Participants in the policy process

Answer to Problem No. 3 of the Take Home Exam

By Rogelio Alicor L. Panao

What role do non-official actors (NGOs, academics, interest groups) play in

the policy process vis-à-vis official actors (e.g., bureaucrats and politicians)? How

does this role vary with each policy approach? Who are the key players in the policy

dynamics and how are they viewed in the various policy approaches?

This paper discusses the role key actors in the policy process play by

comparing three approaches to policy analysis: the Multiple Stream Framework, the

Network Approach, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework. It looks at how each

approach treats policy actors and the relationship between them as policy participants.

It assesses the degree to which non-official actors play a role in the policy process

alongside the official actors according to the assumptions laid out by each framework.

Unofficial actors are so-called because their participation in the policy process

is not a function of their duties under an institution or law (e.g., the Constitution).

This does not mean, however, that these actors have no legal right or standing to

participate in the policy dynamics; only that their participation is not specified in law.

Their role, in other words, evolved and grown in much the same way as society has

grown and matured. Unofficial actors include the individual citizens, the political

parties (which operate along the boundary between state and societal actors), interest

or pressure groups (including business), think tanks and research organizations, mass

media, and academic policy experts and consultants.

Official actors, on the other hand, are those involved in public policy by virtue

of their statutory or constitutional responsibilities. As such, they wield the power to

make and enforce policies. The actors in the three branches of government—the

executive, legislative, and the judiciary—are typical examples of official actors. They

include elected politicians (including members of the executive and the legislature),

the bureaucracy or the civil service, and the courts.

Actors as policy entrepreneurs: The multiple stream approach

To understand the role of policy participants in the Multiple Stream (MS)

Framework, it is essential to first look its basic assumptions. The Multiple Stream

approach captures the complexities of the policymaking process by focusing on the

flow and timing of policy action than its component steps. Cohen, March and Olsen

(1972) refers to it as a “garbage can model” because it tries to explain why some

issues and problems become prominent in the policy agenda while others never even

achieve prominence. In the multiple stream approach, particular emphasis is placed on

three distinct but complimentary streams in policymaking—the problem stream, the

policy stream, and the politics stream—which move independently through the policy

system. At critical points in time, referred to as policy windows, the streams are

coupled by policy entrepreneurs. The combination of the three streams into a single

package enhances the chances that policymakers will adopt a specific policy.

The problem stream is made up of various conditions that policymakers and

citizens want addressed (e.g., budget deficits, environmental degradation, medicare,

lack of public housing, etc). Policymakers find out about these conditions through

indicators (e.g., cost of a public health program, homelessness rate, etc.), which are

used to assess the magnitude of a condition and the scope of solution. Not all

conditions become problems, and those not defined as a problem or (for which

alternatives are proposed) will never be converted into policy. The stream of problem

includes those that individuals inside and outside the policy system have.

The policy stream is concerned with the formulation of policy alternatives and

proposals, and includes the “soup” of ideas that compete to win acceptance in policy

networks. Ideas are not built initially to resolve a given problem. Instead, they float

until given consideration and tied to a problem. How an idea or proposal is selected

depends on its technical feasibility and value acceptability. A variety of actors can

participate in the elaboration of such solutions and alternatives, and in the drafting of

proposals for policy reform.

The politics stream refers to the broader political discourse within which

policy is made. It includes the national mood, pressure group campaigns, and

administrative and legislative turnover. For instance, an impending election or change

in government can lead a given topic and policy to be included or excluded from the

agenda. In the political stream, consensus is usually obtained as a result of bargaining

rather than persuasion. Thus, more attention is paid to assessing the costs and benefits

of a policy proposal than to underlining its analytical importance and relevance.

It is also important to mention how the MS views organizational choice and

the assumptions it makes in order to have a better understanding of the policy actors.

The MS approach views organizations as operating in a variety of inconsistent and ill

defined preferences, or what Zahariadis (2007) refers to as conditions of ambiguity.

Organizations also operates with unclear technology, that is, it runs on trial-and-error

procedures, learning from past experience, pragmatic invention and necessity. Since

organizations are seen as ‘organized anarchies’ members (e.g. national government,

the university) may be aware of their individual responsibilities but only exhibit

rudimentary knowledge of how their job fits in the overall mission of the

organization. Finally, participation is fluid. Turnover is high and participants drift

from one decision to the next.

The MS theorizes at the systemic level—that is, it incorporates the whole

system and looks at a separate decision or choice as its unit of analysis. As such, key

players refer not to the individual actors per se (politicians, bureaucrats, researchers,

or interest groups) but the relationship between policymakers and the policy

entrepreneurs in the different policy communities. Because policymakers (politicians)

at the top are overwhelmed by the number and complexity of problems they

encounter, the entire system is organized into sectors called policy communities

(networks) or subsystems. These communities or subsystems act as filters where

problems and solutions typically incubate before they are taken by top level

politicians. But because there are many policy communities but only one government,

an “attention” bottleneck results when solutions become too many for the

policymakers to handle. This is where policy entrepreneurs play a crucial role by

capturing the attention of policymakers and manipulating it to their advantage.

Here is where MS differs from Rational Choice (I deem this is worth

mentioning even though I did not include the Rational Choice theory in this paper).

Under the Rational Choice Theory, policymakers attend to problems first then

develop policy to fix them (problem-solution sequence). But under MS, opportunities

ration attention. If a window opens in the problem stream, solutions are developed in

response to specific problems (e.g., a flood or hurricane may call attention to

deficiencies in disaster mitigation and management). If a window opens in the politics

stream, attention is focused on solutions first before problems can be clearly defined

(that is, what matters is the solution rather than the rationale, owing to the fact that the

process is ideological).

Non-official actors such as NGOs, members of academia, think tanks, and

interest groups play a significant role in that they can act as policy entrepreneurs.

Non-official actors can engage in political manipulation in order to “couple”

problems, policies and politics into a single package. Research-based evidence, for

instance, can contribute to policies that have a dramatic impact on people’s lives.

Manipulation involves not only language (framing) but also emotion. As political

fixers, academics, civil society and interest groups must not only be able to identify

other key players but able to synthesize compelling stories to catch the attention of

policymakers.

Policy entrepreneurs refer to individuals or corporate actors who attempt to

couple the three streams. By definition, it is obvious that non-official actors are not

the only ones capable of being policy entrepreneurs. It is possible that sometimes

bureaucrats and legislators themselves can act as policy entrepreneurs and play an

active role in getting attention to a problem and opening policy windows. In the

Philippines, for instance, left-leaning party-list representatives (these are seats in

Congress won by parties representing supposedly marginalized sectors such as

women, youth, and labor) are credited for a number of social legislations whose bills

they sponsored without waiting for lobby groups to call their attention.

Interest groups easily come to mind, however, because policy entrepreneurs

have to be necessarily good storytellers and good networkers—traits that have long

characterized interest groups in all societies. Social activist, for instance, are effective

policy entrepreneurs because they draw their claims from higher order symbols—that

is, symbols which apply to the entire community (e.g., nationalism), have more

potency of affect, more uniformity of meaning across individuals, and greater

durability of attention.

However, not all academics or experts, NGOs or civil society, and interest

groups would be successful policy entrepreneurs all the time. The more successful

would be those who have greater access to policymakers. The Philippine-based

pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS), for example, had been a very influential

policy driver during former President Joseph Estrada’s administration—serving as the

unofficial think tank guiding numerous government programs—not only because pre-

election polls conducted by SWS correctly predicted his victory in 1998 (or rather, in

some accounts, conditioned voters to a bandwagon victory) but because the head of

the research firm was purportedly Estrada’s distant relative.

Moreover, researchers, nonprofit organizations or interest groups that have

more volunteers, money or energy to push their proposals have greater rates of

success than their less endowed counterparts.

Interdependent actors: The policy network approach

The policy network approach views policymaking as taking place in domain-

specific subsystems consisting of a large number of actors dealing with specific policy

issues (Adam and Kriesi 2007). Here, not only are actors interdependent of each

other, they also engage in regular communication and frequent exchange of

information to coordinate their mutual interests. Policy networks, in other words,

constitute stable patterns of social relations between interdependent actors which take

shape around policy problems or programs.

As such, governmental organizations (the formal actors in the policy process)

are no longer the central steering actors in the policy process. This is one of the major

features of the Network Approach that distinguishes it from the Multiple Stream

Framework. Whereas in the Multiple Stream Framework policy entrepreneurs such as

experts and interest groups merely propose a theory of political manipulation (policy

selection is still left to policymakers who “soup” what for them appears to be the most

viable and acceptable ideas), in the network approach the actors who are formally

responsible for political decisions is neither the only nor the most influential decision

maker. The policy process, according to the network approach, is not completely and

exclusively structured by formal institutional arrangements.

The Network Approach ascribes two important dimensions to policy actors.

The first refers to attributes—actors have specific capabilities, perceptions and

preferences—the distribution of which determines whether power is concentrated in

the hands of one dominant actor or coalition or whether it is shared between actors or

coalitions. However, the Network Approach does not take into account only the

various types of interdependent actors and their attributes, but also the interactions

between them. Rhodes (1997) defines a policy network as a cluster or complex of

organization connected to one another by resource dependencies.

Informal actors such as political parties, NGOs, social movement

organizations, and interest groups, along with state actors (formal actors) comprise the

actors in the system of interest mediation. A coalition under the network approach can

be composed of one type of actors only (homogenous), or different types of actors

(heterogenous).

Recall that the involvement of actors is a consequence of the fact that they

possess resources that require their involvement in the handling and solution of a

particular problem. Actors, in effect, have veto power (or what Rhodes refers to as

discretion) and can block interaction processes by withdrawing their resources. Their

basic interaction is one involving bargaining between actors with resources. There is

balance of power, not necessarily one in which all members receive equal benefits,

but one in which all members see themselves as in a positive-sum game. As such, the

policy monopoly of a dominant coalition or actor will remain intact unless

destabilized by exogenous shocks or the mobilization of competing actors or

coalitions.

Here is where the role of researchers and experts as non-official actors become

significant. Another possible source of exogenous shocks to policy network,

according to Adam and Kriesi (2007), are ideas, values and knowledge. New ideas,

say empirical studies that change that change the public’s perception or redefine an

existing condition, can present a very serious challenge to existing policy

communities and networks. New ideas, knowledge or values can dissolve existing

relations between actors in a network, pave way for new actors, or make established

actors adopt new issues.

Another important concept relates to “governance” as opposed to government.

In the network approach, as mentioned earlier, policy outcomes are not the product of

actions by central government. The formal actors such as the national government,

legislators and politicians may be responsible for order in the policy area but policy

per se emerges out of the negotiations of several affected parties, both in the public

and private sphere. Whereas government refers to activities that are backed by formal

authority, governance embraces not only governmental organizations but also

informal non governmental mechanisms. Hence, there is governance even without

government when regulatory mechanisms in a sphere of activity are able to function

effectively though they are not endowed with formal authority.

Governance then blurs the distinction between the official and the non-official,

the public (the state) and the private (e.g., civil society). The network approach, in

effect, puts equal weight to both official and non-official actors. The state becomes a

collection of inter-organizational networks made of government and societal actors

but no sovereign actor that steers or regulates. Within these networks are found think

tank experts, legislative staff, policy analysts, public administrators, interest groups,

process generalists, even elected officials, participating together to work out

possibilities for how to solve a policy issue.

Non-official actors as coalitions: The Advocacy Coalition Framework

Conclusion

The three approaches analyzed—the Multiple Stream Framework, the

Network Approach, and the Advocacy Coalition Framework—offer different

explanations to how policy change takes place, and ascribe varying roles to the

participants in the policy process. For instance, one framework may focus on a

particular set of actors, while the other shifts its attention on another. The three

approaches also vary in their level of analyses. A summary of the approaches is

presented in Table 1.

There are also similarities. Both Multiple Stream and Advocacy Coalition for

instance, share a focus on major policy change. Likewise, both point to similar types

of events and factors that set the stage for major policy change—dramatic events or

crises (external or internal perturbations under the ACF), changes in the governing

coalitions, and administrative and legislative turnover that afford a policy window

(MS approach). Network analysis, on the other hand, is being used by a number of

ACF scholars to show coordinated activities between and among actors and

coalitions.

As to which of these models best explain the dynamics of the policy process,

however, is an entirely different concern. It is presumptuous to conclude one

particular approach best captures the complexities and intricacies of policymaking.

Each attempts to explain the reality of the policy process. Likewise, each has its own

particular strengths and weaknesses. Scholars, researchers, and those interested in the

study of public policy are better off choosing one according to the nature and

direction of their research problem, while keeping an open mind about the other

approaches as alternatives.

Table 1: Summary of how the three approaches of policy process look at policy actors

Multiple Stream Framework

Network Approach Advocacy Coalition Framework

Level of analysis System Meso-level or interaction between interest groups and government (Rhodes 1997)

Collective

Key participants Policy entrepreneurs Policy networks (but neither official nor non-official actor dominates)

Coalitions (which can be made up of official or non-official actors)

Role of official actors

- generally scoop from a “soup” of ideas or “garbage can”

- acts in the context of ambiguity, lack of technology, and trial-and-error

- Have veto power and resources that make them important in the policy process.

- But do not have monopoly in decision-making.

- Share a policy core belief and work to translate it into policy.

- Have subunits which specialize in a policy domain.

Role of non-official actors

- As policy entrepreneurs, connects the policy, problems and politics stream (coupling).

- Engage in political manipulation and framing.

- Have resources that make them important in policy process.

- Have veto power (discretion) vis-à-vis official actors.

- Share a policy core belief and work to translate it into policy.

- See official actors as potential members of advocacy coalitions, hence, a major source of resource for the coalition.

When policy change occurs

- When there is coupling upon the opening of a policy window.

- When there is negotiation or bargaining by policy participants.

- When there is consensus as a result of external or internal perturbations, policy-oriented learning, or hurting stalemate.

Relationship between the official and non-official actors

- Policy entrepreneurs merely suggest, but decision ultimately rests on policymakers.

- Official actors (government) are not the only, nor the most influential among actors (balance of power)

- There is governance, instead of government.

- Coalitions can have both official and non-official actors.

- Actors engage in non-trivial coordination.

References

Adam, Silke, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2007. “The Network Approach.” In Theories of

the Policy Process, Second Edition, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder: Westview

Press, 129-148.

Cobb, Roger, Jennie-Keith Ross, and Mare Howard Ross. 1976. “Agenda Building as

a Comparative Political Process.” American Political Science Review 70(1):

126-138.

Cohen, Michael D., James G. March, and Johan P. Olson. 1972. “A Garbage Can

Model of Organizational Choice.” Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1-25.

Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 2009. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and

Policy Subsystems, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jones, Michael D., and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith. 2009. “Trans-Subsystem Dynamics:

Policy Topography, Mass Opinion, and Policy Change.” Policy Studies

Journal 37(1): 37-58.

Rhodes, Rod A. W. 1997. Understanding Governance: Policy Networks, Governance,

Reflexibility and Accountability. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Sabatier, Paul A. Ed. 2007. Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition. Boulder:

Westview Press.

Weible, Christopher, and Paul A. Sabatier. 2009. “Coalitions, Science, and Belief

Change: Comparing Adversarial and Collaborative Policy.” Policy Studies

Journal 37(2): 195-212.

Zahariadis, Nikolaos. 2007. “The Multiple Stream Framework: Structure, Limitations,

Prospects.” In Theories of the Policy Process, Second Edition, ed. Paul

Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press, 65-91.