Why do policies fail?

In this essay I intend to analyse the policy process and in doing so identify some of the reasons and causes of policy failure.  I will be using social security policy to illustrate concepts and draw from personal experience of working within a policy environment (Welfare to Work Policy) by way of example and pinpoint areas where social policy could be considered weak and prone to failure.  To do this I will discuss the policy process including those responsible for policy, how it is influenced and implemented, and draw on examples of policy failure and how that failure is defined.

It is important to understand what is meant as a policy for the purpose of this assignment.  Policies are likely to be a course of action taken by a government which might require new legislation, the involvement and influence of various actors, political and otherwise, from the decision making process through to policy implementation.  Alternatively ‘a rationale, or manifestation of a considered judgement’ (Parsons 1999).

When analysing either the success or failure of policy it is important to understand who has responsibility for policy, the power to influence policy, and how policy issues are bought to the fore of a government’s agenda.  By understanding these issues we begin to understand how policies develop and how at various stages they become prone to failure.

From the initial formation of a policy through to ultimate implementation, the policy process passes through various channels of complex networks, institutional constraints, and implementation issues.  These channels will have inevitable affect on outcomes, and subsequently shape the end result of that policy.  The process of negotiation and increasingly consultation throughout the policy process is itself important, and this process could affect the outcomes.  Sabatier argued that it “involves numerous agencies and interest groups at all levels of government” and that “policy making should not be considered a ‘black box’ in which decisions are made at one end and the policy produces clear effect at the other” (Spicker 1995).  For some the process can be seen as divided up into a series of stages from initiation, and agenda setting, to information processing and decision-making, through to implementation and policy outcomes.  However, this could give the impression that policy making is a smooth process when in reality it could be seen as one of ‘muddling through’ as described by Lindblom who proposed a model that took account of power and interaction between phases and stages (Parsons 1999).

A starting point for identifying policy failure, an area of much debate is the issue of power.  Harold Lasswell argued that those with power to influence policy would require a degree of “participation in the decision making process”.  However, Bachrach and Baratz recognised that it was not just about the ability to make or influence concrete decisions but that it was important to recognise that institutions and organisations have the power to suppress decisions and individuals so that some issues are organised onto the agenda where as others are organised out (Bachrach and Baratz 1962).  They argued that there is “a more important area of what might be called ‘nondecision-making’.  Limiting the scope of actual decision-making to ‘safe’ issues by manipulating the dominant community values, myths, and political institutions and procedures.  They argued strongly “that to pass over this is to neglect one whole ‘face’ of power” (Bachrach & Baratz 1963). With the effect of letting problems go unchallenged and failing to introduce the appropriate policies.

Distribution of power and resources is important when considering the interaction between individuals within the process.  A policy network or community can be seen to develop in which there are common goals or views shared by key players in the policy process.  Membership of a network community might shift or evolve over time depending on the policy issue, Rhodes (1999) saw an active policy network ‘constantly communicating criticisms of policy’ and generating ideas for new policy initiatives so as to improve policy or alternatively prevent failure.  Those involved in a policy issue network may not only have financial power (Treasury officials) but be knowledge and information rich.  For example pressure groups who bring their own power and influence to policy issues such as the significant contribution from Age Concern who amongst others have contributed to the design of The Pension Service Local Service initiatives.

Join now!

Assessment of the policy process requires an understanding the relative influence of a range of actors, at various levels.  Before the 1970’s there was a general lack of concern for what happened to policies between what was considered the post-policy making process and the stage at which policies hit the street.  Hill (1997a) described

‘A clear demarcation line between policy and administration, and the assumption that policy passed from the hands of the policy maker, to the administrator whose job it was to carry out the policy formulated by the decision makers.’  The area of interplay between policy ...

This is a preview of the whole essay