32 3.9 – ASSESSING THE STAGES MODEL
- ASSESSING THE STAGES MODEL
When Lasswell (1971) began writing about the stages model, he was investigating how policymakers make decisions. Even then, the stages model was meant to describe the policy process rather than create a comprehensive theory of policy making. Charles Jones (1970) argued the same point, that the policy approach is an attempt to “describe a variety of processes designed to complete the policy cycle.” Similar to Lasswell, Jones identified what he called the stages of decision making. There have been several iterations of the policy stages from numerous authors over the years (Anderson, 1974, Brewer and deLeon, 1983, Ripley, 1985), but they all broadly encompass the same elements: identification and perception of a public problem, adoption and implementation of the policy, and evaluation or termination of the policy.
The stages model has received its fair share of criticism for producing fragmented research on the policy process. For instance, scholars and students alike often focus research projects on how citizens and even the media have the power to set the agenda. Others focus on the bureaucracy and its skill, or lack of skill, at implementing policy. These separate studies might lead some to believe that the policy process comprises a set of disconnected steps. In some ways this perspective is correct. The policy process does not always proceed perfectly through each stage. Problem identification, for instance, might not occur in an ordered or coherent fashion, and evaluation might not occur at all. Smith and Larimer (2017) argue that creation of a unified model of public policy is a “tall order.” The strength of the stages, they argue, is its ability to create a set of manageable frameworks from which we can understand each stage in the process, even if the process is not always precise.
The stages approach may also lead one to believe that the process is linear, meaning that policies progress seamlessly through each step. Once a policy is on the agenda, it is then legitimized, implemented, and finally evaluated. In fact, for some policies, their progression through the process is underscored by a series of “feedback loops.” Consider gun control policies that spend most of their time in the problem identification and definition stage. Gun control policies have on occasion progressed to the legitimation phase only to be sent back to agenda setting. A similar account can be made for immigration reform, free college education, and social security reform.
Finally, critics of the stages model argue that it is not particularly scientific, meaning that it is difficult to develop a falsifiable and testable hypothesis. For instance, it is difficult to develop a hypothesis that tests and proves a theory of how problems reach the public agenda. As you will learn in the next chapter, there are many ways for problems to catch the attention of policymakers and advance through the agenda process. This exercise exposes a flaw in the stages model: it is not a theory. The policy stages describe what happens and omit any real explanation for why it happens (Smith and Larimer, 2017). Sabatier (1991) aptly describes the model as the “stages heuristic,” meaning that it is a practical method for understanding complex processes. In fact, one of the major advantages of the stages model is that it provides a practical means for understanding and organizing the policy process. Students of public policy often find this approach to be intuitive and logical. As such, the stages heuristic approach is used as a guide for understanding the policy process in this text.
