Public Administration 
California State University Long Beach 
 
Graduate Center for Public Policy and Administration 
Summer 2002, Third Session 

MODELS OF PUBLIC POLICY-MAKING 

1. Incrementalist Paradigm of Public Policy Making 

This model relies on the concepts of incremental decision-making such as satisficing, bounded rationality,
and limited cognition, among others. It represents a conservative tendency: new policies are only slightly
different from old policies. Policy-makers are too short on time, resources and brains to make totally new
policies; past policies are accepted as having some legitimacy. Existing policies have sunk costs which
discourage innovation, incrementalism is an easier approach than rationalism, and the policies are more
politically expedient because they don't necessitate any radical redistribution of values.
Deficiencies of Incrementalism–Can downplay useful quantitative information. Anti-intellectual approach to
problems; no imagination. Conservative.

1. INSTITUTIONAL MODEL 
Focuses on the traditional organization of government. Describes the duties and arrangements of
bureaus and departments. Considers constitutional provisions, administrative and common law, and judicial
decisions. It focuses on formal arrangements such as federalism executive reorganizations, presidential
commission, etc. Traditionally political science has studied government institutions--Congress, presidency,
courts, political parties, etc.--that authoritatively determine, implement, and enforce public policy. Strictly
speaking, a policy is not a public policy until it is adopted, implemented and enforced by some governmental
institution.
Government lends legitimacy to policies, they are then legal; Government extends policies
universally to cover all people in society; Government monopolizes the power to coerce obedience to policy,
or to sanction violators.
Traditional studies using the institutional approach focused on institutional structures, organization,
duties and function, without investigating their impact on public policy.

​2. ELITE-MASS MODEL 

A policy-making elite acts in an environment characterized by apathy and information distortion, and governs
a largely passive mass. Policy flows downward from the elite to the mass. Society is divided into those who
have power and those who do not. The prevailing public policies reflect elite values, which generally preserve

 
1 
 

 
 

the status quo. Elites have hither income, more education, and higher status than the mass. The elites
shapes up mass opinion. It assumes that
1)society is divided into the powerful few and the powerless many; only the few allocate values (the mass do
not decide public policy).
2)The few are not typical of the mass; elites are drawn from the upper stratum.
3) All elites agree on basic social system and preservation values, i.e., private property, limited government,
and individual liberty.
4)Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.
Policies may change incrementally but the elites are conservative and won't change the basic system. Only
policy alternatives that fall within the range of elite value consensus will be given serious consideration. there
is always agreement on constitutional government, democratic procedures, majority rule, freedom of speech
and of the press, freedom to form political parties and run for office, equality of opportunity, private property,
individual initiative and reward, and the legitimacy of free enterprise and capitalism. The masses cannot be
relied on to support these values consistently, thus the elite must support them.

3. GROUP MODEL 
Public policy results from a system of forces and pressures acting on and reacting to one another.
Usually focuses on the legislature, but the executive is also pressured by interest groups. Agencies may be
captured by the groups they are meant to regulate, and administrators become increasingly unable to
distinguish between policies that will benefit the general public and policies that will benefit the groups being
regulated. Interaction among groups is the central fact of politics. Individuals with common interests band
together to press their demands (formal
or informally) on government. Individuals are important in politics only when they act as part of or on behalf of
group interests. The group is the bridge between the individual and the government.

The task of the political system is to

1) establish the rules of the game
2) arrange compromises and balance interests
3) enact compromises in public policy
4) enforce these compromises
It is also called equilibrium theory, as in physics. Influence is determined by numbers, wealth, and
organizational strength, leadership, access to decision makers and internal cohesion. Policy makers respond
to group pressure by bargaining, negotiating, and compromising among competing demands. Executives,
legislators, and agency heads all put together coalitions from their consistencies to push programs through.
Political parties are coalitions of groups. The Democrats have traditionally been central city, labor,
ethnics/immigrants, the poor, Catholics, liberals, intellectuals, blacks, and Southern blue collar workers.

 
2 
 

 
 

Republicans have been wealthy, rural, small town, whites, suburbanites, white collar workers, conservatives,
and middle class.
The entire system assumes:
1) a 'latent' group supports the rules of the game
2) there is overlapping group membership which keeps groups from moving too far out of the political
mainstream
3) there are checks and balances on groups competition

4. SYSTEMS MODEL 
Relies on information theory concepts such as input, output, and feedback. Sees the policy process
as cyclical. Asks, "what are the significant variables and patterns in the public policy-making system?" What
goes on within the 'black box' of conversion of demands into public policy? What are the inputs and outputs?
Public policy is viewed as the response of the political system to forces brought to bear on it from the outside
environment. The environment surrounds the political system. In this model, "environment" means physical:
natural
resources, climate, topography; demographic: population size, age, and distribution, and location; political:
ideology, culture, social structure, economy, and technology. Forces enter the political system from the
environment either as demands or as support. Demands are brought to it by persons or groups in response
to real or perceived environmental conditions,
for government action. Support is given wherever citizens obey laws, vote, pay taxes, etc., and conform to
public policies.
The political system is a group of interrelated structures and processes that can authoritative allocate
resources for a society. The actors are the legislature, the executive, the administrative agencies, the courts,
interest groups, political parties, and citizens.
Outputs are decisions and actions and public policy. The political system is an identifiable system of
institutions and processes that transform inputs into outputs for the whole society. The elements with the
system are interrelated and it can respond to forces in the environment, and it seeks to preserve itself in
balance with the environment. The system preserves itself by producing reasonably satisfactory outputs
(compromises are arranged, enacted and enforced). It relies on deep rooted support for the system itself and
its use, or threat of use, of force.
Macro level policies are those that concern the whole system, and are influenced by official and
unofficial groups (media, etc.). It may center on the proper role of Congress or the President, or the
relationships of government and business or citizens and businesses. Subsystem policies involve legislators,
administrators, and lobbyists and researchers who focus on particular problem areas; also called
sub-governments, policy clusters, coalitions, or iron triangles. E.G. civil aviation, harbors, agricultural
subsidies, grazing lands, etc. Micro⌐level policies are efforts by individuals, companies, or communities to

 
3 
 

 
 

secure some favorable legislation for themselves. Typically presented to a legislator as a re\quest from the
"home" district. The incentive to engage in micro-politics increases as the extent of government benefits,
programs and regulations increases.
It asks questions such as:
1) What are the significant characteristics of the environment that generate demands?
2)What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to endure over time and turn
demands into output?
3)How do environmental inputs affect the political system?
4)How do characteristics of the political system affect public policy?
5)How do environmental characteristics affect public policy?
6)How does public policy through feedback, affect the environment and the political system itself?

5) Neo-institutionalist Model 
Attempts to categorize public policies into 4 areas by the probability of government coercion--immediate or
remote--and the object of government coercion--individual or systemic. The concern in this type of analysis is
to relate these types of policy to the different branches of government and the behaviors associated with
each policy area..

​ 2. Rational Model 
This model tries to understand all the alternatives, take into account all their consequences, and select the
best. It is concerned with the best way to organize government in order to assure and undistorted flow of
information, the accuracy of feedback, and the weighing of values. Related to techniques such as PERT,
CPM, OR, and linear programming. This model tries to improve the content of public policy.
Deficiencies of Rationalism--gap between planning and implementation. Ignores role of people,
entrepreneurs, leadership, etc. Technical competence along is not enough (ignores the human factor). Too
mechanical an approach, organizations are more organic. Models must be multidimensional and complex.
Predictions are often wrong; simple solutions may be overlooked. The costs of rational-comprehensive
planning may outweigh the cost savings of the policy.

3. Public Sector Strategic Planning  

An attempt to combine the incremental and rational approaches to public policy-making. It is an attempt to reconcile the
day-to-day demands with long range strategies for the future. It doesn't see the organization as wholly determined by the
political environment, neither does it ignore risks. It takes an active stance (versus passive) toward the future with an
outward looking, aggressive focus sensitive to the political environment. It tries to place the organization in a distinctive
position vis-a-vis the political environment. It concentrates on making decisions (unlike the rational model) but blends
rational analysis with economic and political analyses (unlike the incremental model). It is highly participatory and
tolerant of controversy, it concentrates on the fate of the whole organization; the fate of subunits is secondary. 

 
4 
 

 
 

Policymaking always deviates from the ideal process in 

Pakistan 

Policy Formulation 

In Pakistan in the last few years has raised a legitimate and interesting question. Who sets public policy in
Pakistan and how is it formulated?

Under the Constitution, the responsibility of policymaking rests solely with the executive branch, with further
division among the federal, provincial and local governments.

Under the 18th Amendment, powers transferred from the centre to the provincial governments. The provincial
government can further delegate authority, powers and resources under its control to the local governments.

So, who initiates the process of policymaking?

In theory, an elected government has a manifesto on the basis of which it is voted to power. The ruling party
and its leadership should in principle decide the priorities enshrined in the manifesto and then the timing,
sequencing and phasing of different policies.

Ideally, the government in Pakistan would then ask the concerned ministries to prepare a draft document that
takes stock of the existing situation, diagnoses the problems, analyses the various options, outlines the
preferred option, costs out its financial implications and spells out the action plan along with milestones and
deadlines.

This draft policy document would then be circulated among various stakeholders for their views, comments and
suggestions — some countries also hold public consultations on critical policy documents.

Once the stakeholders’ views are incorporated, the revised draft would be circulated among the concerned
ministries and provincial governments for their views. The draft, once again updated, would then be presented
to the ruling party whose think tank or leadership would evaluate whether the policy document conforms to the
promises made to the electorate or not.

In some cases, modifications can be made if the deviations are significant. In other cases, they would be
endorsed and sent to the ministry in charge to steer it through the process.

 
5 
 

 
 

The ministry concerned would then forward the draft to the Economic Coordination Committee or the full
cabinet for deliberations and approval. The ECC or cabinet will either approve, modify or send back the draft
with observations to the ministry.

Once the policy is approved it may be necessary in some circumstances to back it with some legislative
instruments that are prepared by the law ministry and steered though the relevant committees of the National
Assembly and the Senate and finally before the floor of the houses.

Progress would then be periodically reviewed and monitored either by the prime minister, the cabinet or the
ECC.

Policy Analysis: 

Ideally, policymaking follows a policy cycle. It has five major stages:

1. Policy agenda setting

2. Policy formulation

3. Policy adoption

4. Policy implementation

5. Policy evaluation.

Succinctly, success of every policy lies in carefully working out the first stage. Unfortunately, in Pakistan, it is
often neglected and, hence, most of the policies failed while being implemented.

In policymaking, to define the problem is itself a problem. This is the reason agenda setting stage is the most
important stage in policymaking. During agenda setting, the policy problem is to be defined.

Policymakers undertake ​policy analysis​. Researchers and analysts conduct a detailed study about the
background of the problem, the government’s preliminary intended needs, previous efforts made to solve
identical problems, scope and severity, need assessment, diagnosing the exact problem by defining it, and
separating it from issues.

In the end, based on the problem definition, the policy agenda is formulated which is often called the
institutional agenda.

Policy Making and Pakistan: 

 
6 
 

 
 

Conversely, in Pakistan, the policymaking process is often donor-driven, which most of the time revolves
around cosmetics, i.e. arrangements of meetings, seminars, workshops, roundtable conferences, electronic
media advertisements, and printing of attractive colourful booklets.

The governments of Punjab and Sindh as well as the federal government introduced several policies at a time
when they were literally packing up. The nation was readying to participate in the general elections hence
shifting responsibility of implementation to the future governments. ​The new national policies are on food
security, information technology, income tax, etc, while in Sindh, legislative measures were taken on
agriculture and regularisation of services. Punjab approved a human-rights policy and a few others.​ The policy
drafts came in rapid succession that even keen observers found it difficult to keep track of all, though a public
debate and response must have been a requirement.

While the urgency attached to issues such as Fata reforms bill is understandable the time lost to political
expediencies is inexcusable. For many other policies introduced, not only is the timing of the adoption of the
policies incomprehensible but the quality of policy documents, otherwise carrying huge importance is also
questionable.

A good policy document should have content based on concrete analysis of the context and previous
measures. For instance, a policy on human rights must answer questions as to what happened to the Action
Plan for Human Rights, passed in February 2016. What lessons were learnt from the successes and failures of
this plan? The human rights policy cannot ignore the intersectional importance with other institutions.

Drawbacks in Pakistan Policy Making, Analysis, Implementation & 

Evaluation: 

How much does policymaking in Pakistan deviate from the ideal process described above?

1. First, the stakeholder consultation is either superficial or the views of the stakeholders, if found at variance
with those of the formulators, do not find any place in the revised documents. The motions of consultation
having been fulfilled, it does not matter whether substantive changes have been taken cognisance of or not.

2. Second, the inter-ministerial consultation is more confrontational than collaborative in nature. Ministers
feel personally offended if their policy documents are criticised by other ministers.

The critique may not be an attempt to put down or denigrate one personally but a genuine desire to strengthen
and improve the document that is the collective responsibility of the entire cabinet and not the minister in
charge alone. But personal vendettas and suspicions mar this process in Pakistan.

 
7 
 

 
 

3. Third, very little attention is given to implementation modalities and the constraints that may arise during
the implementation phase. Dispute-resolution mechanisms are non-existent and the diffusion of responsibility
and lack of clarity make accountability for results difficult.

Hence the biggest risk in Pakistan is the performance gap as very sound policy documents have remained
buried in the dust.

4. Fourth, the monitoring mechanism is not only weak and sporadic, but highly lopsided. Some slick players
with the gift of the gab can make impressive PowerPoint presentations and mesmerise the audience. They
create the impression that things are going well while the facts are to the contrary.

Others who are not so well versed in this art are rebuked and taken to task although their achievements may
be worthwhile. Prime ministers and cabinet ministers are always pressed for time and the outcomes of such
meetings are perfunctory with a lot of platitudes and generalisations. The underlying problems remain
unaddressed.

Implementation therefore remains off track as interest shifts to another urgent policy or some other pressing
problem.

5. Fifth, the capacity of the ministries and provincial departments in preparing policy papers is limited. They
do not have the necessary expertise or competence in the subject to come up with evidence-based options.
The use of systematic data is normally shunned.

6. The communication strategy of explaining the rationale and disseminating the policy widely is almost
non-existent in most cases. As the success of the policy depends upon people outside the government their
understanding and support are absolutely crucial.

7. The people who are involved in policymaking are not able to differentiate between ​policy formation
and policy formulation​, decision and alternatives, whether strategy is to be chalked out first or policy is to
be formulated first.

8. Most of the policies failed due to the dearth of proper policymaking knowledge and neglecting of key
stakeholder in the policy - making process, which is the ‘public’ itself. We often place the public among the
target audience and, hence, follow top - down - policymaking approach.

9. One reason that policies suffer implementation problems is that the consultation process had been so
weak that it fails to create necessary ownership amongst the implementing machinery or the ministry itself.
Almost all policies lack evaluation and contingency plans, hence a policy vacuum will persist in case the plans
do not work.

 
8 
 

 
 

10. Most of the policy documents are prepared by experts who are either retired bureaucrats or consultants.
These assignment based inductions create some operational problems concerning ownership and cooperation
that reduce the policy-making process to deliverables and immediate targets. There is no harm in taking help
from various experts and international donors, nevertheless, the main responsibility ought to be with the
on-service bureaucrats and elected representatives.

A good example can be found in the National Internal Security Policy (NISP) 2018 from the process as well as
the outcome. The recent NISP was also passed at the last cabinet meeting because the earlier policy was
completed just this year. Moreover, there was change in the minister’s portfolio and quite recently an
assassination attack on the minister. Considering every aspect, NISP 2018 is still a big achievement. The
conceptual clarity, focus of NISP 2018 makes it stand out among the other policy drafts on several counts.

11. Despite that there is room for improvement. These policies should be put to test involving those who
participated in preparing policies. These policies should serve as working documents amenable to change and
corrections on the basis of lessons learnt during implementation.

On the other hand, developed countries are moving towards bottom - up, participatory policymaking process,
asking the public what it needs and how.

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1736084/6-great-policy-rush/

Ishrat Husain’s article ‘Formulating public policy’ (Nov 14)

Possible Solutions: 

In Pakistan, a few universities have recently started degree programmes in public policy.

It is suggested training institutions of all the occupational groups of civil service of Pakistan may introduce
modules of policymaking for civil servants.

Making policies based on evidence 

A two-day conference titled ‘Role of monitoring & evaluation in evidence-based policy making’ emphasized the
need for creating more awareness for evidence-based policy making at national level.

Lack of awareness was a main hurdle in promoting evidence-based policy making for better output in public
sector.

 
9 
 

 
 

In order to grab the attention of policymakers, research and empirical evidence needed to be provided
efficiently, suggesting more insightful measures be used to monitor the progress of programmes as opposed to
the mere use of linear percentages to show progress.

Director General M&E P&D highlighted broad themes of the conference including big data, innovative
approaches for evaluation, monitoring frameworks for public sector projects and the role of civil society in
strengthening the evidence-based policy making process.

It highlights the need and significance of evaluation in order to support the efforts to achieve the Sustainable
Development Goals.

 
10