public policy process essay

• Social Sciences
• Public Administration

Policy Process: Public Policies

24 Oct 2022

Format: APA

Academic level: College

Paper type: Essay (Any Type)

Downloads: 0

Public policies are courses of action created and adopted by the government while responding to public issues and concerns. The United States policymaking process is complicated due to the government structure and actors, informal actors such as the public and other interest groups (Kraft & Furlong, 2019). There are several theories that conflict with policy development. Kraft and Furlong's policy process model illustrates six essential stages involved in the policy process. Policymakers play an essential role in problem clarification, developing possible options, and then passing and implementing the proposals. The process is simplified and significantly influenced by government politics and processes. 

Agenda setting 

During this stage, legislators carry out comprehensive discussions about a specific problem and the potential solutions. Issues that attract high public attention are categorized under systemic agenda, while issues without public debates are categorized under the institutional agenda. Policymakers tend to ignore this level of the policy process. In Alaska, there has been a policy aimed at regulation of taxes and budgets, which has spurred legislators to take action. Projections are made to Alaska budget to close a budget deficit of approximately $3.8 billion. 

Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.

Policy formulation 

During the policy formulation stage, an action to deal with the prevailing problem is developed. There is the intensive use of instruments of policymaking, such as government spending and regulation. Both informal and formal actors are offered an opportunity to promote the desired policy proposal. A policy at this stage of implementation is the policy on environment and energy. The state has been working in collaboration with major oil companies in developing a $55 billion 800 mile natural gas pipeline (Hill & Varone, 2016) . The lawmakers will then result in legislative sessions. 

Policy legitimating 

During this stage of the policy process, the policy is passed into law by a legislative body. A policy needs to be accepted by the public for it to be fully legitimate. Policies that are not accepted by the public are illegitimate and fail at the implementation stage. In Arizona state, the policy on immigration as a looming issue is at this stage of implementation. Illegal immigration practices helped to reduce cases of deportations. 

Policy implementation 

During the policy implementation stage, activities carried out on a policy include application, interpreting, and organizing. Activities that put a policy into effect are well defined. They include; laws passed, the amount of money spent, and regulations formulated. Executive branches carry out the implementation through regulations. One of the policy at this policy process stage is the prison policies aimed at curbing the rising population in prisons in Arkansas. 

Policy and program evaluation 

During policy evaluation, the objective is to find out whether the policy generated a positive or a negative impact or no impact at all. Policies that have a positive output need to be implemented fully and comprehensively. On the other hand, policies that have negative outcomes are discouraged, and alternatives are evaluated. Experts evaluate the goals of a policy process and whether the goals have been met. One of the policies at this stage is the Alabama Medicaid healthcare policy. The policy is aimed at tarns forming how medical care is offered to the people in Alabama. 

Policy change 

During the policy change stage in the policymaking process, The information collected from the evaluation stage is gathered to inform the necessity for change in the policy cycle (Kraft & Furlong, 2019) . Alternatives to improve the existing policies are also evaluated. The affordable care act policy is a policy that is at this stage of the policy process. There have been divergent views on the affordable care act's effectiveness, making it necessary to adopt a policy change or adjustment. 

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2019).  Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives . Cq Press. 

Hill, M., & Varone, F. (2016).  The public policy process . Taylor & Francis. 

• Captain Morgan: Strengths and Opportunities
• Managing the Contractor: Transparency

Select style:

StudyBounty. (2023, September 16). Policy Process: Public Policies . https://studybounty.com/policy-process-public-policies-essay

Hire an expert to write you a 100% unique paper aligned to your needs.

Related essays

We post free essay examples for college on a regular basis. Stay in the know!

Evaluation of the Salvation Army’s Budgeting and Cumulative Report

Words: 2195

How Enterprise Resource Planning Can Help Boost Customer Satisfaction

The challenges facing human resource management, whistleblower protection act, social media and politics: how they intersect, corporate social responsibility: what it is and what it isn't, running out of time .

Entrust your assignment to proficient writers and receive TOP-quality paper before the deadline is over.

Understanding and influencing the policy process

• Published: 18 November 2011
• Volume 45 , pages 1–21, ( 2012 )

Cite this article

• Christopher M. Weible 1 ,
• Tanya Heikkila 1 ,
• Peter deLeon 1 &
• Paul A. Sabatier 2  

15k Accesses

154 Citations

43 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This essay translates some of the underlying logic of existing research of policy processes into a set of strategies for shaping policy agendas and influencing policy development and change. The argument builds from a synthesized model of the individual and a simplified depiction of the political system. Three overarching strategies are introduced that operate at the policy subsystem level: developing deep knowledge; building networks; and participating for extended periods of time. The essay then considers how a democratic ethic can inform these strategies. Ultimately, the success or failure of influencing the policy process is a matter of odds, but these odds could be changed favorably if individuals employ the three strategies consistently over time. The conclusion contextualizes the arguments and interprets the strategies offered as a meta-theoretical argument of political influence.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Reflections on Our Understanding of Policy Paradigms and Policy Change

Policy advisory systems: change dynamics and sources of variation

Modeling and Evaluation of Political Processes: A New Quantitative Approach

The field of policy process literature offers valid and useful knowledge generated from rigorous scientific approaches to data collection and analysis about the development of public policy over time. Depictions in a recent public policy handbook by Moran et al. ( 2006 , p. 5) and repeated by Smith and Larimer ( 2009 , p. 1) that policy process literature within public policy is more “mood than a science” is inaccurate. Indeed, to find the “scientific” approach in policy process research, people need look no further than to Dr. Elinor Ostrom’s Nobel Prize for her work within the institutional analysis and development framework (Ostrom 1990 , 2005 ) or to Drs. Bryan Jones and Frank Baumgartner’s arguments on institutional friction affecting incremental and punctuated policy change (Baumgartner et al. 2009 ; Jones et al. 2003 ). Of course, many unanswered questions remain. We recognize the challenges facing policy process researchers (Greenberg et al. 1977 ) and the numerous theories characterizing the field, some of which are stronger than others (Sabatier 1991 , 2007 ). The persistence of some theories over others is possibly one indication of growth and progress in the field.

For those wanting specific tactical recommendations on civic engagement, we refer readers to Gerston ( 2008 ) and Dalton ( 2008 ).

See the work by Van de Ven ( 2007 ) for a similar depiction of process types.

It is most important to recognize that the rational actor model found in economics and public choice theories, which assumes perfect rationality, utility maximization and often perfect abilities to process information, does not accurately depict the behavior of individuals operating in policy processes. While these assumptions might be useful in market settings, they have been shown empirically and theoretically not to apply to the action situations found in policy processes (see among many the arguments in Jones 2001 ; Ostrom et al. 1994 ; Poteete et al. 2010 ).

We purposively exclude the physical, geographic conditions from this initial discussion. Our rationale is not at all that these factors are unimportant for we address them in the next section. Instead, we argue that the constitutional features of a political system as found in the United States and the resulting emergence of subsystems and action situations is applicable across all problem contexts.

Policy subsystems themselves can be integrated into or around the more generic concept of “action situations.” Action situations can be defined as any human choice situation with two or more actors where collective outcomes emerge (Ostrom 2005 ). Thus, subsystems can be thought of as a very large “action situation,” but they are better conceptualized as having many other action situations nested within them. Both subsystems and action situations outside the subsystem than can affect affairs within the subsystem (for similar logic see Poteete et al. 2010 , p. 235).

The astute observer of the policy process literature will note the different of interpretations of policy subsystems. Some anchor the concept toward the traditional iron triangle or subgovernment concept with strong connections to a legislative subcommittee (Jochim and May 2010 ). Others de-emphasize the subcommittee concept and instead focus on subsystem nestedness and interdependence (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ). We emphasize the latter.

While we claim similar arguments could be made in parliamentary and corporatist systems, we leave the nuances of these arguments to others.

The ACF lists four paths, but we simplify them to three in this essay (Sabatier and Weible 2007 ) and because the theoretical distinction between internal and external shocks continues to evolve (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ).

Undoubtedly, however, learning about some of the causal mechanisms between events and subsystem change is partly a function of the event itself but even more related to the actual context of the subsystem (Nohrstedt and Weible 2010 ).

May ( 1992 ), for example, described different types of learning instrumental, social, and political.

Other interpretations of the normative part of a belief system deal with cultural types be them hierarchists (strong identity to groups and strong allegiance to externally imposed prescriptions, such as rules and traditions), individualists (weak identity to groups and external prescriptions), egalitarians (strong identify to groups with weak constraints from prescriptions), and fatalists (weak group identity and high constraints from imposed prescriptions) (Herron and Jenkins-Smith 2006 , p. 135–6). See also Stone’s ( 2001 ) characterization of goals as involving equity, efficiency, security, and liberty.

We prefer analytics instead of scientific and technical training because the term is more open to knowledge in fields outside of the sciences (e.g., the humanities or law). We also use the term analytics instead of discipline because some people have multiple disciplines or their disciplines poorly depict their actual disciplinary competencies.

Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. (1993). Agendas and instability in American Politics . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Baumgartner, F. R., Breunig, C., Green-Pedersen, C., Jones, B. D., Mortensen, P. B., Nuytemans, M., et al. (2009). Punctuated equilibrium in comparative perspective. American Journal of Political Science, 53 (3), 603–620.

Article   Google Scholar  

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84 , 395–415.

Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (2007). Innovation and diffusion models in policy research. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 223–260). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Washington: Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2010). An introduction to the policy process (3rd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Blomquist, W. (2007). The policy process and large-N comparative studies. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 161–293). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Brewer, G. D. (1974). The policy sciences emerge: To nurture and structure a discipline. Policy Sciences, 5 (3), 239–244.

Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The foundations of policy analysis . Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Clark, T. W. (2002). The policy process: A practical guide for natural resource professionals . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Cohen, S. (2006). Understanding environmental policy . New York: Columbia University Press.

Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.

Dahl, R. A. (1990). After the revolution? Authority in a good society (Revised Edition ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Dahl, R. A., & Stinebrickner, B. (2003). Modern political analysis . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

Dalton, R. J. (2008). The good citizen: How a younger generation is reshaping american politics . Washington, DC: CQ Press.

deLeon, P. (1999). The stages approach to the policy process: What has it done? Where is it going? In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 19–34). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

deLeon, P., & Weible, C. M. (2010). Policy process research for democracy: A commentary on Lasswell’s vision. International Journal of Policy Studies, 1 (2), 23–34.

Deutsch, K. W. (1966). The nerves of government . New York: The Free Press.

Edelman, M. (1985). The symbolic uses of politics (2nd ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ericsson, E. K. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Feiock, R. C., & Scholz, J. T. (2010). Self-Organizing Federalism: Collaborative Mechanisms to Mitigate Institutional Collective Action Dilemmas . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Freeman, J. L. (1965). The political process: Executive bureau-legislative committee relations (2nd ed.). New York: Random House, Inc.

Gerston, L. N. (2008). Public policymaking in a democratic society: A guide to civic engagement (2nd ed.). Armonk, New York: M.E. Sharpe.

Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers . New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.

Greenberg, G. D., Miller, J. A., Mohr, L. B., & Vladeck, B. C. (1977). Developing public policy theory: Perspectives from empirical research. The American Political Science Review, 71 (4), 1532–1543.

Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46 , 1–35.

Heclo, H. (1974). Social policy in Britain and Sweden . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Heclo, H. (1978). Issue networks and the executive establishment. In A. King (Ed.), The new American political system (pp. 87–124). Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Henry, A. D., Douglas, L., & Michael, M. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21 (3), 419–444.

Herron, K. G., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2006). Critical masses and critical choices: Evolving public opinion on nuclear weapons, terrorism, and security . Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Hofferbert, R. I. (1974). The study of public policy . Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.

Ingram, H., Schneider, A. L., & deLeon, P. (2007). Social construction and policy design. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 93–128). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Janis, I. (1972). Victims of groupthink . Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch: Science advisors as policymakers . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Jenkins-Smith, H. (1990). Democratic politics and policy analysis . Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Jenkins-Smith, H., Gilbert, St. C., & Brian, W. (1991). Explaining change in policy subsystems: Analysis of coalition stability and defection over time. American Journal of Political Science, 35 (4), 851–880.

Jochim, A. E., & May, P. J. (2010). Beyond subsystems: Policy regimes and governance. Policy Studies Journal, 38 (2), 303–327.

Jones, B. D. (2001). Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance . Chicago, IL: The University Chicago Press.

Jones, B. D., Sulkin, T., & Larsen, H. A. (2003). Policy punctuations in American political institutions. American Political Science Review, 97 (1), 151–169.

Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2005). The politics of attention . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies . New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Kiser, L. L., & Ostrom, E. (1982). The three worlds of action: A metatheoretical synthesis of institutional arrangements. In E. Ostrom (Ed.), Strategies of political inquiry (pp. 179–222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Kraft, M. E., & Furlong, S. R. (2007). Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

Kuhn, T. K. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: Chicago UP.

Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism, the growth of knowledge . Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lane, R. E. (2000). The loss of happiness in market democracies . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1948). Power and personality . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.), The policy sciences (Vol. Chap 1). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process . College Park: University of Maryland Press.

Lasswell, H. D. (1971). A pre-view of policy sciences . New York: American Elsevier.

Lindblom, C. E., & Cohen, D. K. (1979). Usable knowledge: Social science and social problem solving . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Loehle, C. (1987). Hypothesis testing in ecology: Psychological aspects and the importance of theory maturation. Quarterly Review of Biology, 62 , 397–409.

Madison, J. (1961). Federalist #10. In C. Rossiter (Ed.), The Federalist papers . New York: New American Library.

Majone, G. (1989). Evidence, argument, & persuasion in the policy process . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Mazur, A. (1981). The dynamics of technical controversy . Washington, D.C.: Communications Press.

May, P. J. (1992). Policy learning and failure. Journal of Public Policy, 12 (4), 331–354.

Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. A. (1980). A multi-variate model of public policy-making. American Journal of Political Science, 24 (3), 439–468.

Mazmanian, D., & Sabatier, P. (1981). Implementation and public policy . Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Moran, M., Rein, M., & Goodin, R. F. (Eds.). (2006). The oxford handbook of public policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

McCool, D. (1995). Public policy theories, models, and concepts: An anthology . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Noel, H. (2010). Ten things political scientists know that you don’t. The Forum, 8 (3), 1–19.

Norton, B. G. (2005). Sustainability: A philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nohrstedt, D. & Weible, C. M. (2010). The logic of policy change after crisis: Proximity and subsystem interaction . Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, 1 (2), 1–32.

Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ostrom, E., Schroeder, L., & Wynne, S. (1993). Institutional incentives and sustainable development: Infrastructure policies perspective . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Ostrom, E., Gardner, R., & Walker, J. (1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Ostrom, E. (1999). A behavioral approach to rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review, 92 (March):1–22.

Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity . Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. (1978). The external control of organizations . New York: Harper and Row.

Poteete, A. R., Janssen, M. A., & Ostrom, E. (2010). Working together: Collective action, the commons, and multiple methods in practice . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pralle, S. (2003). Venue shopping, political strategy, and policy change: The internationalization of Canadian forestry advocacy. Journal of public policy, 23 (3), 233–260.

Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. B. (1972). Implementation . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Ranney, A. (Ed.). (1968). Political science and public policy . Chicago, IL: Markham Publishing Company.

Redford, E. S. (1969). Democracy in the administrative state . New York: Oxford University Press.

Rhoades, R. A. W. (2006). Policy network analysis. In M. Moran, M. Rein, & R. F. Goodin (eds) The oxford handbook of public policy (pp. 425–447). New York: Oxford University Press.

Sabatier, P. A., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. The Western Political Quarterly, 40 (3), 449–476.

Sabatier, P. A. (1988). An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences , 21, 129–168.

Sabatier, P. A. (1991). Toward better theories of the policy process. PS: Political Science and Politics, 24 (2), 147–156.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach . Boulder: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. (1999). Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A. (2007). Theories of the policy process . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sabatier, P. A., & Weible, C. M. (2007). The advocacy coalition: Innovations and clarifications. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 189–220). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sharkansky, I. (1970). Policy analysis in political science . Chicago: Markham.

Schattschneider, E. E. (1969). The semi-sovereign people . New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Schlager, E. (2004). Common-pool resource theory. In R. F. Durant, R. O’Leary, & D. J. Fiorino (Eds.), Environmental governance reconsidered: Challenges, choices, opportunities (pp. 145–176). Boston, MA: MIT Press.

Simeon, R. (1976). Studying public policy. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 9 (4), 548–580.

Simon, H. A. (1985). The human nature in politics: The dialogue of psychology with political science. American Political Science Review, 79 (2), 293–304.

Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Smith, K. B., & Larimer, C. (2009). The new policy theory primer . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Stone, D. (2001). Policy paradox: The art of political decision making (3rd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Tetlock, P. E. (2005). Expert political judgment . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. (2007). Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Walker, J. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63 , 880–899.

Weible, C. M., & Moore, R. H. (2010). Analytics and beliefs: Competing explanations for defining problems and in choosing allies and opponents in collaborative environmental management. Public Administration Review, 70 , 756–766.

Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3 , 531–545.

Zafonte, M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2004). Short-term versus long-term coalitions in the policy process: Automotive pollution control, 1963–1989. The Policy Studies Journal, 32 (1), 75–107.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Affairs, University of Colorado Denver, 1380 Lawrence Street, Suite 500, Denver, CO, 80217, USA

Christopher M. Weible, Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon

Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California Davis, 916 Shields Avenue, Davis, CA, 96616, USA

Paul A. Sabatier

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christopher M. Weible .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Weible, C.M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P. et al. Understanding and influencing the policy process. Policy Sci 45 , 1–21 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5

Download citation

Published : 18 November 2011

Issue Date : March 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9143-5

Share this article

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

• Public policy
• Policy analysis
• Policy change
• Institutional change
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Mar 12, 2022
• 11 min read

Public Policy 101: The Stages of the Policy Process

Public policies are everywhere in today’s world, but their ubiquity is also why their definition is often elusive and the analysis of public policies tends to be complex. The Public Policy 101 series offers the reader several tools of analysis that help make sense of the complexity of public policies. This 101 series comprises eight different articles, each focusing on a different aspect, which should provide the reader with a framework of analysis to better understand the complex world of public policy-making.

What is public policy?

The stages of the policy process

Rationalist and constructivist ontology in public policy

An overview of the theories of the policy process

The public policy actors

The policy subsystem

Beyond national public policy

New approaches in public policy studies

The first instalment of the series offered some definitions of public policy, highlighted its complexity, and concluded by suggesting that scholars use different heuristic tools to simplify the analysis of the public policy-making process. This article provides an overview of one of the earliest and most popular approaches: the disaggregation of the policy-making process in a series of discrete stages, known as the ‘policy cycle’.

The idea of a policy cycle stems from a common understanding of public policy as a ‘process’, as the definitions in the first instalment made clear. Policy outputs are shaped by the actions of policy-makers , operating within institutional structures on the basis of the ideas they hold regarding the problem and the potential solutions. Thus, disaggregating this process into multiple, interrelated stages through which policy flows in a more or less sequential fashion from inputs to outputs is a way to provide order and reduce analytical difficulties (see Howlett et al ., 2020: 8-9).

One of the first attempts to categorise the policy process came from Harold Lasswell, an early pioneer of the policy sciences. Lasswell (1956) divided the process into seven different stages, each with a specific policy-making function: intelligence, recommendation, prescription, invocation, application, appraisal, and termination. In the following decades, scholars built on this approach to stylise new and more empirically accurate models (e.g. Jones, 1970; Anderson, 1975; Brewer & deLeon, 1983), eventually settling with what is today called the ‘textbook approach’ (Nakamura, 1987).

This approach to the policy cycle broadly draws on the functions Lasswell (1956) assumed public policy-making ought to perform to identify five (sometimes six) stages of the policy process: (1) agenda setting, which recognises the problem; (2) policy formulation, where a solution is proposed; (3) decision-making, where the solution is chosen and legitimised; (4) implementation, in which the solution is put into action; (5) evaluation, or the monitoring of the results; and in some cases (6) the choice to either maintain, replace or terminate the policy. Below, each stage is delineated, and the advantages and disadvantages of the policy cycle model are discussed.

Agenda setting is the first in both logical and chronological order: the government can pass no policy if a problem is not identified in the first place. Agenda setting is concerned with the way policy problems emerge and how they gain the government’s attention (Howlett et al. , 2020: 100; see also Birkland, 2007: 63). In other words, the agenda-setting process aims to answer the question of ‘what makes an idea’s time come’ (Kingdon, 1984).

Agenda-setting scholars identify three ways through which items can reach the government’s agenda. Firstly, society can learn about problems through objective indicators. Examples are the rate of unemployment, inflation, pollution levels or criminality. These measures may indicate that things are getting worse, and that action is needed, thus making the issue gain considerable attention. Secondly, focusing events – sudden, relatively rare events that spark media and public attention (Birkland, 1997) – are another way to gain policy-makers’ attention. Examples are natural calamities, wars, or scandals. In the wake of such events, policy-makers may be pushed to provide an immediate solution, which requires giving heightened attention to the issue. Finally, since attention is scarce compared to the number of potential issues, agenda setting is fundamentally a competition to exercise power and define policy issues to establish their severity and causes (Cairney, 2019: 28). Agenda priorities thus create political winners and losers by their very nature (Zahariadis, 2016: 3). As such, for a problem to gain attention, it is important to create compelling stories that help policy-makers focus their attention to that particular issue (Peterson & Jones, 2016; Stone, 2012).

In sum, the agenda-setting process shows very well both the social construction of policy problems and the importance of power in policy-making. Zahariadis (2016) neatly summarises this stage using the so-called ‘Four Ps of agenda setting’: power, perception, potency (i.e. severity) and proximity.

Once the problem has been identified and put on the decision agenda, the next question to ask is: what is the plan for dealing with the problem (Sidney, 2007)? This is what the formulation stage sets out to do. This stage is essentially a matter of policy design: it is about setting objectives, choosing which course of action to take among the various options available, and which tools can be employed to address the problem (Howlett, 2018: 95ff.). The main job of policy formulation is then to ‘narrow down the range of all possible options to those that are available and that decision-makers might accept’ (Howlett et al. , 2020: 133). At this stage, policy-makers may avail themselves of the opinion of epistemic communities, stakeholders and interest groups, thus engaging in what is known as ‘evidence-based policy-making’ (see Cairney, 2016).

In the decision-making stage, legislators follow up on the formulated policies to legitimise them. Although ideally the decision to be made would be optimal and the result of an ‘evidence-based’ and informed choice, most often decision-making is a satisficing process, depending on institutional constraints and political calculations (Howlett & Giest, 2018). Hence, like agenda setting creates winners and losers in the selection of a problem, the decision-making stage creates winners and losers in the selection of the solution to be enacted (Howlett et al. , 2020: 177).

It is during the implementation stage that the intentions of the policy-makers are translated into action (Barrett, 2004: 255). Implementation is arguably the most crucial stage since a policy on paper is not worth anything unless it is implemented. But when can a policy be said to be ‘properly implemented’? For a long time, scholars took a ‘top-down’ approach whereby policies are said to either fail or succeed based on several factors, such as the clarity of the policy’s objectives, the presence of financial and ideational resources and of skilled and compliant officers, minimal dependency relationship (i.e. few ‘veto players’), and generally few external constraints beyond the control of policy-makers (Cairney, 2019: 28-9; see also Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1980).

This ‘top-down’ school was opposed to a ‘bottom-up’ approach whereby central decision-makers only have a limited role, since implementation mainly relies on a decentralised apparatus of civil servants and administrative officials (Howlett et al. , 2020: 210). Bottom-uppers identify the main actors of policy delivery in local bureaucrats and see implementation as a ‘decentralised problem-solving’ exercise where negotiations take place within networks of implementers (Pülzl and Treib, 2007; see also Hjern & Hull, 1982; Thomann, 2019: 4). Several attempts have been made to synthesise the two positions (e.g. Matland, 1995; Sabatier, 1986; Winter, 2012), but the two perspectives essentially reflect preferences in research design: top-downers take a prescriptive approach, whereas bottom-uppers a descriptive one (Cairney, 2019: 29). Neither, alone, offers a comprehensive view of implementation.

Policy evaluation is about assessing the extent to which a policy was successful (Cairney, 2019: 32; see also Howlett et al., 2020: 241; Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 54). It is the last and most contentious stage of the policy process for two reasons. First, it is very difficult to answer the question ‘to what degree was the policy successful?’ since it requires knowing whose success is being measured (the government’s? the stakeholders’? the lobbyists’?), and about what kind of success policy-makers should care (the effect on their popularity? the completion of their agenda? the long-term impacts?) (Cairney, 2019: 32; see also McConnell, 2010). Hence, evaluation is by necessity subjective and very difficult to carry out analytically. Secondly, what is significant at this stage is not so much the success or failure of the policy, but the ‘lesson-drawing’ aspect for policy-makers. Evaluation should be an opportunity for policy-makers to shed light on the experience of the policies on the ground to understand whether or not the intended results were achieved and what can be learned for future policies (Howlett et al. , 2020: 242; Howlett & Giest, 2018: 24).

At the end of this process, and some time after the policy is enacted, legislators must decide whether to maintain , replace or terminate it. A policy, for instance, may be terminated either because it has absolved its goals, or because it has been proven to be ineffective (Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 55). But under real-world circumstances, this is a rather difficult process, because of the path-dependent nature of policies. Governments tend to inherit policies from past administrations, and they generally accept the ongoing programmes they find when coming into office, since it would be too costly (both economically and politically) to reverse them (John, 2013: 25; on inheritance, see Rose, 1990; on path dependence, see Pierson, 2004). Hence, termination is often not included in discussions of the policy cycle both because of its relative rarity and because, unlike the other stages, it is not always necessary.

It is clear from the discussion so far that the policy cycle model has some important advantages. First of all, and most apparently, this disaggregation facilitates the understanding of multi-dimensional processes by bringing logical and chronological order into what is a very complex web of interactions. Secondly, the policy cycle model can be applied at multiple levels of analysis, ranging from the local to the international. For instance, Mattli and Woods (2009) apply a similar model, called ANIME – Agenda setting, Negotiations, Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement – to describe patterns of international public policy among states. Finally, the policy cycle model addresses the intertwining of actors, institutions and ideas by describing where action takes place, who the actors are, and what they strive for.

However, the disadvantages perhaps outweigh the advantages of this model, which explains why most public policy textbooks today eschew such an approach (see for instance Cairney, 2019: 33-5; Howlett et al. , 2020: 12-3; John, 2013:18-20 for critiques). Firstly, its sequentiality suggests an apparent linearity that does not, in fact, exist in most real-world cases (John, 2013: 18-20). For instance, it is widely acknowledged that the implementation stage can be used to rethink and reformulate policies (John, 2013: 20; Thomann, 2019). Secondly, the policy cycle model lacks any notion of causation: it does not explain what, or who, drives a policy stage from one stage to another nor why this should be the case. Finally, this model remains silent about the content of a policy and how this may affect policy-making styles (see Howlett et al. , 2020: 13).

Hence, while the policy cycle model is often one of the starting points in public policy courses, two correctives should be applied. First, its apparent linearity should be taken writ large in the minimal sense that a formal policy must be proposed and legislated on, and the means of its implementation agreed upon. Such a model is more relevant for understanding the presentation and legitimation of policy rather than detecting the bargaining that happens during decision-making and implementation (John, 2013: 19-20). Secondly, rather than a model, the policy cycle should be seen as a methodologic heuristic founded upon a deep empirical record, which can serve as a benchmark for two different tasks. It can offer a perspective against which the democratic quality of the processes of policy can be assessed (Jann & Wegrich, 2007: 58). And, by facilitating the investigation of the public policy process, this approach can help with the accumulation of empirical insights from multiple cases that can be aggregated based on the stage at which they are analysed in order to generate new models and theories of the policy process (Howlett et al. , 2020: 274). The next steps of this series will be to understand the ontology on which public policy theories can rest.

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

Barrett, S. M. (2004). Implementation studies: time for a revival? Personal reflections on 20 years of implementation studies. Public Administration , 82 (2), 249-262.

Birkland, T. A. (1997). After disaster: Agenda setting, public policy, and focusing events . Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Birkland, T. A. (2007). Agenda Setting in Public Policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 63-78.

Brewer, G., and deLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis . Monterey, CA: Brooks, Cole.

Cairney, P. (2016). The Politics of Evidence-Based Policymaking. London: Palgrave Pivot.

Cairney, P. (2019). Understanding Public Policy. 2nd edition. London: Red Globe Press.

Hjern, B., & Hull, C. (1982). Implementation research as empirical constitutionalism. European Journal of Political Research , 10 (2), 105-115.

Howlett, M. (2018). Designing Public Policies. Principles and Instruments. 2nd edition. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Howlett, M. and Giest, S. (2018). The policy-making process. In Routledge Handbook of Public Policy. Araral, E. Jr, Fritzen, S., Howlett, M. and Ramesh, M. (Eds.). London and New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 17-28.

Howlett, M., Ramesh M., and Perl, A. (2020). Studying Public Policy. Principles and Processes . 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jann, W., and Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the Policy Cycle. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 43-62.

John, P. (2013). Analyzing Public Policy . 2nd edition. London & New York, NY: Routledge.

Jones, C. (1970) An Introduction to the Study of Political Life . 3rd edition. Berkeley, CA: Duxberry Press.

Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

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

Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Rheory , 5 (2), 145-174.

Mattli, W. and Woods, N. (2009). The Politics of Global Regulation . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

McConnell, A. (2010). Understanding Policy Success. Rethinking Public Policy. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.

Nakamura, R.T. (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review , 7 , 142–154.

Peterson, H. L., & Jones, M. D. (2016). Making sense of complexity: the narrative policy framework and agenda setting. In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting . Zahariadis, N. (Ed.). Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 106-131.

Pierson, P. (2004). Politics in Time: History, Institutions and Social Analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pressman, J. and Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. How great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pülzl, H. and Treib, O. (2007). Implementing Public Policy. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 89-108.

Rose, R. (1990). Inheritance before choice in public policy. Journal of Theoretical Politics , 2 (3), 263-291.

Sabatier, P. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: a critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy , 6 (1), 21-48.

Sabatier, P. A. and Mazmanian, D. (1980). The implementation of public policy: A framework of analysis. Policy Studies Journal 8 (4):538-560.

Sidney, M. S. (2007). Policy Formulation: Design and Tools. In Handbook of Public Policy Analysis – Theory, Politics, and Methods . Fischer, F., Miller G. J., and Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). London: CRC Press, pp. 79-87.

Stone, D. (2012). Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making . New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Thomann, E. (2019). Customized implementation of European Union food safety policy: United in diversity? Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Winter, S. C. (2012). Implementation Perspectives: Status and Reconsideration. In The SAGE Handbook of Public Administration , 2nd edition, Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J. (Eds.). London: SAGE Publications, pp. 265-278.

Zahariadis, N. (2016). Setting the agenda on agenda setting: definitions, concepts and controversies. In Handbook of Public Policy Agenda Setting . Zahariadis, N. (Ed.). Chelthenam and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 1-22.

Image References

Figure 1: BBC. (2017, December 4th). Picture from the manuscript Zoroaster Clavis Artis, MS. Verginelli-Rota, Biblioteca dell'Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome (Italy) [Drawing]. Retrieved from: https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20171204-the-ancient-symbol-that-spanned-millennia

Figure 2: Own elaboration.

Figure 3: Shutterstock. (n.d.). Multiracial fists hands up vector illustration. Concept of unity, protest, revolution, fight, cooperation. [Flat outline design]. Retrieved from: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-vector/vector-illustration-different-hands-white-bannerss-1287073093?irclickid=2gMwztR7WxyIUoL3yWzwET6DUkGWY4zGi2fkzo0&irgwc=1&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term=&c3ch=Affiliate&c3nid=IR-77643

Figure 4: Shutterstock. (n.d.). Overhead Railroad Crossing [Photograph]. Retrieved from: https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/overhead-railroad-crossing-86284846?irclickid=2gMwztR7WxyIUoL3yWzwET6DUkGWY9QHi2fkzo0&irgwc=1&utm_medium=Affiliate&utm_campaign=TinEye&utm_source=77643&utm_term=&c3ch=Affiliate&c3nid=IR-77643

Figure 5: Own elaboration.

I want to reference your work, especially the policy cycle. How to do it? This is my mail [email protected]

Nice job simplifying an obviously complex and intricate issue for people who might not be familiar with the topic.

Marco Schito

Arcadia, has many categories starting from Literature to Science. If you liked this article and would like to read more, you can subscribe from below or click the bar and discover unique more  experiences  in our articles in many categories

Let the posts come to you.

Thanks for submitting!

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

4 How is Policy Made?

Where is policy made.

This chapter provides an overview of the policymaking process…it’s the “nutsy-boltsy” chapter, as one of my former public policy students would say. [1]   Ideally, this chapter would be as simple as describing how a bill becomes a law, but the reality is much more complex because policymaking occurs in multiple venues.  My goal in this chapter is to provide you with a broad view of how policymaking happens in each of these venues, but it will definitely oversimplify the process.

We’ll start this chapter by describing the legislative process for policymaking at the federal level, which is similar to what happens in state legislatures.  The executive branch is also responsible for quite a bit of policymaking, both through executive actions by the president and through the creation of regulations by the bureaucracy.  Again, we’ll focus on the federal level, though there are similarities at the state level.  Finally, we’ll discuss the policymaking that comes from the judiciary.

Legislative policymaking

Congress is the place to start when it comes to understanding federal policymaking if, for no other reason than the Constitution clearly states that all legislative powers are the prerogative of Congress (Article I, Section I).  Ideas for new policy are written (by a team of non-partisan lawyers who work in the Office of the Legislative Counsel in either the House or Senate) into documents called bills.  Bills are introduced in the House or Senate by a member of that chamber.  Ideas for bills can come from anywhere, but only a Representative can introduce a bill into the House and only a Senator can introduce a bill into the Senate.  Once a bill is introduced, it is given a number.  Bills introduced in the House have the letters H.R. before the number.  Bills introduced in the Senate have the letter S. before the number.  In addition to bill s , which represent a proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language , members of Congress might also introduce a resolution , which are used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments .

Figure 4.1: Gustavus students meet with Minnesota Representative Tim Walz in his office in Washington, D.C. in January 2017

The Senator or Representative who introduces the bill or resolution is called the sponsor .  Other members can cosponsor the bill if they would like to support it.  Members can only sponsor or cosponsor a bill that is introduced in their chamber (i.e. a Senator can sponsor or cosponsor a Senate bill but cannot sponsor or cosponsor a House bill).  Identifying sponsors and cosponsors is important because it provides clues about support for a measure.  For example, some bills are cosponsored only by members of one political party, while others have bipartisan support.

After a bill or resolution is introduced in a chamber and given a number, it is assigned to a committee for consideration based on the topics of the bill or resolution.  Each committee has a jurisdiction , or set of topics it oversees, although there is some overlap between committees.  The House has twenty standing committees and the Senate has sixteen standing committees.  While some of the committees line up between the two chambers (both have an Armed Services Committee and a Judiciary Committee, for example), the overlap is not perfect.  The House has an Agriculture Committee while the Senate has an Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee.  These small differences can make it even more challenging when the two chambers are trying to pass legislative language that needs to be identical.  In both chambers it is possible to refer a bill to more than one committee.  This is called making a multiple referral .

Committees are a critical gatekeeping part of the process.  In theory, the committee’s job is to study the bill, deliberate over it, and make a recommendation, but in practice, a committee is where most bills and resolutions go to die.  This is because committees are not required to do anything with the bills and resolutions referred to them and because committee chairs have quite a bit of power to prevent action on a bill they oppose.  Each committee has a professional staff (two thirds of which are selected by the majority party and one third of which is selected by the minority party) that helps it review the proposals before it.  Committees are further subdivided into subcommittee s based on the topic of the legislation.

When a committee or subcommittee wants to act on a proposal, they will seek out additional information.  They may ask the Government Accountability Office to provide additional information about the proposal.  The Congressional Budget Office might provide an estimate of the costs.  The committee or subcommittee might hold a hearing in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

When the committee or subcommittee feels it has enough information to act, the next step is to hold a markup hearing .  During a markup, the committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.  If the proposal has been assigned to a subcommittee, a majority of members of the subcommittee need to approve of moving the proposal back to the full committee.  Then the full committee votes about whether to approve the proposal and send it on to the full chamber.  The committee can report the bill favorably (meaning they support its passage), adversely (meaning they oppose its passage), or without recommendation.    Since committees aren’t required to act on a bill, they don’t often report bills that they don’t support.

If the committee made changes to the proposal, those changes are reported as a single amendment.  If they made a lot of changes, the committee might just write and report an entirely new bill that includes all the changes (called a “clean” bill).  When a committee reports a bill, it also creates a written report to go along with the bill.  The committee report explains the purpose of the bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it) .  The report also explains exactly how the proposal will change existing law.  The committee’s report gives insight into Congress’ intentions for the proposal and so it is used by bureaucratic agencies and the courts when they are interpreting the bill’s purpose and meaning.

Once a bill or resolution has been reported from committee, it is ready for the full chamber to act and so it gets added to the bottom of the legislative agenda, called the calendar.  There are a lot of items on the legislative calendar and only so much time for debate and voting, so both chambers have ways of prioritizing the policies on which they want to act.  In the House, this is done through the Rules Committee , which sets special rules for debating proposals .  The House (and the Rules Committee) is strongly controlled by the majority party because it operates mostly on the principle of majority rule.  If the majority party wants to act on a proposal in the House, it is relatively easy for them to do so.  The Rules Committee will issue a rule that moves an item up on the calendar and outlines the plan for debate and voting.  The Rules Committee can make it so that only the committee’s amendments are allowed and can limit the total time available for debate.

In the Senate, the majority party does not have quite as much power, unless they control at least 3/5ths of the seats.  This is because the Senate has a rule that allows for individual senators to speak for as long as they wish about any topic of their choice ( filibuster ).  Ending a filibuster requires a vote by 3/5ths of senators, or 60 Senators.  The threat of a filibuster means that the Senate doesn’t often debate proposals unless there is some agreement by both parties to do so.

The process of debating the proposals in both chambers is fairly complicated, but it’s not necessary to understand all the ins and outs of parliamentary procedure for our purposes.  It is important to know that both chambers might amend the proposal during the floor debate and voting process.  Members of Congress may make floor speeches during the debate period to articulate their position.  The Congressional Record contains a verbatim record of the text of floor debates and other activity that happens on the floor .  Occasionally a member of Congress will ask that remarks be inserted into the Congressional Record, meaning that they didn’t actually speak the remarks on the floor of the chamber.

If the proposal gets to the point of a vote, it could be a recorded vote , which provides a list of which people voted for and against the proposal .  It could also be done as a voice vote , in which case we would know that the bill passed or failed but not by how much or by who.  A proposal can also be passed by unanimous consent , which means that no official vote was taken but no one spoke up to oppose its passage .

In order for a proposal to become law, it must pass both chambers in exactly identical form.  It shouldn’t be hard to see that this is a very difficult requirement because the process is happening in different venues and is controlled by different actors in each venue.  Surprisingly, however, many bills do emerge identically and this is usually because one chamber waits for the other to pass the bill first and then adopts identical language.  It doesn’t matter which chamber begins the process, except when it comes to bills to raise revenue, which must originate in the House according to the Constitution (Article I, Section 7).

The one constraint in timing is that both chambers start over every two years in a new congress after new members are elected.  Elections are held in the fall of even years and the new congress begins in January of odd years and runs for two years.  Any proposals that haven’t moved through the system by the end of a two-year period have to start again from the beginning in the next congress.

If the bills passed by each chamber aren’t identical, the two chambers can work out differences informally (called ping ponging) by making amendments or they can arrange for a formal conference committee , in which representatives from both chambers try to work out an agreement between the two proposals.  If changes are made through either of these techniques, the final language needs to go back to the two chambers for final approval.

Figure 4.2: The textbook version of the legislative process

To complicate matters a little more, there are really two separate tracks for policymaking.  The first track is the authorization process.  Authorizing bills reflect Congress’ support for the idea of the policy.  Essentially Congress says, “yes, we want to create this policy.”  But the authorizing process doesn’t confer any money toward the policy.  This happens through the appropriations process , where Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.  Congress can authorize whatever it wants, but until money is appropriated, there is no way to move the proposal into action. So, the proposals need to survive the process not once, but twice (once as authorizing legislation and once as appropriations legislation) in order to have a chance of success.

But that’s not the end.  Bills and joint resolutions that aren’t constitutional amendments require executive action.  The passed bill or joint resolution is sent to the President.  The president has three possible options.  First, the president can sign the bill into law.  Second, the president can veto , or formally oppose, the bill.  If the president vetoes the bill, Congress can try to override the presidential veto.  This requires a vote of 2/3rds in both chambers and is very difficult to achieve; only 5% of presidential vetoes have been overridden.  Third, the president can do nothing.  If there are more than ten days left in the current congress (not counting Sundays), the bill will become law without the president’s signature.  If there are fewer than ten days left in the current congress, the bill dies in what is called a pocket veto .  This puts some pressure on Congress to act ahead of this ten day window if they anticipate a possible veto.

So that’s the legislative process.  Except that in a lot of cases, it doesn’t work this way at all.  Recent changes have led to what Barbara Sinclair calls “unorthodox lawmaking”, which bypasses many of the processes outlined in this traditional model. [2]   One of the biggest ways in which lawmaking has become unorthodox is the use of omnibus bills.  An omnibus bill is a massive bill that packages a lot of smaller bills together.  This is especially common in the appropriations process, but it can happen for authorizing bills as well.  Another unorthodox method is for party leaders to negotiate a proposal bypassing committees and then substitute that proposal for existing language.

Following the legislative process can provide a lot of information about a proposal.  The website congress.gov allows researchers to search for bills and resolutions introduced since 1973.  In addition to providing the full text of the proposal, you can find information about sponsors and cosponsors, committee referrals, debates, and voting.  You can also locate committee reports on this website, which explain the proposal and provide information about the arguments for and against the proposal.

Most state legislatures operate using a similar process.  Every state but Nebraska has a bicameral legislature and requires proposals to be passed in both chambers. [3]   State legislatures use committees to handle the workload and governors have the opportunity to veto legislation.

Executive policymaking

When Congress passes legislation, it often sacrifices detail in an effort to win enough votes for passage, leaving bureaucratic agencies, boards, and commissions the task of sorting out the details required for implementation.  In fact, many laws specifically require agencies to develop the strategy for achieving the goals outlined in the law.  In other cases, Congress has delegated authority to an agency over a certain type of activity within society.  In any case, an agency cannot issue a rule or regulation unless it has been granted the authority to do so by a law passed by Congress.  Every rule and regulation that gets passed will include language that identifies its statutory authority, or the specific law that authorizes the agency to act.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority.   This process is called rule making.  Proposed and finalized rules and regulations are published in the Federal Register and later cataloged according to subject matter in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

In discussing this topic, both scholars and practitioners use the terms rule and regulation somewhat interchangeably, though there is a subtle difference.  The text of the APA specifically defines the term “rule” but it doesn’t define “regulation” even though the text of the law refers to regulations quite often.  The difference between the terms seems to come down to how the courts have interpreted the actions of federal agencies. [4]   Legislative (also known as substantive) rules are also called regulations.  A regulation is a statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress . The APA requires that agencies give the public the “opportunity to participate in the rule making through submission of written data, views, or arguments.” [5]   Regulations must go through this notice-and-comment rulemaking process.

In contrast, interpretive rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations .  Technical corrections to rules also are allowed without  the notice-and-comment process.

Let’s take a minute to dive into rulemaking , the process of creating rules and regulations . [6]   An agency might begin this process after receiving new legislation passed by Congress or it might begin it in response to an emerging problem, recommendation from other agencies or the public, or an order from the president or court. Before it begins to develop a rule, an agency might gather information or even announce its plans to begin the process by posting an “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” in the Federal Register.  Doing this invites interested parties to provide comments about whether a rule is necessary even before the agency begins to draft the rule.

Once an agency decides that a rule is needed, bureaucrats within the agency draft the proposed rule.  In addition to detailing the rule itself, federal laws require that they also explain the legal basis for the rule, the rationale for the rule and the data and evidence that was used to develop the rule.  Other laws passed by Congress require agencies to estimate the costs and benefits of the proposed rule, estimate the paperwork burden it will place on the public, and analyze the proposed rule’s impact on small business and state and local governments.

More recently (beginning in the 1980s), agencies have begun using a process called negotiated rulemaking in which the agency invites interested actors, such as interest groups representing affected interests, to shape the initial proposal .  The goal of negotiated rulemaking was to make the process less adversarial by bringing interested actors to the table sooner in the process and, hopefully, avoiding lawsuits after the final rule was issued.  Unfortunately, preliminary research suggests that this alternative process hasn’t had the desired effect in reducing legal challenges. [7]

Before it is shared publicly, the rule is reviewed by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA, pronounced “oh-eye-ruh”), which is housed within the Office of Management and Budget within the Executive Office of the President.  Once the proposed rule receives approval from the administration, the proposal is shared publicly as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Federal Register.

At this stage, members of the public are invited to provide written feedback on the proposal through the website regulations.gov , which makes it easy for the public to find and comment on proposed rules.  Interest groups are especially active in this phase as they provide detailed arguments regarding the proposed rule, but anyone is invited to provide feedback.  The window for public comment is usually set at 30-60 days.  Agencies can also hold public hearings during this public comment period.

Here’s an example of a proposed rule that would change how the federal government collects information about race and ethnicity that, as of January 27, 2023 was open for public comment: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/01/27/2023-01635/initial-proposals-for-updating-ombs-race-and-ethnicity-statistical-standards.

Proposed Rule 2023-01635

Following the public comment period, the agency must review all of the feedback that it gathered and then decide whether to modify the proposal, move forward with it, or withdraw the proposal.  An agency is not allowed to make a decision based on the number of comments in favor or opposed to the proposal, but rather the arguments and evidence raised in the public comment period.  The agency must be able to explain how the proposed rule will help solve the problem or accomplish the goals it identified.  If the agency plans to move forward with the proposed rule, they must address any significant critiques raised in public comments.  Once again, the OIRA gets an opportunity to review the proposed regulation in its new form.

Finally, the agency publishes a Final Rule in the Federal Register.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.   In addition to publication in the Federal Register, the new rule is sent to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office for review.  At this point, the House and Senate can pass a joint resolution of disapproval if they do not support the rule.  This joint resolution requires the president’s signature to void the rule.  Congress has 60 days to review new rules. [8]

After publishing the rule, agencies develop even more rules, called interpretive rules, to help provide guidance about how the rule will be enforced and to help the public understand the regulation.  These interpretive rules don’t require a notice-and-comment period and they may or may not be published in the Federal Register.

Once the rule is finalized, the door is open to legal challenges.  Individuals or organizations (government or nongovernment) can challenge the rule by arguing that it violates a provision of the Constitution, goes beyond the statutory authority granted to the agency, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (by not having following the notice-and-comment period, for example), or was “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion”. [9]   For example, several judges used this standard to block proposed rules from the Trump administration in 2019 regarding restrictions against giving federal money to agencies that perform or promote abortion.  Courts have the option of upholding the rule or vacating the rule , which means that they declare the rule void or unenforceable .  A court may vacate a rule temporarily while it reviews the complaint in order to stop the new rule from going into effect.  In the abortion cases I mentioned, the judges issued preliminary injunctions which created a temporary hold on implementing the new regulation until a court could fully review the regulation.

While a lot of the focus on the bureaucracy’s power of policymaking is centered on the rulemaking process, policies get set every day on the ground by actors that Michael Lipsky called, street-level bureaucrats . [10]   Lipsky points to government workers like police officers, social workers, and teachers who are responsible for delivering government services and who, in the course of their day-to-day activities make decisions that “add up to…agency policy.” [11] Street-level bureaucrats gain this policymaking power because they are able to use discretion in making decisions and because they have a great deal of autonomy.

To give an example, speeding is against the law, but a police officer, who is often patrolling alone in their vehicle, makes an independent decision about whether to pull someone over who is traveling five miles over the speed limit.  Frank Baumgartner, Derek Epp, and Kelsey Shoub explore this very topic in a book that analyzes over 20 million traffic stops made in North Carolina over the course of a decade.  Baumgartner et al. find that “powerful disparities exist in how the police interact with drivers depending on their outward identities: race, gender, and age in particular.” [12]   Similarly, Lipsky argued that “the poorer people are, the greater the influence street-level bureaucrats tend to have over them.” [13]

The policymaking that happens through street-level bureaucrats is less of a process and more of a practice.  It happens without much of a plan and is more visible as we look back at the pattern of behavior that has emerged over time.  As Baumgartner et al.’s research shows us, because it generally targets particular groups of people (like Black drivers), it can be largely invisible to other groups who are not targeted (White drivers).

Before we talk more about the policymaking that comes through the courts, there is one more source of executive policymaking to discuss and that is the policymaking power of the president.

Though the Constitution describes the president’s power as executive, most presidents have found ways to expand their influence over policymaking in both formal and informal ways.  There is little in the Constitution that gives presidents legislative powers over domestic matters aside from the ability to sign or veto legislation.  Presidents have more power over foreign and military affairs through their position as commander in chief and through their power to negotiate treaties (which still require ratification by the Senate).  However, presidents have used the “take care clause” (Article 2, Section 3) to carve out a larger role in domestic policymaking through the use of executive orders and memoranda.

An executive order is a statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.   Executive orders aren’t technically legislation and they don’t require the approval of Congress even though they can result in a major change to policy.  Executive orders are numbered consecutively and published in the Federal Register like regulations, but unlike regulations, there is no review process.  Congress can pass legislation to counter an executive order, a new president can overturn an existing executive order, and executive orders are subject to judicial review. [14]

All presidents have used executive orders, and some have used them as a tool for major changes.  For example, President Harry Truman used an executive order to desegregate the military and President Ronald Reagan used an executive order to prevent family planning clinics that receive federal money from informing clients about abortion options.  Executive Order 9066 forcibly placed over 100,000 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry (most of whom were U.S. citizens) into internment camps during World War II. [15]

Presidents also issue proclamations, which are similar in nature to a simple or concurrent resolution passed by Congress in that they express a sentiment of the president but don’t create new policy.

Finally, in recent years (beginning in earnest with President Ronald Reagan), presidents have taken to issuing signing statements.  Signing statements are written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.   They identify portions of the law that the president believes violates the Constitution and that the president will not enforce. [16]   Signing statements are controversial, but presidents use them because they are not allowed to veto only a portion of a bill.

The delegation of legislative power to the president and the bureaucracy is controversial.  Libertarians have opposed the so-called administrative state since it emerged as part of the New Deal.  Opposition grew in the 1970s and 80s, with opponents arguing that it is unconstitutional for Congress to delegate power to administrative agencies.  This position was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2022 case West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency , which restricted the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate emissions without explicit guidance from Congress. [17]  The decision has potential implications for many other regulations issued by other agencies if similar claims are made that the agency lacks explicit congressional authority to act.

Judicial policymaking

Although courts do not like to think of themselves as making policy, their decisions certainly have that effect.  Judicial rulings define policy, compel action, and stimulate additional policymaking.  G. Alan Tarr identifies several forms of judicial policymaking: constitutional, remedial, statutory interpretation, oversight of administrative activity, and cumulative. [18]

Figure 4.3: Gustavus students wait in line to hear oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2017. No cameras, including those belonging to the media, are allowed in the courtroom during oral arguments.

The process of judicial review is complex because most of the provisions under consideration are not entirely clear.  Take, for example, the constitution’s protection in the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures.  The constitution doesn’t specify what counts as “unreasonable” or even what counts as a “search”.  Legislatures create policies to define these concepts, but the ultimate interpretation of whether a policy violates the constitution comes down to the courts.

Courts also engage in remedial policymaking.  This means that when constitutional violations are found, the courts often create guidelines for remedying the situation.  The goal in these orders is not to make up for past damages but rather to change behavior in the future.  A court might, for example, order a police department to change its practices for conducting traffic stops in response to a pattern of discriminatory behavior.

In addition to questions involving the constitutionality of laws, courts are involved in the interpretation of statutes (laws).  A law might be unclear or it might conflict with another law.  It may be difficult to decide whether a law applies to a new situation that wasn’t anticipated by those who wrote the original law.  In these cases, courts play a role in determining what the law means and how it should be applied, which sets policy.

Courts also provide oversight of administrative activity, or the actions taken by bureaucrats.  Cases arise when individuals or institutions claim that an agency has acted above and beyond what statute allows.  The claim here is that the agency has violated the law rather than the constitution and it is up to the courts to determine whether the claim has merit.  The inverse is also true; an individual or institution can claim that an agency has failed to act when the law requires them to do so.  Again, the courts play a role in reaching a conclusion about these claims.

Finally, as Tarr points out, even when an individual case might seem minor and inconsequential, the cumulative effect of decisions can impact the direction of public policy.  Courts rely heavily on precedent , or the decisions reached in prior cases .  Judges rely on precedent for new cases, which means that past rulings can shape current and future decisions.

In acting as policymakers, judges operate within a unique environment.  Unlike legislative or executive policymakers, judges generally cannot choose which issues they address.  Those with legal standing, or a legal reason to bring a case before a court, bring cases before judges to one of the federal district courts or state trial courts.  Only the Supreme Court has control over which cases it hears, and still it is constrained to hear only the cases that are appealed to it.

At the first level of the court system, criminal and civil trials sometimes use juries.  Criminal trials i nvolve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government against the person accused of the crime .  A criminal trial can result in a financial penalty, incarceration, or even death.  A civil trial involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations .  A civil trial can only result in a financial penalty.  In these trials, the jury is presented with evidence and witnesses and then makes a decision.  The judge helps to clarify the relevant law and provides instructions to the jury as to how to interpret the law, but ultimately, the decision is left to the jury.  The job of the judge at this level is to ensure that the process is fair and follows guidelines established by law and the Constitution.

In practice, though, very few cases in the legal system end up in a jury trial.  At the federal level, fewer than 2% of cases result in a jury trial. [19]   The main factor that accounts for this low number in criminal cases is mandatory minimum sentencing, which provides incentive for defendants to accept a plea deal , which means that the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence . When a plea deal is reached, the judge has the authority to approve or reject the agreement and also has some discretion in sentencing.  In civil cases, mandatory arbitration and caps on monetary awards for pain and suffering make it more difficult and less appealing to take a case to trial.

In civil cases, either party can appeal the decision to a higher court.  In criminal cases, the defendant can appeal if they lose the case. [20] Appealing a case involves more than just being disappointed in the outcome; it requires making a claim that there were errors in the procedure at the lower level or in the judge’s interpretation of the law.  At the federal level, appealed cases go to the circuit court.  At the state level, appealed cases either go to an appellate court or to the state supreme court, depending on the structure of the state’s judicial system.  In reality, most decisions are not appealed.  At the federal level, only 15% of district court cases are appealed. [21]

Appellate court judges do not retry the case or review new evidence or witnesses.  Instead, they review the original case to see if any mistakes were made in the process or in how the law was interpreted.  Appellate courts use legal briefs submitted by the two parties and occasionally they will hold oral arguments featuring lawyers from the two parties.  At the federal level, appellate courts usually review cases as a group of three judges, called a panel. [22]   The appellate judges will deliberate and then issue a written decision, called an opinion, that explains the court’s rationale.  Very few cases are overturned at this level or sent back to the original court for review or retrial.  In fact, sometimes the appellate court will uphold the ruling even if they find the trial judge made an error if they think the error was minor or did not affect the outcome.  When a federal appellate court issues a ruling, that ruling becomes precedent for all of the district courts within the geographic area covered by the appellate court.

The U.S. Supreme Court is the final court of appeals and it hears cases coming from both the federal court system and from the state supreme courts.  Unlike other courts, the Supreme Court gets to choose which cases it hears from among those that are appealed to it.  It takes four Justices to agree to hear a case. The Supreme Court reviews written arguments (briefs) that are prepared in advance, but unlike at the appellate level, the Court almost always holds oral arguments for the case.  During oral arguments, each party is given 30 minutes to make their case.  The justices interrupt often with questions for the lawyers.  Following the oral arguments, the justices meet in person to discuss the case.  The Chief Justice will assign one justice to write a majority opinion.  Other justices might choose to write a dissenting opinion if they disagree with the majority position or a concurring opinion if they agree with the majority but for different reasons.

When the U.S. Supreme Court issues its rulings, the decisions become precedent that cover the entire country, essentially setting a new federal policy.

Direct policymaking

In some states, the public is given the power to create policies through ballot measures.  The initiative process allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election .   A referendum is when a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal .  24 states have an initiative process and 23 states have a referendum process.  Every state but Delaware requires citizens to vote on changes to the state’s constitution.

The role for public participation in policymaking through initiatives, referendum, and constitutional amendments developed during the populist and progressive movements of the early 1900s.  Reformers attacked the power held by economic elites and demanded political reforms that would help level the playing field for average citizens.  In addition to advocating for policy changes like a ban on child labor, improved living conditions in urban areas, and an income tax system, Progressives advocated for political reforms like use of a secret ballot (Australian ballot) and avenues for direct public influence over policy and politics–the initiative, referendum, and recall.  These movements were especially successful in the west and midwest, which is why many of those states have direct policymaking processes while many east coast states do not.

Activists have used the initiative process to enact all kinds of public policies, from ending Affirmative Action to allowing same-sex marriage. The National Conference of State Legislatures keeps a database of all of the ballot measures since the late 1800s.  Interest groups, in particular, have used the initiative process to achieve their policy goals, spending millions of dollars to get measures on the ballot and to influence voters.  In 2020, the average cost of getting an initiative on the ballot was $2.1 million!

There is no initiative or referendum process at the federal level.  Changes to the U.S. Constitution require that the House and Senate both pass a joint resolution by a 2/3rds vote.  Then the measure is sent to the states where 3/4ths of the states must ratify the proposed amendment either through a state constitutional convention or through the state legislature.

Minnesota does not have an initiative or referendum process.  Changes to Minnesota’s constitution happen when a majority of each chamber in the legislature pass a proposed constitutional amendment.  That amendment goes before voters in the next general election.  Passage requires a majority of all of the people who vote in the election, so if someone casts a ballot but doesn’t make a selection on the proposed constitutional amendment, it counts as a vote against the proposal.

How are venues chosen?

Sometimes actors have very little choice as to which venue to pursue.  If an issue affects a particular state, it is likely that the issue will be taken up by a state legislature, executive, or judiciary.  If a question involves federal regulation, the federal bureaucracy is the appropriate venue.  Sometimes, however, actors have options and they will operate strategically to push their issue into a more favorable venue..

Remember back to our discussion of the Punctuated Equilibrium Theory and the technique of venue shopping .  Policy actors strategically seek out venues that might be more favorable to their desired outcome.   Venue shopping allows the policy actors to shift the debate to a context in which it will be easier for them to draw the attention of the policy makers and to work with policymakers who are sympathetic to the cause.

As this chapter demonstrates, there are a lot of different paths for policymaking.  Policy is made by legislatures, executives, bureaucrats, judges, and the public.  It is also made at the federal, state, and local levels.  Each of these processes is distinct and you could spend a lifetime learning the nuances of a single venue.  Hopefully, this chapter has provided you with enough of an overview to appreciate the complexity while also understanding the basic processes.

Although there are many different venues for policymaking, the legislature is the primary place where policymaking should happen…at least according to the U.S. and state constitutions, so we’re going to end this chapter focused on the same institution we started with.  I’ve mentioned several types of writing in this chapter (bills, resolutions, committee reports, rules, public comments, opinions) and as we close out this chapter, we’re going to focus on one genre in particular that is important to legislatures.

What is legislative testimony?

Legislative testimony is written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation .  It is provided by interest group leaders, legislators, bureaucrats, and the general public for the purpose of informing and persuading legislators.  Legislative testimony can be short (only a page or a few minutes) or it can be long (dozens of pages or hours) depending on the situation.

The primary audience for legislative testimony are legislators, in particular, the legislators serving on the committee or subcommittee holding the hearing.  Sometimes the primary purpose of the testimony is to inform, but often the primary purpose is to persuade legislators.  You can probably picture someone giving legislative testimony in front of a congressional committee, but this also happens at the state level and at local levels of government.  The format for speaking at a school board meeting is strikingly similar to speaking in front of congress, though on a smaller scale.

Figure 4.4: Emily Falk ‘22 (speaking, in black) testifies about the Minnesota State Grant in front of the Senate Higher Education Policy and Finance Committee in March 2020

At the highest levels of government, a cabinet secretary might be called to provide testimony to a congressional committee about a particular scandal or a state bureaucrat might be asked to inform a legislative committee about the details of a particular policy.  Preparing for these scenarios is beyond the scope of this book.  Instead, we’re going to focus on the type of legislative testimony that often comes from interest group leaders and members of the public.

Legislative committees and subcommittees often hold hearings where members of the public and interest groups are invited to provide testimony. Additionally, interest groups and members of the public can send a written copy of testimony to members of the committee.

Preparing effective legislative testimony begins with understanding both the issue and the audience.  Knowing something about the issue is important because the committee wants to learn something from the people who testify.  This does not mean that you need to be a policy expert in order to testify; in fact, having personal experience with the issue can sometimes be even more powerful than simply knowing a lot about it.  Once you know what the topic of the hearing is, you should learn more about the proposed policy and think about your personal connections to the topic.    In your testimony, you want to be sure you are communicating accurate information about the topic and that you are giving the legislators a reason to listen to you, either because of your extensive knowledge or because of your compelling personal experience.  You also need to think about who you are going to be speaking with.  Is the committee friendly to your position?  Is the bill’s sponsor on the committee?  Has the committee supported similar provisions in the past?  Is this a relatively new issue for the committee or have they been dealing with it for a long time?

Now that you know more about the context and audience, you’ll need to consider your position.  Unless you are a specialist brought in to provide technical expertise, you are probably going to be speaking to the committee with the goal of persuading them to adopt your position on the proposal.  This means that you must have a clear sense of what your position is and that you can articulate that position clearly and support it with empirical and/or anecdotal evidence (using both is best!).

Once you have gathered information about the issue, the proposal, and the committee, and have thought about what you want to say about the topic, you are ready to start writing your legislative testimony.  The format of legislative testimony is a cross between a letter, a memo, and a speech.

The top of the page of legislative testimony often looks like a memo format with date, to, from, and subject lines.

The first paragraph is very similar to a legislative letter.  The opening line of the testimony should always recognize and thank the chair and ranking member (the top person from the minority party) of the committee.  The first paragraph should introduce the speaker.  If you are affiliated with an interest group, that is a place to introduce the interest group.  This is a good place to explain why you are testifying on this issue.  Within the first paragraph you should also clearly state your position on the issue.  The goal is that your audience doesn’t have to guess who you are or what you want because you’ve stated it all so clearly.

The body of the testimony is where you will outline your position and present your evidence.  Because you are usually speaking legislative testimony, it can be helpful to use some speech writing techniques like signposting.  Signposting is when you are very explicit about transitioning between main ideas.  For example, you might say something like, “there are three main reasons why this is an important proposal to pass now.  First…Second…Third…”  This helps your listener follow along with your argument.  This is especially true if you are presenting a lot of empirical information.  If your evidence is more anecdotal–based on your personal experience–it doesn’t work as well to use signposting, but you can still put some time and effort into thinking about how to most clearly tell your story.  It can be most effective if you can combine anecdotal evidence with empirical evidence.  Perhaps you have personally experienced something, but you also know that X% of the population has also experienced this thing.  Combining empirical and anecdotal evidence puts a face to the statistics.

At the end of your testimony, it is important to restate your position and thank the committee (again) for their time.

Once you have written your testimony, you have options for delivery.  You could read the testimony directly from your document.  You could also use the document to create a keyword outline and deliver your testimony more extemporaneously.  Whichever method you choose, remember that you are likely operating within time limits set by the committee.  It is very important that you stay within those time limits, so you should practice your testimony ahead of time to make sure that it fits.

After you’ve given your testimony, members of the committee may ask you questions.  The most important thing to remember during this stage is that you should never make up an answer that you don’t know.  It’s fine if they ask you a question to which you don’t know the answer; just admit that you don’t know and say that you will find out and get back to them.  Then be sure to follow up with them.  If there are other witnesses who are providing testimony in the same hearing, it is important to listen to their testimony and the questions they are asked too.  That will help you be aware of places where you are in agreement and places where you differ so that you can clarify that for the committee.

Finally, if you aren’t able to provide your testimony in person, you can always send a copy of your testimony to the committee.

Take a look at this sample legislative testimony.  Can you spot the stylistic markers that make it a good testimony?  Who delivered it and to whom was it delivered?  What argument do they make and did they support it with empirical or anecdotal evidence or a mixture of both?

Figure 4.5: Sample legislative testimony by Brenda DeRosas Lazaro ’22.  Following graduation from Gustavus, Brenda worked on a legislative campaign and then was hired as a Legislative Assistant at the Minnesota Senate.

Brenda De Rosas Lazaro

Testimony to the House Committee for Higher Education Finance and Policy

January 20, 2020

Madam Chair and members of the committee,

I would like to start off by thanking you for this opportunity to speak to you today.

I am a junior first-generation immigrant and college student at Gustavus Adolphus College. I am majoring in Political Science with a minor in Public Health. I was raised in Albert Lea Minnesota, with two hardworking parents and two younger sisters one aged 12 and other 16.

I am here today to speak on behalf of not only my fellow Gusties, but to provide perspective from some of the most underrepresented groups- immigrants, those of low socioeconomic status, and students of color.

The Minnesota State Grant has provided me the opportunity to access higher education at a great institution like Gustavus. The continuation and expansion of the Minnesota state Grant and financing for higher education institutions are the start of an effort to close the opportunity gap that underprivileged students face.

It is especially important now during the COVID-19 pandemic that we provided the resources for students to attend these institutions to continue to cultivate well rounded citizens who not only fight for themselves but for others.

COVID-19 has disproportionately affected persons of color, by two-fold. Unfortunately, this past May my family experienced COVID first-hand. My mother contracted COVID a week before her birthday.  Our community of undocumented, low-income families were taking food off their own table to place it on ours. My mother was recovering for over a month after her intense face to face with COVID-19.

I didn’t know if I was going to be able to pay for books, tuition or even basic necessities come fall. This is a challenge many college students faced this past year because as undergraduate students, our places of employment were not considered essential, our hours were cut, or we were out of work all together.

Fortunately, the Gustavus faculty and staff were willing to help and led me toward the correct resources and lend a helping hand. And for that I have nothing but gratitude.

Attending a four-year private college seemed impossible but Gustavus made it possible for me to be standing here with new goals and aspirations.

Their help wasn’t just in these trying times were learning from home was the new norm, but when the integrity of the DACA program was under attack they were there to grant their full support.

After graduating next year, I intend to work for a non-profit organization that focuses on immigration, public service, and policy to build experience for graduate study in Political Science or Public Health.  I hope to help those in my communities, so they don’t have to endure as much as I did.

I do not stand before you for my personal gain, I stand before you for the 12- and 16-year-old that live with my parents with dreams of making history like our new madam vice president did today.

My parents brought me here in pursuit of the American Dream and their daughter speaking to the Minnesota House Committee for Higher Education Finance and Policy is father then they had hoped for and I would like to thank all of you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of first-generation students like myself and to bring the voice of my mother and father to you.

And finally, I would also like to thank you for your efforts and concerns in higher education and the equity thereof. Because without your efforts my dreams would have remained just that, dreams.

Why do you write?

Figure 4.6: Representative Samantha Vang ‘16

I was born and raised in North Minneapolis to Hmong refugees and am now a long-time resident in Brooklyn Center. I’m a first generation graduate with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Communications Studies from Gustavus Adolphus. Shortly after I graduated college, I ran for Minnesota House of Representatives and became the first Hmong woman to be elected in the MN State House and the second youngest female ever to be elected at the age of 24. I became Chair of the first ever legislative Minnesota Asian Pacific caucus and then Chair of the legislative People of Color Indigenous (POCI) caucus and carried the caucus during a racial reckoning, a civil unrest of George Floyd and Daunte Wright that occurred right in my city. Now I am entering my 3rd term as a State Representative and Chair of the Agriculture Finance and Policy committee.

When I was a recent graduate and first ran for office, it was one of the hardest decisions I had ever made to date. To see myself in a position of power as a young woman of color took tremendous effort from me and my own support system to simply have the confidence to put my name in the hat. I had a hard time seeing myself in that role and asked myself who am I to think I can be responsible for 40,000 people? To see myself in a position of power as a young woman of color took tremendous effort from me and my own support system to simply have the confidence to put my name in the hat. During that time, I was at my lowest point mentally. I had no job,  little money, but my community, my campaign team, and my family took my hand and we never looked back. When it’s hard to believe in yourself, it is the people around you who will carry you through. I am so thankful that I’ve been surrounded by people who love and care for me and the community we continue to serve everyday.

As an elected official at the Minnesota legislature, our main task is to bring bills into law. We are also responsible for setting the budget of the state where we make budget decisions on where taxpayer dollars should or should not be spent. There’s also many other things we do on a daily basis, but those are our main constitutional duties. One of the tasks I enjoy doing is providing constituent services. It can range from hearing concerns from constituents, such as expediting a driver’s license renewal, or any requests constituents have for us at the state.

I do a lot of writing from emails to communicate with constituents and staff to media releases with the public. A lot of the time we have staff to help us during any writing process such as turning an idea into a bill or communicating with the public. When I do speeches or prepare for committee hearings, I often write my own.

When I am preparing for a speech, and if I have the time, I will try to prepare a couple of days in advance. I will do some research about the type of event and what type of audience will be in attendance. I like to hand write in a journal first, free flowing initial thoughts into a basic template of introduction, main, and conclusion. I don’t like to speak for very long, so my style is often concise. I will write the main talking point and later add on more detailed sentences. Once I finish with my first draft, I like to wait another day to have a fresh look on the draft and make edits or add additional thoughts. Once I finish with my first draft, I like to wait another day to have a fresh look on the draft and make edits or add additional thoughts. I do all of this in handwriting in a work journal I keep. I don’t make many drafts, probably most I make is 2 and then I rehearse to memorize the speech.

Before I present a bill that I’ve sponsored before a committee, I prepare notes, talking points, and sometimes include background research to provide context and the significance of the bill. I also prepare remarks that may answer members of the committee who may oppose or have concerns. I will also have testifiers who will speak in support of the bill and they usually prepare their own remarks.

I wish I had a different mindset about me as a writer in the beginning so I would have more experience on how to make my writing voice effective. I grew up insecure in writing since English is a second language and my vocabulary was limited. It didn’t excel until my college years. My mindset was more concerned with always trying to sound like any other good writer, but not about me as a writer on how to best convey my thoughts to the reader. Part of my journey as a writer was learning about my style and accepting that it’s okay to speak in the way that I speak because as it turns out, people actually understand me as the writer better that way.

What comes next?

Now that we have a basic understanding of the policymaking process as it moves through the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, it is time to turn to one of the most important questions addressed in this book: why does policy look this way?  The next chapter will dig into the question of policy design, focusing on the selection of policy tools and causal stories.  I’ll introduce the Social Construction Theory of Target Populations, which provides a theoretical explanation of policy design.

Questions for discussion

• What policymaking process are you most familiar with?  How did you learn about it?  What policymaking process are you least familiar with?  What questions do you still have about how it works?
• Should the executive branch play any formal role in actually making policy?  What are the arguments for and against executive branch participation in policymaking?
• Should the judicial branch play any formal role in actually making policy? What are the arguments for and against judicial branch participation in policymaking?
• Should Minnesota adopt an initiative process?  Should the federal government adopt an initiative process?

Administrative Procedure Act : This law outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority.

Appropriations process : The process by which Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.

Authorizing bills :  Bills that create, modify, or end a policy.

Bill :  A legislative proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language.

Civil trial : A legal hearing that involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations.  Penalties for a civil trial are financial only and don’t result in a criminal conviction.

Committee :  A formal group of legislators who have jurisdiction over a specific policy topic.  Committees study and debate bills, hold hearings to learn more about them, propose modifications to bills, and make a recommendation to the full chamber.

Committee report : A document produced by a committee that explains the purpose of a bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it) and how it will change existing law.

Concurrent resolution : (designated H. Con. Res. in the House and  S. Con. Res in the Senate) Used to change rules that apply to both chambers of Congress or express the sentiments of both chambers.

Conference committee : A committee that includes representatives from both chambers (House and Senate) with the goal of reaching an agreement between the two versions of the bill. Any agreement reached by a conference committee must be ratified by a majority vote in both chambers.

Congressional Record : A verbatim record of debates and other activity that happens on the floor.  In Congress, members can insert text into the Congressional Record, which makes it look like they made a speech on the floor of the chamber even when they didn’t.

Cosponsor : One or more members of the legislature that formally express support for a bill by adding their name to the bill as a cosponsor.

Criminal trials :  These trials involve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government (via a prosecutor) against the person accused of the crime.

Executive order : A statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.

Filibuster :  Occurs when one or more members of the Senate prolong debate on proposed legislation to delay or prevent a decision.

Final Rule : Published in the Federal Register as a codification of an agency’s interpretation of how to best implement a policy.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.

Hearing : A meeting held by a congressional committee in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

Initiative process :  Allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election.

Interpretive rules : This type of rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.

Joint resolution : (designated H.J. Res. in the House and S.J. Res. in the Senate) Similar to a bill.  Joint resolutions can be used to appropriate money for a particular purpose, requiring approval by both chambers of Congress and the president. They can also be used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

Judicial review :  The power of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether an action taken by the government is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Jurisdiction : The set of topics that a committee oversees.

Markup hearing : A hearing in which a legislative committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.

Multiple referral : The process of sending a bill to more than one committee at a time for review.

Omnibus bill : A massive bill that packages a lot of smaller bills together.

Plea deal : An agreement between a person accused of a crime and the prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Pocket veto :  When there are less than ten days left in a current congress but the President does not sign or veto the bill, the bill does not go into effect. This is called a pocket veto because the President did not have to take proactive action to veto the bill but rather just put it in his pocket to die.

Precedent : Making a judicial decision so that it conforms to decisions reached in prior similar cases.

Recorded vote :   When a chamber of Congress records the names of people who voted for and against a proposal.

Referendum :  A process in some states in which a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal.

Regulation :  A statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress.

Resolution : Similar to a bill but used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments.

Rulemaking : The process of creating rules and regulations by bureaucratic agencies as they work to implement laws passed by Congress.

Rules Committee :  A committee in the House of Representatives that establishes the guidelines for debating proposals in the House.

Signing statements : Written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.  Presidents sometimes use these to call out aspects of the law that they disagree with and plan to ignore in the enforcement process.

Simple resolution : (designated H. Res. in the House and S. Res. in the Senate) Used to express the sentiment of one chamber.

Sponsor : The Senator or Representative who introduces a bill or resolution.

Street level bureaucrats : The government employees who work on the front lines of providing direct services.

Subcommittee s: A subsection of a committee that focuses on an even more specific aspect of the policy area.  Like committees, subcommittees can hold hearings and propose amendments.  Any decisions made by a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee.

Testimony : Written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation.

Unanimous consent :   The Senate requires approval from all members to act, and so it operates under a series of unanimous consent agreements to conduct its business.  Unless a Senator objects, the Senate continues with its business.  A Senator who strongly objects might consider starting a filibuster.

Vacating the rule : A declaration by a judge that an administrative rule is void or unenforceable.

Venue shopping :   The process of proactively seeking out a more favorable venue for political action.

Veto :  An action taken by a President to oppose a bill passed by Congress.   

Voice vote :  A vote taken in Congress in which members express their support or opposition to the proposal verbally without recording how individual members voted.

Additional Resources

Federal Statutes: A Beginner’s Guide https://guides.loc.gov/federal-statutes

Legislative Histories of Selected U.S. Laws on the Internet: Free Sources https://www.llsdc.org/legislative-histories-laws-on-the-internet-free-sources

How to Trace Federal Regulations: A Beginner’s Guide https://guides.loc.gov/trace-federal-regulations

Access proposed regulations and submit comments: https://www.regulations.gov/

• Eric (Halvorson) Fowler ‘13 is now a Senior Policy Associate for an advocacy group called Fresh Energy that advocates for Minnesota to transition to clean energy sources. ↵
• Barbara Sinclair, Unorthodox Lawmaking ↵
• Nebraska did have a bicameral legislature at one point, but it changed to a unicameral system in 1937 because lawmakers thought it would save the state money and be more representative of the people.  You can read more about it here if you are interested: https://nebraskalegislature.gov/education/lesson3.php#:~:text=Critical Thinking Exercise-,U.S. Sen.,than a two-house legislature. ↵
• Brian Wolfman and Bradley Girard, Argument preview: The Administrative Procedure Act, notice-and-comment rule making, and “interpretive” rules, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 26, 2014, 10:13 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/argument-previewthe-administrative-procedure-act-notice-and-comment-rule-making-and-interpretive-rules/ ↵
• “Administrative Procedure Act,” National Archives and Records Administration (National Archives and Records Administration), January 25, 2023, https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/553.html. ↵
• Information in this section is drawn from several sources: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp; Office of the Federal Register, A Guide to the Rulemaking Process https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf; ↵
• Coglianese, Cary, “Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking” (1997). Duke Law Journa l, Vol. 46, Pg. 1255, 1997, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=10430 ↵
• Congressional Research Service, “The Congressional Review Act (CRA): Frequently Asked Questions” https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43992.pdf ↵
• “The Rulemaking Process - Federal Register,” accessed 1AD, https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf, 11. ↵
• Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980). ↵
•   Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980), 3. ↵
• Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp, and Kelsey Shoub, Suspect Citizens: What 20 Million Traffic Stops Tell Us About Policing and Race (United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press, 2018), 2. ↵
•   Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1980), 6. ↵
• Congressional Research Service, Executive Orders: An Introduction, March 29, 2021,https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46738; American Bar Association, “What is an Executive Order?, January 25, 2001, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/what-is-an-executive-order-/ ↵
• History.com Editors, “Japanese Internment Camps,” History.com (A&E Television Networks, October 29, 2009), https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/japanese-american-relocation#:~:text=Japanese internment camps were established,be incarcerated in isolated camps. ↵
• Congressional Research Service, Todd Garvey, “Presidential Signing Statements: Constitutional and Institutional Implications” January 4, 2012, https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/RL33667.pdf ↵
• “Supreme Court of the United States,” accessed January 25, 2023, https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf. ↵
• G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking, 7th edition (New York: Routledge, 2019).  Tarr also identifies common-law policymaking, but this form of judicial decisions is not as relevant to the policymaking process. ↵
• Emanuella Evans, “Jury Trials are Disappearing.  Here’s Why”, Injustice Watch, February 17, 2921. https://www.injusticewatch.org/news/2021/disappearing-jury-trials-study/ ↵
• The prosecutors won’t appeal a loss because of the Constitution’s prohibition on double jeopardy, or being tried twice for the same crime. ↵
• G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial Policymaking , 7th edition (New York: Routledge, 2019). ↵
• Occasionally, all of the judges from an appellate court will review the case.  This is called an en banc session. ↵

A legislative proposal to create, amend, or remove policy language.

Similar to a bill but used to express ideas, set internal rules for Congress, or propose constitutional amendments. 

Used to express the sentiment of one chamber.

Used to change rules that apply to both chambers of Congress or express the sentiments of both chambers.

Similar to a bill.  Joint resolutions can be used to appropriate money for a particular purpose, requiring approval by both chambers of Congress and the president. They can also be used to propose amendments to the Constitution.

The Senator or Representative who introduces a bill or resolution.

One or more members of the legislature that formally express support for a bill by adding their name to the bill as a cosponsor.

A formal group of legislators who have jurisdiction over a specific policy topic.  Committees study and debate bills, hold hearings to learn more about them, propose modifications to bills, and make a recommendation to the full chamber.

The set of topics that a committee oversees.

The process of sending a bill to more than one committee at a time for review.

A subsection of a committee that focuses on an even more specific aspect of the policy area.  Like committees, subcommittees can hold hearings and propose amendments.  Any decisions made by a subcommittee must be approved by the full committee.

A meeting held by a congressional committee in which they invite people to provide testimony and answer questions from committee members.

Written or spoken information that is presented to a legislative committee or subcommittee during their discussion of proposed legislation. 

A hearing in which a legislative committee or subcommittee will move line by line through the proposal, making changes, called amendments.

A document produced by a committee that explains the purpose of a bill and outlines the reasons the committee supports it (and, when applicable, why the minority opposes it) and how it will change existing law.

A committee in the House of Representatives that establishes the guidelines for debating proposals in the House.

Occurs when one or more members of the Senate prolong debate on proposed legislation to delay or prevent a decision.

A verbatim record of debates and other activity that happens on the floor.  In Congress, members can insert text into the Congressional Record, which makes it look like they made a speech on the floor of the chamber even when they didn’t.

When a chamber of Congress records the names of people who voted for and against a proposal.

A vote taken in Congress in which members express their support or opposition to the proposal verbally without recording how individual members voted.

The Senate requires approval from all members to act, and so it operates under a series of unanimous consent agreements to conduct its business.  Unless a Senator objects, the Senate continues with its business.  A Senator who strongly objects might consider starting a filibuster.

A committee that includes representatives from both chambers (House and Senate) with the goal of reaching an agreement between the two versions of the bill. Any agreement reached by a conference committee must be ratified by a majority vote in both chambers.

Bills that create, modify, or end a policy.

The process by which Congress approves spending money on policies they have authorized.

An action taken by a President to oppose a bill passed by Congress. 

When there are less than ten days left in a current congress but the President does not sign or veto the bill, the bill does not go into effect. This is called a pocket veto because the President did not have to take proactive action to veto the bill but rather just put it in his pocket to die.

A process in which legislators bundle up a bunch of bills on the same general topic into one large bill and the Minnesota legislature does it frequently rather than passing each bill separately.

This law outlines the guidelines for how agencies must go about the work of developing the rules needed to implement legislation or to regulate the aspect of activity over which it has been given authority.

A statement issued by a government agency, board, or commission that has the force and effect of a law passed by Congress.

This type of rules do not require notice-and-comment and can be issued without public input.  Interpretive rules do not have the force of law but explain the agency’s interpretation of laws or regulations.

The process of creating rules and regulations by bureaucratic agencies as they work to implement laws passed by Congress.

A rulemaking process in which the agency invites interested actors, such as interest groups representing affected interests, to shape the initial proposal.

Published in the Federal Register as a codification of an agency’s interpretation of how to best implement a policy.  A final rule includes a section that describes the problem that the rule is addressing and identifies the specific statute that gives it authority to act.

A declaration by a judge that an administrative rule is void or unenforceable.

The government employees who work on the front lines of providing direct services.

A statement issued by a president that creates or modifies laws or the procedures of the federal government independently of congressional action.

Written documents that are issued when presidents sign new policies into law.  Presidents sometimes use these to call out aspects of the law that they disagree with and plan to ignore in the enforcement process.

The power of the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether an action taken by the government is consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Making a judicial decision so that it conforms to decisions reached in prior similar cases.

These trials involve a person being accused of committing a crime against society as a whole and so the case is brought by the government (via a prosecutor) against the person accused of the crime.

A legal hearing that involves a dispute between two individuals or organizations.  Penalties for a civil trial are financial only and don’t result in a criminal conviction.

An agreement between a person accused of a crime and the prosecutor in which the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for a lighter sentence.

Allows individual citizens or groups to propose a new law and, in some cases, a constitutional amendment, which is then voted on by citizens in an election.

A process in some states in which a state legislature passes a law but places it on the ballot for voters to either uphold or repeal.

The process of proactively seeking out a more favorable venue for political action.

An Introduction to U.S. Public Policy: Theory and Practice Copyright © 2023 by Katherine Knutson is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

The Public Policy Process

4. Budgeting

Each year, Congress must decide through the appropriations process how much money to spend on each policy. Generally, a policy must first be authorized (adopted) before money can be appropriated for it in the annual budget.

5. Implementation

Executive agencies (the bureaucracy) carry out, or implement, policy. Implementation could include adopting rules and regulations, providing services and products, public education campaigns, adjudication of disputes, etc.

6. Evaluation

Numerous actors evaluate the impact of policies, to see if they are solving the problems identified and accomplishing their goals. Evaluation looks at costs and benefits of policies as well as their indirect and unintended effects. Congress uses its oversight function and the General Accounting Office for evaluation, agencies evaluate their own performance, and outside evaluators include interest groups, think tanks, academia, and media. Evaluation frequently triggers identification of problems and a new round of agenda setting and policy making.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter

10 Conclusions

• Published: March 2022
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

Public policy is much more than adopting a specific measure. It is a complex process of creating new norms or reinforcing existing ones, liaising with other stakeholders, and securing support and legitimacy for a particular path of action. It aims not only to steer the behaviour of individuals, businesses, and stakeholders, but also of policy-makers themselves. Effective policy-making is based on complementary norms, instruments, and actors that all reinforce each other. Policy-makers aim to align policy instruments with the institutional context and the stakeholders at hand. Because the context and actors vary across policy fields and countries, solutions to wicked problems need to be tailor-made; one-size-fits-all solutions seldom exist. In this final chapter, we first summarize the key messages of the book. We consolidate our general approach to the policy process and combine the key components: process, policies, and capacity. Returning to the Paris Agreement and climate change policies we began with in Chapter 1, we illustrate how our understanding of public policy can be applied to a specific yet wicked policy issue. We discuss how the concept impacts the notion of evidence-based policy-making and propose a broader understanding of the policy process. Finally, we illustrate what kind of skills a policy analyst needs in today’s policy world.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code
• Add your ORCID iD

Institutional access

Sign in with a library card.

• Sign in with username/password
• Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

POL 101: American Government

• eBooks and Reference
• Academic Journals/Trade Publications/Primary Sources
• Evaluating Sources
• Public Policy Essay

Governments administer, or design and implement public policy to address social problems and controversies. Politics is the contested social process whereby individuals and groups compete to have government represent varied and often opposed interests as official public policy. In a 5-7 page essay, you are to write an academic research paper which MUST be organized around answering the following themes:

1.) Identify and explain an important political issue that the federal government administers through public policy. Why is the issue controversial? What are the relevant facts? Provide data.

 2.) Identify the primary interest groups involved in the politics of the political issue. How do they get government to do what they want? Do they lobby the Congress and executive branch of government? Do they mobilize the public with information and grassroots movements? Be specific.

 3.) Identify and explain how the federal government administers the policies that address the political issue. What laws have Congress passed regarding the issue? What executive department, agency, or bureau is responsible in creating and enforcing the public policies and programs related to the issue? How have the federal courts and Supreme ourt ruled in interpreting the constitutionality of legislation and policies related to the political issue?

 4. Conclude by providing an assessment of your research: Are government institutions effective in addressing the political issue through public policy? Why or why not?

  These four key points must be addressed in the essay. This essay is expected to be double spaced, written in a 12 point font (Calibri or New Times Roman), and utilize appropriate margins. Its length must be at least five full pages but no more than seven full pages. Each essay must follow an acceptable academic format containing an introductory paragraph with thesis statement, coherently organized body paragraphs providing evidence supporting your thesis, and a concluding paragraph that summarizes your reasoning provided in the essay. The essay is also to have a proper citation format utilized for referencing source materials. I leave the citation format open to student choice (i.e. APA, MLA, Chicago), so long as it is done correctly. Good essays show your ability to critically and creatively utilize intellectual skill in applying course material to original academic work.

• << Previous: Evaluating Sources
• Last Updated: May 15, 2024 1:50 PM
• URL: https://libguides.gateway.kctcs.edu/americangovernment

• Open Search Close Search

Mary Louise Culpepper

How to write an effective reflective policy essay.

We seek a reflective policy essay as part of your application. Make sure yours is an effective one.

The reflective policy essay has been designed for us to learn more about your experience with real-world policy challenges, as well as your ability to learn from mistakes and to problem-solve. This written work will enable us to understand more about the professional and personal experiences that have shaped your public service passion, and to understand better what you might bring to the MPP classroom.

What is a reflective policy essay?

We are looking for essays that tackle policy and/or policy implementation problems that you have experienced.

First, we want you to briefly describe something you’ve experienced where a lack of good policy and/or implementation procedures led to bad outcomes or unintended consequences. Please be specific, and make sure we understand your personal connection to the situation. We do not want a generic, theoretical policy essay. You have 300 words for this first section.

In the next section, we would like you to analyse what went wrong and what could have been done differently. Be sure to make clear your point of view in this experience: as a public servant, a citizen, or a commentator. Remember, we want to understand how you think and learn, and what unique experiences you have had that will enrich the classroom experience for others in the diverse MPP cohort. In conclusion, we want to see concrete policy proposals that would correct the problems you identified and produce positive outcomes going forward. An excellent policy brief will consider alternatives and address barriers to implementation as well as costs. It will also bring in evidence to support your arguments. You have 1200 words for this second section.

The importance of critical thinking

This essay should demonstrate your ability to think critically and creatively. It should also demonstrate your commitment to positive change and your understanding of real-world policy challenges. It is an important part of the application and we are looking forward to reading your submission!

Mary Louise Culpepper is Senior Admissions Adviser at the Blavatnik School of Government. Find out more about how to apply to the Master of Public Policy .

The concept of public policy Essay

Introduction.

Bibliography

The concept of public policy is very critical and sensitive since it affects a majority of people who are ruled under the policies made. It entails the process taken by the government in addressing an issue that affects the public and the intentions of the government in taking the actions.

It can also be said to be the result of the government’s actions towards deciding on who gets what and who does not after some considerations. It comprises major components like regulations, laws, actions and decisions aimed at controlling a certain behavior or solving a problem that is either caused by or affects the public.

Public opinion, on the other hand, is a set of people’s views and attitudes towards a specific topic or issue that affect them. It usually affects the process of public policy-making as it takes into consideration the public interests.

This piece of work gives a critique of the article; Information Effects in Collective Preferences by Althaus looking into how the author tackles the topic and his efforts in making us understand the relationship between public opinion and public policy.

The author starts of by showing us how information is essential in decision making, especially in shaping public opinion which to a great extent affects the process of public policy since the public are a major element in the public policy-making process thorough their various opinions.

It is evident that uneven distribution of political information among the society members leads to different public opinions by the members as they have different levels of knowledge concerning the specific topic or problem and therefore the public policies that are made based on the collected opinions from the public are usually not complete as they do not comprehensively represent the public.

This shows that the process of public policy-making could only be effective if knowledge about particular issues of concern were evenly distributed among the citizens as this would make them make appropriate and informed decisions based on facts and the government would hence take effective actions and solve the public’s problems.

Public opinion is therefore influenced by information effect, which is the information’s impact in shaping collective opinion as a result of low levels and uneven social distribution of knowledge regarding politics in the society.

Political knowledge enhance proper decision making in regard to political issues as the informed citizens are able to understand the major components involved in public policy-making, for instance, the policy itself, the participants or actors and the problems at stake.

Although we can argue that being politically informed enhance the individual’s and collective opinion, some studies for instance in cognitive psychology also show that even the people who are poorly informed an political matters can make opinions that are in line with their political inclinations by relying on some political figures and other sources for instance online processing and other information shortcuts without necessarily having the specific factual knowledge.

Aggregation of the opinions made by both the well informed and ill-informed citizens will also allow coming up with an appropriate conclusion. This disputes the fact that the correct and meaningful collective opinion could only be attained if all the citizens were well informed.

All in all information among the citizens influences their opinions by affecting the interaction between those collecting the data and those giving the responses, for instance, the poorly informed citizens who are usually the Blacks, the poor and women tend to give vague response as compared to the knowledgeable audience leading to poor presentation of the public’s preferences as opposed to those from the knowledgeable citizens who are mostly, the Whites, the rich and men whose views tend to be greatly considered.

The opinions of the well-informed people also tend to be of high quality in terms of being consistent with the political predisposition regarding the particular problem in question.

Public opinion and public policy are directly dependent on each other since public policy formulation and implementation is based on the public’s opinion about the particular topic or problem and it is usually made in response to a specific problem or issue facing the public with an aim of solving it.

The citizens’ provision of information on the topic is usually useful in the policy formulation and implementation process as it brings forward their beliefs, attitudes which in the long run influence the cause and effects processes and what the government is likely to undertake and the expected outcomes of the actions taken.

It is, however, difficult to determine how information or knowledge in the political field would affect an individual’s or group’s preference in regard to what is best for them.

The political interests of the informed people may either be subjective or objective and in some instances they may not reflect what the public may prefer in relation to a particular issue. The knowledgeable citizens tend to be in a good position to argue or respond to different situations based on the knowledge they have previously acquired.

They also have a certain degree of confidence due to their prior experience and can hence easily understand complex political issues and happenings that surround them as compared to the ill-informed citizens.

The measure of how information affects preferences and opinions among citizens can be attained through taking of constant variables in the society in both the enlightened and the ill-informed citizens in the community for instance education, age, race, religious affiliation, marital status, gender, region, financial status, type of community, region, parental status, partisanship, and occupation among others and presenting the same questions to them and then evaluating the responses.

The author, however, recognizes that a political party affiliation is an essential element since it is also a relatively constant characteristic of the citizens and a major determinant of the citizen’s responses to political issues as it acts as a basis for the citizen’s responses and a shortcut as opposed to factual knowledge they would have concerning the topic of discussion.

Although the author tries to tackle this issues comprehensively through application of various theories, models and methods and also by taking into consideration what has been said by other authors in regard to the same topic, it is still difficult to completely determine the exact influence of information on political interests and preferences among the enlightened and the ill-informed citizens as the results from the conducted surveys are often almost the same since there are other determinants apart from information or knowledge exhibited by the respondents.

To understand the concept of the influence public opinion on public policy formulation and implementation, the author gives us an example on how information can affect people’s attitudes toward spousal notification law.

The example tries to show how information can shape an individual’s or group’s collective preference. The question posed to the respondents is; ‘‘would you favor or oppose a law in your state that would require a married woman to notify her husband before she can have an abortion? ’’ 1

The responses were obtained and the logit coefficients evaluated and it is noted that the differences in the responses attained is relatively very low. The models used can however not perfectly represent individual opinions but can generally show the differences between those groups that are for the law and those that are against its enactment.

The model also shows the effects of information or knowledge on an issue on policy preferences among various groups. From the above-named question, two-thirds of the respondents seemed to support the spousal notification law while a third was against it.

The well-informed citizens seem to be divided on the issue as 48% of them supported it and 52% opposed it and hence the problem lies in the unequal distribution of political knowledge among citizens.

Men were more informed as compared to women because even after full provision of political knowledge, their responses did change much as compared to that of women.

This shows that the difference in information available to both men and women affects the results obtained in opinion surveys and hence leads to inefficient public policy-making by the governments as they base they actions on the opinion polls gathered.

Different topics attract different public opinions according to how best the citizens are informed or interested in them for example issues of social, fiscal, and security wellbeing among others. A change in information or knowledge on an issue also leads to changes in collective preferences as the people are subject to change their opinions with change in information.

The deviation however varies depending on other elements, for instance, the Whites, the rich and men are less likely to change their opinions much as compared to the Blacks, the poor and women who are more susceptible to change of opinion due to prior lack of knowledge.

This can be seen when taking varying responses of the citizens on different issues, for instance, foreign policy issues, fiscal issues, operative issues and social policy issues.

Generally, fully informed citizens tend to give divided opinions on policies like foreign policy, they are more concerned on social and fiscal concepts and policies and more conservative on operative issues that take place around them.

Correcting for information unevenness can, however lead to notable shifts in individual and collective opinions. The authors argues that the only way out in understanding collective preferences could be the balancing of political knowledge among the society members which will counter the low levels and uneven social distribution of information on politics and political issues.

He also states that information level in an individual or group affects collective opinion greater that previous studies have shown.

It is also clear that different levels of information brings about change in responses and therefore collective preferences of various people could change either with a less or great magnitude if everyone was equally informed in various aspects of concern in the political field.

The author argues the topic in a very comprehensive manner by looking into various studies that have been done regarding the effects of information or knowledge among the citizens and its role in shaping their opinions which in the long run affects the public policy-making process and the actions taken by the government in regard to the problems faced by the citizens.

He then gives lots of models and informative examples from which the reader can draw his or her own conclusions and there after gives his point of view with specific reasons for making the decisions.

From the information given by the author in his article, Information Effects in Collective Preferences, it is evident that the public is a very essential component or determinant in the process of public policy formulation and implementation.

This is because the public opinions are used by the government and other bodies involved in the policy-making process for instance legislative bodies, leadership, bureaucracy, interest groups, political parties and the justice system in decision making. Public policies are made out of the public’s interest which is expressed through public opinion.

However, public opinion can sometimes be decisive and not representative of the reality for instance when the respondents that are contacted during the survey are not representative of the total community in terms of size and aggregate composition or characteristics.

Knowledge of the people on the particular issue also affects the opinions given as people tend to give vague information when they are not conversant with the political issue while those who are well enlightened tend to give meaningful responses that are in line with the government’s expectations.

In most cases the responses from the well-informed citizens are usually used as the basis in making public policies hence their needs end up being catered for at the expense of those that are not well informed.

This shows that the policies formulated and implemented by the government are usually not representative of all citizen’s views as they are not based on everybody’s opinion as it should be the case.

Public opinion usually has limited influence on public policy since in most cases there are usually no clear public preferences for one policy over others as the citizens are not given the options of choosing among policies that are available.

The policy-makers also do not necessarily follow the public preferences due to lack of adequate relevant information.

This is because most people have no distinct preferences on most issues, especially political related and in the few cases where preferences have been established, public opinion is usually much divided to a point where the bodies involved in public policy-making cannot base their actions on it.

For instance in the example on passage of the notification law of the spouse on abortion given earlier, the public seemed much divided and the government may be left with the final decision hence public opinion is overruled.

In some instances the government may make advantage of a situation and go per its preference as opposed to the public preference as it has powers over the general public. The government may come up with an idea regarding a policy and persuade the public to support it for example through campaigns.

This is a way of molding the public opinion where different bodies and institutions involved in public policy-making process affect the public’s decisions on various aspects.

Incases where the public opinion is well known and the preferences seem to be well defined, the policy-makers may also not go in accordance to them for various reasons for example if the preferences are deemed to be based on ignorance on the issue, when it is not for the well being of the majority in the society or when the policy to be passed is susceptible to change completely in the event of enactment of an alternative policy in future.

Although public policy is sometimes in line with public opinion, this is not an adequate justification that public opinion determines the actions taken in the public policy-making policy.

The public policy-makers mostly make a generalization since they can gauge what the public would prefer and at the end of it all, they end up coming up with policies that are in favor with the public preferences even without their consultation.

It is however clear that public opinion and public policy are strongly related. Although public opinion is expected to be the basis of public policy in determining its formulation and implementation, it does not work out this way.

In few instances, the public opinion matches with the policy-makers preferences and hence it is adopted but in most case, it opposes the policy makers’ preferences and it is therefore ignored.

This shows that despite the public being given a chance to voice their views and ideas the final decision lies in the public policy-makers, especially the government since the public has no power to force the government to act in a certain way.

Althaus, L. Scott. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review. Vol. 92, No.3. 1998.

1 Scott, L. Althaus. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political Science Review. Vol. 92, No.3. 1998.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, May 1). The concept of public policy. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-public-policy-essay/

"The concept of public policy." IvyPanda , 1 May 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-public-policy-essay/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'The concept of public policy'. 1 May.

IvyPanda . 2019. "The concept of public policy." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-public-policy-essay/.

1. IvyPanda . "The concept of public policy." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-public-policy-essay/.

IvyPanda . "The concept of public policy." May 1, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-concept-of-public-policy-essay/.

• Health Policymaking in the United States
• How Spain Influenced European Policymaking
• Presidential Leadership in Domestic and Budget Policy-Making
• Concepts of Informing and setting policies
• The Governmental Role in Food Safety
• Stages of a Policy Cycle
• Australia Industrial Relation Policies
• Freedom of speech in the Balkans

Legal Dictionary

The Law Dictionary for Everyone

Public Policy

The term “public policy” refers to a set of actions the government takes to address issues within society. For example, public policy addresses problems over the long-term, such as issues with healthcare or gun control, and as such, it can take years to develop. Public policy addresses issues that affect a wider swath of society, rather than those pertaining to smaller groups. To explore this concept, consider the following public policy definition.

Definition of Public Policy

• A course of governmental action established to address the problems of the society at large, rather than individual needs on a smaller scale.

What is Public Policy?

Public policy is a set of actions the government decides to take when approaching a problem that affects society as a group, rather than on an individual level. Simply put, public policy refers to policies that the government makes on the public’s behalf to resolve a specific issue.

For example, public policy might tackle the problem of student loans by creating a student loan forgiveness program that affects several students at once, rather than paying off the loan of one student. Something important to remember about public policy is that it does not just refer to the government’s actions, but also to the behaviors and actions that result from those actions.

Social Safety Net

During the Great Depression, which happened in the 1930s, the U.S. created a sort of “social safety net” to support those who had felt significant impacts from the Depression. The social safety net extended to those who had lost their jobs, homes, and all their savings. Working with the government, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt created programs like the Work Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps. These groups were to specifically focus on improving rates of unemployment .

President Roosevelt also created the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation to help individuals refinance their mortgages and ease the debt created by the Depression. Once the Depression began to let up, the government started phasing out these programs as well. However, some of the programs the government started back then are still around today, including Social Security, Medicare, and minimum wage.

Process of Public Policy

The process of public policy is a continuous one. There exists a constant need for verification and evaluation before the government can push a policy through. Some believe that the government only decides on public policy after a matter of months, but, in reality, public policy can take several years to enact.

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:

• Advocating publicly for the policies they are attempting to push through
• Attempting to educate both supporters of and opponents to the policy in an effort to gain more support
• Gathering allies together to advocate for a particular issue

Public Policy vs. Domestic Policy

Domestic policy is like public policy, only on a smaller scale. For instance, while public policy is concerned with the public at large, domestic policy issues typically involve people from specific religions, cultures, or personal beliefs. Depending on the issue, domestic policy can often be controversial. For instance, some of the issues covered under domestic policy involve:

• Gun control
• LGBTQ+ rights
• Separation of church and state
• Cultural diversity in employment and education

Unlike foreign policy, domestic policy only concerns issues within the United States’ borders. There are many areas of concern that domestic policy covers, including:

• Law enforcement
• Natural resources
• Social welfare

Public Policy Example Involving Gun Control

One of the most hotly contested examples of public policy is gun control, and the arguments and controversies that surround it. Take, for instance, the case of District of Colombia v. Heller , which the U.S. Supreme Court heard in 2008. This case became a landmark case in the fight for, and in this case against, gun control.

Dick Heller was a special police officer in Washington D.C. He applied for a one-year license for a handgun, as he wished to keep one at home, but he did not receive approval. He then sued the District of Colombia, seeking an injunction against the District of Colombia Code, saying it was a violation of his Second Amendment rights.

The Code made it illegal for the state to register handguns to individuals. However, under this Code, the Chief of Police could issue one-year licenses like the one Heller applied for. For some reason, though, the Chief ultimately denied Heller’s request which lead, in part, to this lawsuit.

Decision and Appeal

Ultimately, the district court dismissed the complaint . Heller then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia, which decided in favor of Heller, and reversed the lower court. The Court held that the Second Amendment protected individuals’ right to keep firearms in their homes for the purpose of self-defense.

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

The case made its way before the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. The question for the Court then became: does the District of Columbia Code violate the Second Amendment? The Court ultimately ruled in a 5 – 4 decision that yes, it did. The Court held that individuals should read the Second Amendment in such a way as to give it the plainest meaning possible. If they do this, then the Second Amendment “guarantee[s] an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation .”

Therefore, banning handguns – weapons that people typically use for protection – and prohibiting handguns from being functional in the home, an area that undoubtedly needs protecting, indeed violates the Second Amendment.

In Their Own Words

With Justice Antonin Scalia speaking for the majority, the Court wrote, in part:

“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.

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”

Related Legal Terms and Issues

• Injunction – A court order preventing an individual or entity from beginning or continuing an action.

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Public Policy Process, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 666

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

A public policy is a principled action guide taken and considered by different administrative agencies of the federal state that deal with class issues in line with institutional settings while conforming to the laws as stipulated in the constitution. The shaping of a public policy is a rigorous and multi-faceted process that considers several factors including and not limited to identification of a problem, development, and selection of alternatives, implementation of the established policy, evaluation, and consideration of changes. The processes involved in policymaking are dependent on the budgeting process where funding is allocated according to the appropriations of Congress. Funding is allocated once a policy is authorized. Poverty is an issue that affects not only an individual, but also the society. Several policies have been developed in the United States to deal with poverty issues, but the “ Aid to Families with Dependent Children” stands out due to its place in the eradication of poverty amongst children[1].

Evaluation of the policy

The “Aid to Families with Dependent Children” policy has undergone a lot of transformation since its inception in 1935[2]. The massive program was instituted as the “Aid to Dependent Children” as part of the Social Security Act. The policy was instituted to help single mothers who were not working by giving them scant relief. The problem identification process for designing the policy centered on the consequences of children being brought up by single parents who were not at work. Its first deficiency was the focus on white women and segregating black women. The policy’s segregation of black women was from the notion that they were consistently in the labor force and were termed ineligible from receiving any grants. The process that guides the making of a public policy is reflected with the evaluations that followed due to renewed considerations in 1962[3].

The civil society alongside the national welfare rights organization can be credited for the transformation of the policy from ADC to AFDC[4]. The new policy instituted in 1962 considered the plight of black and white women with children. The policy’s target was to alleviate the welfare of the parents because this would lead to the improvement of the livelihood of their children. Children across the globe are considered equal with different talents and abilities that could be exploited for the benefit of the nation. Consequently, it is prudent that they should be accorded all the support necessary in the acquisition of shelter, education, health, clothing, and food with the aim of providing an enabling environment for talent exploitation.

The spending on families with dependent children grew tremendously and at the close of 1996, it stood at a staggering twenty-four billion dollars. The policy was reconstructed in 1996 under the leadership of President Clinton to introduce a new policy referred to as the Temporary Assistance for Needy families [5]. The new policy was drafted because of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act. The policy reduced the amount of benefits enjoyed from the previous policy and anchors strongly on sustainability through active employment. The developments and changes that have been instituted within the policy framework indicate the rigorous processes involved in policymaking.

A public policy is an instrument used in addressing social issues related to governance and as such, it should be accommodative to social changes. The TANF policy is a practical example of the shaping of a public policy and its need of transformations and restructuring. The policy has been shaped and evaluated to meet specific needs established over time.

Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

[1] Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

[2] Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

[3] Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

[4] Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

[5] Weaver, R. Kent. Ending Welfare As We Know It. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institution Press, 2000

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Developing and Promoting a Tablet Computer (iPad), Essay Example

Supreme Court-Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Essay Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371

Public Policy in Government Essay

How it works

Public policy is used by the government to create order or to look into the issues that are affecting the citizens of the United States. They are carried out through following guidelines that are indicated in the constitution. A policy is not a tangible thing but rather, public policy is used to describe a set of laws, regulations, and mandates. They are made through a political process. This legal process helps the government be able to create laws that serve a great purpose to citizens.

(John, 2013). In healthcare with stem cell research public policies are implemented to achieve specific health care goals, build consensus and inform people (Who,int.2019).

A policy established and carried out by the government goes through several stages from inception to conclusion. These are agenda building, formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and termination (Birkland, 2014).

Before a policy can be created, a problem must exist that is called to the attention of the government. Specific events can place a problem on the agenda. The next stage, Policy formulation means coming up with an approach to solving a problem. Congress, the executive branch, the courts, and interest groups may be involved. Contradictory proposals are often made. The president may have one approach to stem cell research funding, and the opposition-party members of Congress may have another. Policy formulation has a tangible outcome: A bill goes before Congress or a regulatory agency drafts proposed rules. The process continues with adoption. A policy is adopted when Congress passes legislation, the regulations become final, or the Supreme Court renders a decision in a case (Birkland, 2014).

The implementation or carrying out of policy is most often accomplished by institutions other than those that formulated and adopted it. A statute usually provides just a broad outline of a policy. Successful implementation depends on the complexity of the policy, coordination between those putting the policy into effect, and compliance (Birkland, 2014).

Evaluation means determining how well a policy is working, and that is not always an easy task. History has shown that once implemented, policies are difficult to terminate. When they are terminated, it is usually because the policy became obsolete, clearly did not work, or lost its support among the interest groups and elected officials that placed it on the agenda in the first place (Birkland, 2014).

Another component of policy formation is the role of interest groups. According to Hill and Varone (2014), interest groups can influence the process in ways such as lobbying government. This is where these interest groups can hire representatives to advocate for interests that the group has. They also engage themselves in election activities where they influence people to support and vote for individuals that are concerned with their interests. Citizens influence the process by focusing on issues that affect the public at large. They mainly focus on environmental and social issues. Due to their large numbers, they are able to hire lobbyists. They use tactics such as litigation and electioneering. Another tactic is the ability to mobilize citizens towards their cause and this is possible due to their large numbers (Hill & Varone, 2014).

Stem cells have been used in medicine since the 1950’s when bone marrow transplants were first used to treat leukemia. Congressional involvement in stem cell policy started as early as 1974. The first major amendment related to the use of federal funds for research involving embryonic stem (ES) cells occurred in 1996.

In 1996, Congress banned federal funding for research on embryos through the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, named after Reps. The amendment prohibited the use of federal funds for the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes, or research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero. In August of 2000, The National Institute of Health interpreted the amendment and released guidelines and stipulations in order to conduct research.

In 2001, President George W. Bush prohibits the federal funding of any research using ES cell lines derived after August 9, 2001, but his policy does not affect research in the private sector or research conducted with state funding. The President claims that more than 60 stem cell lines are still available for funding. Research on adult stem cells is not affected by this executive order.

In 2005 H.R. 810, to expand federal funding for stem cell research passed both the House and the Senate in the 109th Congress, attracting bipartisan support. However, the bill is quickly vetoed by President Bush. The House votes 235-193 in favor of the bill, but the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto is not reached.

In 2007, the 110th Congress, the Senate passes their version of The Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act (S. 5) with strong bipartisan support, 63-34. The House also passes the Senate’s version of the bill 247-176. Again, the bill is vetoed by President Bush, and again Congress cannot override the veto.

On March 9, 2009, President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order lifting restrictions on the federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research that had been in place since The Obama Executive Order directed the National Institutes of Health to issue Guidelines to permit such funding. The NIH finalized its stem cell Guidelines on July 7, 2009.

Shortly after the NIH Guidelines were in place, James L. Sherley, M.D., Ph.D., (Boston Biomedical Research Institute) and Theresa Deisher, Ph.D., (Ave Maria Biotechnology Company) filed suit (Sherley v. Sebelius) in federal court challenging the Guidelines and the federal funding of hESC research. The plaintiffs alleged that the Guidelines violate the so-called Dickey-Wicker provision that has appeared in every Labor-HHS appropriations bill since 1996. That provision prohibits federal funding for research in which embryos are created for research purposes, or in which human embryos are destroyed, discarded or subject to risk.

On August 23, 2010, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth issued a temporary restraining order immediately prohibiting the NIH from further funding human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research. Judge Lamberth’s order came following a Federal Appeals Court decision giving Sherley and Deisher standing to bring their suit. Judge Lamberth ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to win their case when it came to trial.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stayed the preliminary injunction pending appeal and on April 29, 2011, a split three-judge panel lifted the preliminary injunction. The majority opinion concluded that the opponents of hESC “are unlikely to prevail because Dickey-Wicker is ambiguous and the NIH seems reasonably to have concluded that, although Dickey-Wicker bars funding for the destructive act of deriving an ESC from an embryo, it does not prohibit funding a research project in which an ESC will be used.” Federal District Court Judge Royce Lamberth on July 27, 2011, rejected the claims of the plaintiffs and dismissed their suit. Judge Lamberth’s decision closely tracked the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals panel that ruled on the appeal of his preliminary injunction.On August 23, 2012, in a decision favorable to proponents of ES cell research, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court ruling dismissing a lawsuit that challenged the Obama administration’s expansion of federal funding ES cell research.

The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal in an announcement on January 7, 2013. The announcement allows the decision of the appeals court to stand.

Many congressional members in the House and Senate seek to codify the stem cell rules established under President Obama’s executive order, preventing future administrations from unilaterally restricting or eliminating federal funding for stem cell research. Bills such as the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act, which would permit funding for research on stem cells derived from embryos produced but ultimately not used for in vitro fertilization, have been regularly introduced in the House and Senate since 2009, but no legislation has been enacted.

In 2013 The Supreme Court announces that it will not hear Sherley v. Sebelius, thereby upholding the previous ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court’s ruling. “This is a major victory for scientifically and ethically responsible innovative research,” Bernard Siegel, spokesperson for the Stem Cell Action Coalition and executive director of the Genetics Policy Institute, says in a statement.

Also in 2013 President Obama signed the 21st century cures act into law. The 21st Century Cures Act includes provisions intended to assure timely regulatory review of regenerative therapies, including cell therapies enabled by stem cell therapy research.

Stem cell research has been particularly important in advancing the field of “regenerative medicine,” which focuses on replacing, engineering or regenerating cells, tissues and organs in order to achieve normal function. Over the past several years, there has been a heightened focus on ensuring the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is equipped to properly and efficiently review the safety and effectiveness of the treatments arising from this rapidly evolving category of medicine.

Fast forward to 2018 President Trump has also endorsed making life-saving treatments like stem cell therapies more available to more Americans voicing his clear support for “Right to Try” legislation, which would increase the medical options of the critically ill by helping them avoid the unduly burdensome and bureaucratic spider’s web of the FDA.

The language of the Right to Try legislation is simple, straightforward and offers protections for patients and manufacturers. Under the Senate version, an “eligible patient” who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness may be prescribed an experimental drug or biological product to treat their illness, so long as the patient has a qualified physician certify that he or she has exhausted all other treatment options and is unable to participate in a clinical trial. The patient must also provide informed consent to the physician and the physician may not be compensated by the manufacturer of a treatment for certifying the patient. The patient, physician and manufacturer must all agree on the treatment.

In 2018 an overwhelming and increasingly rare bipartisan display (94-1), the Senate has already passed the Right to Try Act. The House version is currently awaiting approval.

References:

• Who.int. (2019). WHO | Health policy. [online] Available at: https://www.who.int/topics/health_policy/en/ [Accessed 1 Mar. 2019].
• John, P. (2013). Analyzing public policy. Routledge.
• Birkland, T. A. (2014). An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.
• Hill, M., & Varone, F. (2014). The public policy process. Routledge.
• University of Wisconsin-Madison. “”Twenty years on, measuring the impact of human stem cells.”” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 1 November 2018. .
• https://www.researchamerica.org/advocacy-action/issues-researchamerica-advocates/stem-cell-research
• https://www.aamc.org/advocacy/research/74440/embryonicstemcellresearch.html

Cite this page

Public Policy in Government Essay. (2019, Jul 20). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/

"Public Policy in Government Essay." PapersOwl.com , 20 Jul 2019, https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Public Policy in Government Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/ [Accessed: 19 May. 2024]

"Public Policy in Government Essay." PapersOwl.com, Jul 20, 2019. Accessed May 19, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/

"Public Policy in Government Essay," PapersOwl.com , 20-Jul-2019. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/. [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

PapersOwl.com. (2019). Public Policy in Government Essay . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/public-policy-in-government-essay/ [Accessed: 19-May-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers