PUBLIC POLICY

Lecture 1 : Introduction

1. What is « public policy » ? What is policy analysis?

A foreword on PP analysis :
- A subdiscipline of political science born in the US in the 30’s
- A forefather : [Link] = became political more a science than a discipline
- Initially : a problem-soliving activity aimed at pracitioners.
In France = socio de l’action publique

A. Policy = a field of activity

Public policy = public actions/government response problem-solving activity. The sum total of government
action, from signals to intent to final outcomes.

« Why do we study public policy »

- To understand why particular décisions are being made…

- To understand why some decisions are not being made
- Why there are différent policies between countries
= A government response to public problems : solving problems, making decisions, producing policy
outcomes.
Can also include non-décisions (chat government deliberately choose not to do)

Some synonym :
- Process
- Solving problems
- Public actions (or ‘non actions’)
- Décisions
- Policy outcomes
- Gov response

The resources of public policy

- Force
- Law
- Staff/Resources
- Money
- Financial means
- Information
- Organisation
- Political support

Explaining: Distinctive swedish approach to Covid-19 crisis

Sweden’s policy choice: least restrictive lockdown in the world.

Relatively high mortality rate combined but preference for indivdual responsibility over coercion of
behaviours. Les agences sont indépendantes et ont plus de pouvoir

WHY ? Look at Swedish institutional factors

 (1) Constitution (Regeringsform) + (2) High degree of independence of public agencies + (3) Public Health
Agency of Sweden highly influential + (4) Extensive powers of local authorities & restricted power for
central government + (5) High level of public trust in the institutions

+ one structural factors low density of population (but does not explain difference with other Scandinavian
countries).

Questions raised in public policy analysis :

Account for policy differences across countries.

Account for différences across policy sectors (as agriculture)
Account for policy change/stability over time

Aim: to understand why decisions are made (or not made), explain differences across countries, sectors,
and over time.

B. Who’s making (non-) decisions ?

Governmental actvities ? ‘public sector’ only? Societal (non-state) actors as well?
citizens! (see svallfors (2010) on german reunification = normatif effect revers to the why that institutions
put in place PP by internalize It = différent vision

- Non-decisions matter as well!

- Citizens (with knowledge) are transformed by PP

Example of governmental inaction in the environmental field : the us republican party (batstrand, 2015)
There is one country in the world in which climate change denial is +++ because of the republicans.

→ Women frequently left outsider of the agenda

C. Public policy targets

Inclusion or exclusion of different groups. Ex.‘welfare’(state), naturalization rules, healthcare, éducation,

nutrition. Protect political right but also social rights.
Ex : Japan has colonized korea…
Welfare policy have an effect on gender between women and men for example pensions.

Different impacts on different groups

Non-domestic targets of public policy

Examples : us travel ban, us war on drugs

- Economic impact
- Environmental impact
- Impact of ’policy learning’

D. Public sectoriel and policy sectors = provide goods = non

tangible, non excluable, non divisible, available to all

• Challenges faced by the PUBLIC SECTOR = many objectives which are

difficult and (ambiguë)
• Each sector’s governance is SPECIFIC as agriculture policy which is
dominated by the FNSEA and not by the gov

• Public policies are increasingly TRANSVERSAL,
- Climate change
- Agriculture
- Public health: the ministry of economy and finance is one of the most powerful.
- Education (gender issues, inclusion of people) with the ministry of health for well-being of children =
social affairs
- Transport (mobility infrastructure)
Each policy sector govern in his own way = le secteur public n’a pas le droit à l’erreur donc c’est pour
ça que c’est lent et coûteux contrairement au secteur privé

2. The ‘policy-politics’ relationship

Linkages between dimensions of policy analysis

Polity = the institutional and constitutional framework in which politics takes place.
→ Key idea: the structure – the rules of the game, the organization of the state, distribution of powers.
→ Example: the U.S. Constitution, the French Fifth Republic, the European Union’s institutional system.

Politics = the political process and activity – the struggle (lutte) for power, conflicts of interests, and
competition between actors.
→ Reference: Max Weber = politics as a professional activity focused on the acquisition and exercise of
power.
→ Example: elections, party competition, demonstrations, parliamentary debates.

Policy = the content of politics – the decisions, programs, and actions taken by governments to solve
public problems.
→ Key idea: the outcomes – concrete public policies, rules, and measures to bring order into society.
→ Example: pension reform, environmental policies, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

Polity = the rules of the game (institutions, structures)

Politics = the game itself (struggles, conflicts, competition)

Policy = the result of the game (decisions, laws, government action)

The ‘policy-politics’ relationship

Politics is about making decisons.

 Four conception of the policy-politics dichotomy

Conception #1 : Dominant in the 1950s. The ‘apolitical approach’ : one which considers the two concepts
are radically different. Point of focus is ‘the time of the decision’. Policy-making is apolitical/ non-
ideological., Focus is on identity of decision-makers (rather than actual content of policies) = no values and
Conception #2: Emerging in the 1960s ; considers there is a political system on the one side, and public
policies on the other. Point of focus is ‘politicization’. There is no separation bewteen public policy and Politics
by promoting a problem with a discussion. Something or someone is responsible, we have top détermine who
will be the person in charge of answer the issue. Anything can became political as domestic relationship.

ideology only technical, no différence between conservative and progressist.

Conception #3: Dominant in the 1970s. Tried to reconcile conceptions #1 & 2 Points of focus are on BOTH
decision-making and politicization. Policy making is intrinsically political. More focus on the policy process than
on decision-making.

Conception #4: 1980s- Focus is on stability of policy-making an institutional rigidities. Some actors lockdown
public policy to resist external approach, challenges put by poliitcal parties.
3. How do governments act ? (Policy types and policy instruments)
Policy instruments

Policy instruments = policy types as RSA

Definition of ‘Policy instruments’

« A set of techniques by which government authoritieswield their power to ensure support and effect, or
preventsocial change » (Vedung, 1998).

Lowi’s typology

“Policy determines politics.” = This means that the nature of a public policy (policy) influences the way
politics will unfold: the actors involved, their conflicts, possible coalitions, etc.

Public authorities acting directly upon individuals :

Distributive policies = distribute resources or benefits broadly, without creating major conflicts.
→ Political effect : few identifiable losers, often consensus.
→ Examples : agricultural subsidies, infrastructure projects (roads, bridges), state-funded research
programs.

Redistributive policies = transfer resources from one social group to another → there are clearly winners
and losers.
→ Political effect : highly conflictual, since some groups must “pay” for others.
→ Examples : progressive taxation, social security, pension reforms.

Regulatory policies = establish mandatory rules of behavior to protect or regulate individuals and groups.
→ Political effect : affects everyone, but often targets specific sectors or behaviors → conflicts between the
state and economic/social actors.
→ Examples : environmental laws, financial market regulation, drug prohibition, health standards.

Constituent policies = concern the organization of the state and its institutions. They define the
framework in which other policies are made.
→ Political effect : more abstract, but fundamental, since they touch upon the rules of the political game.
→ Examples : constitutional reform, creation of a new public agency, EU enlargement

Limitations

Categories are blurred → Policy types are ambiguous

→ In reality, a single policy can belong to several categories.
Examples : an environmental law can be regulatory (banning plastics) but also redistributive (some
industries lose, citizens or the environment gain).

It is not just “policies” that determine “politics”

→ Lowi’s famous phrase “policy determines politics” is too simplistic.
→ Politics also depends on institutions, ideologies, power relations, values, historical context, etc.
→ Policies matter, but they are not the only driver of political conflicts.
Typology is incomplete → Need for a 5th type?
→ Some scholars argue for “Morality policies” (abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, euthanasia).
→ These policies trigger value conflicts (moral/religious beliefs) more than resource redistribution.
→ They do not fit neatly into distributive, redistributive, regulatory, or constituent categories.

Policy-making is not all about “coercion”

→ Lowi’s framework emphasizes how the state imposes rules and allocates resources.
But in reality, policymaking also involves negotiation, persuasion, dialogue, voluntary compliance,
incentives.
Examples : instead of forcing citizens, governments may use nudges (coup de pouces) (encouraging
recycling, healthy eating).

Indigenous peoples forced to move : here, policy is about domination and coercion, not just
redistribution/regulation.
Taxation : almost every policy involves raising taxes in some way → the typology doesn’t capture this
omnipresent dimension.

4. The policy cycle (‘stagist approach’)

Problem construction = A group of people identifies an issue and tries to put it on the public agenda. (Ex.
activists, experts, or media framing air pollution as a public health crisis.)

Policy formulation and adoption = Policymakers search for the “right words” and feasible solutions. Often
involves commissions, reports, and political debates.
Implementation = Policies are put into practice by administrations (e.g., migration officers, local
authorities, environmental agencies).

Evaluation = Assessment of whether the policy is a success or failure. Can rely on data, reports, or public
opinion.

Support and maintenance = Policies can be sustained, modified, or abolished depending on political
support, efficiency, and social acceptance.

Why this cycle ? Because it is clear and rational so it became attractive for a well policy procedure. In the
real life, we realize that it didn’t work and we have to redifne policy.

Do policies resemble the policy cycle model ? (Case of the 1952 deadly dog)
Background : By the early 20th century, air pollution from coal was a well-known problem. M.
Crenson (1971), The Un-Politics of Air Pollution: showed that sometimes the “problem” is not acted upon
(non-decision-making) due to political resistance.

The deadly smog of December 1952 (“deadly dog”) :

→ Severe winter weather trapped coal smoke → thick smog in London.
→ Caused massive public health impacts: around 12,000 deaths.
→ Public opinion and media coverage made it impossible to ignore.

Problem construction :
→ The smog turned air pollution into a visible, deadly problem.
→ The government could no longer deny the urgency.

Policy formulation :
→ The Beaver Committee Report (1954) investigated causes and proposed solutions.
→ Gained government support by offering practical, technical recommendations (e.g., smokeless fuels,
zoning).

Policy adoption :
→ Led to the Clean Air Act (1956), which regulated domestic and industrial coal burning, promoted cleaner
fuels, and reduced “dark smoke” emissions.

Implementation :
→ Local authorities had new powers to create “smoke control areas”.
→ Industries were pushed to modernize their heating systems.

Evaluation & maintenance :

→ The law was gradually strengthened (e.g., Clean Air Act 1968).
→ Air quality in London improved significantly over the following decades.

Limitations of the stagist approach

→ Artificial view of policy making
→ Rational nature of policy making +++ = sometimes polices exist before the problem (ex. ARM messenger
vaccin)
→ Lack of causal explanation = if we look at the cycle we don’t why and how we pass the different steps.
→ Assumes policy making is ‘top - own’ = cycle is focuses on the top as the street level → the idea that
politicians decide everything. It doesn’t really take into account how street-level bureaucrats and local
actors actually shape, modify, or resist policies in practice.
→ Assumes every policy has a clear beginning, middle and end. We don’t know if a policy is a success or
Not because it depends of the criteria which are différent between each person.