Sociology Report: Analyzing Public Policy Theories and Frameworks

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of public policy from a sociological perspective. It begins by differentiating between theoretical frameworks and theories, discussing frameworks like the IAD, Multiple Streams, and Advocacy Coalition Frameworks. The report then examines the principal-agent model, including its expansion by Waterman and Meier (1998), and the issues of information asymmetry and goal conflict. It delves into rational choice theory and institutionalism, highlighting their assumptions and the work of Elinor Ostrom. Furthermore, the Tiebout model is explored, including its assumptions and empirical support, with examples of consumer behavior in metropolitan areas. Finally, the report distinguishes between public goods and the commons, providing a thorough overview of key concepts in public policy analysis.

Running Head: SOCIOLOGY
0
Policy Analysis
5/5/2019

SOCIOLOGY
1
Contents
Q1. Differences between frameworks and theories, and frameworks discussed in Sabatier..................2
Q2. Waterman and Meier (1998) offer an expansion of the principal-agent model...............................3
Q3. What is rational choice theory and Institutionalism and their assumptions.....................................4
Q4..........................................................................................................................................................5
Q5. Explain the difference between public goods and the commons and other aspects.........................6
References...........................................................................................................................................10

SOCIOLOGY
2
The discussion brings about the answers to different set of questions related to the
public policy process in context to sociology.
Q1. Differences between frameworks and theories, and frameworks discussed in
Sabatier
The analysis brings about the discussion of the theories and frameworks in context to
the sociology or social sciences. The theoretical frameworks are the concepts that are
designed or formulated to explain, predict, and understand different phenomenon of a
particular issue or topic. In addition, it is also used to challenge the existing level of
knowledge, within the limits of critical bounding assumptions. The concept of theoretical
framework is the concept that holds or supports a particular theory in a research study
(Zahavi, BenDavid-Hadar & Klein, 2018). The framework determines the collection of some
interrelated concepts like a theory, which has not been effectively worked out. It guides the
research, things to be measured, and what statistical relationships will be analysed. However,
these terms, i.e. theory and frameworks are used interchangeably, but they convey different
meaning depending on the context. Theoretical framework in a study is based on an existing
theory whereas other conceptual theories in a study, can be developed on own.
From the given scenario or information available, it has been found that there were
number of frameworks used in the Sabatier. These included IAD i.e. Institutional Analysis
and Development Framework, The Multiple Streams Framework, and the Advocacy
Coalition Framework. Amongst all these frameworks the IAD framework, i.e. Institutional
Analysis and Development Framework has been one of the significant framework, which has
been supported by the authors in their study. This was due to the reason that this framework
was used in many of the developing countries, and it determines the meaning of the concepts
in a systematic manner. The framework is used in different situations, at different levels of
analysis, determining the structure patterns of different institutions. However, the authors are
still calling or stating about the use of some better theories because some of the things are not
fulfilled under these frameworks in context to public policy process (Fischer & Miller,
2017).
In the case of IAD framework, much of the literature on institutional rational choice
focuses on rather specific sets of institutions. For an example, the relationships between

SOCIOLOGY
3
Congress and administrative agencies in the United States. Thus, to have better understanding
of the patterns of metropolitan organisation and local government, it is necessary to
determine or use some better theoretical frameworks.
Q2. Waterman and Meier (1998) offer an expansion of the principal-agent
model.
Waterman and Meier (1998) offered an expansion of the principal-agent model due to
the issues of conflicts of interest or moral hazard to any of the two parties in the relationship.
It has been found that the problem of Principal agent arise when one person, i.e. agent makes
decisions on the behalf of another i.e. Principal. In this situation, the issues arise, in terms of
conflict of interests (Maggetti & Papadopoulos, 2018).
Principal-agent relationship refers to the arrangement in which one entity appoints
another in a legal manner to act on their behalf, and the agent acts on behalf of the principal.
The underlying assumption in this relationship is that the agent must not build any conflict of
interests in carrying out the act. Common examples of the principal-agent model or
relationship includes corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), elected
officials (agent), and citizens (principal), and markets which includes buyers, sellers and
principals (Davies & Johnson, 2016).
The principal-agent model lacks in providing a complete explanation of the
relationships that exist between the principal and agent, and due to this reason, the Waterman
and Meier offered the expansion. The model of principal-agent makes two assumptions, i.e.
one being that goal conflicts exist between the principals and agents. The agents have more
information than the principals, and this results or leads to the issue of information
asymmetry between both of them. Therefore, it has been analysed that this creates a problem
in explaining better the relationships within bureaucracy or organisations. Thus , the above
discussion has stated well the need or requirement of a better model that might consider the
information and goal conflict to be continuous, rather than constant in the bureaucratic
politics (Avigur-Eshel & Berkovich, 2019).
Besides, the above discussion one aspect of agency theory has been found relevant as
per the issue of principal-agent problem or regarding the expansion of the model. The theory
of Agency describes a dynamic process of the interaction between principals and agents,
which is developed with the passage of time (Corgnet, Gómez-Miñambres & Hernán-

SOCIOLOGY
4
Gonzalez, 2018). They have a better knowledge and understanding of the policy and the
policies or procedures required for the purpose of implementation. They have both the
opportunity and incentive to overpower politicians and processes for political gain. One issue
has been observed in the relationship of principal-agent, that the concept do not stress over
the elements of the model. The goals and information conflicts therefore, they are treated just
as the constants in the model (Shankardass et al., 2018). Due to these problems, the theory or
model has become static rather dynamic, and affects the whole policy process. The above
discussion thus indicated the expansion of the principal agent model (Arthur, 2018).
Q3. What is rational choice theory and Institutionalism and their
assumptions
The discussion in this question is based on the assessment of the theory of rational
choice, and the assumptions in context to the policy process. Rational choice theory refers to
the theory stating that the individuals focus upon the rational calculations to attain results or
outcomes along with their personal objectives (Hauser et al., 2016). These decisions or
choices ensure providing the greatest benefits or satisfaction to the person or individual,
given the condition of choices available. The rational choice theory was given by Cornish and
Clarke, mentioning that the man is a reasoning actor who evaluates mean and ends, or the
costs and benefits to make a rational choice. One key element under the rational choice
theory is the idea that all the actions that undertaken are fundamentally ‘rational’ in character
(Denzin, 2017).
It depends on the framework for analysing and often formally changing the social and
economic behaviour. The basic assumption behind the rational choice theory is that the total
or aggregate social behaviour is the outcome of individual actor’s behaviour (Young,
2016). The theory focuses on the determinants of the individual choices. Another premise in
the rational choice theory states that every individual has different choices amongst the
available choice alternatives. This means they need to opt or select from the given
alternatives, and these preferences are understood as complete i.e. to either opt for any of the
given choices or do not select any options and transitive. Rationality is observed in context to
the assumption of behaviour of the individuals in microeconomic models. To state validity of
the use of rational choice theory, several authors has criticised it in context to human
decisions. One cannot choose to make rational choices depending wholly on this theory
(Hirschi, 2017).

SOCIOLOGY
5
Institutionalism determines the adherence to the established forms or belief in an
organized religion. Like using, the public institutions for the care of people who are disabled
either physically or mentally. Institutionalism argues that the rational actors maximize their
utility from the institutions. A core assumption states that institutions create elements of order
and predictability, and the assumption stated here are considered valid (Hirschi, T. (2017).
It has been found that the Nobel Prize winner Ostrom advocated the merging of those
two theories, i.e. rational choice theory and the institutionalism (Grossman, 2019). This
award was the result of merging of the social sciences. It was because of the reason that
economics has been too isolated to be stuck on the aspect that markets are self-efficient and
regulating. It thus required both the theories to be undertaken for the analysis of the goods in
the society (Roose, 2016).
Q4. What is a “Tie bout” model and studies that support the assumptions?
Tie bout model, also called as Tie bout sorting, Tie bout migration or Tie bout
hypothesis is one of the positive political theory, designed by the economist Charles Tie bout
in his article, “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures" (1956). The model argued that free
rider problem necessarily states or require using the political solution. The term free rider
problem can be defined as the situation as when the individuals after the use of resources,
public goods or services do not pay for them, resulting into under provision of those goods
(Evans, 2017).
For an example, a situation where an individual may ask for free parking lots from
those who have already paid for them. It means that the free rider enjoys the service of
parking lots more than others do without paying a single penny. The free-rider problem is
found to be present in the case of all the goods, non-excludable, inclusive of public goods,
and the situations of the “tragedy of commons”. The Tie bout model relies on certain
assumptions, which are stated below (Buck, 2017).
Primary assumption in the model related to the freedom of choice of the community
to the consumers, as they are free to live in their desired society or communities, and can
move freely across towns. Moreover, they have proper access to the data required and equal

SOCIOLOGY
6
financing of the public goods exist. Commuting is not an issue, and the movement between
communities in these areas tend to have lowest cost, with the diverse possible choices.
From the research on the Tie bout model, and the number of assumptions it has been analysed
that the implications of the empirical research or studies are found most suitable. The term
empirical study conveys the meaning wherein the assessment of the primary data is based on
the aspect of direct observation, or the experiences in the given area.
One research study through a study stated that the empirical studies demonstrate the
significance of the Tie bout model of the mobility of the household in large metropolitan
cities. According to the model, it has been found that local collective goods are efficiently
provided to compete with the jurisdictions that offer rival tax-service packages. In addition,
the model also states that the individuals or households are free to move to their preferred
locations, thereby establishing a market for local collective goods. This example relates to the
assumption of freedom or mobility of the consumers to fulfil their objectives by moving to
their preferred locations (Zahavi, BenDavid-Hadar & Klein, 2018).
Another example in this case relates to consumer voters where they pick the
community, which is best suited to them for the public goods. The preferences of the
consumer voter at the central level, voter are given and the government try to adjust the
pattern of those preferences. This implies to be relatable to the assumption i.e. ‘consumer
voter live on dividend income’ of the Tie bout model. Therefore, the use of empirical studies
is found successful to provide sufficient evidences in the support of the Tie bout model
(Berger Wagner & Zelditch, 2018).
Q5. Explain the difference between public goods and the commons and
other aspects.
Public goods include those goods or products, which are, defined as non-excludable
and non-rivalrous where the individuals could not be excluded from the use of the goods
without paying for it. It means that the use of the good by one individual will not create the
lack of availability of goods or resources for any other individual. This means that the goods
can be consumed judiciously by two or more persons simultaneously. This concept or idea is

SOCIOLOGY
7
in contrast to the commons or common good, which defines about the goods that are non-
excludable but rivalrous to a certain extent (Westra, Gray & D'Aloia, 2016).
Example of the public good consists of the law enforcement, national defense, sewage
system and the public parks. These examples includes goods available for the common public
or community, therefore these are publicly financed. In terms of economics, the concept of
public good being non-rivalrous, states the fact these goods do not lack in their supply as
people consume them. For an example, a country’s defense do not run out or reduce from the
consumption of the people. On the other hand, the element of non-excludability serves the
purpose of the availability of gods to every person irrespective of the fact that they have
contributed in the public funding (Barseghyan & Coate, 2016).
On the contrary, the concept of commons or common good means refers to the goods that
benefit the society as a whole, rather than a private individual or sections of society (Gächter,
Kölle & Quercia, 2017). For an example, wild fish, they are non-excludable reason being,
people cannot be prevented from the act of catching fishes. Moreover, they are rivalrous, as it
is not possible to catch the same fish again. Therefore, it can be stated that common goods are
constituted as one of the four main types based on the criteria mentioned below:
 The case where, the goods consumed by one person precludes the consumption of the good
by another person (rivalrousness)
 Secondly, the situation whether it is possible to prevent people (consumers) who have not
paid for it from having access to it (excludability)
From the above discussion, it has been found that the major differences between both
the concepts of public goods and commons are based on the grounds of nom-excludability
and rivalrousness. Common good, which serves the individuals in the whole society, is
assumed as the outcome of the social welfare function (Elliott & Golub, 2019).

SOCIOLOGY
8
These are some of the common examples of the things or goods included in both,
public goods and common goods. As per the given stated definition of both the types of
goods, i.e. public goods and commons it has been found that both the goods are non-
excludable. There is no much similarity or commonalities between both these goods.
Therefore, it can be stated that there are no established clear similarities between both, public
goods and common goods.
For studying the concept of public goods, and their use by the community is best
supported through the conceptual frameworks. These frameworks are established under the
governance of state authorities. Provision of public goods is the term used to define the aspect
about the use of public competition for controlling the market deficiencies within private
sector.
The term ‘common-pool resource policy’, that refers to the goods constituting natural or
human-made resource system. For an instance, common-pool resource may include fishing
grounds, forests, underwater basins, and irrigation systems.. In CPR goods, the costs may
increase due to the features or size but it is not impossible to exclude any potential benefit
from the use of goods. Unlike other, i.e. pure public good, the common pool resources face
the issues of congestion, or overuse. It has been analysed that these resources are susceptible
to the problem of overutilization and therefore prone to the problem of ‘tragedies of the
commons’ (Elliott & Golub, 2019).
The use of analytical framework is better as it studies these resources/goods, and the
problems related with them in a systematic manner. It first studies or identifies how the
problems are defined and then determines the correct actions or policy need to be formulated.

SOCIOLOGY
9
This framework works better as it is intended to be used by the stakeholders at every level of
the policy process. Hence, it can be stated that the use of analytical framework policy process
is best for studying the common-pool resources used in the society (Dunlop & Radaelli,
2018).

SOCIOLOGY
10
References
Arthur, W. B. (2018). Some Fundamental Puzzles in Economic History/Development. In The
Economy As An Evolving Complex System II (pp. 239-254). United States: CRC
Press.
Avigur-Eshel, A. & Berkovich, I. (2019). Introducing managerialism into national
educational contexts through pseudo-conflict: A discursive institutionalist
analysis. International Journal of Educational Development, 68, 1-8.
Barseghyan, L. & Coate, S. (2016). Property taxation, zoning, and efficiency in a dynamic
Tiebout model. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 8(3), 1-38.
Berger, J., Wagner, D. G., & Zelditch, M. (2018). A working strategy for constructing
theories: State organizing processes. In Status, Power, and Legitimacy (pp. 39-54).
United Kingdom: Routledge.
Buck, S. J. (2017). The global commons: an introduction. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Corgnet, B., Gómez-Miñambres, J. & Hernán-Gonzalez, R. (2018). Goal setting in the
principal–agent model: Weak incentives for strong performance. Games and
Economic Behavior, 109, 311-326.
Davies, M. & Johnson, J. (2016). Navigating the One-on-One Model of Accountability:
Lessons for Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables through the Lens
of Principal–Agent Theory. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(3), 278-
287.
Davies, M. & Johnson, J. (2016). Navigating the One-on-One Model of Accountability:
Lessons for Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables through the Lens
of Principal–Agent Theory. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 10(3), 278-
287.
Denzin, N. K. (2017). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.
United Kingdom: Routledge.

SOCIOLOGY
11
Dunlop, C. A. & Radaelli, C. M. (2018). Does policy learning meet the standards of an
analytical framework of the policy process?. Policy Studies Journal, 46, S48-S68.
Elliott, M. & Golub, B. (2019). A network approach to public goods. Journal of Political
Economy, 127(2), 730-776.
Evans, M. (2017). Policy transfer in global perspective. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Fischer, F. & Miller, G. J. (2017). Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and
methods. United Kingdom: Routledge.
Gächter, S., Kölle, F. & Quercia, S. (2017). Reciprocity and the tragedies of maintaining and
providing the commons. Nature human behaviour, 1(9), 650.
Grossman, P. Z. (2019). Utilizing Ostrom’s institutional analysis and development
framework toward an understanding of crisis-driven policy. Policy Sciences, 52(1), 3-
20.
Hauser, O. P., Hendriks, A., Rand, D. G. & Nowak, M. A. (2016). Think global, act local:
Preserving the global commons. Scientific reports, 6, 36079.
Hirschi, T. (2017). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of
crime. In The reasoning criminal (pp. 105-118). United Kingdom: Routledge.
Maggetti, M. & Papadopoulos, Y. (2018). The principal–agent framework and independent
regulatory agencies. Political Studies Review, 16(3), 172-183.
Roose, J. (2016). Social Movements and Neo-Institutionalism: A Fruitful Merger?. In Social
Theory and Social Movements(pp. 113-133). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Shankardass, K., O’Campo, P., Muntaner, C., Bayoumi, A. M. & Kokkinen, L. (2018). Ideas
for Extending the Approach to Evaluating Health in All Policies in South Australia:
Comment on" Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to
Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South
Australia". International journal of health policy and management, 7(8), 755.
Westra, L., Gray, J. & D'Aloia, A. (2016). The Common Good and Ecological Integrity:
Human Rights and the Support of Life. United Kingdom: Routledge.