Through this assignment, we will explore trends concerning an individually selected area of policy and provide context on the public policy theory/theories at play.  You will answer the following que

Topics to be covered include:
Elite Theory
Group Theory
Institutional Theory
Rational choice Theory
Political System Theory
The Policy Process
Step One: Identification
Step Two: Agenda Setting
Step Three: Formulation
Step Four: Adoption
Step Five: Implementation
Step Six: Evaluation
In Lesson 2, we continue our exploration of public policy by looking at the theories of politics and public policy and the steps taken in policy making. It is important to remember that theories are used to analyze. In this case, they are used to analyze how public policy is made. Often, more than one theory will apply to a policy decision. First, we will examine five of the more common theories and as we move on from theory to practice. The policy process model will look at the various stages of the policy process, and the roles and relationships of policy actors within each stage. This model is the logical sequence of activities regarding any new public policy, and there are six basic stages of the public policy process.
Elite Theory
The elite theory envisions a society where public policy is influenced more by the society’s elites than by the general public. The elite class generally consists of the wealthier, famous, and highly educated people who are often seen on television, over the Internet, and in exclusive conferences, seminars, and gatherings. In our own society, many members of the general public do not have the time or inclination to become fluent on most aspects of political issues, so they take their cues from the elites. Accordingly, elites also have better access to elected officials to influence their voting than the general public does.
Many social scientists hold the theoretical view that virtually all political power is held by a relatively small group of people, and that American politics are best understood if this fact is taken as a given. The members of this small group share similar characteristics, values, interests, and backgrounds. In nearly all key sectors of society (business, government, civic organizations, educational and cultural establishments, and the mass media), members of the top echelons are recruited from this same group. Many are associated with the same corporate and foundation directorates, attended the same schools, and interact socially with each other, giving them a tendency to link together and effectively dictate the main goals for all important government policymaking owing to the control they exert over the nation’s major business and financial organizations and their economic resources.
STUDY ON THE “ELITES”
The political scientist Thomas Dye began studying the “elites” and their influence on American policymaking in 1972. He found that members of this class held posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions, and that these posts’ occupants control half of the nation’s industrial, communications, transportation, and banking assets and two-thirds of all insurance assets. He also discovered that fewer than 250 people held the most influential posts in the federal government, and about 200 others controlled the three major television networks and most national newspaper chains.
The power of the elites under this theory is fundamentally based on their personal economic resources and their positions within top corporate management rather than their ability to garner mass support or to represent the interests of broader social groups. Whether the elite class is open to the newly wealthy and influential members of society, what degree of agreement or disagreement usually prevails within this class, and how much concern for the broader public welfare influences their public policy goals and decisions has been a matter of dispute among public policy theorists. But elite theory holds the idea that it is this small group of only a few thousand people who truly run the country and determine which direction public policy takes and not the members of the general public who are convinced they are influencing the political process by voting in elections.
Group Theory
According to the group theory, public policy is essentially the product of a struggle between interest groups who conflict in their efforts to persuade elected officials to enact legislation favorable to its causes. Some insist that these conflicting interests can balance each other out, with the result being good government. This very American theory is highly compatible with Adam Smith’s economic theory, and in the past its advocates have included James Madison and Alexis de Tocqueville.
This theory has the advantage of being relatively neutral concerning values in comparison to other theories. Interest groups are different from political parties mainly in that they do not run candidates in elections. Interest groups are typically formed after disturbances occur and people come together to resist change. Groups sometimes compete with each other, but other times they cooperate and even form advocacy coalitions.
Group theory assumes that the political system’s purpose is to manage conflict between groups by establishing the rules of the game, arranging compromises, enacting compromises into law, and enforcing these laws. Both interest group leaders and political scientists hold that any public policy situation will remain fluid permanently, with no one group seeing a permanent victory.
This theory of public policy and its assumption that many groups are too powerful because they can raise money to donate to politicians forms the basis for recent campaign finance reform law. Critics have argued that these laws will make donations harder to track rather than curbing the influence of interest groups altogether.
Institutional Theory
Institutional theory focuses on the structure, roles, powers, and rules of government in determining policy. Under this theory, organization structures and rules often influence how policy actors vote on issues. While this theory rotates around institutions, there are many kinds of institutions that influence policymaking, including political parties, local, state, and federal governments, foreign governments, and even voluntary organizations.
Supporters of institutional theory insist that the institutional environment can influence the development of formal structures in any organization, and that this environment legitimizes organizations that adopt the model and thereby increases technical efficiency. Eventually, these organizations are legitimized to the point where adopting this environment is seen as the only way to achieve efficiency, and it will be adopted even in situations where it is clearly not the most practical option.
“Institutional myths” may be accepted only ceremoniously to gain or maintain legitimacy, and they may include specific job titles, procedures, and organizational roles. For example, a company may appoint a Chief Executive Officer even if it does not need one; an agency may adopt a bureaucratic, rigid structure of operations even if its operations are too small or simple to need such a structure. In some instances, adopting these trappings of institutionalism may even hinder an organization’s competitive position in their technical environment.
Generally speaking, there are three types of pressures under which organizations will adopt similar structures:
COERCIVE PRESSURES Coercive pressures are the result of legal mandates or influence from organizations they are dependent upon.
MIMETIC PRESSURES Coercive pressures are the result of legal mandates or influence from organizations they are dependent upon.
NORMATIVE PRESSURES Normative pressures urge the adoption of attitudes and approaches similar to those of the professional groups and associations that are brought into the firm through hiring practices.
That rate of institutional isomorphism is increased when firms are highly dependent on the institutional environment, exist under high uncertainty or ambiguous goals, or rely extensively on professionals. To support these theories, it has been discovered that organizations tend to adopt new structures and policies very quickly when coercive pressures are high—for example, when government mandates strongly urge them to do so. If the pressures are lower, organizations are far slower to adopt these structures and policies, although increased adoption does accelerate the rate which they are adopted as a whole (since it legitimizes them).
Rational Choice Theory
Focusing heavily on economics and mathematical modeling, the rational choice theory carries the basic premise that social behavior results from the behavior of individual actors, each of whom is making individual decisions. Thus, it is assumed that each individual has his or her own individual preferences among the available alternatives. The rational agent is assumed to take account of available information, probabilities of events, and potential costs and benefits in determining preferences, and to act consistently in choosing the best course of action.
CONSISTENCY
Under this theory, rational agents have sets of preferences that do not change, and they are said to be rational if their preferences reflect a relationship of superiority, inferiority, or indifference throughout the choices they make and they do not exhibit any inconsistencies in order. Even if a choice’s outcome is uncertain or risky, a rational agent will continue to make choices that are consistent with those they have made in the past. This consistency can be expressed in the form of a mathematical axiom.
ASSUMPTIONS
Rational choice theory accepts a number of assumptions. One is that it is the individual who ultimately takes action, and that these individual social actions are the ultimate source of larger social outcomes. Another assumption is that the actions of individuals are optimally chosen according to the preferences of the individual and the opportunities or constraints that person faces. In other words, the individual attempts to achieve the best for himself or herself given his or her individual circumstances. If a person appears to choose a course of action that seems not to be the best for his or her own self-interest, the rational choice theory views this as sociologically misguided. The person may perceive his or her best interests incorrectly, or he or she may have incomplete information, insufficient resources, or misguided preferences.
It is also assumed that the actions of the individual are concerned entirely with his or her own welfare. While some types of group sentiments could exist under this theory, there must be an explanation of how they emerge and develop. Sentiments such as cooperation, altruism, self-sacrifice, charity, or self-denial are only acceptable under the rational choice theory if they have as an ultimate end the pursuit of self-interest. For example, for many individuals contributing to charity may produce positive feelings in oneself or raise one’s social esteem in the eyes of others, or a tax write off! Cooperation could easily develop from individual self-interest when limited resources or uncertainty are present.
Political System Theory
As its name suggests, political systems theory focuses on the broader response of the political system to demands from individuals and groups, such as public opinion and interest groups. This theory is more comprehensive than others. It emphasizes the larger social, economic, and cultural contexts in which policy choices are made and analyzes the interrelationships of political institutions and policy actors. Political scientist David Easton, a champion of this theory, proposed a policymaking process that included input, conversion, output, feedback, and environment.
While “system theory” had long existed as an idea in many disciplines, Easton was the first to apply it to politics, effectively elevating the study of politics to a science when he presented his conceptual framework in The Political System (1953). In this theory, political actors and citizens can take remedial actions through policymaking by first discovering and analyzing the “what,” “when,” and “how” of the situation. Most countries with developed political systems already make use of this theory.
Easton elaborated on his original political systems theory in 1965, when he published Framework for Political Analysis and A Systems Analysis of Political Life. The first of these two works presented an outline of the conceptual framework of systems analysis, while the second developed it in detail. His input-output analysis, also known as the “flow model,” is the product of an original insight of a political scientist and not borrowed from another discipline.
DECISION-MAKING STEPS
In some ways, Easton’s approach to politics is somewhat borrowed from the behavioral sciences. He proposed a political system with a system of steps in decision-making that was both delimited and changeable and that could be simplified as follows:
Changes in the social or physical environment that surround a political system produce demands and support for action that are directed towards the political system through political behavior.
These demands and supporting groups create competition in the political system, which leads to decisions directed at some aspect of the surrounding social or physical environment.
After a decision is made, such as a specific policy, it interacts with its environment and changes may be produced in the environment.
When a new policy interacts with its environment, new demands or supports may be generated, and groups stand in support or against that policy or an alternate one.
These demands and supports create a return to the first step, and the cycle is repeated. A “stable” political system functions in this manner, while one that does not follow this cycle can be described as “dysfunctional.”
The Policy Process
Moving on from theory to practice, the policy process model looks at the various stages of the policy process and the roles and relationships of policy actors within each stage. This model is the logical sequence of activities regarding any new public policy and has six basic stages.
STEP 1 Identification
STEP 2 Agenda Setting
STEP 3 Formulation
STEP 4 Adoption
STEP 5 Implementation
STEP 6 Evaluation
People taking photo in front of the United States Capitol  
The United States Capitol
Step One: Identification
The first stage is issue identification. There are public problems everywhere around the country that disturb or distress people, including unsafe workplaces, natural disasters such as tornadoes and earthquakes, crime, pollution, and rising costs in medical care or education. But not all conditions that Americans may be disturbed by immediately constitute problems, and of those that reach this status policymakers are only aware of those that are brought to their attention.
People have to recognize that it is the job of the government to do something about these problems and to urge them to step up and tackle them. In the case of a natural disaster such as a hurricane, most citizens understand that it is not the government’s responsibility to prevent such an event from happening. What the government can do, however, is take action to ameliorate the situation once a hurricane does occur and to ensure that as little cost as possible to human life and property is incurred. It is usually interest groups, lobbyists, constituent contact to their offices, and the media (to include social media) that are responsible for this task. The media has the biggest impact when it comes to identifying a public problem.
Whoever brings a problem to the attention of a policymaker has the unique opportunity to frame the issue towards a defined outcome. An unsafe workplace, for example, can be framed in a manner that stresses the potential dangers posed to employees, or in a manner that stresses insurance costs and other liabilities to the public as a whole. How the issue is portrayed, the language used, and the context it is couched in can make all the difference in how the solution is crafted, and once an issue is identified and defined it is difficult to change.
Photo of houses underwater from flooding 
Flooding after Hurricane Harvey
Step Two: Agenda Setting
The second stage in the public policy process is agenda setting. Agenda setting is probably the most confusing stage and, at the same time, the easiest to comprehend. At the national level, the U.S. Congress physically cannot deal with most of the public problems that occur around the country. For example, if the same workplace safety issues have been reported in workplaces throughout the country, Congress may see fit to step in and address the issue directly. But if the situation is limited to a few isolated small businesses in a small town, the issue would be best addressed within the confines of a city council or state legislature.
Issues that are brought before members of Congress are formulated into bills and become part of the national agenda, a set of problems, understanding of causes, symbols, solutions, and other elements that the federal government tends to. Once bills are voted out of committee for a floor vote, they must be prioritized according to national importance. Usually there are so many agenda items that some problems will receive earlier and more attention than others.
PRESSURE FROM GROUPS, PARTIES, AND BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENTGROUP COMPETITIONAGENDA LEVELS
Agenda setting may respond to pressure from interest groups, political parties, and other branches of government, but media and Internet sources also possess a degree of pull. The national agenda is often reshaped significantly with the election of a new President or a change in the majority party in the House of Representatives or Senate. Issues are often re-prioritized in the event of a crisis such as war, economic recession, natural disasters, or a tragic accident.
Step Three: Formulation
The third stage of the process is policy formulation, the development of proposed courses of action to resolve the issue. Policy formulation entails designing and drafting policy, keeping goals and strategies, costs and benefits, social and political acceptability, and likely effectiveness in mind. At this stage, the public administrators concerned examine the various policy options it considers to be possible solutions.
Several conflicting plans from various political interests usually take shape at this stage of the process as coalitions of actors strive, through the use of advocacy strategies, to gain priority for one specific interpretation of both the problem and its solution. Bureaucratic experts, think tank scholars, and interest group specialists are the people involved in this stage. The President, White House aides, agency officials, specially appointed task forces, and legislators may also take part in formulating new policy. Power relationships crystallize to determine the direction a policy will take.
Proposals that contradict one another are often made at this stage. For example, the President may wish to enact one policy towards immigration reform, while members of the opposition party in Congress may propose a different policy. Whatever the case, the policy formation stage ends with a bill going before Congress or a proposal before a regulatory agency.
Step Four: Adoption
The fourth stage is policy adoption. After various proposals have been made and debated, one policy is agreed upon and accepted by the policymakers. At the national level, Congress will adopt a policy when it passes a bill and sends it to the President to be signed into law. Policies may also be adopted when the President signs an executive order or when the Supreme Court makes an important ruling. Policy is often built in a series of small steps passed over time by different players, and eventually, a complex policy emerges.
The media can also play a key role in policy adoption. Unbiased reporting and commentary provide a forum for debate over policy adoption issues; a favorable bias can enhance the likelihood that a policy proposal will be adopted; and an unfavorable media bias may make a policy proposal’s adoption less likely. Examples can be seen in President George W. Bush’s attempts to reform Social Security and President Bill Clinton’s health care proposals, both of which were never adopted largely due to the media’s unfavorable bias. Or was it the unfavorable bias of the population, correctly reported by the media? With the right media and marketing campaign, national laws can implement effective and legitimate policies. But make sure to think this through more carefully. Should media hold this much sway? If it is reporting factual information certainly it would not be an issue, but consider what you hear from the different sources daily. Is there a bias? What are the larger implications given what you have learned so far? How might they be addressed?
President Trump signing the Hurricane Harvey bill at a deck in the oval office..
President Trump signs the Hurricane Harvey bill.
Step Five: Implementation
The fifth stage is policy implementation. The ways policies are implemented are often different from what was originally intended by the policymakers who passed them because many laws are enacted with ambiguous language, allowing for slight modifications to accommodate reality. At the national level, the executive branch departments and agencies implement most of the laws passed by Congress. Sometimes people and organizations who do not comply with policies are punished, or incentives may be offered for compliance (such as tax breaks).
The most carefully crafted and widely accepted policy can fail if not properly implemented. While differences in policy details make a universal plan for implementation impossible, the following model of policy implementation can be considered in most instances:
Policies must not face external constraints that cannot be surmounted. In other words, the policy must not exceed an agency’s jurisdictional or constitutional limits.
An adequate time frame and resources must be allowed to implement the policy.
Adequate staff and resources must be available at the implementing agency to carry out the policy.
The premises of policy and the theory of policymaking employed must be compatible.
Cause and effect relationships in the policy must be direct, uncluttered, clear, and unambiguous.
Dependency relationships should be kept to a minimum.
The basic objectives of the policy need to be agreed upon and understood, with all actors possessing a clear understanding of the policy and what is required to carry it out.
Tasks must be specified in an appropriate sequence, with all steps connected from beginning to end.
Communication and coordination need to be on the same wavelength.
Those agencies involved in implementing the policy must work towards total compliance.
Step Six: Evaluation
In the sixth and final stage, policy evaluation, an oversight group or organization inspection determines the effectiveness of a policy as intended by policymakers, who often try to determine what a policy is actually accomplishing or whether or not it is being carried out efficiently. The policy’s results must be assessed after a certain period of time, and steps must be taken to ensure that it can remain successful with the level of resources and means committed to it. This step was often overlooked in the past, leading newer initiatives to sidetrack established policies. Many different policy initiatives’ goals regularly conflicted.
Policies and programs are then measured and assessed based on their effectiveness. If the policy is working as intended, no changes are required; if the reverse is true, then modifications are in order. This could require that a new policy on the same issue be passed through the legislature. On the other hand, if the original issue has been resolved, then the policy should be terminated.
The evaluation process often takes place over time with contributions from many of the players involved. Most evaluations call for some degree of change and correction, with certain policy actors disagreeing with the evaluation’s outcome. The whole process then begins again, starting with the problem being re-recognized. At any given time, government is at various stages of policymaking in an ongoing mission to provide solutions to problems. The US Government Accountability Office frequently evaluates government programs. One example is the 2016 report titled Foreign Assistance: Selected Agencies’ Monitoring and Evaluation Policies Generally Address Leading Practices.
Conclusion
Military members pushing boats through the flooding from hurricane Harvey. 
Hurricane Harvey floods Houston.
When making public policy, it is useful to be aware of the various political theories that affect policy making as well as the basic steps involved. Each theory engages a different group of people in the process, and outlines different situations under which policy is made. However, each theory involves the same six steps in the actual policy process model: identifying the problem, agenda setting, formation, adoption, implementation, and evaluation.
References
Easton, D. (1965). A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: Wiley.
Foreign Assistance: Selected Agencies’ Monitoring and Evaluation Policies Generally Address Leading Practices (Rep. No. GAO -16- 861R). (2016). Retrieved November 21, 2017, from https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/680042.pdf
Image Citations
"The United States Capitol" by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Uscapitolindaylight.jpg.
"Flooding after Hurricane Harvey" by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Support_during_Hurricane_Harvey_(TX)_(50).jpg.
"President Trump signing the Hurricane Harvey bill." by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Trump_signing_Hurricane_Harvey_bill_(cropped).jpg.
"Flooding from Hurricane Harvey" by https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Texas_Ar