SOCIAL WELFARE POLICIES, POLICY MAKING AND IMPLEMENTATION

OVERVIEW OF GENERIC POLICY FORMULATION PROCESS

MODELS OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING

1. INSTITUTIONAL MODEL
Focuses on the traditional organization of government. Describes the duties and arrangements of
bureaus and departments. Considers constitutional provisions, administrative and common law, and
judicial decisions. It focuses on formal arrangements such as federalism executive reorganizations and
presidential commission. Traditionally political science has studied government institutions-congress,
presidency, courts, political parties that authoritatively determine, implement, and enforce public policy.
Strictly speaking, a policy is not a public policy until it is adopted, implemented and enforced by some
governmental institution.

Government lends legitimacy to policies, they are then legal; Government extends policies universally to
cover all people in society; Government monopolizes the power to coerce obedience to policy, or to
sanction violators.

2. ELITE-MASS MODEL
A policy-making elite acts in an environment characterized by apathy and information distortion, and
governs a largely passive mass. Policy flows downward from the elite to the mass. Society is divided into
those who have power and those who do not. Elites share values that differentiate them from the mass.
The prevailing public policies reflect elite values, which generally preserve the status quo. Elites have
hither income, more education, and higher status than the mass. Public policy may be viewed as the
values and preferences of a governing elite. The elites shape mass opinion more than vice versa. Public
officials and administrators merely carry out policies decided on by the elite, which flows 'down' to the
mass.

Assumptions:
1) Society is divided into the powerful few and the powerless many; only the few allocate values (the
mass do not decide public policy).
2) The few are not typical of the mass; elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper strata.
3) There must be slow and continuous movement of non-elites into elite positions, but only after they
accept elite values, in order to maintain stability and avoid revolution.
4) All elites agree on basic social system and preservation values, i.e., private property, limited
government, and individual liberty.
5) Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary, reflecting changes in elite values
(not mass demands).
6) Active elites are subject to little influence from apathetic masses.

Implications are that the responsibility for the state of things rests with the elites, including the welfare of
the mass. The mass is apathetic and ill-informed; mass sentiments are manipulated by the elite; the mass
has only an indirect influence on decisions and policy. As communication flows only downward,
democratic popular elections are symbolic in that they tie the mass to the system through a political party
and occasional voting. Policies may change incrementally but the elites are conservative and won't
change the basic system. Only policy alternatives that fall within the range of elite value consensus will be
given serious consideration. Competition centers around a narrow range of issues, and elites agree more
than they disagree; there is always agreement on constitutional government, democratic procedures,
majority rule, freedom of speech and of the press, freedom to form political parties and run for office,
equality of opportunity, private property, individual initiative and reward, and the legitimacy of free
enterprise and capitalism. The masses cannot be relied on to support these values consistently, thus the
elite must support them.

3. GROUP MODEL
Public policy results from a system of forces and pressures acting on and reacting to one another. Usually
focuses on the legislature, but the executive is also pressured by interest groups. Agencies may be
captured by the groups they are meant to regulate, and administrators become increasingly unable to
distinguish between policies that will benefit the general public and policies that will benefit the groups
being regulated. Interaction among groups is the central fact of politics. Individuals with common interests
band together to press their demands (formal or informally) on government. Individuals are important in
politics only when they act as part of or on behalf of group interests. The group is the bridge between the
individual and the government.

The task of the political system is to:

1) establish the rules of the game
2) arrange compromises and balance interests
3) enact compromises in public policy
4) enforce these compromises

It is also called equilibrium theory, as in physics. Influence is determined by numbers, wealth, and
organizational strength, leadership, access to decision makers and internal cohesion. Policy makers
respond to group pressure by bargaining, negotiating, and compromising among competing demands.
Executives, legislators, and agency heads all put together coalitions from their consistencies to push
programs through. Political parties are coalitions of groups. The Democrats have traditionally been central
city, labor, ethnics/immigrants, the poor, Catholics, liberals, intellectuals, blacks, and Southern blue collar
workers. Republicans have been wealthy, rural, small town, whites, suburbanites, white collar workers,
conservatives, and middle class.

The entire system assumes:

1) a 'latent' group supports the rules of the game
2) there is overlapping group membership which keeps groups from moving too far out of the political
mainstream
3) there are checks and balances on groups competition

4. SYSTEMS MODEL
Relies on information theory concepts such as input, output, and feedback. Sees the policy process as
cyclical. What are the inputs and outputs? Public policy is viewed as the response of the political system
to forces brought to bear on it from the outside environment. The environment surrounds the political
system. In this model, "environment" means physical: natural resources, climate, topography;
demographic: population size, age, and distribution, and location; political: ideology, culture, social
structure, economy, and technology. Forces enter the political system from the environment either as
demands or as support. Demands are brought to it by persons or groups in response to real or perceived
environmental conditions, for government action. Support is given wherever citizens obey laws, vote, pay
taxes, etc., and conform to public policies.

The political system is a group of interrelated structures and processes that can authoritative allocate
resources for a society. The actors are the legislature, the executive, the administrative agencies, the
courts, interest groups, political parties, and citizens. Outputs are decisions and actions and public policy.
The political system is an identifiable system of institutions and processes that transform inputs into
outputs for the whole society. The elements with the system are interrelated and it can respond to forces
in the environment, and it seeks to preserve itself in balance with the environment. The system preserves
itself by producing reasonably satisfactory outputs. It relies on deep rooted support for the system itself
and its use, or threat of use, of force.

Macro level policies are those that concern the whole system, and are influenced by official and unofficial
groups (media, etc.). It may center on the proper role of Congress or the President, or the relationships of
government and business or citizens and businesses. Subsystem policies involve legislators,
administrators, and lobbyists and researchers who focus on particular problem areas; also called sub-
governments, policy clusters, coalitions, or iron triangles. E.G. civil aviation, harbors, agricultural
subsidies, grazing lands, etc. Micro-level policies are efforts by individuals, companies, or communities to
secure some favorable legislation for themselves. Typically presented to a legislator as a request from the
"home" district. The incentive to engage in micro-politics increases as the extent of government benefits,
programs and regulations increases.

5. STREAMS AND WINDOWS MODEL

This model posits three streams which are always simultaneously ongoing. When the three streams
converge, a policy window opens, and a new policy may emerge.

The problem stream focuses the public's and policy-makers' attention on a particular problem, defines the
problem, and calls for a new policy approach (or else the problem fades). Attention comes through
monitoring data, the occurrence of focusing events, and feedback on existing polices, though oversight
studies of program evaluation. Categorization of the problem is important in determining how the problem
is approached and/or resolved: values, comparisons, and categories.

The political stream is where the government agenda is formed: the list of issues or problems to be
resolved by government. This occurs as the result of the interaction of major forces such as the national
mood, organized interests, and dynamics of public administration, jurisdictional disputes among agencies
and the makeup of government personnel.

The policy stream is where alternatives are considered and decisions are made. Here the major focus in
intellectual and personal; a list of alternatives is generated from which policy makers can select one.
Policy entrepreneurs and other play a role, such as academics, researchers, consultants, career public
administrators, Congressional staffers and interest groups. Trial balloons are sent up to gauge the
political feasibility of various alternatives, either publicly or privately. They must be acceptable in terms of
value constraints, technical constraints, and budgetary constraints. Consensus is developed though
rational argument and persuasion (not bargaining). Tilt occurs when a plausible solution begins to
emerge.

When these three streams converge, a policy window may open, because of a shift in public opinion, a
change in Congress, or a change in administration, or when a pressing problem emerges. Any one
stream may change on its own, but all three must converge for a policy decision to emerge.

WHAT TYPES OF POLICIES MAY EMERGE?

1. Incremental Policy Output. This model relies on the concepts of incremental decision-making such as
satisficing, organizational drift, bounded rationality, and limited cognition, among others. Basically can be
called "muddling through." It represents a conservative tendency: new policies are only slightly different
from old policies. Policy-makers are too short on time, resources and brains to make totally new policies;
past policies are accepted as having some legitimacy. Existing policies have sunk costs which discourage
innovation, incrementalism is an easier approach than rationalism, and the policies are more politically
expedient because they don't necessitate any radical redistribution of values. This model tries to improve
the acceptability of public policy.
Deficiencies of Incrementalism–Bargaining is not successful with limited resources. Can downplay useful
quantitative information. Obscures real relationship being political shills. Anti-intellectual approach to
problems; no imagination. Conservative; biased-against far-reaching solutions.

2. Rational Model. This model tries to understand all the alternatives, take into account all their
consequences, and select the best. It is concerned with the best way to organize government in order to
assure and undistorted flow of information, the accuracy of feedback, and the weighing of values. This
model tries to improve the content of public policy.

Deficiencies of Rationalism--gap between planning and implementation. Ignores role of people,

entrepreneurs, leadership, etc. Technical competence along is not enough (ignores the human factor).
Too mechanical an approach, organizations are more organic. Models must be multidimensional and
complex. Predictions are often wrong; simple solutions may be overlooked. The costs of rational-
comprehensive planning may outweigh the cost savings of the policy.
3. Public Sector Strategic Planning. An attempt to combine the incremental and rational approaches to
public policy-making. It is an attempt to reconcile the day-to-day demands with long range strategies for
the future. It doesn't see the organization as wholly determined by the
political environment, neither does it ignore risks. It takes an active stance (versus passive) toward the
future with an outward looking, aggressive focus sensitive to the political environment. It tries to place the
organization in a distinctive position vis-a-vis the political environment. It concentrates on making
decisions (unlike the rational model) but blends rational analysis with economic and political analyses
(unlike the incremental model). It is highly participatory and tolerant of controversy, it concentrates on the
fate of the whole organization; the fate of subunits is secondary.

4. Neo-institutionalist Model. Attempts to categorize public policies into 4 areas by the probability of
government coercion--immediate or remote--and the object of government coercion--individual or
systemic. The concern in this type of analysis is to relate these types of policy to the different branches of
government and the behaviors associated with each policy area.

POLICY MAKING STAGES

A policy established and carried out by the government goes through several stages from inception to
conclusion. These are agenda building, formulation, adoption, implementation, evaluation, and
termination.
AGENDA BUILDING
Before a policy can be created, a problem must exist that is called to the attention of the government.

Example: drug addiction and crime

Insight: People considered drug addiction and crime such a serious problem that it required increased
government action. On the other hand, the society tolerates a certain level of crime; however, when crime
rises dramatically or is perceived to be rising dramatically, it becomes an issue for policymakers to
address.

FORMULATION AND ADOPTION

Policy formulation means coming up with an approach to solving a problem. Congress, the executive
branch, the courts, and interest groups may be involved. Contradictory proposals are often made. Policy
formulation has a tangible outcome: A bill goes before Congress or a regulatory agency drafts proposed
rules. The process continues with adoption. A policy is adopted when Congress passes legislation, the
regulations become final, or the Supreme Court renders a decision in a case.

IMPLEMENTATION
The implementation or carrying out of policy is most often accomplished by institutions other than those
that formulated and adopted it. A statute usually provides just a broad outline of a policy.
Example: Congress may mandate improved water quality standards, but the environmental agencies
provides the details on those standards and the procedures for measuring compliance through
regulations.

The Supreme Court has no mechanism to enforce its decisions; other branches of government must
implement its determinations. Successful implementation depends on the complexity of the policy,
coordination between those putting the policy into effect, and compliance.

EVALUATION AND TERMINATION

Evaluation means determining how well a policy is working, and it is not an easy task. People inside and
outside of government typically use cost-benefit analysis to try to find the answer. Cost-benefit analysis
is based on hard-to-come-by data that are subject to different, and sometimes contradictory,
interpretations.
History has shown that once implemented, policies are difficult to terminate. When they are terminated, it
is usually because the policy became obsolete, clearly did not work, or lost its support among the interest
groups and elected officials that placed it on the agenda in the first place.

Example: In US, 1974, Congress enacted a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour. It was effective in
reducing highway fatalities and gasoline consumption. On the other hand, the law increased costs for the
trucking industry and was widely viewed as an unwarranted federal intrusion into an area that belonged to
the states to regulate. The law was repealed in 1987.

POLICY ADVOCACY

Policy advocacy is a specific type or

form of advocacy, of which there
are many. It is the process of taking
action using a series of strategies to
influence the creation and
development of public policy. It
makes use of multiple targeted
actions directed at changing
policies, positions or programmes.
Specifically, policy advocacy seeks
to:

• Establish new policies;

• Improve on existing policies and/or;
• Challenge pieces of legislation that impact negatively on particular individuals or groups:

Policy advocacy looks specifically at public policy, which is a set of laws (or other types of legislation)
taken by government, or other governing bodies that have a local, national, regional or international
reach. Its development involves a system of courses of action, regulatory measures, legislative acts,
judicial decisions and funding priorities concerning a particular issue. In summary, policy advocacy is
directed at shaping public policy.

WHY USE POLICY ADVOCACY?

There are numerous reasons why policy advocacy is an effective way to bring about change in society.
For a start, laws and policies are implemented across large jurisdictions and therefore affect large
numbers of people, sometimes the populations of entire countries or regions. Policy advocacy targets
policy and decision makers; the people who are mandated to develop, implement and evaluate policy. By
alerting them to policy gaps and shortfalls, organizations are able to influence the content of policies,
which in turn allows for shifts to take place around social norms and practices. In addition to this, policy
advocacy:

• Takes the work we do to scale - meaning that it has the ability to reach large numbers of people; • Gives
people leverage to demand their rights because they are protected by law;
• Commits government to implementing the strategies contained in policy or legislation, to fund and
support civil society, and adopt best practices as developed by civil society.

WHO IS INVOLVED IN POLICY ADVOCACY?

Policy advocacy is multi-levelled in its approach to shifting policy for social justice. To be effective,
organizations will need to engage with people and institutions that are key to the development of
legislation. These may include, but are not limited to:
• Government;
• Civil Society;
• Media; and
• Affected Communities.
The development of public policy is informed by each of these spheres. For example, government should
not pass legislation which civil society has identified as antidemocratic or which infringes on human rights.
Therefore, although these spheres are often seen as separate entities, in reality, they are interrelated and
mutually reinforcing. Any policy advocacy initiative must be prepared to engage with each of these
spheres in order to make an impact and yield a positive policy outcome.

Government

It is not a homogeneous (uniform) or static entity but is instead multifaceted and fluid. Certain government
departments, at certain times, may be hostile towards civil society and reluctant to engage. However,
different departments, or different government representatives, may welcome and appreciate such
engagement. Government departments may also be more, or less, amenable to civil society engagement
at different points in time. When doing policy advocacy, it is very important to understand how
government operates and particularly, who to engage concerning a particular public policy. This allows
one to target the relevant ministries and departments, identify parliamentary processes and/or use the
court system (such as municipal or high courts) as and when is necessary. Some government officials
welcome external pressure and appreciate the space it opens up for them while others resist it
determinedly. The task is to build relationships that allow for an understanding of how to operate in this
fluid environment.

The Community
As the aim of policy advocacy is to extend human rights and/or bring about social justice for an affected
group, it is important that organizations identify exactly who will be affected (or left out) of a particular
policy proposal. In some cases the affected community can comprise of a group residing in a particular
geographical area, or of marginalized persons belonging to, for example, LGBTI, women, people of
colour, disabled people, refugees or migrants, children and youth or impoverished communities.
Throughout the policy advocacy process, the community must be consulted so as to capture their views
and experiences, as well as the outcomes they desire from a policy advocacy initiative.

Media
The media comprises of traditional media sources, such as print, film, radio and nontraditional media
sources, such as the World Wide Web (internet), and social media. These media sources are
communication ‘mediums’ used to communicate messages to society at large. Print media comprises of
national and local newspapers, magazines, newsletters and other publications. Film messages are mostly
delivered through television, although the radio tends to be a more popular communication tool given that
radios are cheaper and more accessible than televisions or the internet. However, with the proliferation of
smart phones, the use of the internet, and specifically social networks like Facebook and Twitter, has
become a highly impactful communication tool, especially in situations of conflict where the state has
control over mainstream media such as radio and television. Effective policy advocacy campaigns must
engage with these various media in order to reach a wider audience and alert society to a particular
problem or cause.

Civil Society
Civil society is distinct from government and the private sector. However, as one of its advocacy
strategies, civil society does work with institutions and government to bring about social change. Civil
society organizations include non-governmental organizations (NGOs); non-profit organization (NPOs);
community-based organizations (CBOs) and a host of other civil society groups that are founded outside
of government. Civil society organizations are often seen as ‘the voice of the people’ thereby acting in the
interests of marginalized individuals or groups. Through their eff orts, civil society can:
• Lobby (attempt to influence) government to adopt or amend laws and policies;
• Provide input on laws and policies through research and data collected through service provision,
consultation with communities and other means;
• Hold governments accountable for failing to comply with their legal duties;
• Assist government to implement laws and policies;
• Present the needs and concerns of marginalized groups of people to government and broader
society.