POLICY-MAKING PROCESS: A PREREQUISITE FOR EDUCATIONAL PLANNING

THE POLICY-MAKING PROCESS

Policy-making involves a combination of processes. Although not always clear-cut or easily distinguishable, political scientists have identified these processes for purposes of analysis.1 They include the following:

1. Identifying policy problems: Publicized demands for government action can lead to identification of policy problems.
2. Formulating policy proposals: Policy proposals can be formulated through political channels by policy-planning organizations, interest groups, government bureaucracies, state legislatures, and the president and Congress.  
3. Legitimizing public policy: Policy is legitimized as a result of the public statements or actions of government officials, both elected and appointed in all branches and at all levels. This includes executive orders, budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations, and decisions and interpretations that have the effect of setting policy directions.  
4. Implementing public policy: Policy is implemented through the activities of public bureaucracies and the expenditure of public funds.
5. Evaluating public policy: Policies are formally and informally evaluated by government agencies, by outside consultants, by interest groups, by the mass media, and by the public. Although this stages or phases approach to policymaking has been criticized for being too simplistic, insufficiently explicating that some phases may occur together, and not saying much about why policy turns out as it does, it does provide a way to discuss many of the ways policy is constructed, carried out, evaluated, and made again. All these activities include both attempts at rational problem solving and political conflict.

Identifying Policy Problems

Many factors influence the identification of policy problems. They include the methods of getting issues on the political agenda as well as keeping them off the agenda. Political ideology and special interests, the mass media, and public opinion all play roles in problem identification.

Agenda Setting “Agenda setting,” that is, deciding what is to be decided, is the first critical step in the policymaking process. To get on the agenda, problems must come to policymakers’ attention.3 Some problems—even major problems—are too “invisible” to make the agenda, while others such as healthcare, are already highly visible, because they affect us all. Other times, crises or “focusing events” (e.g. dropout students who work daily as Wapigadebe) are needed to bring problems to light.

Agenda Setting

“Agenda setting”, that is, deciding what is to be decided, is the first critical step in the policymaking process.”Think of all the conditions that existed for many years that remained “nonissues,” that is, they were not identified as problems for governments’ consideration. One striking example is the “separate schools for disabled” doctrine that gave legitimacy to racial segregation based on physical disability without considering the mental ability of the individuals. Without political pressure, some conditions might worsen, but they would never be identified as public problems, they would never get on policymakers’ agenda, and governments would never be forced to decide what, if anything, to do about them. Today, because of elite pressure on inclusive school structures, the government and private schools are re-positioning to incorporate students with physical disability to eliminate the stigmatization syndrome in their adult life. Influential individuals and ordinary citizens, organized interest groups, think tanks and policy planning organizations, political candidates, and officeholders all employ the tactics of agenda setting, usually through attempts to get the mass media to publicize the issue.

Non-decisions

Preventing certain conditions in society from becoming policy issues is also an important political tactic. According to political scientists Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz:

“Non-decision making is a means by which demands for change in the existing allocation of benefits and privileges in the community can be suffocated before they are even voiced; or kept covert; or killed before they gain access to the relevant decision-making arena; or failing all these things, maimed or destroyed in the decision-implementing stage of the policy process.”

Non decision making occurs when powerful individuals, groups, or organizations act to suppress an issue because they fear that if public attention is focused on it, their best interests may suffer. Non decision making also occurs when political candidates, officeholders, or administrative officials anticipate that powerful individuals or groups will not favor a particular idea. They, therefore, do not pursue the idea because they don’t want to “rock the boat.” For more than 50 years, powerful medical lobbies successfully blocked serious consideration of initiatives that came to be known as Medicare and Medicaid. Powerful healthcare lobbies continue to try to block proposals for government sponsored national health insurance.

Political Ideology

Political ideology is a driving force in agenda setting. The New Political Dictionary defines a conservative as “a defender of the status quo”; “the more rigid conservative generally opposes virtually all government regulation of the economy . . . favors local and state action over federal action, and emphasizes fiscal responsibility, most notably in the form of balanced budgets.”5 Of course, not all conservatives are this rigid. Federal deficits have also ballooned under recent conservative Republican presidential administrations. A liberal can be defined as “one who believes in more government action to meet individual need.”6 Liberals often want the government to do much more to promote distributive justice, economic as well as social. Conservatives think that the government has already done too much in this regard, destroying individual initiative and promoting economic and other social problems. Many Americans fall somewhere in between the extremes of liberal and conservative, but it is often the most zealous individuals who organize and attempt to influence the political agenda.

The Republican Party platform has become highly conservative, especially on social issues such as abortion and gay rights. The Democratic Party platform tends to be much more liberal than that of the Republicans, espousing issues such as abortion access and gay rights. Political ideology is not always pure. For example, some Republicans may favor their party’s ideology on spending and taxing matters, while they may be unhappy with the party’s stance on abortion and gay rights. Likewise, some Democrats wish to strengthen social programs while also being more cautious about government spending. Except for the most strident of ideologies, the lines between liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican can be difficult to draw. Libertarians generally believe that governments should have very limited functions, primarily police and military protection. They are strong supporters of free market capitalism and believe that the government has no place in making laws about personal behavior—reproduction, homosexuality, and drug use—unless there is threat of harm to others. Centrists believe that political partisanship and polarization have prevented compromise that could result in more effective public policy. Centrists see themselves as encouraging moderation and compromise. These are some of the basic ideas of the political ideologies that frame conflict over social welfare policy in the United States. In subsequent chapters, we describe more of these ideas and also consider the welfare models of social democracies in which benefits such as childcare, healthcare, and job training are far more universal in nature than they are in the United States.

Special Interests

Special interest groups are a staple of the political landscape, and they do their best to influence the political agenda either directly or indirectly. Special interest groups may represent people based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, income, profession, or other factors. Many special interest groups are organized as nonprofit 501(c) (3) organizations, which limits their ability to lobby or support political candidates, but they can educate on issues of concern to them. Groups from Mothers against Drunk Driving to the Nature Conservancy do just that. Other special interest groups are organized as political action committees (PACs). Some PACs are operated by corporations or trade, industry, and labor unions. Other PACs are ideological and do not have a corporate or labor sponsor. Virtually all types of social welfare interest groups have PACs, including the American Medical Association (AMA), the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), an AFL-CIO affiliated labor union that represents many social welfare professionals. PACs support candidates who are most likely to vote on legislation in accordance with the PACs’ interests.

In USA, the Center for Responsive Politics reported that in 2009, more than 13,700 registered federal lobbyists, businesses, labor unions, and other organizations spent nearly $3.5 billion lobbying Congress and federal agencies. Between 1989 and 2010, AT&T, which is fairly well balanced in donations to Democrats and Republicans, was the all-time high political contributor at over $44 million, while AFSCME, which clearly favors Democrats, is second highest at nearly $42 million.7 The poor and disadvantaged, who need help the most, are not represented in Washington in the same fashion as other groups in society. They rarely write letters to members of Congress, they do not make significant campaign contributions, and they cannot afford trips to Washington to visit their representatives. Indeed, they do not turn out at the polls to vote as often as the non-poor. To the extent that the poor and disadvantaged or disenfranchised are represented at all in Washington, they are usually represented by “proxies”—groups that are not poor, disadvantaged, or disenfranchised themselves but that claim to represent these groups. Among these proxy groups are the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Low Income Housing Coalition, the National Association of Social Workers, the Gray Panthers, and the Human Rights Campaign.

Laws restrict the contributions that can be made directly to political candidates. For example, in the 2009–2010 election cycles, an individual could contribute up to $2,400 per candidate in direct contributions. There are also limits on what individuals and PACs can donate to national, state, and local party committees. The Federal Elections Commission (FEC) regulates elections and enforces election laws. The FEC has sometimes come under fire for allowing campaign finance loopholes. Over the past few decades, Congress has occasionally passed laws attempting to control the influence of special interests with regard to campaign finance contributions such as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). In January, 2010, in the Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission case, the U.S. Supreme Court stunned many when it cited the First Amendment in ruling that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want on political ads to support or oppose political candidates. The ruling does not affect the laws prohibiting direct donations to candidates by corporations and unions. In 1974, Congress limited the amount of money that individuals and PACs could give to national party committees and candidates running for national offices. Some politicians refuse to accept PAC money, but these contributions remain an important feature of election campaigns. The fear, of course, is that elected officials are beholden to these special interests and this affects public policy. For this reason, many individuals concerned about political ethics advocate campaign finance reform.

The Mass Media

Deciding what is “news” and who is “newsworthy” is a powerful political weapon. Some scholars find that the media exert substantial influence in deciding what problems will be given attention and what problems will be ignored.9 Television executives and producers and newspaper and magazine editors decide what people, organizations, and events will be given public attention. Without media coverage, many of the conditions or government programs affecting those who are poor or other groups or about alternative policies or programs would not likely become objects of political discussion, nor would government officials likely consider them important, even if they knew about them. Media attention creates issues and personalities. Media inattention can doom issues and personalities to obscurity. The media is key in directing attention to issues, although the consensus is that they do not change people’s minds on issues as much as they influence individuals who have not yet formed an opinion.  Others are less enthusiastic about the media’s influence. In his classic study of agenda setting at the federal level, Kingdon found that “the media report what is going on in government, by and large, rather than having an independent effect on government agendas.”

Changing Policy through Grassroots Action

Broad-scale political participation is essential to democracy. Money, power, and influence all play a part in the policy process, but we should never become cynical about our own participation and the effects it can have. Here are some suggestions, excerpted and adapted from the Community Tool Box, a service of the Work Group for Community Health and Development at the University of Kansas. Policy change is difficult and time-consuming, and it may look discouraging. But, with work and dedication, policy change is possible—it happens all the time, usually because ordinary people care enough to keep at it. Here are some general guidelines for changing policies and choosing tactics. We have called them the Eight Ps: 1. Preparation: Prepare well for changing policies. Conduct the necessary research to get to know as much as possible about the issue. Make yourself and your group the acknowledged expert, the one that individuals, groups, and the media contact when they want information on your issue. Know the current policy intimately and know who actually makes and influences the policy. Know who your allies and opponents are and how they might be influenced. Be particularly aware of who your most difficult opponents are, their arguments, and whether they are distorting the situation and your point of view, and be ready to counter their arguments and attacks. 2. Planning: Plan carefully for policy change. To ensure that your overall strategy makes sense, and that changing policies is a necessary and appropriate part of it, strategic planning is essential. Strategic planning takes time and effort, and may result in changing some of your ideas, but it will pay huge dividends in the long run. 3. Personal contact: Establish or maintain contact with those who influence or make policy. Personal relationships, even with opponents, are the key to successful advocacy of all kinds, and changing policy is no exception. Develop mutual relationships with legislators and their aides, local elected and appointed officials, key personnel at regulatory and funding agencies, national, state, and local organizations, and the media.

4. Pulse of the community: Take the pulse of the community of interest to understand what citizens will support, what they will resist, and how they can be persuaded. You will have a far greater chance of success if you set out to change policies in ways the community will support, or at least tolerate, than if you challenge people’s basic beliefs. You may have to put off your final goal and work toward an intermediate one the community can support.   5. Positivism: Where you can, choose tactics that emphasize the positive. Suggesting incentives (tax breaks, for instance) for doing the right thing, rather than punishment (special taxes) for doing the wrong thing, is one way to accentuate the positive elements of a proposed change. On the other hand, research seems to show that people are more likely to take action when they have something to lose. The possibility of both incentives and punishment may be one to consider in some circumstances. 6. Participation: Involve as many people as possible in strategic planning and action. Try to engage key people, particularly opinion leaders and trusted community figures, but concentrate on making your effort participatory. That will give it credibility. Encourage community ownership of the effort, make sure that a wide range of ideas and information are considered, and also encourage community leadership of the effort. 7. Publicity: Use the media, the Internet, your connections, and your imagination to keep people informed of the effort and the issues, and to keep a high profile. You can use everything from straight news stories to street theater and demonstrations [or tea parties and coffee parties] to get the message out. Publicity will help you gain and maintain support, which will increase your chances of success. 8. Persistence: Policy change can take a long time. Monitor and evaluate your actions to make sure they are having the desired effect, and change them if they are not. You should be prepared to keep at it for as long as it takes if you hope to be successful. For more information on how to use the Eight Ps to effect policy change,

Source: Adapted by permission from “Changing Policies: An Overview,” by Phil Rabinowitz and edited by Bill Berkowitz, Chapter 25,

The media, especially the major television networks, are often accused of having a liberal bias. Even if this is true, countervailing opinions get their share of coverage from conservative television and radio commentators, talk show hosts, newspaper columnists, and special television channels devoted to their opinions. Even when journalists’ personal views are liberal, the media that employ them are owned by powerful business interests that exert a countervailing conservative influence, and they demand a focus on what produces the most profit. As a result of media focus on sensational events and personalities like celebrities, many important social issues receive little in-depth coverage.

Public policy theorists also note the importance of policy images in agenda setting, images that combine “empirical information and emotive appeals. The images that the terms drug addicts and crack addicts conjure up have helped to fuel drug policies that have filled U.S. jails and prisons with unprecedented numbers of inmates. The label “socialism” is used to dissuade Americans from supporting social welfare programs that would be more universal in nature such as government-run national health insurance. New forms of communication are also rapidly changing the way people obtain information. Websites of special interest groups and think tanks representing the spectrum of political positions abound. Blogging and websites like YouTube give individuals unprecedented ability to post their own views for the world to read or hear. Anyone with an Internet connection can subscribe to news feeds and read a variety of political commentary. Perhaps the real danger today is that we are overwhelmed with the number of issues that have caught the media’s attention and the number of groups and organizations competing for attention to the issues they deem important. Government inaction and public indifference may result when people feel that there are too many problems to consider or that problems continue to grow even when they try to intervene.

Public Opinion

Even in a democracy, public opinion may not determine public policy, but politicians are mindful of what their constituents—particularly their powerful constituents—think. Relatively few Americans take time to make their views known to their elected officials, but doing so might be more effective than many Americans realize. The Gallup Poll and other polling organizations keep their finger on the pulse of the country with continuous telephone surveys of scientifically selected samples of adult Americans. These polls cover a variety of topics from the general question Gallup has asked since 1935 about what Americans think is the country’s most important problem, to views on specific policy issues such as taxes, the budget deficit, and healthcare. The public, like politicians, frequently do not agree on public policy issues, and their own views are often inconsistent. For example, an analysis of public opinion surveys showed that although Americans tend to express resentment for “welfare” programs, they also say that they want to help people in need.

Formulating Policy Proposals

John Kingdon likens the processes of formulating and selecting policy alternatives to a process of “biological natural selection”:

“Many ideas are possible in principle, and float around in a “policy primeval soup” in which specialists try out their ideas in a variety of ways-bill introductions, speeches, testimony, papers, and conversation. . . . [These] proposals . . . come into contact with one another, are revised and combined . . . , and floated again. But the proposals that survive to that status of serious consideration meet several criteria, including their technical feasibility, their fit with dominant values and the current national mood, their budgetary workability, and the political support or opposition they might experience.”

Policy-planning organizations, interest groups, government bureaucracies, state legislatures, and the president and Congress may all engage in formulating policy proposals. Since neither Congress nor state legislatures can continuously attend to all policy issues, policy-making is often done in relative obscurity by groups of specialists that may be called iron triangles, policy subsystems, or issue networks, but some policy issues do “catch fire. “Average citizens” certainly have policy preferences, but in most areas of governments, policy is highly complex and generally requires the efforts of those whose careers are devoted to particular policy subsystems.

Legitimizing Public Policy

Policy is legitimized as a result of the public statements or actions of government officials; both elected and appointed—the president, Congress, state legislators, agency officials, and the courts. This includes executive orders, budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations, and administrative and court decisions that set policy directions. Kingdon found that as problems are being identified and certain policy proposals float to the top, the political climate—the current national mood, interest group pressure or lack of pressure, and who is in office—must all converge for a proposal to be adopted.19 These forces may serendipitously align to produce such a “policy window,” but policy entrepreneurs try to seize the opportunity to bring these forces to bear for a new policy or a policy change to occur.

Implementing Public Policy

Policy implementation includes all the activities that result from the official adoption of a policy. Policy implementation is what happens after a law is passed. We should never assume that the passage of a law is the end of the policy-making process. Sometimes laws are passed and nothing happens! Sometimes laws are passed and executive agencies, presuming to act under these laws, do a great deal more than Congress ever intended. Political scientist Robert Lineberry writes:

“The implementation process is not the end of policy-making, but a continuation of policy-making by other means. When policy is pronounced, the implementation process begins. What happens in it may, over the long run, have more impact on the ultimate distribution of policy than the intentions of the policy’s framers.”

Traditionally, public policy implementation was the subject matter of public administration. The separation of “politics” from “administration” was once thought to be the cornerstone of a scientific approach to administration. But today it is clear that politics and administration cannot be separated. Opponents of policies do not end their opposition after a law is passed. They continue their opposition in the implementation phase of the policy process by opposing attempts to organize, fund, staff, regulate, direct, and coordinate the program. If opponents are unsuccessful in delaying or halting programs in implementation, they may seek to delay or halt them in endless court battles (school desegregation and abortion policy are certainly cases in point). In short, conflict is a continuing activity in policy implementation.

Evaluating Social Welfare Policy

Over the years, increasing numbers of formal evaluations of social policies have been conducted. Governments, especially the federal government, have spent millions of dollars to determine whether the policies and programs they have initiated are having effects. Therefore, it is evident that program evaluations can produce their own political fallout. There may be disagreements about study methodology, and people with different views will interpret the same study results differently. Policy evaluations can be helpful to policymakers, but they usually do not solve political controversies or change deeply held values.