Policy Analysis: 2026 (Marleen Brans)
Inhoud
Session 1: The development of public policy analysis and the policy science .............................1
Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy analysis ......................................................4
Session 3: Policy context, actors and institutions ......................................................................8
Session 5 : Agenda-setting ..................................................................................................... 12
Session 6 : Policy formulation ................................................................................................ 16
Session 7 : Decision-making .................................................................................................. 20
Session 4: Policy Instruments ................................................................................................ 23
Session 8: Implementation .................................................................................................... 26
Session 9 and 10: Evaluation, Feedback and Learning............................................................. 29
Session 1: The development of public policy analysis
and the policy science
1. Understanding Public Policy and Policy Analysis
• Nature of Policy Analysis: It is an academic discipline characterized as multi-
disciplinary, multi-method, and problem-oriented. Its primary focus lies in the mapping
of contexts, alternatives, and effects.
• The Policy Sciences: As defined by Daniel Lerner and Harold Lasswell (1951), these
sciences explain the policy-making and policy-executing processes while providing
relevant data and interpretations for contemporary policy problems. They define "policy"
as the most important choices made in organized or private life.
• Key Analytical Dimensions: Policy analysis is split into distinct focus areas:
o Analysis of policy: Relies on descriptive and theoretical approaches.
o Analysis for policy: Relies on applied and prescriptive approaches.
o Policy Assessment: Focused on evaluation.
2. Core Definitions of Public Policy
1. Thomas Dye (1972)
"Anything a government chooses to do or not to do."
• Government as the primary agent: Only governments can formulate public policy. Private
decisions by businesses, social groups, or individuals are excluded.
• Authoritative decisions: Government decisions are legally binding and backed by
legitimate sanctions in the event of noncompliance.
, • Action vs. Inaction: Policy involves a fundamental choice. Deciding to do nothing about
an issue (e.g., ignoring climate change or a migrant crisis) is also a policy decision.
• Unintended consequences: Since policy stems from conscious choices, government
actions often yield unforeseen side effects (e.g., the rise of a black market due to
tobacco regulation).
2. William Jenkins (1978)
"A set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the
selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where
those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve."
• Problem- and goal-oriented: Views policy as a structured, continuous process aimed at
selecting specific goals and the means to achieve them.
• Capacity constraints: Unlike Dye, Jenkins explicitly recognizes that limitations on a
government’s ability to think and act can constrain available options and either advance
or undermine the success of policymaking efforts.
3. James Anderson (1975)
"A purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem
or matter of concern for the population."
• Purposive course of action: Policy is not just a single, isolated decision, but a deliberate
and ongoing path taken by actors.
• Problem vs. Concern: Makes a distinct conceptual differentiation between a specific
"problem" and a broader "matter of concern" for the population.
• Positivist vision: Rooted in a highly clear, empirical, and rational approach to analyzing
public policy.
3. Policy Actors and Their Roles
• Contextual Framework: Policy subsystems do not operate in a vacuum; they involve
both individual and complex actors shaped by the organization of the state, society, and
the international system.
• Categories of Actors:
o Power to make policy: Elected politicians and administrative officials hold direct
decision-making power.
o Capacity to influence policy: Political parties (and their study centers), interest
groups, NGOs, research organizations, academic institutes, think tanks, and the
mass media try to influence outcomes. Voters, citizens, and individuals also fit
into this space.
• Functional Roles: Actors can function as policy advisers, analysts, workers,
stakeholders, or target groups.
4. The Policy Cycle Model
,The public policy process is frequently structured as a cyclical sequence that correlates applied
problem-solving stages with key actors:
• Problem recognition -> Agenda setting: Shaped primarily by the broader Policy
Universe.
• Solution Proposal -> Policy Formulation: Shaped within the specialized Policy
Subsystem.
• Choice of Solution -> Decision-making: Determined by Government Decision-Makers.
• Solution Implementation -> Policy Implementation: Carried out by the Policy
Subsystem.
• Monitoring of Results -> Policy Evaluation: Assessed again by the Policy Universe.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Model
• Advantages: It successfully reduces immense real-world complexity and helps clarify
the distinct roles of actors, institutions, ideas, and interests.
• Disadvantages: Actual policy-making is often non-systematic and non-linear. It often
turns into idiosyncratic problem-solving where stages are compressed or skipped
entirely, leaving causes and effects unclear.
Historical Variations of the Cycle Stages
• Lasswell’s Model (1965): Outlined seven distinct stages: 1. Intelligence, 2. Promotion, 3.
Prescription, 4. Invocation, 5. Application, 6. Termination, and 7. Appraisal.
• Brewer’s Model (1974): Condensed the framework into six stages, changing the order of
progression compared to Lasswell: 1. Invention/initiation, 2. Estimation, 3. Selection, 4.
Implementation, 5. Evaluation, and 6. Termination
, Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy
analysis
1. Classifying Theoretical Approaches
Theories in policy analysis function as conceptual lenses; as Mark Twain noted, "To someone
with a hammer everything looks like a nail". To categorize these varied analytical lenses,
approaches are classified along two main dimensions: the method/school of thought
(Deductive vs. Inductive) and the unit of analysis (Individual, Collectivity, or Structure).
Unit of Analysis Deductive Approaches Inductive Approaches
Individual Public Choice Welfare Economics
Collectivity Social Structure / Class Analysis Pluralism // Neo-corporatism
Structure Neo-institutionalism Statism
2. Individual-Level Approaches
Public Choice (Deductive)
• Core Framework: This approach applies neo-classical economics to policy analysis,
focusing on rational action and individual utility maximization.
• State Behavior: It argues that the self-interests of voters, politicians, and administrative
officials inherently push towards expanding state intervention and the over-provision of
public goods and services.
• Normative Stance: It strongly advocates for a smaller state footprint and emphasizes
the inherent efficiency benefits of the market.
• Limitations & Critiques: * It heavily over-simplifies the policy process, which is far more
complex than simple utility maximization.
o It suffers from poor predictive capacity.
o It severely underestimates how much institutions shape and constrain individual
actions.
o It reflects a value-laden, neo-liberal perspective rather than a value-free
scientific framework.
Welfare Economics (Inductive)
• Core Framework: This approach focuses on identifying market failures that necessitate
government intervention to achieve optimal social outcomes.
• Key Types of Market Failures:
Inhoud
Session 1: The development of public policy analysis and the policy science .............................1
Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy analysis ......................................................4
Session 3: Policy context, actors and institutions ......................................................................8
Session 5 : Agenda-setting ..................................................................................................... 12
Session 6 : Policy formulation ................................................................................................ 16
Session 7 : Decision-making .................................................................................................. 20
Session 4: Policy Instruments ................................................................................................ 23
Session 8: Implementation .................................................................................................... 26
Session 9 and 10: Evaluation, Feedback and Learning............................................................. 29
Session 1: The development of public policy analysis
and the policy science
1. Understanding Public Policy and Policy Analysis
• Nature of Policy Analysis: It is an academic discipline characterized as multi-
disciplinary, multi-method, and problem-oriented. Its primary focus lies in the mapping
of contexts, alternatives, and effects.
• The Policy Sciences: As defined by Daniel Lerner and Harold Lasswell (1951), these
sciences explain the policy-making and policy-executing processes while providing
relevant data and interpretations for contemporary policy problems. They define "policy"
as the most important choices made in organized or private life.
• Key Analytical Dimensions: Policy analysis is split into distinct focus areas:
o Analysis of policy: Relies on descriptive and theoretical approaches.
o Analysis for policy: Relies on applied and prescriptive approaches.
o Policy Assessment: Focused on evaluation.
2. Core Definitions of Public Policy
1. Thomas Dye (1972)
"Anything a government chooses to do or not to do."
• Government as the primary agent: Only governments can formulate public policy. Private
decisions by businesses, social groups, or individuals are excluded.
• Authoritative decisions: Government decisions are legally binding and backed by
legitimate sanctions in the event of noncompliance.
, • Action vs. Inaction: Policy involves a fundamental choice. Deciding to do nothing about
an issue (e.g., ignoring climate change or a migrant crisis) is also a policy decision.
• Unintended consequences: Since policy stems from conscious choices, government
actions often yield unforeseen side effects (e.g., the rise of a black market due to
tobacco regulation).
2. William Jenkins (1978)
"A set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors concerning the
selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where
those decisions should, in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve."
• Problem- and goal-oriented: Views policy as a structured, continuous process aimed at
selecting specific goals and the means to achieve them.
• Capacity constraints: Unlike Dye, Jenkins explicitly recognizes that limitations on a
government’s ability to think and act can constrain available options and either advance
or undermine the success of policymaking efforts.
3. James Anderson (1975)
"A purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem
or matter of concern for the population."
• Purposive course of action: Policy is not just a single, isolated decision, but a deliberate
and ongoing path taken by actors.
• Problem vs. Concern: Makes a distinct conceptual differentiation between a specific
"problem" and a broader "matter of concern" for the population.
• Positivist vision: Rooted in a highly clear, empirical, and rational approach to analyzing
public policy.
3. Policy Actors and Their Roles
• Contextual Framework: Policy subsystems do not operate in a vacuum; they involve
both individual and complex actors shaped by the organization of the state, society, and
the international system.
• Categories of Actors:
o Power to make policy: Elected politicians and administrative officials hold direct
decision-making power.
o Capacity to influence policy: Political parties (and their study centers), interest
groups, NGOs, research organizations, academic institutes, think tanks, and the
mass media try to influence outcomes. Voters, citizens, and individuals also fit
into this space.
• Functional Roles: Actors can function as policy advisers, analysts, workers,
stakeholders, or target groups.
4. The Policy Cycle Model
,The public policy process is frequently structured as a cyclical sequence that correlates applied
problem-solving stages with key actors:
• Problem recognition -> Agenda setting: Shaped primarily by the broader Policy
Universe.
• Solution Proposal -> Policy Formulation: Shaped within the specialized Policy
Subsystem.
• Choice of Solution -> Decision-making: Determined by Government Decision-Makers.
• Solution Implementation -> Policy Implementation: Carried out by the Policy
Subsystem.
• Monitoring of Results -> Policy Evaluation: Assessed again by the Policy Universe.
Advantages and Disadvantages of the Model
• Advantages: It successfully reduces immense real-world complexity and helps clarify
the distinct roles of actors, institutions, ideas, and interests.
• Disadvantages: Actual policy-making is often non-systematic and non-linear. It often
turns into idiosyncratic problem-solving where stages are compressed or skipped
entirely, leaving causes and effects unclear.
Historical Variations of the Cycle Stages
• Lasswell’s Model (1965): Outlined seven distinct stages: 1. Intelligence, 2. Promotion, 3.
Prescription, 4. Invocation, 5. Application, 6. Termination, and 7. Appraisal.
• Brewer’s Model (1974): Condensed the framework into six stages, changing the order of
progression compared to Lasswell: 1. Invention/initiation, 2. Estimation, 3. Selection, 4.
Implementation, 5. Evaluation, and 6. Termination
, Session 2: Theoretical approaches of public policy
analysis
1. Classifying Theoretical Approaches
Theories in policy analysis function as conceptual lenses; as Mark Twain noted, "To someone
with a hammer everything looks like a nail". To categorize these varied analytical lenses,
approaches are classified along two main dimensions: the method/school of thought
(Deductive vs. Inductive) and the unit of analysis (Individual, Collectivity, or Structure).
Unit of Analysis Deductive Approaches Inductive Approaches
Individual Public Choice Welfare Economics
Collectivity Social Structure / Class Analysis Pluralism // Neo-corporatism
Structure Neo-institutionalism Statism
2. Individual-Level Approaches
Public Choice (Deductive)
• Core Framework: This approach applies neo-classical economics to policy analysis,
focusing on rational action and individual utility maximization.
• State Behavior: It argues that the self-interests of voters, politicians, and administrative
officials inherently push towards expanding state intervention and the over-provision of
public goods and services.
• Normative Stance: It strongly advocates for a smaller state footprint and emphasizes
the inherent efficiency benefits of the market.
• Limitations & Critiques: * It heavily over-simplifies the policy process, which is far more
complex than simple utility maximization.
o It suffers from poor predictive capacity.
o It severely underestimates how much institutions shape and constrain individual
actions.
o It reflects a value-laden, neo-liberal perspective rather than a value-free
scientific framework.
Welfare Economics (Inductive)
• Core Framework: This approach focuses on identifying market failures that necessitate
government intervention to achieve optimal social outcomes.
• Key Types of Market Failures:
