CHAPTER ONE

Introduction
An Overview of Public policy
Public policies are as old as governments. Whatever is the form of government public policies
have been formulated and implemented wherever and whenever governments have existed. To
cope with the varied problems and demands of the people, the government has to make many
policies; these policies are called public policies. Public Policy as an academic pursuit emerged
in the beginning of 1950s and since then it has been acquiring new dimensions and is struggling
hard to acknowledge the status of a discipline in the field of social sciences (Sapru 2004:1). The
concept of public policy presupposes that there is a domain of life, which is not private or purely
individual, but held in common.

The basic notion of studying public policy as a core subject lies on the general belief that there is
a significant gap between the ways individuals and institutions make policy and the available
knowledge on how policies can best be made (between what is known about policymaking and
how policy is actually made). This gap between knowledge and practice will widen at an
accelerated rate unless some radical changes are made in policymaking methods, in
policymaking organizations, and in the qualification of policymakers.
Learning Objective
Thus at the end of this chapter students would be able to:-
 Define Public policy and Describe Characteristics of Public Policy
 Describe the difference of Policy and other Related Concepts
 Know the Scope of Public Policy

1.1 The Meaning of Public Policy

Public Policy is the chief instrument of a politically organized community. The entire process
involving/concerning public policy needs to be distinguished primarily from two dominant
angles. From the input side, the articulation of needs and interests, and the factors determining
the ‘choice’ of activity have to be identified. From the output side, a distributive analysis has to
be undertaken, in that the impact of the policy has to be assessed. This brings out two major
dimensions to public policymaking.

Public policy has been defined differently, which is a reflection of its multi-faceted nature, yet
all draw elements of public decisions, choices, positions and statements of intents. Policy
formulation is one of the vital tasks of any government.

Public policies are those, which are developed by governmental bodies and officials, though non-
governmental actors and agencies may also exert direct or indirect pressure or influence in the
policymaking process. The special characteristics of public policies as differentiated from other

1
policies emanate from the fact that they are formulated by “authorities” in a political system
namely, “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judiciaries, administrators, councilors,
monarchs, and the like.”

According to Rumki Basu (1994:270), policy can be broadly defined as a "proposed course of
action of an individual, a group, an institution or government, to realize a specific objective or
purpose within a given environment". Policy is a set of interrelated decisions taken by a
political actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving
them within a specified situation.
Policy has been defined as "a matter of either the desire for change or the desire to protect
something from change" (Barber, 1983:59). Barber further added, "Policymaking occurs in the
determination of major objectives, in the selection of methods of achieving these objectives, and
in the continuous adaptation of existing policies to the problems that face the government."
Public policy can be comprehensively defined as a "purposive and consistent course of action
produces as a response to a perceived problem of constituency, formulated by a specific political
process; adopted, implemented and enforced by a public agency."
Definitions of policy, specifically public policy, may vary in their scope and level depending on
the perspectives of different writers. The following are examples of such definitions to the
subject matter, as a concept or as a practice:

 Public policy is what the public administrators execute (Nicholas Henry)

 Public policy is the consciously acknowledged rules of conduct that guide administrative
action and decision (Marshall Dimock)
 Policymaking occurs in the determination of major objectives, in the selection of
methods of achieving these and in the continuous adaptation of existing policies to the
problems that face a government (N. Johnson)
 It is a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a
problem or matter of concer (James Anderson, 1984)
 Public policy is a conscious, goal-selecting process undertaken by actors in the
decisionmaking system and it includes the identification of the means of achieving such
goals (O. Saasa)
From these definitions, it is clear that public: policies are governmental decisions, and are
actually the result of activities which the government undertakes in pursuance of certain goals
and objectives.
Standing from such problems and divergences in the definitions of public policies, we may
prefer to safely stick with the simple definition that says, “public policy is simply whatever
governments choose to do or not do”. Here, we are focusing not only on government action, but
also on government inaction (what the government chooses not to do), and we may contend that

2
government inaction can just create as great an impact on society as government action.
Governments do many things, for example:
 They regulate conflict within society and/or prohibit people from doing
something wrong;
 Distribute a great variety of symbolic rewards and material services to members of the
society; and
 Extract/collect money from society in different forms.
 Undertake redistributive function of resource/income in order to minimize income gap

In general, public policy means Government policy. "Policy" designates the behaviour of some
actor or set of actors (an official, government agency, legislature, etc) in a given area of activity
(for example public transport, consumer protection, etc).

Public policy is” A course of government action and inaction in response to public problem.
“It is simply whatever governments choose to do or not do”.

Public policy is used in senses of what the government is doing and how it is doing. Studies of
public policy examine how the content of the policy programme is administered. Policy is a
verbal, written or implied direction of action. It gives the overall guide by setting up
boundaries/limits and directions within which administrative action will take place.
Understanding the following points will help to understand meaning of policy.

(a) Policies are made to confirm the objectives

(b) Policies are broad guides to action
(c) Policies are guiding principles, which govern action and thinking
(d) Policies tell members of organizations how to deal with particular situations but in broad
terms
(e) Policies are long lasting and comprehensive
(f) Policies are realistic, definite and clear
(g) All policies (of government) are consistent with each other; in harmony with each other

1.2 Major Characteristics of Public Policy

The following General characteristics will make clear the concept of public policy:

1. Public policy is purposive and goal oriented. It is purposive or result oriented action, rather
than random behaviour or chance happenings, to accomplish goals and produce results.
Public policy is formulated and implemented in order to achieve objectives for the ultimate
benefit of the masses in general.
Example:
 Goal: to increase farm income

3
  Policy: provides subsidizes and utilizes production controls
 Result: incomes of many farmers have increased

2. Public Policy is the outcome of the government’s collective actions. Public policy refers to
the action or decisional pattern taken by public administrators or government officials in a
collective sense on a particular issue over a period rather than their separate discrete
decisions on that matter in an ad hoc fashion.
Example: Industrial health and safety policy is based not only on Occupational Health and Safety
Act, but also by a pattern of administrative and judicial decisions interpreting, elaborating
and applying (or not applying) the Act to particular situations.
3. Policy is what governments actually decide or choose to do, and what subsequently happens,
rather than what they intend to do or say they are going to do. It can take a variety of forms
like law, ordinance, court decisions, executive orders, etc.
Example: If legislature enacts law for the payment of minimum wages by the employer and then
nothing is done to enforce the law, it is not-regulation of wages.

4. Public policies emerge in response to demands on some public issue made by other actors
such as private citizens, group representatives, other public officials upon government
officials and agencies.
Examples:
 A municipal government do something about in order to solve traffic congestion

5. Public policy may be either positive or negative in form. Positively, it depicts the concern of
government and involves some form of government actions regarding any issue or problem.
Public policy in its positive form is based on law and is authoritative; it has a legal sanction
behind it, which is potentially coercive in nature and is binding on all citizens. Negatively, it
may involve a decision by government officials not to take action on a matter on which
governmental opinion, attitude, or action is asked for.
6. Public policy made by Public Authority.

Generally, two concepts involved in any policy need to be distinguished:

(a) Policy statements are formal expressions of public policy (legislative statutes, executive
orders, administrative rules and regulations, court opinions, etc); and
(b) Policy outputs are actions actually taken in pursuance of policy decisions and statements
(taxes collected, highways built, welfare benefits paid, traffic fines collected, foreign-aid
projects undertaken; Service render etc).

4
 1.3 Clarifications of Policy and Other Related Concepts
For the purpose of clearly understanding the concept of public policy, it is important to look it
the similarity and difference from different perspectives and angles.

(i) Policy and Decision:

In most of the times, the two terms are used interchangeably, although that is not the correct
usage. Policy is different from decisions even though it itself is a decision. Individuals,
organizations or governments constantly take decisions, but all the decisions that are taken
cannot be considered as matters of policy (Mathur, 2005:7). The core of decision making is to
make a choice from alternatives available in order to take action. A decision can be taken only
when there are more than one alternative available. Thus, decision is the act of making a choice.

There can be two types of decisions; programmed and non-programmed. Programmed decisions
are repetitive and do not require a fresh consideration every time they are taken. Such decisions
are routine in nature for which definite procedures can be worked out. Non-programmed
decisions are new and unstructured where no well laid-down methods are available and each
issue or question is to be dealt with separately. Both the programmed and non-programmed
decisions have to be taken in a broad framework or course of action.

In contrast, Public policy is the broad direction or perspective that the government lays
down in order to take decisions. Public policy is a set of decisions by a political leader or group
commanding authority of implementation, concerning the selection of goals and methods of
attaining them in a specified situation". Policy provides a framework, which then directs
individual decisions. Each organization or individual, thus, makes decision within a policy
framework. Policy consists of a series of decisions tied together into a coherent whole. In other
words, policy is a sum total of decisions.

There can be some similarities in the processes involved in decision making and policymaking.
Both are concerned with choice among alternatives, and both can follow similar processes in
generating alternatives. But, we should always remember that policy is a more comprehensive
term as it encompasses a series of decisions and has comparatively longer time perspective,
while decision can be a one-time action. Therefore, public policy, when defined in broad context,
refers to the combination of basic decisions, commitments, and actions made by those who hold
or affect government portions of authority.
(ii) Policy and politics:

The policymaking process is part of politics and political action. According to Mathur K et.al
(2005), political system is a set of interactions having structures, each of which performs its

5
functions in order to keep it like an on-going concern; it is a set of processes that routinely
converts inputs into outputs.

Policy is a plan of action for tackling political issues. It is often initiated by apolitical party in
government, which undergoes reforms and changes by interested actors(For example, opposition
party and lobby groups.
In the words of Appleby (1975), “the essence of public administration is policymaking.”Public
administration theorists have been concerned with the attempts conceptually to distinguish policy
and administration. The distinction, which was probably based on a confusion of politics and
administration, has always been somewhat fictional. In this regard, two principal features of
policy could be considered, namely:
(1) Policy is concerned with either change (its dynamic aspect), or with the preservation of
the stats quo (its static aspect), and
(2) There is no clear distinction between policy and administration, and both contain
dynamic elements. The existence of a passive executory administration is no longer a
justifiable assumption.
It is, therefore, considered that public policy is the common instrument of both politics and
public administration and acts as a specialized branch of theory and practice in both the
disciplines. While political science has concerned itself with larger substantive issues having
political overtones, public administration has confined attention to the theoretical concerns of
research, public choice, strategic planning etc.

Public policy is the latest sub-field of public Administration. It is a developing area, which
consists of government’s choices of actions that are intended to serve the public purposes. It is
the bridge that connects the statements about the public purposes with the intended results for
which administrators are responsible. Public policy gives or denies authority and direction to
individuals, public officials, groups, societies, institutions, etc. to do or not to do something
presumably with good intention of public interest.
(iii) Policy and Goals
Goals are what policies aim at or hope to achieve. A goal is a desired state of affairs that a
society or an organization attempts to realize. Goals can be understood in a variety of
perspectives. These can be thought of as abstract values that a society would like to acquire.
There are also goals that are specific and concrete. Removal of poverty is a goal that the
government wants to pursue. Public policies are concerned with such specific goals. They are the
instruments which lead to the achievement of these goals. In order to become a policy, goal has
to be translated into action.

6
Differences between Policy and Goal
GOAL
POLICY
1. Policy spells out the way of achieving a goal 1. Goal is what policy aims to achieve.
2. Policy is essentially an instrument to achieve a 2. Goal is a desired state of affairs that a
goal. society or an organization attempts to realize.

(IV) Policy and Strategies

Various authors have been using the terms "Policy" and "strategy" to denote closely similar
meanings. For example, policy and strategy both refer to broad characterizations of long-range
organizational aims.

Differences between Policy and Strategy

STRATEGY
POLICY
1. Policy establishes broad purpose and 1. Strategy develops alternative ways and
direction for the total organization, means that will be consistent with, and
sector or nation. optimizes on, the organization's or nation's
2. Policy answers the "where" or "what", policy.
the government or top management 2. Strategy answers the "how", how the
of the organization wants to go or to government or the organization intends to get
be some years after from now. where it wants to go or what it wants to be.

Despite technical differences as indicated in the table above, strategy and policy are
interdependent parts of effective decisionmaking. Depending on the context, meanings can
overlap with distinctions increasingly difficult to draw. Strategy depends on identifying the
correct alternatives to pursue.

(V) Policy and Rules

Rules are specific regulations, which must be followed by all people in the organization or
department. Rules spell out specific required action or non-actions, i.e., actions that must be or
must not be taken, allowing no discretion in a given situation (example “no smoking”, or
“cheating is prohibited”). They specifically tell what to do or what not to do, they are enforced
rigidly, and involve penalty for violation. The only choice rule leave is whether or not to apply
them to a particular set of circumstances. The purpose of policy is to guide decision making by
marking off areas in which managers can use their discretion. Although rules may also serve as
guides, they allow no discretion in their application. Rules are the most explicit of standing plans
and are not guides for thinking or decision making.

7
Differences between Policies and Rules
POLICY
RULE
1. General statement of a decision 1. Specific... tells what to do or not to
2. Flexible... allows exceptions do
3. Allows discretions in decisionmaking or 2. Rigid ... does not permit exceptions
implementation 3. Does not allow discretion in decision
4. Allows implicit understanding and making or implementation
interpretation, serves as a guide for thinking 4. Is explicit and direct, doesn't give
or decision making room for thinking and implied

(Vi)Policy and Procedures

Procedures are statements that specify the exact manner in which certain activities must be
accomplished. They put the precise order of activities to be carried out to do a task and thus,
procedures are chronological sequences of required actions. They provide detailed step-by-step
instructions as to what should be done. Procedure is a systematic way of handling regular events;
it is a series of steps to do a particular job; a sequence of actions directed towards a goal; a guide
of action without specifying a time sequence.

Example: To hire employees, we follow the sequences of actions that include the following: (a)
Advertisement (b) Preliminary interview (c) Reference check (d) employment test (e)
Final interview (f) selection (g) Job offer (h) contract (i) Joining (j) Orientation...etc

Differences between Policies and Procedures

POLICIES
PROCEDURES
1. Planned expressions of Department's attitude 1. Prescribe the exact sequence of
towards issues specific tasks
2. Guides to decisionmaking 2. Guides to action
3. Allow rethinking 3. Rigid; no discretion
4. Framed by top level management 4. Laid down at middle level

When we compare policy with the last two related concepts; i.e. rules and procedures, we can
understand that all are alike in the sense that they are directives to guide people’s behavior to the
desired ends and they are standing plans, which are to be followed in the future. Conversely,
rules and procedures are different from policy in that the former are guides to actions while the
latter is a guide to thinking. So, procedures and rules render no freedom and hence should be
used when we want to discourage initiative or repress thinking. But, policies must permit
freedom within limits and hence are used when people’s involvement, participation or initiative
is desired.
8
Policy is also closely understood with other related concepts in addition to those discussed
above. Such related concepts include: method, decision-making, plan, program, and project. A
method is a manual or mechanical way by which each operation is performed... the best way of
doing a particular work. Method is limited in nature compared to a procedure, as the latter
consists of various methods to do a work.

Sometimes policymaking is confused with decision making. Although they are closely related,
they are not the same functions. Policymaking involves decision-making, but every decision is
not a policy. Generally, administrators take decisions in their day-to-day work, within the
existing framework of policy. Policy decisions thus, provide a sense of direction to the course of
administrative action. Policy formulation sets the framework for decision making. Policy has
wider implications and a longer time frame.

Policy itself is part of the overall process of planning. Planning has strategic implications and is
more a technical function than policy formation. A policy has more the nature of a ‘tactic’.
Programmes are a schedule of activities to be taken up by various institutions or individual
functionaries. A project is an investment for a particular purpose. Program and project are both
consequences of a policy.

4.4 Scope of Public Policy

The scope and the sheer size of the public sector have grown enormously in the developing
countries in response of the increasing complexity of technology, social organization,
industrialization and urbanization. Today, the government is not merely the keeper of peace, the
arbiter of disputes, and the provider of common goods and day-to-day services; it is rather
beyond that touching every aspect of public life. These trends and developments have therefore
enhanced both the size and scope of public policy. The line of argument developed by scholars is
that all of us are greatly affected by the myriad of public policies in our everyday lives. The
range of public policy is vast; from the vital to the trivial.
As far as the scope of public policies are concerned, they may deal with a wide variety of
substantive areas such as defense, energy, environment, foreign affairs, education, welfare,
police, highways, taxation, housing, social security, health, economic opportunity, urban
development, inflation and recession, and so on. Some of these policies have been there even in
ancient times; hence public policy is not a new concern of political science and public
administration.

9
 1.4. Summary

The practice of public policy is as old as the history of government. Public policies have been
formulated and implemented wherever and whenever governments have existed, regardless of
the forms of government. To cope with the varied problems and demands of the people, the
government has to make public policies. Public Policy as an academic pursuit emerged in the
beginning of 1950s and since then it has been acquiring new dimensions and is struggling hard to
gain the status of a discipline. Therefore, the field of public policy has assumed considerable
importance in response to the increasing complexity of society.

Although some novel writers discourage an attempt to make an elaborate academic discussion of
the definitions of public policy as it creates deception and confusion, many others have defined it
in their own perspectives and philosophies. Broadly, public policy is simply described as
whatever governments choose to do or not to do, government action or inaction, in order to
pursue certain established public goals and objectives.

“Please read more to broaden your understanding on the Subject matter”

10
 CHAPTER TWO
2. ORIGINS, PROGRESSION AND SOURCES OF PUBLIC POLICY

2.1. Emergence and the Empiric Study of Public Policymaking

The origins of public policy as a political decision can be referred back to the birth of
civilization, and public policymaking has been a central subject for social philosophers and
practical politicians ever since the beginning of human thought. Early writings have provided
profound insights and stimulating ideas that were both theoretical significance and practical
openings in shaping the state of contemporary policymaking. To Dunn (1981), the history of
public policy goes back to the 18 th century B.C. The Code of Hammurabi, which was
originated around this period, was the earliest recorded example of policy analysis. The Code of
Hammurabi is a well-preserved Babylonian code of law of ancient Mesopotamia, dated back to
about 1754 BC (Middle Chronology). It is one of the oldest deciphered writings of significant
length in the world. The sixth Babylonian king, Hammurabi, enacted the code. It consists of 282
laws, with scaled punishments, adjusting "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth"

However, policy advice of the earliest times was practically made on personalized basis, public
advice remained being very ‘particularistic and ad hoc exercise’, and were not made by
analytical examination of the conditions and trends necessary for policymaking. In other words,
analytic examination of public policy issues was non-existent by the beginning of the 20th
century. Adoption of the intellectual or systematic analysis is relatively a recent phenomenon,
which is associated with the emergence of modern policy science.

2.2. Policy Sciences

Although the origin of public policies can be linked to the beginning of civilization itself, the
present policy sciences have a twentieth century. The concept of “policy sciences” as a social
science discipline and practice was originated in 1951 with Harold Lasswell’s publication, “The
Policy Orientation”. Policy science is a systematic and scientific study of public policy.
Lasswell, widely accepted as the modern founder of the policy sciences, described policy
sciences as the result of efforts for applying “societally relevant knowledge”.

Policy science is characterized by a series of paradigms that are from contemporary “normal”
sciences. The place of policy sciences is related to the question and importance of the state and
its concerns to public policy. It is concerned with understanding and improvement and with the
social consequences and implications of public policies and the public policymaking processes.
According to Dror (1971), the policy sciences include:
(i) Policy Analysis, which provides methods for identification of preferable policy
alternatives,

11
 (ii) Alternative innovation, which deals with the invention of new designs and possibilities to
be considered in policymaking,
(iii) Master policies or mega policies, which provide postures, assumptions, strategies, and
main guidelines to be followed by specific policies,
(iv) Evaluation and feedback, including social indicators, social experimentation and
organizational learning, and,
(v) Improvement of meta policies, that is, “policy on policymaking” through redesign of
public policymaking systems, its organizational components, selection and training of its
personnel, and reconstruction of its communication and information network,

The policy science is multidisciplinary, contextual, problem-oriented, and explicitly normative in

nature.

Despite long history of existence and uninterrupted progression, public policymaking still lacks
empiric work. Because of such limitations, there has been a growing skepticism and criticism
questioning the credibility of policy sciences to provide ‘objective, empirical, and normative
truths’. With such reservations and critiques, governments of many countries have been seeking
to formulate and reformulate relevant policies parallel to the dynamics of the environment. The
changing nature of public policies, hence, calls for the extensive study of these policies. The
study of public policy helps to understand the social ills of the subject.

Policy science is essentially an attempt to develop a theoretical base for the discipline. The
theoretical insights are very important as they provide both explanations and directions.
Theoretical explanations enable to avoid the occurrence of same mistakes again and again. It is
believed that in the absence of conceptualization and theoretical developments, the social
experiences can neither be meaningfully discussed nor communicated to others. This is the
reason why one should discus not only the operational dimensions of a phenomenon but also its
reflections in the theory.

2.2. Rationales for the Study of Public Policy

There are both academic and political reasons for studying public policy or engaging in policy
analysis. Among a number of specific reasons for why we devote greater attention to the study of
public policy, the following deserve worth mentioning:
(i) Scientific Reasoning/Understanding: First, public policy can be studied for purely
scientific reasons: understanding the causes and consequences of policy decisions
improves the knowledge of society. The study of public policy formulation processes
may help to gain greater knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the
interacting social, economic and political processes and their implications for society.
Public policy can be viewed either as a dependent(effect of political and environmental
factors has on policy) or independent variable(the impact of policy on the political

12
 system and environment).An understanding of these linkages contributes to the breadth,
significance, reliability, and theoretical development of social science.

(ii) Professional Reasons/ Problem solving. Public policy can also be studied for
professional reasons: understanding the causes and consequences of public policy
permits us to apply social science knowledge to the solution of practical problems.
Factual knowledge about the policymaking process and its outcomes is a prerequisite for
prescribing the ills of society or dealing with social problems normatively. If certain ends
are desired, the question of what policies would best implement them is a factual question
requiring scientific study. In other words, policy studies can produce professional advice,
in terms of “if…then…” statements, about how to achieve desired goals. The study of
public policy should be directed towards ensuring that governments adopt appropriate
policies to attain certain desirable social goals. It is not to deny, however, that substantial
disagreements may exist in society over what constitutes "desirable" or the "appropriate"
goals of policy.

(iii) Political Reasons/ Policy Recommendations. Finally, public policy can be studied
for political purposes: to ensure that the nation adopts the “right” policies to achieve the
“right” goals. It is frequently argued that political science should not be silent or impotent
in the face of great social and political crises, and that, political scientists have a moral
obligation to advance specific public policies. Policy studies can be undertaken not only
for scientific and professional purposes but also to inform political discussion, advance
the level of political awareness, and improve the quality of public policy. Of course, these
are very subjective purposes-citizens do not always agree on what constitutes the “right”
policies or the “right” goals-but it is assumed that knowledge is preferable to
ignorance, even in politics.

The most important and immediate question that follows after reasoning out why we study public
policy should be, “what can we learn about public policy?” To address this generic question,
we can provide at least three major justifications: we can describe public policy, we can inquire
about the causes of public policy, and we can find out the consequences of public policy actions.

Description: First, we can describe public policy and we can learn what government is doing
(and not doing) in, for example, welfare, defense, education, civil rights, health the environment,
taxation, and so on. A factual basis of information about national policy is really an
indispensable part of everyone’s education. What does the Civil Rights Act, if any, actually say
about discrimination in employment? What is the condition of the nation’s Social Security
Program? What do the Medicare Programs promise for the poor and the aged? What agreements
have been reached between governments regarding a common concern such as nuclear weapons?
How much money are we paying in tax? How much money does the federal government spend

13
each year and what does it spend it on? How large is the national debt and how much does it
grow each year? These are examples of descriptive questions.

Causes: Second, we can inquire about the causes, or determinants, of public policy. Why is
public policy what it is? Why do governments do what they do? We might inquire about the
effects of political institutions, process, and behaviors on public policies For example, does it
make any difference in tax and spending levels whether “X” or “Y” parties control the
presidency and parliament? What is the impact of interest group conflict on federal presidency
and congress? What is the impact of lobbying by the special interests on efforts to reform the
federal tax system? We can also inquire about effects of social, economic, and cultural forces in
shaping public policy .

We can ask, for example, what are the effects of changing public attitudes about race on civil
rights policy? What are the effects of recessions on government spending? What is the effect of
an increasing older population on social security programs? In scientific terms, when we study
the causes of public policy, policies become the dependent variables, and their various political,
social, economic, and cultural developments become the independent variables (Dye, 1995:5).

2.3. Sources of Public Policy

Public policy emanates from different sources and grounds.

Public policy takes several forms. Its most fundamental principles are expressed in national and
state constitutions, which also govern the procedures by which policies are adopted. The most
familiar policy form is statutory law/Constitutional, enacted by congress or parliament, state
legislatures, and local boards and councils. Court decisions interpreting statues and constitutions
also become policy and are binding on legislators and executives. Notwithstanding the
differences among concepts discussed in Chapter one, the rules and orders issued by executive
and administrative agencies are also policy, for they extend and apply the statutory law in greater
detail. Budgets of all state governments are policies, for they set the levels and objectives of
spending as well as the amounts and sources of revenue.

Another key source of public policy is international relations. Some policies cross national
boundaries, taking the form of treaties and less formal working agreements between and among
governments. Such policies require negotiations with governments and such international
agencies as the World Bank and the World Health Organization.

The ethical values of a society can be considered as the sources of public policy. Ethical values,
such as the obligation to preserve life, are quite compelling legislators. Legal and professional
standards interpret and expand these values and lay specific obligations on responsible persons,

14
particularly in government. Since ethical values are often stated in absolute terms, they highlight
our inevitable shortcomings as well as stimulate improvement.

Society's available resources are also can be the source of public policy. A country, which is
rich enough to put a man on the moon, can initiate a policy for undertaking a more incredible
scientific research since doing so is affordable regardless of the likelihood to succeed with it. No
matter what its achievements are, an affluent technological society always feels obligated to set
its goals beyond them.

citizens' demands/Society Problem could be another source of public policy. Those who see or
experience the deficiencies most directly also advocate public policies that provide the most
advantages for them. Many people may believe and want that the state can pay for all medical
expenses as well as cover other safety needs. This may push the government to set policy in
account of such public demands and its capacity to respond fully or in partial treatment.

Policy must be based on accurate factual information, which is largely supplied by

administration. There are four ways in which or sources from which administration collects the
necessary data and information:
1. From its own internal reports, records and statistics,
2. From non-official organizations/ sources,
3. From special investigations conducted by commissions or committees of inquiry,
4. From research and study.

“Please read more to broaden your understanding on the Subject matter”

15
 2.1 Summary

The origins of public policy as a political decision can be referred back to the birth of
civilization, and public policymaking has been a central subject for social philosophers and
practical politicians ever since the beginning of human thought. Early writings have provided
profound insights and stimulating ideas that were both theoretical significance and practical
openings in shaping the state of contemporary policymaking. The Code of Hammurabi, which
was intended to establish a unified and just order over many aspects of public life, was the
earliest recorded example of policy analysis. However, a systematic public advice emerged from
the relationship between the church and the state in the 15th century.

However, some writers didn’t admit the “systematic” aspect of it to exist during this time, though
they still refer back to the 15th century works as the beginning of public policy. Contemporary
writers acknowledged the works and/or the autobiographies of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli,
Babour, Frederick the Great, Bismarck, Churchill, etc. how they have been used as a source of
data for generalizations and contributed to illustrate the study and practice of policymaking.
English philosophers, like Jeremy Bentham and James Mill, were also regarded as the partial
originators of the policy sciences that purely developed a century later. However, policy advice
of the earliest times was practically made on personalized basis, public advice remained being
very ‘particularistic and ad hoc exercise’, and were not made by analytical examination of the
conditions and trends necessary for policymaking. In other words, analytic examination of public
policy issues was non-existent by the beginning of the 20th century. Adoption of the intellectual
or systematic analysis is relatively a recent phenomenon, which is associated with the emergence
of modern policy science.

The concept of “policy sciences” as a social science discipline and practice was originated in
1951 with Harold Lasswell’s publication, “The Policy Orientation”. Policy science is a
systematic and scientific study of public policy. Lasswell, widely accepted as the modern
founder of the policy sciences, described policy sciences as the result of efforts for applying
“societally relevant knowledge”. Policy science is characterized by a series of paradigms that are
from contemporary “normal” sciences. The place of policy sciences is related to the question and
importance of the state and its concerns to public policy. It is concerned with understanding and
improvement and with the social consequences and implications of public policies and the public
policymaking processes. The policy sciences encompass policy analysis, alternative innovation,
master policies or mega policies, evaluation and feedback, and improvement of meta policies. It
is multidisciplinary, contextual, problem-oriented, and explicitly normative in nature.

Policy science is essentially an attempt to develop a theoretical base for the discipline. Despite
long history of existence and uninterrupted progression, public policymaking still lacks empiric
work. Because of such limitations, there has been a growing skepticism and criticism questioning
16
the credibility of policy sciences to provide ‘objective, empirical, and normative truths’. With
such reservations and critiques, governments of many countries have been seeking to formulate
and reformulate relevant policies parallel to the dynamics of the environment. The changing
nature of public policies, hence, calls for the extensive study of these policies. The study of
public policy helps to understand the social ills of the subject.

Therefore, studying public policy may have both academic and political reasons. Firstly, the
study of the policy formulation processes may help to gain greater knowledge and understanding
of the complexities of the interacting social, economic and political processes and their
implications for society. Policy may be viewed either as a dependent variable (the content of
which being determined by political and environmental factors), or an independent variable (that
influences the political system and the environment). Secondly, factual knowledge about the
policymaking process and its outcomes is a prerequisite for prescribing and dealing with societal
problems normatively. Consequently, many scholars and professionals have shifted their focus to
the study of public policy- to describe and explain the process by which public policy is
determined as well as the causes and consequences of government activities.

Generally, there are academic and political reasons for studying public policy. The specific
reasons for studying public policy may include, among others: scientific reasons/understanding,
(understanding the causes and consequences of policy decisions); professional reasons/problem
solving (acquiring factual knowledge); and political reasons/policy recommendations (to ensure
adopting the “right” policies to achieve the “right” goals).

Most public policies have similar features at generic level, but emanate from different sources
and grounds and take several forms. Their fundamental principles are expressed in national and
state constitutions; the most familiar policy form is statutory law, enacted by congress or
parliament, state legislatures, and local boards and councils. Court decisions interpreting statues
and constitutions also become policy and are binding on legislators and executives; the rules and
orders issued by executive and administrative agencies are policies; budgets of both national and
state governments are policies as they set the levels and objectives of spending as well as the
amounts and sources of revenue. International relations taking the form of treaties and working
agreements between and among governments, ethical values of a society, citizens’ demands,
investigative reports of special purpose commissions and committees, organizational reports,
administrative and technical research outputs, are all sources of public policy.

CHAPTER THREE

2. POLICY CYCLES AND STAGES

17
In chapter three, the major policy cycles and the different stages that should occur in each cycle
will be briefly overviewed.

1. Agenda-Setting, Defining Problems and Objectives

Stage one: Agenda-Setting
Agenda-setting, which is the starting point in the policymaking process, is an activity of listing
of issues that warrant serious consideration for the making a policy. We can distinguish between
two kinds of agendas; the popular agenda and institutional agenda.
The popular agenda: is the list of problems and issues in which the general public is most
interested. For example, opinion polls regularly report that unemployment or crime may head at
the top of the list of concerns in a given month. These issues can also vary regionally or locally;
a depressed economy in one state/region or a high crime rate in the other may dominate the
public agendas in those places.
Figure 3.1: Stages of Public Policy

1.
MONITORING AGENDA
AND SETTING
EVALUATING

7. 2.
IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM
THE POLICY DEFINITION

6. 3.
CHOOSING OBJECTIVE
ALTERNATIVES SETING

5. 4.
ASSESSING DISCERING
ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVES

Institutional agenda: in contrast consists of those items that specific government bodies or
leaders, such as congress or a city mayor, rank as high priorities for action. These concerns

18
reflect the popular agendas but emphasize specific matters on which some agreement is possible.
Thus, at a time when the public is worried about unemployment, congress agenda may include
proposals, for example, to create new public service jobs or protect a country’s industries from
foreign competition.
Stage Two: Defining Problems
While they are setting the agenda, policymakers also must define the problem that confronts
them. Essentially, a "problem definition" is determining the gap between the current and the
preferred or ideal situation. "Every disparity between the actual and the desired situation is
defined as a problem and is widely assumed to have a solution and one may demonstrably be
better than any other alternative. According to Wildavsky (1979:3), "The solution is part of
defining the problem....Creativity consists of finding a problem about which something can and
ought to be done”. Although any problem has objective dimensions, it still requires human
judgment about its ethical values and options for action.
Stage Three: Setting Objectives
Objective Setting is essentially choosing specific goals to be achieved by the policy to be
formulated. A typical problem statement often points to some potential objectives for solution;
each of which might be attractive to some person or group, and each might be attainable in some
degree but not fully compatible with one another. Such statements are most effective when
expressed in concrete terms: to reduce the incidence of death due to kidney disease by 50
percent in two years, for example. Yet, when there is a legislative struggle over which objectives
shall dominate, the final statement that goes into the policy is usually vague enough to
encompass all of the favored ones.
Objective can have many sources. The objectives selected directly guide the choice of alternative
policies. All choices flow in continuous stream of decisions from the indefinite past to the
uncertain future. They involve selecting one course of action from several options with the
expectation that the selections will serve the policymakers’ purposes. A problem arrives on the
public agenda only if it has not been solved by individuals or private organizations, and
controversy often rages over what the options, purposes, and expectations really exist.
3.2 Discerning, Assessing, and Choosing the Alternatives
Stage Four: Discerning the Alternatives
Discerning the alternatives is identifying potential courses of action that could achieve the
designated objective/s. In searching for alternative courses of action, policymakers usually begin
with the "short list" of ideas with which they are familiar.
Stage Five: Assessing the Alternatives
Basically, an assessment of alternatives is forecasting the likely outcomes of each alternative,
including benefits and costs; if policy “A” is chosen, its likely outcome “B” will (or will not)
close the gap between the present situation and the goal that was set. Also implicit is the
expectation that unwanted situation “C” will not result from policy “A”. This assessment is done
for each alternative on the table, and at the end, one ideally chooses that which offer the greatest

19
possible margin of expected benefits (given the objectives already decided) over the costs or
harms it would entail.
There is few criteria emphasized by Johnson (1992:163-64),that would be applied for assessing
different alternatives can be briefly overviewed
Benefits as Criteria for Assessment: Policymakers must ask questions related to assessing the
value of benefits. First, what benefits are anticipated from each alternative? For whom, when,
how much are they valued or needed? And which are measurable in dollars or other numbers,
and which are not? How do these benefits compare with those provided to other groups in other
policies? Who would be denied benefits? Answers require calculation of the values of each set of
benefits for each group of recipients. How the recipients respond to those possibilities clearly
shapes that calculation.
Costs: The second criterion mirrors the benefits; costs incurred by each alternative. Again,
policymakers must ask, what costs, for whom, what would it cost the government, who might be
harmed as a result, what are the opportunity costs- that is, what other benefits could have been
gained with the funds if this were not chosen? Costs, like benefits, cannot be fully measured in
dollars; because pain, fear, and lost opportunities lack an agreed-upon calculus.
Feasibility: The third factor to consider is feasibility; how well the alternative is likely to work
when assigned to a specific agency in its context. Among many questions one must ask are, “Is
there any agency with the will, skills, and resources to carry out this policy? Can the policy meet
legal and constitutional tests if someone were to file a lawsuit over it? Do the knowledge and
technology exist to enable its implementation? Is enough money likely to be available to fund it
adequately? If the government wants to put something forth, it has to answer to all these
questions. A clear “no” to any one of them would doom that alternative.
Mutual Effects: Fourth, each policy relates in countless ways to other things that government
and private organizations do, and their success and failure are intertwined. Assessment efforts
should thus foresee these mutual effects. For example, what the state/region chooses to do on a
particular issue will be affected by a federal government policy authorizing the state’s action.
Political Acceptability: The fifth criterion is often the overriding one, which puts all of the
alternatives in perspective: political acceptability. A policy is never made simply because it is
“right” or "best." It emerges because it is judged right or best by legislators and executives who
see that it fits the expectations that they and influential others hold of their jobs and of the
government as a whole. This is not to say that they make inferior choices for that reason or that
they are corrupt or irresponsible. Rather, because democracy is a process of shared
decisionmaking, a choice cannot be distinct from the wills of those who join in making that
decision. When there is much disagreement over an issue, the policy may be chosen only after
long deliberation and could well be changed shortly afterward.

Stage Six: Choosing the Alternatives

20
Choosing alternatives would mean enacting into law a specific package of programs and means
of implementing them. In this step, therefore, policymakers choose one alternative (or a
combination) to become official policy and add the "tools" with which to implement it. Where
there is clear agreement on the law, the means of its administration can be equally clear.

Policy choice requires “tools of implementation”, which are an integral part of the policy choice.
Basically, a tool is a method or approach used by government to achieve a specific objective.
When a government seeks to increase the access of working parents to day care for their
children, it could choose, first, to operate day-care centers directly with its own personnel. Or, a
second option, it could give grants to community organizations to provide the service. Third, it
could give a tax credit or rebate to parents to cover their out-of pocket child-care costs for
whatever facilities they use. Less likely is use of the fourth tool: requiring employers to operate
day-care centers for their workers. The policy goal and the tool used are interdependent, and
political controversies are motivated by both choices. Nevertheless, legislators often fail to
specify the tools to be used, due to neglect or lack of agreement, and let the administrators select
them within broad limits.
Policymakers do not expect that their choice packages will completely "solve" the problem. No
problem remains the same while it is being dealt with. If, by a conducive circumstance, the
targeted problem is minimized by the program, new problems are likely to appear that require
different actions. In other instances, the "solutions" did not solve much and often created new
problems. In either situation, no choice can be seen as permanent. Even when a long-term
commitment is made, as with expensive facilities for urban transit, policymakers must expect to
adjust to new realities in years to come.
3.3 Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
Stage Sven: Implementing the Policy
Implementation is the process of realizing public policy, thereby achieving the public purposes
for which the policy was made. Earlier scholars of public administration argued that
implementation is primarily a "technical" task, clearly removed from the political controversies
in which the policy was decided.
The implementation stage begins as a task is assigned to one or more agencies along with the
authority to spend money, hire personnel, and obtain the other resources necessary. Next, those
agencies make rules and procedures by which to operate. Nonetheless, there is always some
degree of discretion permitted as to means, guidelines, and dates for action. These rules match
the tools chosen to implement the policy.
Stage Eight: Monitoring and Evaluation
At this stage, the policy cycle can return to the beginning; agenda-setting and redefinition of the
problem and goals. When administrators learn what happens as a result of implementing a policy
and evaluate its success, they are moving from the end of one policy cycle to the beginning of a
new one. The result of the evaluation process, be it failure or success, can reshape policy. Hence,

21
evaluation activity may restart the policy process (problem formulation) in order to continue,
modify or terminate existing policy.
Evaluation of Public Policy is an attempt to assess the content and effects of a policy on those
for whom it is intended. Often policy evaluation occurs throughout the policy process, not
necessarily at its termination stage. There are three types of policy evaluation, namely:

(a) Policy impact evaluation: In an assessment of the overall program’s impact and
effectiveness, the emphasis is on determining the extent to which programs are successful
in achieving basic objectives, and on the comparative evaluation of national programs.
(a) Policy strategy evaluation: This evaluation is an assessment of the relative effectiveness
of program strategies and variables. The emphasis is on determining which strategies,
methods, and procedures are most productive or effective.
(b) Project appraisal: This process involves an assessment of individual site visits and other
activities with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency. While discussing
policy evaluation, ones must first understand the basic differences between policy output
and policy outcomes.
Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the government, which can be measured in
concrete terms, for instances, construction of government offices, schools, public parks,
highways, payment of welfares benefits, operation of hospitals and prisons. These activities can
be measured in concrete terms but figures reveal very little about the real impact of the policy.
Policy outcome on the other hand is the qualitative impact of public policies on the lives of
people. Knowing how much is spent on pupils in a school system on a per capita basis will
reveal nothing consuming the effects schooling has on the cognitive abilities of students, let
alone the social consequences of the educational system.
However, broadly policy evaluation requires knowledge of what is to be accomplished within a
given policy (policy objectives), how to do it (strategy) and what has been accomplished towards
attainment of the objectives (impact or outcomes). The most useful method of policy evaluation
for policymakers and administrators is the systematic evaluation to determine the cause and
effect relationships and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is, of course, often
impossible to measure quantitatively the impact of public policies, especially social policies with
any real precision.

The Public Policymakers/Policy Actors

Policymaking involves a large number of persons and institutions and authorities: chiefs,
executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors, political parties, interest groups,
experts and professionals. In this section, therefore, an attempt is made to explain how groups
and organizations bring influences to bear on those who are vested with the power of taking and
enforcing decisions. Such decision makers comprise of those who occupy formal offices within
the constitutional system of rules. There are activities as well in which non-official groups seek
to influence the decision taken by occupants of formal offices.

22
Hence the policymakers can be simply categorized as official, who are directly involved in
making decisions, and unofficial, who make significant influence on the content and nature of
policy through indirect ways.
Official Actors
Official policy-makers(Actors):- are those who are legally empowered to formulate public
policy. These include legislatures, executives, administrators, and judges (Johnson, 1992;
Sapru, 2004).
1)Legislature: The legislature formally performs the task of law making in a political system.
This doesn't necessarily mean that the legislature has an independent decision making power or
actually frames the official policy since political parties, pressure groups, and so forth can
influence it. But it can safely be concluded that the legislature is more important in policy
formulation in democratic than in dictatorial systems.
2)Executive: Modern governments everywhere mainly depend upon executive leadership both in
policy formulation and execution. In developing countries in particular, the executive has even
more influence in policymaking than in developed countries because of the greater concentration
of power in the hands of the government with less responsiveness to the legislature.
3)Administrative Agencies: although it has been an accepted doctrine in political science that
administrators were merely implementers of policies determined by other organs of the
government, such distinctions are now found to be fallacious as politics and administration are
blended, and as administrators are highly involved in policy formulation in the modern world.
The technical complexity of many policy matters, legislature's lack of time and information are
among the major reasons for administrative agencies to have a formally recognized discretionary
authority to formulate policies. Public officials are associated with policy formulation in three
important ways:
(a) They have to supply facts, data and criticism about the workability of the policy to the
legislature if the initiative for policymaking comes from them. In addition, since
members of the parliament might have lack of administrative acumen (intelligence) or
experience on technical or purely professional matters, they have to give due recognitions
and rely on the suggestions of the officials,
(b) Since the administrations are supposed have constant contact with the general public and
thereby to be in a better position to understand the difficulties that arise in the
implementation of policies, the initiative for policy legislation or amendments originates
very often from the administration.
(c) On account of lack of time and knowledge, the legislature passes skeleton acts and leaves
the details to the administration.
Besides the official policymakers, many unofficial bodies may participate in the policymaking
process. These may include political parties, interest groups, and individual citizens. These
unofficial bodies could participate in public policymaking in terms of expressing demands,

23
supplying official policymakers with much technical information about specific issues and
possible consequences of a policy proposal, and presenting alternatives for policy actions.
Unofficial Actors/Players
Unofficial Participants: Besides the official policy-makers, many others may participate in the
policymaking process, like interest groups, political parties and individual citizens. They may
considerably influence policy formation without possessing legal authority to make binding
policy decisions.
I)Pressure Groups: Interest or pressure groups play an important role in policymaking in most
countries. The strength and legitimacy of groups differs from country to country, depending
upon whether they are democratic or dictatorial, developed or developing. The main function
of these groups is to express demand and present alternatives for policy action. They may also
supply the official lawmakers with much technical information for and against a specific issue
and possible consequences of a policy proposal.
The primary concern of a pressure group is to influence policy in a particular policy matter Often
there are several groups with conflicting desires on a particular policy issue, and policymakers
are faced with the problem of having to choose between conflicting demands. Well-organized
and active groups naturally have more influence than groups whose potential membership is
poorly organized and inarticulate. Influence also depends on other factors like numerical
strength, monetary and other resources cohesiveness, leadership skills, social status and attitudes
of the policymakers on specific policy issues.
2)Political Parties: In modern societies generally, political parties perform the function of
“interest aggregation”, that is, they seek to convert the particular demands of interest groups into
general policy alternatives. The number of parties affects the way in which parties “aggregate”
interests.
Generally however, political parties have a broader range of policy concerns than do interest
groups; hence they will act more as brokers than as advocates of particular interests in policy
formation. They provide also policy alternative.
In parliamentary states, the political party, which has a majority of votes in parliament, forms the
government, which is the chief official policymaker. Needless to say \, most of the governments
make policies according to the policy manifestos on which they have been elected to office. In
presidential systems like the United States, the fact that members of Legislatures often vote in
accordance with their party policy, which party controls the Congress has significant policy
implications.
3)The Individual Citizen: Since democratic governments are representative governments, it is
often said that citizens are therefore, indirectly represented in all policymaking. Citizen
participation in policymaking, even in democratic countries, is very negligible. Many people do
not exercise their franchise or engage in party politics; they neither join pressure groups nor
display any active interest in public affairs. Even while voting, voters are influenced
comparatively little by policy considerations.

24
However, despite such political attitudes of a great majority of citizens, some still participate
directly in decisionmaking. In some of the American states (like California) and somas countries
(like Switzerland) citizens can and still vote directly on a legislation or on constitutional
amendments, which are submitted to the voters for approval. Elections are the major instruments
in democratic countries to gauge public opinion or popular wishes.
4)Media:- Media’s primary function in policy process is agenda-setting. Media coverage
correlates with institutional attention.

25
 CHAPTER FOUR
PUBLIC POLICY MODELS AND TYPOLOGY
Models constitute frameworks through which we can explain problems and social processes. A
model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the real world.
A variety of models have been advanced by theorists and social scientists to help us understand
public life vis-à-vis the impacts of political decisions or public policies. Among the many models
the most substantiated ones, are selected in the following.
i. Institutional Model Vi. Incremental Model
ii. Process Model Vii. Game Theory Model
iii. Group Model Viii. Public Choice Model
iv. Elite Model ix. Systems Model
v. Rational Model x. Satisfying Model
However, as Dye (1995:18) noted, no model should be considered as the “best” over the others.
Each one provides a unique focus on public life, and each can help us to understand different
things about public policy.

4.1 The Institutional Model (Policy as Institutional Output)

Public policy is authoritatively determined, implemented and enforced by the political authorities
and/or governmental institutions; namely parliament, president, courts, bureaucracies at central
and/or regional levels, and also at local/municipal levels. Relationship between government
institutions and public policies is too close. Strictly speaking, a policy does not become a ‘public
policy’ until it is adopted, implemented, and enforced by some government institution.

Government institutions give public policy three distinctive characteristics:

(i) Government lends legitimacy to policies. People may regard the policies of other groups
and associations in society-like corporations, churches, professional organizations as
important and even binding. But only government policies involve legal obligation.
(ii) Government policies involve universality. Only government policies extend to all people
in a society; the policies of other groups or organizations reach only a part of the society.
(iii) Government monopolizes coercion in society (punishment and imprisonment to
violators).The sanctions imposed by other groups or organizations in society are more
limited.
Traditionally, the institutional model did not devote much attention to the linkages between the
structure of the government institutions and the content of public policy. In the modern
understanding of the subject, institutional model need not be narrow or descriptive. As Sapru
(2004:65) and Dye (1995:20-210 have remarked, the value of the institutional model to policy
analysis lies on asking what relationships exist between institutional arrangements and the

26
content of public policy, and on investigating these relationships in a comparative or systematic
fashion.
With regard to the relationship between structure and policy, the institutional model suggests the
existence of power separation and the constitutional mechanisms of check and balance among
government institutions, or among the three branches of government (the legislative, the
executive, and the judiciary) at a bigger scale.

The institutional model is generally concerned with explaining how social groups and
governmental institutions bring influence to bear on those entitled to take and implement
legally binding decisions. It assumes that the structure (arrangements) of institutions and their
interactions, can have a significant impact on public policy . Therefore, the model with its
focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions can be applied in policy analysis.

4.2 The Process Model (Policy as a pattern of Political Activities)

This model view policy as the policy process which is series of political activities- which
generally goes along the following general outline.
 Identifying Problems: Expressing demands for Government action,
 Setting the Agenda for Decision making: Deciding what issues will be decided and what
problems to address,
 Formulating Policy Proposals: Developing policy proposal to resolve issues and problems,
 Legitimating Policies: Selecting a proposal, building political support for it, enacting it as a
law,
 Implementing Policies: Organizing bureaucracies, providing payments or services, and
levying taxes
 Evaluating policies: Studying programs, reporting outputs of government programs,
evaluating impacts of programs on target and non-target groups in society, suggesting
changes and adjustments.
According to this argument, it is not the content of public policy that is to be studied, but rather
the process by which public policy is developed, implemented, and changed (Dye, 1995:22).

Despite the narrow focus of the process model, it is still useful in helping us to understand the
various activities involved in policymaking. We want to keep in mind that policymaking
involves agenda setting (capturing the attention of policymakers), formulating proposals
(advising and selecting policy options), legitimating policy (developing political support),
implementing policy (creating bureaucracies, spending money, enforcing laws), and evaluating
policy (finding out whether policies work, whether they are popular).
In deed, it may even be the case that the way policies are made affects the content of public
policy and the vice versa. This is the question that deserves attention. But again, we should not
fall into trap of assuming that a change in the process of policymaking will always bring about
changes in the contents of policy. Changing the formal or informal decision making

27
(policymaking) processes may or may not change the content of public policy. Therefore, the
linkages between process and the content of public policy must still be investigated so that
critical comment on the value of the process model to public policy analysis is certainly possible.

4.3. Group Model

According to Fox et al. (2006:12), public policy may derive from interest groups who
continuously interact with policy makers to influence the policy making process. According to
David Truman as quoted in Dye (1995), an interest group is a group with “shared attitudes”,
and individuals are important in politics only when they act as part of, or on behalf of, group
interest. Politics is really the struggle among groups to influence public policy; that public policy
is the product of the group struggle. The theory of this model says that a society is divided into
a number of organized interest groups.

De Coning and Cloete (2006:38) use the following figures to describe the public policy process
as influenced by the group model. It shows how each interest group (in this case group A) gains
dominance over another interest group (group B) resulting in group A having a greater influence
on the policy as policy makers move towards public policy outcomes favourable to group A.
Interest Group B Interest Group A
Political power, skill Political power,
&influence Policy
skill &influence
Makers

Hence after pressurising, lobbying and consultation, public policy formulation comes to fruition with
one interest group having dominated the public policy. Some groups will have more access than
other and public policy reflects the interests of dominant group and influential group. Finally,
this model further advocates that the “check and balance” that we see in any government system
is the result of group struggle.
The implication of this model is that public policies implemented will be bearing the influence of
those that have applied more power, influence and skills (e.g. Interest group A). This is significant
for this study as it suggests a top-down approach to public policy making and implementation.

4.4 The Elite/Mass Model

The Elite theory suggests that the people are apathetic(showing no interest) and ill-informed
about public policy, that elites actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than masses
shape elite opinion. Public officials and administrators merely carry out the policies decided by
the elite. Policies flow downward from elites to masses; they do not arise from mass/public
demands (see figure 4.3). Public Policy is thus the preference of the elites. The Elite model or
theory can be simply summarized as follows:

28
  Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide on
public policy,
 The elites are governing class who are not typical of the masses who are governed; they are
drawn disproportionately from the upper strata of society,
 Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary,

Figure-4.3: The Elite Model

Policy
Direction Elites
Provide

Officials and Administrators Execute Policy

Mass

Receives Decision
The major implications of the Elite Model (Theory) for public policy analysis are the following:
(i) First, elitism implies that public policy does not reflect the demands of the people so
much as it does the interests and values of the elites. Therefore, changes and innovations
in public policy come about as a result of the redefinitions by elites of their own values;
change will be incremental rather than revolutionary. Public policies are frequently
modified but seldom replaced. However, elitism does not mean that public policy will be
always against mass welfare, but only that the responsibility for mass welfare rests on
the shoulders of elites, not the masses.
(ii) Secondly, elitism views the masses as largely passive, apathetic, and ill-informed; mass
sentiments are manipulated by elites rather than elites’ values being influenced by the
sentiments of masses; and for the most part, communication between the two flows
downward.
(iii) Underlying this model is the implication that the society is
divided into those that have power (the elites) and those that are powerless and un-informed.

29
 4.5. The Rational-Choice Model (Policy as a Maximum Social Gain)

There are different terminologies that stand to denote the same meaning to the Rational Theory,
which include “Social Choice Theory”, and “Formal Theory”. The theory involves the
application of microeconomic theory to the analysis and explanation of political behavior of
decision making. A rational policy is one that achieves “maximum social gain”; i.e. gains to
society that exceeds costs by the greatest amount. Therefore, the rational-choice model implies that
individuals must anticipate the outcomes of alternative courses of action and calculate that which will
be best for them. There are two important guidelines in the definition of maximum social choice:
(i) First, no policy should be adopted if its costs exceed the benefits derived from it,
(ii) Second, among a variety of available policy alternatives, decision makers should choose
the policy that produces the greatest benefit over cost.
A policy is “rational” when the difference between the values it achieves and the values it
sacrifices is positive and greater than any other policy alternative. But, to be rational for
policymakers is not easy; in order to be rational, it is desirable that there should be:
(i) Identification and determination of goals,
(ii) The ranking of goals in order of importance,
(iii) The identification of possible policy alternatives for achieving those goals, and
(iv) The cost-benefit analysis of policy.
This rationality assumes that the value preferences of society as a whole can be known and
weighed. Rational policymaking also requires information about alternative policies, the
predictive capacity to foresee accurately the consequences of alternative policies, and the
inelegance to calculate correctly the ratio of costs to benefits. Finally, rational policymaking
requires a decision making system that facilitates rationality in policymaking.
Generally, the assumptions and arguments of the rational model has been criticized as being
impracticable for a number of reasons:
(i) It is practically impossible to collect all information and make a complete list of policy
options,
(ii) The process involved in this approach is time consuming and expensive,
(iii) The assumptions to consider everything before a new policy is decided is impossible
since the consequences of adopting a new policy is in most cases unknown
4.6 The Incrementalism Model (Policy as Variations on the Past)
The Incrementalism Model views public policy as a continuation of past government activities
with only incremental modifications. According to Lindblom et al (1993), decision makers do
not annually review the whole range of existing and proposed policies, identify the societal
goals, research the benefits and costs of alternative policies, etc. On the contrary, constraints of
time, information, cost, and politics prevent policymakers from identifying the full range of
policy alternatives and their consequences.

30
Figure-4.4: Budgetary Provisions
Policy increments

Past
Policy
Commitments

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Incremental theory is conservative in that existing programs, policies and expenditures are
considered as a base, and attention is concentrated on new programs and policies and increases,
decreases or modifications of current programs. For examples, government budgetary provision
for 2003 might be viewed incrementally as shown in figure 4.4. Policymakers generally accept
the legitimacy of the established programs and tacitly agreed to continue previsions policies.
Governments (policymaker) do this for many reasons, such as:
First, they do not have the time, money or information to investigate all the alternatives to
existing policy. The cost of collecting all this information is too high.
Second, they accept the legitimacy of previous policies because of the uncertainty about the
consequence of completely new or different policies.
Third, There may be heavy investments in the existing programs (Sancks costs), which do not
allow any radical changes.
Fourth, Incrementalism is politically expedient. Political tension (Conflicts in major policy
shifts; “all-or-nothing” “yes-or-no” policy decisions) involved in getting new programs or
policies passed every year would be very great, past policies are continued into the future.
Two advantages of incrementalism are identified, namely:
(1) Decision-makers could proceed through a succession of small incremental changes,
thereby have the advantage of avoiding serious alterations in case of mistakes in decision
making,
(2) This method is truly reflective of the policymaking process by means of consensus and
gradualism and contemplates possible changes in public policies,
Though it is widely accepted that incrementalism describes the reality of the policymaking
process, it has its own disadvantages or weaknesses, among which:
(1) It can result in important policy options being overlooked,

31
 (2) It discourages social innovation and is partisan in approach, which in reality means the
interests of the most powerful get maximum attention by policy-makers,
(3) It cannot be applied to fundamental decisions such as declaration of war, hence cannot
be considered as an approach without flaws or mistakes,
4.6. The Game Theory Model (Policy as a Rational Choice in Competitive
Situations)
The game theory is the study of rational decisions in situations in which two or more
“players”/participants have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choices made by
each. The idea of a “game” is that decision makers are involved in choices that are
interdependent. The theory is put into application on policymaking situations where there is no
independently best choice, which one can make and where the best choice depends on what
others do. In the conflict situations all participants try to maximize their gains and minimize their
losses.
A key concept in game theory is strategy; the games considered are games of strategy. The rules
of the game describe the choices, which are available to all the players. The game theorists
employ the term “minimax” to refer to the rational strategy that either minimize the maximum
loss or maximize the minimum gain for a player regardless of the opponent does (Dye, 1995:34).
The game theory is an abstract and deductive model of policymaking. It does not describe how
people actually make decisions but rather how would go about making decisions in competitive
situations. The game theory is a form of rationalism. The game theory is more an analytical tool
than practical guide to policymaking by government officials. The conditions of game theory are
seldom approximated in real life. Yet game theory provides an interesting way of thinking
clearly about policy choices in conflict situations. Perhaps the real utility of policy analysis at the
present time is in suggesting interesting questions and providing a vocabulary to deal with
policymaking in conflict situations.

4.7. The Public Choice Theory Model (Policy as a Collective Decision making by
Self-interested Individuals)
D. Mueller (1979:1) provided a very concise definition to the public choice approach as, “…the
economics of non-market decisionmaking, or simply the application of economics to political
science”. The public choice model is the economic study of non-market decision making,
especially the application of economic analysis to public policymaking. This theory assumes
that all political actors-voters, taxpayers, candidates, legislator, bureaucrats, interest groups, etc.-
seek to maximize their personal benefits in politics as well as in the marketplace. In short, people
pursue their self-interest in both politics and the marketplace, but even with selfish motives they
can mutually benefit through collective decision making.
The public choice theory recognizes that government must perform certain functions that the
marketplace is unable to handle. It must remedy certain “market failures”. First, the
government must provide public goods and services that the market cannot supply because their

32
costs exceed their value to any single buyer. Second, externalities are other recognized market
failure and justification for government intervention. The most common examples of
externalities are air and water pollutions; where discharges of air and water pollutants impose
costs on others.
Public choice theory helps to explain why political parties and candidates generally fail to offer
clear policy alternatives in election campaigns. Parties and candidates are not interested in
advancing principles but rather in winning elections. In other words, they formulate their policy
positions to win elections; they do not win election to formulate policy. Thus, each party and
candidate seeks policy positions that will attract the greatest number of voters (Dye, 1995:36).
The public choice model also contributes to our understanding the behavior of interest groups
and their effects on public policy.

4.9. Systems Theory Model (Policy as a Systems Output)

Forces generated in the environment that affect the political system are viewed as input. The
environment is any condition or circumstance defined as external to the boundaries of the
political system. The political system, in turn is that group of interested structures and processes
that functions authoritatively to allocate values for a society. Outputs of a political system are
authoritative value allocations of the system, and these allocations constitute what is known as
“public policy”. The systems theory portrays public policy as an output of the political system.
The conceptualization of political activity and public policy can be diagrammed as shown in
figure 4.5 that follows.
Figure-4.5: Systems Theory (Policy as a Systems Output)

Environment
E
E N
N THE V
V I Demands O R
POLITICAL U
I N O
P SYSTEM T
R N
O U Support P M
N T U E
M S T N
E T
TheNconcept of “system” implies an identifiable set of institutions and activities in society t
T

Environment

at functions to transform demands into authoritative decisions requiring the support of the whole
society (Basu, 1994). The concept of system also implies that elements of the system are
interrelated, that the system can respond to forces in its environment, and that it will do so to

33
preserve itself. Inputs are received into the political system in the form of both demands and
support.
In sum, we can briefly describe key concepts employed in qualifying the systems model in the
following manner:
 The Political system comprises of those identifiable and interrelated institutions and
activities (i.e. governmental institutions and political processes) that make authoritative
allocation of values (decisions) that are binding on society.
 The environment consists of all those phenomena (economic system, social system,
biological setting) that are external to boundaries of the political system.
 Inputs consist of demands ands supports.
 Demands are in turn claims of action made by individuals and groups to satisfy their
interests.
 Support is rendered by them through accepting election results, payment of taxes, obeying
laws, accepting government decisions.
 Outputs include laws, rules, and judicial decisions.
 Feedback means policy output may produce new demands, which lead to further outputs
and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy. The systems theory draws heavily on
David Easton’s “The Political Systems.” The political system is called the “Black Box.”

4.2. BROAD TYPOLOGIES OF PUBLIC POLICY

Some social scientists and scholars have attempted to discuss the typologies of policy issues.
Policies can generally be categorized in the following major typologies:

(i) Substantive and procedural policies

(ii) Distributive, regulatory, self regulatory and re-distributive policies
(iii) Material and symbolic policies

Substantive policies involve what government is going to do (e.g. construction of highways,

payment of welfare benefits, prohibition of liquor, acquisition of bombers). Substantive
policies directly distribute advantages and disadvantages, benefits and costs to people. These
policies are concerned with the general welfare and development of the society, the
programmes like provision of education and employment opportunities, economic
stabilization, law and order enforcement, anti-pollution legislation etc. are the result of
substantive policy formulation.
Procedural policies Procedural policies, in contrast, pertain to how something is going to be done
or who is going to take action. (example, which agencies are responsible for the enforcement of
a law enacted to ban or control illegal drug trafficking and consumption)?This type of policy
represents the broad classification of public policy.

34
(ii) Distributive, Regulatory, Self-regulatory and Re-distributive Policies:
This typology differentiates policies on the basis of the nature of their impact on society and the
relationships among those involved in policy formation. Distributive policies involve the
distribution of services or benefits to particular segment of people; i.e. individuals., groups,
corporations, communities (example, bank loans) or distribution of benefits to vast number of
persons (example, tax concessions, free public school educations). These policies also use public
funds to assist particular groups, communities and industries, (example, flood control, ports
improvement, water supply, beach development).
Re-distributive policies involve shifting of the allocation of the existing resources, wealth,
income, property, rights, and powers among broad classes of people (example, land reforms).
Re-distributive policies are difficult to secure as they involve reallocation of money, rights, and
power. Redistributive policy issues are those which are concerned with changing the distribution of
existing resources.
Regulatory policies are concerned with regulation of trade, business, safety measures, public
utilities, etc. This type of regulation is done by independent organisations that work on behalf of
the government. involve imposition of restrictions or limitations on the behavior of individuals or
groups; they reduce the freedom to act of those who are regulated (example, business regulatory
policies related to pollution control or regulation of transportation industries).
Self-regulatory policies are usually sought and supported by the regulated group as a means of
protecting or promoting the interests of its members (example, licensing, legislations, health and
medical are heavily influenced by the practitioners; agricultural policies influenced by farmers.)
(iii) Material and Symbolic policies:
A material policy provides tangible resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries
(examples, Minimum Wages Act, Public Housing program, Income Support Payments to
Farmers, etc). Symbolic policies have little material impact on people. They appeal to the
cherished values of the people such as peace, patriotism, social justice (examples, Peace Pacts,
Endangered Species Act, etc).

35
 CHAPTER FIVE
PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
5.1. Perspectives in Policy Implementation
Policy implementation demands the real comment and practical support than policy formulation
itself. The traditional understanding and practice of dichotomizing policy formulation and policy
implementation as distinct and separate functions of various government branches have been
significantly changing.
public policy formulation and implementation functions have got new dimensions in recent years
in that: (i) there is no hard line that demarcate the former is the function of politicians (the
legislative) and the latter is left for the executive, and (ii) the universal tendency that government
being the public policymaker and the private sector taking part as an implementer.
5.1.1 Historical Perspectives of Policy Implementation
Prior to 1960s, few students of public administration paid explicit attention to the problematic
character of public policy implementation. They assumed that once a policy is established by a
legislature and assigned to a capable agency with sufficient authority and resource, implementing
would be a technical matter requiring only honesty and competence. This perspective underlies
the dichotomy between "politics" and "administration”, which dominated scholarly
prescriptions in that period. Indeed, much of what government did (and continues to do) was
routine enough to be so regarded.
But after 1960, when government began to increase its efforts in the public purposes of
promoting economic growth, enhancing quality of life and personal opportunity, and
protecting the environment, it undertook tasks that are not routine. To combat poverty and racial
discrimination called for new knowledge and unfamiliar methods, and implementation men
became quite uncertain. To protect consumers from unsafe products was a task as broad as the
market itself and a function that was far removed from delivering letters. By the early 1970’s
scholars were beginning to examine the results of these innovative programs, and their reports
were full of dismay. Scholarly studies that followed the critique often took the same line: they
examined programs that fell short of high expectations and pointed to the reasons for their
failure. The news media and popular literature further fueled such criticisms by conveying an
image of government as bumbling at best and often grossly incompetent. For example, some
observers concluded that government ought to or has been reducing its efforts to solve social and
economic problems either because there is little that it can actually do to improve the situation or
because private institutions are more effective than it.
5.1.2 Recent Perspectives in Policy Implementation
Recent studies of government administration have taken the more constructive approach of
emphasizing institutional learning and error correction. "Policy implementation... is a testing
and feedback process… Implementation helps us to detect errors in our ideas and designs and
then correct them. It gives us the opportunity to make errors, which is the most realistic way to
detect weaknesses in our policy ideas . . . effective implementation ... is something that one ends
up with after the learning process of error detection and correction" (Levin and Ferman, 1985:
36
14).We can discern four distinct perspectives on this, each with a logic that leads an analyst in a
different direction.

(i) The Idealistic Perspective

First, one can take an idealistic view that the central purpose of implementation is to solve the
problem for which the policy was devised in such a way that it needs no further attention from a
permanent "fix" so to speak. In this, there is a knowledge and direct relationship between the
problem and its solutions. Implementation, therefore, can be a largely predictable effort, that
applying proven techniques to familiar conditions. A secondary goal is efficiency; the solution is
to be achieved at the minimum cost. If a lake is being polluted by discharge of a city's raw
swage, the lie obvious solution is a treatment plant of adequate size to purify the water. If the city
does not grow much larger, that plant should suffice for the indefinite future. Implementation
“failure” thus results from neglect or willful refusal to apply the correct techniques.

(ii) The Legalistic Perspective

it calls on administrators to fulfill without deviation the explicit mandate of the policy. Agency
personnel thus are formally subordinate to the dictates of the legislature, which in turn represents
the people's will. This perspective resembles the idealistic approach in that it leaves
administrators little discretion/ but it differs in that it regards the "right" policy as the one that is
framed by law rather than one that provides the definitive solution to the problem. Like the
first perspective, the legalistic view takes a "top-down" approach to implementation, in which
policy and control move down a hierarchical ladder and subordinates have little discretion of
their own. An example of this is a program to aid low-income families in securing housing. The
law specifies that persons below a certain income level are eligible; no family above that limit
qualifies even if it also has had difficulty in finding a home. The program succeeds if it aids
those, and only those, who meet the legal standard. Failure, thus, is lack of compliance with
relevant mandates.

(iii) The Responsive Perspective

The responsive or adaptive approach portrays implementation as continually being shaped by the
situations in which the policy is applied, by the wills and values of the citizens affected by it,
and by the views of lower-level administrators. It is a "bottom-up" perspective unlike the first
two approaches, which depend on direction from the original policymakers. In this the actual
administration may deviate from the express language of the policy (or the latter may be so
vague as to provide unclear direction). Administrators thus have more autonomy vis-à-vis the
legislative body and top executives but are subject to greater influences from interest groups and
organized constituents who want the policy to be carried out in ways most favorable to them. At
times a program will even be redirected to conform to their demands or needs.

(iv) The Experimental Perspective

Finally, the experimental approach is suited to situations in which no proven solutions to the
problem are available. The mandates may be clear or vague, but the methods must be mandated

37
by trial and error. Here, the administrators have much autonomy to try approaches, evaluate the
results, and alter the program accordingly. However, in contrast to the responsive approach, the
"right way" is determined from experience as judged by the administrators (though they do well
to heed political pressures from outside the agency). Policy failure thus results primarily from
rigidity and inability to learn from experience

5.2. Success and Failure: The Fate of Problem-Solving

Thinking further about the elusiveness of public policy’s success, we can ask what happens to
the problem that is to be solved. A problem can have four different fates, and each fate represents
some form of success or failure. These include:
1. It can be eliminated entirely by the policy, as implemented and no other (new) problems
are created. In reality, problems are highly unlikely to disappear without trace, and they
can reappear in other forms. In deed, solutions to problems typically create other
problems; for example, persons who do not die of smallpox may live to be afflicted with
cancer or Alzheimer’s disease instead.
2. It can be reduced to such a low level that there is no further need or demand for action,
known as “problem recession”. When the economy is depressed and unemployment rises,
government is virtually required to act to create jobs directly and stimulate private
investment. If this action is successful, officials then turn their attention to other issues.
3. It can be succeeded by another problem that has less serious effects or can be solved
more easily. As Levin suggested, “Policy progress occurs through a process of problem
succession”. Problems are not so much solved as superseded, we seek to move from less
preferable problems to more preferable problems, and policymakers seek to replace them
with those problems that are more manageable or that impose less hardship to the public.
4. It can be exacerbated by the policy and/or replaced by more difficult ones, with others
created in addition. This is the most obvious example of failure; the program may have
rendered the targeted problem worse and in the process created others besides, and the
public may be left worse off than before.

5.2.1 The Requirements for Successful Implementation

What must happen for a government program to be implemented effectively? No two
administrative situations are exactly alike, but we can identify some basic requirements.

(i) Implementation Requirement One: Policy Translation

First, the policy itself must provide a clear and consistent statement of its objectives and the
means by which to achieve them. Laws are usually designed to attack several problems and
achieve several objectives at the same time. Child welfare programs aim simultaneously at the
child's physical protection and enhancing family stability and parental competence. These are not
necessarily incompatible goals, but a program must be carefully designed to harmonize the two.
Policy Design: Difficulties can thus appear because of faults in the policy design. It may not
convey to administrators a clear knowledge of what they are to do. There may be multiple or
uncertain concepts of the problems and objectives a situation reflecting legislative conflict and

38
compromise. Ambiguous statements are common in legislative policies for several political
reasons. Such ambiguity also allows different constituencies to believe that they will receive
something from the program. "Legislators can satisfy demands to 'do something about a problem
by passing a vague statute with ambiguous meaning, then letting administrative agencies hash
out the more conflicting details behind the scenes" (Stone, 1988: 124-125). This passes to the
administrators the harder task of giving the policy its real meaning.
In addition, legislators may have framed the policy only for symbolic purposes and did not
intend it to be fully implemented as stated. They could have sought only to signify government’s
concern for a problem, since they had no means of resolution or the funds to afford the solution.
Problem Definition: In translating policy, implementers need to define the exact problem
clearly. An uncertain definition of the problem was present in solving the dilemma for the
disabled. There are many kinds of disabilities, some of which prevent a person from using public
transit and others that do not.
Unintended Conflicts: Implementation of the policy in question can often run into unintended
conflict with another policy. Government’s responsibilities are closely intertwined with one
another; often one accomplishment is a prerequisite to a second. Or to do one thing well may
make it harder to achieve another. If these goals are the responsibilities of separate agencies,
conflict is more likely.

(ii) Implementation Requirement Two: Resource Sufficiency

Policy cannot be implemented with good intentions alone. Each implementation effort requires a
unique set of facilities, skills, information, and technology. For any given level of desired goal
achievement, a corresponding level of resources must be supplied. Homeless persons cannot be
housed permanently without adequate low-cost dwellings. Resource selection is a challenge to
both policymakers and administrators.
Initiating Funding: Administrators play a dual role in the funding process. First, they make the
initial requests for funds that the lawmakers consider. "The bureaucracy is hardly the passive
agent of its congressional overseer; . . . it is constantly working to manipulate its master so as to
achieve mutually profitable arrangements" (Wilson, 1989, p. 251).
Allocating Resources: After enactment of the budget, administrators play the second role of
preparing detailed plans for deploying their resources. There must be corresponding “budgets"
for all other necessities likely to be in short supply: persons with needed talents, specialized
information, building space, and even the time for thinking and conferring among the program
managers.

(iii) Implementation Requirement Three: Orchestration of Effort

This is the systems perspective, which is a network of interdependent parts whose actions must
support one another for the policy to succeed. We have already seen that nearly all public
policies involve two or more government agencies, often at least one from each level-federal,
state, and local—and frequently from private organizations as well.

39
Orchestration implies agreement. When administrators are well disposed to the policy and its
procedures, they are more likely to carry it out conscientiously and cooperate with one another
when joint action is required. This applies to whole agencies and departments, which can block
policy in the absence of such dispositions
Communication and Cooperation: The communication stream must reach to every agency to
convey the whole sense of a policy and any procedures and regulations added along the way.
Communication must be precise enough to explain how the new policy directives relate to what
is already going on, what changes it will and will not require in administrators' conduct, and
what new standards they are to follow. .
Authority Leakage: When administrators' dispositions do not support a policy, it becomes
harder to implement. As mentioned earlier, conflicting goals or styles of operation can lead to
authority leakages, which is the failure of subordinates to carry out directives from above.
Although some distortion of orders is nearly unavoidable in large organizations, it reaches major
proportions when there is lack of interest in or active opposition to the policy in question. The
agency's top management may lack of time, information, or sense of urgency to deal effectively
with this leakage.
Games Administrators Play: These hindering actions by persons working within the
administering agencies often take the form of "games." In one kind of game, administrators
divert resources to benefit individual or group purposes not authorized in the policy.In a second
game, the agency is deflected from its goal, often when it is assigned too many tasks for its
capacity and it simply jettisons those that are hardest to implement or least popular within the
agency.A third kind of game appears when massive outside resistance to the policy overwhelms
the agency's ability to enforce it and to punish those who do not comply.
Corruption: Outright open corruption on the part of public officials may be relatively rare but
can be devastating to a program. Many countries, including the USA, have experienced serious
corruption problems practiced by government agencies. Naturally, when such corruption is
widespread within public agencies, it erodes citizen confidence in government as well as
officials' trust in their own colleagues.
In general, orchestration is hardest when the agency is required to implement an innovative
policy or to adopt new methods. “All organizations by design are enemies of change, at least up
to a point; government organizations are especially risk averse because they are caught up in a
web of constraints so complex that any change is likely to provoke the anger of some important
constituency"

(iv) Implementation Requirement Four: Political legal Support

The political and legal environment of administration shapes program outputs and results. This
environment consists of influential persons and groups, inside and outside of government that
can determine the degree of a program's success. This cluster varies with each policy area and
may change over time.
Optimization From Government and the Private Sector: First, implementation of a policy
can be obstructed or redirected by opposition or by influential forces within the government and

40
the private sector. Though the law may have passed by majority vote or with narrow margin, the
losing side typically transfers its opposition to the administrative arena and may well find allies
there. On the other hand, the winners naturally seek to protect their gains and attract supports
from among the new beneficiaries, and the result is a political contest. Groups that are well
organized and gain access to officials at high levels are more likely to win such administrative
battles.
Legal Challenges: Policy implementation can be further hindered or altered by legal challenges
and adverse court decisions. These could be initiated by the opponents of an earlier legislative or
administrative decision.
Support from Program Clients: A third category of essential political support is that of the
program's clients themselves. A policy for providing a service assumes that people want it
strongly enough to comply with the conditions necessary to receive it. When a program imposes
limits or prohibitions on clients, their voluntary compliance is likewise crucial. Public programs
presume widespread and willing cooperation, whether in collection of income taxes, observance
of speed limits, and so on. Government is not in a position to monitor mass behaviour
continuously. Compliance depends on five basic factors: sufficient communication of the policy
to the public; personal ability (physical or financial) to comply with it; agreement with the policy
itself and its importance; acceptance of the actions necessary to comply; and the belief that the
government has the authority to compel compliance on that matter. Thus, it must create the
conditions and incentives that secure this compliance, even from persons who would profit from
non-compliance.

(v) Implementation Requirement Five: A Supportive Socioeconomic Environment

A final category of requirements for policy success lies in the social and economic conditions not
under the control of the policy or even of government in general. Lawmakers formulate a policy
to fit an assumed context, the "ecology" of administration. The policy is designed to change
some aspect of that expected future, yet it depends on other crucial factor staying the same. A
job-training program, for example, aims to prepare students for skills that are expected to be in
demand, but an economic recession or a major plant closing in the community can frustrate that
effort. The policy can thus fail solely because of a change in the environment that was not
anticipated.
Many factors that are not under government's control can promote or hinder the success of a
public policy. Public opinion toward persons with disabilities has become much more favorable
and has facilitated their increased access to jobs, housing, and education as well as mass
transportation.

41
 CHAPTER FIVE
5. THE PROCESS OF POLICY ANALYSIS AND POLICY INQUIRY
42
 5.1 Meaning and Scope of policy Analysis
 Policy analysis is an area that covers wide disciplines (multidisciplinary) to problems
faced by political scientists, economists, sociologists, planners and public managers in
several policy arenas.
 “The end justifies the means” is what policy analysts use to formulate the right policy.
To choose or prioritize one value over another is not merely a technical judgment; it is
also a judgment requiring moral reasoning. Therefore, policy analysis is also a form of
applied ethics.
 William N. Dunn (1994:61) defines policy analysis as, “any type of analysis that
generates and presents information in such a way as to improve the basis for
policymakers to exercise their jurisdiction… It implies the use of intuition and judgment,
and encompasses not only the examination of policy by decomposition into its
components, but also the design and synthesis of new alternatives”.
 In creating knowledge of policymaking process, policy analysts investigate the causes,
consequences, and performances of public policies and programs. Such knowledge
remains incomplete, however, unless it is made available to policymakers and the public
it is obligated to serve. Only when “knowledge of”' is linked to “knowledge in” can
members of the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies along with citizens who have a
stake in public decisions, use the results of policy analysis to improve the policymaking
process and its performances. Because the effectiveness of policymaking depends on
access to stock of available knowledge, the communication and use of policy analysis are
central to the practice and theory of public policymaking (Dunn, 1994:1).
 Policy analysis, sometimes known as “policy science”, in addition to creating knowledge,
has various purposes.

 Policy Analysis should serve the public (not merely officials) by contributing to the
process of argumentation, debate and communication.
 Policy Analysis should help to bridge the gap between what scholarly works say
about policy analysis and what practitioners of policy analysis actually do.
 Policy Analysis should seek also to improve the efficiency of choices among
alternative policies.
 Policy analysis is not confined to the development and testing of general descriptive
theories, for example, political and sociological theories of policymaking elites or
economic theories of the determinants of public expenditures.
 Policy analysis goes beyond the traditional disciplinary concerns of the explanation of
empirical regularities by seeking not only to combine and transform the substance and
methods of several disciplines, but also to produce policy relevant information that may
be utilized to resolve problems in specific political settings.
 Moreover, the aims of policy analysis extend beyond the production of “facts”; policy
analysts seek also to produce information about values and preferable courses of actions.
Therefore, policy analysis includes policy evaluation as well as policy recommendation.
43
  Policy analysis draws its tools from a variety of disciplines and professions whose aims
are descriptive, evaluative, and prescriptive.
 As an applied discipline, policy analysis borrows not only from the social and behavioral
sciences, but also from public administration, law, philosophy, ethics, etc.
 The policy analyst may therefore be expected to produce information and plausible
arguments about three kinds of questions: (a) Values, whose attainment is the main test
of whether the problem has been resolved, (b) facts, whose presence may limit or
enhance the attainment of values, and (c) actions, whose adoption may result in the
attainment of values.
 In producing information and plausible arguments about these three types of questions,
the policy analyst may employ one or more of the three approaches presented in Table-
8.1 to analysis: empirical, valuative, and normative.
Table-8.1 Approaches to policy analysis
Approach Primary Question Type of Information
Empirical Dose it and will it exist? (about facts) Descriptive and predictive
Valuative Of what worth is it? (about values) Valuative
Normative What should be done? (about action) Prescriptive

Empirical approach: is primarily concerned with describing the causes and effects of a given
public policy and the primary question are factual while the type of information produced is
descriptive in character.

Valuative approach: is mainly concerned with determining the worth or value of some policy
and the question is of what worth is the policy made.
Normative approach: is concerned with recommending future courses of action that may
resolve public problems, and the question is about what action to be taken or what should be
done.
 Policy analysis should be problem-centered; should aim at identifying and clarifying the
nature of problems. Policy analysis should aim to address and answer problems by
carrying out different activities. We can illustrate our discussion by using an informative
diagram that comprises a chain of activities and situations as indicated in Figure 8.1
below.
Figure-8.1: Problem Centered Policy Analysis
POLICY

PERFORMANCE

EVALUATION FORCASTIN
Problem G
Structuring

44
g
Structurin
Problem

g
Structurin
Problem

POLICY OUT POLICY

PROBLEM
COMES
 POLICY

FUTURE

Problem
MONITORING
Structuring

POLICY

ACTION

The major components of problem-centered policy analysis and the emphasis of each component
are the following:
1. Problem Structuring can supply policy relevant knowledge that challenges agenda
setting. It can assist in discovering hidden assumption, diagnosing causes, mapping
possible objectives, synthesizing conflicting views and designing new policy options.
2. Forecasting can provide policy relevant knowledge about future states of affairs which
are likely to occur as a consequence of adopting alternative including doing nothing at the
place of policy formulation. It can also examine possible, potential and normatively
valued futures, estimate the consequences of existing and proposed policies, specify
probable future constraints on the achievement of objectives, and estimate the political
feasibility (support or/and opposition) of different options.
3. Recommendation discerns policy relevant knowledge about the benefits and costs of
alternatives. It helps estimate levels of risk and uncertainty; identify externalities,
responsibilities, and spillover effects; specify criteria for making choices and assign
administrative responsibilities for implementation. Policy analysis is the beginning not
the end of efforts to improve the policymaking process and its outcomes. This is why
policy analysis has been defined as the communication, as well as the creation and
critical assessment of policy-relevant knowledge. There is often a large gap between the
conduct of policy analysis and its utilization in the policymaking process.
The communication of policy relevant knowledge may be viewed as a four-stage process
involving policy analysis, materials development, interactive communication and
knowledge utilization. Policy analysis is initiated by stakeholders; analysts develop
policy-relevant documents where such documents serve as a basis for multiple stage of
intense come.

45
 4. Policy problem is an unrealized value that may be attained through public action when
properly and scientifically identified.
5. Policy future is a consequence of a course of action that may contribute to the attainment
of values and the possible resolution of a policy problem.
6. Policy action is a move or series of moves guided by a policy alternative that is designed
to achieve valued future outcomes.
7. Policy outcome is an observed consequence of policy action.
8. Policy performance is the degree to which a given policy outcome contributes to the
attainment of values.
9. Monitoring provides policy relevant knowledge about the consequences of preliminarily
adopted policies. Monitoring helps to assess degrees of compliance, discover unintended
consequences of policies and programs, identify implementation obstacles and
constraints, and locate sources of responsibilities for departures from policies.
10. Evaluation provides policy-relevant knowledge about discrepancies between expected
and actual policy performance. Evaluation contributes to the clarification and critique of
values driving a policy, aid in the adjustment or reformulation of policies, and establishes
a basis for restructuring problem.
 Policy analysis has been defined as the communication as well as the creation and
critical assessment of policy relevant knowledge. Policy analysis in the policymaking process
focuses on an overview of the methodology of policy analysis and its role.
 It is important to distinguish policy analysis form policy advocacy. According to
William N. Dunn (1994:84), policy analysis is an applied social science discipline that uses
multiple methods of inquiry in contexts of argumentation and public debate, to create, critically
assess, and communicate policy relevant knowledge. Policy advocacy, on the other hand, is the
use of policy relevant information to make plausible knowledge claims based on reasoned
arguments about possible solutions for problems. Policy advocacy is a way to make normative
statements, not to issue prescriptions, commands, or orders of various kinds.
 Explaining the causes and consequences of various policies is not equivalent to
prescribing what policies governments ought to pursue. Learning why governments do what they
do and what the consequences of their actions are is not the same as saying what governments
ought to do or bring about changes in what they do. Policy analysis encourages scholars and
students to attack critical policy issues with the tools of systematic inquiry. There is an applied
assumption in policy analysis developing scientific knowledge about the forces shaping public
policy and the consequences of public policy is itself a socially relevant activity and that such
analysis is a prerequisite to prescription, advocacy and activism.
Specifically, public policy analysis involves:
(1) A primary concern with explanation rather than prescription: policy recommendations
- if they are made at all - are subordinate to description and explanation. There is an
implicit judgment that understanding is a prerequisite to prescription and that
understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics.

46
 (2) A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies: this search
involves the use of scientific standards of inference or assumption. Sophisticated
quantitative techniques may be helpful in establishing valid conclusions about the causes
and consequences, but they are not really essential.
(3) An effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and consequences
of public policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of general relevance: the
object is to develop general theories about public policy that are reliable and that apply to
different government agencies and different policy areas. Policy analysts clearly prefer to
develop explanations that fit more than one policy decision or case study; explanations that
stand up over time in a variety of settings.

8.2 Forms of Policy Analysis

The relationship between policy-informational components and policy-analytic methods provide
the basis for distinguishing three major forms of policy analysis: Prospective, Retrospective,
and Integrated analysis.
(i) Prospective Policy Analysis: involves the production and transformation of information
before policy actions are initiated and implemented. It tends to characterize the operating styles
of economists, systems analysts and operation researchers. According to Dunn (1994:75-76),
policy analysis “is a means of synthesizing information to draw from it policy alternatives and
preferences stated in comparable, predicted quantitative and qualitative terms as a basis or guide
for policy decisions”. Conceptually, it doesn’t include the gathering of information. Policy
research, in contrast, refers to “all studies that use scientific methodologies to describe
phenomenon and/or determining relationships among them”. Prospective analysis often creates
large gaps between preferred solutions to problems and the efforts of governments to solve them.
They have too many good analytic solutions to problem but no appropriate action is taken. They
bite more than they chew.
(ii) Retrospective Policy Analysis: is focused to the production and transformation of
information after policy actions have been taken. It has been most important in its impact on
intellectual priorities and understanding and not so effective in offering solutions to a problem.
Retrospective policy analysis typifies the operating styles of three groups of analysts whose
major emphasis is on the results of action:
a) Discipline-oriented analysts: this group largely comprises political scientists and
sociologists who seek to develop and test discipline-based theories and describe the
causes and consequences of policies. They do not attempt to identify specific goals and
objectives to policymakers and make no effort to distinguish “policy variables, which
are subject to policy manipulation, and situational variables which are not”.
b) Problem-oriented analysts: this group also comprises political scientists and sociologists
who seek to describe the causes and consequences of policies that are general in nature,
which could be manipulated by policymakers. They are however less concerned with the
development and testing of theories.

47
 c) Applications-oriented analysts: the third group of analysts includes persons from
professions such as social work and public administration. They seek to describe the
causes and consequences of public policies and programs but not concerned with the
development and testing of discipline-based theories. This group is concerned with policy
variables and identification of goals and objectives of policymakers and other
stakeholders. Information about the goods and objectives provide a basis for evaluating
and monitoring specific policy outcomes, which may be used by practitioners to structure
policy problems, develop new policy alternatives and recommended courses of action to
resolve problems.

(iii) Integrated Policy Analysis: is more comprehensive and combines the operating styles of
practitioners concerned with the production and transformation of information both before and
after policy actions have been taken. It not only requires the integration of prospective policy
analysis and retrospective policy analysis, but also demands that analysts continuously produce
and transform information over time. Integrated policy analysis is therefore continuous,
interactive, and unlimited. The analyst may initiate the production and transformation of
information at any point in the analytic cycle either before or after action, and the relation
between any two “phases” of policy analysis. Integrated policy analysis has all methodological
advantages of prospective policy analysis and retrospective policy analysis, but none of their
weaknesses. Integrated policy analysis is multidisciplinary in the full sense of the word.

8.3 Policy Argumentation

Policy analysis does not stop with the use of multiple methods to produce and transform
information. Although information production and transformation are essential to policy
analysis, equally important are the creation and critical assessment of knowledge claims based on
the information. Knowledge claims, advanced as the conclusion of policy argumentation, reflect
the reason why different stakeholders disagree about alternative policies.
The understanding of the processes of policy communication, argumentation, and debate is
facilitated by employing a structural model of argument. Policy arguments, which are the main
vehicle for conducting debates about public policy issues, contain six elements.
(i) Policy-relevant information: Information about policy problems, policy futures, policy
actions, policy outcomes, and policy performances may be provided in various forms. For
example, the outcomes of government energy policy might be expressed in the form of
statistical generalization. However expressed, policy relevant information is the point of
departure in all policy arguments.
(ii) Policy claim: is the conclusion of policy argument. Policy claims are typically the subject
of disagreement or conflict among different segments of the community. Policy claim are the
logical consequence of policy relevant information.

48
 (iii) Warrant: is an assumption in policy argument that permits the analyst to move from
policy relevant information to policy claim. It may contain assumptions of several kinds:
authoritative, intuitive, analycentric, casual, pragmatic, and value critical. The role of the
warrant is to carry policy relevant information to a policy claim about which there is
disagreement or conflict, thus providing a reason for accepting a claim.
There are different modes of policy argument, which are vehicles for transforming policy
relevant information into policy claims. There are at least eight different ways of transforming
information into policy claims: Authoritative, Statistical, Classificational, Intuitive,
analycentric, explanatory, pragmatic, and value critical.

(i) Authoritative Model Policy Analysis: – are based on arguments from authority.
Information is carried to claim on the basis of assumptions about the achieved or ascribed
statuses of policy relevant information producers.
(ii) Statistical Mode: are based on arguments from samples. Information is carried to
claim on the basis of the assumption that what is true of members of a sample will also be
true of members of the population not included in the sample (unobserved/unobservable
of the population. Non-probability samples may also be assumed to be representative.
(iii) Classification Mode: are based on arguments from membership on the basis of the
assumption that what is true of the class of persons or groups included in the information
is also true of individuals or groups which are (or are believed to be) members of the
class described in the warrant. For example, a person may have a given attribute since the
person is a member of the class of persons the majority of which are assumed to have that
attribute.
(iv) Intuitive Mode: claims are based on arguments from insight. Information is carried
to claim on the basis of the assumptions about the inner mental states of producers of
policy relevant information. For example, the insight, judgment, or “tacit knowledge” of
policymakers might serve as an argument to accept a particular recommendation.
(v) Analycentric Mode: Policy claims are based on arguments from method. Information
is carried to claim on the basis of the assumptions about the validity of methods or rules
employed by analysts. For example, one can argue that the analyst used “universal
selection rules” derived from mathematics, system analyst or economist.
(vi) Explanatory Mode: claims are based on arguments from cause. Information is carried
to claim on the basis of assumptions about the presence of certain generative powers
("causes") and their results ("effects"). For example, a policy claim might be established
on the basis of general proposition or “laws” contained within theories about
organizational behaviour or political decisionmaking.
(vi) Pragmatic Mode: are based on arguments from motivation, parallel case, or
analogy. Information is carried to claim on the basis of assumptions about the motivating
power of goals, values and intentions; assumptions about the similarities among
relationships found in two or more policy settings; or assumptions about the similarities

49
 among two or more cases of policymaking. For example, a policy claim that the
government should strictly enforce pollution standards might be based on arguments that
citizens are motivated by the desire to achieve the goal of a clean environment, or on the
basis of arguments that parallel or analogues policies have been successfully
implemented in other settings.
(vii) Value Critical mode: claims are based on arguments from ethics. Information is
carried to claim on the basis of assumptions about the rightness or wrongness, goodness
or badness of policies and their consequences. For example, a policy claim might be
established on the basis of moral principle (equality) or ethical norms (right to privacy),
which are deemed to be valid irrespective of the motivations of particular groups.

5.4 The Processes and Strategies of Policy Communication

5.4.1 The Processes of Policy Communication

 Policy analysis is the beginning, not the end, of efforts to improve the policymaking
process and its outcomes.
 This is why policy analysis has been defined as the communication as well as the creation
and critical assessment of policy relevant knowledge.
 The communication of policy relevant knowledge may be viewed as a four-stage process
involving (i) policy analysis, (ii) materials development, (iii) interactive
communication, and (iv) knowledge utilization.
 As figure 8.2 shows, policy analysis is initiated on the basis of request for information or
advice from stakeholders situated at various stages of the policymaking process. In
responding to this request, policy analysts create and critically assess knowledge, which
is relevant to policy problems, policy futures, policy actions, policy outcomes, and policy
performances.

Figure-8.2: The Process of Policy communication

Knowledge on
Policy
Problems
Policy Analysis Future Materials
Actions Developme
Outcomes nt
Performance

Stakeholders Documents
Agenda Setting Policy
Policy Formulation
POLICY Memoranda
Policy Adoption Policy Issue Paper
Policy Implementation ANALYST
Executive
50 Summaries
 Knowledge
Utilization Presentation Interactive
Conversations Communicatio
Conferences n
Meetings
Briefings

 To communicate such knowledge, however, analysts also develop multiple policy

relevant documents; i.e. policy memoranda, policy issue papers, executive summaries
appendices and news releases. These documents in turn serve as a basis for multiple
strategies of interactive communication in conversations, conferences, meetings,
briefings, formal hearings, and other kinds of oral presentations. The purpose of
developing policy relevant documents and making oral presentation is to enhance
prospects for the utilization of knowledge and open-ended debate among stakeholders
situated at the several phases of the policymaking process.

Solid line in figure 12 indicates Policy Analysis – directly affect the plausibility of conclusions
and recommendations as well as the form, content, and appropriateness of policy relevant
documents and presentations. The Broken line on the other hand indicates the influence of
analysts on the process of knowledge utilization is limited and indirect.
(i) Policy-Relevant Documents: are documents conveying usable knowledge and skills in
synthesizing, organizing, translating, simplifying, displaying and summarizing information. In
other words, Policy- relevant Document development requires knowledge and skills in:
(a) Synthesis: is going over previously published (documents) reports, papers
newspapers, journals articles, notes, and summarizing interviews with key informants or
stakeholders, copies of existing legislations, tables of statistical series. The information
must be synthesized into documents such a policy memoranda, policy issue papers
(executive summaries), or materials appropriate for the media (news releases).
(b) Organization: Analysts must be able to organize information in a coherent, logically
consistent and economic manner. Although policy documents vary in style, content and
length, they typically have common elements like, overview or summary, background of
previous efforts to solve the problem, diagnosis of scope, severity and causes of the
problem, identification and evaluation of alternatives solutions to the problem,
recommendations for actions, tables, graphs, and technical appendices.
(c) Translation: The specialized terminology and procedures of policy analysis must be
translated into the languages of policy stakeholders. In many cases, this requires the
51
 conversion of abstract theoretical concepts and complex analytical and statistical routines
into ordinary language and arguments employed by non-experts.
(d) Simplification: The combinations and permutation of policy alternatives, criteria, and
likely outcomes can be too cumbersome. In such cases alternatives may be simplified by
reducing the larger set to a smaller set of major or strategic options displayed in the form
of matrix.
(e) Visual displays: Quantitative information, which is an essential tool for policy
analysis, could be displayed in forms of bar charts, histograms, pie charts, line, graphs,
and socio-demographic maps for proper communication. The availability of advanced,
user-friendly computer graphics has dramatically increased the capacity for effective
visual communication.
(f) Summaries: Busy policymakers have limited time to read policy proposals at there
full length. Therefore, they prefer to read an executive summary or condensed
memorandum than a full policy issue paper.
In general, the most comprehensive and detailed document that may be developed by the analyst
is the Policy issue paper, which addresses the following questions.

1. In what ways can the policy problem be formulated?

2. What is the scope and severity of the problem?
3. To what extent does it require public action?
4. If no action is taken, how is the problem likely to change in coming months or years?
5. Have other units of government addressed the problem, and if so what were the
consequences?
6. What goal and objectives should be pursued in solving the problem?
7. What major policy alternatives are available to achieve these goals/objectives?
8. What criteria should be employed to evaluate the performance of these alternatives?
9. What alternatives should be adopted and implemented?
10. What agency should have the responsibility for implementation?
11. How will the policy be monitored and evaluated?
12. What can we learn about public policy?
(ii) Policy Presentation: Procedures for developing policy relevant documents are different
from procedures for their communication. The common medium of communication is the mailed
document, an impersonal means of reaching clients and other policy stakeholders by transmitting
the original version of the documents. The major limitation of this medium is the probability that
the document will be shelved. Therefore, the probability of utilization of the document by
beneficiaries is enhanced when the substance of the policy document is communicated through
policy presentations. Policy presentations; i.e. conversations, conferences, briefings, meetings
and hearings, constitute an interactive mode of communication that is positively associated with
the utilization of Policy Relevant Knowledge.
(iii) Policy Relevant Knowledge: Is information that has been critically assessed and
transformed into plausibly true beliefs about the processes and outcomes of policy. Plausibly true
52
beliefs, in turn, are expressed as knowledge claims that are uncertain, contestable, and where
appropriate, supported by statistical probability. The use of policy relevant knowledge is a
complex process that steam from the intersection of three major dimensions of knowledge
utilization:
 Composition of users: policy analysis is used by individuals as well as collective entities,
and the process of knowledge utilization constitutes an aspect of individual and collective
decisionmaking.
 Effects of use: the use of policy analysis has cognitive as well as behavioral effects.
Conceptual effects include the use of policy analysis to think about problems and solutions,
while behavioral effects involve the of policy analysis as a means or instrument for
carrying out observable policymaking activities.
 Scope of knowledge used: the scope of knowledge utilized by policymakers’ ranges from
the specific to general.

These three dimensions of knowledge use are interdependent, and the intersections among these
dimensions provide a basis for assessing and improving the practice of policy analysis and its
impact on the policymaking process.

5.4.2 Policy Communication Strategies

 There is no codified body of rules for making oral presentations to communicate policy
relevant documents and transmit policy relevant knowledge to the effective utilization of
knowledge.
 Nevertheless, experiences show that a number of general guidelines are important for
effective policy communication. These guidelines offer multiple communication
strategies appropriate for the various contingencies encountered in complex practice
settings.
 In the presence of various and heterogeneous contingencies or interest groups, multiple
communication strategies are essential. There are no universal standards of assessment
for evaluating the plausibility, relevance, and usability of policy analysis. Therefore,
effective policy communication is dependent on matching communication strategies to
characteristics of the audience for policy analysis. The following are principles and
generalizations to what communication strategies are likely to be effective.

1. Make sure that the presentation addresses the needs of key decisionmakers and
recognize audience diversity.
2. Avoid giving too much background information.
3. Focus on conclusions. Use simple graphics to convey data and discuss methods
only if necessary to support.

53
 4. Pinpoint reasons for your lack of credibility, choosing a strategy to overcome the
problem, for example, arrange to be introduced by a credible associate or present as
part of a team.
5. Be sensitive to time constraints and the probability that the group is committed to
a course of action.
6. Position your supporters next to people with anticipated negative reactions.
7. Prioritize your points so that your present those that are most critical to the
group’s preferred decision analysis, and multimedia communication.
All these guidelines need not be observed in every policy analysis.

8.5 Principles and Generalizations on Policy Analysis

Until this stage, we have had an overview of issues that surround policy analysis in the
policymaking process. At this point, policy analysts must be able to discuss the following
principles and generalizations:

1. The communication and use of policy-relevant knowledge are central to the practice and
theory of policy analysis. Only when knowledge of the policymaking process is
communicated in that process, can policy stakeholders use knowledge to improve public
policies.
2. The methodology of policy analysis is a system of standards, rules, and procedures for
creating, critically assessing, and communicating policy-relevant knowledge. The
methodology of policy analysis has several important characteristics: a concern with
formulating as well as solving problems, a commitment to discipline as well as value
critical inquiry, and a desire to improve the efficiency of choice among alternative policies.
3. Knowledge is defined as plausibly true belief rather than certainty. Statistical probability
plays a secondary and supportive role in establishing the plausibility of knowledge claims.
4. Historical changes in the conduct of research on social problems, the dissatisfaction with
logical positivism as a theory of knowledge and responses to lessons learned from research
conducted on social programs have produced broad consensus on an appropriate
methodology.
5. The methodology of policy analysis has been transformed from a series of individual social
science disciplines into a multidisciplinary synthesis called Critical multiplism. Critical
multiplism is based on the principle of triangulation and several important guidelines or
rules: multiple operationalism, multi-method research, multiple analytic synthesis,
multivariate analysis, multiple stakeholder analysis, multiple perspective analysis, and
multimedia communication. All guidelines need not be observed in every policy analysis.
6. Five types of information are produced by policy analysts, policy problems, policy futures,
policy actions, policy outcomes and policy performance. These five types of information
are obtained by means of time polyanalytic procedure, problem structuring, forecasting,
recommendation, monitoring and evaluation. These policy-analytic procedures are related
54
 to particular methods and techniques helpful in producing specific types of information.
Information is the basis for knowledge claims that become knowledge (plausibly true
belief) when they withstand criticisms, challenges and rebuttals offered in the course of
policy debates.
7. Policy analysis is an intellectual activity carried out within a political process. This process
can be visualized as the policymaking process, which has five major phases: agenda
setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, policy implementation and policy assessment.
Particular policy analytic procedures are appropriate for creating information in particular
phases of the policymaking process.
8. Policy analysis is the beginning, not the end, of efforts to improve the policymaking process.
Before intended beneficiaries can use policy relevant information, it must be converted into
policy relevant documents and communicated in presentation of different kinds. The entire
process of policy communication has four stages: Policy analysis, materials development,
interactive communication, and knowledge utilization. Skills needed to develop policy
documents and to give oral presentations from skills needed to conduct policy analysis
9. The utilization of knowledge by policy stakeholders is a complex process involving
interdependencies among three dimensions: Composition of users, effects of use, and scope
of knowledge used. The intersection among these three dimensions provides a basis for
assessing and improving the role of policy analysis in the policymaking process.
10. Policy analysis does not seek to replace politics by establishing some kind of technocratic
elite. This aim is not only undesirable in democracies, it is also unlikely to occur in present-
day institutions characterized by various forms of cognitive impairment, disjointed
decisions, tangled systems of interpretation, and organized anarchy.
11. In promoting the utilization of policy-relevant knowledge, policy analysis seeks to facilitate
individual and collective learning, including improved policies, through communicative
interaction and public debate.

8.6 Reasons and Ethics in Policy Analysis

The systematic, reasoned and critical examination of values is an essential element of policy
analysis. The same policy relevant information may be interpreted in a markedly different way,
depending on assumptions contained in the frame of reference, theory, or ideology of policy
analysts and other policy stakeholders. Disagreements about values cannot be debated rationally,
and statements about values such as, equality, justice and freedom, cannot be proved
empirically, hence values are best considered as non-rational expressions of individual desires or
emotions. This is what is known as “value relativism” (Dunn, 1994:126). Most policy analysts
recognize that values can be studied with methods of social science, for example public opinion
surveys may be used to describe the values of different social groups. The most that policy
analysts can do is to treat value as "data" which can be subjected to analysis.

55
Scientific instrumentalism says that methods of policy analysis are neutral instruments that may
be used by analysts who are disinterested and detached from policy problems. "Facts" and
"Values", according to scientific instrumentalism should be separated in analyzing policy
problems. The analyst should and must accept certain values as "given", since values cannot be
debated rationally. The role of policy analysis is defined in discovering the best means to realize
ends, which are given and beyond the realm of reasoned debate. In short policy analysis is not
value free, rather is value dependent. But, it may also be value critical, which means that values
as well as facts may be debated rationally.

8.7 The Methodology of Policy Inquiry

 Methodology, as used here, is a system of standards, rules and procedures for creating,
critically assessing, and communicating policy-relevant knowledge. Methodology in this
sense is closely related to those intellectual and practical activities, that is, "the operations of
the human understanding in solving problems", also known as the "logic of inquiry".
 Problem solving is a key element of the methodology of policy analysis. Equally important
is that policy analysis is a methodology for formulating problems as part of a search for
solutions. This has to do with asking "rightful" questions and redefining the problems so as
to find appropriate solutions. When it occurs, the dictum, "a problem well formulated is a
problem half solved" becomes relevant.
 The methodology of policy analysis draws from and integrates elements of multiple
disciplines: political science, sociology, psychology, economics, and philosophy. Policy
analysis is partly descriptive, drawing on traditional disciplines (for example, political
science) that seek knowledge about causes and consequences of public policies. Yet, policy
analysis is also normative: an additional aim is the creation and critique of knowledge
claims about the value of public policies for past, present and future generations. This
normative, or value critical, aspect of policy analysis becomes evident once we recognize
that policy-relevant knowledge involves a dynamic between dependent variable (ends) and
independent variable (means), which are valuative in character.
 The choice of variables, therefore, amounts to choosing among competing values such as
health, wealth, security, peace, justice, equality, freedom and so on. To choose one value
over the other is not merely a technical judgment; it is also a judgment requiring moral
reasoning. For this reason, policy analysis represents a form of applied ethics.
 Finally, policy analysis seeks to create knowledge that improves the efficiency of choices
among alternative policies-for example, alternative policies for providing affordable health
care, redistributing income among the poor, eliminating race and sex discrimination in
employment, promoting international economic competitiveness, or maintaining national
military security (Dunn, 1994: 2-4).
 The methodology of policy analysis aims at creating, critically assessing, and
communicating policy relevant knowledge. In this context, as Dunn (1994) noted,
knowledge refers to plausibly true beliefs, as distinguished from beliefs that are critically

56
 true, even true with a particular statistical probability. The complexity of processes of policy
formulation and implementation virtually assure that the necessary and sufficient conditions
for establishing the certainty of knowledge claims are rarely satisfied.
 Although there is no fully codified body of unequivocally reliable knowledge directing
analysts, the evolution of policy analysis over the past 70 years has produced partially
codified standards, rules, and procedures on which there is broad agreement among
practitioners.
 Moreover, a growing consensus on core methodological principles is evident in historical
changes in the practice of policy research and analysis. This methodological core, as drawn
from multiple disciplines, is applicable to a range of problems facing governments. In deed
policy analysis has come to represent a systematic methodology for problem solving in the
face of complexity, an aim that runs directly counter to misguided notions that policymaking
involves well-informed calculations by economically, politically, or organizationally
"rational" actors who seek, respectively to maximize economic unity, political power or
organizational effectiveness.

A key feature of research and analysis on social problems over the past several decades is the
growing recognition of complexity. This historical development has been accompanied by the
use of multiple perspectives, theories, and methods, along with the inclusion of multiple policy
stakeholders, in the process of creating, critically assessing, and communicating policy relevant
knowledge. The methodological core of policy analysis today can be broadly characterized as a
form of critical multiplism. If analysts seek to improve policy relevant knowledge, they should
employ triangulation of multiple perspectives, methods, measures, data sources, and
communications media.

The methodological rules of critical multiplism in policy analysis represent general guidelines
for policy inquiry. The guidelines for creating, critically assessing, and communicating policy
relevant knowledge span several important areas of policy analysis:
 Multiple operationalism: the use of multiple measures of policy constructs and variables
enhances the plausibility of knowledge claims by triangulating on the same subject with
two or more metrics,
 Multiple method research: the use of multiple methods to observe policy processes and
outcomes (for example, concurrent use of organizational records, mailed questionnaires,
and ethnographic interviews) promotes the plausibility of knowledge claims by
triangulating on the same subject with data obtained from two or more instruments,
 Multiple analytic synthesis: the synthesis and critical assessment of available analyses of
similar policies and programs enhances the plausibility of knowledge claims by examining
the stock of knowledge about the effects of policies on different populations in different
contexts,

57
  Multivariate analysis: the inclusion of multiple variables in policy models enhances the
plausibility of knowledge claims by systematically testing and ruling out or synthesizing
the effects of extra-policy variables on policy outcomes,
 Multiple stakeholder analysis: the investigation of interpretative frameworks and
perspectives of multiple policy stakeholders adds plausibility to knowledge claims by
triangulating among competing casual and ethical representations of problems and
solutions found in real-life (naturalistic) policy settings. Multiple stakeholder analysis
draws attention to individuals and groups who participate in formulating and implementing
policies as a source of policy-relevant knowledge and directs attention to public interest,
 Multiple perspective analysis: the incorporation into policy analysis of multiple
perspectives (such as ethical, political, organizational, economic, social, cultural, etc)
promotes the plausibility of knowledge claims by triangulating among competing
representations of problems and solutions,
 Multimedia communication: the use of multiple communications media by policy analysts
is essential for ensuring that knowledge is policy relevant, that is, used by policymakers
and other intended beneficiaries. Triangulating with multiple communications media and
alternative knowledge transfer strategies enhances the policy relevance of knowledge and
its potential use.

It is seldom possible to observe all these guidelines in a single analysis or study, given typical
constraints on time and financial resources. Although critical multiplism doesn't guarantee
complete success in policy analysis, it has an important benefit not provided by rival
methodologies. If analysts follow guidelines of critical multiplism, they are less likely to commit
preventable errors that stem from the analysts own limited perspectives of a problem.

5.2.2 Problem Succession and Government Learning

What is the most that governments can expect when they implement policy? What expectations
can citizens hold of their government’s efforts? It depends on what view one holds of the entire
enterprise of making policy work. Recall the idealistic, legalistic, responsive and experimental
perspectives discussed earlier. Each entails a distinctive way of answering these questions. The
first portrays very high expectations; to "solve" the problem in a comprehensive, long-term
manner. No performance short of this goal will suffice. The legalistic perspective is no less
demanding. The language of the policy sets forth what government's obligations are. They may
or may not be adequate to solve the problem, but that is not the central consideration. Even if
those services failed to meet the unique needs of some persons or were not extended to all,
implementation would have succeeded by this standard. What weakens the legalistic approach is
the failure, already noted, to state the standards dearly enough to guide the administrators. When
the exact "solution" is not known or agreed upon, legal statements will consequently lack
precision.

58
The third and fourth perspectives are more useful in judging the implementation of non-routine
programs such as expanding services to the disabled. The responsive method relies on clients
and constituents not only to influence the policies but also to interpret them while their
administration is going on. What are the "rights" of a disabled person? A “successful
implementation of strategy is thus one that is accepted by the various interests. The
experimental perspective is also useful in view of the struggle to develop the plethora of
arrangements in local communities to provide effective mobility with available resources. Few
communities had experience in organizing systematic mass transit service for their disabled
residents, but between the federal grants and political pressures, they learned how. "Success" by
this perspective is measured by how much constructive learning took place and how services
improved as a result.
All policies are linked with others, and success in one may lead to either success or failure in
another. At the very least, they create new demands for services and actions, which government
often has to respond to. For instance, if persons confined to wheelchairs are able to get around
the city at will, they can press for more recreational programs, continuing education
opportunities, and employment training. There may be no logical limits to such expansion of
services, but lawmakers must fall back on political and financial criteria for funding some and
restricting others.

CHAPTER SEVEN
10. Post-Implementation Evaluation of Public Policy
Once we make public policy and implement it, it is imperative that the effects of such policies
have to be evaluated and analyzed. Post-implementation evaluation of public policy is concerned
59
with the analysis of the effects of governmental decisions on the target public. In other words, it
is an attempt to assess the content and effects of policy on those for whom it is intended. It
means commenting on the merits and demerits of a policy. Often policy evaluation occurs
throughout the policy process, not necessarily at its termination stage.
There are generally three recognized forms or aspects of policy evaluation; namely:
(a) Policy impact evaluation: It is an assessment of program (policy) impact and
effectiveness, the extent to which programs are successful in achieving the intended
objectives,
(b) Policy strategy evaluation: This refers to the assessment of the relative effectiveness of
program strategies and variables with emphasis on determining the most effective and
productive strategies, methods and procedures,
(c) Policy project appraisal: It is a process of assessing individual projects through site visits
and other means with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency.
While discussing policy evaluation, we need also to have sufficient understanding about the
differences between policy output, policy outcome, and policy impact, which were highlighted in
the preceding chapter.

10.1 The Learning and Planning

The challenges to public policy never stop coming, and those who design and implement policies
can never stop learning. Post-implementation evaluation is the central process in this learning:
identifying and measuring the outcomes and impacts of a policy and judging whether and how
well its objectives were (or are being) met. Recall the distinction made in Chapter Eight between
outputs, outcomes, and impacts: Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the
government that can be measured in concrete terms. It is the immediate good or service provided
by a program. A policy outcome refers to the qualitative impacts of public policies on the lives of
the people, the intermediate result of the policy for its targeted area. Policy impact is the policy's
broad and long-term consequence for society. Careful study of the last two of these concepts
requires one to state not just what happened and whether the policy was in fact implemented but
also how the process and results conformed to accepted standards. Outcomes and impacts are
measurements of value, ultimately rooted in the public purposes.
Sound analysis of policy implementation is the best means that governments have for improving
both their policies and methods. It is the last step in the policy cycle, the transition that returns it
to a new cycle of problem definitions, objectives, and alternatives. Thus the evaluator is an
essential participant in the policymaking process as he looks forward to what could be done as
well as backward to what was (or was not) done. However, this potential for learning is often not
fulfilled, for reasons to be discussed yet.
10.2 The Procedural Benefits of Evaluation
Evaluation, done with a genuine intent to use what is learned, can have several benefits. First, it
is an essential part of the communication flow that enables elected executives, legislators, and

60
the general public to hold administrators accountable for their actions. Second, evaluation
enables administrators to change programs and outputs and to reorganize agencies when
necessary. Governments must continually adapt their means of implementation to changing
objectives and environments. Third, evaluation benefits program design and budgeting. By
seeing how each element of past programs worked in combination and how outside factors
influenced them, one can plan for the full range of conditions that will shape the success of
future efforts.
Often planners conceive of a program too narrowly and are not prepared to foresee and avoid the
many contingencies that are not defeating their efforts. A training program for unemployed
youths may have disappointing results if planners have not prepared to deal with factors
commonly influencing disadvantaged youth (for example, substance abuse; in this instance,
proper preparation would include adding counseling and rehabilitation components and altering
funding priorities to target those hindrances).
Sensitive evaluation can also contribute to the problem definitions and goal-setting stages. It is
tempting to blame youth unemployment simply on the lack of job skills or motivation to work or
on discrimination against minorities. But studies have repeatedly shown that such persons cannot
be pigeonholed so easily. The above obstacles are often present, but they may be compounded by
low intelligence, emotional disturbances, illiteracy, history of criminal offenses and drug abuse,
and physical disabilities. Learning to what extent these conditions are present should also lead to
more realistic (and perhaps lower) expectations of what a program with a given design and
funding level can accomplish.
10.3 The Historical Development of Evaluation
Systematic evaluation came to be a major concern of policy analysts and implementers only in
the 1960s, when governments ventured deeply into innovative social polities. Economic
opportunity, criminal justice, education, civil rights, and urban development programs were
endowed with billions of dollars and intricate new administrative relationships. As each program
got underway analysts within and outside the agencies sought evidence of how well it was
working and how they could improve it. To their dismay, most evaluation studies showed that
the programs did not achieve their expectations. They also discovered that they did not even
know how to identify and measure the most important outcomes, which limited the value of their
work for future policy design (Weiss, 1987).
In the past two decades, evaluation of public programs has continued along many paths, using a
variety of methods. Although analysts have accumulated an impressive stock of data and
judgments, they have often been disappointed in their lack of direct impact on either the content
of policy or its implementation. Yet they continue to pursue and refine their craft, confident that
indirect contributions are also valuable. Administrators and their clients alike do well to develop
skills at various types of evaluation so as to maintain their vigilance over the programs for which
they are responsible or on which they depend.
10.4 Approaches to Evaluation
There is no standard model for evaluation; each study must be designed to fit its purposes and
circumstances. We can contrast the major alternatives along several dimensions. First, evaluation
61
may be pursued in an intuitive or a scientific mode. The former is relatively informal and is
guided largely by impressions and subjective judgments. Actually this intuitive method of
evaluating is constantly taking place as administrators and their clients regularly reflect on what
they are doing and the results their actions yield. Although necessarily subjective, it can often
detect the needs and conditions that more systematic means of evaluation must address. The
following are an overview of approaches to valuation:
1. Intuitive: informal collection of information, relying for guidance on impressions and
subjective judgments.
2. Scientific: systematic collection and analysis of data, guided by social science theory and
the use of statistical methods.
3. Passive: relies on sources outside the program administrators to supply opinions and
criticism.
4. Active: information collected at the initiative of the evaluators, largely or completely by
standards of their choosing.
5. Narrow: focus on one program or segment thereof with intention only on improving it.
6. Broad: focus on widespread program or many related programs, seeking results to apply
to many similar efforts.
7. Summative: surveys what the program or policy accomplished in factual, measurable
terms.
8. Formative: evaluates program outcomes and impacts to learn whether and how the
program or its process should be designed or operated differently.
9. Inside: done by the immediate administrators or others in the agency carrying on the
program.
10. Outside: done by anyone outside the program agency and with no involvement in its
administration.
Policy performance or post-implementation evaluation can take different forms or modes, some
of which are briefly discussed in the following manner:
(A) Performance Measurement: The Scientific Mode
The scientific mode of evaluation entails the systematic collection and analysis of data, guided
by social science theory and using statistical methods. Its results will be more valid than the
intuitive mode in those cases in which the necessary data can be obtained and are interpreted
with confidence. One common form is performance measurement, which Hatry (1989: 469)
defines as the systematic and accurate measurement of the efficiency and effectiveness of
programs and organizational performance. It bases judgments on quantification of such disparate
factors as street miles paved, hospital mortality rates, student reading test scores, and solution
rates of crimes.
(B) The Passive/Active Continuum
Second, evaluations can take place on a passive/active continuum. Passive studies rely simply on
others, often clients of the program, for opinions and criticisms. Administrators tend to assume
that a program is working well unless evidence comes in to the contrary. If the volume of
complaints increases, then the program might get a more systematic look. In active studies, by
62
contrast, evaluators seek data on their own initiative, largely or completely by standards of their
own choosing. Volunteered information will be useful at times, but it cannot be the core of a
systematic effort. A high dropout rate by persons in job training program clearly signals a
problem. Some of the dropouts might willingly register their complaints and tell why they quit,
but active evaluation is necessary to learn each person's reasons, particularly those that would not
be expressed voluntarily.
(C) Scope: Narrow and Broad Surveys
Third, evaluations can vary in the scope of the survey. If very narrow, the survey can focus on
one class of youths in one job-training program in one city- It can seek data on who gained
employment, for how long, and for what wages. It should also permit a judgment on whether the
program made the crucial difference in clients' lives. A broad survey, by contrast, would
examine, for example, the results of all such programs around the country for a ten-year span and
inquire into the successes of tens of thousands of persons for a significant segment of their lives.
The narrow study is much easier to do and can give rapid feedback to a single program still in
process. The broader the study is, the more it can rise above variations in local leadership and
economic conditions and show what has worked well and badly for the long term. But it takes
much more time and money and its results may not be directly useful to any individual program
director.
(D) Summative and Formative Approaches
Fourth, evaluation may take a summative or a formative approach. To take the former is to
survey what the program accomplished in factual, measurable terms. One might state that a
certain percentage of the graduates of a youth employment program found jobs of specific types,
at a range of salary levels, and held them for specified periods of time. Any competent evaluator,
given the same data, would arrive at the same conclusion. If some quantitative employment goals
had previously been set, one could conclude that they had or had not been achieved.
A formative evaluation, by contrast, requires more judgment on the part of the evaluator, who
seeks to learn whether and how the program should be designed or operated differently. It may
focus on the outcomes and impacts of an agency or one of its programs: why they produced the
results they did and whether they fulfilled the needs of the clients. Or it can concentrate on the
process by which the results were produced: for example, key decisions, delivery systems, and
agency-client interactions. If a program were failing, this method would offer the best chance to
learn why and how failures could be corrected during the life of the program.
Often outcome and process evaluation are done in tandem (cyclically), since data from one phase
inform the other. Both require attention to the political and social contexts that either support or
weaken implementation. These assessments are potentially more controversial than the
summative evaluations, and equally competent evaluators can start with different assumptions
and arrive at equally different conclusions. Yet such studies also serve the administrators better if
they also mark out constructive paths for reform.
(E) Inside and Outside Evaluations
Who does the evaluation is also significant to its outcome. Each type of evaluator can supply a
unique perspective. An inside evaluation is done by the immediate administrators or others
63
within the agency, as in the youth employment programs mentioned earlier. They have the
advantage of being most familiar with the program and having direct access to the data, and they
have practical need of the results. But there is the obvious risk that they may cover up negative
outcomes to avoid criticisms from outside the agency and ultimate program cuts, and thus they
may produce an overly favorable report.
Outside evaluation can be done by anyone not involved in the program’s administration: for
example, legislators, auditors, interest groups, news media, or scholars. Evaluation can come
from outside the permanent machinery of government as well: Temporary commissions are often
appointed to investigate problems of high public concern. The clients of many programs and the
interest groups that represent them constantly assess, from their individual perspectives, the
programs that benefit or regulate them. Although members of the public provide important
perspectives, they also have obvious biases; policymakers are well aware of such views and may
even sympathize with them.
Useful evaluations have been done by scholars, journalists and researchers who can take more
independent postures. These include a graduate student writing a dissertation on a city-housing
program, a news reporter looking into a highway construction scandal, and a consultant
examining financial regulation on a contract from a bankers' association. All of these persons'
reputations depend on the quality of their work as judged by the criteria of their disciplines or
peers. Their conclusions also can reflect their own values: a politically liberal scholar is likely to
evaluate a social welfare program differently than one with conservative views and both may
select different evidence as most relevant to their conclusions. Reporters and their editors are
tempted to sensationalize their findings to gain readers or viewers. Users of these evaluations
must therefore not automatically take them as paragons of objectivity.
(F) Timing
It is also necessary to choose when to evaluate a given program. It is common to conduct
formative studies while a program is under way so that midstream adjustments can be made. Yet
these studies have the disadvantage of not being able to identify long-range outcomes and
impacts that could lead to conclusions that would differ from those of a short-range study. If the
real evaluation is left to the end of a program, there is no possibility of correcting it, although the
knowledge gained can benefit similar programs in the future.
The choice of evaluator and type of study must depend on the study’s main objective. If the goal
is to find and correct ongoing problems in a program/ there is an advantage to research done
close to the process. On the other hand, long-range evaluation of a controversial program is best
done by one or more outsiders. When the aim is to improve administrative procedures and
techniques, it may be wisest to involve several evaluators and techniques.
10.5 Standards for Evaluation
All evaluations, by definition, are value-laden. They must draw upon one or more standards in
judging whether and how well a policy or program succeeded. In fact, a thorough evaluation
must take into consideration all of the expectations that the chief executives, legislators,
clienteles, and general public may hold of the program, and these may not be fully compatible
with one another. The evaluator must not only choose which criteria to use but also how to rank
64
them in importance and how to relate the evidence to each one. The following are standards for
evaluation of a policy:
1. Effectiveness: fulfillment of the program goals, the extent to which the policies are
achieving the intended benefits.
2. Efficiency: the margin of benefits gained from a program over the resources invested in
it.
3. Legality: conformance to law and the national/federal and state constitutions.
4. Responsiveness: meets the needs and demands of clients and is modified on the basis of
their reactions to the program.
5. Technical criteria: standards set by the professional groups operating within government
that define acceptable practice in their respective fields.
6. Political criteria: resolution of conflict and maintenance of cooperation among
contending groups in the administrative department.
7. Equity: extent to which public programs' benefits and costs are distributed such that no
group or individual receives less than a minimum benefit level or pays more than a
maximum cost.
What guidance or lessons are administrators likely to get from evaluations conducted by any of
the above standards? Analysis of the major social programs “was not well equipped to tell how
programs managed to make an impact on people's lives or what factors prevented them from
doing so. They could not explain why programs worked or failed. Evaluation did not yield many
clues about promising directions for change." Contrary too many expectations/ "few evaluation
reports lead to direct and immediate changes in policy or practice. More often, evaluation reports
are cited, referred to, used in testimony, or footnoted/ to support positions already taken. More
than a signal for direction, evaluation becomes ammunition in policy battles." The plurality of
standards and conflicts among the involved parties is plainly one reason for this.
10.6 Procedures for Evaluation
Just as there are many forms of evaluation, there are many valid approaches to generating
findings and conclusions. What is presented below is not a precise format but rather a list of
items that defines moderately systematic evaluations and directs a general order in which
analysis most logically occurs. Ideally, one plans the evaluation procedure along with the
program’s implementation in order to obtain performance information when it is needed.
Otherwise, the analysis has to be "tacked on” later. In conducting an evaluation of a policy, the
analyst:
1. Identifies the relevant audience and its concerns on the issue;
2. Lists the goals that the program as implemented should have accomplished and the
standards that are to be applied;
3. Collects all relevant performance data—resource inputs and output measurements;
4. Portrays the changes in the targeted situation resulting from the policy by comparing
what resulted from the program with what would have happened in its absence;
5. Compares the inputs with the outputs, the goals with the results, and the costs with the
benefits;
65
 6. Identifies reasons for the results obtained in steps 4 and 5; and
7. Recommends changes in the policy or the method of its implementation,
The last stage of evaluation is necessary if one seeks directly to influence future choices:
recommending changes in the policy or its implementation. Such admonitions can range from
detailed prescriptions for reducing costs and tightening supervision to a comprehensive
redrafting of policy goals and philosophy or they may simply call for keeping things as they are,
claiming that all is well.
Prescriptions for change can range from the obvious to the visionary. If they simply reflect the
preferences of the evaluator with no real concern for feasibility, they are useless. Those that
broadly sketch a "best of all possible worlds" solution but detail no clear path to get there are
also of limited value. On the other hand, recommendations can be very "safe," stating and
justifying what those involved have already decided to do. Perhaps the most useful prescriptions
are those that have a real chance of making improvements but are controversial enough to
warrant serious debate.
The validity of evaluation studies is a major concern for both analysts and users. If a study
accurately evaluates what it intended to, it is said to have internal validity. This internal validity
is the most important aim of most studies. External validity is the transferability of the finding to
similar settings. This goal may be of low priority to a purely internal evaluation.
11. Public Policy in the Ethiopian Context
In the history of Ethiopia, governments have been making various policies directly reflecting
their philosophies and ideologies. As a result, we have experienced a number of fundamental
policy changes over the years. The present government of Ethiopia, for example, has endorsed
several macro (national) and micro (sectoral) policies. These policies were been made within the
context of the constitution. The purpose of this chapter is not examining and commenting on the
contents of the various policies in Ethiopia. Moreover, since sectoral policies a re too many, we
do not attempt to describe each of such policy at this stage. Therefore, emphasis will be simply
on highlighting the major provisions (articles) and their intended implications or effects in the
lives of the citizenry. Considering the Federal Constitution as the prime source of sectoral public
policies, specific cases studies and comments on particular public policies shall be made by
students themselves.

66
 CHAPTER SEVEN
PUBLIC POLIC MAKING IN ETHIOPIA
11.1 Policy Provisions in the Ethiopia’s Constitutional Framework
The "Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Proclamation No. 1/1995)
was enforced on 21st August 1995. It consists of 1 Preamble, 106 Articles in Eleven Chapters.
The outline of the contents of the chapters is the following:

Chapter Title

Articles
1……… General Provisions ………………………………… 1- 7
2……… Fundamental Principles ……………………………... 8 - 12
3……… Fundamental Rights & Freedoms …………………… 13 - 44
4……… State Structure……………………………………….. 45 - 49
5……… Structure & Division of Powers …………………… 50 - 52
6……… Federal Houses………………………………………. 53 - 68
7……… President of the Republic …………………………… 69 – 71
8……… The Executive………………………………………... 72 – 77
9……… Structure & Powers of Courts……………………….. 78 – 84
10……… National Policy Principles & Objectives……………. 85 - 92
11……… Miscellaneous Provisions……………………………. 93 - 106
67
Article 1of the constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia reveals three Features:
(i) Federal
(ii) Democratic Republic
(iii) Socio-Economic Political Philosophy
The first Feature tells about the Structure (constituency) of government, separation of power, and
why federalism is so important. In this connection, the constitution specifies:
(a) As the government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia is made upon nine
states: Tigray, Afar, Amhara, Oromiyaa, Somali, Benishangul Gumuz, Southern Nations,
Nationalities and people’s; Gambella peoples and Harari People Regional States (Article
46 & 47)
(b) Division of powers between the Federation and States (Articles 50 & 52)
It tries also to provide justifications why federal arrangement is so important, as for:
a. Dispersal of power
b. Increased participation
c. Improved efficiency
d. Policy diversity
e. Protection against tyranny
f. Conflict management
The second feature is about the form of government, Parliamentary Democracy. It states that the
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia has a Parliamentarian form of Government (Article
45) comprising of:
(a) House of People’s Representatives and House of the Federation (Article 51) have
legislative powers… highest policy approving authority.
(b) President of the Republic (Article 69) is Titular Head.
(c) Prime Minister and the Council of Ministers are the highest Executive power (Article 72)
the highest policymaking body.
In essence, it is Prime Ministerial democracy, Ascendance of Prime Ministers’ executive power,
the highest policymaking body (Article74). The powers, duties, responsibilities and
accountability of the Prime Minister are described in the constitution. Accordingly, the Prime
Minister:
(i) Is Chief Executive, the Chairman of the Council of Ministers.
(ii) Nominates Ministers.
(iii) Commander-in –chief of armed forces
(iv) Implements Policies, Laws, Decisions, Directives made by the House of
Representatives
(v) Supervises implementation of Policies, regulations, directives, and decisions by the
Council of Ministers.
(vi) Supervises the implementation of foreign policy.
(vii) Leader & Co-coordinator of the Council of Minister
68
 (viii) Selects Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates.
(ix) Appoints civilian officials of Federal Government
(x) Reports to the House of Representatives the work accomplished be the Executive
The powers and functions the Council of Ministers are also described in Articles 77 as:
(i) Ensures implementation of Laws & decisions of the House of Peoples’
Representatives
(ii) Decides organizational structure of ministries; provides leadership
(iii) Prepares and implements annual Federal Budget
(iv) Ensures proper execution of financial and monetary Polices….. Bank….. Printing &
Minting… borrowing… foreign exchange
(v) Formulates and implements economic, social and development Policies/strategies
(vi) Formulates country’s foreign policy…. Etc…
The third feature refers to the Social, Economic, Political Philosophy, National Policy Principles
and Objectives. These are cited in the Preamble as well as in Chapter 10 (Article 85-92) of the
constitution.
The Federal and State Governments shall be guided by the Principles and Objectives in the
implementation of the Constitution, Laws and Policies.
(i) Principles for External Relations (Art. 86)
(a) Protection of national interests and respect of sovereignty of country
(b) Mutual respect for sovereignty… equality of states… non-interference
(c) Respect to international agreements…
(d) Forge economic union with neighbors and African countries.
(e) Support peaceful solutions to international disputes
(ii) Principles of National Defense (Art. 87)
(a) Equitable representation of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia
(b) Minister of defense shall be a civilian
(c) Armed forces to protect sovereignty
(d) Armed forces to protect & obey Constitution
(e) Armed forces to be free from politics.
(iii) Political Objectives (Article 88)
(a) Self-rule at all levels… democracy
(b) Strengthen equality, unity, fraternity of nations, nationalities, peoples
(iv) Economic Objectives (Article 89)
(a) Benefit from country’s intellectual and material resources,
(b) Equitable distribution of wealth
(c) Avert natural and man-mad disasters
(d) Special assistance to the least developed
(e) Deploy land and natural resources for common benefit
(f) People’s participation in national development policies
(g) Women’s participation in socio-economic development endeavors

69
 (h) Protect and promote labour welfare
(v) Social Objectives (Article 90)
(a) Access to public health, education, clean water, housing, food social security
(b) Education… free from religious influence, political partisanship or cultural prejudices
(vi) Cultural Objectives (Article 91)
(a) Growth and enrichment of all cultures
(b) Citizens to protect country’s natural endowments, historical sites & objects
(c) Develop Arts, Science & Technology
(vii) Environmental Objectives (Article 92)
(a) Clean and Healthy environment
(b) Programs & Projects not to destroy environment
(c) Peoples participation in the planning and implementation of environment policies
(d) Duty to protect environment
4. Types of Public Policy
The thrust areas of Ethiopian Constitution are:
(a) Eradication of Poverty (Economy, Finance, Tax, Unemployment)
(b) Civil Rights (Fundamental Rights, Human Rights, Women’s Rights)
(c) Environmental Protection
(d) Peaceful Foreign Relations
(e) Defense Forces to protect Sovereignty and Democracy
(f) Establishing a socially, economically, politically, culturally prosperous & enriched
country.
5. Principal Policymakers/Implementers
The constitution contains general provisions regarding plurality and compositeness of public
policymaking. Policy cannot be made only by one or few individuals. Rather, several persons
and institutions are involved:
 House of Peoples Representatives
 Prime Minister Council of Ministers
 Civil Servants
 Representatives/Legislators
 Politicians
 Pressure Groups/Environmentalists
 Professionals
 Intellectuals, Researchers, Think-Tanks, Media
All policies require final approval of the House of Peoples’ Representatives after the policy is
formulated by the Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers is the highest policymaking body.
Most Public Policies are therefore tested in Regional States. Also the embryo of public policy is
born in Regional States.

70
In addition to being the implementing agencies of the Federal Policies, State Governments are
autonomous entities to initiate, develop, and ratify policies within their jurisdictions. This has to
do with the essentials of devolution of power to lower-level administrative units. The
constitution has large coverage with regard to the decentralization issue.
Although there were a series of policy pronouncements and legislations that introduced a
decentralized administration system in governmental functions and served on transitional basis
prior to the effectuation of the "Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
(Proclamation No. 1/1995), the later is the principal base of the ongoing decentralization process
in the Country.
While Article 50 of the Constitution stipulates the structure and division of power between the
Federal and Regional Governments, sub-article 4 of the same Article avows the need for the
establishment of “state governments” at State and other administrative levels and the desirability
of granting adequate power to the lowest units of government to enable the people to participate
directly in the administration of such units.
Subsequent Articles (Article 51 and 52) of the Constitution have also provided clearly the
divisions of powers and functions between the Federal Government and Regional States
respectively. According to Article 52 (sub-article 2 "e" and "f") of the Constitution, Regional
States have the power:

 To levy and collect taxes and duties on revenue sources reserved to the States and to draw
up and administer/implement their respective budgets,
 To enact and enforce laws on the States' Civil Services and their conditions of works,
subject to the relative compliance of the Country's basic standards of qualification
requirements
Matters related to financial expenditures and revenue sharing is specified under Articles 94 and
95 of the Constitution. Article 94 stipulates the following:
(1) The Federal Government and Regional States shall respectively bear financial
expenditures necessary to carryout all responsibilities and functions assigned to them by
law,
(2) The federal Government may grant to Regional States emergency, rehabilitation and
development assistance and loans,
Article 95 on the other hand describes as; "The Federal Government and the States shall share
revenue by taking the federal arrangement into account". Furthermore, Article 97 outlines about
10 areas where Regional States have the power to levy taxes and duties, which are indications of
fiscal decentralization.
Pursuant to the powers conferred upon the Regional State Councils as enshrined in the
Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (Proclamation No.1/1995, Articles
50/5 and 52/2/b), all Regional States have legislated their own respective constitutions. Prior to
the current (revised) constitutions, all have had endorsed their first ever respective constitutions

71
in 1995 through the consent and approval of elected representatives. After almost six years, they
have put in place their revised constitutions in 2001

72