Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-h8lrw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T07:48:34.366Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Paul A. Sabatier
Paul A. Sabatier*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Any theory of the manner in which governmental policies get formulated and implemented, as well as the effects of those actions on the world, requires an understanding of the behavior of major types of governmental institutions (legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, chief executives), as well as the behavior of interest groups, the general public, and the media. The dominant paradigm of the policy process, the stages heuristic popularized by Jones (1970), Anderson (1975), and Peters (1986), has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced, in large part because it is not a causal theory. In the course of their empirical work, policy scholars have highlighted a number of phenomena that need to be incorporated into theories of the policy process. The development of such theories requires an integration ‘of both political scientists’ knowledge of specific institutions and behavior and policy scholars' attention to policy communities, substantive policy information, etc.

Innovations by Policy Scholars in Understanding the Policy Process

At least since World War II, most political scientists have tended to focus on either a specific type of institution (legislatures, the presidency, courts, interest groups, administrative agencies, local governments, political parties) or on specific types of political behavior outside those institutions (public opinion, voting, political socialization). These have become the standard subfields within the discipline.

In contrast, scholars interested in public policy have not been able to stay within these subfields because the policy process spans all of them. In the course of empirical work, policy scholars have highlighted a number of phenomena often neglected by political scientists without a policy focus:

a) The importance of policy communities/networks/subsystems involving actors from numerous public and private institutions and from multiple levels of government;

b) The importance of substantive policy information;

c) The critical role of policy elites vis-a-vis the general public;

d) The desirability of longitudinal studies of a decade or more;

e) Differences in political behavior across policy types.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , June 1991 , pp. 147 - 156
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. 1984. Significant Features of Fiscal Federalism, 1982–83 Edition. Washington: ACIR.Google Scholar
Anderson, James. 1975. Public Policy-Making. N.Y.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan and Moe, Terry. 1985. “An Adaptive Model of Bureaucratic Politics,” American Political Science Review 79 (September): 755–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, Paul. 1985. Discrimination, Jobs, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, Nathan et al. 1975. The Use of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research.Google Scholar
Cobb, Roger et al. 1976. “Agenda Building as a Comparative Process,” American Political Science Review 70 (March): 126–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Michael, March, James, and Olsen, Johen. 1972. “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 (March): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Fay Lomax and Skogan, Wesley. 1989. “Agenda Setting: Contingent and Divergent Voice Models of the Rise and Fall of Policy Issues,” Unpublished paper, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Coyle, Dennis and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987. “Requisites of Radical Reform: Income Maintenance Versus Tax Preferences,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 7 (Fall): 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, Richard and Robinson, James. 1963. “Interparty Competition, Economic Variables, and Welfare Policies in the American States,” Journal of Politics 25 (May): 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derthick, Martha. 1979. Policymaking for Social Security. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Derthick, Martha and Quirk, Paul. 1985. The Politics of Deregulation. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Dye, Thomas and Zeigler, L. Harmon. 1975. The Irony of Democracy, 3d ed. North Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury Press.Google Scholar
Eyestone, Robert. 1977. “Confusion, Diffusion, and Innovation.” American Political Science Review 71 (June): 441–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, Micheal, Mizeli, Franzie, and Patterson, David. 1989. “Political Scientists' Journal Evaluations Revisited,” PS 22 (Sept.): 613–617.Google Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm. 1986. “The ‘Too Few Cases/Too Many Variables’ Problem in Implementation Research,” Western Political Quarterly 38 (June): 328–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goggin, Malcolm. 1987. Policy Design and the Politics of Implementation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Virginia. 1973. “Innovation in the States: A Diffusion Study,” American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1174–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberger, Martin, Brewer, Garry, Hogan, William, and Russell, Milton. 1983. Caught Unawares. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Hanf, Kenneth and Scharpf, Fritz, eds. 1978. Interorganizational Policy Making. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1972. “Review Article: Policy Analysis,” British Journal of Political Science 2 (January): 83–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1974. Social Policy in Britain and Sweden. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment,” in The New American Political System, ed. by King, A.. Washington: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Heintz, H. Theodore. 1988. “Advocacy Coalitions and the OCS Leasing Debate,” Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hjern, Benny and Porter, David. 1981. “Implementation Structures: A New Unit of Administrative Analysis,” Organization Studies 2: 211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard. 1974. The Study of Public Policy. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Hofferbert, Richard. and Urice, John. 1985. “Small Scale Policy: The Federal Stimulus versus Competing Explanations for State Funding of the Arts,” American Journal of Political Science 29 (May): 308–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, Helen. 1978. “The Political Rationality of Innovation,” in Approaches to Controlling Air Pollution, ed. by Friedlaender, Ann. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 12–56.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1988. “Analytical Debates and Policy Learning,” Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 169–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. 1990. Democratic Politics and Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, Hank. and Sabatier, Paul, eds. 1991. An Advocacy Coalition Model of Policy Change and Learning, Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Johannes, John. 1984. “Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Casework,” Administration and Society 16 (May): 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1970. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont, Ca.: Wads worth.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1975. Clean Air. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Charles. 1987. “Presidents and Agendas: Who Defines What for Whom?” Unpublished paper, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
Kemp, Kathleen. 1978. “Nationalization of the American States: A Test of the Thesis,” American Politics Quarterly 6 (April): 237–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1981. Congressmen's Voting Decisions, 2d ed. N.Y.: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Kingdon, John. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Kirst, Michael and Jung, Richard. 1983. “The Utility of a Longitudinal Approach in Assessing Implementation” in Studying Implementation, ed. by Williams, Walter. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, pp. 119–48.Google Scholar
Kiser, Larry and Ostrom, Elinor. 1982. “The Three Worlds of Action,” in Strategies of Political Inquiry, ed. Ostrom, E.. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 179–222.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard and Sears, David, eds. 1986. Political Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
Leichter, Howard. 1979. A Comparative Approach to Policy Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lester, James and Bowman, Ann. 1989. Implementing Intergovernmental Policy,” Polity 21 (Summer): 731–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liroff, Richard. 1986. Reforming Air Pollution Regulation. Washington: Conservation Foundation.Google Scholar
Loomis, Burdett. 1983. “A New Era: Groups and the Grass Roots,” in Interest Group Politics, ed. by Cigler, A. J. and Loomis, B. A.. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp. 169–190.Google Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1964. “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics 16 (June): 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowi, Theodore. 1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice,” Public Administration Review 32 (July/August): 298–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundqvist, Lennart. 1980. The Hare and the Tortoise: Clean Air Policies in the U.S. and Sweden. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Dean. 1975. “Political Incentives in U.S. Water Policy: Relationships between Distributive and Regulatory Politics,” in What Government Does, ed. Holden, Matthew and Dresang, Dennis. Beverly Hills: Sage, pp. 106–116.Google Scholar
March, James and Olsen, Johan. 1984. “The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life,” American Political Science Review 78 (September): 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Donald and Stimson, James. 1975. Yeas and Nays. N.Y.: Wiley.Google Scholar
May, Peter. 1986. “Politics and Policy Analysis,” Political Science Quarterly 101 (1): 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul. 1980. “A Multi variate Model of Public Policy-Making,” American Journal of Political Science 24 (August): 439–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul., eds. 1981. Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Mazmanian, Daniel and Sabatier, Paul. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy, rev. ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Mazur, Allan. 1981. The Dynamics of Technical Controversy. Washington: Communications Press.Google Scholar
Meier, Kenneth J. 1987. Politics and the Bureaucracy, 2d. ed. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1984. “The New Economics of Organization,” American Journal of Political Science 28 (November): 739–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, Terry. 1985. “Control and Feedback in Economic Regulation: The Case of the NLRB,” American Political Science Review 79 (December): 1094–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Jerome. 1973. “The Education Bureaucracies Implement Novel Policy: The Politics of Title I of ESEA,” in Policy and Politics in America, ed. by Sindler, Allan. Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 160–199.Google Scholar
Nathan, Richard and Adams, Charles. 1977. Revenue Sharing: The Second Round. Washington: Brookings.Google Scholar
Nelkin, Dorothy. 1979. Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Nelson, Barbara J. 1986. Making an Issue of Child Abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1986a. “An Agenda for the Study of Institution,” Public Choice 48: 3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1986b. “A Method of Institutional Analysis,” in Guidance, Control, and Evaluation in the Public Sector, ed. Kaufman, F. X., Majone, G., and Ostrom, V.. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 459–475.Google Scholar
Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Benjamin and Shapiro, Robert. 1983. “Effects of Public Opinion on Policy,” American Political Science Review 77 (March): 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, Edward and Goldsmith, Michael, eds. 1987. Central and Local Government Relations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Palumbo, Dennis. 1989. “Bucking the Tide: Policy Studies in Political Science, 1978–88,” Paper presented at the PSO Conference on Advances in Policy Studies, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Peters, B. Guy. 1986. American Public Policy: Promise and Performance, 2d ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pressman, Jeffrey and Wildavsky, Aaron. 1973. Implementation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1976. The Comparative Study of Political Elites. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Reagan, Michael. 1972. The New Federalism. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rhodes, R. A. W., and Wright, Vincent, eds. 1987. Tensions in the Territorial Politics of Western Europe. London: Frank Cass & Co.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall. 1985. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall. and Franklin, Grace. 1980. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. Home-wood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Ripley, Randall. 1982. Bureaucracy and Policy Implementation. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.Google Scholar
Rose, Douglas. 1973. “National and Local Forces in State Politics: The Implications of Multi-Level Analysis,” American Political Science Review 67 (December): 1162–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. 1986. “Top-Down and Bottom-Up Models of Policy Implementation: A Critical Analysis and Suggested Synthesis,” Journal of Public Policy 6 (January): 21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. 1988. “An Advocacy Coalition Framework of Policy Change and the Role of Policy-Oriented Learning Therein,” Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. and Hunter, Susan. 1989. “The Incorporation of Causal Perceptions into Models of Elite Belief Systems,” Western Political Quarterly 42 (September): 229–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabatier, Paul. and Pelkey, Neil. 1987. “Incorporating Multiple Actors and Guidance Instruments into Models of Regulatory Policy making.” Administration and Society 19 (September): 236–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Anne and Ingram, Helen. 1990. “Behavioral Assumptions of Policy Tools.” Journal of Politics 52 (May): 510–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scholz, John and Wei, Feng Hieng. 1986. “Regulatory Enforcement in a Federalist System.” American Political Science Review 80 (Dec): 1249–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharkansky, Ira, ed. 1970. Policy Analysis in Political Science. Chicago: Markham.Google Scholar
Sharpe, L. J. 1985. “Central Coordination and the Policy Network.” Political Studies 33 (September): 361–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Steven and Maltzman, Forrest. 1989. “Declining Committee Power in the House of Representatives.” Paper presented at the APSA Annual Meeting, Atlanta, September.Google Scholar
Songer, David. 1988. “The Influence of Empirical Research: Committee vs. Floor Decision Making.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 13 (Aug.): 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Horn, Carl. 1979. Policy Implementation in the Federal System. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman. 1972. Participation in America. New York: Harper &Row.Google Scholar
Vig, Norman and Kraft, Michael, eds. 1984. Environmental Policy in the 1980s. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack. 1972. “Brother, Can You Paradigm?” PS 3 (Fall): 419–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, Carol. 1977a. Using Social Research in Public Policy Making. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
Weiss, Carol. 1977b. “Research for Policy's Sake: The Enlightenment Function of Social Research.” Policy Analysis 3 (Fall): 531–545.Google Scholar
Weyent, John. 1988. “Is There Policy-Oriented Learning in the Analysis of Natural Gas Policy Issues?” Policy Sciences 21 (Fall): 239–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, Lawrence J. 1981. Reforming Regulation. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Whiteman, David. 1985. “The Fate of Policy Analysis in Congressional Decision Making.” Western Political Quarterly 38 (June): 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1974. The Politics of the Budgetary Process, 2d ed. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1982. “The Three Cultures: Explaining Anomalies in the American Welfare State.” The Public Interest 69 (Fall): 45–58.Google Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987. “Choosing Preferences by Constructing Institutions: A Cultural Theory of Preference Formation.” American Political Science Review 81 (March): 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wildavsky, Aaron. and Tenenbaum, Ellen. 1981. The Politics of Mistrust. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Wilson, James Q. Political Organizations. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Wood, B. Dan. 1990. “Modeling Federal Policy Structures with Dynamic Structural Equations.” Paper delivered at the 1988 meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar