Análisis y examen de modelos de explicación del proceso de formulación de

políticas: un enfoque para el paradigma posmodernismo

Analysis and examination of models of explanation of process of policy making:

an approach to postmodernist paradigm

Motahar Ebrahimi

, Masoud Pourkiani

, Hossein Shariat

Saeed Sayadi

Rostam Pour Rashidi

Islamic Azad University, Kerman, Iran

12345

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9451-8035

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5370-3768

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2762-218X

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2917-9043

Orcid ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2379-1872

Recibido: 06 de febrero de 2020 Aceptado: 12 de agosto de 2020

Resumen

La posmodernidad ha cruzado las fronteras del arte y la filosofía muy rápidamente y al

desafiar los fundamentos filosóficos de las ciencias sociales, ejerce una gran influencia

en el dominio de la teorización de estos campos. En consecuencia, la ciencia de la

formulación de políticas en general, y las teorías de formación de políticas en particular,

no han permanecido inmunes a las doctrinas posmodernas. Dicho esto, el objetivo del

presente ensayo es el análisis y examen de los modelos de explicación del proceso de

formulación de políticas basados en un enfoque del paradigma posmodernista. Con este

fin, se analizan los problemas de la racionalidad en la posmodernidad, la racionalidad en

la formulación de políticas, y los enfoques que siguen varios tipos de racionalidad. Se

esbozan los principales modelos de explicación del proceso de formulación de políticas

que han llamado mucho la atención de los pensadores. Los estudios sugieren que

nociones tales como la crítica de la objetividad, la racionalidad que se escapa, el

superficialismo y la negación de origen y nociones como el mejoramiento, el desarrollo

y la justicia, se encuentran entre las características del paradigma posmoderno que

influyen en las ideas de formación de políticas. La influencia de las nociones antes

mencionadas en el proceso de formulación de políticas debe considerarse como un

recordatorio de temas como el modelo caótico en la formulación de políticas, los centros

de poder, los grupos de presión, el mecanismo para incluir los temas marginales e

insignificantes en la agenda, la falta de modelos universales y insistencia en modelos

nacionales de desarrollo y toma de decisiones públicas, pluralismo y participación.

Correspondencia al autor

E-mail: m0820@yahoo.com

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

294

Apuntes Universitarios, 2020: 10(4), octubre-diciembre

ISSN: 2304-0335 DOI:https://doi.org/10.17162/au.v10i4.515

apuntesuniversitarios.upeu.edu.pe

Palabras clave: Postmodernismo, formulación de políticas, racionalidad, gobierno.

Abstract

Postmodernity has crossed the boundaries of art and philosophy very quickly, and by

challenging the philosophical foundations of the social sciences, it has a great influence

on mastering the theorizing of these fields. Consequently, the science of policymaking

in general, and theories of policymaking in particular, have not remained immune to

postmodern doctrines. Having said this, the objective of this essay is the analysis and

examination of the models of explanation of the policy formulation process based on an

approach of the postmodern paradigm. To this end, the issues of rationality in

postmodernism, rationality in policymaking, and approaches that follow various types

of rationality are discussed. The main models for explaining the policy-making process

that have drawn much attention from thinkers are outlined. Studies suggest that notions

such as objectivity criticism, escaping rationality, superficial, and negation of origin, and

notions such as improvement, development, and justice, are among the characteristics of

the postmodern paradigm that influence the policy formation ideas. The influence of the

aforementioned notions in the policymaking process should be seen as a reminder of

issues such as the chaotic model in policymaking, power centers, pressure groups, the

mechanism for including marginal and insignificant issues on the agenda, the lack of

universal models and insistence on national models of development and public decision-

making, pluralism and participation.

Keywords: Postmodernism, Policy Making, Rationality, Government.

Introduction

Government, in its extensive sense by its order creating power, which is

generated in the form of adoption and implementation of public policies, devotes itself

to the regulation of social relations and organizes the social affairs. Thus, consciousness

of the concept of public policy, mechanism of its making and framework of its

implementation are considered to be among the primary necessities of the knowledge of

government and society (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

The science of policy making struggles to expand our practical knowledge of the

policies of public sector and recognize the governmental interventions in social affairs.

In a nutshell, it speaks of the activities of public sector in macro form: i.e. which aspects

of the public affairs are handled with the government? (Qolipur, 2010).

The study of the government in practice and the analysis of governments are of

numerous complications, on the one hand, and the extensive development of the science

of policy making in recent decades, the interdisciplinary nature of this science, different

effects of policies in various domains, futurism of policy making, colorfulness of

political aspects of it more than its technical aspects, require newer methodology, on the

other hand. Countless efforts have been made in the domain of methodology and the

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

295

struggle for reaching a method that leads to more trustable results have caused the

process of policy making to be encountered with serious challenges. Insofar as

addressing the needs of methodology requires the interpretation and finalization of some

policies and even the interpretation of the processes and mechanisms (Daneshfard,

2009). One should accept that the paradigm of postmodernism has been replaced with

the paradigm of modernism and the latter in its own time had been after separating itself

from the past and tradition, because modernism was associated with the concept of

development and its main emphasis was on intellectualism by the assistance of reason.

Modernism was a consistent and uniform movement according to which determinacy of

human reason was the only and superior subject of knowledge (Farahani, 2004).

Postmodernism as a great movement has immediately gone beyond the borders

of art and philosophy and by challenging the foundations of the philosophy of social

sciences influenced the theories developed in these fields. Accordingly, the science of

policy making in general and the ideas of the formation of policy, in particular, have not

remained immune from the postmodern doctrines. They are criticized based on the

different ontological, epistemological and methodological requirements (Alvani &

Hashemian, 2008). Having said these, the goal of the present essay is the analysis of

examination of the theories and models of explanation of the process of policy making

based on the approach of paradigm of postmodernism.

Methodology

The present study is of the theoretical type and it is descriptive and analytic in

view of its nature and the data have been collected via library studies. In other words,

the required data are collected via the study of the relevant books and essays on the

subject of research.

Rationality in postmodernism

Postmodernism is a crisis in modernism. It represents the crisis that has happened

in the rational inferences and stability of modernity leading to the instability,

temporariness, mobility, skepticism in postmodernism. The critique of postmodernism

of modernism is concerned with two notions of crisis and self. Western self-confidence

was one of the consequences of the belief in human rational force that never succeeded

to explain the secret of crisis. The authoritarian aspect of the self-confidence lies in this

incapability. Though Lyotard does not have any explanation for these crises, he insists

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

296

on the efficiency of self and notes that it was the great narrator or main narrator whose

narration now has come to its end. Postmodernism means the liberation of the evil of

this narrator, narration or monologue (Angello, 2001).

Postmodernism, like enlightenment, is a complicated phenomenon. Depending

on which aspect of this phenomenon is taken into account, it is easily praised or mocked.

However, the essence of postmodernism is the denial of modern mind or reason’s

understanding of the categories of knowledge and truth. Modern mind believes that

simple and uncomplicated truth, i.e. truth in its absolute sense, is the path of error and

mistake. On the contrary, modern mind suggests that humans are intellectually capable

and competent to consistently and precisely represent the aforementioned truth. Science

and other manifestations of the self-subsisting independent reason are considered to be

the means of the discovery of the ahistorical truth, i.e. the truth which is not dependent

upon specific context or theme.

Reason and experience are regarded as the tool of decisive acquisition. By denial

of this picture of epistemology, postmodernism presents the idea that the pictures of truth

are different from the reality itself in the eyes of the observer and these pictures are

always blurred. Some postmodern thinkers contend that the general and basic issue is

that such words as truth and reality must be set aside, because these categories are an

expression of an illusory and misleading object. Such words as truth and reality are even

worse and more destructive than the useless vestiges of modern mind. In postmodern

world, struggle for truth paves the ground for the useful readings, motivating

interpretations, deconstructive program and bitter destructions. If we want to preserve

the word “truth”, we have to consider it in its particular form or meaning (Ewalt, 2001)

Results

Rationality in policy making

The policies that government (the administrative, legislative and judiciary

forces) codifies are influences by different types of rationality. Snelen names four types

of rationality that influence the government’s policies: economic, political, legal and

professional rationalities. Danaeifar by reviewing the literature of administrative

management suggests that we can speak of two other types of rationality that govern

human societies: moral and religious rationalities. Therefore, government’s policies are

influenced by various types of rationality (Figure 1).

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

297

Figure 1. Rationalities Influecing Policies

Approaches following from different types of rationality

Managerial (Economic) Approach: In this approach, the science of values is at the hands

of the managers and the organization is like a business. The management is a

businessman and the person who refers to the organization is like a customer.

Legal Approach: The scope of action and freedom of action of management in public

affairs are decided by the constitution, other mother laws, bills and regulations and the

management in administrative sector is in charge of policies that have their own root in

the constitution of every country.

Political Approach: In this approach, the organizational structure revolves around the

political values, representation, accountability and responsibility. In this approach,

representation and decision making are based on the public ideas and the significant

beneficiaries and general opinions and media.

Professional Approach: Its main doctrine is the application of management of private

sector to the governmental sector. The theory of public choice is a manifestation of the

behavior of the governmental managers in this approach. Privatization begun in Iran

since early years is an endorsement of this approach in our country’s governmental

sector.

Moral Approach: Existing differences in the dominant values of the governmental and

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

298

private sectors are originated from this approach. Such values as justice, fairness,

equality, sensitivity towards the citizens in governmental sector and efficiency are

dominant values of the private sector.

Religious Approach: In this approach, servants are the lords of the political system. The

organizational structure in it should be designed based on the principles of public

satisfaction and divine satisfaction and every individual is God’s servant and respected

(Vahid & Qalchi, 2007) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Relationship of Rationality, Approach, Strategy

Discussion

Policy making models

Different theories and models have been designed for explanation of the process

of policy making. Given their increasing emergence and complication, it is impossible

to discuss them in one single example in a detailed fashion. Therefore, we shortly discuss

a number of the chief models that have been noticed more by the thinkers.

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

299

1- Absolute rationality or perfect rationality model

Absolute rationality represents the rationalism of the economic man who is the

counterpart of the social man. Economic man in every moment identifies his own

preferences and pursues determinate and consistent goals. This model is grounded on

three basic presumptions: first, access of the policy maker to all required information;

second, explicit knowledge of preferences, desires and finally the policy maker’s

enjoyment of a holistic argument that allows him to study all possible solutions and their

comparison (Vahid & Qalchi, 2007). Policy making based on this model is faced with

numerous barriers in practice. In other words, one can enumerate several barriers in

response to the question why is the policy making not a rational process?

I. There are no determinate social values and goals upon which people would

be unanimous. On the contrary, different and contradicted values govern the

domain of policy making.

II. Many values and goals are not comparable and they cannot be distinctively

evaluated.

III. Policy makers are not seeking after the maximization of the access to goals

and they continue their efforts up to the moment when there is an

“executable” path.

IV. Numerous investments on the process of plans and policies impedes the

policy makers from the recognition of of other possible options.

V. There are numerous impediments in the path of collection of sufficient data

for evaluation of all possible options and their results that include the costs

of information collection, time and so on and so forth.

VI. The capabilities of prediction of sciences have not been sufficiently

developed so that they can enable the policy makers for understanding the

scope of the results and consequences of every single one of the options.

VII. Even with the developed techniques of computer analysis, the policy makers

have not succeeded to acquire the required genius for the precise calculation

of cost-benefit of numerous cultural, economic and political values and

goals.

VIII. Lack of confidence regarding the results of the future policies forces the

policy makers to keep with their previous policies as far as they can and in

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

300

this way they reduce the probability of emergence of undesirable and

unexpected results.

IX. The dissected nature of policy makers in extensive bureaucracies has made

the interest of policy makers hard. Thus, ideas of each one of the officials of

different sectors can hardly be united in one single decision (Dye, 2002).

2- Satisfying model

The criticisms of the existing radical perspective in the absolute rationality model

have given rise to the effort for presentation of an alternative. Finally, the model of

restricted rationality was offered by Herbert Simon (Simon, 2019). In this model, the

decision maker examines the possible solutions but by finding a solution that is in line

with the defined measures or even is not opposing and makes his own choice and he no

longer continues until finding the best solution; the chosen solution is not the best rather

the best solution among the existing examined solutions (Brooks & Lewis, 2002).

The stages of policy making can be outlined based on the satisfying model as

follows: identification of problem or definition of the goal, determination of the

minimum standards which the options should be in line with, selection of the practical

option that solves the problem, examination of its capability of solving the problem,

determination of consistency of the solution with the minimum standards,

implementation or change of policy (Guseh & clayton, 2004).

3- Incremental model

The main hypotheses of this model consist of indeterminacy of the goals,

interdependence of the definition of goals and analysis of situations. In other words,

definition of goals is dependent upon the analysis of the existing conditions and it is not

created in vacuum. Lindilum presents reasons for demonstration of the appropriateness

of this model. Firstly, mistakes that are resulted from the incremental model do not have

many negative effects on the environment given its conservative essence and can be

easily reformed. From the point of view of policy, creation of consensus over the goals

and preferences of this model is easier, because it does not give rise to more intensive

opposition and sensitivity like the rationalist models. Then, it will be associated with

further association. He continues that the Incremental Model is hard to define but it can

provide more effective rational solutions for the problems of policy making (Vahid,

2006).

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

301

This model has not been immune to criticism. One of these criticisms is the

incapability of this model of presentation of a complete explanation of policies and

decisions. This model does not offer a clear explanation of competitions of beneficiaries

in the course of policy making which in the real world is an inseparable part of the

process of policy making. It does not draw a clear line between the gradual changes and

fast changes; this is to say that it does not clearly show the measures of incremental

changes and fast changes. Moreover, this model does not provide an appropriate

understanding of the clash of values and goals and the domination of the preferences of

special elites in the moment of circulation of elites. It just provides a short explanation

of what happens in ordinary conditions and non-sensitive decision making (Guseh &

Clayton, 2004). This model is criticized due to its insistence on partial changes and

refusal of challenging the status quo even if it is wrong.

Another group believes that even in liberal democratic regimes, the power is not

balanced, parallel and stable. The policy would be in the interest of a group which is in

power and it would continue very slowly but by the change of elites a new policy that

paves the path for the interests of the new group would be totally replaced with the

previous ones (king & Kraemer, 2007).

4- Process model

The implementation of policy making does not take place in a specific time and

as an independent action. Rather policy making constitutes a process that includes

several activities and stages (Gupta, 2001). In other words, numerous factors and policy

makers play basic roles. They undertake different tasks in lien with the accomplishment

of the process of policy making. In short, process of policy making can be regarded as a

series of activities in the form of the stages of identification, problem, preparation of

solutions, legalization, implementation and evaluation (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

Given the aforementioned approach, it is not the content of the policy that should

be studied rather those processes should be examined according to which the public

policies are developed, implemented and transformed (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

Each one of the scholars in the field of public policy making have determined some

stages for adoption of policy that these stages regardless of their partial differences are

in general consistent with each other and in the section of the problem statement they

are mentioned.

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

302

5- Garbage can model

This model was first designed by Cohen, March and Olsen. By this model, they

sought to describe the decision making in very unclear and chaotic conditions. This

model was indeed a reaction to rational and political models that according to Cohen

and his colleagues, lack the sufficient capability for making a decision in the

contemporary complicated instable and ambiguous world (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

Based on this model, which is referred to by Cohen and his colleagues as “organized

anarchy”, all types of rationalism are doubted in decision making (Vahid, 2001).

Therefore, complication is not the only feature of policy rather we have to add ambiguity

to it too. In this regard, March adds the following four categories:

1- Ambiguity in preferences and intentions: preferences and intentions are not

permanent, stable and coordinated rather they change with the action.

2- Ambiguity in decision is not merely based on the technical measures rather it

has symbolic aspects and is under the influence of myths and rituals.

3- Ambiguity in the interpretation of past: The past of organizations as well as

their structure and goals are usually revised and reinterpreted based on the current

conditions.

4- Ambiguity in purposefulness and relevance of actions, behaviors and

decisions: one cannot see any clear relationship between solutions, problems,

tools, goals, causes and effects (Angello, 2001).

6- Institutional model

Political activities are focused on the governmental institutions like the triple

forces of the legislative, the administrative and the judiciary as well as the local

organizations and municipalities. From a legal point of view, public policy is

determined, implemented and applied through these institutions (Qolipur, 2018). There

is a very close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. A

policy is exactly called public when it is implemented and applied by a number of

governmental institutions. Adoption of policy by governmental institutions has several

features. Before anything else, the government legitimizes policies. Verily this

capability of government causes the policies to have sanctions and the citizens to follow

them (Lester & Stuart, 2003).

The other feature is extension and inclusiveness of public policies which are

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

303

notified and exercised by the government. Leading the administrative power, the

government implements the adopted policies throughout the society. While there is no

such capability in other social institutions (Gerston, 2017). Despite the limited

perspective of political sciences of the institutional studies in past, this method should

not be considered a less important pattern (Lester & Stuart, 2003).

Governmental constitution uses the organized patterns of behaviors of

individuals and groups. The term “organized” in this context refers to those behavioral

patterns that have a determinate order and continue to be in long term. These stable

patterns of individual and group behaviors would influence the content of public policy.

The institutions would be so organized that facilitate the implementation of a policy and

create certain impediments before the implementation of other policy. These policies

might give priority to some determinate interests in the society.

While others are deprived of its benefit, determinate individuals and groups

would enjoy further access to governmental possibilities under determinate structural

conditions as compared to other structural features. To put it in a nutshell, structure of

governmental institutions might have an active and decisive role both in adoption and

implementation of a policy (Howlett & Ramesh, 2003).

7- Systematic model

Policy making in the form of a system is the result of environmental data and a

current that provides certain solutions in the form of a policy based on the received

problems (Qolipur, 2018). Political system is a set of relevant structures and processes

that allocate the social resources based on authority to certain sectors of the society. The

output of the system of allocated resources is in the form of decisions and actions that

emerge in the ofrm of policy (Jones & Baumgartner, 2019). The systematic theory has

been explicitly and implicitly used by many researchers who seek to analyze and study

the causes and outcomes of the public policies (Nagel, 2002). Systematic model

expresses the public policy as the output of the system. Theory of policy in the form of

a system in the society refers to a set of identifiable institutions and activities that change

the needs into reliable decisions that require the support of all social classes. The system

theory also refers to the elements of a system that are related with each other. System is

able to answer the forces around itself and it handles this in order to sustain itself. Inputs

enter the system of policy making in the form of expectations and needs of society and

support or refusal of support of citizens inside the system and the output will be the

passed policy (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

304

8- Political model

Some thinkers of political sciences have lately struggled to classify the political

activities and behaviors based on their relationship with public policies. The result of

this action in general is the codification of a set of stages of policy making. In short,

from this perspective, one can conceive the process of policy making as a set of political

activities in the form of identification of problems, preparation of proposed policies,

legalization of policies, implementation of policies and evaluation of policies (Lester &

Stuart, 2003). According to this model, scholars of political sciences should limit their

studies as regards the public policy just to these processes (Alvani & Sharifzadeh, 2007).

Political model of policy making allows the scholars to study the mechanism of adoption

of decisions and understand the correct method of decision making. But it does not allow

it to change and interpret the basis of the public policy (Ewalt, 2001).

Conclusion

In the contemporary world full of complication and change, the resolution of

problems requires enlightened and conscious minds. Man is today encircled by different

issues each one of which has faced the future of humanity and his social order with

different threats. By adoption of policies, governments struggle to create a change.

Policy represents a long term decision that rules in years and is adopted in response to

issues. But this answer solves the problems through creation of change. For social

problem is aspects of society as to which the people are concerned and seek to change

them. If this change overcomes the abnormal situation, and brings the mutual relations

of the society and individuals back to normal, it is considered to be a desirable change

but if it leads to the decrease of public welfare or intensification of dissatisfaction, it is

regarded as an undesirable change. Thus, as we move forward everyday, the policy

problems become encountered with further complications and more knowledge and

skills in addition to skill and knowledge in the technical and human fields and the

administration of organizational affairs are required in the field of economic, social,

political and environmental issues. Thus, importance of policy making and study and

discussion concerning it is not hidden to anyone.

Reliance on some values, hedonism, materialism, humanism, individualism,

rationalism, notion of efficient government as used by the policy makers or unofficial

examiners, have challenged the current methods. Particularly, there are some methods

that pretend to be able to extract universal laws that are not restricted to time and space.

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

305

This unreal presupposition and as a result, lack of practical conditions of theory, has

casted doubts of its validity. The foundations of the philosophical analysis of

methodology, application and effects of policy in different domains, stereotypical

separation of mind and world and identification of presumptions and realities are among

the methodological problems of policy making that have challenged the nature of policy

making. If we consider postmodernism to be an intellectual-cultural movement that has

influenced all relations of modern man, the science of policy making and processes of

public decision making are also under the influence of these paradigms.

Administrative management has experienced many different paradigms and

movements in the course of history in the domain of management of societies. These

paradigms and movements can be classified in six groups: 1- movement of

administrative management, 2- management of traditional affairs; 3- management of

modern public affairs; 4- modern administrative management; 5- modern public

services; 6- management of religious affairs and religious democracy. Each one of these

movements has adopted a specific approach for management of public affairs that can

be outlined as follows: (Economic) Managerial Approach: in this approach the

knowledge of values is in the hands of the managers and the organization is like a

business; the management is like a shopkeeper and the individual who refers to the

organization is like a customer. Legal Approach: The scope of action and freedom of

action of management of public affairs is determined by the constitution, other mother

laws, bills and instructions. Management in administrative sector is in charge of policies

that have their origin in every country’s constitution. Political Approach: In this

approach, organizational structure takes form around the political values, representation,

accountability and responsibility. In this approach, representation and decision making

based on the public opinions and beneficiaries are important. Professional Approach: Its

main doctrine is sthe application of the management of private sector to the

administrative sector. The theory of public choice is the manifestation of the behavior

of administrative managers in this this approach. Privatization in Iran that has been

started in recent years is an endorsement of this approach in administrative sector. Moral

Approach: Existing differences in dominant values of the governmental and private

sectors are resulted from this approach. Such values as justice, fairness, equality,

sensitivity towards the citizens in the governmental sector and efficiency and parsimony

are the dominant values of private sector. Religious Approach: In this approach, the

servant of God are the lords of the political system. The organizational structure in it

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

306

should be designed based on the principle of people’s satisfaction and God’s satisfaction

and every individual is a servant of God and respected. If an organization makes use of

a combination of all aforementioned approaches in policy making in order to achieve its

mission and essential goals, this is the clear extension of the theory of collage of

rationality and the strategy of Danaeifar et al. (2010) which is a new theory in line with

the postmodernism in the process of policy making. Such notions as the criticism of

objectivity, irrationalism, superficialism, denial of origin and denial of notions like

betterment, development and justice are among the features of the postmodern paradigm

that influence the theories of formation of policy. The influence of the aforementioned

notions in the process of policy making is conveyed to the mind of every policy maker

by such issues as the “Garbage can Model” in policy making, power centers, pressure

groups, the mechanism of putting the insignificant issue on the agenda, universal models

and the insistence on local models of development and public decision making,

pluralism and participation.

References

Alvani, M. & Hashemian, M. (2008), Re-reading of Sciences of Policy Making in the

Context of Postmodernism: Formation of Policy in Postmodern Field, Journal of

Methodology of Human Sciences, 5(6): 99-122.

Alvani, M. & Sharifzadeh, F. (2007), Process of Public Policy Making. Tehran, Iran:

Allama Tabatabaei University Press.

Angello, M. (2001). A postmodern literacy policy analysis. England, Peter Lang Pub.

Brooks, A. & Lewis, G. (2002), Enhancing policy Models with Explory Analysis,

Journal of public sciences, 18(2): 69-80.

Daneshfard, K. (2009), Process of Public Policy Making, Islamic Azad University of

Sciences and Researches, First Edition, 17(5): 311-325.

Dye, T. (2002), Understanding public policy, New Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.

Ewalt, J. (2001), Theories of governance and new public management: Links to

understanding welfare policy implementation, prepared for presentation at the

Annual conference of the American Society for public Administration, 101-112.

Farahani, M. (2004), Postmodernism and Education, Iran: Abizh Press..

Gerston, L. (2017). Making process and principles. England: M. E. Sharpe.

Gupta, D. (2001). Analyzing publicy. Concepts, Tools, and Techniques. England: CQ

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

307

press.

Guseh, J. & Clayton, M. (2004), Quality and complexity- reasons form English Higher

Education, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(9):

171-186.

Howlett, M. & Ramesh, M. (2003). Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy

subsystems. USA: Oxford University Press, USA.

Jones, B. & Baumgartner, F. (2019). Model of choice for public policy, Journal of public

Administration Research and Theory, 15(1): 63-77.

King, J. & Kraemer, K. (2007). Models, facts and the policy process The political

Ecology of Estimated Truth. Center for Research on information systems and

Organization (CRITO), 6(3): 48-60.

Lester, J. & Stuart J. (2003), Process of Public Policy Making, An Evolutionary

Approach. Iran: Savalan Press.

Nagel, S. (2002). Policy Evaluation; Beyond the cutting Edge. USA: Nova Science Pub.

Qolipur, R. (2010). Process of Public Policy Making in Iran. Tehran, Iran: Iranian

Parliament Research Center.

Qolipur, R. (2018), Organizational Decision Making and Process of Public Policy

Making, SAMT, 11(2): 90-104.

Simon, H. (2019). Administative Behaviour. London; Macmillan

Vahid, M. & Qalchi, H. (2007). Methods of Public Policy Making, Journal of Politics,

Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, 29(1): 140-153.

Vahid, M. (2001). An Introduction to Public Policy Making, Journal of Faculty of Law

and Political Sciences, 52(3): 23-40.

Vahid, M. (2006), Democracy in the Mirror of Public Policy Making, Journal of

Farhange Andisheh, 18(1): 840-853.

Revista de Investigación Apuntes Universitarios

2020: 10(4)294 - 308

ISSN 2312-4253(impresa)

ISSN 2078-4015(en línea)

308