THE POLICY CYCLE NOTION

The Policy Cycle, Its Usefulness, and Criticisms

Solomon Mwije
Email: solomonmwije33@yahoo.co.uk
© 2013

0
POLICY DEFINED

There is no single definition of a ‘policy’. A policy can be an incoherent and ill-defined complex
concept with long term processes involving a vast of inputs and outputs. A policy is comprised
of two main elements i.e. a policy objective and one or more policy instruments used to serve the
objective and produce specific, related outcomes (Maetz & Balié, 2008:3) which in the end affect
the targeted and non-targeted groups of population. Policies are commonly described as action
plans, positions, and/or guidelines which influence decisions based on a set of processes,
preferences and choices. Policies [decisions made] usually aim to implement a programme of
reform or change, but retaining the status quo is also a policy (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:162).
Policies do not operate in isolation; some tertiary institutions explicitly establish requirements to
ensure alignment between all institutional-specific texts (Freeman, 2013) for example
Constitutions, Government Acts, among other laws. Policies can be adopted by individuals,
groups/parties, privates enterprises, but mostly often by the government; those adopted by the
government are ‘public policies’.

Jenkins defines public policy as a ‘set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group
of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified
situation where those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to
achieve’ (Jenkins, 1978; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:6); thus viewing a policy as a process. Dye
(2003:1) defines a public policy as ‘whatever governments choose to do or not to do …to
regulate behaviour, organize bureaucracies, distribute benefits, or extract taxes –or all these
things at once’; thus viewing a policy as a preference and choice. Public policy is concerned with
processes of how societal problems are defined, placed in the hands of the government to
describe the best solutions to the defined problems. Theories, frameworks, and models are
constructed to simplify policy making processes; and one of these constructs is a ‘policy cycle’.

1
THE POLICY CYCLE
A policy cycle is a systematic process [structure] showing how societal issues or public problems
are acknowledged followed by step-by-step sequences depicting how the identified problem
issues should be solved. The policy cycle, or sequenced policy process, was initially proposed by
Harold Lasswell in 1950s (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003:11-2) and the cycle was subsequently
adopted by others. The term policy cycle refers to the recurrent pattern shown by procedures
that ultimately lead to the creation of a public policy (Savard & Banville, 2012). Progression
through the policy cycle is intentionally iterative (Freeman, 2013) in a sense that policy activities
are recurrent and instruments are also used repetitively to effectively solve the pressing problem.
Policies are formulated through a policy process that engages stakeholders in producing new or
revised policies within a particular institutional context (Maetz & Balié, 2008:3). According to
Knill & Tosun (2008:9), policy making is characterized by presence of multiple constraints, [e.g.
shortage of time and resources, public opinion, and of course the constitution], existence of
various policy processes [different departments that overlap and compete with each other], and
an infinite cycle of decisions and policies [processes of a policy cycle], whereby the last stage
leads straight back to the first, indicating that the policy cycle is continuous and unending.

It is ‘an excessively linear view of policy’ (Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001:8) with a
disaggregated series of discrete sequential stages with each stage informing the next in a logical
manner. The ‘…the operative principle behind the notion of the policy cycle is the logic of
applied problem solving…’ (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:13) process which is rational, balanced,
objective and analytical (Sutton, 1999). Political scientists with an interest in policy have
grouped various activities according to their relationships with public policy resulting into a set
of policy processes – as a series of political activities (Dye, 2008:14). The policy cycle is divided
into five major stages: agenda-setting, policy formulation, public policy decision-making, policy
implementation and policy evaluation (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003:13). Other scholars like Dye
(2003) treat problem identification as a separate stage1. Others treat policy change and policy
termination as independent stages exclusive from evaluation though they highly depend on
evaluation outcomes.

1
See Dye’s (2008) policy cycle structure on p.32

2
The Structure of a Policy Cycle2

Societal problems are recognized [problem identification] and the government is needed for
intervention [agenda setting]; governmental institutions formulate alternatives [policy
formulation] and select policy solutions [decision making]; and those solutions get implemented
[policy implementation], evaluated [policy evaluation], and revised [policy change] and the cycle
repeats itself or the policy is terminated.

Problem Identification
The first stage of a policy cycle is identification of public problems that require interventions.
Societies are challenged with an immense number of socioeconomic and political problems that
require solutions to create a better living. Problem identification occurs whenever individuals or
groups [mass media, interest groups, citizen initiatives, and public opinion] make demands upon
government (Dye, 2008:31). Using the policy cycle heuristic to guide the policy process, the
need for a new policy, or new policy provision(s) within an existing policy is identified and
2
For a summarized linear structure of the stages - see Dye (2008) p.32; and Howlett & Ramesh, (2003) p.13

3
confirmed (Freeman, 2013). Societal problems are identified and prioritized through publications
[especially using media] but mostly depending on public demands which requires action.

Agenda Setting
Problems identified ‘… attract public attention and compel public officials to respond’ (Dye,
2008:33) in the agenda setting discussions. Agenda setting refers to the process by which
problems come to the attention of governments (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:13). Policy agenda
constitutes public problems that are chosen and recognized by the decisions makers in the
political system. Two different aspects of policy agenda can be identified i.e. the public agenda
[depend of pubic opinions] and the formal agenda [depend on decision-makers-officials and
politicians in any section or level of government] (Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001:8).
Therefore, agenda setting can be from bottom up [public opinion] or top down [by elites].
Although it ‘…has proven difficult to answer’ (Dye, 2003) whether public opinion has an
influence on public policy, some policy options arise from people’s opinions.

‘Agenda setting is not automatic’ because it involves generating public interest in a problem;
making it a socially constructed process (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003:141), in which actors and
institutions, influenced by their ideologies, play a fundamental role (Savard & Banville, 2012) in
deciding what issues will be decided, what problems will be addressed by government majorly
done by elites. Societal problems that need attention are many, ‘…yet space on the agenda of
government policy making is scare’ (Dye, 2008:32); this is why agenda setting involves non-
decision making and decision making to prioritize and chose those problems that need immediate
interventions. ‘Just because an item reaches the formal agenda does not mean a decision will be
made’ (Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001:8); ‘…only a small number will be given official
attention by legislators and executives’ (Knill & Tosun, 2008) and a policy will be formulated
basing on those issues decided on the agenda.

Policy Formulation
Policy options within government are formulated at this stage. It involves developing policy
proposals to resolve issues and ameliorate problems (Dye, 2008:32). At this stage possible policy
actions are defined, discussed, accepted or rejected aiming at assessing and developing possible

4
alternative solutions to problems on the agenda list. However, the stage involves substantive or
procedural political constraints. Substantive constraints refer to the nature of the problem, while
procedural constraints are about procedures involved in adopting a policy adoption (Howlett and
Ramesh 2003: 147–48). ‘Policy formulation occurs in government bureaucracies; interest group
offices; legislative committee rooms, meetings of special commissions; and policy-planning
organizations otherwise known as “think tanks” (Dye, 2008: 41). Policy recommendations are
thereafter formulation disseminated among responsible agencies and public through mass media
with a purpose of laying ‘the groundwork for making policy into law’ (Dye, 2008:41). The
relationship between the government and social actors is thus a significant factor influencing the
formulation of public policies (Savard & Banville, 2012). Planning, analysis [documentation of
the problem], policy design [development of a political solution] and consultation [to test the
acceptance of the policy by different interest groups] are core functions of this stage.

Policy Legitimization [Decision Making]

The possible alternative solutions designed in the policy formulation stage are legalized as
policies but rather depending much on the acceptance of those proposed solutions by the public,
interest groups, and agencies or organizations. Decision-making [choice of solution] is the
process by which governments adopt a particular course of action or non-action (Howlett &
Ramesh, 2003:13) …choosing from among a relatively small number of alternative policy
options to resolve public problems (Ibid, 162). It involves selecting a proposal, developing
political support for it, enacting it into law, deciding on its constitutionality (Dye, 2008:32).
However, we need not to overlook the fact that decisions made may be positive [aimed at
creating change by solving the problem] or negative [leaving the problem at hand the way it is].
When decisions are accepted and constitutionalized, the policy is then adopted. In contrast to
preliminary stages of decision-making, the final adoption of a particular policy alternative is
determined by government institutions which are affected by many factors (Knill & Tosun,
2008) under which key policy actors operate (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:183). Constraints related
to public adoption, policy instruments and resources are predetermined as actors look forward to
implementing the policy.

5
Policy Implementation
The stage involves execution of plans made in the earlier stages of the cycle. In other words, it is
‘the translation of plans into practice’ – ‘putting solution into effect’ (Howlett & Ramesh,
2003:185). This is when a decision is carried out through the application of government
directives and is confronted with reality (Mégie, 2004; Savard & Banville, 2012). Allocation of
resources and assignment of responsibilities is significant at this stage if efficiency and
effectiveness of policies are to be achieved. This is one reason why policy implementation often
requires the development of formal rules and regulations by bureaucracies; and organizations and
agencies are created to translate laws into operational rules and regulations (Dye, 2008:53)
through regular monitoring on activities and resources. Civil servants’ personal tendencies
(ideologies, interests, thinking, etc.) can influence their perceptions and even their intentions
when it comes to implementing a policy (Savard & Banville, 2012). ‘…implementation is purely
technical in nature, and hence open to rapid change ad reconfiguration, …involving much more
than simply executing previous decisions or matching goals with means’ (Howlett & Ramesh,
2003:203). Bureaucrats make policy as they engage in the tasks of implementation – making
regulations, adjusting cases, and exercising their discretion (Dye, 2008:57). Thus, policy success
depends on how well bureaucratic structures implement government decisions (Knill & Tosun,
2008); otherwise all policies are bound to fail.

Policy failure, therefore, might result from one or more of several factors including inaccurate or
incomplete research, bureaucratic incompetence, bureaucratic resistance, flawed policy design,
insufficient resources or expertise, or inevitable modification of policy in the implementation
phase (Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001:9). In situation where constraints and narrow targets are
met, governments use substantive organizational tools such as government corporations, public
enterprises, and directly administered public service delivery, combined with procedural tools
such as public hearings, reviews, and evaluations (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:204). Without
proper implementation, policies are unlikely to bear significant results especially when resources
[required for implementation] are insufficiently provided.

6
Policy Evaluation
After a policy is passed by the legislature and implemented by the bureaucracy, it becomes a
subject of evaluation; and the main question at this stage is whether the output of the decision
making process [a given public policy] has attained the intended goals (Knill & Tosun, 2008:19).
Policy evaluation refers to the processes by which the results of policies are monitored by both
state and societal actors, the outcome of which may be reconceptualization of policy problems
and solutions (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:13) proposing changes and “reforms” (Dye, 2008:32).
Evaluation is all about measuring output [what the policy actually produces, the impact on target
and non-target community, and degree to which the impact on the community solves the problem
[outcomes]. The interest groups, bureaucrats, media, think tanks, executive, legislators, among
others ‘…seek to learn whether or not policies are achieving their stated goals; at what costs; and
with what effects, intended and unintended, on society’ (Dye, 2008:55). In most cases,
evaluation is a rather formal component of policy making and often carried out by experts (Knill
& Tosun, 2008:22) and it can be administrative [managerial performance and budgetary
systems], judicial [judicial review and administrative discretion], and/or political evaluation
[elections, think-tanks, inquires, and legislative oversights] (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:210-6).
Some of the potential evaluative criteria to test outcomes according to Sabatier (2007:33-5)
include: economic efficiency, equity through fiscal equivalence, redistributional equity,
accountability, conformance to general morality, and adaptability. Sophisticated versions of the
model portray a “feedback” linkage following evaluation (Dye, 2008:55) where efforts are made
and the results of these investigations, whether accurate or not, are fed back into the policy
process, influencing the direction and content of further iterations of the policy cycle (Howlett &
Ramesh, 2003:208) but usually characterized by policy changes.

Policy Change
There is a degree of continuity in most public policies. Policy change simply refers to
improvement of a policy that has been evaluated and there are two kinds of policy change
according to Howlett & Ramesh; that is: the normal and atypical policy changes. The “normal”
pattern of policy change involves tinkering or altering various aspects of existing policy styles
and policy paradigms without actually altering the overall shape or configuration of a policy
regime; different for the ‘atypical’ policy change which involves substantial changes in policy

7
paradigms and styles (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:235-7). Events and factors that set the stage for
major policy change include dramatic events or crises, changes in governing coalitions, and
administrative and legistlative turnover (Sabatier, 2007:310) among others. Evaluation provides
a feedback loop, which identifies new problems and sets in motion the policy making process
once again, creating an endless policy cycle (Knill & Tosun, 2008:20). The policy can be judged
successful and continued in this respect; or it can be judged wanting in some respect and efforts
are then made or suggested, for its reform (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:216). When policies are
changed; the changes are directed to earlier stages of the policy cycle thus making an iterative
process that runs over and over again. However, policies can sometimes be terminated as long as
policy failure is declared as a result of negative [or positive] evaluation outcomes.

Policy Termination
Policy termination refers to ending a policy that does not work or is not necessary any more. The
policy can be judged a complete failure [or success], and it can be terminated (Howlett &
Ramesh, 2003:216). Policy evaluation is a powerful tool that possesses the potential to reframe
an issue once thought to be resolved by policy makers, but it can also lead to the termination of
public policies (Knill & Tosun, 2008:20). Like more limited proposals for reform, this option
involves feeding the results of an evaluative process back into the policy process; usually directly
to the decision making stage (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:18). However, successful termination in
the short term does not guarantee a similar long term result; thus if perception of a problem
persists, a termination will feed back into a reconceptualization of problems and policy
alternatives; and if no other suitable alternative emerges in this deliberation, this can result in the
reversal of a termination and the reinstatement of a terminated program or policy (Ibid, 219).
However, ‘this aspect is both theoretically and empirically still underdeveloped’ (Knill & Tosun,
2008:22) yet it has noticeable implications on the policy processes within a policy cycle.

8
THE USEFULNESS OF A POLICY CYCLE

To ease the complexity of policy process, each phase can be looked at separately. The notion
makes policy process more logically understandable. The policy making process is complex and
multidimensional in nature but the logically sequential model of the policy cycle represents a
simplification of the policy process. A policy cycle is a first foray into complexity, organising
observations into familiar patterns and so providing a guide to action (Bridgman & Davis 2003).
‘Given the staggering complexity of the policy process, the analyst must find some way of
simplifying the situation in order to have any chance of understanding it’ (Sabatier, 2007:4). It is
often useful for analytical purposes to break policymaking into component units in order to
understand better how policies are made (Dye, 2008:31). As an analytical tool is that it facilitates
the understanding of public policy-making by breaking the complexity of the process into any
number of stages and sub-stages, each of which can be investigated alone or in terms of its
relationship to any or all the other stages of the cycle (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:13-4).

The policy cycle is a mechanism to help the public sector manager smooth a complex policy
process and to inject rigour into the process (Everett, 2003) providing a useful heuristic for
breaking policy making into different units for being able to illustrate how policies are actually
made (Knill & Tosun, 2008:9). Studying a disaggregated and sequential model of the public
policy process [the policy cycle] helps to underline the dynamic nature of public policy-making
and to organize the otherwise difficult-to-grasp relations binding actors, ideas, institutions, and
instruments together (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:228). This simplification makes the policy
process easier to understand by the government and public. It is easier to understand the logical
phases of the policy process for purposes of better planning. Using a policy cycle, policy actors
find is easier to distribute responsibilities and resources required at various policy stages.

Analysis of policy is easier to define using a policy cycle: In analytical terms, the cycle is
helpful to view policy making as a series of political activities encompassing agenda setting,
policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation, and evaluation (Knill & Tosun, 2008:22).
This prescriptive model is process oriented comprising of logically ordered sequential steps
which comprehensively canvass, assess and compare all options (Everett, 2003). Policy analysts
find it easier to identify and investigate the policy making process in order to better the existing

9
policies towards efficiency and effectiveness; or change the policy styles if a certain policy is
bound to fail in future. The policy cycle is the concept, developed from analysing policy, that
under normal circumstances, distinctions can be made between different phases in the policy-
making process (Maetz &Balié, 2008:4). Phases can be compared e.g. in terms of evaluation
comparing goals with results. Identifying characteristic policy styles and policy paradigms
through the analysis of the stages of the policy cycle helps to establish a baseline against which
to measure change, while careful observation and investigation of subsystem behaviour helps to
clarify tendencies towards atypical policy change (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:242) thus creating
meaningful policies.

The concept brings order in the policy process: A policy cycle is a guide, or heuristic, for policy
development; it ‘brings a system and a rhythm to a world that might otherwise appear chaotic
and unordered’ (Althaus et al., 2013, p. 32; Freeman, 2013) and it is a model – ‘an ideal worth
striving for, if not always attainable’ (Bridgman and Davis1998:2; Everett, 2003). The policy
process is more than a decision, more than power; and a policy cycle approach can help public
servants develop a policy and guide it through the institutions of government (Bridgman & Davis
2003). Every society is characterized struggles of power and resources. Individuals, groups, and
government organizations and agencies struggle to control societies to bring about order.
Arranging a policy process in stages make an orderly process upon which all actors must follow
to efficiently distribute resources and effectively attain intended goals.

Understanding of activities of policy actors at different stages: The process model is useful in
helping us to understand the various activities involved in policy making (Dye, 2008:14). This
model permits examination of the role of all actors and institutions involved in policy creation,
not just those governmental agencies formally charged with the task, as was the case with earlier
versions (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:13-4). Policy decisions in a democratic system are carried
out not by a single governing body or dominant economic elite but by a multiplicity of
participants; whereby political leaders in the making of policy are influenced in their choice of
action by pressure groups and other influential forces (Everett, 2003). This institutes a better

10
understanding of activities and roles of actors3 involved in the policy process at different stages.
For instance, in most cases, the government makes decisions; the public reacts to and influences
the decisions made by the government, mass media disseminates information concerning the
policy, the elites carry out policy evaluations; but all actors often get involved in policy
implementation.

The cycle provides a way to understand policies in a real world and it can be used many
subsystems: The policy cycle concept can apply to most of the policy process in a variety of
political systems in the real world. In other words, it is ‘fairly broad in scope’ (Sabatier, 2007:8)
The advantage of analyzing these procedures by dividing them into stages resides in the way it
offers explanatory insights into the decision-making process; more precisely, the notion of policy
cycle provides a means of thinking about the sectoral realities of public policy processes (Savard
& Banville, 2012). It is designed to answer the daunting question ‘what do I do now?’ Followed,
a policy cycle might assist a public servant move from vague problem to authoritative
government deliberation (Bridgman & Davis 2003). Communities, organizations, and
government agencies and subsystems can use this notion to develop and adopt plans and
guidelines to ease their operations.

CRITICISMS TO THE POLICY CYCLE

Although the characteristics identified by Lasswell with respect to policy analysis have
withstood the test of time, his cyclical model is now largely criticized for its fragmented
approach to explanatory factors (Savard & Banville, 2012). Most criticisms base their arguments
on the ‘unrealistic processes’ that the dominant model presents. A “divided, dichotomous and
linear sequence” of policy making from problem identification through analysis to
implementation is unrealistic (Clay and Schaffer, 1984; Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001). In
reality, policy making is messy (Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001) and yet the policy cycle is
just a heuristic, an ideal type from which every reality will curve away (Bridgman & Davis

3
See Dye (2008) p.32 or Chapter 3 for a summarized distribution of activities among policy participants

11
2003). The cycle seems not to consider reality [on how real world operates] in its format and
context.

Policy processes are unpredictable: Policy making is often determined by events. Policy cycle is
often depicted as a snapshot of reality; it creates an artificial idealistic view on policy; yet in
reality the course of policy is much more unpredictable (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:187). Policy
making does not take place in a vacuum, where the government is in total control of its agenda
(Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter, 2011). Illogical decisions and events [whether internal or
external] can totally alter the ‘logical’ arrangements of the policy at any time in the course of the
policy process. At any particular time of the policy process ‘people react against change for a
wide range of reasons, including fear of the unknown, lack of information, threat to status, there
being no perceived benefits, fear of failure…’(Sutton, 1999:18).

Decision making is a highly ambiguous and unpredictable process only distantly related to
searching for means to achieve goals as Cohen, March, & Olsen (1979:26) stipulate in their
‘Garbage Can model’ of decision making (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:175). The whole life of
policy ‘is not at all a matter of the rational implementation of the so-called decisions through
selected strategies’ (Sutton, 1999:32). Therefore, it is more accurate to conceptualise the policy
process as “a chaos of purposes and accidents”, in which “policy implementers interact with
policy-makers, by adapting new policies, co-opting the embodied project designs, or simply
ignoring new policies…” (Juma & Clarke 1995; in Stone, Maxwell, & Keating, 2001). A rational
policy cycle is an abstraction; in reality, policy making is a substantially political process
(Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:187). Even when decisions have been made in the preliminary stages
of the policy process, politicians who struggle to maintain their positions will always bring their
previously neglected ideologies into the later stages of the process sometimes resulting into
bureaucratic conflicts.

The cycle is an irrational process: This model assumes that policy makers approach the issues
rationally, going through each logical stage of the process, and carefully considering all relevant
information. In reality, many decisions made in the policy process are irrational. The policy
cycle is often a complicated and occasionally confused process (Bridgman & Davis 2003). The
idea that agenda setting is a process in which policy makers react to objective conditions in a

12
rational manner is deceptive, if not completely misleading (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:112);
because it involve a great number of actors serving different demands and interests. Different
political actors and institutions may be engaged in different processes at the same time, even in
the same policy area4. The policy cycle is logical [each step leads to the next] but does not
embody formal rationality (Bridgman & Davis 2003) and this is one reason why sometimes
policies using this model fail; although in most cases failure is attributed to external constraints
than the policy cycle itself.

Policy making is extremely complex. Policy making process is a complex non-linear process
(Bridgman & Davis 2003). There is an assumption that simplification by creating a linear/cyclic
model will ease policy processes. But this simplification is not a genuine cure; even policy
processes with the single stages remain complex (Knill & Tosun, 2008:41). The policy process
involves an immense number of institutional and resource constraints and yet societal problems
that require attention on agenda are many. The interrelationships between these identified stages
and various actors involved cannot easily be managed. While the five-stage cycle helps analysis
by disaggregating the policy process, it does not well illustrate the nuances and complexities of
public policy-making (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:15). In other words, it does not clearly show the
actors, institutions, and instruments available and/or needed in the policy-making process. This
leaves a gap for development of sub-policy-cycles to guide each stage in the policy cycle. Yet,
we cannot focus on a single stage of the cycle for analysis and evaluation, because all the
processes involved at various stages are interconnected which still makes it complex than as
simplified in the cycle. On the other hand, the policy cycle can tell us little about how difficult
decisions are made, but only about the management of such choices; it is ‘erroneous and
simplistic’ because it describes process but not content (Bridgman & Davis 2003) which is why
most policy making actors fail to execute policy activities because the technical part of policy
making is simply missing in the cycle.

4
See Dye, (2008) Chapter 3 – pp.31-55 for detailed policy process activities and participants

13
Policy making is a multi-factorial and multidimensional process that cannot be reduced to a
single document, decision or event. ‘The assumption that there is a single policy cycle focused
on a major piece of legislation oversimplifies the usual process of multiple, interacting cycles
involving numerous policy proposals and statutes at multiple levels of government …trying to
affect the conceptualization of the problem. …focusing on a policy cycle make very little sense’
(Sabatier, 2007:7). ‘Who should use it and when’ remains a pending question. It is unclear
exactly at which level and with what unit of analysis the policy cycle model should be used
(Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:14). Policy making processes involve socioeconomic and political
aspects associated with societal complexities that cannot be compressed into a single problem.
For instance, Gender Based Violence cannot just be reduced to a single problem itself. There are
many underlying factors that need to be considered at every stage of the policy making process.

Systematic policy evaluation is relatively rare in government and it is not clear where to go
after evaluation stage to make a cyclic flow. We all know that evaluation of policy or
programmes is a significant component of policy processes. However, ‘careful, objective,
scientific assessment of the current and long-term effects of policies on both target and non-
target situations or groups, as well as an assessment of the ratio of current and long-term costs to
whatever benefits’ (Dye, 2008:55) are rarely identified, analyzed and evaluated. Most
policy….lessons often do not feed back into policy design or problem formulation; evaluations
are often commissioned but often ignored;because the central government is culturally not very
interested in the past; timescales for evaluation and policy making are out of sync; departments
have the incentives and opportunity to tone down unfavourable findings; evaluations are often
not built into policy design, or are poorly executed; and evaluation findings are often not
managed well (Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter, 2011).

This means the cyclic nature of the policy cycle is always compromised by lack of evolutions;
thus affecting other stages of the cycle. On the other hand, ‘it is not clear to which stage the
process will proceed after evaluation’ (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:216). The effects of policies are
often indirect, diffuse, and take time to appear thus making it difficult to determine where and
when to join which stage of the cycle after evaluation. There is plenty of evidence that the effects
of policy interventions may be complex, wide-ranging and unintended; so it may be unlikely that

14
a policy will produce effects that are both measurable and attributable (Hallsworth, Parker, &
Rutter, 2011). It is relatively difficult to change or terminate the policy.

In reality the policy process in not linear because policy activities cannot sequentially happen.
The policy cycle depicts policy making process in a step-by-step sequence. The cycle can give a
false impression of linearity, with each stage in the cycle occurring in a precise, predetermined
manner, which is far from actual fact (Savard & Banville, 2012). Policy making does not take
place in separate sequential or logic stages. ‘…in reality these processes often occur
simultaneously, each one collapsing into the other’ (Dye, 2008:31). The cycle may not be a
single iterative loop. ‘…while the logic of systemic problem-solving may be fine in the abstract,
in practice the stages are often compressed or skipped, or followed in an order unlike that
specified by the model’ (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:14). The ‘stages’ of policy making do not just
often overlap, they are often inseparable because in the real world, policy problems and policy
solutions frequently emerge together, rather than one after another (Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter,
2011). The linear model does not to consider the complexities of the implementation process.
The identification of problems and the development and implementation of solutions are often
very ad hoc and idiosyncratic processes (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003:14) in which the practical
working out of the policy may be very different from the policy originally planned (Sutton,
1999:24). Therefore, policy plans cannot be made rationally logical in a systematic sequence as
they seen in the policy cycle model. The complex and unpredictable nature of policy processes
and events makes it difficult to predetermine the policy making course in a cyclic manner.

The cycle focuses on policymaking process [theory] more than execution of the policy
[practice].The lack of realistic processes leaves too much in policy making to chance,
personality, and individual skill because civil servants often know what they should be doing, but
experience difficulties putting it into practice (Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter, 2011). The policy
process model focuses on how policies are made, rather than on the substance or content of
policies (Dye, 2008:56) and even if the policy cycle could stagger over this barrier, the inherent
focus on process rather than content misses the political content of policy-making; especially the
‘power plays’ from which decisions emerge (Bridgman & Davis 2003). ‘There is clarity on the

15
desired qualities of policy making, but not on how to achieve them’ (Hallsworth, Parker, &
Rutter, 2011). Everett (2003) stresses that good content ‘does not necessarily result from an
effective process’. It is questionable whether the policy cycle model can resolve highly
controversial and contentious issues; whether the policy cycle can replace the ‘play of power’
[the political contest of determining ‘who gets what’]; or whether the policy cycle can
accommodate that political contest [certainly community consultation will not suffice] (Everett,
2003). ‘Policies need to be designed, not just conceived’ (Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter, 2011) in
order to bridge the gap between theory and practice; and this necessitate revisiting the policy
cycle or designing better models that have both content and practice mechanisms for better
understanding of the policy processes.

It is rather a political mechanism than public: Policy-making must be understood as a political

process as much as an analytical or problem solving one (Sutton, 1999:32). The policy cycle is
process oriented but it is erroneous to confuse this process with the actual content of decision and
policy-making; it is naïve, furthermore, to suggest that policy issues are determined on the basis
of equity and that resources are distributed in a fair and equitable manner as implied in the model
(Everett, 2003). Policy cycle neglects politics or treat it as something to be ‘managed’ yet in
reality, policy making can never be extricated from politics (Hallsworth, Parker, & Rutter, 2011).
The public does not have opinions on many policy questions, public opinion is unstable, and
decision makers can easily misinterpret as well as manipulate public opinion (Dye, 2008:56).
The stages heuristic has a very legalistic, top-down bias in which the focus is typically on the
passage and implementation of a major piece of legislation (Sabatier, 2007:7). Arguably some
issues can be resolved applying the policy cycle model but it is crucial to distinguish between
matters that are amenable to a consultative process and those that have to be dealt with primarily
as power plays (Everett, 2003) especially when it comes to implementation and evaluation of the
policy.

The policy process is influenced by a range of interest groups that exert power and authority over
policy-making (Sutton, 1999:25). Moreover, change is rather influenced by politically ambitious
actors than evaluation outcomes. Normal changes encourage the establishment of “policy

16
monopolies” that defend the status quo; and such monopolies are generally backed by a “closed
network” of policy actors, who keep other, change-oriented actors from having a say in the
policy cycle (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003; Savard & Banville, 2012). The stages, events, and
activities of the policy cycle are arranged in a manner that those individuals, groups, and
agencies with power and authority will work to always push forward an agenda and decision at
any stage of the policy thus bringing controversial ideologies confusing the policy process.

The model lacks the concept of causation. Another major disadvantage of the model according
to Howlett & Ramesh (2003) is its inability to explain what causes policies to advance from one
stage to another. It is not really a causal theory since it never identifies a set of causal drivers that
govern the policy process within and across stages; instead, work within each stage tended to
develop on its own, almost totally without reference to research in other stages (Sabatier,
2007:7). The missing causal links between the stages of the policy cycle leaves activities and
decisions of these stages independent. This missing causational and correlational effect misdirect
the policy processes as the cycle advances from initial stages; thus causing inefficiency and
ineffectiveness of most policies that are guided by such a model. ‘Failure to develop clear chains
of causal relationships is probably one of the reasons that several frameworks no longer attract
much attention’ (Sabatier, 2007:328) to use them in solving societal problems. In addition to
lacking causational links, the proposed sequence of stages is often descriptively inaccurate. For
example, evaluations of existing programs affect agenda setting, and policy formulation or
legitimation occurs as bureaucrats attempt to implements vague legislation (Nakamura, 1987;
Sabatier, 2007:7). The policy process should be logically coherent; the major terms should be
clearly defined and the major relationships should be logically consistent (Sabatier, 2007:322).
Lack of coherence and clear relationships may result into poor coordination among actors and
activities causing policy failure in the eventual process.

17
CONCLUSION

Policies are complex and lack a definite definition. But all policies entail guidelines, plans,
actions and regulations used to solve public problems. To simplify the understanding of policy
making processes, theoretical frameworks, models and strategies are usually drawn; and one of
these model commonly used is the ‘policy cycle’ also known as the ‘linear’ or ‘heuristic’ stages
model. The stages as discussed include; problem identification, agenda setting, policy
formulation, decision-making, policy implementation, and evaluation which sometimes matures
into policy change and/or policy termination. The policy cycle model has its efficacy because of
its simplicity in processes of understanding policy making. It easier to analyze each stage on its
own for better distribution of activities and resources and evaluation of policy performance
especially in the later stages of policy making process. Therefore, we cannot ignore the
usefulness and simplicity of the cycle and sometimes its serving purpose of bringing order in
policy making in a problematic society.

However, its simplicity consequently comes with its ‘unrealistic’ nature as discussed in the
previous section. The cycle does not seem to applicably fit in the real world of various problems;
with individual and institutional actors who usually join the policy making process at all stages;
with an intention of solving problems by providing alternative solutions. However, problem
solving cannot be done in a linear and systematically logical sequence of steps as the policy
cycle model depicts. The policy making process is complex involving constraints, solutions, and
activities that cannot overlap but rather often happen simultaneously; yet the policy overlooks
this significant notion focusing more on policy context than its practice.

The model needs to be revisited to explore the stages and develop a detailed and improved
concept of policy cycle. An improved model should be able to explain the causation relationships
between stages; but also relationships between actors and activities within a single stage itself. It
should give a representation of the overlaps across all stages of the cycle; and clearly portraying
the new directions after evaluation in the later stages of the cycle. Such improvements can easily
bring the model closer to reality.

18
References

Bridgman, P., Davis, G, (2003), What Use is a Policy Cycle? Plenty, if the Aim is Clear,
Blackwell Publishing Limited, National Council of the Institute of Public Administration,
Australia, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(3):pp.98–102.
Dye, T. R., (2008), Understanding Public Policy, Twelfth Edition, Pearson Education Inc.,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA
Everett, S., (2003), The Policy Cycle: Democratic Process or Rational Paradigm Revisited?
Blackwell Publishing Limited, National Council of the Institute of Public Administration,
Australia, Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2):pp.65–70.
Freeman, B. (2013), Revisiting the Policy Cycle, Association of Tertiary Education Management
[ATEM], Developing Policy in Tertiary Institutions, Northern Metropolitan Institute
of TAFE [NMIT], Melbourne, Australia.
Hallsworth, M., Parker, S., & Rutter, J., (2011), Policy Making in the Real World: Evidence and
Analysis, Institute for Government, UK
Howlett, M., & Ramesh M., (2003), Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy
Subsystems, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Canada
Knill, C., & Tosun, J., (2008), Policy Making, Working Paper 01/2008, University of Konstanz,
Germany: Also published as: Christoph Knill/Jale Tosun: Policy Making. In: Daniele
Caramani (ed.), Comparative Politics. Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 495- 519
Maetz, M., & Balié, J., (2008), Influencing Policy Processes: Lessons from Experience, Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [FAO], Rome, Italy, Viewed, 23rd
August 2013,
http://www.fao.org/docs/up/easypol/756/influencing_policy_processes_202en.pdf
Sabatier, P., A., (2007), Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition, Westview Press,
Colorado, USA
Savard, J.-F. & Banville, R., (2012), “Policy Cycles,” in Côté, L., and Savard, J.-F., (eds.),
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Public Administration, Viewed, 23rd August 2013,
http://www.dictionnaire.enap.ca/dictionnaire/docs/definitions/definitions_anglais/policy_
cycles.pdf

19
Stone, D., Maxwell, S., & Keating, M., (2001), Bridging Research and Policy: An International
Workshop Funded by the UK Department for International Development Radcliffe
House, Warwick University 16-17 July 2001, Viewed 23rd August 2013,
http://depot.gdnet.org/newkb/fulltext/Bridging.pdf
Sutton, R., (1999), The Policy Process: An Overview, Overseas Development Institute, London,
UK, Viewed 23rd August 2013, http://www.odi.org.uk/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-
assets/publications-opinion-files/2535.pd

20