Chapter One

The Meaning and Implementation of Public Policy

Introduction
• Public policies are as old as governments. Any form of government has
formulated and implemented public policies to respond to the demands and
interests of the citizens. This activity of the government makes public policies the
domain of political process.
• Although public policy making is a political process, public administrators play a
critical role in the process. This basically requires public administrators to
understand public policy process, the institutional and non-institutional actors, the
policy analysis, implementation and evaluation.
• Such kind of knowledge and exposure to the various experiences of the developed
and developing countries would enable students of public administration to play
their role in the practical world. Moreover, the making of public policy is central
to government and can have an enormous impact on our lives.
 The Meaning of Public Policy
• Public policy can be broadly defined as a proposed course of action of an
individual, a group, an institution or a government to realize a specific
objective or purpose within a given environment.
• Marshall Dimnock defines it as “the consciously acknowledged rules of
conduct that guide administrative decisions.” Public policies are those, which
are developed by governmental bodies and officials, though non-governmental
actors and agencies may also exert direct or indirect pressure or influence in
the policymaking process.
• Public policy is used in senses of what the government is doing and how it is
doing. Studies of public policy examine how the content of the policy
programme is administered. Policy is a verbal, written or implied direction of
action. It gives the overall guide by setting up boundaries/limits and directions
within which administrative action will take place.
• Policy has been defined as "a matter of either the desire for change or the desire to
protect something from change" (Barber, 1983:59). Barber further added,
"Policymaking occurs in the determination of major objectives, in the selection of
methods of achieving these objectives, and in the continuous adaptation of existing
policies to the problems that face the government."
• Public policy can be comprehensively defined as a "purposive and consistent course of
action produces as a response to a perceived problem of constituency, formulated by a
specific political process; adopted, implemented and enforced by a public agency."
• Public Policy:-is the chief instrument of a politically organized community. In general,
public policy means Government policy. "Policy" designates the behavior of some actor
or set of actors (an official, government agency, legislature, etc) in a given area of
activity (for example public transport, consumer protection, etc).
• "Policy" connotes two meanings:
• Administrative policy (Rules, Procedures, Decisions of doing things)
• Substantive programmes (the content of what is being done or implemented is
examined)
• The entire process involving/concerning public policy needs to be distinguished
primarily from two dominant angles.
A. From the input side, the articulation of needs and interests, and the factors
determining the ‘choice’ of activity have to be identified
B. From the output side, a distributive analysis has to be undertaken, in that the
impact of the policy has to be assessed
• *This brings out two major dimensions to public policymaking
• 1. In the first dimension, public policy is seen as an instrument of effective control
over the environment, in that it harbors the potential to create “fundamental social
transformation” or that could significantly influence the environment
• 2. The second dimension is that it “derives the normative values on which it is
based from the environment.”
• Public policy, thus, both acquires and imparts values from/to the environment. It is
the chief means by which the input-throughput and output of government activity
is performed.
Implications of Public Policy
• The implications of the concept of public policy:
1. Public policy is goal oriented it is purposive or result oriented action, rather than random
behaviour or chance happenings, to accomplish goals and produce results. Goal-orientedness
and attainment of result is the hallmark (characteristic) of public policy.
2. Public Policy is the outcome of the government’s collective actions.
3. Policy is what governments actually decide or choose to do, and what subsequently
happens, rather than what they intend to do or say they are going to do.
4. Public policies emerge in response to policy demands on some public issue made by other
actors such as private citizens, group representatives, other public officials upon government
officials and agencies.
5. Public policy may be either positive or negative in form. Positively, it depicts the concern of
government and involves some form of government actions regarding any issue or problem.
Public policy in its positive form is based on law and is authoritative; it has a legal sanction
behind it, which is potentially coercive in nature and is binding on all citizens. Negatively, it
may involve a decision by government officials not to take action on a matter on which
governmental opinion, attitude, or action is asked for.
• Generally, two concepts involved in any policy need to be distinguished
(a) Policy statements are formal expressions of public policy (legislative statutes, executive orders,
administrative rules and regulations, court opinions, etc); and
(b) Policy outputs are actions actually taken in pursuance of policy decisions and statements (taxes
collected, highways built, welfare benefits paid, traffic fines collected, foreign-aid projects undertaken;
etc).
• Policies could also have different connotations and could be understood in different perspectives,
which may imply or include the following:
• As a label for a field of activity: For example, broad statements about a government's economic
policy, industrial policy, or law and order policy,
• As an expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs: For example, to generate as
many jobs as possible, to promote democratization through decentralization, to attack the roots of
poverty,
• As specific proposals: For example, to limit agricultural landholdings to 10 hectares, to devalue the
currency by 10 percent, to provide free primary education,
• As decisions of government: For example, policy decisions as announced in the national assembly
or by president,
• As formal authorization: For example, acts of parliament or other statutory instruments or
• As a program: For example, as a defined and relatively specific sphere of
government activity such as land reform program or a women's health program,
• As output: For example, what is actually delivered such as the amount of land
redistributed in a reform program and the number of tenants affected, taxes
collected, roads built, foreign aid projects undertaken, welfare benefits paid,
• As outcome: For example, what is actually achieved such as the effect on farmer
income and 'living standards, and of agricultural output of a land reform
program,
• As theory or model: For example, if you do ‘x’ then ‘y’ will happen; if we
increase incentives to manufacturers then, industrial output will grow; if more
opportunities are provided in rural areas, then migration to cities will slow down,
• As process: As a long-term matter starting with issues and moving through
objective-setting, decision making, implementation and evaluation (labour,
welfare, defense, traffic control etc).
 Characteristics of public policy
• Whatever definition you like to use, there are certain features of the whole process of public
policy which are common in all the countries. These features are;
1. Exclusive Domain of the Elected Representatives: Public policy formulation is the
exclusive domain of the elected representatives of the county; however it is implemented by the
state apparatus which formulates strategies to implement it.
2. Not a Random Act: Policy formulation and implementation is not a random act of an
organization, rather it is a deliberate action taken by a competent authority which initiated the
action and is approved by the public representatives, usually the minister in charge of a ministry
or the cabinet.
3. Different Formats: A policy could either be a part of an overall development policy and
strategy of the country i.e. Growth Strategy for Pakistan prepared by the Planning Commission
or it could be a specific document addressing a particular issue i.e. Food Security Policy,
Poverty Reduction Strategy, National Housing Policy, Climate Change Policy etc..
4. Legal Sanctity: Although it is not a piece of legislation approved by the parliament in the
form of an act of parliament, it has the sanctity of its own and can be used as a reference for
dispute resolution in the court of law. In some cases the policy itself or parts of the document,
which is in essence a value judgment of the regime in power, could be converted into an act of
Clarifications of Policy and Related Concepts
(A) Objectives
Objectives are:
• Goals established to guide the efforts of an organization, department,
government
• Ends towards which the activities of a department, organization, and/or
government are directed.
Nature of objectives:
• Multiple in nature
• Realistic and operational
• Responsive to environment changes
• Long range, medium and short ranges
 Differences between Policy and Objective

POLICY OBJECTIVE

1. Guideline to achieve predetermined 1. An end towards which activities are directed

objectives 2. Determines what is to be done
2. Determines how the work is to be done 3. Specific measures of achievement
3. General expression of broad purpose and
philosophy
 Differences between Policy and Goal
POLICY GOAL

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

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

1. General statement of a decision 1. Specific... tells what to do or not to do

2. Flexible... allows exceptions 2. Rigid ... does not permit exceptions
3. Allows discretions in decision making or 3. Does not allow discretion in decision
implementation making or implementation
4. Allows implicit understanding and interpretation, 4. Is explicit and direct, doesn't give room for
serves as a guide for thinking or decisionmaking thinking and implied interpretation
 Procedures
• Are statements that specify the exact manner in which certain activities must be
accomplished
• Put the precise order of activities to be carried out to do a task
• Are chronological sequences of required actions?
• Provide detailed step-by-step instructions as to what should be done.
• Is a systematic way of handling regular events; it is a series of steps to do a particular job; a
sequence of actions directed towards a goal; a guide of action without specifying a time
sequence.
Nature of procedure:
• Involves steps of doing jobs
• Concerns with many departments
• Required for all departments
• Facilitates decision – making
• Helps in policy implementation
CHAPTER TWO
2. ORIGINS, PROGRESSION AND SOURCES OF PUBLIC POLICY
Emergence and the Empiric Study of Public Policymaking
Historically speaking,
• The origins of public policy and public advice as a political decision are very old and
have been used since the birth of civilization (Sapru, 2005:24).
• From the beginning of human thought, public policymaking has been a central subject for
study and discussion by social philosophers and practical politicians alike.
• Their writings include many moving exhortations (impulses), profound insights,
fascinating descriptions, and stimulating ideas that not only are of much theoretical
significance, but also have been of great practical introduction in shaping contemporary
policymaking.
• To Dunn (1981), the history of public policy goes back to the 18th century B.C. The Code
of Hammurabi, which was originated around this period, was the earliest recorded
example of policy analysis. The Code that consisted of 282 laws was intended to establish
a unified and just order over many aspects of public life.
 Policy Sciences
• Although the origin of public policies can be linked to the beginning of
civilization itself, the present policy sciences have a twentieth century color.
• The concept of “policy sciences” as a social science discipline and practice was
born or formulated in 1951 with the publication of Harold Lasswell’s essay in
title “The Policy Orientation”.
• Policy science is a systematic and scientific study of public policy. Lasswell is
regarded as the modern founder of the policy sciences, described policy
sciences as the culmination of efforts to define a discipline for producing and
applying “societally relevant knowledge”.
• A policy science is characterized by a series of paradigms different in many
respects from contemporary “normal” sciences. The place of policy sciences is
related to the question and importance of the state and its public policy
concerns.
According to Dror (1971), the policy sciences include:
i Policy Analysis, which provides methods for identification of preferable policy
alternatives,
ii Alternative innovation, which deals with the invention of new designs and
possibilities to be considered in policymaking,
iii Master policies or mega policies, which provide postures, assumptions,
strategies, and main guidelines to be followed by specific policies,
iv Evaluation and feedback, including social indicators, social experimentation
and organizational learning, and,
v Improvement of meta policies, that is, “policy on policymaking” through
redesign of public policymaking systems, its organizational components,
selection and training of its personnel, and reconstruction of its communication
and information network,
Significance of and Rationales for the Study of Public Policy
• The study of approaches, strategies, and concepts which will contribute towards this end
are essential for many reasons.
Firstly, the study of policy formulation processes may help to gain greater knowledge and
understanding of the complexities of the interacting social, economic and political
processes and their implications for society.
Secondly, factual knowledge about the policymaking process and its
outcomes is a prerequisite or prescribing on and dealing with societal
problems normatively.
• Many political scientists believe that the study of public policy should be
directed towards ensuring that governments adopt appropriate policies to
attain certain desirable social goals.
• They reject the notion that policy analysts should strive to be value free
contending that political science should not and cannot remain politically
neutral or silent on vital contemporary social, economic or political
problems.
Policy may be viewed either as a dependent or an independent variable.
• When it is viewed as a dependent variable, the question will be on identifying
factors that would shape public policy. The attention in this case is placed on
the political and environmental factors that help to determine the content of
policy. For example, how do the distribution of power among pressure groups
and governmental agencies affect the policy outcome? Or how do urbanization
and national income help to shape the content of policy?
• If public policy is viewed as an independent variable, the focuses shift to the
impact of policy on the political system and the environment.
• Then, the questions arise as to what effect policy has on social welfare
• How does it influence future policy choices or mobilize support for the political
system?
Reason for Study Public Policy
1. Scientific Reasoning/Understanding: First, public policy can be studied for
purely scientific reasons: understanding the causes and consequences of policy
decisions improves the knowledge of society.
• The study of public policy formulation processes may help to gain greater
knowledge and understanding of the complexities of the interacting social,
economic and political processes and their implications for society.
2. Professional Reasons/ Problem solving. Public policy can also be studied for
professional reasons: understanding the causes and consequences of public policy
permits us to apply social science knowledge to the solution of practical problems.
• Factual knowledge about the policymaking process and its outcomes is a
prerequisite for prescribing the ills of society or dealing with social problems
normatively.
• If certain ends are desired, the question of what policies would best implement
them is a factual question requiring scientific study. In other words, policy
studies can produce professional advice, in terms of “if…then…” statements,
about how to achieve desired goals.
• The study of public policy should be directed towards ensuring that
governments adopt appropriate policies to attain certain desirable social goals. It
is not to deny, however, that substantial disagreements may exist in society over
what constitutes "desirable" or the "appropriate" goals of policy.
3. Political Reasons/ Policy Recommendations. Finally, public policy can be
studied for political purposes: to ensure that the nation adopts the “right” policies
to achieve the “right” goals. It is frequently argued that political science should
not be silent or impotent in the face of great social and political crises, and that,
political scientists have a moral obligation to advance specific public policies.
• An exclusive focus on institutions, processes, or behaviors is frequently looked
on as “dry”, “irrelevant”, and “amoral” because it does not direct attention to
the really important policy questions facing societies.
• Policy studies can be undertaken not only for scientific and professional
purposes but also to inform political discussion, advance the level of political
awareness, and improve the quality of public policy. Of course, these are very
subjective purposes-citizens do not always agree on what constitutes the “right”
policies or the “right” goals-but it is assumed that knowledge is preferable to
ignorance, even in politics.
 Studying Public Policy, its Causes and Consequences
• The most important and immediate question that follows after reasoning out why we study public
policy should be, “what can we learn about public policy?” To address this generic question,
we can provide at least three major justifications: we can describe public policy, we can inquire
about the causes of public policy, and we can find out the consequences of public policy actions.
A. Description: First, we can describe public policy and we can learn what government is doing
(and not doing) in, for example, welfare, defense, education, civil rights, health the
environment, taxation, and so on.
• A factual basis of information about national policy is really an indispensable part of everyone’s
education.
• What does the Civil Rights Act, if any; actually say about discrimination in employment? What is
the condition of the nation’s Social Security Program? What do the Medicare Programs promise
for the poor and the aged? What agreements have been reached between governments regarding a
common concern such as nuclear weapons? How much money are we paying in tax? How much
money does the federal government spend each year and what does it spend it on? How large is
the national debt and how much does it grow each year? These are examples of descriptive
questions.
B. Causes: Second, we can inquire about the causes, or determinants, of public
policy. Why is public policy what it is? Why do governments do what they do?
C. Consequences: We might inquire about the effects of political institutions,
process, and behaviors on public policies For example, does it make any
difference in tax and spending levels whether “X” or “Y” parties control the
presidency and parliament? What is the impact of interest group conflict on
federal presidency and congress? What is the impact of lobbying by the special
interests on efforts to reform the federal tax system? We can also inquire about
effects of social, economic, and cultural forces in shaping public policy.
• We can ask, for example, what are the effects of changing public attitudes about
race on civil rights policy? What are the effects of recessions on government
spending? What is the effect of an increasing older population on social
security programs? In scientific terms, when we study the causes of public
policy, policies become the dependent variables, and their various political,
social, economic, and cultural developments become the independent variables
(Dye, 1995:5).
• Linkage A: What are the effects of social and economic conditions on political
and governmental institutions, processes, and behaviour?
• Linkage B: What are the effects of political and governmental institutions,
processes, and behaviours on public policies?
• Linkage C: What are the effects of social and economic conditions on public
policies?
• Linkage D: What are the effects (feedback) of public policies on social and
economic conditions?
• Linkage E: What are the effects (feedback) of political and governmental
institutions, processes, and behaviours on social and economic conditions?
• Linkage F: What are the effects (feedback) of public policies on political and
governmental institutions, processes, and behaviours on social and economic
conditions
The Sources of Public Policy
• Public policy takes several forms.
• Its most fundamental principles are expressed in national and state constitutions, which
also govern the procedures by which policies are adopted.
• The most familiar policy form is statutory law, enacted by congress or parliament,
state legislatures, and local boards and councils.
• Court decisions interpreting statues and constitutions also become policy and are
binding on legislators and executives.
• Another key source of public policy is international relations.
• Some policies cross national boundaries, taking the form of treaties and less formal
working agreements between and among governments. Such policies require
negotiations with governments and such international agencies as the World Bank and
the World Health Organization. For example, an international conference held in
Montreal in 1987 to reduce the emissions of ozone-destroying gases into the
atmosphere has produced an agreement that binds each industrialized nation to hold
constant the production of five forms of chlorofluorocarbons at levels which were 1986,
and to cut their production by 50 percent by 1999.
• Policy must be based on accurate factual information, which is largely
supplied by administration. There are four ways in which or sources from
which administration collects the necessary data and information:
• From its own internal reports, records and statistics,
• From non-official organizations/ sources,
• From special investigations conducted by commissions or committees of
inquiry,
• From research and study.
CHAPTER THREE
3. POLICY CYCLES AND STAGES
Stage one: Agenda-Setting
• Three events mark the beginning of the cycle: agenda-setting, problem definition, and
statement of public objectives.
Agenda-setting, which is the starting point in the policymaking process, is an activity of
listing of issues that warrant serious consideration for the making or remaking of policy.
• Distinguish between two kinds of agendas; the popular agenda and the institutional agenda.
1. The popular agenda:
• Is the list of problems and issues in which the general public is most interested.
• For example, opinion polls regularly report that unemployment or crime or danger of nuclear war may
head at the top of the list of concerns in a given month.
• Issues rise and fall on this agenda because of many factors: media publicity, widespread public
experiences, or the efforts of a president/head of state to publicize them, for example.
• Nearly always, they reflect something that government is already doing-well or badly.
• These issues can also vary regionally or locally; a depressed economy in one state/region or a high
crime rate in the other may dominate the public agendas in those places.
• Only a limited number of issues can hold the public’s attention at any one time, and as a new one
rises, an old one must fall whether or not it has been “solved.” Both success and failure of the action
can be the cause of its removal from the agenda.
2. Institutional agenda:
• In contrast, consists of those items that specific government bodies or leaders,
such as congress or a city mayor, rank as high priorities for action.
• These concerns reflect the popular agendas but emphasize specific matters on
which some agreement is possible.
• Thus, at a time when the public is worried about unemployment, congress
agenda may include proposals, for example, to create new public service jobs or
protect a country’s industries from foreign competition.
• If an issue doesn’t contain realistic potential for new action, it will not be taken
very seriously.
• Agendas of national, state/regional, and local governments frequently interlock
with each other.
• Ideologies, dominant personalities, and the waves of electoral politics are the
key "filters" of agenda possibilities, since all such development must be
perceived and selected by politicians.
Stage Two: Defining Problems
• While they are setting the agenda, policymakers also must define the problem that confronts them.
• Essentially, a "problem definition" is determining the gap between the current and the preferred or
ideal situation. "Every disparity between the actual and the desired situation is defined as a problem
and is widely assumed to have a solution and one may demonstrably be better than any other
alternative.
• According to Wildavsky (1979:3), "The solution is part of defining the problem....Creativity
consists of finding a problem about which something can and ought to be done”.
• Although any problem has objective dimensions, it still requires human judgment about its ethical
values and options for action.
• In politics, no problem is "given" in the sense that everyone will regard it in exactly the same terms.
• It may be measurable with statistics, or with personal definition that appeals to emotions as well.
• As Stone (1988:106) has said, "There is no objective description of a situation; there can only be
portrayals of people's experience and interpretations".
• An individual policymaker may define a problem and try to convince others that his/her
conception of the issue and proposed action is the best to provide solution.
• This analysis would reveal how policymakers’ values and perceptions blend with the situations to
generate governmental choices.
Stage Three: Setting Objectives
• Objective Setting is essentially choosing specific goals to be achieved by the policy to be
formulated.
• A typical problem statement often points to some potential objectives for solution; each of which
might be attractive to some person or group, and each might be attainable in some degree but not
fully compatible with one another. Such statements are most effective when expressed in
concrete terms: to reduce the incidence of death due to kidney disease by 50 percent in two
years, for example.
• Yet, when there is a legislative struggle over which objectives shall dominate, the final statement
that goes into the policy is usually vague enough to encompass all of the favored ones.
• Objective can have many sources.
• The objectives selected directly guide the choice of alternative policies. All choices flow in
continuous stream of decisions from the indefinite past to the uncertain future. They involve
selecting one course of action from several options with the expectation that the selections will
serve the policymakers’ purposes.
• A problem arrives on the public agenda only if it has not been solved by individuals or private
organizations, and controversy often rages over what the options, purposes, and expectations
really exist.
Stage Four: Discerning/judging the Alternatives
• Discerning the alternatives is identifying potential courses of action that could
achieve the designated objective/s.
• In searching for alternative courses of action, policymakers usually begin with the
"short list" of ideas with which they are familiar.
• Generally, each of these ideas is suggested or mandated by the definition that
policymakers have already given the problem or by the ideological stance they hold
toward the general issue.
• Conservatives and liberals are often distinguished by the contrasting solutions that
they habitually consider for unemployment or business regulation respectively,
• The search for alternatives has political boundaries like those of the previous stages.
• Since politicians are likely to have already defined the problem and set the
objectives, they have also given thought to which alternatives are preferred, which
can be mentioned, and which must be excluded.
Stage Five: Assessing the Alternatives
• Basically, an assessment of alternatives is forecasting the likely outcomes of each
alternative, including benefits and costs; if policy “A” is chosen, its likely outcome “B”
will (or will not) close the gap between the present situation or not. Also implicit is the
expectation that unwanted situation “C” will not result from policy “A”. The data
supporting that forecast may be extensive or sketchy, and so it may be presented with
either confidence or hesitation.
• This assessment is done for each alternative on the table, and at the end, one ideally
chooses that which offer the greatest possible margin of expected benefits (given the
objectives already decided) over the costs or harms it would entail.
1. Benefits as Criteria for Assessment:
• Policymakers must ask questions related to assessing the value of benefits.
• First, what benefits are anticipated from each alternative? For whom, when, how much are
they valued or needed? And which are measurable in dollars or other numbers, and which
are not? How do these benefits compare with those provided to other groups in other
policies? Who would be denied benefits? Answers require calculation of the values of each
set of benefits for each group of recipients. How the recipients respond to those
possibilities clearly shapes that calculation.
2. Costs:
• The second criterion mirrors the benefits; costs incurred by each alternative.
• Again, policymakers must ask, what costs, for whom, what would it cost the
government, who might be harmed as a result, what are the opportunity costs- that is,
what other benefits could have been gained with the funds if this were not chosen?
Costs, like benefits, cannot be fully measured in dollars; because pain, fear, and lost
opportunities lack an agreed-upon calculus.
3. Feasibility:
• The third factor to consider is feasibility; how well the alternative is likely to work
when assigned to a specific agency in its context.
• Among many questions one must ask are, “Is there any agency with the will, skills, and
resources to carryout this policy? Can the policy meet legal and constitutional tests if
someone were to file a lawsuit over it? Do the knowledge and technology exist to
enable its implementation? Is enough money likely to be available to fund it
adequately? If the government wants to put something forth, it has to answer to all
these questions. A clear “no” to any one of them would doom(downfall) that
4. Mutual Effects:
• Fourth, each policy relates in countless ways to other things that government and private
organizations do, and their success and failure are intertwined.
• Assessment efforts should thus foresee these mutual effects. For example, what the
state/region chooses to do on a particular issue will be affected by a federal government
policy authorizing the state’s action.
5. Political Acceptability:
• The fifth criterion is often the overriding one, which puts all of the alternatives in
perspective: political acceptability.
• A policy is never made simply because it is “right” or "best."
• It emerges because it is judged right or best by legislators and executives who see that it fits
the expectations that they and influential others hold of their jobs and of the government as a
whole.
• This is not to say that they make inferior choices for that reason or that they are corrupt or
irresponsible. Rather, because democracy is a process of shared decision making, a choice
cannot be distinct from the wills of those who join in making that decision.
• When there is much disagreement over an issue, the policy may be chosen only after long
Stage Six: Choosing the Alternatives
• Choosing alternatives would mean enacting into law a specific package of programs
and means of implementing them.
• In this step, therefore, policymakers choose one alternative (or a combination) to
become official policy and add the "tools" with which to implement it.
• Where there is clear agreement on the law, the means of its administration can be
equally clear.
• Policy choice requires “tools of implementation”, which are an integral part of the
policy choice.
• Basically, a tool is a method or approach used by government to achieve a specific
objective.
• When a government seeks to increase the access of working parents to day care for
their children, it could choose, first, to operate day-care centers directly with its own
personnel. Or, a second option, it could give grants to community organizations to
provide the service. Third, it could give a tax credit or rebate to parents to cover their
out-of pocket child-care costs for whatever facilities they use. Less likely is use of the
fourth tool: requiring employers to operate day-care centers for their workers.
 Implementation, Monitoring and Evaluation
• The final two stages of the policy process are the "home territory" of administrators, for
which they are directly responsible. Their performances at these stages determine the actual
success or failure of the policy and, to look ahead farther, will shape its probable revisions.
Stage Sven: Implementing the Policy
• With the passage of a law or the selection of a policy by other means, the scene of action
shifts to the agencies assigned to carry it out.
• Policy, before this point, is only an intention, a possibility; what it becomes in fact happens
at this stage.
• Implementation is the process of realizing public policy, thereby achieving the public
purposes for which the policy was made.
• The implementation stage begins as a task is assigned to one or more agencies along with
the authority to spend money, hire personnel, and obtain the other resources necessary.
• Next, those agencies make rules and procedures by which to operate. Nonetheless, there is
always some degree of discretion permitted as to means, guidelines, and dates for action.
These rules match the tools chosen to implement the policy.
Stage Eight: Monitoring and Evaluation
• At this stage, the policy cycle can return to the beginning; agenda-setting and redefinition
of the problem and goals.
• When administrators learn what happens as a result of implementing a policy and evaluate
its success, they are moving from the end of one policy cycle to the beginning of a new one.
• The result of the evaluation process, be it failure or success, can reshape policy. Hence,
evolution activity may restart the policy process (problem formulation) in order to continue,
modify or terminate existing policy.
Evaluation of Public Policy
• Is an attempt to assess the content and effects of a policy on those for whom it is intended.
• Often policy evaluation occurs throughout the policy process, not necessarily at its
termination stage. There are three types of policy evaluation, namely:
1. Policy impact evaluation:
• In an assessment of the overall program’s impact and effectiveness, the emphasis is on
determining the extent to which programs are successful in achieving basic objectives, and
on the comparative evaluation of national programs.
 2. Policy strategy evaluation:
• This evaluation is an assessment of the relative effectiveness of program strategies
and variables. The emphasis is on determining which strategies, methods, and
procedures are most productive or effective.
3. Project appraisal:
• This process involves an assessment of individual site visits and other activities
with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency. While discussing policy
evaluation, ones must first understand the basic differences between policy output
and policy outcomes.
1. Policy output refers to the quantifiable actions of the government, which can be
measured in concrete terms, for instances, construction of government offices,
schools, public parks, highways, payment of welfares benefits, operation of
hospitals and prisons. These activities can be measured in concrete terms but
figures reveal very little about the real impact of the policy.
2. Policy outcome on the other hand is the qualitative impact of public policies on
the lives of people.
• There are certain barriers that create problems for policy evaluation, which may include:
i. Uncertainty over policy goals
• When the goals of a policy are unclear or diffused, policy evaluation becomes a difficult task. This
situation is often a product of the policy adoption process.
• Since support of a majority coalition is often needed to secure adoption of a policy, it is often
necessary to appeal to as wide as spectrum of persons and interests (often conflicting) as possible.
• Officials in different positions in the policy system such as legislators and administrators, or
national and state officials, may define goals differently and act accordingly.
ii. Difficulty in the determination of causality
• Systematic evaluation requires that changes in real life conditions must demonstrably be
caused by policy actions.
• But the mere fact that action “A” is taken and condition “B” is developed does not
necessarily mean that a cause-and-effect relationship sexists, for example, the relationship
between crime prevention measures and occurrence of crime is not a simple cause-and-
effect relationship.
• The determination of causality between actions, especially in complex social and
economic matters, is a difficult task.
iii. Diffused policy impacts
• Policy actions may affect a wide spectrum of people both in the target and non-target categories and also
may have many intended or unintended consequences.
• Welfare programs may affect not only the poor, but also others such as taxpayers, bureaucrats and lower
income groups.
• The effects on those groups may be symbolic or material, tangible or intangible.
iiii. Difficulties in data-acquisition
• A shortage of accurate and relevant facts and statistics may always hinder the work of a policy evaluator.
• Thus, mathematical models may predict that effect of a tax-cut on economic activity, but suitable data to
indicate its actual impact on the economy is difficult to obtain.
• Official resistances to provide all types of relevant data may also prove to be a hindrance.
• Policy evaluation means commenting on the merits and demerits of a policy.
• Agency and program officials, bureaucrats and others are naturally going to be concerned about the
possible political consequences of evaluation. If the results do not come out in their favor or show them
in a wrong perspective, their careers may be in jeopardy.
• Consequently, government officials may discourage evaluation studies, refuse access to data, and show
incomplete records, or create various other hurdles in the researcher’s process of policy evaluation.
The legislatives process:
• One of the declared functions of the legislatures in democratic countries is the security and evaluation
of the application, administration, and execution of laws or policies.
• Policy evaluation is exercised through a number of techniques:
(a) Questions and debates,
(b) Various motions in parliaments like call attention, non-confidences,
(c) Committee hearings and investigations, and
(d) The budgetary process.
• In the course of these activities, legislatures reach conclusions regarding the efficiency, effectiveness
and impact of particular programs and policies-conclusions that can haves serious consequences for the
policy process.
The audit process: The auditor’s office as in India and the USA, has broad statutory authority to audit
the operation and fiancés activates of government agencies, evaluate their programs and report their
findings to parliament.
Administrative agencies: All government departments prepare their internal evaluation reports which
provide an opportunity to appraise the working of the programs and projects undertaken by the
department. For example, the Budget Division of the Finance Ministry has the power of overview the
working of the plans and programs of all ministries and departments while framing the budget estimates
for every department.
• The Organization and Methods Division in ministries also often
indirectly perform the task of policy evaluation.
Commissions: The Planning Commission, the Finance Commission, the
Administrative Reform Commissions and various ad hoc commissions
that are set up by the government also play an important role in public
policy evaluation by presenting their detailed research reports on the
consequences and impacts of particular government policies.
Thank you
 Chapter 4
Conceptual Approaches and Models of Public Policy
1. The Institutional Model (Policy as Institutional Output)
• Government institutions have long been the central focus of public administration and political science.
Public policy is authoritatively determined, implemented and enforced by the political authorities and/or
governmental institutions; namely parliament, president, courts, bureaucracies at central,
state/provincial/regional levels, and also at local/municipal levels. Relationship between government
institutions and public policies is too close. Strictly speaking, a policy does not become a ‘public
policy’ until it is adopted, implemented, and enforced by some government institution.
Government institutions give public policy three distinctive characteristics:
1. Government lends legitimacy to policies. Government policies are generally regarded as legal
obligations that command the loyalty of the citizens. People may regard the policies of other groups and
associations in society-like corporations, churches, professional organizations civic associations, and so
forth-as important and even binding. But only government policies involve legal obligation.
2. Government policies involve universality. Only government policies extend to all people in a society;
the policies of other groups or organizations reach only a part of the society.
3. Government monopolizes coercion in society (punishment and imprisonment to violators). Only
government can legitimately imprison violators of its policies. The sanctions imposed by other groups or
organizations in society are more limited.
The Institutional Model (Constitutional Checks and Balances)
2.The Process Model (Policy as a pattern of Political Activities)
• Political processes and behaviors have been a central focus of political science. The
result is a set of policy processes, which generally goes along the following general
outline.
1.Identifying Problems: Expressing demands for Government action,
2.Setting the Agenda for Decision making: Deciding what issues will be decided and what
problems to address,
3.Formulating Policy Proposals: Developing policy proposal to resolve issues and
problems,
4.Legitimating Policies: Selecting a proposal, building political support for it, enacting it
as a law,
5.Implementing Policies: Organizing bureaucracies, providing payments or services, and
levying taxes
6.Evaluating policies: Studying programs, reporting outputs of government programs,
evaluating impacts of programs on target and non-target groups in society, suggesting
changes and adjustments.
 3. The Group Theory Model (Policy as Group Equilibrium)
• The Group Theory was propounded by F. Bentley (1980) in his work known as
“The process of Government”.
• Group theory begins with the proposition that interaction among groups is the
central fact of politics.
• Individuals with common interest band together formally or informally to press
their demands on government.
• According to David Truman as quoted in Dye (1995), an interest group is a
group with “shared attitudes”, and individuals are important in politics only when
they act as part of, or on behalf of, group interest.
• Politics is really the struggle among groups to influence public policy; that public
policy is the product of the group struggle.
• The theory of this model says that a society is divided into a number of
organized interest groups.
• Group Theory model purports to describe all meaningful, political activity in
terms of the group struggle. Policymakers are viewed by this model as
constantly responding to group pressure-bargaining, negotiating, and
compromising among competing demands of influential groups.
• Group theory rests on the contention that interaction and struggle among groups
are the central facts of political life. One group makes claim upon other groups
in society. An individual is a participant in groups and he/she seeks to secure
his/her political preference through the groups.
• The central concept of Group Theory is access or opportunity to express view
points to decision makers. Some groups will have more access than other and
public policy reflects the interests of dominant group and influential group.
• Finally, this model further advocates that the “check and balance” that we see in
any government system is the result of group struggle. The checking and
balancing of competition also helps to maintain equilibrium in the system.
4. The Elite Model
• Public policy may also be viewed as the preferences and values of governing elite. Although
it is often asserted that public policy reflects the demands of the people, this may express the
myth rather than the reality even in developed democracies
• The Elite theory suggests that the people are apathetic and ill-informed about public policy,
that elites actually shape mass opinion on policy questions more than masses shape elite
opinion.
• Public officials and administrators merely carry out the policies decided by the elite. Policies
flow downward from elites to masses; they do not arise from mass/public demands. Public
Policy is thus the preference of the elites. The Elite model or theory can be simply
summarized as follows:
1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many that have not. Only a small
number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide on public policy,
2. The elites are governing class who are not typical of the masses who are governed; they are
drawn disproportionately from the upper strata of society,
3. 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 elite class,
• The major implications of the Elite Model (Theory) for public policy analysis are the
following:
• First, elitism implies that public policy does not reflect the demands of the people so much as
it does the interests and values of the elites. Therefore, changes and innovations in public
policy come about as a result of the redefinitions by elites of their own values; change will be
incremental rather than revolutionary. Public policies are frequently modified but seldom
replaced. However, elitism does not mean that public policy will be always against mass
welfare, but only that the responsibility for mass welfare rests on the shoulders of elites, not the
masses.
• Secondly, elitism views the masses as largely passive, apathetic, and ill-informed; mass
sentiments are manipulated by elites rather than elites’ values being influenced by the
sentiments of masses; and for the most part, communication between the two flows downward.
• Elitism also asserts that elites share in a consensus about fundamental norms underlying the
social system that elites agree on the basic rules of the game as well as continuation of the
social system itself. Of course elitism does not mean that elite members never disagree or
never compete with each other for preeminence or superiority. But elitism implies that
competition centers on a very narrow range of issues and that elites agree more often than they
disagree on policy matters.
5. The Rational Model (Policy as a Maximum Social Gain)
• The rational choice theory was originated with economists, and the earliest use of
the rational choice theory to study the political process is Anthony Down’s
(1957) “Economic Theory of Democracy”. The theory involves the application of
microeconomic theory to the analysis and explanation of political behavior of
decision making.
• A rational policy is one that achieves “maximum social gain”; i.e. gains to
society that exceeds costs by the greatest amount. There are two important
guidelines in the definition of maximum social choice:
• First, no policy should be adopted if its costs exceed the benefits derived from it,
• Second, among a variety of available policy alternatives, decision makers should
choose the policy that produces the greatest benefit over cost.
• A policy is “rational” when the difference between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices
is positive and greater than any other policy alternative.
• The rationality principle emphasizes that policymaking is making a choice among policy alternatives
on rational grounds, choosing the “one best option” (Dror, 1973).
• But, to be rational for policymakers is not easy; in order to be rational, it is desirable that there
should be:
(i) Identification and determination of goals,
(ii) The ranking of goals in order of importance,
(iii) The identification of possible policy alternatives for achieving those goals, and
(iv) The cost-benefit analysis of policy.
Thomas Dye (1995:28) prescribed certain requirements to policymakers in selecting a rational policy,
which they must:
• Knowing all values preferences of society and their relative weights,
• Knowing all the policy alternatives available,
• Knowing all the consequence of each policy alternative,
• Calculate the ratio of achieved to sacrificed social values for each policy alternative,
• Select the most efficient alternative, which brings the greatest benefits and the least disadvantages.
Dye hypothesized several important obstacles to rational policy making that include:
i. Large investments in existing programs and policies (Sunk cost), prevent policymakers
from reconsidering alternatives foreclosed by past policies and decisions,
ii. Administrative Man” who “satisfices” with few alternatives, who “does not maximize”
social benefits does not search for all possible options,
iii. Policymakers are faced with “Bounded rationality” (Herbert Simon’s concept) by
limited knowledge, communication difficulties, emotions, education, rules, and external
pressure,
iv Situational opportunism including lying, stealing, cheating, are apparent cases,
• Rational model is ideal not realistic,
v. Organizational goals are not often clear,
vi. Prioritization of goals is difficult,
vii. Examination of all alternatives to the policy is not possible… always one more
alternative remains to be considered,
viii. Projection of the all possible consequences, good and bad, and their costs and
benefits is impossible,
• Generally, the assumptions and arguments of the rational model has
been criticized as being impracticable for a number of reasons:
• It is practically impossible to collect all information and make a
complete list of policy options,
• The process involved in this approach is time consuming and
expensive,
• The assumptions that values can be ranked and classified is erroneous,
since there are always differences among the legislatures,
administrators and the public on the values that a nation should
pursue,
• The assumptions to consider everything before a new policy is decided
is impossible since the consequences of adopting a new policy is in
most cases unknown
6. The Incrementalism Model (Policy as Variations on the Past)
• Although the rational comprehensive approach is theoretically good, what
actually occurs in administrative decisions is quite different; i.e. the "successive
limited comparison" technique or incremental step.
• Firstly, administrators operating under limited resources take up on a priority
bases program of immediate relevance.
• Secondly, they do not outline a wide range of possibilities in selecting
appropriate policies, but only a few "incremental" steps that appear to them
feasible on the basis of their experiences.
• The Incrementalism Model views public policy as a continuation of past
government activities with only incremental modifications.
• The incremental model recognizes the impartial nature of “rational-comprehensive”
policymaking.
• Incremental theory is conservative in that existing programs, policies and expenditures are
considered as a base, and attention is concentrated on new programs and policies and
increases, decreases or modifications of current programs.
• Policymakers generally accept the legitimacy of the established programs and tacitly agreed
to continue previsions policies. Governments (policymaker) do this for many reasons, such
as:
• First, they do not have the time, money or information to investigate all the alternatives to
existing policy. The cost of collecting all this information is too high.
• Second, they accept the legitimacy of previous policies because of the uncertainty about the
consequence of completely new or different policies.
• Third, There may be heavy investments in the existing programs (sink costs), which do not
allow any radical changes.
• Fourth, Incrementalism is politically expedient. Political tension (Conflicts in major policy
shifts; “all-or-nothing” “yes-or-no” policy decisions) involved in getting new programs or
policies passed every year would be very great, past policies are continued into the future.
Two advantages of incrementalism are identified, namely:
1. Decision-makers could proceed through a succession of small incremental
changes, thereby have the advantage of avoiding serious alterations in case of
mistakes in decision making,
2. This method is truly reflective of the policymaking process by means of
consensus and gradualism and contemplates possible changes in public policies,
Though it is widely accepted that incrementalism describes the reality of the
policymaking process, it has its own disadvantages or weaknesses, among which:
1. It can result in important policy options being overlooked,
2. It discourages social innovation and is partisan in approach, which in reality
means the interests of the most powerful get maximum attention by policy-makers,
3. It cannot be applied to fundamental decisions such as declaration of war, hence
cannot be considered as an approach without flaws or mistakes,
7. The Game Theory Model (Policy as a Rational Choice in Competitive Situations)
• A conflict situation is called a “game”.
• The game theory is the study of rational decisions in situations in which two or more
“players”/participants have choices to make and the outcome depends on the choices made by each.
• The idea of a “game” is that decision makers are involved in choices that are interdependent.
• The theory is put into application on policymaking situations where there is no independently best
choice, which one can make and where the best choice depends on what others do.
• In the conflict situations all participants try to maximize their gains and minimize their losses.
• Perhaps, the connotation of a “game” is unfortunate, suggesting that the game theory is not really
appropriate for serious conflict situations.
• But, just the opposite is true; the game theory can be applied to decisions about war and peace,
international diplomacy, coalitions in parliament to United Nations, the use of number weapons and
other political situations.
• A key concept in game theory is strategy; the games considered are games of strategy. The rules of the
game describe the choices, which are available to all the players.
• The game theorists employ the term “minimax” to refer to the rational strategy that either minimize the
maximum loss or maximize the minimum gain for a player regardless of the opponent does (Dye,
1995:34).
• The game theory is an abstract and deductive model of policymaking. It does
not describe how people actually make decisions but rather how would go
about making decisions in competitive situations. The game theory is a form of
rationalism.
• The game theory is more an analytical tool than practical guide to policymaking
by government officials.
• The conditions of game theory are seldom approximated in real life.
• Yet game theory provides an interesting way of thinking clearly about policy
choices in conflict situations.
• Perhaps the real utility of policy analysis at the present time is in suggesting
interesting questions and providing a vocabulary to deal with policymaking in
conflict situations.
8. The Public Choice Theory Model (Policy as a Collective Decision making by Self-interested
Individuals)
• This theory assumes that all political actors-voters, taxpayers, candidates, legislator, bureaucrats,
interest groups, etc.-seek to maximize their personal benefits in politics as well as in the
marketplace. In short, people pursue their self-interest in both politics and the marketplace, but
even with selfish motives they can mutually benefit through collective decision making.
• The public choice theory recognizes that government must perform certain functions that the
marketplace is unable to handle. It must remedy certain “market failures”.
• First, the government must provide public goods and services that the market cannot supply
because their costs exceed their value to any single buyer.
• Second, externalities are other recognized market failure and justification for government
intervention. The most common examples of externalities are air and water pollutions; where
discharges of air and water pollutants impose costs on others. Public choice theory helps to explain
why political parties and candidates generally fail to offer clear policy alternatives in election
campaigns. Parties and candidates are not interested in advancing principles but rather in winning
elections. In other words, they formulate their policy positions to win elections; they do not win
election to formulate policy. Thus, each party and candidate seeks policy positions that will attract
the greatest number of voters (Dye, 1995:36). The public choice model also contributes to our
understanding the behavior of interest groups and their effects on public policy.
9. Systems Theory Model (Policy as a Systems Output)
• Another way to conceive public policy is to think of it as a response of a
political system to forces brought on it from the environment.
• Forces generated in the environment that affect the political system are viewed
as input. The environment is any condition or circumstance defined as external
to the boundaries of the political system.
• The political system, in turn is that group of interested structures and processes
that functions authoritatively to allocate values for a society.
• Outputs of a political system are authoritative value allocations of the system,
and these allocations constitute what is known as “public policy”.
• The systems theory portrays public policy as an output of the political system.
The conceptualization of political activity and public policy can be
diagrammed as shown in figure 4.5 that follows.
• The concept of “system” implies an identifiable set of institutions and activities in society
that functions to
• In sum, we can briefly describe key concepts employed in qualifying the systems model in
the following manner:
i. The Political system comprises of those identifiable and interrelated institutions and
activities (i.e. governmental institutions and political processes) that make authoritative
allocation of values (decisions) that are binding on society.
ii. The environment consists of all those phenomena (economic system, social system,
biological setting) that are external to boundaries of the political system.
iii. Inputs consist of demands ands supports.
iv. Demands are in turn claims of action made by individuals and groups to satisfy their
interests.
v. Support is rendered by them through accepting election results, payment of taxes, obeying
laws, accepting government decisions.
vi. Outputs include laws, rules, and judicial decisions.
vii. Feedback means policy output may produce new demands, which lead to further outputs
and so on in a never-ending flow of public policy.
Broad Typologies of Public Policy
• Some social scientists and scholars have attempted to discuss the typologies of
policy issues.
• These facilitate comparison between issues and policies.
• Lowi (1972:298-310), for example, has suggested a classification of policy
issues in terms of their purposes or focuses. Policies can generally be
categorized in the following major typologies:
(i) Substantive and procedural policies
(ii) Distributive, regulatory, self regulatory and re-distributive policies
(iii) Material and symbolic policies
(iv) Public goods policies and private goods policies
(v) Liberal and conservative policies
• Policies may also be categorized on the basis of:
(i) Issues (like: labour, welfare, civil rights, foreign affairs, etc.)
(ii) Institution (like: legislative policies, judicial policies, departmental
policies,)
• Time period (like: transitional, short-range, medium-range, long-range)
• (i) Substantive and Procedural policies:
• Substantive policies involve what government is going to do (e.g.
construction of highways, payment of welfare benefits, prohibition of liquor,
acquisition of bombers). Substantive policies directly distribute advantages and
disadvantages, benefits and costs to people.
• Procedural policies pertain to how something is going to be done; who is
going to do (example, which agencies are responsible for the enforcement of a
law enacted to ban or control illegal drug trafficking and consumption)?
• (ii) Distributive, Regulatory, Self-regulatory and Re-distributive Policies:
• This typology differentiates policies on the basis of the nature of their impact on society and the
relationships among those involved in policy formation.
• Distributive policies involve the distribution of services or benefits to particular segment of
people; i.e. individuals., groups, corporations, communities (example, bank loans) or distribution
of benefits to vast number of persons (example, tax concessions, free public school educations).
These policies also use public funds to assist particular groups, communities and industries,
(example, flood control, ports improvement, water supply, beach development).
• Re-distributive policies involve shifting of the allocation of the existing resources, wealth,
income, property, rights, and powers among broad classes of people (example, land reforms). Re-
distributive policies are difficult to secure as they involve reallocation of money, rights, and
power.
• Regulatory policies involve imposition of restrictions or limitations on the behavior of
individuals or groups; they reduce the freedom to act of those who are regulated (example,
business regulatory policies related to pollution control or regulation of transportation industries).
• Self-regulatory policies are usually sought and supported by the regulated group as a means of
protecting or promoting the interests of its members (example, licensing, legislations, health and
medical are heavily influenced by the practitioners; agricultural policies influenced by farmers.)
(iii) Material and Symbolic policies:
• This depends upon the type of benefits the policies allocate.
• A material policy provides tangible resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries
(examples, Minimum Wages Act, Public Housing, Program, Income Support Payments to
Farmers, etc).
• Symbolic policies have little material impact on people. They appeal to the cherished
values of the people such as peace, patriotism, social justice (examples, Peace Pacts,
Endangered Species Act, etc).
(iv) Policies involving Collective Goods or Private Goods:
• Collective goods (indivisible) are provided to one and all persons equally and similarly
(examples, national defense, public safety, traffic control, mosquito abatement, clean air
etc).
• Private goods (divisible) may be broken into units and charged on an individual user or
beneficiary basis. Various social goods provided by government have some characteristics
of private goods. Charges are sometimes but not always levied on individual users
(examples, garbage collection, postal service, medical care, museums, and national parks).
 (v) Liberal and Conservative policies
Distinction between "Liberal" and "Conservative" policies is slippery and difficult
to define.
Such distinction was possible in the latter part of 19th and early part of 20th
centuries, but now has passed into the graveyard of consensus.
Their respective stand vis-à-vis Government can be seen in the following table.

Liberals Conservatives

(1) To bring social change and greater equality (1) Such charge should occur slowly and
naturally
(2) Public policies to correct social injustices (2) Existing social order satisfactory
/shortcomings
(3) Economic regulatory programs (3) Opposed economic regulations

(4) Supported welfare programs (4) Opposed welfare programs

Thank you
 Chapter Five
The process of policy analysis and policy inquiry
Meaning and Scope of policy Analysis
• Policy analysis is an area that covers wide disciplines (multidisciplinary) to
problems faced by political scientists, economists, sociologists, planners and public
managers in several policy arenas.
• William N. Dunn (1994:61) defines policy analysis as, “any type of analysis that
generates and presents information in such a way as to improve the basis for
policymakers to exercise their jurisdiction… It implies the use of intuition and
judgment, and encompasses not only the examination of policy by decomposition
into its components, but also the design and synthesis of new alternatives”.
• Policy analysis is the activity of creating knowledge of-and-in the policymaking
process.
• In creating knowledge of policymaking process, policy analysts investigate the
causes, consequences, and performances of public policies and programs.
Policy analysis, sometimes known as “policy science”, in addition to creating
knowledge, has various purposes.
• Policy Analysis should serve the public (not merely officials) by contributing to
the process of argumentation, debate and communication.
• Policy Analysis should help to bridge the gap between what scholarly works say
about policy analysis and what practitioners of policy analysis actually do.
• Policy Analysis should seek also to improve the efficiency of choices among
alternative policies.
• The policy analyst may therefore be expected to produce information and
plausible arguments about three kinds of questions:
(a) Values, whose attainment is the main test of whether the problem has been
resolved,
(b) facts, whose presence may limit or enhance the attainment of values, and
(c) actions, whose adoption may result in the attainment of values.
 Approaches to policy analysis

Approach Primary Question Type of Information

Empirical Dose it and will it exist? (about facts) Descriptive and predictive

Valuative Of what worth is it? (about values) Valuative

Normative What should be done? (about action) Prescriptive

Empirical approach: is primarily concerned with describing the causes and effects of a
given public policy and the primary question is factual while the type of information
produced is descriptive in character.
Valuative approach: is mainly concerned with determining the worth or value of some
policy and the question is of what worth is the policy made.
Normative approach: is concerned with recommending future courses of action that may
resolve public
• Problem Structuring can supply policy relevant knowledge that challenges
agenda setting. Problem Structuring can assist in discovering hidden
assumption, diagnosing causes, mapping possible objectives, synthesizing
conflicting views and designing new policy options.
• Forecasting can provide policy relevant knowledge about future states of
affairs which are likely to occur as a consequence of adopting alternative
including doing nothing at the place of policy formulation.
• Recommendation discerns policy relevant knowledge about the benefits and
costs of alternatives. It helps estimate levels of risk and uncertainty; identify
externalities, responsibilities, and spillover effects; specify criteria for making
choices and assign administrative responsibilities for implementation.
• Policy problem is an unrealized value that may be attained through public
action when properly and scientifically identified.
• Policy future is a consequence of a course of action that may contribute to the
attainment of values and the possible resolution of a policy problem.
• Policy action is a move or series of moves guided by a policy alternative that is
designed to achieve valued future outcomes.
• Policy outcome is an observed consequence of policy action.
• Policy performance is the degree to which a given policy outcome contributes
to the attainment of values.
• Monitoring provides policy relevant knowledge about the consequences of
preliminarily adopted policies. Monitoring helps to assess degrees of
compliance, discover unintended consequences of policies and programs,
identify implementation obstacles and constraints, and locate sources of
responsibilities for departures from policies.
• Evaluation provides policy-relevant knowledge about discrepancies between
expected and actual policy performance.
• Evaluation contributes to the clarification and critique of values driving a policy,
aid in the adjustment or reformulation of policies, and establishes a basis for
restructuring problem.
Specifically, public policy analysis involves:
1.A primary concern with explanation rather than prescription: policy
recommendations - if they are made at all - are subordinate to description and
explanation. There is an implicit judgment that understanding is a prerequisite to
prescription and that understanding is best achieved through careful analysis rather
than rhetoric or polemics.
2.A rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies: this search
involves the use of scientific standards of inference or assumption. Sophisticated
quantitative techniques may be helpful in establishing valid conclusions about the
causes and consequences
3.An effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and
consequences of public policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of
general relevance: the object is to develop general theories about public policy that
are reliable and that apply to different government agencies and different policy areas.
Policy analysts clearly prefer to develop explanations that fit more than one policy
decision or case study; explanations that stand up over time in a variety of settings.
Forms of Policy Analysis
• The relationship between policy-informational components and
policy-analytic methods provide the basis for distinguishing three
major forms of policy analysis: Prospective, Retrospective, and
Integrated analysis.
• (i) Prospective Policy Analysis: involves the production and
transformation of information before policy actions are initiated and
implemented.
• It tends to characterize the operating styles of economists, systems
analysts and operation researchers.
• According to Dunn (1994:75-76), policy analysis “is a means of
synthesizing information to draw from it policy alternatives and
preferences stated in comparable, predicted quantitative and
qualitative terms as a basis or guide for policy decisions”.
• (ii) Retrospective Policy Analysis: is focused to the production and transformation of
information after policy actions have been taken. It has been most important in its impact
on intellectual priorities and understanding and not so effective in offering solutions to a
problem. Retrospective policy analysis typifies the operating styles of three groups of
analysts whose major emphasis is on the results of action:
• a) Discipline-oriented analysts: this group largely comprises political scientists and
sociologists who seek to develop and test discipline-based theories and describe the
causes and consequences of policies.
• b) Problem-oriented analysts: this group also comprises political scientists and
sociologists who seek to describe the causes and consequences of policies that are
general in nature, which could be manipulated by policymakers. They are however less
concerned with the development and testing of theories.
• c) Applications-oriented analysts: the third group of analysts includes persons from
professions such as social work and public administration. They seek to describe the
causes and consequences of public policies and programs but not concerned with the
development and testing of discipline-based theories. This group is concerned with
policy variables and identification of goals and objectives of policymakers and other
stakeholders.
• (iii) Integrated Policy Analysis: is more comprehensive and combines the
operating styles of practitioners concerned with the production and
transformation of information both before and after policy actions have been
taken.
• It not only requires the integration of prospective policy analysis and
retrospective policy analysis, but also demands that analysts continuously
produce and transform information over time.
• Integrated policy analysis is therefore continuous, interactive, and unlimited.
• The analyst may initiate the production and transformation of information at
any point in the analytic cycle either before or after action, and the relation
between any two “phases” of policy analysis.
• Integrated policy analysis has all methodological advantages of prospective
policy analysis and retrospective policy analysis
• Integrated policy analysis is multidisciplinary in the full sense of the word.
Policy Argumentation
• Policy analysis does not stop with the use of multiple methods to produce and
transform information. Although information production and transformation are
essential to policy analysis, equally important are the creation and critical
assessment of knowledge claims based on the information. Knowledge claims,
advanced as the conclusion of policy argumentation, reflect the reason why
different stakeholders disagree about alternative policies. There are three types
of knowledge claims:
• Policy arguments, which are the main vehicle for conducting debates about
public policy issues, contain six elements.
• (i) Policy-relevant information: produced by multiple methods constitutes the
evidence at an analyst’s disposal. Information about policy problems, policy
futures, policy actions, policy outcomes, and policy performances may be
provided in various forms.
• (ii) Policy claim: is the conclusion of policy argument. Policy claims are typically the subject of disagreement
or conflict among different segments of the community. Policy claim are the logical consequence of policy
relevant information.
• (iii) Warrant: is an assumption in policy argument that permits the analyst to move from policy relevant
information to policy claim. It may contain assumptions of several kinds: authoritative, intuitive, analycentric,
casual, pragmatic, and value critical. The role of the warrant is to carry policy relevant information to a policy
claim about which there is disagreement or conflict, thus providing a reason for accepting a claim.
iv Backing: the backing for a warrant consists of additional assumptions or arguments that may be used to
support warrants which are not accepted at face value. The backing for warrant may also take various forms
including scientific laws, appeals to the authority of experts, and ethical or moral principles. It allows the analyst
to go one step further backward and state underlying assumptions.
V Rebuttal: is a second conclusion, assumption, or argument that states the condition under which an original
claim is unacceptable, or may be accepted only with qualifications. Taken together, policy claims and rebuttals
form the substance of policy issues (disagreements) among different segments of the community about alternative
courses of government actions. The consideration of rebuttal helps the analyst to anticipate objections and serves
as a systematic means for criticizing one’s own claims, assumptions, and arguments.
Vi Qualifier: expresses the degree to which the analyst is certain about a policy claim. In policy analysis,
qualifiers are often expressed in the language of probability. When the analyst is completely certain about a claim;
i.e. when conclusions are wholly deterministic in nature and contain no error, no qualifier is necessary.
• There are different modes of policy argument, which are vehicles for transforming
policy relevant information into policy claims. There are at least eight different
ways of transforming information into policy claims: Authoritative, Statistical,
Classification, Intuitive, analycentric, explanatory, pragmatic, and value critical.
• (i) Authoritative Model Policy Analysis: – are based on arguments from authority.
Information is carried to claim on the basis of assumptions about the achieved or
ascribed statuses of policy relevant information producers.
• (ii) Statistical Mode: are based on arguments from samples. Information is carried
to claim on the basis of the assumption that what is true of members of a sample
will also be true of members of the population not included in the sample
(unobserved/unobservable of the population. Non-probability samples may also be
assumed to be representative.
• (iii) Classification Mode: are based on arguments from membership on the basis of
the assumption that what is true of the class of persons or groups included in the
information is also true of individuals or groups which are (or are believed to be)
members of the class described in the warrant.
• (iv) Intuitive Mode: claims are based on arguments from insight. Information is carried to claim on the basis of
the assumptions about the inner mental states of producers of policy relevant information. For example, the
insight, judgment, or “tacit knowledge” of policymakers might serve as an argument to accept a particular
recommendation.
• (v) Analycentric Mode: Policy claims are based on arguments from method. Information is carried to claim on
the basis of the assumptions about the validity of methods or rules employed by analysts. For example, one can
argue that the analyst used “universal selection rules” derived from mathematics, system analyst or economist.
• (vi) Explanatory Mode: claims are based on arguments from cause. Information is carried to claim on the basis
of assumptions about the presence of certain generative powers ("causes") and their results ("effects"). For
example, a policy claim might be established on the basis of general proposition or “laws” contained within
theories about organizational behavior or political decision-making.
• (vii) Pragmatic Mode: are based on arguments from motivation, parallel case, or analogy. Information is carried
to claim on the basis of assumptions about the motivating power of goals, values and intentions; assumptions
about the similarities among relationships found in two or more policy settings; or assumptions about the
similarities among two or more cases of policymaking. For example, a policy claim that the government should
strictly enforce pollution standards might be based on arguments that citizens are motivated by the desire to
achieve the goal of a clean environment, or on the basis of arguments that parallel or analogues policies have
been successfully implemented in other settings.
• Viii Value Critical mode: claims are based on arguments from ethics. Information is carried to claim on the
basis of assumptions about the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness of policies and their consequences.
For example, a policy claim might be established on the basis of moral principle (equality) or ethical norms
(right to privacy), which are deemed to be valid irrespective of the motivations of particular groups.
The Processes and Strategies of Policy Communication
The Processes of Policy Communication
• Policy analysis is the beginning, not the end, of efforts to improve the
policymaking process and its outcomes. This is why policy analysis has been
defined as the communication as well as the creation and critical assessment of
policy relevant knowledge. The communication of policy relevant knowledge
may be viewed as a four-stage process involving (i) policy analysis, (ii)
materials development, (iii) interactive communication, and (iv) knowledge
utilization. As figure below shows, policy analysis is initiated on the basis of
request for information or advice from stakeholders situated at various stages
of the policymaking process. In responding to this request, policy analysts
create and critically assess knowledge, which is relevant to policy problems,
policy futures, policy actions, policy outcomes, and policy performances.
• Solid line in the figure indicates Policy Analysis – directly affect the plausibility of
conclusions and recommendations as well as the form, content, and appropriateness of
policy relevant documents and presentations. The Broken line on the other hand indicates
the influence of analysts on the process of knowledge utilization is limited and indirect.
• (i) Policy-Relevant Documents: are documents conveying usable knowledge and skills
in synthesizing, organizing, translating, simplifying, displaying and summarizing
information. In other words, Policy- relevant Document development requires knowledge
and skills in:
(a) Synthesis: is going over previously published (documents) reports, papers newspapers,
journals articles, notes, and summarizing interviews with key informants or stakeholders,
copies of existing legislations, tables of statistical series.
(b) Organization: Analysts must be able to organize information in a coherent, logically
consistent and economic manner. Although policy documents vary in style, content and
length, they typically have common elements like, overview or summary, background of
previous efforts to solve the problem, diagnosis of scope, severity and causes of the
problem, identification and evaluation of alternatives solutions to the problem,
recommendations for actions, tables, graphs, and technical appendices.
• (c) Translation: The specialized terminology and procedures of policy analysis
must be translated into the languages of policy stakeholders. In many cases, this
requires the conversion of abstract theoretical concepts and complex analytical and
statistical routines into ordinary language and arguments employed by non-experts.
• (d) Simplification: The combinations and permutation of policy alternatives,
criteria, and likely outcomes can be too cumbersome. In such cases alternatives may
be simplified by reducing the larger set to a smaller set of major or strategic options
displayed in the form of matrix.
• (e) Visual displays: Quantitative information, which is an essential tool for policy
analysis, could be displayed in forms of bar charts, histograms, pie charts, line,
graphs, and socio-demographic maps for proper communication. The availability of
advanced, user-friendly computer graphics has dramatically increased the capacity
for effective visual communication.
• (f) Summaries: Busy policymakers have limited time to read policy proposals at
there full length. Therefore, they prefer to read an executive summary or condensed
memorandum than a full policy issue paper.
• (ii) Policy Presentation: Procedures for developing policy relevant documents are
different from procedures for their communication. The common medium of
communication is the mailed document, an impersonal means of reaching clients and other
policy stakeholders by transmitting the original version of the documents. The major
limitation of this medium is the probability that the document will be shelved.
• (iii) Policy Relevant Knowledge: Is information that has been critically assessed and
transformed into plausibly true beliefs about the processes and outcomes of policy. The use
of policy relevant knowledge is a complex process that steam from the intersection of three
major dimensions of knowledge utilization:
• Composition of users: policy analysis is used by individuals as well as collective entities,
and the process of knowledge utilization constitutes an aspect of individual and collective
decision making.
• Effects of use: the use of policy analysis has cognitive as well as behavioral effects.
Conceptual effects include the use of policy analysis to think about problems and solutions,
while behavioral effects involve the policy analysis as a means or instrument for carrying
out observable policymaking activities.
• Scope of knowledge used: the scope of knowledge utilized by policymakers ranges from
the specific to general.
Policy Communication Strategies
• In the presence of various and heterogeneous contingencies or interest groups, multiple
communication strategies are essential. There are no universal standards of assessment for
evaluating the plausibility, relevance, and usability of policy analysis. Therefore, effective policy
communication is dependent on matching communication strategies to characteristics of the
audience for policy analysis. The following are principles and generalizations to what
communication strategies are likely to be effective.
• Make sure that the presentation addresses the needs of key decision makers and recognize audience
diversity.
• Avoid giving too much background information.
• Focus on conclusions. Use simple graphics to convey data and discuss methods only if necessary
to support.
• Pinpoint reasons for your lack of credibility, choosing a strategy to overcome the problem, for
example, arrange to be introduced by a credible associate or present as part of a team.
• Be sensitive to time constraints and the probability that the group is committed to a course of
action.
• Position your supporters next to people with anticipated negative reactions.
• Prioritize your points so that your present those that are most critical to the group’s preferred
decision analysis, and multimedia communication.
The Methodology of Policy Inquiry
• The guidelines for creating, critically assessing, and communicating policy relevant
knowledge span several important areas of policy analysis:
• Multiple operationalism: the use of multiple measures of policy constructs and variables
enhances the plausibility of knowledge claims by triangulating on the same subject with
two or more metrics,
• Multiple method research: the use of multiple methods to observe policy processes and
outcomes (for example, concurrent use of organizational records, mailed questionnaires,
and ethnographic interviews) promotes the plausibility of knowledge claims by
triangulating on the same subject with data obtained from two or more instruments,
• Multiple analytic synthesis: the synthesis and critical assessment of available analyses of
similar policies and programs enhances the plausibility of knowledge claims by
examining the stock of knowledge about the effects of policies on different populations in
different contexts,
• Multivariate analysis: the inclusion of multiple variables in policy models enhances the
plausibility of knowledge claims by systematically testing and ruling out or synthesizing
the effects of extra-policy variables on policy outcomes
• Multiple stakeholder analysis: the investigation of interpretative frameworks
and perspectives of multiple policy stakeholders adds plausibility to knowledge
claims by triangulating among competing casual and ethical representations of
problems and solutions found in real-life (naturalistic) policy settings. Multiple
stakeholder analysis draws attention to individuals and groups who participate
in formulating and implementing policies as a source of policy-relevant
knowledge and directs attention to public interest,
• Multiple perspective analysis: the incorporation into policy analysis of multiple
perspectives (such as ethical, political, organizational, economic, social,
cultural, etc) promotes the plausibility of knowledge claims by triangulating
among competing representations of problems and solutions,
• Multimedia communication: the use of multiple communications media by
policy analysts is essential for ensuring that knowledge is policy relevant, that
is, used by policymakers and other intended beneficiaries. Triangulating with
multiple communications media and alternative knowledge transfer strategies
enhances the policy relevance of knowledge and its potential use.
 Chapter Six
PUBLIC POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
Perspectives in Policy Implementation
• Implementation of public policy is strongly attached to the commitment and philosophy or
ideology of the government. Historically, the purpose and goals of policy implementations
have been associated with the changing of government. Policy implementation demands the
real comment and practical support than policy formulation itself. The traditional
understanding and practice of dichotomizing policy formulation and policy implementation as
distinct and separate functions of various government branches have been significantly
changing. This perspective underlies the dichotomy between "politics" and "administration”,
which dominated scholarly prescriptions in that period.
• This being the widely accepted practice in few decades earlier, public policy formulation and
implementation functions have got new dimensions in recent years in that: (i) there is no hard
line that demarcate the former is the function of politicians (the legislative) and the latter is left
for the executive, and (ii) the universal tendency that government being the public
policymaker and the private sector taking part as an implementer. Generally, the arguments
regarding government’s role in public policy formulation and implementation are diverse, and
the perspectives have been changing from time to time reflecting the historical development
that has been taking place within.
Recent Perspectives in Policy Implementation
• Recent studies of government administration have taken the more constructive approach
of emphasizing institutional learning and error correction. "Policy implementation... is a
testing and feedback process… Implementation helps us to detect errors in our ideas and
designs and then correct them. It gives us the opportunity to make errors, which is the
most realistic way to detect weaknesses in our policy ideas . . . effective
implementation ... is something that one ends up with after the learning process of error
detection and correction" (Levin and Ferman, 1985: 14).
• We can discern four distinct perspectives on this, each with a logic that leads an analyst
in a different direction.
• (i) The Idealistic Perspective
• First, one can take an idealistic view that the central purpose of implementation is to
solve the problem for which the policy was devised in such a way that it needs no further
attention from a permanent "fix" so to speak. In this, there is a knowledge and direct
relationship between the problem and its solutions. Implementation, therefore, can be a
largely predictable effort, that applying proven techniques to familiar conditions. A
secondary goal is efficiency; the solution is to be achieved at the minimum cost.
• (ii) The Legalistic Perspective
• The second perspective is legalistic: it calls on administrators to fulfill without deviation the
explicit mandate of the policy. Agency personnel thus are formally subordinate to the dictates of
the legislature, which in turn represents the people's will. This perspective resembles the idealistic
approach in that it leaves administrators little discretion/ but it differs in that it regards the "right"
policy as the one that is framed by law rather than one that provides the definitive solution to the
problem.
• (iii) The Responsive Perspective
• The responsive or adaptive approach portrays implementation as continually being shaped by the
situations in which the policy is applied, by the wills and values of the citizens affected by it, and
by the views of lower-level administrators. It is a "bottom-up" perspective unlike the first two
approaches, which depend on direction from the original policymakers.
• (iv) The Experimental Perspective
• Finally, the experimental approach is suited to situations in which no proven solutions to the
problem are available. The mandates may be clear or vague, but the methods must be mandated
by trial and error. Here, the administrators have much autonomy to try approaches, evaluate the
results, and alter the program accordingly. However, in contrast to the responsive approach, the
"right way" is determined from experience as judged by the administrators (though they do well
to heed political pressures from outside the agency).
• The Levels of Public Policy Implementation
• According to Meltsner and Wildavsky (1974: 1-2), we can define three levels of policy
implementation
1. An output is the immediate service or good provided by a program: a bus equipped with a
wheelchair lift, a home visit by a child protection worker, or a regulation on the use of a toxic
chemical, for example. It is the easiest element of the three levels to identify and measure, and
informed observers can easily agree on whether or not it actually fulfilled an immediate and valid
need.
2. An outcome is an intermediate-range result of the implication of a policy: employment of a person
with a disability because of bus access, a lower level of child abuse because of regular home visits, or
improved groundwater quality because the hazardous chemical is absent. An outcome is not always as
visible as the output, and it is subject to differing value judgments. Two observers can disagree in
their choice of criteria or of evidences to identify an outcome. It is hard to measure the actual extent
of child abuse, for example, and thus to discern when a decline actually occurs.
3. An impact is a long-term consequence for society of applying the policy, often in combination with
other policies that affect the situation. We might cite as an impact a higher quality of life for all
wheelchair-bound persons in a city, better school performance of children because they are not being
abused, or greater recreational use of a clean body of water. Given the many forces that shape
economic opportunity and school performance, the study of impacts produces the least clear
conclusions and is the most open to diverging judgments.
Success and Failure: The Fate of Problem-Solving
• Thinking further about the elusiveness of public policy’s success, we can ask
what happens to the problem that is to be solved. A problem can have four
different fates, and each fate represents some form of success or failure. These
include:
1. It can be eliminated entirely by the policy, as implemented and no other (new)
problems are created. In reality, problems are highly unlikely to disappear
without trace, and they can reappear in other forms. In deed, solutions to
problems typically create other problems; for example, persons who do not die
of smallpox may live to be afflicted with cancer or Alzheimer’s disease instead.
2. It can be reduced to such a low level that there is no further need or demand
for action, known as “problem recession”. When the economy is depressed and
unemployment rises, government is virtually required to act to create jobs
directly and stimulate private investment. If this action is successful, officials
then turn their attention to other issues.
3.It can be succeeded by another problem that has less serious effects or can be
solved more easily. As Levin suggested, “Policy progress occurs through a
process of problem succession”.
4. It can be exacerbated by the policy and/or replaced by more difficult ones,
with others created in addition. This is the most obvious example of failure; the
program may have rendered the targeted problem worse and in the process
created others besides, and the public may be left worse off than before.
The Requirements For Successful Implementation
• What must happen for a government program to be implemented effectively?
We could liken the beginning of the implementation process to the assembly of
a machine: as one author phrased it, "a
• Policy Design: Difficulties can thus appear because of faults in the policy
design. It may not convey to administrators a clear knowledge of what they are
to do. There may be multiple or uncertain concepts of the problems and
objectives a situation reflecting legislative conflict and compromise.
• Ambiguous statements are common in legislative policies for several political
reasons.
• Problem Definition: In translating policy, implementers need to define the
exact problem clearly. An uncertain definition of the problem was present in
solving the dilemma for the disabled. There are many kinds of disabilities, some
of which prevent a person from using public transit and others that do not.
• Unintended Conflicts: Implementation of the policy in question can often run
into unintended conflict with another policy. Government’s responsibilities are
closely intertwined with one another; often one accomplishment is a
prerequisite to a second. Or to do one thing well may make it harder to achieve
another. If these goals are the responsibilities of separate agencies, conflict is
more likely.
• The Effects of Symbolism: Mobility for the disabled had a symbolic character,
too. Justice and compassion alike support better opportunities for disadvantaged
persons, and, with legislators keenly aware of what their refusal to address the
issue would mean. But the disabled took the promise very seriously, and,
perceiving their very dignity and lifestyles at stake; they applied significant
pressure on administrators to support their own interpretation of the policy.
• (ii) Implementation Requirement Two: Resource Sufficiency
• Policy cannot be implemented with good intentions alone. Each implementation effort
requires a unique set of facilities, skills, information, and technology. For any given
level of desired goal achievement, a corresponding level of resources must be supplied.
Homeless persons cannot be housed permanently without adequate low-cost dwellings,
nor can air traffic move safely when sufficient airport space is lacking. How effective
child protection programs will be depends in large part on the number of skilled
inspectors and counselors assigned to the workload.
• Initiating Funding: Administrators play a dual role in the funding process. First, they
make the initial requests for funds that he lawmakers consider. "The bureaucracy is
hardly the passive agent of its congressional overseer; . . . it is constantly working to
manipulate its master so as to achieve mutually profitable arrangements" (Wilson, 1989,
p. 251). These proposals are often carefully designed to win support from key member,
supplying benefits to their states or districts, and fitting their program priorities. In this
process, resource allocation becomes entangled at the very heart of political conflict and
coalition building.
• Allocating Resources: After enactment of the budget, administrators play the second role of
preparing detailed plans for deploying their resources. There must be corresponding “budgets" for
all other necessities likely to be in short supply: persons with needed talents, specialized
information, building space, and even the time for thinking and conferring among the program
managers. For innovative programs, the resource needs can be very hard to foresee.
• (iii) Implementation Requirement Three: Orchestration of Effort
• We can embellish upon Bardach's (1977) machine model with yet another concept, that of
administration being a concert by a large orchestra, which has three essential elements; i.e.
agreement, effective communication, and coordination among members of the group or the
orchestra. This is the systems perspective, which is a network of interdependent parts whose
actions must support one another for the policy to succeed. We have already seen that nearly all
public policies involve two or more government agencies, often at least one from each level-
federal, state, and local—and frequently from private organizations as well.
• Communication and Cooperation: The communication stream must reach to every agency to
convey the whole sense of a policy and any procedures and regulations added along the way
Communication must be precise enough to explain how the new policy directives relate to what is
already going on, what changes it will and will not require in administrators' conduct, and what
new standards they are to follow. For those administrators who will have much discretion, it must
also define their realm of freedom
• Authority Leakage: When administrators' dispositions do not support a policy, it becomes
harder to implement. As mentioned earlier, conflicting goals or styles of operation can lead to
authority leakages, which is the failure of subordinates to carry out directives from above.
Although some distortion of orders is nearly unavoidable in large organizations, it reaches major
proportions when there is lack of interest in or active opposition to the policy in question. The
agency's top management may lack of time, information, or sense of urgency to deal effectively
with this leakage.
• Games Administrators Play: These hindering actions by persons working within the
administering agencies often take the form of "games." In one kind of game, administrators
divert resources to benefit individual or group purposes not authorized in the policy, as when a
private party secures a government grant for one official purpose but diverts the money
elsewhere and gives little or nothing to resolve the original issue. In a second game, the agency
is deflected from its goal, often when it is assigned too many tasks for its capacity and it simply
jettisons those that are hardest to implement or least popular within the agency.
• A third kind of game appears when massive outside resistance to the policy overwhelms the
agency's ability to enforce it and to punish those who do not comply.
• Corruption: Outright open corruption on the part of public officials may be relatively rare but
can be devastating to a program. Many countries, including the USA, have experienced serious
corruption problems practiced by government agencies.
• An overview of Orchestration Problems: Orchestration problems abounded in the "effective mobility
for the disabled" issue. While there was no blatant occurrence of authority leakage, the agencies did
engage in a variety of games to maximize their own orientations as distinct from those of others. In
general, orchestration is hardest when the agency is required to implement an innovative policy or to
adopt new methods. “All organizations by design are enemies of change, at least up to a point;
government organizations are especially risk averse because they are caught up in a web of constraints
so complex that any change is likely to provoke the anger of some important constituency"
• (iv) Implementation Requirement Four: Political legal Support
• The political and legal environment of administration shapes program outputs and results. This
environment consists of influential persons and groups, inside and outside of government that can
determine the degree of a program's success. This cluster varies with each policy area and may change
over time.
• Optimization From Government and the Private Sector: First, implementation of a policy can be
obstructed or redirected by opposition or by influential forces within the government and the private
sector. Though the law may have passed by majority vote or with narrow margin, the losing side
typically transfers its opposition to the administrative arena and may well find allies there. Legal
Challenges: Policy implementation can be further hindered or altered by legal challenges and adverse
court decisions. These could be initiated by the opponents of an earlier legislative or administrative
decision. The last resort for a person or group on the losing side of a conflict is a civil suit in which the
complaint may range from improper procedures followed in the rule-making to unconstitutionality of
the policy itself.
• Support from Program Clients: A third category of essential political support
is that of the program's clients themselves. A policy for providing a service
assumes that people want it strongly enough to comply with the conditions
necessary to receive it. When a program imposes limits or prohibitions on
clients, their voluntary compliance is likewise crucial. Public programs
presume widespread and willing cooperation, whether in collection of income
taxes, observance of speed limits, and so on.
• (v) Implementation Requirement Five: A Supportive Socioeconomic
Environment
• A final category of requirements for policy success lies in the social and
economic conditions not under the control of the policy or even of government
in general. Lawmakers formulate a policy to fit an assumed context, the
"ecology" of administration. They may simply project their present
circumstances into the future or may draw upon well-researched forecasts of
changed conditions. The policy is designed to change some aspect of that
expected future, yet it depends on other crucial factor staying the same.
 Chapter Seven
Post-Implementation Evaluation of Public Policy
• Once we make public policy and implement it, it is imperative that the effects of such
policies have to be evaluated and analyzed. Post-implementation evaluation of public
policy is concerned with the analysis of the effects of governmental decisions on the target
public. In other words, it is an attempt to assess the content and effects of policy on those
for whom it is intended. It means commenting on the merits and demerits of a policy. Often
policy evaluation occurs throughout the policy process, not necessarily at its termination
stage.
• There are generally three recognized forms or aspects of policy evaluation; namely:
• Policy impact evaluation: It is an assessment of program (policy) impact and effectiveness,
the extent to which programs are successful in achieving the intended objectives,
• Policy strategy evaluation: This refers to the assessment of the relative effectiveness of
program strategies and variables with emphasis on determining the most effective and
productive strategies, methods and procedures,
• Policy project appraisal: It is a process of assessing individual projects through site visits
and other means with emphasis on managerial and operational efficiency.
• Approaches to Evaluation
• The following are an overview of approaches to valuation:
• Intuitive: informal collection of information, relying for guidance on impressions and subjective
judgments.
• Scientific: systematic collection and analysis of data, guided by social science theory and the use of
statistical methods.
• Passive: relies on sources outside the program administrators to supply opinions and criticism.
• Active: information collected at the initiative of the evaluators, largely or completely by standards of
their choosing.
• Narrow: focus on one program or segment thereof with intention only on improving it.
• Broad: focus on widespread program or many related programs, seeking results to apply to many
similar efforts.
• Summative: surveys what the program or policy accomplished in factual, measurable terms.
• Formative: evaluates program outcomes and impacts to learn whether and how the program or its process should be
designed or operated differently.
• Inside: done by the immediate administrators or others in the agency carrying on the program.
• Outside: done by anyone outside the program agency and with no involvement in its administration.
• Policy performance or post-implementation evaluation can take different forms
or modes, some of which are briefly discussed in the following manner:
(A) Performance Measurement: The Scientific Mode
• The scientific mode of evaluation entails the systematic collection and analysis
of data, guided by social science theory and using statistical methods.
• Its results will be more valid than the intuitive mode in those cases in which
the necessary data can be obtained and are interpreted with confidence.
• One common form is performance measurement, which Hatry (1989: 469)
defines as the systematic and accurate measurement of the efficiency and
effectiveness of programs and organizational performance.
• It bases judgments on quantification of such disparate factors as street miles
paved, hospital mortality rates, student reading test scores, and solution rates of
crimes.
(B) The Passive/Active Continuum
• Second, evaluations can take place on a passive/active continuum. Passive
studies rely simply on others, often clients of the program, for opinions and
criticisms. Administrators tend to assume that a program is working well
unless evidence comes in to the contrary.
• If the volume of complaints increases, then the program might get a more
systematic look. In active studies, by contrast, evaluators seek data on their
own initiative, largely or completely by standards of their own choosing.
Volunteered information will be useful at times, but it cannot be the core of a
systematic effort.
• A high dropout rate by persons in job training program clearly signals a
problem. Some of the dropouts might willingly register their complaints and
tell why they quit, but active evaluation is necessary to learn each person's
reasons, particularly those that would not be expressed voluntarily.
(C) Scope: Narrow and Broad Surveys
• Third, evaluations can vary in the scope of the survey. If very narrow, the
survey can focus on one class of youths in one job-training program in one city-
It can seek data on who gained employment, for how long, and for what wages.
It should also permit a judgment on whether the program made the crucial
difference in clients' lives.
• A broad survey, by contrast, would examine, for example, the results of all such
programs around the country for a ten-year span and inquire into the successes
of tens of thousands of persons for a significant segment of their lives.
• The narrow study is much easier to do and can give rapid feedback to a single
program still in process. The broader the study is, the more it can rise above
variations in local leadership and economic conditions and show what has
worked well and badly for the long term. But it takes much more time and
money and its results may not be directly useful to any individual program
director.
(D) Summative and Formative Approaches
• Fourth, evaluation may take a summative or a formative approach. To take the
former is to survey what the program accomplished in factual, measurable terms.
One might state that a certain percentage of the graduates of a youth employment
program found jobs of specific types, at a range of salary levels, and held them for
specified periods of time. Any competent evaluator, given the same data, would
arrive at the same conclusion. If some quantitative employment goals had
previously been set, one could conclude that they had or had not been achieved.
• A formative evaluation, by contrast, requires more judgment on the part of the
evaluator, who seeks to learn whether and how the program should be designed or
operated differently. It may focus on the outcomes and impacts of an agency or
one of its programs: why they produced the results they did and whether they
fulfilled the needs of the clients. Or it can concentrate on the process by which the
results were produced: for example, key decisions, delivery systems, and agency-
client interactions. If a program were failing, this method would offer the best
chance to learn why and how failures could be corrected during the life of the
program.
(E) Inside and Outside Evaluations
• Who does the evaluation is also significant to its outcome. Each type of evaluator can
supply a unique perspective. An inside evaluation is done by the immediate
administrators or others within the agency, as in the youth employment programs
mentioned earlier. They have the advantage of being most familiar with the program and
having direct access to the data, and they have practical need of the results. But there is
the obvious risk that they may cover up negative outcomes to avoid criticisms from
outside the agency and ultimate program cuts, and thus they may produce an overly
favorable report.
• Outside evaluation can be done bay anyone not involved in the program’s administration:
for example, legislators, auditors, interest groups, news media, or scholars. Evaluation
can come from outside the permanent machinery of government as well: Temporary
commissions are often appointed to investigate problems of high public concern. The
clients of many programs and the interest groups that represent them constantly assess,
from their individual perspectives, the programs that benefit or regulate them. Although
members of the public provide important perspectives, they also have obvious biases;
policymakers are well aware of such views and may even sympathize with them.
(F) Timing
• It is also necessary to choose when to evaluate a given program. It is common
to conduct formative studies while a program is under way so that midstream
adjustments can be made. Yet these studies have the disadvantage of not being
able to identify long-range outcomes and impacts that could lead to conclusions
that would differ from those of a short-range study. If the real evaluation is left
to the end of a program, there is no possibility of correcting it, although the
knowledge gained can benefit similar programs in the future.
• The choice of evaluator and type of study must depend on the study’s main
objective. If the goal is to find and correct ongoing problems in a program/
there is an advantage to research done close to the process. On the other hand,
long-range evaluation of a controversial program is best done by one or more
outsiders. When the aim is to improve administrative procedures and
techniques, it may be wisest to involve several evaluators and techniques.
Standards For Evaluation
• All evaluations, by definition, are value-laden. They must draw upon one or more standards in
judging whether and how well a policy or program succeeded. In fact, a thorough evaluation must
take into consideration all of the expectations that the chief executives, legislators, clienteles, and
general public may hold of the program, and these may not be fully compatible with one another. The
evaluator must not only choose which criteria to use but also how to rank them in importance and how
to relate the evidence to each one. The following are standards for evaluation of a policy:
• Effectiveness: fulfillment of the program goals, the extent to which the policies are achieving the
intended benefits.
• Efficiency: the margin of benefits gained from a program over the resources invested in it.
• Legality: conformance to law and the national/federal and state constitutions.
• Responsiveness: meets the needs and demands of clients and is modified on the basis of their
reactions to the program.
• Technical criteria: standards set by the professional groups operating within government that define
acceptable practice in their respective fields.
• Political criteria: resolution of conflict and maintenance of cooperation among contending groups in
the administrative department.
• Equity: extent to which public programs' benefits and costs are distributed such that no group or
Procedures For Evaluation
• Just as there are many forms of evaluation, there are many valid approaches to generating
findings and conclusions. What is presented below are not a precise format but rather a list of
items that defines moderately systematic evaluations and directs a general order in which
analysis most logically occurs. Ideally, one plans the evaluation procedure along with the
program’s implementation in order to obtain performance information when it is needed.
Otherwise, the analysis has to be "tacked on” later. In conducting an evaluation of a policy, the
analyst:
• Identifies the relevant audience and its concerns on the isuue;
• Lists the goals that the program as implemented should have accomplished and the standards
that are to be applied;
• Collects all relevant performance data—resource inputs and output measurements;
• Portrays the changes in the targeted situation resulting from the policy by comparing what
resulted from the program with what would have happened in its absence;
• Compares the inputs with the outputs, the goats with the results, and the costs with the benefits;
• Identifies reasons for the results obtained in steps 4 and 5; and
• Recommends changes in the policy or the method of its implementation,
 Thank you
End of class !!