This section draws an abridged discussion of public policy from the point of view of various authority

writers of the field. It develops a broader understanding of public policy and public policy studies by
abridging and discussing the reconciled views of the authors- Sophie Schmit (2012), Wilson Wong
(2016), and Adam A. Anyone (2018)-along with the similarities and differences in their opinion about
the various aspects of public policy-description, purpose, facts, issues, components, and processes.
This discussion ultimately helps to enhance our basic understanding of public policy from a scholarly
perspective by referring them to the works of authority writers.

Description of the public policy

Many authors, for example Sophie Schmit (2012), Wilson Wong (2016), and Adam A. Anyone (2018),
consider public policy as a phenomenon that involves any action or inaction taken by the government
regarding a situation or a problem. Schmitt takes the definition from Dye, who describes the public
policy as “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (1976: 1) (2012; 29); while Wong (2016; 2)
and Aneyebe (2018; 8) lay the epistemological foundation of public policy on the same ground when
they both borrow the same definition of public policy from Anderson, i.e. a relatively stable, purposive
course of action or inaction followed by the government in dealing with a problem or matter of concern
(Anderson, 1997). The authors also share that public policy is a rational, a relatively stable, purposive
course of action or inaction in which government plays the central role (2012; 29), (2016; 2), (2018; 8).
Moreover, all the authors have emphasized that public policy is not about mere thinking or decision
making, rather it is a phenomenon that involves a complete course of action: Schmitt calls public policy
as a governmental behaviour and decisional output (2012; 30) while Wong (2016; 2) asserts that Public
policy focuses on what is done instead of what is being proposed and intended; thus, public policy
differentiates itself from a decision, which is a specific choice among alternatives.

However, the authors have different opinions on the nature and process of public policy. Schmitt's
definition (2012; 30) is a more general one that calls 'any action or inaction of government' public policy.
While Wong (2016; 2) and Aneyebe (2018; 8)are more precise and schematic by borrowing the
definition of public policy from Anderson as 'a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction'
(Anderson; 1997). In addition, Anyebe (2018; 9) defines public policy in the spectrum of political and
social theories and explicitly considers the role of other actors in defining public policy as well, which
neither Schmitt nor Wong does.

The authors reconcile that public policy is a government's practical response to any problem, demand,
or situation. They share the view that the purpose of the public policy is to put forth a solution for any
problem or situation; to bring a change in the society that could meet or tackle the demands of the
public. Schmitt (2012; 33) takes that every public policy is intended to solve a problem. Wong (2016; 3)
asserts that public policy is a response of the government to any situation while Anyebe (2018; 8)
considers that the purpose of the public policy is to determine the allocation of resources to various
sections of society.

Moreover, all the authors also share many points on the purpose of public policy studies. All the
authors are of the view that in order to have a comprehensive understanding of public policy there is a
greater need to develop a strong theoretical grounding for public policy. Therefore, All the authors have
employed theoratical and empirical tools to make a concise and comprehensive understanding of public
policy. They have emphasized over the purpose of this study in this way: Schmitt (2012; 33) states that
Public policy analysis systematically describes and explains the decisions of different governments, their
timing and content. Wong (2016; 5) holds that public policy is used as a major unit of analysis for
comparison across different systems and institutions in order to integrate theory and practice, policy
and research, and to construct either middle-range theories that compare similar countries and systems
rather than all of them or a general theory that is integrative, generalizable, universal, global, robust,
and actionable. While Anyebe (2018; 8-9) puts that public policy studies allow the investigation and
evaluation of what, how, why, and where these resources are allocated.

However, the authors diverge on how to put these studies into effect. For example, Schmitt's public
policy analysis is systematic and procedural. Wong's purpose of public policy is largely comparative and
theoretical based. Anyebe derives a more empirical-oriented purpose of public policy by explaining it in
terms of the allocation of resources.

What are the established facts in public policy/public policy studies?

Many authors such as Sophie Schmit (2012), Wilson Wong (2016), and Adam A. Anyone (2018) agree
that government is the real actor in public policy, as public policy is directly shaped and implemented by
government agencies and institutions. For example, Schmitt (2012; 31) states that it is the government
who, through various steps like legislative acts, executive decrees or administrative circulars, etc.,
designs and implements public policy; thus, it is the government that is the key actor in any public
policy. Similarly, Wong (2016; 2) holds that Government plays the role of a central and irreplaceable
defining actor. It is the presence and involvement of the government which makes the whole matter and
process “public”. In the same way, Anyebe (2018; 8) asserts that public policy is developed and
implemented by government agencies and officials, ..., so, it is the government that is the real actor in
shaping and implementing the public policy.

Moreover, they also share the opinion that several non-governmental agencies and factors also impact
the public policy indirectly; however, they consider that the role of these agencies and factors is more of
influencers rather than that real actors. For instance, Schmitt (2012: 31-32) argues that it is almost
impossible to infer governmental decisions and intentions for the public policy without determining the
impact of several non-governmental factors on the making and implementation of public policy, as these
potentially higher number of intervening factors- institutional arrangements, economic structures and
international dynamics, etc.- influence the effects of policy decisions significantly. Similarly, Wong
(2016; 2) accepts that there are also many other actors, such as non-governmental actors, that also play
a part in making a public policy due to the public nature of public policy, which allows these actors to
use their public power and authority to influence the public policy. Anyebe (2018; 8) share the same
opinion by stating that non-state players and factors may influence its process. They play the part of
influencers since they impact public policy indirectly.
In this way, All the three authors have similarities in their understanding that public policy is shaped and
implemented by the government. They all consider the government as the real authoritative body that
has an ultimate say in deciding any aspect of a public policy. The authors also have similarities in their
consideration of the non-governmental agencies and factors as playing the role of influencers and
making an indirect impact on the public policy.

However, the authors have differences in the degree and nature of influence being posed by
nongovernmental actors and factors on the public policy: For Sophie Schmitt, the influence of
nongovernmental actors on public policy is so extensive that it is "almost impossible" to determine the
infer governmental decisions and intentions for the public policy without determining the impact of
these external actors; For Wilson Wong, the role of these nongovernmental influencers is of average
degree; whereas for Adam A. Aneybe, these various influencing actors, elites, groups, etc. have a very
significant role in influencing the shaping and implementation of public policy.

What are the key issues and debates in public policy/public policy studies? [insert reconciled
description of debates]

Public policy is a domain that involves a number of theoretical and empirical debates and issues. Many
authors , for example Sophie Schmit (2012), Wilson Wong (2016), and Adam A. Anyone (2018) have
raised these issues in their studies. All these authors raise many theoratical and practical issues in public
policy and identify the gaps present in the theory and practice.For example, Schmitt (2012; 30) has
employed analytical tools and comparative approaches to reach a conclusive discussion but is ultimately
limited by the gaps between theory and practice. She finds that the conceptual heterogeneity of
applying different approaches in the literature to depict and measure the subject of public policy
delimits the comparability and consolidation of the findings. Wong (2016; 2) applies comparative
approaches but finds gaps between input and output and theory and practice. He states that although
the outcome of a public policy can be irrational and may not solve a public problem, it is often a rational
compromise among different actors involved based on their goals and incentives filtered or structured
by institutions. Anyebe (2018; 8-13) applies different theories to explain public policy and encounters
the case where he becomes unable to explain public policy from one theoretical lens. He finds that
Various groups in society are influencing and shaping the process of public policy for their interests.
However, it is not always essential that all the groups get their desired share of interest. A public policy
may entail more benefits to one group than to the other. Also, this share may keep on shifting from
group to group.

In this way, all the three authors agree that public policy study has theoretical and empirical gaps in its
discourse. All of them come up with many theoretical and empirical tools to improvise the
understanding of public policy and yet feel that the study demands further research in the future for its
proper and comprehensive explanation.
However, although the authors talk about the same issue, i.e. the gap in theory and practice but the
domain they choose to explain it is different. For instance, Schmitt (2012; 33-34) discusses the issue in
terms of the decision making process. On the other hand, Wong (2016; 3) explains it through the
concepts of rationality and collaboration. In contrast to both of them, Anyebe (2018; 9) talks in terms of
interests and distribution of resources in public policy.

What are the components (structure and function) of public policy/public policy studies? [insert
reconciled description of component]

Public policy is complex phenomenon that comprises a number of components. Many authors, for
instance Sophie Schmit (2012), Wilson Wong (2016), and Adam A. Anyone (2018) have formulated some
basic and general components of a public policy. According to these three authors, a public policy
generally consists of five components i.e. 1) Agenda setting 2) policy decisions/policy formulation 3)
Policy making 4) policy implementation 5) Policy evaluation (Schmitt, 2012), (Wong, 2016), (Anyebe,
2018).

What are the processes in evaluation/evaluation studies? [insert reconciled description of

processes]

Evaluation is the process of assessing the public policy. Various authors have employed various
processes to evaluate public policy in their own way. For example, Schmitt (2012; 29-30) has evaluated
public policy through three analytical patterns: comparative approaches, policy-making patterns, i.e.
policy diffusion, policy convergence, policy termination or policy dismantling; and the process-oriented
strands of comparative policy, i.e. lesson-drawing analysis, policy transfer perspective, and Institutional
analysis. On the other hand, Wong (2016; 4) has compared and evaluatedthe public policies of different
systems and institutions, usually countries or governments by applying three comparative approaches,
i.e. using the comparative method, comparing theories across institutional configurations, and
comparing theories to one another. While Anyebe (2018) has evaluated public policies from the
framework of certain theoretical approaches. He has carried out a critical examination of the public
policies in the set spectrum of political and social theories, like elite theory, group theory, political
systems theory and institutionalism, policy output analysis, incremental theory and rational-choice
theory to determine their vitality and validity.

By all these means, the authors attempt to lay empirical and theoretical foundations for public policy so
that public policy can be studied, devised, implemented, and evaluated in broader and more systematic
ways. They all adopt systematic methods of applying disciplinary approaches and theories to
conceptualise and evaluate public policy. They all firmly believe that systematic analysis is essential to
understand the public policy better.
However, all the three authors differ in the method of adopting and implementing various approaches
and theories for evaluating and analyzing public policy. The first two authors employ interdisciplinary
approaches of comparative public policy ( and they both also differ in the application of comparative
approaches), while the third one uses political and social theories to conceptualize and generalize the
understanding of public policy.

The authors attempt to lay empirical and theoretical foundations for public policy so that public
policy can be studied, devised, implemented, and evaluated in broader and more systematic ways.

Just because a policy happens to be a 'public policy' does not necessarily entail that it is benign,
example: Apartheid was a policy which most people nowadays would agree was abhorrent. (p. 69)

The conceptual heterogeneity of applying different approaches in the literature to depict and
measure the subject of public policy delimits the comparability and consolidation of the findings (p. 30).

Although the outcome of a public policy can be irrational and may not solve a public problem, it
is often a rational compromise among different actors involved based on their goals and incentives
filtered or structured by institutions. (p. 2)

Various groups in society are influencing and shaping the process of public policy for their
interests. However, it is not always essential that all the groups get their desired share of interest. A
public policy may entail more benefits to one group than to the other (p.8-12). Also, this share may keep
on shifting from group to group.

All the authors raise theory-related issues in public policy and identify the gaps present in the
theory and practice. Schmitt employs analytical tools and comparative approaches to reach a conclusive
discussion but is ultimately limited by the gaps between theory and practice. Wong applies comparative
approaches but finds gaps between input and output and theory and practice. Anyebe applies different
theories to explain public policy and encounters the case where he becomes unable to explain public
policy from one theoretical lens.

The authors talk about the same issue, i.e. gap in theory and practice but the domain they
choose to explain it is different. Schmitt discusses the issue in terms of the decision making process.
Wong explains it through the concepts of rationality and collaboration. Anyebe talks in terms of
interests and distribution of resources in public policy.
 All the authors agree that public policy study has theoretical and empirical gaps in its discourse.
All of them come up with many theoretical and empirical tools to improvise the understanding of public
policy and yet feel that the study demands further research in the future for its proper and
comprehensive explanation.

However, there are also many other actors, such as non-governmental actors, that also play a
part in making a public policy due to the public nature of public policy, which allows these actors to use
their public power and authority to influence the public policy. (p. 2)

Public policy is developed and implemented by government agencies and officials, though non-state
players and factors may influence its process. So, it is the government that is the real actor in shaping
and implementing the public policy, while non-governmental agencies play the part of influencers since
they impact public policy indirectly (p. 8)

All the authors have similarities in their understanding that public policy is shaped and implemented by
the government. They all consider the government as the real authoritative body that has an ultimate
say in deciding any aspect of a public policy. The authors also have similarities in their consideration of
the non-governmental agencies and factors as playing the role of influencers and making an indirect
impact on the public policy.

The authors have differences in the degree and nature of influence being posed by
nongovernmental actors and factors on the public policy: For Sophie Schmitt, the influence of
nongovernmental actors on public policy is so extensive that it is "almost impossible" to determine the
infer governmental decisions and intentions for the public policy without determining the impact of
these external actors; For Wilson Wong, the role of these nongovernmental influencers is of average
degree; and for Adam A. Aneybe, these various influencing actors, elites, groups, etc. have a very
significant role in influencing the shaping and implementation of public policy.

All the authors agree that government is the real actor in public policy, as public policy is directly
shaped and implemented by government agencies and institutions. They also agree that several non-
governmental agencies and factors also impact the public policy indirectly; however, they consider that
the role of these agencies and factors is more of influencers rather than that real actors.

Public policy analysis systematically describes and explains the decisions of different governments, their
timing and content.
public policy is used as a major unit of analysis for comparison across different systems and institutions
in order to integrate theory and practice, policy and research, and to construct either middle-range
theories that compare similar countries and systems rather than all of them or a general theory that is
integrative, generalizable, universal, global, robust, and actionable. (p.5-6)

Public policy determines the allocation of resources to various sections of society. Public policy studies
allow the investigation and evaluation of what, how, why, and where these resources are allocated (p. 8-
9).

All the authors employ theoratical and empirical tools to make a concise and comprehensive
understanding of public policy.

Schmitt's public policy analysis is systematic and procedural. Wong's purpose of public policy is largely
comparative and theoretical based. Anyebe derives a more empirical-oriented purpose of public policy
by explaining it in terms of the allocation of resources.

They all emphasize a systematic and theory-oriented study of public policy to apply it theoretically and
practically.

In addition, all the authors have similar generalizations about the public policy, i.e. 'the action or
inaction of the government'. Schmitt takes the definition from Dye, who describes the public policy as
“whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (1976: 1) (2012; 29); while Wong and Aneyebe lay
the epistemological foundation of public policy on the same ground when they both borrow the same
definition of public policy from Anderson, i.e. a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction
followed by the government in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. (2016; 2), (2018; 8),
(Anderson, 1997). Moreover, All the authors clarify that public policy is something more practical than
mere thinking or decision making: Schmitt calls public policy as a governmental behaviour and
decisional output (2012; 30) while Wong asserts that Public policy focuses on what is done instead of
what is being proposed and intended (2016; 2).

Moreover, All the authors clarify that public policy is not about mere thinking or decision making,
rather it is a phenomenon that involves a complete course of action. Schmitt calls public policy as a
governmental behaviour and decisional output (2012; 30) while Wong asserts that Public policy focuses
on what is done instead of what is being proposed and intended; thus, public policy differentiates itself
from a decision, which is a specific choice among alternatives. (2016; 2).

itself or by its collaboration with various other state and non-state actors to achieve public welfare and
stability. It is a rational, purposive course of action or inaction in which government plays the central
role while many other non-state actors may play the secondary role by influencing it in various ways.
Public policy process involves many steps such as agenda-setting, policy formulation, decision making,
policy implementation, policy evaluation.

[insert reconciled description of description]

Public policy is an attempt to define and structure a rational basis for action or inaction (p. 68).
•   Public policy is not a strategy, it is an accepted or proposed course of conduct, and a strategy may
contain a number of policies (p. 69). • Public
policy is concerned with the future (p. 69). The chapter takes the definition from Dye, who
describes the public policy as “whatever governments choose to do or not to do” (1976: 1) (p.29).

• Public Policy is governmental behaviour and decisional output (p. 30). The chapter borrows
the definition of public policy from James E. Anderson, who defines it as a relatively stable, purposive
course of action or inaction followed by the government in dealing with a problem or matter of concern
(Anderson, 1997). (p. 2).

• Public policy focuses on what is done instead of what is being proposed and intended; thus, public
policy differentiates itself from a decision, which is a specific choice among alternatives. (p. 2).

• Pubic policy is something that unfolds over time (p. 2)

The article borrows the definition of public policy from James E. Anderson, who defines public
policy as a relatively stable, purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing
with a problem or a matter of concern (Anderson, 1997). (p.8).

 • Author defines public policy from the perspective of different theoretical approaches and considers
the validity and limitation of each definition. Accordingly, public policy is 
 -the product of the group struggle (p.11).

 -by and large, the mirror image of the ruling elite "s interest (p. 9).
 The political system's response to demands from its environment (p. 13). 

 -a rational decision-making (p.15).

All the authors have similar generalizations about the public policy, i.e. 'the action or inaction of the
government'. Moreover, Wong and Aneyebe lay the epistemological foundation of public policy on the
same ground when they both borrow the same definition of public policy from Anderson, i.e. a relatively
stable, purposive course of action or inaction followed by the government in dealing with a problem or
matter of concern. (Anderson, 1997) (p. 2), (p.8).
 The authors have different opinions on the nature and process of public policy. Schmitt's definition is a
more general one that calls 'any action or inaction of government' public policy. While Wong and
Aneyebe are more precise and schematic by borrowing the definition of public policy from Anderson as
'a relatively stable, purposive course of action or inaction'; In addition, Anyebe defines public policy in
the spectrum of political and social theories and considers the role of other actors in defining public
policy as well, which neither Schmitt nor Wong does.

All the authors share that public policy is the 'action or inaction of the government' regarding a specific
situation or problem. They have also reconciled that government is the main agent of any public policy.

What is the purpose of public policy/public policy studies? [insert reconciled description of
purpose]

The Batho Pele principles (public policy), that were promulgated in 1997 to regulate the conduct
of civil servants in their dealings with the public, are used as a standard against which to benchmark
some of the points that are raised (p. 67).

Public policy analysis systematically describes and explains the decisions of different
governments, their timing and content.

public policy is used as a major unit of analysis for comparison across different systems and institutions
in order to integrate theory and practice, policy and research, and to construct either middle-range
theories that compare similar countries and systems rather than all of them or a general theory that is
integrative, generalizable, universal, global, robust, and actionable. (p.5-6)

Public policy determines the allocation of resources to various sections of society. Public policy studies
allow the investigation and evaluation of what, how, why, and where these resources are allocated (p. 8-
9).

All the authors employ theoratical and empirical tools to make a concise and comprehensive
understanding of public policy.

Schmitt's public policy analysis is systematic and procedural. Wong's purpose of public policy is largely
comparative and theoretical based. Anyebe derives a more empirical-oriented purpose of public policy
by explaining it in terms of the allocation of resources.

They all emphasize a systematic and theory-oriented study of public policy to apply it theoretically and
practically.
What are the established facts in public policy/public policy studies? [insert reconciled description of
facts]

The agent of public policy-making is a government, and when we talk about public policies we
speak of actions of governments. Although organisations, interest groups, and private individuals
influence what governments do, the decisions or activities of such groups do not in themselves
constitute public policy (p.68-69).

It is the government who, through various steps like legislative acts, executive decrees or administrative
circulars, etc., designs and implements public policy; thus, it is the government that is the key actor in
any public policy. However, the author argues, it is almost impossible to infer governmental decisions
and intentions for the public policy without determining the impact of several non-governmental factors
on the making and implementation of public policy, as these potentially higher number of intervening
factors- institutional arrangements, economic structures and international dynamics, etc.- influence the
effects of policy decisions significantly.

Government plays the role of a central and irreplaceable defining actor. It is the presence and
involvement of the government which makes the whole matter and process “public.” However, there
are also many other actors, such as non-governmental actors, that also play a part in making a public
policy due to the public nature of public policy, which allows these actors to use their public power and
authority to influence the public policy. (p. 2)

Public policy is developed and implemented by government agencies and officials, though non-state
players and factors may influence its process. So, it is the government that is the real actor in shaping
and implementing the public policy, while non-governmental agencies play the part of influencers since
they impact public policy indirectly (p. 8)

All the authors have similarities in their understanding that public policy is shaped and implemented by
the government. They all consider the government as the real authoritative body that has an ultimate
say in deciding any aspect of a public policy. The authors also have similarities in their consideration of
the non-governmental agencies and factors as playing the role of influencers and making an indirect
impact on the public policy.

The authors have differences in the degree and nature of influence being posed by
nongovernmental actors and factors on the public policy: For Sophie Schmitt, the influence of
nongovernmental actors on public policy is so extensive that it is "almost impossible" to determine the
infer governmental decisions and intentions for the public policy without determining the impact of
these external actors; For Wilson Wong, the role of these nongovernmental influencers is of average
degree; and for Adam A. Aneybe, these various influencing actors, elites, groups, etc. have a very
significant role in influencing the shaping and implementation of public policy.
 All the authors agree that government is the real actor in public policy, as public policy is directly
shaped and implemented by government agencies and institutions. They also agree that several non-
governmental agencies and factors also impact the public policy indirectly; however, they consider that
the role of these agencies and factors is more of influencers rather than that real actors.

What are the key issues and debates in public policy/public policy studies? [insert reconciled
description of debates]

Just because a policy happens to be a 'public policy' does not necessarily entail that it is benign,
example: Apartheid was a policy which most people nowadays would agree was abhorrent. (p. 69)

The conceptual heterogeneity of applying different approaches in the literature to depict and
measure the subject of public policy delimits the comparability and consolidation of the findings (p. 30).

Although the outcome of a public policy can be irrational and may not solve a public problem, it
is often a rational compromise among different actors involved based on their goals and incentives
filtered or structured by institutions. (p. 2)

Various groups in society are influencing and shaping the process of public policy for their
interests. However, it is not always essential that all the groups get their desired share of interest. A
public policy may entail more benefits to one group than to the other (p.8-12). Also, this share may keep
on shifting from group to group.

All the authors raise theory-related issues in public policy and identify the gaps present in the
theory and practice. Schmitt employs analytical tools and comparative approaches to reach a conclusive
discussion but is ultimately limited by the gaps between theory and practice. Wong applies comparative
approaches but finds gaps between input and output and theory and practice. Anyebe applies different
theories to explain public policy and encounters the case where he becomes unable to explain public
policy from one theoretical lens.

The authors talk about the same issue, i.e. gap in theory and practice but the domain they
choose to explain it is different. Schmitt discusses the issue in terms of the decision making process.
Wong explains it through the concepts of rationality and collaboration. Anyebe talks in terms of
interests and distribution of resources in public policy.

All the authors agree that public policy study has theoretical and empirical gaps in its discourse.
All of them come up with many theoretical and empirical tools to improvise the understanding of public
policy and yet feel that the study demands further research in the future for its proper and
comprehensive explanation.
What are the components (structure and function) of public policy/public policy studies? [insert
reconciled description of component]

• Agenda Setting • Policy Formulation

• Decision Making • Policy Implementation
• Policy Evaluation (p. 71).

• Agenda setting

• policy decisions/policy formulation

• Policy making

• Policy concensus or disagreement

• policy implementation

• Policy evaluation

(p. 29-30)

<not discussed>

<not discussed>

The aspect of 'components' of public policy is not discussed in the given Wong's chapter and Aneybe's
article. only Schmitt's chapter discusses the components of public policy which are similar to the given
example in

• Agenda Setting • Policy Formulation •

Decision Making • Policy Implementation •
Policy Evaluation
The aspect of 'components' of public policy is not discussed in the given Wong's chapter and Aneybe's
article. only Schmitt's chapter discusses the components of public policy, which are different from the
given example in just one additional component, i.e. Policy consensus or disagreement.

The aspect of 'components' of public policy is not discussed in the given Wong's chapter and Aneybe's
article. only Schmitt's chapter discusses the components of public policy which reconcil with the given
example in

• Agenda Setting • Policy Formulation •

Decision Making • Policy Implementation •
Policy Evaluation

What are the processes in evaluation/evaluation studies? [insert reconciled description of

processes]

<Not discussed>

Public policy is evaluated through three analytical patterns: comparative approaches, policy-making
patterns, i.e. policy diffusion, policy convergence, policy termination or policy dismantling; and the
process-oriented strands of comparative policy, i.e. lesson-drawing analysis, policy transfer perspective,
and Institutional analysis (p. 29-30).

The public policies of different systems and institutions, usually countries or governments, are
compared and evaluated by applying three comparative approaches, i.e. using the comparative method,
comparing theories across institutional configurations, and comparing theories to one another. (p. 4)

Public policies are evaluated from the framework of certain theoretical approaches. A critical
examination of the public policies is carried out in the set spectrum of political and social theories, like
elite theory, group theory, political systems theory and institutionalism, policy output analysis,
incremental theory and rational-choice theory to determine their vitality and validity.

They all adopt systematic methods of applying disciplinary approaches and theories to
conceptualise and evaluate public policy. They all firmly believe that systematic analysis is essential to
understand the public policy better.
 The studies differ in adopting and implementing various approaches and theories for evaluating
and analyzing public policy. The first two authors employ interdisciplinary approaches to comparative
public policy ( and they both also differ in the application of comparative approaches), while the third
one uses political and social theories to conceptualize and generalize the understanding of public policy.

The authors attempt to lay empirical and theoretical foundations for public policy so that public
policy can be studied, devised, implemented, and evaluated in broader and more systematic ways.