Understanding Policy Process: Is There A Single Best Way?

Öz

The stage heuristic has been treated as the sole best model to explain policy process. Is it really comprehensive enough to understand the multifaceted and complicated policymaking? This study argues that diffusion framework, the punctuated-equilibrium framework, and multiple streams framework are stronger theoretical and empirical basis than stage heuristic because of a number of reasons. They are consistent and clear particularly in understanding certain stages of policy process. They have causal relationships while stage heuristic lacks causal explanation. Stage heuristic describes the policy process in general and avoids explaining complex relationships among policy phases and policy actors. Nevertheless, the alternative frameworks provide more sophisticated, profound, and descriptive knowledge. They provide an appropriate basis to develop and test hypotheses as stage heuristic lacks real-world practicability. Accordingly, the three alternatives are preferable compared to the stage heuristic in explaining ceratin aspects of policy process, providing scientific theory, developing and revising concepts and theories, and apprehending multifaceted structure of public policy making.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Policy,Public Policy,Stage Heuristic Framework,Diffusion Models,Punctuated-Equilibrium

Kaynakça

1. Akay, Aslı, Türkiye’de afet politikaları, In Filiz Kartal (ed.), Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi ve Kamu Politikaları, (Ankara: Türkiye ve Ortadoğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü, 2011), pp. 435-472. Akdogan, A. Argun, Türkiye’de kamu politikası disiplininin tarihsel izler, In Filiz Kartal (ed.), Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi ve Kamu Politikaları, (Ankara: Türkiye ve Ortadoğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü, 2011), pp.75-98. Akdogan, Huseyin and Kose, Yasin, Kamu politika sürecinde çoklu akış model, In Alican Kapti (ed.), Kamu Politikası Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, Modeller, Analiz Yöntemleri, (Ankara: Seçkin, 2013), pp. 91-104. Balla, Steven J. Administrative procedures and political control of the bureaucracy. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 3, Eylül 1999, s. 663-673. Behn, Robert D., What right do public managers have to lead? Public Administration Review, Vol. 58, No. 3, Mayıs-Haziran 1998, s. 209-224. Berry, Frances S., Sizing up state policy innovation research. Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 22, No. 3, Autumn 1994, s. 442-456. Berry, Frances S. and Berry, William D., State Lottery Adoptions as Policy Innovations: An Event History Analysis. The American Political Science Review, Vol.84, No: 2, Haziran 1990, s. 395-415. Berry, Frances S. and Berry, William D., Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1992, 715-742. Berry, Frances S. ve Berry, William D., The politics of tax increases in the states. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 3, 1994, s. 855-859. Berry, Frances S. and Berry, William D.,, Innovation and Diffusion Models in Policy Research. In Paul A. Sabatier (der.), Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1999). Bickers, K. N. and Williams, J. T., Public Policy Analysis: A Political Economy Approach. (Boston, MA; Houghton Mifflin Co., 2001). Birkland, Thomas A., An introduction to the policy process: Theories, concepts, and models of public policy making (2nd ed.), (Armonk, NY; M. E. Sharpe, 2005). Boehmke, Frederick J. and Witmer, Richard, Disentangling Diffusion: The Effects of Social Learning and Economic Competition on State Policy Innovation and Expansion. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, Issue. 1, March 2004, pp. 39-51. Canon, Bradley C. and Baum, Lawrence, Patterns of adoption of tort law innovations: An application of diffusion theory to Judicial Doctrines, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, Issue. 4, December 1981, pp. 975-987. Canpolat, Hasan and Cangir, Mehmet, Değişen dünyada kamu yönetiminin geleceği ve Türkiye’nin reform gündemi: Devletin daha fazla demokratikleşmesi, Türk İdare Dergisi, Issue. 466, March 2010, pp.25-45. Chamberlain, Robert and Haider-Markel, Donald P., “Lien On Me”: State Policy Innovation in Response to Paper Terrorism. Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 58, Issue. 3, September 2005, pp. 449-460. Cox, James. H., Reviewing delegation: An analysis of the congressional reauthorization process, (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2004). deLeon, P. The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In Paul A. Sabatier (der.), Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), pp. 19-32. Dye, Thomas R., Understanding Public Policy (10th ed.), (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002). Gray, Virginia, Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 67, Issue. 4, December 2003, pp. 1174-1185. Grossback, Lawrence J., Nicholson-Crotty, Sean., and Peterson, David. A. M., Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion. American Politics Research, Vol. 32, Issue. 5, September 2004, pp. 521-545. Gultekin, Sebahattin, Kamu politika sürecinde politika yayılım ve yenilik model, In Alican Kapti (ed.), Kamu Politikası Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, Modeller, Analiz Yöntemleri, (Ankara: Seçkin, 2013), pp. 120 -143. Hall, Thad E. and O’Toole, Laurence. J., Structures for policy implementation: An analysis of national legislation, 1965-1966 and 1993-1994. Administration & Society, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2000, pp. 667-686. Huber, John D., Shipan, Charles R. and Pfahler, Madelaine, Legislatures and statutory control of bureaucracy. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, Issue. 2, April 2001, pp. 330-345. Kapti, Alican, Kamu politika sürecinde klasik yaklaşım modeli, In Alican Kapti (ed.), Kamu Politikası Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, Modeller, Analiz Yöntemleri, (Ankara: Seçkin, 2013), pp. 25- 46. Karch, Andy, National Intervention and the diffusion of policy innovations. American Politics Research, Vol. 34, Issue. 4, July 2006, pp. 403-426. King, Gary, Keohane, Robert O., and Verba, Sidney, Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inferences in Qualitative Research, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994). Lindblom, Charles E., The science of “Muddling through.” In Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkers (eds.), Classics of Public Administration, (Belmond, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publication, 1959). Lungren, Dan, Three cheers for 3 strikes. Policy Review, Issue. 80, November-December 1996, pp. 34-38. Lutz, James M., Regional Leaders in the diffusion of Tort Innovations among the American states. Publius, Vol. 27, Issue. 1, 1997, pp. 39-58. Mintrom, Michael. and Vergari, Sandra, Policy networks and innovation diffusion: The case of state education reforms. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 1, 1998, pp. 126-148. Mintrom, Michael, Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, No. 3, July 1997, pp. 738-770. Moe, Terry M., The Politics of Bureaucratic Structure. In John E. Chubb and Paul E, Peterson (Eds.), Can the government govern, (Washington, D.C: The Brookings Institution, 1989). Mohr, Lawrence B., Determinants of innovation in organizations. American Political Science Review, Vol. 75, Issue. 1, March 1969, pp. 963-974. Mooney, Christopher. Z. and Lee, Mei-Hsien, Legislation morality in the American states: The Case of Pre-Roe Abortion Regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 39, Issue. 3, August 1995, pp. 599-627. Nakamura, R. T., The textbook policy process and implementation research. Policy Studies Review Vol. 7, No. 1, 1987, s. 142-154. Peters, B. G. and Pierre, J., Introduction. In B. Guy Peters ve Jon Pierre (der.) Handbook of Public Policy, Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2006). Pressman, Jeffrey L. and Wildavsky, Aaron. Implementation. In Jay M. Shafritz, Albert C. Hyde, and Sandra J. Parkers (eds.), Classics of Public Administration, (Belmond, CA: Thomson Wadsworth Publication, 2004). Rogers, Everett M., Diffusion of Innovations. (New York, NY: Free Press, 1983). Rosen, Bernard, Holding government bureaucracies accountable (3rd ed), (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc, 1998). Sabatier, Paul A., The Need For Better Theories. In Paul A. Sabatier (eds.)Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999). Stone, Deborah, Policy paradox: The art of political decision making, (New York, NY: Norton & Company, 2002). Tecer, Meral, Türkiye’de bütçe politikası uygulamaları ve performans esaslı bütçeleme, In Filiz Kartal (ed.), Türkiye’de Kamu Yönetimi ve Kamu Politikaları, (Ankara: Türkiye ve Ortadoğu Amme İdaresi Enstitüsü, 2011), pp.157-190.. Ting, Michael M., A theory of jurisdictional assignments in bureaucracies. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, No. 2, April 2002, pp. 364-378. True, James L., Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R., Punctuated-Equilibrium Theory: Explaining Stability and Change in American Policymaking. In Paul A. Sabatier (eds.) Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999). Tülen, Hikmet, Gündemin değişmeyen konusu: Anayasa değişikliği tartışmaları, Atatürk Üniversitesi Erzincan Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, Vol. 4, Issue. 1-2, 2000, pp. 197-218. Ulkemen, Sinan, Kamu politika sürecinde kesintili denge modeli, In Alican Kapti (ed.), Kamu Politikası Süreci: Teorik Perspektifler, Modeller, Analiz Yöntemleri, (Ankara: Seçkin, 2013), pp. 105- 120. Vitiello, Michael, Three strikes: Can we return to rationality? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Vol. 87, Issue. 2, 1997, pp. 395-481. Walker, Samuel, Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy guide, (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2001). Walker, Jackl L., The Diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, Vol. 63, Issue. 3, September 1969, pp. 880-899. Waterman, Richard W. and Meier, Kenneth J., Principal-Agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 8, Issue. 2,, April 1998, pp. 173-202. Wilson, Carter A., Policy regimes and Policy Change. Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 20, Issue. 3, December 2000, pp. 247-274. Wood, B. Dan, Principals, bureaucrats, and responsiveness in clean air enforcements. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 82, Issue. 1, March 1998, pp. 213-234. Yeats, Mary A.,“Three strikes” and restorative justice: Dealing with young repeat burglars in Western Australia. Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 8, Issue. 3, 1997, pp. 369-385. Zahariadis, Nikolaos, Ambiguity, Time, and Multiple Streams. In Paul A. Sabatier (eds.), Theories of the Policy Process, (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999). pp.73-93.