When we first learn about policymaking, it looks clean and simple. You spot a problem, design a solution, get it approved, roll it out, then check if it worked. Neat and tidy.
A familiar public policy process model often gets used to explain this neatness. It starts with agenda setting and moves through formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and maintenance.
Another policy cycle model you might have come across is the ROAMEF cycle:
Other models might add layers like consultation and coordination but follow a similar logic. Such frameworks help when you’re teaching students policy concepts or trying to organize your own work.
But if you’ve worked inside government or around policymaking for any length of time, you know it almost never works like this. Politics interfere and interests collide. Data gets questioned and decisions don’t stick.
We’re going to explore how these policy formation models work in theory, using childhood obesity policy as our running example. Then we’ll look at how things actually unfold once real life gets involved.
Formal Policy Cycle Models
Let’s start with the policy making models people often learn first. The most popular policy cycle gives us six stages. It begins with agenda setting, where policymakers scan the horizon and spot emerging problems. Next comes formulation, where experts assess possible impacts and options.
Adoption follows, where advice gets handed to regulatory bodies who officially approve a solution. Then comes policy implementation, where verification and technical guidance turn plans into real action.
After that, policy evaluation checks whether the policy actually works. Finally, support and maintenance handle ongoing tweaks, crisis response, and feedback.
Common Policy Formulation Cycle:
- Agenda Setting (foresight scanning, identifying emerging issues)
- Formulation (impact assessments)
- Adoption (support and advice to regulatory bodies)
- Implementation (independent verification, methodological guidance)
- Evaluation (efficiency and effectiveness)
- Support/Maintenance (crisis response, feedback, updates)
Other policy cycle models might add even more detail. They might start by identifying issues, then move into policy analysis, where evidence is gathered and options are weighed. From there, policy instruments get developed to put those ideas into action. Consultations gather views from affected groups. Coordination helps align work across government departments and external partners. A formal policy decision is made, leading to implementation, and finally, evaluation.
Alternative Policy Development Model:
- Identify Issues
- Policy Analysis
- Policy Instrument Development
- Consultation
- Coordination
- Decision
- Implementation
- Evaluation
These policy design models try to map out how good policy should be made. They are helpful when you need a shared language or a teaching tool. But they assume a kind of order and logic that rarely survives contact with real politics, competing interests, and messy institutions.
Example: Charting the Policy Cycle for Childhood Obesity
To see how these models are supposed to work, let’s use childhood obesity as our case study. Imagine rising obesity rates get flagged by public health data. The problem lands on policymakers’ desks through agenda setting or issue identification.
Next, policy researchers start modeling the costs to the NHS, estimating how much treating obesity-related conditions will cost taxpayers down the road. They forecast long-term outcomes and project what might happen if we intervene now versus waiting. This is the analysis phase of the public policy cycle.
From there, civil servants draft a set of policy options. They might suggest school meal standards to improve nutrition, advertising bans on junk food aimed at children, and taxes on sugary drinks. These are the instruments we could use to address the problem.
As part of the policymaking process, the government opens consultations, inviting schools, parents, food industry reps, and health advocates to weigh in. Ministries coordinate across departments like education, health, treasury, and local government to align their efforts.
Eventually, reps from various political parties debate and pass legislation in parliament. Maybe they approve a national sugar tax and mandate stricter nutritional standards in school meals.
This moves the process into implementation. Schools change their menus, local councils monitor compliance, and retailers adjust product formulations to avoid higher taxes.
Finally, evaluation kicks in. Public administration agencies track obesity rates, study consumption patterns, and calculate whether the intervention saves money and improves public health over time.
If new evidence arises or crises hit, adjustments get made through maintenance and ongoing policy updates.
At least, this is how policy adoption looks on paper.
The Messy Reality of Policy Cycles
The theory we just walked through sounds logical. But real policymaking rarely moves that cleanly. When you look closely, every stage of the decision making process gets twisted by politics, interests, timing, and institutional limitations.
Let’s stick with the childhood obesity example and see how things really unfold.
Policy agenda setting isn’t neutral
You might think identifying a problem is straightforward. It’s not. Industry groups often fund research that minimizes the scale of childhood obesity. Instead of focusing on public health risks, they promote narratives about personal responsibility.
The message gets boiled down to “parents should just feed their kids better.”
That framing resonates with certain voters and makes it easier for politicians to avoid tough decisions. No one wants to anger voters who resent government action in their personal lives. The result is delay or outright denial that a real problem exists.
Analysis is politicized
Even when the issue makes it onto the agenda, policy analysis gets messy. Different models can produce wildly different estimates for the long-term costs of obesity.
Industry lobbyists will attack unfavorable models, casting doubt on the data’s credibility. Ministers and political parties might quietly commission studies they know will support their preferred position.
What gets labeled as evidence-based policymaking often reflects which evidence wins the political battle.
Instrument development faces trade-offs
Let’s say government officials finally agree that something must be done. The policy options on the table aren’t chosen purely on merit.
Sugar taxes, for example, trigger fierce opposition from beverage companies who argue the taxes are unfair, regressive, and harmful to small businesses.
To get industry buy-in or avoid prolonged fights, officials might weaken school meal reforms, water down advertising restrictions, or lean on public awareness campaigns that sound good but deliver weak results.
Easier messaging often beats effective action.
Consultation becomes power politics
Official consultations are supposed to gather views from everyone affected. In practice, those with resources dominate the policy making process.
Industry groups send teams of lobbyists, lawyers, and PR experts to flood consultations with submissions. Public health advocates often operate with much smaller budgets and fewer full-time staff.
Sometimes consultations are used to stall the process altogether, buying more time for lobbyists to wear down political will.
Coordination is fragmented
Even when decisions are made, coordination breaks down inside government. The department of health might push for stronger school meal standards, while the treasury worries about costs.
Education departments may resist mandates they see as burdensome for schools. Local governments, who often have limited budgets, may push back against unfunded mandates.
The more actors involved, the harder it is to get everyone moving in the same direction.
Decision-making is rarely final
When legislation finally gets passed, it rarely settles the debate. Political shifts bring new ministers who may oppose or slow down policy implementation. Courts may strike down parts of the law if industry groups sue.
What looked like a settled policy suddenly reopens. Opponents often keep fighting long after legislation passes, finding new pressure points to weaken or reverse the policy.
Implementation faces capacity gaps
Now the rules are technically in place. But schools may lack the funding to improve menus or hire nutritionists.
Local inspectors may be short-staffed and unable to verify compliance across thousands of schools. Retailers may find ways to work around sugar taxes by tweaking product recipes or marketing strategies. This affects policy outcomes.
Implementation success depends not just on the written law, but on capacity, incentives, and enforcement muscle.
Evaluation is often inconclusive or ignored
Finally, we reach policy evaluation. But by now, political attention may have shifted elsewhere, perhaps to climate change or foreign policy objectives. Data collection can take years, and early results may be inconclusive. Ministers facing re-election may have little appetite for reports showing limited early success.
Without strong feedback loops, lessons don’t always translate into policy change. And when evaluations do highlight failures, they sometimes get quietly shelved.
Real Policymaking Is Nonlinear, Political, and Iterative
When you watch real policymaking up close, it quickly becomes clear that the tidy stages from the models rarely hold. The process of getting a policy proposal adopted rarely moves in a straight line.
Stages overlap constantly. Sometimes an issue moves forward, then backward. Other times, one stage opens before another one finishes.
Crises can throw everything off balance. For example, when the pandemic hit, childhood obesity programs were sidelined overnight. Schools closed, physical activity dropped, and food insecurity soared.
Policymakers had to scramble just to keep basic services running. Priorities shifted fast, and years of planning were paused or abandoned entirely.
At every turn, political incentives reshape the agenda. Ministers chase headlines. Opposition parties look for weak spots to attack. Lobby groups apply pressure whenever they see an opening. Public opinion swings depending on media narratives and cultural trends. Even when policymakers want to do the right thing, they often lack the room to maneuver.
Institutional inertia also slows everything down. Large departments defend their turf. Inter-agency disputes block coordination. Budget constraints limit what can be done even when agreement exists. Staff turnover resets knowledge and relationships, forcing stakeholders to start over.
The real policymaking process is not a cycle. It’s a swirling set of negotiations, reversals, compromises, and lucky breaks. Policy scholars and decision makers must expect this mess and learn how to work through it.
Final thoughts on the policy cycle
The policy cycle models give us a good starting point, but they don’t reflect how decisions really get made. If you work in policy, you already know that real life brings delays, conflicts, and constant course corrections.
Politics shape what gets attention. Lobbying influences whose voices get heard. Institutions move slowly, and priorities shift with every election or crisis.
The real skill in policy work is knowing how to navigate this mess. You need to read the room, build coalitions, find openings, and adapt as things change. That’s what separates effective policy professionals from the rest.
Need help preparing policy documents?
We help policy teams develop clear research briefs, synthesis reports, and policy briefing materials that drive impact.Â
If you need help communicating complex policy issues with clarity and structure, we can help you shape research documents that support your internal teams, briefings, and stakeholder conversations.
Mo is the founder and CEO of Column Content, a thought leadership content agency that helps leaders shape public opinion. Connect with him on LinkedIn.
