Major Public Policy Models

Why This Matters

Public policy models aren't just abstract theories—they're the lenses through which you'll analyze how governments actually make decisions. On exams, you're being tested on your ability to recognize which model best explains a given policy scenario and why different approaches lead to different outcomes. Understanding these models helps you see that policy-making is rarely a clean, logical process; it's shaped by timing, coalitions, institutional constraints, and sometimes pure chance.

Don't fall into the trap of memorizing definitions in isolation. Instead, focus on what each model assumes about decision-makers, how it explains policy change, and when you'd apply it to real-world cases. The strongest exam responses compare models directly—showing why the Rational Model fails to explain what the Garbage Can Model captures, or how Punctuated Equilibrium differs from Incrementalism. Know the mechanisms, spot the patterns, and you'll be ready for any FRQ they throw at you.

---

Models Based on Decision-Making Assumptions

These models differ fundamentally in what they assume about how rational, informed, and systematic policy-makers actually are.

Rational Model

• Assumes complete information—decision-makers can identify all alternatives, predict outcomes, and select the optimal solution
• Systematic process follows clear stages: problem identification → solution generation → evaluation → selection
• Criticized as idealistic because real-world constraints like limited time, cognitive biases, and political pressures undermine pure rationality

Incremental Model

• Small, gradual adjustments rather than comprehensive overhauls—policy evolves through minor modifications to existing programs
• Relies on past experience as decision-makers use what's worked before rather than starting from scratch
• Emphasizes consensus-building since stakeholders negotiate changes at the margins, reducing conflict and political risk

Garbage Can Model

• Chaotic and unpredictable process where problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities swirl together randomly
• Timing and chance determine outcomes—decisions happen when elements happen to converge, not through deliberate analysis
• Highlights organizational ambiguity and explains why the "wrong" solution sometimes gets attached to unrelated problems

---

Models Focused on Policy Change and Timing

These frameworks explain when and why policies shift—whether through gradual evolution, sudden disruption, or strategic windows.

Multiple Streams Framework

• Three streams must converge—problems (public attention), policies (viable solutions), and politics (favorable conditions)—for change to occur
• Policy windows open briefly when streams align, creating opportunities for policy entrepreneurs to push their agendas
• Selective attention means most issues wait indefinitely because the right combination of factors rarely aligns

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

• Long stability, sudden shifts—policy areas experience extended periods of minor change interrupted by dramatic, rapid transformations
• Public attention triggers punctuations when issues break through to the macro-political agenda and overwhelm institutional resistance
• Institutional structures create friction that maintains stability but can't withstand sustained pressure from external events or mobilized attention

---

Models Emphasizing Actors and Coalitions

These approaches focus on who participates in policy-making and how relationships among actors shape outcomes.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

• Coalitions share core beliefs—groups of actors (legislators, interest groups, researchers) unite around fundamental policy values and coordinate strategy
• Policy learning occurs within and between coalitions as actors adapt to new information and changing conditions over decades
• External shocks like economic crises or elections can shift coalition power dynamics and open opportunities for previously marginalized groups

Network Theory

• Relationships matter as policy outcomes depend on patterns of interaction, communication, and trust among diverse actors
• Power flows through connections—actors with central network positions control information and resources, influencing what policies advance
• Networks can enable or block policy development depending on whether they facilitate collaboration or create fragmented, competing camps

---

Models Emphasizing Structure and Context

These frameworks highlight how institutions, systems, and cross-jurisdictional dynamics constrain and enable policy choices.

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

• Rules, norms, and practices shape what policy options are even possible—institutions structure incentives and constrain behavior
• Context matters deeply as the same policy proposal plays out differently depending on institutional arrangements
• Stakeholder interactions within institutional frameworks determine outcomes; understanding the rules of the game is essential

Systems Theory

• Policy exists within interconnected systems—social, economic, political, and environmental factors all influence and respond to policy decisions
• Feedback loops mean that policy outputs become inputs for future decisions, creating cycles of adjustment and response
• Ripple effects occur when changes in one system component cascade through others in sometimes unpredictable ways

Policy Diffusion Model

• Policies spread across jurisdictions through learning, competition, coercion, or imitation among governments
• Social networks and communication accelerate diffusion as officials learn from peers and adapt successful innovations
• Context shapes adoption—political culture, economic conditions, and institutional capacity determine whether diffused policies succeed or fail locally

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two models both acknowledge that most policy change is gradual, but differ in how they explain occasional dramatic shifts?

2. A state adopts a carbon tax after observing its success in neighboring states. Which model best explains this, and what factors would influence whether the policy succeeds in the new context?

3. Compare and contrast the Advocacy Coalition Framework and Network Theory: What does each emphasize about how actors influence policy, and when would you apply one over the other?

4. An FRQ describes a scenario where a long-prepared policy solution suddenly advances after a crisis focuses public attention on a previously ignored problem. Which model explains this, and what key terms should appear in your response?

5. Why would a policy analyst using the Garbage Can Model reach different conclusions than one using the Rational Model when evaluating the same organizational decision?