Public policy

Public policy making is a time-consuming 'policy cycle'.

The policy cycle as set out in Understanding Public policy, theories and issues.[21]

Agenda setting identifies problems that require government attention, deciding which issue deserve the most attention and defining the nature of the problem.

Most public problems are made through the reflection of social and ideological values. As societies and communities evolve over time, the nature in which norms, customs and morals are proven acceptable, unacceptable, desirable or undesirable changes as well.[22] Thus, the search of crucial problems to solve becomes difficult to distinguish within 'top-down' governmental bodies.

The policy stream is a concept developed by John Kingdon as a model proposed to show compelling problems need to be conjoined with two other factors (1. appropriate political climate and 2. favorable and feasible solution attached to problem) that flow together to move onto policy agenda. This reinforces the policy window, another concept demonstrating the critical moment within a time and situation that a new policy could be motivated.[23]

Because the definition of public problems are not obvious, they are most often denied and not acted upon. The Problem Stream represents a policy process to compromise for how worthy problems are to create policies and solutions.[22] This is represented in 5 discrete factors:

1. Indicators: Scientific measurements, qualitative, statistical data using empirical evidence is used to bring relevance to particular phenomena.
2. Interpretation: Policymakers make judgements whether an issue constitutes a problem worthy of action.
3. Ideology: Elements of dominant values, customs, beliefs are crucial to devising problems needed for attention.
4. Instances: Media coverage supports by drawing attention to issues, thus prompting policymakers to respond and address changes.

Therefore, John Kingdon's model[24] suggests the policy window appears through the emergence and connection of problems, politics and policies, emphasizing the rare opportunity to simulate and initiate new policies.[22]

The 'issue attention cycle' is a concept developed by Anthony Downs (1972) where problems progress through 5 distinct stages.[25] This reinforces how the policy agenda does not necessarily lead to policy change, as public interest dissipates, most problems end up resolving themselves or get ignored by policymakers. [22] It's key stages include:

1. Pre-problem stage: Nature is not recognized by the public, media or policy makers.
2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm: something is identified as a problem, supported awareness by media to pursue seriousness of problem
3. Realization of costs which will be incurred by the solutions: Investigating through cost-benefit analysis, brining awareness of financial, environmental, structural curbs to consider solutions and what makes for their consequences.
4. Decline in public interest in issue: Citizens acquires acceptance to the problem and becomes 'normalized.' Newer issues pique's attention to the public. Limited attention span encourages policymakers to delay developing policy to see which public troubles demand necessary and worthwhile solving.
5. Issue slips off, or back down, the policy agenda: Issue effectively disappears, although have the possibility to re-emerge in other pressing circumstances.

This is the setting of the objectives for the policy, along with identifying the cost and effect of solutions that could be proposed from policy instruments.

Legitimation is when approval/ support for the policy instruments is gathered, involving one of or a combination of: Executive approval, legislative approval, seeking consent through consultation or referenda.

Policy Implementation is establishing or employing an organisation to take responsibility for the policy. Making sure the organisation has the resources/legal authority to do so. In addition to making sure the policy is carried out as planned. An example of this would be the department of education being set up.

As stated by Paul Cairney, the implementation gap are the stages a policy must go through before an authoritative decision is made and carried out. As an example, the agenda setting stage is followed by the policy formulation, this will continue until the policy is implemented. [26]

Top-down and Bottom-up implementation is an approach used to describe the process of policy implementation. Top-down implementation means the carrying out of a policy at the top i.e. central government or legislature. The Bottom-up approach suggests that the implementation should start with the target group, as they are seen as the actual implementers of policy.[27]

This is the process of assessing the extent to which the policy has been successful, or if this was the right policy to begin with/ was it implemented correctly and if so, did it go as expected.

this is when the policy makers decide to either terminate or continue the policy. The policy is usually either continued as is, modified or discontinued.

This cycle will unless discontinued go back to the Agenda setting phase and the cycle will commence again. However, the policy cycle is illustrated in a chronological and cyclical structure which could be misleading as in actuality, policymaking would include overlapping stages between the multiple interactions of policy proposals, adjustments, decision-making amongst multiple government institutions and respective authoritative actors.[28] Likewise, although its heuristic model is straightforward and easy to understand, it is crucial to note that the cycle isn't totally applicable in all situations of policymaking.[29]

Each system is influenced by different public problems and issues, and has different stakeholders; as such, each requires different public policy.[30]

In public policy making, numerous individuals, corporations, non-profit organizations and interest groups compete and collaborate to influence policymakers to act in a particular way.[31]

The large set of actors in the public policy process, such as politicians, civil servants, lobbyists, domain experts, and industry or sector representatives, use a variety of tactics and tools to advance their aims, including advocating their positions publicly, attempting to educate supporters and opponents, and mobilizing allies on a particular issue.[19]

Many actors can be important in the public policy process, but government officials ultimately choose public policy in response to the public issue or problem at hand. In doing so, government officials are expected to meet public sector ethics and take the needs of all project stakeholders into account.[30]

It is however worth noting that what public policy is put forward can be influenced by the political stance of the party in power. Following the 2008/2009 financial crisis, David Cameron's Conservative party looked to implement a policy of austerity in 2010 after winning the General Election that year, to shore up the economy and diminish the UK's national debt. [32] Whilst the Conservatives saw reducing the national debt as an absolute priority, the Labour Party, since the effects of Conservative austerity became apparent, have slated the policy for its 'needless' pressure on the working classes and those reliant on welfare, their 2019 election manifesto stating "Tory cuts [have] pushed our public services to breaking point” and that  “the Conservatives have starved our education system of funding”.[33] This is a good example of how varying political beliefs can impact what is perceived as paramount for the electorate.

Since societies have changed in the past decades, the public policy making system changed too. In the 2010s, public policy making is increasingly goal-oriented, aiming for measurable results and goals, and decision-centric, focusing on decisions that must be taken immediately.[30]

Furthermore, mass communications and technological changes such as the widespread availability of the Internet have caused the public policy system to become more complex and interconnected.[34] The changes pose new challenges to the current public policy systems and pressures leaders to evolve to remain effective and efficient.[30]

Public policies come from all governmental entities and at all levels: legislatures, courts, bureaucratic agencies, and executive offices at national, local and state levels. On the federal level, public policies are laws enacted by Congress, executive orders issued by the president, decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court, and regulations issued by bureaucratic agencies.[35]

On the local, public policies include city ordinances, fire codes, and traffic regulations. They also take the form of written rules and regulations of city governmental departments: the police, fire departments, street repair, or building inspection. On the state level, public policies involve laws enacted by the state legislatures, decisions made by state courts, rules developed by state bureaucratic agencies, and decisions made by governors.[35]

Data-driven policy is a policy designed by a government based on existing data, evidence, rational analysis and use of information technology to crystallize problems and highlight effective solutions.[37] Data-driven policy making aims to make use of data and collaborate with citizens to co-create policy.[38] Policy makers can now make use of new data sources and technological developments like Artificial Intelligence to gain new insights and make policy decisions which contribute to societal development.

User-centered policies are policies that are designed and implemented with the end-users, or those who are impacted by the policy, as co-designers.[39][40] Policymakers using this design process utilize users' knowledge of their lived experiences. [39] This can allow for policymakers focus on including both comprehensiveness and comprehension within policies to aid in clarity for end-users, such as workers or organizations. [39]

The Small System dynamics model is a method of condensing and simplifying the understanding of complex issues related to overall productivity. [41]

Evidence-based policy is associated with Adrian Smith because in his 1996 presidential address to the Royal Statistical Society, Smith questioned the current process of policy making and urged for a more “evidence-based approach” commenting that it has “valuable lessons to offer”.[42]

Some policy scholars now avoid using the term evidence-based policy, using others such as evidence informed. This language shift allows continued thinking about the underlying desire to improve evidence use in terms of its rigor or quality, while avoiding some of the key limitations or reductionist ideas at times seen with the evidence-based language. Still, the language of evidence-based policy is widely used and, as such, can be interpreted to reflect a desire for evidence to be used well or appropriately in one way or another – such as by ensuring systematic consideration of rigorous and high quality policy relevant evidence, or by avoiding biased and erroneous applications of evidence for political ends.[43]

Unlike the UK, the USA has a largely devolved government, with power at local, state and federal level. Due to these various levels of governance, it can often be difficult to coordinate passing bills and legislation, and there is often disagreement. Despite this, the system allows citizens to be relatively involved in inputting legislation. Furthermore, each level of government is set up in a similar way with similar rules, and all pump money into creating what is hoped to be effective legislation. Policy creation in America is often seen as unique to other countries.[44]