The Formulation, Implementation and

Evaluation of Public Policy Analytical

Essay
 Essay Type: Analytical Essay 
 Subjects: Government (932) Politics & Government (2560)
  Pages: 11 
 Words: 3118
(No Ratings Yet)

Introduction

The efforts to solve certain problems attracting public

concerns create the necessity to formulate and implement
public policies. Ridde (2009:939) defines a public policy as
an action that a government deems appropriate or
inappropriate for its citizens.

Put differently, public policy encompasses a set of aims

coupled with a specified group of activities, which resolve a
particular public problem when properly executed (Lyhne,
2011:324). From this paradigm, the processes of
formulation, implementation, and evaluation of policies are
defined as covering the integration of myriads of fragmented
process (sub-processes) (Ridde, 2009:943).
In some situations, governments adopt policies that fail to
achieve the anticipated outputs. This scenario occurs when
a formulated public policy is implemented, but the problem
intended to be solved by the policy continues. Such a
situation attracts the attention of policy analysts, who try to
determine the reasons for the policy failure. One of the most
common approaches to this involves finding out the
deficiencies within the policy-formulation and
implementation phases (Ridde, 2009:945).

Public policy is an important aspect of contemporary

government operations. Taking the above arguments as a
starting point, this essay aims to discuss evaluation as an
important component of policy formulation and
implementation. Non-incorporation of evaluation in the two
phases creates difficulties in determining eminent
deficiencies in policy that has been formulated and
implemented.

Deficiencies in policy formulation and implementation are

risk factors for the failure of a policy to achieve the
anticipated outcomes. This essay is divided into two main
sections. It first describes the processes of policy
formulation, policy implementation, and policy evaluation as
discrete entities.
A discussion of policy evaluation as an integrated process in
policy formulation and implementation then follows in the
analysis section. The essay also addresses the rationale
behind integrating public-policy evaluation into the
formulation and implementation stages. In conclusion, the
essay will hold that the evaluation, formulation and
implementation of public policy cannot be separated into
discrete stages.

Description

Formulating Public Policies

Governments, organisations and groups of people set and

adopt procedural guidelines towards the achievement of
their set goals and objectives. Policies are generally initiated
to influence various environments, thereby addressing
adverse effects that arise in those environments.

Public-policy formulation involves the processes of studying

and assessing issues that emerge as a potential threat and
the impact they may have on the public (Vizzard, 1995:342).
The public-policy formulation process intends to limit the
identified consequences of a problem for the subject
environments or invoke better performance of undertakings
in the public sector (Fyfe, Miller & McTavish, 2009: 214).
Well-formulated policies are rational, specific in their
statements, and applicable to specific extents only (Marsh &
McConnell, 2010:565). Such policies are not ambiguous and
are effective in achieving the intended objectives. The
process of public-policy formulation is intricate.

Creating a policy in order to oversee all stakeholders and

pressure groups is a dangerous mistake. The civil society
working together with the government is one way of ensuing
democracy and collective representation. In the end, this
enhances the effectiveness of the policy-formulation
process.

For an effective policy-formulation process, it is crucial that

staff is highly knowledgeable of, and conversant with,
institutional processes. Institutional processes encompass
the determination of policy subject matter, implementation
plans, and designing and scrutinising the assessment and
revision of public policies (Vizzard, 1995:344).

Thorough analysis based on the identified problems in

public-policy formulation enhances the realisation of well-
formulated policies; thus, mitigating the risks of unintended
consequences emerging. Plans made for dealing with
organisational setbacks in policy management play a
significant part in raising the policy-formulation capability.

The process of creating public policy involves decision-

making processes; it centres on making amendments during
the implementation of public policies (Milward, 1980:256).
This implies that the formulation and implementation of
public policies works mutually, but not as two separate
entities.

Implementing Public Policies

Policy implementation follows the process of policy

formulation. Mazmanian and Sabatier (1983:56) describe
policy implementation to include exercising particular policy
decisions in a manner directed by the prescriptions of an
administrator, law, or court guidance. There are two main
approaches to policy implementation: bottom–up, and top-
down.

The top-down approach is bureaucratic. Sabatier (1986:32)

notes that it starts through a “policy decision and focuses on
the extent to which its objectives are attained over time and
why”.
The establishment of the capacity of the implementation
process to be consistent with causal theory, coupled with
policy objectives, aims, and goals, is essential for a
successful top-down process of policy implementation. The
top-down approach to policy implementation is unidirectional
(Sabatier, 1986:28). The process does not provide room for
information flow through feedback channels.

The success of the top-down process of public-policy

implementation is a function of the capacity of the legal
frameworks and the enforcing agencies to force or compel
groups of people targeted by the policy to abide by the
policy guidelines. In the implementation of any policy, one
determinant of success is how skilled the people charged
with the implementation are (Matland, 1995:162).

Success in implementing a policy using the top-down

approach is also dependent on socio-economic factors. The
socio-economic factors have a role to play in policy
implementation, as they constitute one of the measures
used to assess the success of implementation.

The top-down approach requires political willingness as well

as political support. May and Wintner (2009:467) maintain
that the approach demands that the eventual success of the
policy implemented should be measured by how well it is
able to solve the problems that it was initially meant to offer
solutions to.

The process divides the public-policy implementation

process into two main segments. The first segment, the
‘top’, takes the role of the development of the policy. The
‘bottom’ constitutes the public-policy implementation agents.
This segmentation ensures the flow of voice of command
from the uppermost level to the lowest level in a single
direction so that bureaucracy is enhanced during the
implementation process.

A major challenge of using the top-down approach in the

implementation of public policies is encountered when all
issues affecting groups targeted by a given policy must be
fully addressed in the implementation of that policy. As a
result, researchers supporting the top-down approach, such
as de Leon and de Leon (2002:468), and researchers
opposed to it, such as Howlett, Ramesh and Perl (2009:14),
fail to agree on an appropriate process for public-policy
implementation.

Leon and de Leon (2002:472) state that bureaucrats

constitute important agents for public policy implementation,
although they are ignored by those who are charged with
the role of implementing the top-down approach in public
policy. The main argument here is that abiding by policy
guidelines should not be a choice. Rather, it is mandatory.

As opposed to the top-down approach to policy-

implementation process, the bottom-up approach integrates
the groups of people targeted by a public policy into the
implementation process. Sabatier (1986:32) notes that this
step is initiated by “identifying the network of actors involved
in service delivery in one or more local areas and asking]
them about their goals, strategies, activities, and contacts”.

The acquired contacts are then utilised in the development

of myriads of networks with an objective of increasing the
number of local, national, and regional actors who would
play the roles of financing, planning and executing the
policy. In the bottom-up approach, ‘top’ as well as ‘bottom’
actors in the process of creating public policies collaborate
and exchange information about policy formulation and
implementation via a dynamic process.

The bottom-up approach maintains that the phases of policy

implementation and formulation are inseparable (Matland,
1995:167). According to Pastine and Pastine (2010:85), the
approach views politicians and administrators as playing
critical roles in the successful process of policy formulation
followed by its implementation. Policy-making experts and
politicians form the top level of the policy-making process.

The people whose problems a public policy seeks to solve

form the bottom level. The need for a public policy emerges
from the bottom. The response to these needs, however, is
a responsibility of those at the ‘top’. Sabatier (1986:41)
criticises this direction of information flow in policy-making in
the context of the bottom-up approach, claiming that it is
unidirectional because policy-making initiates from the
‘bottom’ and moves towards the ‘top’.

The successful implementation of public policies requires

the integration of the person affected by the policy in the
planning, formulation, and implementation phases of the
policy (Cope & Goodship, 1999:9).

Considering that the top-down public-policy implementation

process is unidirectional and Sabatier (1986:46) argues that
bottom-up approach is also unidirectional, hypothetically,
perhaps the best approach to public-policy implementation
is the one that encourages constant interaction between the
‘top’ and the ‘bottom’ actors in formulating and implementing
public policy via forward and backward information-flow
loops.

Such an approach can aid in capturing various intricacies

that impede successful policy implementation (Whitford,
2007:21). Efforts to ensure the identification of pitfalls to
successful policy implementation highlight the need to
evaluate public policy at the formulation and the
implementation phases (Barzelay & Jacobsen, 2009:319).

Evaluating Public Policies

The evaluation process encompasses an integral aspect of

the process of making public policies. It aids in the
identification and reflection on the unanticipated and
anticipated outcomes of a policy. Evaluation is the process
of measuring the efficacy, utility, advantages,
disadvantages, and the necessity of a particular process or
physical installation (Cope & Goodship, 1999:8).

The main objective of policy evaluation is to inform policy

developers of the progress of policy implementation and to
what extent the formulated policies under implementation
are providing the anticipated outcomes (Cope & Goodship,
1999:11).
When public-policy evaluators discover that policies being
formulated or implemented have deficiencies that would
cause those policies to fail to achieve the desired outcomes,
evaluation becomes the tool for alerting policy-makers about
the need to consider alternative policies.

It also helps in the correction of erroneous aspects of a

policy during the process of implementation (Rist, 1995:43).
Where the policy-implementation process yields the
anticipated outcomes, evaluation is also crucial because it
forms the justification for the legitimacy of public policy.

The evaluation process constitutes an important part of the

learning process around policy-making. Evaluation is
applied in the policy-making process as a scientific activity
and a positivist exercise (Rist, 1995:56). It serves the
functions of determining the quality, effectiveness, policy
effects, capacity to achieve desired goals, and the rationale
for costs incurred in the formulation and implementation of
public policies (Marsh & McConnell, 2010:580). In this
context, evaluation does not form a discrete activity in the
making of public policies. Rather, it is integrated into all
processes of making public policy, including policy
formulation and implementation.
Analysis

In the description section, policy evaluation was treated as a

discrete activity, separate from the formulation and
implementation of public policies. In this section, it is
presented as an integral part of the implementation and
formulation phases of public policies.

Simultaneous Evaluation of Public Policies in the Implementation and

Formulation phases

The formalisation of laws, rules and regulations precedes

the process of implementing public policy. In a bid to ensure
that policies work, bureaucratic forces then come into play
(May & Wintner, 2009:473). Policies are developed to
ensure that the delivery of public services is in line with
public demands and expectations.

For the achievement of this outcome, whether bottom-up or

top-down approaches to public-policy formulation and
implementation are adopted, the evaluation of each of these
phases is crucial. It is necessary for every step taken in the
formulation and implementation of a policy to be evaluated
in a bid to determine its relationship with the final desired
outcome (Whitford, 2007:26).
The evaluation of the overall effects of all the stages in the
formulation of a policy aids in the determination of the
overall effects of the formulated policy before it is
implemented. In this way, it becomes possible to avoid
challenges related to the implementation of policies that
have errors at the formulation stage. Policy evaluation
should be carried out during the formulation and the
implementation phases and after the completion of each of
these phases.

Evaluation at the Policy-Formulation Phase

Executing the policy-evaluation process alongside the

formulation phase curtails policy-formulation errors. Such
errors replicate themselves in the policy-implementation
phase. The political climate and the interests of
stakeholders influence the formulation of public policies
(Palumbo, 1987:68).

Evaluation at the formulation stage ensures that these

concerns are addressed in the policy’s formulation process
to ensure that the policy achieves the intended outcomes as
determined by the stakeholders and the political-
philosophical system of leadership in force. Evaluation at
the formulation stage captures the attention of policy
activists and groups supporting the government.

These actors determine the kinds of public policies

necessary for implementation (May & Wintner, 2009:473). In
the absence of evaluation at the formulation phase of any
policy, regimes and administrations in power have a chance
to advance their interest, which may not be in favour with
the public. In later regimes, such policies become irrelevant,
which amounts to a waste of scare public resources.

Agents of policy formulation mainly include researchers

interested in change and who are keen on the elements of a
policy at its formulation phase (Palumbo, 1987:78). The
researchers are also interested in the policy implementation,
which means that they cannot be prevented from conducting
in-depth scrutiny (evaluation) of the policy’s capacity to
achieve its intended change. According to Pollitt (1999:82),
policy makers should consider the political influences in the
process of policy formulation.

An independent body should be contracted to determine the

nature and amount of this influence. Successful evaluation
of public policy should be measured by the success of its
implementation. It ensures that the implementation phase
cannot trace its problems back to the formulation phase.

Whitford (2007:29) states that the only challenge that can

arise is in the event of policy-implementation agents failing
to implement the formulated and evaluated policy in a
manner that meets the expectations of its recipients. In the
formulation phase, evaluation brings together measuring the
capacity of the formulated policies to meet the desired policy
objectives, aims, and goals.

Evaluation at the Policy-Implementation Phase

Implementing public policy through bureaucracy places

more focus on the conformance of the groups of people
targeted by the policy, and less focus on their reactions to
that policy. This aspect creates a need for evaluation of
policies at the start of the implementation phase through a
bureaucratic system of administration throughout its
development.

Evaluating the implementing agency ensures the

determination of its capacity to enforce the policy through
established rules, regulations and laws to avoid deviance.
The evaluation of policies before the onset of the
implementation process is important as it ensures that the
enforcing agents are compliant with the legal provisions of
these policies, with legal consequences being advanced to
those failing to adopt the policies.

Bureaucracy is important in the implementation of public

policies. It has the capability to understand and alter
mythologies, aims, and areas of importance in the policy-
implementation process to ensure compliance (Page,
1992:40). It has the ability to redefine appropriate policy
goals to some extent.

Such a policy-remoulding process in order to reduce the

reluctance of target groups to comply with the policy
constitutes the public-policy evaluation process in the
implementation stage. The ability of bureaucratic systems of
policy implementation to redefine some aspects of public
policy explains the importance of public-policy evaluation at
the implementation stage.

Evaluation helps in monitoring the actions of the

implementation agents. This is important in an effort to
mitigate risks associated with the implementation agents’
capacity to redefine policies in ways that impair the
implementation approach and methodologies prescribed
during the formulation stage (Page, 1992:54). For this
purpose, policy-implementation administrative agents such
as courts and Parliament (de Leon & de Leon, 2002:473)
become important evaluators of the policy-implementation
process.

They also assist in the determination of necessary actions

during the implementation process (May & Wintner,
2009:474). Administrative agents responsible for policy
implementation establish interim and final rules necessary
for guiding the implementation process. Evaluation is
essential to ensure strict compliance with the rules. It needs
to be conducted at all stages of implementation to
guarantee congruency of the policy and its anticipated
goals, aims, and objectives enumerated during the
evaluated formulation stages.

Purpose of Integrating Policy Formulation, Implementation, and

Evaluation

Development of public policies takes place through

interrelated stages. The appropriateness of each stage
within a phase determines the appropriateness of the next
phase in the process to foster the creation of a policy that
responds effectively to a public problem.
Evaluation is the tool for measuring the extent of the
appropriateness of each stage with respect to the
anticipated outcomes of the fully formulated public policy.
This aspect means that the formulation or implementation of
successful public policies is less likely when evaluation is
treated discretely.

Problems encountered at the policy-formulation phase result

in policies failing to achieve their intended outcomes at the
implementation stage. These challenges encompass certain
implementation constraints, which prove problematic to the
agents for policy implementation.

These include inadequate time, financial resources,

insufficient understanding of policy goals, and a resistance
to comply with directions and commands issued by
implementation agents (Hogwood & Gunn, 1984:82).
Integration of evaluation in all steps and sub-steps in the
formulation and implementation phase helps to capture all of
these challenges.

Conclusion

Policy formulation and implementation are two important

phases of making public policies. The outcome of the
implementation phase depends on the proper formulation of
policies, which suggests that the two phases are related and
their needs are interlinked. This essay proposed evaluation
as the important interlinking phase requiring incorporation in
the formulation and implementation phases of making public
policies.

Evaluating the steps within the formulation and

implementation phases helps to avoid the replication of
errors and problems impeding realisation of the intended
outcomes upon full implementation of a public policy. This
essay holds that evaluation during the formulation phase
coupled with its successive sub-phases helps pave the way
to a successful policy-implementation process.

In this context, the essay considers evaluation as an

important phase in the process of making public policies,
which merges the formulation and implementation phases to
avoid the replication or even occurrence of challenges
impeding realisation of the intended outcome of a public
policy. The top–down and bottom-up approaches were
discussed as the main theoretical frameworks of making
and implementing public policies.

The two theoretical approaches have the inherent problem

of treating evaluation as a discrete entity. In proposing an
alternative approach to making public policies, this essay
discussed and assessed the relevance of incorporating
evaluation as an integral part of the policy-implementation
and formulation phases. The essay finds that the separation
of formulation, implementation, and evaluation of public
policies into discrete phases is inappropriate.

Reference List