A COMPARISON OF 3 EMERGING THEORIES OF THE POLICY PROCESS

In an earlier review of political theories of the policy process, Saba tier (1991) challenged political scientists and policy scholars to imp rove theoretical understanding of policy processes. This essay respond s by comparing and building upon three emerging theoretical frameworks : Sabatier's advocacy coalitions framework (ACF), institutional ration al choice (IRC), and Moe's political theory of bureaucracy, which he c alls the politics of structural choice (SC). The frameworks are compar ed using six criteria: (1) the boundaries of inquiry; (2) the model of the individual; (3) the roles df information and beliefs in decision making and strategy; (4) the nature and role of groups; (5) the concep t of levels of action; and (6) the ability to explain action at variou s stages of the policy process. Comparison reveals that each framework has promising components, but each remains short of providing a full explanation of the processes of policy formation and change. Direction s for future theory development and empirical examination are discusse d.