The challenges in policy formulation, policy analysis and implementation in developing countries.

Introduction
In every society, there must exist some problems. These problems could be in the areas of
politics, commerce, education, agriculture, communication, housing, transportation, health etc. In
order to solve these problems as they might exist at given points in time, government is always
seen formulating policies in response to them and in relation to the objectives of growth, national
development and wellbeing of the citizens. This is necessary because if attempts are not made to
address these problems as they arise, they may degenerate into uncontrollable stages with the
society‟s social-economic growth and development endangered.(Okoli & Onah, 2002).
Fundamentally, a public policy is a government action or proposed action directed at achieving
certain desired goals or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal problem,
public policy guides and determines present and future public decisions as well as private
individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or behavior. In essence, a public
policy determines the activities of government and given private institutions in relation to
providing services designed to solve a given problem. Ugwuanyi et al.,(2013).
Policymaking involves a combination of processes. Although not always clear-cut or easily
distinguishable, political scientists have identified these processes for purposes of analysis. They
include the following:
Identifying policy problems: Publicized demands for government action can lead to
identification of policy problems.
Formulating policy proposals: Policy proposals can be formulated through political channels
by policy-planning organizations, interest groups, government bureaucracies, state legislatures,
and the president and Congress/parliament.
Legitimizing public policy: Policy is legitimized as a result of the public statements or actions
of government officials, both elected and appointed in all branches and at all levels. This
includes executive orders, budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations, and decisions
and interpretations that have the effect of setting policy directions.

Implementing public policy: Policy is implemented through the activities of public
bureaucracies and the expenditure of public funds.
Evaluating public policy: Policies are formally and informally evaluated by government
agencies, by outside consultants, by interest groups, by the mass media, and by the public.
Policy processes ideally involve different stages: agenda setting; formulation; implementation;
and evaluation. Although this stages or phases approach to policymaking has been criticized for
being too simplistic, insufficiently explicating that some phases may occur together, and not
saying much about why policy turns out as it does, it does provide a way to discuss many of the
ways policy is constructed, carried out, evaluated, and made again. All these activities include
both attempts at rational problem solving and political conflict.
Definition of a Policy
Policy is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as a definite course or method of
action selected from among alternatives to guide and determine present and future decisions.
A policy is defined in the New Oxford Dictionary of English as: “a course or principle of action
adopted or proposed by a government, party, business or individual".
Other scholars define a policy as making decisions that reflect values and allocating resources
based on those values. Thus, policy represents a particular political, ethical, or programmatic
viewpoint. Governmental policy reflects theoretical or experiential assumptions about what is
required to resolve a particular issue or problem. It is the process by which governments translate
their political vision into programmes and actions to deliver 'outcomes' – desired change in the real world.
Policy can take a range of different forms, including non-intervention; regulation, for instance by
licensing; or the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; as well as direct
public service provision.

Definition of Public Policy
Fundamentally, a public policy is a government action or proposed action directed at achieving
certain desired goals or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal problem,
public policy guides and determines present and future public decisions as well as private
individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or behavior. In essence, a public
policy determines the activities of government and given private institutions in relation to
providing services designed to solve a given problem.
Many scholars have defined Public policy as whatever governments choose to do or not to do.
Public policy deciding at any time or place what objectives and substantive measures should be
chosen in order to deal with a particular problem.
Public policy is the strategic use of resources to alleviate national problems or governmental
concerns. Public policy is the public response to the interest in improving the human conditions.
In these definitions there is divergence between what governments decide to do and what they
actually do. Public policy is a guide which government has designed for direction and practice in
certain problem areas Nduka.E et al., (2010).
POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES
Policy-making is the process by which governments translate their political vision into
programmes and actions to deliver „outcomes‟ - desired change in the real world.
Two parts to policy formulation: Effective formulation (analytical phase) means that the policy
proposed is regarded as a valid, efficient, and implementable solution to the issue at hand.
Acceptable formulation (political phase) means that the proposed course of action is likely to be
authorized by the legitimate decision makers, usually through majority‐building in a bargaining
process. That is, it must be politically feasible.

The analytical and political aspects of policy formulation Involve:
 First, effective policy alternatives, presumably based on sound analysis, must be
conceived and clearly articulated.
 Second, a political choice among these alternatives must be made: The policy must be
authorized through a political process, such as legislation or regulation.
 Both phases: analysis and authorization – make up policy formulation
 Analysis + Authorization = Formulation
 On Analysis – Professional policy analysts, use their skills and analytical tools to study
an issue and to devise policy alternatives to address the issue. They consider aspects such
as means, behaviour, cost, implementation strategy, and consequences
 Elected or appointed officials, however, have the final choice among the alternatives
presented.
This brings judgment, wisdom, and accountability to policy formulation. They consider goals,
trade‐offs, value priorities, and weighing the overall effects of the policy which makes them
accountable to the people, under our representative form of government.
Steps in Policy Formulation and Implementation:
Deciding whether a new policy or reform is required, promote the new policy or reform an
existing one, make the process more participatory by engaging stakeholders, adopt the new
policy, (often merged with the actual implementation stage). Finally, the policy is implemented,
after implementation, policies must be monitored and evaluated and a strategy and an action plan
are also required for the policy implementation process.
Policy Circle
The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model covers the following: issue identification, policy
analysis, policy instrument development, consultation (which permeates the entire process),
coordination, decision, implementation and evaluation.

Features of Policy Making
Nine Features of Modern Policy Making include: forward Looking, outward looking, innovative,
flexible and creative, evidence based, inclusive, joined up, reviewed (should be regularly),
evaluation and learns lessons and disseminates them (what worked & best practice).
Policy analysis
At this point, it may be said, more generally, that policy analysis is carried out before policy
formulation, since the analysis of the consequences of the various possible policies has to be
made in order to supply the necessary information to the decision-maker, so that he may select a
particular policy and, after policy formulation, when that policy is being translated into concrete
actions, i.e. in terms of plans, programmes and projects for implementation. In other words, it
shows the role of policy analysis in relation to policy formulation and policy implementation.
Policy analysis means making criticisms. Making criticisms means exposing the implicit values
that guide our research and recognizing that research which precludes implications for alternative
policy choices is not worth doing.
According to Nduka .E et al., (2010), Policy analysis is defined as simply put is the study of the
causes, processes, formulation, implementation and consequences of public policy. It involves
the description and explanation of particular policy choices and contents; determination of
strategies for optimal policy.-making, performance, implementation and impact of public
policies. It uses collected data to systematically explain, describe and prescribe policies with the
aid of certain social science methods, theories and approaches. However, almost all participants
in policy formulation have stakes in the configuration that policy takes.
Policy analysis as a technique puts data to use in, or deciding about, estimating and measuring
the consequences of public policy. Its purpose is twofold. It provides maximum information with
minimal cost about: The likely consequences of proposed policies and the actual consequences
of the policies already adopted.

Establishing the context: What is the underlying problem that must be dealt with? What
specific objectives are to be pursued in confronting this problem?
Laying out the alternatives: What are the alternative courses of action? What are the
possibilities for gathering further information?
Predicting the consequences: What are the consequences of each alternative action? What
techniques are relevant for predicting these consequences? If outcomes are uncertain, what is the
estimated likelihood of each?
Valuing the outcomes: By what criteria should we measure success in pursuing each objective?
Recognizing that inevitably some alternatives will be superior with respect to certain objectives
and inferior with respect to others, how should different combinations of valued objectives be
compared with one another?
Making a choice: Drawing all aspects of the analysis together, what is the preferred course of
action?"
Although Strokey & Leckhauser insisted that the five criteria areas must be considered, they did
not expect an analyst always to proceed from one stage of the analysis to the next, but to revise
the framework to suit his own operational style.
In establishing the context, it is essential to focus attention on policy areas where there is widely-
shared consensus and treat delicate issues cautiously. The problem areas in analysis may be
examined in terms of equity/ equality, efficiency and effectiveness in qualitative or quantitative
terms or according to the impact on the economy and so on. Once the analyst knows what the
problem is about, he will conceptualize it in order to eliminate courses of action that will be
costly, redundant and unfeasible, thus finding a way to seek the preferable choice and propose a
course of action. This proposed course of action should take into account the consequences as
well as the unexpected effects. The issue of making choices that favour the present at the

expense of the future is raised and an explanation of how to think about choices and how they
can be compared is presented.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED IN POLICY ANALYSIS
The world for which policies have to be developed is becoming increasingly complex, uncertain
and unpredictable. Citizens are better informed, have rising expectations and are making growing
demands for services tailored to their individual needs. Key policy issues, such as social need,
low educational achievement and poor health, are connected and cannot be tackled effectively by
departments or agencies acting individually.
In his analysis of the major constraints to African development, Balogun (1992) has pinned
institutional rigidity as another characteristic of policy management dispensation on the
continent. He lashes at African cultural values that have largely contributed to this rigidity. He
informs us that due to internal conflict, the African culture impedes any cooperative action in
political associations and in modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity matters in any
given policy? And what mechanisms are in place to enforce cooperation in policy management
in developmental states? To enhance policy management capacity in Africa, Basheka et al
(2012) suggests the need to review of what he termed the critical skills in the policy process
among policy makers and implementers. Such skills entail leadership and motivation,
entrepreneurial skills and innovation, planning and forecasting, programming, sequencing,
precision-management/coordination, resource mobilization and optimization, information
storage, retrieval/scanning, utilization, human resource management, conflict resolution, and
crisis control. At a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial for addressing a number of
institutional and process constraints for effective policy management.
Most policies in in developing countries like Uganda are managed through a set of institutions;
defined as a set of informal and formal rules that structure interactions between organizations
and between individuals. The literature also suggests that a reality gap between ideas of the best
practice and the actual legal, administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low-
income and middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to produce

perverse outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208). Politics has been
identified as a key issue to understand policy management. It has been observed by Goran Hyden
(2006) that in neo-patrimonial systems the president and other politicians at the top play a
significant role in policy implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not
control power, politics emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for policy
determination; subsequently, a policy deficit is caused. The transition from the movement type of
politics to competitive politics has further compounded this problem because the ruling regime
will ensure that there is total monopoly over state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads
those in power to become directly involved in policy management even where the work would
have been delegated to street level bureaucrats.
Another political dimension worth mentioning has been the issue of donors. In their policy
implementation model, Meter & Horn (1975) explain that several environmental factors can
influence the implementation process. They include the economic, social, and political
conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists in the
implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect. For instance, the
influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for example has immense influence
due to its resource capacity and politics of residency, which makes it a willing and able lender.
Hence, it can impose its preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and
sometimes the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on external
funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that may contradict
homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such external agencies have a sufficiently
clear vision of successful reforms. However, we can well ask, why do countries accept donor
influence (e.g., agree to implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time
suspect that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources: while
these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually profiteer from them.
For example, donor money and jobs created in connection with a reform implementation process
can be awarded based on ethnicity and nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this
hypothesis by arguing that policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and
worse still, they have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the
way policies are managed in Uganda and other developing countries.

Policy making does not take place in distinct stages
The „stages‟ of policy making do not just often overlap, they are often inseparable. In the real
world, policy problems and policy solutions frequently emerge together, rather than one after
another. In other words, plans may be present at the same time, or before, a need to act has been
identified. This can lead to poorly conceived policies if ministers present a fait accompli solution
that is flawed, or whose relationship to a policy problem is unclear – but will not hear it
challenged. The current policy process does not do enough to address these difficulties. Policy
makers agreed the solution was „directed exploration‟, where ministers are clear about their
goals, and then are prepared to engage in an honest, iterative discussion about how to achieve
them. However, such discussions are impeded by a lack of time, appropriate institutional
arrangements, and problems in ministerial-civil service relationships. We need better ways of
ensuring that the policy problem has been fully considered, and the option tested properly.
Hallsworth. M et al., (2011).
Unclear or Ambitious Policy Goals
It has been observed that most policies and plans are inefficient in learning from past
experiences. As a result they often devise ambitious targets which ultimately fall short of their
desired outcomes (Ahsan, 2003; The World Bank, 1999). One of the main reasons for such a
situation is the absence of reliable data for educational planning in Pakistan. It is very often the
case that even official documents carry discrepancies. Ahsan (2003) has shown that great
variation exists among many official and semi-official sources, including such basic educational
statistics as the percentage of literacy. Tsang (1988) strongly suggested that there is a dire need
in developing countries to strengthen the informational base to improve policy frameworks.
Political Commitment
The problem related to politics and politicians sits at the root of the problems of implementation
in Pakistan. Literature on implementation highlights the importance of political commitment by
leadership as critical to policy success (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983, pp. 158-59). Sri Lankan

reform experience suggests that successful implementation crucially depends on the consistent
support of top political and bureaucratic leadership (Cummings, Gunawardena, & Williams,
1992, pp. 15-16). Citing the example of civil service reform in Swaziland, McCourt (2003)
noticed that the lack of „political commitment‟ of government was the principal reason for failure
of reform programmes. In the case of Pakistan there have been many instances where
governments have failed to provide the political support needed for implementing and sustaining
policy initiatives. Each new government has discontinued most programmes of its predecessors
soon after assuming power, for example, a literacy project titled Nai Roshni (new light) was
launched in 1987 and was discontinued in 1989 with the change of government (Ahsan, 2003, p.
264). Other mass literacy programmes have also failed due to low political commitment both at
federal and local levels (Akhtar, 2004, p. 176).
Governance Structure
The issues of ineffective governance and corruption, particularly among politicians and civil
servants, have also been described as a major obstacle to proper policy implementation in
Pakistan (World Bank. Country Department I South Asia Region, 1997, p. 12). One of the major
reasons for the ineffectiveness of governance is lack of coordination and trust among political
representatives and government officials, and also the lack of cooperation among different
government departments (Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development &
Department for International Development, 2003, p. 5; The World Bank, 1999). In the case of
SAP, the lack of trust among finance and education departments has caused a shortage of
finances for the project, which has seriously affected the envisaged outcomes (World Bank.
Human Development Sector Unit, 2003, p. 16). This observation indicates towards the issues
that are related to the joint action of multiple actors, and its inherent problems. The Sri Lankan
experience suggests that a reform that involves fewer government agencies would experience
more cooperation, and stand a better chance of successful implementation (Cummings et al.,
1992, p. 16). The lack of cooperation among different organs of government and their mutual
disrespect create several „clearance points‟ that hamper the overall organization and
implementation of policy (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973; Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983).
Eventually due to distrust among different agencies and due to the tendency of civil services to
resist change, the policy is implemented only symbolically (Firestone & Corbett, 1988, p. 513).

Institutional challenges
In his analysis of the major constraints to African development, Balogun (1992) has pinned
institutional rigidity as another characteristic of policy management dispensation on the
continent. He lashes at African cultural values that have largely contributed to this rigidity. He
informs us that due to internal conflict, the African culture impedes any cooperative action in
political associations and in modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity matters in any
given policy? And what mechanisms are in place to enforce cooperation in policy management
in developmental states? To enhance policy management capacity in Africa, the author suggests
the need to review of what he termed the critical skills in the policy process among policy
makers and implementers. Such skills entail leadership and motivation, entrepreneurial skills and
innovation, planning and forecasting, programming, sequencing, precision
management/coordination, resource mobilization and optimization, information storage,
retrieval/scanning, utilization, human resource management, conflict resolution, and crisis
control. At a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial for addressing a number of
institutional and process constraints for effective policy management.
Most policies in for example in Uganda are managed through a set of institutions; defined as a
set of informal and formal rules that structure interactions between organizations and between
individuals. The literature also suggests that a reality gap between ideas of the best practice and
the actual legal, administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low-income and
middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to produce perverse
outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208). Politics has been identified as a
key issue to understand policy management. It has been observed by Hyden (2006) that in neo-
patrimonial systems the president and other politicians at the top play a significant role in policy
implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not control power, politics
emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for policy determination; subsequently,
a policy deficit is caused. The transition from the movement type of politics to competitive
politics has further compounded this problem because the ruling regime will ensure that there is
total monopoly over state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads those in power to

become directly involved in policy management even where the work would have been
delegated to street level bureaucrats.
Institutional constraint
Policy analysts also face the problem of institutional acceptance on policy outcomes.
Institutional characteristics limit what can or will be done. Specifically, an agency accustomed to
doing things in a particular way cannot innovate very often. Rather, it looks for an effort to
integrate new demands into existing patterns of doing business.
Donors Dependence.
In their policy implementation model, Meter and Horn (1975) explain that several environmental
factors can influence the implementation process. They include the economic, social, and
political conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists in the
implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect. For instance, the
influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for example has immense influence
due to its resource capacity and politics of residency, which makes it a willing and able lender.
Hence, it can impose its preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and
sometimes the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on external
funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that may contradict
homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such external agencies have a sufficiently
clear vision of successful reforms. However, we can well ask, why do countries accept donor
influence (e.g., agree to implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time
suspect that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources: while
these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually profiteer from them.
For example, donor money and jobs created in connection with a reform implementation process
can be awarded based on ethnicity and nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this
hypothesis by arguing that policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and
worse still, they have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the
way policies are managed in Uganda, Kenya and other developing countries.

Constraints of politics
The activities of political leaders constrain policy analysis. Policy ideas are dropped because
elected politicians and other appointees oppose them. The reaction of Senators, House of
Representatives, the President and Presidential Advisers are anticipated as proposals are debated.
Many ideas are discarded because specialists cannot conceive of any plausible circumstances
which they could be approved by elected politicians and their appointees. Policy analysis suffers
these political constraints when policy issues are being analyzed.
Budgetary constraint
Budgetary constraints also affect policy analysis. Expectations may always outpace the
capabilities of government. Before any proposals is accepted and approved, decision-makers
need to be convinced that it has the resource to do them. As observed by Kingdom (1984:145-6),
“decision-maker need to be convinced that the budgetary cost of the programme is acceptable;
that there is a reasonable chance that politicians will approve; that the public in its various facets
both mass and activists will acquiesce”. There must, therefore, be sufficient fund to meet policy
expectations, failure which policy analysis suffers.
Values
Though, objectivity is relative as many analysts believe that policy analysis is not value-free
since value judgment also influences how they record or present information. Nonetheless,
policy analysts are more objective than programme administrators as analysts often recommend
alternatives, review consequences before arriving at policy conclusion, whereas the bureaucrats
are national maximizers of self-interests (Down, 1967, Niskanen, 1971). In relative terms, policy
analysts are more objective where there is no conflict of interests. Policy analysis cannot provide
solutions to problems when there is no general consensus on what the 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 research cannot be value-free. Besides, it is difficult for the government to cure all
or even most of the maladies of the society. They are constrained by certain values in the society,
such as: religious beliefs, diversity in culture and languages. These cannot easily be managed by
the government.

Anticipation of acquiescence by society
Anticipation of acquiescence within a community is another constraint to policy analysis.
Specialists in policy community know that ultimately their proposals must be acceptable to the
public reaction as they design their proposals. The public possible negative reaction to policy
proposals acts as a constraint to policy analysis.
Multiple causes of a problem
There are also certain societal problems which may have multiple causes and a specific policy
may not be able to eradicate the problem. There are policies that solve the problems of one group
in society which create problems for other groups. In a plural society one person‟s solution may
be another person‟s problem. This is a constraint to many policy proposals and such policy
analysis proposal to solve such societal problem becomes an uphill task.
Costly solutions
Policy analysis also faces the constraint of solutions to some problem being more costly. For
instance, certain levels of public disorder including riots, civil disturbances and occasional
violence cannot be eradicated without the adoption of very regressive policies which would
prove too costly to democratic values, freedom of speech and press; rights of assembly; freedom
to form opposition parties. Thus, a certain level of disorder may be the price to pay for
democracy. All these act as constraints to policy analysis.
Uncertainty
As future is always uncertain, it is questionable whether policy analysis can find solutions to the
problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, unemployment, inequality, and environmental
pollution are some of the major problems in the society. 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.
Lack of communication
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, quite different policy recommendations can come out from these alternative
interpretations of the results of research.
Policies need to be designed, not just conceived
Current processes greatly underestimate the value of policy design. A greater emphasis on policy
design helps to ensure that the planned actions represent a realistic and viable means of
achieving the policy goals. In business, there is a quality control phase where new products are
prototyped and stress-tested, before being trailed and finally going to market.
While such testing does happen for some public sector policies, it should be much more
extensive and rigorous: the policy process still does not provide enough support to make it
happen systematically. Nevertheless, the complexity of modern governance means it is unlikely
that policies can be designed perfectly, so that nothing will go wrong or need to be revised.
Therefore, the people implementing a policy need the capacity and opportunity to adapt it to
local or changing circumstances.
Policy making is often determined by events
Policy making does not take place in a vacuum, where the government is in total control of its
agenda. The result can be sharp discontinuities and apparently illogical decisions, as the
government‟s coherent position can get overwhelmed by events. But not all events are the result
of the external world affecting policy makers; some are „self-generated‟. Many of our
interviewees made it clear that the desire to capture the news agenda, generate headlines, or be
seen to be acting, could lead to over-hasty announcements.
The effects of policies are often indirect, diffuse, and take time to appear
Current guidance presents policies as discrete interventions to tackle specific problems, whose
effects can then be reliably measured and evaluated. But there is plenty of evidence that the
effects of these interventions may be complex, wide-ranging and unintended. Given the
complexity of the problems with which government deals, it may be unlikely that a policy will
produce effects that are both measurable and attributable. Indeed, it may actually be unhelpful to

think of policies as discrete interventions that can achieve a particular goal on their own. Policy
may be the cumulative impact of many different initiatives in a particular area, or it may be about
managing a wider system. Unless the policy process is set up to capture those impacts and be
sensitive to other, interlinked policies, the real impact of a policy cannot be properly understood.
The more one delves into the reality of policy making, the more that policy cycles and their like
resemble a comforting narrative that imposes specious order on a complex reality. Maintaining
this narrative often means that, in practice, policy makers often have to fall back on their native
wits. This is why many interviewees voiced concerns about the ad hoc nature of policy making:
there is not so much a lack of recommended processes, just a lack of realistic ones.
POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED
There are two key stages to the policy formulation process: determining the policy options and
then selecting the preferred option (see Young & Quinn, 2002: 13-14).
For both stages, policymakers should ideally ensure that their understanding of the specific
situation and the different options is as detailed and comprehensive as possible; only then can
they make informed decisions about which policy to go ahead and implement. This includes the
instrumental links between an activity and an outcome as well as the expected cost and impact of
an intervention. The quantity and credibility of the evidence is important.
At this stage, the public administration concerned examines the various policy options it
considers to be possible solutions. It should be noted that coalitions of actors strive, through the
use of advocacy strategies, to gain priority for one specific interpretation of both the problem and
its solution. It is at this stage that power relationships crystallize, determining the direction a
policy will take.
This stage is the most crucial one after policy formulation is its implementation. It is, perhaps,
for its importance that some scholars refer to the policy implementation stage as the hub of
policy process. Fundamentally, policy implementation is the process of translating a policy into
actions and presumptions into results through various projects and programmes (Okoli and Onah,
2003; Ikelegbe, 2006). Kraft & Furlong (2007) and Ajaegbu & Eze (2010) state that policy

implementation actually refers to the process and activities involved in the application,
effectuation and administration of a policy. A variety of activities are involved in policy
implementation that may include issuing and enforcing directives, disbursing funds, signing
contracts, collecting data and analyzing problems, hiring and assigning personnel, setting
committees and commissions, assigning duties and responsibilities and also making interim
decisions etc. (Nweke, 2006).
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
It is difficult to create a conceptual distinction between policy formulation and policy
implementation (Dinica, 2004). This is because policy formulation basically takes place
throughout the entire policy process. What is needed is a way of combining the analytical
benefits offered by the „stages‟ model with the recognition of the interaction between the stages.
(Hill & Hupe, 2003). Use the term „policy‐making‟ for the entire process, „policy formation‟ for
the initial part of policy‐making, Policy implementation‟ for the latter part of the policy‐making
process.
Fundamentally and according to Hornby (2010), the word effective refers to producing the
results that is wanted or intended or producing a successful result. In the context of this work,
effective policy implementation, therefore, entails implementing a policy in such a way as to
produce, attain or realize the goals and objectives of the policy. In essence, if a policy is
effectively implemented, the designed and planned development goals and objectives are
realized. The basic end or focus of the bureaucratic activities should then be on how best to
effectively implement policies.
According to Sajid Ali (2006), states that policy implementation is generally held to be the step
that follows policy formulation and is viewed as „the process of carrying out a basic policy
decision‟ (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Bhola (2004) suggests that policy implementation is a
process „to actualize, apply and utilize it [policy] in the world of practice‟.

At this stage, the policy‟s implementation parameters are established, which can directly affect
the eventual outcome of the policy. Several factors combine to determine the actual effects of a
policy and how well it achieves its objectives. Factors noted by Sabatier and Mazmanian include:
the type and complexity of the problem addressed, the magnitude of the expected change and the
groups targeted by the policy, the human and financial resources devoted to implementation, and
the administrative structures and regulations that will be put in place to support implementation
of the policy (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1995).
Note that high demands are placed on the technical-administrative apparatus at this stage, and on
groups associated with this policy sector. The term policy network is often used to refer to the
actors within the government, as well as the stakeholders associated with a policy sector, who are
in sense experts in the area. This policy network will have a major influence on how the policy is
implemented.
Policy implementation includes all the activities that result from the official adoption of a policy.
Policy implementation is what happens after a law is passed. We should never assume that the
passage of a law is the end of the policymaking process. Sometimes laws are passed and nothing
happens. Sometimes laws are passed and executive agencies, presuming to act under these laws,
do a great deal more than Congress ever intended. Political scientist Robert Lineberry writes:
“The implementation process is not the end of policy-making, but a continuation of policy-
making by other means. When policy is pronounced, the implementation process begins. What
happens in it may, over the long run, have more impact on the ultimate distribution of policy
than the intentions of the policy‟s framers”.
Traditionally, public policy implementation was the subject matter of public administration. The
separation of “politics” from “administration” was once thought to be the cornerstone of a
scientific approach to administration. But today it is clear that politics and administration cannot
be separated. Opponents of policies do not end their opposition after a law is passed. They
continue their opposition in the implementation phase of the policy process by opposing attempts
to organize, fund, staff, regulate, direct, and coordinate the program. If opponents are

unsuccessful in delaying or halting programs in implementation, they may seek to delay or halt
them in endless court battles (school desegregation and abortion policy are certainly cases in
point). In short, conflict is a continuing activity in policy implementation.
CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
The pattern and nature of policy implementation is the major explanation for the failure or
success of any given policy. In this vein, Nwankwo & Apeh (2008) observe that the
implementation of a policy is the most vital phase in the policy process as it is at this stage that
the success or failure of a policy is determined. Ikelegbe (2006) and Nweke (2006), in this
respect too, note that many policy failures result from ineffective implementation.
The public bureaucracy plays through the effective implementation of government policies,
projects and programmes aimed at achieving development goals and objectives. Most often in
many developing countries, however, policies are well and brilliantly formulated but
ineffectively implemented by the bureaucracy as cited in Nigeria (Obodoechi, 2009; Ikelegbe,
2006). This leads to the failure of public policies to achieve their target goals and objectives and
to ultimately alleviate the problems for which they were designed. Indeed, there are usually wide
gaps between formulated policy goals and the achievement of those goals as a result of
ineffective implementation in almost all facets of public administration (Ozor, 2004; Mankinde,
2005).
The ineffective and corrupt political leadership contribute to poor policy implementation in
developing countries. The leadership corruption, and ineptitude, for instance, affects the content
and quality of policy at formulation stage. For instance, policies are, more often than not, made
for purposes of the selfish and egoistic interest of the political leaders and sometimes only to
attract public acclaim and attention with less regard to their appropriateness in addressing given
problems or the possibility of their effective practical implementation by the public bureaucracy.
It is perhaps for this, that Okoli & Onah (2002) state that implementation of policies in Nigeria
and other developing countries take the form of “learning process” or “trial and error”. In this
context, policies or programmes are haphazardly implemented and even sometimes abandoned or

dismantled midway because the basis for formulating the policy was not, in the first instance,
predicated on existing data, realities or need.
Another factor that constitutes obstacles for the bureaucracy in effectively implementing policies
is the over ambitions nature of some public policies. Some policies actually tend to be over
ambitions, sweeping and overly fundamental in nature (Mankinde, 2005). In most cases, the
formulation of such over ambitions policies is not even borne out of genuine or sincere effort to
bring about rapid and radical development but just to boast the ego of the political leaders. An
example of such policies is policies having as their basic objectives the provision of free
education or free health services to all the citizens or the total eradication of poverty amongst the
citizens. For such policies, there are usually inadequate resources (men and materials) for the
public bureaucracy to effectively implement them.
Another critical factor inhibiting effective implementation of policies is that some agencies or
institutions saddled with the responsibility of implementing given policies do not possess the
requisite manpower and financial resources to effectively implement them. On the issue of
inadequate resources, for instance, Governments in developing countries, sometimes, do not
budget adequately to enable the public bureaucracy properly implement formulated policies
(Ikelegbe, 2006; Dick, 2003). Indeed, to effectively implement policies, the implementing
agency needs resources in adequate and timely manner and such not being the case in Nigeria
explains, in part, the failure of certain public policies to achieve desirable ends, (Nweke, 2006;
Ikelegbe, 1996). Sometimes, though, government gives out sufficient fund but the corrupt
activities within the public bureaucratic organizations do not allow for its judicious use to
effectively execute policy programs. In any case, insufficient financial resources have resulted to
situations where laws could not be enforced, services were not provided and reasonable
regulation not developed and applied.
On the issue of inadequate human resources, the public bureaucracy do not, indeed, have
adequate staff in terms of overall numbers and more importantly in terms of specific areas of
professional, technical or managerial competence and expertise (Aluko & Adesopo; 2002). This
is counterproductive as the capabilities of government bureaucracy in terms of expertise and skill

determine, to a large extent, policy implementation success or failure (Ikelegbe, 1996). Where
abilities exist, policies could be confidently formulated with reasonable assurance of their
effective implementation. Indeed, as Nnamdi (2001) notes, development policies has, in
contemporary times, assumed complex and sophisticated dimension that require highly skilled
and experienced bureaucrats for their effective implementation.
Again, the challenge of keeping away personal interest, prejudice and the influence of primordial
values in the conduct of official business by bureaucrats is equally very critical in developing
countries. Usually, if the bureaucrats are not favourably disposed towards a policy, they may not
approach its implementation with the enthusiasm and zeal that it effectively implementation may
require. Makinde (2005), in this respect, contends that the zeal with which bureaucrats
implement policy depends on how they see the policy as effecting their personal, ethnic and
organizational interest and aspirations. Positive effects will induce enthusiastic implementation
while the contrary may mean that implementation may be resisted, thwarted and even sabotaged
(Ikelegbe, 2006). The ultimate result of this is ineffective implementation of policies that makes
the realization of their goals and objectives difficult.
Another constraining factor to effective policy implementation in developing countries is undue
pervasive political influence on the public bureaucracy (Amucheazi 1980; Aneze) (in Timi and
Tola, 1986). Usually, the political leaders formulate policies and as well control and direct the
implementation activities of the policy. This situation is not proper as such control and directive
are mostly motivated by selfish personal or political interests. Indeed, the bureaucracy cannot
effectively implement policies and meaningfully contribute to national development if it is
fettered, controlled and directed by political authorities. This is more so as in extreme cases of
such political control, the bureaucrats are not even allowed to take decisions or actions on basic
routine administrative matters without consultation and the consent of relevant political
authorities. In this process, much time and energy is wasted and prompt actions required for
effective implementation of policies hampered. Given this, therefore, one can posit that the
extent to which politics influence the bureaucratic activities will continue to determine and shape
the extent to which policies can be properly and effectively implemented by the public
bureaucracy in many developing countries. Very worrisome is the fact that the political influence

or hold on the public bureaucracy is becoming tighter as promotion to the headship positions in
some public bureaucratic organization is based on political patronage or loyalty and not on the
basis of relevant or cognate experience and seniority. Bureaucrats promoted under such
circumstance will be more morally bound to subject their official decisions and actions,
substantially, to the wishes, preferences, control and endorsement of their political masters.
Finally, abrogation of a policy effects their implementation by the public bureaucracy in
Developing countries. It is observable that each new political in many developing countries in
Africa is usually and primarily concerned with making its own impression on public programmes
and projects. For this, certain policies or programmes which are already being effectively
implemented are shelved by the succeeding administration (Nnamdi, 2001). Presidents,
Ministers, Governors, Local Government Chairmen and heads of institutions (both bureaucratic
and political heads) exhibit the tendency to link their administration with distinct social and
economic policies or programmes. Consequently, the policies of preceding administrations are
rarely pursued by succeeding ones and such personalistic styles of administration help to explain
why so little attention is paid to the issue of maintenance of projects or programmes created or
initiated by preceding regimes. Indeed, succeeding regimes conceive the maintenance of existing
programmes as not politically expedient as it does not bring direct personal glory or credit.
CONCLUSION
Public policy analysis faces various problems, such as: politics, budget, institution, values and
expectation of members of the society. In spite of the constraints, it seems safe to say that social
scientists can at 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. Lineberry (1977:135) notes that “policy analysis rests
on the assumption that information is better than no information, and that right questions are
better than no questions asked, even when the answers may not be definitive”.
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. Policy analysis guides decision-
makers in making optimum choices and outcomes among discrete alternatives.

REFERENCES
Abah, N.C. (2010) Development Administration: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach Enugu:
John Jacob Classic Publishers Ltd.
Abdulsalemi, A. (1990). “Public Policy: Concepts, Approaches and Processes”. In Obasi,
I.N. and Yakub, N.O. (1998)(ed). Local Government Policy Making and Execution in Nigeria
Ibadan: University Press Plc.
Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public Administration: A Nigerian and Comparative
Perspectives New York: Longman Inc.
Adebayo, A. (2000) (2nd Edition) Principles and Practice of Public Administration in
Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Book Ltd.
Ajaegbu, F.O. and Eze, E. (2010) Public Policy Making and Analysis Enug: Spring Time
Press.
Aluko, M.A and Adesopo, A. A. (2002). “An Appraisal of the Two Faces of Bureaucracy
in Relation to the Nigerian Society” Journal of Social Sciences,, 8(1) 12 – 21.
Amucheazi, E.C. (ed) (1980). Readings in Social Sciences: Issues in National
Development Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers.
Aneze, L (1986). “Bureaucracy and Modernization” in Social Change in Nigeria. Simi, A
And Tola, P. (eds) (1986) Social change in Nigeria England: Longman Group Ltd.
Anikeze, N. (2011) Fundamental issues in Nigeria Politics, Government and
Development Administration. Enugu: Academic Publishers Company.
Dick I, (2003) Contemporary Public Administration: The Nigerian Perspective. Enugu:
John Jacob Classic Publishers.

Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Egeran, T. (2011) “The Development State in Africa: Interrogating the Nigerian Status”
Nigerian Journal of Administrative Science. Vol. 9 Nos 1 and 2 Pp. 314 – 334.
Egonmwan, J. (1984). Public Policy Analysis: Concepts and Applications: Benin City:
S.M.O. Aka and Brothers Press.
Eneanya, A.N. (2010). Policy Research, Analysis and Effective Policy- Making in
Nigeria. Lagos: Concept Publications Ltd.
Ezeani, E. O. (2006). Fundamentals of Public Administration. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd.
Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods / edited by Frank
Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara S. Sidney.
Heady, F. (1992). Encyclopedia of Government and Politics London: Routlege.
Hornby, A.S (2010) Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current English. London:
University Press.
Ikelegbe, A. (2006) Public Policy Analysis: Concepts, Issues and Cases. Lagos: Imprint
Services.
Kingdon, J.W. (1984). Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. USA: HarperCollins
Publishers.
Kraft, M and Furlong, S. (ed) (2007) Public Policy: Politics and Analysis. Washington:
C.Q Press.
Lasswell, H. and Deiner, D. eds. (1951). The Policy Sciences. Standford: University
Press.

Lineberry, R.L. (1977). American Public Policy: What Government Does and What
Differences it Makes. New York: Harper & Row.
Makinde, T. (2005) “Problems of Policy Implementation in Developing Nations” Journal
of Social Sciences, 11(1) Pp 63 – 69.
Niskanen, W.A. Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. New York:
Aldinel/Atherton.
Nnamdi, H. (2001) Comparative Public Administration. Benin City: Trust Publications.
Nwankwo, B. and Apeh, (2008) Development Administration: Principles and Practice.
Enugu: Zik Chuks Publishers.
Nweke, E. (2006) Public Policy Analysis: A Strategic Approach. Enugu: John Jacobs
Publishers.
Nutley, S. (2003) „Bridging the Policy/Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from
the UK‟, Keynote Paper at National Institute of Governance Conference „Facing the Future:
Engaging stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy‟, Canberra, Australia 23–4 April.
Obodoechi, O. (2009) Community Development. Enugu: Computer Edge Publishers.
Okafor, (2005). “Public Bureaucracy and Development in Nigeria: A Critical Overview
of Impediments to Public Service Delivery”. CODESRIA Bulletin. Nos. 3 and 4.
Okeke, M. (2001). Theory and Practice of Public Policy Analysis. Enugu: Bismark
Publishers.
Okoli, F.C. and Onah, F.O (2002) Public Administration in Nigeria: Nature, Principles
and Applications. Enugu: John Jacobs Classic Publishers.

Olaniyi, J. (1998). Foundations of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: University Publishers
Ltd.
Olarewaju, O, et al (2004) “Evaluation of Programmes and Policies for Supporting Small
Scale Enterprises in Nigeria” Ibadan: Publication of the Development Policy Centre Ibadan.
Onah, R.C. (2005) Public Administration. Nsukka: Great AP Publishers.
Ozor, E. (2004) Public Enterprises in Nigeria: A study in Public Policy Making in
Changing Political Economy. Ibadan: University Press Plc.
Policy sciences--Handbooks, manuals, etc. Public administration--Handbooks, Manuals,
Fischer, Frank, (1942)- II. Miller, Gerald. III. Sidney, Mara S., 1964- IV. Title. V. Series.
H97.H3583 2007 352.3‟4--dc22
Policy hub website: Impact Assessment and Appraisal:
www.policyhub.gov.uk/better_policy_making/
Policy hub: www.policyhub.gov.uk/evaluating_policy
Sophie Sutcliffe and Julius Court (2006), A Toolkit for Progressive Policymakers in
Developing Countries, Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London
SE1 7JD Email: publications@odi.org.uk
Ugo, S. & Ukpere, W, (2011) “Public Policy: Myths and Realities in the Nigerian
Nationhood since Independence” African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 5(23

The challenges in policy formulation, policy analysis and implementation in developing countries.

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to The challenges in policy formulation, policy analysis and implementation in developing countries. (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

The challenges in policy formulation, policy analysis and implementation in developing countries.