Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches to Policy Analysis and the Stages Heuristic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The 1991 Child Support Act

  • 454 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter provides the intellectual basis and methodological approach for the study. It argues that the ‘stages heuristic’ has not outlived its usefulness in policy analysis, but rather remains a valuable framework to utilise when undertaking research into the policy-making process. It stresses that the purpose of this study is to undertake both an ‘analysis of policy’, and ‘analysis for policy’, this being the view that the field of policy analysis should use its knowledge of policies, and policy-making process, to improve the policy-making process and/or policies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The first two editions were published in 1999 and 2007, the third was published posthumously in collaboration with Christopher Weible in 2014.

  2. 2.

    For a full discussion on the role of theory tenacity and confirmation bias see Craig Loehle (1987). “Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation.” Quarterly Review of Biology 62, no. 4: 397–409.

  3. 3.

    Both Problem Definition and Agenda Setting have their own comprehensive bodies of literature, but it is best to consider these phenomena as taking place within the same stage of the policy making process.

  4. 4.

    Whilst we identify Implementation as a separate stage in the policy cycle this book argues that it has had a distorting effect on our understanding of the policy process as a whole. This will be explored in depth in Chapter 7.

References

  • Allison, G. T. (1971). The Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. E. (1975). Public Policy Making. New York: Holt and Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. E. (1994). Public Policy Making: An Introduction (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflan Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach, E. (1977). The Implementation Game: What Happens After a Bill Becomes a Law. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (1981a). Examining the Policy-Action Relationship. In S. M. Barrett & C. Fudge (Eds.), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy (pp. 3–34). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (1981b). Reconstructing the Field of Analysis. In S. M. Barrett & C. Fudge (Eds.), Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy (pp. 249–278). London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, S. M., & Fudge, C. (Eds.). (1981c). Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of Public Policy. London: Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (1993). Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blackburn, R., & Kennon, A. (2003). Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, G. D. (1974). The Policy Sciences Emerge: To Nurture and Structure a Discipline. Policy Sciences, 5(3), 239–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, G. D., & deLeon, P. (1983). The Foundations of Policy Analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruner, J. (1991). The Narrative Construction of Reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1971). The Politics of Agenda-Building: An Alternative Perspective for Modern Democratic Theory. Journal of Politics, 33, 892–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., & Elder, C. D. (1972). Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Building. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R. W., Ross, J. K., & Ross, M. H. (1976). Agenda Building as a Comparative Political Process. American Political Science Review, 70, 126–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook, T. D. (1985). Positivist Critical Multiplism. In R. L. Shotland & M. M. Mark (Eds.), Social Science and Social Policy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeon, P. (1998). Democracy’s Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 16(2), 315–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1999a). The Missing Link Revisited. Review of Policy Research, 16(3–4), 311–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. (1999b). The Stages Approach to the Policy Process: What Has It Done? Where Is It Going? In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 19–32), Boulder, CO: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • deLeon, P. and Martell, C. (2006). The Policy Sciences: Past, Present, and Future. In B. Guy Peters & Jon Pierre (Eds.), Handbook of Public Policy. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dery, D. (1984). Problem Definition in Policy Analysis. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who Learns What from Whom: A Review of the Policy Transfer Literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (2000). Learning from Abroad: The Role of Policy Transfer in Contemporary Policy-Making. Governance, 13(1), 5–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorey, P. (2005). Policy Making in Britain: An Introduction. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy, P. (1995). Policy Disasters: Explaining the UK’s Record. Public Policy and Administration, 10, 52–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dye, T. R. (1972). Understanding Public Policy. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1953). The Political System. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1995). Evaluating Public Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (1998). Beyond Empiricism: Policy Inquiry in Post Positivist Perspective. Policy Studies Journal, 26(1), 129–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F. (2003). Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, I., Lewis, J., & Young, K. (1977). Perspectives on Policy Analysis. Public Administration Bulletin, 25, 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1970). Toward a Theory of Communicative Competence. Inquiry, 13, 360–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1984). The Theory of Communicative Action. In Reason and the Rationalization of Society (vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer, M. (2003). Policy Without Polity? Policy Analysis and the Institutional Void. Policy Sciences, 36, 175–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ham, C., & Hill, M. (1993). The Policy Process in Modern Capitalist State (2nd ed.). Brighton: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. (2009). The Public Policy Process (5th ed.). Edinburgh: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M. (2013). The Public Policy Process (6th ed.). Edinburgh: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2009). Implementing Public Policy (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjern, B. (1982). Implementing Research: The Link Gone Missing. Journal of Public Policy, 1(3), 301–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hjern, B., & Hull, C. (1982). Implementing Research as Empirical Constitutionalism. In B. Hjern & C. Hull (Eds.), Implementation Beyond Hierarchy. Amsterdam: Elsevier (Special issue of European Journal of Political Research), pp. 105–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1981). The Policy Orientation. Glasgow: University of Strathclyde, Centre for the Study of Public Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood, B. W., & Gunn, L. A. (1984). Policy Analysis for the Real World. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins, W. I. (1978). Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective. London: Martin Roberts.

    Google Scholar 

  • John, P. (1998). Analysing Public Policy. London: A&C Black.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C. O. (1970). An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. Belmont: Wadsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, A. G., & Richardson, J. J. (1987). British Politics and the Policy Process: An Arena Approach. London: Unwin Hyman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judge, D. (1993). The Parliamentary State. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1951). “The Policy Orientation.” In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell (Eds.), The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Method (pp. 3–15). Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1956). The Decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis. Maryland: University of Maryland Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1970). The Emerging Conception of the Policy Sciences. Policy Sciences, 1, 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. (1971). A Pre-View of Policy Sciences. New York: American Elsevier Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1959). The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19, 87–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1968). The Policy-Making Process. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1979). Still Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 39(6), 517–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1993). The Policy Making Process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loehle, C. (1987). “Hypothesis Testing in Ecology: Psychological Aspects and the Importance of Theory Maturation.” Quarterly Review of Biology, 62(4), 397–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mack, R. (1971). Planning and Uncertainty. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • May, J. V., & Wildavsky, A. (Eds.). (1978). The Policy Cycle. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazmanian, D. A., & Sabatier, P. A. (Eds.). (1981). Effective Policy Implementation. Lexington, KY: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, T. M. (1984). New Economics of Organisations. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 729–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, R. (1987). The Textbook Policy Process and Implementation Research. Policy Studies Review, 7, 142–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, B. J. (1984). Making an Issue of Child Abuse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P. (Ed.). (1990). Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton, P. (1993). Does Parliament Matter. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1986). An Agenda for the Study of Institution. Public Choice, 48, 3–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Palumbo, D. J. (1987). The Politics of Program Evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, W. (1995). Public Policy: An Introduction to the Theory and Practice of Policy Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1984). Implementation (3rd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rein, M., & Schön, D. A. (1977). Problem Setting in Policy Research. In C. Weiss (Ed.), Using Social Research in Policy Making (pp. 235–250). Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes, R. A. W. (1979). Public Administration and Policy Analysis. Farnborough, Hants: Saxon House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochefort, D. A., & Cobb, R. W. (Eds.). (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roe, M. J. (1994). Strong Managers, Weak Owners: The Political Roots of American Corporate Finance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1973). Comparing Public Policy: An Overview. European Journal of Political Research, 1, 67–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1991a). What Is Lesson-Drawing? Journal of Public Policy, 11(1), 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, R. (1991b). Lesson-Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (1979). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M., & Freeman, H. (1993). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M. (2013). The Contemporary House of Lords. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, M., & Gover, D. (2017). Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (1991). Toward Better Theories of the Policy Process. Political Science and Politics, 24(2), 147–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (1999). Theories of the Policy Process. University of California, Davis: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (Ed.). (2007a). Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P. (2007b). The Need for Better Theories. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). Cambridge, MA: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). Symposium Volume: Policy Change and Policy Orientated Learning. Western Political Quarterly, 21, 123–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy Change and Learning: An Advocacy Learning Approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1999). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: An assessment. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process. Davis: University of California; Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier, P., & Weible, C. (Eds.). (2014). Theories of the Policy Process. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1993). Reframing Policy Discourse. In F. Fischer & J. Forester (Eds.), The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. London: Duke University Press and UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of Man: Social and Rational. New York: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H., (1982). Models of Bounded Rationality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, M., & Kitsuse, J. I. (1977). Constructing Social Problems. Menlo Park, CA: Cummings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suchman, E. (1967). Evaluative Research. New York: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • True, J. L., Jones, B., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated Equilibrium Theory. In P. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (pp. 97–115). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky, A. (1979). Speaking the Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown (published in the UK as The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis [1980], London, Macmillan).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1992). To Sell or Not to Sell? Telecommunications Policy in Britain and France. Journal of Public Policy, 12(4), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1995). Markets, States, and Public Policy: Privatization in Britain and France. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1998). Comparing Three Lenses of Policy Choice. Policy Studies Journal, 26(3), 434–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (1999). Ambiguity, time, and multiple streams. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 73–96). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N. (2007). The Multiple Streams Framework: Structure, Limitations, Prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the Policy Process (2nd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahariadis, N., & Allen, C. (1995). Ideas, Networks, and Policy Streams: Privatization in Britain and Germany (with Christopher S. Allen). Policy Studies Review, 14(1/2), 71–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zander, M. (2015). The Law-Making Process (7th ed.). Oxford: Hart.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Leanne McCarthy-Cotter

Authors
  1. Leanne McCarthy-Cotter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

McCarthy-Cotter, L. (2019). Approaches to Policy Analysis and the Stages Heuristic. In: The 1991 Child Support Act. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98761-3_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation