SESSION 1, WHAT EVEN IS PUBLIC POLICY?
Okay Laure, imagine we’re going for a walk. Forget everything you think you know about public policy for a
second. Imagine we are walking through a city. We pass a hospital, a school, a police station, a train
station, maybe a homeless shelter. All of these things are connected to public policy. And that is the first
thing you need to understand: Public policy is everywhere. Healthcare is public policy. Security is public
policy. Education is public policy. Housing is public policy. Environmental regulation is public policy. And
the interesting thing about policy analysis is that we are not simply asking: "What policy exists?" We are
asking: Why did this particular policy emerge? Why this solution? Why at this particular moment?
Who influenced it? Why did policymakers choose this instrument rather than another one? And what
happens once the policy actually reaches society? That is what makes policy analysis interesting.
Your course explicitly distinguishes policy, politics and polity. And this distinction is important.
● Polity is the political system itself. So think about institutions, constitutional structures, the way
government is organised.
● Politics is about the political process, the struggle, negotiation, interests and actors involved.
● And policy is about the actual choices and actions of the government.
So if Belgium introduces a new environmental law, that law is the policy. The negotiations between
political parties and interest groups that produced it are politics. And the Belgian political system within
which all of this happens is the polity.
🧠 policy ≠ politics
SO WHAT DOES POLICY ANALYSIS ACTUALLY DO?
Now, there is another distinction. You can do analysis of policy. Or you can do analysis for policy.
● Think of it like this. If I ask: "Why did Belgium introduce this particular policy, and why did it
develop in this way?" I am analysing policy. That is more academic, descriptive and theoretical. I
am trying to understand and explain what happened.
● But if I ask: "What should the Belgian government do about this problem?" Now I am doing
analysis for policy. That is more applied and prescriptive. I am trying to provide advice to
policymakers.
Your course actually emphasises that academic policy analysis is multidisciplinary, multimethod and
problem-oriented. It tries to map contexts, alternatives and effects. And this makes sense. Policy
problems are complicated. If you're studying healthcare, you might need economics. If you're studying
crime, you might need criminology. If you're studying climate policy, you might need political science,
economics, sociology and environmental science. So policy analysis doesn't belong neatly to one discipline.
DYE, JENKINS AND ANDERSON
Now we're getting to something your professor can absolutely ask you about. Three definitions of public
policy. And here's the easiest way to remember them:
1
, ● Dye = WHAT
● Jenkins = HOW
● Anderson = WHY
Let's walk through them.
THOMAS DYE: Dye famously defines public policy as: “anything a government chooses to do or not to
do.” The really important part is: or not to do. Imagine there is a problem with housing. The government
could introduce rent controls. Or subsidies. Or new housing programmes. But it could also decide: "We
are not going to intervene." For Dye, that non-action can still constitute policy. This is connected to non-
decision making. The government is making a choice between acting and not acting.
● However, Dye has a limitation. His definition tells us what government does or does not do, but
it tells us relatively little about the goals behind the decision, the process, or the effectiveness
of the policy. So: Dye is broad and useful, but quite limited analytically →: Dye is
strong on omission, but relatively silent on effectiveness.
WILLIAM JENKINS: Now Jenkins makes things more complicated. He sees policy as a set of interrelated
decisions concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them, within a particular situation
and within the power of the actors involved. So Jenkins asks: What are the goals? What means are being
used? Who makes the decisions? What power do they actually have? And this last part is really
important. Because governments don't have unlimited power. Imagine a government wants to introduce a
policy. Technically, maybe it would be a great idea. But perhaps it violates constitutional rules. Perhaps it
is too expensive. Perhaps another level of government has the competence. Perhaps the government
cannot get parliamentary support. So Jenkins introduces the idea that policy choices are bounded by
power and capacity.
That's why I want you to remember:
● Dye = choice
● Jenkins = interconnected decisions within constraints
JAMES ANDERSON: And then Anderson defines policy as: a purposive course of action followed by an
actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. Now the focus shifts. Anderson
emphasises: purpose, problems, goals, action
So:
● Dye asks: "What did government choose to do?"
● Jenkins asks: "How are interconnected decisions about goals and means made, and within what
constraints?"
● Anderson asks: "What purposeful action is being taken in response to a problem or matter of
concern?"
And this is where we start moving towards problem definition. Because here's the catch. What exactly
counts as a problem? And that question is going to become VERY important later.
POSITIVISM VS CONSTRUCTIVISM
● Imagine crime rates are increasing. A positivist might say: "The facts speak for themselves. Crime
is increasing. Therefore we need to identify the causes and develop a rational solution." The
problem exists objectively. You measure it. You analyse it. You find the cause. You design a
solution. Very neat.
2
, ● But now imagine that crime rates have actually stayed relatively stable, while media coverage of
crime has exploded. People become convinced that crime is dramatically increasing. Politicians
start talking about a "crime crisis." The public becomes worried. And suddenly crime becomes a
major political issue. A constructivist or post positivist would say: "Wait. The important question
isn't just whether crime objectively increased. We also need to understand how people came to
perceive crime as a problem." That means: ideas matter. values matter. narratives matter.
perceptions matter.
And this distinction becomes absolutely central once we reach agenda setting.
🎯 EXAM LOGIC → the positivist approach treats problems as objectively observable,
whereas the post-positivist approach focuses on how problems are perceived and socially constructed.
● If you get a question involving two countries that face a similar objective situation but define it
differently, think constructivism.
● If the question emphasises objective conditions, measurable developments and rational problem
solving, think positivism.
THE POLICY CYCLE
Okay, now we need a map. Because policy making is incredibly complicated. So scholars developed the
policy cycle. Imagine a circle.
First: 1. AGENDA SETTING: A problem gets political attention. Then: 2. POLICY FORMULATION:
Different solutions are developed. Then: 3. DECISION-MAKING: Someone actually chooses a policy. Then:
4. IMPLEMENTATION: The policy is put into practice. And finally: 5. EVALUATION: We ask whether it
worked. And then...we start again. Because evaluation can reveal a new problem, which sends us back to
agenda-setting.
Your course uses the Jones and Anderson version of these five stages.
But here's the BIG WARNING. 🚨 THE POLICY CYCLE IS NOT REALITY → It is an analytical model. It
helps us break an incredibly complicated process into manageable stages. That's useful. But actual
policymaking is not necessarily linear. Stages can overlap.,Stages can be skipped. Something can happen
out of order. Solutions can exist before problems are formally recognised. A policy can be implemented
differently from what was originally intended. And sometimes decisions are basically accidental.
Your course explicitly identifies these weaknesses: policy processes can be non-systematic, non-linear
and idiosyncratic, while causal relationships between stages are often unclear.
So if an exam asks: "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the policy cycle?" You say:
● Strengths: it reduces complexity and helps map actors, institutions and ideas across the policy
process.
● Weaknesses: real policymaking is not necessarily sequential, stages can be compressed or
skipped, and the model does not really explain causality.
The policy cycle as an analytical lens: “Imagine you’re holding a map. The map is not the territory, but it
helps you navigate.” That’s the policy cycle. The cycle is a lens, not a description. It helps you: break
3
, complexity into parts, identify actors at each stage, analyse where things went wrong, structure exam
answers, compare cases. But it does not claim that policymaking is linear.
🧠 If asked “What are the weaknesses of the policy cycle?” you say:
● real policymaking is non-linear
● stages overlap
● solutions can exist before problems
● decisions can be accidental
● implementation can reshape policy
● evaluation can be political
● causality between stages is unclear
The cycle is a teaching tool, not a theory.
⭐ Lasswell didn’t invent the policy cycle as you know it.
He invented policy functions: the logic behind the cycle. His original seven functions were:
1. Intelligence: gathering information
2. Promotion: advocating ideas
3. Prescription: deciding what should be done
4. Invocation: applying rules
5. Application: executing decisions
6. Appraisal: evaluating outcomes
7. Termination: ending or revising policies
Key insight: Lasswell’s model is functional, not sequential. He wasn’t saying “policy happens in this
order.” He was saying “these are the functions any policy process must perform.” This is why your
professor emphasises: “The policy cycle is analytical, not descriptive.” Because Lasswell never meant it as
a literal timeline.
⭐ Brewer’s Contribution
Fast-forward to the 1970s. Analysts want something simpler, cleaner, more usable. Enter Garry Brewer.
Brewer takes Lasswell’s philosophical functions and turns them into a practical cycle:
1. Invention: defining problems & imagining solutions
2. Estimation: analysing options
3. Selection: choosing an option
4. Implementation: executing the decision
5. Evaluation: assessing results
6. Termination: ending or revising the policy
🎯 Why this matters: Brewer is the bridge between Lasswell’s abstract functions and the modern 5- or
7-stage cycle used in your course.
4
Okay Laure, imagine we’re going for a walk. Forget everything you think you know about public policy for a
second. Imagine we are walking through a city. We pass a hospital, a school, a police station, a train
station, maybe a homeless shelter. All of these things are connected to public policy. And that is the first
thing you need to understand: Public policy is everywhere. Healthcare is public policy. Security is public
policy. Education is public policy. Housing is public policy. Environmental regulation is public policy. And
the interesting thing about policy analysis is that we are not simply asking: "What policy exists?" We are
asking: Why did this particular policy emerge? Why this solution? Why at this particular moment?
Who influenced it? Why did policymakers choose this instrument rather than another one? And what
happens once the policy actually reaches society? That is what makes policy analysis interesting.
Your course explicitly distinguishes policy, politics and polity. And this distinction is important.
● Polity is the political system itself. So think about institutions, constitutional structures, the way
government is organised.
● Politics is about the political process, the struggle, negotiation, interests and actors involved.
● And policy is about the actual choices and actions of the government.
So if Belgium introduces a new environmental law, that law is the policy. The negotiations between
political parties and interest groups that produced it are politics. And the Belgian political system within
which all of this happens is the polity.
🧠 policy ≠ politics
SO WHAT DOES POLICY ANALYSIS ACTUALLY DO?
Now, there is another distinction. You can do analysis of policy. Or you can do analysis for policy.
● Think of it like this. If I ask: "Why did Belgium introduce this particular policy, and why did it
develop in this way?" I am analysing policy. That is more academic, descriptive and theoretical. I
am trying to understand and explain what happened.
● But if I ask: "What should the Belgian government do about this problem?" Now I am doing
analysis for policy. That is more applied and prescriptive. I am trying to provide advice to
policymakers.
Your course actually emphasises that academic policy analysis is multidisciplinary, multimethod and
problem-oriented. It tries to map contexts, alternatives and effects. And this makes sense. Policy
problems are complicated. If you're studying healthcare, you might need economics. If you're studying
crime, you might need criminology. If you're studying climate policy, you might need political science,
economics, sociology and environmental science. So policy analysis doesn't belong neatly to one discipline.
DYE, JENKINS AND ANDERSON
Now we're getting to something your professor can absolutely ask you about. Three definitions of public
policy. And here's the easiest way to remember them:
1
, ● Dye = WHAT
● Jenkins = HOW
● Anderson = WHY
Let's walk through them.
THOMAS DYE: Dye famously defines public policy as: “anything a government chooses to do or not to
do.” The really important part is: or not to do. Imagine there is a problem with housing. The government
could introduce rent controls. Or subsidies. Or new housing programmes. But it could also decide: "We
are not going to intervene." For Dye, that non-action can still constitute policy. This is connected to non-
decision making. The government is making a choice between acting and not acting.
● However, Dye has a limitation. His definition tells us what government does or does not do, but
it tells us relatively little about the goals behind the decision, the process, or the effectiveness
of the policy. So: Dye is broad and useful, but quite limited analytically →: Dye is
strong on omission, but relatively silent on effectiveness.
WILLIAM JENKINS: Now Jenkins makes things more complicated. He sees policy as a set of interrelated
decisions concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them, within a particular situation
and within the power of the actors involved. So Jenkins asks: What are the goals? What means are being
used? Who makes the decisions? What power do they actually have? And this last part is really
important. Because governments don't have unlimited power. Imagine a government wants to introduce a
policy. Technically, maybe it would be a great idea. But perhaps it violates constitutional rules. Perhaps it
is too expensive. Perhaps another level of government has the competence. Perhaps the government
cannot get parliamentary support. So Jenkins introduces the idea that policy choices are bounded by
power and capacity.
That's why I want you to remember:
● Dye = choice
● Jenkins = interconnected decisions within constraints
JAMES ANDERSON: And then Anderson defines policy as: a purposive course of action followed by an
actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern. Now the focus shifts. Anderson
emphasises: purpose, problems, goals, action
So:
● Dye asks: "What did government choose to do?"
● Jenkins asks: "How are interconnected decisions about goals and means made, and within what
constraints?"
● Anderson asks: "What purposeful action is being taken in response to a problem or matter of
concern?"
And this is where we start moving towards problem definition. Because here's the catch. What exactly
counts as a problem? And that question is going to become VERY important later.
POSITIVISM VS CONSTRUCTIVISM
● Imagine crime rates are increasing. A positivist might say: "The facts speak for themselves. Crime
is increasing. Therefore we need to identify the causes and develop a rational solution." The
problem exists objectively. You measure it. You analyse it. You find the cause. You design a
solution. Very neat.
2
, ● But now imagine that crime rates have actually stayed relatively stable, while media coverage of
crime has exploded. People become convinced that crime is dramatically increasing. Politicians
start talking about a "crime crisis." The public becomes worried. And suddenly crime becomes a
major political issue. A constructivist or post positivist would say: "Wait. The important question
isn't just whether crime objectively increased. We also need to understand how people came to
perceive crime as a problem." That means: ideas matter. values matter. narratives matter.
perceptions matter.
And this distinction becomes absolutely central once we reach agenda setting.
🎯 EXAM LOGIC → the positivist approach treats problems as objectively observable,
whereas the post-positivist approach focuses on how problems are perceived and socially constructed.
● If you get a question involving two countries that face a similar objective situation but define it
differently, think constructivism.
● If the question emphasises objective conditions, measurable developments and rational problem
solving, think positivism.
THE POLICY CYCLE
Okay, now we need a map. Because policy making is incredibly complicated. So scholars developed the
policy cycle. Imagine a circle.
First: 1. AGENDA SETTING: A problem gets political attention. Then: 2. POLICY FORMULATION:
Different solutions are developed. Then: 3. DECISION-MAKING: Someone actually chooses a policy. Then:
4. IMPLEMENTATION: The policy is put into practice. And finally: 5. EVALUATION: We ask whether it
worked. And then...we start again. Because evaluation can reveal a new problem, which sends us back to
agenda-setting.
Your course uses the Jones and Anderson version of these five stages.
But here's the BIG WARNING. 🚨 THE POLICY CYCLE IS NOT REALITY → It is an analytical model. It
helps us break an incredibly complicated process into manageable stages. That's useful. But actual
policymaking is not necessarily linear. Stages can overlap.,Stages can be skipped. Something can happen
out of order. Solutions can exist before problems are formally recognised. A policy can be implemented
differently from what was originally intended. And sometimes decisions are basically accidental.
Your course explicitly identifies these weaknesses: policy processes can be non-systematic, non-linear
and idiosyncratic, while causal relationships between stages are often unclear.
So if an exam asks: "What are the strengths and weaknesses of the policy cycle?" You say:
● Strengths: it reduces complexity and helps map actors, institutions and ideas across the policy
process.
● Weaknesses: real policymaking is not necessarily sequential, stages can be compressed or
skipped, and the model does not really explain causality.
The policy cycle as an analytical lens: “Imagine you’re holding a map. The map is not the territory, but it
helps you navigate.” That’s the policy cycle. The cycle is a lens, not a description. It helps you: break
3
, complexity into parts, identify actors at each stage, analyse where things went wrong, structure exam
answers, compare cases. But it does not claim that policymaking is linear.
🧠 If asked “What are the weaknesses of the policy cycle?” you say:
● real policymaking is non-linear
● stages overlap
● solutions can exist before problems
● decisions can be accidental
● implementation can reshape policy
● evaluation can be political
● causality between stages is unclear
The cycle is a teaching tool, not a theory.
⭐ Lasswell didn’t invent the policy cycle as you know it.
He invented policy functions: the logic behind the cycle. His original seven functions were:
1. Intelligence: gathering information
2. Promotion: advocating ideas
3. Prescription: deciding what should be done
4. Invocation: applying rules
5. Application: executing decisions
6. Appraisal: evaluating outcomes
7. Termination: ending or revising policies
Key insight: Lasswell’s model is functional, not sequential. He wasn’t saying “policy happens in this
order.” He was saying “these are the functions any policy process must perform.” This is why your
professor emphasises: “The policy cycle is analytical, not descriptive.” Because Lasswell never meant it as
a literal timeline.
⭐ Brewer’s Contribution
Fast-forward to the 1970s. Analysts want something simpler, cleaner, more usable. Enter Garry Brewer.
Brewer takes Lasswell’s philosophical functions and turns them into a practical cycle:
1. Invention: defining problems & imagining solutions
2. Estimation: analysing options
3. Selection: choosing an option
4. Implementation: executing the decision
5. Evaluation: assessing results
6. Termination: ending or revising the policy
🎯 Why this matters: Brewer is the bridge between Lasswell’s abstract functions and the modern 5- or
7-stage cycle used in your course.
4
