Editing Policy (section)

==Cycle==
[[File:Policycycle.png|thumb|400px|Example of the policy cycle concept]]
In [[political science]], the '''policy cycle''' is a tool commonly used for analyzing the development of a policy. It can also be referred to as a "stages model" or "stages heuristic". It is thus a rule of thumb rather than the actual reality of how policy is created, but has been influential in how [[political science|political scientists]] looked at policy in general.{{sfn|Nakamura|1987}} It was developed as a theory from [[Harold Lasswell]]'s work. It is called the policy cycle as the final stage (evaluation) often leads back to the first stage (problem definition), thus restarting the cycle.

[[Harold Lasswell]]'s popular model of the policy cycle divided the process into seven distinct stages, asking questions of both how and why public policies should be made.<ref>Laswell, H(1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York, Elsevier.</ref> With the stages ranging from (1) intelligence, (2) promotion, (3) prescription, (4) invocation, (5) application, (6) termination and (7) appraisal, this process inherently attempts to combine policy implementation to formulated policy goals.<ref>Howlett, M. (2011) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge.</ref>

One version by James E. Anderson, in his ''Public Policy-Making'' (1974) has the following stages:
# [[Political agenda|Agenda]] setting (Problem identification) – The recognition of certain subject as a problem demanding further government attention.
# Policy formulation – Involves exploring a variation of options or alternative courses of action available for addressing the problem. (appraisal, dialogue, formulation, and consolidation)
# Decision-making – Government decides on an ultimate course of action, whether to perpetuate the policy status quo or alter it. (Decision could be 'positive', 'negative', or 'no-action')
# [[Implementation]] – The ultimate decision made earlier will be put into practice.
# [[Evaluation]] – Assesses the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of its perceived intentions and results. [[Actor (policy debate)|Policy actors]] attempt to determine whether the course of action is a success or failure by examining its impact and outcomes.
Anderson's version of the stages model is the most common and widely recognized out of the models. However, it could also be seen as flawed. According to Paul A. Sabatier, the model has "outlived its usefulness" and should be replaced.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Sabatier |first=Paul A. |date=June 1991 |title=Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/419923 |journal=PS: Political Science and Politics |volume=24 |issue=2 |pages=147–156 |doi=10.2307/419923|jstor=419923 |s2cid=153841704 |url-access=subscription }}</ref> The model's issues have led to a [[paradox]]ical situation in which current research and updated versions of the model continue to rely on the framework created by Anderson. But the very concept of the stages model has been discredited, which attacks the cycle's status as a heuristic.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Fischer |first1=Frank |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vAbOBQAAQBAJ&dq=stages+model+of+policy+process&pg=PA43 |title=Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods |last2=Miller |first2=Gerald J. |date=2006-12-21 |publisher=CRC Press |isbn=978-1-4200-1700-7 |language=en}}</ref>

Due to these problems, alternative and newer versions of the model have aimed to create a more comprehensive view of the policy cycle. An eight step policy cycle is developed in detail in ''The Australian Policy Handbook'' by Peter Bridgman and [[Glyn Davis]]: (now with Catherine Althaus in its 4th and 5th editions)

# Issue identification
# [[Policy analysis]]
# [[Public consultation|Consultation]] (which permeates the entire process)
# Policy instrument development
# Building coordination and coalitions
# Program Design: [[Decision theory|Decision]] making
# Policy [[Implementation]]
# Policy [[Evaluation]]

The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model is [[heuristic]] and [[iterative]]. It is {{clarify|text=intentionally [[Norm (philosophy)|normative]]|date=February 2016}} and not meant to be {{clarify|text=[[Organizational diagnostics|diagnostic]]|date=February 2016}} or [[predictive]]. Policy cycles are typically characterized as adopting a classical approach, and tend to describe processes from the perspective of policy decision makers. Accordingly, some [[Postpositivism|post-positivist]] academics challenge cyclical models as unresponsive and unrealistic, preferring systemic and more complex models.<ref>Young, John and Enrique Mendizabal. [https://www.odi.org/publications/1127-become-policy-entrepreneur-roma Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs], [[Overseas Development Institute]], London, September 2009. <!--accessed 07 October 2009--></ref> They consider a broader range of actors involved in the policy space that includes [[Voluntary sector|civil society organizations]], the [[Mass media|media]], [[intellectuals]], [[think tanks]] or policy [[research institutes]], corporations, [[Advocacy group|lobbyists]], etc.