December 10, 2012 UAPP 220-010 Professor Jabbar-Bey 1 Four Ways to Create One Outcome
2 Abstract This paper will be discussing the four different models of public policymaking. Those models are the decision making model, the iron triangle model, power cluster model and the King and Kingmakers model. Some of these models are more inclusive than others. The more inclusive models include the decision making model and the power cluster model, with the iron triangle model and King and Kingmakers models being more exclusive. All of these systems are set up to be inclusive or exclusive for specific reasons and changing the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of a policymaking model would have negative effects on the balance and policy created by the models. The decision making model includes advocates as well as elected officials and the iron triangle excludes everyone except the executive agency, legislative committee and interest group involved. The power cluster model includes many different people and the Kings and Kingmakers model is more exclusive than inclusive, yet includes active citizens slightly.
3 Four Ways to Create One Outcome Public policy is defined by Larry Gerston as the combination of basic decisions, commitments and actions made by those who hold or affect government positions of authority (as cited by Jabbar Bey, 2012). Under this definition, there is no one correct way to create policy and no single group credited for creating policy. The four different models of public policymaking emphasize this definition by all taking a different approach to how policy is made. With this said, the policy models are not all the same in terms of who makes the policies: some are inclusive and some are not. When it comes to the different models of public policy making, there are four distinct models that are applied at the federal, state and local levels of government. The first model is the decision making model. Professor Jabbar-Bey (2012) defines the decision making model as the logic model where elected and appointed leaders engage in decision making. This model involves different actors, problems, those affected and the source of the problem in order to come to a conclusion in a piece of policy. The second public policy making model is the iron triangle model. This model, also known as the triangle of power includes the executive, legislative branches and lobbyists for different interest groups (Jabbar-Bey, 2012). The next model is the power clusters model, also known as the web of power. With this model, it is shaped like a circle: the center of the circle is the issue and those affected. The different sections of the circle are made up of the groups involved in focusing on the issue in the center (Jabbar- Bey). The final model is referred to as Kings and Kingmakers. This model is set up as a pyramid with the Kingmakers, invisible persons of wealth, at the top and the Kings, those
4 physically in power, in the following tier and below them are the Actives, the attentive public, followed by the interested citizens and apathetic citizens (Jabbar-Bey). Taking more in-depth looks at each of the models, it can be seen which models are inclusive and which are not. The decision making model is somewhat inclusive. This model describes a rational, scientific decision making process (House, n.d.) in which policy change is accomplished through small, incremental steps that allow decision makers to adjust policies as they learn from their successes and failures (Birkland, 2011). Additionally in this model, decision makers seek to accomplish four tasks: accurately identify the problem that confronts them; take into account the key factors that bear on the problem; critically examine alternative courses of action; and make a choice that will wisely maximize benefits and minimize costs (Riemer, Simon & Romance, 2012). With these four tasks in mind, it is clear why it is considered the logic model : this system sets up these tasks in order to clearly state what needs to be done in order to create successful policy. In this system, ultimately the elected and appointed leaders are the ones that make the decisions, yet a great many people, interests and institutions are usually involved ( Theories of Decision Making, n.d). Advocates start the process by recognizing the issue and formulating a proposal which is then brought to the appropriate authorities of government. From there, the authorities go through authoritative consideration as to how the issue should be solved, going through the oppositions and support of different possibilities. The decision is then implemented and goes through evaluation, restarting the cycle (Cockrel, 1997). With this big web of the order of the process,
5 many people are able to give input on how the policy should be established and the outcome. This gives many different groups the ability to have their voices heard which leads to a better piece of policy. The iron triangle, on the other hand, is not inclusive. The relationship between the executive agency, congressional committee and special interest groups is called iron because the relationship among the three participants endures over time for the mutual benefit of everyone in the alliance (Shultz, 2004). This means that due to the strong bond the three groups have formed, it would be very difficult to include others into the relationship. From an outside view, iron triangles are looked as very stable tripartite arrangements which operate with little or no outside interference (Osborne, 2010). According to James Thurber, iron triangles are considered to be almost autonomous as regards their decision-making abilities (as cited in Osborne, 2010). Shultz agrees, stating that iron triangles remain constant in their policy-making role, which means that over time they tend to dominate other interests by not allowing outsiders to control the policy (2004). According to Stephen P. Osborne, there were attempts to make iron triangles more inclusive by adding extra players (2010), the problem with this is that the defining nature of the concept is lost and the difference from some of the other concepts becomes less clear (2010). With this issue at hand when including others, it can be seen why it is important to keep iron triangles more exclusive: the balance that the three groups in the triangle would be thrown off with the inclusion of others. Nicole Bates concurs, affirming there was little space for
6 external influences on the policymaking process despite the fact that many outside of the iron triangle were directly affected by the decisions made from within (2008). While the public is directly affected by the work of the iron triangle, this system needs only three groups involved in order to successfully create policy based on their expertise. When it comes to the power cluster model of public policy, this model is more on the inclusive side. Daniel Ogden developed this model to describe the multiple groups that affect policy from formulation through evaluation and revision (Cockrel, 1997). The different elements, or sections, that make up the part surrounding the center includes administrative agencies, legislative committees, special-interest groups, professionals, attentive public, and the latent public, which are the low informed voters and citizens. With multiple different elements, there is an increased ability to get many different opinions and options for how to handle the issue at hand. According to Cockrel, there are five patterns of behavior that characterize the relationships of each cluster that help shape policymaking. These patterns are as follows: close personal and institutional ties- key people are constantly communicating with each other; active communication among cluster elements-intense communication characterized the key actors in the cluster at varying times in the policymaking process; internal conflicts among competing interests-although relationships within clusters are generally friendly; the various members may hold opposing views and frequently be in conflict with one another; internal cluster decisionmaking-most policy decisions are made within the various clusters; and well-developed internal
7 power structure-within a cluster, key leaders are well known and consulted on all major activities that affect their interests (1997). The main points with all of the patterns are they all involve communication between many people. This communication allows many people to get involved in the policy-making process and allow for many different voices to be heard. The inclusiveness of this model is what makes it successful. Kings and Kingmakers is the most exclusive model out of the four. This model is about who has power over others and how they use their power to get their way. At the top of the pyramid, the Kingmakers reign for they are people that have the financial and intellectual resources to influence and even determine public policy (Cockrel, 1997). The Kingmakers are more of a behind-the-scenes power that many people do not know about. While they may go unnoticed physically, their presence is known when they may determine who gets elected, which items appear on the public policy agenda and which die a sudden death (Cockrel, 1997). The Kingmakers have a lot of power when it comes to government and what happens. Underneath the Kingmakers on the pyramid are the Kings, the visible policymakers that are the elected and appointed leaders in government with the blessing of the Kingmakers, and work in close consultation with them (Cockrel, 1997). Underneath the Kings are the Actives, also known as joiners that are the active members of the community that are very engaged. The level below the actives is the interested citizens, followed by apathetic citizens that are low informed.
8 With this model of policymaking, the agenda is set by the Kingmakers and determined by the Kings and Actives public policy education will be most successful when targeted toward the Kings, who will, in turn, impart the educational message to the Kingmakers and the Active citizens (Cockrel, 1997). Cockrel goes on to say that this model focuses on a select few in society to understand and explain how public policy is made [and a] primary concern with who has power to make decisions and shape policy (1997). This means that this model is more about those in power than including many different groups in the decision-making process. With this model, the qualified are those that are making the policy for everyone to follow. Additionally, Cockrel states mass opinion is influenced by the powerful elites; communication flows downward; and the public thus has only an indirect influence on public policy (1997). This clearly shows how little the model includes multiple people in the policymaking, when the public, those affected by the policy, have an indirect influence on the policy. An example of a Kingmaker was recently seen during 2012 Presidential campaigning. By showing his monetary muscle in the GOP primary for Newt Gingrich, Mr. Sheldon Adelson [the owner of the Las Vegas Sands Corporation and is worth $25 billion] has been able to demonstrate that he undoubtedly has the war chest to be a kingmaker and he has little hesitation in using it [leading to Mitt Romney] to kiss Adelson s proverbial ring (Abukhdair,2012). In this example, Adelson, a very wealthy and powerful businessman, was able to have multiple Presidential candidates do what he wanted because he had many resources that would help their campaigns.
9 It is obvious that all of these models are set up in a specific way. The specificity of the models is necessary in order to be successful. If the models were not set up in the specific way, then appropriate public policy would be created. While the inclusiveness or exclusiveness of a certain model might be tested along the way, such as with the iron triangle model, it is clear that changing the models will not be effective. Each model has a specific formula that will have a precise outcome. Extensive research has been done on each of these models and none of the research stated that it is necessary to make one of the models more inclusive or exclusive. This shows how well the models are working with their current inclusivity or exclusivity and there is no research being done on ways to change that. The models are working just fine the way they are currently.
10 References Abukhdair, Y. (2012, August 6). Yousef Abukhdair: Romney Auditions for His Kingmaker. Breaking News and Opinion on The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/yousef-abukhdair/romney-auditions-for-his-_b_1734193.html Birkland, T. A. (2011). Policy Design, Policy Tools and Decisions. An introduction to the policy process: theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (3rd ed., p. 256). Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Cockrel, J. (1997). Public Policy Making in America. Retrieved from ffdffffffhttp://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/ip/ip19/ip19.pdf House, V.W. (n.d.). Models of Policy Making. Retrieved from fffffffffhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17839/1/ar870244.pdf Jabbar-Bey, R. (Lecturer) (2012, August 28). Public Policy Definitions. Citizens, Community and Change. Lecture conducted for University of Delaware, Newark. Jabbar-Bey, R. (Lecturer) (2012, October 16). Public Policy Models. Citizens, Community and Change. Lecture conducted for University of Delaware, Newark. Osborne, S. P. (2010). Governance of Policy Networkss. The New Public Governance: Critical Perspectives and Future Directions (p. 354). London: Routledge. Riemer, N., Simon, D. W., & Romance, J. (n.d.). Decision Making in Politics. The Challenge of Politics. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from college.cqpress.com/sites/challenge/home/chapter13.aspx Schultz, D. A. (2004). Iron Triangles. Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy (p. 237). New York, NY: Facts On File. Theories of Decision Making (n.d). Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/~wfarrell/sowo%20874/readings/decisiontheory.pdf