ABSTRACT: Political and social scientists have developed many theories, models and

approaches for analysing policy-making. The theoretical approaches include elite theory, group
theory, political systems theory and institutionalism, policy output analysis, incremental theory
and rational-choice theory which are primarily concerned with public policy-making as a
process. This paper therefore, attempts to examine each theory, pointing out its strengths and
limitations. The study relied heavily on secondary sources for data collection. The paper reveals
that one cannot authoritatively see which of these theoretical approaches is the best or the most
satisfactory as each approach focuses on different aspects of policy-making, and this seems more
useful for understanding some situations or events than others. It is, therefore, wise not to be
bound too dogmatically to one approach. A good rule for the policy maker is to be eclectic and
flexible, and to draw from theories that seem most useful for the satisfactory and fair-minded
description and explanation of policies. The objective explanation of political behaviour rather
than the validation of one’s preferred theoretical approach should be the goal of political inquiry.
Each of the theories discussed, if drawn upon skilfully and selectively, can contribute to a better
understanding of policy-making. Keywords: Public Policy, Group Theory, Elite Theory,
Incremental Theory, Rational-Choice Theory, Systems Theory

INTRODUCTION In order to understand the theories of public policy analysis and decision
making, it is important first to conceptualize theory. Although there is no universally accepted
definition of the term “theory”, we can, however, define theory as “a set of tested propositions
regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of
phenomena.” According to Marume (2016), there are three definitions of a theory stated as: 1. A
rationally thought out explanation of some empirically observed phenomenon consisting of a set
of interrelated principles that describe relationship observed in association with that phenomenon
for the purposes of understanding, explaining, predicting and, possibly, seeking evaluation of the
results, and eventual control of the events. 2. A generalization that draws general conclusions
from specific phenomena. 3. A theory is a kind of generalization, the validity of which has still to
be proved by subsequent observation. For the purpose of this chapter, we adopt Kerlinger’s
definition which states that a theory is “a set of interrelated constructs (concepts), definitions,
and propositions that present a systematic view of a phenomena by specifying relations among
variables with the purpose of explaining and predicting the phenomena” (Kerlinger, 1986).
Public policy analysis is the activity of creating knowledge of and in the policy-making process.
Public policy analysis/decision making is the “thinking man’s response” to demands. It involves:

1. A primary concern with explanation rather than prescription;

2. A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies; and

3. An effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and consequences of public
policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of general relevance.

THEORIES OF PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS AND DECISION MAKING

To understand what is public policy analysis and decision making is to understand the theories
that can suggest some of the general causes and consequences of the former. Specifically, this
chapter examines public policy analysis and decision making from the perspective of the
following theories:

Institutional theory This theory assumes that that political activity generally revolves around
particular institutions like the legislature (or parliament), the executive (or presidency), the
judiciary (or courts), the political parties, etc. Therefore, public policy is authoritatively decided,
executed, and enforced by these institutions. Public policy is determined by government
institutions, which give policy legitimacy. The government universally applies policy to all
citizens of society and monopolizes the use of force in applying policy. The legislature,
executive and judicial branches of government are examples of institutions that give policy
legitimacy. Iglupas (2015) affirms that governmental institutions give public policy three
distinctive features. First of all, the government lends legitimacy to policies. Because of that,
governmental policies are generally regarded as legal obligation which commands cooperation to
the citizens. Second, public policy involves universality.

GROUP THEORY The Group theory of public policy analysis can be summarized as follows:
Politics is the process by which social values are Authoritatively allocated. This is done by
decisions. The decisions are produced by activities, each activity is not something separate from
every other, but masses of activity have common tendencies as regards decisions. These masses
of activity are groups. So, the the struggle between groups or interests determine what decisions
are made (Ikelegbe, 1996: 34). This theory asserts that individuals with common interests group
together formally or informally to push demands upon the government. Interactions among
individuals and groups are inevitable in politics. As averred centuries ago by Aristotle, “man by
nature is a social animal”, human beings have the natural instinct to associate themselves with
people in which they shared same interest. Within the context of political science, a group is an
essential bridge between individual and the government. Politics provides the ground for struggle
among different groups in order to influence public policy. Public policy ultimately moves in the
direction desired by the groups that have more influence and away from the desires of groups
with little or no influence. The influence of groups is determined by their numbers, wealth,
organizational strength, leadership and access to decision-makers (Iglupas, 2015). The central
practice of this theory is that interaction among groups is a critical ingredient in politics. 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
(Anyebe, 2018). This type of competition between groups, according to Egonmwan (2000),
determines the pattern of allocation of societal resources. 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

ELITE THEORY The basic assumption of this theory is the preferences and values of
(governing) elites. The theory postulates that public policy reflects the values and preferences of
the elite class, rather than the demands of the masses. It is the elites, according to the theory, that
make policies, while administrators and bureaucrats implement the elites’ policy decisions
(Ikelegbe, 1996: 33). Elite theory suggests that “the people” are apathetic and ill-informed about
public policy; that the elites are the ones who actually shape mass opinion. Hence, public policy
often turns out to be the preferences of the elite. Policies flow downward from elites to masses;
they do not necessarily arise from mass demands. Policies might sometimes be in the masses’
interest, even though the long term interest may be that of the elites. The elites are not
necessarily those in government but are found in all sectors of society tele-guiding and
manipulating political power and policies from behind the scene (Ujo, 1994). Geraint (1969)
averred in his book The Political Elites that public policy reflects the values and preferences of
the elites, rather than the demands of the masses. Elite theory can be summarized as follows:
1.) Society is divided into the few who have the power and the many who do not. Only a small
number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.

2.) Elites are drawn disproportionally from the upper socioeconomic strata of the society.

3.) Public policy does not reflect the demands of the masses but rather the prevailing values of
the elite.

system to forces brought to bear upon it form the environment. The environment is any condition
or circumstance defined as external to the boundaries of the political system. The political
system is the group of interrelated structures and processes which function authoritatively to
allocate values for a society. The output of the political system is the authoritative value
allocations of the system, and these allocations constitute of public policy. Systems theory
portrays public policy as an output of the political system. The concept of system implies an
identifiable set of institutions and activities in the society that function to transform demands into
authoritative decisions requiring the support of the whole society (Iglupas, 2015). Inputs are
received into the political system in the form of both demands and support. At the same time,
demands occur when individuals or groups, in response to real or perceived environmental
conditions, act to affect public policy.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Problem identification is a logical starting point in the policy cycle in which problems that
require the government’s attention to find solutions are described. At this stage, the policy
activities emphasized problem identification, resources description, and issues prioritization by
using a statement of the policy (Nakamura & Smallwood, 1980). The first stage in the policy
cyclic model is agenda-setting which can also be mentioned as “Definition of Problem”
or Rationale in the ROAMEF Model. A problem must exist before the creation of the policy
which can attract the attention of the government. After the problem is recognized, the policy is
formulated to resolve the issue. At this step, public policy is typically manifested by consultation
of individual citizens or interest groups, debates, and discussions among government officials.
The nature of the problem and identification of the problem with its historical
background is explained. This procedure often engaged that whether the public is aware of the
problem and who is affected. “No policy response is likely to be effective without a
clear definition of the issue. It is very essential that public issues need to be thoroughly
deliberated with identified actors and possible means that are available” (Dye, 2013). “The most
critical step in the policy process is defining the problem because this can have a serious impact
on what circumstance/action will be taken towards the policy agenda, what policy alternatives
will be
chosen, and how the policy will be implemented” (Cooper, Fusarelli, & Randall, 2004).
Conventionally, there are four phases of policy formation: Describing the public issues
i. Consultations about challenging policy solutions
ii. Evaluation of specific policy results.
iii. Acceptance of common issues of implementation (Silver, Weitzman, & Brecher,
2002)
When an issue takes the form of the policy after openly defining and stating, the
challenging and diverse solutions are argued about the issue, and policy choice is agreed upon. In
the policy formulation phase, the study of the best suitable solutions of the policy is followed by
the statement of the problem.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

 It is dynamic in nature, which means that it is susceptible to ongoing changes.

 It makes the most of available possibilities and outlines strategies for overcoming
challenges in the pursuit of a goal.
 It refers to a pattern of behavior carried out by an individual, a group, or the government.
 It is an activity that involves actors and components from both the government and non-
government organizations, among other things. Importance of Governmental Regulations

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study on Theoretical Approaches to Study the Public Policy: An Analysis of the Process
Model/Cyclic Model was exploratory in nature. The research design was qualitative. The data
was collected through secondary sources which includes research articles published in
various journals and available on online sites. Moreover, data was also collected through books
written on public policy by some foreign and local authors.
LITERATURE REVIEW

The policy science were consciously framed as being problem oriented quite explicitly
“The policy sciences were consciously framed as being problem-oriented, quite explicitly
addressing public policy issue and posing recommendations for their relief, while openly
rejecting the study of a phenomenon for its own sake” (Lasswell, 1956). For policy research,
scholars of policy studies tried to incorporate the consequences of the first/prime policy studies
into a theoretical framework (Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1981). Consequently, for analysis of
policies, they are producing a variety of models that concentrated mainly on different problems
of policymaking. Therefore, the initial movement of policy studies could not appropriately reveal
the frameworks for the implementation of policies and the results of those frameworks on policy
outcomes. Resultantly, policy researchers and scholars started to identify the policy as a
THEATRICAL PROCEDURE.
The problems of public policy are basically challenging and intrinsically are multi-
disciplinary. Different techniques which can support diverse perspectives indulge
numerous
stakeholders and demand different bases of information for the investigation, analysis, and
backing of decision-making in public policy

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study on Theoretical Approaches to Study the Public Policy: An Analysis of the
Process Model/Cyclic Model was exploratory in nature. The research design was qualitative. The
data was collected through secondary sources which includes research articles published
in
Various journals and available on online sites. Moreover, data was also collected through books
Written on public policy by some foreign and local authors.
THEORETICAL APPROACHES/MODELS
Political science has established a variety of models to be familiar with political life like
other scientific disciplines. These are the incremental model, rational model, process model,
public choice model, institutional model, political system model, group model, and elite model
(Dye, 2013). The theoretical approaches that are primarily connected with public policy
formulation are rational-choice theory, incremental theory, policy output analysis, political
System theory and institutionalism, group theory, and elite theory (Anyebe, 2018). The policy
Sciences methodology is intentionally normative or focused on values. The periodic subject of
the policy sciences deals with democratic philosophy in various cases. The placement of value is
mostly in response to behaviorism. To comprehend an issue, its significance apparatuses must be
recognized. This research work explores diverse theories of public policy as follows:
Rational Model (Rationalism)
Imposed by given conditions and constraints”.
The emergence of the Garbage-Cane model was a critique of the rational model.
According to this model, the organizations could not function as computers to solve the problems
whereas they function like Garbage-Cans. A mixture of problems and solutions is poured into it
with the specific mixture determining the decision results.
System Analysis Model by David Easton
David Easton interpreted the system theory in 1953 in political studies. Every political
system is formulated by different sub-clusters which perform various duties; also it is a mixture
of the duties to spinning the whole structure as relative to humanity (Olaniyi J. O., 1995). The
system theory of David Easton may be described as two way traffic among the rulers and ruled
which is clearly taught as:
Demands and support from the social order are called input however influential decisions and
policies are called output.
Data presentation
We applied the analytic framework by: first, describing the elite group and their different sources
of power, second, identifying elite interests of altruism, pragmatism and self-interest as the main
analytic themes, and different forms of power applied by the actors to pursue their identified
interests during the policy process (Figure 3). Since actors are identifiable with the various
policies (they are listed in the acknowledgement sections of policy documents), we made limited
and cautious use of explicit examples of policies in the presentation of findings. Instead,
emphasis was put on elaborating the elite interests underpinning the maternal health policies we
considered and the different forms of power at play.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This chapter discusses five competing theories that attempt to explain why policy makers
develop policy, and concludes with a focus on the policy process model, which is widely used in
the study of public policy. Elite theory explains how governing elites, or a small group of leaders
(elected, business, professional, celebrity, or other prominent individual), can dominate in
shaping policy. Group theory views policy making as a continual struggle for balance among the
competing interests of various interest groups. The advocacy coalition framework suggests that
policy actors from different public and private organizations and levels of government share a
similar perspective and tries to influence policy over time. Institutional theory emphasizes the
role of government—how government is structured, its legal powers, and rules for policy
making. The policy process model or policy cycle presents a logical sequence of six stages in
policy making. The first stage, problem definition and agenda setting, refers to the way that
problems are chosen for policy making. Problem definition is an important step involving
analysis of the causes of public problems; a person’s perspective and background determine how
he or she defines a problem and relates to it. Agenda setting occurs when legislators begin active
discussions about a problem and potential solutions, and the issue is “on the agenda.” A systemic
agenda is one being debated by the public, while an institutional agenda, or government agenda,
is out of the public eye. The second stage, policy formulation, occurs when courses of public
action are proposed in government. Third, policy legitimation, is defined as a political exercise of
giving legal force to decisions through a legislative vote or use of government authority. Policy
implementation is the fourth stage, in which activities such as organizing, interpreting, and
applying are directed toward putting a policy into effect. The last two stages are called policy
evaluation and policy change. Policies are assessed to determine their efficacy in achieving
stated goals and objectives and then adapted or revised to achieve greater outcomes and address
the problem fully.

REFERENCES

Dye, T. (1976). Understanding Public Policy. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Egonmwan, J.A.
(2000). Public Policy Analysis: Concepts and Applications.
Benin City: Resyin Nig. Ltd.

Etzioni, A. (1967). Mixed Scanning: A Third Approach to Decision Making. Public

Administration Review, 27.

Geraint, P. (1969). The Political Elites. London: George Allen and Urwin. Iglupas, J.G.E.
(2015). Theories of Public Policy Making Process. (Online Resource) Retrieved from
https://www.scribd.com/presentation/121467397/Decision-MakingTheories on 20th October,
2019.

Ikeanyibe, O.M. (2013). Public Policy in Nigeria: Perspectives on Social Policy and
Administration. Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Publishers Ltd.

Ikelegbe, A.O. (1996). Public Policy Making and Analysis. Benin City: Uri Publishing Ltd.
Ikelegbe, A.O. (2005) Public Policy Analysis: Concepts, Issues and Cases. Benin City: Imprint
Services. Jenkins, W. (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political and Organization Perspective.
Morton: Robertson Press.