we've talked about how various groups

attempt to influence public policy.

Political parties, interest groups, bureaucratic agencies,

even social movements.

And we've talked about The Policy Process Model.

This is how a problem is identified

and potentially addresses,

through a policy solution.

So in this video,

let's bring these two things together

by thinking through when and how

each of these groups might influence

the policy process.

So let's say that our problem is climate change.

As we've discussed in other videos,

climate change has only recently

become an issue

that voters wanna see politicians address.

Social movements have put climate change

on the policy agenda,

with climate activists leading

marches and strikes

to demand action from politicians.

You will most often see

the influence of social movements

at this point in the Policy Process,

or at the Policy Evaluation step.

Take a moment to think about why that is.

What are the characteristics

of broad based social movements

that make it more difficult

for them to engage at other parts

of the policy process.

Well, social movements are large,

often led at the grassroots level,

and so they may not have a central body

that could get into the weeds

with crafting policy.

When people go out to protest,

it's usually because they want

a policy to be enacted to solve a problem,

or because they're not happy with an existing policy

and they want it to be removed or revised.

So that's why you might also see

social movements influencing policy

at the Evaluation and Change stage.

Okay, so say that climate activists

have gotten their issue onto the agenda,

now it's time for Policy Formation.

Coming up with a potential solution

to the problem,

which groups might be involved with that?

This is a time when interest groups

might play a large role,

and environmental group may have a strong opinion

about what goals the government should work toward

in curbing climate change.

Whether that's reducing carbon emissions,

or incentivizing clean energy.

In fact an interest group

might even write potential legislation

for members of Congress.

In the Policy Legitimation stage,

when the proposed solution is debated

and set to become law,

you may see political parties

exerting a great deal of influence.

A party member in Congress

may champion the legislation

as a representation of their party's goals,

or work against it because it conflicts

with their party's goals.

This stage is also when the federal budget

process takes places.

So you might find bureaucratic agencies or departments

campaigning to spend more or less money

on the policy.

Now the law's on the books.

Let's say it's a law to reduce carbon emissions

by 25% over 10 years,

and the money is lined up to fund it.

It's time for the Implementation Stage.

So which groups might attempt

to exert influence

in this stage of the process?

Well, definitely bureaucratic agencies,

at least one of which will be tasked

with implementing the new law.

This is also a time when interest groups

will be really prominent.

Remember, the law might have an overarching goal,

reducing carbon emissions by 25%,

but it's up to the bureaucracy

to come up with the specific rules

that will make that happen.

So interest groups representing coal,

oil, or solar power,

might attempt to influence those rules

in their favor.

Now the last stage of the process, Evaluation.

Who do you think will wanna have a say

in how effective the policy has been

in solving the problem?

If you guessed everyone,

you're getting the hang of this policy making thing.

Experts in the bureaucracy

may undertake a formal analysis of data

to understand how well policy goals

have been met.

Political parties may want to tout

how effective a program

they sponsored was, or critique how ineffective

a program they opposed was.

Interest groups may request adjustments

to the program

to better serve their members.

And social movements,

as we've already mentioned,

might turn out to protest,

or on rare occasions,

to celebrate the outcome of a policy,

and then the whole process starts again.