Numerous actors are involved in one or more aspects of policy, and their preferences differ

The policy process is greater than or equal to 10 years

There are dozens of different projects in a given policy area, involving different levels of government

The role of technical debate in legislative administration, litigation and the formation of administrative regulations

Most debates involve values/interests, money and the coercive power of authority

intermediary function

Starting from different theoretical perspectives, analysts often observe different results (at least initially)

Common-sense approach: observing the world in an inherently specific way, using any taxonomies and assumptions acquired in practice

Scientific method: logical assumptions are smaller, more important relationships that can explain puzzlingly complex phenomena

A conceptual framework identifies a set of variables and the relationships between them that are hypothesized to explain a range of phenomena.

Able to provide something ranging from appropriate variables to something like a paradigm

No need to determine the direction of various relationships

Provide a denser, more logically coherent set of relationships

Attach values ​​to some of the variables, often showing how the relationship changes with the values ​​of the important variables

Many theories can be aligned with the same conceptual framework

Maturity for specific situations

narrower in scope

Be more precise in your assumptions

Ideally, the model can be quantified

Multiple perspectives stimulate the development of different competing hypotheses, leading to strong "inferences"

Forces the analyst to be explicit about the differences between frameworks rather than making self-enclosed assumptions

Both knowledge and the use of multiple perspectives must gradually clarify the conditions for one perspective to be superior to another.

Divide the policy process into a series of stages

Disadvantages

Author selection criteria

stage heuristic

Institutional Theoretical Choices

Multivariate flow analysis framework

Discontinuity-equilibrium framework

Support alliance framework

Focus on explaining policy changes within the scope of an established political system or series of institutional arrangements

policy communication framework

The causal funnel framework and other frameworks for large-scale comparative research methods

Explain the differences among political systems

Incomplete (e.g. missing main categories of variables)

Not clear enough and cannot withstand examination

Propose three or four different sets of policy types and describe the corresponding process characteristics

In the early stages of formation, there were shortcomings such as vague concepts and lack of causal connections.

In recent years, few people have paid attention to

View policy as essentially governed by four distinct but universal ideologies: individualism, motivation theory, egalitarianism, and fatalism

Main concepts are unclear

The relationship with institutional arrangements and socio-economic conditions has not been developed as it should.

Focus exclusively on policy issues and policy belief systems and/or “social constructions” of frames of reference

No link has been established with socio-economic conditions or institutions

Concepts have nothing to do with specific individuals

like a set of complex concepts that guide network analysis

Within a given policy area/policy subsystem, interested organizations develop ways of exchanging resources and seeking to influence policy matters.

More like an empirical version of institutional choice theory

Many concepts are difficult to understand (

intelligence

proposal

Regulation

legalization

application

termination

Evaluate

a process that he agrees with and is actually used by policy scientists

A clear and continuous framework view of the policy process

A large number of scholars more or less refer to

Guided many scholars throughout the research process

relative strength

There is a problem

The stage model is not a true causal model

Stage models do not provide a clear basis for empirical hypothesis testing

The heuristic stage has the problem of loose description when constructing a series of stages.

Stage metaphors suffer from legalism and top-down focus

The stage metaphor approach inappropriately emphasizes policy cycles as temporary units of analysis

The stage metaphor method does not provide a good tool for integrating policy analysis and policy orientation research throughout the public policy process.

limitations of criticism

The difference between dynamic and static policy principles

Triggering events and punctuated equilibria for policy initiatives

New project evaluation methods

The authors believe that the framework will continue to serve as a valuable heuristic in policy research and project operations.

Observations and classifications of actors and actions themselves help analyze and clarify established policies

Lasswell's maximization theorem

Statements of standard precepts are unsatisfactory in a theory-building sense

Would policy sciences achieve better results if they adopted more of a systems analysis perspective (i.e. policy process models) as opposed to a general systems perspective, that is, if they tentatively accept policy stages/processes because of their limited value? framework and throw it away when bigger and better things happen

It does have a place in the dustbin of abandoned paradigms

Can rely on a better, more dynamic framework

Even when we pursue theoretical problems, we do not have to consider operational problems. None of these criteria (or alternative models) fundamentally questions or even urges the abandonment of the policy stage framework.

Regarding the issue of optional policy construction, have we excessively elevated the status of the policy stage framework?

The more central question is, what do we really ask it to provide? Is it a theory of some policy change or occurrence? But what about other phases of public policy—now neglected—perhaps? Moreover, if it is not ignored, as we certainly are not, at that time there was indeed insight into the operational process level, or as Lasswell observed that "better information leads to better government", it is to empty theory. An acceptable choice.