The Non-Rational Approach to Policy-Making Part 2

Answer

The Non-Rational Approach to Policy-Making Part 2

Public policy making can follow different models including the rationality model, the non-rational approach (political models), or the policy process model. According to Birkland (2014), the rational model is based on the idea that some decisions are so complex that they are better handled by impartial, reasonable, and non-partisan experts and bureaucrats. The political model, also known as the non-rational approach, is pegged on the presupposition that policymaking is a process which requires democracy and the view of the dominant political elites as opposed to bureaucrats (Clemons, 2017). This approach is based on the populism model which makes decision making in the policy-making process a political aspect as opposed to a bureaucratic one. The policy process model is fixed on the idea the public policy-making involves five significant steps which integrate both rational and political models (Anderson, 2014). Each of the models has its own advantages and criticisms. This paper examines the case of “The Expansion of Human Services in Allegheny County, 1968-95” and addresses various issues related to the case.

Ways the Case Study Offered Support for or Against the Rational Model

The rational model presupposes that the nature of decisions in policy making are such that issues are very complex and leaving them in the hands of political actors is undesirable (Anderson, 2014). According to the proponents of the rational approach, political elites and masses are biased, partisan, corrupt and emotional such that they cannot be trusted to make sound decisions. As such, Clemons (2017) states that critical decisions in policy making should be the preserve of the competent and impartial experts and bureaucrats. In the current case study, various points offer support for and also go against the rational model. One of the ways that the case supports the rational model is that Commissioner Foerster always sought ideas and advice from the Allegheny Conference on Community Development. Foerster adds that he would always seek input from people outside government. Such people had the knowledge and skills as well as competencies which would make them analyze the human services needed and make decisions based on facts and not emotions or values. In such a case, Commissioner Foerster fostered the rational approach which advocates for the seeking of expert opinions in policymaking. However, the fact that the case stated that Commissioner Foerster sought advice from both government and opposition shows how the political class influenced his decisions. Such an action is against the logical model which believes that powerful political elites should not be allowed to change decisions in policy making.

Ways the Case Study Offered Support for or Against the Political Model

In the political model, which is also the non-rational approach, aspects applied include group theory which holds that public policy results from competition among various interest groups who struggle to shape public policies (Gerston, 2014). Additionally, the political approach relies on the elite theory which held that only a few individuals in the elite class make decisions (Clemons, 2017). However, such decisions may not be rational but are in the interests of the elite class. Moreover, the model presupposes that the production of desirable public policy is not just a logical process but a cocktail of both rational and political processes (Birkland, 2014). In the case study in question, Commissioner Foerster sought the opinion of various political actors including his supporters and the opposition. Although we are told that he did not necessarily take such decisions into account when making decisions, it cannot be said that such views did not affect his decisions with relation to public policy. Indeed, listening to the masses was one of the ways in which the commissioner could make decisions on the provision of human services. He wanted the opposition as well as his supporters to tell him what they thought was the best way forward. Such actions are aligned with the political model which seeks popular views as opposed to the intelligent decisions of experts. However, some ideas from the case go against the political model. For instance, when Leo Koeberlein describes the politician as a person who used a quiet intellectual approach then such a move is one pegged on the rational as opposed to the political model.

Ways the Case Study Offered Support for or Against the Policy Process Model

A policy process model is an approach which follows five critical steps in making public processes. The first step is the definition of the problem necessitating the policy as well as the fundamental causes of the issue (Anderson, 2014). In the second phase of the policy process model, a criterion is established from where any available alternative is evaluated. Such measures might include aspects such as technical and economic feasibility, political viability, legality, as well as ethics. Next, Gerston (2014) states that policy alternatives are generated, and the evaluation and selection of the most appropriate policy is done. Finally, the adopted policy is evaluated to determine its success or failure. Such a model has been supported by the actions of Commissioner Foerster in the case study who would first get the ideas of different people about the policy before selecting the most feasible alternative (Clemons, 2017). Additionally, before deciding on the most appropriate policy, he consulted widely which made him better informed. However, the case goes against the model as commissioner Foerster was not bound to factor in some of the issues presented in his decision making.

Elements of the Three-Stage Cobb and Elder Model on Agenda Setting Identified In the Case Study

The agenda-setting theory attributed to Cobb and Elder states that the media has a considerable ability to influence topics and issues in policy agenda. Such an idea is based on the belief that groups, individuals, and communities, as well as government agencies, take actions which promote their favored position (Protess & McCombs, 2016). As such, the three-stage model on agenda setting provides that stage one of agenda setting involves the initiation of a policy by a single individual. In the second phase, battles exist over the definition of the issue and symbol utilization. However, step three is a reflection of the different patterns of access which exist (Gerston, 2014). Various elements of the three-stage model on agenda setting can be identified from the case study. One of those is that the Commissioner initiated the issue in stage one by identifying the problem such as lack of opportunities for various groups of people in the society. The second element is that of issue definition whereby the Commissioner, after getting views from multiple quarters, struggled to identify the issue. For instance, in the case of poverty, he recognized the main problem as lack of job opportunities (Clemons, 2017). Finally, different patterns of access existed in the case study, whereby funds could come from various quarters.

Ways Kingdon’s “Three Streams” Model of the Policy Process Sheds Light on How Human Service Policy Developed in Allegheny County

Kingdon is clear that after achievement of an agenda status, policy formulation occurs and not its adoption or funding. Anderson (2014) states that it is not just enough that a policy problem exists, but the most important thing is that the issue rises to the agenda of the government. The three streams of policy process according to Kingdon are the problem stream where the policy problems which require attention are established, the policy stream referring to the many potential policy solutions and the politics stream alluding to changes in public opinion (Howlett, McConnell, & Perl, 2015). Such streams shed light on the human service policy devilment in the case study. Specifically, the Commissioner before making any policy identified the critical problems and the solutions which could be used to address the issues. Finally, his decision making was based on how the public feels about the public policy issue. As such, such streams help people understand that human service policy developed in Allegheny County was a product of political and intellectual decisions.

In conclusion, policy-making can be done through the rational, non-rational, and policy process model. In the case study, the rational model was supported by the fact that the Commissioner made decisions based on decisions of people outside government who had knowledge, skills, and expertise on the subject of the policy. Additionally, the political model was supported by the fact that the Commissioner sought opinions from both supporters and opposition before making a decision. However, the policy process model was supported where the Commissioner followed the five steps critical in policymaking. Using the three streams of problem, policy, and the political stream can be used to show that human service policy in Allegheny County developed through political and rational decisions.