SlideShare a Scribd company logo

Lecture note.pdf

A
AdafrewAdane

This document provides an introduction and overview of public policy as an academic field. It discusses how public policy emerged in the 1950s and is now an interdisciplinary field that draws from many social sciences. The document defines some key concepts related to public policy, including the idea of "public" versus private, and different definitions and understandings of the term "policy." It also discusses how studies of public policy have traditionally been led by political science and public administration but now incorporate many disciplines.

Leadership & Management
1 of 29
Download to read offline
1
2
Most read
3
Most read
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
CHAPTER- I INTRODUCTION „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 comity of social sciences. As a study of products of government, policy forms a significant component in many a course and programme in numerous disciplines- political science, public administration, economics, and management. So rapid is the growth that many researchers, teachers, public administrators now feel that it is becoming more and more unmanageable. The disciplines required to comprehend public policy cut right across the old academic lines of demarcation. Indeed, it is this interdisciplinary quality which makes the field of public policy interesting and thought- provoking. „Public Policy‟ is a concept now much in vogue. It is a frequently used term in our daily life and in our academic literature, where we often make references to the national health policy, the new education policy, wage policy, agricultural policy, and American or French policy and so on. It is the area which had to do with those spheres which are also labeled as public. The concept of public policy presupposes that there is a domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but held in common. In the past, studies on public policy were dominated by researchers and students of political science who largely concentrated on the institutional structure and philosophical justification of the government. The focus was rarely on the policies themselves. Political science wastosomeextentpreoccupiedwiththe activitiesofthevarious political institutionsandgroupsin relation to their success in the pursuit of political power. It hardly recognized the role which such organizations played towards the formulation of policy as one of its main concerns. Yet the policy is an important element of the politicalprocess. Thomas Dye, a leading scholar of policy analysis, says: “Traditional (political science) studies described the institutions in which public policy was formulated. But unfortunately the linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy were largelyunexplored.” Hefurther believes that todaythefocus of political scienceisshifting to public policy- “to the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity”.While theconcern of political science is about processes by which public policy was determined, has increased, most students of public administration would acknowledge that the public servants themselves are intimately involved in the shaping of the policies. The study of public administration has hitherto tended to concentrate on the machinery for the implementation of given policies. It has attended to the organization of public authorities, the behaviour of public servants and increasingly, the methods of resource allocation, administration and review. With such an approach, it is difficult to determine much about the way policy isformulated, although it is generally contended that the experience of policy implementation feeds back into the furtherance of policy- making process. But public policy is more „political‟ than public administration. It is an
effort to apply political science to public affairs but has concerns with processes inside the field of public administration. `In brief, paststudies on public policy have been mainly dominated by scholars of scholars of political science and public administration and have tended to concentrate more on the contentofpolicy process,theprocessofitsformulationanditsimplementation. Thestudyofpublic policy has evolved into what is virtually a new branch of the social sciences- that so called policy sciences. This concept of policy sciences was first formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951. Today the policy sciences have gone far beyond new and naïve aspirations for societally relevant knowledge. CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC AND POLICY The Idea of Public It is first important to understand the concept of „Public‟ for a discussion of public policy. We often use such terms as „public interest‟, „public sector‟, „public opinion‟, „public health‟ and so on. The starting point is that „Public Policy‟ has to do with those spheres which are so labeled as „public‟ as opposed to spheres involving the idea of „private‟. The concept of public policy presupposes that there is an area or domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but held in common. Public dimension is generally referred to „public ownership‟ or control for „public purpose‟. The public comprises that domain of human activity which is regarded as requiring governmental intervention or common action. However there has always been a conflict between what is public and what is private. W.F. Baberargues that thepublic sectorhas tenkeydifferences from the private sector: i. It faces more complex and ambiguous tasks; ii. It has more problems in implementing its decisions; iii. It employs more people with a wider range of motivations; iv. It is more concerned with securing opportunities or capacities; v. Itismoreconcernedwithcompensatingformarketfailure; vi. It engages in activities with greater symbolic significance; vii. Itisheldtostricterstandardsofcommitmentandlegality; viii. It has a greater opportunity to respond to issues of fairness; ix. It must operate or appear to operate in the public interest; x. It must maintain minimal levels of public support above that required in private industry. Public administration emerged as an instrument of the state for securing public interest rather than private interests, whereas for the political economists only markets could balance private and public interests, the new liberalism was based upon a belief that public administration was a more rational; means of promoting the public interest. For Max Weber the growth of bureaucracy was due to the process of rationalization in industrial society. The civil servant was therationalfunctionarywhosemaintaskwastocarryoutthewillthoseelectedbythepeople. Public bureaucracy was therefore, different to that which existed in the private sector because it was motivated to serve the public interest. The rational public interest argument started eroding after the 2nd world war. To Herbert Simon bureaucracies exhibited a large measure of irrationality or at least bounded rationality. To Muller bureaucrats did not function in the public interest and displayed the capacity to have distinct goals of their own. In this connection a comparative study of bureaucracy by Aberbach observed: “The last quarter in this century is witnessing the virtual disappearance of the Weberian distinction between the roles of the politicianandthe bureaucrat, producingwhat maybelabeledapure hybrid”. ThePublic and private sectors reveal themselves as overlapping and interacting, rather than as well- defined categories. The concept of Policy Like the idea of „public‟, the concept of policy is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of: i. A declaration of goals; ii. A declaration of course of action; iii. A declaration of general purpose; and iv. An authoritative decision. Hogwood and Gunn specified ten uses of the term „policy‟: i. As a label for field of activity; ii. As an expression of desired state ofaffairs; iii. As specific proposals; iv. As decisions of government; v. As formal authorization vi. As a prgramme; vii. As output; viii. As outcome; ix. As a theory or model; x. As a process. Unfortunately the policy itself is something which takes different forms. There is thrust to designate policyas the„outputs‟ of thepoliticalsystem, andin alesser degreeto definepublic policyas „more or less interdependent policies dealing with many different activities. Studies of public policy areas, on the contrary, have tended to focus on the evaluation of policy decisions in terms of specified values- a rational rather than a policy analysis. The magnitude of this problem can be recognized from the other definitions, which have been advanced by scholars in this field. Y.D ror, one of the leading students of the policy sciences, defines policies as “genral directives on the main lines of action to be followed”. Similarly Peter Self defines policies as “changing directives as to how tasks should be interpreted and performed”. To Sir Geoffrey Vickers, policies are “decisions giving direction, coherence and continuity to the courses of action for which the decision- making body is responsible”.
Carl Friedrich regards policy as “….a proposed course of action of a person, gropu, or government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or a purpose”. James Anderson suggests that policy be regarded as “ a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern”. Taken as a whole, policy may be defined as a purposive course of action taken or adoptedbythoseinpowerinpursuitofcertaingoalsorobjectives.Itshouldbe addedhere that public policies are the policies adopted and implemented by government bodies and officials. DavidEastondefinespublicpolicyas“theauthoritativeallocationofvalues forthewholesociety”. Public policies are formulated by what Easton calls the “authorities” in a political system, namely, “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors, monarchs, and the like”. According to him, these are the persons who “engage in the daily affairs of a political system”, are “recognized by most members of the system as having responsibility for thesematters” and take actions that are “accepted as bindingmost of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of their roles”. Public policy focuses on what J. Dewy (1927) once described as “the public and its problems”. ThomasDye‟sDefinitionstates:Publicpolicyiswhatevergovernmentschoosetodoornot todo”.Similarly,RobertLineberrysaysthat“itiswhatgovernmentsdoandfailtodo-toandfor their citizens”. In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do and what they actually do. NATURE OF PUBLIC POLICY A Policy may be general or specific, broad or narrow, simple or complex, public or private, written or unwritten, explicit or implicit, discretionary or detailed, and qualitative or quantitative. Here the emphasis is on “Public Policy” which is what a government chooses as guidance for action. From the view point of public policy, activities of government can be put into three categories. First, activities which are attached to specified policies; second, activities which are general in nature; and third, activities which are based on vague and inconsistent policies. However, in practice, a government rarely has a set of guiding principles for all its activities. Important public policies areoftenmademoreexplicit, particularlywhere theissueof alaw, a regulation, or a plan and the like isinvolved. A Public Policymaycover amajor portion of its activities which are consistent withthe development policy. Socio- Economic Development, Equality, Liberty, Self- reliance or similar broad principles of guidance for action may be adopted as a development policy or national goal. A Public Policy may be narrow, covering a specific activity,such as Family Planning. A Public Policy may also be appliedto all peopleina country or it may be limitedto asection of its people. Besides, each level of government- Federal, Sub- National, Zonal, Woreda and Kebele level-mayhaveitsspecificorgeneralpolicies.Thenthereare„MegaPolicies‟.GeneralGuidelines to be followed by all specific policies are termed as “mega policy”. According to Dror, „Mega policies‟ form a kind of master policy, as distinct from concrete discrete policies, and involve the establishment of overall goals to serve as guidelines for the larger sets of concrete and specific policies. All policies generally contain definite goals or objectives in more implicit or explicit terms. Policies have outcomes that may or not have been foreseen. Public policies in modern political system are purposive or goal-oriented statements. Again a Public Policy may be either positive or negative in form. In its Positive form, it may involve some form of overt government action to deal with a particular problem. On the other hand, in its negative form, it involves a decision by public servants not to take action on some matter on which a government order is sought. Public Policy has a legally coercive quality that‟s citizens accept as legitimate, e.g., Taxes must be paid unless one wants to run the risk of fine or Jail sentences. This legally coercive quality of public policies makes public organizations distinct from the private organizations. The nature of policy as a purposive course of action can be better or more fully understood if it is compared with the following relatedconcepts 1. Policy- Making and Decision Making 2. Policies and Goals 3. Policy making and Planning 4. Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy 5. Policy Analysis and Policy Management 6. Policy Inputs,PolicyOutputs and PolicyOutcomes Policy- Making and Decision- Making Policy- making is closely related to decision- making. However, it is not same as decision- making. Policy- Making does involve decision- making, but a decision does not necessarily constitute a policy. Decision- making often involves an identification of a Problem, a careful analysis of possible alternatives and a selection of one alternative for action. Generally decisions are taken by the administrators in their day-to- day work within the existing framework of policy. The Policy decisions eventually taken thus provide a sense of direction to the courses of administrative action. Anderson says: “Public decisions are decisions made by public officials that authorize or give direction and content to public policy actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive orders, promulgate administrative rules, or make important judicial interpretations of laws. Policies and Goals Policies are distinct from goals and can be distinguished from the latter as means from ends. By goals or objectives one means the ends towards which actions are directed. It is reasonable to expect that a policy indicates the direction towards which action is sought. Policies involve a deliberate choice of actions designed to attain those goals and objectives. The actions can take the form of directives to do or refrain from certain actions. Public Policy is about means
and ends, which have to have a relationship to each other. To say that policy- making involves a choice of goals or objectives is to argue that it deals with values. Policies as well asvalues are chosenunderthe influenceof values. Decision makers often actonthebasisoftheirbeliefsorperceptionsofthepublicinterestconcerningwhatisaproper or morally correct public policy. Thus goals and objectives depend on the values of the policy- makers. This could be explained in the following manner: Many students of policy sciences would like to apply science or reason (making use of the rationality model) for the determination of policy objectives and goals. They try to solve problems mainlybyusingsuchobjectivemethodsasoperationsresearchorcost-benefitanalysis soaslimit policy objectives. Such an approach, based on a rationality model can, however, be applied only to a limited number of problems. Policy- making and Planning Policy- making must be distinguished from Planning. Broadly speaking, a plan is a programme of action for attaining definite goals or objectives. In this sense, a plan is a policy statement and planning implies policy-making. Often the goals or policies of a plan are not stipulated in the plan documents. They may be stated only in very general or vague terms, or are found to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. A National Development Plan, broadly speaking, is a collection of targets or individual projects which, when put together, may not constitute an integrated scheme. Allocation of resources for investments and showing of targets in different sectors of the economyareconsideredtobeatthecoreofplanning.However,ithasbeenaptlystatedthata plan needs a proper policy framework. Targets cannot be achieved just because investments are providedfor. Theyhavetobedrawn withintheframework ofPolicies.Successfulpoliciesmakefor successful plans and administration. Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy A distinction may be drawn between Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy. Policy Analysis is nothing more than finding out the impact of policy. It is a technique to measure organizational effectivenessthroughanexamination andevaluationoftheeffectofaprogram. “PolicyAnalysisis a systematic and data- based alternative to intuitive judgments about the effects of policy or policy options. It is used: © for problem assessment and monitoring; © as a „before the fact‟ decision tool;and © for evaluation”. PolicyAnalysisisnotthesameasprescribingwhatpoliciesgovernments oughttopursue. Policy Advocacy is concerned with what governments ought to do, or bringing about changes in what they do through discussion, persuasion, organization and activism. On the other hand, Policy Analysis is concerned with examination of the impact of policy using the tools of systematic inquiry. Thomas Dye labels “Policy Analysis” as the “the thinking man‟s response” to demands. The policy Analysis has three basic concerns. First, its primary concern is the “explanation” of policy rather than the “prescription” of policy. Secondly, it involves a rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies through the use of tools of systematic inquiry. Thirdly, it involves an effort todevelop and test general propositions aboutthe causes and consequences of public policies. Thus Policy Analysis can be both scientific as well as relevant to the problems of society. The role of Policy Analysis is not to replace but to supplement political Advocacy. As Wildavsky (1980) has argued: “The purpose of policy analysis is not to eliminate advocacy but to raise the level of argument among contending interests… The end result, hopefully, would be higher quality debate and perhaps eventually Public choice among better known alternatives”. Policy Analysis and Policy Management The distinction between Policy Analysis and Policy Management needs to be highlighted, though in practice these two related processes overlap to some extent. According to Dror, „policy analysis‟ deals with the substantive examination of policy issues and the identification of preferable alternatives, in part with the help of systematic approaches and explicit methods. „Policy management‟ deals with the management of policy-making and policy-preparation process, to assure that it produces high quality policies. The interdependence of policy analysis andpolicymanagementcanbeseeninthenecessityof assuring, withthehelpof appropriate policy management, that adequate policy analysis is undertaken as part of crisis management systems and reinforcing innovativeness. Policy Analysis covers several methods and concepts, some of which are quantitative in character, including methods like social experimentation, game stimulation and contingency planning. Despite such distinctions between policy analysis and policy management, both are interrelated aspects of policy- making and cover a major part of the tasks of senior administrators. Therefore, it is essential that these two processes should be treated jointly. Policy Inputs, Policy Outputs and Policy Outcomes Policy inputs are the demands made on the Political systems by individuals and groups for action or inaction about some perceived problems. Such demands may include a general inconsistence that government should do something to aproposal for specific action on thematter. In the Political system Model, outputsare regarded either as effects on the environment or as „feedback‟ to the Political Supporters of the system. Easton says that outputs are said to constitutea bodyor specific inducements forthe members of apolitical system tosupport it, either by threats of sanctions, rewards for support given, or by socialization into the political norms of the society. 7 8
In other words, Policy outputs are the actual decisions of the implementers. They are what a Government does, as distinguished from what it says it is going to do. Examples of Policy Outputs relate to such matters as the education institutions built, taxes collected, compensation paidor curbs on thetrade eliminated.Outcomes are real resultswhether intendedor unintended. Policy outputs are, however, different from policy outcomes. The concept of outcomes lays stress on what actually happens to the target groups intended to be affected by the policy, If the intendedchanges ontargetgroupsdo notoccur,somethingiswrong.Labourwelfarepoliciesmay be used to illustrate this point. Although one can measure welfare policy outputs- the amount collected by way of taxation, the number of persons helped, the amount of benefits paid and the like- it is difficult to measure the consequences of these actions. Here our intention is to evaluate thepolicies.Inotherwords,itmeansassessingwhetherthepoliciesactuallyachievewhattheyare intended to achieve SCOPE OF PUBLIC POLICY Asignificant part of thestudyof publicpolicyconsistsofthedevelopment ofscenarios(Postulated sequence of future events) and extrapolations (calculate approximately from the known data) of contemporary trends. The scope and the sheer (neither too much or too low) size of the Public sector has grown enormously in all the developing countries in response to the increasing complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization and urbanization. At present the functions of practically all governments, especially of the developing countries have significantly increased. They are now concerned with the more complex functions of Nation- Building and Socio-EconomicProgress.Todaythegovernmentisnotmerelythekeeperofpeace,thearbiterof disputes, the provider of common goods and day-to- day services. It has directly or indirectly, become the principal innovator, the major determiner of social and economic programmes and the main financier as well as the main guarantor of large-scale enterprises. In many developing countries, there is great pressure on governments to accelerate national development, make use of up-to-dateand relevant technological innovations, adopt and facilitate necessary institutional changes, increase national production, make full use of human and other resources and improve the level of living. These trends and developments have therefore enhancedboththeSize andScopeof PublicPolicy.MichaelTeitzdescribestheoutreachofpublic policy in terms of the citizen‟s lifecycle:- “A modern urban man is born in a publicly financed hospital, receives his education in publicly supported school or university, spends a good part of his time travelling on publicly built transportation facilities, communicates through the post office or the quasi- public telephone system, drinks his public drinking water, disposes of his garbage through the public removal system, read his library books, picnic in his public parks, is protected by public police ,fire and health systems, eventually, he dies again in a hospital and may be buried in a public cemetery. Ideological conservatives notwithstanding his everyday life are inextricably bound up with government decisions on these and numerous other public services.” The line of argument developed here is that all of us are greatly affected by the myriad (countless) Public Policies in oureveryday lives.The range of public policy is vast: fromvital to the trivial. Today Public Policies may deal with such substantive areas as defense, environment protection, medical care, health, education, housing, taxation, inflation, science and technology, and so on. POLICY TYPES Some social scientists and scholars have attempted to discuss the typologies of Policy issues. These facilitate the comparison between issues and Policies. Lowi, for example, suggests a Classification of Policy Issues in terms of being:  Distributive Policy Issues: Policy issues which are concerned with the distribution of new resources.  RedistributivePolicy Issues:arethosewhichareconcernedwithchangingthedistributionof existing resources.  Regulative Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with regulation and control of activities.  Constituent Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with the setting –up (or) reorganization of institutions. Each of these Policy issues forms a different power arena. However it may be mentioned here that LOWI‟s view of Politics as a function of policies has been criticized as over- simplistic, methodologically suspect, and testability. Cobbe and Elder, for instance, observe that Lowi‟s typology has basic limitations. It does not provide a framework for understanding change as the types become less clear and more diffuse.  Conflict Policy Issues: Cobbe and Elder propose an alternative classification of Policy issues in terms of conflict rather than content. Their focus is on the way in which Conflict is createdandmanaged.Tothem aConflictmayarisebetweentwoormoregroupsover issues relating to the distribution of positions (or) resources. These may created by such means and devices as: a) manufacture by a contending party who perceive unfairness (or) bias in the distribution of positions (or) resources b) manufacture of an issue for Personal or Group gain; and c) unanticipated human events, natural disasters, international conflict, war and technological changes. Such issues then constitute the agenda for Policy- making are known as Conflict Policy issues.  Bargaining Policy Issues: Hogwood and Wilson use the criteria of costs and benefits from the point of view of the possibilities of different outcomes, forms of bargaining and conflict and a range of alternatives. There are redistribution or cuts issues which involve bargaining over who get what, who gets more, and who gets less. For Wilson, criteria of costs and benefits may be concentrated (or) dispersed. An Issue, which may have very 10
concentratedbenefitstoasmallsectionofsocietybutwhosecostsarewidelydispersed,is of a different kind to one that may be for, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. SIGNIFICANCE AND WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY Most governments of third World countries are engaged in the momentous task kindling national resurgence through Socio- Economic development. They are struggling hard to develop their economy, to sustain improvements in the social system and to increase the capacity of their political system with a view to achieving the major objective or national development. They seek to improve relevant policies. It is therefore, taken for granted that the study of approaches, strategies and concepts which will contribute towards this end are essential. The study of Public Policy represents a powerful approach for this purpose. Public Policy is an important mechanism formovingasocialsystem from thepasttothefuture.Ithelpstoshapethefuture. AlvinToffler exposed the problem of adjustment to rapid change in his Popular sociological book, “Future Shock”. The future requires Policies and Choices. What is trivial today may be of colossal (huge) importance in a future decade later. We can understand the future by extrapolation of the presenttrends.Wemaytaketheideaofprojectingsomekeysocialtrends intothefuture. Public Policyis conditionedby thepast.Howthepresentdimensions ofPublicPolicyinthe developing countries emerged, how they now appear, how the present sustains them are importantquestions inthestudyofpublicpolicy.Inthesecountries,thescopeandthesheersizeof the public sector has grown enormously in response to the increasing complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization, urbanization and environmental protection. The Growth of publicfunctions has paralleled thegrowth ofpublic policies.The studyofthepast isveryimportant as it helps in explaining the present policy system. The past policies perpetuate themselves into present and future policies. The study of Public Policy is of vital importance for the present. It deals with the definition of a policy problem. The definition of a problem may generate more conflict than consensus. In Policy making Political power tends to impose upon the definitions of the problem. The present policy making can be thought of as problem- solving behavior, realizing that the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument ofpower. The earliest writings of Political Scientists reveal an interest in the policies pursued by variousgovernments andtheirimpacts onsociety.Yetthefocusofattentionhasneverreallybeen on the policies themselves but rather on the political processes and institutions of government. This is not to say, however, that traditional political science was unconcerned with policy. Constitutional policy, Foreign Policy and Policies relating to civil rights were also the subjects of attention.The focus of attention was primarily on the institutions andthe structures of government inwhich public policy wasformulated.Thestudies,however, did notexplorethelinkagesbetween important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy. Currently, the focus of Political Science is shifting to Public Policy- to the description, analysis and explanation of the causes and consequences of governmentactivity. WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY? Earlier, most people assumed that once the legislature passed a Law and appropriated money for it, the purposes of the law would be achieved. They believed that governments could achieve such goals as the elimination of poverty and the prevention of crime through the adoption of right policies. But now there is a growing uneasiness among social scientists about the effectiveness of the governments. The results have been the sudden awakening of interest in the study of public policy. Policy in the main may be studied for two reasons: ◉ For developing policy science study ◉ For Political and administrativereasons ForDevelopingPolicyScienceStudy First of all, public policy can be studied with a view to gaining greater knowledge and understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions. An understanding of the linkages between the environment and public policy contributes to the development of policy science.Notonlythis,anunderstandingofthecausesandconsequences ofpublicpolicyhelpsus toapply scientific knowledgeto the solution of practical social problems. Theprofessionals, ifthey understand and know something about public policy, are in a position to say something useful concerning how governments or public authorities can act to achieve their policy goals. Such advice can either be on what policies can be pursued for achieving particular goals or what environmental factors are conducive to the development of a given policy. Indeed factual knowledge is a prerequisite to solving the problems of society. In other words, the study of public policyhelpsthedevelopmentofprofessionaladviceabouthowtoachieveparticulargoals. For Political and Administrative Reasons Public policy can also be studied for political and administrative reasons in order to ensure that governments select and adopt appropriate policies. The study of Public policy has much to offer to the development of administration in different sectors of the economy. It will enable the administration to engage in such issues as are of public importance and are concerned with the transformation of values into public policy-making and demanding the meaningful actions of public servants. The social scientists, especially political scientists, manifest concern with what governments should do with appropriate public policy. They contend that political science cannot be „silent‟ or „impotent‟ on current social and political problems and that political scientists and academics in Public Administration have a moral obligation to put forward a particular policy on a particular problem. They should advance the level of political knowledge and improve the quality of public policy in whatever ways they think best, notwithstanding the fact that substantial disagreement exists in society over what constitutes approximate policies. COMPONENTS OF A PUBLIC POLICY Definition of Components of Public Policy Austin Ranney explains the various components of Public Policy in the following manner: * A Particular object or Set of objects-- Some designated part of the environment (an aspect of society or the physical world) which is intended to be affected. 11 12
* A Desired Course of events– A popular sequence of behaviour desired in a particular object or set of objects. * A Selected line of action– A particular set of actions chosen to bring about the desired course of events, * in other words, not merely whatever society happens to be doing towards the set of objectives at the moment, but a deliberate selection of one line of action from among several possible options. * An implementation of Intent-- the actions actually undertaken vis-à-vis the particular set of objects in pursuance of the choices and declaration. Policies may be explicit, but theymay remain implicit also. A policy may be made explicit in a piece of formally enacted legislation but it may also be inferred from the broad pattern of administrative action and behaviour. A policy in other words, is distilled from the administrative practices also; administrative practice is the true test of a policy. AUTONOMY IN POLICY MAKING Public Policy making assumes that the policy makers enjoy complete independence from external control and are autonomous in regard to policy making. The unfortunate fact is that though the Third World Countries have gained political independence, many of them may not really be independent in the matter of policy- making. Many new states are in practice dependent states, mainly because of the nature of their elite. Most of the developing countries have narrow-based elite which has hogged (Controlled) social, economic and political power and is confined to a few urban centers which, in turn, are hitched to a colonial system dominated by metropolitan “super centers” lying outside these countries. The local Elite is engaged in a plantation- Type Economy and in the manipulation of the civil –military cliques (small exclusive group of people) in domestic politics. This monopoly and the narrow social base of such an elite, which effectively restricts independent policy making, must be broken. The current dependent status can be escaped by firm adoption of two meta- policies; these are the Policies behind Policies: i. Import substitution leading to economic sufficiency and transforming the colonial economy to an independent industrial system, and ii. A nation‟s armament and defensepolicy. iii. Thus, Policies underlying import substitution and national defense are the essential concomitants (occurring together) of political independence. Other constraints are also encountered by national policy makers. One such is the factor of „sunk cost‟. The former commitments effectively limit policy alternatives and thus choices. Governmental fragmentation, too, denies the policy makers the ability to attack problems comprehensively. For instance, The Ministry of Health in Ethiopiadiscourages cigarette smoking, butother agencies encourage tobacco- cultivation. Theconflictingdevelopmental policies tendto neutralize the impact of the national policy on smoking. Another Powerful constraint is the empirical reality as pointed out by Herbert Simon, namely the existence of the administrative (or „Satisfying‟) man in Public Administration. The „Administrative man‟ works out a few alternatives of a problem and then a few consequences of each of these alternatives of a problem, before making a choice. The existence of the administrative man is also a constraint on public policy making. No policy maker can flout (ignore) the public opinion. Finally, the state of economic and infra-structural development in the country also acts as aconstraint against the adoption of certain categories of Policy. If a state suffers from paucity of power supply, its policy regarding industrialization cannot succeed. One must never forget the policy making itself involves dealing with conflicting demands. There is also the all-too well-known conflict between the economists and the ecologists. While economists insist on rapid industrialization in the country, the environmentalists plead for conservation of natural resources an thus stand for eco- friendly development. One may see from the above that public policy making is a complex process, involving a wide range of institutions, interests and mechanisms. As Peter Woll, says, “The Policy making process is a complex mechanism involving all levels of government, and a wide range of political institutions that shape the demands and supports of government. At the earliest stages of the evolution of public policy analysis, the concern was to study processes by which public policies are made. The contents of public policies received little attention. Gradually the study of „contents‟ of public policies began to claim more and more attention, and is today the dominant feature of policy studies in the developing countries. Substantive issues are as a result more hotly pursued by public administrators and political scientists. Substantive issues are what Herbert Simon calls „prescribing for Public Policy. Nearly all thespecialissueslikeenvironmentdevelopment,childwelfare, populationandeducation.Alltold, the sub-field of public policy has rapidly emerged as a glamorous one. 14
INTRODUCTION CHAPTER- II POLICY ANALYSIS 2. A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of Public Policies. This search involves the use of scientific standards of inference. Sophisticated quantitative techniques may be helpful in establishing valid inferences about causes and consequences, but they are not really essential. Thestudyof publicpolicypreparesandhelps ustocopebetterwiththefuture.Itimprovesour knowledge about thesociety. Animportant part of thestudyof public policyis concerned with society‟sfuture.AsGibsonWinterhasobserved;“Theproblemofpolicyisultimatelyhowthefuture is grasped and appraised. The essential meaning of responsibility is accountability in human fulfillmentinshapingofthesociety‟s future”.Inspite oftheimportanceofthepublicpolicy,thinking about the future is quite primitive, both among social scientists and policy makers in developing countries.Howevertherehasbeenconsiderablegrowthinresearchandtraininginpolicyanalysis since the early 1970s in many developed countries. In most developed countries, Policy Analysis has been substantially stimulated by the government‟s increased concern for public policy problems.Theattractivenessofthegovernmentasaresearchsponsorhasalsobeenenhanced. MEANING AND ISSUES OF POLICYANALYSIS Questions of policy ultimately rest on the application of acknowledge to political decisions. Such knowledge is generated both within andoutside the government agencies and other public affairs institutions. An understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions permits us to apply the knowledge of social science to the solution of practical problems. The acquisition and dissemination of information about public policies have become a major theme in social sciences, especially in the discipline of public administration. The use of such knowledge for making, managing and evaluating public policy is generally termed as policy analysis. Policy Analysis is a technique to measure organizational effectiveness throughthe examinationandevaluation oftheeffectofaprogramme.Publicpolicyanalysis thusnothingmore than estimating the impact of public policy on the government programmes. The Dictionary of Public Administration defines policy analysis as “a systematic and data- basedalternativetointuitivejudgementsabouttheeffectsofpolicyorpolicyoptions.Itisused a) for problem assessment andmonitoring, b) as a „before the fact‟ decision tool, and c) for evaluation”. Policy analysis encourages social scientists and policy-makers to examine policy issues and decisions with scientific tools. Thomas Dye Labels Policy analysis as the “the thinking man‟s response”todemands.Heobservesthatspecificallypublic analysisinvolves: 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 judgement that understanding is a prerequisiteto prescription, andthat understanding is a prerequisite to prescription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics 3. Aneffort todevelop and testgeneralpropositionsaboutthe causesand consequencesof publicpolicyandtoaccumulatereliableresearch findings ofgeneral relevance.Theobject is to develop general theories about public policy that are reliable and that apply to different governmental 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.” PolicyAnalysisasatechniqueputsdatatousein,ordecidingabout,estimatingandmeasuringthe consequences of public policies. Its Purpose is twofold. It provides maximum information with minimal cost about i. the likely consequences of proposed policies, & ii. the actual consequences of the policies already adopted. To achieve these two purposes, various methods or approaches are applied. Among the principal methodologies are: a) Systems Analysis and Simulation; b) Cost- Benefit Analysis; c) New Approaches to Budgeting; d) Policy Experimentation; and e) Policy Evaluation Policy Analysis is thus an interdisciplinary drawing upon data from other disciplines. It is essentially impact research. A number of trends have occurred in policy analysis research since the early 1970s. Stuart S. Nagel has identified four key elements to it which have been undergoing a change over the past 20 years. These are: i. the goals with which policy analysis isconcerned, ii. the means for achieving thosegoals, iii. themethodsfordeterminingtheeffects of alternativemeans ongoal-achievement,and iv. the profession of policy analysis which is applying these methods in relating means to goals. Goals refer to the societal benefits minus societal costs that one is seeking to achieve through publicdecisions.Thereisagreatertrendtowardsconsideringgoalsasgivenhypothesesandthen attempting to determine what policies will maximize or optimize them. The crime reduction field providesagoodexampleoftheneedforanapproachtothisproblem.Onthemeanselement, there is a growing need for means that are politically and administratively feasible. The environment policy provides a good example of this approach. There is also an increasing concern to draw upon the various social sciences to suggest alternative policies or means. As regards the methods, they refer to the procedures whereby one can determine the relations between alternative policies and given goals. 16
PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524) PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524) Policy analysis is developing increased precision in its methods, but at the same time, it recognizesthefactthatsimplemethodsmaybeallthatisnecessaryfornumerouspolicyproblems. How to provide counsel to the poor in civil cases is a good example to illustrate this point. Finally on the element of the profession of policy analysis, there is a substantial growth in the policy analysis training programmes, research centers, funding resources, scholarly associations and other government institutions. Policy analysis is not a discipline like economics, sociology or political science. It is thriving as a sub discipline of the various social sciences and as an inter discipline depending on the existing field of economics, political science, and other social and even natural sciences. As Eugene Bardach observes: “Unlike most social science research, most policy research is derivative rather than original. That is, it is produced by creative play with ideas and data already developed by others.” Policy Analysts and Concerns There are varieties of groups and people, academics, independent research institutions, pressure and interest groups, political parties, free- lance consultants) who are involved in policy analysis and are concerned with: i. problems and the relationship of public policies to these problems ii. the content of public policies; iii. what the policy- makers do; iv. the likely future consequences of policy in terms of outputs and outcomes. Someanalysts, forexamplemaybeinterestedinthe roleof political parties inshapingpolicy, others in the impact of bureaucracy on decision- making, the role of professionals in policy delivery. Analysts may focus on different stages of the policy process, such as policy formulation, implementation, or evaluation. PUTTING ANALYSIS TO WORK Policyanalysishascometoberecognizedasanimportanttechniqueinassessingpolicyproblems as well as policy impacts. It makes use of the required information in examining, deciding about, and finally, measuring the consequences of public policies. Since it is concerned with organizational effectiveness, a framework for policy analysis may be required. Such a policy analysis framework would identify both the kinds of information used to define policy, and also the analytic processes. Policy Process Figure-1 The abovefigure- 1indicatesthe basiclinkages of aframework for thesystematic analysis of information and its use in a policy- related context. The basis to the framework is a process of information for policy analysis which is derived from system or programme performance in terms of the interaction among: “1. inputs that indicate needs and demands; 2. processes related to the provision of long- term care services; 3. outputs in terms of the use of services and costs of care; and 4. outcomes that identify the end results of certain courses of action”. Basedontheappraisalofsystemsperformanceusingtheabovelinkages,issuesforvariousgoals can be identified. Once these issues are identified, information is analyzed in terms of how it pertains to the larger issues (for example, health, illness and the quality of life.) In this way, issues related to the needs and demands are defined in terms of health and illness as well as other coexisting social problems. For example, in the context of National Heath Policy, the inputs (in term of needs and demands) comprise health, illness and the quality of life, expressed in physical, psychological, social,andenvironmental terms.Needs aretheconditions that askforaction.Theyareamongthe most important predictors of utilization, and are mostly described in such terms of diagnosis, 17 18
functional limitation, perceived illness, symptoms, or poor self- rated health status. On the other hand, demands are needed or not. Other inputs include resources, such as manpower, facilities and equipments, and performance standards. On the processes linkage, it is concerned with the delivery of services to meettheneedsanddemandsofclientsandprofessionals.Servicesaredescribedinsuchtermsas their kinds, delivery, management and controls of cost and quality. Other services include supports such as legal aid, income support, consumer education, and professional development. The outputs of service- related programmes are described in terms of the use of those services, the cost and the quality of care. Finally the outcomes are the responses to the services expressed in terms of the levels of well- being and health, and client and professional satisfaction that are attained as a result. The foregoing analytical framework facilitates programme evaluation which leads to rational policies and decisions about healthservices. STAGES IN POLICY ANALYSIS The stages in policy analysis can be put as follows: Identifying the Underlying Problem Forananalyticalapproach,thefirststepistoidentifywhetherandwhythereisaproblematall. Defining the problem involves moving from mundane descriptions to a more abstract, conceptual plane. Here an attempt should be made to diagnose the form of market failure that is confronted. For example, an environmentalist who is investigating alternative pollution control measures for theriverwillfindthatthewaterisbeingpollutedbydumpingofindustrialwastesanduntreated sewage into the river. Having identified the context of the problem the next step is to determine what objectives are to be achieved in confronting it. Too often, we lose sight of the rational objectives. Paying careful attention to the objectives is important. For example, the distribution of doctors is merely a means to the end of improving people‟shealth. Determining Alternatives for Policy Choice The next step is to determine alternative courses of action. Government intervention can take any form. It is important to determine which kind of intervention is most positive in any particular situation. In the case of the pollution of the river, consider the following possibilities: i. Abutters insomeareas of therivermight begrantedrights bythegovernment toclean water. They would then have the right to sue a polluter. ii. The government may require the concerned industrialists and cities and town dwellers to stop dumping wastes and untreated sewage into the river. It may otherwise impose restrictions on them on the amount of dumping. In the latter case, the government may prescribe such specifics as enforcement stringency of standards. iii. The government may permit polluters to purchase rights to discharge a certain amount of pollutants. Polluters may be required to pay effluent charges and to install pollution- control devices. iv. The regional state governments itself can directly undertakethe work of cleaning and removing the pollutants that other dump. These are some of the alternatives forpollution control. As difficulties are identified and additional information becomes available, reinforcement of alternative courses of action will continue throughout the analysis. Determining alternatives for policy choice generally offers a chance for creative thought as well as hard work. Often, the process is treated merely as a mechanical exercise, and consequently, attractive policies are not paid adequate attention, it rarely proceeds in a straightforward fashion from the identification of the problem to the selection of the preferred action. Forecasting and Evaluating the Alternatives Having identified the underlying problem and having determined the alternatives for policy choice, whatarethe consequences ofeach of thealternatives?Forthis, thepolicy analystwill turn to a relevant model for forecasting consequences. Inthe case of the pollution control problem, the models needed would be far more complex. Here, the analyst would have to build a model of how the quality of water in the river responds to the various types of pollution and weather conditions. Only then can he forecast the consequences, in terms of quality of water and the alternative measuresanddegreesofpollutioncontrol.Insuchacaseamodelbasedoncomputersimulationis themost appropriate. The analyst must alsotrytopredict theeffect ontheindividuals and the industrialists affected by various control measures on water quality. It is necessary here to predict all the effects of the proposed policies, not just the economic effects desired by the decision- maker. If the consequences of an alternative course of action are uncertain, and especially if the possible outcomes differwidelyfrom oneanother,theanalystmaywishtodevelopadecisiontreeand evaluate the probability of each outcome. For instance the river pollution case, it is difficult to predict with complete accuracy either the weather or future developments in pollution control measures, or the vagaries of the political executive. It is difficult to have a rational policy choice unlesstherelativemeritsofalternativeoptionsarecompared. Thequestion ofmeasuringsuccess in the pursuit of ach objectives is a difficult one. However, if the analysis is to recommend a policy decision,hemustfindsomewaytoevaluatethepossibledegreesofimprovementofwaterquality. Improvements in water quality will be achieved only at a very high cost, while the benefits of pollutioncontrol may have to bear a substantial portion of costs in administeringthe pollution control. These costs therefore must be evaluated. However, the effects of pollution controls will extendovermanyyearsandtherelativebenefitsandcostsmustbediscounted.Intheviewof such conflicting objectives, it becomes difficult for an elected or appointed policy- maker to make these tough policy choices. However, evaluation of the outcomes is of great importance as it reminds us to look carefully at the cost- benefit analysis of a particular policy choice. Too often, 20
policy choices have been sabotaged by bureaucrats and interested politicians. The analysts should seek the counsel of experts in thefield. Making a Choice The last step in policy analysis relates to making the preferred choice (course of action). The situation may be so simple for the policy- maker that he can simply look at the consequences predicted for each alternative and select the one that is best. In contrast, it may be so complex that he will have to think of his preferences among the various possible outcomes, i.e., how the world will behave in response to the possible choices. The policy process may be represented in the following diagrammatic form as shown in Figure 1. It has been observed that countless policy studies have led nowhere. Sometimes the fault is attributed to the public decision- makers who do not take advantage of readily accessible data. Too often, it is the producers of the analysis who are to be blame. Most policy analyses are gathering dust because they have not been properly understood. The analysis should be brought out in such a way that the essential points can be easily grasped and communicated. The choice among competing policy alternatives is complex, for the future is always uncertain. But, by enhancing our capability to forecast the consequences of the alternative courses of actions, and providingaframeworkforvaluingthoseconsequences,thetechniquesofpolicyanalysisleadusto better decisions. Limitations Asthefutureisalwaysuncertain,itisquestionablewhetherpolicyanalysiscanfindsolutionstothe problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, Unemployment, inequality, and the environmental pollution are some of the major problems in the developing countries. Of course, this is an excuse for failing to strive for a better society. It must be realized that solutions to these problems may be difficult to find. There are several reasons for tempering our enthusiasm for policy analysis. It has been observed that policy analyses are gathering dust because they are either too long or too hard to understand. A policy analysis is of no use if it cannot be communicated to others. Too often, the policy analysis deals with subjective topics and must rely upon the interpretation of results. Professional researchers often interpret the results of their analyses differently.Obviously,quitedifferentpolicyrecommendationscancomeoutfromthesealternative interpretations of the results of research. Secondly, policy analysis cannot provide solutions to problems when there is no general consensus on whatthe problems are. It is incapable of resolving societal value conflicts. At best,it can offer advice on how to accomplish a certain set of end values. It cannot determine what those end values should be. Furthermore, social science researchcannot bevalue- free. It is also very difficult for the government to cure all or even most of the maladies of society.Thegovernmentisconstrainedbymanyforces,bothfromwithinandoutside-suchforces, as population growth, patterns of family life, class structure, religious beliefs, diversity of cultures and languages, financial resources and so on, cannot be easily managed by the government. Some social ills are very complex. Then also there are the inherent limitations in the design of policy analysis research. For example, it becomes difficult to conduct some forms of controlled experiments on human beings. Further, it has been noted that the persons doing policy research are too often programme administrators who might be interested in providing the positive results of their programmes. It is desirable to separate research from policy implementation, but this seems to be a difficult thing to do. Another limitation of policy analysis is the fact that society‟s ills are so complex that analysts are incapable of predicting the impact of proposed policies. Social scientists largely fail to give proper advice to the policy- makers owing to lack of knowledge about individual and group behaviour. The fact that social scientists offer many contradictory recommendations indicates the absence of reliable scientific knowledge of social problems. Most of society‟s ills are shaped by so many forces that a simple explanation of them is hardly possible. Despitetheselimitationsonpolicyanalysis,itseemssafetosaythatsocialscientistscanat least attempt to measure the impact of present and past public policies and make this knowledge available to policy- makers. Reason, knowledge and scientific analysis are always better than the absence of any knowledge. Robert Lineberry notes that “Policy analysis rest on the assumption thatinformationisbetterthannoquestionsasked,evenwhenthe answersmaynot bedefinitive.” Policy analysis may not provide solutions to society‟s ills but it is still an appropriate tool in approaching policy questions. Policy analysis enables us to describe and explain the causes and consequences of public policy. Policy analysis is applied to inform the policy- maker about the likely future consequences of choosing various alternatives. 21 22
CHAPTER- III MODELS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the real world. It may be an actual physical representation- a model airplane, for example, or the tabletop buildings that urban planners use to show how things will look when proposed projects are completed.Oramodelmaybeadiagram-aroadmap,forexample,oraflowchartthat political scientistsuse to show how abill becomes law. Themodels usedin studyingpublic policy are conceptual models. Models serve many purposes. They simplify and clarify one‟s thinking about public policy and politics. They identify important aspects of policy problems. They help one to communicate with others by focusing on the essential features of political life. They direct one‟s efforts toabetterunderstandingof public policybysuggestingwhat is important andwhatisnot.Theysuggestexplanations forPublicpolicyandpredictitsconsequences. There are Various Models to help understand public policy. The Major Ones are: 1. Institutional model 2. Process Model 3. Group Model 4. Elite Model 5. Rational Model 6. Incremental Model 7. Game Theory Model 8. System Model 9. Optional Model 10. Market exchangeModel THE ELITE THEORY OR MODEL: The classic enunciation (articulation) of the elite theory is to be found in Gaetano Mosca‟s The Ruling Class. Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most causal eye. In all societies- from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawning‟s of civilization, supplies the first in appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism, down to the most advanced and powerful societies- two classes of people appeared a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class (ruling), always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, Whereas the second,(ruled), the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, Nowmore orless arbitrary (based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles) and violent, and supplies the first in appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism. Elite Political Direction Officials and Administrator Policy Execution M A S S The elite mass group model Theelitetheory ofpolicy-makingismostcloselyrelatedtopublicservants.Theyareperceived by this theory as a ruling elite rather than public servants. This theory contends that most peopleareapathetic anddonot possess therequisiteinformationtoequipthem forpolicy making. They are thus passive, and the small ruling elite makes the policies which reflect the rulers‟ values. The emphasis of the policies is on status . C.Wright Mills‟ The power elite provides the classic enunciation of the elite theory. EliteTheorycanbesummarizedbrieflyasfollows: Society is divided into few who have power and the many who do not. Only a small numberofpersons allocatevaluesforsociety;themasses donotdecidepublicpolicy.Thefew who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society. The movement of Non- Elites to Elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles. Elites share consensus on behalf of the basic values of the social system and the preservation of the system. PublicPolicydoesnotreflectthedemandsofthemassesbutrathertheprevailingvaluesof the elite. Changes in Public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary. Active Elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites. 23 24
SYSTEMS MODEL FOR POLICY ANALYSIS: The Policy making process has been regarded as a black box which converts the demands of the society into policies. David Easton in his Analysis of Political Systems argued that the political system was that part of the society engaged in the “authoritative allocation of values”. The systems approach to political analysis can be shown in the above figure. This sketch gives a rough idea of what political scientists have in mind when describing a political system. Demands are the claims made on the political system by individuals and groups to alter some aspects of the environment. Demands occur when individuals or groups, in response to environmental conditions, act to affect public policy. The environment is any condition or event defined as external to the boundaries of the political system.ThesupportsofaPoliticalsystemconsistoftherules,lawsandcustomswhichprovideabasisfor the existence of a political community and the authorities. The support is rendered when individuals or groups accept the decisions or laws. Supportsarethe symbolicormaterial inputsofasystem (suchasobeying laws,payingtaxes,oreven respecting the national flag) that constitute the Psychological and material resources of the system. At the heart of the political system are the institutions and personnel for the policy- making. These include the chief executive, legislators, judges and bureaucrats. In the system version they translate inputs into outputs. Outputs then are the authoritative value allocations of the political system, and these allocationsconstitutepublicpolicyorpolicies.Thesystemstheoryportrayspublicpolicyasanoutputofthe political system. The concept of feedback indicates that public policies may have a modifying effect on the environment and the demands generated therein, and may also have an effect upon the character of the political system. Policy outputs may generate new demands and new supports, or withdrawal of the old supports for the system. Feedback plays an important role in generating suitable environment for the future policy. The system preserves itself by i. producing reasonably satisfying outputs; ii. relying on deeply rooted attachments to the system itself; AdaptedfromEaston’s-AframeworkforPolicyAnalysis(1965) The Eastonian Black Box Model Notes: The Intra –Societal Environment – The Ecological system – Biological system – Personality system – Social System The Extra- Societal Environment – International political systems – International ecological systems – International social systems iii. using, or threatening to use, force. LIMITS OF SYSTEMS APPROACH TO POLICY ANALYSIS Thesystemstheoryisausefulaidinunderstandingthepolicy-makingprocess.ThomasDyesaysthat the value of the systems model to policy analysis lies in the questions that it poses: “ 1. What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate demands upon the political system? 2. What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to transform demands into public policy and to preserve itself over time? 3. How do environmental inputs affect the character of the political system? 4. How do characteristics of the political system affect the content of the public policy? 5. How do environmental inputs affect the content of public policy? 6. How does public policy affect,through feedback,the environment and thecharacter ofthe political system? Theusefulness ofthe systemsmodel for thestudyof public policy ishowever, limitedowing to several factors. It has been argued that this input- output model appears to be too simplistic to serve as a useful aid to understanding the policy- making process. This model is accused of employing the value- laden 25
techniques ofwelfareeconomicswhichare basedonthemaximizationofaclearlydefined„socialwelfare function‟. Another shortcoming of the traditional input- output model is that it ignores the fragmentary nature of the „black box‟. The missing ingredients in the systems approach are the “power, personnel, and institutions” of policy making. Lineberry observes that in examining these “we will not forget that political decision-makers arestronglyconstrainedbyeconomicfactorsintheenvironmentinthepoliticalsystem. ThisEastonianmodelalsoignoresan importantelementofthepolicyprocess,namely,thatthepolicy- makers (including institutions) have also a considerable potential in influencing the environment within which they operate. The traditional input- output model would see the decision- making system as “facilitative” and value-free rather than “causative”, i.e., as a completely neutral structure. In other words, structurevariationsinthesystems arefoundtobehavingnodirectcausaleffectonpublicpolicy. In the western democracies, the bureaucracy‟s role in the shaping of policy direction is largely technical and fairly minimal. The policy direction remains still largely in the traditional domain of the political elite. The other hand, in the developing countries where the state‟s objectives are not fully articulated and clear, the bureaucracy easily capitalizes on the process of policy selection out of alternative policy strategies. It does participate in the formulation of public policy in addition to performing purely technical tasks. Finally, the extent to whichthe environment, both internal and external, is saidto have an influence on the policy- making process is influenced by the values and ideologies held by the decision- makers in the system. It suggests that the policy making involves not only the policy content but also the policy- maker‟s perceptionsandvalues.Thevaluesheldbythepolicy-makers arefundamentally assumedtobecrucialin understanding the policy alternatives that aremade. INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO POLICYANALYSIS In a democratic society, a state is a web of government structures and institutions. The state performs many functions. It strives to adjudicate between conflicting social and economic interests. The positive state is regarded as the guardian of all sections of the community. It does not defend the predominance of any particular class or community. It tries to protect all economic interests by accommodating and reconciling them. No organisation has ever been able to succeed in its objectives across the whole range of public policies; and policy issues tend to be resolved in ways generally compatible with the preferences of the majority of the public. In the pluralist society, the activities of individuals and groups are generally directed toward governmental institutions such as legislature, executive, judiciary, bureaucracy, etc. Public policy is formulated, implemented and enforced by governmental institutions. In other words, a policy does not take the shape of a public policy unless it is adapted and implemented by the governmental institutions. Government institutions give public policy three different characteristics. Firstly, the government gives legal authority to policies. Public policy is the outcome of certain decisionsandischaracterizedbytheuseoflegal sanctions.Itisregarded asalegal obligationwhich commands the obedience of the people. Secondly, theapplicationof public policyis universal.Only public policies extend to all citizensin the state. 27 Thirdly, public policies involve coercion. It is applied to the acts of government in backing up its decisions. A policy conveys the idea of a capacity for imposing penalties, through coercion of a kind usually reserved to the government itself. Only the government can legally impose sanctions on violators of itspolicies.Sincethegovernmenthas theabilitytocommand theobedienceofits entirepeople, to formulate policies governing the whole country and to monopolize the coercion, the individuals and groups generally work for the enactment of their preferences into policies. As such, there is a close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. It is not surprising, then that political scientists would focus on the study of governmental structures and institutions. The institutional study has become a central focus of public policy. Thus one of the models of the policy- making system might be called the institutional theory because it depends on the interactions of those institutions created by the constitution, government or legislature. In Policy- making, power is exercised by different individuals and groups, such as the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, leaders of interested groups. Each exercise of power constitutes one of the influences which, in totality go to make up the policy- making process. This is to say that there is a process through which public policy is enacted. The process generally comprises a sequenceofrelateddecisionsmadeunderthepowerfulindividuals andgroups,whichtogetherform what is known as state institutions. The institutional approach is concerned with explaining how social groups and governmental institutions bring influence to bear on those entitled to take and implement legally- binding decisions. Such decision- makers include those who office within the formal and constitutional system of rules and regulations which give formal authority and power to the various positions within the governmental structures and institutions. The institutional approach attempts to study the relationship between public policy and governmentalinstitutions. Institutionalism, with its focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions, can be applied in policy analysis. The structures and institutions and their arrangements and interactions can have a significant impact on public policy. Governmental institutions are structured patterns of behaviour of individuals and groups which persist over a period of time. In the past, the government structures and institutions have been a central focus of political science. Traditionally, the focus of study was the description of governmental structures and institutions. The approach did not devote adequate attention to the linkages between government structures and the content of public policy. The focus of the institutional approach was withoutany systematic enquiry about the impact of these institutional characteristics on public policy decisions. The study of linkage between government structures andpolicy outcomes remained largely unanalyzed and neglected. Despite its narrow focus, the structural approach is not outdated. Government institutions are, in fact, a set of patterns of behaviour of individuals and groups. These affect both the decision- making and the content of public policy. The institutional approach suggests that government institutions may be structured in such ways as to facilitate certain policy outcomes. These patterns may give an advantage to certain interests in society and withhold this advantage from other interests. Rules and institutional arrangements are usually not neutral in their impact. In fact they tend to favour some interests in society over others. Certain individual groups may enjoy, therefore, greater power or access to government power under one set of structured 28
patterns than under another set. Inother words, there is the impact of institutional characteristics on policy outcomes. Under the institutional one can study the relationships between the institutional arrangementsandthecontentof publicpolicy.Thepolicyissuescanbeexaminedina systematicfashion and involve a focus on institutionalarrangements. The value of the institutional approach to policy analysis lies in askingwhat relationships exit between institutional arrangements and the content of public policy, and also in investigating these relationships in a comparative fashion. It would not be good to assume that a particular change in institutional structure would bring about changes in public policy. Without investigating the true relationship between structure and policy, it is difficult to assess the impact of institutional arrangements on public policies. Thomas Dye says that “ both structure and policy are largely determined by environmental forces, and that tinkering with institutional arrangements will have little independent impact on public policy if underlying environmental forces- social, economic, and political- remain constant”. LINDBLOM’S INCREMENTAL MODEL OR INCREMENTALISM The word „increment‟ means „a small increase in quantity‟, to add a small amount to‟, to often at regular intervals. The fundamental concept of incrementalism is contained in „organizational drift‟, 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Policy Increments „satisficing‟,Theincrementalisttheorycontendsthatonlylimitedpolicyalternativesareprovidedtopolicy- makers andeach of these alternatives represent only avery small change in thestatus quo. The incrementalist theory plus the bureaucracy in a conservative mould ever tied to the past and slow to change. Incremental theory is conservative. It does not question the validity of past policies which were formulated in a piecemeal way under parochial considerations. It is historical and atheoretical also. The incrementalist theory assumes- wrongly- that the present limits of knowledge and prediction would ever continue. But it is politically expedient (appropriate). As it is difficult to have agreeduponsocietal policies,thereiseasyagreementonincrementalist theory: existingpoliciesthusget continued. Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past activities with only incremental modifications. Incrementalism has been increasingly used in public administration since the sixties when Charles E. Lindblom popularized it in 1959 in his paper „The science of Muddling through‟ published in Public Administration Review (Vol.19, spring 1959). What incrementalism means is the gradual and modest increase in specific governmental allocations, that is, budget. Since the seventies, a reverse trend in public administration in most countries is in evidence which goes by the name of „cutback management‟. This has induced some like George H. Fredrickson to cointheantonym„decementalism‟.Decrementalismsignifiesgraduallydecreasingfinancialallocations According to Lindblom‟s theory, public administration is not governed by principles nor is administration separated from politics in a unified administrative system.Nor does Lindblom think that an administrator is the optional rationalizer of efficiency and and effectiveness. The truth is that public administration is the art of the possible in the modern pluralistic world of competitive interest groups. An administrator muddles, not manages. Negotiation and strategy are his operational tools as he aims to devise an „agreeable‟ compromise. This confused manner of incremental decision making produces social harmony, unity, stability and equilibrium in a fluid environment of ever- changing interest –groups. The incremental model has its advantages, but its limitations are no less obvious. First and foremost, this approach, is inherently conservative, even status quoits. It makes it very difficult for the government to direct the society it wants, for example, for its penetrative strategy is diffused, multi- dimensional and mutually contradictory. Incrementalism tends to be reinforcing: every interest group builds up support in the corresponding governmental department, which lobbies for the farmers‟s continuance. This leads to involvement of more and more agencies, rendering difficult the problems of coordination.Secondly, as incrementalism believes in adoption of small steps inchanging apolicy, itmay end up in unintended and unforeseen consequences. American scholars cite the case of the American Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 as the culmination of incremental approach. This approach is notoriously weakin organizational memory theoriginalmotivatingconsiderations getoverlooked.Thirdly where the challenge is to re-direct and re-construct the entire society, the incremental model of decision- making is not to the preferred and adopted. THE RATIONALIST THEORY OF POLICY- MAKING 29 30 Past Policy Commitments
Rationality and rationalism are words too often found and used in the literature of social science, but they are more widely espoused than practiced in policy- making. However, rationality is considered to be the „yardstick of wisdom‟ in policy-making. The rationality precept emphasizes that policy-making is making a choice among policy alternatives on rational grounds. Rational policy making is “to choose the one best option”. Robert Haveman observes that a rational policy is one which is designed to maximize “net value achievement”. Thomas Dye equates rationality with efficiency. “ A policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, if the ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other policy alternative”. He further says the idea of efficiency involves the calculation of all social, political, and economic values sacrificedor achievedby apublic policy,justnotthosethatcan bemeasured indollars. In a sense, the rationalist theory is the opposite of the incrementalist theory. The rationalist theory seeks to find out allthe value preferences extant in a society, assign each value a weightage, find out allthe alternatives as well as theconsequences of eachalternative andin theendmakethefinal 2. Search behaviour for alternatives stands foreclosed by past policies and decisions. This is „Sunk Cost‟. 3. Information collection itself faces limits. Not only is there the problem of cost, the time involved in collecting information sets a limit aswell. 4. The segmental nature of policy- making in government organizations stands in the way of coordination of decision- making. Asa result, contradictorypoliciesare seen to be in operation in the government. 5. The techniques of cost- benefit analysis cannot apply where diverse political, social, economic and cultural values are at stake. 6. Even otherwise, it is very difficult to assess accurately the benefits and costs of each policy alternative. Simplybecause thepredictiveabilityofthesocialandbehaviouralsciencesaswellasofthephysicaland biological sciences is not all thatadvanced. Establishment of complete set of operational goals with selection in terms of the costs and benefits of social values. The rationalist model is reflected in Operations Research, Programme Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method (CPM) and Zero- based- budget. Arational policy isone whichmaximizessocialgain.This isanother way ofsayingthat nopolicyshould be adopted if its costs exceed its benefits. Secondly,thepolicymakershouldchoosethatpolicythatproducesthegreatestbenefits.Apublicpolicyis rationalwhenthedifferenceinitsbenefitsanddisadvantagesisgreaterthanthatinanyotherpolicy. A rational policy would thus involve: 1. Knowing all value preferences ofsociety 2. Knowing all the policy alternativesavailable 3. Knowing all the consequences of each policy alternative 4. Evaluating the ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative 5. Select the most efficient policy alternative, that is, the one that brings the greatest benefits and the least advantages. weights Establishment of complete inventory of other values and of resources with Preparation of complete set of alternative policies Preparation of complete set of predictions of benefits and costs for each alternative O U T P U T Pure-Rationality policy (policies) Calculation of the net expectation for each alternative Comparison of net expectation and identification of alternative(s) with highest net expectation A rational model was described by Lindblom as: 1. Faced with a given problem 2. A rational man first clarifies his goals, values, or objectives and then ranks or otherwise organizes them in his mind; 3. He then lists all important possible ways of policies for achieving his goals; 4. And investigates all the important consequences that would follow from each of the alternative policies; 5. At which point he in a position to compare consequences of each policy with goals; 6. And so choose the policy with consequences most closely matching his goals. Rational policy making is possible only by „Economic Man‟. In contrast, public administration has „Administrative Man‟ who „satisfies‟, does not „maximize‟. Moreover, in theworld in which we live what prevails is „bounded rationality‟ even though the information revolution made possible by computers makes available more and more information. Other barriers also confront rational policy- making: 1. When policy- makers make policies, their basic instinct is self- preservation and organizational survival. Figure: A Rational Model for a Decision System 31 32
CHAPTER- IV Actors and Institutions in Public Policy Theprimarytaskofgovernmentseemstobetheformulationandimplementationofpublicpolicies. Governments‟ issues policies to generate economic development, provide education, guarantee personal safety, expand job opportunities, and adopt many other policy initiatives which should lead to development(TurnerandHulme.1997). TurnerandHulmefurthernotedthatgovernmentsoftenusetheir own version of policy outcomes and initiatives to legitimize their hold on power. While opposing forces belittle these same policies in order to justify their own claim to office. Be that as it may, the fate and future of millions of people hinge on the outcomes and performances of government policies in developing countries. In developing countries, policy elites or central minds of government orcentral policymaking processsystemsplaycrucialrolesintheprocessofpolicymaking andbringingaboutinstitutionalreforms to implement them. Despite the fact that historical, cultural, international constraints, as well as societal pressures, are essential in shaping the actions and perceptions of those who make authoritative decisions, in developing nations policy elites or central minds of government play major roles in determining policy andinstitutionaloutcomesandtheprocessthroughwhichissuesgetontoreform agendas,throughwhich they are deliberated within government, andthroughwhichthey are pursued andsustained. Scholars in the field of public policy have attributed the relative force of policy initiatives, formulation and implementation to policy elites in developing countries. An assessment of the actors and structures of policy making in developing countries tends to prove the prevalence of limited policy circles compared to more developed states ( Dror. 1968; Horowitz, 1989). The policy structures in developing countriesaremuchlesscomplexthanindevelopedcountries.Government elitesandindividualandsmall group decisions play a greater role in policy decisions than complex organizations that could have involved a relatively large segment of the affected population. More importantly, the political executive claims a significant margin of power on the determination of issues to put on the policy agenda, and formulate and allocate resources for the execution of policies. Dror (1968) noted that the political executive in developing countries plays a larger role in formulating public policies than do the legislatures and the public, not only because power is exceedingly concentrated, but the political executive also possesses better latitude for establishing policies on many major issues without worrying about building coalitions with over vested interests. Cloete (1991) summarizes the major actors in the policy process as follows: 1. The political/power elitesdirectly engagedin governing; 2. Interest groups and societal actors inside and outside of public institutions entering into competition to influence the contents ofpolicies; 3. Groups of citizens instructing representatives and legislators through elections, referenda, or meetings to implement a specific policy agenda, or pressurizing them in various other more unconventional ways to change governmentpolicies. It has however been argued that except for some clientele groups which have more access to sharing the politicalresources of policyelites indevelopingstates thelattertwosetsofsocietal actorsinfluence policy making much less. Cloete says that elites who are directly involved in governing act as „gatekeepers‟ to 33 screen demands for change. They are in a more advantageous position to influence the end product than other interest groups or citizens, who are not as close to the locus of decision making or implementation of policies. Official policy makers are those who occupy the formal offices prescribed by the political community as authoritative. They are the members of the legislature, local councilors, ministers, senior officials andjudges.Sincegovernments at thenational level areformedusuallybytheleaders of the political party with the majority of seats in the legislature, it is important to understand how parliamentary leadership is likely to behave. In the actual process of government it is widely recognized that parliament is dominated by the executive in policy- making. Its supremacy is said to be real only in a legalistic sense. The executive, and the power within it, especially of the cabinet, is of critical value to the policy making function of the government. Executive One dimension of the study of policy- making attempts to assess the role of the executive. Modern governments everywhere rely on executive leadership both in policy formulation and policy implementation. In a parliamentary system with cabinet governments, the governments in most cases rely ontheirback-bencherstoprovidethemwiththemajoritiesnecessarytoconductgovernmentbusiness.In the United States,the Congress expectsthe President to initiate or send proposals for legislation. In most developing countries, the executive probably plays a larger role in policy formulation because of a greater concentration of power in the government. The executive who assume critical roles and determine who gets what and when in most of the developing countries are head of states or head of governments, cabinet ministers, ruling party stalwarts and the executive bureaucracy and to some extent the list includes the legislators. Of these the heads of thestates,cabinetministers andtheiradvisors areathighest echelonofthe policymakingstructurethatis well placed to influence all of the important policy decisions. On account of the key position he holds, the presidentortheprimeministercanbemuchmoreextensivelyinvolvedinmajordecisionmaking.Inacrisis situationitismorelikelythatpolicymakingwillinvolvethepresidentorprimeminstercloseassociatesand advisers who usually hold positions in the office of the President or Prime Minister. The latter can have close political links with the head of the state and their loyalty may have been cemented through political, professional, social, and even kinship ties‟. Most ministers can also be intensively involved depending on the cabinet portfolios that they assume,theclose personalandpoliticallinksthattheymay havewiththe executive andruling partiesand thetechnicalorotherspecializedskillstheyposses.ManyAfricancountriessuchasEthiopia,majorethnic groups have representation in the higher echelons of government. The executive bureaucracy, more generally the public bureaucracy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America plays a significant part in public policy making. In Kenya, for example, the public bureaucracy supported by the political executive and in collaboration with expatriates, heavily influences policymaking. In quite a large number of developing states,policyinitiativescanemergefrom theadministrative andtechnical staff ofgovernment. Legislature TheParliamentinEthiopiaortheCongressintheUnitedStatesaresupremepublicpolicy-making bodies. Ripley feels that the Congress is at the heart of public policy making. Indeed in a parliamentary 34
form of government the legislature reigns supreme because the Prime Minister is dependent on support from a parliamentarymajorityto remain in office.Wade and Philips observe: “Neither devolution nor delegation of legislative authority infringes the supremacy of (the British) Parliament”. Parliament in Ethiopia makes the laws and legitimizes the decisions of the government. It authorizes taxation and expenditure, and makes the government accountable for financial decisions. In additiontoitslegalroles,itsubjects administrative actionstocriticism andscrutiny.Itservesasaforumfor public debate on issues of public policies, besides a forum for the expression of complaints and grievances.The parliamentary systems in Germany and UK as well as in India, work along these lines. Thus in law and constitutional theory, the power of the Parliament is unlimited in democratic systems.Ontheotherhand,thecongressintheUnitedStateshaslesspowerthanaParliament,because it does not participate in the process of choosing the head of the executive branch. Moreover the constitutionoftheUnitedStatesprohibitslegislatorsfromholdingpositions intheexecutive.Forexample, the officials of the President‟s Cabinet, unlike the cabinet in the parliamentary system, may not be members of the congress. This design not only leads to the division of authority but also inhibits the development of unnecessary informality between the two branches. Manypolicies approved by theParliament are initiatedby the cabinet orCouncil of Ministers, having been planned within the departments of state after consultation with affected interests. Legislatures everywhere play a smaller part in the policy making process. The legislative leadership has undisguisedly shifted into the hands of the executive and this process has been further reinforced and strengthenedinademocraticcountrybylongcontinuingsinglepartydominanceinthecountry. Bureaucracy Public administration as an academic pursuit is defined as the process of achieving intended goals in accordance with given policies through public organizations. In other words, Pubic Administration has concentrated on the machinery for the implementation of public policies, as given rather than on making them. Although Policy- making and Policy implementation are two distinct functions of the government, they are closely interrelated. Policy is laid down by the legislature or the political authorities who are vestedwiththepowerofgivingpolicythelegalauthority.Thelegislaturelaysdownapolicyingeneral terms which is usually expressed in the form of acts and laws. In order to give more precise expression to these acts and laws, the administrative arm of the government plays an important role in policy- making also. But, inthemain, the administrative arm does not legally posses the power of making a policy; it assists in policy making. Its responsibility lies in the sphere of policy implementation. In recent years, however, the role of the administrative arm of the government in policy making has grown in importance. Therefore,itseemsstrangethatpolicy-makingaswellasimplementationhavecomeintothehandsofthe administrators. Democratic norms, however, emphasize that the government should be political and not merely administrative. Government by administrators is called „bureaucracy‟. The bureaucracy is an administrative organisation consisting of non-elected employed officials and organized hierarchically in departments in accordance with the rules governing the conditions of their service. In democratic countries, the bureaucracy is an executive branch of the government. Civil servants or public administrators are 35 recruited in theory to serveministersby carrying out their decisions. The ministers decide on policies and civil servants take necessary executive actions to implement them. Despite the formal control of civil service by the political (elected) executive in the parliamentary democracies, there is a continuous discussion on the role of higher civil servants in policy- making and a constant fear that their influenceis too great. It has been argued, on theone hand, that their role is to developandcarryoutthewillofthosewholaydownpolicies.Ontheotherhand,thereisrecognitionof the fact that they are actively involved as are other pressure groups, political parties and the like, in the making of policy in its formative as well as implementation process. Reasons for Role in Policy- Making The reasons for role of bureaucracy in Policy- Making are as follows. They are i. The administrative role ii. Knowledge and Experience iii. Permanence position in the administrative organisation in comparison to the frequent rotation of a minister. In many African countries, the rapid growth of the bureaucratic apparatus that accompanied the consolidation of power following independence had important implications for the structures of the state and policy making. The corps of the proliferating bureaucracy and its members holds privileged positions. The Ethiopian experience over the past two decades, however, showed that governing elites approachtheproliferatingbureaucratic administrationwithsomemeasureofskepticism,mainlybecause thepoliticalloyaltyofthebureaucracywasdoubled.Inordertokeepaneyeontheadministration,the rulingpartiesareoftenusedasinstruments ofsupervision.Theprocessofpoliticizationandholdingofkey offices by party functionaries has thus been carried out by injecting party political and ideological doctrines into the civil service, the police, the army and local government. As a result the line of distinctions between the party and the executive become nebulous as is still the case in Ethiopia. Similar examples elsewhere in Africa are: the Tanzanian African National Union in Tanzania, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Resistance Movement (NRM) in Uganda and many others. Societal actors in Policy making The Individual citizen One dimension of the study of policy- making is concerned with explaining how an individual citizen brings influence to bear on those entitled to take decisions. In a democratic form of government, people are said to be masters of their own destinies and politically sovereign. In representative democracy it is assumed that the power flows from the people. Representation carries with it the clear implication of delegation from the people to a legislature. Through legislature the representatives of the people frame laws and decide policy by a majority vote. Further, the practice of submitting certain office- holders to periodic election will ensure that attention is paid to the interests of those who are represented. In a democracy, people initiate the process of legislation and policy- making by voting for candidates whose opinion and values they know. Yet in practice, citizen participationin policy-making is negligible. Many do not seem to be exercising theirfranchise or engaging in party politics. Acting alone, the individual citizen is hardly a 36
significant political force. Thepublicor thepeople, on contrarysuggest a unityof will andpurpose. In Politics, groups rather than individuals affect the way policy is made. A relatively small group of office- holders may be held responsible for the actions they perform. Further it has been observed that the majority of people who become involved in politics prefer todosoonanindividual basis, ratherthantojoinapolitical organization.Theyneitherjoinorganized interests nor do they exhibit any active interest in public affairs. Even while voting, they are influenced comparatively little by policy choices. Only a small minority hold the legislative, executive and judicial offices at the level of the Federal, Regional state and local governments in Ethiopia. In public service, large numbers of people are employed, yet only a very small percentage of them are influencing the choice of public policies. It can safely be concluded that policies that politics hold attractions for relatively few people. Neither the citizen nor the people is a particularly satisfactory force for analyzing political power. However,itisthefactthatnogovernmenthoweverdictatorial,canaffordtogoagainstthewishesand customsofthepeople.Thepolicy-makingfunctionofthegovernmentmusttakeintoaccounttheinterests of the people. Governments of all forms incountries aroundthe world haverealized that theultimate sovereignty is vested in the people of that country. Electorate Power The act of voting forms the basis of political participation. Voting is a decisive act resulting in theformationoflegislativemajorities with programmes. Generally,the political partiesfight thecampaign intermsofprogrammes,publicpoliciesandlegislativeintentions.Thevoterseeshisroleininfluencingthe selections of policies and programmes. Elections are the means which enable the electorate to choose between programmes and alternative policies offered by contestants for governmental office. In a democratic country, people are masters of all the operations of government. Such theory of citizen power including the selection of public policies must be qualified in manyrespects. First, it is observed that elections perform many other functions. Further elections are democratic means of solving the problem of political succession. They ensure the legitimacy of the government rule. Second, parties do attach to the voter‟s broad demands and objectives on which they want the government totakeaction. The parties givemeaningtopoliticsintheminds of thevoters.Thevoters expect the party they vote for, if elected to office, to do certain things. However the electorate is less concerned with the means of producing the desired actions, in relation to say reducing poverty or unemployment or enhancing social welfare. He is probably unaware of the relationship between government policies and desired actions. Furtherthevoterlacksinterestinpoliticalissues.Thisistoemphasis thatthereareotherfactors determining the voting behaviour, such as age, religion, sex, region, which are more important than the comparativeevaluation of party programmes. Electoral pledges have little influence on the final selection of policies and that “the public policy influencing function of election is small”. Variations in governmental policy decisions can, be explained by other factors and events. Govenments perceive their electoral pledges as dependent on good administration and the solution of pressing problems. War, law and order 37 problems and disputes may take up much more of the government attention than electoral statements of intent, and the eventual policy decision based thereon. It may, therefore, be concluded that election is a legitimate strategy for solving the problem of political succession but it may not determine policies. Policy Agenda As already noted earlier, demands or claims made by citizens or interest groups on public officials (elected and non-elected) in the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problems. These demands constitute what is known as „policy agenda‟. Policy agenda is not to be interpreted as political demands. According to Cobb and Elder there are two types of agenda; the systematic or discussion agenda and the institutional agenda. i. Systematic Agenda: The systematic/ discussion agenda “consists of all issues that are commonly perceived bymembers of the politicalcommunity as meriting public attention and as involving matter within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority”. ii. Governmental Agenda: A governmental or institutional agenda consists of those issues to which publicofficials giveseriousattention.This sortofagendamayarisefrompolicydecisions,parliament debate and executive decisions.In comparison to a systematic agenda, an institutional agenda is an action agenda and will be more specific. Influence of the Media A prerequisite of democracy is free media of communication. The media channel information between the citizen and government. They communicate the information to the citizens about the decisions the governments have taken. In this way, the media help shape their reactions to each other‟s decisions.Bypublicizingspecificcauses,themediaactasthemostimportantsourceofinformationforthe government on the public‟s reactions to contemporary issues. Since the media are acting as channels of communication, it is important to determine whether they arepoliticallybasedintheirpresentationof information.If theyarebiasedinthewaytheypresentthe decisions and actions of governments to the public or public opinion to the government, they may distort the very concept of democracy. If the citizen is to make rational decisions about public policy the media should be of a high standard of reliability. There is considerable concern as to the quality of the media in their role of providing the public with information about the government. Whenthemediacan influence opinionsin asituation wherethe governmentisseento beresponsive andresponsibletothepublic,thentheyarecorrespondinglyinfluentialinthedeterminingofpolicy. Pressure Groups Public opinion expressed by individual citizens does not reflect the intensity of view. It does not, in the main, serve as the basis for a change in policy. Many citizens lack the required expertise in both the subject- matter and the procedures of policy- making. They often do not know which kind of policy issues toaddresstowhichofficial,withaviewtowieldingthegreatestamountofinfluence.Actingalone,the individual citizenis rarelyasignificant force. Ontheotherhandthere aremanycitizens representing different and often conflicting interests and values. Group action is considered a more effective method 38
than individual action for the ordinary citizen to influence the public policies. Unless large numbers of citizen are organized for some common purpose or interest, the chances of transmitting their message andpolicyissues willbecomebleak.Fortheindividualcitizentheinterest groupisanimportantchannel of communication. The interest groups or pressure groups are important means of enhancing the effect of public opinion. They can communicate more effectively than individual citizens with public officials on policy decisions. The exercise of political influence by organized citizens is a predominant feature of the democratic form of government. Pressure groups are organizations with formal structures whose members share a common interest. They strive to influence the decisions of the government without attempting to occupy political offices. They serve as links between individual citizens and policy- makers. To individual citizens, pressure groups arethemost important meansofcommunication and power.They aid them in communicatingtheirhopes to public officials by offering personnel and expertise in the substantive matters and the procedures of policy- making. To policy makers, the interest groups offer expertise and political support as well as the intensity of view of large number of citizens with some common interest. In return, the interest groups are able to create areas of influence on citizens as well as policy- makers. Sometimes they sponsor candidatesinelectionsfortestingsupportfortheircause.Theyare,however,rarelysuccessful. Furthertheleaders ofinterestgroupsmaybeinvitesorassociatedeithertositpublicboards,councils or committees on account of their expertise, qualifications and proficiencies. The distinction between interest groups and government offices is often blurred by the fact that government institutions may engage in lobbying activities from time to time. It may be mentioned here that all pressure groups are not exclusively concerned with political influence and activity. The Federation of the Ethiopian Chambers of CommerceandIndustry,forexample, provides awiderangeofadvisory servicestoitsconstituentbodies on subjects such as new legislation, prices, corporate investments, trade-marks. Political Parties Political parties are another means of enhancing the effect of public opinion. Like pressure groups, they serve as intermediaries between citizens and policy- makers. Party platformson which elections are foughtformabasisforthepartyleadershipwhen,asagovernment,itengagesinthemakingofpublic policy. Political parties are thus regarded as important agents for establishing popular control over government and public policies. They play an important role in reflecting the issues at stake and in setting value goals for the society. AccordingtoBurke,APoliticalpartyisabodyofmenunitedforpromotingthenationalintereston some particular principles on which they are all agreed. Since the political parties have an important role to play in the formulation of public policies, these parties must meet the following conditions: i. Partiesmust have programme ii. Each party‟s candidates must be committed to its programme iii. Parties must present their programme to thepublic iv. Opposing parties must present alternative programme v. There must be only two major parties. vi. People must vote for programme and notindividuals vii. The party that receives a majority of the votes must take control of the government. viii. The party that wins the election must have the internal cohesion and discipline to carry out its programme ix. The party that wins the election must implement its programme x. The governing party must accept responsibility for the performance of the government. xi. The opposition party must be ready to take control of the government. Edwards and Sharkansky further say: A two- party system operating under these conditions would simplify thealternatives presentedtovoters, allowconstituentstoeffectively expresstheirattitudestowardpolicy, active public participation in politics, make majority rule effective, and establish popular control over government. One important factor of government policy is thus the party policy. It is therefore important to know the distribution of power in the political parties, in order to understand the forces shaping policy initiatives in government. It has been argued that “party influence is only effective where the parties represent separate and distinct socio- economic conditions. Where the constituencies of a state are divided along social and economic lines, and where the party division coincides with these constituency divisions, only then will party programmes and discipline be effective in shaping policy in legislative chambers. To sum up. Although the political parties can in theory play a decisive role in policy- making, they do not carry out the public‟s wishes. They are important institutions, but it would be wrong to overestimate their influence on public policy. 39 40
CHAPTER- V Process of Policy Making Perspectives on Public policy making: Policy making is an area which because of its obvious importance, has attracted much attention in recent years.It is avitalfunction at all levels of government. In one wayor another, each of us has thetaskof helping our government to determine its goals and objectives. As we do this, we try to develop policies whichmay bedescribedas purposive courses of actiontakeninpursuitof thecountry‟sgoals. Ourlivesinthecountryarevitallyaffectedbywhatweareabletoachieveinthepolicymakingfield.Our country has struggled a great deal with the problem of effective national policy-making and implementation. There have been several success as well as failures for a variety of reasons. The policy- making process begins with the ideas people have about the actions they want the government to undertake. In other words, they are the demands or proposals made by interest groups or by other factors, private or official, upon the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problem. People with demands which may be either supported or supposed byinterest groups, seek to achieve some commitments from government to put their ideas into action. When government takes such a commitment, it has legal authority to do something that individuals cannotdo. Agovernment decisionmaybemadeonthedemandsofthepeople.Thegovernmentalandadministrative process comprise of a vast mass of decisions made almost daily. Some of these have an effect immediately, others mayinvolve further linesofaction,andor afurther continuum of decision- making comingfromthat first decision. Theparliament inEthiopia is chargedbyconstitution of Ethiopiawith thefunction of representingthe people in making policy through the passing of laws. Legislative process- a fundamentalmechanism – for expressing public policy (Ethiopia). All basic policies have to be determined by legislative enactment, although legislation also permits more specific policy- making by the executive branch of the government within thelegislative andconstitutional framework, andthe reviewfunctions of theJudiciary. Theimplicationofthisprocessmodelisthatpolicymakingoccursinidentifiablestagesandthateachstage can be explained separately. Those processes are using presented as The identification of policy problems through demands for government action. ☯Identifying policy issues: public opinion o Opinion- Policy linkage o Policy effects o Mediaeffects o Opinion polls o Instability of opinion o Wording of questions 41 o Communicating with Policymakers ☯AgendaSetting, or focusing the attention of themass media and public officials on specific public problems to decide what will be decided. ☯The formulation of policy proposals through their initiation and development by policy- planning organizations,interestgroups,governmentbureaucracies,andthePrimeMinisterandParliament. ☯The legitimation of policies through political actions byparties, interest groups, the Prime Minister and the Parliament. ☯The implementation of policies through organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies. ☯The evaluation of policies by government agencies themselves, outside consultants, the press, and the public. Policy formulation is the development of policy alternatives for dealing with problems on the public agenda. Policy formulations occur in government bureaucracies, interest group offices; legislative committee rooms; meetings of special commission, policy- planning organizations, otherwise known as think- tanks. Acommitteeofexpertsthatundertakesresearchorgivesadviceespeciallytogovernment The details of policy proposals are usually formulated by staff members rather than by their bosses, but staffsareguided bywhat they knowtheir leaderswant.Policystudiesoften focus on how policies aremade rather than on their content or their causes and consequences. The study of how policies are made generallyconsidersaseries of activities, orprocesses,that occurwithinthepoliticalsystem Policy Implementation Inthefinalanalysis,thesuccessofPublicAdministrationfordevelopmentcanbemeasuredonlyinrelation to implementation of policies. Policy implementation is of crucial importance to the success of government. However,goodthepolitical system,noblethegoals,howeversound organizationalsystem, nopolicycan succeed if the implementation does not bear the relationship to the intentions of the policy adopters. The implementationaspect isnowbecomingaconcernandkeyelementindevelopmentstrategy. Meaning Policyimplementation, as the process of putting policy into effect bypublic and private individuals, is difficult to define. Implementation can be seen essentially in terms of the nature and degree of control exercised over the operations of a policy/ programme/ project. Pressman and Wildavsky initially defined implementation as, “a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them”.Theygoontosay,“Implementation,then,istheability toforgesubsequentlinksinthecasualchain so as to obtain the desired results.” It is important to look at implementation, not solely in terms of putting policy into effect, but also in terms of observing what actually happens. Elements in Implementation Implementation as putting policy into action, is a difficult exercise. Example: “National Health Policy”- Health for All by 2012A.D. in Ethiopia. Requires human and financial resources, time and skills and the creation of necessary health organizations. Barret andFudgesay that policy implementation is dependent on, Knowing what you want todo; the availability of the required resources, the ability to marshal and control these resources to achieve the 42
desired end; and if others are to carry out the tasks, communicating what is wanted and controlling their performance. Putting policy into effect involves not the end of policy- making but a continuation of policy- making by other means. At the minimum implementation includes,  Adequate personnel and financial resources to implement the policy.  TheAdministrativecapacitytoachievethedesiredpolicygoals;and  Political and Judicial support (from the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary wings of the government) for the successful implementation of policy. Implementers:  Bureaucracy & other administrative organizations  Legislative bodies-(not verycrucial inimplementation, buttheyareinfluencingthe Bureaucrats)  Judicial bodies- Most laws enforced through judicial actions.  Interest groups- Powerful interest groups affect the implementation process.  Community Groups and Agencies….e.g…Co- operatives  Influence of political structures:  Politicalparties/politiciansandexecutivestaffagencies Policy Evaluation The final stage of the policy process in the sequential pattern of activities, is the evaluation of policy. Evaluation is concerned with what happens, once a policy has been put into effect. Itisconcernedwiththeworthorsocialutilityofapolicyorprogramme.InthewordsofWholey,“Policy evaluation is the assessment of the overall effectiveness of a national programme in meetings its objectives, or assessment of the relative effectiveness of two or more programmes in meeting the common objectives.” Monitoring Vs Evaluation ◉ Evaluation is notmonitoring ◉ Monitoring, however is a prerequisite forevaluation. ◉ Monitoring is concerned with establishing factual premises about public policies. ◉ It is fundamentally about control and the exercise of power. ◉ Monitoring answers the question: “what happened, how and why?” ◉ On contrary, Evaluation answers the question: “ What differences does it make?” ◉ Evaluation is retrospective and occurs after actions have been taken. ◉ It is concerned with „trying todetermine‟the impact of policy on real life conditions. Functions of Evaluation Evaluation performs several functions in policy analysis. In the first place it provides reliable information about policy performance. The prime purpose of policy evaluation is to measure the impact of policies on society. it reveals the extent to which particular goals have been achieved (for example, increase in the life expectancy at birth). It helps us to understand the degree to which policy issues have been resolved. Secondly, evaluation helps clarify the values that underline the selection of goals and objectives. Values are clarified by properly defining goals and objectives. Since the appropriateness of policy goals and objectives can be questioned in relation to the problem being addressed. Evaluation provides procedures for evaluating goals and objectives themselves. Thirdly, evaluation may result in efforts to restructure policy problems. It may also contribute to the emergence of new objectives and potential solutions, For example, by showing whether a previously adopted policy alternative should be replaced with another one or abandoned. In the course of policy implementation, the policy actions may be either restructured to the new conditions that have been evaluated or terminated altogether, either because the information permits the inference that the needs have been met or because policy actions have created more problems than they have resolved. Evaluation is primarily an effortto analyze policy outcomes in terms of some set objectives. It determines the social utility of policies. Criteria forEvaluation The criteria for evaluation of policy enable analysts to produce information about the likelihood that particular causes of action will result in the realization of outcomes. In producing information about policy performance, analysts use different types of criteria to evaluate policy outcomes. Frohock has suggested four concepts - Equity - Efficiency - Pareto Optimality (Welfare economics ideas and theorems salient to value consideration) & a state in which the well-being of any individual cannot be enhanced without worsening the position of at least one other individual). - Public Interest- as helpful in evaluatingpolicy. Poister argues that the criteria “…to evaluate policies and programs all relate to goals and objectives, eitherfocusingontheobjectivesthemselvesoronthe means/endsrelationshipsbetweenstrategies and objectives. He then outlines the performance variablesas ➢ effectiveness, ➢ adequacy and ➢ appropriateness. Suchman proposes a five dimensional scheme for evaluating success or failure. ✓ Effort refers to, „… the quantity and quality of activity that takes place. ✓ Performance „… measures the results of efforts rather than the effort itself. ✓ Adequacyofperformancemeasuresthe„…degreetowhichtheeffectiveperformanceisadequate to the total amount of need‟. ✓ Efficiency concerns the question, „Is there a better wayt0 attainthe same results?‟ ✓ Processdealswiththecomplex problem of,“ howandwhya programworksor does not work”. Smith suggested three criteria for policy judgments: 43 44
◉ Policy Design ◉ Policy process;and ◉ Policy achievement. We consider that six major categories for policy evaluation are evident: ◉ Effectiveness ◉ Efficiency ◉ Adequacy ◉ Equity ◉ Responsiveness and ◉ Appropriateness Effectiveness: The criterion of effectiveness is most common of policy evaluation. # How effective is the policy? # Is it achieving the goals it set out to achieve? The Policy is deemed to be a failure if it has not achieved its objectives. By effectiveness is meant the degree of objective achievement. It refersto whether a given course of action results in the attainment of an objective. It often measured in terms of units of products or services or their monetary costs. Efficiency Efficiencyisofcrucialimportanceinevaluatingpublicpolicies.Theterm„efficiency‟weusedtodenotethe output/input ratio of a public administration system or an organizational unit. By efficiency is meant the amount of effort required to produce a given level of effectiveness. Efficiency when used without qualification refers to technical efficiency. The technical efficiency is a sort of allocative efficiency in the sensethat inputs or resourcesareallocatedinsuchawaythat noshift will bringabout anincreasein output.Efficiencyisequatedwitheconomicrationality.Whenefficiencyisexpressedinmonetaryterms,it referstothe ratioof monetaryincome from the output tothe monetary costs ofthe inputs. This ratiomeans probabilitywhichisgenerallyusedasanindicatorofthepolicyperformance.Efficiencyisoftenmeasured by calculating the costs per unit of a product or service. The efficiency criterion tells how much time and cost is involved on providing services. Policies that achieve the greatest effectiveness at the minimum cost and time are said to be efficient. Adequacy Adequacy refer to sufficiency for a specific requirement. The question arises: Is there a possibility that policy will find a solution to the problem to which the policy is addressed? Adequacy refers to whether a given level of effectiveness results in the satisfaction of needs or values. While the policy effectiveness criterion deals with the relationship between policy goals and what is achieved, the adequacy of a policy refers to the relationship between policy and the problem to which it is addressed. A clear distinction exists between effectiveness andadequacyinthesense that apolicy maybe judged to be a success in achieving its listed objectives, but it has little impact upon the problem being addressed bythepolicy.Forexample,sustainedeffortsaremade todeal withthehomeless problem in Addis Ababa, but the problem persists. It may be pointed out that the beneficiaries and other target groups often view government action asnot adequate,while political executiveispronetoarguethatenough is being done. 45 For Example, the federal government claims that poverty has been substantially eliminated by the government. On the contrary, it is argued that there has not been any substantial improvement in rural life; and poverty continues to loom a large. Equity Equity refersto the distribution of effects and effort among different groups in society.For example, thecriterion of equityraisesthe question, “Arecosts andbenefits distributed equitably amongthe different groups?” The criterion of equality is closely related to fair or just distribution of effects (monetary benefits) andeffort(monetarycosts). Policiesdesigned toredistribute income, employment opportunities, or public services are often recommended on the basis of the criterion of equity. A given programme might be effective, efficient and adequate, yet it might be rejected on the ground that it will result in the inequitable distribution of benefits. However, the criterion of equality is not totally satisfactory. The reason is that conflicting views about the rationality of society as a whole cannot be resolved simply by adopting formal economic rules. Such concepts as equity, fairness and justice are related to political power. These are influenced by the processes involving the distribution of power in society. Individuals and groups have different objectives and values. What satisfies one person or group may not satisfy another.Public policies whicharediscriminatory in purpose generate conflicts from those who feel the yarelosingformthepolicy.Such policies as areforpartisan (biased) political purpose arealso deemed to be failures. Responsiveness By „responsiveness‟ is meant that a policy satisfies the needs or values of particular groups. Policies designed to promote educational opportunities or health status of the people some times recommended on the basis of the criterion of responsiveness. An educational programme might result in an equitable distribution of facilities but be unresponsive to the needs of particular groups. (for example, for Particular group of People).cConsensus and consultation, therefore, become the central concerns, as the determination of objectives becomes entangled with the search for suitable means and alternatives to achieve those objectives. Thus, implementation becomes less conflict- prone because there is less possibility of the policy being ambushed by both policy- makers and implementers. Appropriateness: Finally,the criterionof„appropriateness‟ isalsoused toevaluatepolicies. Thecriteriaof „appropriateness‟ is closely related torationality. Appropriateness refersto the worth of the objectives of a programme.Is the policy based upon appropriate values and ideolologies? Will the policy lead to disruption and violence or be greeted with agreement? This dimension is concerned with judgments about a policy‟s fitness and suitability. Judging policy failure and success by appropriateness is to see where conflicts are likely to be more intense. Publicpolicieswhicharebaseduponunacceptablevaluesandideologiesaredeemedtobefailures.Some Policies are deemed to be unpopular decisions. For example, policies regulating people‟s behaviour in traffic laws and taxes are seldom popular with general public. 46
Conclusion The description of six dimensional criteria forpolicy evaluation does not always apply.It is often foundthat policy and programme evaluators make use of the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency or a combinationof both. Thereisatendencytoapplythecriteriaofefficiencyinevaluatingdevelopment programmes and projects. In health and welfare, effectiveness appears to dominate. Implementation failure islinkedwiththefailureofgoal-achievementandefficiency.Thisiscertainlyanarrowperspective. Thismyopic (lackingin foresight:showing alack offoresightorlong-term planning) viewcan concealform analysis the broader concerns of problem definition. The causes of the failureof policy as well as the overall societal, economic and political context in which the problem and policy occurs. The emphasis upon policy effectiveness and efficiency as the central criteria to be applied should not be accepted to the point where they dominate the policy evaluation. What is needed is to make use of multiple criteria for making judgements about a policy‟s success orfailure. Issues of the acceptability of Evaluation Results After the submission of a report on the findings, the policy evaluator assumes that it will immediately be taken up by the policy maker, especially if the evaluation had been commissioned by the government. Laterhefindsthattheevaluationresultshavenotbeenutilizedinmostcases.Incertaincases,ifthepolicy implications of evaluation are not clear, “ the programmemanager winds up complaining about the irrelevance of the evaluation for his programmatic concerns, and the evaluator returns to his office lamentingtheneglectofhisworkbydecision-makers”.Ifevaluationresultsaretobeutilized,theyhaveto be in a communicable language comprehensible to decision- makers. Such communication should include an indication of the limitations of the research, measurement problems, and the quality of information collected or the method of analysis. Evaluation findings may also not be utilized because they so not fit in the framework of decision- making. The results of formal evaluation require the exercise of political judgements regarding their acceptability. Theremaybealsoanorganizationalresistancetotheimplications ofevaluationfindings.Members ofthe organization may express reluctance to tolerate disruption of existing working practices and career structures, and are likely to point out the time and cost involved in bringing about policy changes. Particularly where the programme involves delivering a new service, there may be resistance from the trade unions. An evaluation of a programme may be ignored, or attacked on the ground that the evaluationwaspoorlydesigned,thedatausedwasinadequate,orthefindingsareinconclusive.Thismay lead to a great deal of pessimism as to the utility of evaluation findings. However, it will be wrong to assume that there is no potential for theirutilization. Problems in Policy Evaluation Evaluating a public progrmme is a difficult exercise. It involves specifying the goals of the programme, measuring the degree to which these goals have been achieved, and perhaps suggesting changes that might improvethe performance of theorganization. The evaluation of public programmes is confounded by many factors. Some of them are asfollows: Unclear Policy Goals - If policy goals are unclear or are not specified in any measurable form, determining the extent to which they have been achieved becomes a complex and cumbersome task.Officialpolicymakerssuchaslegislatorsandadministratorswhoareindifferentpositionsinthepolicy 47 system may define goals of a programme differently and reach differing conclusions about the accomplishment of the programme. Even when the goals are clear, they may not be practical. Problem of measurement- Even when the goals have been expressed in clear and concrete language, thereisthedifficultyofmeasuringresultsisstillmoredifficult.Itisdifficulttomeasuretheperformanceofthe public sector programmes in the absence of any ready means of judging the performance. For example, although theshort-term goal of educationis toimprovethequalityof lifeforthosewho receive it. This seems to be an elusive quality to measure when an evaluation must be made quickly. The evaluation of a public programme often confounded by some other related programmes also. For example, if we are to evaluate the effectiveness of a health programme on a poorer section of the community, We may find it difficult to isolate the effects of that health programme from those of a nutrition programme or those of an education programme. In fact, all these programmes may have the effect of improving the health of the population, and we may find it difficult to determine which programme is the efficient means of improving the health of that community. All these problems indicate the measurement in policy analysis is a difficult proposition. Problem of target- Related to the problem of determination and achievement of goals, is the problem of target population. Data necessary to evaluate the programme may not be available or may be available or may be available in unsuitable form.The information gathered in the course of delivery of policy may highlighted much about the characteristics of the people actually receiving the benefit but little regarding the target population. Programmes that have significant effects on the population as a whole may not have the desired effects on the targetpopulation. Programmes that have significant effects on the population as a whole may not have the desired effects on the target population. Programmes may select clients who actuallyneedlittlehelp,ratherthanthosewhohavethegreaterneed,Suchprogrammesaresuccessesof a limited duration. Attempts to broaden it frequently make the target of the programme more diffuse and consequently more difficult to evaluate. It would not be fair to blame programme delivery personnel for failing to serve the target population when the planners have provided broad and unworkable definitions of the target groups which are impossible toattain. Sum Up The final stage of the policy process is the assessment of what has happened regarding the implementationofthepolicy.PolicyEvaluationisamajorpoliticalprocess.EvaluatingaPublicprogramme involves the listing of the goals of the programme, Measuring the degree to which these goals have been achieved, and finally suggesting changes that might bring the performance of the organization more in line with the intended purposes of the programme. As mounting pressure is brought to bear on the public sector to play its role more effectively and efficiently, evaluation may even become a centre of conflict. Negativeevaluations oftheperformanceof apublicprogrammemayresultin itstermination.Thecontent of an evaluation, the goals that are contained in it, and even the organization performing the organisation functions will affect the finalassessment. 48
INTRODUCTION Chapter- VI POLICY CHANGE & CONTINUITY ◉ Giventhefactthatthemodernpolicyspaceisverycrowded,„new‟policyislikelytobeframed within the context of existing related policies. Policy Succession Here an attempt is made to discuss various approaches to studying the way in which policy change takes place. As already highlighted in evaluating policies, evaluation involves some kind of feedback into the policy process which results in change inpolicy. Evaluation often acts as an engine of policy change. There are generally two aspects of analyzing change: 1. How does change in policy goals, purposes, and priorities takes place? 2. What is the relationship between changing goals, values etc., and the organizational context of policy and the vice versa? Three approaches have been suggested to examine these TWO dimensions of policy change: i. Policy Cycle Approaches ii. Organizational Approaches iii. Policy Change and Policy learning models. POLICY CYCLE APPROACHES Underthepolicycycle,MayandWildavsky(1978),HogwoodandPeters(1985),deLeon(1987)and Hogwood (1992) examined the dimensions of policy change. Policy Change is the consequences of earlier policies which may have changed the conditions. New Policy, therefore, frequently emerges from existing policy or overlaps with on- going programmes. Brain Hogwood and Guy Peters suggest a model of policy change as given below: ● PolicyInnovation ● Policy Succession ● Policy Maintenance ● Policy Termination Policy Innovation ◉ When government becomes involved in a problem or an area which is „New‟. 49 • involves the replacement of existing policies by other policies. The change does not involve any fundamental change in approach, But is continuous with existing policy Succession Innovation Maintenance Termination Replacement New of existing Policies policies Types of Policy Types of Policy growth: reduction: Linear - Programme -Externally generated Consolidation extension decline Splitting -Clientele -Dilution and Non- linear extension deterioration - Programme -Removal of clientele enhancement - Elimination of a -Indexing programme element Externally - Elimination ofa generated programme expansion Figure: Hogwood and Peter’s Model for Policy Change To hogwood and Peters there are four types of Policy succession: i. Linear: the replacement of existing policy by another policy. ii. Consolidation: Consolidation of a number of policies into a unified framework. iii. Splitting: Splitting a policy into a number of separae component parts. iv. Non- linear: a complex combination of other types of succession. PolicySuccessiongivesrisetochangeinpolicyandmayendupclosertothepolicyinnovationtype. Innovationinvolvestheentry ofgovernment intoan activityin whichithasnot beenpreviously involved.It is viewed as a process of change on a continuum with policy maintenance. Policymaintenanceisalsorelatedwithtopolicyterminationinthecontextofcutbacks andreductions in scalar or resources. Cutbacks maybe affected by taking groups of clientele out of a policy programme oraparticularpartofaprogramme,maybeacut.Andthisresultsintheterminationofapolicyandthe introduction of a new or modified policy. Terminationofapolicyisquiteproblematic.Bardachmentionsfiveconditionswhichmakefor implementation of termination of a policy. i. When new governments / administrations come to power. 50
ii. Delegitimationoftheideologicalmatrixinwhichthepolicyisembedded. Theexamplehe gives is of the way in which opinion turned against what Goffman termed “total institutions”. iii. Turbulence, which weakens attachment to existing policies. iv. Policies may have been designed to terminate a certain time. v. Cushioningtheblow.Policyterminationcanbedesignedsoastolessentheinjuriestothose affected. • The example he gives is of the way inwhich opinion turned against what Goffmantemed “total institutions”. iii. Turbulence,(a confusing or uncontrolled situation) which weakens attachment to existing policies. iv. Policies may have been designed to terminate a certain time. v. Cushioningtheblow.Policyterminationcanbedesignedsoastolessentheinjuriestothose affected. Termination of a policy results in the end of a service and the abolition of the organization which was implementing the policy. But as it is the termination is not a frequent occurrence, and when it happens it is morelikelytobethe resultof apolitical reasonor reform thanof evaluation andrational thinking. Organizational Approaches Policy change may be the result of an organizational change and vice- versa. Change in organization is taking place withchargesin thesocio-economic- political environment. Inconsideringthe organizational change,thestudentof publicpolicyfaces “acomplexcontradictorybodyof analysis” covering the field of public sector organization and behavior. Clegg maintains that post- modern organization is tending towards change in directions such as more decentralization, less bureaucracy, more emphasis on markets, greater flexibility and intra- organizational interactions. Thesechanges are having their effect on the public sector. There are few organizational approaches, which deal with change in the policy- making. Contingency Approach Forcontingency theorist,itisimportant tounderstandthewayinwhichorganizations changeto meetthe growing demands of different environments and technologies. • This approach points to the importance of organization shaping itself to fit its wider environment. • How and Why Change comes about in the organizations: • Strategic Choice Approach..Change in an organization is an essential political process. • Population Ecology Approach.. Power of the environment to determine organizational Change. Managerial Approach to change • In recent years managerial approach to change in public sector has come to occupy an important place in the debate of change. • With this domain two central ideas tend to predominate: 1. Cultural Change- Changing the culture in the Public sector so that it is more businesslike and less bureaucratic. 2. Leadershiprole-Themanagerialapproachhaslaidneatstressontheroleofleadershipin bringing about change in the organization. Policy Learning Models Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith suggest that the key to understanding policy change is the dynamic c of beliefs and policy learning. The learning models provide an integrative framework for viewing change in the policy process. Two models may be identified here: (i) organizational models of policy learning, (ii) Social learning models Organizational models of Learning The focus in the organizational model of policy learning is on the way in which people and policy- makers in the organizational context learn. The learning approach has been most developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith.Inadditiontherearemanyotherswhotalkabout learningtothepolicyprocess. To David Collingridge, learning is atrial and error process. He advocates the use of trial and errormethodfor improving thetasks of management. The rules of trial and errormethod are: i. trials are kept to a minor nature, thus bring expensive even when they fail ii. changes are marginal in nature iii. Trials have a rapid result. iv. The energy of critical scrutiny is to be proportional to the cost of mistakes. v. Many diverse interest groups take part in the decision process; vi. Political power is shared among thesegroups vii. Choice is through compromise among these groups viii. Actions are co-ordinate by mutual interaction rather than planned from the center”. Thismethoddoesnotofferadistinctnormativeframework forpolicy-making.Inthismethod,conceptsfail to provide a satisfactory account of what is happening in the post- decisional phase of policy- making. Social Learning Models The social process approach is concerned with the way in which learning takes place in society as whole, and how this learning can be promoted. Edgar Dunn called for the development of forms of organizations which could facilitate evolutionary social experimentation through which learning could be improved. The political implications of the social process model are a radical departure from the organizational models of learning. It is an alternative framework to the dominant input- output public policy model. This approach argues that democracy, power, politics and participation are the means by which people can learn about themselves and about social, economic and other problems. 51 52
CHAPTER- VII: Globalization of National Policy Making: An International Perspective What is globalization? “Printed in Ethiopia with Australian Paper and German ink, using Swiss technology and Japanese experts”.……………………………What does this statement convey? Exchange or sharing of: ✓ Ideas ✓ Information ✓ Capital (including human capital) ✓ Technologies ✓ This is connecting the human communities and capabilities across national borders. Increasing economic interdependence of the world through growing volume, andvariety of cross- border flows of finance, Investment, Goods and Services, and Rapid andwidespread diffusion of technology.Its primary dimension concerns the expansion of economic activities across state borders. Avoiding reinventing thewheel.(towastetimeandefforttryingtodosomethingthatsomeoneelsehasalreadydonewell). What are the Central ideas behind Globalization? # More trade is better for all the parties concerned. # Some may gain more from it than others, but all would eventually gain. # And action that interferes with free flow of capital goods and services, and technology would produce sub- optimal results. # Controls and restrictions raise the cost of domestic production, # A country should specialize in production and export only in those items where it enjoys a comparative advantage. Policymaking is an extremely analytical and political process which involves a set of forces. It begins with theideas people orinterestgroupshaveabout theactions theywantthegovernment totake.Inother words these are the demands or proposals made by interest groups or by other actors upon the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problems. Public policies are everywhere being conditionedbythe external environment. It isimpossibletoseparatethe external environmental factorsas theyinvariablyinfluencethepoliticalprocessesandpolicyoutcomes.Theinfluence,beingbroughttobear on socio- economic problems of a country by agencies such as the United nations and its allied agencies WHO, ILO, UNEP, UNDP, ETC. The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, European Policy Forum, OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, European central Bank , etc, is of critical importance in shaping its policies Impact on Global Events on National Policy Agenda: Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to global events and actions and have come to depend heavily on the international community for financial and technical assistance. Consequently, national policies are interlocked with global issues. “Because Poor countries generally have fragile politics and weak systems of accountability, with few autonomous institutions and little power to offset that exercised by the central government agencies are potentially key political players, capable of exerting considerable influence…”. The boundaries of the political system are no longer impermeable (resistance) to outside 53 pressures and influences. Public policy now takes place in a world system as well as in national political systems. The international environment has an added role to play in influencing the national policies. As Multinational corporations and international organizations come to exercise a great degree of influence, so the capacity of national policy- makers to frame their own agenda is reduced. National issues such as Social welfare, Environment, Drugs, Tradeare items on the national policy agenda which have become global issues. This has been accompanied by increasing transnational cooperation.NationalpolicyagendainacountrylikeEthiopiais exposedtodevelopednations Need for a Global Perspective It may be noted that the notion of World politics was central to Harold Lasswell‟s conception of the policy sciences. In 1951lasswell argued that policy sciences should take account of world trends and forces when consideringthecontextofpolicyproblems.Hemaintained: “Indeed,oneofthemajor tasksofthepolicy sciences today is to follow in detail the processes of social invention, diffusion, and restriction throughout the globe for the sake of estimating the significance of specific events”. Writing in 1968,lasswell also maintained: “Asthe globe shrinks into interdependence, relying morefully on science andtechnology,the policy sciences gain significance…Interdependence implies that every participant and every item in the social process is affected by the context in which it occurs”. Similarly Etzioni in 1968 also observed that there was a rising interdependence between nations and economies. Determinants for Globalism As had been already maintained that the country‟s „political system‟ also functions within the „world system‟. The boundaries of the political system are no longer impermeable to outside pressures and influences. The world has become a single social system as a result of growing ties of interdependence. The point is that there is a new kind of interplay between transnational companies and the national and world economies. Globalisation as a term has gained wide attention and recognition. The implications of the notion of globalization are that policy- makers must consider agenda formation and problem definition within a global context. The “policy- makers in each country share a policy context formed by international economic cycle of Prosperity, Recession, Depression and Recovery”. In a global environment, it is possible tospeak of theconvergence of concerns forwhich global strategies maybe formulated. Assuch in a global context, more and more issues will be structured by larger forces outside the nation‟s constitutional framework of public policy- making. PolicyAgendainaGlobalContext It is important for policy- makers to take account of global issues when considering the context of policy problems in a national setting which includes Environment, Poverty and Population Growth(UNDP, WB), AIDS (WHO), Drugs (Producers- Thailand, Pakistan, Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.),Trade and industry, Privatization, Terrorism Other global issues---- social welfare,trade, industry, agriculture, health, education, nuclear, war, famine, etc) are items on the national political agenda which are tied up with global issues. This has been accompanied bygrowing regionalization and internationalization. The global environment formsmuch of the context of national policy- making. 54
CHAPTER- VIII Public Policy Making in Contemporary Ethiopia Ethiopia has an impressive history with two millennia of state sovereignty and independence. Compared to other African states, it is an ancient state that successfully defended the incursions of colonial powers. Ever since the recorded history of Ethiopia, public policy making has, however, been the prerogative of emperors, Kings and palace, Courts, the nobility, military dictators and civilian, bureaucratic elites. This being partly due to the awesome power of policy elites and their dominance and to a certain extent because societal actors lack the organization, autonomy, capacity and resources needed to counter state and bureaucratic players. Haile Selassie Era: During Haile Selassie Era, even the most legal documents affirmed that executive power and the supremacy ofthe emperor over the policy formulating and implementing institutions inthe entire country. Selassie was the Chief legislator, WithpowertoapproveanddisapproveparliamentarylegislationandDissolvetheParliament. Had an indisputable power to Appoint and Dismiss the Prime Minister and other ministers, to determine foreign relations, had complete control on the armed forces and the sole power to appoint and dismiss provincial Governors, Control over Judicial Institutions with the mandate to supervise Courts and Grant Pardon. After the fall of the imperial regime in 1974, executive power and policy making prerogatives were vestedinthestandingcommitteeoftheprovisionalMilitary AdministrativeCouncil(PMAC)ortheDergue. Subsequently with the adoption of socialism as the official ideology of the state, the organizational establishments responsible for institutionalizing the outlook, promoted colossal and monolithic policy- making and administrative structures that extended the executive and the workers Party of Ethiopia‟s (WPE)domainofinfluencefromtheurbancentretotheremoteruralpeasant villages.Thiscontinueduntil 1991. The major actors during the transition, 1991- 1995 In the wake of the fall of the Dergue, the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) promulgated scores of policy and legislative enactments. A total of 133 proclamations providing for, regional reconstructing, regional elections, the powers and duties of the central and regional government agencies. Annual and emergency budget legislation, terminating the institutions of the defunct regime and ratification of multilateralandbilateral relationswithforeigngovernments, hadbeenissuedduringthetransitionperiod. The decisions and sessions of the council of representatives from 1991- 1995. Year No. of Plenary/ Adhoc sessions held No of meetings conducted No of proclamations/ laws passed Average no of members present Average no of members absent No Percent No Percent 1991 14 20 6 60 74 21 26 55 1991/92 39 72 21 54 68 26 32 1992/93 23 48 47 50 75 16 25 1993/94 23 35 28 48 73 18 27 1994/95 12 17 31 46 69 20 31 The official Policy- Making Institutions 1995- 2004 The Ethiopian Parliament consists of two chambers, the House of Federation (HoF), and the House of Peoples‟ Representatives (HPR).However, unlike the countries practicing a parliamentary form of government, the former has no legislative powers. The members of the HPR are elected to fill 55o parliamentary seats for five years, from electoral districts constituted as such, with each district or constituency having a population of 100,000. 20 seats are reserved to provide for representation of minority ethnic groups in the HPR. The Twice weekly (Tuesdays and Thursdays) Plenary sessions of the HPR commence in October and continue to the 9th of july of the following year annually. The house of Peoples Representatives (HPR) is the highest authority with wide range of legislative functions.Its powers evolvedfrom thebroad federal jurisdictions assigned to it andthe executive.Its competencies include passing laws on: Theutilizationofland,rivers,andlakescrossingnationalboundariesandconnectingtwo or more national regional states(NRS) Inter- state and foreign trade; Air,rail,water,transportoperatingintwoormoreNRSs,postalandtelecommunication services Enforcing the rights enshrined in the constitution, including legislating electoral procedures; and Enacting labour and commercial codes HPR also performs the following functions: ❖ Enacts civil laws, when it so desires and/ or is requested to do so byHouse of Federation. ❖ Declares astateofemergency andstate ofwarasand whentheexecutivedemands. ❖ Approvesthebroadsocio-economicandfiscalpoliciesofthecountryandpasseslawson such issues as local currency, the national bank and foreign exchange. ❖ Leviestaxesandcollectsdutiesreservedforthefederalgovernment,andapprovesthe central governments‟ (federal) budget; ❖ Ratifies international agreements concluded by the executive. ❖ Approves the appointment of judges, ministers, commissioners and the other officials seconded by the executive. ❖ Establishes the institutions of human rights and ombudsman and ❖ Questions and/orinvestigatesthePrime Ministerandmembers of theexecutive. In view of the stringent party lines and discipline that EPRDF deputies have in fact been enjoined to observe, the latter has never taken place and is probably unlikely to materialize in the immediate future. The speaker of the HPR, in his absence , his deputy , presides over the plenary and ad-hoc sessions, 56
and on behalf of the HPR, acts as a liaison with domestic and international agencies, leads and administers its affairs and co-ordinates the various committees. The1995 constitution empowers the HPRthroughthe power of legislation. It is grantedthe power to question the Prime Minister and other top officials of government agencies, to examine both the executive‟s handling of its powers and discharge of its duties, taking the necessary measures should these have been misused. However, party discipline and structure with a lack of competence among the bulk of theMPs,militatedagainst theexerciseof theirlegislative duties,as detailedintheconstitutionandby law. In any case, calling the executive to account for its behaviour and actions, and investigating its performances, are the responsibility of theHPR. The House of Federation: A Non- Legislative Chamber Elected for five years, the second chamber of the Ethiopian parliament, the House of Federation (HoF). It has come to symbolize ethnic representation and embodiment of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (NNPs).StateLegislatures (or) Statecouncils elects representatives totheHoF HoF performs the following functions ✓ Interprets the constitution ✓ Organize the council of Constitutional Inquiry to assist it in the interpretation of the Constitution. ✓ Takesdecisionsontheself-determinationofNNPs,includingsecession,asprovidedforunderthe Constitution. ✓ Promote the equality of the peoples ofEthiopia ✓ Settle disputes, if and when they arise between two or more NNPs; and ✓ Determine the division of revenues evolving from central and NRs tax sources to determine the formula applicable for the apportionment of subsidies which the central government earmarks for NRSs. In June 2005, the HoF constituted three committees comprises eleven members, which invariably reflected its multiple responsibilities. They are as follows: 1. State Affairs Standing Committee 2. The Revenue Administration Committee 3. The Legal Affairs Standing Committee References Thomas.R.Dye.(1995)UnderstandingPublicPolicy,PrenticeHall,Englewoodcliffs,NewJersey. Shriram Maheshwari (1999): Administrative theory: An introduction, Macmillan India Limited, New Delhi. Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar (2003): Deliberative Policy Analysis- Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, New York. Adrian Kay (2006): The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK and USA Michael Hill and Peter Hupe (2002): Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice, Sage Publications, London Jack Rabin(Ed) (2005): Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Group, USA. Michael Moran., et.al (Ed)(2006): The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. R.K. Sapru (2004): Public Policy: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation, Sterling Publishers Private Limited, New Delhi. Francois andErwin (Eds) (2000): The State of Public and Development Management in South Africa, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. G. Palanithurai, S.Sivakumar and J.Vanishree (2006): New Pubic Management: A Case Analysis of District Administration, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. Maureen and Rathin (Eds)(1999): Economic Decentralization and Public Management Reform, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar (2003): Deliberative Policy Analysis- Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, New York. 57 58

More Related Content

DOCX
Lesson 1.docx
PROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
 
PPT
12758751.ppt
MyatThuzar7
 
PPT
What is public policy and its charactristics.ppt
nouranezarour
 
PDF
ppt on understaing policy
nida19
 
PPTX
Policy analysis
Cristina Buada
 
PPTX
the discussion on Concept-and-Nature.pptx
rachelcandido2
 
PDF
Anilnidafinalpptonunderstaingpolicy 120906214954-phpapp02
Cecil Pablo
 
PDF
Public policy as dividends of democracy
Alexander Decker
 
Lesson 1.docx
PROF. PAUL ALLIEU KAMARA
 
12758751.ppt
MyatThuzar7
 
What is public policy and its charactristics.ppt
nouranezarour
 
ppt on understaing policy
nida19
 
Policy analysis
Cristina Buada
 
the discussion on Concept-and-Nature.pptx
rachelcandido2
 
Anilnidafinalpptonunderstaingpolicy 120906214954-phpapp02
Cecil Pablo
 
Public policy as dividends of democracy
Alexander Decker
 

Similar to Lecture note.pdf (20)

PDF
Approaches to the study of Public Policy.pdf
WAQARULLAHZIA1
 
PDF
approaches to policy making.pdf
JohnRichCaidic
 
PPTX
Policy Science Lecture in the philippines advanced education.pptx
JonathanOche
 
PPTX
Introduction to Public Administration
mahtab sajib
 
PPTX
Unit 5 Stages of Public Policy.pptx_JU_E
JifarRaya
 
PPTX
lecture No 1.pptx public policy and performance
support346674
 
PPTX
Public Policy and its various prospectss
support346674
 
PPTX
Theory and Concept of Public Administration-i.pptx
dicefredeluces
 
PPT
PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: AND OVERVIEW
Aletha
 
PPT
Field of Specialization of Public Administration
Jo Balucanag - Bitonio
 
DOCX
Discerning politics what is politics
Maryjoydailo
 
PPTX
Introduction to Public Administration
KarimunNessa1
 
PPTX
bas public administration thrives .pptx
yohajohn
 
DOCX
Transcript public policy
Bern0
 
PPTX
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Nina Maureen Panis
 
PDF
Public Policy and Factors Influencing Public Policy
inventionjournals
 
PDF
Public Policy
Jo Balucanag - Bitonio
 
PDF
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02.pdf
MaddyNatividad1
 
PDF
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02 (1).pdf
MaddyNatividad1
 
PDF
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02 2.pdf
mmople
 
Approaches to the study of Public Policy.pdf
WAQARULLAHZIA1
 
approaches to policy making.pdf
JohnRichCaidic
 
Policy Science Lecture in the philippines advanced education.pptx
JonathanOche
 
Introduction to Public Administration
mahtab sajib
 
Unit 5 Stages of Public Policy.pptx_JU_E
JifarRaya
 
lecture No 1.pptx public policy and performance
support346674
 
Public Policy and its various prospectss
support346674
 
Theory and Concept of Public Administration-i.pptx
dicefredeluces
 
PUBLIC POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION: AND OVERVIEW
Aletha
 
Field of Specialization of Public Administration
Jo Balucanag - Bitonio
 
Discerning politics what is politics
Maryjoydailo
 
Introduction to Public Administration
KarimunNessa1
 
bas public administration thrives .pptx
yohajohn
 
Transcript public policy
Bern0
 
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Nina Maureen Panis
 
Public Policy and Factors Influencing Public Policy
inventionjournals
 
Public Policy
Jo Balucanag - Bitonio
 
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02.pdf
MaddyNatividad1
 
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02 (1).pdf
MaddyNatividad1
 
publicpolicy-130621235359-phpapp02 2.pdf
mmople
 
Ad

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
Spotlight on road Injury in the Philippines
KateBustos2
 
PPTX
Self-Awareness and Values Development presentation
KhanfromInfitel
 
PDF
ORGANIZATIONAL communication -concepts and importance._20250806_112132_0000.pdf
preethijothivel2006
 
PPTX
Ryan Daly Gallardo Prod Management PPT .pptx
tiwarysonal0191
 
PDF
Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) Specialization Ce...
VICTOR MAESTRE RAMIREZ
 
PPTX
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN UGANDA.pptx
ssuser0dda571
 
PPTX
Management and Leadership across culture at McDonald's
ssuserba0a06
 
PDF
JOB APPLICATION AND RESUME WRITING IN MANAGEMENT
HARINIS967745
 
PPTX
Leading, its definiton, example, and types.pptx
laurencemallari4
 
PDF
Eugene Orlovsky CEO & Founder of Perfsys
Perfsys Company
 
PPTX
SM_Behavior Based Safety (BBS)_Unit V.pptx
veeramuthu sundararaju
 
PPTX
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN LEADERSHIP.pptx
sagingparat
 
PDF
The Untold Story of Swami Vijay Kumar Durai: Building PRS International
SanskarTiwari20
 
PPTX
Organisational behaviour_ managerial applications of perception
durga7339429670
 
PDF
Leading with Empathy: Building Inclusive Growth in Bangladesh
Ehsan Tanim
 
PPT
Introduction to Operations And Supply Management
evelynkongyeefoon
 
PPTX
Organizing and Staffing, Staffing process.pptx
laurencemallari4
 
PPTX
Presentation on Housekeeping Issue @RP.pptx
pabitrapanda14
 
PPTX
WORLD TRADE ORAGANIZATION- INSTITUTION TO MANAGE TRADE BETWEEN NATIONS
jpallavi308
 
PPT
Operations Management Supply-Chain Management
evelynkongyeefoon
 
Spotlight on road Injury in the Philippines
KateBustos2
 
Self-Awareness and Values Development presentation
KhanfromInfitel
 
ORGANIZATIONAL communication -concepts and importance._20250806_112132_0000.pdf
preethijothivel2006
 
Ryan Daly Gallardo Prod Management PPT .pptx
tiwarysonal0191
 
Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) Specialization Ce...
VICTOR MAESTRE RAMIREZ
 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN UGANDA.pptx
ssuser0dda571
 
Management and Leadership across culture at McDonald's
ssuserba0a06
 
JOB APPLICATION AND RESUME WRITING IN MANAGEMENT
HARINIS967745
 
Leading, its definiton, example, and types.pptx
laurencemallari4
 
Eugene Orlovsky CEO & Founder of Perfsys
Perfsys Company
 
SM_Behavior Based Safety (BBS)_Unit V.pptx
veeramuthu sundararaju
 
EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE IN LEADERSHIP.pptx
sagingparat
 
The Untold Story of Swami Vijay Kumar Durai: Building PRS International
SanskarTiwari20
 
Organisational behaviour_ managerial applications of perception
durga7339429670
 
Leading with Empathy: Building Inclusive Growth in Bangladesh
Ehsan Tanim
 
Introduction to Operations And Supply Management
evelynkongyeefoon
 
Organizing and Staffing, Staffing process.pptx
laurencemallari4
 
Presentation on Housekeeping Issue @RP.pptx
pabitrapanda14
 
WORLD TRADE ORAGANIZATION- INSTITUTION TO MANAGE TRADE BETWEEN NATIONS
jpallavi308
 
Operations Management Supply-Chain Management
evelynkongyeefoon
 
Ad

Lecture note.pdf

  • 1. CHAPTER- I INTRODUCTION „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 comity of social sciences. As a study of products of government, policy forms a significant component in many a course and programme in numerous disciplines- political science, public administration, economics, and management. So rapid is the growth that many researchers, teachers, public administrators now feel that it is becoming more and more unmanageable. The disciplines required to comprehend public policy cut right across the old academic lines of demarcation. Indeed, it is this interdisciplinary quality which makes the field of public policy interesting and thought- provoking. „Public Policy‟ is a concept now much in vogue. It is a frequently used term in our daily life and in our academic literature, where we often make references to the national health policy, the new education policy, wage policy, agricultural policy, and American or French policy and so on. It is the area which had to do with those spheres which are also labeled as public. The concept of public policy presupposes that there is a domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but held in common. In the past, studies on public policy were dominated by researchers and students of political science who largely concentrated on the institutional structure and philosophical justification of the government. The focus was rarely on the policies themselves. Political science wastosomeextentpreoccupiedwiththe activitiesofthevarious political institutionsandgroupsin relation to their success in the pursuit of political power. It hardly recognized the role which such organizations played towards the formulation of policy as one of its main concerns. Yet the policy is an important element of the politicalprocess. Thomas Dye, a leading scholar of policy analysis, says: “Traditional (political science) studies described the institutions in which public policy was formulated. But unfortunately the linkages between important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy were largelyunexplored.” Hefurther believes that todaythefocus of political scienceisshifting to public policy- “to the description and explanation of the causes and consequences of government activity”.While theconcern of political science is about processes by which public policy was determined, has increased, most students of public administration would acknowledge that the public servants themselves are intimately involved in the shaping of the policies. The study of public administration has hitherto tended to concentrate on the machinery for the implementation of given policies. It has attended to the organization of public authorities, the behaviour of public servants and increasingly, the methods of resource allocation, administration and review. With such an approach, it is difficult to determine much about the way policy isformulated, although it is generally contended that the experience of policy implementation feeds back into the furtherance of policy- making process. But public policy is more „political‟ than public administration. It is an
  • 2. effort to apply political science to public affairs but has concerns with processes inside the field of public administration. `In brief, paststudies on public policy have been mainly dominated by scholars of scholars of political science and public administration and have tended to concentrate more on the contentofpolicy process,theprocessofitsformulationanditsimplementation. Thestudyofpublic policy has evolved into what is virtually a new branch of the social sciences- that so called policy sciences. This concept of policy sciences was first formulated by Harold Lasswell in 1951. Today the policy sciences have gone far beyond new and naïve aspirations for societally relevant knowledge. CONCEPTS OF PUBLIC AND POLICY The Idea of Public It is first important to understand the concept of „Public‟ for a discussion of public policy. We often use such terms as „public interest‟, „public sector‟, „public opinion‟, „public health‟ and so on. The starting point is that „Public Policy‟ has to do with those spheres which are so labeled as „public‟ as opposed to spheres involving the idea of „private‟. The concept of public policy presupposes that there is an area or domain of life which is not private or purely individual, but held in common. Public dimension is generally referred to „public ownership‟ or control for „public purpose‟. The public comprises that domain of human activity which is regarded as requiring governmental intervention or common action. However there has always been a conflict between what is public and what is private. W.F. Baberargues that thepublic sectorhas tenkeydifferences from the private sector: i. It faces more complex and ambiguous tasks; ii. It has more problems in implementing its decisions; iii. It employs more people with a wider range of motivations; iv. It is more concerned with securing opportunities or capacities; v. Itismoreconcernedwithcompensatingformarketfailure; vi. It engages in activities with greater symbolic significance; vii. Itisheldtostricterstandardsofcommitmentandlegality; viii. It has a greater opportunity to respond to issues of fairness; ix. It must operate or appear to operate in the public interest; x. It must maintain minimal levels of public support above that required in private industry. Public administration emerged as an instrument of the state for securing public interest rather than private interests, whereas for the political economists only markets could balance private and public interests, the new liberalism was based upon a belief that public administration was a more rational; means of promoting the public interest. For Max Weber the growth of bureaucracy was due to the process of rationalization in industrial society. The civil servant was therationalfunctionarywhosemaintaskwastocarryoutthewillthoseelectedbythepeople. Public bureaucracy was therefore, different to that which existed in the private sector because it was motivated to serve the public interest. The rational public interest argument started eroding after the 2nd world war. To Herbert Simon bureaucracies exhibited a large measure of irrationality or at least bounded rationality. To Muller bureaucrats did not function in the public interest and displayed the capacity to have distinct goals of their own. In this connection a comparative study of bureaucracy by Aberbach observed: “The last quarter in this century is witnessing the virtual disappearance of the Weberian distinction between the roles of the politicianandthe bureaucrat, producingwhat maybelabeledapure hybrid”. ThePublic and private sectors reveal themselves as overlapping and interacting, rather than as well- defined categories. The concept of Policy Like the idea of „public‟, the concept of policy is not a precise term. Policy denotes, among other elements, guidance for action. It may take the form of: i. A declaration of goals; ii. A declaration of course of action; iii. A declaration of general purpose; and iv. An authoritative decision. Hogwood and Gunn specified ten uses of the term „policy‟: i. As a label for field of activity; ii. As an expression of desired state ofaffairs; iii. As specific proposals; iv. As decisions of government; v. As formal authorization vi. As a prgramme; vii. As output; viii. As outcome; ix. As a theory or model; x. As a process. Unfortunately the policy itself is something which takes different forms. There is thrust to designate policyas the„outputs‟ of thepoliticalsystem, andin alesser degreeto definepublic policyas „more or less interdependent policies dealing with many different activities. Studies of public policy areas, on the contrary, have tended to focus on the evaluation of policy decisions in terms of specified values- a rational rather than a policy analysis. The magnitude of this problem can be recognized from the other definitions, which have been advanced by scholars in this field. Y.D ror, one of the leading students of the policy sciences, defines policies as “genral directives on the main lines of action to be followed”. Similarly Peter Self defines policies as “changing directives as to how tasks should be interpreted and performed”. To Sir Geoffrey Vickers, policies are “decisions giving direction, coherence and continuity to the courses of action for which the decision- making body is responsible”.
  • 3. Carl Friedrich regards policy as “….a proposed course of action of a person, gropu, or government within a given environment providing obstacles and opportunities which the policy was proposed to utilize and overcome in an effort to reach a goal or realize an objective or a purpose”. James Anderson suggests that policy be regarded as “ a purposive course of action followed by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem or matter of concern”. Taken as a whole, policy may be defined as a purposive course of action taken or adoptedbythoseinpowerinpursuitofcertaingoalsorobjectives.Itshouldbe addedhere that public policies are the policies adopted and implemented by government bodies and officials. DavidEastondefinespublicpolicyas“theauthoritativeallocationofvalues forthewholesociety”. Public policies are formulated by what Easton calls the “authorities” in a political system, namely, “elders, paramount chiefs, executives, legislators, judges, administrators, councilors, monarchs, and the like”. According to him, these are the persons who “engage in the daily affairs of a political system”, are “recognized by most members of the system as having responsibility for thesematters” and take actions that are “accepted as bindingmost of the time by most of the members so long as they act within the limits of their roles”. Public policy focuses on what J. Dewy (1927) once described as “the public and its problems”. ThomasDye‟sDefinitionstates:Publicpolicyiswhatevergovernmentschoosetodoornot todo”.Similarly,RobertLineberrysaysthat“itiswhatgovernmentsdoandfailtodo-toandfor their citizens”. In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do and what they actually do. NATURE OF PUBLIC POLICY A Policy may be general or specific, broad or narrow, simple or complex, public or private, written or unwritten, explicit or implicit, discretionary or detailed, and qualitative or quantitative. Here the emphasis is on “Public Policy” which is what a government chooses as guidance for action. From the view point of public policy, activities of government can be put into three categories. First, activities which are attached to specified policies; second, activities which are general in nature; and third, activities which are based on vague and inconsistent policies. However, in practice, a government rarely has a set of guiding principles for all its activities. Important public policies areoftenmademoreexplicit, particularlywhere theissueof alaw, a regulation, or a plan and the like isinvolved. A Public Policymaycover amajor portion of its activities which are consistent withthe development policy. Socio- Economic Development, Equality, Liberty, Self- reliance or similar broad principles of guidance for action may be adopted as a development policy or national goal. A Public Policy may be narrow, covering a specific activity,such as Family Planning. A Public Policy may also be appliedto all peopleina country or it may be limitedto asection of its people. Besides, each level of government- Federal, Sub- National, Zonal, Woreda and Kebele level-mayhaveitsspecificorgeneralpolicies.Thenthereare„MegaPolicies‟.GeneralGuidelines to be followed by all specific policies are termed as “mega policy”. According to Dror, „Mega policies‟ form a kind of master policy, as distinct from concrete discrete policies, and involve the establishment of overall goals to serve as guidelines for the larger sets of concrete and specific policies. All policies generally contain definite goals or objectives in more implicit or explicit terms. Policies have outcomes that may or not have been foreseen. Public policies in modern political system are purposive or goal-oriented statements. Again a Public Policy may be either positive or negative in form. In its Positive form, it may involve some form of overt government action to deal with a particular problem. On the other hand, in its negative form, it involves a decision by public servants not to take action on some matter on which a government order is sought. Public Policy has a legally coercive quality that‟s citizens accept as legitimate, e.g., Taxes must be paid unless one wants to run the risk of fine or Jail sentences. This legally coercive quality of public policies makes public organizations distinct from the private organizations. The nature of policy as a purposive course of action can be better or more fully understood if it is compared with the following relatedconcepts 1. Policy- Making and Decision Making 2. Policies and Goals 3. Policy making and Planning 4. Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy 5. Policy Analysis and Policy Management 6. Policy Inputs,PolicyOutputs and PolicyOutcomes Policy- Making and Decision- Making Policy- making is closely related to decision- making. However, it is not same as decision- making. Policy- Making does involve decision- making, but a decision does not necessarily constitute a policy. Decision- making often involves an identification of a Problem, a careful analysis of possible alternatives and a selection of one alternative for action. Generally decisions are taken by the administrators in their day-to- day work within the existing framework of policy. The Policy decisions eventually taken thus provide a sense of direction to the courses of administrative action. Anderson says: “Public decisions are decisions made by public officials that authorize or give direction and content to public policy actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive actions”. These may include decisions to issue executive orders, promulgate administrative rules, or make important judicial interpretations of laws. Policies and Goals Policies are distinct from goals and can be distinguished from the latter as means from ends. By goals or objectives one means the ends towards which actions are directed. It is reasonable to expect that a policy indicates the direction towards which action is sought. Policies involve a deliberate choice of actions designed to attain those goals and objectives. The actions can take the form of directives to do or refrain from certain actions. Public Policy is about means
  • 4. and ends, which have to have a relationship to each other. To say that policy- making involves a choice of goals or objectives is to argue that it deals with values. Policies as well asvalues are chosenunderthe influenceof values. Decision makers often actonthebasisoftheirbeliefsorperceptionsofthepublicinterestconcerningwhatisaproper or morally correct public policy. Thus goals and objectives depend on the values of the policy- makers. This could be explained in the following manner: Many students of policy sciences would like to apply science or reason (making use of the rationality model) for the determination of policy objectives and goals. They try to solve problems mainlybyusingsuchobjectivemethodsasoperationsresearchorcost-benefitanalysis soaslimit policy objectives. Such an approach, based on a rationality model can, however, be applied only to a limited number of problems. Policy- making and Planning Policy- making must be distinguished from Planning. Broadly speaking, a plan is a programme of action for attaining definite goals or objectives. In this sense, a plan is a policy statement and planning implies policy-making. Often the goals or policies of a plan are not stipulated in the plan documents. They may be stated only in very general or vague terms, or are found to be internally inconsistent or contradictory. A National Development Plan, broadly speaking, is a collection of targets or individual projects which, when put together, may not constitute an integrated scheme. Allocation of resources for investments and showing of targets in different sectors of the economyareconsideredtobeatthecoreofplanning.However,ithasbeenaptlystatedthata plan needs a proper policy framework. Targets cannot be achieved just because investments are providedfor. Theyhavetobedrawn withintheframework ofPolicies.Successfulpoliciesmakefor successful plans and administration. Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy A distinction may be drawn between Policy Analysis and Policy Advocacy. Policy Analysis is nothing more than finding out the impact of policy. It is a technique to measure organizational effectivenessthroughanexamination andevaluationoftheeffectofaprogram. “PolicyAnalysisis a systematic and data- based alternative to intuitive judgments about the effects of policy or policy options. It is used: © for problem assessment and monitoring; © as a „before the fact‟ decision tool;and © for evaluation”. PolicyAnalysisisnotthesameasprescribingwhatpoliciesgovernments oughttopursue. Policy Advocacy is concerned with what governments ought to do, or bringing about changes in what they do through discussion, persuasion, organization and activism. On the other hand, Policy Analysis is concerned with examination of the impact of policy using the tools of systematic inquiry. Thomas Dye labels “Policy Analysis” as the “the thinking man‟s response” to demands. The policy Analysis has three basic concerns. First, its primary concern is the “explanation” of policy rather than the “prescription” of policy. Secondly, it involves a rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies through the use of tools of systematic inquiry. Thirdly, it involves an effort todevelop and test general propositions aboutthe causes and consequences of public policies. Thus Policy Analysis can be both scientific as well as relevant to the problems of society. The role of Policy Analysis is not to replace but to supplement political Advocacy. As Wildavsky (1980) has argued: “The purpose of policy analysis is not to eliminate advocacy but to raise the level of argument among contending interests… The end result, hopefully, would be higher quality debate and perhaps eventually Public choice among better known alternatives”. Policy Analysis and Policy Management The distinction between Policy Analysis and Policy Management needs to be highlighted, though in practice these two related processes overlap to some extent. According to Dror, „policy analysis‟ deals with the substantive examination of policy issues and the identification of preferable alternatives, in part with the help of systematic approaches and explicit methods. „Policy management‟ deals with the management of policy-making and policy-preparation process, to assure that it produces high quality policies. The interdependence of policy analysis andpolicymanagementcanbeseeninthenecessityof assuring, withthehelpof appropriate policy management, that adequate policy analysis is undertaken as part of crisis management systems and reinforcing innovativeness. Policy Analysis covers several methods and concepts, some of which are quantitative in character, including methods like social experimentation, game stimulation and contingency planning. Despite such distinctions between policy analysis and policy management, both are interrelated aspects of policy- making and cover a major part of the tasks of senior administrators. Therefore, it is essential that these two processes should be treated jointly. Policy Inputs, Policy Outputs and Policy Outcomes Policy inputs are the demands made on the Political systems by individuals and groups for action or inaction about some perceived problems. Such demands may include a general inconsistence that government should do something to aproposal for specific action on thematter. In the Political system Model, outputsare regarded either as effects on the environment or as „feedback‟ to the Political Supporters of the system. Easton says that outputs are said to constitutea bodyor specific inducements forthe members of apolitical system tosupport it, either by threats of sanctions, rewards for support given, or by socialization into the political norms of the society. 7 8
  • 5. In other words, Policy outputs are the actual decisions of the implementers. They are what a Government does, as distinguished from what it says it is going to do. Examples of Policy Outputs relate to such matters as the education institutions built, taxes collected, compensation paidor curbs on thetrade eliminated.Outcomes are real resultswhether intendedor unintended. Policy outputs are, however, different from policy outcomes. The concept of outcomes lays stress on what actually happens to the target groups intended to be affected by the policy, If the intendedchanges ontargetgroupsdo notoccur,somethingiswrong.Labourwelfarepoliciesmay be used to illustrate this point. Although one can measure welfare policy outputs- the amount collected by way of taxation, the number of persons helped, the amount of benefits paid and the like- it is difficult to measure the consequences of these actions. Here our intention is to evaluate thepolicies.Inotherwords,itmeansassessingwhetherthepoliciesactuallyachievewhattheyare intended to achieve SCOPE OF PUBLIC POLICY Asignificant part of thestudyof publicpolicyconsistsofthedevelopment ofscenarios(Postulated sequence of future events) and extrapolations (calculate approximately from the known data) of contemporary trends. The scope and the sheer (neither too much or too low) size of the Public sector has grown enormously in all the developing countries in response to the increasing complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization and urbanization. At present the functions of practically all governments, especially of the developing countries have significantly increased. They are now concerned with the more complex functions of Nation- Building and Socio-EconomicProgress.Todaythegovernmentisnotmerelythekeeperofpeace,thearbiterof disputes, the provider of common goods and day-to- day services. It has directly or indirectly, become the principal innovator, the major determiner of social and economic programmes and the main financier as well as the main guarantor of large-scale enterprises. In many developing countries, there is great pressure on governments to accelerate national development, make use of up-to-dateand relevant technological innovations, adopt and facilitate necessary institutional changes, increase national production, make full use of human and other resources and improve the level of living. These trends and developments have therefore enhancedboththeSize andScopeof PublicPolicy.MichaelTeitzdescribestheoutreachofpublic policy in terms of the citizen‟s lifecycle:- “A modern urban man is born in a publicly financed hospital, receives his education in publicly supported school or university, spends a good part of his time travelling on publicly built transportation facilities, communicates through the post office or the quasi- public telephone system, drinks his public drinking water, disposes of his garbage through the public removal system, read his library books, picnic in his public parks, is protected by public police ,fire and health systems, eventually, he dies again in a hospital and may be buried in a public cemetery. Ideological conservatives notwithstanding his everyday life are inextricably bound up with government decisions on these and numerous other public services.” The line of argument developed here is that all of us are greatly affected by the myriad (countless) Public Policies in oureveryday lives.The range of public policy is vast: fromvital to the trivial. Today Public Policies may deal with such substantive areas as defense, environment protection, medical care, health, education, housing, taxation, inflation, science and technology, and so on. POLICY TYPES Some social scientists and scholars have attempted to discuss the typologies of Policy issues. These facilitate the comparison between issues and Policies. Lowi, for example, suggests a Classification of Policy Issues in terms of being:  Distributive Policy Issues: Policy issues which are concerned with the distribution of new resources.  RedistributivePolicy Issues:arethosewhichareconcernedwithchangingthedistributionof existing resources.  Regulative Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with regulation and control of activities.  Constituent Policy Issues: are those which are concerned with the setting –up (or) reorganization of institutions. Each of these Policy issues forms a different power arena. However it may be mentioned here that LOWI‟s view of Politics as a function of policies has been criticized as over- simplistic, methodologically suspect, and testability. Cobbe and Elder, for instance, observe that Lowi‟s typology has basic limitations. It does not provide a framework for understanding change as the types become less clear and more diffuse.  Conflict Policy Issues: Cobbe and Elder propose an alternative classification of Policy issues in terms of conflict rather than content. Their focus is on the way in which Conflict is createdandmanaged.Tothem aConflictmayarisebetweentwoormoregroupsover issues relating to the distribution of positions (or) resources. These may created by such means and devices as: a) manufacture by a contending party who perceive unfairness (or) bias in the distribution of positions (or) resources b) manufacture of an issue for Personal or Group gain; and c) unanticipated human events, natural disasters, international conflict, war and technological changes. Such issues then constitute the agenda for Policy- making are known as Conflict Policy issues.  Bargaining Policy Issues: Hogwood and Wilson use the criteria of costs and benefits from the point of view of the possibilities of different outcomes, forms of bargaining and conflict and a range of alternatives. There are redistribution or cuts issues which involve bargaining over who get what, who gets more, and who gets less. For Wilson, criteria of costs and benefits may be concentrated (or) dispersed. An Issue, which may have very 10
  • 6. concentratedbenefitstoasmallsectionofsocietybutwhosecostsarewidelydispersed,is of a different kind to one that may be for, “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”. SIGNIFICANCE AND WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY Most governments of third World countries are engaged in the momentous task kindling national resurgence through Socio- Economic development. They are struggling hard to develop their economy, to sustain improvements in the social system and to increase the capacity of their political system with a view to achieving the major objective or national development. They seek to improve relevant policies. It is therefore, taken for granted that the study of approaches, strategies and concepts which will contribute towards this end are essential. The study of Public Policy represents a powerful approach for this purpose. Public Policy is an important mechanism formovingasocialsystem from thepasttothefuture.Ithelpstoshapethefuture. AlvinToffler exposed the problem of adjustment to rapid change in his Popular sociological book, “Future Shock”. The future requires Policies and Choices. What is trivial today may be of colossal (huge) importance in a future decade later. We can understand the future by extrapolation of the presenttrends.Wemaytaketheideaofprojectingsomekeysocialtrends intothefuture. Public Policyis conditionedby thepast.Howthepresentdimensions ofPublicPolicyinthe developing countries emerged, how they now appear, how the present sustains them are importantquestions inthestudyofpublicpolicy.Inthesecountries,thescopeandthesheersizeof the public sector has grown enormously in response to the increasing complexity of technology, social organization, industrialization, urbanization and environmental protection. The Growth of publicfunctions has paralleled thegrowth ofpublic policies.The studyofthepast isveryimportant as it helps in explaining the present policy system. The past policies perpetuate themselves into present and future policies. The study of Public Policy is of vital importance for the present. It deals with the definition of a policy problem. The definition of a problem may generate more conflict than consensus. In Policy making Political power tends to impose upon the definitions of the problem. The present policy making can be thought of as problem- solving behavior, realizing that the definition of alternatives is the supreme instrument ofpower. The earliest writings of Political Scientists reveal an interest in the policies pursued by variousgovernments andtheirimpacts onsociety.Yetthefocusofattentionhasneverreallybeen on the policies themselves but rather on the political processes and institutions of government. This is not to say, however, that traditional political science was unconcerned with policy. Constitutional policy, Foreign Policy and Policies relating to civil rights were also the subjects of attention.The focus of attention was primarily on the institutions andthe structures of government inwhich public policy wasformulated.Thestudies,however, did notexplorethelinkagesbetween important institutional arrangements and the content of public policy. Currently, the focus of Political Science is shifting to Public Policy- to the description, analysis and explanation of the causes and consequences of governmentactivity. WHY STUDY PUBLIC POLICY? Earlier, most people assumed that once the legislature passed a Law and appropriated money for it, the purposes of the law would be achieved. They believed that governments could achieve such goals as the elimination of poverty and the prevention of crime through the adoption of right policies. But now there is a growing uneasiness among social scientists about the effectiveness of the governments. The results have been the sudden awakening of interest in the study of public policy. Policy in the main may be studied for two reasons: ◉ For developing policy science study ◉ For Political and administrativereasons ForDevelopingPolicyScienceStudy First of all, public policy can be studied with a view to gaining greater knowledge and understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions. An understanding of the linkages between the environment and public policy contributes to the development of policy science.Notonlythis,anunderstandingofthecausesandconsequences ofpublicpolicyhelpsus toapply scientific knowledgeto the solution of practical social problems. Theprofessionals, ifthey understand and know something about public policy, are in a position to say something useful concerning how governments or public authorities can act to achieve their policy goals. Such advice can either be on what policies can be pursued for achieving particular goals or what environmental factors are conducive to the development of a given policy. Indeed factual knowledge is a prerequisite to solving the problems of society. In other words, the study of public policyhelpsthedevelopmentofprofessionaladviceabouthowtoachieveparticulargoals. For Political and Administrative Reasons Public policy can also be studied for political and administrative reasons in order to ensure that governments select and adopt appropriate policies. The study of Public policy has much to offer to the development of administration in different sectors of the economy. It will enable the administration to engage in such issues as are of public importance and are concerned with the transformation of values into public policy-making and demanding the meaningful actions of public servants. The social scientists, especially political scientists, manifest concern with what governments should do with appropriate public policy. They contend that political science cannot be „silent‟ or „impotent‟ on current social and political problems and that political scientists and academics in Public Administration have a moral obligation to put forward a particular policy on a particular problem. They should advance the level of political knowledge and improve the quality of public policy in whatever ways they think best, notwithstanding the fact that substantial disagreement exists in society over what constitutes approximate policies. COMPONENTS OF A PUBLIC POLICY Definition of Components of Public Policy Austin Ranney explains the various components of Public Policy in the following manner: * A Particular object or Set of objects-- Some designated part of the environment (an aspect of society or the physical world) which is intended to be affected. 11 12
  • 7. * A Desired Course of events– A popular sequence of behaviour desired in a particular object or set of objects. * A Selected line of action– A particular set of actions chosen to bring about the desired course of events, * in other words, not merely whatever society happens to be doing towards the set of objectives at the moment, but a deliberate selection of one line of action from among several possible options. * An implementation of Intent-- the actions actually undertaken vis-à-vis the particular set of objects in pursuance of the choices and declaration. Policies may be explicit, but theymay remain implicit also. A policy may be made explicit in a piece of formally enacted legislation but it may also be inferred from the broad pattern of administrative action and behaviour. A policy in other words, is distilled from the administrative practices also; administrative practice is the true test of a policy. AUTONOMY IN POLICY MAKING Public Policy making assumes that the policy makers enjoy complete independence from external control and are autonomous in regard to policy making. The unfortunate fact is that though the Third World Countries have gained political independence, many of them may not really be independent in the matter of policy- making. Many new states are in practice dependent states, mainly because of the nature of their elite. Most of the developing countries have narrow-based elite which has hogged (Controlled) social, economic and political power and is confined to a few urban centers which, in turn, are hitched to a colonial system dominated by metropolitan “super centers” lying outside these countries. The local Elite is engaged in a plantation- Type Economy and in the manipulation of the civil –military cliques (small exclusive group of people) in domestic politics. This monopoly and the narrow social base of such an elite, which effectively restricts independent policy making, must be broken. The current dependent status can be escaped by firm adoption of two meta- policies; these are the Policies behind Policies: i. Import substitution leading to economic sufficiency and transforming the colonial economy to an independent industrial system, and ii. A nation‟s armament and defensepolicy. iii. Thus, Policies underlying import substitution and national defense are the essential concomitants (occurring together) of political independence. Other constraints are also encountered by national policy makers. One such is the factor of „sunk cost‟. The former commitments effectively limit policy alternatives and thus choices. Governmental fragmentation, too, denies the policy makers the ability to attack problems comprehensively. For instance, The Ministry of Health in Ethiopiadiscourages cigarette smoking, butother agencies encourage tobacco- cultivation. Theconflictingdevelopmental policies tendto neutralize the impact of the national policy on smoking. Another Powerful constraint is the empirical reality as pointed out by Herbert Simon, namely the existence of the administrative (or „Satisfying‟) man in Public Administration. The „Administrative man‟ works out a few alternatives of a problem and then a few consequences of each of these alternatives of a problem, before making a choice. The existence of the administrative man is also a constraint on public policy making. No policy maker can flout (ignore) the public opinion. Finally, the state of economic and infra-structural development in the country also acts as aconstraint against the adoption of certain categories of Policy. If a state suffers from paucity of power supply, its policy regarding industrialization cannot succeed. One must never forget the policy making itself involves dealing with conflicting demands. There is also the all-too well-known conflict between the economists and the ecologists. While economists insist on rapid industrialization in the country, the environmentalists plead for conservation of natural resources an thus stand for eco- friendly development. One may see from the above that public policy making is a complex process, involving a wide range of institutions, interests and mechanisms. As Peter Woll, says, “The Policy making process is a complex mechanism involving all levels of government, and a wide range of political institutions that shape the demands and supports of government. At the earliest stages of the evolution of public policy analysis, the concern was to study processes by which public policies are made. The contents of public policies received little attention. Gradually the study of „contents‟ of public policies began to claim more and more attention, and is today the dominant feature of policy studies in the developing countries. Substantive issues are as a result more hotly pursued by public administrators and political scientists. Substantive issues are what Herbert Simon calls „prescribing for Public Policy. Nearly all thespecialissueslikeenvironmentdevelopment,childwelfare, populationandeducation.Alltold, the sub-field of public policy has rapidly emerged as a glamorous one. 14
  • 8. INTRODUCTION CHAPTER- II POLICY ANALYSIS 2. A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of Public Policies. This search involves the use of scientific standards of inference. Sophisticated quantitative techniques may be helpful in establishing valid inferences about causes and consequences, but they are not really essential. Thestudyof publicpolicypreparesandhelps ustocopebetterwiththefuture.Itimprovesour knowledge about thesociety. Animportant part of thestudyof public policyis concerned with society‟sfuture.AsGibsonWinterhasobserved;“Theproblemofpolicyisultimatelyhowthefuture is grasped and appraised. The essential meaning of responsibility is accountability in human fulfillmentinshapingofthesociety‟s future”.Inspite oftheimportanceofthepublicpolicy,thinking about the future is quite primitive, both among social scientists and policy makers in developing countries.Howevertherehasbeenconsiderablegrowthinresearchandtraininginpolicyanalysis since the early 1970s in many developed countries. In most developed countries, Policy Analysis has been substantially stimulated by the government‟s increased concern for public policy problems.Theattractivenessofthegovernmentasaresearchsponsorhasalsobeenenhanced. MEANING AND ISSUES OF POLICYANALYSIS Questions of policy ultimately rest on the application of acknowledge to political decisions. Such knowledge is generated both within andoutside the government agencies and other public affairs institutions. An understanding of the causes and consequences of policy decisions permits us to apply the knowledge of social science to the solution of practical problems. The acquisition and dissemination of information about public policies have become a major theme in social sciences, especially in the discipline of public administration. The use of such knowledge for making, managing and evaluating public policy is generally termed as policy analysis. Policy Analysis is a technique to measure organizational effectiveness throughthe examinationandevaluation oftheeffectofaprogramme.Publicpolicyanalysis thusnothingmore than estimating the impact of public policy on the government programmes. The Dictionary of Public Administration defines policy analysis as “a systematic and data- basedalternativetointuitivejudgementsabouttheeffectsofpolicyorpolicyoptions.Itisused a) for problem assessment andmonitoring, b) as a „before the fact‟ decision tool, and c) for evaluation”. Policy analysis encourages social scientists and policy-makers to examine policy issues and decisions with scientific tools. Thomas Dye Labels Policy analysis as the “the thinking man‟s response”todemands.Heobservesthatspecificallypublic analysisinvolves: 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 judgement that understanding is a prerequisiteto prescription, andthat understanding is a prerequisite to prescription, and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather than rhetoric or polemics 3. Aneffort todevelop and testgeneralpropositionsaboutthe causesand consequencesof publicpolicyandtoaccumulatereliableresearch findings ofgeneral relevance.Theobject is to develop general theories about public policy that are reliable and that apply to different governmental 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.” PolicyAnalysisasatechniqueputsdatatousein,ordecidingabout,estimatingandmeasuringthe consequences of public policies. Its Purpose is twofold. It provides maximum information with minimal cost about i. the likely consequences of proposed policies, & ii. the actual consequences of the policies already adopted. To achieve these two purposes, various methods or approaches are applied. Among the principal methodologies are: a) Systems Analysis and Simulation; b) Cost- Benefit Analysis; c) New Approaches to Budgeting; d) Policy Experimentation; and e) Policy Evaluation Policy Analysis is thus an interdisciplinary drawing upon data from other disciplines. It is essentially impact research. A number of trends have occurred in policy analysis research since the early 1970s. Stuart S. Nagel has identified four key elements to it which have been undergoing a change over the past 20 years. These are: i. the goals with which policy analysis isconcerned, ii. the means for achieving thosegoals, iii. themethodsfordeterminingtheeffects of alternativemeans ongoal-achievement,and iv. the profession of policy analysis which is applying these methods in relating means to goals. Goals refer to the societal benefits minus societal costs that one is seeking to achieve through publicdecisions.Thereisagreatertrendtowardsconsideringgoalsasgivenhypothesesandthen attempting to determine what policies will maximize or optimize them. The crime reduction field providesagoodexampleoftheneedforanapproachtothisproblem.Onthemeanselement, there is a growing need for means that are politically and administratively feasible. The environment policy provides a good example of this approach. There is also an increasing concern to draw upon the various social sciences to suggest alternative policies or means. As regards the methods, they refer to the procedures whereby one can determine the relations between alternative policies and given goals. 16
  • 9. PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524) PublicPolicyMakingandAnalysis(GaDS524) Policy analysis is developing increased precision in its methods, but at the same time, it recognizesthefactthatsimplemethodsmaybeallthatisnecessaryfornumerouspolicyproblems. How to provide counsel to the poor in civil cases is a good example to illustrate this point. Finally on the element of the profession of policy analysis, there is a substantial growth in the policy analysis training programmes, research centers, funding resources, scholarly associations and other government institutions. Policy analysis is not a discipline like economics, sociology or political science. It is thriving as a sub discipline of the various social sciences and as an inter discipline depending on the existing field of economics, political science, and other social and even natural sciences. As Eugene Bardach observes: “Unlike most social science research, most policy research is derivative rather than original. That is, it is produced by creative play with ideas and data already developed by others.” Policy Analysts and Concerns There are varieties of groups and people, academics, independent research institutions, pressure and interest groups, political parties, free- lance consultants) who are involved in policy analysis and are concerned with: i. problems and the relationship of public policies to these problems ii. the content of public policies; iii. what the policy- makers do; iv. the likely future consequences of policy in terms of outputs and outcomes. Someanalysts, forexamplemaybeinterestedinthe roleof political parties inshapingpolicy, others in the impact of bureaucracy on decision- making, the role of professionals in policy delivery. Analysts may focus on different stages of the policy process, such as policy formulation, implementation, or evaluation. PUTTING ANALYSIS TO WORK Policyanalysishascometoberecognizedasanimportanttechniqueinassessingpolicyproblems as well as policy impacts. It makes use of the required information in examining, deciding about, and finally, measuring the consequences of public policies. Since it is concerned with organizational effectiveness, a framework for policy analysis may be required. Such a policy analysis framework would identify both the kinds of information used to define policy, and also the analytic processes. Policy Process Figure-1 The abovefigure- 1indicatesthe basiclinkages of aframework for thesystematic analysis of information and its use in a policy- related context. The basis to the framework is a process of information for policy analysis which is derived from system or programme performance in terms of the interaction among: “1. inputs that indicate needs and demands; 2. processes related to the provision of long- term care services; 3. outputs in terms of the use of services and costs of care; and 4. outcomes that identify the end results of certain courses of action”. Basedontheappraisalofsystemsperformanceusingtheabovelinkages,issuesforvariousgoals can be identified. Once these issues are identified, information is analyzed in terms of how it pertains to the larger issues (for example, health, illness and the quality of life.) In this way, issues related to the needs and demands are defined in terms of health and illness as well as other coexisting social problems. For example, in the context of National Heath Policy, the inputs (in term of needs and demands) comprise health, illness and the quality of life, expressed in physical, psychological, social,andenvironmental terms.Needs aretheconditions that askforaction.Theyareamongthe most important predictors of utilization, and are mostly described in such terms of diagnosis, 17 18
  • 10. functional limitation, perceived illness, symptoms, or poor self- rated health status. On the other hand, demands are needed or not. Other inputs include resources, such as manpower, facilities and equipments, and performance standards. On the processes linkage, it is concerned with the delivery of services to meettheneedsanddemandsofclientsandprofessionals.Servicesaredescribedinsuchtermsas their kinds, delivery, management and controls of cost and quality. Other services include supports such as legal aid, income support, consumer education, and professional development. The outputs of service- related programmes are described in terms of the use of those services, the cost and the quality of care. Finally the outcomes are the responses to the services expressed in terms of the levels of well- being and health, and client and professional satisfaction that are attained as a result. The foregoing analytical framework facilitates programme evaluation which leads to rational policies and decisions about healthservices. STAGES IN POLICY ANALYSIS The stages in policy analysis can be put as follows: Identifying the Underlying Problem Forananalyticalapproach,thefirststepistoidentifywhetherandwhythereisaproblematall. Defining the problem involves moving from mundane descriptions to a more abstract, conceptual plane. Here an attempt should be made to diagnose the form of market failure that is confronted. For example, an environmentalist who is investigating alternative pollution control measures for theriverwillfindthatthewaterisbeingpollutedbydumpingofindustrialwastesanduntreated sewage into the river. Having identified the context of the problem the next step is to determine what objectives are to be achieved in confronting it. Too often, we lose sight of the rational objectives. Paying careful attention to the objectives is important. For example, the distribution of doctors is merely a means to the end of improving people‟shealth. Determining Alternatives for Policy Choice The next step is to determine alternative courses of action. Government intervention can take any form. It is important to determine which kind of intervention is most positive in any particular situation. In the case of the pollution of the river, consider the following possibilities: i. Abutters insomeareas of therivermight begrantedrights bythegovernment toclean water. They would then have the right to sue a polluter. ii. The government may require the concerned industrialists and cities and town dwellers to stop dumping wastes and untreated sewage into the river. It may otherwise impose restrictions on them on the amount of dumping. In the latter case, the government may prescribe such specifics as enforcement stringency of standards. iii. The government may permit polluters to purchase rights to discharge a certain amount of pollutants. Polluters may be required to pay effluent charges and to install pollution- control devices. iv. The regional state governments itself can directly undertakethe work of cleaning and removing the pollutants that other dump. These are some of the alternatives forpollution control. As difficulties are identified and additional information becomes available, reinforcement of alternative courses of action will continue throughout the analysis. Determining alternatives for policy choice generally offers a chance for creative thought as well as hard work. Often, the process is treated merely as a mechanical exercise, and consequently, attractive policies are not paid adequate attention, it rarely proceeds in a straightforward fashion from the identification of the problem to the selection of the preferred action. Forecasting and Evaluating the Alternatives Having identified the underlying problem and having determined the alternatives for policy choice, whatarethe consequences ofeach of thealternatives?Forthis, thepolicy analystwill turn to a relevant model for forecasting consequences. Inthe case of the pollution control problem, the models needed would be far more complex. Here, the analyst would have to build a model of how the quality of water in the river responds to the various types of pollution and weather conditions. Only then can he forecast the consequences, in terms of quality of water and the alternative measuresanddegreesofpollutioncontrol.Insuchacaseamodelbasedoncomputersimulationis themost appropriate. The analyst must alsotrytopredict theeffect ontheindividuals and the industrialists affected by various control measures on water quality. It is necessary here to predict all the effects of the proposed policies, not just the economic effects desired by the decision- maker. If the consequences of an alternative course of action are uncertain, and especially if the possible outcomes differwidelyfrom oneanother,theanalystmaywishtodevelopadecisiontreeand evaluate the probability of each outcome. For instance the river pollution case, it is difficult to predict with complete accuracy either the weather or future developments in pollution control measures, or the vagaries of the political executive. It is difficult to have a rational policy choice unlesstherelativemeritsofalternativeoptionsarecompared. Thequestion ofmeasuringsuccess in the pursuit of ach objectives is a difficult one. However, if the analysis is to recommend a policy decision,hemustfindsomewaytoevaluatethepossibledegreesofimprovementofwaterquality. Improvements in water quality will be achieved only at a very high cost, while the benefits of pollutioncontrol may have to bear a substantial portion of costs in administeringthe pollution control. These costs therefore must be evaluated. However, the effects of pollution controls will extendovermanyyearsandtherelativebenefitsandcostsmustbediscounted.Intheviewof such conflicting objectives, it becomes difficult for an elected or appointed policy- maker to make these tough policy choices. However, evaluation of the outcomes is of great importance as it reminds us to look carefully at the cost- benefit analysis of a particular policy choice. Too often, 20
  • 11. policy choices have been sabotaged by bureaucrats and interested politicians. The analysts should seek the counsel of experts in thefield. Making a Choice The last step in policy analysis relates to making the preferred choice (course of action). The situation may be so simple for the policy- maker that he can simply look at the consequences predicted for each alternative and select the one that is best. In contrast, it may be so complex that he will have to think of his preferences among the various possible outcomes, i.e., how the world will behave in response to the possible choices. The policy process may be represented in the following diagrammatic form as shown in Figure 1. It has been observed that countless policy studies have led nowhere. Sometimes the fault is attributed to the public decision- makers who do not take advantage of readily accessible data. Too often, it is the producers of the analysis who are to be blame. Most policy analyses are gathering dust because they have not been properly understood. The analysis should be brought out in such a way that the essential points can be easily grasped and communicated. The choice among competing policy alternatives is complex, for the future is always uncertain. But, by enhancing our capability to forecast the consequences of the alternative courses of actions, and providingaframeworkforvaluingthoseconsequences,thetechniquesofpolicyanalysisleadusto better decisions. Limitations Asthefutureisalwaysuncertain,itisquestionablewhetherpolicyanalysiscanfindsolutionstothe problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, Unemployment, inequality, and the environmental pollution are some of the major problems in the developing countries. Of course, this is an excuse for failing to strive for a better society. It must be realized that solutions to these problems may be difficult to find. There are several reasons for tempering our enthusiasm for policy analysis. It has been observed that policy analyses are gathering dust because they are either too long or too hard to understand. A policy analysis is of no use if it cannot be communicated to others. Too often, the policy analysis deals with subjective topics and must rely upon the interpretation of results. Professional researchers often interpret the results of their analyses differently.Obviously,quitedifferentpolicyrecommendationscancomeoutfromthesealternative interpretations of the results of research. Secondly, policy analysis cannot provide solutions to problems when there is no general consensus on whatthe problems are. It is incapable of resolving societal value conflicts. At best,it can offer advice on how to accomplish a certain set of end values. It cannot determine what those end values should be. Furthermore, social science researchcannot bevalue- free. It is also very difficult for the government to cure all or even most of the maladies of society.Thegovernmentisconstrainedbymanyforces,bothfromwithinandoutside-suchforces, as population growth, patterns of family life, class structure, religious beliefs, diversity of cultures and languages, financial resources and so on, cannot be easily managed by the government. Some social ills are very complex. Then also there are the inherent limitations in the design of policy analysis research. For example, it becomes difficult to conduct some forms of controlled experiments on human beings. Further, it has been noted that the persons doing policy research are too often programme administrators who might be interested in providing the positive results of their programmes. It is desirable to separate research from policy implementation, but this seems to be a difficult thing to do. Another limitation of policy analysis is the fact that society‟s ills are so complex that analysts are incapable of predicting the impact of proposed policies. Social scientists largely fail to give proper advice to the policy- makers owing to lack of knowledge about individual and group behaviour. The fact that social scientists offer many contradictory recommendations indicates the absence of reliable scientific knowledge of social problems. Most of society‟s ills are shaped by so many forces that a simple explanation of them is hardly possible. Despitetheselimitationsonpolicyanalysis,itseemssafetosaythatsocialscientistscanat least attempt to measure the impact of present and past public policies and make this knowledge available to policy- makers. Reason, knowledge and scientific analysis are always better than the absence of any knowledge. Robert Lineberry notes that “Policy analysis rest on the assumption thatinformationisbetterthannoquestionsasked,evenwhenthe answersmaynot bedefinitive.” Policy analysis may not provide solutions to society‟s ills but it is still an appropriate tool in approaching policy questions. Policy analysis enables us to describe and explain the causes and consequences of public policy. Policy analysis is applied to inform the policy- maker about the likely future consequences of choosing various alternatives. 21 22
  • 12. CHAPTER- III MODELS FOR POLICY ANALYSIS A model is a simplified representation of some aspect of the real world. It may be an actual physical representation- a model airplane, for example, or the tabletop buildings that urban planners use to show how things will look when proposed projects are completed.Oramodelmaybeadiagram-aroadmap,forexample,oraflowchartthat political scientistsuse to show how abill becomes law. Themodels usedin studyingpublic policy are conceptual models. Models serve many purposes. They simplify and clarify one‟s thinking about public policy and politics. They identify important aspects of policy problems. They help one to communicate with others by focusing on the essential features of political life. They direct one‟s efforts toabetterunderstandingof public policybysuggestingwhat is important andwhatisnot.Theysuggestexplanations forPublicpolicyandpredictitsconsequences. There are Various Models to help understand public policy. The Major Ones are: 1. Institutional model 2. Process Model 3. Group Model 4. Elite Model 5. Rational Model 6. Incremental Model 7. Game Theory Model 8. System Model 9. Optional Model 10. Market exchangeModel THE ELITE THEORY OR MODEL: The classic enunciation (articulation) of the elite theory is to be found in Gaetano Mosca‟s The Ruling Class. Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most causal eye. In all societies- from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawning‟s of civilization, supplies the first in appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism, down to the most advanced and powerful societies- two classes of people appeared a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class (ruling), always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, Whereas the second,(ruled), the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, Nowmore orless arbitrary (based solely on personal wishes, feelings, or perceptions, rather than on objective facts, reasons, or principles) and violent, and supplies the first in appearance, at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism. Elite Political Direction Officials and Administrator Policy Execution M A S S The elite mass group model Theelitetheory ofpolicy-makingismostcloselyrelatedtopublicservants.Theyareperceived by this theory as a ruling elite rather than public servants. This theory contends that most peopleareapathetic anddonot possess therequisiteinformationtoequipthem forpolicy making. They are thus passive, and the small ruling elite makes the policies which reflect the rulers‟ values. The emphasis of the policies is on status . C.Wright Mills‟ The power elite provides the classic enunciation of the elite theory. EliteTheorycanbesummarizedbrieflyasfollows: Society is divided into few who have power and the many who do not. Only a small numberofpersons allocatevaluesforsociety;themasses donotdecidepublicpolicy.Thefew who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socio-economic strata of society. The movement of Non- Elites to Elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles. Elites share consensus on behalf of the basic values of the social system and the preservation of the system. PublicPolicydoesnotreflectthedemandsofthemassesbutrathertheprevailingvaluesof the elite. Changes in Public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary. Active Elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites. 23 24
  • 13. SYSTEMS MODEL FOR POLICY ANALYSIS: The Policy making process has been regarded as a black box which converts the demands of the society into policies. David Easton in his Analysis of Political Systems argued that the political system was that part of the society engaged in the “authoritative allocation of values”. The systems approach to political analysis can be shown in the above figure. This sketch gives a rough idea of what political scientists have in mind when describing a political system. Demands are the claims made on the political system by individuals and groups to alter some aspects of the environment. Demands occur when individuals or groups, in response to environmental conditions, act to affect public policy. The environment is any condition or event defined as external to the boundaries of the political system.ThesupportsofaPoliticalsystemconsistoftherules,lawsandcustomswhichprovideabasisfor the existence of a political community and the authorities. The support is rendered when individuals or groups accept the decisions or laws. Supportsarethe symbolicormaterial inputsofasystem (suchasobeying laws,payingtaxes,oreven respecting the national flag) that constitute the Psychological and material resources of the system. At the heart of the political system are the institutions and personnel for the policy- making. These include the chief executive, legislators, judges and bureaucrats. In the system version they translate inputs into outputs. Outputs then are the authoritative value allocations of the political system, and these allocationsconstitutepublicpolicyorpolicies.Thesystemstheoryportrayspublicpolicyasanoutputofthe political system. The concept of feedback indicates that public policies may have a modifying effect on the environment and the demands generated therein, and may also have an effect upon the character of the political system. Policy outputs may generate new demands and new supports, or withdrawal of the old supports for the system. Feedback plays an important role in generating suitable environment for the future policy. The system preserves itself by i. producing reasonably satisfying outputs; ii. relying on deeply rooted attachments to the system itself; AdaptedfromEaston’s-AframeworkforPolicyAnalysis(1965) The Eastonian Black Box Model Notes: The Intra –Societal Environment – The Ecological system – Biological system – Personality system – Social System The Extra- Societal Environment – International political systems – International ecological systems – International social systems iii. using, or threatening to use, force. LIMITS OF SYSTEMS APPROACH TO POLICY ANALYSIS Thesystemstheoryisausefulaidinunderstandingthepolicy-makingprocess.ThomasDyesaysthat the value of the systems model to policy analysis lies in the questions that it poses: “ 1. What are the significant dimensions of the environment that generate demands upon the political system? 2. What are the significant characteristics of the political system that enable it to transform demands into public policy and to preserve itself over time? 3. How do environmental inputs affect the character of the political system? 4. How do characteristics of the political system affect the content of the public policy? 5. How do environmental inputs affect the content of public policy? 6. How does public policy affect,through feedback,the environment and thecharacter ofthe political system? Theusefulness ofthe systemsmodel for thestudyof public policy ishowever, limitedowing to several factors. It has been argued that this input- output model appears to be too simplistic to serve as a useful aid to understanding the policy- making process. This model is accused of employing the value- laden 25
  • 14. techniques ofwelfareeconomicswhichare basedonthemaximizationofaclearlydefined„socialwelfare function‟. Another shortcoming of the traditional input- output model is that it ignores the fragmentary nature of the „black box‟. The missing ingredients in the systems approach are the “power, personnel, and institutions” of policy making. Lineberry observes that in examining these “we will not forget that political decision-makers arestronglyconstrainedbyeconomicfactorsintheenvironmentinthepoliticalsystem. ThisEastonianmodelalsoignoresan importantelementofthepolicyprocess,namely,thatthepolicy- makers (including institutions) have also a considerable potential in influencing the environment within which they operate. The traditional input- output model would see the decision- making system as “facilitative” and value-free rather than “causative”, i.e., as a completely neutral structure. In other words, structurevariationsinthesystems arefoundtobehavingnodirectcausaleffectonpublicpolicy. In the western democracies, the bureaucracy‟s role in the shaping of policy direction is largely technical and fairly minimal. The policy direction remains still largely in the traditional domain of the political elite. The other hand, in the developing countries where the state‟s objectives are not fully articulated and clear, the bureaucracy easily capitalizes on the process of policy selection out of alternative policy strategies. It does participate in the formulation of public policy in addition to performing purely technical tasks. Finally, the extent to whichthe environment, both internal and external, is saidto have an influence on the policy- making process is influenced by the values and ideologies held by the decision- makers in the system. It suggests that the policy making involves not only the policy content but also the policy- maker‟s perceptionsandvalues.Thevaluesheldbythepolicy-makers arefundamentally assumedtobecrucialin understanding the policy alternatives that aremade. INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO POLICYANALYSIS In a democratic society, a state is a web of government structures and institutions. The state performs many functions. It strives to adjudicate between conflicting social and economic interests. The positive state is regarded as the guardian of all sections of the community. It does not defend the predominance of any particular class or community. It tries to protect all economic interests by accommodating and reconciling them. No organisation has ever been able to succeed in its objectives across the whole range of public policies; and policy issues tend to be resolved in ways generally compatible with the preferences of the majority of the public. In the pluralist society, the activities of individuals and groups are generally directed toward governmental institutions such as legislature, executive, judiciary, bureaucracy, etc. Public policy is formulated, implemented and enforced by governmental institutions. In other words, a policy does not take the shape of a public policy unless it is adapted and implemented by the governmental institutions. Government institutions give public policy three different characteristics. Firstly, the government gives legal authority to policies. Public policy is the outcome of certain decisionsandischaracterizedbytheuseoflegal sanctions.Itisregarded asalegal obligationwhich commands the obedience of the people. Secondly, theapplicationof public policyis universal.Only public policies extend to all citizensin the state. 27 Thirdly, public policies involve coercion. It is applied to the acts of government in backing up its decisions. A policy conveys the idea of a capacity for imposing penalties, through coercion of a kind usually reserved to the government itself. Only the government can legally impose sanctions on violators of itspolicies.Sincethegovernmenthas theabilitytocommand theobedienceofits entirepeople, to formulate policies governing the whole country and to monopolize the coercion, the individuals and groups generally work for the enactment of their preferences into policies. As such, there is a close relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. It is not surprising, then that political scientists would focus on the study of governmental structures and institutions. The institutional study has become a central focus of public policy. Thus one of the models of the policy- making system might be called the institutional theory because it depends on the interactions of those institutions created by the constitution, government or legislature. In Policy- making, power is exercised by different individuals and groups, such as the Prime Minister, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, leaders of interested groups. Each exercise of power constitutes one of the influences which, in totality go to make up the policy- making process. This is to say that there is a process through which public policy is enacted. The process generally comprises a sequenceofrelateddecisionsmadeunderthepowerfulindividuals andgroups,whichtogetherform what is known as state institutions. The institutional approach is concerned with explaining how social groups and governmental institutions bring influence to bear on those entitled to take and implement legally- binding decisions. Such decision- makers include those who office within the formal and constitutional system of rules and regulations which give formal authority and power to the various positions within the governmental structures and institutions. The institutional approach attempts to study the relationship between public policy and governmentalinstitutions. Institutionalism, with its focus on the legal and structural aspects of institutions, can be applied in policy analysis. The structures and institutions and their arrangements and interactions can have a significant impact on public policy. Governmental institutions are structured patterns of behaviour of individuals and groups which persist over a period of time. In the past, the government structures and institutions have been a central focus of political science. Traditionally, the focus of study was the description of governmental structures and institutions. The approach did not devote adequate attention to the linkages between government structures and the content of public policy. The focus of the institutional approach was withoutany systematic enquiry about the impact of these institutional characteristics on public policy decisions. The study of linkage between government structures andpolicy outcomes remained largely unanalyzed and neglected. Despite its narrow focus, the structural approach is not outdated. Government institutions are, in fact, a set of patterns of behaviour of individuals and groups. These affect both the decision- making and the content of public policy. The institutional approach suggests that government institutions may be structured in such ways as to facilitate certain policy outcomes. These patterns may give an advantage to certain interests in society and withhold this advantage from other interests. Rules and institutional arrangements are usually not neutral in their impact. In fact they tend to favour some interests in society over others. Certain individual groups may enjoy, therefore, greater power or access to government power under one set of structured 28
  • 15. patterns than under another set. Inother words, there is the impact of institutional characteristics on policy outcomes. Under the institutional one can study the relationships between the institutional arrangementsandthecontentof publicpolicy.Thepolicyissuescanbeexaminedina systematicfashion and involve a focus on institutionalarrangements. The value of the institutional approach to policy analysis lies in askingwhat relationships exit between institutional arrangements and the content of public policy, and also in investigating these relationships in a comparative fashion. It would not be good to assume that a particular change in institutional structure would bring about changes in public policy. Without investigating the true relationship between structure and policy, it is difficult to assess the impact of institutional arrangements on public policies. Thomas Dye says that “ both structure and policy are largely determined by environmental forces, and that tinkering with institutional arrangements will have little independent impact on public policy if underlying environmental forces- social, economic, and political- remain constant”. LINDBLOM’S INCREMENTAL MODEL OR INCREMENTALISM The word „increment‟ means „a small increase in quantity‟, to add a small amount to‟, to often at regular intervals. The fundamental concept of incrementalism is contained in „organizational drift‟, 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Policy Increments „satisficing‟,Theincrementalisttheorycontendsthatonlylimitedpolicyalternativesareprovidedtopolicy- makers andeach of these alternatives represent only avery small change in thestatus quo. The incrementalist theory plus the bureaucracy in a conservative mould ever tied to the past and slow to change. Incremental theory is conservative. It does not question the validity of past policies which were formulated in a piecemeal way under parochial considerations. It is historical and atheoretical also. The incrementalist theory assumes- wrongly- that the present limits of knowledge and prediction would ever continue. But it is politically expedient (appropriate). As it is difficult to have agreeduponsocietal policies,thereiseasyagreementonincrementalist theory: existingpoliciesthusget continued. Incrementalism views public policy as a continuation of past activities with only incremental modifications. Incrementalism has been increasingly used in public administration since the sixties when Charles E. Lindblom popularized it in 1959 in his paper „The science of Muddling through‟ published in Public Administration Review (Vol.19, spring 1959). What incrementalism means is the gradual and modest increase in specific governmental allocations, that is, budget. Since the seventies, a reverse trend in public administration in most countries is in evidence which goes by the name of „cutback management‟. This has induced some like George H. Fredrickson to cointheantonym„decementalism‟.Decrementalismsignifiesgraduallydecreasingfinancialallocations According to Lindblom‟s theory, public administration is not governed by principles nor is administration separated from politics in a unified administrative system.Nor does Lindblom think that an administrator is the optional rationalizer of efficiency and and effectiveness. The truth is that public administration is the art of the possible in the modern pluralistic world of competitive interest groups. An administrator muddles, not manages. Negotiation and strategy are his operational tools as he aims to devise an „agreeable‟ compromise. This confused manner of incremental decision making produces social harmony, unity, stability and equilibrium in a fluid environment of ever- changing interest –groups. The incremental model has its advantages, but its limitations are no less obvious. First and foremost, this approach, is inherently conservative, even status quoits. It makes it very difficult for the government to direct the society it wants, for example, for its penetrative strategy is diffused, multi- dimensional and mutually contradictory. Incrementalism tends to be reinforcing: every interest group builds up support in the corresponding governmental department, which lobbies for the farmers‟s continuance. This leads to involvement of more and more agencies, rendering difficult the problems of coordination.Secondly, as incrementalism believes in adoption of small steps inchanging apolicy, itmay end up in unintended and unforeseen consequences. American scholars cite the case of the American Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961 as the culmination of incremental approach. This approach is notoriously weakin organizational memory theoriginalmotivatingconsiderations getoverlooked.Thirdly where the challenge is to re-direct and re-construct the entire society, the incremental model of decision- making is not to the preferred and adopted. THE RATIONALIST THEORY OF POLICY- MAKING 29 30 Past Policy Commitments
  • 16. Rationality and rationalism are words too often found and used in the literature of social science, but they are more widely espoused than practiced in policy- making. However, rationality is considered to be the „yardstick of wisdom‟ in policy-making. The rationality precept emphasizes that policy-making is making a choice among policy alternatives on rational grounds. Rational policy making is “to choose the one best option”. Robert Haveman observes that a rational policy is one which is designed to maximize “net value achievement”. Thomas Dye equates rationality with efficiency. “ A policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, if the ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other policy alternative”. He further says the idea of efficiency involves the calculation of all social, political, and economic values sacrificedor achievedby apublic policy,justnotthosethatcan bemeasured indollars. In a sense, the rationalist theory is the opposite of the incrementalist theory. The rationalist theory seeks to find out allthe value preferences extant in a society, assign each value a weightage, find out allthe alternatives as well as theconsequences of eachalternative andin theendmakethefinal 2. Search behaviour for alternatives stands foreclosed by past policies and decisions. This is „Sunk Cost‟. 3. Information collection itself faces limits. Not only is there the problem of cost, the time involved in collecting information sets a limit aswell. 4. The segmental nature of policy- making in government organizations stands in the way of coordination of decision- making. Asa result, contradictorypoliciesare seen to be in operation in the government. 5. The techniques of cost- benefit analysis cannot apply where diverse political, social, economic and cultural values are at stake. 6. Even otherwise, it is very difficult to assess accurately the benefits and costs of each policy alternative. Simplybecause thepredictiveabilityofthesocialandbehaviouralsciencesaswellasofthephysicaland biological sciences is not all thatadvanced. Establishment of complete set of operational goals with selection in terms of the costs and benefits of social values. The rationalist model is reflected in Operations Research, Programme Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), Critical Path Method (CPM) and Zero- based- budget. Arational policy isone whichmaximizessocialgain.This isanother way ofsayingthat nopolicyshould be adopted if its costs exceed its benefits. Secondly,thepolicymakershouldchoosethatpolicythatproducesthegreatestbenefits.Apublicpolicyis rationalwhenthedifferenceinitsbenefitsanddisadvantagesisgreaterthanthatinanyotherpolicy. A rational policy would thus involve: 1. Knowing all value preferences ofsociety 2. Knowing all the policy alternativesavailable 3. Knowing all the consequences of each policy alternative 4. Evaluating the ratio of benefits to costs for each policy alternative 5. Select the most efficient policy alternative, that is, the one that brings the greatest benefits and the least advantages. weights Establishment of complete inventory of other values and of resources with Preparation of complete set of alternative policies Preparation of complete set of predictions of benefits and costs for each alternative O U T P U T Pure-Rationality policy (policies) Calculation of the net expectation for each alternative Comparison of net expectation and identification of alternative(s) with highest net expectation A rational model was described by Lindblom as: 1. Faced with a given problem 2. A rational man first clarifies his goals, values, or objectives and then ranks or otherwise organizes them in his mind; 3. He then lists all important possible ways of policies for achieving his goals; 4. And investigates all the important consequences that would follow from each of the alternative policies; 5. At which point he in a position to compare consequences of each policy with goals; 6. And so choose the policy with consequences most closely matching his goals. Rational policy making is possible only by „Economic Man‟. In contrast, public administration has „Administrative Man‟ who „satisfies‟, does not „maximize‟. Moreover, in theworld in which we live what prevails is „bounded rationality‟ even though the information revolution made possible by computers makes available more and more information. Other barriers also confront rational policy- making: 1. When policy- makers make policies, their basic instinct is self- preservation and organizational survival. Figure: A Rational Model for a Decision System 31 32
  • 17. CHAPTER- IV Actors and Institutions in Public Policy Theprimarytaskofgovernmentseemstobetheformulationandimplementationofpublicpolicies. Governments‟ issues policies to generate economic development, provide education, guarantee personal safety, expand job opportunities, and adopt many other policy initiatives which should lead to development(TurnerandHulme.1997). TurnerandHulmefurthernotedthatgovernmentsoftenusetheir own version of policy outcomes and initiatives to legitimize their hold on power. While opposing forces belittle these same policies in order to justify their own claim to office. Be that as it may, the fate and future of millions of people hinge on the outcomes and performances of government policies in developing countries. In developing countries, policy elites or central minds of government orcentral policymaking processsystemsplaycrucialrolesintheprocessofpolicymaking andbringingaboutinstitutionalreforms to implement them. Despite the fact that historical, cultural, international constraints, as well as societal pressures, are essential in shaping the actions and perceptions of those who make authoritative decisions, in developing nations policy elites or central minds of government play major roles in determining policy andinstitutionaloutcomesandtheprocessthroughwhichissuesgetontoreform agendas,throughwhich they are deliberated within government, andthroughwhichthey are pursued andsustained. Scholars in the field of public policy have attributed the relative force of policy initiatives, formulation and implementation to policy elites in developing countries. An assessment of the actors and structures of policy making in developing countries tends to prove the prevalence of limited policy circles compared to more developed states ( Dror. 1968; Horowitz, 1989). The policy structures in developing countriesaremuchlesscomplexthanindevelopedcountries.Government elitesandindividualandsmall group decisions play a greater role in policy decisions than complex organizations that could have involved a relatively large segment of the affected population. More importantly, the political executive claims a significant margin of power on the determination of issues to put on the policy agenda, and formulate and allocate resources for the execution of policies. Dror (1968) noted that the political executive in developing countries plays a larger role in formulating public policies than do the legislatures and the public, not only because power is exceedingly concentrated, but the political executive also possesses better latitude for establishing policies on many major issues without worrying about building coalitions with over vested interests. Cloete (1991) summarizes the major actors in the policy process as follows: 1. The political/power elitesdirectly engagedin governing; 2. Interest groups and societal actors inside and outside of public institutions entering into competition to influence the contents ofpolicies; 3. Groups of citizens instructing representatives and legislators through elections, referenda, or meetings to implement a specific policy agenda, or pressurizing them in various other more unconventional ways to change governmentpolicies. It has however been argued that except for some clientele groups which have more access to sharing the politicalresources of policyelites indevelopingstates thelattertwosetsofsocietal actorsinfluence policy making much less. Cloete says that elites who are directly involved in governing act as „gatekeepers‟ to 33 screen demands for change. They are in a more advantageous position to influence the end product than other interest groups or citizens, who are not as close to the locus of decision making or implementation of policies. Official policy makers are those who occupy the formal offices prescribed by the political community as authoritative. They are the members of the legislature, local councilors, ministers, senior officials andjudges.Sincegovernments at thenational level areformedusuallybytheleaders of the political party with the majority of seats in the legislature, it is important to understand how parliamentary leadership is likely to behave. In the actual process of government it is widely recognized that parliament is dominated by the executive in policy- making. Its supremacy is said to be real only in a legalistic sense. The executive, and the power within it, especially of the cabinet, is of critical value to the policy making function of the government. Executive One dimension of the study of policy- making attempts to assess the role of the executive. Modern governments everywhere rely on executive leadership both in policy formulation and policy implementation. In a parliamentary system with cabinet governments, the governments in most cases rely ontheirback-bencherstoprovidethemwiththemajoritiesnecessarytoconductgovernmentbusiness.In the United States,the Congress expectsthe President to initiate or send proposals for legislation. In most developing countries, the executive probably plays a larger role in policy formulation because of a greater concentration of power in the government. The executive who assume critical roles and determine who gets what and when in most of the developing countries are head of states or head of governments, cabinet ministers, ruling party stalwarts and the executive bureaucracy and to some extent the list includes the legislators. Of these the heads of thestates,cabinetministers andtheiradvisors areathighest echelonofthe policymakingstructurethatis well placed to influence all of the important policy decisions. On account of the key position he holds, the presidentortheprimeministercanbemuchmoreextensivelyinvolvedinmajordecisionmaking.Inacrisis situationitismorelikelythatpolicymakingwillinvolvethepresidentorprimeminstercloseassociatesand advisers who usually hold positions in the office of the President or Prime Minister. The latter can have close political links with the head of the state and their loyalty may have been cemented through political, professional, social, and even kinship ties‟. Most ministers can also be intensively involved depending on the cabinet portfolios that they assume,theclose personalandpoliticallinksthattheymay havewiththe executive andruling partiesand thetechnicalorotherspecializedskillstheyposses.ManyAfricancountriessuchasEthiopia,majorethnic groups have representation in the higher echelons of government. The executive bureaucracy, more generally the public bureaucracy in Africa, Asia, and Latin America plays a significant part in public policy making. In Kenya, for example, the public bureaucracy supported by the political executive and in collaboration with expatriates, heavily influences policymaking. In quite a large number of developing states,policyinitiativescanemergefrom theadministrative andtechnical staff ofgovernment. Legislature TheParliamentinEthiopiaortheCongressintheUnitedStatesaresupremepublicpolicy-making bodies. Ripley feels that the Congress is at the heart of public policy making. Indeed in a parliamentary 34
  • 18. form of government the legislature reigns supreme because the Prime Minister is dependent on support from a parliamentarymajorityto remain in office.Wade and Philips observe: “Neither devolution nor delegation of legislative authority infringes the supremacy of (the British) Parliament”. Parliament in Ethiopia makes the laws and legitimizes the decisions of the government. It authorizes taxation and expenditure, and makes the government accountable for financial decisions. In additiontoitslegalroles,itsubjects administrative actionstocriticism andscrutiny.Itservesasaforumfor public debate on issues of public policies, besides a forum for the expression of complaints and grievances.The parliamentary systems in Germany and UK as well as in India, work along these lines. Thus in law and constitutional theory, the power of the Parliament is unlimited in democratic systems.Ontheotherhand,thecongressintheUnitedStateshaslesspowerthanaParliament,because it does not participate in the process of choosing the head of the executive branch. Moreover the constitutionoftheUnitedStatesprohibitslegislatorsfromholdingpositions intheexecutive.Forexample, the officials of the President‟s Cabinet, unlike the cabinet in the parliamentary system, may not be members of the congress. This design not only leads to the division of authority but also inhibits the development of unnecessary informality between the two branches. Manypolicies approved by theParliament are initiatedby the cabinet orCouncil of Ministers, having been planned within the departments of state after consultation with affected interests. Legislatures everywhere play a smaller part in the policy making process. The legislative leadership has undisguisedly shifted into the hands of the executive and this process has been further reinforced and strengthenedinademocraticcountrybylongcontinuingsinglepartydominanceinthecountry. Bureaucracy Public administration as an academic pursuit is defined as the process of achieving intended goals in accordance with given policies through public organizations. In other words, Pubic Administration has concentrated on the machinery for the implementation of public policies, as given rather than on making them. Although Policy- making and Policy implementation are two distinct functions of the government, they are closely interrelated. Policy is laid down by the legislature or the political authorities who are vestedwiththepowerofgivingpolicythelegalauthority.Thelegislaturelaysdownapolicyingeneral terms which is usually expressed in the form of acts and laws. In order to give more precise expression to these acts and laws, the administrative arm of the government plays an important role in policy- making also. But, inthemain, the administrative arm does not legally posses the power of making a policy; it assists in policy making. Its responsibility lies in the sphere of policy implementation. In recent years, however, the role of the administrative arm of the government in policy making has grown in importance. Therefore,itseemsstrangethatpolicy-makingaswellasimplementationhavecomeintothehandsofthe administrators. Democratic norms, however, emphasize that the government should be political and not merely administrative. Government by administrators is called „bureaucracy‟. The bureaucracy is an administrative organisation consisting of non-elected employed officials and organized hierarchically in departments in accordance with the rules governing the conditions of their service. In democratic countries, the bureaucracy is an executive branch of the government. Civil servants or public administrators are 35 recruited in theory to serveministersby carrying out their decisions. The ministers decide on policies and civil servants take necessary executive actions to implement them. Despite the formal control of civil service by the political (elected) executive in the parliamentary democracies, there is a continuous discussion on the role of higher civil servants in policy- making and a constant fear that their influenceis too great. It has been argued, on theone hand, that their role is to developandcarryoutthewillofthosewholaydownpolicies.Ontheotherhand,thereisrecognitionof the fact that they are actively involved as are other pressure groups, political parties and the like, in the making of policy in its formative as well as implementation process. Reasons for Role in Policy- Making The reasons for role of bureaucracy in Policy- Making are as follows. They are i. The administrative role ii. Knowledge and Experience iii. Permanence position in the administrative organisation in comparison to the frequent rotation of a minister. In many African countries, the rapid growth of the bureaucratic apparatus that accompanied the consolidation of power following independence had important implications for the structures of the state and policy making. The corps of the proliferating bureaucracy and its members holds privileged positions. The Ethiopian experience over the past two decades, however, showed that governing elites approachtheproliferatingbureaucratic administrationwithsomemeasureofskepticism,mainlybecause thepoliticalloyaltyofthebureaucracywasdoubled.Inordertokeepaneyeontheadministration,the rulingpartiesareoftenusedasinstruments ofsupervision.Theprocessofpoliticizationandholdingofkey offices by party functionaries has thus been carried out by injecting party political and ideological doctrines into the civil service, the police, the army and local government. As a result the line of distinctions between the party and the executive become nebulous as is still the case in Ethiopia. Similar examples elsewhere in Africa are: the Tanzanian African National Union in Tanzania, the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Resistance Movement (NRM) in Uganda and many others. Societal actors in Policy making The Individual citizen One dimension of the study of policy- making is concerned with explaining how an individual citizen brings influence to bear on those entitled to take decisions. In a democratic form of government, people are said to be masters of their own destinies and politically sovereign. In representative democracy it is assumed that the power flows from the people. Representation carries with it the clear implication of delegation from the people to a legislature. Through legislature the representatives of the people frame laws and decide policy by a majority vote. Further, the practice of submitting certain office- holders to periodic election will ensure that attention is paid to the interests of those who are represented. In a democracy, people initiate the process of legislation and policy- making by voting for candidates whose opinion and values they know. Yet in practice, citizen participationin policy-making is negligible. Many do not seem to be exercising theirfranchise or engaging in party politics. Acting alone, the individual citizen is hardly a 36
  • 19. significant political force. Thepublicor thepeople, on contrarysuggest a unityof will andpurpose. In Politics, groups rather than individuals affect the way policy is made. A relatively small group of office- holders may be held responsible for the actions they perform. Further it has been observed that the majority of people who become involved in politics prefer todosoonanindividual basis, ratherthantojoinapolitical organization.Theyneitherjoinorganized interests nor do they exhibit any active interest in public affairs. Even while voting, they are influenced comparatively little by policy choices. Only a small minority hold the legislative, executive and judicial offices at the level of the Federal, Regional state and local governments in Ethiopia. In public service, large numbers of people are employed, yet only a very small percentage of them are influencing the choice of public policies. It can safely be concluded that policies that politics hold attractions for relatively few people. Neither the citizen nor the people is a particularly satisfactory force for analyzing political power. However,itisthefactthatnogovernmenthoweverdictatorial,canaffordtogoagainstthewishesand customsofthepeople.Thepolicy-makingfunctionofthegovernmentmusttakeintoaccounttheinterests of the people. Governments of all forms incountries aroundthe world haverealized that theultimate sovereignty is vested in the people of that country. Electorate Power The act of voting forms the basis of political participation. Voting is a decisive act resulting in theformationoflegislativemajorities with programmes. Generally,the political partiesfight thecampaign intermsofprogrammes,publicpoliciesandlegislativeintentions.Thevoterseeshisroleininfluencingthe selections of policies and programmes. Elections are the means which enable the electorate to choose between programmes and alternative policies offered by contestants for governmental office. In a democratic country, people are masters of all the operations of government. Such theory of citizen power including the selection of public policies must be qualified in manyrespects. First, it is observed that elections perform many other functions. Further elections are democratic means of solving the problem of political succession. They ensure the legitimacy of the government rule. Second, parties do attach to the voter‟s broad demands and objectives on which they want the government totakeaction. The parties givemeaningtopoliticsintheminds of thevoters.Thevoters expect the party they vote for, if elected to office, to do certain things. However the electorate is less concerned with the means of producing the desired actions, in relation to say reducing poverty or unemployment or enhancing social welfare. He is probably unaware of the relationship between government policies and desired actions. Furtherthevoterlacksinterestinpoliticalissues.Thisistoemphasis thatthereareotherfactors determining the voting behaviour, such as age, religion, sex, region, which are more important than the comparativeevaluation of party programmes. Electoral pledges have little influence on the final selection of policies and that “the public policy influencing function of election is small”. Variations in governmental policy decisions can, be explained by other factors and events. Govenments perceive their electoral pledges as dependent on good administration and the solution of pressing problems. War, law and order 37 problems and disputes may take up much more of the government attention than electoral statements of intent, and the eventual policy decision based thereon. It may, therefore, be concluded that election is a legitimate strategy for solving the problem of political succession but it may not determine policies. Policy Agenda As already noted earlier, demands or claims made by citizens or interest groups on public officials (elected and non-elected) in the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problems. These demands constitute what is known as „policy agenda‟. Policy agenda is not to be interpreted as political demands. According to Cobb and Elder there are two types of agenda; the systematic or discussion agenda and the institutional agenda. i. Systematic Agenda: The systematic/ discussion agenda “consists of all issues that are commonly perceived bymembers of the politicalcommunity as meriting public attention and as involving matter within the legitimate jurisdiction of existing governmental authority”. ii. Governmental Agenda: A governmental or institutional agenda consists of those issues to which publicofficials giveseriousattention.This sortofagendamayarisefrompolicydecisions,parliament debate and executive decisions.In comparison to a systematic agenda, an institutional agenda is an action agenda and will be more specific. Influence of the Media A prerequisite of democracy is free media of communication. The media channel information between the citizen and government. They communicate the information to the citizens about the decisions the governments have taken. In this way, the media help shape their reactions to each other‟s decisions.Bypublicizingspecificcauses,themediaactasthemostimportantsourceofinformationforthe government on the public‟s reactions to contemporary issues. Since the media are acting as channels of communication, it is important to determine whether they arepoliticallybasedintheirpresentationof information.If theyarebiasedinthewaytheypresentthe decisions and actions of governments to the public or public opinion to the government, they may distort the very concept of democracy. If the citizen is to make rational decisions about public policy the media should be of a high standard of reliability. There is considerable concern as to the quality of the media in their role of providing the public with information about the government. Whenthemediacan influence opinionsin asituation wherethe governmentisseento beresponsive andresponsibletothepublic,thentheyarecorrespondinglyinfluentialinthedeterminingofpolicy. Pressure Groups Public opinion expressed by individual citizens does not reflect the intensity of view. It does not, in the main, serve as the basis for a change in policy. Many citizens lack the required expertise in both the subject- matter and the procedures of policy- making. They often do not know which kind of policy issues toaddresstowhichofficial,withaviewtowieldingthegreatestamountofinfluence.Actingalone,the individual citizenis rarelyasignificant force. Ontheotherhandthere aremanycitizens representing different and often conflicting interests and values. Group action is considered a more effective method 38
  • 20. than individual action for the ordinary citizen to influence the public policies. Unless large numbers of citizen are organized for some common purpose or interest, the chances of transmitting their message andpolicyissues willbecomebleak.Fortheindividualcitizentheinterest groupisanimportantchannel of communication. The interest groups or pressure groups are important means of enhancing the effect of public opinion. They can communicate more effectively than individual citizens with public officials on policy decisions. The exercise of political influence by organized citizens is a predominant feature of the democratic form of government. Pressure groups are organizations with formal structures whose members share a common interest. They strive to influence the decisions of the government without attempting to occupy political offices. They serve as links between individual citizens and policy- makers. To individual citizens, pressure groups arethemost important meansofcommunication and power.They aid them in communicatingtheirhopes to public officials by offering personnel and expertise in the substantive matters and the procedures of policy- making. To policy makers, the interest groups offer expertise and political support as well as the intensity of view of large number of citizens with some common interest. In return, the interest groups are able to create areas of influence on citizens as well as policy- makers. Sometimes they sponsor candidatesinelectionsfortestingsupportfortheircause.Theyare,however,rarelysuccessful. Furthertheleaders ofinterestgroupsmaybeinvitesorassociatedeithertositpublicboards,councils or committees on account of their expertise, qualifications and proficiencies. The distinction between interest groups and government offices is often blurred by the fact that government institutions may engage in lobbying activities from time to time. It may be mentioned here that all pressure groups are not exclusively concerned with political influence and activity. The Federation of the Ethiopian Chambers of CommerceandIndustry,forexample, provides awiderangeofadvisory servicestoitsconstituentbodies on subjects such as new legislation, prices, corporate investments, trade-marks. Political Parties Political parties are another means of enhancing the effect of public opinion. Like pressure groups, they serve as intermediaries between citizens and policy- makers. Party platformson which elections are foughtformabasisforthepartyleadershipwhen,asagovernment,itengagesinthemakingofpublic policy. Political parties are thus regarded as important agents for establishing popular control over government and public policies. They play an important role in reflecting the issues at stake and in setting value goals for the society. AccordingtoBurke,APoliticalpartyisabodyofmenunitedforpromotingthenationalintereston some particular principles on which they are all agreed. Since the political parties have an important role to play in the formulation of public policies, these parties must meet the following conditions: i. Partiesmust have programme ii. Each party‟s candidates must be committed to its programme iii. Parties must present their programme to thepublic iv. Opposing parties must present alternative programme v. There must be only two major parties. vi. People must vote for programme and notindividuals vii. The party that receives a majority of the votes must take control of the government. viii. The party that wins the election must have the internal cohesion and discipline to carry out its programme ix. The party that wins the election must implement its programme x. The governing party must accept responsibility for the performance of the government. xi. The opposition party must be ready to take control of the government. Edwards and Sharkansky further say: A two- party system operating under these conditions would simplify thealternatives presentedtovoters, allowconstituentstoeffectively expresstheirattitudestowardpolicy, active public participation in politics, make majority rule effective, and establish popular control over government. One important factor of government policy is thus the party policy. It is therefore important to know the distribution of power in the political parties, in order to understand the forces shaping policy initiatives in government. It has been argued that “party influence is only effective where the parties represent separate and distinct socio- economic conditions. Where the constituencies of a state are divided along social and economic lines, and where the party division coincides with these constituency divisions, only then will party programmes and discipline be effective in shaping policy in legislative chambers. To sum up. Although the political parties can in theory play a decisive role in policy- making, they do not carry out the public‟s wishes. They are important institutions, but it would be wrong to overestimate their influence on public policy. 39 40
  • 21. CHAPTER- V Process of Policy Making Perspectives on Public policy making: Policy making is an area which because of its obvious importance, has attracted much attention in recent years.It is avitalfunction at all levels of government. In one wayor another, each of us has thetaskof helping our government to determine its goals and objectives. As we do this, we try to develop policies whichmay bedescribedas purposive courses of actiontakeninpursuitof thecountry‟sgoals. Ourlivesinthecountryarevitallyaffectedbywhatweareabletoachieveinthepolicymakingfield.Our country has struggled a great deal with the problem of effective national policy-making and implementation. There have been several success as well as failures for a variety of reasons. The policy- making process begins with the ideas people have about the actions they want the government to undertake. In other words, they are the demands or proposals made by interest groups or by other factors, private or official, upon the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problem. People with demands which may be either supported or supposed byinterest groups, seek to achieve some commitments from government to put their ideas into action. When government takes such a commitment, it has legal authority to do something that individuals cannotdo. Agovernment decisionmaybemadeonthedemandsofthepeople.Thegovernmentalandadministrative process comprise of a vast mass of decisions made almost daily. Some of these have an effect immediately, others mayinvolve further linesofaction,andor afurther continuum of decision- making comingfromthat first decision. Theparliament inEthiopia is chargedbyconstitution of Ethiopiawith thefunction of representingthe people in making policy through the passing of laws. Legislative process- a fundamentalmechanism – for expressing public policy (Ethiopia). All basic policies have to be determined by legislative enactment, although legislation also permits more specific policy- making by the executive branch of the government within thelegislative andconstitutional framework, andthe reviewfunctions of theJudiciary. Theimplicationofthisprocessmodelisthatpolicymakingoccursinidentifiablestagesandthateachstage can be explained separately. Those processes are using presented as The identification of policy problems through demands for government action. ☯Identifying policy issues: public opinion o Opinion- Policy linkage o Policy effects o Mediaeffects o Opinion polls o Instability of opinion o Wording of questions 41 o Communicating with Policymakers ☯AgendaSetting, or focusing the attention of themass media and public officials on specific public problems to decide what will be decided. ☯The formulation of policy proposals through their initiation and development by policy- planning organizations,interestgroups,governmentbureaucracies,andthePrimeMinisterandParliament. ☯The legitimation of policies through political actions byparties, interest groups, the Prime Minister and the Parliament. ☯The implementation of policies through organized bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies. ☯The evaluation of policies by government agencies themselves, outside consultants, the press, and the public. Policy formulation is the development of policy alternatives for dealing with problems on the public agenda. Policy formulations occur in government bureaucracies, interest group offices; legislative committee rooms; meetings of special commission, policy- planning organizations, otherwise known as think- tanks. Acommitteeofexpertsthatundertakesresearchorgivesadviceespeciallytogovernment The details of policy proposals are usually formulated by staff members rather than by their bosses, but staffsareguided bywhat they knowtheir leaderswant.Policystudiesoften focus on how policies aremade rather than on their content or their causes and consequences. The study of how policies are made generallyconsidersaseries of activities, orprocesses,that occurwithinthepoliticalsystem Policy Implementation Inthefinalanalysis,thesuccessofPublicAdministrationfordevelopmentcanbemeasuredonlyinrelation to implementation of policies. Policy implementation is of crucial importance to the success of government. However,goodthepolitical system,noblethegoals,howeversound organizationalsystem, nopolicycan succeed if the implementation does not bear the relationship to the intentions of the policy adopters. The implementationaspect isnowbecomingaconcernandkeyelementindevelopmentstrategy. Meaning Policyimplementation, as the process of putting policy into effect bypublic and private individuals, is difficult to define. Implementation can be seen essentially in terms of the nature and degree of control exercised over the operations of a policy/ programme/ project. Pressman and Wildavsky initially defined implementation as, “a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them”.Theygoontosay,“Implementation,then,istheability toforgesubsequentlinksinthecasualchain so as to obtain the desired results.” It is important to look at implementation, not solely in terms of putting policy into effect, but also in terms of observing what actually happens. Elements in Implementation Implementation as putting policy into action, is a difficult exercise. Example: “National Health Policy”- Health for All by 2012A.D. in Ethiopia. Requires human and financial resources, time and skills and the creation of necessary health organizations. Barret andFudgesay that policy implementation is dependent on, Knowing what you want todo; the availability of the required resources, the ability to marshal and control these resources to achieve the 42
  • 22. desired end; and if others are to carry out the tasks, communicating what is wanted and controlling their performance. Putting policy into effect involves not the end of policy- making but a continuation of policy- making by other means. At the minimum implementation includes,  Adequate personnel and financial resources to implement the policy.  TheAdministrativecapacitytoachievethedesiredpolicygoals;and  Political and Judicial support (from the Legislature, Executive and Judiciary wings of the government) for the successful implementation of policy. Implementers:  Bureaucracy & other administrative organizations  Legislative bodies-(not verycrucial inimplementation, buttheyareinfluencingthe Bureaucrats)  Judicial bodies- Most laws enforced through judicial actions.  Interest groups- Powerful interest groups affect the implementation process.  Community Groups and Agencies….e.g…Co- operatives  Influence of political structures:  Politicalparties/politiciansandexecutivestaffagencies Policy Evaluation The final stage of the policy process in the sequential pattern of activities, is the evaluation of policy. Evaluation is concerned with what happens, once a policy has been put into effect. Itisconcernedwiththeworthorsocialutilityofapolicyorprogramme.InthewordsofWholey,“Policy evaluation is the assessment of the overall effectiveness of a national programme in meetings its objectives, or assessment of the relative effectiveness of two or more programmes in meeting the common objectives.” Monitoring Vs Evaluation ◉ Evaluation is notmonitoring ◉ Monitoring, however is a prerequisite forevaluation. ◉ Monitoring is concerned with establishing factual premises about public policies. ◉ It is fundamentally about control and the exercise of power. ◉ Monitoring answers the question: “what happened, how and why?” ◉ On contrary, Evaluation answers the question: “ What differences does it make?” ◉ Evaluation is retrospective and occurs after actions have been taken. ◉ It is concerned with „trying todetermine‟the impact of policy on real life conditions. Functions of Evaluation Evaluation performs several functions in policy analysis. In the first place it provides reliable information about policy performance. The prime purpose of policy evaluation is to measure the impact of policies on society. it reveals the extent to which particular goals have been achieved (for example, increase in the life expectancy at birth). It helps us to understand the degree to which policy issues have been resolved. Secondly, evaluation helps clarify the values that underline the selection of goals and objectives. Values are clarified by properly defining goals and objectives. Since the appropriateness of policy goals and objectives can be questioned in relation to the problem being addressed. Evaluation provides procedures for evaluating goals and objectives themselves. Thirdly, evaluation may result in efforts to restructure policy problems. It may also contribute to the emergence of new objectives and potential solutions, For example, by showing whether a previously adopted policy alternative should be replaced with another one or abandoned. In the course of policy implementation, the policy actions may be either restructured to the new conditions that have been evaluated or terminated altogether, either because the information permits the inference that the needs have been met or because policy actions have created more problems than they have resolved. Evaluation is primarily an effortto analyze policy outcomes in terms of some set objectives. It determines the social utility of policies. Criteria forEvaluation The criteria for evaluation of policy enable analysts to produce information about the likelihood that particular causes of action will result in the realization of outcomes. In producing information about policy performance, analysts use different types of criteria to evaluate policy outcomes. Frohock has suggested four concepts - Equity - Efficiency - Pareto Optimality (Welfare economics ideas and theorems salient to value consideration) & a state in which the well-being of any individual cannot be enhanced without worsening the position of at least one other individual). - Public Interest- as helpful in evaluatingpolicy. Poister argues that the criteria “…to evaluate policies and programs all relate to goals and objectives, eitherfocusingontheobjectivesthemselvesoronthe means/endsrelationshipsbetweenstrategies and objectives. He then outlines the performance variablesas ➢ effectiveness, ➢ adequacy and ➢ appropriateness. Suchman proposes a five dimensional scheme for evaluating success or failure. ✓ Effort refers to, „… the quantity and quality of activity that takes place. ✓ Performance „… measures the results of efforts rather than the effort itself. ✓ Adequacyofperformancemeasuresthe„…degreetowhichtheeffectiveperformanceisadequate to the total amount of need‟. ✓ Efficiency concerns the question, „Is there a better wayt0 attainthe same results?‟ ✓ Processdealswiththecomplex problem of,“ howandwhya programworksor does not work”. Smith suggested three criteria for policy judgments: 43 44
  • 23. ◉ Policy Design ◉ Policy process;and ◉ Policy achievement. We consider that six major categories for policy evaluation are evident: ◉ Effectiveness ◉ Efficiency ◉ Adequacy ◉ Equity ◉ Responsiveness and ◉ Appropriateness Effectiveness: The criterion of effectiveness is most common of policy evaluation. # How effective is the policy? # Is it achieving the goals it set out to achieve? The Policy is deemed to be a failure if it has not achieved its objectives. By effectiveness is meant the degree of objective achievement. It refersto whether a given course of action results in the attainment of an objective. It often measured in terms of units of products or services or their monetary costs. Efficiency Efficiencyisofcrucialimportanceinevaluatingpublicpolicies.Theterm„efficiency‟weusedtodenotethe output/input ratio of a public administration system or an organizational unit. By efficiency is meant the amount of effort required to produce a given level of effectiveness. Efficiency when used without qualification refers to technical efficiency. The technical efficiency is a sort of allocative efficiency in the sensethat inputs or resourcesareallocatedinsuchawaythat noshift will bringabout anincreasein output.Efficiencyisequatedwitheconomicrationality.Whenefficiencyisexpressedinmonetaryterms,it referstothe ratioof monetaryincome from the output tothe monetary costs ofthe inputs. This ratiomeans probabilitywhichisgenerallyusedasanindicatorofthepolicyperformance.Efficiencyisoftenmeasured by calculating the costs per unit of a product or service. The efficiency criterion tells how much time and cost is involved on providing services. Policies that achieve the greatest effectiveness at the minimum cost and time are said to be efficient. Adequacy Adequacy refer to sufficiency for a specific requirement. The question arises: Is there a possibility that policy will find a solution to the problem to which the policy is addressed? Adequacy refers to whether a given level of effectiveness results in the satisfaction of needs or values. While the policy effectiveness criterion deals with the relationship between policy goals and what is achieved, the adequacy of a policy refers to the relationship between policy and the problem to which it is addressed. A clear distinction exists between effectiveness andadequacyinthesense that apolicy maybe judged to be a success in achieving its listed objectives, but it has little impact upon the problem being addressed bythepolicy.Forexample,sustainedeffortsaremade todeal withthehomeless problem in Addis Ababa, but the problem persists. It may be pointed out that the beneficiaries and other target groups often view government action asnot adequate,while political executiveispronetoarguethatenough is being done. 45 For Example, the federal government claims that poverty has been substantially eliminated by the government. On the contrary, it is argued that there has not been any substantial improvement in rural life; and poverty continues to loom a large. Equity Equity refersto the distribution of effects and effort among different groups in society.For example, thecriterion of equityraisesthe question, “Arecosts andbenefits distributed equitably amongthe different groups?” The criterion of equality is closely related to fair or just distribution of effects (monetary benefits) andeffort(monetarycosts). Policiesdesigned toredistribute income, employment opportunities, or public services are often recommended on the basis of the criterion of equity. A given programme might be effective, efficient and adequate, yet it might be rejected on the ground that it will result in the inequitable distribution of benefits. However, the criterion of equality is not totally satisfactory. The reason is that conflicting views about the rationality of society as a whole cannot be resolved simply by adopting formal economic rules. Such concepts as equity, fairness and justice are related to political power. These are influenced by the processes involving the distribution of power in society. Individuals and groups have different objectives and values. What satisfies one person or group may not satisfy another.Public policies whicharediscriminatory in purpose generate conflicts from those who feel the yarelosingformthepolicy.Such policies as areforpartisan (biased) political purpose arealso deemed to be failures. Responsiveness By „responsiveness‟ is meant that a policy satisfies the needs or values of particular groups. Policies designed to promote educational opportunities or health status of the people some times recommended on the basis of the criterion of responsiveness. An educational programme might result in an equitable distribution of facilities but be unresponsive to the needs of particular groups. (for example, for Particular group of People).cConsensus and consultation, therefore, become the central concerns, as the determination of objectives becomes entangled with the search for suitable means and alternatives to achieve those objectives. Thus, implementation becomes less conflict- prone because there is less possibility of the policy being ambushed by both policy- makers and implementers. Appropriateness: Finally,the criterionof„appropriateness‟ isalsoused toevaluatepolicies. Thecriteriaof „appropriateness‟ is closely related torationality. Appropriateness refersto the worth of the objectives of a programme.Is the policy based upon appropriate values and ideolologies? Will the policy lead to disruption and violence or be greeted with agreement? This dimension is concerned with judgments about a policy‟s fitness and suitability. Judging policy failure and success by appropriateness is to see where conflicts are likely to be more intense. Publicpolicieswhicharebaseduponunacceptablevaluesandideologiesaredeemedtobefailures.Some Policies are deemed to be unpopular decisions. For example, policies regulating people‟s behaviour in traffic laws and taxes are seldom popular with general public. 46
  • 24. Conclusion The description of six dimensional criteria forpolicy evaluation does not always apply.It is often foundthat policy and programme evaluators make use of the dimensions of effectiveness and efficiency or a combinationof both. Thereisatendencytoapplythecriteriaofefficiencyinevaluatingdevelopment programmes and projects. In health and welfare, effectiveness appears to dominate. Implementation failure islinkedwiththefailureofgoal-achievementandefficiency.Thisiscertainlyanarrowperspective. Thismyopic (lackingin foresight:showing alack offoresightorlong-term planning) viewcan concealform analysis the broader concerns of problem definition. The causes of the failureof policy as well as the overall societal, economic and political context in which the problem and policy occurs. The emphasis upon policy effectiveness and efficiency as the central criteria to be applied should not be accepted to the point where they dominate the policy evaluation. What is needed is to make use of multiple criteria for making judgements about a policy‟s success orfailure. Issues of the acceptability of Evaluation Results After the submission of a report on the findings, the policy evaluator assumes that it will immediately be taken up by the policy maker, especially if the evaluation had been commissioned by the government. Laterhefindsthattheevaluationresultshavenotbeenutilizedinmostcases.Incertaincases,ifthepolicy implications of evaluation are not clear, “ the programmemanager winds up complaining about the irrelevance of the evaluation for his programmatic concerns, and the evaluator returns to his office lamentingtheneglectofhisworkbydecision-makers”.Ifevaluationresultsaretobeutilized,theyhaveto be in a communicable language comprehensible to decision- makers. Such communication should include an indication of the limitations of the research, measurement problems, and the quality of information collected or the method of analysis. Evaluation findings may also not be utilized because they so not fit in the framework of decision- making. The results of formal evaluation require the exercise of political judgements regarding their acceptability. Theremaybealsoanorganizationalresistancetotheimplications ofevaluationfindings.Members ofthe organization may express reluctance to tolerate disruption of existing working practices and career structures, and are likely to point out the time and cost involved in bringing about policy changes. Particularly where the programme involves delivering a new service, there may be resistance from the trade unions. An evaluation of a programme may be ignored, or attacked on the ground that the evaluationwaspoorlydesigned,thedatausedwasinadequate,orthefindingsareinconclusive.Thismay lead to a great deal of pessimism as to the utility of evaluation findings. However, it will be wrong to assume that there is no potential for theirutilization. Problems in Policy Evaluation Evaluating a public progrmme is a difficult exercise. It involves specifying the goals of the programme, measuring the degree to which these goals have been achieved, and perhaps suggesting changes that might improvethe performance of theorganization. The evaluation of public programmes is confounded by many factors. Some of them are asfollows: Unclear Policy Goals - If policy goals are unclear or are not specified in any measurable form, determining the extent to which they have been achieved becomes a complex and cumbersome task.Officialpolicymakerssuchaslegislatorsandadministratorswhoareindifferentpositionsinthepolicy 47 system may define goals of a programme differently and reach differing conclusions about the accomplishment of the programme. Even when the goals are clear, they may not be practical. Problem of measurement- Even when the goals have been expressed in clear and concrete language, thereisthedifficultyofmeasuringresultsisstillmoredifficult.Itisdifficulttomeasuretheperformanceofthe public sector programmes in the absence of any ready means of judging the performance. For example, although theshort-term goal of educationis toimprovethequalityof lifeforthosewho receive it. This seems to be an elusive quality to measure when an evaluation must be made quickly. The evaluation of a public programme often confounded by some other related programmes also. For example, if we are to evaluate the effectiveness of a health programme on a poorer section of the community, We may find it difficult to isolate the effects of that health programme from those of a nutrition programme or those of an education programme. In fact, all these programmes may have the effect of improving the health of the population, and we may find it difficult to determine which programme is the efficient means of improving the health of that community. All these problems indicate the measurement in policy analysis is a difficult proposition. Problem of target- Related to the problem of determination and achievement of goals, is the problem of target population. Data necessary to evaluate the programme may not be available or may be available or may be available in unsuitable form.The information gathered in the course of delivery of policy may highlighted much about the characteristics of the people actually receiving the benefit but little regarding the target population. Programmes that have significant effects on the population as a whole may not have the desired effects on the targetpopulation. Programmes that have significant effects on the population as a whole may not have the desired effects on the target population. Programmes may select clients who actuallyneedlittlehelp,ratherthanthosewhohavethegreaterneed,Suchprogrammesaresuccessesof a limited duration. Attempts to broaden it frequently make the target of the programme more diffuse and consequently more difficult to evaluate. It would not be fair to blame programme delivery personnel for failing to serve the target population when the planners have provided broad and unworkable definitions of the target groups which are impossible toattain. Sum Up The final stage of the policy process is the assessment of what has happened regarding the implementationofthepolicy.PolicyEvaluationisamajorpoliticalprocess.EvaluatingaPublicprogramme involves the listing of the goals of the programme, Measuring the degree to which these goals have been achieved, and finally suggesting changes that might bring the performance of the organization more in line with the intended purposes of the programme. As mounting pressure is brought to bear on the public sector to play its role more effectively and efficiently, evaluation may even become a centre of conflict. Negativeevaluations oftheperformanceof apublicprogrammemayresultin itstermination.Thecontent of an evaluation, the goals that are contained in it, and even the organization performing the organisation functions will affect the finalassessment. 48
  • 25. INTRODUCTION Chapter- VI POLICY CHANGE & CONTINUITY ◉ Giventhefactthatthemodernpolicyspaceisverycrowded,„new‟policyislikelytobeframed within the context of existing related policies. Policy Succession Here an attempt is made to discuss various approaches to studying the way in which policy change takes place. As already highlighted in evaluating policies, evaluation involves some kind of feedback into the policy process which results in change inpolicy. Evaluation often acts as an engine of policy change. There are generally two aspects of analyzing change: 1. How does change in policy goals, purposes, and priorities takes place? 2. What is the relationship between changing goals, values etc., and the organizational context of policy and the vice versa? Three approaches have been suggested to examine these TWO dimensions of policy change: i. Policy Cycle Approaches ii. Organizational Approaches iii. Policy Change and Policy learning models. POLICY CYCLE APPROACHES Underthepolicycycle,MayandWildavsky(1978),HogwoodandPeters(1985),deLeon(1987)and Hogwood (1992) examined the dimensions of policy change. Policy Change is the consequences of earlier policies which may have changed the conditions. New Policy, therefore, frequently emerges from existing policy or overlaps with on- going programmes. Brain Hogwood and Guy Peters suggest a model of policy change as given below: ● PolicyInnovation ● Policy Succession ● Policy Maintenance ● Policy Termination Policy Innovation ◉ When government becomes involved in a problem or an area which is „New‟. 49 • involves the replacement of existing policies by other policies. The change does not involve any fundamental change in approach, But is continuous with existing policy Succession Innovation Maintenance Termination Replacement New of existing Policies policies Types of Policy Types of Policy growth: reduction: Linear - Programme -Externally generated Consolidation extension decline Splitting -Clientele -Dilution and Non- linear extension deterioration - Programme -Removal of clientele enhancement - Elimination of a -Indexing programme element Externally - Elimination ofa generated programme expansion Figure: Hogwood and Peter’s Model for Policy Change To hogwood and Peters there are four types of Policy succession: i. Linear: the replacement of existing policy by another policy. ii. Consolidation: Consolidation of a number of policies into a unified framework. iii. Splitting: Splitting a policy into a number of separae component parts. iv. Non- linear: a complex combination of other types of succession. PolicySuccessiongivesrisetochangeinpolicyandmayendupclosertothepolicyinnovationtype. Innovationinvolvestheentry ofgovernment intoan activityin whichithasnot beenpreviously involved.It is viewed as a process of change on a continuum with policy maintenance. Policymaintenanceisalsorelatedwithtopolicyterminationinthecontextofcutbacks andreductions in scalar or resources. Cutbacks maybe affected by taking groups of clientele out of a policy programme oraparticularpartofaprogramme,maybeacut.Andthisresultsintheterminationofapolicyandthe introduction of a new or modified policy. Terminationofapolicyisquiteproblematic.Bardachmentionsfiveconditionswhichmakefor implementation of termination of a policy. i. When new governments / administrations come to power. 50
  • 26. ii. Delegitimationoftheideologicalmatrixinwhichthepolicyisembedded. Theexamplehe gives is of the way in which opinion turned against what Goffman termed “total institutions”. iii. Turbulence, which weakens attachment to existing policies. iv. Policies may have been designed to terminate a certain time. v. Cushioningtheblow.Policyterminationcanbedesignedsoastolessentheinjuriestothose affected. • The example he gives is of the way inwhich opinion turned against what Goffmantemed “total institutions”. iii. Turbulence,(a confusing or uncontrolled situation) which weakens attachment to existing policies. iv. Policies may have been designed to terminate a certain time. v. Cushioningtheblow.Policyterminationcanbedesignedsoastolessentheinjuriestothose affected. Termination of a policy results in the end of a service and the abolition of the organization which was implementing the policy. But as it is the termination is not a frequent occurrence, and when it happens it is morelikelytobethe resultof apolitical reasonor reform thanof evaluation andrational thinking. Organizational Approaches Policy change may be the result of an organizational change and vice- versa. Change in organization is taking place withchargesin thesocio-economic- political environment. Inconsideringthe organizational change,thestudentof publicpolicyfaces “acomplexcontradictorybodyof analysis” covering the field of public sector organization and behavior. Clegg maintains that post- modern organization is tending towards change in directions such as more decentralization, less bureaucracy, more emphasis on markets, greater flexibility and intra- organizational interactions. Thesechanges are having their effect on the public sector. There are few organizational approaches, which deal with change in the policy- making. Contingency Approach Forcontingency theorist,itisimportant tounderstandthewayinwhichorganizations changeto meetthe growing demands of different environments and technologies. • This approach points to the importance of organization shaping itself to fit its wider environment. • How and Why Change comes about in the organizations: • Strategic Choice Approach..Change in an organization is an essential political process. • Population Ecology Approach.. Power of the environment to determine organizational Change. Managerial Approach to change • In recent years managerial approach to change in public sector has come to occupy an important place in the debate of change. • With this domain two central ideas tend to predominate: 1. Cultural Change- Changing the culture in the Public sector so that it is more businesslike and less bureaucratic. 2. Leadershiprole-Themanagerialapproachhaslaidneatstressontheroleofleadershipin bringing about change in the organization. Policy Learning Models Sabatier and Jenkins- Smith suggest that the key to understanding policy change is the dynamic c of beliefs and policy learning. The learning models provide an integrative framework for viewing change in the policy process. Two models may be identified here: (i) organizational models of policy learning, (ii) Social learning models Organizational models of Learning The focus in the organizational model of policy learning is on the way in which people and policy- makers in the organizational context learn. The learning approach has been most developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith.Inadditiontherearemanyotherswhotalkabout learningtothepolicyprocess. To David Collingridge, learning is atrial and error process. He advocates the use of trial and errormethodfor improving thetasks of management. The rules of trial and errormethod are: i. trials are kept to a minor nature, thus bring expensive even when they fail ii. changes are marginal in nature iii. Trials have a rapid result. iv. The energy of critical scrutiny is to be proportional to the cost of mistakes. v. Many diverse interest groups take part in the decision process; vi. Political power is shared among thesegroups vii. Choice is through compromise among these groups viii. Actions are co-ordinate by mutual interaction rather than planned from the center”. Thismethoddoesnotofferadistinctnormativeframework forpolicy-making.Inthismethod,conceptsfail to provide a satisfactory account of what is happening in the post- decisional phase of policy- making. Social Learning Models The social process approach is concerned with the way in which learning takes place in society as whole, and how this learning can be promoted. Edgar Dunn called for the development of forms of organizations which could facilitate evolutionary social experimentation through which learning could be improved. The political implications of the social process model are a radical departure from the organizational models of learning. It is an alternative framework to the dominant input- output public policy model. This approach argues that democracy, power, politics and participation are the means by which people can learn about themselves and about social, economic and other problems. 51 52
  • 27. CHAPTER- VII: Globalization of National Policy Making: An International Perspective What is globalization? “Printed in Ethiopia with Australian Paper and German ink, using Swiss technology and Japanese experts”.……………………………What does this statement convey? Exchange or sharing of: ✓ Ideas ✓ Information ✓ Capital (including human capital) ✓ Technologies ✓ This is connecting the human communities and capabilities across national borders. Increasing economic interdependence of the world through growing volume, andvariety of cross- border flows of finance, Investment, Goods and Services, and Rapid andwidespread diffusion of technology.Its primary dimension concerns the expansion of economic activities across state borders. Avoiding reinventing thewheel.(towastetimeandefforttryingtodosomethingthatsomeoneelsehasalreadydonewell). What are the Central ideas behind Globalization? # More trade is better for all the parties concerned. # Some may gain more from it than others, but all would eventually gain. # And action that interferes with free flow of capital goods and services, and technology would produce sub- optimal results. # Controls and restrictions raise the cost of domestic production, # A country should specialize in production and export only in those items where it enjoys a comparative advantage. Policymaking is an extremely analytical and political process which involves a set of forces. It begins with theideas people orinterestgroupshaveabout theactions theywantthegovernment totake.Inother words these are the demands or proposals made by interest groups or by other actors upon the political system for action or inaction on some perceived problems. Public policies are everywhere being conditionedbythe external environment. It isimpossibletoseparatethe external environmental factorsas theyinvariablyinfluencethepoliticalprocessesandpolicyoutcomes.Theinfluence,beingbroughttobear on socio- economic problems of a country by agencies such as the United nations and its allied agencies WHO, ILO, UNEP, UNDP, ETC. The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund, European Policy Forum, OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, European central Bank , etc, is of critical importance in shaping its policies Impact on Global Events on National Policy Agenda: Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to global events and actions and have come to depend heavily on the international community for financial and technical assistance. Consequently, national policies are interlocked with global issues. “Because Poor countries generally have fragile politics and weak systems of accountability, with few autonomous institutions and little power to offset that exercised by the central government agencies are potentially key political players, capable of exerting considerable influence…”. The boundaries of the political system are no longer impermeable (resistance) to outside 53 pressures and influences. Public policy now takes place in a world system as well as in national political systems. The international environment has an added role to play in influencing the national policies. As Multinational corporations and international organizations come to exercise a great degree of influence, so the capacity of national policy- makers to frame their own agenda is reduced. National issues such as Social welfare, Environment, Drugs, Tradeare items on the national policy agenda which have become global issues. This has been accompanied by increasing transnational cooperation.NationalpolicyagendainacountrylikeEthiopiais exposedtodevelopednations Need for a Global Perspective It may be noted that the notion of World politics was central to Harold Lasswell‟s conception of the policy sciences. In 1951lasswell argued that policy sciences should take account of world trends and forces when consideringthecontextofpolicyproblems.Hemaintained: “Indeed,oneofthemajor tasksofthepolicy sciences today is to follow in detail the processes of social invention, diffusion, and restriction throughout the globe for the sake of estimating the significance of specific events”. Writing in 1968,lasswell also maintained: “Asthe globe shrinks into interdependence, relying morefully on science andtechnology,the policy sciences gain significance…Interdependence implies that every participant and every item in the social process is affected by the context in which it occurs”. Similarly Etzioni in 1968 also observed that there was a rising interdependence between nations and economies. Determinants for Globalism As had been already maintained that the country‟s „political system‟ also functions within the „world system‟. The boundaries of the political system are no longer impermeable to outside pressures and influences. The world has become a single social system as a result of growing ties of interdependence. The point is that there is a new kind of interplay between transnational companies and the national and world economies. Globalisation as a term has gained wide attention and recognition. The implications of the notion of globalization are that policy- makers must consider agenda formation and problem definition within a global context. The “policy- makers in each country share a policy context formed by international economic cycle of Prosperity, Recession, Depression and Recovery”. In a global environment, it is possible tospeak of theconvergence of concerns forwhich global strategies maybe formulated. Assuch in a global context, more and more issues will be structured by larger forces outside the nation‟s constitutional framework of public policy- making. PolicyAgendainaGlobalContext It is important for policy- makers to take account of global issues when considering the context of policy problems in a national setting which includes Environment, Poverty and Population Growth(UNDP, WB), AIDS (WHO), Drugs (Producers- Thailand, Pakistan, Columbia, Peru and Bolivia.),Trade and industry, Privatization, Terrorism Other global issues---- social welfare,trade, industry, agriculture, health, education, nuclear, war, famine, etc) are items on the national political agenda which are tied up with global issues. This has been accompanied bygrowing regionalization and internationalization. The global environment formsmuch of the context of national policy- making. 54
  • 28. CHAPTER- VIII Public Policy Making in Contemporary Ethiopia Ethiopia has an impressive history with two millennia of state sovereignty and independence. Compared to other African states, it is an ancient state that successfully defended the incursions of colonial powers. Ever since the recorded history of Ethiopia, public policy making has, however, been the prerogative of emperors, Kings and palace, Courts, the nobility, military dictators and civilian, bureaucratic elites. This being partly due to the awesome power of policy elites and their dominance and to a certain extent because societal actors lack the organization, autonomy, capacity and resources needed to counter state and bureaucratic players. Haile Selassie Era: During Haile Selassie Era, even the most legal documents affirmed that executive power and the supremacy ofthe emperor over the policy formulating and implementing institutions inthe entire country. Selassie was the Chief legislator, WithpowertoapproveanddisapproveparliamentarylegislationandDissolvetheParliament. Had an indisputable power to Appoint and Dismiss the Prime Minister and other ministers, to determine foreign relations, had complete control on the armed forces and the sole power to appoint and dismiss provincial Governors, Control over Judicial Institutions with the mandate to supervise Courts and Grant Pardon. After the fall of the imperial regime in 1974, executive power and policy making prerogatives were vestedinthestandingcommitteeoftheprovisionalMilitary AdministrativeCouncil(PMAC)ortheDergue. Subsequently with the adoption of socialism as the official ideology of the state, the organizational establishments responsible for institutionalizing the outlook, promoted colossal and monolithic policy- making and administrative structures that extended the executive and the workers Party of Ethiopia‟s (WPE)domainofinfluencefromtheurbancentretotheremoteruralpeasant villages.Thiscontinueduntil 1991. The major actors during the transition, 1991- 1995 In the wake of the fall of the Dergue, the Transitional Government of Ethiopia (TGE) promulgated scores of policy and legislative enactments. A total of 133 proclamations providing for, regional reconstructing, regional elections, the powers and duties of the central and regional government agencies. Annual and emergency budget legislation, terminating the institutions of the defunct regime and ratification of multilateralandbilateral relationswithforeigngovernments, hadbeenissuedduringthetransitionperiod. The decisions and sessions of the council of representatives from 1991- 1995. Year No. of Plenary/ Adhoc sessions held No of meetings conducted No of proclamations/ laws passed Average no of members present Average no of members absent No Percent No Percent 1991 14 20 6 60 74 21 26 55 1991/92 39 72 21 54 68 26 32 1992/93 23 48 47 50 75 16 25 1993/94 23 35 28 48 73 18 27 1994/95 12 17 31 46 69 20 31 The official Policy- Making Institutions 1995- 2004 The Ethiopian Parliament consists of two chambers, the House of Federation (HoF), and the House of Peoples‟ Representatives (HPR).However, unlike the countries practicing a parliamentary form of government, the former has no legislative powers. The members of the HPR are elected to fill 55o parliamentary seats for five years, from electoral districts constituted as such, with each district or constituency having a population of 100,000. 20 seats are reserved to provide for representation of minority ethnic groups in the HPR. The Twice weekly (Tuesdays and Thursdays) Plenary sessions of the HPR commence in October and continue to the 9th of july of the following year annually. The house of Peoples Representatives (HPR) is the highest authority with wide range of legislative functions.Its powers evolvedfrom thebroad federal jurisdictions assigned to it andthe executive.Its competencies include passing laws on: Theutilizationofland,rivers,andlakescrossingnationalboundariesandconnectingtwo or more national regional states(NRS) Inter- state and foreign trade; Air,rail,water,transportoperatingintwoormoreNRSs,postalandtelecommunication services Enforcing the rights enshrined in the constitution, including legislating electoral procedures; and Enacting labour and commercial codes HPR also performs the following functions: ❖ Enacts civil laws, when it so desires and/ or is requested to do so byHouse of Federation. ❖ Declares astateofemergency andstate ofwarasand whentheexecutivedemands. ❖ Approvesthebroadsocio-economicandfiscalpoliciesofthecountryandpasseslawson such issues as local currency, the national bank and foreign exchange. ❖ Leviestaxesandcollectsdutiesreservedforthefederalgovernment,andapprovesthe central governments‟ (federal) budget; ❖ Ratifies international agreements concluded by the executive. ❖ Approves the appointment of judges, ministers, commissioners and the other officials seconded by the executive. ❖ Establishes the institutions of human rights and ombudsman and ❖ Questions and/orinvestigatesthePrime Ministerandmembers of theexecutive. In view of the stringent party lines and discipline that EPRDF deputies have in fact been enjoined to observe, the latter has never taken place and is probably unlikely to materialize in the immediate future. The speaker of the HPR, in his absence , his deputy , presides over the plenary and ad-hoc sessions, 56
  • 29. and on behalf of the HPR, acts as a liaison with domestic and international agencies, leads and administers its affairs and co-ordinates the various committees. The1995 constitution empowers the HPRthroughthe power of legislation. It is grantedthe power to question the Prime Minister and other top officials of government agencies, to examine both the executive‟s handling of its powers and discharge of its duties, taking the necessary measures should these have been misused. However, party discipline and structure with a lack of competence among the bulk of theMPs,militatedagainst theexerciseof theirlegislative duties,as detailedintheconstitutionandby law. In any case, calling the executive to account for its behaviour and actions, and investigating its performances, are the responsibility of theHPR. The House of Federation: A Non- Legislative Chamber Elected for five years, the second chamber of the Ethiopian parliament, the House of Federation (HoF). It has come to symbolize ethnic representation and embodiment of Nations, Nationalities and Peoples (NNPs).StateLegislatures (or) Statecouncils elects representatives totheHoF HoF performs the following functions ✓ Interprets the constitution ✓ Organize the council of Constitutional Inquiry to assist it in the interpretation of the Constitution. ✓ Takesdecisionsontheself-determinationofNNPs,includingsecession,asprovidedforunderthe Constitution. ✓ Promote the equality of the peoples ofEthiopia ✓ Settle disputes, if and when they arise between two or more NNPs; and ✓ Determine the division of revenues evolving from central and NRs tax sources to determine the formula applicable for the apportionment of subsidies which the central government earmarks for NRSs. In June 2005, the HoF constituted three committees comprises eleven members, which invariably reflected its multiple responsibilities. They are as follows: 1. State Affairs Standing Committee 2. The Revenue Administration Committee 3. The Legal Affairs Standing Committee References Thomas.R.Dye.(1995)UnderstandingPublicPolicy,PrenticeHall,Englewoodcliffs,NewJersey. Shriram Maheshwari (1999): Administrative theory: An introduction, Macmillan India Limited, New Delhi. Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar (2003): Deliberative Policy Analysis- Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, New York. Adrian Kay (2006): The Dynamics of Public Policy: Theory and Evidence, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK and USA Michael Hill and Peter Hupe (2002): Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice, Sage Publications, London Jack Rabin(Ed) (2005): Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Taylor & Francis Group, USA. Michael Moran., et.al (Ed)(2006): The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, Oxford University Press, New York. R.K. Sapru (2004): Public Policy: Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation, Sterling Publishers Private Limited, New Delhi. Francois andErwin (Eds) (2000): The State of Public and Development Management in South Africa, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa. G. Palanithurai, S.Sivakumar and J.Vanishree (2006): New Pubic Management: A Case Analysis of District Administration, Concept Publishing Company, New Delhi. Maureen and Rathin (Eds)(1999): Economic Decentralization and Public Management Reform, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, UK. Maarten Hajer and Hendrik Wagenaar (2003): Deliberative Policy Analysis- Understanding Governance in the Network Society, Cambridge University Press, New York. 57 58