PADM507:

Lesson 2 Overview

Lesson 1 discussed a foundation of public policy and policy process by defining public policy, clarifying the concepts of public policy, and describing the key attributes of public policy, the role of politics in policy making, and social scientific disciplines that study public policy. These offer basic understanding of how policies are made and implemented.

Lesson 2 explores the stages model of the policy process and the elements of the policy-making system, the historical development of policy making, and the structure of public policy making in the United States. The stages model is an essential key reference point for public policy studies.

The policy process is considered as a system, so it is critical to identify important elements of environments, inputs, and outputs. After reviewing a wide range of environmental factors that influence public policy making, we move to discuss the constitutional order in which policymaking takes place in the United States. You need to know the structure of government and policymaking to make sense of the policy process itself.

Lesson Objectives

After completing this lesson, you should be able to

• describe the stages model and the system model of policy,
• describe key components of the policy system,
• classify the elemets of the constitutional policymaking order in the United States, and 
• describe the impact factors (e.g., American ideology) on producing stability in the American constitutional system. 

Lesson Road Map

By the end of this lesson, make sure you have completed the readings and activities found in the Lesson 2 Course Schedule.

 

Stages Model

We briefly mentioned in the previous lesson that the policy process can be described as sequential stages in which a public policy is made. This way of understanding the policy process is known as the “stages model.”

The stages model, introduced by Lasswell (1956), is one of the two earliest models that is still used in public policy studies and policy analysis.  Originally the stages model was described by Lasswell in seven stages. Later, some scholars combined or divided the original stages model, and proposed variations of the model. Bikalnd (2020), the author of the course textbook, proposed the following variation of the model (see Figure 2.1). 

The stages model assumes that the policy process is relatively stable, ordered, and open. The subsequent models discussed here are responses to the stages model, either attempts to expand it in more analytic detail or critiques of its basic approach and assumptions.

First, a word about each stage in the model (later lessons will examine the nature of each stage in more detail):

1. The first step is issue emergence. This stage is important to consider, because a standard view is that policy discussion would not begin unless there was a problem identified as appropriate for the government to address and substantial enough to warrant action.
2. The second stage is agenda-setting. This approach focuses on how certain problems get on the government agenda for discussion and occasionally on solutions being considered.
3. Alternative selection is the stage at which specific solutions are developed, debated, and researched.
4. Enactment is the point at which decision-makers formally decide to adopt a particular policy.
5. Once a policy is approved, it normally does not automatically go into operation. The program must be put into effect (the implementation phase). This might call for training employees, constructing facilities, purchasing technology, and so on.
6. Once a program has been in effect for an appropriate length of time, it should be evaluated. Here, the goal is to see what the effects of the program are (whether or not it is "solving" the problem) and to see if there are any unanticipated consequences (good or bad). Based on the evaluation, changes to or termination of the program may be considered.

The stages model  is a good conceptual tool because it provides a systematic  policy process (Lasswell, 1971). But it should be used with some caution. 

The stages should not be regarded as independent of each other. Each stage has an impact on the others. Stages can overlap (e.g. implementation and evaluation). It also suggests that there is an orderly progresion from one stage to the next, but in real-life policy processes, stages can be skipped and/or they may be done out of order. 

Also, the stages model implies that there is a beginning and an end in a policy process, but the process is actually endless cycle. 

---

References

Birkland, Birkland, T. A. (2020). An Introduction to the Policy Process (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research of University of Maryland, College Park.

Lasswell, H. D. (1971).  A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: Elsevier Publishing Company.

Public Policy System

 

In addition to the policy stages model, another model was proposed by Easton (1965). He proposed that we should think the policy process as a system. He theorized that they key components of this system were:

• the environment in which the policy is made;
• inputs into the policy system;
• the "black box" in which the decisions actually get made;
• the outputs, or products of the decision-making process; and
• feedback, in which outputs' observable results are evaluated and used to improve or terminate programs if they are failing.

 

Figure 2.2 illustrates Easton's model. We summarize the elements of enviornment, input, and outputs in the following sections. More information can be found in the Birkland book (2020).

---

References

Easton, D. (1965).  A systems analysis of political life. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 12, 564–581.

Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy.  American Political Science Review, 77, 175–190.

The American Constitutional Order

A few words about constitutions: They can be written, as is the United States Constitution, or not (as with the British constitution). Some constitutions, including those of some American states, go into great detail; others are relatively general and brief. The American national Constitution fits the latter description.

To understand the constitutional order, you first must know what is in the American Constitution. (For the text of the Constitution, please go to the Constitution of the United States page of the United States Senate website.)

The first order of business in understanding the Constitution is simply to lay out the various articles and what they say. Do look at the greater detail in the Constitution itself, as the following is just a very basic outline of the contents.

---

References

U.S. Const. art. I, §8.

U.S. Const. art II, §1.

U.S. Const. art VI.

Key Elements in the Constitutional Order

Two aspects of the constitutional order are especially relevant to the policymaking process: federalism and the separation of powers (accompanied by checks and balances).

Federalism 

Federalism refers to the division of powers across levels of government (usually focusing on the interactions between the federal government and the states). The Constitution itself notes one key component of federalism—the supremacy of national laws and the Constitution over state laws and constitutions. Over time, federalism has evolved considerably. Interested students might read Chapter 3 of the Deil Wright's Understanding Intergovernmental Relations (1988) to get a sense of the change over time.

Intergovernmental relations (IGR) is a more complete view of the interactions among levels of government.

Figure 2.3 illustrates the ways in which levels of government can interact with one another. Please check different types of relationships for details via the following tabs. 

Another critical aspect of the American constitutional order is the separation of powers and checks and balances. Take a look at Figure 2.4, which illustrates this.

Separation of Powers/Checks and Balances

Figure 2.4 is a flowchart that indicates checks and balances regarding the separation of powers among the executive, judicial and legislative branches.

Separation of powers is fairly straightforward:

• Congress has the power to enact laws (legislative power),
• the president has the power to implement and enforce laws (executive power), and
• the courts have the power to interpret laws and apply the law to specific cases (judicial power).

Each of the three branches of government has the ability to "check" the others. The courts can check the executive and legislative branches by declaring their actions or decisions unconstitutional (known as judicial review). The president can check Congress by vetoing legislation; Congress can check the president by overriding the veto. The president checks the court by nominating judges when there is a vacancy or when a new court is established. Congress has a check over the courts: it can impeach and remove judges from office and approves the president's nominees. Of course, in this manner, Congress can also check the president if it objects to his nomination(s).

Messiness in Policymaking

The constitutional order affects policymaking; another graphic should make this clear. If we combine federalism and separation of power, we get Table 2.2 below.

What does the table tell us? Above all, the policymaking process is fragmented (note the discussion on this in the textbook). Power is divided by level of government and by the different branches of government. The end result is that it is often difficult to make a policy that is likely to have the desired impact. The president, Congress, governors and their state legislators, and the executive and legislative bodies at the local level normally need to agree on actions at each level. Often there are standoffs between the executive and legislative branches, rendering decision-making a challenge. Add to this the political parties, which may be at odds when there is a divided government, with one party controlling at least one component of government and the other party at least one, too.

Table 2.2. Messiness in the Policymaking Process: A Tale of Three Institutions

Level of government/separation of power	Executive	Legislative	Judicial
National	R     D	R     D	R     D
State	R     D	R     D	R     D
Local	R     D	R     D	R     D

---

References

OREGON.GOV (2015). Oregan Parks and Recreation Department: Grant Programs. Retrieved from http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/grants/pages/local.aspx#Local_Government_Grant_Progra

State of Minnesota (2015). Minnesota Statutes 2015. Retrieved from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=401.065&format=pdf

Heineman, R. A.,  Peterson, S. A, &  Rasmussen, T. H. (1995). American Government.  2^nd edition New York, NY: : McGraw-Hill.

Peterson, S. A., & Rasmussen, T. H. (1994). State and Local Politics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 

Changes and Stabilities in the Constitutional Order

Chapter 3 of Birkland's textbook (2020) discusses the historical development of the constitutional order over the 200+ years of the American republic under the Constitution. Initially, American citizens felt closer to their state governments than to the federal government. Over time, however, this changed. It is very helpful to understand the changes that have taken place since the enactment of the Constitution.

Evolution of the Constitutional Order Over Time

Even though the American political system is typically stable over time, dramatic changes can and do take place—even if at a slow pace.

For a quick view of key events over time in the United States, go to the Interactive Timeline on the National Constitution Center website.

Stability in the Constitutional Order

Over the years since the Constitution was ratified and went into effect, there has been considerable stability in the United States. Of course, this has not always been the case—the Civil War is a dramatic example. But, for the most part, there has been stability and consistency. While the constitutional order has evolved, great stability underpinned the changes.

American Ideology

One key factor has been the stability over the years in the American ideology. Citizens' basic political beliefs do not change rapidly; there is a core that only slowly changes. One study that seems to make this clear is a book by Donald Devine, The Political Culture of the United States (1972). This is a rather old volume, but it summarizes public opinion data collected over several decades and across demographic groups.

A 1968 Survey of Public Opinions

Devine draws upon 35 years' worth of public opinion surveys to explore the extent to which there is a definable and stable American political culture. He argues that poll findings suggest a "liberal" tradition, in the sense of an acceptance of principles associated with political thinkers like John Locke and James Madison. Furthermore, evidence suggests that there is widespread approval of basic views across many demographic categories. The tables below (Tables 2.3-2.5) are derived from a 1968 survey of public opinion. It is striking that basic values tend to be agreed upon by many different demographic breakdowns and across many groups. However, there are anomalies. For instance, when we explore the effect of party identification, the apolitical appear to be outliers on the issue of community trust. For the most part, though, it appears as if there is considerable acceptance of certain basic values.

Polls During Great Depression

Another approach to ideological stability comes from polls taken during the Great Depression. Given the extent of the misery, with about one quarter of the population unemployed, why were there no mass protests? Wouldn't we expect the development of a more radical American working class? Such a movement did not occur. Why not?

Polls from the late 1930s

Polls from the late 1930s, when there was still considerable hardship, asked a sample of Americans the extent to which they believed in the free enterprise system. A clear majority of most social groups continued to support capitalism—even those who were unemployed working-class citizens. More telling, only a minority of working-class people exhibited anything like class consciousness or a sense of themselves as workers with interests in opposition to a capitalist class. So why didn't the working class become radicalized? The polls, simply, showed that they remained attached to individualistic and liberal ideals associated with the free enterprise and capitalist system. Their acceptance of dominant American values dampened the prospects of a radicalized working class movement (Verba & Schlozman, 1977).

Thus, ideological stability appears to be one factor that contributes to the stability over time of the American constitutional order.

---

References

Birkland, T. A. (2020). An Introduction to the Policy Process (5th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Devine, D. (1972). The political culture of the United States. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

U.S. Const. amend. XIV, §1.

Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1977). Unemployment, class consciousness, and radical politics: What didn't happen in the Thirties. Journal of Politics, 39, p. 291–323.

Wright, D. S. (1988). Understanding intergovernmental relations (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.