 How do interest groups affect the procedure of policy analysis?

 How Interest groups influence the Policy-Making process?

Describe with concerns about political influence of Interest
Groups and Wealth in policy making.

Interest groups are such organised groups in which members share

common views and objectives and actively carry on programmes to
influence government institutions, officials, and policies. These
groups are not like political parties as they do not seek to win control
of and operate the government. These are primarily interested in
influencing those public policies that directly or indirectly affect their
interests. Such groups vary considerably in size, wealth, power, and
objectives. Their methods of operation, however, are quite similar to
each other and include lobbying and propagandising to influence
public opinion and government institutions. Interest groups seek to
influence decisions in the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Individuals in society join hands with each other quite easily when
they have common self-interests. In the political system, especially in
a representative democracy, the individual is free to become a
member of any political party whose ideology appeals to him most.
Normally, an individual is not in a position to exercise any
meaningful influence on the functionaries of a political party for
making a policy suitable to his interests. Hence, for the protection of
their common interests and views, individuals join hands and form
interest groups for exercising influence over the governmental policy-
making agencies.
Whatever be the nature of the polity-totalitarian, dictatorial, or
democratic-the interest group's role in public policy cannot be
eliminated.

Influence by interest groups on policymaking is not a corrupt or

unlawful action in and of itself, but rather a necessary part of the
decision-making process. However, Excessive interest group
influence may result in administrative corruption, undue influence,
favouring certain interest groups at the expense of the general interest.
Transparency is thus essential to ensuring that policymakers do not
favour certain interest groups.

INTEREST GROUPS & POLICY-MAKING

Interest groups may be divided into three types based on their

motivation:
 Economic ( Individual firms or corporate organisations)
 Professional (Labour Union, Farmers etc)
 Social Interest (Environmental organisations or Human Rights
organisations)
Interest groups may seek to influence legislative action directly or
indirectly through consultants/lawyers (lobbyists). These attempts to
influence policymaking can take many forms, including direct
engagement with government officials, participation in public
hearings, producing reports to members of the government on specific
policy concerns, and media commentary.
However, the benefits and drawbacks of interest group influence will
vary depending on how much power such organisations have. For
example, a corporate group’s excessive power can lead to undue
influence or even state capture. Thus, the interaction between
policymakers and interest groups must tread a narrow line between
participatory democracy and excessive influence.

INFLUENCE

There is no evidence of the real benefits that interest groups’

influence on decision making can provide. Interest groups can help
policymakers by giving useful information and insight data on
specific subjects. They also represent interests that may be badly and
unwillingly impacted by an inappropriate public policy. Furthermore,
they play a vital role in holding the government responsible for their
policy.
According to Dür (2008), measuring the influence interest groups
have on public policy can be a challenge due to multiple factors. He
highlights a few key factors, the first one being the fact that interest
groups use different methods through which they do their tactics
(such as direct and indirect lobbying) and this makes it difficult to
determine who their target audience is and if they have managed to
persuade them. The second cause, he states, is that even if an interest
group does not manage to move an outcome into a preferred direction,
this does not necessarily mean that the group lacked influence, this
could be because the counter lobby groups was more influential,
simply in the sense that the latter group avoided an even worse
outcome compared to the former. Lastly, he argues that there are
many stages involved in the decision-making process of determining
public policies so it is difficult to discern at what point the interest
groups might have influenced the policy-makers and process of
policy-analysis.

DISADVANTAGES

1. Excessive Influence and State Capture:

Interest group influence may sometimes lead to political corruption,
excessive influence, and state capture if it is disproportionate. Unlike
bribery and corruption, which are more evident kinds of corruption,
undue or excessive influence of any particular interest group is more
subtle and not always illegal.
Disproportionate and unregulated influence by interest groups may
also result in state capture, which occurs when any firms shape and
influence the formulation of laws and regulations through illicit
private payments to public officials and politicians, such as illicit
contributions paid by private interests to political parties and election
campaigns.
State-owned or privatised firms, for example, are expected to
maintain significant access to and relationships with public officials,
boosting their influence on the state without resorting to unlawful
payments.
2. Addressing the Influence of Interest Groups:
Complete openness is necessary to avoid the negative effects of
interest group influence on policy making. As a result, a diverse set of
rules should be enacted, as, lobbying registration and freedom of
information legislation.

3. Regulation of Lobbying:
Lobbying registries are essential for making interest group actions
more open and accountable. Lobbyists’ identities, issue areas, goals,
strategies, and financial information should ideally be made public
through registration systems. Effective implementation will also need
strong supervision and enforcement measures.

Concerns about Political Influence of Interest Groups and

Wealth -

Many academics and public intellectuals have expressed worry about

the power of special interest groups and wealth in policymaking.
There are, of course, legislative laws governing interest groups and
the use of wealth in politics, but the number of interest groups
continues to expand, and wealth is utilised in a variety of ways, both
visible and covert. The demands on government for continuous
improvement in the quality of life, as well as the need to compete
with other nations for economic, cultural, and military superiority, are
so great that government expands to the point where citizens can no
longer relate to it, large budget deficits are created, and government is
no longer capable of solving problems or serving the national interest.

CONCLUSION
Interest groups show the commonality of the members of a group in
terms of their interests or shared beliefs, give them a basis for
working together. In the course of their growth they get organised and
acquire the right of access to influential authority in government
public policy actions. The level of their influence in public policy-
making depends upon the level of their organisation. In a system of
representative democracy, which India has, the interest groups
influence political process through various ways such as funding
election expenses of the parties, mobilising the support of the
voters etc. The more organised an interest group is, the more
influential it is in the political process, and so in the public policy-
making. An organised interest group can effectively press its demands
in the policy process in government.
However, in a representative democracy, since it embodies the
concept of justice, the claims of the unorganised groups such as
women or agricultural labourers, are not totally neglected. But in
India's representative democracy justice has not prevailed fully, and
hence, the major tendency of the public policy-making is directed
towards the claims of the dominant interest groups such as industrial
capitalists or the rich farmers.

 How Social movements influence the making of public

policy?

Many social movements throughout India’s history have had a

significant impact on the society in which they happened. There have
been numerous social movements that have been both successful and
unsuccessful. These movements’ ideologies have varied widely; some
have been revolutionary in their agenda, others have recommended
reforms to the existing system, and still others have been struggling
for a change and have worked to oppose laws and changes in society
that appear difficult for the public to accept. The scope of social
movements has also expanded. Social movements can be found in
every society, past or present. Their nature, extent, and frequency
change with time. During the early stages of political development,
social movements formed the state, its roles and obligations, and held
the state accountable. They also played a major role in the
administration and distribution of power in numerous sectors of
society. They have played a significant part in contemporary times in
questioning the government and authority, foreign norms, and
totalitarian regimes. It does not really matter if it’s the French and
Russian revolutions, the Indian independence struggle, or other
peasant uprisings; they all have a profound and intense influence on
our lives. From the Hindutva movement in India and the Tamilian
struggle in Sri Lanka, movements have not only changed political
systems but have also encouraged individuals to come up and demand
their rights. Their legacies have an impact on us all in many ways that
will last for a long time.

Social Movement

A social movement is a semi-structured or unstructured, sometimes

structured, but persistent campaign in support of a social objective
and aim, often to execute or prevent a change in society’s structure or
values. Although social movements vary in scale, they are all
basically collaborative in nature. They are the outcome of the more or
less unsolicited gathering of individuals whose connections aren’t
defined by laws and processes but who just share a same societal
viewpoint on an issue or agenda.
Social movements are broad associations or unions of individuals who
are linked by a common interest in social change. Social movements
can be organised to support a specific social change, but they can also
be organised to resist a social change that is being implemented by
another group. These movements do not have to be formalised in
order to be labelled social movements. Different organisations might
work together for shared goals while still being labelled a social
movement.

Three important elements of a social movement are:

 collective action,
  Social change and
 Common purpose.

It is observed that social movement goes through four stages-

i. Emergence,
ii. Fusion,
iii. bureaucratization and
iv. Decline, are the four stages of movement evolution.
The final step, the decline stage, can be caused by a variety of factors,
including repression, conversion, success, failure, and mainstreaming.

T Y P E S:

Reformative social movements- Such movements tries attempting to

reform in certain areas of life. These involve changed and new
relationships, activities, values and norms.

Transformative social movements- They are oriented towards

bringing changes in a particular policy, system and structure of
society.

Revolutionary social movements- Such social movements are ones

attempting to bring to complete/total changes in related spheres or
activities pertaining to life.

Furthermore, the social movements could be classified on the basis of

the locus of a movement. The movements could be: linguistic,
religious, sectarian, caste, workers, tribal, backward, peasants,
women, students, etc. Some movements could be spread all over the
country, some in particular states, and some may be in a group of
states.

SOCIAL MOVEMENTS AND PUBLIC POLICY

When we discuss the link between public policy and social
movements, we see that it is a two-way street. Public policies have the
potential to spark social movements. Similarly, social movements
may result in the formation of new governmental policy. However, in
general, social movements originate as a result of changes in
governmental policies or ill-considered policy. The reason for this is
that social groups that believe they will be negatively impacted by
changes in public policy may come together and mobilise in order to
voice their demands, perhaps resulting in the creation of a new social
movement.
The social movement, brought to the front through points of its
members, articulate to the policy-makers to bring changes in the
policies already made or for making new policies. In the wake of
overall objectives and the objectivity in the demands made by the
social movements and overall resources, the policy-makers tend to
enact policies as per the issues forth by the social movements. Not
only at the time of formulation of the policies but also at the execution
stage the social movements, act as major determinants. The
cooperation or lack of implementation of a policy extended or not
extended by the social movements has substantial affect on the policy
execution.
The relationship, thus, between social movements and public policy is
quite close and of significant nature.

E F F E C T O F I N F L U E N C E OF
SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Article 19(1) of our Indian constitution guarantees every person the
right to free speech and expression, including the right to demonstrate
without the use of force. The freedom to publicly protest makes the
government responsive and accountable. Government in the past has
made it a practice to make choices in secret, force them on the public,
and then campaign to explain its non-transparent midnight judgments
when questioned or opposed. As a result, the freedom to protest
provides an excellent opportunity to correct and modify some of those
political failures by shining a focus on the flaws in the policies.
Protests raise issues that must be addressed by raising voices and
bringing them to the attention of policymakers. It can sometimes
assist to change policies and lead to the creation of new ones. And,
when the government is preoccupied with other matters and overlooks
some things, the disgruntled people always have their own way out by
organising peaceful protests.

Protests and social movements have been increasingly visible and

well-known in recent decades. There has been a huge rise in the
quantity of literature pointing to the linkages between movements and
policy. Making policy is always a subject of significance and public
welfare, thus it is critical for the people to accept it and understand
why it was created. But, at the same time, policies are made to feed a
country’s democratic needs, such as better economic stability, better
foreign communication, and so, for the common good of the country,
a few groups of people may face some discomfort, but it is expected
of them to understand the cause of the policy and react accordingly.
On the other side, the government sometimes fails to grasp the
requirements of the majority and concentrates too much on other
elements, resulting in a greater unsatisfied public.
Simultaneously, there are public demands that arise as a result of
recent events that agitate people and cause them to want urgent
remedies, causing them to take to the streets and demand immediate
execution.

DISADVANTAGES
As previously said, while demonstrations play an important role in a
country’s policymaking process, they also have certain negative
features. There are illegal protests, involving violence and anarchy.
We can now observe that mass movements frequently contain a high
level of media engagement and governmental oversight. This is
helpful for certain needs, but it also serves as a diversion from the
more important concerns that must be addressed. The media and the
government become so preoccupied with the continuous protest that
other critical issues are overshadowed. In terms of the opposing side,
unlawful protests, i.e., riots have been ineffective for a long time.
Riots may eventually result in the fulfilment of demands, but they are
always accompanied by a loss of resources, whether human or
material.
Aside from that, not only unlawful riots, but even legitimate protests,
can lead to misguided governmental decision-making. So, in our
society, there are several groups of individuals, and policies are
adopted and applied differently to various groups of people. As a
result, while the majority of people may not be protesting, the
demands of the minority may be met, which is ultimately a misguided
public opinion.
Again, because policies are ultimately for the benefit of the people,
they have the freedom to express their agreement and dissatisfaction
with them and have a platform to advocate for their desires.

CONCLUSION
Social movements act as one of the important determinants of public
policy-making. Social movements, influence the political process in a
variety of ways, including funding election expenses for parties,
mobilising voter support, interfering in policy formulation,
implementation and evaluation and so on.
The public opinion mobilised by the social movements has been
playing an active role in the formulation of policies instrumental to
the needs and some of the demands of the social movements.
  Write the different models of Public Policy Decision
Making in India.
 Short Note on:
a) Game Theory
b) Incremental Model
c) System Model

Public policy making process in India, like any other country in the
world, has become more complex and intensive in the recent times.
This is a dynamic and ever evolving process where different actors
and institutions are involved. The idea of desirable role of the state in
the society and economy is also changing and along with it changing
is the nature of public policy. Policies are outcome of the complex
interactions between prevalent value systems of governing actors and
existence and role of various civil society groups in any specific
period. Public policies are decisions/actions of the government to
pursue certain goals and objectives. It has the sanction of law and
authority behind it. It can take a variety of forms like law, ordinances,
court decisions, executive orders, legislative documentations etc.
Models/Approaches enable us to analyse policies - Public policies can
be examined from the perspective of Models which streamline certain
uniformities that can assist description, explanation, understanding,
and prescription.
Public policy is like a strategic framework which the government uses
to deliver its public role. The assessment of public policies and their
models are very important to understand the relationship of the state
to its people. Public policies also reflect the prospects of betterment of
society in terms of economic development, social justice and political
empowerment. It also highlights the intention and nature of the
government in terms of its commitment to welfare of all sections of
society.

M o d e l s of Public Policies
Process Model
Process model attempts to generalise the pattern of political actions or
steps which occur during the different stages of policy making. The
main question researched in this model is ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘how’ of
the policy making.These models are widely used in policy education.
The various stages of process models are:
i. Problem Identification: Various groups of the society demand
intervention or action of the government in their interests and
the identification of such problem is the first stage of policy
making process.
ii. Agenda setting: After identification of problem, a particular
course of action is deliberated with the participation of different
stakeholders like administrative officials, media etc.
iii. Policy formulation: Various stakeholders of policy making
develop policy proposals.
iv. Policy legitimation: Selection of a particular course of action
and enactment of the policy through legislature, executive and
administrative system.
v. Policy implementation: Execution of the policy through
government institutions and officials.
vi. Policy Evaluation: The evaluation of the outcome of the
policies and its further implications are analysed not only by the
government agencies themselves, by the media, think tanks,
private consultancies, civil society groups etc.

Institutional Model
This approach highlights the integral relationship between
government institutions and public policies. In the various stages of
making and implementing public policy various government
institutions and political representatives like President, the Prime
Minister and members of Parliament, Urban and Rural Government,
Judiciary, Bureaucrats and leaders of interest groups are involved.
The main argument of this model is that the public policy is mainly
outcome of the internal efforts of the Government institutions rather
than the result of external pressures and influences.
The Government institutions give the following three distinctive
characteristics to public policy:

a. Legitimacy: Public policies are formulated by the law making

agencies and it give it the legal authority. Citizen’s compliance is
sought by making public policies legally obligatory.
b. Universality: The Government institutions give universal character
to public policies by making it applicable to the entire society.
c. Coercion: Government can impose legal sanctions against the
violations of various public policy regulations and as such can
authoritatively enforce the public policies.

Institutionalism Model by Theodore J Lowi categorises public

policies according to policy making sub- systems as four arenas of
power –
 (The role of the State) as redistributive arena,
 distributive arena (benefits directly to individuals),
 constituent arena (affects people as political actors) and
 Regulative arena.
The institutional studies usually describe specific government
institutions like the structure, organisations, duties and functions
without inquiring into the impact of institutional characteristics on
policy outputs in a systematic manner.

Rational Model
Herbert Simon explains that the Decision /Policy Maker go through
Intelligence, Design and Choice Activity and it is Bounded
Rationality (values of the policy maker) which that leads to satisfying
model. A policy is rational if the difference between the values that it
upholds and the values it sacrifices is positive and greater than policy
alternatives. According to this model of rationality, the value
preference of society as a whole can be known and their relative
utilities to the society can be measured. Then it would be possible to
select the best available alternative.

The main proponents of this model are Herbert Simon, and Thomas
R. Dye. This is an efficiency maximisation model defined as
‘maximum social gain’ (Thomas Dye).
Thomas Dye says that government should choose those policies
which yield more societal gains than the input costs. According to
Dye maximisation of social gain depends on two conditions:
 Input costs should not exceed the output benefits.
  The policy which gives maximum gain in compare to input
costs should be chosen among alternative policies.

Incremental Model
The main advocate of this model is Charles E. Lindblom. This
model while criticising the rational decision making approach argues
that public policy is a continuation of previous government activities
with only incremental modification.
According to Lindblom, policy makers do not annually review the
whole range of existing and proposed policies because of the
constraints of time, intelligence and cost it involves. New policies are
introduced only at smaller level for the first time than it is
subsequently developed by the successive governments. Policy
makers are more likely to legitimise the previous policies than
bringing about radically new policies because of uncertainty involved
in the latter.
This approach is one of the most popular approaches easily adopted
by the policy makers. He discusses three main forms to incremental
analysis which are as follows:
I. Simple Incremental Analysis: In this form of analysis, only those
policy alternatives which are marginally different from the existing
policies are discussed.
II. Strategic Analysis
There are many constraints in complete analysis of policy alternatives
and as such many methods are used to make better choices. These are
operation research, trial and error learning, and system analysis,
management by objectives and programme evaluation and review
techniques.
III. Disjointed Incrementalism - In this analytical strategy, different
methods are followed for simplification of problems such as Bid-and-
Error learning.

Game Theory Model

Game theory of public policy making is about taking decisions in

situations of interdependence of the more than one player. Each
individual player has its own goals and interests which may be
conflictual with the goals of other’s. One’s decision or action affects
the other and in this situation, the ‘game’ is how to achieve maximum
of one’s objectives.
Thus, this theory highlights the point that decision makers are
involved in a situation of interdependence. All would have to make
their independent choice, but the outcome would be conditioned by
the choices made by each actor. This model is applicable in situations
where the best choice is not defined and the ‘best’ course of action
depends upon actions of others. Hence, this is a theory of rational
decision making in an interdependent and often conflictual situation.
Game Model is generally applied to situations of war and peace,
international diplomacy etc.

System Model
Public policy is an outcome of the political system. Different
associations give inputs to the government to formulate policies. It
has to balance the interest of different sections of the society with a
limited number of resources. While the inputs are generated in the
society for the political system, the political system comes out with
policies that are called outputs. David Easton explains Input-Output
Model.
 Demands and Supports are Inputs as Independent Variables.
 Policies and Decisions are Outputs as Dependent Variables.
 The Political System converts Inputs into Outputs and there is
the feedback, which keeps the Conversion Process working.

Group Model
Group theory view public policy as the equilibrium reached among
the interests of different groups. It gives an account of the influential
role of the groups made of common interests of individuals. Groups
work as link between individuals and government. These groups
struggle for their conflicting interests. The political system try to
manage those conflicts by accommodative policies. However, what is
seen most of the time is that actual policy tends to incline towards the
groups that are gaining in influence. Thus, public policy at any given
time tend to reflect the interests of the dominant groups. The group
strength may derive from various aspects such as organization
capacity, networking links, numerical superiority etc.
Negative point - By stressing on the role of groups this theory
underestimates the role of ideas and institutions and independent role
of public officials in public policy making.

CONCLUSION
From the discussion of various models, we can conclude that each
model has its own advantages and disadvantages. Each mode
highlights specific aspect of public policy process. As such, it is very
difficult to assert which model better reflects the policy making
process in independent India. It is difficult to claim the existence of a
specific model which applicable to policy making process throughout
this period. As for example, in terms of economic policies we can say
that in the last two decades the different political regimes have
followed the incremental model in response to the forces of
globalization. But in terms of foreign policies, the game theory better
explains the nature of a specific decision as a response to the
changing nature of foreign policies of other countries in an
interdependent political environment. The bargaining capacity of
different sections of society represented by different organizations and
political parties can determine how much their interests will be
reflected in the policies of the current government. This in turn, also
depends how much accommodative and independent are different
political institutions and how is general political environment of the
state.
 Describe the public policy in context of theories of
state.
OR
Highlight the public policy relevance in context of
Marxist and Liberal theory of state.

The concept of public policy is intricately connected to theories of the

state, as it deals with the government's role in addressing societal
issues and promoting the common good. In practice, public policy
development and implementation often draw from a combination of
these theoretical perspectives, and their interpretation may vary by
region, time period, and political ideology. Governments must
consider the state's role, the scope of government intervention, and the
desired outcomes when formulating and implementing public
policies. Additionally, public policy is shaped by the political,
economic, and social context in which it operates, making it a
dynamic and ever-evolving aspect of governance. To understand this
relationship, we can examine several key theories of the state and how
they influence the development and implementation of public policy.

PUBLIC POLICY & THEORIES OF STATE

1. M A R X I S T T H E O R Y
In the context of Marxist theory, the idea of public policy is closely
tied to the larger framework of class struggle and the role of the state
as an instrument of the ruling class. Marxist theory provides a unique
perspective on public policy that emphasizes class interests and social
inequality.
i. Marxist theory sees society as divided into distinct social
classes, primarily the bourgeoisie (capitalist class) and the
proletariat (working class). Public policy is seen as a reflection
 of the dominant class interests, with policies often favouring the
Capitalist class at the expense of the working class. Marxist
analysis of public policy focuses on how policies maintain or
challenge the existing class hierarchies.
ii. Marxists argue that the state plays a role in reproducing and
sustaining capitalism. Public policy, in this view, serves to
maintain the economic system by protecting private property,
enforcing contracts, and preserving the social and economic
conditions that allow capitalism to continue functioning.
iii. Marxist analysis often examines welfare policies as a tool of
capitalist states to manage and mitigate class conflict. Welfare
policies, including social safety nets, are seen as concessions
made by the ruling class to prevent social unrest and maintain
capitalist stability. Public policy discussions within Marxism
often critique the limitations of these welfare policies and
advocate for more fundamental changes to the economic system.
iv. Marxists argue that the state, through public policy and other
means, helps propagate the dominant ideology that supports the
capitalist system. Policies may include education systems that
reinforce capitalist values, control over the media, and
restrictions on dissent. Public policy is viewed as a means of
maintaining the status quo by shaping the beliefs and values of
society.
v. From a Marxist perspective, public policy can also be seen as a
site of struggle. Marxists advocate for policies that challenge
and eventually transform the capitalist system. This may include
policies aimed at wealth redistribution, nationalization of key
industries, and the empowerment of the working class.
2. L I B E R A L T H E O R Y
The idea of the theory of the state in the context of liberalism theory
is a fundamental concept that explores the role and nature of the state
within liberal political thought. Liberalism is a political ideology that
places a strong emphasis on individual liberties, limited government
intervention, and the rule of law.
i. Liberalism advocates for a minimal state, often referred to as a
"night-watchman state." In this view, the state's primary role is
to protect individual rights, maintain law and order, and provide
for the common defense. Public policy, according to liberalism,
should be limited to these essential functions, and the state
should not interfere extensively in economic, social, or personal
matters.
ii. Central to liberalism is the concept of individual rights, such as
the right to life, liberty, and property. The state's theory, in the
liberal tradition, is designed to safeguard these rights. Public
policy is expected to ensure that individuals can exercise their
freedoms and pursue their interests without undue government
interference.
iii. The rule of law is a core element of liberal theory. The state's
power is constrained by a legal framework that is applied
uniformly to all citizens. Public policy, in this context, aims to
create and maintain a legal system that is just, transparent, and
impartial, where individuals are equal before the law.
iv. Liberalism argues for a limited role of the state in the lives of its
citizens. Public policy is seen as a tool for achieving specific
goals that align with individual rights and the common good,
rather than as a means of extensive intervention or social
engineering. The state should not overreach or infringe upon
personal freedoms.
v. Many liberal theories support a market-oriented economic
system where individual economic freedoms are protected.
Public policy often includes regulations to maintain competition,
protect property rights, and ensure consumer safety, but it
generally avoids excessive government intervention in the
economy.
vi. Public Policy within this framework, is a result of the collective
agreement to delegate specific powers to the state while
retaining fundamental rights and freedoms.
vii. Liberal theory acknowledges the need for the state and public
policy to evolve to address changing circumstances and new
challenges while upholding individual rights and the rule of law.

Public policy in liberal theory is aimed at preserving individual

liberties, maintaining a just legal framework, and providing essential
public services while allowing individuals the freedom to pursue their
interests and values.
3. P L U R A L I S T T H E O R Y
From this ideology public policies are conceived as responses to
social demands and their analysis is in turn located in a perspective
based on the optimisation of collective choices, the rationality of the
decision-making processes and the behaviour of bureaucrats as
augmented in theory of limited rationality. It believes that group
interest and attitude are influential factors in determining public
policies and all issues concerning the nation are decide by multiple
and competing groups.
According to this concept, the lack of policies in the area of sport, for
example, is a reflection of the fact that there is no public problem to
be resolved. However, this absence could also be interpreted as the
result of corporate actions which are aimed at controlling this sector
despite the existence of significant public problems like drug use,
corruption etc.

O T H E R T H A N T H I S there are other theories such as - New

Public Management : New Public Management Theory emphasizes
market-oriented reforms and the application of business principles in
public administration. Public policy in an NPM framework seeks to
improve efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in government
by adopting management practices from the private sector.

Postmodernism and Critical Theories : Postmodern and critical

theories challenge the dominant paradigms of the state and public
policy. These theories often critique the unequal distribution of power
and resources in society and encourage policies that promote social
justice, diversity, and inclusivity.

T O C O N C L U D E : Generally, public policy is a means of

explaining the actual essence of public action because policies are
interpreted as revealing its nature. Thus, in contemporary society
there are different schools of thought which describe the questions
concerning policy making in context of the emergence and nature of
the state.

NEHRUVIAN VISION & LIBERALISATION

POLICY (1991) AND RECENT
DEVELOPMENTS

The country's 1947 declaration of independence gave the decision-

makers the opportunity to implement their ideological goals through
tangible development plans that celebrated the state as a major force
behind progress. Centralized planning was chosen as the main
approach used for the economic
progress of the country. The fundamental idea was that conscious
planning was necessary to eradicate poverty, illiteracy,
unemployment, and regional backwardness by guaranteeing the
availability of basic necessities such as food, employment, health
care, education, and other areas of growth. Only then could the
people's socioeconomic development be accelerated and sustained.
With protectionist measures, the government focused investment
mainly on important public sector industries.
However, in the massive undertaking of constructing the nation and
bolstering the people's economic prosperity, the market was given a
subsidiary or subordinate function and discretionary restrictions over
markets and private economic activity.

PUBLIC POLICY UNDER NEHRUVIAN VISION

i. The Nehruvian era saw the introduction of comprehensive
economic planning through a series of Five-Year Plans. These
plans aimed to promote economic growth, industrialization, and
social welfare. Public policy revolved around the allocation of
resources, setting targets for sectors like agriculture, industry,
and infrastructure, and facilitating economic development.
ii. The Nehruvian vision supported a mixed economy where both
the public and private sectors coexisted. Public policy aimed to
establish and expand public sector enterprises, particularly in
core industries, while allowing a space for private enterprise.
iii. Public policy included land redistribution and tenancy reforms
to address issues of land ownership and agricultural
productivity. These measures aimed to reduce rural inequality
and uplift the conditions of the agrarian sector.
iv. Nehruvian public policy prioritized investment in education and
scientific research. The government established numerous
 educational and research institutions, including the Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs) and the Indian Institutes of
Management (IIMs), to promote human capital development and
technological advancement.
v. Nehru's foreign policy of non-alignment aimed to maintain
India's independence from the bloc politics of the Cold War.
This policy influenced India's stance in international affairs and
diplomatic relations.
vi. Heavy Industries: Public policy encouraged the establishment
and expansion of public sector enterprises in heavy industries
like steel, coal, and manufacturing. For two reasons, Nehru
argued that the heavy and basic industries should stay in the
public sector, FIRST - the private sector might not be able to
generate enough money for these extremely capital-intensive
industries, and even if it could, it would require monopolistic
control that was judged harmful to social welfare and SECOND,
it was certain that the government would be able to direct the
growth of the private sector to achieve its ideological aim by
regulating the distribution of output of basic and heavy
industries according to social priorities. The Nehru government
saw the goal of a socialist pattern of society as something that
would require a larger role for the public sector and the
significance of planning for the overall development of the
nation.
The Nehruvian model and vision were characterized by a commitment
to economic development, social justice, and non-alignment in
foreign affairs. Public policy during this period aimed to transform
India from a colonial economy to a self-reliant, industrialized nation
while addressing social inequalities and promoting a secular and
democratic society. The Nehruvian model had a profound and lasting
impact on India's governance, economic structure, and social policies,
shaping the nation's trajectory for decades to come.
1991 : ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION MODEL (FAILURE
OF NEHRUVIAN POLICY SINCE 1970s) OR NEW
ECONOMIC POLICY 1991
Nehruvian state directed model beneficial for basic industries which
led to the neglect of other sectors and pay a little attention to minor
projects to support it, like agranian grievances (especially unfavorable
terms of trade between rural and urban sectors amid unremunerative
prices for agricultural products), food deficits, famines and starvation,
and the drain on reserves of foreign exchange due to massive grain
imports propelled agricultural development to the front of economic
agenda, leading to initial spurts of a Green Revolution in some parts
of the country. Overall, the economy was deep into fiscal crisis. A
host of social movements against the deep entrenched corruption at all
levels in the government, displacements and disenfranchisements
from entitlements, etc., were seeking to redefine the content and
contour of government agenda.
On the other side, the international political and economic
environment was rapidly transforming and there was a critical
pressure on the Indian state for structural adjustments while giving
aid: to open up the economy for market and minimize its spending on
the social sector in order to reduce its fiscal deficit, as mandated by
the international economic and financial institutions like International
Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank to secure the requisite fiscal
discipline.
It was in this backdrop that the Indian government began reforming
its economy in 1991.With the adoption of the 1991 New Economy
Policy the congress government led by P.V Narsimha Rao attempted
to rejuvenate India facing heavy fiscal deficit and overcentralization
and excessive bureaucratization of economic processes.
 i. Reduced Trade Barriers: Public policy involved reducing
import tariffs and removing quantitative restrictions, promoting
international trade and opening up the Indian market to foreign
goods and investment.
ii. Dismantling the License Raj: The New Economic Policy
aimed to reduce the bureaucratic red tape and licensing
requirements that had hindered business and industrial growth.
Public policy focused on simplifying regulations, deregulating
industries, and allowing more economic freedom for businesses.
iii. Privatization: Public policy included the privatization of state-
owned enterprises in non-strategic sectors to encourage
competition, efficiency, and innovation.
iv. Public policy aimed to deregulate various sectors, allowing for
more private sector participation in areas such as
telecommunications, aviation, and banking.
v. Fiscal and Monetary Policy:Public policy emphasized fiscal
responsibility, with efforts to reduce budget deficits and manage
public finances more prudently. Public policy also included
reforms in monetary policy, targeting inflation control and
exchange rate management.
vi. Banking Sector: Public policy focused on the liberalization and
modernization of the banking sector, allowing for more private
sector banks and increased competition.
vii. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI): Public policy involved
relaxing restrictions on foreign direct investment in various
sectors, thereby attracting foreign capital and technology. Public
policy aimed to integrate India into the global economy through
participation in international organizations like the World Trade
Organization (WTO).
viii. Targeted Welfare Programs: As part of the economic reforms,
the government introduced targeted welfare programs to address
the social impact of economic liberalization, including the
 Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act
(MGNREGA) and the National Food Security Act (NFSA).
The New Economic Policy of 1991 represented a shift from a largely
state-driven, planned economy to one that embraced market forces
and globalization. Public policy in this context aimed to modernize
and transform the Indian economy, attract foreign investment, and
stimulate economic growth. While these reforms brought about
economic growth and opportunities, they also posed challenges, such
as income inequality and the need for effective social safety nets,
which continue to be addressed through evolving public policies in
India.

T O C O N C L U D E - The importance of public sector has

considerably declined in the post – liberalization era in view of the
failure of the state-led planned development to bring about inclusive
growth in India. In this context globalization acquired the centre place
in present times. One of the many issues facing India today is the
country's socioeconomic transition. The dominant economic
imperatives of profitability and continuous economic growth in the
age of globalization may come at a high social and environmental
cost. The social consequences are demonstrated by the governments'
reduction in public spending, which disproportionately impacts the
less fortunate members of society and underdeveloped areas
compared to wealthy classes, communities, and developed areas. All
things considered, private entrepreneurs have surely aided in India's
progress as a result of market intervention in the economy, even
though this has led to economic inequality since the growth paradigm
has replaced the ideas of social development. It is evident that private
capitalists would rather fund profitable ventures than contribute to
societal improvement.