Journal of Sustainable Development; Vol. 6, No.

8; 2013
ISSN 1913-9063 E-ISSN 1913-9071
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education

Identification of Factors Influential in Policy Making and Presenting a

Combined Model of Iran’s Policy-Making
Lotfolah Forozandeh Dehkordy1, Fatemeh Shakhsian2, Khaled Nawaser3, Seyed Mahdi Vesal4 & Azadeh Kamel5
1
Faculty of Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Iran
2
Research Scholar in Business Management, Payam-e-Noor University, Iran
3
Marketing Management (SIOM) & International Business (AIMS), University of Pune, India
4
Department of Management, University of Nooretouba, Iran
5
E-business management, Industrial Management Institute (IMI), Iran
Correspondence: Khaled Nawaser, Allana Institute of Management Sciences (AIMS), University of Pune,
Maharashtra, India. Tel: 91-800-717-4492. E-mail: [email protected]

Received: June 2, 2013 Accepted: July 17, 2013 Online Published: July 24, 2013
doi:10.5539/jsd.v6n8p118 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jsd.v6n8p118

Abstract
Modeling is a modern concept that enables the audience to analyze and understand components. Policy making
models can describe complexity of what happening in real world in a simple and conceivable form. These
models are considered as tools for clarifying thinking about policies and each one examines this issue with a
special approach and from a specific point of view. In this article, it is attempted to present the most prominent
policy making models collected by library study method, their effective factors are identified and the combined
model of policy making in Iran is obtained based on relationships between these factors by interpretive structural
modeling method using views of the experts. The results illustrates that the Cost-benefit analysis, political
currents in society, previous decisions and social influence and power are the most influential factors in policy
making.
Keywords: policy making, policy-making models, combined model, interpretive structural modeling
1. Introduction
No decision maker makes decision in vacuum. A decision usually appears through a complex environment in
which many factors are involved. As Donald K. Hansen states: “decision makers (especially at national level) are
in a very complex environment that encounters many obstacles including international law, various regulations,
institutions and ideologies. Even if these factors are not considered so much as obstacles, a policy maker
encounters issues like bureaucracy, influential figures, media, parliament and cognitive limitations”. David
Brooks states: “a policy maker has general goals in mind but unknown path ahead in which everything is
obscure” (Edwards, 1996). Determination of priorities and distinguishing between optimal and satisfactory
results is sometimes very challenging and how it must be addressed varies with each particular case.
Modeling is a modern word that enables audience to analyze and understand components. Policy making models
can describe complexity of what happening in real world in a simple and conceivable form. These models are
considered tools for clarifying thinking about policies and each one examines this issue from a specific point of
view (Boer et al., 2011). These models also can be effective in identification of the following factors:
identification of the most important aspects of policies, concentrating on obvious characteristics of political
thought, drawing a distinction between important and unimportant events in policy making process, describing
policies and predicting their results (Cockrel, 2002). Some of these models have rationalism approach (from
totally rational to combined models) and others follow realism approach (Gholipour, 2008), that in fact indicates
attitude and logic of decision makers.
As mentioned earlier, each proposed model addresses policy making concept from a specific aspect and
particular point of view. In order to make these models more applicable in general policy makings of country,
this articles tries to review the most important models proposed in policy making area, identify the most

118
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

important factors constittuting these moodels, and obtaain a combined model for poolicy making iin Islamic Republic
Regime.
2. Policy M
Making Modeels
In a generral categorizattion, models pproposed in poolicy making aarea can be caategorized in ttwo general grroups
based on ““decision makiing manner” aand based on “tthe decision m
maker”. First, m
models based oon decision ma aking
manner aree addressed:
2.1 Modelss Based on Deecision Makingg Manner
2.1.1 Process Model
One of thee most appliedd models in ggeneral (publicc) policy makiings is process model. Thiss model focuse es on
detection oof pattern of acctivities or proocesses and inccludes the folloowing steps: prroblem determ
mination, presenting
various soolutions, legitiimizing a soluution, implemeentation, evaluuation. Proponnents of this m model believee that
researcherrs should focuus on strategy making proceess instead off nature of strrategies. This idea helps us find
manner off decision makking and strateegy making (C Clift, 2003; Raabiee & Givriaan, 2005; Alvaani & Sharif za adeh,
2008).
Process m
model was exteended by Osim mo (2011) in foorm of three looops: policy m making processs model was in the
middle looop, tasks to be done in each step were in thhe middle loopp and finally, tools that shouuld be used in each
step were iin the outer looop.

Figure 1. Exttended (three-lloop) process m

model (Osimoo, 2011)

In a range from rationaliism to realism,, Rational Moddel to Gradual Changes Moddel can be conssidered:
2.1.2 Ratioonal Model
In this moodel proposed in rationalism
m approach, thee aim of speciifying strategies is to maxim mize social ben
nefit.
Therefore,, governments should choosse strategies w whose benefits are more thann their costs. TThis model hass two
main guideelines: first, am
mong various strategies, straategies whose costs are moree than benefitss should be avo
oided
and secondd, decision maakers should cchoose those sttrategies that hhave most bennefit comparedd to costs (Sabatier,
2007; Bouulanger, 2005; Rabiee & Givrrian, 2005; Alvvani & Sharif zadeh, 2008).
2.1.3 Satissfactory Modell
The aim of this model iss to find a satissfactory solutioon in current cconditions rathher than the besst way. Limita
ations
of sourcess, time and infformation andd insight of m manager and deecision maker often leave nno other choice for

119
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

decision m
making in this model. In thiss model, sufficciently-good soolutions are prreferred to maaximizing good
dness
(Howlett eet al., 2009).
2.1.4 Graddual Changes Model
M
This modeel considers puublic (general) strategy as coontinuance of pprevious activiities of governnment with min
nimal
modification. It assumess that decision makers do nott examine all ccurrent and prooposed strateggies every year. It is
why this mmodel is considdered a conserrvative model iin public policcy making andd is focused onn past programss and
policies annd designs new
w strategies baased on this proograms (Wyneer, 2011; Alvaani & Sharif zaadeh, 2008). Public
budget andd budgetary pllanning is recoognized as a wwell known straategy or law bbased on Graduual Changes model
m
(Rabiee & Givrian, 20055).
2.1.5 Explloratory-Innovative Model
It is a moddified rational model whose aim is minim mal optimization. In other woords, finding soolution is base ed on
satisfactorry approach annd is performeed through triaal and error. T
This model (likke artificial inntelligence) is more
compatiblee with realityy world. In eexploratory-innnovative plannning, a simpple principle is considered and
comparisoons are done continuously
c aand true and ffalse answers are determineed (Colleti & Murchison, 2002; 2
Tickell, 20008).
By defininng policy makiing process as a systematic pprocess, the folllowing models are taken intto consideration:
2.1.6 Systeem Model
One of m models that havve found widee application is system moddel which connsiders strateggy as a reactio on of
system to forces it receivves from envirronment. Here,, we deal with four main conncepts: inputs w which are dem
mands
and supporrts from societty, outputs which are a set off public policiees and decisionns resulted froom system, political
environmeent which referrs to conditionns or events ouut of borders oof system and, finally, feedbaack which refe ers to
the effectss of system’s programs
p and policies on thhe environment (Weible et aal., 2004; Alvaani & Sharif za adeh,
2008; Rabbiee & Givrian,, 2005).
2.1.7 The IInput-Output Model
M (I/O Moodel)
The Inputt-Output Modeel is considerred primary aanalytic tool ffor obtaining “instant preseentation” of policy
making prrocess. The bassis of this moddel can be seenn in David Easston’s work. E Easton is a fam
mous researcher and
scientist inn political sciennces who introoduced basic m
model in 1965 to describe forrmation of policies based on a set
of needs annd creation off new needs ressulting from itt. This model ccan be used in every organizzation with min
nimal
changes (A Alvi & Gvosdeev, 2010).

Figure 2. Thhe Input-Outpuut Model (Alvvi & Gvosdev, 2010)

120
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

2.1.8 Moddern Policy Maaking Model

This modeel, which was obtained
o by evvaluating 130 ccase from publlic sectors of E
European Unioon (19 departm
ments),
states thatt considering conditions soccieties are encountering in 21st century, a policy makking model sh hould
include 9 main elements: looking to the futuree, looking ouutside, innovaation, flexibiliity and creativity,
reason-cennteredness, comprehensivenness, linking aall process com mponents as a whole, reviision, and learrning
lessons (Bullock et al., 2001).
2
2.1.9 The O
Organized Dissorder Model
Accordingg to this modell, public strateegy is a result of strike of thhree currents: pproblems, poliicies and strate
egies.
First curreent is problemss which meanss an issue or phhenomenon should be expresssed as a probllem among a group g
of people and attract thheir attention ((Birkland, 20111). In this cuurrent, the prooblem should be defined an nd its
solutions sshould be presented. Secondd current is political current. The importantt issue is goverrnmental agen nda in
which varrious problemss are entered. Various issuees affect deterrmination of aagenda, includding national spirit, s
participantts' view, charaacteristics of government eetc. that can innfluence how a problem is considered. Third T
current is strategies currrent in which different optioons enter agennda and strateggy makers maake decision on n the
basis of thhese various opptions presentted. Therefore,, policy makinng in this moddel is the resullt of strike of three
currents: pproblem, policyy and strategy. This model ccan be considered one of the most suitable models of stra ategy
making in developing coountries due too its presupposiitions (Sabatirr, 2007; Leach & Sabatir, 20005).
2.1.10 Thee Public Selecttion Model
Economy studies behavior in marketpplaces and assuumes that peoople seek theirr private intereests, while political
science stuudies behaviorr in public areaa and its presuupposition is thhat people seekk public intereests. But the Public
Selection vview questionss this assumpttion and believves all players in policy areaa, like in market, try to maxiimize
their own individual inteerests. This mmodel considerss governmentaal strategy andd policies as a result of colle ective
decision m making by interested individduals and inddividual interessts are considdered the priorrity of all political
activities ((Sabatir, 2007;; Rabiee & Givvrian, 2005; A
Alvani & Shariff zadeh, 2008).
2.1.11 Stagges of Decisioon Making Moddel
This modeel is also calledd “competitorss’ activity” moodel. The speciific property of this model iss its attention to
t the
important role of oppossite forces. Inn all stages off policy makinng, competitorrs make somee steps in parrallel:
creating m
mutuality, presenting oppositte suggestionss (alternative), identifying auuthorities, devveloping mutuality,
presentingg alternative suggestion. T The final staages of policcy making aare: 1) validaating decision n, 2)
implementtation and 3) evaluation
e (Cocckrel, 2002).

Figure 3. Sttages of decisiion making moodel (Cockrel, 2002)

121
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

2.2 Decisioon Maker-Bassed Models

2.2.1 Entitty Model
In this moodel, public sttrategy makingg is a result oof performancee and interacttion of variouss public entities in
society. Sttrategies inducce legal and fformal power bbecause they have governm mental origin ((Rabiee & Giv vrian,
2005; Alvaani & Sharif zadeh, 2008).
2.2.2 Sociaal Decision Making Model
Social deccision making refers to gathhering of twoo or more citizens of societty for makingg a decision which w
benefits thhem. This com
mmunity can cconsist of a sm mall council orr an internatioonal cooperatioon organizatio
on. In
social straategy making model, the m main issue iss not obtaininng political aggreement andd compromise, but
emphasizinng understandding different vview, experiennces, social andd technical knoowledge, creatting and enhan
ncing
common responsibility.
This modeel goes beyonnd other modeels and by coonsidering soccial and philosophical considerations, enables
manager to resolve public problems w with a better uunderstanding of public mannagement worrld. Social dec cision
making prrocess is of thrree types: process of direct selection of ccitizens, indireect decision m
making process, and
combined selection proccess (Alvani & Saharif zadehh, 2008).
2.2.3 Citizzen-Oriented Model
M
This modeel is focused onn citizens’ neeeds as the mosst essential appproach of sociaal decision maaking and conssiders
citizens ass policy makinng coworkers. BBu extension oof communicaations and infoormation technnology, cyber space
s
can be connsidered as a new
n geographhic dimension which facilitattes maximum participation and cooperatio on of
citizens in decision makiing (Keskinen & Kuosa, 20005).
This modeel can be coorrdinated with ““Conceptual E Electronic Dem mocracy Modeel” and “IT Neetwork Model”
” and
together thhey can be usedd for expressioon of a conceppt or idea (Baum
mfeld et al., 20002).

Figuure 4. Citizen-ooriented modell (Clift, 2003)

2.2.4 Grouup Model

Accordingg to this model, it is the inteeraction betweeen different ggroups that forrms a policy oor strategy. Ind
deed,
groups aree a bridge bettween individuuals and goveernment and ppolicy is a forrm of strugglee between diffferent
groups for influencing governing sttrategies. Poliitical system resolve this cconflict by foollowing meth hods:
respecting game rules in i conflicts, uusing agreemeents and creating balance aamong groups,, approving public
strategies and policies, implementing
i these agreemeents and policcies. Accordingg to this view, public strateg
gy in
each stagee is obtaining balance
b in grouup conflicts. This balance is determined baased on relativve influence of each
of interesteed groups (Alvvani & Sharif zzadeh, 2008).
The follow
wing models arre subset of Grroup Model:
2.2.4.1 Eliites Model
This modeel states that inn society, elitees form votes and views of people in formm of public strrategies and public
strategy leeads to preferennces of elites ((Alvani & Shaarif zadeh, 20008). Among certain and impoortant actions taken
t

122
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

by politicaal elites of Iraan for specifyying issues in order to makee changes, aree change and implementatioon of
reforms inn the constituution and subbsequently creeating an entiity named “S System Expeddiency Recogn nition
Council”. Role of politiical elites of IIran in public strategy scope is more sensible and eviddent due to lac
ck of
important and influentiall elements andd groups in straategy making aand law makinng (Rabiee & G
Givrian, 2005).
2.2.4.2 Thhe Iron-Trianglle Model
making mannerr of agriculturee sector in pastt few decades in which executive
The originn of this modell is in policy m
power, leggislative powerr and pressure group of landhholders determmined policies.. Over time, thhis has been used in
various inddustries includding pharmacology, transporttation, militaryy, housing etc (Cockrel, 20022).

Figure 5. The iron-trriangle model ((Cockrel, 20022)

2.2.4.3 Pow
wer Clusters Model
M
In 1971, EEgden used terrm “power nettwork” to desccribe ever incrreasing numbeer of factors thhat play an evident
role is pollicy making. Egden
E introduuced “Power C
Clusters” Moddel that refers to various grroups influentiial in
policy makking which hee calls power cchords or clusters. Power cllusters are gennerated because interested grroups
try to inflluence policies important too them indepeendently or toogether. All ppower clusterss include the same
elements: executive entiities, law makiing commissioons, groups wiith certain inteerests, experts,, aware public, and
unaware ppublic (Cockrell, 2002).

Figurre 6. Power cluusters model (C

Cockrel, 2002))

2.2.4.4 Kinng and Kingm

makers Model
In this moodel that can be
b used in evvery collectionn, power and ppolicy are desscribed by a ppyramidal stru
ucture
(Flinchbauugh, 1988). Inn this pyram
midal model, kkingmakers aare at top of pyramid whhich has necessary

123
www.ccsennet.org/jsd Journal of Suustainable Devellopment Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

informatioon and financiaal sources for influencing oor formulating required policcies and they are usually hiidden
and unknoown to publicc. Kings are kknown and selected individduals who are under controol and influenc ce of
kingmakerrs. Active agennts are in the next level andd interested puublic are consiidered next. F
Finally, the last and
most crow
wded level incluudes indifferennt public.

Figure 7.. King and kinggmakers modeel (Cockrel, 20002)

Accordingg to this modell, agenda of puublic policies iis provided byy kingmakers aand presented tto king and ag
gents.
Focus of tthis model is on selection oof few individduals from socciety for underrstanding and interpreting policy
making m methods. Like other elite-oriiented models,, this model ddoes not state that despite ppublic wealth is in
hands of a few influentiaal persons, maany of policies formed are inconsistent withh views of pubblic. Public vie
ew of
society is iinfluenced by powerful elites and public have a little conntrol (Cockrel, 2002).
wing table shoows the most important factors that are cconsidered as a basis of thee above mentiioned
The follow
models:

Table 1. E
Effective factorrs in policy maaking models bbased on researrch backgrounnd
Factors Moddels
1-Social iinfluence and power
p Elitees Model-Grooup Model ((Power Clustters, Iron-Triaangle, King and
Kinggmakers)
2-Policy m
making processses Proccess Model – E
Exploratory- Innnovative Moddel
3-Externaal factors Systtem Model – Innput-Output M
Model
4-Previouus policies Graddual Changes M
Model
5-Decisioon maker Entiity Model
Organizattions
6-Cost-innterest analysiss Publlic Selection M
Model – Rationnal Model – Saatisfactory Moodel
7-Problem
m and need Systtem model- Orrganized Disorrder Model – S
Social Decisionn Making Mod
del
8-Politicaal currents Decision making A
Activities Moddel – Organizeed Disorder Moodel

2.3 What H
Have Experiennces of Other C
Countries and R
Regions Been??
It is helpfful to use inteernational com
mparisons as ppart of the w wider evidence base. This can contribute very
positively to the policyy-making proccess, in particcular helping to guide poliicy-makers too new solution ns to
problems and new mecchanisms for iimplementing policy and im mproving pubblic service deelivery. It can also
provide usseful evidencee of what worrks in practice and what doees not work. IIt is of coursee important to take
account off social, econoomic and instittutional differeences which m
may require addjustment to poolicy solutionss that
work elsewwhere to meet Northern Irelaand circumstannces.
There is a range of factors which caan be helpful iin identifying possible counntries or regioons elsewhere from
which to llearn: for exam
mple, regions which have ssuccessfully adddressed simillar social or economic issuees, or

124
www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

which have geographical similarities to Iran. It is important in many areas of public service to understand the
importance of factors such as settlement patterns and population density in determining what types of provision
are appropriate and where we might learn lessons from elsewhere. When looking at international comparators, it
is important to do so objectively. Officially published material tells the story which the promoters of a policy or
project wish to tell publicly. It is important to explore beyond that: to find out what criticisms are made as well
as ways in which arrangements are successful; to find out the views of service users as well as providers; to find
out the extent to which a policy has actually achieved its intended outcome and whether there have been any
unintended or unforeseen drawbacks or benefits; Face-to-face contact will reveal more than looking at a website
alone, but given the costs associated with study visits, it is essential to do adequate research in advance to be sure
that a comparator is really relevant (Office of First Minister and Deputy of First Minister in Northern Ireland,
2003).
3. Research Methodology
In this research, the most important factors effective in policy making models are determined by library studies.
Then 11 elites were asked about these factors through questionnaire and two more factors were added according
to their view about policy making in Iran. This way, the ninth factor is called “bases and principle” which
suggests belief and value bases and expediencies of Islamic Republic System. The tenth factor is “top documents
and laws”.
After specification of ten factors mentioned, effective factors in policy making of Iran were structured using
“interpretive structural equations” method and elites’ views.
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) is a well-established methodology for identifying relationships among
specific items, which define a problem or an issue. For any complex problem under consideration, a number of
factors may be related to an issue or problem. However, the direct and indirect relationships between the factors
describe the situation far more accurately than the individual factor taken into isolation. Therefore, ISM develops
insights into collective understandings of these relationships. ISM starts with an identification of variables,
which are relevant to the problem or issue, and then extends with a group problem solving technique. Then a
contextually relevant subordinate relation is chosen (Attri, Dev, & Sharma, 2013). Having decided on the
element set and the contextual relation, a structural self-interaction matrix (SSIM) is developed based on pair
wise comparison of variables. In the next step, the SSIM is converted into a reachability matrix (RM) and its
transitivity is checked. Once transitivity embedding is complete, a matrix model is obtained. Then, the
partitioning of the elements and an extraction of the structural model called ISM is derived (Agarwal, Shankar,
& Tiwari, 2006). In this approach, a systematic application of some elementary notions of graph theory is used in
such a way that theoretical, conceptual and computational leverage are exploited to explain the complex pattern
of contextual relationship among a set of variables. ISM is intended for use when desired to utilize systematic
and logical thinking to approach a complex issue under consideration (Ravi, Shankar, & Tiwari, 2005). The
concept of Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) was primary introduced by J. Warfield in 1973. Warfield
proposed ISM due to evaluate the complex socioeconomic systems (Gorvett & Liu, 2007). Sage (1997) stated
that ISM approach facilitates to compel classification and direction on the complex relationships among
components of a complexity of relationships among elements of a socioeconomic system. Moreover Singh and
Kant (2008) interpreted the words of Interpretive Structural Modeling. According to them, ISM is interpretive as
based on group’s judgment and decision whether and how the system’s elements are linked.
Azar (2012) believed that Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) approach is a method of structuring known
elements. In this approach, which is in interpretive paradigm, elements are listed and structured based on elite's
views. It is assumed that views of elite groups about connections between elements are basis of modeling of
system or problem and have necessary validity and reliability. In this method, elite group includes 10 to 15 elites.
So, in this research, 11 University professors and scholars of policy making were identified and their views were
used.
4. Analysis
Using concept of “lead to” or “effective on”, factors were assessed two by two and “structural self-interaction”
matrix is formed based on the following symbols:
V: element i influences element j.
A: element j influences element i.
X: mutual relationship.
O: no influence.

125
www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

“Research Ability Matrix” is generated based on structural self-interaction matrix. This matrix is a square matrix
whose main diameter is unit and other elements are 0 and 1. We put 1 for X and V signs and 0 for A and O (Azar,
2012). Then, leveling table is formed which shows output elements set, input elements set and common elements
set, and levels are determined based on this table. Element or elements with minimum output set and common
set are put at highest level (Azar, 2012).

Table 2. Structural self-interaction matrix

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 – Social influence and power X V X X V X Y X A X
2 – Policy making processes A X A A A A X A A A
3 – External factors X V X X V X V X A X
4 – Previous policies X V X X V X V X A X
5 – Decision maker organizations A V A A X A V A A A
6 – Cost-interest analysis X V X X V X V X A X
7 – Problem and need A X A A A A X A A A
8 – Political currents X V X X V X V X A X
9 – Principles V V V V V V V V X V
10 – Top documents and laws X V X X V X V X A X

Table 3. Research ability matrix

Factors 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 – Social influence and power 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
2 – Policy making processes 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0
3 – External factors 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
4 – Previous policies 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
5 – Decision maker organizations 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
6 – Cost-interest analysis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
7 – Problem and need 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
8 – Political currents 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
9 – Principles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 – Top documents and laws 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Table 4. Leveling table

Factors Output set Input set Common set Level
1 – Social influence and power 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second
2– Policy making processes 2,7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,7 Fourth
3 – External factors 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second
4 – Previous policies 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second
5–Decision maker organizations 2,5,7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 5 Third
6–Cost-interest analysis 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 1,2,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second
7 – Problem and need 2,7 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 2,7 Fourth
8 – Political currents 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second
9 – Principles 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 9 9 First
10– Top documents and laws 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10 1,3,4,6,8,9,10 1,3,4,6,8,10 Second

Relationships at each level should be specified based on output and input sets. Also, only direct relationships of
elements at K and K-1 levels are shown. Therefore, we have a hierarchical technique in which relationships of
elements of non-consecutive levels are guaranteed through indirect relationships of elements in levels (Azar,
2012). According to results of this research, combined model of factors influential in Iran policy making can be
considered as follows:

126
www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

Principles

Previous Power Political Cost and Rules and External

Policies and Events Benefits Documents Factors
Influence

Decision Maker
Organizations

Need and Policy Making Processes

Problem

Figure 8. Combined model of factors influential in Iran's policy making

Based on this model, element “bases and principle” is expressed at first level as a factor that influences all
factors but is not influenced by any factor. At next level, we have “cost-benefit analysis”, “top documents and
laws”, “external factors”, “political currents”, “social influence and power” and “previous policies” all of which
have interconnections with each other which means that each of these factors influences others and is influenced
by others. At next level, we only have “decision maker organizations” that is influenced by all factors of the
former two levels. Finally, the last level includes two factors “policy making process” and “problem and need”
that are influenced by all factors of former levels and influence each other. For simplifying this model, effect of
each level on next level is presented only by direct connection of the two factors but, since elements of the
second and fourth levels influence each other, all of effects can be observed by indirect connection.
5. Conclusions
The most important factors effective in policy making models can be identified by evaluating these models.
However, policy making conditions in Iran is also influenced by Islamic, value and belief principles such as
Velayat-e-Faghih, seeking justice etc. as well as governmental principles such as fighting colonialism and
dictatorship. These factors make decision making conditions of Iran radically different from common systems of
world. Considering this unique characteristic and necessity of a comprehensive evaluation of this issue and in
order to increase applicability of proposed models, it is attempted in this research to identify effective factors,
structure these factors and obtain combined model of policy making in Islamic Republic of Iran.
As literature review indicates, available models approach policy making issue from their own point of views that
can be divided into two groups: “focus on decision maker” and “focus on decision making manner”. Members of
each group evaluate the issue based on a certain aspect. Considering the power and benefits of this approach, as
mentioned before, there must be a comprehensive view in this particular area for application in specific cases
and this research was an attempt to do so.
In the structural model obtained, policy making is based on principles of Islamic Government. This means that
all decisions and policies in Islamic Republic of Iran should be made based on belief, value and governmental
principles and do not have any contrast with them under any conditions. In certain conditions after Islamic
Revolution in Region and world, environmental and external factors had an important role in decision making
and by adapting to principles, are considered one of the most essential factors of decision making in Iran.
Cost-benefit analysis, political currents in society (such as epozosion groups etc.), previous decisions, and social
influence and power (such as monopoly power, social influence and power groups determine and direct political
currents) also influence policy making. These factors are influenced by principles and by each other and at the
same time influence other factors. For example, mutual relation of two factors “social influence and power” and
“political currents” can be justified as follows: social influence and power determine and direct political currents
and, on the other hand, political currents influence and change amount and manner of power and social
influence.
At next level, decision maker organizations, such as ministries and councils, are effective in policy making and
according to relations obtained, these entities are influenced by all factors of previous levels. Finally, factors of
the most influenced level are “policy making processes” and “problem and need” which means that these two

127
www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

factors are influenced by all previous factors and have interaction. This way, it can be said that most policies and
decisions of the country are results of structural relationships mentioned here.
According to general classification of various policy making models, the structural model obtained is more
converged to the groups based on “decision making manner” than “decision maker” and considering the leveling
performed in this model, most convergence is observed with rational model (range of rational to satisfactory
models) and system model (due to focus on environmental factors).
References
Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2006). Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing
Management, 36, 443-457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.12.004
Alvani, S. M., & Sharif zadeh, F. (2008). The Public Policy Process (6th ed.). AllamehTabatabaei University
Press, Tehran, Iran.
Alvi, H., & Gvosdev, N. K. (2010). Case studies in policy making (12th ed). Naval War College, Newport: USA.
Attri, R., Dev, N., & Sharma, V. (2013). Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM) approach: An Overview.
Research Journal of Management Sciences, 2(2), 3-8.
Azar, A. (2012). Advanced statistical methods in management. Tehran, Iran: Samt press.
Baumfeld, L., Hummelbrunner, R., Lukesch, R., Regionalbearatung, O., & Huber, W. (2002). Reforming
structural funds: How to reconcile complexity with simplification? Proposals for a new model of policy
making and governance considering the peculiarities of social system, Australian federal chancellery.
Birkland, T. M. (2011). An Introduction to the policy process, Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public
Policy-Making, M. E. Sharped Press, 3rd Ed.
Boer, A., Engers, T., & Sileno, G. (2011). A problem solving model for regulatory policy making, The 24th
International Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (JURIX 2011). University of
Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Boulanger, P., & Bre´chet, T. (2005). METHODS Models for policy-making in sustainable development: The
state of the art and perspectives for research. Ecological Economics, 55, 337-350.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.033
Bullock, H., Mountford, J., & Stanley, R. (2001). Better policy- making, Center for management and policy
studies. Cabinet Office, London.
Clift, S. (2003). E-Democracy, E-Governance and Public Net-Work. Retrieved from
http://www.publicus.net/articles/edempublicnetwork.html
Cockrel, J. (2002). Public Policy making in America, Cooperative Extension Service. University of Kentucky.
Colleti, D., & Murchison, S. (2002). Models in policy-making, bank of Canada review (pp. 19-26). Summer.
Edwards, P. N. (1996). Global Comprehensive Models in politics and Policy making. Climatic Change, 32, 149-
161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00143706
Flinchbaugh, B. L. (1988). How to Do Policy Education in Working with Our Publics, Module 6: Education for
Public Decisions.
Gholipour, R. (2008).!Organizational Decision-Making and Public Policy. Tehran, Iran: Samt Press.
Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., & perl, A. (2009). Studying Public policy, Policy Cycles & Policy subsystems (3rd Ed.).
Oxford University Press.
Jahanshahi, A. A., Rezaei, M., Nawaser, Kh., Ranjbar, V., & Pitamber, B. K. (2012). Analyzing the Effects of
Electronic Commerce on Organizational Performance: Evidence from Small and Medium Enterprise.
African Journal of Business Management, 6(15), 6486-6496.
Keskinen, A., & Kuosa, T. (2005). Introduction to Citizen oriented Decision Making. New e-Democracy Tools
for the 21st Century. In Marshall, Stewart & Taylor, Wal & Yu Xinghuo (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Developing
Regional Communities with Information and Communication Technology. Idea Group Reference, Idea
Group Inc., USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-59140-575-7.ch016
Leach, W. D., & Sabatier, P. (2005). To Trust an Adversary: Integrating Rational and Psychological Models of
Collaborative Policymaking. American Political Science Review, 99(4), 491-503.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S000305540505183X

128
www.ccsenet.org/jsd Journal of Sustainable Development Vol. 6, No. 8; 2013

Nawaser Kh, Khaksar, S. M. S., Shakhsian, F., & Jahanshahi, A. A. (2011). Motivational and Legal Barriers of
Entrepreneurship Development in Iran. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(6), 112-118.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v6n11p112
Office of First Minister and Deputy of First Minister in Northern Ireland. (2003). A Practical Guide to Policy
Making in Northern Ireland. Retrieved from www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/practical-guide-policy-making.pdf
Osimo, D. (2011). Benchmarking e- government, policy-making a refined model. Retrieved from
http://egov20.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/policy-making-2-0-a-refined-model/
Rabiee, M. R., & Givrian, H. (2005). Decision-making and public policy. Tehran, Iran: Yekan Press.
Ravi, V., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2005). Productivity improvement of a computer hardware supply chain.
International Journal of Production and Performance Measurement, 54(4), 239-255.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17410400510593802
Rick Gorvett, R., & Liu, N. (2007). Using Interpretive Structural Modeling to Identify and Quantify Interactive
Risks.
Sabatier, P. (2007). Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press, United States of America.
Sage, A. (1977). Interpretive Structural Modeling: Methodology for Large-scale Systems (pp. 91-164). New York,
NY: McGraw Hill.
Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers: An interpretive structural modeling approach.
International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, 3, 141-150.
Tickell, C. (2008). A new look at the interaction of scientific models and policymaking. James Martin 21st
Century School, University of Oxford.
Turner, S. (2008). Expertise and the Process of Policy-Making: The EU’s New Model of Legitimacy. Building
Civil Society and Democracy in New Europe.
Vahid, M. (2007). A Discussion on Cultural Policy. Journal of Politics, Journal of the Faculty of Law and
Political Sciences, 37(3), 287-306.
Weible, C., Sabatier, P., & Lubell, M. (2004). A Comparison of a Collaborative and Top-Down Approach to the
Use of Science in Policy: Establishing Marine Protected Areas in California. The Policy Studies Journal,
32(2). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00060.x
Wyner, A., & Benn, N. (2011). Modeling Policy- making, in conjunction with the 24th international conference
on legal knowledge and information systems, Vienna, Austria.

Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

129