Institutional Model

According to Tolentino, this process describes the relations among different

hierarchical levels and studies what is being done at each level such as the duties and
arrangements of bureaus and departments whereas it also consider the constitutional,
legal and administrative rules as bases for administering the affairs of state. Solving
problems arising from the analysis of the policy making process and why reorganization
and restricting of the bureaucracy are frequently done

Features

- Rationalism – also known as the high coverage type when applied to society, is
an overview monitoring pinpoint the indices of the problem
- Incrementalism – focusing on the specific details of the problem, identifying the
causes and prescribing a solution

Also, according to Anderson, the study of government institutions (or organizations)

is one of the oldest concerns of political science. This is not surprising, since political life
generally revolves around governmental institutions such as legislatures, executives,
courts, and political parties; public policy, moreover, is authoritatively determined and
implemented by these institutions. Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrated
on describing the more formal and legal aspects of governmental institutions: their
formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and functions or activities. Formal
relationships with other institutions might also be considered, such as legislative-
executive relations. Usually little was done to explain how institutions actually operated
as opposed to how they were supposed to operate, to analyze public policies produced
by the institutions, or to discover the relationships between institutional structure and
public policies. Institutional theory can provide only partial explanations of policy. It has
little to say about what drives the policy process.

Rational-Comprehensive Model
The rational model of decision-making is a process for making sound decisions in
policy making in the public sector. Rationality is defined as “a style of behavior that is
appropriate to the achievement of given goals, within the limits imposed by given
conditions and constraints”. It is important to note the model makes a series of work
conditions, such as the model must be applied in a system that is stable; the
government is a rational and unitary actor and that its actions are perceived as rational
choices; The policy problem is unambiguous; there are no limitations of time or cost.
This also, suggests that decision-making occurs in a logical order: a problem arises,
alternatives are developed and weighed, and a decision is made to choose the best
alternative. Furthermore, in the context of that public sector policy models are intended
to achieve maximum social gain. Simon identifies an outline of a step by step mode of
analysis to achieve rational decisions. Ian Thomas describes Simon's steps as follows:

1. Intelligence gathering — A comprehensive organization of data, potential

problems and opportunities are identified, collected and analyzed.
2. Identifying problems — Accounting relevant factors.
3. Assessing the consequences of all options — Listing possible consequences and
alternatives that could resolve the problem and ranking the probability that each
potential factors could materialize in-order to give a correct priority in the
analysis.
4. Relating consequences to values — With all policies there will be a set of
relevant dimensional values (for example, economic feasibility and
environmental protection) and a set of criteria for appropriateness, against which
performance (or consequences) of each option being responsive can be judged.
5. Choosing the preferred option — this policy is brought through from fully
understanding the problems, opportunities, all the consequences & the criteria of
the tentative options and by selecting an optimal alternative with consensus of
involved actors.
The model of rational decision-making has also proven to be very useful to several
decision making processes in industries outside the public sphere. Nonetheless, there
are some who criticize the major problems faced when using the rational model arise in
practice because social and environmental values can be difficult to quantify and forge
consensus around. Furthermore, the assumptions stated by Simon are never fully valid
in a real world context.
However, Thomas R. Dye, the president of the Lincoln Center for Public Service states
the rational model provides a good perspective since in modern society rationality plays
a central role and everything that is rational tends to be prized. Thus, it does not seem
strange that “we ought to be trying for rational decision-making”.
Multiple Streams Model:

Kingdon (1984) and Porter (1985) scrutinized the traditional policy making model
(identification of policy problems, agenda setting, development of policy proposals,
adoption policies, implementation of policies, and evaluation of policies’ implementation
and impact, respectively) and remarked that the model was too rigid and linear and
does not reflect the actual policymaking which often is unsystematic, eccentric,
disordered, and politically charged. With this premise, they extrapolated that the
traditional policymaking should be changed and would be if multiple set of activities
(also called streams)--the process of defining the problem, suggesting solutions, and
obtaining political census--would be done simultaneously and would open a window of
opportunity for the changes to happen.
 Problem Stream- denotes which social conditions are perceived by the people as
maladies which should be solved by government action.
 Solution Stream- consists of policy alternatives that are created by mid-level
government officials and administrators, policy advocates and academics.
 Politics Streams- consists of political events that may or may not be favorable to
the policy. i.e., changes on the management, public protests, election.

The Multiple Streams Model is not linear; the three streams flow relatively and
independently through the policy system. But in reality, it is hard to make the three
streams meet and to extend the simultaneous flow of streams. Multiple Streams model
is useful in policymaking because it argues that several real-life factors shape the future
of public policy. It forces all interested and involved actors to recognize realities of
public policy making and pragmatically act to see policies come to life. Akin to the
traditional policy stages model, it allows the policies to be scrutinized, analyzed and
dissected in broad generalized terms which could be helpful on the study of
policymakers who are faced with the problems that are needed to be fixed in a certain
social environment.
Public Choice Model:

In a nutshell, Public Choice uses the methods and tools of economics to explain how
politics and government works. According to Eamonn Butler (2012), Public Choice is
applying economic concepts to the study of how collective choices are made—applying
them to the things as the design and workings of constitutions, election mechanisms,
political parties, interest groups, lobbying, bureaucracy, parliaments, committees, and
other parts of the governmental system.
Public Choice helps us understand the process on identifying problems such as the self-
interest of particular groups and the potential exploitation of coerced minorities and to
propose ways of limiting these shortcomings.
Public Choice looks at how the motivations of individuals affect the outcome of their
collective decision-making. It rejects the idea that politics is a process by which we
somehow discover what is truly in the ‘public interest’. Public Choice advocates sees
the government not as an organic institution that just grows with a life and purpose on
its own but as rational, self-interested individuals that combine to promote their personal
interests through collective action.
In a world of value-pluralism, “public interest” would have had different meanings. One
would want to prioritize infrastructure projects, e.g., roads, bridges, facilities, while
others want to lower the tax rates. Ergo, we can say that people value different kinds of
goods and services differently. Inevitably, the different interests of different people will
clash and agreement on what constitutes the ‘public interest’ is impossible.
Public Choice does not aim to deliver a concrete social welfare or public interest but
seeks to inform the political debate by explaining the different dynamics between
motivated individuals that emerge under different political institutions, and by outlining
the different outcomes that arise as a result.
Public Choice economics is having a powerful impact on political science. It has led to
some major rethinking of the very nature of elections, legislatures and bureaucracies;
and on whether the political process can claim to be in any way superior to the market
process. And the issues it raises, especially the prospect of minorities being exploited
by coalitions of interest groups, lead some Public Choice theorists to advocate strong
constitutional restraints on government and the political process.
Sources:
 https://www.ihs.ac.at/publications/pol/pw_69.pdf
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy_analysis#Rational_model
 http://cpps.dyndns.info/cpps-docs-web/secgen/2015/pol-oceanica-
regional/Doc%2012.The%20study%20of%20the%20public%20policy.pdf
 http://web.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa590/models.htm
 http://www.globalizationandhealth.com/content/9/1/24/figure/F2?highres=y
 Butler, E. (2012). Public choice - a primer. Westminster, London. The Institute of
Economic Affairs.
 Teodorovic J. (2008) Why education policies fail: multiple streams level of
policy making. Belgrade, Serbia. Institute for Educational Research.
doi:10.2298/ZIPI0801022T