Political Science

UCLA defines the term public policy as decisions made by the government to address issues of public concern. The policy must achieve its objectives and do so for the greatest benefits at the lowest cost (Curtain 2000). In addition to this, people, at whom it is targeted, must actively participate in the process. According to Smith, the role of government in formulating Public Policy is changing (Public Policy and Public Participation Engaging Citizens and Community in the Development of Public Policy). The emphasis has shifted from solely governmental supervision over the process to the involvement of stakeholders and partners.
In providing public policy high profile issues are given priority, and hence it is formulated to resolve issues and problems, to allocate resources, to address crises and to take into account decisions made by other governments or agencies etc. Thus, the key criterion in formulating public policy is the public interest, effectiveness, consistency, fairness, and equity (Smith 2003). However, governments in different regions of the world formulate policy using various methods.
General Overview
Cockrel explains various models used to make public policy. The first one is called The Stages of Decision Making and it presupposes the presentation of future probable projects to the authorities (Cockrel 1997). The authorities then make a decision based on the comparison of the suggested projects with counter proposals made by opponents. In this model, individuals have little impact as compared to groups whose influence will vary depending on their size, political effectiveness, and financial resources (Cockrel 1997).
Another model, the Iron Triangle, has been effectively applied in the US policy making in such areas as agriculture, housing, medicine, transportation, and the military area (Cockrel 1997). The three types of power possessing bodies according to the Iron Triangle are the executive ones, the Congress, and other institutions, participating in policy making. Within this triangle policy is discussed, the agenda being determined by the legislature and decisions being announced and implemented. Power clusters in this model include administrative agencies, legislative committees, special interest groups, professionals and the public.
Cockrel also explains the Kings and Kingmakers model of public policy making, kingmakers, who have the financial and intellectual resources to determine public policy, being at the top of the hierarchy. Kings, being on a position lower than kingmakers, are elected and appointed leaders in the government and organizations. They work in close consultation with the kingmakers. They are followed by activists and interested citizens, the former being members of special interest groups and national organizations and the latter being the citizens, who are fairly well informed on issues of public policy. The largest group, indifferent citizens, are not interested in public policy issues and do not participate in its policy making.
The comparison of the ways countries make public policy
Policy making varies from country to country. According to Osman, an unpredictable socio-political environment influences formulation of Public Policies in developing countries (Public Policy Making). The low standards of living, poor health and illiteracy have shrouded public policy into a cloud of pessimism due to the ineffectiveness of government programs. Unlike developing countries, the developed ones are predominantly pluralistic with many centers of power. Therefore, diverse interest groups shape public policy.
Societies in developing countries are not well organized to have much influence and  the theories of public policy applicable in developed countries are irrelevant in developing ones. Consequently, the elite controlling the state bodies is the most influential factor in prioritizing issues, evaluating alternatives and implementing policies (Osman 2002). In addition to this, a lack of resources in developing countries gives investing agencies much influence in public policy.
In the USA, for instance, the executive bodies, the Congress and special interest groups debate policy before it is adopted and implemented (Cockrel 1997). Related groups act independently or merge to influence public policy. These are administrative agencies, special interest groups, professionals and the attentive and latent public. There is an intense debate and decision making process within these different groups ahead of their collective proposals. The US process is representative of many developed countries.
Japans system of policy formulation is inaccessible to the public and special interest groups. Administrative branches generate policies, which they introduce to the legislative branch, referred to as the Diet in Japan. Members of the ruling party are briefed in order to garner their support. From there the bill is debated during a cabinet meeting, and if is approved, it is handed over to the House of Representatives as a cabinet proposed bill. Then it moves to the legislative committees before it is decided on by the full Diet (Bazzell 1998). In many parts of the world, policy making models are based on what position representative public institutions and interest groups have in society.
The Role of InstitutionsDecision Makers
The role of institutions and decision makers can be best understood using the policy making models expounded by Cockrel. According to the Stages to Decision Making model, institutions, which may be for or against a certain policy, merge with other interest groups to formulate a proposal to support or to oppose to the policy. In this model institutions are mainly non-governmental. On the other hand, in the Iron Triangle model, institutions are comprised of the executive bodies, the Congress and special interest groups. Debate on the policy takes place within this circle until a certain consensus is reached.  According to the US Department of State, various institutions influence public policy in America making.
The Media
This institution constantly scrutinizes government policy decisions and educates the public by conducting analyses on policy issues.
Special Interest Groups and NGOs
These are private sector organizations support environmental protection, the rights of minority groups, trade policies etc. Their influence is felt through advertising campaigns, opinion polls, and expert opinions. They encourage their members to vote for candidates, who will influence their public positions.
Public Policy Research Organizations
Public policy research organizations conduct research, discuss public issues and publish books and articles. Examples of institutions actively participating in public policy research and discourses are the Brookings Institution, the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute.
In addition to this, there are trade associations, which represent the interests of an industry or profession, and labor unions, which speak for their members and participate in policy making concerning environmental, trade and health issues etc. Others are political parties and multilateral organizations, influencing the American public policy through treaties, which eventually become the US law, for instance, by imposing duties having an effect on the US trade policy (The US Department of State 2008).


Criticisms of Certain Theories in Public Policy
According to Bianco, using theories in public policy diminishes the expression of values and contributions of communities and affected groups (Process of Policy Making and Theories of Public Policy). The theories alienate those concerned and the power to implement policies belongs to classes of experts rather than ordinary citizens. Rational policy making techniques anticipate the cost benefit analyses, risk assessment, opinion surveys and yield objective, scientist advice. This expertise views criticism as biased and unscientific. In addition to this, the principle used in making a decision is based on cost versus benefit, devoid of human emotion or input.
Hayes criticized incrementation as a model, which is not radically different from past practice, and all that the system yields is minor modification (Incrementalism). He goes on to say that the model does not address the underlying issues or problems, but it is the most likely outcome of policy formulations. Incrementalism is usually preferred because, unlike a total overhaul or the rational approach which expend huge amounts in capital for research and analysis, incrementalism consumes little in capital resources. Furthermore, those who control the micro agenda prefer minor policy changes in order to stifle the opposition (Hayes 2002).
Analysis
Public policy is effective when all stakeholders participate in its making. The models expounded by Cockrel illustrate the different approaches used in policy formulation. In the Iron Triangle model of policy formulation, decisions are made within a group comprised of the executive bodies, the Congress and such institutions, as administrative agencies, legislative committees, special interest groups, professionals and the public, exercise power.
In the Kings and Kingmakers model, the power exercised by the kingmakers at the top of the hierarchy determines public policy direction. They have the intellectual and financial resources. In contrast to this model, the Stages of Decision Making model is more inclusive. Those people who are for and against a certain bill formulate their proposals for consideration by the authorities, which compare the two before reaching a final decision.
Institutions also influence public policy in the USA and many developed countries. The media acts as the vanguard of public interest by constantly scrutinizing government policy and educating the public on policy issues (The US Department of State 2008). Other institutions include special interest groups and NGOs, which support policy implementations that will favor, for instance, environmental protection, public policy research institutions, and trade associations and labor unions which support their members interests.
These approaches are, however, rare in the developing countries. Overall poverty and the lack of resources leaves the role of policy making to financing agencies and the elite, which are the most influential factors in deciding on issues. In addition to this, societies in developing countries are not well organized to form effective interest groups, which can have an impact on policy (Osman 2002). Between the two extremes there are such countries as Japan, which do not include the public or special interest groups in the process. The debate and final decision making is confined within the administrative branch, the legislature and the ruling coalition (Bazzell 1998).
Theories in public policy making have, however, been criticized. According to Bianco, they ignore the contributions of communities and affected groups. They are impersonal and very few cases of successful policy analysis can be identified. They also consume huge amounts in capital expenditure that is directed to research, analysis and implementation of the outcomes.

In all countries of the world public policy is made for the good of the community. The US with the democratic system of government includes all stakeholders in the process. Policy implemented without stakeholders input can only bring benefits to the proponents of the policy. This happens in developing countries where few members of the elite are able to impose their will on the rest of the population. It is also doubtful how effective theoretical approaches are in policy making. The impersonal nature of figures and statistics do not generate optimism of the outcomes in policy analysis.
Public policy debate and formulation must go hand in hand with democratization of public institutions. Without them policies can become irrelevant for societies which need them most. In the developing world, for instance, democratization must come first before enacting public policies so that special interest groups and other various institutions could act as supervisors over the excesses of the government.
The only true test of the effectiveness of public policy is the benefits resulted from its implementation. A good example is the US Health Care Policy, which is currently under intense debate. If enacted, it may grant insurance coverage to millions of Americans and improve the healthcare system that has been plagued with problems for years. However, results take time to evaluate. It is therefore important to involve as many stakeholders as possible in policy making so that all interests are taken into account. Only in this way the policy can be made that can stand the test of time.