public policy definition essay

Public Policy

Definition of public policy, what is public policy, social safety net, process of public policy.

There are several players at work in the process of the public policy. Everyone from politicians and civil servants, to lobbyists and industry representatives, are involved in public policy. These individuals strategize and come up with tactics and tools to push their proposed policies through. Some of the ways in which they do this is by:

Public Policy vs. Domestic Policy

Public policy example involving gun control, decision and appeal.

Further, the Court referred to the part of the District of Colombia Code that required individuals to only keep firearms at home if the firearms were nonfunctional. The Court stated that such a requirement did, in fact, impede upon an individual’s 2nd Amendment rights.

U.S. Supreme Court

In their own words.

“The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of ‘arms’ that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights , this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.

Related Legal Terms and Issues

Home > Blog > Tips for Online Students > What Is Public Policy? Understanding its Essence and Impact 

Higher Education News , Tips for Online Students

What Is Public Policy? Understanding its Essence and Impact 

Updated: August 15, 2024

Published: June 1, 2021

Have you ever wondered how your government tackles complex issues like healthcare access, environmental sustainability, or economic development? In public policy, today’s decisions will shape tomorrow’s societies. Whether you are an aspiring changemaker or simply curious about the forces driving societal change, it is essential to understand the essence and importance of public policy.

From deciphering its definition to unraveling its impact, every regulation, initiative, and action is a piece of a larger puzzle aimed at creating a better future for all. Welcome to the forefront of public policy – where ideas become action, and change begins.  

What is Public Policy?  

Public policy can be defined as the deliberate decisions, actions, and laws formulated and implemented by government bodies to address public issues and achieve societal objectives. It serves as a roadmap for governance by guiding the allocation of resources, establishing regulations, and providing services to address pressing social, economic, and environmental challenges. 

Public policy reflects a society’s values, priorities, and ideologies and shapes its socio-economic landscape and governance structures. 

Through a systematic and iterative process, public policy seeks to identify and respond to emerging issues and collective needs, ultimately striving to enhance the overall well-being of citizens and communities.

Why is Public Policy Important?  

Public policy is crucial because it shapes our societies and promotes the common good. It offers a structured way to tackle complex issues like poverty, inequality, environmental problems, and public health crises. Through thoughtful planning, data-driven decisions, and involving various stakeholders, public policy aims to find the root causes of these problems, evaluate potential solutions, and implement effective actions to address them.

Public policy also supports democratic governance by ensuring decision-making processes are inclusive, transparent, and responsive to citizens’ needs and preferences. It encourages dialogue, cooperation, and collective efforts, allowing governments and communities to work together towards shared goals.

What’s the Difference Between Public and Social Policy?  

Public and social policies are key parts of governance, each with its own scope and focus. Public policy mainly deals with actions, decisions, and regulations made by government bodies to address societal issues and achieve collective goals. This includes areas like healthcare , education , economic development, and environmental protection.

Social policy, on the other hand, covers a broader range of activities. It includes government actions and initiatives by non-governmental organizations, communities, and other stakeholders to tackle social challenges. 

While public policy is a part of social policy, focusing on government actions, social policy looks at wider efforts to promote social welfare and well-being, going beyond just what the government does.

Types of Public Policy and Their Impact

Public policy encompasses many initiatives , decisions, and actions to address pressing societal issues. Here are some key examples:

Education Reforms

Education policies focus on ensuring high-quality and accessible education for all. This includes initiatives like updating school curricula, developing teacher training programs, and implementing measures to ensure all students have access to quality education through public, private, or charter institutions.

Criminal Justice Reform

Criminal justice policies aim to improve the fairness, effectiveness, and equity of the system. Key measures include revising criminal sentencing guidelines, implementing proactive measures to reduce crime rates, and developing programs to support the rehabilitation of offenders back into society.

Immigration Policies

Immigration policies address issues related to border security, visa processes, and pathways to citizenship. These policies include strategies to secure borders while respecting humanitarian principles, reevaluating visa processes, and developing accessible pathways for legal status.

Technology and Innovation Policies

These policies foster technological advancements and economic growth. Initiatives include investing in research grants, supporting startup businesses , and promoting innovation in fields like science and technology .

Regulation Policies

Regulation policies ensure industries operate ethically and safely. Examples include setting emission standards, conducting food safety inspections, establishing minimum wage laws, overseeing banks, and ensuring drug safety in healthcare facilities.

Distribution Policies

Distribution policies aim to allocate resources fairly within society. Examples include providing affordable housing programs, offering unemployment benefits and disability support, and implementing equitable funding for schools and financial aid .

Redistribution Policies

Redistribution policies address income inequality and resource allocation. Examples include progressive taxation, providing social safety nets like unemployment benefits and food assistance programs, and ensuring workers are paid a living wage through minimum wage adjustments.  

Becoming a Changemaker   

Public policy holds transformative power in driving positive change and advancing social justice. By equipping yourself with the knowledge and skills to analyze, formulate, and implement effective policies, you can significantly impact your community. Understanding public policy’s complexities and implications allows individuals to engage in the policymaking process, advocate for meaningful reforms, and work towards a more just, sustainable, and prosperous future.

Public policy is a cornerstone of governance. It shapes societies and influences the well-being of individuals and communities. By becoming informed and active agents of change, you can address pressing social, economic, and environmental issues, fostering inclusive and resilient communities. Passion for making a difference through public policy can lead to impactful careers and a lasting contribution to society.

What is public policy?

Public policy refers to the deliberate actions, decisions, and laws formulated and implemented by government bodies to address public issues and achieve societal objectives. It serves as a roadmap for governance, guiding the allocation of resources, establishing regulations, and providing services to address various social, economic, and environmental challenges.

What are the main types of public policy?

Public policy can be broadly categorized into four types: substantive, regulation, distribution, and redistribution. Substantive policies tackle core societal issues, regulation policies ensure the ethical and safe operation of industries, distribution policies allocate resources fairly, and redistribution policies address income inequality and resource allocation.

How does public policy differ from social policy?

Public policy primarily pertains to the actions and regulations instituted by government bodies to address societal issues and achieve collective goals. On the other hand, social policy encompasses broader efforts by governmental and non-governmental organizations to promote social welfare and well-being, extending beyond just governmental actions.

Why is public policy important?

Public policy is crucial because it shapes societies by addressing complex challenges such as poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and public health crises. Through strategic planning, evidence-based decision-making, and stakeholder engagement, public policy aims to promote sustainable development, social progress, and the common good.

Can individuals influence public policy?

Individuals can influence public policy by actively engaging in the policymaking process, advocating for meaningful reforms, participating in public discussions, and collaborating with various stakeholders. Understanding public policy allows citizens to contribute to building a more just, sustainable, and prosperous future.

In this article

At UoPeople, our blog writers are thinkers, researchers, and experts dedicated to curating articles relevant to our mission: making higher education accessible to everyone. Read More

The Public Policy process: A conceptual framework for understanding policy processes and opportunities for influencing policy outcomes

• January 2019

• University of Nairobi

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Paula Williams
• Paul Cairney

• Jongyoul Lee

• Midwest J Polit Sci
• Richard E. Dawson
• Murray Edelman
• P. A. Sabatier
• Charles W. Anderson
• West Polit Q
• William J. Crotty
• J. Leiper Freeman
• Charles E. Lindblom
• Oran R. Young
• Abdul A. Said
• H. W. Bruck
• Herbert A. Simon
• Chester I. Barnard
• Kurt Weyland
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Conceptualizing Public Policy

Cite this chapter.

• Michael Howlett &
• Ben Cashore  

Part of the book series: Research Methods Series ((REMES))

2678 Accesses

30 Citations

3 Altmetric

Policy-making involves both a technical and political process of articulating and matching actors’ goals and means. Policies are thus actions which contain goal(s) and the means to achieve them, however well or poorly identified, justified, articulated and formulated. Probably the best-known, simple and short definition of public policy has been offered by Thomas Dye, ‘anything a government chooses to do or not to do’ (Dye, 1972: 2).While many organizations and actors create policies to which their members must adhere, we focus on ‘public’ policies made by governments that affect and influence every member of a nation-state or a subnational jurisdiction. The ‘actions’ we are concerned with in this case are government decisions to act, or not to act, to change or maintain some aspect of the status quo (Birkland, 2001: ch. 1).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Policy Contexts, Consequences and Controversies

Introduction: Public Policy Failure, the Demise of Experts, and the Dawn of a New Era

Bibliography

Aberbach, Joel D. and Bert A. Rockman (1989) ‘On the Rise, Transformation, and Decline of Analysis in the US Government’, Governance , 2 (3), 293–314.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alford, Robert R. (1972) ‘The Political Economy of Health Care: Dynamics Without Change’, Politics and Society 2 (2), 127–64.

Anderson, James E. (1975) Public Policymaking (New York: Praeger).

Google Scholar  

Bailey, John J. and Robert J. O’Connor (1975) ‘Operationalizing Incrementalism: Measuring the Muddles’, Public Administration Review , 35 (January–February), 60–6.

Bannink, Duco and Marcel Hoogenboom (2007) ‘Hidden Change: Disaggregation of Welfare Regimes for Greater Insight into Welfare State Change’, Journal of European Social Policy , 17 (1), 19–32.

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones (1991) ‘Agenda Dynamics and Policy Subsystems’, Journal of Politics , 53 (4), 1044–74.

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics (University of Chicago Press).

Baumgartner, Frank R. and Bryan D. Jones (2002) Policy Dynamics (University of Chicago Press).

Bennett, Scott and Margaret McPhail (1992) ‘Policy Process Perceptions of Senior Canadian Federal Civil Servants: A View of the State and Its Environment’, Canadian Public Administration , 35 (3), 299–316.

Berry, William T. (1990) ‘The Confusing Case of Budgetary Incrementalism: Too Many Meanings for a Single Concept’, Journal of Politics , 52 (1), 167–96.

Bevir, Mark and Rod A. W. Rhodes (2001) ‘Decentering Tradition: Interpreting British Government’, Administration & Society , 33 (2), 107–32.

Bevir, Mark, Rod A. W. Rhodes and Patrick Weiler (2003) ‘Traditions of Governance: Interpreting the Changing Role of the Public Sector’, Public Administration , 81(1), 1–17.

Birkland, Thomas A. (2001) An Introduction to the Policy Process; Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (Armonk: M.E. Sharpe).

Botcheva, Liliana and Lisa L. Martin (2001) ‘Institutional Effects on State Behaviour: Convergence and Divergence’, International Studies Quarterly , 45 (1), 1–26.

Brewer, Gene D. (1974) ‘The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a Discipline’, Policy Sciences , 5 (3), 239–44.

Brewer, G. and Peter deLeon (1983) The Foundations of Policy Analysis (Homewood: Dorsey).

Capano, Giliberto (2003) ‘Administrative Traditions and Policy Change: When Policy Paradigms Matter, The Case of Italian Administrative Reform During the 1990s’, Public Administration , 81 (4), 781–801.

Cashore, Benjamin and Michael Howlett (2007) ‘Punctuating Which Equilibrium? Understanding Thermostatic Policy Dynamics in Pacific Northwest Forestry’, American Journal of Political Science , 51 (3), 532–51.

Clemens, Elisabeth S. and James M. Cook (1999) ‘Politics and Institutionalism: Explaining Durability and Change’, Annual Review of Sociology , 25, 441–66.

Coleman, William D., Grace D. Skogstad and Michael Atkinson (1996) ‘Paradigm Shifts and Policy Networks: Cumulative Change in Agriculture’, Journal of Public Policy , 16 (3), 273–302.

Crenson, Martha A. (1971) The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: A Study of Non-Decision Making in the Cities (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).

Danziger, Marie (1995) ‘Policy Analysis Postmodernized: Some Political and Pedagogical Ramifications’, Policy Studies Journal , 23 (3), 435–50.

Daugbjerg, Carsten (1997) ‘Policy Networks and Agricultural Policy Reforms: Explaining Deregulation in Sweden and Re-regulation in the European Community’, Governance , 10 (2), 123–42.

Deeg, Richard (2001) Institutional Change and the Uses andLimits of Path Dependency: The Case of German Finance (Koln: Max-Planck-Institutfür Gesellschaftsforschung).

Deeg, Richard (2005) ‘Path Dependency, Institutional Complementarity and Change in National Business Systems’, in G. Morgan, R. Whitley and E. Moen (eds) Changing Capitalisms? Internationalization, Institutional Change, and Systems of Economic Organization (Oxford: Oxford University Press,), 21–52.

deLeon, Peter (1999) ‘The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going?’, in Paul A. Sabatier (ed.) Theories of the Policy Process (Boulder: Westview), 19–34.

Dobuzinskis, Laurent, Michael Howlett and David Laycock (eds) (2007) Policy Analysis in Canada: The State of the Art (University of Toronto Press).

Doern, G. Bruce, Leslie Pal and Brian W. Tomlin (eds) (1996) Border Crossings: The Internationalization of Canadian Public Policy (Toronto: Oxford University Press).

Dye, Thomas R. (1972) Understanding Public Policy (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall).

Eichbaum, Chris and Richard Shaw (2007) ‘Ministerial Advisers and the Politics of Policy-Making: Bureaucratic Permanence and Popular Control’, The Australian Journal of Public Administration , 66 (4), 453–67.

Eldredge, Niles and Stephen Jay Gould (1972) ‘Punctuated Equilibria: An Alternative to Phyletic Gradualism’, in T. J. M. Schopf (ed.) Paleobiology (San Francisco: Freeman, Cooper), 82–115.

Farr, James, Jacob S. Hacker and Nicole Kazee (2006) ‘The Policy Scientist of Democracy: The Discipline of Harold D. Lasswell’, American Political Science Review 100(04), 579–87.

Genschel, Phillipp (1997) ‘The Dynamics of Inertia: Institutional Persistence and Change in Telecommunications and Health care’, Governance , 10 (1), 43–66.

Hacker, Jacob S. (2004) ‘Review Article: Dismantling the Health Care State? Political Institutions, Public Policies and the Comparative Politics of Health Reform’, British Journal of Political Science , 34 (4), 693–724.

Hall, Peter A. (1989) The Political Power of Economic Ideas: Keynesianism across Nations (New Jersey: Princeton University).

Hall, Peter A. (1993) ‘Policy Paradigms, Social Learning and the State: The Case of Economic Policy Making in Britain’, Comparative Politics , 25 (3), 275–96.

Halligan, John (1995) ‘Policy Advice and the Public Sector’, in B. Guy Peters and Donald T. Savoie (eds) Governance in a Changing Environment (Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press), 138–72.

Hawke, Gary Richard (1993) Improving Policy Advice (Wellington: Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies).

Hayes, Michael T. (1992) Incrementalism and Public Policy (New York: Longmans).

Howlett, Michael and Evert Lindquist (2004) ‘Policy Analysis and Governance: Analytical and Policy Styles in Canada’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis , 6 (3), 225–49.

Howlett, Michael and Jeremy Rayner (2006) ‘Understanding the Historical Turn in the Policy Sciences: A Critique of Stochastic, Narrative, Path Dependency and Process-Sequencing Models of Policy-Making over Time’, Policy Sciences , 39 (1), 1–18.

Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh (2002) ‘The Policy Effects of Internationalization: A Subsystem Adjustment Analysis of Policy Change’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis , 4 (1), 31–50.

Howlett, Michael and M. Ramesh (2003) Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems (Toronto: Oxford University Press).

Huitt, Ralph K. (1968) ‘Political Feasibility’, in Austin Rannay (ed.) Political Science and Public Policy (Chicago: Markham), 263–76.

Hupe, Peter L. and Michael J. Hill (2006) ‘The Three Actions Levels of Governance: Re-Framing the Policy Process Beyond the Stages Model’, in B. Guy Peters and Jon Pierre (eds) Handbook of Public Policy (London: Sage), 13–30.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Jann, Werner and Kai Wegrich (2007) ‘Theories of the Policy Cycle’, in Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller and Mara S. Sidney (eds) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics and Methods (Boca Raton: CRC), 43–62.

Jenkins, William I. (1978) Policy Analysis: A Political and Organizational Perspective (London: Martin Robertson).

John, Peter and Helen Margetts (2003) ‘Policy Punctuations in the UK: Fluctuations and Equilibria in Central Government Expenditure Since 1951’, Public Administration , 81 (3), 411–32.

Jones, Charles O. (1984) An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy (Monterey, California: Brooks/Cole).

Kay, Adrian (2006) The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar).

Book   Google Scholar  

Kingdon, John W. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (Boston: Little Brown).

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press).

Kuhn, T. S. (1974) ‘Second Thoughts on Paradigms’, in F. Suppe (ed.) The Structure of Scientific Theories (Urbana: University of Illinois Press), 459–82.

Kuhner, Stefan (2007) ‘Country-Level Comparisons of Welfare State Change Measures: Another Facet of the Dependent Variable Problem Within the Comparative Analysis of the Welfare State’, Journal of European Social Policy , 17 (1), 5–18.

Lasswell, Harold D. (1956) Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis (College Park: University of Maryland Press).

Lasswell, Harold D. (1971) A Pre-View of Policy Sciences (New York: Elsevier).

Leach, William D., Neil W. Pelkey and Paul A. Sabatier (2002) ‘Stakeholder Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied to Watershed Management in California and Washington’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 21, (4), 645–70.

Liefferink, Duncan (2006) ‘The Dynamics of Policy Arrangements: Turning Round the Tetrahedron’, in Bas Arts and Pieter Leroy (eds) Institutional Dynamics in Environmental Governance (Dordrecht: Springer), 45–68.

Lindblom, Charles E. (1959) ‘The Science of Muddling Through’, Public Administration Review , 19 (2), 79–88.

Lindner, Johann (2003) ‘Institutional Stability and Change: Two Sides of the Same Coin’, Journal of European Public Policy , 10 (6), 912–35.

Lindner, Johann and Bernard Rittberger (2003) ‘The Creation, Interpretation and Contestation of Institutions — Revisiting Historical Institutionalism’, Journal of Common Market Studies , 41 (3), 445–73.

Lindquist, E. (1998) ‘A Quarter Century of Canadian Think Tanks: Evolving Institutions, Conditions and Strategies’, in D. Stone, A. Denham and M. Garnett (eds) Think Tanks Across Nations: A Comparative Approach (Manchester University Press) 127–44.

Lyden, F. J., G. A. Shipman, R. W. Wilkinson and P. P. Le Breton. (1968) ‘Decision-Flow Analysis: A Methodology for Studying the Public Policy-Making Process’, in P.P. LeBreton (ed.) Comparative Administrative Theory (Seattle: University of Washington Press) 155–68.

Mahoney, James (2000) ‘Path Dependence in Historical Sociology’, Theory and Society , 29 (4), 507–48.

Majone, Giandomenico (1975) ‘On the Notion of Political Feasibility’, European Journal of Political Research . 3 (2) 259–74.

Maley, Maria (2000) ‘Conceptualising Advisers’ Policy Work: The Distinctive Policy Roles of Ministerial Advisers in the Keating Government, 1991–96’, Australian Journal of Political Science , 35 (3), 449–49.

May, Peter J. (2005) ‘Regulation and Compliance Motivations: Examining Different Approaches’, Public Administration Review , 65 (1), 31–44.

Mayer, Igor S., Pieter W. G. Bots and Els van Daalen (2004) ‘Perspectives on Policy Analysis: A Framework for Understanding and Design’, International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management , 4 (1), 169–91.

Meltsner, Arnold J. (1972) ‘Political Feasibility and Policy Analysis’, Public Administration Review , 32 (4), 859–67.

Milner, Helen V. and Robert O. Keohane (1996) ‘Internationalization and Domestic Politics: A Conclusion’, in Robert O. Keohane and HelenV. Milner (eds) Internationalization and Domestic Politics (Cambridge University Press), 243–58.

Mortensen, Peter B. (2005) ‘Policy Punctuations in Danish Local Budgeting’, Public Administration , 83 (4), 931–50.

Peled, Alan (2002) ‘Why Style Matters: A Comparison of Two Administrative Reform Initiatives in the Israeli Public Sector, 1989–1998’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory , 12 (2), 217–40.

Phillips, Susan (1996) ‘Discourse, Identity, and Voice: Feminist Contributions to Policy Studies’, in Laurent Dobuzinskis, Michael Howlett, and David Laycock (eds) Policy Studies in Canada: The State of the Art (University of Toronto Press), 242–65.

Pierson, Paul (2000) ‘Not Just What, but When: Timing and Sequence in Political Processes’, Studies in American Political Development , 14 (1), 72–92.

Pierson, Paul (1993) ‘When Effect Becomes Cause: Policy Feedback and Political Change’, World Politics 45 (4), 595–628.

Prince, Michael (1983) Policy Advice and Organizational Survival (Aldershot: Gower).

Rochet, Claude (2004) ‘Rethinking the Management of Information in the Strategic Monitoring of Public Policies by Agencies’, Industrial Management & Data Systems , 104 (3), 201–8.

Sabatier, Paul A. (1988) ‘An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein’, Policy Sciences , 21 (2), 129–68.

Sabatier, Paul A. and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith (1993) Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Coalition Approach (Boulder: Westview).

Simmons, R. H., B. W. Davis, R. J. K. Chapman and D. D. Sager (1974) ‘Policy Flow Analysis: A Conceptual Model for Comparative Public Policy Research’, Western Political Quarterly , 27 (3), 457–68.

Simon, Herbert A. (1957) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization (New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

Smith, Adrian (2000) ‘Policy Networks and Advocacy Coalitions: Explaining Policy Change and Stability in UK Industrial Pollution Policy?’, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy , 18 (1), 95–114.

Smith, Richard A. (1979) ‘Decision Making and Non-Decision Making in Cities: Some Implications for Community Structural Research’, American Sociological Review , 44 (1), 147–61.

Sobeck, Joanne (2003) ‘Comparing Policy Process Frameworks: What Do They Tell Us About Group Membership and Participation for Policy Development?’, Administration & Society , 35 (3), 350–74.

Thelen, Kathleen (2003) ‘How Institutions Evolve: Insights from Comparative Historical Analysis’, in James Mahoney and Dietrich Rueschemeyer (eds) Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press), 208–40.

Thelen, Kathleen (2004) How Institutions Evolve: The Political Economy of Skills in Germany, Britain, the United States and Japan (Cambridge University Press).

Tuohy, Carolyn H. (1999) Accidental Logics: The Dynamics of Change in the Health Care Arena in the United States, Britain, and Canada (New York: Oxford University Press).

Verschuere, Bram (2009) ‘The Role of Public Agencies in the Policy Making Process’, Public Policy and Administration , 24 (1), 23–46.

Weaver, R. Kent. and Bert. A. Rockman (1993) ‘When and How do Institutions Matter?’, in R. Kent Weaver and Bert A. Rockman (eds) Do Institutions Matter? Government Capabilities in the United States and Abroad (Washington, D.C. Brookings Institutions), 445–61

Weimer, David L., and Aidan R. Vining (1999) Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice (New Jersey: Prentice Hall).

Wollmann, Hellmut (1989) ‘Policy Analysis in West Germany’s Federal Government: A Case of Unfinished Governmental and Administrative Modernization?’, Governance , 2 (3), 233–66.

Yanow, Dvora (1992) ‘Silences in Public Policy Discourse: Organizational and Policy Myths’, Journal of Public Administration research and Theory , 2 (4), 399–423.

Download references

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

University of Ottawa, Canada

Isabelle Engeli

University of Montreal, Canada

Christine Rothmayr Allison

Copyright information

© 2014 Michael Howlett and Ben Cashore

About this chapter

Howlett, M., Cashore, B. (2014). Conceptualizing Public Policy. In: Engeli, I., Allison, C.R. (eds) Comparative Policy Studies. Research Methods Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314154_2

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137314154_2

Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London

Print ISBN : 978-1-349-33498-8

Online ISBN : 978-1-137-31415-4

eBook Packages : Palgrave Political Science Collection Political Science and International Studies (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Essay Service Examples Government Public Policy

Essay on Public Policy, Its Main Models and Approaches

Defining Public Policy

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

• Thomas R. Dye defines public policy as “whatever government wants to do or not to do”. This includes all actions and inaction of the government.
• B. Guy Peters defines “public policy is the sum of government activities, whether it is acting directly or through agents, as it has an influence on the lives of citizens”.
• James E. Anderson defines “public policy is a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a matter of concern”.
• Larry N. Gerston defines public policy as 'the combination of basic decisions, actions and commitments made by those who hold or affect government positions of authority.
• Yehezkel Dror defines public policy as a 'dynamic process which decides major guidelines for action directed at the future, mainly by governmental organs. These guidelines aim at achieving what is in public interest by the best possible means.

Models and Approaches to Public Policy

• simplify and clarify our understanding about government and policies;
• identify important political forces in society;
• communicate relevant knowledge about political life, to direct inquiry into politics;
• suggest explanation for political events;
• direct our efforts to understand public policy better by suggesting what is important and what is unimportant.

Institutional Approach: Policy as Institutional Output

• Legislative institutions : It is concerned with the central tasks of policy formation and law making in a political system. It also performs other functions like scrutinizing, criticizing, deliberating and publicizing government policies and their consequences of the policies on the floor of the house.
• Executive institutions : Modern governments vitally depend on the executive institutions for the policy formulation and execution. Especially in the parliamentary form of government, all policies must have approval of the cabinet. In real terms, it is the cabinet which shapes the public policies.
• Judiciary institutions : In countries where courts have the power of judicial review, they play an important role in policy formulation.

Group Theory: Policy as Group Equilibrium

Elite theory: policy as elite preference, rationalism theory: policy as maximum social gain, incremental model: policy as variations on the past, game theory: policy as rational choice in competitive situations, systems approach: policy as system output.

Our writers will provide you with an essay sample written from scratch: any topic, any deadline, any instructions.

Cite this paper

Related essay topics.

Get your paper done in as fast as 3 hours, 24/7.

Related articles

Most popular essays

• Public Policy

The modern world continues to struggle with ethical dilemmas in the private and public sector....

• Accountability

Nothing in life can be carried out to the fullest without accountability! Without it, it is...

Public policy making is essential in making sure that the government is guided in order to reach...

• Public School

Numerous students from all ethics and grades enjoy a lunch program at their respective educational...

Conceptual contestation has been causing a lot of difficulties in the study of politics. The...

• Film Analysis
• Life and Debt

Public policy can be defined as a statement of intent, which guides decisions and contains goals...

Transparency is operating in such a way that is easy for others to see what actions are performed....

Public policy has been thoroughly debated concept ever since its initial conceptualization in the...

Many people who live in Detroit are lacking even simple literacy skills. Children are not getting...

Join our 150k of happy users

• Get original paper written according to your instructions
• Save time for what matters most

Fair Use Policy

EduBirdie considers academic integrity to be the essential part of the learning process and does not support any violation of the academic standards. Should you have any questions regarding our Fair Use Policy or become aware of any violations, please do not hesitate to contact us via [email protected].

We are here 24/7 to write your paper in as fast as 3 hours.

Provide your email, and we'll send you this sample!

By providing your email, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy .

Say goodbye to copy-pasting!

Get custom-crafted papers for you.

Enter your email, and we'll promptly send you the full essay. No need to copy piece by piece. It's in your inbox!

Theories of Public Policy

Priscilla M.

Checked : Luis G. , Greg B.

Latest Update 21 Jan, 2024

12 min read

Table of content

Elite theory

Group theory, system theory, institutional theory, incremental theory, rational-choice theory.

Public policy is usually seen as the specific behavior of some actor(s). It could be an official, or a government agency, or a legislator, in an aspect of activity like a public enterprise or poverty alleviation. The study of public policy has become one of the main subjects of studies in the modern world. It covers w wide range of studies, including economics and   political science . A major definition of public policy is that it's whatever the government chooses to do or not to do.

This definition may not be enough to discern ordinary discourse and not enough for the systematic analysis of public policy. This means there need for a more in-depth definition to structure out thinking and ensure effective communication between individuals (Anderson, 1997). Even so, there is a lot of common reference point by the user from different situations. And this is why it is seen as the decision of governments to meet its citizens' needs.

Public policy   can be seen as what the government intends to do to achieve certain goals. Unfortunately, this definition has a huge limitation as it makes public policy seem like a mere decision. It makes public policy seem like a simple declaration of intentions, wishes, principles, or expression of desires. These aspects are important to people, but they cannot be defined as public policy, which means it should be the actual resource allocation given out by projects and programs used in response to public issues and demands. This is the same definition used by political scientists, James E. Anderson, who describes the public policy as a more stable, purpose-oriented course of action an actor needs to follow while trying to deal with a matter of concern (Anderson, 1997). Based on this statement, we can say that public policy focuses on what is actually done, more than just the intended purpose.

Public policy is, therefore, the policy developed and implemented by the government agency and officials. However, non-state actors and factors may influence the process.

The scope and content of public policy vary from country to country, depending on the government. In developed countries, much is expected from their governments, and government action touches virtually every part of their citizenry. In this case, public policy is viewed as a vital aspect of governance. Sometimes even less developed countries face similar issues where governments are expected to explain their courses of action.

This definition and   understanding of public policy   are not enough to understand its impacts. It is even more important for economic students to take a deeper look at the policy. Traditional study of public policy majorly focused on pollical science. In other words, scholars and pollical science students were the only people involved more in their studies, in which case they sort to justify government actions. Today, public policy is a wider subject, that has developed into its own discipline. As an economy student, you will face many situations where government actions have been used to define certain issues and problems in an economy.

Therefore, a deeper understanding of public policy is needed across disciplines. One way scholars follow to a deeper understanding of this subject is through models and theories. We shall, therefore, be looking at several theories of public policy for a better understanding. Note that public policy is a significant aspect of creating a functional economy. It has, therefore, become a critical subject of study in microeconomics.

The first theory that explains public policy is the Elite Theory, a model that states that contrary to the understanding the pluralism has an in-built mechanism for in ensuring equity of power and influence in a society, the truth is, public policy is majorly reflection of the ruling elite's interest. In other words, public policy does not seek to serve the majority public's interests, but those of the few in top positions. According to Vilfredo Pareto, in his book, "Mind and Society," those with ability seek to confirm their social positions. Generally, the elite are divided into two groups, the governing and the non-governing, but they all possess enough influence on supreme leadership, whereas the bulk of the masses population is there to be ruled.

Gaetano Mosca, in his work, "The Ruling Class," posted that Oligarchy is the only type of government that has existed in the history of man. He regularly argued that societies, even the most developed ones, are yet to attain true civilization. And even the most civilized ones are defined by two classes of people. The first group is always the few who perform political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoy the reaping from such power. The second group is more numerous and is destined to stay under the rule of the first group.

Mosca continues to state theta the minority is usually composed of superior individuals, and the fact that they are few makes it easy for them to be more organizes. He continues further that elites' circulation, once the ruling class loses its ability to command and show political command, and those not in the ruling class, or develop its aptitude, they will cast aside the old class and assume control. He also seems to have a strong belief in the role of the middle class in society.

The few in power always determine economic decisions. The elites have more control over the economic output of every nation. The middle class is labeled as 'sub-elite.' That stability of any political organization also depends on the intelligence and activities of this second group. Nicholas Henry states that the elite model is more applicable to Public administrators. The model has also found more water in with sociologists and political scientists.

Another important model describing public policy is the group theory of politics, which states that public policy is a result of the group struggle. In other words, what we know as public policy is the state of equilibrium reached in the group struggle at any given time. It is a representation of a balance, which the contending faction or groups attempt to win in their favor. Anderson, 1997, states that many public policies are a reflection of groups.

In simple terms, group models take into account the interaction among groups as the most important aspect of politics. As you may already know, the political is the stability of a country determines its political prowess to a large extent. In this case, the interaction and relationship among groups play a critical role in the economy's general success. There is a constant change in the locus of power within a society, which depends on the group that succeeds in showing its own supremacy.

The power dominate policy decision depends on group solidarity and power. This means the policy process dynamics are expected to be more pronounced in plural societies than in the homogenous ones. In these societies, a group's ability to bend the policy depends on several factors, including wealth, organizational skill, leadership quality, bargaining skill, access to decision-makers, and a modicum of luck. Wealth is mostly because political mobilization requires a lot of resources. Politics is an expensive venture, even in the most democratic societies. But one needs organization and other skills mentioned above that helps them come up with convincing ideas.

Group theory has faced a lot of criticism from different scholars and stakeholders. First, it is argued that this model's theorists did not clearly define the terms meant by 'group' and 'interest.' The definitions given do not tell that a group is really important to politics and decision making. This also means it may not be very relevant to economic processes. Secondly, the theory was concerned more about groups, leaving out the role of individuals who make all the differences.

The system theory is an idea of pollical science that originates with David Easton, a reputed scholarly who analyzed politics from the systems perspective. His work has been highly appreciated among many scholars. His work was regarded as the foundation of the behaviorist revolution in political science. Varma states that Easton managed to distill the important behaviorism features, including regularities, verification, techniques, values, systemization, pure science, and integration. These characteristics are not unique to systems theory, but they form a natural link between systems thinking and behaviorism (Obi et al., 2008).

The systems theory has been very useful in the study of public policy. It perceives public policy as the response of the political system to demands from the environment. A political system is made up of different institutions that make an authoritative allocation of values binding on the whole society. As seen above, anything that affects political stability touches the general economy of a nation. However, this usefulness is limited to its highly general and abstract nature. Also, it does not say a lot about the procedures and processes that determine decision making and policy. Nevertheless, it can be used in organizing inquiry into policy formation.

The study of government majorly revolves around political science and public administration. This has been a major concern since the institutions include legislatures, executives, and the judiciary. And public policy authoritative formulated and executed by these institutions. The institutional approach's traditional orientation concentrates on the description of more formal and legal aspects of government institutions. It focused on their formal structure, legal power, and procedural rules and functions. Also, formal links with other institutions can be considered, including legislative-executive relations.

Social scientists and put their attention in teaching and research of political processes in governments and political institutions. Their main focus was on the behavior of those involved in the process and political realities, more than formalism. Institutionalism emphasizes formal or structural aspects of institutions, which can be useful in policy analysis. Institutional structures, arrangements, and procedures have always played a vital role in public policy's adoption and content. This is why it needs to be considered along with other aspects of an economy, especially since it is a crucial policymaking concept. This model looks at the official structures and functions of government departments and institutions as it attempts to learn public policy. The institutional approach is more static formalistic. Thomas Dye points out that this approach can be very useful for those concerned with the shape of public policy.

There are limited changes or additions to the existing policies, which form the foundation of incremental decisions. For instance, a government gives a small increase to the ministry of education's budget or tightens the business requirements. These are already policies in place, only that they receive a little addition, just to make them seem better. The approach takes into consideration the less than circumstances under which administrators make decisions. The real limits existing in terms of time, brains, money, and other aspects can be ignored.

We Will Write an Essay for You Quickly

This model is associated with Charles Lindblom, who contents that incrementalism is more the real policymaking approach for pluralist societies. In this case, decisions and policies are the output of give-and-take mutual agreements between involved parties. It is often easier to reach an agreement when matters in the dispute among groups are limited to modification of the existing programs. The approach has also been met with several criticisms. For instance, it is seen as too conservative and focused on the current order. As such, it becomes a barrier to innovation, which is needed when making important policy decisions.

The rational-choice, or social-choice, public-choice, a formal theory is a model that came with economists. It involves the application of principles of microeconomic theory to analyze and explain political behaviors. Human beings are rational beings and make market and non-market decisions based on this characteristic. Anthony Down's book, Economic Theory of Democracy, is perhaps the best use case of this theory.

The approach is constructed on economic principles such as cost-benefit study. Policy-makers always consider the value preference in the current society and assign each relative weight. They will then look at alternative policies, know their costs, and select the best alternative that is more beneficial to society.

The rational model has such an appealing simplicity, but there are problems with its implementations. For example, it does not have explicit concern for the political environment. It has also faced objection for its bias towards efficiency and the exclusion o7f other values. Nevertheless, it creates a good foundation for policymaking.

Looking for a Skilled Essay Writer?

• Hudson County Community College

No reviews yet, be the first to write your comment

Write your review

Thanks for review.

It will be published after moderation

Latest News

What happens in the brain when learning?

10 min read

20 Jan, 2024

How Relativism Promotes Pluralism and Tolerance

Everything you need to know about short-term memory

The Implementation of Public Policy Analytical Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Description, list of references.

The process of implementing and evaluating public policies is best understood by considering the process of making public policies as an operation that has several sub-processes merged together (Ridde 2009, p.939).

A policy is a combination of aims and specified activities that can help end a certain problem once implemented (Lyhne 2011, p.321). Alternatively, Ridde (2009) defines a policy as the things/actions that the government has deemed right and or wrong for people (p.939).

In case the government makes a decision to do a particular thing that is of community interest without success in the achievement of the desired outputs, policy analysts make an incredible effort to unveil the reasons for the failure of the policy.

One approach for doing this is to scrutinise various deficiencies in the implementation phase (Ridde 2009, p.939) and the policy formulation phase.

In case deficiencies are found in each phase, it means that the policymaking process negated some vital aspects that would ensure that every step taken in the formulation and implementation phases is consistent with the desired final goal and objective of the policy.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce policy evaluation as an ample component for inclusion in the policy formulation and implementation phases for making public policy.

Failure to include it in both phases makes it difficult for the people formulating and implementing the policy to detect certain deficiencies. Such deficiencies may truncate into the failure of the policy to deliver the anticipated outcomes upon full implementation.

This paper is divided into two main sections. A description of the implementation and evaluation components of the public policymaking process as separate entities is presented first.

This step is then followed by the analysis section, which discusses the policymaking process as being composed of policy implementation and evaluation phases running simultaneously.

The advantage of integrating the implementation and evaluation phases for making public policies will finally be addressed. In conclusion, the paper will hold that the implementation of public policy cannot be separated from its formulation or its evaluation.

Implementation of Public Policies

Once policies are formulated, the next phase involves their implementation. Public policy implementation refers to the exercising of a specific policy decision as directed by the law, court, or any administrator’s prescriptions (Mazmanian & Sabatier 1983, p.149).

It takes two paradigms, bottom-up and top-down. The bottom-up approach is initiated by singling out the chain of people who take part in offering any service to each or all local areas by interviewing them on their ambitions, schemes, actions, and contacts (Sabatier 1986, p.32).

The bottom-up approach holds that public policy implementation process is inseparable from the formulation phase (Matland 1995, p.147). The roles of administrators and politicians are also considered as critical in the success of the formulation and implementation of the policies from the paradigms of the bottom-up approach.

Contacts are then deployed to develop various networks aimed at aiding in the identification of national actors, local, and even regional actors who are crucial for financing, planning, and execution of various necessary nongovernmental and or governmental programs.

The bottom creates the need for a given policy. The top then responds by creating the policy. In this context, Sabatier (1986) maintains that this approach is unidirectional in that the policymaking process starts from the bottom to top (p.35).

The top-down approach in implementing public policies is bureaucratic. It is initiated by a policy decision that majors on the degree to which its goals and aims have been achieved in a given period and the reason behind the elapsed time (Sabatier 1986, p.32).

Successful top-down policy implementation process requires factoring issues like the degree of the implementation process to comply with causal theory and the consistency of the process with the objectives of the policy. This process is unidirectional (Sabatier 1986, p.51) since it does not have feedback loops.

The process also needs to be lawfully integrated to heighten abidance by the enforcing functionaries and the intended groups (Sabatier 1986, p.25).

Commitment coupled with the capacity of the implementation official to have high skills in the field whose policy is being implemented is a magnificent success factor for this approach of public policy implementation.

The approach needs to factor the variations in socio-economic circumstances, which do not considerably counteract political accompaniment or causative hypothesis (Sabatier 1986, p.25).

Lastly, for the purposes of seeking political support in the process of implementation of public policies from the paradigms of top-down implementation approach, the process needs to be consistent with concerns of various support groups and sovereigns (May & Wintner 2007, p.455).

The approach suggests that policy formulation and implementation can be separated into two different entities. The ‘top’ is charged with the noble role of making the policy while the ‘bottom’ is in charge of implementation.

This means that the flow of voice of command is in a single direction (Sabatier 1986, p.51): from top to down in the hierarchical structure.

Scholars who support the top-down approach and those who are opposed to it fail to contend for the most appropriate policy implementation approach that would ensure that all the concerns of the target groups are fully addressed by the policy being implemented.

For instance, the proponents of the bottom-up propose, “street bureaucrats are central to successful implementation and the top downers ignored them at their peril” (DelLeon & Denver 2002, p.470).

The point is that successful implementation takes place when all persons who are directly impacted by the policy are proactively involved in the planning and execution of the policies.

With the Sabatier’s criticism that both top-down and bottom-up process is unidirectional (1986, p.79), the most effective approach is the one that fosters interactions of both the top and the bottom through feedback loops.

Proponents of the bottom-up approach of public policy implementation process assert they are able to capture a myriad of intricacies that may impede the success of policy implementations through the process (Milward 1980, p.247).

With full realisation of the one-way nature of both top-down and bottom-up, this case calls for the incorporation of perspectives of policy evaluation during the policy formulation and implementation process (Barzelay & Jacobsen 2009, p.320).

Evaluation of Public Policies

The evaluation of public policies is crucial in aiding to reflect on the impacts of the developed policy, both the intended and the unintended ones. Technically, Barry and Rae (1975) define the evaluation of policies as the allotting of rates to things by approximately talking to find out whether they are beneficial or harmful (p.340).

With regard to Cope and Goodship (1999), the objective of evaluating polices is to inform the policy makers on the progress of the implementation process of the policies showing how the policies measure up to the desired outcomes (p.7).

Therefore, where it is realised that the policies may not yield the desired outcomes upon full implementation, evaluation is significant in helping to devise new policies through correction of erroneous elements of the policy under implementation (Rist 1995, p.112).

On the other hand, where a policy is meeting the desired outcomes, evaluation is vital since it helps in legitimisation of the existing policy. For instance, Howlett et al. view policy evaluation as the analytical field for people who see evaluation as a mere proficient practice in deciding the victory or losing of administration’s attempts to handle policy issues (2009, p.178).

As a whole, the evaluation process is an element of the policy learning process. It is a scientific activity (Rist 1995, p.112). Some scholars in the discipline of public policy administration hold that public policy evaluation is a distinctive element in the policymaking process.

The rise of the policymaking process that is evidence-based suggests that the evaluation of the policy implementation process is a positivistic exercise. Under such an approach, policy evaluation has the aim of determining the quality, costs, policy effectiveness, impacts, and goal attainment (Marsh & McConnell 2010, p.59).

The discussions of the description section present the evaluation phase in the process of making public policies as a separate entity from the formulation and implementation phases.

Hogwood presents it as the process of “determining the characteristics of the issue being analysed, the organisational, and political setting of the issue, with the actual mechanics of particular techniques being secondary and consequential” (1884, p.263).

In this section, policy analysis is presented as an essential phase that needs to be incorporated and run simultaneously with both the formulation and the implementation phases.

Running the Evaluation Phase Simultaneously with Formulation and Implementation Phases

Policies are implemented by formally adopting rules and laws or regulations prescribing the operation of the policies. According to May and Wintner (2007), a bureaucratic action takes a central position in ensuring full operation of the policy (p.462).

For the policy to deliver a public good, it is necessary that some form of evaluation be done regardless of whether the implementation process assumes the top-down approach or the bottom-up approach.

This step needs to be done during the formulation and the implementation phases, as well as after completion of each of the phases.

Evaluation at Policy Formulation Phase

Running the evaluation phase simultaneously with the formulation phase is plausible in ensuring that the policy will not have formulation errors that would then be replicated in the implementation stage.

Policies are made consistent with the prevailing political influences coupled with the demand from the stakeholders prompting the necessity of such a policy (Edward 1992 p.51).

This way, it is possible to minimise replication of certain erroneous aspects of the policy that have the overall influence of impeding the capacity of the policy to deliver what it was meant to achieve.

Incorporating the evaluation stage at the policy formulation part aids in capturing all the government-oriented groups and policy activists who determine the shape of a certain public policy (May & Wintner 2007, p.463). Policymaking involves the substantive expenditure of the public scarce and constrained resources.

Exempting the evaluation at the formulation phase would mean reduced surveillance of risks that would lead to the implementation of policies that only serve the interests of the current political regime, later to be found inappropriate in the forthcoming regimes coupled with newly emerged interest groups’ demands.

The policy-formulating agents are more often researchers working for a change. According to Palumbo (1987), these people are keen on what is included in the formulation process (p.29). They also take part in its implementation.

This implies that it is practically inappropriate to deter the policy-formulating agents from scrutinising the impacts of the formulated policies (evaluation) on the attainment of the desired goals, both in short-term and in the long term.

The contribution of political influence in the formulation of the policies cannot be negated in the evaluation phase because conducting the evaluation independently can threaten both program managers and politicians (Pollitt 1999, p.79).

From this point of view, measurement, description, responsive, and judgments, as some of the techniques of evaluating the degree of the public policies at the formulation stage to result to the attainment of the intended goals, objectives, and aims are crucial for incorporation at the formulation phase.

This attempt helps in the determination of policies that would have the overall impact of spending the scarce public resources well right at the formulation stage. The funds that could have been wasted in the unsuccessful implementation phase due to errors related to poor policy formulation can be channeled into the revision of the policies.

Once a policy is evaluated at the formulation phase, the subsequent process of implementation has high probabilities that it cannot trace its intricacies to the formulation phase.

The challenge that may arise can only result from the failure of the implementing agents to implement the policy in a manner that is consistent with the anticipations of the recipients (Whitford 2007, p.18).

At the formulation phase, evaluation involves describing whether the formulated policies, which are due for implementation, are compliant with the goals and objectives of the policies.

Evaluation at Policy Implementation Phase

The main actor in the policy implementation process is the bureaucratic system of administration. Such a system is constructed on the foundation of compliance.

Description of the implementation agency is also crucial to help in determining the likely impacts of the implementing agency on the success of enforcement of the rules, laws, and regulations prescribed by the policy without stakes.

Most of the public policies are developed in a manner such that their implementation is dependent on the enforcing agents to prescribe either compliance or otherwise face certain legal consequences.

According to May and Wintner (2007), the bureaucracy is given a central role to play in the implementation stage since it has the ability to understand and translate the real aim, methodology, and area of coverage of any policy (p.465).

This means that the bureaucracy has capabilities of redefining intents of actions of the policy under implementation to some degree. This molding process is the evaluation process of public policy at the implementation phase.

The chief goal of conducting an evaluation at the implementation phase rests on the need to monitor the bureaucratic implementing agents.

This step is necessary to mitigate risks of the implementing agent to redefine the details of the policy in a manner that would impair the adopted method of implementation that is defined in the policy formulation phase.

In the implementation phase, administrative agencies include courts and parliament (DelLeon & Denver 2002, p.483). These agencies have crucial responsibilities in determining what needs to be done and what should not be done when it comes to policy implementation (May & Wintner 2007, p.467).

The agencies come up either with proposed rules, interim rules, or even the final rules to guide the process of implementation of the policies. Evaluation is necessary to ensure compliance of the policy implementation with these rules.

It should be conducted in every step of the implementation process to ensure that the policy is directly congruent with the anticipated objectives and goals of the policy as spelled out in the evaluated formulation phase before the start of the next step of the implementation process.

Why Integrate Policy Formulation, Implementation, and Evaluation Phases?

The phases and steps of making policies are interrelated. The success of a phase and or step within a phase determines the success of the next phase or step. Evaluation is the tool for gauging and determining the extent of success of these phases and steps of the policy implementation.

Success in the implementation of public policy is a function of the success of the preceding phase. The success of this preceding phase (policy formulation) is dependent on the evaluation of the formulated policies.

This means that public policy cannot be implemented with high probabilities of its success in realising its objectives and goals if the process of evaluation is treated as distinct a phase.

Public policies may fail to achieve their intended outcomes because of various problems encountered in the implementation phase.

These problems include the existence of certain constraints, which are problematic to the implementing agencies while executing the implementation process, inadequate resources and time for implementation, incomplete agreement and understanding of policy goals, and resistance to commands given by the bureaucratic policy-implementing agents (Hogwood & Gunn 1984, p.75).

Other challenges include inadequate agencies for implementation of the policy and lack of clear and particular sequence for policy implementation.

Public policies are made in a number of processes, which can be treated as distinct entities. These entities or phases are different yet interdependent on each other. From this argument, the paper maintains that they cannot be executed differently as the top-down approach of policy implementation suggests.

Two important phases of the process of making public policies are policy formulation and policy implementation.

To comply with the need to have the two phases interlinked, there must be a linking phase, which is the evaluation phase that is proposed as an ample component for inclusion in the policy formulation and implementation phases for making public policy.

Evaluation of various steps within each phase and the entire phase helps in avoiding culmination and replication of various challenges that may impede the realisation of outcomes of the public policy under implementation.

When the evaluation forms an integral part of the implementation process to be conducted simultaneously with the implementation process, these challenges can be captured and corrective mechanism adopted.

Apart from ensuring that the formulation is successful in paving the way for the implementation phase, the paper considered evaluation as essential in merging these two phases in the effort to mitigate various challenges that may prevent attainment of the intended outcomes of the policy under implementation.

The paper discussed the top-down and bottom-up approach of policy implementation as the main theoretical constructs for the implementation of public policies. Through this discussion, treatment of evaluation as a separate entity often considered after implementation of the policy was identified as a major drawback of both approaches.

To provide a different approach for making public policies, the paper presented and discussed the roles of evaluation in the policy formulation phase and implementation phase. Therefore, it is held that the implementation of public policy cannot be separated from its formulation or its evaluation.

Barzelay, M & Jacobsen, A 2009, ‘Theorising Implementation of Public Management Policy Reforms: A Case Study of Strategic Planning and Programming in the European Commission’, Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, vol. 22 no. 2, pp. 319–334.

Cope, S & Goodship, J 1999, ‘Regulating Collaborative Government: Towards Joined-Up Government?’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 3-16.

DelLeon, P & Denver, L 2002, ‘What Ever Happened to Policy Implementation? An Alternative Approach’, Journal of Public Administration and Research Theory, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 467-492.

Edward, C 1992, Political Authority and Bureaucratic Power , Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.

Hogwood, W & Gunn, L 1984, Policy Analysis of the Real World , Longman, New York.

Howlett, M et al. 2009, Studying Public Policy , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Lyhne, I 2011, ‘Between Policy-Making and Planning: SEA and Strategic Decision-Making in the Danish Energy Sector’, Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management, vol. 13 no. 3, pp. 319–341.

Marsh, D & McConnell, A 2010, ‘Towards a Framework for Establishing Policy Success’, Public Administration, vol. 88 no. 2, pp. 57-69.

Matland, R 1995, ‘Synthesising the Implementation Literature: Ambiguity-Conflict Model of Implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol. 5 no. 2, pp. 145-174.

May, J & Wintner, C 2007, ‘Politicians Managers and Street Level Bureaucrats: Influences on Policy Implementation’, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, vol 19 no. 3, pp. 453-476.

Mazmanian, D & Sabatier, P 1983, Implementation and Public Policy , Scott Foresman, Glenville.

Milward, B 1980, “Policy Entrepreneurship and Bureaucratic Demand Creation .” In H Igram and D Mann (eds) , Why Policies Succeed or Fail, Beverly Hills, California, Sage, pp. 255-277.

Palumbo, J (ed) 1987, The Politics of Program Evaluation, Pluto, London.

Pollitt, C 1999, ‘Stunted by Stake Holder? Limits to Collaborative Evaluation’, Public Policy and Administration, vol. 14 no. 2, pp. 77-90.

Ridde, V 2009, ‘Policy Implementation In African States: An Extension of Kingdon’s Multiple-Streams Approach’, Public Administration , vol. 87 no. 4, pp. 938-954.

Rist, C (ed) 1995, Policy Evaluation: Linking Theory to Practice , Prentice Hall, New Jersey, NJ.

Sabatier, P 1986, ‘Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches to Implementation Research: a Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis’, Journal of Public Policy, vol. 6 no. 1, pp. 21-48.

Whitford, B 2007, ‘Decentralised Policy Implementation’, Political Research Quarterly , vol. 10 no. 1, pp. 17-30.

• Limits on the Social Financial Assistance and Support
• The Relevance of the Claim ‘Might versus Right’ in Policy Analysis
• Public Policy: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation – Analytical Essay
• Sarbanes-Oxley Act Compliance Approach at Trinity
• Bureaucratic and Non-bureaucratic Organizations
• Combating Smoking: Taxation Policies vs. Education Policies
• Implications of Privatising Public Utilities and Accountability Issues
• Institutional Accountability: Dispersion of Power and Delegation of Responsibilities
• The Ministry of Interior of the United Arab Emirates
• Federalist Paper No. 51
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 17). The Implementation of Public Policy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-implementation-of-public-policy/

"The Implementation of Public Policy." IvyPanda , 17 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-implementation-of-public-policy/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The Implementation of Public Policy'. 17 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The Implementation of Public Policy." June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-implementation-of-public-policy/.

1. IvyPanda . "The Implementation of Public Policy." June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-implementation-of-public-policy/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The Implementation of Public Policy." June 17, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-implementation-of-public-policy/.

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• Early systems
• The British Empire
• The United States
• The Soviet Union
• Developing nations
• The classical definition
• Responses to incrementalism
• Public policy approach
• Education and training

• Who was Justinian I?
• How did Justinian I become emperor?
• What did Justinian I accomplish as emperor?
• What was the Code of Justinian?
• Who was Napoleon?

public administration

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• UNESCO - ELOSS - Public Administration and Policy: An Introduction
• Social Science LibreTexts - Bureaucracy and the Evolution of Public Administration
• CORE - An Analysis on Development of Public Administration Study in Western Countries
• LOUIS Pressbooks - Bureaucracy and the Evolution of Public Administration
• Table Of Contents

public administration , the implementation of government policies . Today public administration is often regarded as including also some responsibility for determining the policies and programs of governments . Specifically, it is the planning, organizing, directing, coordinating, and controlling of government operations.

Public administration is a feature of all nations, whatever their system of government. Within nations public administration is practiced at the central, intermediate, and local levels. Indeed, the relationships between different levels of government within a single nation constitute a growing problem of public administration.

In most of the world the establishment of highly trained administrative, executive , or directive classes has made public administration a distinct profession. The body of public administrators is usually called the civil service . In the United States , the elitist class connotations historically attached to the civil service were consciously abandoned or from the early 20th century, with the result that civil servants were recognized as professionals and valued for their expertise.

Traditionally the civil service is contrasted with other bodies serving the state full time, such as the military, the judiciary , and the police. Specialized services, sometimes referred to as scientific or professional civil services, provide technical rather than general administrative support. Traditionally, in most countries, a distinction is also made between the home civil service and those persons engaged abroad on diplomatic duties. A civil servant, therefore, is one of a body of persons who are directly employed in the administration of the internal affairs of the state and whose role and status are not political, ministerial, military, or constabulary.

In most countries the civil service does not include local government or public corporations. In some countries, however—particularly those unitary states in which provincial administration is part of the central government—some provincial staffs are civil servants. In the United States, all levels of government have their own civil services—federal, state, and local—and a civil service is specifically that part of governmental service entered by examination and offering permanent tenure .

Certain characteristics are common to all civil services. Senior civil servants are regarded as the professional advisers to those who formulate state policy. In some countries entry requirements for a career in the higher civil service stress qualifications in technical fields such as accounting, economics, medicine, and engineering. In other countries legal training is deemed appropriate, and in others no specific technical or academic discipline is required among candidates for senior posts. Whatever their precise qualifications, senior civil servants are professional in the sense that their experience of public affairs is thought to provide them with the knowledge of the limits within which state policy can be made effective and of the probable administrative results of different courses of action. Civil servants in every country are expected to advise, warn, and assist those responsible for state policy and, when this has been decided, to provide the organization for implementing it. The responsibility for policy decisions lies with the political members of the executive (those members who have been elected or appointed to give political direction to government and, customarily, career civil servants). Customarily, civil servants are protected from public blame or censure for their advice. The acts of their administration may, however, be subject to special judicial controls from which no member of the executive can defend them.

Civil services are organized upon standard hierarchical lines, in which a command structure rises pyramid-fashion from the lowest offices to the highest. This command implies obedience to the lawful orders of a superior, and in order to maintain this system the hierarchy of offices is marked by fixed positions, with well-defined duties, specific powers, and salaries and privileges objectively assessed. In some countries there may be direct appointment to higher office of persons not previously employed by the service, but even then a recognized system of internal promotion emphasizes the nature of the hierarchical pyramid.

This article discusses the growth of public administration through history as well as its development under different political systems. Special attention is paid to the problems of administrative law and bureaucratic structure. For discussion of a subject integral to public administration, see government economic policy . For further discussion of the various regimes under which public administration operates, see political system .

Importance of Public Policy-10 Points Need to Know

Public policies are adopted after deliberation by all. So the importance of public policy is immense in every case. Because here it is not enough to just set the policy but also to implement it.

The policy is the outcome of all executive decisions. Policy framework helps in formulating new policies and management acts as a guide to all members. T

he preceding principles are particularly helpful in solving reorganizational problems. This prevents wastage of management time.

All functioning of any country depends on concerted efforts. The use of sound principles increases coordination and effectiveness. Policies play an important role in helping a country achieve its goals.

To permanently establish the policy, the executive takes control of the public to make fair use of recurring events. Government policy is important in administrative management for the following reasons.

Table of Contents

Importance of Public Policy

Public policy plays a crucial role in shaping societies and addressing complex challenges faced by governments and public institutions. Its importance can be highlighted in several ways:

Addressing Societal Issues

Promoting public welfare, guiding resource allocation, fostering economic growth, ensuring social justice, enhancing governance and democracy, managing complexity, promoting long-term sustainability, effective administration, public policy education.

Public policy provides a framework for governments to identify, understand, and address pressing societal issues. It allows governments to respond to societal issues such as poverty, inequality, healthcare access, climate change, and crime through systematic and strategic approaches.

Must Read Guide: An In-Depth Look at Public Policy Issues and 5 Examples

Public policy aims to enhance the well-being of individuals and communities. It sets goals and implements measures to improve access to essential services like education, healthcare, housing, and transportation. By promoting public welfare, policies helps to create more inclusive and equitable societies.

Public policy is instrumental in the allocation and management of scarce resources. It helps governments determine priorities, allocate budgets, and distribute resources efficiently to meet societal needs. Policies also play a role in regulating economic activities and ensuring fair competition.

Public policies can stimulate economic growth by creating an enabling environment for businesses, attracting investments, and promoting innovation and entrepreneurship .

Policies related to infrastructure development, trade, taxation, and industry regulations influence economic activities and contribute to overall prosperity.

Public policy plays a vital role in promoting social justice and equity. Policies help reduce inequalities, protect vulnerable populations, and ensure equal access to opportunities and resources.

They can address discrimination, gender disparities, and other forms of social injustice, working towards a more just and inclusive society.

Public policy provides a framework for transparent and accountable governance. It involves stakeholder participation, consultation, and deliberation, ensuring that policy decisions are made through democratic processes. Policies also contribute to the rule of law and the protection of fundamental rights.

Public policy helps navigate the complexity of societal challenges. It requires evidence-based research, data analysis, and expert opinions to develop effective strategies.

Policies provide a structured approach to problem-solving and guide decision-makers in balancing competing interests and managing trade-offs.

Public policy plays a crucial role in ensuring long-term sustainability. Policies related to environmental protection, climate change mitigation, and resource management aim to preserve natural resources and create a sustainable future for future generations.

Public policy makes administrators time conscious by motivating them to complete tasks within the specified time. In cases where the same problem reoccurs, everyone does not have to make a fresh decision every time.

As a result, employees do not have to waste time answering the same questions without bothering the administrator.

The study of public policy gives us knowledge about the various problems prevailing in the country in recent times and in the distant past.

As a result, there is a need to adopt new public policies to solve this problem. Only by studying public policy can we know what type of public policy needs to be implemented for this problem.

Must Read- The Crucial Link Between Public Policy and Administration

In summary, public policy is of paramount importance. It guides governments in addressing societal issues, promoting public welfare, allocating resources, fostering economic growth, ensuring social justice, enhancing governance, managing complexity, and promoting long-term sustainability. It is an essential tool for shaping the present and creating a better future for societies and individuals.

It is everyone’s responsibility to understand the importance of the Public policy. Because public policy can be implemented with the help or cooperation of the people. Therefore, if there is no knowledge about public policy, it will not be possible to implement welfare policies. 

Let me share with you what you have learned from “ Importance of Public Policy-10 Points Need to Know “

Must Read- 7 Key Characteristics of Public Policy

Sharing is Caring :)

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.