LESSON 3

VARIOUS APPROACHES AND MODELS TO

PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
Objectives of the Lesson
The objectives of the lesson are to examine
1. Various approaches to public policy analysis
2. The different models of policy analysis
Structure of the Lesson
3.1. Introduction
3.2. Policy Analysis Some Propositional Assumptions
3.3. Approaches to Policy Analysis
3.3.1. Historical Approach
3.3.2. Functional Approach
3.3.3. Investigative-Substitutive Approach
3.3.4. Innovative Approach
3.4. Models of Policy Analysis
3.4.1. Group Theoretic Model
3.4.2. Elite Theoretic Model
3.4.3. Incremental Model
3.4.4. Rational Model
3.5. Conclusion
3.6. Model Questions
3.7. Answer for the Questions
3.1 Introduction
The study of politics and administration has fluctuated between
two poles ever since human beings started thinking about the nature of the
polity and the politico administrative system. At one end were those who
focused on the political institutions as key agencies of social control and
change. They regarded the behavior of the state and the intentions of the
prince as most important. Conversely, those at the other end laid stress on
the extra political factors or conditions which affected political events and
institutions. It is a point of fact that the policy scientists have yet to reach an

33
agreement on the kind of policies to be formulated by governments in
different politico-socio-economic environs.
The term public policy has been defined in various ways by
different scholars. A simple definition states that "it is the important missions
of the government". The meaning and implications of the words "important"
and "missions" have been left unspecified. It does not clarify the manner in
which the policies are to be analyzed. Policy analysis consists of not only
examining and bringing improvements in the process of formulating policies
but also the evaluation of the choices and outcomes the policies. It is difficult
to make an absolute distinction between policy making and decision making,
simply because of the fact that every policy determination is a decision. The
different ways, means and courses of action which guide the innumerable
decisions made in execution of the objectives chosen to that effect are,
however, established in accordance with the policies formulated. Douglas T.
Yates Junior, in his article, "The Mission of Public Policy Program a Report on
Recent Experience", has defined policy analysis as the knowledge of the
"processes by which - policy is formulated, implemented, and evaluated;
Strategies for optimization and selection of alternatives; and distinct
attributes of policy relative to specific functional areas".
Model is commonly known as a working intellectual construct by
which social or physical situations, real or hypothetical, can be represented. It
sometimes connotes an ideal to be achieved or a pattern to be followed. Most
models are intellectual constructs used to organize thoughts and direct
research. Models typically include sets of categories, assumptions, and
postulates, which are used to sort out data, analyze it, determine
relationships, and help the model builder to explain or predict. In the words of
Jay Forrester, the famous policy modeler, "The mental image of the world
around you which you carry in your head is a model. One does not have a city
or a government or a country in his head. He has only selected concepts and
relationships which he uses to represent the real system. A mental image is a
model", Policy models are mental constructs of reality in specific policy issue
areas such as poverty eradication, energy conservation and so on. The
models are artificial devices for imaginatively ordering and interpreting the
experiences of problem situations.

34
 Policy models differ in respect of the purposes, forms of
expression and methodological functions. They can be broadly divided into
two types: descriptive models and normative models. A descriptive model
seeks to explain and/or predict the causes and outcomes of policy choices.
The Economic Survey Report of the Reserve Bank of India, for instance, is
both a description and forecast of economic performance with the help of a
set of indices.
By contrast, the purpose of a normative model is not only to
explain and/or predict but also to lay down rules and recommendations for
some value optimization. For instance, the benefit-cost model used in public
investment decisions helps determine the optimum return or investments.
3.2 Policy Analysis Some Propositional Assumptions
Before taking up for discussion certain approaches and models
of policy analysis, it would be in order to have some knowledge of policy
analysis. Some policy analysts have broadened the term public policy to
include the effects that government actions have upon the masses being
served. Some of these effects are explained by the terms 'outputs',
'outcomes', or 'impacts' of policy. A distinction to this effect between 'output',
that is, what government does, and outcome, that is, what consequences
follow from the outputs has been made by David Easton. Some others have
defined the term policy to mean broadly inter dated decisions of the
government. Whatever the case may be, public policy continues to be the
focal point of both politics and administration in a political system. Both the
governors and the governed invest their political resources either to make
changes in the policy or to maintain the status quo.
The questions to ask about the policy choices are: whether a
given policy is good or bad and if so, in either case, how and in what way.
How much would be the cost involved in the implementation of the policy?
How many will get benefit of the same? And how many, indirectly or directly,
would be at the losing end?
Charles 0. Jones in his book, “An introduction to the Study of
Public Policy”, has made certain observations regarding public policy in
general. His observations provide a good beginning point for consideration of
policy analysis. He has termed these observations as "Propositional

35
Assumptions". Some of the important ones are different people at different
points of times interpret the events in the society in different ways. Self-
interest is always prime for an individual and at every point of time he
attempts to find reasons to support his interpretation; regardless whether
others think it right or wrong. The "facts" are also interpreted by the persons
in different ways to suit their own ends. Many "Problems" may result from the
same event: Problem of unemployment could be a good illustration of this
assumption. As a problem, it is only one but it has its affects on so many
events. The life style of the education of children and other dependents, the
frustration caused to the person concerned, his attitude towards the society
and polity, chances of his becoming anti-social and anti-national, etc., could
be a few effects of one particular event or problem. People have varying
degrees of access to the policy process in government affluent groups and
organizations have more and rather easy access to the policy making as well
as implementing process in the government. These groups do possess the
strength to influence the government machinery in one way or the other.
Contrary to it, a large number of citizens do not have either organized groups
or sources of influence and strength with them to have an access to the
policy process. How their genuine and deserving demands and needs are to
reach the concerned formulators and executors of policies is a major
problem. At the same time the government is always working to find ways to
reduce the influence of overly powerful groups so that it could formulate the
policies in the interest of all. Government does not act on all public problems:
John Dewey in his book, “The Public and its Problems”, has said that any
transaction between private individuals that has perceived indirect
consequences for others is a public problem. Whether or not it is acted upon
by the government depends upon the desire and ability of those indirectly
affected to obtain government action. In the words of Thomas R. Dye, "Public
Policy” is whatever the government chooses to do or not to do. The question
arises that how and by which means the government could ensure to have on
its policy making agenda the problems which are directly or indirectly being
confronted especially by those large segments of-the citizens who belong to
the weaker sections and are not organized,

36
 Government acts on many private problems in case a person
does not have money to buy petrol it is his personal problem. But if he has
the money and the government is unable to ensure adequate supply and
availability of petrol for a longer period it becomes a public problem. Making
policies because of the influence of powerful and organized vested groups to
suit their ends alone would mean that the government is formulating policy
which would solve private problem rather than public problems. Instances to
this effect could be so many. For example, increasing the purchase price of
sugarcane to help the concerned groups, delicensing a particular item, etc.,
are the cases which, instead of solving, create problems because such
policies deal with sorting out private problems.
Most problems are not solved by the government though many
are acted on by it there is no denying the fact that the present day
governments are grappling with highly complex problems and invariably
there are no fool-proof or permanent alternatives to solve these problems.
The governments have proliferated in innumerable areas for dealing with
these problems. For that it neither has the resources nor did the required
train. This leads to further adding to the unsuccessful or failure of policies
having been enacted by the government
Policy makers are not faced with a given problem Charles Lindblom in
his book, “The Policy Making Process” has said that the policy formulators do
not have presented before them the problem in a defined manner. The result
is that in the wake of solving a particular problem a number of other
problems stem out or a particular problem may be there because of some
other direct or indirect reasons and obviously the result won't be effective
unless the root-causes are touched upon. For the purpose of illustration the
problem of controlling the riots or disturbances in some parts of the country
could be taken up. Simply by making the policy of how to check or curb the
riots or terrorists activities would not go a long way unless the real issues
which have posed this problem are dealt with. These could be:
unemployment, poverty, increasing inflation, high expectations and desires,
etc.
Problems and demands are constantly being defined and
redefined in the policy process change is the law of nature. The problems and

37
demands which are before a group of individuals today may be changed after
some time. More development, high expectations, more awareness on the
part of the less influential today may compel the government to redefine its
policies. It is a constant process. For a very long period of time the policies
once framed and implemented could not produce required results. It is rather
obligatory on the part of the policy makers to adjust their sights accordingly.
The policies should never be made in haste. Each policy demand and public
problem must be analysed thoroughly for reaching at a particular decision
through the policy. To this an effect, policy makers should not define
problems for the people who have not defined problems for themselves.
Policy systems have a bias wherever the individuals would be
involved their inclinations, biases, etc. are bound to be reflected. The policy
systems are also run by the individuals. They are no super human beings.
They all have their biases for and against some things. These biases get
reflected in the policies being enacted and the results are not as positive as
ought to be. It could be checked upon in case there is objective policy
analysis made by putting to use different ways and means for the purpose
the "Propositional assumptions" made by Charles Jones enable us to
understand the dynamism of policy making and policy analysis. These
observations would help us a lot to understand different approaches and
models of policy making discussed in the next sections.
3.3 Approaches to Policy Analysis
We have discussed the meaning and importance of approaches
in the earlier text. Before referring to various approaches to policy analysis, it
would be in the fitness of the things to refer to certain elements which should
be standard features of a policy formulating method. It would help us
understand the dynamics of various policy making approaches and models
discussed in the succeeding subsections. Yehezkel Dror has listed nine such
elements in his beak referred to earlier. These are there should be some
clarification of values, objectives, and criteria for decision making; the
method should include identifying the alternatives, with an effort to consider
new alternatives (by surveying comparative literature, experience, and
available theories) and to stimulate creation of several alternatives; the
method should include preliminary estimating of expected payoffs from the

38
various a1ternatives; and deciding whether a strategy of minimal risk or of
innovation is preferable; if the first, the incremental change model should be
followed. If the latter, the next step is establishing a cutoff horizon for
considering the possible results of the alternative policies, and identifying the
major expected results, relying on available knowledge and on intuition;
analysis of the alternatives should deal with both quantitative ("economic")
and qualitative ("political") factors, in order to overcome the limitations of
current systems analysis and advance toward policy analysis; the method
should include an effort to decide whether the issue is important enough to
make more comprehensive analysis worthwhile; theory and experience,
rationality and extrarationality, will all be relied upon; the composition of the
mix must depend upon their various availabilities and on the nature of the
problem; explicit techniques, such as simulation and the Delphi method,
should be used as far as they are appropriate, and knowledge from various
disciplines should be brought to bear on the issues involved; and the method
should include explicit arrangements to improve the policy making by
systematic learning from experience, stimulating initiative and creativity,
developing the staff, and encouraging intellectual effort.
For analyzing the policies in a better and systematic manner,
the following approaches could go a long way. Martin Rein in the book, 'Social
Science and Public Policy' has referred to the approaches to policy analysis.
In order to understand the same in more clear terms, let us discuss it in a
different way by giving different headings to the approaches mentioned by
him.
3.3.1 Historical Approach
Public policies are formulated and implemented in a system
which has its own environment and culture. The formulators always make the
policies which in one way or the other exhibit their keenness to resolve an
issue and to satisfy the increasing demands of the public to that effect. The
examination of a policy in historical perspective definitely amounts to
possible results or outcomes which the policy will have. Let us suppose that a
policy was formulated twenty years ago and people had reacted, to it very
sharply. If similar policy is formulated or has been enacted, it is going to meet
the same fate. An example to this can be the family planning policy

39
implemented by the Congress-I before January 1977 and after 1980, when
the party came to power again after remaining out of it for three years.
Detailed Knowledge about policy issues, questions, and
problems are not cumulative in a scientific sense, partly because the
problems are intractable and also because the environment changes and the
old alternatives do not fit well in the new circumstances. It is a widely
accepted fact that no single policy or program could be a success in isolation
from others as well as from the accepted norms and values prevalent in the
society for a long period of time. The policy needs to be analyzed in historical
perspective in order to make out clearly the possible impact and outcome of
a given policy.
3.3.2 Functional Approach
On analyzing the purposes of legislation, we normally find that
the political and ideological objectives, and the goals of public policy, are
open to many interpretations. Ambiguity seems to be essential for
agreement. In Rein's words, "When the purposes of policy are unclear and
incompatible, each successive stage in the process of implementation
provides a new context in which further clarification is sought" One of the
consequences of passing ambiguous and inconsistent legislation is to shift
the arena of decision to a lower level. The lack of consensus is resolved at the
level of everyday practice, through the concrete actions taken by
administrators and practitioners. Hence an analysis of practice must be
combined with the study of policy. Indeed, the goals of programs can often
be understood best not from formal statements of legislative intent but from
everyday practice. So programs; that appear different may be similar, while
programs that are similarly structured or intended may actually differ in their
consequences.
3.3.3 Investigative-Substitutive Approach
The study of public policy is basically concerned with the range
of human needs and the political institutions created to meet them. Yet there
is no agreed and adequate definition of need, and much confusion prevails
about the distinction between need, preference and political problems.
Moreover, the institutional arrangements meeting these needs through
policies seem infinitely varied and have rapid rate of growth. What is

40
accepted in one decade as truth may be challenged in another. In analyzing a
policy an attempt has to be made to trace its uncertain objectives in a
systematic manner. Public policy sometimes has multiple, conflicting and
ambiguous objectives. The effort to clarify the aims of public policy and the
way in which conflicting objectives are recognized by those who implement it
is a useful method of formulating good questions about plans for the future.
Further policy is after all partly a redefinition of either political objectives or
the constraints which inhibit the implementation of objectives already held.
Because this is so, it follows that it must be difficult to discover what the
governmental institutions are trying to attain and whether its present
arrangements facilitate the accomplishment of these evolving goals. The
goals as given should not be accepted, it is necessary to scrutinize it in light
of inputs outputs and outcomes. The thrust should always be on investigating
the policy in the light of its goals, objectives and outcomes. Simply treating
the question of the purpose as resolved would lead to a kind of bias in favor
of or against the policy. The purpose, thus, should be treated as unresolved
and efforts made to find out the facts for substituting in the policy for
ushering improvements required to that effect.
3.3.4 Innovative Approach
Political, administrative, and economic constraints coupled with
changing social circumstances and conflicting objectives of the policy restrain
its development. It is a fact that a policy gets formulated because of the
compromise among contending interests, purposes, and goals to contain the
contradictions and limitations and this provides it the political acceptability.
Normally, it is witnessed that the policies are executed as per the established
pattern and modes. Not only this, having the bases of the same, the policies
is analyzed and evaluated too. Hardly one finds the uniqueness in the system
of analyzing the policies. Depending upon the variables, viz., functions,
sectors, vocation, etc., involved, the policy analysis should be made. Careful,
determined, and purposeful redesigning of the public policy formulating
mechanism has to be made use of. As per Martin Rein, "when long-term
treatment is the orthodox and accepted model, the importance of short-term
services needs to be re-emphasized. When a good deal of attention is paid to
diagnosis, one should balance this by stressing concrete services when

41
community care and deinstitutionalization become the accepted ideology of
the helping professions, the benefits of institutional care need to be
reassessed". The examples stated by Rein reveal what is being done
presently for analyzing the policies and what needs to be done in an
innovative and unique manner whereby the best of the results could be
achieved. Whatsoever the case or strategy may be, one thing is very clear
that for the purpose of analyzing a policy one has to adhere to a systematic
way and adopt the best suitable approach and method for doing it, of course,
depending upon the situational, environmental structural, and functional
variables.
3.4 Models of Policy Analysis
Policy analysis encourages practitioners and scholars to critical
policy issues with the tools of systematic inquiry. There is an implied
assumption in policy analysis that developing scientific knowledge about the
forces shaping public policy and the consequences of the policy are socially
relevant activities, and such analysis is a prerequisite to prescription,
advocacy, and activism. Thomas Dye in his book, “Understanding Public
Policy”, has stated that precisely policy analysis involves a primary concern
with explanation rather than prescription; a rigorous search for the causes
and consequences or public policies; and an effort to develop and test
general propositions about the causes and consequences of public policy and
to accumulate reliable research findings of general relevance. The policy
scientists have created theories and models to help them understand and
explain the policy making process. Although most of these models have been
developed for the purpose of policy making, yet they can easily be depended
upon for the purpose of policy analysis. Following the widely accepted
conceptual scheme of Thomas Dye, 'Policy Models can be conveniently
classified into the following seven types:
3.4.1 Group Theoretic Model
According to group theory, interaction and struggle among
different societal groups is the central facet of political life. Group is a
collectivity of individuals distinguished by some common attribute or shared
relationship. Groups are categorized in many different ways. A formal or
organized group, such as political party or interest group, has recognized

42
goals and structures, affecting group interaction. Conversely, a group which
is informal lacks such explicit goals and organizational structure. Group
theory is an approach which seeks to explain political behavior primarily
through the study of the nature and interaction of social as well as political
groups. It is often associated with process and equilibrium analysis that offer
systemic approaches to the study of group objectives, the balancing of group
interests, and the process of adjustment. As per this theory, public policy is
the product of group struggle. Individuals having common interests and
demands join hands with each other as a formal or informal group to get the
policies made by the governments as suitable to their ends. David Truman in
his book, The Governmental Process, has said that "An interest group is a
shared-attitude group that makes certain claims upon other groups in the
society and it becomes political when it makes a claim through or upon the
institutions of government".
On the basis of the equilibrium reached at in the struggle of
various groups prominently engaged in the policy process, the public policies
are formulated. From the group theory point of' view, the public policy has
been termed as - what may be called public policy is the equilibrium reached
in the group struggle at any given moment, and it represents a balance which
the contending factions or groups constantly strive to tip in their favor. The
legislature referees the group struggle, ratifies the victories of the successful
coalitions, and records the terms of surrenders, compromises and
consequents in the form of statutes. Every statute tends to represent
compromises because the process of accommodating conflicts of group
interests is one of the deliberations and consent. According to Lathem, "The
legislative vote on any issue tends to represent the composition of strength,
that is the balance of power among agencies of the regulatory kind and are
established to carry out the terms of treatise that the legislators have
negotiated and ratified".
Group theory aims at viewing all significant political activity with
regard to group struggle. Policy formulators are termed as succumbing to
pressures of groups through bargaining, negotiating and compromising.
Another important dimension of the group struggle is the maintenance of
equilibrium in the system. The competition among groups does not permit

43
any group to become absolutely powerful in a system for all times. They keep
on checking the activities of each other. As mentioned earlier, the groups are
activities of individuals on the basis of shared attitudes and interests, who
make claims on other societal groups. Public policy, in such a context, is
some sort of an equilibrium reached in the group struggle at any given
moment. The interests of dominant groups are usually reflected in public
policy at any point of time. In the jostling for power, groups gains and lose
power and influence. In this ongoing process of' group struggle, public policy
gets attention in favor of the interests of those gaining influence against the
interest of those losing influence.
3.4.2 Elite Theoretic Model
Briefly stated, as per this model, public policy is the product of
elites, reflecting their values and serving their- ends. Essentially what the
model postulates is that the society is divided into the few who have power
and the many that do not have it. Policy, in this social set-up, is not
determined by the people or the masses. It is the ruling elite which decide
public policy and which is then carried out by the bureaucracy. By
implication, therefore, public policy tends to flow from the top, and generally
does not move up from the bottom. Also, changes in public policy are often
incremental rather than revolutionary.
As mentioned above public policy, examined from the
dimensions of Elite theory, can be termed as the linkings and choices of a
governing elite in a given politico administrative system. Elite theory is a
body of thought aimed at explaining the nature and role of those groups in
the society in which decision-making power is highly concentrated. Mosca in
his book, The Ruling Class, has said that in all societies - from the meagerly
developed having barely attained the drawings of civilization to the most
advanced and powerful societies two classes of people appear a class that
rules and a class that is being ruled. The former class, always the less
numerous, performs all political function monopolizes power and enjoys the
advantages that power brings, whereas the latter. The most numerous
classes is directed and controlled by the former in a manner that is more or
less legal, more or less arbitrary and violent and supplies the former, in
appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the

44
instrumentalities that are essential to the validity of political organism. Every
society has elite competing with each other for power which ultimately paves
its way t o formulate public policy.
The explanation of the above figure is that the orange with its
skin representing the elite of society, floats in water; that portion of the skin
that is above the waterline represents the governing elite, and the segments
which it cover represents those associations in society which have succeeded
in competition to have their leadership participate or hold office in the
government. All those segments under the water-line, however, represent
those associations which have lost this competition, and whose policies are
temporarily being subordinated to those-of the victorious ones, and the
portions of peel that cover them represent, for society as a whole, the
counter-elite that seeks to displace the governing elite at any point of time.
Elite theory has been summarized by Thomas Dye and Harmon
Zeigler in their book, 'The Irony of Democracy', as follows: Society is divided
into the few who have power and the many that do not. Only a small number
of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide policy. The
few who govern are not typical of the masses that are governed. Elites are
drawn disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society.
The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to
maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted
the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles. Elites share a
consensus on the basic values of the social system and the preservation of
the system. Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather
the prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental
rather than revolutionary. Incremental changes permit responses to events
that threaten a social system with a minimum of alteration or dislocation of
the system. Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from
apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.
It becomes clear from the elite theory that it is a competition
between the elites in power and the counter-elites, attempting to come to
power, and the common masses, on whose demands the public policies are
formulated, are nowhere in determining the public policies. The policies are

45
formulated by ruling elite and the governmental officials and agencies carry
those into effect.
3.4.3 Incremental Model
The incremental model is associated with the names of Charles
Lindblom and David Braybrook. It draws attention to several real-life
constraints on public administration like time, cost, information, and politics.
As Lindblom points out, the prescribed functions and constraints of the public
administrators "restrict their attention to - relatively few values and relatively
few alternative policies", Policy making from this viewpoint, is conceived
realistically as marginal and uncoordinated adjustment in situations of
conflicting demands and interests and in the fear of unforeseen
consequences that an likely to flow out of actual division. Policy makers in the
actual world of administration have to start with already existing programmes
and budgetary allocations. To let them try to do is to add to or modify what
already exists. The incremental approach, thus, presents a picture of
successive limited comparisons in the background of historically evolved
chain of past decisions which, under practical circumstances, cannot be
thrown overboard. Past decisions are more often than not accepted as the
basis of future choices.
The popularity of the incremental model is due to the fact that it
generally fits well with what actually goes on in government and, therefore,
conforms to real life administrative situations. In the words of Charles
Lindblom, "Democracies change their policies almost entirely through
incremental adjustments. Policy does not move in leaps and bounds. It goes
without saying that analysis of' policy issue is also shaped by the analyst's
search of solutions which have political feasibility. Behind the analysis of
political feasibility, rests the belief system of-the policy analyst regarding the
process by which there is going to be change or swift in the policies. This has
its influence on the kind of analysis pursued. Incremeritalism is the most
dominant mode of thought on this subject. Martin Rein, in his book, Social
Science and Public Policy, while commenting upon political feasibility and
change in policies has said that, "The concept of political feasibility is often
closely associated with an idea of increment, change. The theory of disjointed
incrementalism holds that, in the end, muddling and compromise are the only

46
rational approaches to the management of conflicting multiple and
ambiguous goals. The incrementalists see resistance to change not as
stupidity but as the muffled rationality which is the outcome of political
bargaining". Lindblom has acknowledged that the chances are there when
through incrementalism the important policy alternatives are being
overlooked. In his words, "The individuals are free to combine to pursue
almost any possible common interest they may have. It could lead to the
point that the values having been put to neglect by a particular set of policy
framers have the possibility of being considered by another. He further states
"without claiming that every interest has a sufficiently powerful watchdog, it
can be argued that our system can assure a more comprehensive regard for
the values of the, whole than any attempt at intellectual
comprehensiveness".
The point is widely accepted that incrementalism describes the
reality, although public policies at times substantively do break with the past.
Incrementalism has been criticized on the count that the problems being
encountered by the governments are so crucial and critical in nature that the
changes orought in the policies through incrementalism are not sufficient
enough to cope with the same. It is felt that what is required is innovation. To
this effect, Yehezkel Dror, in this book, “Public Policy Reexamined”, has said,
"A sudden transformation of the public policy making system is not possible;
neither I am advocating one. Improving public policy making must be a
continuing endeavor, requiring sustained effort over a long period. The most
harmful effect of the incremental-change argument (which devices the
possibility that significant improvement could be made in public policy
making by some innovative, jumps) is that it paralyses efforts, and thus tends
to be self-fulfilling prophecy. Granted the difficulties exist, whit we need is an
even stronger effort to overcome them. The difficulties of the problems faced
by public policy making make improvements in it necessary, and the
knowledge we are now developing makes such improvements possible; we
must therefore mobilize energy needed to carry out these difficulties.
3.4.5 Rational Model
This model is far more sophisticated than the earlier ones. It is
an efficiency-maximization model which postulates calculation of policy

47
efficiency (hence rationality) on the basis of all social, economic and political
values achieved and/or sacrificed by the adjudication of public policy. In
framing a policy, all relevant values have, therefore, to be explicitly
considered and sacrifices of some values must be more than compensated by
the attainment of some other values. This looks like calculating the 'costs and
'benefits' of division which the economists are used to in assessing the cost-
benefit analysis.
Herbert Simon, whose name is associated with the rational
model, talks of their kinds of activities included in the policy-making process:
intelligence activity, design activity, and choice activity. To quote Simon from
his book, “The New Science of Management Decision”, "The first phase of
decision-making process - searching the environment for conditions calling
for decision - I shall call intelligence activity (borrowing the military meaning
of intelligence). The second phase - inventing, developing, and analysing
possible courses of action - I shall call design activity. The third phase -
selecting a particular course of action from those available - I shall call
choices activity".
The Simonian model is clearly a process model indicating the
discrete steps that are taken in the course of policy formulation. Critics of
Simon have pointed out the practical difficulties facing an administrator in an
actual decision-making situation. The constraints, as pointed out by
Lindblom, in terms of information, time and fund, are posed as real
limitations on rationality. Hence, a common criticism against the rationalist
model has been that it is unrealistic as it does not quite fit in with the actual
goings-on in administration. Still, this model has proved attractive because of
its neatness and amenability to quantitative representation. In the present
computer age, the Simon model has inspired data and information based
decision-making which is steadily gaining the popularity.
3.5. Conclusion
In order to understand the dynamics of policy analysis, the
beginning point for consideration of policy analysis, various approaches to
policy analysis and different models of policy making have been discussed in
this lesson. As the focus of discussion in this lesson is on policy making
approaches and models, it would therefore, be proper to understand what is

48
an 'approach' and what is a 'model'. In public policy analysis the different
ways of explaining policy have been interchangeably described as
approaches and models. Admittedly, however, approaches are broad
pathways to understanding a theme or subject, whereas models are slightly
more well-knit abstractions which can even be represented in mathematical
or geometric form. Approach is a scholarly strategy or mode of analysis which
provides a set of intellectual tools for the study and understanding of political
phenomena. An approach, 'in political inquiry, may provide for an expeditious
means of gathering, arranging, extracting meaning from, establishing
relationships among, and evaluating data; in its sophisticated forms. It may in
itself constitute a major body of theory or it may take the form of a
simulation model. The main objective of an approach is to give order to a
diverse range of political phenomena by fitting them within a limited set of
concepts.

3.6. Model Questions

1. Examine the various approaches to public policy analysis
2. Analyze the different models of policy analysis

3.7. Answer for the Questions

For Question Number 1 .. Refer Section 3.1. to 3.3.

Question Number 2 .. Refer Section 3.4.

49