for a ticket, US$ 50, 000 to access smaller discussion units away from the main conference, and US$ 60, 000 for accommodation on the lower side. That is the cost of attending the ongoing 43 rd World Economic Forum popularly referred to as Davos 2011.

Global leaders in various fields; industry, academia, civil society, government, and the media converge at the Swiss Ski resort during the annual meeting to reflect on, rethink, strategize, explore, find solutions to, and develop policies that shape world agenda. The meeting is one of the occasions when policymaking is a core business of the day. The art of policymaking is a common practice amongst leaders in many organizations whether public or private.

According to the American Heritage Dictionary (2006), “policy making is; high development more particularly of official government policy’’. Officials in government institutions do develop public policies in order to provide solutions to public issues by means of a political process. Although policymaking is normally a long tedious demanding process, all the steps involved are actually necessary for desirable results to be archived. Policy making conforms to the steps discussed below for a better yield.

This is the initial step into policy making where an issue of concern and/or to be evaluated by the government is brought up. The issue may be tabled by the government or citizens during consultations with government officials. Such consultations are necessary as individuals can advise on issues affecting them which officials may be oblivious of. If various matters come up to be addressed at this stage, prioritization is done in order to select what to first handle when all cases cannot be addressed at that particular juncture.

Politicians, public officials, and elites should be accountable for their actions to the public and not pursue their personal interests without any constraints. Governments, and any other institutions for that matter involved in decision making process should be transparent and accessible to the public. Any concerns raised by stakeholders are factored in the process and they are offered a chance to freely challenge the decision making process.

After setting the agenda described above, possible solutions are then elaborated at this stage. Public demand is taken into account in formulating a solution to the issue and possible available options are carefully weighed out.

Special interest groups such as those whose concerns lie with the environment, business, and human rights, among others are consulted in the formulation process, caution is however taken not to divert from the main objective of the policy for their own purpose. It is understood that since many conflicting interests are involved, there is no one correct solution to the agenda as complex issues need to be solved in a versatile environment characterized by uncertainty.

After all considerations in the formulating process, a final decision is taken by the government amongst the possible solutions floated. There are several possibilities in this decision-making. The government can go ahead with its proposal to the solution, use other counterproposals made by stakeholders, or compromise between the two. The decision can also be to take no action in which case the status quo is maintained.

With the final decision made, government officials possibly together with all the stakeholders translate the policy to a concrete action plan by use of substantive policy tools. An entirely new routine sometimes arise from the made decision. In some cases, new regulations are mandated and enforcement procedures developed to allow for the implementation of the policy.

This is the final stage of a policy making process. According to Lindblom (1968), evaluation is, “the systematic assessment and acquisition of information so as to provide useful feedback about some object”. This can be performed by government officials or other parties concern with the policy once implemented.

Formal means of evaluation like data analysis, or informal ones involving citizens’ reaction are deployed in evaluating the policy. Of concern during the evaluation process include among others: the effectiveness and net impact of the policy- that is, a revelation of failures, successes or need for any modifications to be made. In the event of a problem with a particular policy, the policy-making steps begin again.

Commitment to consultations and information is important in enhancing active participation at all levels and should be embraced. This should be taken in good time; at initial stages of policy making process to gather numerous possible solutions and required information. Clarifications on the public’s limit of access to information, citizen’s rights as pertaining to the policy, and procedures for feedback are made.

Adequate material and human resources are allocated to implementing the policy in addition to cross government and public coordination so as to enhance feedback and implementation. Together with promoting active citizenship and evaluation of a policy, transparent, amenable, external scrutiny of a policy making process leads to accountability.

In a nutshell, implementation of all the above steps results in: strengthened public trust in their officials, meeting of societal challenges, and improvement of the quality of a policy.

Editors of The American Heritage dictionaries. (2006). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language , 4 th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Lindblom, C. (1968). The policy making process . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

• Role of the American Constitution in America’s Political Process
• Public Policy Administration in Modern Society
• Christianity Role in American Policymaking
• The Process of Formulating Policy
• Nurse Participation in Policy-Making
• Bill AB 119 by Dave Jones
• Courtroom Observation
• The US Congress, Presidency and Bureaucracy
• Should Illegal Immigrants be Deported?
• Zimbabwe “blood diamonds” dispute breaks out at U.N.
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2018, July 31). Policymaking Process. https://ivypanda.com/essays/policy-making/

"Policymaking Process." IvyPanda , 31 July 2018, ivypanda.com/essays/policy-making/.

IvyPanda . (2018) 'Policymaking Process'. 31 July.

IvyPanda . 2018. "Policymaking Process." July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/policy-making/.

1. IvyPanda . "Policymaking Process." July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/policy-making/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Policymaking Process." July 31, 2018. https://ivypanda.com/essays/policy-making/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 How is Policy Made?

Katherine Knutson; Samantha Vang; and Brenda De Rosas Lazaro

Wondering why some text is in blue?  Click here for more information.

4.0 Where is policy made?

This chapter provides an overview of the policymaking process…it’s the “nutsy-boltsy” chapter, as one of my former public policy students would say. [1]   Ideally, this chapter would be as simple as describing how a bill becomes a law, but the reality is much more complex because policymaking occurs in multiple venues.  My goal in this chapter is to provide you with a broad view of how policymaking happens in each of these venues, but it will definitely oversimplify the process.

We’ll start this chapter by describing the legislative process for policymaking at the federal level, which is similar to what happens in state legislatures.  The executive branch is also responsible for quite a bit of policymaking, both through executive actions by the president and through the creation of regulations by the bureaucracy.  Again, we’ll focus on the federal level, though there are similarities at the state level.  Finally, we’ll discuss the policymaking that comes from the judiciary.

Legislative policymaking

Congress is the place to start when it comes to understanding federal policymaking if, for no other reason than the Constitution clearly states that all legislative powers are the prerogative of Congress (Article I, Section I).  Ideas for new policy are written (by a team of non-partisan lawyers who work in the Office of the Legislative Counsel in either the House or Senate) into documents called bills.  Bills are introduced in the House or Senate by a member of that chamber.  Ideas for bills can come from anywhere, but only a Representative can introduce a bill into the House and only a Senator can introduce a bill into the Senate.  Once a bill is introduced, it is given a number.  Bills introduced in the House have the letters H.R. before the number.  Bills introduced in the Senate have the letter S. before the number.  In addition to bill s , which represent a proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language, members of Congress might also introduce a resolution , which are used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments.

Figure 4.1: Gustavus students meet with Minnesota Representative Tim Walz in his office in Washington, D.C. in January 2017

The Senator or Representative who introduces the bill or resolution is called the sponsor .  Other members can cosponsor the bill if they would like to support it.  Members can only sponsor or cosponsor a bill that is introduced in their chamber (i.e. a Senator can sponsor or cosponsor a Senate bill but cannot sponsor or cosponsor a House bill).  Identifying sponsors and cosponsors is important because it provides clues about support for a measure.  For example, some bills are cosponsored only by members of one political party, while others have bipartisan support.

After a bill or resolution is introduced in a chamber and given a number, it is assigned to a committee for consideration based on the topics of the bill or resolution.  Each committee has a jurisdiction , or set of topics it oversees, although there is some overlap between committees.  The House has twenty standing committees and the Senate has sixteen standing committees.  While some of the committees line up between the two chambers (both have an Armed Services Committee and a Judiciary Committee, for example), the overlap is not perfect.  The House has an Agriculture Committee while the Senate has an Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.  These small differences can make it even more challenging when the two chambers are trying to pass legislative language that needs to be identical.  In both chambers it is possible to refer a bill to more than one committee.  This is called making a multiple referral .

Committees are a critical gatekeeping part of the process.  In theory, the committee’s job is to study the bill, deliberate over it, and make a recommendation, but in practice, a committee is where most bills and resolutions go to die.  This is because committees are not required to do anything with the bills and resolutions referred to them and because committee chairs have quite a bit of power to prevent action on a bill they oppose.  Each committee has a professional staff (two thirds of which are selected by the majority party and one third of which is selected by the minority party) that helps it review the proposals before it.  Committees are further subdivided into subcommittee s based on the topic of the legislation.

When a committee or subcommittee wants to act on a proposal, they will seek out additional information.  They may ask the Government Accountability Office to provide additional information about the proposal.  The Congressional Budget Office might provide an estimate of the costs.  The committee or subcommittee might hold a hearing in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

When the committee or subcommittee feels it has enough information to act, the next step is to hold a markup hearing .  During a markup, the committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.  If the proposal has been assigned to a subcommittee, a majority of members of the subcommittee need to approve of moving the proposal back to the full committee.  Then the full committee votes about whether to approve the proposal and send it on to the full chamber.  The committee can report the bill favorably (meaning they support its passage), adversely (meaning they oppose its passage), or without recommendation.    Since committees aren’t required to act on a bill, they don’t often report bills that they don’t support.

If the committee made changes to the proposal, those changes are reported as a single amendment.  If they made a lot of changes, the committee might just write and report an entirely new bill that includes all the changes (called a “clean” bill).  When a committee reports a bill, it also creates a written report to go along with the bill.  The committee report explains the purpose of the bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it).  The report also explains exactly how the proposal will change existing law.  The committee’s report gives insight into Congress’ intentions for the proposal and so it is used by bureaucratic agencies and the courts when they are interpreting the bill’s purpose and meaning.

Once a bill or resolution has been reported from committee, it is ready for the full chamber to act and so it gets added to the bottom of the legislative agenda, called the calendar.  There are a lot of items on the legislative calendar and only so much time for debate and voting, so both chambers have ways of prioritizing the policies on which they want to act.  In the House, this is done through the Rules Committee , which sets special rules for debating proposals.  The House (and the Rules Committee) is strongly controlled by the majority party because it operates mostly on the principle of majority rule.  If the majority party wants to act on a proposal in the House, it is relatively easy for them to do so.  The Rules Committee will issue a rule that moves an item up on the calendar and outlines the plan for debate and voting.  The Rules Committee can make it so that only the committee’s amendments are allowed and can limit the total time available for debate.

In the Senate, the majority party does not have quite as much power, unless they control at least 3/5ths of the seats.  This is because the Senate has a rule that allows for individual senators to speak for as long as they wish about any topic of their choice ( filibuster ).  Ending a filibuster requires a vote by 3/5ths of senators, or 60 Senators.  The threat of a filibuster means that the Senate doesn’t often debate proposals unless there is some agreement by both parties to do so.

The process of debating the proposals in both chambers is fairly complicated, but it’s not necessary to understand all the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure for our purposes.  It is important to know that both chambers might amend the proposal during the floor debate and voting process.  Members of Congress may make floor speeches during the debate period to articulate their position.  The Congressional Record contains a v erbatim record of the text of floor debates and other activity that happens on the floor.  Occasionally a member of Congress will ask that remarks be inserted into the Congressional Record, meaning that they didn’t actually speak the remarks on the floor of the chamber.

If the proposal gets to the point of a vote, it could be a recorded vote , which provides a list of which people voted for and against the proposal.  It could also be done as a voice vote , in which case we would know that the bill passed or failed but not by how much or by who.  A proposal can also be passed by unanimous consent , which means that no official vote was taken but no one spoke up to oppose its passage.

In order for a proposal to become law, it must pass both chambers in exactly identical form.  It shouldn’t be hard to see that this is a very difficult requirement because the process is happening in different venues and is controlled by different actors in each venue.  Surprisingly, however, many bills do emerge identically and this is usually because one chamber waits for the other to pass the bill first and then adopts identical language.  It doesn’t matter which chamber begins the process, except when it comes to bills to raise revenue, which must originate in the House according to the Constitution (Article I, Section 7).

The one constraint in timing is that both chambers start over every two years in a new congress after new members are elected.  Elections are held in the fall of even years and the new congress begins in January of odd years and runs for two years.  Any proposals that haven’t moved through the system by the end of a two-year period have to start again from the beginning in the next congress.

If the bills passed by each chamber aren’t identical, the two chambers can work out differences informally (called ping ponging) by making amendments or they can arrange for a formal conference committee , in which representatives from both chambers try to work out an agreement between the two proposals.  If changes are made through either of these techniques, the final language needs to go back to the two chambers for final approval.

Figure 4.2: The textbook version of the legislative process

To complicate matters a little more, there are really two separate tracks for policymaking.  The first track is the authorization process.  Authorizing bills reflect Congress’ support for the idea of the policy.  Essentially Congress says, “yes, we want to create this policy.”  But the authorizing process doesn’t confer any money toward the policy.  This happens through the appropriations process , where Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.  Congress can authorize whatever it wants, but until money is appropriated, there is no way to move the proposal into action. So, the proposals need to survive the process not once, but twice (once as authorizing legislation and once as appropriations legislation) in order to have a chance of success.

But that’s not the end.  Bills and joint resolutions that aren’t constitutional amendments require executive action.  The passed bill or joint resolution is sent to the President.  The president has three possible options.  First, the president can sign the bill into law.  Second, the president can veto , or formally oppose, the bill.  If the president vetoes the bill, Congress can try to override the presidential veto.  This requires a vote of 2/3rds in both chambers and is very difficult to achieve; only 5% of presidential vetoes have been overridden.  Third, the president can do nothing.  If there are more than ten days left in the current congress (not counting Sundays), the bill will become law without the president’s signature.  If there are fewer than ten days left in the current congress, the bill dies in what is called a pocket veto .  This puts some pressure on Congress to act ahead of this ten day window if they anticipate a possible veto.

So that’s the legislative process.  Except that in a lot of cases, it doesn’t work this way at all.  Recent changes have led to what Barbara Sinclair calls “unorthodox lawmaking”, which bypasses many of the processes outlined in this traditional model. [2]   One of the biggest ways in which lawmaking has become unorthodox is the use of omnibus bills.  An omnibus bill is a massive bill that packages a lot of smaller bills together.  This is especially common in the appropriations process, but it can happen for authorizing bills as well.  Another unorthodox method is for party leaders to negotiate a proposal bypassing committees and then substitute that proposal for existing language.

Following the legislative process can provide a lot of information about a proposal.  The website congress.gov allows researchers to search for bills and resolutions introduced since 1973.  In addition to providing the full text of the proposal, you can find information about sponsors and cosponsors, committee referrals, debates, and voting.  You can also locate committee reports on this website, which explain the proposal and provide information about the arguments for and against the proposal.

Most state legislatures operate using a similar process.  Every state but Nebraska has a bicameral legislature and requires proposals to be passed in both chambers. [3]   State legislatures use committees to handle the workload and governors have the opportunity to veto legislation.

Executive policymaking

When Congress passes legislation, it often sacrifices detail in an effort to win enough votes for passage, leaving bureaucratic agencies, boards, and commissions the task of sorting out the details required for implementation.  In fact, many laws specifically require agencies to develop the strategy for achieving the goals outlined in the law.  In other cases, Congress has delegated authority to an agency over a certain type of activity within society.  In any case, an agency cannot issue a rule or regulation unless it has been granted the authority to do so by a law passed by Congress.  Every rule and regulation that gets passed will include language that identifies its statutory authority, or the specific law that authorizes the agency to act.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority .   This process is called rule making.  Proposed and finalized rules and regulations are published in the Federal Register and later cataloged according to subject matter in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

In discussing this topic, both scholars and practitioners use the terms rule and regulation somewhat interchangeably, though there is a subtle difference.  The text of the APA specifically defines the term “rule” but it doesn’t define “regulation” even though the text of the law refers to regulations quite often.  The difference between the terms seems to come down to how the courts have interpreted the actions of federal agencies. [4]   Legislative (also known as substantive) rules are also called regulations.  A regulation is a statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress. The APA requires that agencies give the public the “opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” [5]   Regulations must go through this notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

In contrast, interpretive rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.  Technical corrections to rules also are allowed without  the notice-and-comment process.

Let’s take a minute to dive into rulemaking , the process of creating rules and regulations. [6]   An agency might begin this process after receiving new legislation passed by Congress or it might begin it in response to an emerging problem, recommendation from other agencies or the public, or an order from the president or court. Before it begins to develop a rule, an agency might gather information or even announce its plans to begin the process by posting an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the Federal Register.  Doing this invites interested parties to provide comments about whether a rule is necessary even before the agency begins to draft the rule.

Once an agency decides that a rule is needed, bureaucrats within the agency draft the proposed rule.  In addition to detailing the rule itself, federal laws require that they also explain the legal basis for the rule, the rationale for the rule and the data and evidence that was used to develop the rule.  Other laws passed by Congress require agencies to estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, estimate the paperwork burden it will place on the public, and analyze the proposed rule’s impact on small business and state and local governments.

More recently (beginning in the 1980s), agencies have begun using a process called negotiated rulemaking in which the agency invites interested actors, such as interest groups representing affected interests, to shape the initial proposal.  The goal of negotiated rulemaking was to make the process less adversarial by bringing interested actors to the table sooner in the process and, hopefully, avoiding lawsuits after the final rule was issued.  Unfortunately, preliminary research suggests that this alternative process hasn’t had the desired effect in reducing legal challenges. [7]

Before it is shared publicly, the rule is reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”), which is housed within the Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President.  Once the proposed rule receives approval from the administration, the proposal is shared publicly as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Federal Register.

At this stage, members of the public are invited to provide written feedback on the proposal through the website regulations.gov , which makes it easy for the public to find and comment on proposed rules.  Interest groups are especially active in this phase as they provide detailed arguments regarding the proposed rule, but anyone is invited to provide feedback.  The window for public comment is usually set at 30-60 days.  Agencies can also hold public hearings during this public comment period.

Here’s an example of a proposed rule that would change how the federal government collects information about race and ethnicity that, as of January 27, 2023 was open for public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/27/2023-01635/initial-proposals-for-updating-ombs-race-and-ethnicity-statistical-standards.

Proposed Rule 2023-01635

Following the public comment period, the agency must review all of the feedback that it gathered and then decide whether to modify the proposal, move forward with it, or withdraw the proposal.  An agency is not allowed to make a decision based on the number of comments in favor or opposed to the proposal, but rather the arguments and evidence raised in the public comment period.  The agency must be able to explain how the proposed rule will help solve the problem or accomplish the goals it identified.  If the agency plans to move forward with the proposed rule, they must address any significant critiques raised in public comments.  Once again, the OIRA gets an opportunity to review the proposed regulation in its new form.

Finally, the agency publishes a Final Rule in the Federal Register.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.  In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the new rule is sent to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office for review.  At this point, the House and Senate can pass a joint resolution of disapproval if they do not support the rule.  This joint resolution requires the president’s signature to void the rule.  Congress has 60 days to review new rules. [8]

After publishing the rule, agencies develop even more rules, called interpretive rules, to help provide guidance about how the rule will be enforced and to help the public understand the regulation.  These interpretive rules don’t require a notice-and-comment period and they may or may not be published in the Federal Register.

Once the rule is finalized, the door is open to legal challenges.  Individuals or organizations (government or nongovernment) can challenge the rule by arguing that it violates a provision of the Constitution, goes beyond the statutory authority granted to the agency, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (by not having following the notice-and-comment period, for example), or was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. [9]   For example, several judges used this standard to block proposed rules from the Trump administration in 2019 regarding restrictions against giving federal money to agencies that perform or promote abortion.  Courts have the option of upholding the rule or vacating the rule , which means that they declare the rule void or unenforceable.  A court may vacate a rule temporarily while it reviews the complaint in order to stop the new rule from going into effect.  In the abortion cases I mentioned, the judges issued preliminary injunctions which created a temporary hold on implementing the new regulation until a court could fully review the regulation.

While a lot of the focus on the bureaucracy’s power of policymaking is centered on the rulemaking process, policies get set every day on the ground by actors that Michael Lipsky called, street-level bureaucrats . [10]   Lipsky points to government workers like police officers, social workers, and teachers who are responsible for delivering government services and who, in the course of their day-to-day activities make decisions that “add up to…agency policy.” [11] Street-level bureaucrats gain this policymaking power because they are able to use discretion in making decisions and because they have a great deal of autonomy.

To give an example, speeding is against the law, but a police officer, who is often patrolling alone in their vehicle, makes an independent decision about whether to pull someone over who is traveling five miles over the speed limit.  Frank Baumgartner, Derek Epp, and Kelsey Shoub explore this very topic in a book that analyzes over 20 million traffic stops made in North Carolina over the course of a decade.  Baumgartner et al. find that “powerful disparities exist in how the police interact with drivers depending on their outward identities: race, gender, and age in particular.” [12]   Similarly, Lipsky argued that “the poorer people are, the greater the influence street-level bureaucrats tend to have over them.” [13]

The policymaking that happens through street-level bureaucrats is less of a process and more of a practice.  It happens without much of a plan and is more visible as we look back at the pattern of behavior that has emerged over time.  As Baumgartner et al.’s research shows us, because it generally targets particular groups of people (like Black drivers), it can be largely invisible to other groups who are not targeted (White drivers).

Before we talk more about the policymaking that comes through the courts, there is one more source of executive policymaking to discuss and that is the policymaking power of the president.

Though the Constitution describes the president’s power as executive, most presidents have found ways to expand their influence over policymaking in both formal and informal ways.  There is little in the Constitution that gives presidents legislative powers over domestic matters aside from the ability to sign or veto legislation.  Presidents have more power over foreign and military affairs through their position as commander in chief and through their power to negotiate treaties (which still require ratification by the Senate).  However, presidents have used the “take care clause” (Article 2, Section 3) to carve out a larger role in domestic policymaking through the use of executive orders and memoranda.

An executive order is a statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.  Executive orders aren’t technically legislation and they don’t require the approval of Congress even though they can result in a major change to policy.  Executive orders are numbered consecutively and published in the Federal Register like regulations, but unlike regulations, there is no review process.  Congress can pass legislation to counter an executive order, a new president can overturn an existing executive order, and executive orders are subject to judicial review. [14]

All presidents have used executive orders, and some have used them as a tool for major changes.  For example, President Harry Truman used an executive order to desegregate the military and President Ronald Reagan used an executive order to prevent family planning clinics that receive federal money from informing clients about abortion options.  Executive Order 9066 forcibly placed over 100,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry (most of whom were U.S. citizens) into internment camps during World War II. [15]

Presidents also issue proclamations, which are similar in nature to a simple or concurrent resolution passed by Congress in that they express a sentiment of the president but don’t create new policy.

Finally, in recent years (beginning in earnest with President Ronald Reagan), presidents have taken to issuing signing statements.  Signing statements are written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.  They identify portions of the law that the president believes violates the Constitution and that the president will not enforce. [16]   Signing statements are controversial, but presidents use them because they are not allowed to veto only a portion of a bill.

The delegation of legislative power to the president and the bureaucracy is controversial.  Libertarians have opposed the so-called administrative state since it emerged as part of the New Deal.  Opposition grew in the 1970s and 80s, with opponents arguing that it is unconstitutional for Congress to delegate power to administrative agencies.  This position was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency , which restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate emissions without explicit guidance from Congress. [17]  The decision has potential implications for many other regulations issued by other agencies if similar claims are made that the agency lacks explicit congressional authority to act.

Judicial policymaking

Although courts do not like to think of themselves as making policy, their decisions certainly have that effect.  Judicial rulings define policy, compel action, and stimulate additional policymaking.  G. Alan Tarr identifies several forms of judicial policymaking: constitutional, remedial, statutory interpretation, oversight of administrative activity, and cumulative. [18]

Figure 4.3: Gustavus students wait in line to hear oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017. No cameras, including those belonging to the media, are allowed in the courtroom during oral arguments.

The process of judicial review is complex because most of the provisions under consideration are not entirely clear.  Take, for example, the constitution’s protection in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.  The constitution doesn’t specify what counts as “unreasonable” or even what counts as a “search”.  Legislatures create policies to define these concepts, but the ultimate interpretation of whether a policy violates the constitution comes down to the courts.

Courts also engage in remedial policymaking.  This means that when constitutional violations are found, the courts often create guidelines for remedying the situation.  The goal in these orders is not to make up for past damages but rather to change behavior in the future.  A court might, for example, order a police department to change its practices for conducting traffic stops in response to a pattern of discriminatory behavior.

In addition to questions involving the constitutionality of laws, courts are involved in the interpretation of statutes (laws).  A law might be unclear or it might conflict with another law.  It may be difficult to decide whether a law applies to a new situation that wasn’t anticipated by those who wrote the original law.  In these cases, courts play a role in determining what the law means and how it should be applied, which sets policy.

Courts also provide oversight of administrative activity, or the actions taken by bureaucrats.  Cases arise when individuals or institutions claim that an agency has acted above and beyond what statute allows.  The claim here is that the agency has violated the law rather than the constitution and it is up to the courts to determine whether the claim has merit.  The inverse is also true; an individual or institution can claim that an agency has failed to act when the law requires them to do so.  Again, the courts play a role in reaching a conclusion about these claims.

Finally, as Tarr points out, even when an individual case might seem minor and inconsequential, the cumulative effect of decisions can impact the direction of public policy.  Courts rely heavily on precedent , or the decisions reached in prior cases.  Judges rely on precedent for new cases, which means that past rulings can shape current and future decisions.

In acting as policymakers, judges operate within a unique environment.  Unlike legislative or executive policymakers, judges generally cannot choose which issues they address.  Those with legal standing, or a legal reason to bring a case before a court, bring cases before judges to one of the federal district courts or state trial courts.  Only the Supreme Court has control over which cases it hears, and still it is constrained to hear only the cases that are appealed to it.

At the first level of the court system, criminal and civil trials sometimes use juries.  Criminal trials involve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government against the person accused of the crime.  A criminal trial can result in a financial penalty, incarceration, or even death.  A civil trial involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations.  A civil trial can only result in a financial penalty.  In these trials, the jury is presented with evidence and witnesses and then makes a decision.  The judge helps to clarify the relevant law and provides instructions to the jury as to how to interpret the law, but ultimately, the decision is left to the jury.  The job of the judge at this level is to ensure that the process is fair and follows guidelines established by law and the Constitution.

In practice, though, very few cases in the legal system end up in a jury trial.  At the federal level, fewer than 2% of cases result in a jury trial. [19]   The main factor that accounts for this low number in criminal cases is mandatory minimum sentencing, which provides incentive for defendants to accept a plea deal , which means that the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence. When a plea deal is reached, the judge has the authority to approve or reject the agreement and also has some discretion in sentencing.  In civil cases, mandatory arbitration and caps on monetary awards for pain and suffering make it more difficult and less appealing to take a case to trial.

In civil cases, either party can appeal the decision to a higher court.  In criminal cases, the defendant can appeal if they lose the case. [20] Appealing a case involves more than just being disappointed in the outcome; it requires making a claim that there were errors in the procedure at the lower level or in the judge’s interpretation of the law.  At the federal level, appealed cases go to the circuit court.  At the state level, appealed cases either go to an appellate court or to the state supreme court, depending on the structure of the state’s judicial system.  In reality, most decisions are not appealed.  At the federal level, only 15% of district court cases are appealed. [21]

Appellate court judges do not retry the case or review new evidence or witnesses.  Instead, they review the original case to see if any mistakes were made in the process or in how the law was interpreted.  Appellate courts use legal briefs submitted by the two parties and occasionally they will hold oral arguments featuring lawyers from the two parties.  At the federal level, appellate courts usually review cases as a group of three judges, called a panel. [22]   The appellate judges will deliberate and then issue a written decision, called an opinion, that explains the court’s rationale.  Very few cases are overturned at this level or sent back to the original court for review or retrial.  In fact, sometimes the appellate court will uphold the ruling even if they find the trial judge made an error if they think the error was minor or did not affect the outcome.  When a federal appellate court issues a ruling, that ruling becomes precedent for all of the district courts within the geographic area covered by the appellate court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeals and it hears cases coming from both the federal court system and from the state supreme courts.  Unlike other courts, the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears from among those that are appealed to it.  It takes four Justices to agree to hear a case. The Supreme Court reviews written arguments (briefs) that are prepared in advance, but unlike at the appellate level, the Court almost always holds oral arguments for the case.  During oral arguments, each party is given 30 minutes to make their case.  The justices interrupt often with questions for the lawyers.  Following the oral arguments, the justices meet in person to discuss the case.  The Chief Justice will assign one justice to write a majority opinion.  Other justices might choose to write a dissenting opinion if they disagree with the majority position or a concurring opinion if they agree with the majority but for different reasons.

When the U.S. Supreme Court issues its rulings, the decisions become precedent that cover the entire country, essentially setting a new federal policy.

Direct policymaking

In some states, the public is given the power to create policies through ballot measures.  The initiative process allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election.   A referendum is when a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal.  24 states have an initiative process and 23 states have a referendum process.  Every state but Delaware requires citizens to vote on changes to the state’s constitution.

The role for public participation in policymaking through initiatives, referendum, and constitutional amendments developed during the populist and progressive movements of the early 1900s.  Reformers attacked the power held by economic elites and demanded political reforms that would help level the playing field for average citizens.  In addition to advocating for policy changes like a ban on child labor, improved living conditions in urban areas, and an income tax system, Progressives advocated for political reforms like use of a secret ballot (Australian ballot) and avenues for direct public influence over policy and politics–the initiative, referendum, and recall.  These movements were especially successful in the west and midwest, which is why many of those states have direct policymaking processes while many east coast states do not.

Activists have used the initiative process to enact all kinds of public policies, from ending Affirmative Action to allowing same-sex marriage. The National Conference of State Legislatures keeps a database of all of the ballot measures since the late 1800s.  Interest groups, in particular, have used the initiative process to achieve their policy goals, spending millions of dollars to get measures on the ballot and to influence voters.  In 2020, the average cost of getting an initiative on the ballot was $2.1 million!

There is no initiative or referendum process at the federal level.  Changes to the U.S. Constitution require that the House and Senate both pass a joint resolution by a 2/3rds vote.  Then the measure is sent to the states where 3/4ths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment either through a state constitutional convention or through the state legislature.

Minnesota does not have an initiative or referendum process.  Changes to Minnesota’s constitution happen when a majority of each chamber in the legislature pass a proposed constitutional amendment.  That amendment goes before voters in the next general election.  Passage requires a majority of all of the people who vote in the election, so if someone casts a ballot but doesn’t make a selection on the proposed constitutional amendment, it counts as a vote against the proposal.

4.1 How are venues chosen?

Sometimes actors have very little choice as to which venue to pursue.  If an issue affects a particular state, it is likely that the issue will be taken up by a state legislature, executive, or judiciary.  If a question involves federal regulation, the federal bureaucracy is the appropriate venue.  Sometimes, however, actors have options and they will operate strategically to push their issue into a more favorable venue..

Remember back to our discussion of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the technique of venue shopping .  Policy actors strategically seek out venues that might be more favorable to their desired outcome.   Venue shopping allows the policy actors to shift the debate to a context in which it will be easier for them to draw the attention of the policy makers and to work with policymakers who are sympathetic to the cause.

As this chapter demonstrates, there are a lot of different paths for policymaking.  Policy is made by legislatures, executives, bureaucrats, judges, and the public.  It is also made at the federal, state, and local levels.  Each of these processes is distinct and you could spend a lifetime learning the nuances of a single venue.  Hopefully, this chapter has provided you with enough of an overview to appreciate the complexity while also understanding the basic processes.

Although there are many different venues for policymaking, the legislature is the primary place where policymaking should happen…at least according to the U.S. and state constitutions, so we’re going to end this chapter focused on the same institution we started with.  I’ve mentioned several types of writing in this chapter (bills, resolutions, committee reports, rules, public comments, opinions) and as we close out this chapter, we’re going to focus on one genre in particular that is important to legislatures.

4.2 What is legislative testimony?

Legislative testimony is written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation.  It is provided by interest group leaders, legislators, bureaucrats, and the general public for the purpose of informing and persuading legislators.  Legislative testimony can be short (only a page or a few minutes) or it can be long (dozens of pages or hours) depending on the situation.

The primary audience for legislative testimony are legislators, in particular, the legislators serving on the committee or subcommittee holding the hearing.  Sometimes the primary purpose of the testimony is to inform, but often the primary purpose is to persuade legislators.  You can probably picture someone giving legislative testimony in front of a congressional committee, but this also happens at the state level and at local levels of government.  The format for speaking at a school board meeting is strikingly similar to speaking in front of congress, though on a smaller scale.

Figure 4.4: Emily Falk ‘22 (speaking, in black) testifies about the Minnesota State Grant in front of the Senate Higher Education Policy and Finance Committee in March 2020

At the highest levels of government, a cabinet secretary might be called to provide testimony to a congressional committee about a particular scandal or a state bureaucrat might be asked to inform a legislative committee about the details of a particular policy.  Preparing for these scenarios is beyond the scope of this book.  Instead, we’re going to focus on the type of legislative testimony that often comes from interest group leaders and members of the public.

Legislative committees and subcommittees often hold hearings where members of the public and interest groups are invited to provide testimony. Additionally, interest groups and members of the public can send a written copy of testimony to members of the committee.

Preparing effective legislative testimony begins with understanding both the issue and the audience.  Knowing something about the issue is important because the committee wants to learn something from the people who testify.  This does not mean that you need to be a policy expert in order to testify; in fact, having personal experience with the issue can sometimes be even more powerful than simply knowing a lot about it.  Once you know what the topic of the hearing is, you should learn more about the proposed policy and think about your personal connections to the topic.    In your testimony, you want to be sure you are communicating accurate information about the topic and that you are giving the legislators a reason to listen to you, either because of your extensive knowledge or because of your compelling personal experience.  You also need to think about who you are going to be speaking with.  Is the committee friendly to your position?  Is the bill’s sponsor on the committee?  Has the committee supported similar provisions in the past?  Is this a relatively new issue for the committee or have they been dealing with it for a long time?

Now that you know more about the context and audience, you’ll need to consider your position.  Unless you are a specialist brought in to provide technical expertise, you are probably going to be speaking to the committee with the goal of persuading them to adopt your position on the proposal.  This means that you must have a clear sense of what your position is and that you can articulate that position clearly and support it with empirical and/or anecdotal evidence (using both is best!).

Once you have gathered information about the issue, the proposal, and the committee, and have thought about what you want to say about the topic, you are ready to start writing your legislative testimony.  The format of legislative testimony is a cross between a letter, a memo, and a speech.

The top of the page of legislative testimony often looks like a memo format with date, to, from, and subject lines.

The first paragraph is very similar to a legislative letter.  The opening line of the testimony should always recognize and thank the chair and ranking member (the top person from the minority party) of the committee.  The first paragraph should introduce the speaker.  If you are affiliated with an interest group, that is a place to introduce the interest group.  This is a good place to explain why you are testifying on this issue.  Within the first paragraph you should also clearly state your position on the issue.  The goal is that your audience doesn’t have to guess who you are or what you want because you’ve stated it all so clearly.

The body of the testimony is where you will outline your position and present your evidence.  Because you are usually speaking legislative testimony, it can be helpful to use some speech writing techniques like signposting.  Signposting is when you are very explicit about transitioning between main ideas.  For example, you might say something like, “there are three main reasons why this is an important proposal to pass now.  First…Second…Third…”  This helps your listener follow along with your argument.  This is especially true if you are presenting a lot of empirical information.  If your evidence is more anecdotal–based on your personal experience–it doesn’t work as well to use signposting, but you can still put some time and effort into thinking about how to most clearly tell your story.  It can be most effective if you can combine anecdotal evidence with empirical evidence.  Perhaps you have personally experienced something, but you also know that X% of the population has also experienced this thing.  Combining empirical and anecdotal evidence puts a face to the statistics.

At the end of your testimony, it is important to restate your position and thank the committee (again) for their time.

Once you have written your testimony, you have options for delivery.  You could read the testimony directly from your document.  You could also use the document to create a keyword outline and deliver your testimony more extemporaneously.  Whichever method you choose, remember that you are likely operating within time limits set by the committee.  It is very important that you stay within those time limits, so you should practice your testimony ahead of time to make sure that it fits.

After you’ve given your testimony, members of the committee may ask you questions.  The most important thing to remember during this stage is that you should never make up an answer that you don’t know.  It’s fine if they ask you a question to which you don’t know the answer; just admit that you don’t know and say that you will find out and get back to them.  Then be sure to follow up with them.  If there are other witnesses who are providing testimony in the same hearing, it is important to listen to their testimony and the questions they are asked too.  That will help you be aware of places where you are in agreement and places where you differ so that you can clarify that for the committee.

Finally, if you aren’t able to provide your testimony in person, you can always send a copy of your testimony to the committee.

Take a look at this sample legislative testimony.  Can you spot the stylistic markers that make it a good testimony?  Who delivered it and to whom was it delivered?  What argument do they make and did they support it with empirical or anecdotal evidence or a mixture of both?

Figure 4.5: Sample legislative testimony by Brenda DeRosas Lazaro ’22.  Following graduation from Gustavus, Brenda worked on a legislative campaign and then was hired as a Legislative Assistant at the Minnesota Senate.

Brenda De Rosas Lazaro

Testimony to the House Committee for Higher Education Finance and Policy

January 20, 2020

Madam Chair and members of the committee,

I would like to start off by thanking you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

I am a junior first-generation immigrant and college student at Gustavus Adolphus College. I am majoring in Political Science with a minor in Public Health. I was raised in Albert Lea Minnesota, with two hardworking parents and two younger sisters one aged 12 and other 16.

I am here today to speak on behalf of not only my fellow Gusties, but to provide perspective from some of the most underrepresented groups- immigrants, those of low socioeconomic status, and students of color.

The Minnesota State Grant has provided me the opportunity to access higher education at a great institution like Gustavus. The continuation and expansion of the Minnesota state Grant and financing for higher education institutions are the start of an effort to close the opportunity gap that underprivileged students face.

It is especially important now during the COVID-19 pandemic that we provided the resources for students to attend these institutions to continue to cultivate well rounded citizens who not only fight for themselves but for others.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected persons of color, by two-fold. Unfortunately, this past May my family experienced COVID first-hand. My mother contracted COVID a week before her birthday.  Our community of undocumented, low-income families were taking food off their own table to place it on ours. My mother was recovering for over a month after her intense face to face with COVID-19.

I didn’t know if I was going to be able to pay for books, tuition or even basic necessities come fall. This is a challenge many college students faced this past year because as undergraduate students, our places of employment were not considered essential, our hours were cut, or we were out of work all together.

Fortunately, the Gustavus faculty and staff were willing to help and led me toward the correct resources and lend a helping hand. And for that I have nothing but gratitude.

Attending a four-year private college seemed impossible but Gustavus made it possible for me to be standing here with new goals and aspirations.

Their help wasn’t just in these trying times were learning from home was the new norm, but when the integrity of the DACA program was under attack they were there to grant their full support.

After graduating next year, I intend to work for a non-profit organization that focuses on immigration, public service, and policy to build experience for graduate study in Political Science or Public Health.  I hope to help those in my communities, so they don’t have to endure as much as I did.

I do not stand before you for my personal gain, I stand before you for the 12- and 16-year-old that live with my parents with dreams of making history like our new madam vice president did today.

My parents brought me here in pursuit of the American Dream and their daughter speaking to the Minnesota House Committee for Higher Education Finance and Policy is father then they had hoped for and I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of first-generation students like myself and to bring the voice of my mother and father to you.

And finally, I would also like to thank you for your efforts and concerns in higher education and the equity thereof. Because without your efforts my dreams would have remained just that, dreams.

4.3 Why do you write?

Figure 4.6: Representative Samantha Vang ‘16

I was born and raised in North Minneapolis to Hmong refugees and am now a long-time resident in Brooklyn Center. I’m a first generation graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Communications Studies from Gustavus Adolphus. Shortly after I graduated college, I ran for Minnesota House of Representatives and became the first Hmong woman to be elected in the MN State House and the second youngest female ever to be elected at the age of 24. I became Chair of the first ever legislative Minnesota Asian Pacific caucus and then Chair of the legislative People of Color Indigenous (POCI) caucus and carried the caucus during a racial reckoning, a civil unrest of George Floyd and Daunte Wright that occurred right in my city. Now I am entering my 3rd term as a State Representative and Chair of the Agriculture Finance and Policy committee.

When I was a recent graduate and first ran for office, it was one of the hardest decisions I had ever made to date. To see myself in a position of power as a young woman of color took tremendous effort from me and my own support system to simply have the confidence to put my name in the hat. I had a hard time seeing myself in that role and asked myself who am I to think I can be responsible for 40,000 people? To see myself in a position of power as a young woman of color took tremendous effort from me and my own support system to simply have the confidence to put my name in the hat. During that time, I was at my lowest point mentally. I had no job,  little money, but my community, my campaign team, and my family took my hand and we never looked back. When it’s hard to believe in yourself, it is the people around you who will carry you through. I am so thankful that I’ve been surrounded by people who love and care for me and the community we continue to serve everyday.

As an elected official at the Minnesota legislature, our main task is to bring bills into law. We are also responsible for setting the budget of the state where we make budget decisions on where taxpayer dollars should or should not be spent. There’s also many other things we do on a daily basis, but those are our main constitutional duties. One of the tasks I enjoy doing is providing constituent services. It can range from hearing concerns from constituents, such as expediting a driver’s license renewal, or any requests constituents have for us at the state.

I do a lot of writing from emails to communicate with constituents and staff to media releases with the public. A lot of the time we have staff to help us during any writing process such as turning an idea into a bill or communicating with the public. When I do speeches or prepare for committee hearings, I often write my own.

When I am preparing for a speech, and if I have the time, I will try to prepare a couple of days in advance. I will do some research about the type of event and what type of audience will be in attendance. I like to hand write in a journal first, free flowing initial thoughts into a basic template of introduction, main, and conclusion. I don’t like to speak for very long, so my style is often concise. I will write the main talking point and later add on more detailed sentences. Once I finish with my first draft, I like to wait another day to have a fresh look on the draft and make edits or add additional thoughts. Once I finish with my first draft, I like to wait another day to have a fresh look on the draft and make edits or add additional thoughts. I do all of this in handwriting in a work journal I keep. I don’t make many drafts, probably most I make is 2 and then I rehearse to memorize the speech.

Before I present a bill that I’ve sponsored before a committee, I prepare notes, talking points, and sometimes include background research to provide context and the significance of the bill. I also prepare remarks that may answer members of the committee who may oppose or have concerns. I will also have testifiers who will speak in support of the bill and they usually prepare their own remarks.

I wish I had a different mindset about me as a writer in the beginning so I would have more experience on how to make my writing voice effective. I grew up insecure in writing since English is a second language and my vocabulary was limited. It didn’t excel until my college years. My mindset was more concerned with always trying to sound like any other good writer, but not about me as a writer on how to best convey my thoughts to the reader. Part of my journey as a writer was learning about my style and accepting that it’s okay to speak in the way that I speak because as it turns out, people actually understand me as the writer better that way.

4.4 What comes next?

Now that we have a basic understanding of the policymaking process as it moves through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it is time to turn to one of the most important questions addressed in this book: why does policy look this way?  The next chapter will dig into the question of policy design, focusing on the selection of policy tools and causal stories.  I’ll introduce the Social Construction Theory of Target Populations, which provides a theoretical explanation of policy design.

Questions for discussion

• What policymaking process are you most familiar with?  How did you learn about it?  What policymaking process are you least familiar with?  What questions do you still have about how it works?
• Should the executive branch play any formal role in actually making policy?  What are the arguments for and against executive branch participation in policymaking?
• Should the judicial branch play any formal role in actually making policy? What are the arguments for and against judicial branch participation in policymaking?
• Should Minnesota adopt an initiative process?  Should the federal government adopt an initiative process?

Administrative Procedure Act : This law outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority.

Appropriations process : The process by which Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.

Authorizing bills :  Bills that create, modify, or end a policy.

Bill :  A legislative proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language.

Civil trial : A legal hearing that involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations.  Penalties for a civil trial are financial only and don’t result in a criminal conviction.

Committee :  A formal group of legislators who have jurisdiction over a specific policy topic.  Committees study and debate bills, hold hearings to learn more about them, propose modifications to bills, and make a recommendation to the full chamber.

Committee report : A document produced by a committee that explains the purpose of a bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it) and how it will change existing law.

Concurrent resolution : (designated H. Con. Res. in the House and  S. Con. Res in the Senate) Used to change rules that apply to both chambers of Congress or express the sentiments of both chambers.

Conference committee : A committee that includes representatives from both chambers (House and Senate) with the goal of reaching an agreement between the two versions of the bill. Any agreement reached by a conference committee must be ratified by a majority vote in both chambers.

Congressional Record : A verbatim record of debates and other activity that happens on the floor.  In Congress, members can insert text into the Congressional Record, which makes it look like they made a speech on the floor of the chamber even when they didn’t.

Cosponsor : One or more members of the legislature that formally express support for a bill by adding their name to the bill as a cosponsor.

Criminal trials :  These trials involve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government (via a prosecutor) against the person accused of the crime.

Executive order : A statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.

Filibuster :  Occurs when one or more members of the Senate prolong debate on proposed legislation to delay or prevent a decision.

Final Rule : Published in the Federal Register as a codification of an agency’s interpretation of how to best implement a policy.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.

Hearing : A meeting held by a congressional committee in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

Initiative process :  Allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election.

Interpretive rules : This type of rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.

Joint resolution : (designated H.J. Res. in the House and S.J. Res. in the Senate) Similar to a bill.  Joint resolutions can be used to appropriate money for a particular purpose, requiring approval by both chambers of Congress and the president. They can also be used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Judicial review :  The power of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether an action taken by the government is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Jurisdiction : The set of topics that a committee oversees.

Markup hearing : A hearing in which a legislative committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.

Multiple referral : The process of sending a bill to more than one committee at a time for review.

Omnibus bill : A massive bill that packages a lot of smaller bills together.

Plea deal : An agreement between a person accused of a crime and the prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Pocket veto :  When there are less than ten days left in a current congress but the President does not sign or veto the bill, the bill does not go into effect. This is called a pocket veto because the President did not have to take proactive action to veto the bill but rather just put it in his pocket to die.

Precedent : Making a judicial decision so that it conforms to decisions reached in prior similar cases.

Recorded vote :   When a chamber of Congress records the names of people who voted for and against a proposal.

Referendum :  A process in some states in which a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal.

Regulation :  A statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress.

Resolution : Similar to a bill but used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments.

Rulemaking : The process of creating rules and regulations by bureaucratic agencies as they work to implement laws passed by Congress.

Rules Committee :  A committee in the House of Representatives that establishes the guidelines for debating proposals in the House.

Signing statements : Written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.  Presidents sometimes use these to call out aspects of the law that they disagree with and plan to ignore in the enforcement process.

Simple resolution : (designated H. Res. in the House and S. Res. in the Senate) Used to express the sentiment of one chamber.

Sponsor : The Senator or Representative who introduces a bill or resolution.

Street level bureaucrats : The government employees who work on the front lines of providing direct services.

Subcommittee s: A subsection of a committee that focuses on an even more specific aspect of the policy area.  Like committees, subcommittees can hold hearings and propose amendments.  Any decisions made by a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee.

Testimony : Written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation.

Unanimous consent :   The Senate requires approval from all members to act, and so it operates under a series of unanimous consent agreements to conduct its business.  Unless a Senator objects, the Senate continues with its business.  A Senator who strongly objects might consider starting a filibuster.

Vacating the rule : A declaration by a judge that an administrative rule is void or unenforceable.

Venue shopping :   The process of proactively seeking out a more favorable venue for political action.

Veto :  An action taken by a President to oppose a bill passed by Congress.   

Voice vote :  A vote taken in Congress in which members express their support or opposition to the proposal verbally without recording how individual members voted.

Additional Resources

Federal Statutes: A Beginner’s Guide https://guides.loc.gov/federal-statutes

Legislative Histories of Selected U.S. Laws on the Internet: Free Sources https://www.llsdc.org/legislative-histories-laws-on-the-internet-free-sources

How to Trace Federal Regulations: A Beginner’s Guide https://guides.loc.gov/trace-federal-regulations

Access proposed regulations and submit comments: https://www.regulations.gov/

Thanks for reading this chapter.  The book in which this chapter sits is a work in progress and I welcome feedback and suggestions for improvement.  If you notice incorrect or out of date information, please let me know using the feedback form linked below.  If something was particularly helpful to you, I’d also love to hear about it.  If you are a faculty member or public policy practitioner who is interested in collaborating on this project, you can also use this feedback form to contact me.  ~Kate

Feedback form: https://forms.gle/LKBykHHRLe2kNW2AA

• Eric (Halvorson) Fowler ‘13 is now a Senior Policy Associate for an advocacy group called Fresh Energy that advocates for Minnesota to transition to clean energy sources. ↵
• Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking ↵
• Nebraska did have a bicameral legislature at one point, but it changed to a unicameral system in 1937 because lawmakers thought it would save the state money and be more representative of the people.  You can read more about it here if you are interested: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/education/lesson3.php#:~:text=Critical Thinking Exercise-,U.S. Sen.,than a two-house legislature. ↵
• Brian Wolfman and Bradley Girard, Argument preview: The Administrative Procedure Act, notice-and-comment rule making, and “interpretive” rules, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 26, 2014, 10:13 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/argument-previewthe-administrative-procedure-act-notice-and-comment-rule-making-and-interpretive-rules/ ↵
• “Administrative Procedure Act,” National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives and Records Administration), January 25, 2023, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/553.html. ↵
• Information in this section is drawn from several sources: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp; Office of the Federal Register, A Guide to the Rulemaking Process https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf; ↵
• Coglianese, Cary, “Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking” (1997). Duke Law Journa l, Vol. 46, Pg. 1255, 1997, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=10430 ↵
• Congressional Research Service, “The Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions” https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43992.pdf ↵
• “The Rulemaking Process - Federal Register,” accessed 1AD, https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf, 11. ↵
• Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980). ↵
•   Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980), 3. ↵
• Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, and Kelsey Shoub, Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 2. ↵
•   Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980), 6. ↵
• Congressional Research Service, Executive Orders: An Introduction, March 29, 2021,https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46738; American Bar Association, “What is an Executive Order?, January 25, 2001, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/ ↵
• History.com Editors, “Japanese Internment Camps,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, October 29, 2009), https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation#:~:text=Japanese internment camps were established,be incarcerated in isolated camps. ↵
• Congressional Research Service, Todd Garvey, “Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications” January 4, 2012, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf ↵
• “Supreme Court of the United States,” accessed January 25, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf. ↵
• G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking , 7th edition (New York: Routledge, 2019).  Tarr also identifies common-law policymaking, but this form of judicial decisions is not as relevant to the policymaking process. ↵
• Emanuella Evans, “Jury Trials are Disappearing.  Here’s Why”, Injustice Watch , February 17, 2921. https://www.injusticewatch.org/news/2021/disappearing-jury-trials-study/ ↵
• The prosecutors won’t appeal a loss because of the Constitution’s prohibition on double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime. ↵
• G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking , 7th edition (New York: Routledge, 2019). ↵
• Occasionally, all of the judges from an appellate court will review the case.  This is called an en banc session. ↵

A legislative proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language.

Similar to a bill but used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments. 

Used to express the sentiment of one chamber.

Used to change rules that apply to both chambers of Congress or express the sentiments of both chambers.

Similar to a bill.  Joint resolutions can be used to appropriate money for a particular purpose, requiring approval by both chambers of Congress and the president. They can also be used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

The Senator or Representative who introduces a bill or resolution.

One or more members of the legislature that formally express support for a bill by adding their name to the bill as a cosponsor.

A formal group of legislators who have jurisdiction over a specific policy topic.  Committees study and debate bills, hold hearings to learn more about them, propose modifications to bills, and make a recommendation to the full chamber.

The set of topics that a committee oversees.

The process of sending a bill to more than one committee at a time for review.

A subsection of a committee that focuses on an even more specific aspect of the policy area.  Like committees, subcommittees can hold hearings and propose amendments.  Any decisions made by a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee.

A meeting held by a congressional committee in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

Written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation. 

A hearing in which a legislative committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.

A document produced by a committee that explains the purpose of a bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it) and how it will change existing law.

A committee in the House of Representatives that establishes the guidelines for debating proposals in the House.

Occurs when one or more members of the Senate prolong debate on proposed legislation to delay or prevent a decision.

A verbatim record of debates and other activity that happens on the floor.  In Congress, members can insert text into the Congressional Record, which makes it look like they made a speech on the floor of the chamber even when they didn’t.

When a chamber of Congress records the names of people who voted for and against a proposal.

A vote taken in Congress in which members express their support or opposition to the proposal verbally without recording how individual members voted.

The Senate requires approval from all members to act, and so it operates under a series of unanimous consent agreements to conduct its business.  Unless a Senator objects, the Senate continues with its business.  A Senator who strongly objects might consider starting a filibuster.

A committee that includes representatives from both chambers (House and Senate) with the goal of reaching an agreement between the two versions of the bill. Any agreement reached by a conference committee must be ratified by a majority vote in both chambers.

Bills that create, modify, or end a policy.

The process by which Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.

An action taken by a President to oppose a bill passed by Congress. 

When there are less than ten days left in a current congress but the President does not sign or veto the bill, the bill does not go into effect. This is called a pocket veto because the President did not have to take proactive action to veto the bill but rather just put it in his pocket to die.

A process in which legislators bundle up a bunch of bills on the same general topic into one large bill and the Minnesota legislature does it frequently rather than passing each bill separately.

This law outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority.

A statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress.

This type of rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.

The process of creating rules and regulations by bureaucratic agencies as they work to implement laws passed by Congress.

A rulemaking process in which the agency invites interested actors, such as interest groups representing affected interests, to shape the initial proposal.

Published in the Federal Register as a codification of an agency’s interpretation of how to best implement a policy.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.

A declaration by a judge that an administrative rule is void or unenforceable.

The government employees who work on the front lines of providing direct services.

A statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.

Written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.  Presidents sometimes use these to call out aspects of the law that they disagree with and plan to ignore in the enforcement process.

The power of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether an action taken by the government is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Making a judicial decision so that it conforms to decisions reached in prior similar cases.

These trials involve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government (via a prosecutor) against the person accused of the crime.

A legal hearing that involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations.  Penalties for a civil trial are financial only and don’t result in a criminal conviction.

An agreement between a person accused of a crime and the prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election.

A process in some states in which a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal.

The process of proactively seeking out a more favorable venue for political action.

About the authors

name: Katherine Knutson

name: Samantha Vang

name: Brenda De Rosas Lazaro

How is Policy Made? Copyright © 2023 by Katherine Knutson; Samantha Vang; and Brenda De Rosas Lazaro is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

Essay Service Examples Politics Policy

Essay on Policy Making Process

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

• Koma, G. P. (2013). A Policy Network Analysis of the Implementation of the Comprehensive Africa Development Program. 3 November, 1-81. Durban, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa: University of KwaZulu Natal.
• Kootz, T. M. (2005). We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts ofCollaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy. The Policy Studies Jornal , 33 (3), 459-481.
• Marumo, O. (2017). Open Budget Survey. Gaborone. Retrieved from http://www.openbudgetsurvey.org on 20th October
• Obasi, I. N., & Lekorwe, M. H. (2014). Citizen Engagement in Public Policy Making Process in Africa: The Case of Botswana. Public Policy and Administration Research: International Journal, 3 (4), 1-11.
• Perkin, E., & Court, J. (2005, August 5). Networks and Policy Processes in International Development: a literature review. Retrieved September 16, 2019, from Open Data Institute Website: http://www.odi.org.uk/cspp.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

Throughout the 1970s the nation was going through the Cold War and beginning the start of an...

• World War 2

Often, new wars follow closely behind old wars. This was the case with the 1947-1991 “Cold War.”...

In this Essay, I analyze the ethics of the One Child Policy and how this regime-mandated...

• Birth Control
• Perspective

Around the world, many women experience unplanned pregnancies. The lack of knowledge of an...

• United Kingdom

For my SEN module, I will be discussing and analysing ADHD aimed towards children in both primary...

• Cannabis/Medical Marijuana
• Marijuana Legalization

Public policy is the means by which government bodies transform their political vision into action...

The insurance sector is growing day by day in India but some people still feel that Life Insurance...

Social policy focuses on human needs, social issues, social welfare, equity, and social justice....

Can the country survive and continue to run by itself? Japan was a country which is ruled by a...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

• Mar 12, 2022
• 11 min read

Public Policy Series: The Stages of the Policy Process

Public policies are everywhere in today’s world, but their ubiquity is also why their definition is often elusive and the analysis of public policies tends to be complex. The Public Policy series offers the reader several tools of analysis that help make sense of the complexity of public policies. This series comprises eight different articles, each focusing on a different aspect, which should provide the reader with a framework of analysis to better understand the complex world of public policy-making.

Public Policy Series: What is public policy?

Public Policy Series: The stages of the policy process

Public Policy Series: Rationalist and Constructivist Ontology in Public Policy

Public Policy Series: An Overview of the Theories of the Policy Process

Public Policy Series: The Public Policy Actors

Public Policy Series: The Policy Subsystem

Public Policy Series: Beyond National Public Policy

Public Policy Series: New Approaches In Public Policy Studies

The first instalment of the series offered some definitions of public policy, highlighted its complexity, and concluded by suggesting that scholars use different heuristic tools to simplify the analysis of the public policy-making process. This article provides an overview of one of the earliest and most popular approaches: the disaggregation of the policy-making process in a series of discrete stages, known as the ‘policy cycle’.

The idea of a policy cycle stems from a common understanding of public policy as a ‘process’, as the definitions in the first instalment made clear. Policy outputs are shaped by the actions of policy-makers , operating within institutional structures on the basis of the ideas they hold regarding the problem and the potential solutions. Thus, disaggregating this process into multiple, interrelated stages through which policy flows in a more or less sequential fashion from inputs to outputs is a way to provide order and reduce analytical difficulties (see Howlett et al ., 2020: 8-9).

One of the first attempts to categorise the policy process came from Harold Lasswell, an early pioneer of the policy sciences. Lasswell (1956) divided the process into seven different stages, each with a specific policy-making function: intelligence, recommendation, prescription, invocation, application, appraisal, and termination. In the following decades, scholars built on this approach to stylise new and more empirically accurate models (e.g. Jones, 1970; Anderson, 1975; Brewer & deLeon, 1983), eventually settling with what is today called the ‘textbook approach’ (Nakamura, 1987).

This approach to the policy cycle broadly draws on the functions Lasswell (1956) assumed public policy-making ought to perform to identify five (sometimes six) stages of the policy process: (1) agenda setting, which recognises the problem; (2) policy formulation, where a solution is proposed; (3) decision-making, where the solution is chosen and legitimised; (4) implementation, in which the solution is put into action; (5) evaluation, or the monitoring of the results; and in some cases (6) the choice to either maintain, replace or terminate the policy. Below, each stage is delineated, and the advantages and disadvantages of the policy cycle model are discussed.

Agenda setting is the first in both logical and chronological order: the government can pass no policy if a problem is not identified in the first place. Agenda setting is concerned with the way policy problems emerge and how they gain the government’s attention (Howlett et al. , 2020: 100; see also Birkland, 2007: 63). In other words, the agenda-setting process aims to answer the question of ‘what makes an idea’s time come’ (Kingdon, 1984).

Agenda-setting scholars identify three ways through which items can reach the government’s agenda. Firstly, society can learn about problems through objective indicators. Examples are the rate of unemployment, inflation, pollution levels or criminality. These measures may indicate that things are getting worse, and that action is needed, thus making the issue gain considerable attention. Secondly, focusing events – sudden, relatively rare events that spark media and public attention (Birkland, 1997) – are another way to gain policy-makers’ attention. Examples are natural calamities, wars, or scandals. In the wake of such events, policy-makers may be pushed to provide an immediate solution, which requires giving heightened attention to the issue. Finally, since attention is scarce compared to the number of potential issues, agenda setting is fundamentally a competition to exercise power and define policy issues to establish their severity and causes (Cairney, 2019: 28). Agenda priorities thus create political winners and losers by their very nature (Zahariadis, 2016: 3). As such, for a problem to gain attention, it is important to create compelling stories that help policy-makers focus their attention to that particular issue (Peterson & Jones, 2016; Stone, 2012).

In sum, the agenda-setting process shows very well both the social construction of policy problems and the importance of power in policy-making. Zahariadis (2016) neatly summarises this stage using the so-called ‘Four Ps of agenda setting’: power, perception, potency (i.e. severity) and proximity.

Once the problem has been identified and put on the decision agenda, the next question to ask is: what is the plan for dealing with the problem (Sidney, 2007)? This is what the formulation stage sets out to do. This stage is essentially a matter of policy design: it is about setting objectives, choosing which course of action to take among the various options available, and which tools can be employed to address the problem (Howlett, 2018: 95ff.). The main job of policy formulation is then to ‘narrow down the range of all possible options to those that are available and that decision-makers might accept’ (Howlett et al. , 2020: 133). At this stage, policy-makers may avail themselves of the opinion of epistemic communities, stakeholders and interest groups, thus engaging in what is known as ‘evidence-based policy-making’ (see Cairney, 2016).

In the decision-making stage, legislators follow up on the formulated policies to legitimise them. Although ideally the decision to be made would be optimal and the result of an ‘evidence-based’ and informed choice, most often decision-making is a satisficing process, depending on institutional constraints and political calculations (Howlett & Giest, 2018). Hence, like agenda setting creates winners and losers in the selection of a problem, the decision-making stage creates winners and losers in the selection of the solution to be enacted (Howlett et al. , 2020: 177).

It is during the implementation stage that the intentions of the policy-makers are translated into action (Barrett, 2004: 255). Implementation is arguably the most crucial stage since a policy on paper is not worth anything unless it is implemented. But when can a policy be said to be ‘properly implemented’? For a long time, scholars took a ‘top-down’ approach whereby policies are said to either fail or succeed based on several factors, such as the clarity of the policy’s objectives, the presence of financial and ideational resources and of skilled and compliant officers, minimal dependency relationship (i.e. few ‘veto players’), and generally few external constraints beyond the control of policy-makers (Cairney, 2019: 28-9; see also Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980).

This ‘top-down’ school was opposed to a ‘bottom-up’ approach whereby central decision-makers only have a limited role, since implementation mainly relies on a decentralised apparatus of civil servants and administrative officials (Howlett et al. , 2020: 210). Bottom-uppers identify the main actors of policy delivery in local bureaucrats and see implementation as a ‘decentralised problem-solving’ exercise where negotiations take place within networks of implementers (Pülzl and Treib, 2007; see also Hjern & Hull, 1982; Thomann, 2019: 4). Several attempts have been made to synthesise the two positions (e.g. Matland, 1995; Sabatier, 1986; Winter, 2012), but the two perspectives essentially reflect preferences in research design: top-downers take a prescriptive approach, whereas bottom-uppers a descriptive one (Cairney, 2019: 29). Neither, alone, offers a comprehensive view of implementation.

Policy evaluation is about assessing the extent to which a policy was successful (Cairney, 2019: 32; see also Howlett et al., 2020: 241; Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 54). It is the last and most contentious stage of the policy process for two reasons. First, it is very difficult to answer the question ‘to what degree was the policy successful?’ since it requires knowing whose success is being measured (the government’s? the stakeholders’? the lobbyists’?), and about what kind of success policy-makers should care (the effect on their popularity? the completion of their agenda? the long-term impacts?) (Cairney, 2019: 32; see also McConnell, 2010). Hence, evaluation is by necessity subjective and very difficult to carry out analytically. Secondly, what is significant at this stage is not so much the success or failure of the policy, but the ‘lesson-drawing’ aspect for policy-makers. Evaluation should be an opportunity for policy-makers to shed light on the experience of the policies on the ground to understand whether or not the intended results were achieved and what can be learned for future policies (Howlett et al. , 2020: 242; Howlett & Giest, 2018: 24).

At the end of this process, and some time after the policy is enacted, legislators must decide whether to maintain , replace or terminate it. A policy, for instance, may be terminated either because it has absolved its goals, or because it has been proven to be ineffective (Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 55). But under real-world circumstances, this is a rather difficult process, because of the path-dependent nature of policies. Governments tend to inherit policies from past administrations, and they generally accept the ongoing programmes they find when coming into office, since it would be too costly (both economically and politically) to reverse them (John, 2013: 25; on inheritance, see Rose, 1990; on path dependence, see Pierson, 2004). Hence, termination is often not included in discussions of the policy cycle both because of its relative rarity and because, unlike the other stages, it is not always necessary.

It is clear from the discussion so far that the policy cycle model has some important advantages. First of all, and most apparently, this disaggregation facilitates the understanding of multi-dimensional processes by bringing logical and chronological order into what is a very complex web of interactions. Secondly, the policy cycle model can be applied at multiple levels of analysis, ranging from the local to the international. For instance, Mattli and Woods (2009) apply a similar model, called ANIME – Agenda setting, Negotiations, Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement – to describe patterns of international public policy among states. Finally, the policy cycle model addresses the intertwining of actors, institutions and ideas by describing where action takes place, who the actors are, and what they strive for.

However, the disadvantages perhaps outweigh the advantages of this model, which explains why most public policy textbooks today eschew such an approach (see for instance Cairney, 2019: 33-5; Howlett et al. , 2020: 12-3; John, 2013:18-20 for critiques). Firstly, its sequentiality suggests an apparent linearity that does not, in fact, exist in most real-world cases (John, 2013: 18-20). For instance, it is widely acknowledged that the implementation stage can be used to rethink and reformulate policies (John, 2013: 20; Thomann, 2019). Secondly, the policy cycle model lacks any notion of causation: it does not explain what, or who, drives a policy stage from one stage to another nor why this should be the case. Finally, this model remains silent about the content of a policy and how this may affect policy-making styles (see Howlett et al. , 2020: 13).

Hence, while the policy cycle model is often one of the starting points in public policy courses, two correctives should be applied. First, its apparent linearity should be taken writ large in the minimal sense that a formal policy must be proposed and legislated on, and the means of its implementation agreed upon. Such a model is more relevant for understanding the presentation and legitimation of policy rather than detecting the bargaining that happens during decision-making and implementation (John, 2013: 19-20). Secondly, rather than a model, the policy cycle should be seen as a methodologic heuristic founded upon a deep empirical record, which can serve as a benchmark for two different tasks. It can offer a perspective against which the democratic quality of the processes of policy can be assessed (Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 58). And, by facilitating the investigation of the public policy process, this approach can help with the accumulation of empirical insights from multiple cases that can be aggregated based on the stage at which they are analysed in order to generate new models and theories of the policy process (Howlett et al. , 2020: 274). The next steps of this series will be to understand the ontology on which public policy theories can rest.

Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policymaking . New York, NY: Praeger.

Barrett, S. M. (2004). Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration , 82 (2), 249-262.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda Setting in Public Policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 63-78.

Brewer, G., and deLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis . Monterey, CA: Brooks, Cole.

Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot.

Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding Public Policy. 2nd edition. London: Red Globe Press.

Hjern, B., & Hull, C. (1982). Implementation research as empirical constitutionalism. European Journal of Political Research , 10 (2), 105-115.

Howlett, M. (2018). Designing Public Policies. Principles and Instruments. 2nd edition. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Howlett, M. and Giest, S. (2018). The policy-making process. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Araral, E. Jr, Fritzen, S., Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (Eds.). London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 17-28.

Howlett, M., Ramesh M., and Perl, A. (2020). Studying Public Policy. Principles and Processes . 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jann, W., and Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 43-62.

John, P. (2013). Analyzing Public Policy . 2nd edition. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, C. (1970) An Introduction to the Study of Political Life . 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA: Duxberry Press.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

Lasswell, H.D. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis . College Park, MD: University of Maryland Press.

Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Rheory , 5 (2), 145-174.

Mattli, W. and Woods, N. (2009). The Politics of Global Regulation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding Policy Success. Rethinking Public Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Nakamura, R.T. (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review , 7 , 142–154.

Peterson, H. L., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Making sense of complexity: the narrative policy framework and agenda setting. In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting . Zahariadis, N. (Ed.). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 106-131.

Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pülzl, H. and Treib, O. (2007). Implementing Public Policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 89-108.

Rose, R. (1990). Inheritance before choice in public policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 2 (3), 263-291.

Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy , 6 (1), 21-48.

Sabatier, P. A. and Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal 8 (4):538-560.

Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy Formulation: Design and Tools. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 79-87.

Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Thomann, E. (2019). Customized implementation of European Union food safety policy: United in diversity? Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Winter, S. C. (2012). Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration. In The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration , 2nd edition, Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (Eds.). London: SAGE Publications, pp. 265-278.

Zahariadis, N. (2016). Setting the agenda on agenda setting: definitions, concepts and controversies. In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting . Zahariadis, N. (Ed.). Chelthenam and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1-22.

Image References

Figure 1: BBC. (2017, December 4th). Picture from the manuscript Zoroaster Clavis Artis, MS. Verginelli-Rota, Biblioteca dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome (Italy) [Drawing]. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20171204-the-ancient-symbol-that-spanned-millennia

Figure 2: Own elaboration.

Figure 3: Shutterstock. (n.d.). Multiracial fists hands up vector illustration. Concept of unity, protest, revolution, fight, cooperation. [Flat outline design]. Retrieved from: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-illustration-different-hands-white-bannerss-1287073093?irclickid=2gMwztR7WxyIUoL3yWzwET6DUkGWY4zGi2fkzo0&irgwc=1&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term=&c3ch=Affiliate&c3nid=IR-77643

Figure 4: Shutterstock. (n.d.). Overhead Railroad Crossing [Photograph]. Retrieved from: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/overhead-railroad-crossing-86284846?irclickid=2gMwztR7WxyIUoL3yWzwET6DUkGWY9QHi2fkzo0&irgwc=1&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term=&c3ch=Affiliate&c3nid=IR-77643

Figure 5: Own elaboration.

Marco Schito

Arcadia has an extensive catalog of articles on everything from literature to science — all available for free! If you liked this article and would like to read more, subscribe below and click the “Read More” button to discover a world of unique content.

Let the posts come to you!

Thanks for submitting!

Understanding and influencing the policy process

• Published: 18 November 2011
• Volume 45 , pages 1–21, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

• Christopher M. Weible 1 ,
• Tanya Heikkila 1 ,
• Peter deLeon 1 &
• Paul A. Sabatier 2  

15k Accesses

162 Citations

42 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This essay translates some of the underlying logic of existing research of policy processes into a set of strategies for shaping policy agendas and influencing policy development and change. The argument builds from a synthesized model of the individual and a simplified depiction of the political system. Three overarching strategies are introduced that operate at the policy subsystem level: developing deep knowledge; building networks; and participating for extended periods of time. The essay then considers how a democratic ethic can inform these strategies. Ultimately, the success or failure of influencing the policy process is a matter of odds, but these odds could be changed favorably if individuals employ the three strategies consistently over time. The conclusion contextualizes the arguments and interprets the strategies offered as a meta-theoretical argument of political influence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reflections on Our Understanding of Policy Paradigms and Policy Change

Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation

Modeling and Evaluation of Political Processes: A New Quantitative Approach

Explore related subjects.

• Artificial Intelligence
• Medical Ethics

The field of policy process literature offers valid and useful knowledge generated from rigorous scientific approaches to data collection and analysis about the development of public policy over time. Depictions in a recent public policy handbook by Moran et al. ( 2006 , p. 5) and repeated by Smith and Larimer ( 2009 , p. 1) that policy process literature within public policy is more “mood than a science” is inaccurate. Indeed, to find the “scientific” approach in policy process research, people need look no further than to Dr. Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize for her work within the institutional analysis and development framework (Ostrom 1990 , 2005 ) or to Drs. Bryan Jones and Frank Baumgartner’s arguments on institutional friction affecting incremental and punctuated policy change (Baumgartner et al. 2009 ; Jones et al. 2003 ). Of course, many unanswered questions remain. We recognize the challenges facing policy process researchers (Greenberg et al. 1977 ) and the numerous theories characterizing the field, some of which are stronger than others (Sabatier 1991 , 2007 ). The persistence of some theories over others is possibly one indication of growth and progress in the field.

For those wanting specific tactical recommendations on civic engagement, we refer readers to Gerston ( 2008 ) and Dalton ( 2008 ).

See the work by Van de Ven ( 2007 ) for a similar depiction of process types.

It is most important to recognize that the rational actor model found in economics and public choice theories, which assumes perfect rationality, utility maximization and often perfect abilities to process information, does not accurately depict the behavior of individuals operating in policy processes. While these assumptions might be useful in market settings, they have been shown empirically and theoretically not to apply to the action situations found in policy processes (see among many the arguments in Jones 2001 ; Ostrom et al. 1994 ; Poteete et al. 2010 ).

We purposively exclude the physical, geographic conditions from this initial discussion. Our rationale is not at all that these factors are unimportant for we address them in the next section. Instead, we argue that the constitutional features of a political system as found in the United States and the resulting emergence of subsystems and action situations is applicable across all problem contexts.

Policy subsystems themselves can be integrated into or around the more generic concept of “action situations.” Action situations can be defined as any human choice situation with two or more actors where collective outcomes emerge (Ostrom 2005 ). Thus, subsystems can be thought of as a very large “action situation,” but they are better conceptualized as having many other action situations nested within them. Both subsystems and action situations outside the subsystem than can affect affairs within the subsystem (for similar logic see Poteete et al. 2010 , p. 235).

The astute observer of the policy process literature will note the different of interpretations of policy subsystems. Some anchor the concept toward the traditional iron triangle or subgovernment concept with strong connections to a legislative subcommittee (Jochim and May 2010 ). Others de-emphasize the subcommittee concept and instead focus on subsystem nestedness and interdependence (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ). We emphasize the latter.

While we claim similar arguments could be made in parliamentary and corporatist systems, we leave the nuances of these arguments to others.

The ACF lists four paths, but we simplify them to three in this essay (Sabatier and Weible 2007 ) and because the theoretical distinction between internal and external shocks continues to evolve (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ).

Undoubtedly, however, learning about some of the causal mechanisms between events and subsystem change is partly a function of the event itself but even more related to the actual context of the subsystem (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ).

May ( 1992 ), for example, described different types of learning instrumental, social, and political.

Other interpretations of the normative part of a belief system deal with cultural types be them hierarchists (strong identity to groups and strong allegiance to externally imposed prescriptions, such as rules and traditions), individualists (weak identity to groups and external prescriptions), egalitarians (strong identify to groups with weak constraints from prescriptions), and fatalists (weak group identity and high constraints from imposed prescriptions) (Herron and Jenkins-Smith 2006 , p. 135–6). See also Stone’s ( 2001 ) characterization of goals as involving equity, efficiency, security, and liberty.

We prefer analytics instead of scientific and technical training because the term is more open to knowledge in fields outside of the sciences (e.g., the humanities or law). We also use the term analytics instead of discipline because some people have multiple disciplines or their disciplines poorly depict their actual disciplinary competencies.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politics . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Baumgartner, F. R., Breunig, C., Green-Pedersen, C., Jones, B. D., Mortensen, P. B., Nuytemans, M., et al. (2009). Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (3), 603–620.

Article   Google Scholar  

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84 , 395–415.

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 223–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2010). An introduction to the policy process (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Blomquist, W. (2007). The policy process and large-N comparative studies. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 161–293). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brewer, G. D. (1974). The policy sciences emerge: To nurture and structure a discipline. Policy Sciences, 5 (3), 239–244.

Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clark, T. W. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cohen, S. (2006). Understanding environmental policy . New York: Columbia University Press.

Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the revolution? Authority in a good society (Revised Edition ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A., & Stinebrickner, B. (2003). Modern political analysis . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping american politics . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

deLeon, P. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going? In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 19–34). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

deLeon, P., & Weible, C. M. (2010). Policy process research for democracy: A commentary on Lasswell’s vision. International Journal of Policy Studies, 1 (2), 23–34.

Deutsch, K. W. (1966). The nerves of government . New York: The Free Press.

Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ericsson, E. K. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, J. L. (1965). The political process: Executive bureau-legislative committee relations (2nd ed.). New York: Random House, Inc.

Gerston, L. N. (2008). Public policymaking in a democratic society: A guide to civic engagement (2nd ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers . New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

Greenberg, G. D., Miller, J. A., Mohr, L. B., & Vladeck, B. C. (1977). Developing public policy theory: Perspectives from empirical research. The American Political Science Review, 71 (4), 1532–1543.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46 , 1–35.

Heclo, H. (1974). Social policy in Britain and Sweden . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Henry, A. D., Douglas, L., & Michael, M. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (3), 419–444.

Herron, K. G., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2006). Critical masses and critical choices: Evolving public opinion on nuclear weapons, terrorism, and security . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hofferbert, R. I. (1974). The study of public policy . Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Ingram, H., Schneider, A. L., & deLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 93–128). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jenkins-Smith, H. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Jenkins-Smith, H., Gilbert, St. C., & Brian, W. (1991). Explaining change in policy subsystems: Analysis of coalition stability and defection over time. American Journal of Political Science, 35 (4), 851–880.

Jochim, A. E., & May, P. J. (2010). Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), 303–327.

Jones, B. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance . Chicago, IL: The University Chicago Press.

Jones, B. D., Sulkin, T., & Larsen, H. A. (2003). Policy punctuations in American political institutions. American Political Science Review, 97 (1), 151–169.

Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional arrangements. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2007). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

Kuhn, T. K. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: Chicago UP.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism, the growth of knowledge . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). Power and personality . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (Vol. Chap 1). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process . College Park: University of Maryland Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences . New York: American Elsevier.

Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Loehle, C. (1987). Hypothesis testing in ecology: Psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Quarterly Review of Biology, 62 , 397–409.

Madison, J. (1961). Federalist #10. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The Federalist papers . New York: New American Library.

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, & persuasion in the policy process . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mazur, A. (1981). The dynamics of technical controversy . Washington, D.C.: Communications Press.

May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12 (4), 331–354.

Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. A. (1980). A multi-variate model of public policy-making. American Journal of Political Science, 24 (3), 439–468.

Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1981). Implementation and public policy . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. F. (Eds.). (2006). The oxford handbook of public policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

McCool, D. (1995). Public policy theories, models, and concepts: An anthology . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Noel, H. (2010). Ten things political scientists know that you don’t. The Forum, 8 (3), 1–19.

Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nohrstedt, D. & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction . Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1 (2), 1–32.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies perspective . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, E. (1999). A behavioral approach to rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92 (March):1–22.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations . New York: Harper and Row.

Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pralle, S. (2003). Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forestry advocacy. Journal of public policy, 23 (3), 233–260.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1972). Implementation . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ranney, A. (Ed.). (1968). Political science and public policy . Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.

Redford, E. S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state . New York: Oxford University Press.

Rhoades, R. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. F. Goodin (eds) The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425–447). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sabatier, P. A., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. The Western Political Quarterly, 40 (3), 449–476.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences , 21, 129–168.

Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24 (2), 147–156.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach . Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. (1999). Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sharkansky, I. (1970). Policy analysis in political science . Chicago: Markham.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1969). The semi-sovereign people . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Schlager, E. (2004). Common-pool resource theory. In R. F. Durant, R. O’Leary, & D. J. Fiorino (Eds.), Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, opportunities (pp. 145–176). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Simeon, R. (1976). Studying public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9 (4), 548–580.

Simon, H. A. (1985). The human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79 (2), 293–304.

Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. (2009). The new policy theory primer . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63 , 880–899.

Weible, C. M., & Moore, R. H. (2010). Analytics and beliefs: Competing explanations for defining problems and in choosing allies and opponents in collaborative environmental management. Public Administration Review, 70 , 756–766.

Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3 , 531–545.

Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2004). Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. The Policy Studies Journal, 32 (1), 75–107.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO, 80217, USA

Christopher M. Weible, Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California Davis, 916 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 96616, USA

Paul A. Sabatier

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher M. Weible .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Weible, C.M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P. et al. Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sci 45 , 1–21 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5

Download citation

Published : 18 November 2011

Issue Date : March 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Public policy
• Policy analysis
• Policy change
• Institutional change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

How to Write a Policy Analysis Paper in 6 Easy Steps (+Examples)

Working on a policy analysis paper is both challenging and fulfilling. In this article, we'll guide you through the process, whether you're new to the field or experienced. Understanding how policies are made, evaluated, and recommended is crucial for making a difference in public discussions and decisions. We'll cover everything from defining your goals to researching thoroughly, analyzing data, and presenting persuasive arguments. By following these steps, you'll be able to communicate your ideas effectively, shape procedure debates, and contribute to positive changes in society. Should you need more hands-on aid with the assignment, hire a college essay writer for the maximum result.

What Is a Policy Analysis Paper

A policy analysis essay definition is a comprehensive examination and evaluation of a particular policy or set of policies within a given context. It involves analyzing the rationale behind the system, its objectives, implementation strategies, and its intended and unintended consequences. This type of paper aims to provide insights into the effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and feasibility of the approach, often considering various perspectives, stakeholders, and alternatives. Through rigorous research, data analysis, and critical reasoning, procedure analysis papers aim to inform decision-makers, scholars, and the public about the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies and propose recommendations for improvement or alternative courses of action.

Haven’t Written a Policy Analysis Paper Before?

Let expert writers guide you through the process!

Policy Analysis Paper Purpose

The purpose of a policy analysis paper is to critically assess a specific procedure or set of policies in order to provide valuable insights into its effectiveness, implications, and potential areas for improvement. By examining the underlying rationale, objectives, and outcomes of the implementation, this type of paper aims to inform decision-makers, stakeholders, and the public about its strengths, weaknesses, and impacts on society. 

Students are writing a policy analysis paper in college for several reasons. Firstly, it allows them to develop critical thinking and analytical skills by evaluating real-world policies and their implications. Additionally, it helps students understand the complexities of policy-making processes and how policies impact various stakeholders. Writing analysis papers also enhances research and writing skills, as students must gather and synthesize information from diverse sources to support their arguments effectively. Furthermore, engaging with procedure analysis fosters civic engagement and social responsibility, encouraging students to contribute to public discourse and advocate for evidence-based solutions. Are you dealing with multiple assignments all at the same time? If you’re about to address the audience, say, ‘ write a speech for me ,’ so our experts can relieve your workload.

Topic Ideas for Policy Analysis Paper

Here’s a collection of 50 thought-provoking policy analysis paper topics for your inspiration. In addition, we’d like to offer you informative essay topics for the purpose of learning and self-education.

• The viability of a universal healthcare system: An analysis.
• Plastic bag bans: Environmental implications examined.
• Tax credits for renewable energy adoption: Assessing effectiveness.
• Social security and raising the retirement age: Exploring implications.
• Implementing a four-day workweek: Feasibility assessment.
• Community policing strategies: Effectiveness in crime reduction.
• Increasing the minimum wage: Consequences evaluated.
• School voucher programs: Impact on educational equity.
• Congestion pricing for urban areas: Benefits and drawbacks analyzed.
• Government subsidies for electric vehicles: Effectiveness assessed.
• Zoning laws and affordable housing availability: An investigation.
• National carbon tax: Feasibility and impact explored.
• Mandatory voting laws: Consequences for political participation.
• Drug rehabilitation programs: Effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
• Legalizing marijuana: Public health implications examined.
• Immigration policies and cultural diversity: Assessing impact.
• Privatizing water utilities: Consequences analyzed.
• Anti-bullying policies in schools: Effectiveness evaluated.
• Free college tuition programs: Benefits and drawbacks assessed.
• Wealth tax implementation: Feasibility analysis.
• Ride-sharing services and traditional taxi industries: Impact assessment.
• Gender quotas in corporate leadership: Effectiveness examined.
• National gun registry: Implications and feasibility explored.
• Expanding nuclear energy production: Consequences evaluated.
• Mandatory parental leave policies: Effectiveness assessment.
• Charter school expansion: Impact on public education explored.
• Basic income implementation: Viability and consequences assessed.
• Affordable housing initiatives: Success factors examined.
• Internet privacy regulations: Impact on data security analyzed.
• Corporate tax breaks: Economic implications assessed.
• Universal preschool programs: Long-term benefits explored.
• Climate change adaptation policies: Effectiveness in resilience building.
• Universal voting by mail: Implications for voter turnout examined.
• Reducing military spending: Consequences and feasibility analyzed.
• Workplace diversity training: Effectiveness in promoting inclusivity.
• Renewable energy subsidies: Impact on energy independence assessed.
• Telecommuting incentives: Feasibility and impact on traffic analyzed.
• Carbon capture and storage initiatives: Viability and effectiveness.
• Local food sourcing policies: Benefits for communities examined.
• Police body camera mandates: Impact on accountability assessed.
• Community land trust programs: Success factors and limitations.
• Mental health parity laws: Effectiveness in improving access.
• Corporate social responsibility regulations: Impact on sustainability.
• Universal pre-kindergarten education: Social and economic benefits.
• Land value tax implementation: Impact on property markets assessed.
• Affordable childcare initiatives: Impact on workforce participation.
• Smart city technology investments: Benefits for urban development.
• Flexible work hour policies: Impact on productivity and well-being.
• Prescription drug pricing regulations: Consequences for affordability.
• Public-private partnerships for infrastructure development: Effectiveness and risks assessed.

If you need more ideas, you may want to consult our guide on argumentative essay topics , which will definitely help kickstart your creativity. 

How to Structure a Policy Analysis Paper

A policy analysis paper format demands organizing your content coherently and logically to effectively communicate your analysis and findings. Here's a typical structure you can follow:

Introduction

• Provide an overview of the issue or problem you're analyzing.
• Clearly state the purpose of your analysis.
• Introduce the policy or policies under review.
• Provide background information to contextualize the issue.
• State your thesis or research question.

Policy Context and Background

• Provide more in-depth background information on the issue.
• Describe the historical development of the policies.
• Discuss the context in which the procedure was implemented.
• Identify key stakeholders and their interests in the strategy.

Policy Analysis Framework

• Explain the framework or methodology you're using to analyze the policy.
• Define key concepts and terms relevant to your analysis.
• Discuss any theoretical frameworks or models guiding your analysis.
• Outline the criteria or criteria you will use to evaluate the procedure's effectiveness.

Policy Goals and Objectives

• Identify and discuss the stated goals and objectives of the policy.
• Evaluate the clarity and coherence of these goals.
• Discuss any potential conflicts or contradictions among the goals.

Policy Implementation

• Describe how the policy has been implemented in practice.
• Discuss any challenges or barriers to implementation.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies.

Policy Outcomes and Impacts

• Assess the outcomes and impacts of the policy.
• Evaluate the extent to which the procedure has achieved its intended goals.
• Discuss any unintended consequences or side effects of the approach.

Policy Alternatives

• Identify and discuss alternative policy options or approaches.
• Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative.
• Discuss the potential trade-offs associated with each alternative.

Recommendations

• Based on your analysis, provide recommendations for policymakers.
• Discuss specific actions or changes that could improve the process.
• Justify your recommendations with evidence from your analysis.
• Summarize the main findings of your analysis.
• Restate your thesis or research question.
• Reflect on the broader implications of your analysis.
• Discuss any limitations or areas for further research.
• Provide a list of sources cited in your paper.
• Follow the appropriate citation style (e.g., APA, MLA, Chicago).

Need help with the assignment at this stage? Hire writer for political essay help to save time and secure optimal academic results.

How to Write a Policy Analysis Paper

In this section, we'll cover the basics of writing a policy analysis paper. This type of paper involves breaking down complicated policy issues, figuring out how well they're working, and suggesting ways to make them better. We'll walk you through the steps, like defining the goals of the implementation, looking at how it's being put into action, and checking what effects it's having. By the end, you'll have the skills to write a clear, well-reasoned paper that can help shape policies for the better. 

Understanding the Policy Issue

Start by thoroughly understanding the policy issue or problem you're analyzing. Research its background, context, and significance. Identify key stakeholders, relevant laws or regulations, and any existing policies addressing the issue.

Defining the Scope and Purpose

Clearly define the scope and purpose of your analysis. Determine what specific aspect of the approach you'll focus on and why it's important. Clarify the goals of your analysis and what you hope to achieve with your paper. Use an expert essay writing service to streamline your effort in producing a first-class paper. 

Gathering Data and Evidence

Collect relevant data and evidence to support your analysis. This may include statistical information, case studies, expert opinions, and academic research. Use credible sources and ensure your data is accurate and up-to-date.

Analyzing the Policy

A policy analysis paper evaluates the legislative program’s effectiveness, strengths, weaknesses, and implications. Use a structured approach, such as a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) or cost-benefit analysis, to assess the procedure from multiple perspectives. Consider its intended goals, implementation strategies, outcomes, and unintended consequences. If you need help with SWOT analysis, using our analytical essay writing service is highly recommended. 

Developing Recommendations

Based on your analysis, develop clear and actionable recommendations for policymakers or stakeholders. Identify specific changes or improvements that could enhance the system’s effectiveness or address its shortcomings. Support your recommendations with evidence and reasoning.

Writing and Communicating Your Analysis

Organize your analysis into a coherent and persuasive paper. Structure your paper with an introduction, background information, analysis, recommendations, and conclusion. Use clear and concise language, avoiding jargon or technical terms unless necessary. Provide citations for your sources and evidence. Finally, ensure your paper is well-written, logically organized, and effectively communicates your insights and recommendations.

Policy Analysis Paper Example

A policy analysis paper example serves as a valuable learning tool for students by providing a concrete model to follow and reference when undertaking their own analysis assignments. By studying an example paper, students can gain insights into the structure, content, and methodology of analysis, helping them understand how to effectively frame their analysis, support their arguments with evidence, and formulate actionable recommendations.

Example 1: “Implementing Universal Basic Income”

This policy analysis paper examines the feasibility and potential impacts of implementing a Universal Basic Income (UBI) program in the United States. It explores various options for UBI design, including cost and financing considerations, labor market effects, poverty reduction potential, and administrative feasibility. By reviewing existing evidence and debates surrounding UBI, the paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting such a program, ultimately highlighting the need for careful analysis, experimentation, and stakeholder engagement in shaping effective UBI policies.

Example 2: “Addressing Climate Change through Carbon Pricing”

This policy analysis paper examines the role of carbon pricing policies in addressing climate change, evaluating their efficacy, implementation challenges, and potential impacts. Carbon pricing mechanisms, including carbon taxes and cap-and-trade systems, aim to internalize the external costs of carbon emissions and incentivize emission reductions. The paper discusses the economic efficiency of carbon pricing in promoting innovation and investment in clean technologies while also addressing equity considerations regarding its distributional impacts on low-income households and vulnerable communities.

Writing a policy analysis paper is super important for students because it helps them learn how to tackle tough societal problems and make smart decisions. You get to sharpen your thinking skills, learn how to research thoroughly and become better at expressing yourself clearly. Plus, writing these papers helps students practice effectively communicating their ideas, which is a skill they'll need in their future careers, whether they work in government, nonprofits, or elsewhere. By digging into real-world issues, students also get a better grip on how politics, economics, and society all fit together. If you’re not committed to handling this task yourself, instruct our experts, saying, ‘ write my essay ,’ and receive the most competent help within hours. 

How Short Is Your Deadline?

Use our writing service to submit an A-grade policy analysis paper on time.

What Is a Policy Analysis Paper Outline?

How to write a policy analysis paper, what is a policy analysis paper.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

Policy Making Process - Free Essay Examples and Topic Ideas

The policy-making process is the sequence of activities that aim to identify, formulate, adopt, implement, monitor and evaluate public policies. It involves a series of steps that include problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, adoption, policy implementation, and evaluation. Policy-making may be influenced by various factors such as political, economic, social, cultural, and environmental circumstances. It requires consultation and participation of different stakeholders, including political leaders, interest groups, civil society organizations, and the general public. The process is often complex, involving multiple levels of government, decision-making structures, and stages, but it is essential for establishing effective policies that address societal problems and achieve desired outcomes.

• 📘 Free essay examples for your ideas about Policy Making Process
• 🏆 Best Essay Topics on Policy Making Process
• ⚡ Simple & Policy Making Process Easy Topics
• 🎓 Good Research Topics about Policy Making Process

Essay examples

Essay topic.

Save to my list

Remove from my list

• Public Policy Assign
• European Union Policy-Making Process
• Nature and Thrust of Public Policy
• The Policy Process: Evaluation, Analysis and Revision
• The Bureaucracy In The Policy Process
• How Does Public Opinion Influence Policy Making Politics?
• Public Policy
• The Top-Down Theory Of Policy Implementation
• Foreign policy
• What is Policy Convergence and What Causes It?
• Jack Carter’s policy
• American Politics and American Foreign Policy
• Social Policy
• Social Media in Policy Simulation
• How the Practice of Health Care Settings Are Affected by Government Policy?
• Europeanisation as Implementation: the Impact of Environmental Policy-Making in Ireland
• African American Community in Black Is Black Ain’t
• Concern of Government Trade Policy
• The Importance Of Having A Foreign Policy Politics
• Education Policy in Two Different Countries
• Sociology Social Policy Notes
• Social policy, legislative, and organisational context of social work
• Honesty Is the Best Policy
• Mao Zedong`s Policy
• Everything you should know about Apple’s Privacy Policy
• Reaganomics and Foreign Policy of USA
• Immigration Policy Of America Politics
• Environmental Policy Assignment
• Fiscal Policy Is Defined Economics
• Business Cycle and Suitable Fiscal policy
• Portfolio Planning Investment Policy
• The need for designing of Compensation Policy

FAQ about Policy Making Process

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

What is the policy-making process

Policy-making process involves a linked series of actions or events1. It focuses on the way in which policy is made (process), rather than on the substance of policy itself and its consequences (product)2. In general, there are four main stages of the policy-making process, which are initiation, formulation, implementation and evaluation. The institutions or participants of policy-making process include political leadership, citizen participation or interest groups, legislature and legislators, bureaucracy and judiciary.

In this essay, I will use the government policy to overcome traffic congestion in Singapore as a case study to illustrate the different stages.

In my view, the implementation process is the most important stage in the policy process. Central to understanding policy-making process is the understanding of how decisions are made. Decision-making is a process that focuses on the people involved in the policy process and on the part of the process that deals with choosing among alternative course of action.

This led us to the different theories of decision-making process: the Rational Actor Model (Rationality), the Incremental Model (Incrementalism), Bureaucratic Organization Models and the Belief System Model.

The Rational Actor Model occurs in a very methodological, neat, problem solving process. Its features include the appraisal of problem, to identify the goals and rank order them, to canvass the possible alternatives, to consider the consequences of each alternative and finally to select the alternative that most closely matches the referred goals.

In the Incremental Model, decisions are made through small or incremental moves on particular problems rather than through a comprehensive reform program.

Proficient in: Bureaucracy

“ Amazing writer! I am really satisfied with her work. An excellent price as well. ”

It is also endless because it takes the form of an indefinite sequence of policy moves. It focuses on making necessary changes and sees policy as variations of the past. In this model, the decisions are the product of bargaining. It implies that policy-making is a messy or untidy process of muddling through. The Bureaucratic Organization Models basically means getting into the “Black Box”.

The “organizational process” model looks at values, assumptions and regular pattern of behavior in the organization. The policy itself is placed within the context of the organization’s objectives, overall strategy and structures. The “bureaucratic politics” model involves bargaining between personnel and agencies. Lastly, there is the Belief System Model where the role of beliefs and ideologies and political values held by political parties and politicians determine what is to be done.

Such ideologies often have the effect of excluding ideas, information and empirical evidence when they fail to support the political party’s core beliefs3. The first stage of the policy-making process is initiation or agenda setting process. Agenda setting is the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention4. It means getting problems to government. The participants of this process include governmental and non-governmental actors. The first component of initiation gets at the recognition of the problem with agenda setting.

Without the perception of a problem, there is no incentive for the organization to disturb the status quo or to expend organizational energy initiating the policy process. A condition becomes a problem when we come to believe we should do something about them. A problem can be formally defined as a condition or situation that produces needs or dissatisfactions on the part of people for which relief or redress is sought5. Using the case study to illustrate this stage, traffic congestion (initially a condition) becomes a problem because it causes car owners to miss their appointments or be late for work.

Traffic congestion is really a matter of time and money. Government or authorities need to solve the problem as it would save a lot of time and money and this would improve the welfare of the population as a whole. Government authorities like the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and academics suggest that traffic congestion may develop due to the size of vehicle population or limited amount of road space. The second stage of the policy-making process is formulation. According to Charles Jones, ‘Formulation is a derivative of “formula” and means simply to develop a plan, a method, a prescription for acting on a problem’6.

In other words, formulation is a process of developing a plan or action to resolve a problem identified in stage one. It is about deciding what should be done, considering the alternatives and the actual drafting of legislation. In the case of the traffic congestion problem, the Chief Ministers, Cabinet and the Civil Servants are involved in the policy formulation. The roles of civil servants include information gathering, analyzing & advising. They advise the Ministers & the Cabinet for example on the cause of the problem, what options should be chosen & how the policy should be developed.

It thus gives them significant influences over policy formulation. The Ministers lack the expertise and time to perform many of these functions and are therefore dependent upon these Civil Servants. Next, the available options to solve the problem such as building more roads, widening existing roads or limiting vehicle use (by making it more expensive) are identified. Each of these options has benefits and costs. For example, building more roads involves financial costs, opportunity costs & disruption to communities but provides more road space.

After this, the option is finally chosen in this case study i. . to limit vehicle population by implementing the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. The third stage is policy implementation. It involves ‘those activities directed toward putting a program into effect’7. Basically, it is concerned with putting the ideas of stage two into action. It is essentially a practical activity, as distinguished from policy formulation, which is essentially theoretical. The bureaucracy is the executive arm of this process. There are three sets of activities that the bureaucracy engages in order to execute a course of action over time.

The top-level bureaucracy (Cabinet and Ministers) is involved in the interpretation activity i. e. the translation of program language into acceptable and feasible directives. The mid-level bureaucracy (Civil Servants) is involved in the organization activity i. e. the establishment of units and methods for putting a program into effect. The Street-level bureaucracy (Personnel of LTA) is involved in the application activity i. e. the routine provision of services, payments, or other agreed-upon program objectives or instruments.

Returning to the case study, the Singapore government implemented the ERP system in 1999 to better manage road use. The Ministry of Transport, the LTA and the Subordinate Courts are involved in the implementation stage. Basically, the LTA sets the amount that motorists have to pay at different times of the day. Motorists who pass through an operational ERP gantry without a properly inserted Cash Card in the In-Vehicle Unit (IU), or with a Cash Card with insufficient balance to pay for the ERP charges, will have to pay an administrative surcharge plus the ERP charge within two weeks of the violation8.

If the administrative charge and the ERP charge are not paid within this period, they will receive a Notice of Traffic Offence offering to compound the offence payable within 28 days9. Upon expiry of the Notice, the matter will be referred to the Court. There is also composition fine for passing through an ERP gantry without an IU. The final stage is policy evaluation. Given the imperfect nature of formulation and the contingent nature of implementation, a policy will meet with varying success.

In the evaluation stage, analysts will return to evaluate the policy to determine whether it is producing the desired results, to recommend whether it ought to be modified, and even to determine whether resources should be shifted to other programs. The results of evaluation may suggest that the policy ought to be abolished or replaced with a new approach to the issue. This often-ongoing evaluation may well serve to set the agenda again, setting off another round through the policy process. Success itself has to be evaluated.

For instance, the ERP system may be relatively effective in managing traffic conditions along major roads and within the central business district, but at the cost of reducing disposable income. This would in turn increase the cost of living & the costs of businesses. The authorities might incur a backlash or criticism from the people. Therefore the costs and benefits need to be examined in every case. Side effects must be taken into account. The government can be seen to create its own problems, which then require new public policy to deal with them.

The government may, for example, choose to cut down the steep prices of the ERP system or to widen existing roads. In my view, the implementation process is the most important stage in the policy process. It is an important but frequently overlooked step. Firstly, lacking proper implementation, policy innovation and selection may end up being little more than intellectual exercises. Indeed, faulty policy implementation can invalidate the earlier, carefully considered steps in the policy-making process and thereby intensify the original problem. This stage then, warrants our careful attention.

Secondly, policy failures mostly occur at the implementation stage. This is because policy-makers have not paid enough attention to policy implementation. To identify the problems caused by implementation, one needs to first acknowledge the difference between non-implementation and unsuccessful implementation. Unsuccessful implementation is where the failure is in the policy or the theory it is based upon. This may happen due to insufficient resources, organizational complexity, inadequate planning, inflated aspirations and complex environments. Non-implementation is when a policy is not put into effect as it was intended.

It could be that those involved in its execution are uncooperative or inefficient. ‘Government influence on the interpretation and application of laws, rules and guidelines is seen to be diluted by the delegation of wide discretion to those actually carrying out the policies’10. Besides, the government may leave it to the discretion of agencies and Civil Service departments. Hence, the problem of unclear objectives is noted. There is a need during the implementation stage for an understanding and agreement on clear objectives, which must persist throughout the implementation stage, for it to be successful.

Thirdly, different implementing agencies may depend on other agencies for success. The smaller the number of relationships between agencies and the smaller their importance, chance of success would be greater. The more they depend on others the more inefficient they will become. In addition, administrators can face many obstacles outside their control, as they are external to the policy or the implementation process. Sometimes these can be put down to bad luck, like physical obstructions such as drought upsetting an agricultural program.

Sometimes it may be political obstacles that get in the way, as with the public condemnation of the Poll Tax in Europe, leading to reforms in the policy cycle. However, this is not to say that the other stages of the policy-making process are unimportant. We still need to consider the relative importance of other stages as well because any policy failure may be due to the problems arising from these stages. Policy initiation is crucial in that it sets the political agenda by both defining certain problems as issues and by determining how those issues are to be addressed.

Problem definition and policy formulation have contingent or dependent relationships. Problems need to be defined first before policy formulation on a particular course of action is made. As Charles Lindblom says ‘Policy-makers are not faced with a given problem’11. Policy-makers are constantly probing, searching and redefining problems and issues. Basically, how one diagnoses a problem would determine one’s prescription. Formulation is also important because it includes a number of analytical steps such as the decision about how to decide, assessing the various options and selecting the best, and the actual drafting of legislation.

It is the decision-making stage of the policy process. It is the most overtly political stage insofar as the many potential solutions to a given problem must somehow be winnowed down to one or a few picked and readied for use. Obviously, most possible choices will not be realized. Moreover, the policy-makers might get it wrong at this stage by choosing the wrong approach and this can result in policy failures which subsequently occur at the implementation stage. Policy success does require that policy be formulated upon a valid theory of cause and effect.

Formulation should be based on adequate understanding of the problem; otherwise it can lead to reasoning of its effects which are very different from the eventual actuality. If policy does fail, it might be this underlying theory that is at fault. Undoubtedly, the evaluation stage is also important. This process is required as our understanding of social issues and the effect of government intervention is imperfect. We cannot be certain of the results a policy will bring or of the efficiency and success of implementing it. Therefore there is a need for evaluation in the policy-making process.

It must be decided whether the policy meet the objectives it was designed for. Even when a policy has enjoyed some level of success it is unlikely that it will act as maintaining this level of improvement. It is more likely to lead to a continuation or modification of the existing policy. In conclusion, policy-making process is a long-term matter starting with the establishing of goals and moving through the selection of alternatives and to the implementation and evaluation of the solution. Nonetheless, ‘policy-making is instead a complexly interactive process without beginning or end’12.

This process model is criticized as being too ordered, predictable and rational. In actuality, policy does not follow this sequential order of approach. Moreover, the boundaries between the different stages are blurred. For instance, policy implementation may lead to problem definition and policy evaluation is a constant activity. They are not restricted to a stipulated stage or time. In my view, the implementation process is the most important stage in the policy process, as a policy will remain as an idea if it is not implemented.

Cite this page

What is the policy-making process. (2017, Dec 13). Retrieved from https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/

"What is the policy-making process." PaperAp.com , 13 Dec 2017, https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/

PaperAp.com. (2017). What is the policy-making process . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/ [Accessed: 14 Sep. 2024]

"What is the policy-making process." PaperAp.com, Dec 13, 2017. Accessed September 14, 2024. https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/

"What is the policy-making process," PaperAp.com , 13-Dec-2017. [Online]. Available: https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/. [Accessed: 14-Sep-2024]

PaperAp.com. (2017). What is the policy-making process . [Online]. Available at: https://paperap.com/paper-on-policy-making-process/ [Accessed: 14-Sep-2024]

• The Process of Decision Making in The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost Pages: 6 (1666 words)
• The Process of Making Certain Decisions of the Patient Pages: 3 (887 words)
• Running Head: Policy Making Pages: 3 (861 words)
• Complexity Issues and Policy Making Pages: 4 (1196 words)
• Interactive IT Policy-Making in the Netherlands Pages: 8 (2339 words)
• Policy Process: All about agenda Pages: 6 (1554 words)
• Social Policy Essay: What is Social Policy? Pages: 8 (2107 words)
• Business Environment Fiscal Policy and Monetary Policy Pages: 9 (2459 words)
• Product Design and Decision Making Tools Pages: 2 (438 words)
• Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier Pages: 8 (2264 words)

• Search Menu

Sign in through your institution

• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical Numismatics
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Social History
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Language Acquisition
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Culture
• Music and Religion
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Meta-Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Society
• Law and Politics
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Legal System - Costs and Funding
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Restitution
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Medical Ethics
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Games
• Computer Security
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business History
• Business Strategy
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Social Issues in Business and Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Systems
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Social Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Sustainability
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• Ethnic Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Theory
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Politics and Law
• Politics of Development
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Qualitative Political Methodology
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Disability Studies
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

10 Conclusions

• Published: March 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Public policy is much more than adopting a specific measure. It is a complex process of creating new norms or reinforcing existing ones, liaising with other stakeholders, and securing support and legitimacy for a particular path of action. It aims not only to steer the behaviour of individuals, businesses, and stakeholders, but also of policy-makers themselves. Effective policy-making is based on complementary norms, instruments, and actors that all reinforce each other. Policy-makers aim to align policy instruments with the institutional context and the stakeholders at hand. Because the context and actors vary across policy fields and countries, solutions to wicked problems need to be tailor-made; one-size-fits-all solutions seldom exist. In this final chapter, we first summarize the key messages of the book. We consolidate our general approach to the policy process and combine the key components: process, policies, and capacity. Returning to the Paris Agreement and climate change policies we began with in Chapter 1, we illustrate how our understanding of public policy can be applied to a specific yet wicked policy issue. We discuss how the concept impacts the notion of evidence-based policy-making and propose a broader understanding of the policy process. Finally, we illustrate what kind of skills a policy analyst needs in today’s policy world.

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Policy-Making Process Essays

Storm water or run offs are a huge contributor of water pollution, policy-making process, popular essay topics.

• American Dream
• Artificial Intelligence
• Black Lives Matter
• Bullying Essay
• Career Goals Essay
• Causes of the Civil War
• Child Abusing
• Civil Rights Movement
• Community Service
• Cultural Identity
• Cyber Bullying
• Death Penalty
• Depression Essay
• Domestic Violence
• Freedom of Speech
• Global Warming
• Gun Control
• Human Trafficking
• I Believe Essay
• Immigration
• Importance of Education
• Israel and Palestine Conflict
• Leadership Essay
• Legalizing Marijuanas
• Mental Health
• National Honor Society
• Police Brutality
• Pollution Essay
• Racism Essay
• Romeo and Juliet
• Same Sex Marriages
• Social Media
• The Great Gatsby
• The Yellow Wallpaper
• Time Management
• To Kill a Mockingbird
• Violent Video Games
• What Makes You Unique
• Why I Want to Be a Nurse
• Send us an e-mail

Guidance note 2: Understanding the policy process

• The formation of public policy centres on decision-making by the political leadership in government, but decisions are shaped by a multitude of factors and different actors, including civil servants but also many others.
• A sequential analysis of the phases of the policy process can help researchers understand at what point the knowledge they bring is most likely to gain traction with policy actors, but should not be mistaken for a formally prescribed procedure.
• Policy-making is prone to iterations, reversals and sudden changes of approach which are impossible to predict

This Guidance Note provides an introduction to some crucial characteristics of the processes from which public policy emerges. As far as possible it is written in general terms, avoiding references to particular policy environments. The institutional arrangements and working practices of government of course vary greatly from place to place, but we would contend that there are a number of basic features that are often encountered, and that it will be helpful for researchers to be aware of these as they consider how best to engage with these processes so as to achieve impact.

The institutional arrangements and working practices of government of course vary greatly from place to place, but we would contend that there are a number of basic features that are  often  encountered

Researchers whose specialism lies in the field of government, politics, public policy or public administration will find nothing new in this account, and indeed might want to take issue with some aspects of the approach we have adopted here; there are many different ways of framing the arguments around how policy is made, and much debate around concepts and terms. This piece has been written primarily for the benefit of researchers in other disciplines who may not have had occasion to give much thought previously to how these governmental functions work.

Defining what we mean by policy

There is no shortage of definitions of what is meant by policy , of varying degrees of usefulness. However, a good starting-point for present purposes is Thomas Dye’s assertion (from as long ago as 1976) that “Public policy is whatever governments choose to do or not to do.” This simple statement introduces three key components:

• Public policy (as opposed to the policy of a company or a private association) flows from the decisions of a government (the duly constituted executive authority of a territory);
• It is the result of deliberate choice between alternative ways of proceeding;
• And it results in action (or deliberate inaction).

There is much more to be said about all of this, and there is a copious policy studies literature which addresses a wide range of related issues, including how decisions are made, what are the factors that influence them and who has a voice in them; how decision-makers attempt to balance competing interests; and the disjunctures between original intention, the actions eventually implemented and their consequences. Nevertheless, the fundamental idea of choices by government leading to action is a helpful one to hold on to, and one from which several points follow.

It is ... in most systems the executive (government) not the legislature (parliament) which makes or leads the making of policy. This has definite implications for where researchers may choose to direct their policy engagement efforts. 

The first is that parliaments may play an important role in raising the visibility of issues through debate, reviewing and assenting to government proposals (with varying degrees of authority to amend them); debating, amending and passing the legislation often needed to enable implementation; assenting to taxation and expenditure; and scrutinising what is done, and making recommendations (which may or may not be accepted and acted on). It is, though, in most systems the executive (government) not the legislature (parliament) which makes or leads the making of policy. This has definite implications for where researchers may choose to direct their policy engagement efforts.

A second point is that decision by government means ultimately decision by ministers (or in some cases by an executive President) – the elected or appointed political leadership . Policy decisions are seldom taken by political office-holders in a vacuum: analysis and proposals are generally prepared in great detail by official advisers (civil servants), sometimes working with ministers’ appointed political advisers (in the UK properly called special advisers), and the advice and eventual decisions are both shaped by the influence and advocacy of a wide range of interest groups in business and civil society, opinion formers in the media, allies and opponents in parliament and the political parties at large, and academic experts. There are thus many potential points of access to influence and inform decisions, but many are quite indirect in effect and their efficacy difficult to assess. Subordinate decisions about the detailed and implementation of policy decisions and the application of policy to specific cases will often be taken by officials without reference to ministers unless the issue is potentially politically contentious or has wider policy implications. But policy as such is what ministers have decided (even if they may not be fully seized of all the consequences of those decisions). As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “Advisers advise, Ministers decide”.

As former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said, “Advisers advise, Ministers decide”.

It is, however, because of the multi-faceted nature of the policy environment that we have tried where we can to avoid in this guidance the use of the term “policy-makers”. It begs the question, who really makes policy? The politicians who decide, the advisers who craft the proposals, the advocates and influencers who create the climate of opinion in which decisions are taken? For this reason we prefer to refer to policy communities, or to policy actors .

If you are reading this, you are probably already a member of a wider policy community, and interested in deepening your membership. However, to avoid confusion we have in this guidance drawn a distinction between policy actors, whose primary interest lies in the formulation and execution of public policy, and researchers, whose principal concern is with the systematic production of new knowledge.

Picturing the policy process

It is tempting to see policy-making less as a process, and more as a politically-charged domain of perceived problems, interests and competing proposed solutions in which decisions somehow emerge from complexity. Yet if the aim of public policy is to translate the political intention to make improvements in the world or to respond to challenges into practical outcomes, the notion of process – a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end, unfolding dynamically in time – is a useful corrective to more static descriptions of the policy environment which focus on the interests or competences of the actors. There are many ways of describing or depicting policy-making as a process, but over the years different versions of the policy sequential analysis model have been adopted by many scholars; this kind of model provides a simplified understanding of the complexities of the policy process by presenting it as a number of stages, each of which raises its own specific issues. Such an approach has, for example, been used to investigate the differing uses of evidence at different stages of the process.

The application of this kind of analysis can potentially be very helpful, first in determining at what point the knowledge they have acquired will add value to the policy process, and secondly in trying to understand where approximately the development of any issue they are interested in may have got to in the process. It is important to bear in mind that, while there are many possible entry-points for engagement and dialogue, there are stages when officials will try actively to resist the entry of new knowledge into consideration. This is not simply obstructiveness or a sign of closed minds; it is the consequence of attempting to manage an inherently chaotic process and drive things forward to the best decision possible in the circumstances. It can be depicted as the deliberate narrowing of a funnel, as suggested in the diagram, where the width of the funnel represents the openness of policy process to diverse voices, actors, and sources of information. (It is this narrowing effect and exclusion of new information which can then later lead to embarrassing episodes of contorted argument to defend the indefensible position officials find themselves and their Ministers in.) After implementation, the funnel narrows again at the time of any evaluation, as evidence is sifted, evaluative judgements made, and confidential discussions held on the most appropriate public response to the findings.

The sequence of policy process phases can also be depicted as a cycle, which provides a useful heuristic device for teaching purposes and also indicates the iterative nature of public policy: few policy initiatives begin with a blank sheet and few ever represent the final word on an issue. There are, again, many different versions of such a cyclical diagram.

The complexity of policy-making

Such cyclical or sequential representations of policy-making have been unfashionable in the UK for some years, and indeed all are vulnerable to the criticism that they may imply an overly rational, intentional and orderly process. For example, a Cabinet Office report said that “ a model... showing sequential activities organised in a cycle . . . [does] not accurately reflect the realities of policy making . . . policy-making rarely proceeds as neatly as this model suggests and . . . no two policies will need exactly the same development process.”

Building on this, the Institute for Government said: “The issue is not that the model is wrong, but that it is too distant from reality to be useful. . . . it reduces policy making to a structured, logical methodical process that does not reflect reality. Even policies which have the semblance of proceeding in stages actually consist of a series of reversals and repetition. Stages are fused together, get driven by contingencies not logic, and produce diffuse effects that overlap with those from other policy initiatives.”

These are important caveats to keep in mind. All practitioners know that such models are just that – simplifying devices to aid analysis and comprehension – and that policy-making in reality is fraught with complexity, contingency, uncertainty, inadequate data, accident, misunderstandings and political conflict (some of it within government). They are not intended as algorithms, nor do they reflect prescribed procedures. But they do strive to represent the intrinsic logic through which the phases of policy-making can commonly be observed to unfold, albeit with iterative loops, reversals and false starts. At the same time, many case studies of dramatic policy failures show the risks than can materialise when stages are skipped or skimped, whether for reasons of urgency, overwhelming prior political conviction, or simple lack of capacity. Researchers seeking to open up a dialogue with policy officials in government should not expect there to be, at any one time, a clear sense that the response to a particular issue has reached a specific clearly-delineated stage of a defined process; they may, though, find such a visualisation a helpful aid to their own understanding of how, when and where to engage , and with who research findings may gain traction.

Professor Mark Reed describes the experience of policy officials well:

“It is easy to sit on the sidelines and criticise colleagues in the policy community for the many imperfections of real-world policy processes. It is a lot harder to be critical if you have spent any time working in government departments, trying to juggle the multiple competing claims on your time and the curve-balls that get thrown at you by politicians or external events. In addition to synthesising evidence from research, there is the need to balance the interests of different stakeholders and public opinion, and listen to the practitioners who may explain why theory (from our research) doesn’t always translate into practice.”

In addition, it is valuable in any governmental context to try to gain an understanding of the normal internal working practices , determined by habit, convention, assumptions and organisational and cultural norms, within any ministry, department or agency. These micro-processes, as much any formally determined procedure, will to a large extent determine how information (including research knowledge, gets into the policy process. The interested observer might try to take note of who asks or instructs whom to do what, and how prescriptively, and who does what on their own initiative. For example, would a senior official more typically direct a junior which resources to use when preparing a draft, point them to a particular external source of advice to consult or to commission to carry out a task, or simply ask them to investigate an issue? Developing an understanding of these practices can greatly help in knowing with whom and in what way researchers might productively seem to establish a dialogue. Such an understanding will be greatly aided by a long-term relationship with the organisation and immersion in its work, but the World Bank’s Bureaucracy Lab is producing some useful findings about the internal workings of governments across the world.

Understanding the policy process comes down in the end mainly to an appreciation that it is infinitely variable and contingent, that this interplay of factors is happening, and that it is essential to be responsive to this, to work within this complex system and its emergent features, and to try to sense how the dynamics are playing out.

One final word: despite the title of this guidance note, attempting to understand in any specific context how the multiple factors affecting policy making will interact with one another is probably a fool’s errand. Understanding the policy process comes down in the end mainly to an appreciation that it is infinitely variable and contingent, that this interplay of factors is happening, and that it is essential to be responsive to this, to work within this complex system and its emergent features, and to try to sense how the dynamics are playing out. And in the middle of all this one will usually find policy officials who are hugely task-oriented, and driven to get the job done to the satisfaction of their superiors and political masters.

How to write a process essay

• August 25, 2023

Process essays are one of the most common types of essays . It’s simply explaining a process of how to do something. 

In this article, we’ll show you how to write a process essay in steps with interactive examples. 

Process essay definition

Let’s take a look at the steps outlined below to write a clear and effective process essay. 

Choose a topic

You should start by choosing a topic that not only interests you but also attracts your target audience. 

Whether it’s brewing the perfect cup of coffee or conquering the art of origami, your topic should be engaging and well-defined.  Let’s have a look at topic examples:

• Crafting Exquisite Miniature Bookbindings
• Building a Sustainable Vertical Garden
• Making the Perfect Cup of Coffee

So for this guide, I’ve chosen “Making the Perfect Cup of Coffee”. Now let’s continue with the next steps.

Create a process essay outline

Now that you’ve your topic at hand, it’s time to create an outline to present the steps chronologically. Outline will also help you organize your thoughts and ideas so you won’t get lost during the writing process.

Let’s examine this step with an example of a process essay explaining “Making the Perfect Cup of Coffee”.

Process essay outline example

• Thesis statement
• Provide safety precautions if necessary.
• Address to the reader
• Provide any variations or customization options if applicable.
• End with a memorable concluding thought or call to action.

By presenting the steps in chronological order, your readers can follow the process smoothly. 

During this step, just make sure to:

• Expand on each step you outlined earlier.
• Use clear and concise language.
• Make use of bullet points or numbered lists to make the process visually appealing.

After completing the outline, it’s time to write an interesting introduction.

Write an introduction

• Hook the reader's interest with a hook sentence
• Offer a brief overview of the topic and its significance
• Introduce and explain the process with a thesis statement at the end of introduction

Process essay introduction example

Introduction

Now that we have an intro on our hand, you need to tell what materials you need to finish the process.

Write the materials needed for the process

Listing the necessary materials for the process is a best practice for process essays. Typically found just after the introduction, this paragraph is devoted to outlining the necessary materials.

Here, p rioritizing the list is important; the more influential a component is, the higher its position on the list should be.

Example material list for process essay

Body paragraphs

Materials needed

• High-quality coffee beans that align with your flavor preference.
• A grinder for optimal flavor extraction.
• Equipment for brewing methods, such as a pour-over apparatus, a drip coffee maker, a French press, or an espresso machine.
• Fresh and clean water for brewing.
• Optional additives like milk, cream, sugar, flavored syrups, or other preferred elements.

Start writing the process

Right after listing the materials needed, it’s time to start writing the process itself.

When describing your process, be careful not to make it too complicated. To keep your readers on track, use transitional words like “after,” “eventually,” “first,” “then,” and others help you maintain an understandable tone.  

Or simply use a 1,2,3, bullet point structure as seen in example below to remind readers of their step during the process.

Body paragraphs - Process writing example

Materials needed ...

• Grind the beans just before brewing for optimal freshness. Use a burr grinder and adjust the coarseness to match your brewing method (coarse for French press, fine for espresso).
• Weigh your coffee grounds using a scale. A standard ratio is 1 to 2 tablespoons of coffee per 6 ounces of water, but adjust to your taste.
• Ensure the water is heated to the ideal temperature, typically between 195-205°F (90-96°C). Water that's too hot or too cold can affect the taste.
• Pay attention to the brewing time. Generally, 4-5 minutes is suitable for most methods, but again, adjust based on your preference.
• After finishing, regularly clean your coffee maker or French press to prevent rancid oils and residue from affecting your coffee's taste.

As seen from the example above, using an imperative language structure is generally preferable. It makes total sense as you’re describing a process in steps and usually don’t need a full sentence structure. 

Give tips and supporting details

After explaining the process above, it’s now time to provide tips and supporting details. Here, make use examples, tips, and even warnings if necessary. 

In other words, anticipate the questions your readers might have and address them as you go along. 

Body paragraphs - Supporting details

Supporting details & tips

• Ensure safe handling of hot water and coffee-making equipment.
• Water that's too hot can result in over-extraction, while water that's too cold won't extract enough flavor.

Write a conclusion

At this step, you simply need to write a conclusion paragraph to end your process essay. First summarize the key points, and restate the process in a concise and short sentence. And finally, finish your process essay by a memorable sentence or a call-to-action. 

Process essay conclusion example

Revise and polish your essay.

Now that you’ve written your essay, take a breath, and then come back for some editing. Check for consistency, correct sentence structure, efficient transitions , tense selection , and other linguistic issues that may arise. 

If possible, make use of proofreading tools like QuillBot or Grammarly . 

• Think about potential reader misunderstandings and address them. If needed, explain what should be avoided.
• Offer explanations for steps that might seem unusual or complicated.
• Define any unfamiliar terms or materials that the reader might not understand. This ensures clarity in your essay.

So  you’ve successfully learned how to write a captivating process essay. Remember, practice makes perfect. The more you write, the better you’ll become.

Recently on Tamara Blog

How to write a discussion essay (with steps & examples), writing a great poetry essay (steps & examples), how to write a process essay (steps & examples), writing a common app essay (steps & examples), how to write a synthesis essay (steps & examples), how to write a horror story.

• Argumentative
• Ecocriticism
• Informative
• Explicatory
• Illustrative
• Problem Solution
• Interpretive
• Music Analysis
• All Essay Examples
• Entertainment
• Law, Crime & Punishment
• Artificial Intelligence
• Environment
• Geography & Travel
• Government & Politics
• Nursing & Health
• Information Science and Technology
• All Essay Topics

U.s. Policy Making Process

The United States Policy Making Process

The United States policy making process is a complex and multifaceted system that involves various actors, institutions, and stages. Understanding this process is essential for comprehending how decisions are made and implemented in the American political system.

At its core, the U.S. policy making process begins with agenda setting, where issues are identified and brought to the attention of policymakers. This can occur through various channels, including public opinion, interest groups, and government agencies. Once an issue gains prominence on the agenda, it moves to the next stage: formulation.

During the formulation stage, policymakers develop potential solutions or policies to address the identified issue. This often involves research, analysis, and consultation with experts and stakeholders. For example, if the issue is healthcare reform, policymakers may consider various proposals, such as expanding access to healthcare, controlling costs, or restructuring insurance markets.

Following formulation, the policy enters the stage of adoption, where formal decision-making occurs. This typically involves the legislative branch, where bills are introduced, debated, and voted upon. However, adoption can also occur through executive action, such as executive orders or regulatory changes. The decision-making process can be influenced by a variety of factors, including political dynamics, interest group pressure, and public opinion.

Once a policy is adopted, it enters the implementation stage, where it is put into practice. This often involves the executive branch, government agencies, and other actors responsible for carrying out the policy. Implementation can be complex and challenging, requiring coordination, resources, and monitoring to ensure effective execution.

Finally, the policy undergoes evaluation, where its impact and effectiveness are assessed. This allows policymakers to learn from experience, make adjustments, and improve future decision-making. Evaluation can occur through various methods, including data analysis, program reviews, and performance assessments.

In conclusion, the United States policy making process is a dynamic and intricate system that involves multiple stages and actors. By understanding this process, individuals can better grasp how policies are developed, enacted, and evaluated in the American political system.

Related Essays

• Army Decision Making Process : The Army Problem Solving Process
• Identifying Policy Alternatives. Introduction. The Process
• Essay on batch process of wine making
• What Is The Decision Making Process Of Coca Cola
• The Decision Making Process as It Relates to Planning

The Military Decision Making Process Essay

The Military Decision Making Process (MDMP) is a systematic approach used by military commanders to analyze and evaluate a situation before making a decision. This process is crucial in ensuring that decisions made on the battlefield are well-thought-out and based on a thorough understanding of the situation at hand. The MDMP consists of seven steps, each of which plays a vital role in the decision-making process. The first step in the MDMP is to receive the mission. This involves understanding the commander's intent, the mission statement, and any other guidance provided. It is essential for all members of the team to have a clear understanding of what needs to be accomplished before moving on to the next steps of the process. Once the mission is received, the next step is to analyze the situation. This involves gathering information, conducting a thorough assessment of the enemy, terrain, and weather, and identifying any potential obstacles or challenges that may need to be addressed. After analyzing the situation, the next step in the MDMP is to develop courses of action (COAs). This step involves brainstorming different ways to accomplish the mission and evaluating the pros and cons of each option. It is essential to consider all possible scenarios and anticipate potential outcomes before moving on to the next step, which is to compare courses of action. This step involves weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each COA and determining which one is the most feasible and likely to achieve success. Once a course of action has been selected, the next step in the MDMP is to issue the order. This involves communicating the plan to all members of the team, ensuring that everyone understands their roles and responsibilities, and providing any necessary resources or support. The final steps in the MDMP are to supervise and refine the plan as needed. This involves monitoring the execution of the plan, making adjustments as necessary, and ensuring that the mission is carried out successfully. In conclusion, the Military Decision Making Process is a critical tool used by military commanders to make informed decisions on the battlefield. By following the seven steps of the MDMP, commanders can ensure that their decisions are well-thought-out, based on a thorough understanding of the situation, and ultimately lead to mission success....

Process Of Making Pepperoni Rolls

The Process of Making Pepperoni Rolls Pepperoni rolls, a staple of Appalachian cuisine, have a rich history and a simple yet delightful process of creation. Originating in West Virginia, these savory snacks have become a beloved comfort food across the region and beyond. The process of making pepperoni rolls is straightforward, requiring just a few basic ingredients and some patience. From dough preparation to the final baking, each step contributes to the unique flavor and texture that make pepperoni rolls so irresistible. The first step in making pepperoni rolls is preparing the dough. Traditionally, a simple bread dough is used, consisting of flour, water, yeast, salt, and sometimes a bit of sugar for sweetness. The dough is kneaded until it's smooth and elastic, then left to rise until it doubles in size. This initial stage is crucial as it allows the gluten in the flour to develop, giving the dough its characteristic stretchiness and structure. Once the dough has risen, it's time to shape the pepperoni rolls. The risen dough is punched down to release any trapped air and then divided into individual portions. Each portion is rolled out into a thin rectangle, and slices of pepperoni are arranged evenly over the surface. Some variations may include adding cheese or other fillings at this stage, but the classic pepperoni roll keeps it simple with just pepperoni. After the pepperoni is added, the dough is rolled up tightly, enclosing the filling inside. The rolls are then placed seam side down on a baking sheet, allowing them to proof for a second time. This final rise is shorter than the first, typically around 30 minutes to an hour, depending on the ambient temperature and humidity. Once the rolls have doubled in size, they're ready to bake. A hot oven, usually around 375°F (190°C), is preheated, and the rolls are placed inside to bake until golden brown and fragrant. The baking time can vary depending on the size of the rolls, but it typically ranges from 15 to 25 minutes. When the pepperoni rolls are done, they're removed from the oven and left to cool slightly before serving. The aroma of freshly baked bread and spicy pepperoni fills the air, tempting anyone nearby to grab one and take a bite. Whether enjoyed as a quick snack, a party appetizer, or a hearty meal on the go, the process of making pepperoni rolls results in a delicious treat that's sure to satisfy any craving....

• Food and Drinks Companies
• Celebrations & Rituals
• Cultural Heritage and Preservation

The Six Step Decision Making Process

Decision making is an integral part of daily life, influencing various aspects ranging from personal choices to professional endeavors. To navigate through the complexities of decision making effectively, individuals often utilize structured approaches. One such approach is the Six Step Decision Making Process, a systematic method designed to facilitate sound decision making by breaking down the process into manageable steps. The first step in the Six Step Decision Making Process is to identify the decision that needs to be made. This involves clearly defining the problem or opportunity at hand and understanding its significance. By establishing a clear understanding of the decision to be made, individuals can focus their efforts on finding appropriate solutions and avoid wasting time on irrelevant factors. Once the decision is identified, the next step is to gather relevant information. This involves collecting data, conducting research, and seeking input from stakeholders or experts. By gathering comprehensive information, individuals can make informed decisions based on facts rather than assumptions or biases. Effective information gathering is crucial for evaluating potential options and predicting their outcomes accurately. After gathering information, the third step is to identify alternatives or potential courses of action. This involves brainstorming different solutions to address the problem or capitalize on the opportunity. Generating multiple alternatives allows individuals to explore a range of possibilities and consider various factors such as feasibility, cost, and potential risks. By considering multiple options, individuals can increase the likelihood of finding the best solution to the problem. Once alternatives are identified, the next step is to evaluate each option based on predetermined criteria. This involves assessing the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative and weighing their potential outcomes. By conducting a thorough evaluation, individuals can determine which option aligns best with their goals, values, and priorities. Evaluating alternatives allows individuals to make objective decisions that are likely to lead to favorable outcomes. After evaluating alternatives, the fifth step is to make the decision. This involves selecting the best course of action based on the evaluation conducted in the previous step. The decision-making process may involve consensus building, negotiation, or consultation with relevant stakeholders. By making a clear and well-reasoned decision, individuals can move forward confidently and implement their chosen course of action effectively. The final step in the Six Step Decision Making Process is to implement the decision and monitor its outcomes. This involves putting the chosen course of action into practice and observing its effects over time. By monitoring outcomes, individuals can assess the effectiveness of their decision and make adjustments if necessary. Implementation and monitoring ensure that decisions are not only made but also followed through and refined as needed to achieve desired results. In conclusion, the Six Step Decision Making Process provides a structured framework for navigating complex decisions effectively. By following these steps, individuals can identify problems, gather information, generate alternatives, evaluate options, make decisions, and implement them with confidence. Whether in personal or professional contexts, applying this systematic approach can help individuals make informed decisions that lead to positive outcomes....

Negotiation As An Interpersonal Decision Making Process

Negotiation is a fundamental aspect of human interaction, permeating various facets of life, from business transactions to personal relationships. At its core, negotiation is an interpersonal decision-making process wherein individuals or parties engage in dialogue to reach mutually acceptable agreements or resolve conflicts. This multifaceted process involves a dynamic interplay of communication, persuasion, compromise, and decision-making strategies aimed at achieving favorable outcomes for all involved parties. Central to the negotiation process is the concept of interpersonal decision making, which emphasizes the role of individuals in assessing their own interests and preferences while also considering the perspectives and objectives of others. Effective negotiation requires a delicate balance between assertiveness and empathy, as negotiators strive to advance their own interests while also understanding and addressing the concerns of their counterparts. Through active listening, probing questions, and empathy, negotiators can gain valuable insights into the underlying needs and motivations driving the other party's behavior, thereby facilitating the exploration of mutually beneficial solutions. Moreover, negotiation as an interpersonal decision-making process is influenced by various factors, including individual differences, situational dynamics, and contextual factors. Cultural norms, communication styles, power dynamics, and time constraints can significantly impact the negotiation process, shaping the strategies and tactics employed by negotiators. Recognizing and adapting to these contextual variables is essential for achieving successful outcomes and building sustainable relationships based on trust and mutual respect. In practice, negotiation often unfolds through a series of stages, beginning with preparation and planning, followed by the exchange of proposals, bargaining, and ultimately reaching a resolution or impasse. Each stage presents unique challenges and opportunities for negotiators to employ their decision-making skills and strategic thinking. Effective preparation involves clarifying objectives, identifying potential trade-offs, and gathering relevant information to support one's position during negotiations. During the bargaining phase, negotiators must assess the credibility of information, evaluate offers and counteroffers, and make informed decisions that advance their interests while also preserving the possibility of reaching a mutually acceptable agreement. In conclusion, negotiation serves as a vital mechanism for navigating the complexities of interpersonal interactions and decision making. By embracing negotiation as a dynamic process of dialogue and compromise, individuals can enhance their ability to resolve conflicts, build consensus, and create value in diverse settings. Through effective communication, empathy, and strategic decision-making, negotiators can foster collaborative relationships and achieve mutually beneficial outcomes that address the needs and interests of all parties involved....

• Emotions & Feelings
• Life Experiences
• Character Traits

Buying Behavior : Ali Cakes : Consumer Decision Making Process?

Understanding consumer buying behavior is paramount for businesses seeking to thrive in competitive markets. In this essay, we delve into the intricacies of consumer decision making, focusing specifically on Ali Cakes, a fictional bakery, and its target audience. Through a comprehensive analysis of consumer behavior theories and market research data, we aim to provide actionable insights to optimize Ali Cakes' marketing strategies and enhance customer satisfaction. **Consumer Decision Making Process** Consumer decision making is a complex process influenced by various factors, including psychological, social, cultural, and situational elements. The traditional consumer decision-making model consists of five stages: problem recognition, information search, evaluation of alternatives, purchase decision, and post-purchase evaluation. However, contemporary perspectives acknowledge the role of emotions, perceptions, and subconscious influences in shaping consumer choices. **Psychological Factors** Psychological factors play a significant role in influencing consumer behavior. Ali Cakes can leverage principles of cognitive psychology, such as perception, motivation, and learning, to enhance its marketing efforts. For instance, emphasizing the freshness and quality of ingredients can appeal to consumers' desire for premium products. Additionally, employing persuasive techniques like scarcity or social proof can stimulate purchase intentions. **Social and Cultural Influences** Social and cultural factors exert a profound influence on consumers' buying decisions. Ali Cakes should consider the cultural norms, values, and lifestyle preferences of its target market. Understanding social networks, reference groups, and opinion leaders can help the bakery identify key influencers and tailor its marketing messages accordingly. Furthermore, aligning the brand image with aspirational values or social causes can enhance its appeal to socially conscious consumers. **Consumer Research and Market Segmentation** To effectively target its audience, Ali Cakes must conduct thorough consumer research and segment its market based on demographic, psychographic, and behavioral variables. By identifying distinct consumer segments and understanding their unique needs, preferences, and purchasing behaviors, the bakery can tailor its products, pricing, distribution channels, and promotional strategies to maximize relevance and appeal. **Digital Marketing and Omnichannel Experience** In today's digital age, Ali Cakes must leverage online platforms and digital marketing channels to reach and engage its target audience effectively. Establishing a strong online presence through a user-friendly website, social media platforms, and e-commerce capabilities can expand the bakery's reach and facilitate seamless transactions. Moreover, integrating offline and online touchpoints to deliver a cohesive omnichannel experience can enhance customer satisfaction and loyalty. **Conclusion** In conclusion, understanding consumer buying behavior is essential for Ali Cakes to thrive in the competitive bakery market. By adopting a customer-centric approach and applying insights from consumer behavior theories, the bakery can optimize its marketing strategies, enhance customer satisfaction, and drive business growth. Through continuous market research, segmentation, and targeted communication, Ali Cakes can position itself as a preferred choice among consumers seeking delicious, high-quality baked goods....

• Global Economy

Policy Process Essay

The policy process is a crucial aspect of governance that involves the creation, implementation, and evaluation of policies to address various societal issues. It is a complex and multifaceted procedure that requires careful consideration and collaboration among different stakeholders. The policy process typically follows a series of stages, including agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation, and policy evaluation. **Agenda setting** is the initial stage of the policy process where issues are identified and brought to the attention of policymakers. This stage involves determining which problems require government intervention and prioritizing them based on their significance and urgency. Stakeholders, including interest groups, experts, and the general public, play a vital role in shaping the policy agenda by advocating for specific issues. **Policy formulation** is the stage where potential solutions to the identified problems are developed. During this phase, policymakers analyze various policy options, assess their feasibility and effectiveness, and consider their potential impacts. This stage often involves extensive research, consultation with experts, and the drafting of policy proposals that outline the details of the proposed interventions. **Policy adoption** is the stage where policymakers officially approve a specific policy proposal and commit to its implementation. This stage typically occurs through legislative processes, where laws or regulations are passed to enact the proposed policy. Policy adoption requires political consensus and support from key decision-makers to ensure the policy's successful implementation. **Policy implementation** is the stage where the approved policy is put into practice. This phase involves translating the policy into concrete actions, allocating resources, and establishing mechanisms for monitoring and enforcement. Effective implementation is crucial for achieving the desired outcomes of the policy and addressing the underlying issues it aims to resolve. In conclusion, the policy process is a systematic and iterative approach to addressing societal challenges through the development and implementation of policies. By following a structured series of stages, policymakers can effectively identify, formulate, adopt, implement, and evaluate policies to create positive change and improve the well-being of society. Effective policy processes require transparency, stakeholder engagement, evidence-based decision-making, and continuous evaluation to ensure that policies are responsive, efficient, and equitable....

• Environmental Sustainability

Consumer Behaviour - Holiday Decision Making Process

Consumer Behaviour Holiday Decision Making Process Consumer behavior plays a crucial role in the decision-making process when it comes to planning a holiday. Various factors influence consumers' choices, from personal preferences to external influences. Understanding the holiday decision-making process can help businesses in the travel and tourism industry tailor their offerings to meet the needs and desires of their target market. The first stage in the holiday decision-making process is the recognition of a need or desire to take a vacation. This can be triggered by various factors such as stress from work, the desire to explore new destinations, or simply the need to relax and unwind. Once the need is recognized, consumers begin to gather information about potential holiday destinations, accommodations, and activities. This information can be obtained through various sources such as online reviews, recommendations from friends and family, or travel agencies. After gathering information, consumers move on to the evaluation stage where they compare different options based on factors such as cost, location, amenities, and reviews. This stage is crucial as it helps consumers narrow down their choices and select the holiday package that best fits their preferences and budget. Consumers may also seek out additional information from travel agents or tour operators to help them make a more informed decision. Once a decision is made, consumers move on to the booking stage where they finalize their holiday plans by making reservations for accommodations, transportation, and activities. This stage is where consumers commit to their chosen holiday package and make the necessary arrangements to ensure a smooth and enjoyable vacation experience. After booking, consumers may also engage in pre-trip planning activities such as packing, itinerary planning, and researching local attractions to make the most of their holiday. In conclusion, the holiday decision-making process is a complex and multi-faceted journey that involves various stages from recognizing a need to booking a vacation package. By understanding the factors that influence consumer behavior during this process, businesses in the travel and tourism industry can better cater to the needs and preferences of their target market, ultimately leading to increased customer satisfaction and loyalty....

• Art Movements
• Fashion Companies

Functionalist View Of The Law Making Process

The Functionalist View of the Law Making Process The functionalist view of the law making process is a perspective that sees laws as necessary for maintaining social order and stability within a society. According to functionalists, laws are created to serve a specific purpose in regulating behavior and resolving conflicts among individuals. This view emphasizes the importance of laws in promoting social cohesion and ensuring that members of society adhere to a set of shared norms and values. One of the key principles of the functionalist view is that laws are created through a consensus among members of society. This means that laws are not imposed by a ruling authority, but rather emerge from the collective agreement of individuals who recognize the need for certain rules and regulations to govern their interactions. In this sense, laws are seen as a reflection of the values and beliefs of a society, and are designed to promote the common good and welfare of its members. Another important aspect of the functionalist view is the idea that laws are dynamic and subject to change over time. As society evolves and new challenges arise, laws must be adapted to address these changes and ensure that they continue to serve their intended purpose. This process of legal evolution is seen as essential for maintaining social order and responding to the needs of a changing society. Overall, the functionalist view of the law making process highlights the role of laws in promoting social stability and order. By emphasizing the importance of consensus, adaptation, and social cohesion, this perspective provides valuable insights into the ways in which laws are created and maintained within a society. Ultimately, the functionalist view reminds us of the vital role that laws play in shaping our interactions and ensuring the smooth functioning of our communities....

• American Law
• Laws & Regulations

Can't find the essay examples you need?

Use the search box below to find your desired essay examples.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction

Formulating effective policies

Methods of analysis.

• Complexities of policy analysis
• Outcomes of policy analysis

policy analysis

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• Table Of Contents

policy analysis , evaluation and study of the formulation, adoption, and implementation of a principle or course of action intended to ameliorate economic, social, or other public issues. Policy analysis is concerned primarily with policy alternatives that are expected to produce novel solutions. Policy analysis requires careful systematic and empirical study.

The complexities of policy analysis have contributed to the development and growth of policy science, which applies a variety of theories and tools from the hard sciences (e.g., biology and chemistry ), social sciences (e.g., sociology , psychology , and anthropology ), and humanities (e.g., history and philosophy) in an effort to better understand aspects of human society, its problems, and the solutions to those problems. Policy analysis is important in modern complex societies, which typically have vast numbers of public policies and sophisticated and often interconnected challenges, such that public policies have tremendous social, economic, and political implications . Moreover, public policy is a dynamic process, operating under changing social, political, and economic conditions. Policy analysis helps public officials understand how social, economic, and political conditions change and how public policies must evolve in order to meet the changing needs of a changing society.

Policy analysis plays an important role in helping to define and outline the goals of a proposed policy and in identifying similarities and differences in expected outcomes and estimated costs with competing alternative policies. Many public policies are designed to solve both current and future problems, and thus policy analysis attempts to forecast future needs based on past and present conditions. Policy outcomes can be found in a variety of different forms—tangible outputs and less-tangible outputs for which the impacts are more difficult to measure. In many cases, it is difficult to determine if the policy itself resulted in desired change or if other exogenous or external factors were the most direct cause. Nevertheless, it is important to determine if policy is responsible for the desired change; otherwise, there would be no need for the policy. Policy analysts often use theoretically grounded statistical models to determine if the policy will have the desired impact. In a final stage of policy analysis, analysts collate the information gathered to determine which policy alternative will best meet present and future needs.

There are two types of empirical analysis: qualitative studies and quantitative studies. Qualitative studies involve a variety of different tools. For example, some qualitative studies involve archival analysis, studying policy history and determining what has been done in the past to solve certain policy problems. Qualitative studies might also involve personal interviews, asking individuals to describe in words a variety of issues surrounding the policy process—from policy agendas to formulation, implementation, and evaluation. Interviews with policy makers and with the clientele being served by a particular policy may provide valuable information about policy goals, processes, and outcomes.

Archival analysis is particularly important in public policy analysis. Through studies of policy history, policy analysts can learn important lessons from earlier times and apply those lessons to current or future problems and goals. A new policy goal may sound highly innovative and cost-effective and promise to meet worthy goals, but archival research may illustrate the hidden costs and pitfalls that might result in policy failure.

Personal interviews are also an important method of improving public policy. Public policy is formulated and implemented by professionals working in government, oftentimes for an entire career. Through their individual experiences in particular policy areas, the experiences of elected and appointed officials become key policy artifacts . When these individuals leave government service, their experience and wisdom are often lost. One way to prevent this is to document the informal lessons or experiences of senior elected and appointed officials. Personal interviews are perhaps the most effective method of accomplishing this goal, largely because a personal interview technique will allow for a high degree of flexibility in information collection.

Quantitative studies are of tremendous value to policy analysts in their continual efforts to address important policy issues. Cost-benefit analysis is one of the most common forms of quantitative policy analysis. It is primarily concerned with comparing the amount of expected or known benefits produced from a particular policy choice with the expected or known costs associated with that choice. Of the two elements of the equation, the determination of costs is often more easily computed. Costs are most often measured in monetary terms; labour and supplies are easily converted to dollar costs. While there are always hidden costs associated with any policy decision, those costs can be estimated given previous experiences in prior public policy endeavours. Opportunity costs—the costs associated with choosing a particular policy over an alternative policy—can also be estimated.

Benefit calculation is oftentimes a difficult endeavour. In order to complete the cost-benefit calculation, benefits must be assigned a numeric value, and most frequently the numeric value is made in monetary terms. Yet, most aspects of public policy benefit are not easily measured in monetary terms. Individual clientele of a policy and individual officials fulfilling policy goals have a tremendous influence on the quality of a policy outcome or output, but the calculation of a benefit is often measured and aggregated in a manner that fails to capture those nuances .

Despite limitations in estimation, benefits must be measured in monetary or unit output terms for a cost-benefit calculation to proceed. Policy makers may determine benefit estimates through survey research by asking clientele of a policy to indicate how the public policy has impacted their lives. Policy makers also view the benefit in terms of the output of a policy—that is, the number of individuals who were served. In higher education policy, for instance, policy makers may conduct surveys of alumni to determine the impact of their higher education experience on their salary level and to also inquire about their positive and negative experiences at the university or college. Additionally, policy makers may conduct a head count of the number of student credit hours generated and the number of university or college graduates to measure policy output and equate it to a benefit.

• Our services
• Additional services
• How it works
• Affiliate program
• Read reviews
• Free essays

Policy-Making Process

The policy-making process is the most common responsibility that the government has. The participants in the policy-making process and the debates involved depend on the particular policy proposed, formed or implemented. According to Jand, Jeffrey and Goldman, the policymaking process is made up of various stages, which are, agenda setting, policy formulation, the implementation process, evaluation and termination processes. The agenda identification process involves the recognition of the problem needing to be given attention by the government.

This includes what the government needs to do in order to maintain the well-being of the community. The formulation process involves the adoption of strategies that seek to solve the problems identified. Later on, the document goes to the legislation. Once the legislation approves the policy, it is adopted. The implementation process is where plans put into action. This is made possible by the government collaborating with other organizations or rather stakeholder who work together towards solving the identified problem. Evaluation process involves assessment of the policy to find out if it had positive results or not. This helps the government to identify areas that need adjustments.

Texas constitution

Texas is a state that has had seven constitutions. Sharma and Sharma define the constitution as a higher law which is there for the unions and states to obey. Texas current constitution is one of the longest constitutions in the United States. The constitution was adopted in the year 2009, which has resulted to the proposal of six hundred and forty three amendments. Four hundred and sixty seven of them were adopted while the rest were rejected. The Texas constitution is considered highly restrictive which acts as a limiting factor. However, the constitution document is subject to revision.

The current situation in Texas is one where other states could take on notes because of the increasing job opportunities that have come up. This is because the workforce commission added an extra 43,600 jobs unrelated to agricultural which is higher than any other state in the nation. This has made the state a haven to individuals and businesses during the tough economic periods that have befallen the nation and the globe. Other states are left competing for business opportunities because their tax and labor, as well as regulatory environments, are quite hostile toward the creation of new businesses.

This has not come easily as reforms had to be made in the constitution. Issues like the tort reform have been quite an issue for the past twenty years. The substance of the situation cannot be fully told without an understanding of the political parties, campaigns and elections as well as the interest groups involved according to. Most of the interest groups are diverse in nature ranging from individuals like doctors and trial lawyers fighting for political influence to insurance companies. This political situation is because of many things like historical influence.

The state did not let radical republicans get the better of the political climate in 1875, which resulted in a weak and uncoordinated, and underfunded state of public institutions. The state grew in its population as well as economic power; the problems in its structure became more and more apparent. This problem led to reforms and current cautious approach. One could say that the problems of the past have prompted laws that would promote as much stability as possible in the pursuit of a strong base. This approach has worked out in some areas including the economic front where others are now running to the state from all corners.

Related essays

• The Influence of Eunuchs on the Ming Dynasty Political Power
• Nationalism
• Democratic Peace Theory
• Women Involvement in World History
• Assessment of the Cold War Threats

Authorization

for more than