(1) Agenda Setting - An issue is considered as being on an agenda when it is commonly perceived as something with public merit. There are two levels of attention that an issue can receive that determine its agenda. If the issue is not being considered by policy-makers, but is considered by the political system overall as something deserving attention, the issue is said to be on the systemic agenda. Once the issue has received attention from a policy-maker, it is considered to be on the institutional agenda.

     Items on the systemic agenda are basically in the "discussion stage" - there's a lot of people talking about the issue, but nothing is being done. Once the issue reaches the institutional agenda, it is receiving the attention of someone with authority to make policy who is attempting to turn the issue into a policy issue.

     This is typically the first step that an issue takes on its way to becoming a policy. This is understandable, because an issue is not going to become public policy if the issue does not have someone's attention. During this stage, the issue has been perceived as a public problem (possible because of societal changes), people have discussed the issue to try to pin it down and define the problem, the interested parties have mobilized to attempt to move the issue from the systemic to the institutional agenda, and, finally, the issue has the active attention of some policymaker.

(2) Formulation - Once the issue has the attention of some policymaker, the first step in formulation is the decision of whether or not to make an official policy on the issue. If the policymaker decides not to make any decision (thus, not codifying an official stance on the issue), this is still a policy, a policy of nondecision.

     Depending on the nature of the issue, the policymaker could be in Congress, the President, or in an agency. Interest groups may be involved, with some even making specific proposals for legislation. This is the step that has the most potential for using a decision making model such as the rational-comprehensive model. It is at these early stages of policy making that intelligence can be more important than politics. It is at this stage that policies can have their goals set and alternatives sought and evaluated. Whether such intense attention is given to the formulation stage is to be debated.

     Once the legislation has been drafted, the written proposals are now ready to enter the adoption stage.

(3) Adoption - At this step, the issue has moved away from intellectual exercises, and is about to be backed by the legitimate authority of the government. This is also, therefore, the step in which political pressures come to play most heavily. During adoption is when there is the most lobbying, bargaining and compromise. The influences upon the decision-maker include, but are not limited to, his own values, his political party affiliation, the interests of his constituents, public opinion, and what is in the public interest.

     It is also upon this step, that many of the political theories disagree. The pluralists would say that the policymaker is supposed to be a neutral observer who declares which of the struggling coalition of groups has won the battle. The elitists say that the way the policymaker decides will be based upon the wishes of the ruling-class elite. The rational-choice theory says that the policymaker will vote according to whatever fits his best self-interest, ignoring any such concepts of public interest if it does not benefit him. All of these theories seem to present an incomplete picture of the adoption stage. (The theories are discussed in more detail later.)

     Once the smoke has cleared, and the final decision has been made as to the wording and goals of the policy, it is now ready to be implemented.

(4) Implementation - The policy has now gone from general discussion among the American population into codified statements giving the authority and approval to take the steps necessary to turn the policy from paper into action. Once the policy has appropriations (the money necessary to enforce the policy), it usually goes to the appropriate agency. Though Anderson lists some instances where other institutions are involved in implementation (e.g. the courts implementing the Sherman Act, or pressure groups assisting with licensing boards), most implementation falls to the American bureaucracy.

     An entire book could be written concerning the politics and procedures involved within bureaucracies. But to save space, it could simply be said that bureaucracies are involved in the interpretation and refinement of the policy once they get it. This is because, the version of the policy received by the bureaucracy is full of vagueness (introduced during the compromises in Congress), and nebulous statements need to be turned into concrete actions before the policy can be implemented.

(5) Evaluation and Feedback - Problems are bound to arise once the policy is actually being implemented. People may object to the interpretations the bureaucracy has made in its implementation. It may be found that the cost of implementing the policy far outweighs the benefits received from it. The implementation of the policy may have consequences that were unforeseen by the legislators and bureaucracy (e.g. increasing the military budget leading to wasteful spending). And there will usually be some interest that feels they have been "slighted" by a policy, and they want to make their voice heard.

     In addition, the bureaucracy, itself, does formal evaluations upon its performance for inspection by Congress or other policymakers. They check to see if their performance is not only efficient, but also if their actions are politically acceptable.

     All of this information feeds back into the government and could end up on the agenda again to be interpreted as a new public problem. The cycle would then begin again.