ELITE THEORY MODEL

This model posits that, contrary to the belief that pluralism has in-built
mechanism for ensuring equity in the share of power and influence in
society, in reality public policy is by and large the mirror image of the
ruling elites interest. Vilfredo Pareto in his book “Mind and Society”
argues that persons of ability actively seek to confirm and aggrandise
their social position. The elite group is divided into governing and non-
governing ones. These few that possess unique qualities such as skills,
material wealth, cunning and intelligence have the rights to supreme
leadership, while the bulk of the population (masses) is destined to be
ruled. Thus social classes are formed (Obi et al, 2008). In his own work
entitled “The Ruling Class” Gaetano Mosca, an Italian sociologist,
posited that in the history of man, only one type of government had
existed which was Oligarchy. He argued that: In all societies, right from
societies that are very meagrely developed and have barely attained the
dawn of civilization down to the most advanced and powerful societies-
two classes of people appear, a class that rules and a class that is ruled.
The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political
functions, monopolises power and enjoys the advantages that power
brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class is directed and
controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now
more or less arbitrary and violent and supplies the first, in appearance at
least, with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of
political organism.

(Mosca, 1939). Mosca was also of the belief that apart from the fact that
the minority is usually composed of superior individuals, the fact of their
being few helps them to be more organised. He also wrote that the larger
the political community, the smaller will be the proportion of the
minority and the more difficult it will be for the majority to organise for
reaction against the minority. Mosca went further to say that in the
circulation of elites, once the ruling class loses its aptitude to command
and exercise political control, and those outside the ruling class, develop
its aptitude, they will overthrow the old class and take over. He also
believes so much in role of the middle class in a political system. He
labels them the “sub-elite”. He thus argues that the stability of any
political organism depends on the level of morality, intelligence and
activity that this second stratum has attained. He believes the policies of
ruling class are made in the interests of the class, but couched in a moral
and legal garb. He believes more in moral cohesion than physical force
In addition to the great advantage accruing to them from the fact of
being organised, ruling minorities are usually so committed that the
individuals who make them up are distinguished from the mass of the
governed by qualities that give them a certain material, intellectual or
even moral superiority; or else they are the heirs of individuals who
possessed such qualities. The essential argument of elite theory is that
public policy is not determined by the demands and actions of the people
or the masses but rather by ruling elite whose preferences are carried
into effect by political officials and agencies. In other words, according
to this theory, the elite simply believe that they alone have the ability to
determine the policies to promote the welfare of the masses and
implement them. Thus policies flow downward from the elite to the
masses. The policies made by the elites reflect elite values and prefer
status quo to radical changes.

Professors Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler provide a summary of

elite theory:  Society is divided into the few who have power and the
many who do not have. Only small number persons allocate values for
society; the masses do not decide public policy  The few who govern
are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elite are drawn
disproportionately from upper socio-economic strata of society.  The
movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to
maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have
accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles.
 Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and
the preservations of the system.  Public policy does not reflect
demands of the masses but rather the prevailing values of the elite.
Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.
Incremental changes permit responses to events that threaten a social
system with a minimum of alteration or dislocation of the system. 
Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from
apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than the masses
influence elites (Dye and Zeigler, 1990) The above assumptions
presuppose that if the government is committed to serving the interest of
the masses it must do something about curtailing the excesses of the
elite. This could be done by adopting a participatory approach to policy
making, involving all key stakeholders, thereby subduing the undue
manipulation of the elite. Once this feat is achieved the structure of the
society would move away from the hour-glass shape to a more
horizontal or flatter shape. However, for this objective to be achieved the
formation of the government itself has to first be devoid of elite
manipulation in terms of elections and appointment to political
positions. The essence of this model is that public policy is determined
by the ruling elite and carried into effect by public bureaucrats and
agencies.

Dye (1981) summarises the implication of this theory as indicating that

public policy reflects elite values, serves elite ends, and is a product of
the elite. The corollary of this assumption is that the general citizenry or
the masses are apathetic and ill-informed and do not determine or
influence policy through their demands or actions. So stated, elite theory
is a provocative theory of policy formation because policy here, is the
product of elites, reflecting their values and serving their ends , one of
which may be a desire to provide in some way for the welfare of the
masses. One other limitation of this model is that it assumes a highly
structured and stratified society. In structurally diffused societies, elite
formation and therefore, elite values and elite identity is relatively
undeveloped. For example, in Nigeria, it is easy to find members of an
elite group sharing opposing values and identifying more strongly with
say, the aspirations of the masses of their ethnic areas or religious
groupings than with the aspirations of their fellow elites. Thus, ethnic
and religious values rather than elite interest in that case, may influence
elite preferences when certain policy issues are under consideration.
According to Nicholas Henry, this model may be the most germane to
Public administrators. The elite model has found more adherents among
sociologists than among political scientists. Domhoff (1990) has long
argued, however, that there is an American upper class based on the
ownership and control of large corporations which is infact a governing
class.
2.Group Theory

According to the group theory of politics, public policy is the product of

the group struggle. What may be called public policy is the equilibrium
reached in this group struggle at any given moment, and it represents a
balance which the contending factions or groups constantly strive to win
in their favour. Many public polices do reflect the activities of groups
(Anderson, 1997). This means that this theory attempts to analyse how
each of the various groups in a society tries to influence public policy to
its advantage at the policy formulation level. In other words, the central
practice of this model is that interaction among groups is a critical
ingredient in politics. Public policy is thus a temporary point of
compromise reached in the course of competition between mosaics of
numerous interest groups with cross-cutting membership. The ability of
the group that is favoured at one point to sustain its gain depends on its
power to counteract the powers of other groups that would make efforts
to tilt decisions to their favour. The locus of power in the society
changes from time to time, depending upon the group that succeeds in
exerting its own supremacy over the others. Accordingly, the power to
determine policy direction changes with the changes in the fortunes of
each or a combination of these groups. As soon as the equilibrium point
is altered in the favour of new groups another policy will emerge or the
old policy will be modified. Politics in essence entails a dynamic
equilibrium created by the struggle between different groups. In
Latham‟s opinion the legislature acts only as a referee to the inter-group
struggle and it ratifies the victories of the successful coalitions, as well
as record the terms of the surrender, compromises, and conquest in the
form of statutes or Bills (Latham, 1965).

Since the power to dominate policy decision is dependent on group

solidarity and power, the dynamics of the policy process is expected to
be more vibrant and fierce in plural societies than in homogenous ones.
In such societies the ability of a group to tilt the policy to its favour
depends on a number of factors, prominent among which are: -Wealth -
Organisational skill - Leadership quality - Bargaining skill - Wealth
alone without organisational skills will render a group ineffective. It is
the ability to conceive of ideas and get people to subscribe to such ideas
that can get a group or person to succeed in tilting policy decision in its
favour. In contemporary period, organisational skill requires the tack of
bringing all stakeholders on board in the process of policy decision. For
example, the group that attempts to mobilise the public in order to push
its ideas would have to be tactful in main-streaming various interest
groups such as the women, youth, professional groups and, in some
cases, traditional rulers. Central to organisation ability in mobilising the
public is leadership. One of the virtues of good leadership is the ability
to bargain successfully even in a turbulent environment. A group would
thus succeed in pushing its agenda through the parliament when it has
strong bargaining skill. The power of lobby is often complemented by
the degree of visibility of the lobbyist. Persons that are well known and
respected in society could easily influence decision makers to support
their ideas in parliament. In the Nigerian parlance it is said that those
with proper “connection” with those in the corridor of power could
easily get their request granted by the legislators. The connection could
be political, economic or socio-cultural in the form of ex-school mates,
same ethnic group or religious affiliation.

The systems theory

In political science owes its origin to David Easton who is reputed to be

the scholar that attempted to analyse politics from the perspective of
systems in his famous work political system‟ which appeared in 1953.
His work which was regarded as the foundation of the behaviourist
revolution in political science outlined eight major characteristics. He
described the characteristics as the intellectual foundation stone of
behaviourism which are regularities, verification, techniques,
quantification, values, systemisation, pure science, and integration.
According to Varma, Easton was able to distill these characteristics from
a range of behavioural literature and while they are not unique to
systems theory, they do form the basis for the natural linkage between
systems thinking and behaviourism (Obi et al, 2008). In other words, a
political system may be that system of interactions in any society
through which authoritative allocations are made and implemented in the
form of policies and decisions. Public policy may also be seen as a
political system‟s response to demands arising from its environment.
The political system, as Easton defines it, comprises those identifiable
and interrelated institutions and activities (what we usually think of as
government institutions and political processes) in a society that make
authoritative allocations of values (decisions) that are binding on society
(Anderson, 1997). This environment consists of all phenomena-the
social system, the economic system, the biological setting - that are
external to the boundaries of the political system. Thus, at least
analytically one can separate the political system from all the other
components of a society (Easton, 1965).

If the open system model is applied in public policy analysis the issues
to reflect on include the nature of the components of the system which
constitute the sub-systems, and the outside components that impinge on
the system directly, which is referred to supra-system (Dlakwa, 2004).
Inputs into the political system from the environment consist of demands
and supports. Demands are usually the claims for action that individuals
and groups make to satisfy their interest and values. Support is rendered
when groups and individuals abide by election results, pay taxes, obey
laws, and otherwise accept decisions and actions taken by the political
system in response to demands. The amount of support for a political
system indicates the extent to which it is regarded as legitimate, or as
authoritative and binding on its citizens
 Institutional Theory

One of the oldest concerns of political science and public administration

is the study of government institutions since political life generally
revolves around them. These institutions include legislatures, executives
and judiciary; and public policy is authoritatively formulated and
executed by them. Traditionally, the institutional approach concentrates
on describing the more formal and legal aspects of government
institutions: their formal structure, legal powers, procedural rules, and
functions. Formal relationships with other institutions might also be
considered, such as legislative-executive relations. Usually, little was
done to explain how institutions operated as opposed to how they were
supposed to operated, to analyse public policies produced by the
institutions and to discover the relationships between institutional
structure and public policies. Subsequently, social scientists turned their
attention in teaching and research to the political processes within
government or political institutions, from simply describing the
legislature as an institution to analysing and explaining its operation
over time, from its static to its dynamic aspects. Thus, in the academic
curriculum the course on the legislature usually came to be about the
legislative processconcentrating on the behaviour of participants in the
process and on political realities rather than formalism. In the study of
legislators, attention shifted. This model studies the official structures
and functions of government departments and institutions in an attempt
to learn how public policy takes shape. It focuses on the organisation
chart of government. However, this model has shown little concern
about the connections between a department and the public policy
emanating from it. While the systems approach is dynamic and process-
oriented, institutionalist approach is more static and formalistic

Incremental Theory

Incremental decisions involve limited changes or additions to existing

policies, such as a smallpercentage increase in ministry of education‟s
budget or a modest tightening of eligibility requirements for federal
scholarship. According to this approach, the policy-makers examine a
limited number of policy alternatives and implement change in a series
of small steps. It may be noted that each of the alternatives available to
the policy-maker represents only a small change in the status quo. This
approach recognises the less than ideal circumstances under which
administrators must make policies. There are very real limits of time,
brains money etc. on administrator's ability to understand complex
problems and make different policies about them. Because of these
limitations, the policymakers, though they try to be rational, accept the
past policies that satisfy them as legitimate and suffice to deal with the
issue. Charles Lindblom is associated with this model. He contends that
incrementalism is the typical policy-making in pluralist societies such as
the United States and even Nigeria. Decisions and policies are the
product of give and take and mutual consent among numerous
participants in the policyprocess. Incrementalism is politically expedient
because it is easier to reach agreement when the matters in dispute
among various groups are only limited modifications of existing
programmes rather than policy issues of great magnitude or of an all-or-
nothing character. Because policy makers operate under conditions of
uncertainty about the future consequences of their actions, incremental
decisions tend to reduce the risks and cost of uncertainty.
Incrementalism is also realistic because it recorgnises that policy makers
lack the time, intelligence, and other resources needed to engage in
comprehensive analysis of all alternative solutions to existing problems.

Rational- Choice Theory

The rational-choice theory, which is sometimes called social-choice,

public-choice, or formal theory, originated with economists and involves
applying the principles of micro-economic theory to the analysis and
explanation of political behaviour (or nonmarket decision-making). It
has now gained quite a few adherents among political scientists. Parties
formulate whatever policies will win them most votes and voters, and
seek to maximise the portion of their preferences that could be realised
through government action. In attempting to win elections, political
parties move toward the centre of the ideological spectrum to appeal to
the greatest number of voters and maximise their voting support. This
approach is based on economic principles such as the cost-benefit
analysis. According to Henry: One tries to learn all the value preferences
extant in a society, assign each value a relative weight, discover all the
policy alternatives available, know all the consequences of each
alternative, calculate how the selection of any one policy will affect the
remaining alternatives in terms of opportunity costs, and ultimately
select the policy alternative that is the most efficient in terms of costs
and benefits of social values. The rationalist model is conceptually quite
simple. Policy-makers using it are expected to take the following steps: -
Identify all the value preferences currently existing in a society. - Assign
each value a relative weight, -Discover all the alternative policies
available to accomplish these values, - Know all the costs and
consequences of each alternative policy, -Select the best alternative
which is also the most efficient in terms of the costs and benefits of
social values The rationalist model deals with construction of public
policies that ensure better public policies. It thus aims at improving
public policy-making process. It is the opposite of incrementalism

Another serious objection to this model is its bias toward efficiency to

the exclusion of other values such as equity and responsiveness. No
doubt, rationalist model has its limitations but, it can be useful to policy-
makers and administrators as a tool of policy output analysis. Rational-
choice studies of political behaviour are usually characterised by rigid
and narrow assumptions, mathematical equations, abstractions, and
remoteness from reality. Even William C. Mitchell, an early enlistee in
the rational-choice movement, remarks that it appears in textbooks,
rational-choice theory hardly involves government, politicians,
bureaucrats, and interest groups.

ELITE THEORY
Elite theory of the policy process The theory posits that a small minority,
consisting of members of the economic elite and policy planning
networks, holds the most power—and this power is independent of
democratic elections .Elite theory of policy process based on the
proposition that power is concentrated in the hand of few elites .Policy
making, according to elite theory, is a process which works to the
advantages of these elites. The theory holds that in the real world there
are those at the top with power and the mass (at the down) without
power. The theory also contends that the elite, whose members share
common value and have more money, education and power, governs the
masses who are apathetic and ill-informed about public policy. In an
environment which is characterized by apathy and information distortion
, elites informs mass opinion on policy issues more than mass influence
elite opinion. Top down Policy making, argues that U.S. public policy
does not result from the "demands of the people", but rather from elite
consensus found in Washington, D.C.-based non-profit foundations,
think tanks, special-interest groups, and prominent lobbying and law
firms. (Dye, 2004)
Objectives of the Study General objectives
The general objectives of this study are as follows:
• To provide the insight knowledge of elite group who play the major
role in policy making.
• To provide the knowledge about the masses whose numbers are more
but are apathetic and ill-informed about the public policy.
• To recognize the movement of elite-mass conflict. Specific Objectives
the Specific objectives of this study are as follows:
• To identify the relationship between elite and mass their formation,
role, organization and influence in society.
• To convey the message that elite are somehow incompatible with
democracy.
Methods of the Study This article follows exploratory as well as
qualitative research design to analyze the concept of elite and mass and
their movement. A design of present study is based on secondary data by
gathering information from previous research articles, books, magazines,
newspaper, journals, the internet and media where applicable
Propositions of the Elitism Elitism is the belief that a society or system
should be led by an elite and society is divided into the elites who
govern and have the power to decide on public policy, and the masses
who are governed and do not have power to decide on public policy.
Elites share common values and have money education and power than
the masses who are apathetic and ill- informed. Elite members are drawn
disproportionately from the higher socio economic strata of the society.
Public policy does not reflect the demands of masses, In political science
and sociology, elite theory is a theory of the state that seeks to describe
and explain power relationships in contemporary society. The theory
posits that a small minority, consisting of members of the economic elite
and policy-planning networks, holds the most power—and this power is
independent of democratic elections.
An example of this belief is in the Forbes magazine article (published in
December 2009entitled- The World's Most Powerful People, in which
Forbes purported to list the 67 most powerful people in the world,
assigning one "slot" for each 100,000,000 of human population. The
basic characteristics of this theory are that power is concentrated, the
elites are unified, the non-elites are diverged and powerless, elite’s
interests are unified due to common backgrounds and positions and the
defining characteristic of power is institutional position
Elite theory opposes pluralism, a tradition that assumes that all
individuals, or at least the multitude of social groups, have equal power
and balance each other out in contributing to democratic political
outcomes representing the emergent, aggregate will of society.
Elite theory stands in opposition to pluralism in suggesting that
democracy is a utopian ideal. It also challenges any theories which argue
the state acts as an autonomous institution.
Elite group consists of not only of prestigious and “established” leaders
– top politicians, important businessmen, high-level civil servants, senior
military officers – but also, in varying degrees in different societies,
relatively transitory and less individually known leaders of mass
organizations such as trade unions, important voluntary associations, and
politically consequential mass movements. “Counter-elites” are
subsumed by this definition because they clearly have the organized
capacity, although perhaps mainly through negation, to affect political
outcomes regularly and substantially. It is important to stress that this is
a limited and specifically political definition of elites. It is restricted to
persons who are at the top of the pyramid or pyramids of political,
economic, and social power.
Elite theory has no place for idealized visions of democracy or social
revolution, nor does it have a place for the spread of new values that
dispose human beings toward a consistent and thorough altruism.
Human conflicts inevitably dilute social cohesion and constitute political
problems that elites must manage as best they can. However well or
poorly they accomplish this task, elites are the central actors in politics,
but the theory that centers on them is unlikely to have many enthusiastic
adherents.
First, decision making, according to the elite theory is a process which
works to the advantage of elites in whom power is concentrated. As
such, public policy does not reflect the demand of the masses so much,
as it does of elites. Therefore changes in public policy occur as a result
of redefinition by elites of their own values and choices. Because elites
share a consensus in preserving the social system, changes in the public
policy are brought about through reform (incremental in nature) when
event threaten the system. The stability of the system, therefore, depends
on elites sharing in a consensus about fundamental values underlying his
system, and only policy alternative that fall within shared consensus will
be given serious consideration.
• The value of elite may be welfare oriented for the public. The welfare
of the ,asses may be an important element in elite decision making, but
the responsibility for the welfare rest on the shoulders of elites rather
than masses.
• Second, elite theory purports that masses are apathetic and ill-
informed about the public policy that elites manipulate mass opinion and
sentiments on policy questions more than masses manipulate and
influence elite values and opinions and that policy flows downwards
from the elite to the mass. Therefore, policy questions are seldom
decided by the masses through the popular elections or through the
presentation of policy options by political parties. For the most part,
these elections and political parties play their symbolic role. Elitism
views the masses as largely apathetic having at best an indirect influence
over the policy making process of elites

Elite Theoretic Model

Briefly stated, as per this model, public policy is the product of elites,
reflecting their values and serving their ends. What the model postulates
is that the society is divided into the few who have power and the many
who do not have it.
Policy, in this social set-up, is not determined by the people or the
masses. It is the ruling elite which decide the public policy and which is
then carried out by the bureaucracy. By implication, therefore, public
policy tends to flow from the top, and generally does not move up from
the bottom. Also, changes in public policy are often incremental rather
than revolutionary.
As mentioned above public policy, examined from the dimensions of
Elite theory, can be termed as the linking and choices of a governing
elite in a given politico administrative system. Elite theory is a body of
thought aimed at explaining the nature and role of those groups in the
society in which decision-making power is highly concentrated.
Mosca in his book, The Ruling Class, has said that in all societies from
the meagerly developed having barely attained the drawings of
civilization to the most advanced and powerful societies -- two classes of
people appear -- a class that rules and a class that is being ruled. The
former class, always the less numerous, performs alias political function
monopolies power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas
the latter, the most numerous class is directed and controlled by the
former. In this manner that is more or less legal, more or less arbitrary
and violent and supplies the former, in appearance, at least, with
material means of subsistence and to the instrumentalities that are
essential to the validity of political organism. Every society has elite
competing with each other for power which ultimately paves its way to
formulate public policy.
Finer in his hook, Theory and Practice of Modern Government, has
illustrated the Policy Making Approaches elite position in a political
system by the simile of an orange and Models of Policy Analysis
The explanation of the above figure is that the orange with its skin
representing the elite of society, floats in water; that portion of the skin
that is above the waterline represents the governing elite, and the
segments which it .cover represents those associations in society which
have succeeded in competition to have their leadership participate or
hold office in the government. All those segments under the water-line,
however, represent those associations which have lost this competition,
and whose policies are temporarily being subordinated to those-of the
victorious ones, and the portions of peel that cover them represent, for
society as a whole, the counter-elite that seeks to displace the governing
elite at any point of time.
Elite theory has been summarised by Thomas Dye and Harmon Zeigler
in their book, The Irony of Democracy',
as follows:
i) Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do
not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the
masses do not decide policy.
ii) The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed.
Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socio-economic
strata of society.
iii) The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and
continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites
who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to
governing circles.
iv) Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and
the preservation of the system.
v) Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather the
prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be
incremental rather than revolutionary. Incremental hangs permit
responses to events that threaten a social system with a minimum of
alteration or modification of the system.
vi) Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from
apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence
elites. it becomes clear from the elite theory that it is a competition
between the elites in power and the counter-elites, attempting to come to
power, and the common masses, on whose demands the public policies
are formulated, are nowhere in determining the public policies. The
policies are formulated by ruling elite and the governmental officials and
agencies carry those into effect.

Bureaucratic model
When you read the term "bureaucratic model," you might think of
government. A government agency is a strong example of this term's
meaning. A bureaucratic model is a way of organizing people so there
are clear reporting relationships from the top to the bottom of the
organizational chart

Differentiation

This organizational model has developed over centuries. A bureaucracy

is achieved when a business, nonprofit or public agency has
differentiated, or split into different departments. Each department is an
important function of the organization. For example, warehouses,
logistics, sales, marketing and customer service are important functions
of a retail company. Departments might compete for power within the
organization

Specialization

If you look within departments in a bureaucracy, specialists emerge in

each department. For example, an accounting department in a
bureaucratic organization has specialists in cash handling, accounts
receivable, accounts payable, property, inventory and other specialized
accounting tasks. People with more expertise tend to hold higher
positions in a department, and usually earn more money for their
knowledge and experience.

Vertical Reporting System

For over 200 years and until recently, the bureaucratic model
dominated Western societies, including industrial and government
organizations. The model depends on a vertical reporting system. In
this kind of organizational structure, you can assume the highest person
in the vertical reporting system has the most power, and the people
lowest in the system have less power.

Decision-Making

Decisions must be made through the vertical reporting system. For

example, workers at the bottom collect information and pass it through
middle-level managers until it reaches top management. At the top,
executive managers make decisions and send them back down the
vertical hierarchy to the lowest level managers, who in turn share
management decisions with their line workers.

Rules and Policies

Weber's bureaucratic model is defined by a "rational-legal" approach, in
which order and reason is utilized to further the goal of the organization.
This applies to a number of aspects of the business; while the most
literal interpretation involves an established company policy, including
codes of conduct and methods of discipline, the bureaucratic model also
involves an ethic of professionalism and a dedication to serving the
needs of the customer or shareholders
Separation of Duties
The bureaucratic model depends on a clearly maintained separation of
duties. This may involve the creation of distinct semi-autonomous
entities, such as the separate departments of a large corporation, or
simply detailed and consistent job descriptions. Employees will have
their positions based upon their qualifications, and any change of duties
will be accompanied by an official change of position or department. As
an owner, if you have various employees who are expected to work on
different tasks -- perhaps changing and re-structuring the workload over
time as needed -- you're not operating strictly under the bureaucratic
model.
Criticisms
The bureaucratic model has been criticized to the extent that
"bureaucracy" itself is frequently used as a criticism -- not only for its
dehumanizing potential, but also in its likelihood for inefficiency and
inflexibility. Too much of a reliance upon paperwork, formal decision-
making procedures, and "official channels" may make an organization
slow to respond to changes. Communication and coordination between
semi-autonomous departments may create unnecessary obstacles. Less
bureaucratic small businesses may possess a valuable ability to adapt to
meet evolving needs, in a way in which larger organizations cannot.

PUBLIC POLICY
UNIT
IMPORTANT TOPICS COVERED IN THIS UNIT

 Meaning, nature and significance of policy evaluation.

 Types of policy evaluations
 Approaches of policy evaluations
 Describes the methods of evaluations
 Roles of evaluating agencies
 Finding solution of policy evaluation problems.

Introduction
 Policy process – comprises of various key stages - starts with
identifying the problems and issues for policies.
  Highlights various solutions and other alternatives analysing and
comparing the alternatives.
 Selection of the best possible methods and forming that as a policy
and with effective implementation
 Process the policy evaluation plays a significant role.
 Changes took place by the use of scientific methods, inter-
disciplinary approaches and use of electronic data processing
systems.

Policy Evaluation
The evaluation looks at why the policy was adopted in the first
place and determines if it is a success or failure. If it is a success, the
policy will continue to be monitored and evaluated as the marketplace
and legal environments change. But a policy that has failed must
consider whether or not the foundation of the policy was based on
incorrect data, unforeseen circumstances or false theories.
 Change in the “Environment” could also lead to failure of the
policy in a short period of time. A false theory means leadership expects
a result based on a plausible but not definitive notion. Leaders will
evaluate policies that failed to see if there are other beneficial side
effects to the policy.
For example, a school is concerned about violence among its
students. School leadership implements a dress code policy designed to
curb student violence. After a year, the rate of student violence is the
same. This suggests the policy has failed because what students wear is
not indicative of whether or not they will conduct violent acts. During
the same period, the school did see a rise in test scores. With proper
evaluation, the school might decide to retain the policy and monitor the
new theory of implementation, which is that uniforms help students
concentrate more on studies than on clothing.

 This is called formulative evaluation. In formulative evaluations,

the policy is reviewed, based on whether the policy accomplished
its intended purpose. If the policy did not accomplish its intended
purpose, then improvements need to be made, based on the data
provided in the evaluation.
Nature and significance
 Evaluations contain a wide range of activities.
 Policy evaluation - Procedure that appraises the worth whileness
of a policy, and considers the special context and politics and
economic variables of the situation.

 'Appraisal' - Mean a critical examination of a programme (or

policy) normally before the latter is approved for implementation
and funding .

 Policy maker, policy evaluation is a means of getting the relevant

information and knowledge

 Regarding policy problems, the effectiveness of past, and

prevailing strategies for reducing.

 Eliminating the problems so as to improve the effectiveness of

specific policies.

 Evaluation feeds into decision making by providing information

for political decisions (such as to assess or justify the need for a
new program).

 Evaluation is used for policy implementation (to ensure a policy is

being implemented in a cost effective or effective way).
What are the most common types of evaluation?

There are several types of evaluations that can be conducted. Some of

them include the following:

• Formative evaluation It is usually conducted when a new program or

activity is being developed or when an existing one is being adapted or
modified.

• Process/implementation evaluation determines whether program

activities have been implemented as intended.

• Outcome/effectiveness evaluation measures program effects in the

target population by assessing the progress in the outcomes or outcome
objectives that the program is to achieve.

• Impact evaluation assesses program effectiveness in achieving its

ultimate goals.

EVALUATION UNDER THE PLANNING COMISSION:

EVOLUATION AND CURRENT STATUS

 The Planning Commission’s Program Evaluation Organization has

historically been charged with evaluating the central government
programs in the state.

 The beginning of evaluation in India can be traced back to the

commencement of planning. Planned development began with the
first five-year plan covering the period 1951–52 to 1956–57.

 The Planning Commission was vested with the responsibility of

writing the five-year plans, and the Program Evaluation
Organization (PEO) was created in 1952 as an independent agency
 in the Planning Commission to evaluate programs funded by the
plan.

 State evaluation offices were also mandated at the state level. The
PEO was conceived as an elaborately structured nationwide
organization with field units, regional offices usually located in
state capitals, and the headquarters in the Planning Commission.

 The state evaluation offices all report to the head of PEO, and the
PEO has remained a part of the Planning Commission. The relative
autonomy and size of the PEO grew in the first two decades after
planned development began.

 Development Evaluation in Independent India System of

evaluation was conceived in India simultaneously with planned
economy.
 With the launch of first five-year plan in 1951, a need for systemic
evaluation was felt, and the first plan deemed that systematic
evaluation should become a normal administrative practice in all
spheres of public activity.
 The Planning Commission (PC) began developing the evaluation
techniques by establishing Program Evaluation Organisation
(PEO) for independent evaluations of community projects and
other intensive area development programmes (Chandrasekar,
2015).
 From there, India has come a long way over the past 67 years. Dr
S. Chandrasekar served as the Director of Regional Evaluation
Office, at Chennai and then as Adviser at Directorate of
Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi.
 He wrote an article about history of Development Evaluation in
India, published as a web special by Yojana in November 2015,
around the time when a lot of changes were happening in the
Indian evaluation scenario.
 Most of this section is based on his article and a report by World
Bank on M&E system in India (Chandrasekar, 2015)
 Current Scenario Past decade has been very eventful for the
evaluation systems in India. IEO was set up and closed, PEO was
closed, Results Framework Diagram based PMES was started and
closed and DMEO has been started recently. This section captures
the current scenario at the central and state level in India.
 Evaluation in Indian states Evaluation was an integral component
of every state’s planning and implementation process while PEO
was blooming. States have taken varied path in past few decades
from there.
Evaluations may be unpopular for many reasons:
 1) The program is controversial;
 2) There are strong political interests in seeing it succeed or fail;
 3) There are difficulties in measuring program accomplishments;
 4) Those involved may be uncooperative;
 5) Program effects may be influenced by outside developments.

EVALUATION DESIGN

 Policy evaluation applies accepted social science research methods

to public programs. The same research design used in laboratory
experiments are not always practicable in the field, but the same
 principles can guide the planning and execution of policy
evaluation.
 Before-and-After Evaluation: a policy is evaluated for the
changes it has produced since its implementation; the situation is
controlled to exclude other possible influences on the outcome.
 With-and-Without Evaluation: a policy is evaluated for
producing changes in the target population, compared to another
population without the policy.
 After-Only Evaluation: the extent to which the policy goals were
achieved, compared to the state of affairs before the policy was
implemented; but the situation is not controlled to exclude other
possible influences on the outcome.
 Time-Series Evaluation: the changes produced by the policy,
tracked over a long time period.

INVESTIGATIVE-SUBSTITUTIVE APPROACH
The study of public policy is basically concerned with the range of
human needs and the political institutions created to meet them. Yet
there is no agreed and adequate definition of need, and much confusion
prevails about the distinction between need, preference and political
problems. Moreover, the institutional arrangements meeting these needs
through policies seem infinitely varied and have rapid rate of growth.
What is accepted in one decade as truth may be challenged in another. In
analysing a policy an attempt has to be made to trace its uncertain
objectives in a systematic manner. Public policy sometimes has multiple,
conflicting and ambiguous objectives. The effort to clarify the aims of
public policy and the way in which conflicting objectives are recognised
by those who implement it is a useful method of formulating good
questions about plans for the future. Further policy is after all partly a
redefinition of either political objectives or the constraints which inhibit
 the implementation of objectives already held. Because this is so, it
follows that it must be difficult to discover what the governmental
institutions are trying to attain and whether its present arrangements
facilitate the accomplishment of these evolving goals. The goals as given
should not be accepted, it is necessary to scrutinize it in light of inputs.
outputs and outcomes. The thrust should always be on investigating the
policy in the light of its goals, objectives and outcomes. Simply treating
the question of the purpose as resolved would lead to a kind of bias in
favour of or against the policy. The purpose, thus, should be treated as
unresolved and efforts made to find out the facts for substituting in the
policy for ushering improvements required to that effect.
Incrementalism is a method of working by adding to a project using
many small incremental changes instead of a few (extensively planned)
large jumps. Logical incrementalism implies that the steps in the process
are sensible.[1] Logical incrementalism focuses on "the Power-Behavioral
Approach to planning rather than to the Formal Systems Planning
Approach".[2] In public policy, incrementalism is the method of change
by which many small policy changes are enacted over time in order to
create a larger broad based policy change. This was the theoretical
policy of rationality developed by Lindblom to be seen as a middle way
between the rational actor model and bounded rationality, as both long
term goal driven policy rationality and satisficing were not seen as
adequate

Contents

 1Origin
 2Contrasts to other planning methodologies
 3Advantages
 4Disadvantages
 5Usage
 o 5.1Examples
 6Related concepts
 7See also
 8References
 9External links
Origin
Most people use incrementalism without ever needing a name for it
because it is the natural and intuitive way to tackle everyday problems,
such as making coffee or getting dressed. These actions normally don't
require extensive planning and problems can be dealt with one at a time
as they arise.
Even in processes that involve more extensive planning, incrementalism
is often an important tactic for dealing reactively with small details. For
example, one might plan a route for a driving trip on a map, but one
would not typically plan in advance where to change lanes or how long
to stop at each streetlight.
The political scientist Charles E. Lindblom developed Incrementalism in
the mid 1950s. “The Science of Muddling Through” (1959), was an
essay Lindblom wrote to help policymakers understand why they needed
to consider a different approach when making policy changes. The goal
for the new perspective of Incrementalism was for policy makers to
avoid making changes before they really engaged and rationally thought
through the issue.
Contrasts to other planning methodologies
In large projects following some type of strategic planning, there is
normally a need to allocate time to plan the project in order to avoid
"fire fighting", in other words the avoidance of time delaying issues. In
contrast to other systems of planning such as top down, bottom up, and
so on, incrementalism involves concentrating on dealing with the
immediate problems as they arrive and avoiding trying to create an
overall strategic plan. This means muddling through the issues at hand
based on importance.
Strategic implementation
 is a very well thought out plan of implementation that is the opposite to
incrementalism. Although the plan involved with the strategic
implementation might work incrementally it has set objectives at set
times with little to no intention of muddling through the process. In other
words, every part of the implementation would be expected and planned
for ahead of time
The antithesis of incrementalism is that work must be accomplished in
one single push rather than through a process of continuous
improvement. All work must be planned, only presented when complete
and work in progress must be hidden.
In political science, research on incrementalism has largely been
incorporated into the study of Punctuated equilibrium in social theory,
which views policy change as periods of incremental improvement
punctuated by major policy shifts.
Advantages
The advantages of incrementalism over other formal systems is that no
time is wasted planning for outcomes which may not occur.
Politically expedient: Since it does not involve any radical and complete
changes, it is easily accepted and therefore the process is expedient.
Simplicity: it is very simple to understand. Compared to some of the
other budgeting methods used in business, it is one of the easiest to put
in practice, since one does not have to be an accountant or have much
experience in business to use this form of budgeting.
Gradual change: a very stable budget exists from one period to the next
and allows for gradual change within the company. Many managers are
intimidated by large budget increases from one period to the next. This
type of budget will not cause that problem because it is based on the
previous period's budget.
Flexibility: it is very flexible. Doing it from one month to the next
allows one to see change very quickly when a new policy or budget is
implemented.
Avoiding conflict: companies with many different departments often run
into conflict between departments because of their different budgets.
With this method of budgeting, it is easier to keep everyone on the same
page and avoid conflicts between departments

Disadvantages
Disadvantages are that time may be wasted dealing with the immediate
problems and no overall strategy is developed. Incrementalism in the
study of rationality can be seen as a stealthy way to bring about radical
changes that were not initially intended, a slippery slope.
Beagle Fallacy: A beagle hound has a very good sense of smell but
limited eyesight, and thus could miss prey that appears in front of but
downwind. Likewise, by only focusing on incremental changes to
policies and policy applications, organisations are in danger of missing
the broader directions in fulfilling their mandate. Beagle fallacy is the
primary criticism of incrementalism.
Failure to account for change: it is based on the idea that expenses will
run much as they did before. However, in business, that is rarely the
case, and there are always variables.
Absence of incentives: such a simple method of budgeting really does
not provide employees with much reason to be creative. They have no
incentive to innovate and come up with new ideas or policies since
everything is limited.
"Use it or lose it" perspective: Many employees view this as a "use it or
lose it" system and know that next year's budget is going to be
incrementally based on this year's. Therefore, if they do not spend
everything that is allocated to them, they may not have enough money to
work with next year. That creates an environment where waste is
encouraged

Incrementalism is commonly employed in politics, engineering, software

design, planning and industry. Whereas it is often criticized as "fire
fighting", the progressive improvement of product designs characteristic,
e.g., of Japanese engineering can create steadily improving product
performance, which in certain circumstances outperforms more orthodox
planning systems.

Another example would be in small changes that make way for a bigger
overall change to get past unnoticed. A series of small steps toward an
agenda would be less likely to be questioned than a large and swift
change. An example could be the rise of gas prices, the company would
only raise the price by a few cents every day, instead of a large change
to a target price overnight. More people would notice and dispute a
dramatic, 100% increase overnight, while a 100% increase over a span
of a week would less likely be even noticed, let alone argued. This can
be applied in many different ways, such as, economics, politics, a
person's appearance, or laws.
Examples
In the 1970s, many countries decided to invest in wind
energy. Denmark, a small country of around 5 million people, became a
world leader in this technology using an incremental approach.[7] While
more formal design processes in the US, Germany and the United
Kingdom failed to develop competitive machines. The reason for the
difference of approach was that the Danish wind industry developed
from an agricultural base whilst the American and UK wind industries
were based on hi-tech aerospace companies with
significant university involvement.[8] While the Danes built better and
better windmills using an incremental approach, those using formal
planning techniques believed that they could easily design a superior
windmill straight away.
In practice, however, windmill design is not very complicated and the
biggest problem is the tradeoff between cost and reliability. Although
the UK and the U.S.A. designs were technically superior, the lack of
experience in the field meant that their machines were less reliable in the
field. In contrast, the heavy agricultural windmills produced by the
Danes just kept turning, and by 2000 the top three windmill
manufacturers in the world were Danish.
The Central Arizona Project and the Salt River Project display the use
of Innovation and incrementalism. There was a Plan 6 cost-sharing
program that was a component in both of these projects and displayed
innovations of the external enforcers and internal entrepreneurs and how
they muddled through as well as collaborated incrementally to work on
these projects with many different players in the mix.
The resource allocation in local authorities is riddled by politics and
provides the underlying methods of incrementalism in the negotiations
process of putting local authorities priorities together. [10] Looking the
United States Federal Budget is a back and forth negotiation between
politicians and provides great insight of incremental change. [11] Every
year a new budget must be formed to allocate funds to the agencies such
as the DoD and government programs such as Social Security and
Medicare. The amounts with which are decided gradually change based
on the importance as well as efficiencies and inefficiencies of agencies
or priorities.
In the case of climate change the opinions changed gradually over the
years as more and more scientific evidence became clear to policy
makers that it should be a prevalent policy issue. [12] Political economy of
climate change and Politics of global warming are worth noting on the
international scale of climate change policy and how there has been an
incremental leaning towards the belief and action against climate change
over the years.
Related concepts
Incrementalism is a planning methodology normally found where a large
strategic plan is either unnecessary or has failed to develop and for that
reason it is often just called "muddling through".[13] Incrementalism is
the antithesis of intrusive central planning, which can create rigid work
systems unable to deal with the actual problems faced at the grassroots
level.[8] However, without a central planning framework incremental
working is difficult to support within structured systems and therefore
requires a degree of self-reliance, skills and experience of those dealing
with the problems such as is found in autonomous work groups
Lindblom’s Incremental model Lindblom had provided an alternative
approach to the traditional rational model of decision making. His
article, The Science of Mudding Through published in Public
Administration Review in 1959,24 gained wide recognition in the
development of policy approach as being concerned with the “process”
of policy making. Under rational approach all the possible alternatives
are scrutinized which will determine the optimal approach. Lindblom
argued that constraints of time, intelligence, and cost prevent policy
makers from identifying the full range of policy alternatives and their
consequences.
The incremental approach of decision making advocated by Charles
Lindblom involves a process of “continually building out from the
current situation, step by step and by small degree”. In contrast, the
comprehensive rational model advocated by Simon was to start from
“fundamentals a new each time, building on the past only as experience
embodied in a theory, and always prepared to start from the ground up”.
In 1979, Charles E. Lindblom elaborated his idea of incrementalism. As
an analytic approach, incrimentalism encompasses, “simple incremental
analysis”, which considers as alternatives, only incremental changes
form current conditions “disjointed incrementalism”, which employs “a
mutually supporting set of simplifying and focusing strategies”
including the fragmentation of analytical work to many participants, and
“strategic analysis”.25 Lindblom proposes that “successive limited
comparison” is both more relevant and more realistic in such a condition
of “bounded rationality”. Lindblom favored the benefits of ‘non
comprehensive analysis’ rather than to search out new techniques. As he
points out:
“In the method of successive limited comparison, simplification is
systematically achieved in two principle ways. First, it is achieved
through limitation of policy comparisons to those policies that differ in
relatively small degree form policies presently in effect. Such a
limitation immediately reduces the numbers of alternatives to be
investigated and drastically simplifies the character of investigation of
each… The second method of simplification of analysis is the practice of
ignoring important possible consequences of possible policies, as well as
the values attached to the neglected consequences.”
In his article, Still Muddling Not Yet Through, Lindblom makes clear
that the core idea in an incrementalist approach, is the belief in skill in
solving complex problems, and that his aim is to suggest “new and
improved” ways of “muddling through”. To do this, he draws a
distinction between: (a) incrmentalism as a political pattern, with step by
step changes, (b) incrementalism as policy analysis.27 He further argues
that there are three main forms to incremental analysis such as: (i)
simple incremental analysis, (ii) strategic analysis, and (iii) disjointed
incrementalism.
In his work, the Intelligence of Democracy28, he argues that decision
making is a process of adjustment and compromise which facilitates
agreement and coordination. Partisan mutual adjustment, he agrees, is
the democratic and practical alternative to centralized hierarchical
controls. Lindblom argues in his 1993 work: “… policy evolve through
complex and reciprocal relations among all the bureaucrats, elected
functionaries, representative of interest group, and other participants”.
Rational Policy Making Model
Rational policy making is “to choose the one best option”.41 Dye
equates rationality with efficiency when he says, “A policy is rational
when it is most efficient, that is, if the ratio between the values it
achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other
policy alternative”.42 Dror prescribes certain requirements to policy
makers in selecting a rational policy. They must: 1. Know all the
society’s value preferences and their relative weights. 2. Know all the
policy alternatives available.
3. Know all the consequences of each policy alternative 4. Calculate the
ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative 5. Selective the most
efficient policy alternative.43 The rational model was described by
Lindblom44 as the one which is used by a rational man who is faced
with a given problem. A rational man clarifies his goals, values or
objectives and organizes them. He then considers the alternative policies
to achieve his goals, make a careful study of the consequences of each
alternative policy and compare the consequences with goals. So a
rational man should choose the policy with consequences that most
closely match his goals.
In a rational decision-making process, instead of making an ‘ideal’
decision, as Simon45 argued, policy makers break the complexity of
problems into small and understandable parts, choose the one option that
is best and satisfactory, and avoid unnecessary uncertainty. This means
that “although individuals are intensely rational, their rationality is
bounded by limited cognitive and emotional capacities”.46After
implementation, the rational policy maker is required to monitor the
implementation systematically to find out the accuracy of the
expectations and estimates. If necessary, policy maker will try to fill up
the loopholes, if any in the policy or give it up altogether this is a
feedback stage of rational policy making.
Limitations of the Rational Approach
Rationale policy making is a difficult exercise. Simon, in this context,
declares, “It is impossible for the behavior of a single, isolated
individual to reach any high degree of rationality”.47 • The motivation
for policy-makers to try to maximize net goal achievement is lacking.
They merely try to satisfy certain demands for progress, and do not
strive forward until they find one best way
Policy makers are not motivated to make decision on the basis of
societal goals, but try instead to maximize their own rewards, such as
power, status, and money. • Time factor is also very crucial in rational
model of policy making. In an emergency situation, action is sought
immediately, and the time is too short to make any careful analysis. In
routine policy making also, the sheer number of potential issues limits
the time available to analyze any one issue carefully. • Uncertainty about
the consequences of various policy alternatives compels policy makers
to stick as closely as possible to previous policies to reduce the
likelihood of disturbing, unanticipated consequences.
The predictive capacities of physical, biological or social and behavioral
sciences are not advanced enough to enable policy makers to understand
the full range of consequences of each policy alternative.