Major Public Policy Theories

Why This Matters

When you're analyzing how governments actually make decisions—and why some policies succeed while others stall for decades—you need more than a surface-level understanding of the legislative process. These theories give you the analytical tools to explain why a healthcare reform passed in one administration but failed in another, or how environmental regulations spread from California to other states. You're being tested on your ability to apply these frameworks to real-world scenarios, not just define them.

The theories in this guide fall into distinct categories: some explain how decisions get made (the mechanics of choice), others explain when and why change happens (the dynamics of timing), and still others explain who drives policy (the role of actors and institutions). Don't just memorize names—know what question each theory answers. An FRQ might ask you to compare two theories that explain the same phenomenon differently, or to apply a specific framework to a case study. Master the underlying logic, and you'll be ready for anything.

---

Decision-Making Models: How Do Policymakers Actually Choose?

These theories tackle a fundamental question: What process do decision-makers follow when selecting among policy options? They range from highly rational to deliberately chaotic, reflecting different assumptions about human cognition and organizational behavior.

Rational Choice Theory

• Assumes self-interested actors maximizing utility—policymakers and citizens weigh costs and benefits to select the option that best serves their preferences
• Cost-benefit analysis is the core tool, requiring comprehensive information about all alternatives and their consequences
• Foundational but often criticized as unrealistic; real-world decisions rarely involve perfect information or unlimited cognitive capacity

Incrementalism

• Small, gradual adjustments rather than comprehensive reform—policymakers use existing policies as baselines and make marginal changes
• Bounded rationality drives this approach; decision-makers lack time and information for fully rational analysis, so they satisfice rather than optimize
• Risk reduction is a key advantage; small changes are easier to reverse if they fail, making this approach politically safer

Garbage Can Model

• Chaotic, non-linear decision-making—problems, solutions, participants, and choice opportunities swirl together like items in a garbage can
• Timing and chance determine outcomes more than rational deliberation; a solution may attach to a problem simply because both were present simultaneously
• Organizational ambiguity is central; this model best explains policy-making in complex institutions with unclear goals and fluid participation

---

Timing and Change: When Does Policy Actually Shift?

These frameworks address a puzzle: Why do some issues remain stagnant for years, then suddenly transform? They focus on the conditions that enable—or prevent—significant policy change.

Punctuated Equilibrium Theory

• Long stability, sudden bursts—policy areas experience extended periods of incremental change interrupted by dramatic shifts
• Agenda-setting and attention shifts trigger punctuations; when media coverage or public concern suddenly focuses on an issue, the equilibrium breaks
• Policy monopolies maintain stability; established interests control how issues are framed until external shocks or new actors disrupt their dominance

Multiple Streams Framework

• Three independent streams must converge—the problem stream (conditions recognized as problems), policy stream (available solutions), and politics stream (public mood, elections, interest group pressure)
• Policy windows open briefly when streams align, creating opportunities for change that may close quickly
• Policy entrepreneurs are critical actors who wait for windows and couple streams together; without a skilled entrepreneur, convergence may not produce action

---

Actors and Coalitions: Who Drives Policy Change?

These theories center on the people and groups who shape policy outcomes over time. They emphasize beliefs, relationships, and collective action rather than abstract decision processes.

Advocacy Coalition Framework

• Coalitions united by shared beliefs compete within policy subsystems over extended periods—often a decade or more
• Deep core beliefs (fundamental values) rarely change, but policy core beliefs (positions on specific issues) can shift through learning and external events
• Policy-oriented learning occurs within and between coalitions as actors respond to new information, though learning across opposing coalitions is difficult

Social Construction Theory

• Target populations are socially constructed as deserving or undeserving, shaping how policies allocate benefits and burdens
• Four categories emerge from crossing political power with social construction: advantaged (powerful/positive), contenders (powerful/negative), dependents (weak/positive), and deviants (weak/negative)
• Policy design reflects these constructions—advantaged groups receive benefits with few conditions, while deviants face punitive policies; this creates feedback loops reinforcing existing perceptions

---

Institutions and Feedback: How Do Structures and Past Choices Shape Policy?

These theories examine how context matters—whether that's formal institutions governing decision-making or the legacy effects of previous policy choices.

Institutional Analysis and Development Framework

• Rules, norms, and decision-making structures shape how actors interact and what outcomes are possible—institutions constrain and enable behavior
• Action arenas are the settings where participants interact; understanding the rules governing these arenas explains policy outcomes better than individual preferences alone
• Collective action problems are central; the framework helps analyze how governance structures overcome (or fail to overcome) coordination challenges

Policy Feedback Theory

• Policies reshape politics—once enacted, policies create new interests, capacities, and political identities that influence future decisions
• Resource effects provide material benefits that mobilize constituencies (Social Security created a powerful senior lobby)
• Interpretive effects shape how citizens understand their relationship to government and their own political efficacy

---

Diffusion and Spread: How Do Policies Travel?

This theory addresses a distinct question: Why do similar policies appear across multiple jurisdictions, and what mechanisms drive this spread?

Policy Diffusion Theory

• Policies spread across jurisdictions through identifiable mechanisms—not randomly, but through structured patterns of influence
• Four key mechanisms: learning (adopting what works elsewhere), competition (matching neighbors to stay competitive), imitation (copying prestigious or similar states), and coercion (federal mandates or incentives)
• Networks and proximity matter—states adopt policies from neighbors and ideologically similar states more readily than from distant or dissimilar ones

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two theories both explain sudden policy change after long periods of stability, and how do their explanations differ?

2. A state adopts a carbon tax after seeing successful implementation in a neighboring state. Which theory best explains this, and which diffusion mechanism is at work?

3. Compare Rational Choice Theory and Incrementalism: What assumption about human cognition separates them, and when might each better predict actual policy-making?

4. Using Social Construction Theory, explain why policies targeting "veterans" versus "welfare recipients" might differ in design even when addressing similar needs.

5. An FRQ describes a policy that created a powerful interest group now lobbying to expand the program. Which theory explains this dynamic, and what would you call this effect?