Public Policy’s Modus Operandi and its Impact on Environmental Legislation
By Jesse Mayer, Political Philosophy Senior Staff Writer

Traditional theories of public policy subscribe to the idea that public policy is created via an assembly line process. First a problem arises. Second, a solution is proposed. Third, alternative policy options are developed. Fourth, each policy is analyzed to determine which solution will best address the problem (typically, such an examination also considers the cost of implementation). Finally, a proposal is selected as the best policy option and is enacted into law (or implemented as a regulation). However, according to political scientists John Kingdon, Frank Baumgartner, and Bryan Jones this assembly line theory of public policy is little more than fantasy. Rather, these men each assert that public policy is created in a much less orderly manner. Kingdon presents a theory of public policy formation specific to the federal level which Baumgartner and Jones explain and expound upon. These theories also offer insight into the current political debate on climate change. For individuals and groups in favor of public policies that protect the environment and seek to slow the rate of climate change, Kingdon’s theory (flanked by theories presented by Baumgartner and Jones) may provide an explanation as to why little – if any – public policy has emerged (despite growing popular culture interest in addressing the problem) given recent events.

The core of John Kingdon’s philosophy of public policy culminates with a notion that he labels ‘policy windows.’ Policy windows are an opportunity to act; a period of time, during which an area of public policy can be either slightly altered, or fully overhauled. “Policy windows open infrequently, and do not stay open long,” according to Kingdon . Policy windows are the result of three forces converging into a single ‘stream,’ (to use Kingdon’s metaphor). They include three P’s: politics, policy, and problems.

It seems as though "problems" should arise first, followed by solutions (here termed "policies") and then "politics" is the process by which a solution is selected (and, arguably implemented). However, Kingdon notes that this protocol is not always the case. He contests that solutions exist often before they are even attached to any particular problems. Moreover, ‘policy entrepreneurs’ will search for a problem to which they can attach their solution. Policy entrepreneurs do not just seek to use their policy for a single type of problem, rather they will attempt to ‘couple’ a solution onto a different problem, by re-branding the policy proposal.

Support for Kingdon’s theory exists within the environmental movement. When saving the environment is popular, advocates label their solutions appropriately. For example, mass transportation can be used to help reduce pollution. However, using mass transit can also be economical or it can be framed as a foreign policy issue: make America become less dependent on foreign oil. Policies are not invented overnight. Often they’re kicked around policy circles for years before being introduced to the mass public. After public acceptance of a problem, it can still take ten years before the public is ready for a solution. Nevertheless, Kingdon’s theory of policy process helps track the current revival of environmentalism in America. Policies have been developed (i.e. the Kyoto Protocol); problems have been identified; political actors, however, have yet to act. While hearings on climate change and global warming have been held, little legislation has emerged to effectively curb its effects. A uniform consensus for fixing (via solutions, policies, etc.) does not exist politically, and I believe that there is not yet enough pressure on politicians to act, thus preventing the three streams of Kingdon’s theory from cohesively joining together. Moreover, climate change has yet to be ‘coupled’ with another area of policy, as is necessary in Kingdon’s theory.

Baumgartner and Jones work to expand Kingdon’s theory, but in doing so, create their own, titled “Punctuated Equilibrium Theory.” In short it asserts, “Government can best be understood as a series of institutionally enforced stabilities, periodically punctuated by dramatic change.” The theorists suggest that any given policy issue remains relatively stable for a period of time during which it is dominated by one policy monopoly, which are “structural arraignments supported by powerful ideas.” However, policy monopolies do not last forever. Baumgartner and Jones theorize that policy monopolies are challenged – think of a policy window—when political actors introduce new dimensions to the problem. Thus Baumgartner and Jones contest that policy images and policy venues exist.

A policy image is “how a policy is understood and discussed,” a policy venue is “the institutions or group within society that has authority to make decisions regarding a policy.” Borrowing from political scientist E. E. Schattschneider, Baumgartner and Jones explain why expanding a policy venue is critical to destabilizing a policy monopoly. In essence, rather than contest the facts of a policy's proponents, it is easier for its opponents to assert a different set of facts. As Baumgartner and Jones explain:

“Environmentalists do not deny that nuclear power plants, tobacco companies, or pesticide factories produce jobs, wages, and tax revenues, or that these are worthwhile goals. They prefer to focus public attention on the health and environmental consequences of these activities.”