Different Approaches to Public Policy Making

Public policy is one of the most fundamental tasks of governments today. They carry out various social activities, such as preventing social conflicts, mobilizing public resources, organizing bureaucratic organizations, and collecting taxes from people. This chapter mentions different approaches to public policy making that have emerged so far. It first mentions theoretical approaches to public policy based on what public policy making is and how it was born. In this way, it explains the reasons for the emergence of different views on public policy making and these different approaches. It then explains the frameworks and perspectives put forward for the public policy making process. Thus, it mentions different ideas about how public policy making should be. In this sense, the purpose of this chapter is to draw a general framework for these approaches and to reveal the theoretical and conceptual background for public policy making. In this context, it presents a summary of the discussions on the public policy making process, both theoretically and practically.

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

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Buy Now

eBook EUR 106.99 Price includes VAT (France)

Softcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)

Hardcover Book EUR 137.14 Price includes VAT (France)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

References

• Albright EA (2011) Policy change and learning in response to extreme events in Hungary: an advocacy coalition approach. Policy Studies Journal 39(3):485–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00418.xArticleGoogle Scholar
• Anderson JE (2015). Public policymaking. 8th ed. Stanford, Conn., Cengage Learning. Google Scholar
• Akdoğan AA (2012) Aydınlanmadan Neo-Liberalizme Kamu Politikasının Sarsıl(a)mayan Egemenliği [The unwavering dominance of public policy from the Enlightenment to Neo-Liberalism], Amme İdaresi Dergisi. 45(4):1–24. Google Scholar
• Babaoğlu C, Yıldız M (2016) Kamu politikası bakış açısından selçuklu ve osmanlı devletlerinde hükümdar-danışman ilişkisi üzerine [Analysis of the relationship between rulers and advisors in seljuks and ottoman states with a public policy perspective]. Yasama Dergisi 29:87–113. Google Scholar
• Baumgartner FR., Beth LL (1998) Basic interests: the importance of groups in politics and political science. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. BookGoogle Scholar
• Baumgartner FR, Jones BD (1993) Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. journal of politics 53:1044–1074. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131866
• Bayirbag MK (2013a) Kamu politikası analizi için bir çerçeve önerisi [A framework proposal for public policy analysis]. In Yıldız and Sobacı (Eds) Kamu politikası: Kuram ve uygulama, p 44–65. Google Scholar
• Bayirbag MK (2013b) Continuity and change in public policy: redistribution, exclusion and state rescaling in Turkey. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4) 1123–1146. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12000ArticleGoogle Scholar
• Bento P (2020) An exploratory case study: Analyzing planning approaches in economic development through the institutional analysis and development framework (28355794). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2516247995). Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/exploratory-case-study-analyzing-planning/docview/2516247995/se-2
• Birkland TA (2020) An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making, 5th ed. New York: Routledge. Google Scholar
• Breunig C, Koski C (2012) The tortoise or the hare? incrementalism, punctuations, and their consequences. Policy Studies Journal 40(1):45–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00433.x
• Cairney P (2019) Understanding public policy: Theories and Issues, 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar
• Cigler AJ, Burdett AL (eds) (2015) Interest group politics, 9th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: CQ Press. Google Scholar
• Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly 17:1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392088
• Cochran CL, Malone EF (1995) Public Policy: Perspectives and Choices, 1st ed. McGraw-Hill College Google Scholar
• Cochran CE, Mayer LC, Carr TR, Cayer NJ, & McKenzie M (2015) American public policy: An introduction, 11th ed., Cengage Learning. Google Scholar
• Dimaggio PJ, Powell WW (1991) The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields, In Powell WW and Dimaggio PJ (Eds) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 63–82. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
• Dowding K, King D (1995) Introduction. In Dowding K and King D. (Eds), Preferences, Institutions and Rational Choice, Oxford: Clarendon Press, p 1–19. Google Scholar
• Downs A (1957) An economic theory of democracy, California: Hoover Institution Press Publication Google Scholar
• Dunleavy P (1991) Democracy, bureaucracy and public choice: Economic explanations in political science. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Google Scholar
• Dye TR (2001) Top down policymaking. New York: Chatham House. Google Scholar
• Dye TR (2016) Understanding public policy, 15th ed. Pearson. Google Scholar
• Dye TR, Zeigler LH (2004). The irony of democracy, 15th ed. California: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Google Scholar
• Easton D (1965) A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley. Google Scholar
• Elster J (2000) Rational choice history: A case of excessive ambition. American Political Science Review 94:685–695. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585842
• Elster J (1982) The case for methodological individualism. Theory and Society, 11:453–482 Google Scholar
• Feldman MS (1989) Order without design: Information production and policymaking. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
• Goodin R, Rein M, Moran M (2006) The public and its politics. In Moran M, Rein, M, Goodin, R. (Eds) The Oxford handbook of public policy. New York: Oxford University Press, p 3–35 Google Scholar
• Hayes M (2017) Incrementalism and public policy-making. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Google Scholar
• Henry AD (2011a) Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal 39(3):361–383. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00413.x
• Henry AD (2011b) Belief-oriented segregation in policy networks. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 22:14–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.07.052
• Herweg N, Zahariadis N, Zohlnhöfer R (2018) The multiple streams framework: Foundations, refinements, and empirical applications. In Weible CM and Sabatier P (Eds) Theories of the policy process, Routledge, p 17–53 Google Scholar
• Hill M, Varone F (2021) The public policy process, 8th ed. Routledge. Google Scholar
• Hindmoor A, (2006) Rational choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan Google Scholar
• Howlett M, Migone A (2011) Charles Lindblom is alive and well and living in punctuated equilibrium land. Policy and Society 30:53–62, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polsoc.2010.12.006
• Howlett M, Cashore B (2009) The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis 11(1):33–46, https://doi.org/10.1080/13876980802648144
• Heywood A (2012) Siyaset [Politics], 6th ed. Adres Yayınları Google Scholar
• Ingold K (2011) Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, Power, and Brokerage in Swiss Climate Policy. Policy Studies Journal 39(3):435–459, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x
• Jenkins-Smith H, Sabatier P (1993) The dynamics of policy-oriented learning. In Sabatier P and Jenkins-Smith H (Eds) Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach, Boulder, CO: Westview Press Google Scholar
• Jenkins-Smith H, Sabatier P (1994) Evaluating the advocacy coalition framework. Journal of Public Policy 14(2):175–203. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X00007431
• Jones BD (2001) Politics and the architecture of choice: Bounded rationality and governance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
• Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2012) from there to here: punctuated equilibrium to the general punctuation thesis to a theory of government information processing. Policy Studies Journal 40(1):1–19, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00431.x
• Kingdon JW (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little and Brown. Google Scholar
• Kingdon JW (2011) Agendas, alternatives, and public policy. New York: Longman Google Scholar
• Kraft ME, Furlong SR (2019) Public policy: Politics, analysis, and alternatives. Cq Press. Google Scholar
• Kraft, ME, Kamieniecki S (eds) (2007) Business and environmental policy: Corporate interests in the american political system. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Google Scholar
• Lippman W (1999) The phantom public. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Google Scholar
• Lasswell H (1936) Politics: Who gets what, when, how. Cleveland, OH: Meridian Books Google Scholar
• Latham E (1965) The group basis of politics. New York: Octagon Books Google Scholar
• Lindblom C (1964) The policy-making process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Google Scholar
• Lindblom C (1977) Politics and markets (New York: Basic Books). Google Scholar
• MacDonald P (2003) Useful fiction or miracle maker: the competing epistemological foundations of rational choice theory. American Political Science Review 97(4):551–565, https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540300087X
• Majone G (1980) Policies as theories., Omega 8(2):151–162. Google Scholar
• Majone G (1998). Public policy and administration: ideas, interests and institutions. In Goodin RE (Ed) A new handbook of political science, p 610–627. Google Scholar
• March JG, Olsen JP (1984) The new institutionalism: Organisational factors in political life. American Political Science Review 78:734–749, https://doi.org/10.2307/1961840
• March JG, Olsen JP (1996) Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance 9(3):248–264, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.1996.tb00242.x
• Marx K, Engels F (1967) The communist manifesto, 1848 Moore S (Trns). London: Penguin Google Scholar
• McLellan D (1971) The thought of Karl Marx. London: Macmillan Google Scholar
• Miliband R (1969) The state in capitalist society. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Google Scholar
• Miliband R (1977) Marxism and politics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
• Mosca G (1939) The ruling class, Kahn HD (Trns). New York: McGraw-Hill Book Google Scholar
• Osman FA (1999) The dynamics of the public policy making process: A case study of the health policy of Bangladesh. Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Manchester: United Kingdom. Google Scholar
• Ostrom E (1998) A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action. American Political Science Review 92(1):10–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/2585925
• Ostrom E (2007) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Sabatier PA (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Cambridge, MA: Westview, p 21–65, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367274689
• Ostrom E (2011) Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal 39(1):7–27, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x
• Ostrom E, Cox M, Schlager E (2014) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In Weible CM and Sabatier PA (Eds) Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd edn. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Google Scholar
• Parsons W (1995) Public policy. Aldershot: Edward Elgar. Google Scholar
• Petridou E (2014) Theories of the policy process: contemporary scholarship and future directions. Policy Studies Journal 42: 12–32, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12054
• Poulantzas N (1973) Political power and social classes. London, UK: New Left Books. Google Scholar
• Prindle DF (2012) Importing concepts from biology into political science: the case of punctuated equilibrium. Policy Studies Journal 40(1):21–43, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00432.x
• Sabatier PA (1987) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein, Policy Sciences 21(2–3):129–68, https://doi.org/10.1177/0164025987008004005
• Sabatier PA, Weible CM (2007) The advocacy coalition framework: innovations and clarifications. In Sabatier P (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p 189–220, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367274689
• Sabatier P, Weible C (2014) Theories of the Policy Process, 3rd Ed, Boulder Google Scholar
• Schneider AL, Ingram H (1997) Policy design for democracy. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Google Scholar
• Schubert L, Dye TR, Zeigler H (2014) The irony of democracy: an uncommon introduction to american politics. 16th ed. Boston: Wadsworth. Google Scholar
• Scott WR (1991) Unpacking institutional arguments. In Powell WW and Dimaggio PJ (Eds), The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p 164–182. Google Scholar
• Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK (2011) Policy narratives and policy processes. Policy Studies Journal 39(3):535–561, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00420.x
• Shanahan EA, Jones MD, McBeth MK, Lane RR (2013) An angel in the wind: how heroic policy narratives shape policy realities. Policy Studies Journal 41(3):453–484, https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12025
• Smith KB, Larimer CW (2018) The public policy theory primer. Routledge. Google Scholar
• True JL, Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2007) Punctuated-Equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policy making. In Sabatier P (Ed) Theories of the Policy Process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 155–188. Google Scholar
• Weible C, Sabatier PA, McQueen K (2009) Themes and variations: taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework, Policy Studies Journal 37(1):121–141, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2008.00299.x
• Weible C, Sabatier PA, Jenkins-Smith H et al. (2011). A quarter century of the advocacy coalition framework: an introduction to the special issue. Policy Studies Journal 39(3):349–360, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00412.x
• Yıldız M, Sobacı MZ (2015) Kamu politikası ve kamu politikası analizi: genel bir çerçeve [Public Policy and Public Policy Analysis: A General Framework]. In Yıldız M, Sobacı MZ (eds) Kamu Politikası: Kuram ve Uygulama, Adres Yayınları, p 14–43 Google Scholar
• Zahariadis N. (2007) The multiple streams framework. in sabatier p (ed) theories of the policy process, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, p 65–92. Google Scholar

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

1. Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Konya, Turkey Niyazi Karabulut

1. Niyazi Karabulut

Corresponding author

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

1. Department of Political Science & Public Administration, Afyon Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar, Türkiye Volkan Göçoğlu
2. Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-eGOV), United Nations University, Guimarães, Portugal Naci Karkin

Rights and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Karabulut, N. (2023). Different Approaches to Public Policy Making. In: Göçoğlu, V., Karkin, N. (eds) Citizen-Centered Public Policy Making in Turkey. Contributions to Public Administration and Public Policy. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35364-2_2

Download citation

• .RIS
• .ENW
• .BIB

• DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-35364-2_2
• Published : 24 June 2023
• Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
• Print ISBN : 978-3-031-35363-5
• Online ISBN : 978-3-031-35364-2
• eBook Packages : Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Copy to clipboard

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative