CRITICAL REVIEW OF LINDBLOM AND WOODHOUSE BOOK

By: Kulsoom Basharat

Date: June 30, 2011
PAPA 6214

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 1

Introduction

Given human nature, strong authority is required to create stability, security and a
thriving nation. The earliest example of direct intervention by government in human welfare
dates back to Umar ibn al-Khattb's rule in the 6th century. He used collections and other
governmental resources to establish pensions, income support, child benefits, and various
stipends for people in the community. Social policy in this day and age, aims to improve human
welfare and to meet human needs for education, health, housing and social security. The purpose
of policy is typically instituted to avoid certain negative effects which have been identified or to
seek improvements/positive benefits in the lives of citizens. Eliminating poverty and protecting
human resources for future productivity are perhaps the biggest challenges in public policy.

Main Arguments

The central theme for the Lindblom and Woodhouse book is that there are many
constraints and barriers within the policy making process. Primarily, implementing policy in this
complex world has posed to be an ever evolving process because there are hundreds of actors, all
with different values, perceptions, and preferences; and within each domain there are many
programs with multiple levels of government involvement. Nonetheless, the book does not make
any governmental institutions the sole object of study, rather it emphasizes on the various factors
that contribute to policy development, implementation and its success or failure.

The authors elaborate on how political interactions are contingent upon human judgment
and how these judgments play a significant role in the formulation of policies. The authors
1

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 2

explain that there are cognitive limitations and impairments that hinder the human capacity to
study complex problems thereby becoming one of the varying obstacles when it comes to policy
making.
According to Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky (1982)1 we cannot simultaneously
consider more than a few angles on a problem; perceptions and interpretations become distorted
in systematic ways, as in our tendency to recall vivid events and forget others
Due to the limited capacity of understanding and the lack of importance given to active
participation within the policy making process, the authors explain that there is unequal
representation especially for those on the lower end of the economical scale. In other words one
inequality is stacked upon another. The authors provide insight on how ethnic majorities and
affluent citizens are overrepresented thereby gaining more attention, support, and policies
tailored to their benefit. While poor people who lack political skills, the finances to be
recognized, and the overall lack of power, result in their voices being left unheard. The authors
do however balance this argument by stating that if more people in need voted and educated
themselves on the basics of the political system, then their most pressing matters would be
addressed in some capacity.

The authors provided a holistic view on a variety of interrelated

topics and challenges faced within the policy making process.

Assumptions
The authors worldview clearly reflected that within the public policy realm social,
economical, political, and structural elements collectively contribute to the policy making
process. The authors noticeably stated that within the social and economical element, certain
1

Daniel Kahneman, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky, Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (New
York: Cambridge University Press 1982).

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 3

factions of the public, the poor and underrepresented, lack awareness and participation; resulting
in an unequal platform for their issues and topics to be represented fairly. The authors stated that
if the poor, less educated minorities fail to participate, then their opinion about which problems
deserve the governments attention will garner less than proportionate weight.

Thereby if

important problems are not called to attention by participants afflicted by various socioeconomic issues, then the public does not have the opportunity to deliberate on them, and
therefore issues that deserve the most time, attention and funding fall off the radar. On the other
hand, when people do take a stand on the behalf of socio-economically struggling individuals,
then they also face adversities; the book detailed how for many decades black interest groups
were excluded from being regarded as legitimate organizations worthy of attention.
Another argument by the authors claimed that from an early age, the root of the problem
lies with children who are not being taught to think about the deeper meaning of life. Parents
and caretakers focus on day to day basic information sharing, rather than giving importance to
elevating the childs knowledge to freely think about complex scenarios and discover semisolutions. With my interest in the welfare social system, the authors made an interesting point
that the social environment in which children of low income parents grow up in, tend to come
from homes where they are less prepared to have a completely developed thought process
thereby hindering them from making fully thought-out decisions later in their lives.
the quality of people's thinking can have a huge influence on whether their
interactions result in sensible and fair policy agreements. Extended inquiry into the thinking
abilities and inquiry skills of both ordinary citizens and political elites therefore may be among

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 4

the most consequential investigations students of public policy can make in trying to understand
what goes right and wrong in the effort to shape policy. (Lindblom and Woodhouse p.114)
A key point made by the authors in regards to if policy is reactive or proactive according
to the disposition of the nation, is that during tough economic times, hunger and homelessness is
brought to the forefront by politicians, in an attempt to seem in touch with the average citizen.
Politicians, according to the authors, seek out issues which will provide them with a
larger voting block and in turn generate greater funding for their campaign.

Another group

which the authors suggested are self-serving are elitists. The authors divulged on the benefits
elitist have within the policy making process. The affluent and powerful are able to push their
agendas in the media, through interest groups, and by providing ample funding to political
leaders. Elitists are portrayed as though they all share common interests. The authors warned that
excessive conformity, as seen in elitist groups, undermine social problem solving because it
suppresses the competition of ideas and unequal policy making. The authors suggested that there
should be many groups playing in the sandbox (metaphorically speaking) so that there is equal
representation of diverse angles on any given issue and a variation of ideas are shared; also
having a diverse group can also stop any inaccurate or misleading claims prorogated by one
interest group.
Case in Point
In relation to the welfare system, the authors do provide key points that support the
notion that policy making is based on a wide spectrum of inputs and outputs. The premise that
policy is affected by social, political, economical, and structural elements is essential to
understanding the needs of individuals supported by the welfare social system. Not only are
4

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 5

individuals suppressed by the environment they live in but by the social groups they are
associated with. They are forced to feel the same about the oppression they face, to blame the
same people, and to lead the same lives as their parent(s), relatives, neighbors and friends.
When surveying people in need and developing policies to ameliorate their lives, policy
makers must fully understand the realm in which the individual lives. Just as the authors sited,
minority and low income groups do not actively partake in voting due to a lack of education,
interest, and a feeling that their opinion and thoughts will never be heard. The authors supported
this argument, by stating that a childs ability to process and make decisions as an adult is shaped
by their upbringing.
Strengths in the Argument
Lindblom and Woodhouse provide a balanced outlook on the democratic policy making
process, addressing both its positives and negatives. The authors described how the democratic
system exercises power, its connection between human comprehension and the understanding of
complex problems and finally its role in political inequality.
The authors discussed the typical pitfalls that come into play from the very process of
running a democratic country, such as voter ignorance. The authors argue that policy formation
goes beyond official policy makers (legislators, interest groups, business interests, governmental
agencies, and broader influences), that it incorporates the notion that the average citizen has the
power to shape their future. The power bestowed on the average citizen is their ability to engage
the political system, by understanding the positions of candidates, and by understanding the
policies that may impact their lives and/or their future generations.
5

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 6

Weaknesses in the Argument

A great deal of material is appropriated to the obstacles faced within the policy making
processes. However a better use of the subject matter could have been to provide methods or
scenarios that highlighted solutions to issues rather than overstating the challenge. Lindblom and
Woodhouse also targeted specific economical groups, the poor and the affluent, thereby creating
a sense that these groups are the only active and non-active actors in the policy making process.
They are portrayed as the sole bearers of the weight as to why the entire system does not seem to
be working.
Contributions made to My Understanding of the Policy Making Process
Within the United States of America, the political infrastructure is in place so that every
citizen plays a role within the policy making process, however whether or not they choose to
contribute is on their own accord and it seals their fate. The information within the book was
insightful in terms of illustrating how dynamic the process truly is. The authors conveyed the
message that there many linkages that contribute to a final law and even if one aspect fails to
materialize it will doom the policy. If more people took the time to understand how they can
make the system work for them, we would see the number of advocates increase and their voices
would be heard.
If the political universe is not set up to evoke, receive, negotiate, and act sensibly and
fairly on complaints and policy proposals, then potentially good ideas will never have much of a
chance to be developed, debated, and acted upon. (Lindblom and Woodhouse p.142)
6

Critical Review: The Policy-Making Process 7

Conclusion
To improve the policy making process, the authors do not propose that a magic potion
will remove policy making obstacles.

Conversely, through educating and communicating

national concerns, by means of classrooms and media outlets (social networking sites, blogs, and
so forth) there can be positive contributions made towards improving policy making. Through
these new methods we can possibly see an increase use of valuable and real time information
which would be open to all willing participants on key aspects of major social policy issues in
policy formulation; thus leading to a more robust and truly democratic policy-making system in
the future. This would allow for a closer examination of social issues along with having the
capacity to make recommendations on what specific policies might practically work and in doing
so help improve the policy making process.