POLICY FLOW ANALYSIS:

A CONCEPTUAL MODEL FOR COMPARATIVE

PUBLIC POLICY RESEARCH
ROBERT H. SIMMONS, California State University Los Angeles
BRUCE W. DAVIS, University of Tasmania (Australia)
RALPH J. K. CHAPMAN, University ofTasmania (Australia)
DANIEL D. SAGER, California State University Los Angeles

XPANDING interest in policy making parallels a crisis in the institutions

~-~ of democracy. Policy making is fundamental to government for commit-
ting resources and defining the priorities guiding governmental action. In
industrial and developing societies, where increasing complexity, rapid change and
continuous tension are concomitants of existence, traditional administrative agen-
cies, rooted in nineteenth-century experience, are placed under ever increasing
stress as they adapt to the altered environment which they now serve. Concern
for policy making signals a reawakened sensitivity to the importance of value
choices. It is value choice, implicit and explicit, which orders the priorities of
government and determines the commitment of resources within the public
jurisdiction.
The proposed model focuses on the changed role of the executive, legislative
and judicial participants in the policy process, with a view to explicating the re-
lationship of values to public policy. To this end, the model identifies actors,
groups and agencies and suggests the critical interactive processes that blend power
and value in determining policy choices. The model is applicable to the dynamics
of the policy-making process in at least the ministerial and presidential systems of
western industrialized countries and may have potential use in other jurisdictions
as well.
APPROACHES TO PUBLIC POLICY MAKING
A variety of policy-making models has recently emerged. Dror surveys these
and identifies six normative models: pure-rationality; economically-rational; se-
quential-decision ; incremental-change; satisfying; and, extra-rational.&dquo;
Other writers focus upon organizational goals,2 the political or economic
environment,3 bureaucratic procedures,4 or the nature of the budget-making
NOTE: Research represented in this article was partially supported by a Fulbright-Hays
Research Fellowship granted to Robert H. Simmons, the senior author, under the
sponsorship of the Australian-American Educational Foundation. An earlier version
of the paper was presented to the 1974 national conferences of the American Society for
Public Administration, Syracuse; The Australian Society for Public Administration,
-
Brisbane; and the Royal Institute for Public Administration, London.
1Y. Dror, Public Policymaking Reexamined (San Francisco: Chandler, 1969), pp. 129-53.
2For example, M. M. Harmon, "Administrative Policy Formulation and the Public Interest,"
Public Administration Review, 29 (September 1969), 483-91.
3See, for an example of the political environment, D. Easton,
A Framework for Political
Analysis (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1965). For an example of the economic
environment, L. L. Wade and R. J. Curry, A Logic of Public Policy: Aspects of Political
Economy (Belmont, California: Wadsworth, 1970).
4For an example in the American jurisdiction see W. W. Boyer, Bureaucracy on Trial: Policy-
making by Government Agencies (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1964), and from the
457
458

process.5 These approaches, primarily related to organizational behavior and

intra-organizational policy, are each inadequate as an explanation of policy mak-
ing. Equally, the approach which relies solely on analysis of legislative or judicial
activities is insufficient, since the processes involved in committing resources to
technological priorities and prospective social benefits are political concerns. Legis-
lative, judicial and administrative boundaries are transcended by the policy-making
process, even though each remains a fundamental part of that process as members
participate in the emergence of public choices. Public policy is nurtured as well
6
as implemented in all administrative agencies
This view is distinct from the traditional concept of politics, embracing
participation of the public in the choice of political leadership or influencing
legislative consequences. Therefore, policy making is a special situation deriving
from the changing nature of modern technological society. It is more easily under-
stood if approached as networks of interaction processes within a total system,
involving intermittently or continuously, the sub-systems of the legislature, the
executive, the judiciary, independent agencies, interested pressure groups, indi-
viduals, or the mass impact of the larger community.&dquo; Each of these sub-systems
is constrained by formal and informal arrangements derived from the total system,
and all are involved in the policy-making process. Any one of these sub-systems
may provide an appeal as an alternative to failure in any other. One of the more
comprehensive definitions of the public policy process is:
A sequential flow of interactions between governmental and non-governmental participants
who discuss, argue about and find common grounds for agreeing on the scope and types of
governmental actions appropriate in dealing with a particular societal problem. This
process includes: ( 1 ) seeking information to define the societal problem, (2) developing
alternative problem solutions, and (3) reaching agreement upon which alternative will best
solve the problem. In short, the public policy process is a decision-making process.8

The policy process is certainly a decision-making process. Yet it is more.

AN INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING

Public policy involves value choices which may be articulated as priorities,
needs or wants, and culminates in the choice of activities calculated to satisy these
wants. The purpose here is to look beyond the decision nexus to the interaction
involved in the policy process. Thus, attention centers on the psychology of the
actors and the sociology of the groups. The policy process also involves the mobili-

British experience, R. G. S. Brown, The Administrative Process in Britain (London:

Methuen, 1970).
5
For example, D. Gershwin, "Towards a Theory of Public Budgetary Decision Making,"
Administrative Science Quarterly, 14 (March 1969), 33-46.
6
The word "agency" is used in this paper in a purely generic sense, synonymous with organi-
zation or administrative body.
7
The increasing flow of information through the mass media and their force in changing
attitudes, educating and initiating change is relevant in considering the interaction
process.
F. J. Lyden, G. Shipman, and R. J. Wilkinson, "Decision Flow Analysis: A Methodology
8
for Studying the Policy-making Process," in P. Le Breton, Comparative Administrative
Theory (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1968). pp. 155-56.
 459

zation of energy and resources by specific individuals and groups in interaction

processes leading to public policy.
The milieu of such policy making is best described as dynamic, in that it
grows, changes and develops to meet different articulated needs. Prior policy
commitments spawn unanticipated consequences which provide an impetus for
change. These unanticipated consequences are never fully known to all the actors
and seldom rationally assessed. Also, contributing to the dynamics of policy making
are such extra systemic inputs as: intersocietal exchanges; technological develop-

ments ; generational dialectics; and availability of resources.

It may be anticipated that varying tendencies toward equilibrium, hyper-
trophy and entropy may be identified. Entropic tendencies mean simply that
resources and energy are lacking, the system runs down, and no policy is engen-
dered or carried out. Hypertrophy suggests becoming so dominated by a particular
characteristic that modification or change is inhibited or even paralyzed and thus
the social need which spawned the process in the beginning is no longer served.
However, equilibrating tendencies contribute to the survival of involved groups
and to the continuation of their particular kinds of policy concerns. Suggestive
of these tendencies is the U.S. Corps of Engineers’ singular concern with flood
control subsequently moderated by the emergence of competitive agencies involved
in multipurpose river basin development. In the Australian State of Tasmania
the overriding concern of the Hydro Electric Commission for the development of
water power resources and its failure to respond to interests demanding environ-
mental protection of valued national resources is illustrative of these tendencies in
another governmental jurisdiction.9
Dror indicates that current research into policy making is frequently unstruc-
tured, non-analytical, disoriented and not related to any theoretical or conceptual
framework.

With a few exceptions, most of the studies on public policy-making do not have a rigorous
theoretical framework, and are not significantly related to current work in decision-making
theory. Tentative conceptual frameworks for systematic empirical study of public policy-
making have been developed only recently. As yet, again with few exceptions, these concep-
tual frameworks have not been systematically applied to the study of real policy-making.:10

Kroll recognizes the need for analysis which will encompass the subtleties
identified above: &dquo;In turning to the study of the internal aspects of specific poli-
cies, five categories suggest themselves: ( 1 ) the power arrangements, (2) the
historical dimensions, (3) the involvement and role of personalities and leadership,
(4) informal and formal prescriptions and (5) organizational instrument.&dquo;&dquo; He
goes on to suggest that &dquo;any policy exhibits characteristic qualities which endow
it with special meaning and flavour, yet which (if numerous policy studies were

B. W. Davis, "Waterpower and Wilderness: Political and Administrative Aspects of the Lake
9
Pedder Controversy," Public Administration (Sydney), 31 (March 1972), 21-42.
10 Dror, op. cit., 74-75.
11
M. Kroll, "Policy and Administration," in F. J. Lyden, G. Shipman, and M. Kroll, Policies,
Decision and Organizations (New York: Meredith, 1969), p. 19.
460

undertaken) would reveal characteristic structure and behaviour common to num-

erous policies.&dquo;12
In short, it is necessary to view public policy making in a way different from
current scholarship. The complexity involved in public policy choices has been
suggested by Lyden, Shipman and Wilkinson:
Altogether the realistic working assumption is that a public decision is an amaigam of a
variety of contributions - public attitudes amongst them fed into a network of social
-

interactions. The interaction path rarely shows a constant, unchanging structure; instead
it develops, evolves, and changes shape and form over time. One of the primary reasons
why the public policy process has always appeared to be such a mystery to many people is
this fluidity, this refusal to remain within the confines of institutional structures designed to
deal with public issues.13

Research must involve analytical tools by which these complex factors can
be identified and this can only be achieved if the network of social interactions are
taken into account. The goal is to focus on the collectivity of decisions which form
a public policy and bring them into perspective, rather than center on decision

paths alone. Whilst individual decisions or decision paths may be vital to the
emergence of public policy, of themselves these are insufficient explanations. The
model is more particularly concerned to identify aspects of policy making normally
obscured.

THE POLICY FLOW MODEL

An heuristic model designated a policy flow model is proposed. Such a model
is presumed to have both natural system and rational system attributes. 14 The
model is essentially an interaction schema, having as its primary focus the relation-
ship of certain elements and value choices in an interactive process which blends
them together to produce policy decisions. The essential elements may be described
as follows:

( 1 ) Policy is regarded as an indication of intention, a guide to action (rather

than a decision which implies immediate consequence) and encompasses values
which set social priorities in relations between government and society.

( 2 ) Policy issues are identified as such by interested and concerned actors,

organizations and publics and focus upon a desired change, benefit, regulation,
inhibition or prohibition. Thus, policy issues and policy issue agendas
-

are -

behaviorly, rather than morally or absolutely, determined.l5

(3) Policy flow refers to the evolution of a policy issue and is much more
fluid than the single linear progression which has been the traditional view of the
policy analyst. Policy flow encompasses the total milieu of policy formation in
which the haphazard impact and coalescence of numerous factors, participants,
and interactions result in the dynamic ebb and flow of policy issues.

12
Ibid.
"
Lyden et al., op. cit., pp. 156-57.
14J. D. Thompson, Organizations in Action (New York : McGraw-Hill, 1967), pp. 7-8.
15
A. J. Meltsner, "Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis," Public Administration Review,
32 (November 1972), 860. Note Meltsner’s slightly different usage of the term "policy
issue."
 461

(4) Policy decisions are specific events reflecting a confluence of values and
behavior which guide administrative action and may be expressed in legislation,
judicial decisions, executive orders, or administrative rules and regulations.
(5) Policy environment includes at least public and private agencies and key
persons therein; clientele, pressure and other interest groups; and operational
social processes including but not limited to cooperation, accommodation, competi-
tion and conflict. The technological, cultural, and physical setting is also relevant.
(6) Policy feedback operates within the policy flow affecting interaction
amongst the participants and modifying policy issues by changing inputs.
What is distinctive about the model is its appreciation of the random, multi-
channeled nature of policy coalescence; its recognition that policy issues blur and
change over time; and its stress on the need for orderly research and field method-
ology which might enable the analyst to distinguish facts from values and identify
crucial paths leading to policy formation. The model encompasses a range of
processes which include decision and interaction, together with influence factors.
It is tentative in design and will evolve as data and evaluation become available;
however it seeks to develop in this tentative way greater insights into the relation-
ships among individual actors, interaction within and among public agencies and
their environments, and the context of value choices.16

EXPLICATION
Policy style: actors and groups
The model comprehends significant individual actors and important partici-
pating groups involved and interested in the emergence of particular policy deci-
sions. The behavior and actions of these actors and groups may take on, over a
period of time, a distinctive style which affects that policy decision, i.e., they de-
velop tradition and history which constrains and refines their actions and concerns.
These styles have complex characteristics, some of which are discussed below
under the headings of: (a) communication; (b) commitment; (c) leadership;
and (d) nature of group dynamics.
Communication: key actors within the policy environment oftentimes have
preferred access to communication nets. This may occur, e.g., by agency leader-
ship utilizing more or less formal and informal clientele consultation processes
which may have developed over a period of time. These communication links
may be utilized by these actors as a means of shaping policy. Preclusion or inhibi-
tion from access to communication channels may equally be of great significance.
Actors may be perceived as trustworthy or suspect and will communicate with
one another accordingly. They will have varying degrees of competence, cognition,
and information, varying qualities of effect within their capacity to function, and
particular affects within their interaction spheres.
Commitment: Actors who are able to commit and obtain resources can more
effectively influence the evolution of policy. Likewise the failure to gain or retain
Detailed discussion of research methodology and application of the model, while unques-
16
tionably of value for the reader, is too cumbersome and complex for presentation here.
These will be discussed in a forthcoming article.
462

resources demonstrates an inability to affect policy determination. Actors have

levels of commitment to particular policy choices. The quality and intensity of
commitment may be ambivalent or zealous and these affect policy decision depend-
ing upon the roles the persons play.
Leadership: Aspecial set of actors is crucial in the policy environment. These
actors are agency heads and others performing formal leadership roles. 17 They
have a particular set of characteristics which may profoundly affect policy choice
and value determination. These leaders receive attributes of respect or fear, they
have definitional prerogatives, and they have varying degrees of charisma, all of
which can have serious consequences for the nature of policy choice. Equally their
interpersonal style in relation to value determination and policy choices may be
characterized as authoritarian, laissez faire, anarchic, competitive, spontaneous, or
democratic.
Group Dynamics: A variety of formal and informal groups function within
the policy flow. Actorswill coalesce into temporary or sustained interaction clus-
ters based on individual perceptions of other actors’ credibility and intention in
the policy environment. The effect of actors on the group process may be creative,
spontaneous, flexible, rigid, or ritualized and accordingly will alter choices as they
evolve within the policy environment. In these groups an implicit, but understood,
changing status configuration impinges upon policy determination processes. The
purposiveness or reluctance of the group to pursue its goals will also have its
impact in the policy flow. The dynamics of the group process may reduce emer-
gent conflict through cooptation of peer pressure to conform. The administrative
infrastructure of the group, whether it be hierarchical, collegial, or autocratic, will
thus affect policy decisions; as will personal and interpersonal awareness within
the unfolding dynamics of small group processes.

Policy environment: power and resources

Within this environment two of the most important elements are those of
power and the availability and nature of the resources. These are not the only
aspects which will emerge from the interactive processes disclosed by the model,
but provide a useful example of its potential insights.
Power: This aspect of the model is concerned with significant power arrange-
ments that operate in a particular policy interaction field, and &dquo;embraces the struc-
ture and dynamics of authority within the policy field.&dquo;18 It is possible to hypothe-
size that there is a continuum between dependence and autonomy along which
involved agencies will tend to range.
In the traditional ministerial department system where the permanent head
and officers are directly responsible to the minister for their actions in implement-
ing policies, the extreme of dependence upon the political leadership is represented.
An equivalent dependency may be represented in the presidential system where the
agency head is fully dependent upon the political leadership for appointment,

17G. Shipman, Designing Program Action (University: University of Alabama Press, 1971),
pp. 68-78.
"
M. Kroll, op. cit., p. 19.
 463

tenure, and comprehensive budgetary supervision. At the other end of the con-
tinuum, autonomy may be exemplified by a public corporation or agency in which
the permanent head is the decision-making apex, where parliamentary or legis-
lative interference is negligible and finance virtually under the control of the
agency. Between the two extremes there are many hybrids which may be classi-
fied in different ways.19
One of the key aspects of the power configuration is the nature of the affili-
ations that agencies make with groups affected by agency activity. The relations,
and the quality thereof, that an agency, and individuals within, have with interest-
ed groups may well have a profound effect on the ultimate determination of policy.
Secondly, formal legislative imperatives may assist or interfere with relationships
between agency heads and the political executive. This relationship will give some
indication of the autonomy or dependence of the agency to the formal political
executive.
A third facet of the power arrangements involves the existence and nature
of a core professional staff. The larger, more skilled and specialized the profes-
sional staff is and the more autonomous the permanent head, the greater the
independence and status of the agency in policy formulation. The fourth facet
of the power configuration is the financial arrangement for funding departmental
activity. This involves the existence or non-existence of dedicated funding, the
nature of treasury control, the capacity of the department to make long-range
financial commitments, and, the extent to which program funding is dependent
on allocations from other political jurisdictions.

Finally, the last facet of the power arrangement involves the historical tradi-
tion which surrounds the department in its operating milieu. A dependent and
weak department is subject to easy political alteration. Conversely, a long tradition
of departmental autonomy derived from past accepted behavior and contributions
to the social system in which it functions, results in an agency equipped to fend
off outside interferences. These perhaps may be designated aristocratic agencies.
However, it must be observed that a hoary tradition of autonomy may be radically
altered where systemic crisis intrudes on previously settled affairs.
The functional effect of these power arrangements may be to alter profoundly
the ultimate values and thus the policy which emerges. The power arrangements
identified in this paper are not meant to be exhaustive but rather are suggestive.
They indicate matters that the authors considered important, which would be
evaluated and amplified as the model is applied.
Elements of the power system within the interaction field may be summarized
as: clientele, pressure and legislative groups; constitutional and statutory provi-
sions ; professional staffing; financial arrangements; and historical traditions. These
categories or facets of the model are relevant both in the parliamentary and presi-

dential systems. Although there are important differences between the ministerial
and presidential executives, the relationships between political heads and the ex-

19
R. Wittenhall, Guide to Tasmanian Government Administration (Hobart, Tasmania: Platy-
pus, 1969), or, Brown, op. cit.
464

pert civil service in each involve a similarity which lends itself to comparative
analysis.2o
Resources: Inputs from the policy environment impinge on the evolution of
a particular policy. Such inputs may be designated as: ( 1 ) intersocietal inputs
stemming from significant social and technological innovation in other societies
which contribute to altered perceptions of the possible; (2) new or significant
technological advances within a society which contribute to altering, elaborating
and defining policy choices; (3) the generational dialectic - the struggle among
the generations which frequently results in conflict changing the prevailing
-

values and thereby significantly redirecting social energy and purpose.

Values of significant actors within the policy flow are affected by the social
cultural norms that overlay the field as well as by the inevitable process of recon-
ciling conflicting goals. Actor and peer group expectations of special groups -
both those that operate as amateur liaison groups, or, professional groups interested
in particular kinds of policy that have established objectives over a long period of
time - may have an impact on policy choice. Interpersonal relations based on
common value systems, value clusters, tend to aggregate and effect emergent

policy.
Similarly, the quality of the other kinds of available resources
nature and
may also affect the kind ofpolicy that emerges and the kinds of options that can
be formulated. Meager financial, professional, physical, and technological re-
sources would tend to limit and modify the options available to those concerned

with the emergence and making of public policy. Alternatively, an abundance

of expertise, financial and physical resources as well as technological support
would also have an impact on policy formation. For example, broader elaboration
of choices and options may occur under conditions of affluence although this same
situation may well increase conflict within the environment.
The availability of these two elements, power and resources, may, to some
degree, depend on the existence within the policy environment of conditions off
stability or crisis. The capacity of a minister, governor, professional staff, or any
involved actor to introduce crises into the field may alter significantly the nature
of the policy options available. The degree of criticality of crisis, the capacity to
generate crisis, the kinds of responses to bring stability, the nature of stability, the
integrative or destructive nature of the interaction processes, the success or failure
of these integrative or destructive factors, will all have profound effects on policy
choices.
Access to the policy flow of the executive, governor or administrator within
the policy-making area will be crucial to the development of policy options. It
may be hypothesized that the access of political actors is greater at times of severe
crises than at times of relative and prolonged stability. In this instance the influ-
ence of the professional staff or the expert may be far greater in shaping policy.
The question may be raised as to why the processes of destruction appear so easy,

20
R. Simmons, "The Washington State Plural Executive," Western Political Quarterly, 18
(June 1965), 374, and R. J. K. Chapman, Three Tasmanian State Government De-
partments (unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tasmania).
 465

so available and so effective and why, so often, the processes of creation so ill-
perceived, under-utilized and so threatening. Answers to this intriguing riddle may
be suggested in the empirical application of this model.
It is the assumption that policy making is non-deterministic and is dynamic
because there are always unanticipated consequences. The actors may, in practice,
act as if the consequences of their behavior were known, i.e.~ their perceptions
of the policy arena are that it is rational and can be comprehended. In reality,
unanticipated consequences occur as a result of any policy decision, largely because
it is no longer wholly the task of any single group or person to initiate policy and
carry it through to final decision. By the very nature of the complexity of policy
making, specialization is forced upon society and within the community nuclei are
formed which combine leadership potential and technical expertise. These centers
of &dquo;legal competence and special skills assembled in a formal institution adapted
to their application&dquo; offer their developed capacity in areas where there is a public
demand to be met.21 The result is that this distinctive leadership draws to itself
those interested in the accomplishment of particular tasks, sometimes creating de-
mands for activities not otherwise articulated. Alternatively, external pressures
from the community may meet with sympathetic hearing if the capacity of the
agency is oriented to meeting this demand. Those parameters designated above,
thus collectively may be identified as the policy environment.

INTERACTION
Aprimary category of concern in the model is the nature of the interaction
process. It occurs through space and time and at any particular moment may have
one or several actors and groups providing stimuli to the emerging definition of

policy. Identifiable interaction processes at particular points in time may include

the concept of policy coalescence whereby policy becomes more articulated or more
specific. Policy may be a simple response to a simple problem; a complex response
to a complex problem; or a mixture of the two. Actors and groups coalesce from
time to time to alter, modify or affect existing policy. Interaction involves specific
contacts through time among actors and groups, as well as written communication
and symbolic signals of other sorts. Identification and analysis of the contacts, and
the communication relationships and processes are the appropriate concern of the
investigator pursuing the evolution of policy. Of equal concern are the struggle and
bargaining that occur within the interaction processes. This frequently revolves
around the status struggles of the actors, rule changes and power resource utiliza-
tion that affect policy decisions. Patterns of coalescence and points of interfacing
might well be designated as a policy trail and would be comprehensible within a
research model that assesses the evolution of policy.
Policy decisions are represented by published administrative rules and regula-
tions, a statement or formal pronouncement of the concerned minister or other
political head, a legislative enactment, or a judicial decision. In any case policy
decisions relate values (implicit or explicit) to such social and physical energy,

21
G. A. Shipman, "Role of the Administrator—Policymaking as Part of the Administering
Process," in Lyden
et al., op. cit., p. 123.
466

resources and activity as is considered appropriate to the satisfaction of those

values. In complex, technological societies the impact of decisions in other than
the simplest policy arena, only become known through the passage of time. In
effect, the policy &dquo;shoe&dquo; must be worn to discover where it pinches. In such case
the wearers of the shoe (those affected by the policy) become aware - feel the
pinch of difficulties implicit in the policy. As a result they seek to modify the
-

policy. These unanticipated consequences resulting from policy impacts become

the basis for feedback into the policy environment whereby modification is sought.

REITERATION

The model is based on a view of public policy making linked with the question
of values. It places greater emphasis on the role that individuals, groups and
agencies play in relation to policy formation. The concept of policy as a conclusion
derived from a relatively rational consideration of alternatives is insufficient. Whilst
the outcome of the policy flow is the formulation of a policy decision, the focus of
the model is on the activities which lead to that end point; including feedback
from previous policy decisions. It is these activities which ultimately shape final
choice. Accumulation of material about a particular policy issue is only one part
of the task of the administrator in a technological, complex situation -

it is not
necessarily the most important part. Creation of public policy involves a large

number of random contributing forces which are not easily identified. The model
emphasizes interaction between these contributing forces and is also sensitive to
the complex feedback mechanisms involved in the environment.
It thus appears that the public policy-making process is far more subtle and
complex than the traditional decision-making or institutional approach would in-
dicate. The emphasis is therefore on interaction within the total system rather than
within isolated institutions; hence the model is designated a public policy flow
model (see Figure 1).

SUMMARY
In summary, therefore, it is hoped that the model will lead to research in a
number of areas. For example, the model could well be used to focus on the im-
portant role played by the public bureaucracy in the determination of public policy.
Administrative agencies are paramount in both shaping the content and
nature of the policy flow and subsequently in implementing policy decisions. The
concern would be to focus primarily on the relevant processes of this dimension.

Alternatively, study of the public policy-making process requires the creation

of typologies of policy issue areas. A variety of research strategies in this field is
suggested. Acknowledging the significant cost and time involvement in pre-
paring new case studies, the extant, sizable literature in policy formation case
studies should be utilized with the intent of developing new or revised typologies
of issue areas, actors and interaction. Where patterns of relationships can be
identified, hypotheses should be developed to guide future research.
The pervasive influence of culturally and institutionally determined values
suggests as a further strategy for the use of the model that extra-national case
467
468

studies be examined and compared to discover value sets underlying the shape
and direction of policy determination. Discovery of these extra-national value sets
may provide insight into the researcher’s own biases. Also, recurrent processes and
relationships may be identified and compared.
Ideally, resulting from this effort would arise the opportunity to involve an
international team of researchers to apply the model and develop methodology in
a variety of national settings. The composition of the team of co-authors of this

paper represents just such beginnings and indicates the feasibility of expanded
studies in the public policy area.