Describe the stages model of the policy process. Explain the strengths and weaknesses of the model.

What will be an ideal response?

The largest body of public policy research has focused on the policy process. The stages model has been useful in mapping the route that policies take from idea development to functioning program. The conventional stages model proceeds through a series of steps: agenda setting, formulation, legitimation, implementation, and evaluation. The agenda setting and implementation stages, in particular, have well-developed theoretical explanations for choices. The stages model can help shape the thinking of policy in the United States. One criticism of the stages model is that it is too linear; assumes the process is taking place orderly within each stage. This ignores the practicality that stages work in conjunction with one another. For example, the process of implementation often involves formulation because administrative decisions needed to make programs work can transform the policy. Policy issues often arise when other programs are being budgeted. Further, most policymaking is actually revising and involves working with existing programs that return to the agenda. The stages model does not reflect the degree of conflict involved in the policy process and the important role this conflict plays. Each stage may involve a different set of actors with different concerns about the program. The stages model does not adequately explore the links among each stage in the model and lacks a capacity for explanation of the policy process.