Introduction: Public Policy as a Complex Multidisciplinary Field

Right from its origin as a policy science in the US in the 1950s (Lasswell, 1951a; 1951b; 1956), public policy as a faculty of human enquiry was conceived as a multidisciplinary field. Lasswell[1] (1971) characterized the future of the study of public policy as inherently multidisciplinary. Writing over two decades later in his textbook Public Policy, Wayne Parsons agrees with Laswell and gives a broad overview of the multidisciplinarity of the field of policy analysis. He calls the field “rich in different approaches, academic disciplines, models (heuristic and causal), metaphors and maps” (Parsons, 1995, p. 64). Yet, some analyses have argued that the multi- and inter-disciplinary engagements in public policy have largely been theorized beyond the impacts they have had in policy debates and substantive issues (Peters & Pierre, 2006). Nonetheless, though public policy is fundamentally grounded on public administration (Hupe & Hill, 2006) and hence political science (Peters & Pierre, 2006), part of the key definitive feature of public policy studies is that it is “highly differentiated, complex, and sizeable.” Additionally, “the academic study of public policy has also been expanding to include a wider range of academic disciplines and approaches” (Ibid, p. 1).

In this context, it is important for public policy students to appreciate that while “different academic disciplines conceptualize public policy and policymaking differently […] a number of academic disciplines bring something to the table when the discussion of public policy begins” (Ibid). Subsequently, and more broadly, the influence of different disciplines plays out, not only in the scholarly debate on how to best understand public policy, but also in the substantive issues that the discipline helps to identify. For this reason, Thibodeaux (2015) declares that “any unidimensional analysis of policy therefore should be somewhat suspect, although each scholar will remain a prisoner of his or her academic training” (p. 6).

Against the foregoing backdrop, this term paper aims to appraise the key contributions of one of the oldest social sciences, sociology, to the field of public policy. The methodology adopted in the study involved collecting secondary data using Google Scholar and Sci-Hub platforms to create a database from which to base the paper’s arguments. Using these web search enablers, the researcher used key phrases such as sociology and public policy, sociological engagement, and relationship between sociology and public policy, among others. The data then was collected and analyzed through content analysis and presented argumentatively through texts. Before embarking on a presentation and discussion of sociology’s contribution to the field of public policy, it is important to note two important points. Firstly, the lack of consensus on the real contribution of sociology to public policy is first and foremost as a result of internal disagreements between sociologists themselves on what they have to offer on the question of ‘what ought to be done’ (Ghimire, 2017, p. 43). Put simply, sociologists don’t agree on the key questions that they need to explore in regards to public policy (Deprez, 1991). 

Another contention worth noting is that a keen reading of sociological engagement with public policy literature reveals three main stances in the literature on sociological perspectives of public policy. One stance is that sociology has little to do with public policy and the tools of public policy are distanced from sociological work (Lynd, 1939; Hempel, 1965). The second viewpoint is that sociology has tremendous capacity to contribute to public policy, especially the making of public policy, but despite this opportunity to better governance through sociological lenses, sociological knowledge remains underutilized (Deprez, 1991; Dubois, 2012). The last standpoint argues that public policy is fundamentally a sociological process, hence sociology and sociologists have been critical in shaping the processes of public management (Lascoumes & Gales, 2007; Potucek et al., 2003; Ghimire, 2017). This paper appreciates these arguments while asking the main question: what are the perceived and empirical contributions of sociology as a social science to the field of public policy?

Sociology’s Contributions to Public Policy: Conceptual, Theoretical, and Empirical

For systematic and analytic reasons, sociology’s contributions to public policy can be categorized as conceptual, theoretical, and empirical. Conceptually, the field of sociology has availed certain terminologies that have since become a core part of policy processes at different stages. Theoretically, the study of public policy and political science has borrowed heavily from mainstream and alternative approaches to understanding sociological objectives of study. Lastly, some scholars have pointed out evidence that sociology’s contribution to public policy does not only focus on the conceptual and theoretical levels but has had impacts on substantive policy issues both at the subnational, national, transnational, international, and global scales. Due to space limitations, the following pages will briefly illuminate these three categories of sociology’s contribution to public policy.

Conceptual Significance of Sociology to Public Policy Analysis

There are many concepts in sociology that have fundamentally informed public policy studies. This paper uses these concepts to underscore sociology’s significance in enriching public policy analysis. One of the most important concepts that structure sociologists’ public policy debates is public sociology. According to Ghimire (2017), public sociology connotes that the different members of the public and subsequently their interactions are a critical subject of study for sociologists. This contention was demonstrated by the 2004 American Sociological Association’s (ASA) slogan: “sociology and the public agenda” (Ibid, p. 44). Hence, sociologists have played a critical role in researching and arguing that the public and their social interactions cannot be disconnected from public policy processes. They have bargained very strongly that public interests must permeate policymaking processes and that non-social aspects of public policies must be seen from a public sociology perspective, in which public policy is targeted at human beings who are not machines but rather social animals (Weiss, 1993; Burawoy, 2007). Ghimire (2017) adds that the scope of the concept of public policy is not static but increasingly changing. For example, he asserts that public sociology has been focused on the domestic sphere, actors, processes, and issues, but recently the scope has been expanded to cover extraterritorial actors such as transnational and global actors and their influence in public policy processes, whether policy formulation, implementation, or termination. Additionally, public sociology according to Ghimire (2017) was overfocused on policy formulation but recently has covered policy implementation. This means that sociologists are now researching and advising actors on policy implementation problematics.

The second conceptual contribution to public policy processes and studies has been the concept of networks and networks analysis. Dubois (2012) makes the argument that in the study of the production and implementation of public policies, analysis in terms of networks is no doubt the approach most frequently adopted. He traces the origins of this concept in sociological research largely to the 1970s in the US and UK and contends that the concept of networks as applied to public policy analysis has given rise to better descriptive and prescriptive concepts, which have all enhanced conceptual clarity in public policy analysis. Such concepts with more parsimonious power in public policy analysis, but which trace their origins to networks research in sociological work, include the concept of the policy community, “which designates the set of actors, of varying status—politicians, civil servants, experts, representatives of interest groups, etc., who interact in defining a policy” (Dubois, 2012, p. 2). Subsequently, the concept of the issue network has come to designate the network formed around the resolution of a certain type of problem (Le Galès & Thatcher, 1995).

According to Dubois (2012), the initial intention of concept networks in public policy studies or in policy sociology is very simple. Essentially, it is to underline that public actors are not the only actors who determine the orientations of policies, and to integrate into the analysis their relations with private actors, essentially the interest groups who are very present today in the American political system of lobbying, but also widely spread across the globe. Hence, it is arguable that the now celebrated concept of governance as the organizing framework for understanding public policy borrows largely from sociology as a concept, particularly through sociological work on network analysis as applied in the sub-field of sociology of public policy.

Added to the sub-concepts of policy community, issues network, and lobbying, Dubois (2012) adds Cerny’s (2001) concept of iron triangle,[2] Bergeron et. al.’s (1998) concept of advocacy coalitions, and Haas’s (1992) concept of epistemic community. He argues that members of specialist Congressional committees, civil servants in relevant federal agencies, and corresponding interest groups are linked in iron triangles. The concept of iron triangles implies the traditional formations or actorship in public policy in the sense of government, not governance. Policy triangle refers to a policy network whereby the government takes the lead in the process as the “governing actor.”[3] Dubois then conceives advocacy coalitions as the next layer of networks following the iron triangle that are “the actors in heterogeneous positions brought together by a problem of which they share a common vision form advocacy coalitions” (p. 2). Finally, the most hybrid layer of networks according to Dubois is what is referred to as epistemic community. He asserts that the experts, civil servants, politicians, and other promoters of public policies who have the same ways of thinking and analyzing make up an epistemic community. An epistemic community as a sub-concept of the networks applied in public policy contains three main contentions: a) the community is inherently transnational, international, and global in scale; b) actors are governmental, non-governmental, institutional, and individuals; c) what brings the members of the community together is the pursuit of a common goal, which is possible when policies are harmonized and interests compromised.  

In this context, the concept of epistemic communities connotes very closely Cerny’s (2001) concept of golden pentangles,[4] which is relevant to what Hupe & Hill (2006) call the public of multiple layers of governance. This is when a movement from government policy networks or iron triangles where the government takes the lead and plays the “acting actor” (Ibid, p. 22) to governance where the governing actor is not very clear. This is perhaps what the complex independent theorists termed “the multiple channels of action in a globalized world” (Keohane & Nye, 2012). Overall, network research, which is strongly traceable in origin from sociology, has provided policy analysis with a requisite analytical framework to unpack and deepen understanding of the underlying interactions between actors in public policy processes.

A third concept common in sociological work that has fundamentally informed public policy analysis is the concept of concrete action systems. The concept was formalized by Crozier & Friedberg (1981)[5] and has since occupied a core place in the sociology of organizations (Dubois, 2012, p. 3). Appraising the utility of this concept in public policy as a field of study, Dupuy & Thoenig (1983) and Grémion (1976) assert that drawing attention to the real relations between actors and moving beyond the juridical analysis of formal organizations has shed light on bureaucratic functioning, the management of reforms, and the power games behind local policies. Three limitations are however highlighted about the utility of the concept in public policy. Firstly, it presents a depoliticized vision of public intervention, detached from the electoral game and more generally from relations of political exchange. Secondly, it postulates a non-hierarchization of action systems, which make it impossible to account for the phenomenon of the concentration of powers. Lastly, the strategic and interactionist vision prevalent in the concept of the action system neglects the symbolic dimension of the exercise of power and therefore of the conduct of policies (Dubois, 2012, p. 4).

Theoretical Significance: Sociological Theories and the Social Policy Related to the Institution of the Family

Sociology is concerned with social interactions and how such processes occur, when they can occur, under what circumstances, and so on. To systematically study social interactions, sociologists have agreed on certain organizing frameworks to define major variables to study in sociological studies. These are what can be called sociological theories. Three major/mainstream theories cut across major university textbooks of sociology (e.g., Mills, 2000; Durkheim, 2013; Berger, 1967; Tomley, 2019; Ferris, 2020): functionalism, social interaction, and conflict theory. Lately, other so-called alternative approaches have also emerged and have been properly applied in sociological studies to understand old and new research domains in sociology. These include: feminism, social constructivism, green theory, and the like.

Sociology has particular interests with institutions. From the times of Durkheim, to Parsons, to modern day theorists and researchers, sociology has used various institutions that structure social interactions within a given society in space and time as its unit of analysis (Deprez, 1981; Lascoumes & Gales, 2007; Thibodeaux, 2015). A fundamental institution has been the family. This section appreciates the role of the two mainstream sociological theories of functionalism and conflict theory and the one alternative approach of feminism in informing public policies concerned with the institution of the family. This is presented in the paragraphs that follow.

Sociological perspectives influence ideas about social policies. Such views are often structured as occurring in a pendulum with the New Right on one extreme, who believe in policies to support the traditional nuclear family, to Radical Feminists on the other extreme, some of whom argue for the abolition of the nuclear family.

Functionalists see society as built on harmony and consensus (shared values), and free from conflict. They see the state as acting in the interest of society as a whole and its social policies as being for the good of all. Functionalists see policies as helping families to perform their functions more effectively and making life better for their members. For example, Fletcher (1966) argues that the introduction of health, education, and housing policies in the years since the industrial revolution has gradually led to the development of a welfare state that supports the family in performing its functions more effectively. Such arguments can be supported with facts such as the government support of education, health, and the social protection of vulnerable groups such as the elderly, persons with disabilities, people facing acute hunger, and so on. For example, in Kenya when late President Mwai Kibaki came to power in 2003, the Government embarked on free primary education and subsidized secondary education. This has had tremendous benefits to the institution of the family since students from humble backgrounds have had the chance to get educated and take up responsibilities for members of their families, as well as contribute to national development processes through taxation, innovation, or remittances if they get a chance to work outside Kenya. The movement towards universal access to healthcare has also had very good benefits to the family as poor families can seek medication in local health centers. Though this is still facing challenges in Kenya (see the Parliamentary Budget Office of Kenya, 2018; 2019), it is a step in a worthy direction. Two criticisms of functionalist-oriented policies on the family have been pointed out by conflict theorists. First, functionalism assumes that all family members will benefit from social welfare programs, which is not the case, and secondly, it assumes that there is a “march of progresses with social policies, gradually making life better, which is a view” (Donzelot, 1977).

A second major theory is the conflict theory. Several writers use the assumptions of a conflict theory to provide an alternative view to functionalism and thus inform public policies around the family institution. I will use Donzelot (1977) to show what conflict theory has to offer to public policies concerning the family. Donzelot (1977) argues that society is in conflict and does not really share values and work toward a common goal in different parts and roles as is the argument in functionalism. He sees policy as a form of state power and control over families. He applies Foucault’s (1976) concept of surveillance (observing and monitoring). Foucault sees power not just as something held by the government or the state, but as diffused throughout society and found within all relationships. In particular, Foucault sees professionals such as doctors and social workers as exercising power over their clients by using their expert knowledge to turn them into “cases” to be dealt with.

Donzelot applies these ideas to the family. He is interested in how professionals carry out surveillance of families. He argues that social workers, health visitors, and doctors use their knowledge to control and change families. Donzelot calls this “the policing of families.” Surveillance is not targeted equally at all social classes. Poor families are much more likely to be seen as “problem families” and as the causes of crime and anti-social behavior. These are the families that professionals target for “improvement.” For example, the state may seek to control and regulate family life by imposing compulsory Parenting Orders through the courts. Parents of young offenders, truants, or badly behaved children may be forced to attend parenting classes to learn the “correct” way to bring up children.

Donzelot rejects the Functionalists’ march of progress view that social policy and the professionals who carry it out have created a better society. Instead he sees social policy as oppressing certain types of families. By focusing on the micro level of how caring professions act as agents of social control through the surveillance of families, Donzelot shows the importance of professional knowledge as a form of power and control. However, Marxists and Feminists criticize Donzelot for failing to identify clearly who benefits from such policies of surveillance. Marxists argue that social policies generally operate in the interests of the capitalist class, while Feminists argue men are the beneficiaries.

The criticisms notwithstanding, conflict theory has had fundamental impact not just on public policies but also on politicking, especially in low-resource regions and countries. For example, the hustlers versus dynasties campaign framework that underpinned Kenya’s 2022 elections is conflict theory in practice. President Ruto, then deputy president, tagged Raila, his opponent, as coming from one of the dynastic families in Kenya, who would be unable to pursue national development, would be pro-hustler families, and would champion for the development and continued exploitation of the poor by the rich dynasties. Beyond just politicking, President Ruto has finally implemented the Hustler’s Fund promise as a national policy, arguing that it is a framework to uplift the majority of poor youths and families from poverty.

Feminism is one of the most applied alternative theories to understanding sociological phenomena. However, the notion of feminism has recently been exposed to criticism with most feminist writers arguing that it does not indicate an agreement among and between feminists about the development program befitting both men and women, but rather that it connotes many theories or worldviews altogether. Key exponents like Judith (1999) find the notion of Feminism more applicable than the former. Within feminism she set out a number of feminist theories and perspectives, key of which is Liberal Feminism. Liberal Feminists argue that changes such as the Equal Pay Act and increasingly generous maternity leave and pay are sufficient to bring about gender equality. In the US, certain social policies have led to greater gender equality. The Divorce Act of 1969 gave women the right to divorce on an equal footing to men, which led to a spike in the divorce rate. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 was an important step towards women’s independence from men. Increasingly generous maternity cover and pay made it easier for women to have children and then return to work.

In Kenya, Liberal Feminist perspectives have also permeated the spheres of government and policymaking and this has resulted in the implementation of a number of progressive policies and laws. These include policies on female genital mutilation, paternal leave, gender and development, child labor, child trafficking, education entry behavior waivers for ASAL girls, sexual and gender-based violence, and so on.

Empirical Significance

Sociology and sociologists have had fundamental impact on varied substantive policy issues. The purpose of this section is not to enumerate the roles and contribution of sociology and sociologists in public policy progresses, but to show that sociology, like other social sciences, brings a different and critical vision to public policy discussions, which often harmonize technical framings of public policy with fairer societal notions. Two examples are used to back this assertion.

Sociologists and the Quest for a Responsible Research and Innovation Synthetic Biology Policy in the United Kingdom

Sociologists and sociological perspectives have had a massive impact on the social regulation of synthetic biology in the United Kingdom. Marris & Calvert (2018) document the processes of bargaining for a responsible research and innovation synthetic biology roadmap in the UK. Both scholars are renowned sociologists who were brought on board to see that the visions of the hardcore researchers (the biotechnologists) were balanced by societal needs. Their writing documents the process and their involvement in bargaining for a synthetic biology policy that would balance the intensions of the field and regulate its negative social impacts such as loss of jobs, environmental diversity, health and safety, and bioterrorism (for a comprehensive discussion on the societal perspectives of synthetic biology, see Trump, 2017). Marris & Calvert (2018) report that the role of social scientists, especially sociologists, in the processes of formulating and implementing public policies around highly disruptive technologies such as synthetic biology, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence cannot be denied. They argue that natural scientists are accustomed to framing emerging technologies in a good light, only highlighting the enormous promises they portend to society when adopted and implemented. However, social scientists, especially those operating within sociology’s sub-field of science and society studies (SSS), work to ensure that the “societal vision” (Ibid, p. 9) of emerging technologies are brought to the fore and that public policies take cognizance of the underlying current and anticipated social issues that the technologies may portend.

The scholars report that during the processes of bargaining for the social aspects of the 2016 UK synthetic biology technology, there was open divergence between their views as sociologists and the views of the biotechnologists, with biotechnologists framing the technology as very good for the economy of the UK and needing urgent adoption across all value chains. On their part, the scholars report that they had to provide an alternative vision, a societal vision, and ensure that the document properly touched on “public purpose” notions (Jayanti, 2020). It was in this bargaining for the policy document content that they suggested the concept of responsible research and innovation, which provides for limitations on researchers/biotechnologists and outlines frameworks for curtailing anticipated risks such as on environmental, health, biodiversity, bio-war, and so on.

Hence, this is a key contribution of sociology. It is a practical contribution of the field to one of the most lucrative areas of research and development (R&D) as well as science, technology and innovation (STI) largely in the developed world (see, Jayanti, 2020; Bar-Yam et al., 2012), but developing countries have also exhibited public discourse and research on this area of STI (Ning et al., 2018; ISAAA AfriCentre, 2017).

The role of Professor Mishra in Propagating the Social Welfare State in Nepal

Increased sociological engagement in public policy processes has witnessed continued involvement of key sociologists in critical dockets within governments. In developing countries, this involvement has in certain cases revolutionized how social policy in perceived and implemented. This sub-section will use the case of Nepal and the involvement of Professor Mishra in the propagation of the social welfare state in that country.

Ghimire (2017) traces the origins of sociology in Nepal to 1981 with the establishment of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Tribhuvan University. He adds that since then, sociological engagement has been increasing in public policymaking processes, particularly through the appointment of key sociologists to critical social welfare dockets. In 2004, renowned Nepalese sociologist Chaitanya Mishra was appointed as a member of the National Planning Commission. During his tenure, he contributed to the policy of providing annual grants to all village development committees of Nepal under the “Afnogaun afai banau” program (see Ghimire, 2017). Similarly, the concept of social security allowance was started by him legally for the first time (Ibid). Mishra was key in implementing such social protection endeavors in these two areas of social policies, which the government and his predecessors treated as unimportant policies. Rather, the onset of liberal politics and economics that gave rise to the 1990 political movement in Nepal (Ibid.) was seen as the most important social policy. This clarifies the importance of sociological engagement in the policymaking process and showcases the alternative that public policymakers with sociological training bring to the table—a socialist, welfarist dimension of public policymaking.

Conclusion

This brief discussion began by arguing that public policy is moving in the right direction according to its father, Harold Laswell, who foresaw a multidisciplinary field. It then went ahead to show that among many social science fields that have something to offer in public policy analysis, sociology is key. The paper then pointed to three key areas where sociological engagement has impacted public policy. Conceptually, sociology has provided analytical concepts such as public sociology, policy networks, and concrete action systems. Theoretically, the sociological theories of functionalism, conflict theory, and feminism have played key roles in shaping public policy discussions and have affected the implementation of such policies, especially within social policy domains. The paper has used family as an area of special policy to show how contentions made in these policies have influenced what policy proposals survive to become public policies. Finally, the paper has claimed and shown that the contribution of sociology goes beyond just the conceptual and theoretical but has had practical impacts in guiding national development. The case of synthetic biology in the UK and social welfare policy in Nepal were used to justify this claim.

Odhiambo Kasera is  graduate student and part-time lecturer at Maseno University.

References

Bar-Yam, S., Byers-Corbin, J., Casagrande, R., Eichler F., Lin, A., Oesterreiche, M., Regardh, P., Turlington, R. D., & Oye, K. A. (2012). The regulation of synthetic biology: a guide to United States and European Union regulations, rules and guidelines. SynBERC and iGEM Version, 9.

Berger, L. P. (1967). The Social Construction of Reality. Routledge.

Bergeron, H., Surel, Y., & Valluy, J. (1998). L’Advocacy Coalition Framework. Une contribution au renouvellement des études de politiques publiques? Politix, 41, 195–223.

Burawoy, M. (2007). For Public Sociology. In D. Clawson, et al. (Eds.), Public Sociology (pp. 23–64). University of California Press.

Cerny, Phil. (2001). From ‘Iron Triangles’ to ‘Golden Pentangles’? Globalizing the Policy Process. Global Governance 7(4), 397–410. Brill Publishers.

Crozier M. & Friedberg E. (1981). Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action. University of Chicago Press.

Deprez, L. (1981). Sociology and Public Policy Making: An Essay on the Limited Role of Sociological Knowledge in Shaping Public Policies. Agricultural University Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Donzelot, J. (1979). The Policing of Families. Random House.

Dubois, V. (2012). The Fields of Public Policy. In M. Hilgers & E. Mangez (Eds.), Social Field Theory: Concept and Applications. Cambridge University Press.

Durkheim, E. (2013). Suicide: A study of Sociology. Routledge. (Original work published 1897).

Dupuy, F. & Thoenig J. C. (1983). Sociologie de l’administration française. Armand Colin.

Ferris, K. & Stein, J. (2020). The Real World. W.W. Norton & Company.

Ghimire, D. K. (2017). The Importance of Sociological Engagement in Public Policy. KMC Research Journal, 1, 43–50.

Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic Communities and International Policy Coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

Hempel, C. G. (1965). Aspects of Scientific Explanation. The Free Press.

Jayanti, A. (Ed.). (2020). Tech Factsheets for Policymakers, Spring 2020 Series: Synthetic Biology. Harvard Kennedy School, Belfer Center for Science and In