The Public Policy Process

The public-policy process is the cycle through which collective problems are translated into government action. The stagist or policy-cycle approach — first systematised by Harold Lasswell in 1956 and elaborated by William Dunn and James Anderson — remains the most accessible analytical map even if real policymaking is rarely linear.

The classic five stages

1. Agenda setting — out of countless social issues, which reach the official decision-making agenda?
2. Policy formulation — designing alternative responses (legal, fiscal, regulatory, programmatic).
3. Policy adoption / legitimation — formal approval by Cabinet, Parliament, regulator or executive.
4. Policy implementation — translating the formal decision into administrative action and outputs on the ground.
5. Policy evaluation — judging performance against goals; feeding lessons back into the next round.

The cycle often ends in policy maintenance, succession or termination.

Agenda setting

Not every problem becomes a government problem. John Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework explains why: the problem, policy and politics streams must align at a policy window, often opened by a focusing event. In Pakistan, the 2022 super-floods opened a window that put climate finance and disaster-resilient planning on the international and national agendas.

Cobb and Elder distinguished:

• Systemic agenda — issues recognised by the public as worthy of attention.
• Institutional agenda — issues actually under active consideration by decision-makers.

Roger Cobb and Charles Elder's "outside-initiation", "inside-initiation" and "mobilisation" routes capture how issues climb to the institutional agenda.

Formulation

This is where ministries, think tanks, regulators and consultants design alternatives. Methods include:

• Cost-benefit analysis (CBA).
• Cost-effectiveness analysis.
• Risk assessment.
• Regulatory impact analysis (RIA) — increasingly required under OECD norms.
• Scenario planning and modelling.
• Consultation with stakeholders and civil society.

In Pakistan, the Planning Commission's PC-I to PC-V documents formalise the formulation of development projects.

Adoption (legitimation)

Depending on the kind of decision, adoption takes different routes:

Decision type	Adoption route
Constitutional change	Two-thirds of both Houses (Article 239)
Money matters	Money Bill, NA only (Article 73)
Other federal legislation	Both Houses (Article 70)
Subordinate legislation	Statutory Regulatory Orders (SROs)
Cabinet policy	Cabinet decision (Rules of Business 1973)
Regulatory rule	NEPRA, OGRA, SECP regulations
Local policy	Local-council resolutions

The Rules of Business 1973 at federal and provincial levels lay down detailed procedures for inter-ministerial consultation, summary preparation and Cabinet approval.

Implementation

The "missing link" identified by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973). Modern theory distinguishes:

• Top-down approaches (Sabatier & Mazmanian) — emphasise clear goals, hierarchy and compliance.
• Bottom-up approaches (Lipsky, Hjern & Porter) — emphasise frontline discretion and adaptation.
• Hybrid/synthesis — combining both perspectives.

Common failure modes include:

• Implementation gap between announced and delivered policy.
• Capacity deficit — under-skilled or under-resourced staff.
• Coordination failure — silos across ministries and tiers.
• Capture by interest groups.
• Lack of feedback loops.

In Pakistan, the Education Policy 2009's pledge of 4% GDP for education has never been met — a textbook implementation gap.

Evaluation

Evaluation can be formative (during) or summative (after); process (how the policy was delivered) or impact (what difference it made).

The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria (revised 2019) are widely used:

1. Relevance — is the policy responding to genuine needs?
2. Coherence — does it fit with other policies?
3. Effectiveness — are objectives being achieved?
4. Efficiency — at what cost?
5. Impact — broader positive and negative effects.
6. Sustainability — will the benefits endure?

In Pakistan, third-party validation has gained traction (e.g., the Ehsaas Programme's use of independent monitors and Oxford's MPI methodology).

Models of the policy process

Model	Distinctive feature
Stagist cycle	Linear, didactic
Multiple Streams (Kingdon)	Streams meet at a window
Punctuated Equilibrium (Baumgartner & Jones)	Long stability + bursts of change
Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier)	Belief-based coalitions in sub-systems
Institutional Analysis & Development (IAD) (Ostrom)	Action arenas, rules, outcomes
Garbage Can (Cohen, March, Olsen)	Random coupling in organised anarchies
Network governance	Inter-organisational policy networks

Each captures part of reality; competent analysts use them in combination.

Pakistan's policy infrastructure

• Cabinet as the apex policy body, supported by the Cabinet Division (Rules of Business 1973).
• Planning Commission under the Ministry of Planning, Development & Special Initiatives.
• National Economic Council (Article 156) approves macro and PSDP.
• Council of Common Interests (Article 153) coordinates federal-provincial policies.
• Parliamentary standing committees scrutinise policy proposals.
• Sector regulators: NEPRA, OGRA, PTA, SECP, PEMRA.
• Think tanks: PIDE, SDPI, IPI, Tabadlab, PRIME.

Sample policy cycle — Ehsaas Programme

1. Agenda setting (2018-19): rising poverty headlines and election pledges.
2. Formulation: a 134-policy umbrella under Dr Sania Nishtar; international benchmarking.
3. Adoption: PM's launch (March 2019), Cabinet approval, fiscal allocation in budget.
4. Implementation: BISP-revamped NSER survey, Kafaalat unconditional cash, Nashonuma maternal nutrition, etc.
5. Evaluation: independent evaluations by World Bank, Oxford Policy Management; integrated into the Benazir Income Support Programme post-2022 government change.