POLICY MAKING MODELS AND THEIR ROLE IN …

1 POLICY MAKING MODELS AND THEIR ROLEIN POLICY EDUCATIONAlan J. HahnCornell UniversityThe purposes of this paper are to (1) review commonly used modelsof POLICY MAKING and discuss THEIR applications in POLICY educationand (2) summarize recent developments in research and theory andspeculate about THEIR implications for POLICY Used ModelsThe following MODELS are those covered in standard textbooks onpublic POLICY ( , Anderson; Dye).Institutionalism. This is the traditional, "classical" approach. Thefocus is on the structures, organization, duties and functions of gov-ernmental institutions. Policies are sometimes described, but neveranalyzed. Institutionalism has its application in POLICY educationthrough the use of organization charts.

2 Though often uninterestingto audiences, organization charts have the advantage of addressingbasic questions that anyone who wishes to be politically influentialneeds to answer: What unit of government or agency is responsiblefor what? What are the lines of authority and accountability?Systems Theory. Systems theory emphasizes the environment ofpolitical systems, input and outputs (generally in the form of de-mands and support on the one hand and public policies on the other)and feedback. The systems framework is widely used, but often im-plicitly. It can be helpful in counteracting the tendency to describe oranalyze political systems as if they were self-contained. The fallacy ofdoing so is clearest at the local level, but may prove most costlynationally.

3 If systems theory (or some other framework) can helppeople understand external linkages and how to influence them orrespond to them, educators should make more use of these Group theory, the most common version of pluralismused to explain national political behavior, interprets POLICY makingas the result of influence by groups. At the local level, there is lessemphasis on groups, but influential individuals are perceived as di-verse, conflicting and different from one issue to another. Conflict222and competition have prominent roles in this model . It is recognizedthat not all interests are organized or influential, but there is a ten-dency to assume a "frictionless transition" from shared interests toformation of an effective group (Henig).

4 In POLICY education, pluralistmodels are especially helpful in emphasizing the diversity of partici-pants and interests, the likelihood of conflict and the importance ofwillingness to work on conflict This model recognizes that most people are uninvolvedand uninfluential. POLICY MAKING on most issues is heavily influ-enced by elites. Although it may be assumed that elites act in theinterests of others (as well as themselves), elections are consideredlargely symbolic, with elites often described as manipulating publicopinion rather than being influenced by it. Despite the undeniablepresence of conflict within the elite, its members are assumed toshare a fundamental consensus.

5 Influence is often exercised behindthe scenes. In POLICY education, elite MODELS help emphasize inequal-ities among those who participate in POLICY MAKING or experienceits outcomes. In different hands, these disparities are attributed toapathy on the part of the masses or manipulation by MODELS . Process MODELS attempt to generalize about thesequence of steps or actions that occur as POLICY issues are raised,debated and resolved. They focus more on what happens, when andhow than on who the participants are and why particular outcomesoccur. A typical example includes the stages of problem identifica-tion, proposal formulation, program legitimation, program budget-ing, program implementation, program evaluation and problemresolution/program termination (Jones).

6 Process MODELS are widelyused in POLICY education. They help answer obviously pressing ques-tions such as, "Where do we start?" and "What happens next?"Rationalism. Anderson treats rationalism and incrementalism asmodels of decision MAKING , rather than POLICY MAKING , on groundsthat they have a narrower focus. Both have had considerable influ-ence on process MODELS . Rationalism attempts to describe a process ofefficient decision MAKING . It typically includes the stages of clarify-ing and ranking goals, identifying an array of alternatives for reach-ing the goals, predicting the consequences of each alternative,comparing the anticipated consequences of the various alternativesand selecting the alternative that maximizes the attainment ofgoals.

7 Rationalism has been criticized for being unrealistic in termsof information and analytical requirements and unable to deal withsituations in which goals are unknown or in dispute. It treats deci-sion MAKING as an intellectual process rather than a political The incremental model was formulated in reactionto rationalism and offered as a prescriptive model as well as a betterdescription of reality. It states that decision makers are more likelyto move away from problems than toward goals; only a limited num-ber of alternatives are considered (specifically, ones that differ only223marginally from the status quo); only direct, short-range conse-quences are considered for each alternative; only enough analysis isdone to find a solution that POLICY makers can agree on; and adjust-ments are continually made if solutions remain have an image of the political system as a mountain, and thesemodels are pictures of the mountain from different angles and dis-tances.

8 Institutionalism is a drawing showing the geological struc-ture of the mountain without the plants, animals and humanactivity occurring on it. Systems theory is a photograph taken with awide-angle lens, or perhaps an aerial photograph, helpful in seeingthe mountain's relationship with its surroundings. Elitism is astraightforward snapshot in which the mountain's peak-like summit,steep sides and vegetation zones are plainly visible. Pluralism is acloser view, taken perhaps by someone who is climbing the moun-tain, in which we lose sight of the simpler geometry of the elite viewand are impressed instead by a confusion of cliffs, canyons, trees,boulders and multiple summits.

9 Process MODELS , despite the typicalanalogy, are not like motion pictures. In a movie, we see the samecontent as in a snapshot, but enjoy the addition of movement. Inprocess MODELS , we see movement and change, but lose most of thecontent. We lose the geological structure, the surroundings, the gen-eral shape of the mountain and the of the MODELS give a complete impression of the that we need all of them (and possibly more). The same is true ofpeople's understanding of a political system. Education for PublicDecisions (House and Young) is right to recommend a repertoire ofmodels. It would bother me, however, to think of them as alternativesthat educators draw on as needed or as they feel comfortable.

10 I ammore inclined to think that we need all of them (or at least several) orthat we need to develop new MODELS that reconcile and integrate as-pects of various existing the remainder of this paper I will focus on three MODELS -process, elitism and pluralism. These are the MODELS that Educationfor Public Decisions covers. They provide a reasonable need process MODELS as well as the others because they addressdifferent questions-what, when and how, rather than who and need elite MODELS because the diversity of interests involved inpolicy MAKING is not as complete as pluralism implies, nor is theconflict among them as equally balanced. We need pluralist modelsbecause consensus at the top is not as great as elitism implies, nor isthe elite as secure from challenge.