Analyzing the Policy Process: Steps and Stages

Every policy that governs daily life – from the free ration you receive under the National Food Security Act to the tap water being piped into rural homes under the Jal Jeevan Mission – did not simply appear overnight. It travelled through a structured, often messy, multi-stage journey before it could touch a single citizen’s life. This journey is what scholars and practitioners call the policy process. Understanding how it works – and why it sometimes fails – is essential for anyone serious about governance and public administration.

What is the policy process?
Stage 1: Problem identification
Stage 2: Agenda setting
Stage 3: Policy formulation
Stage 4: Policy adoption
Stage 5: Policy implementation
Stage 6: Policy evaluation
The iterative and non-linear nature of the process
Stakeholders across the policy process
What do you think?

What is the policy process?

The policy process is the organized sequence of activities through which public problems are recognized, addressed, and assessed by government. Political scientist Harold Lasswell, writing as early as 1956, was one of the first to break this down into functional stages. His framework, which has since evolved, broadly includes problem identification, agenda setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation, and evaluation.

It is important to note upfront: the policy process is not a neat, linear checklist. Stages overlap, loop back, and run in parallel. Still, breaking the process into stages gives analysts and policymakers a structured lens to examine how decisions are made, where they go wrong, and how they can be improved.

Stage 1: Problem identification

Every policy begins with a problem – but not every problem becomes a policy issue. Problem identification involves recognizing societal issues, publicizing them, and expressing demands for government action. This stage is more demanding than it sounds. Identifying a problem requires not just noticing that something is wrong, but also defining it with enough precision to make policy action feasible.

Consider unemployment. Simply saying “unemployment is high” is an incomplete problem definition. A useful policy problem statement would specify which groups are unemployed, why they are unemployed, and what structural barriers prevent them from finding work. Problem identification should conclude with a precise problem definition that includes the cause of the problem.

Actors involved at this stage include civil society organizations, the media, researchers, and affected communities. In India, for instance, data from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS) has repeatedly helped identify critical gaps in healthcare access, nutrition, and child mortality – turning statistical evidence into the foundation for policy action.

Stage 2: Agenda setting

Once a problem is identified, it must compete for the government’s attention. Agenda setting is the stage where key issues are prioritized and placed on the government’s action list. Not all identified problems make it this far – the agenda is limited, and political priorities shape what gets discussed.

The framing of issues is significant in agenda setting because it influences public perception of which matters are important and shapes the steps in policy formulation. Media coverage, advocacy campaigns, judicial interventions, and focusing events such as disasters or crises can all push an issue onto the agenda.

A powerful theoretical lens here is Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework. The framework proposes three distinct streams that influence policymaking: the problem stream (identifying issues requiring intervention), the policy stream (developing potential solutions), and the politics stream (electoral changes, public mood, and political forces). According to Kingdon, solutions become joined to problems, and both of them are joined to favourable political circumstances – creating a brief “policy window” for change.

This framework has been applied to explain several Indian policy developments. A study published in a peer-reviewed health policy journal analyzed the emergence of Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PMJAY) in 2018, finding that events in the problem, politics, and policy streams converged to enable the scheme’s prominent rise on India’s national agenda ahead of general elections.

Stage 3: Policy formulation

Once an issue is on the agenda, the work of designing a policy response begins. Policy formulation is the stage of developing specific proposals to address the identified problem. It involves converting the demands of the system into concrete policy proposals, selecting the appropriate instruments, and examining which demands require to be addressed.

This stage is deeply collaborative. It typically involves:

Research and data analysis – understanding the problem in depth before prescribing solutions.
Stakeholder consultation – engaging affected communities, subject-matter experts, and implementing agencies.
Drafting multiple options – formulating alternative approaches and assessing each for feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and alignment with broader goals.

A well-known example is the National Education Policy 2020. Its formulation involved extensive consultations with educators, students, and experts to develop a comprehensive policy framework. The process took years of drafts, reviews, and revisions – a testament to the complexity of formulating sound policy in a diverse federal system.

The formulation stage is essentially about policy design: setting objectives, choosing a course of action from available options, and selecting the tools to address the problem. Coherence with existing policies, technical feasibility, and financial constraints are all weighed during this stage.

Stage 4: Policy adoption

Formulation produces proposals; adoption makes them official. Policy adoption – sometimes called policy legitimation – is the stage where a policy proposal is officially approved and enacted by the competent authority. This is where political will, legislative processes, and executive decisions converge.

In India, this often involves multiple layers of approval, including cabinet decisions, legislative debates, and executive orders. A bill may be debated in Parliament, amended, sent to select committees, and finally passed before receiving Presidential assent. For executive schemes, the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) or the Union Cabinet must approve. State-level policies go through analogous processes in state legislatures and cabinets.

Adoption is not purely a technical exercise – it is deeply political. The decision-making stage involves choosing the solution and legitimising it, which requires building coalitions of support, managing dissent, and often making compromises that shape the final form of a policy. The Right to Education Act, 2009 and the Goods and Services Tax (GST) are both examples where sustained political negotiation and consensus-building were necessary before adoption could occur.

Stage 5: Policy implementation

Adoption places a policy on the books. Implementation is what actually happens on the ground. This stage involves translating policy decisions into real actions – allocating resources, establishing administrative structures, training personnel, and delivering services to target populations.

Corruption in government agencies and bureaucratic red tape can slow down the implementation process, leading to delays and increased costs. Limited financial resources create trade-offs between competing priorities. Compounding this, lack of clear monitoring mechanisms can lead to inefficiencies and accountability gaps, particularly in states with weaker administrative capacity.

India’s federal structure adds another layer of complexity. Central schemes designed at the national level may fail to account for the vast diversity of conditions across states and districts. This one-size-fits-all approach often produces implementation challenges when policies encounter varying regional capacities and socio-economic conditions.

The Swachh Bharat Mission illustrates both the challenges and possibilities of implementation at scale. The program required coordinating efforts across thousands of local governments, building grassroots capacity, changing citizen behaviors, and tracking progress through a national monitoring system. Implementation strategies had to adapt to varying local contexts while maintaining focus on national targets.

Successful implementation is not accidental. The Aadhaar program overcame enormous technical and logistical challenges to enroll over a billion people by combining strong central coordination with flexible state-level implementation, investing heavily in technology infrastructure, and maintaining political commitment across government changes.

Stage 6: Policy evaluation

The final – and arguably most under-appreciated – stage is policy evaluation. This is where the outcomes of a policy are systematically assessed to determine whether it achieved its objectives, at what cost, and with what unintended consequences.

Evaluation can take several forms:

Process evaluation – examining whether the policy was implemented as designed.
Outcome evaluation – measuring whether specific objectives were met.
Impact assessment – determining broader, longer-term effects, including unintended ones.

Appropriate monitoring and evaluation helps identify challenges in implementation and provides an evidence base for decisions about public resource allocation – making policy development more effective over time. In India, demand for program evaluations has grown significantly, driven by civil society, the Supreme Court, the Comptroller and Auditor General, and multilateral agencies like the World Bank and the United Nations.

Yet evaluation remains a weak link in the policy chain. Policy evaluation in India faces several challenges including lack of baseline data, difficulty in establishing causation, political sensitivities around evaluation findings, and limited evaluation capacity within government. When the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) was evaluated, subsequent scrutiny revealed glaring deficiencies including inadequate healthcare infrastructure and workforce shortages – findings that statistical evidence from the NFHS corroborated.

The MGNREGA scheme offers a more encouraging example. MGNREGA has undergone several revisions based on implementation experiences, social audits, and impact evaluations, demonstrating the iterative nature of policy development.

The iterative and non-linear nature of the process

It is tempting to think of these six stages as a tidy sequence. In practice, they rarely are. Multiple stages may occur concurrently – implementation may begin before formulation is complete, or evaluation may inform ongoing implementation. Information and learning flow continuously between stages, creating dynamic adaptations.

The COVID-19 response illustrates this vividly. Problem identification, policy formulation, adoption, and implementation occurred almost simultaneously as the crisis unfolded. Continuous evaluation led to real-time policy adjustments, demonstrating the fluid boundaries between policy stages during urgent situations.

This iterative quality is not a sign of disorder – it is a feature of responsive governance. Feedback mechanisms play a crucial role in keeping the process dynamic and relevant. Feedback can come from public opinion, media reports, and evaluation studies, helping policymakers make necessary adjustments so that the policy remains effective. The continuous updates to India’s digital infrastructure policies – adapting to rapid technological change – are a good example of an iterative policy process in action.

Stakeholders across the policy process

No stage of the policy process is the domain of government alone. Different actors shape, influence, and participate in each stage.

At the problem identification and agenda-setting stages, civil society organizations, the media, academic researchers, and affected communities are often the most vocal voices. At formulation and adoption, technical experts, parliamentary committees, cabinet ministers, and inter-ministerial consultations take centre stage. Implementation draws in district-level administrators, frontline workers, NGOs, and local governments. Evaluation involves independent researchers, audit institutions, the judiciary, and international bodies.

The Jal Jeevan Mission demonstrates how this multi-actor dynamic plays out across a single policy. While central government officials led agenda-setting and formulation, implementation relies heavily on local governments and community participation. Evaluation incorporates both technical water quality measures and community feedback, creating multiple influence channels throughout the policy cycle.

Understanding who influences each stage – and how – is essential for diagnosing policy successes and failures. It also makes clear why the policy cycle model is valuable: it provides a structured framework for analyzing how policies evolve, even as real-world policymaking rarely follows the textbook sequence.

What do you think?

What do you think? When a government scheme fails to deliver on its promises, which stage of the policy process do you think is most likely to have broken down – problem identification, implementation, or evaluation? And given India’s diversity and federal structure, what changes to the policy process might make it more responsive to ground-level realities?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

What is the policy process? 🔗

Stage 1: Problem identification 🔗

Stage 2: Agenda setting 🔗

Stage 3: Policy formulation 🔗

Stage 4: Policy adoption 🔗

Stage 5: Policy implementation 🔗

Stage 6: Policy evaluation 🔗

The iterative and non-linear nature of the process 🔗

Stakeholders across the policy process 🔗

What do you think? 🔗