Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Larsen
January 12, 2005
Theories of the Policy Process: Sabatier
Part 1—Introduction
Sabatier first sets the stage for the need for better theories by identifying the
extreme complexity of the policy process identifying its interacting elements to include
(a) hundreds of actors, (b) time spans of a decade or more, (c) multiple programs within a
given policy arena, (d) technical disputes on all aspects, and (e) most policy disputes
“involve deeply held values/interests, large amounts of money, and, at some point,
authoritative coercion” (p. 4). He posits the necessity of a strategy of science which
employs (a) verifiable methods and analysis, (b) explicit concepts and propositions
framed to be testable, (c) propositions should be general and focused on questions of
relevance, and (d) critical peer review. He goes on to characterize three kinds of
propositions: conceptual frameworks, theories, and models on a continuum of increasing
complexity and narrowing of scope. While Sabatier acknowledges the prototypical
“Stages Heuristic” of early policy process theoreticians, he finds it critically inadequate
for a variety of reasons necessitating exploration of more promising theoretical
frameworks. In advancing criteria by which to judge seven frameworks, he creates for
policy process theories a Weberian ideal type that exhibits the following characteristics:
(a) meets the test of being a scientific theory, (b) it has been subject to recent conceptual
development and empirical verification with the result of being judged viable by peers,
(c) the theory must be explanatory of the policy process, and (d) must address factors
judged to be important by political scientists in their consideration of public
policymaking. By these criteria he has discriminated among the following frameworks
those meeting the criteria sufficiently to merit detailed analysis in his book.
Chapter 2. The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done/ Where Is It
Going? Peter deLeon
DeLeon traces the genesis of the “Stages Heuristic,” following the transformation
of Laswell’s seven “stages” (1951) into “the decision process” (1956) which is
characterized by the following steps: Initiation, Estimation, Selection, Implementation,
Evaluation, and Termination. Sabatier finds this framework to be critically deficient for a
variety of reasons including that (a) it is not a causal model, (b) it provides no basis for
peer verification, (c) it is descriptively inaccurate, (d) it suffers from a legalistic top-down
orientation, (e) it emphasizes the unit of analysis of policy cycle at the expense of others
such as a system of intergovernmental relations, and (f) it does not provide a good way to
integrate policy analysis and the policy learning that occurs through public process. To
counter, DeLeon affirms the framework’s heuristic utility in policy research and
development as evidenced by its wide adoption for a number of years and its strong
congruence of purpose with the very purpose of policy analysis to create, in Laswell’s
words “better intelligence leading to better government” (cited by DeLeon as quoted by
Brunner (1991) (p. 81)).
Comments
In discussing the need for better theories in the first chapter, with only one
dismissive reference to constructiveness theories, Sabatier argues for a strictly scientific
approach. In so doing he is tacitly arguing that only one world view is right. Heppner,
Kivlighan, and Wampold (1999) assert that “Worldviews are the philosophical
foundations that guide understanding of the world and how inquiries are made to further
that understanding” (p. 236). They posit four worldviews:
1. Positivism employs the scientific method and holds that the nature of the universe
can be known and the scientist’s goal is to discover the natural laws that govern
the universe.
2. Postpositivism also employs the scientific method, but recognizes truth cannot be
fully known; we must therefore make probabilistic statements rather than absolute
statements about truth. Methods include peer review and scientific community
arbitration.
3. Constructivism holds that ideas about the world are constructed in people’s minds.
Reality is created by the participants of any system, the investigator and object
under consideration cannot be conceived of separately. General methods are
hermeneutics and dialectics. There are no truths to be discovered. Methods are
recursive rather than linear—results and method influence each other.
4. Critical Theory holds that people’s social constructions are shaped by the
environment. Investigation involves investigator/subject dialogue, and the
dialectic should lead to the participant’s understanding that social action is needed
to change the social order.
They believe that awareness of the paradigm at hand is crucial to match appropriate
methods to belief systems and to create research that is relevant for the associated body
of knowledge. They also distinguish qualitative research and methods from quantitative,
noting the general affiliation of quantitative research with positivist and postpositivist
enquiry and qualitative research with constructivist and critical theory research. Certainly
because of the number of participating actors, at least some academics and at least some
policy makers and elected officials vigorously hold non-positivist world views. Sabatier’s
work leaves these views out of his (and his reader’s) consideration.
The garbage can model provides a graphic representation that corresponds well to
the policy world I have experienced. I can actually visualize and name the streams for
several different policy situations. For example, as the result of my association with the
Clinton Administration1, I independently described the natural resource policy pathways
in the first term of the Administration in a way that is remarkably similar to Kingdon’s
Multiple-Streams formulation. From my viewpoint, I also appreciate the recursive and
stochastic accommodations of the model that makes allowance for serendipity and the
sometimes inscrutable machinations of politics. Bureaucrats are held accountable for
predictable results. The Punctuated Equilibrium Theory reminds us that such
accountability is irrelevant when faced with the periodic sea changes that happen when
the political system singles out a policy for serial processing.
1
I first worked for the White House as the Natural Resource Policy Advisor to the President’s Council on
Sustainable Development for one and one half years, and was then subsequently Chief of Staff to the
Undersecretary for Natural Resources and the Environment in the Department of Agriculture.
References
Brunner, R. D. (1991). The policy movement as a policy problem. Policy Sciences, 24(1),
65-98.
Heppner, P. P., Kivlighan, D. M., & Wampold, B. E. (1999). Research design in
counseling (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Wadsworth.
Lasswell, H. D. (1951). The policy orientation. In D. Lerner & H. D. Lasswell (Eds.),
The policy sciences.Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process.College Park: University of Maryland
Press.