The policy cycle

Theories of the policy cycleOn the one hand, policy research continues to rely on the stages/cycle perspective; on the other hand, the framework has regularly been criticised -> questioning its utility.Laswell's 7 stages: starting pointConvention policy cycle model: agenda-setting policy formulation decision making implementation evaluation Chronological order of stages + Easton's input-output model = policy cycleThe utility of the framework: The framework is widely applied to organise and systematise research in the field of public policy. Ideal-type of rational planning and decision making -> a key reason for the success and durability of the stages approach is its appeal as a normative model for ideal-type evidence-based policy-making. Overcomes bias on the input-side -> by framing  the political process as a continuous process of policy-making, the cumulative and integrative effects of various actors, forces and institutions can be assessed Cyclical perspective emphasises feedback loops between outputs and inputs of policy-making Perspective grants attention to the tendency of policies to create unintended consequences or side-effects* Limitations of the framework The stages model is said to suffer from descriptive inaccuracy because empirical reality does not fit with the classification of the policy process into discrete and sequential stages (e.g. Sabatier) Simplified model: under real-world conditions policies are more frequently not the subject of comprehensive evaluations that lead to either termination or reformulation of a policy Policy processes rarely feature clear-cut beginnings and endings or sequences; rather, the stages are constantly entangled in an ongoing process (implementation studies have revealed that the separation between policy formulation and implementation is hardly reflecting real-world policy-making, neither in terms of a hierarchical, chronological sequence, not in terms of involved actors) Policies do not develop in a vacuum; they are adopted in a crowded policy space that leaves little room for policy innovation New policies modify, change, or supplement older policies, or (more likely) compete with them It ignores the role of knowledge, ideas and learning in the policy process as influential independent variables affecting all stages of the policy process, and not only the evaluation stage Policies are constantly debated, implemented, enforced, and evaluated Conceptually, the policy cycle lacks defining elements of a theoretical framework e.g. it does not offer causal explanations for the transition between different stages, or clearly defined dependent and independent variables However, despite its limitations, the policy cycle perspective has proven to be an excellent heuristic device. Our understanding of the complex preconditions, central factors influencing, and diverse outcomes of the policy process has been enhanced.The framework also plays a vital role in organising the vast amount of literature and in providing a base line for communication between the diverse approaches in the field.Schlager (1999) highlights the openness of the cycle perspective for different theoretical and empirical interests in the field of policy studies.Moreover, there is a risk that empirical findings concerning the complex policy process as a densely entangled space leads to the negligence of central research questions concerning the different roles of actors in different stages of policy process.The policy cycle framework provides a yardstick for the evaluation of the success/failure of a policy, as well as offering a perspective against which the democratic quality of these processes could be assessed.* Hogwood and Peters (1983): policy successionPolicies create side-effects and become the causes of later policy problems- both across and within sectorse.g. across: road construction -> environmental problemse.g. within: subsidies for agricultural products -> overproductionWildavsky (1979): "policy as its own cause"

New Page