Critique and Reforming of Stage Heuristics
Conclusion
Our critique focused on the fact that Stage Heuristics is a very broad model regarding the policy process.
Our model takes sections out of the Stage Heuristics framework to make a more specific and precise model, with regards to Historical Insitutionalism.
We chose to take note that the decisions from the PAST are ones that structure and develop what happens in future policy.
Introduction:
- the formal and informal rules, procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organization structure of the political economy.
- institutions give some groups more access to decision-making process than others.
- states are autonomous
- structure the relation of power
- emphasizes on the idea of path dependency.
Stage 3 - Decision Making
Critique:
- Cannot presume a level of intentionality.
- Decision making is unpredictable and is only very loosely related to searching for means to achieve goals
- Historical Institutionalism recognizes path dependency. According to the garbage can model, decision making is random and has a lot to do with who you know. Human creativity and choice to influence outcomes means that what gets on the agenda is the result of “fortuitous conjunction”
Part 2 - New Policy Framework
Stage 1 - Approaches to Problem Recognition
Stage 2- Approaches to Problem Recognition
Stage 3- Approaches to Problem Recognition
POST-POSITIVIST: The Subjective Approach = Social Construction Framework/Theory
Assumes that problems are made into policy issues are created out of the history, attitudes and beliefs constructed by political and social actors
Takes into account path dependency and allows for punctuated equilibrium: social groups can affect the institution/policy decision meaning that groups/individuals can participate in the policies of any institution which authority over their actions (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009; Young, 1993).
Modify Organizational Structure
- Implement previous successful policies
- Evaluate if they yielded any unintended consequences
- Correct the negative outcomes to better the policy
Incrementalism:
- Building decisions from current situations
- Decisions are only marginally different from those that exist.
- Small scale changes. If a small change results in positive effects it can be accelerated.
- Based on notion of rationality
Stage 4- Approaches to Problem Recognition
Stage 5- Approaches to Problem Recognition
Programmed Approach (top-down)
- The Programmed Approach of the implementation model would be used in this case because of its strategic and carefully calculated approach. It rests the execution style of a policy decision on high-level authorities which ensures effective implementation through fairness and consistency.
- This approach also ensures that as much of the original policy is kept in order to continue along path dependent lines so as to not deviate from previously set solutions
- Any other approach, such as the adaptive approach, may cause uncertainty in the effectiveness of the deliverance. Trusting local-level bureaucrats with the implementation of the policy leads to indiscretion and uncertainty
Political Evaluation
- Public Opinion - often very informal and based on partisan values
- Elections
- Public Hearings
- Parliamentary commissions
Stage 5 -Evaluation
Learning:
Complex and open subsystem – allows for the dissemination of knowledge and a strong transmission of new information
Critique:
- new information is only placed into policy through critical junctures
- path dependency states that policy decisions are based on precedent rather than new information
- assymetrical power structures can additionally prevent the transmission of new information
- it does not take note that we can learn from the PAST rather than just from future ideas
Stage 2 - Policy Formation
STAGE 1 - Approaches to Problem Recognition
Organizational Structure-Path Dependency
- reinforces our theory of historical institutionalism
existing arrays of policies
Cohesiveness or Closeness of Policy Subsystem
- states that new actors and ideas can enter into policy
does not account for the HOW or WHY
POSITIVIST: The Objective Approach (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009)
- Assumes that socio-economic conditions and structures within them result in particular sets of problems coming to light
- Governments eventually respond with politicians picking the problems and placing them on the agenda
Example: Convergence Theory
- The process of industrialization eventually leads to the same policy solutions in different countries – labour laws, welfare policies etc.
- In terms of Canada, the US is farther ahead and has ‘handled’ particular ‘problems’ since the country is a century or so older.
CRITQUE:
- This objective approach fails to take into account that development of policy is manifested through the continuation of history and in particular, asymmetrical power and path dependency which influence how policy is placed on an agenda.
- Asymmetrical power - some groups lose while others win. Young(1993) notes that privileged groups dominate institutional policy mechanisms
- Path dependency - institutions are viewed as being central to pushing historical and policy development along a set of paths which perpetuate history
- These are a result of the dominate privilege groups
Stage 4 - Implementation
Adaptive Approach (Bottom-up)
- This approach depends on local-level actors and their connection with the public for a successful implementation of a policy decision, it is true that staff in these local areas understand the complexities of problems/policy.
- This approach also does not follow a path dependent structure because it is open to change and adaptability, which takes away from policies and solutions that we already know is effective
design by Dóri Sirály for Prezi