The distinction between agenda setting and policy formulation is hard to make in real life.

Detailed policy formulation is essential for real (not symbolic, gestures aimed by politicians at the electorate) policy-making. This stage is also important, as it emphasises that there is not just policy making and policy implementation.

Simon proposes a prescriptive model in which administration is just as concerned with decisions as politicians, being involved in a hierachy of major to minor decisions. Moreover, he states that decision making is not a process of maximising, but one where individual rationality is limited. The administrative theoory shows that human beings satisfice because they dont have the wit to maximise. He believes that when making decisions, the premises from which you start can be factual or value elements, ususally hard to distinguish.. He says that politicians should prefer the value premises. Who does the work? Do we keep the distinction between politicians and civil servants? Institutuional theory, with its emphasis on pathways, implies that detailed policy formulation is an activity done in small steps, especially for activities such as adjusting the policy over time. Hill gives the example of the budgetary process, where gov. departments negotiate with the central finance department . Hill gives the example of establishng a NGO budget: when making the budget each year, not all of it shall be reviewed, just small pieces => changes made will be incremental, upwards and downwards.

Key aspects of policy formulation

Knoepfel and Weldner use the term policy programming, rather than formulation. They see it as a model with layers around the policy core: More precise definitions of policy objectives Operational instruments (instruments to make the policies effective) Political-administrative arrangements specifying who (what authorities) needs to implement the policy; this leads to considering what resources are needed for the implementation, as well. Procedural rules (the rules to be used in the implementation).

The example given in the book, about the right to roam policy in England and Wales, was set up through a Parliament Act, The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, so the policy formulation seems to be the responsibility of the legislature, in this case. But, seeing the detail put into this act (22 pages of details), it is clear that an unelected civil servants assisted the politicians and brings forth the question: how well did the legislature scrutinise the act.
1

Inside the Act there are other things to point towards a formulation that was not entirely made by the legislature reference to the power to make further regulations. bAsically, the Act contains pilot schemes, establishing the guidelines, but expecting a lot of other work in the policy formulating (that, incidentally, was not accomplished, as the new government was commited to cuts in the public expenditure). In British law, Acts of Parliament often include the granting of powers to make subsequent regulations there are complex procedures, but often the sheer number and the minutiae needed reduce the scrutiny. It is called delegated legislation. In the past attacked from taking powers from the legislature, it is now largely considered that it would be impossible to amplify legislation without it. There is a dfficult distinction to be made between detailed policy adjustments and clauses that enable fundamental policy change withou Parliament scrutiny. In the case of the mentioned act, there are certain provisions that fall completely in the responsibility of a central government agency, that further delegates some powers to access authorities(namely local governments).

So, main structure: Basic laws with clauses enabling later amendment Provisions to make more detailed rules in the overarching legislative framework Systems where central responsible ministries will delegate to lower-tier agency.

+in privatisation, specifying a lot of details in contracts for private bodies expected to fulfill public functions.

Instrument choice
Knoepfel and Weidners model includes instruments. Howlett says that these are so important that they actually represent the public policymaking. In trying to come up with a list, Howlett tries to apply the tools of delineation mentioned by Hood: Nodality-use of information Authority legal power used Treasure use of money Organisation use of formal organisational arrangements

Policy making involves choices about instrument use. Linder and Peters think that policy instruments are substitutable, but ,in practice, you need to guide your choice on: Resource intensiveness
2

The extent to which precise targeting of policies is required Levels of political risk Constraints of state activity.

Howlett and Ramesh argue that instruments can be seen in a spectrum from increased levels of state involvement from low, to high. Choices are affected by resources, but there is a preference for low state involvement, as it is less likely to encounter resistance. Voluntary instruments o Family and community; o Voluntary organization; o Private markets Mixed instruments o Info and exhortation o Subsidies o Auction of property rights o Tax and user charges Compulsory instruments o Regulation o Public enterprise o Direct provision.

Doern sees instrument choice as ideological, but with governments choosing the least coercitive measures. He sees them in a spectrum as well, from exhortation, expenditure, regulation to public ownership. Lascoumbes and Le Gales also emphasise the ideological dimension every instrument is a condensed form of knowledge about social control and exercising it and those instruments that work are not neutral. Like this, choosing instruments is influenced by the view on the right way to govern. The chosen instruments will give characteristics to policy that will influence further decisions, as well. Factors that influence the choice of instruments are very complex. Howlett thinks that you cant nake a general theory about instrument choice, but that it should be linked with issues in national policy styles. The analysis for policy processes has been developed to inclulde markets, hierarchies and networks. They are called differently by different authors, but Hill proposes: authority rules are laid out in advance, transaction certain outputs are expected, persuasion collaboration.

Core activity of govt

Appropriate perspective on managing implementation Management via

Authority Imposing Regulating Delivering goods and services Enforcement

Transaction Creating frameworks Assessing results Performance

Persuasion Inviting participation

Co-production

Inputs

Outputs

Outcomes as shared results

Where traditional bureaucrats depended on clearly specified inputs, the specificationn of ouputs or outcomes now becomes important as well.

Policy transfer
Ther are organizations that deal specifically with policy transfer, offering policy prescription. It is a new framework for policy analysis. We can see that there has been extensive policy transfer, but there are great variations between societies, mainly because of internal factos. Holzinger and Knill identify influences on the process from strong ones (wide, supranational pressures) to weak ones (a shared problem pressure). Bulmer and Padgett apply the model to the EU. They found 3 types of governance here: hierarchical, where Eu is exerciting supranational pressure leading to coercive forms of transfer; through consent; through unilateral voluntary exchange(where states maintain their sovereignty. A feature of much of the policy transfer has been to explore problems associated with uncritical policy transfer, from which problems can arise. There are policy entrepreneurs that play critical roles in policy transfer, and also int. org. They also offer money aid, usually, which makes the policy transfer have a compulsory character. If from US, the policy model comes with pro-market economic theory as well.

Civil servants
If they play an important role in the policy process, it is to give continuity to the agenda, pursuing a departmental line, regardless of political leadership. The Whitehall model was established in the UK. Politicians in few countries place as much faith in civil servants as the British. There are similarities in the NL as well. Dysons analysis on strong and weak states implies here thaat in the strong ones, the civil servant is the carrier of a tradition of service to the state. If electoral systems tend to produce unified programmatic parties, there is a potential for tensions between the 2 elements in the policymaking process. Here, differences between the early agenda setting and later parts of the policy process are likely to be relevant. France is an interesting case, as the constitution of the 5th republic gives administrators considerable autonomy. An alternative perspective is supplied by those states where multi-party systems dominate In these, the input of the political parties is seen early in the process, later followed by a administrator/politician cooperation. There is a concern that civil servants subvert policies, as they do not share the ideologies of politicians. To work effectively, it is believed that the state needs a representative bureaucracy, with members drawn from all classes, to represent the society. Officials can operate most easily i a situation of political consensus. Where it does not exist, it will become their duty to create it. Campbell and Wilson feel that the Whitehall model is being destroyed by:
4

The breaking of the monopoly of the civil service as advisers to ministers The development of systems to help the PM contest civil service advice Enthusiasm for policies rather than honesty is being rewarded Erosion of the belief that civil service is an established profession

The example of Australia and New Zealand is to show that there can be a shift in ideology from within the civil servants sector, where economic rationalisers are pushing the agenda. This leads to wanting to analyse how new ideological consensus may develop in the ruling elite. When one party rules for a lot of time, we can see a situation in which there is control over the agenda exercised by a relatively unified community of politicians and civil servants. There is a group of special advisers, called tsars, who are experts in a certain policy area. They are not direct recruits, nor are they appointed by politicians. Their roles involve a combination of concern with policy formulation and with effective implementation. Haas believes that there is a lack of ideological compatibility between expert epistemic communities and powerful political actors. This cooperation between experts and politicians may lead to situations where they use evidence to back their story. Smith argues that the factors that give an expert credibility in academia are likely to discredit him in political circles and viceversa. Where political communities dominate the political process, shared ideologies may be important and alternative ones will be marginalised. You can also think of interest groups as being part of this organised community. => you cannot talk of the domination of just one group:; thy can dominate the policy process together. Important to the continuing primacy of the traditional civil service may be a commitment to collaborative working in govt regardless of ideology. A study of the work of middle-ranking civil servants by Page&Jenkins shows how civil servants have a crucial role in formulationg policy. It challenges the view that this means the subversion of political roles. It promotes, instead, a team-like activity. In some respects, the civil servants can be the ones that pay att to what Simon called the value premises. They follow these cues: experience from frequent interactions with ministers, departmental priorities, reference to documents, sensitivity to contested issues. They also talk about steering and not commanding, which gives civil servants the possibility to question. They work to make policies in a way they think the ministers will like. Both minister and permanent secretaries are political administrators, dependent on each other and most of the times interchangeable. The issues matter too much for both politicians and civil servants, that is why the political and administrative role are so largely mixed.
5

Dunleavy and OLeary talk about profesionalisation, where in areas where expertise is important, issues are pulled aut of the general arena and into that of policy communities. They act as a key forum for setting standards, policing the behaviours of individual policy nakers and implementers. A modern twist to the disccussion is brought by public/private partnerships and the delegation of public tasks to independent organizations. Basically, the politicians make the policy and the organisations implement it. However, any agent responsible for implementing will be concerned with the way the policy is constructed. The agent is likely to lobby for policy change. He is a interested party, and particularly likely to act as predicted by rational choice theory. We can think of policy practice in 2 approaches: as teleogical (outcome focused) or relational (process focused you put att into the way agents relate, overlapping agendas etc) There may be situations where much of the creation of the policy occurs during implementation. The problem is that it is hard to make the distinction between the phases. The implementer might follow the model enitirely, or have freedom to do as he pleases, or options in between, based on negotiations.