The conceptualization of public policy is not a simple task. To try to achieve this objective, we must first consider what political scientists refer to when they speak of politics. Within that concept, and using the English language instrumentally to understand it, three distinct and recurrent meanings in political science converge: polity, politics, and policy.
With polity, we refer to the legal-political configuration of a State and all the institutions that emanate from it; with politics, we describe the action of politics, that is, the practices, strategies, or processes that conclude in the attainment and conservation of state political power; and, finally, with policy, we properly refer to public policies. But what is a public policy or policy?
To answer this question, let's review the main definitions that some theorists have provided us so far. Harold D. Lasswell and Abraham Kaplan defined public policy in the last century as "a projected program of values, ends, and practices." Another of the most recognized definitions of public policy in political science is that given by Hugh Heclo in 1972: public policy is "a course of action undertaken under the authority of Governments." Two years later, in 1974, Heclo again, along with Aaron Wildavsky, defined policy as "government action directed toward the achievement of objectives outside of itself." In a simpler and more concise way, Thomas R. Dye defines the concept in 1987, for whom public policies "are whatever Governments choose to do or not to do."
There are a series of elements, point out Kevin Smith and Christopher Larimer, that are present in most definitions of public policies:
There is a general agreement that public policy includes the decision-making process and the outcomes or actions of particular decisions; that what makes public policies public is that those choices or actions are backed by the coercive powers of the state, and that, at their core, public policies are the response to a perceived problem
The Public Policy Cycle: The Public Problem
We already know what public policy is, but how does something become public policy? This is, of course, the million-dollar question.
The process of implementing public policy is known as the public policy cycle. The first stage of this cycle is the identification and definition of problems. Thus, the Government understands the existence of a problem that it must define and finally decide whether or not to act on it. Detection and definition are the two essential tasks of this stage. The problem here is the problem. Let me explain. The other question we can ask ourselves is: what exactly is a public problem?
A first approach to the difficult definition of the concept of public problem can be found in those authors who understand that there are no public problems per se, but rather that they are created by people:
Regarding the public problem, Cobb and Elder (1984, p. 80), following Wildawsky (1979), state that "problems are man-made. There are always multiple conceptions. There are no uniquely defined problems." In this sense, the definition of a public problem, according to Stone (1989, p. 299), is the manipulation of images of reality conditions by interacting and competing actors, such that these real conditions are defined as problems through the strategic portrayal of causal stories.
In the formulation of a problem, as authors like Noël-Roth point out, there are three phases:
1. That the matter in question generates change in the lives of individuals, affecting various social groups differently; 2. The aforementioned transformation in individuals' lives generates a tension that elevates the private problem to a social problem. There it must find a formulation and move towards the second phase, which therefore requires a group or groups of people with the capacity to lead the advocacy on the issue in the public arena; 3. Finally, once it is publicly recognized as such, and has been formulated, the aim is its institutionalization.
It is clear that we have difficulties in defining what a public problem is. In any case, it is logical to think that we, the citizens, are the ones who will ultimately understand whether an issue is a public problem or not. What is evident is that, since it is a problem of public specificity, the one who must resolve it is also a public power. But let's return to the stages of the public policy cycle.The second phase is the formation of the public agenda. Certainly, not all issues that affect citizens and are categorized as problems end up receiving the attention of governments and therefore influencing public decision-making. In this regard, we can distinguish between two types of agendas: the systemic and the political-institutional:
The systemic agenda is formed by the set of issues that members of a political community perceive as deserving public attention and that, moreover, fall within the scope of competence of the governmental authority to which they are directed; these are the issues that concern society. The political, institutional, or government agenda is formed by the set of issues explicitly accepted to be seriously and actively considered by public decision-makers; these are the issues that concern the Government. In general terms, the government agenda usually reflects the evolution of the systemic agenda.
And, pay attention, because after this difficult public path, we can now speak, as a third stage, of policy formulation. Once the problem has been recognized and has entered the agenda, a series of policies or political decisions must be formulated to try to tackle itIn this regard, we can bring to mind the two existing models for the formulation of public policies by a public representative: that of bounded rationality and that of incremental decision-making.
The concept of bounded rationality, introduced by the 1978 Nobel laureate in Economics, Herbert Simon, teaches us that...
It is relevant to consider the conduct of financial market decision-makers, who may opt for satisfactory results instead of optimal ones for their investments and treasury management in organizations. The economic decision-maker faces information and computational limitations that lead them to establish an aspiration level for the variable to be optimized and settle for exceeding a certain threshold, instead of considering more alternatives
Meanwhile, the incremental decision-making model proposed by Charles Lindblom...
It proposes locating public decision-making in marginal values and not in central values, that is, in the big issues. Public administrators "must choose only between the various alternative policies that offer different marginal combinations of values." In other words, those who decide in public administration will not deal with the root but with the branches.
And we finally arrive at a decisive phase: the adoption of public policy. This is the construction, as such, of public policy and its implementation. In this stage, the public decision-maker or decision-makers, with public authority, put on the table the decision to adopt which, in one way or another, will have to be endorsed by bodies that possess - or do not possess - public authority.
