Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MPA I (INTAKE I)
©2010
2
COURSE OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................4
COURSE OBJECTIVES ...........................................................................................................4
CHAPITER I: THERETICAL OVERVIEW .............................................................................5
I.1 Definition of key concepts ................................................................................................5
Defining public policy .......................................................................................................5
Defining policy – making ..................................................................................................9
I.2 The use of the Word “policy”..........................................................................................11
..................................................................................................................................................11
I.2. 1 Policy as a label for a field of activity ....................................................................11
1.2.2 Policy as an expression of general purpose or desired state of affairs ....................11
1.2.3 Policy as specific proposals ....................................................................................12
1.2.4 Policy as decisions of government ..........................................................................12
1.2.5 Policy a formal authorization ..................................................................................12
1.2.6 Policy as a programme ............................................................................................12
1.2.7 Policy as output .......................................................................................................13
1.2.8 Policy as outcome ...................................................................................................13
1.2.9 Policy as a process ..................................................................................................14
1.3 Policy analysis defined ...................................................................................................14
I.3.1 Advantages of public policy analysis ......................................................................16
1.3.2 Public policy analysis and politics ..........................................................................17
1.3.3 Participants in public policy analysis ......................................................................17
I.3.4 Constraints on public policy analysis ......................................................................18
I.3.5 Levels of policy .......................................................................................................19
I.3.6 Policy initiators and the role of public managers ....................................................20
I.3.7 Comprehension methodology for policy analysis ...................................................21
Policy content analysis ....................................................................................................23
Policy systems analysis ....................................................................................................25
CHAP.II THEORIES OR MODELS OF POLICY AND POLICY ANALYSIS ....................26
II.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................26
II.2 MAIN MODELS ...........................................................................................................26
II.2.1 Institutionalism: policy as institutional output .......................................................27
II.2.2 Process model: policy as political activity .............................................................28
II.2.3 Group theory: policy as group equilibrium ............................................................29
II.2.4 Elite theory: policy as elite preference ...................................................................30
II.2.5 Rationalism: Policy as efficient goal achievement .................................................32
II.2.6 Incrementalism: Policy as variations on the past ...................................................35
II.2.8 Systems theory: policy as system output ................................................................36
CHAP.III THE PUBLIC POLICY MAKING PROCESS .......................................................38
3.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................38
3.2 Public policy – making as a process ..............................................................................38
3.2.1 Problem formulation ...............................................................................................39
3.2.2 Agenda – setting ......................................................................................................41
The importance of public participation in the policy process ..........................................47
II.2.3 POLICY DESIGN...................................................................................................52
The necessity for clear goals and objectives in policy analysis ...............................................52
The difference between goals and objectives ...........................................................................53
Goals, objectives and alternatives: Sources and constraints ....................................................55
Sources .....................................................................................................................................55
3.2.4 Policy decision – making ........................................................................................57
3
INTRODUCTION
The main reason why it is necessary to study public policy is because public
functionaries need to improve the process and ultimately the outcomes of
policy – making. Improving public service delivery requires a well – developed
understanding of the political and administrative dynamics of policy – making.
Policies provide a framework for performing management functions. Public
managers play a major role in, among other things, making, implementing,
changing and adapting departmental policy.
The purpose of this syllabus on public is essentially to orientate students who
are pursuing studies in governmental science and Public Administration, and
who whish to enter the arena of public affairs or the public sector, or for those
who desire to enhance their careers in this sector.
COURSE OBJECTIVES
The course of policy making given to the student in Administrative sciences is
aimed at:
- providing a theoretical overview on policy making, policy;
- explaining models and theories that surrounding the policy making
and analysis;
5
It can also denote a sense of plurality. In this case, the term “public” refers to
many people. Thus, everything that is for the people in general is for the
public. The question is what are the implications of “public” to public
policy? The following can be said:
6
- Public policies are made to deal with the production and supply of
public goods. The policies thus, act as guidelines for the
production and distribution of such goods to different communities
within a given polity.
Policy is seen as a series of related decisions, taken after liaison whit public
managers and political office – bearers that convert certain needs of the
community into objectives to be pursued by public institutions.
According to Fox, Schwella and wissink (1991: 27 – 28), the following basic
elements of public policy can be identified:
Some scholars in public policy have offered similar definitions. They defined
policy as:
We can summarise these many meanings by saying that the term policy refers
to an expression of intended actions sanctioned by those with authority and
implemented to achieve specific goals. Policy defines a series of specific
decisions that are made by agencies or individuals to do something in order to
address a problem or matter of concern. Policy is purposive, authoritative, and
should involve communities who have decided what they want to do.
From the above, it is clear that public policies whatever they are about
purposive authorization statements, proposals or plans intended to guide
public or governmental actions.
David Easton, Thomas Dye and James Anderson agreed on one interesting
definition comprising three main aspects.
allocation of values ; i.e. giving people resources or goods and services; the
political system, i.e. how people are organised and allowed to participate in
political discourse.
Dye (1984: 2) defines public policy as what people choose to do or not to do.
Accordingly, public policy reflects the choice of government. For example,
government may choose to build dams in all regions, choose to provide
education to all including adults, choose to participate in international peace
keeping missions. Interesting to note is that government may also choose to
do nothing about problems that confront society. Hence, form this definition,
the act of doing noting is also policy:
- Public policies are purposive: this means that they are goal
oriented and not a result of haphazard or random action.
If the purpose in known, it becomes easy to determine whether the chosen
course of action is producing the desired results or not.
Public policy making denotes the process that government agencies follow in
order to generate policy solutions for problems, implement these adopted
solutions, and check to see if the goals of policy have been achieved. The
process as indicated at the beginning has three activities which are
interrelated :
required to make sure that all concerned give their input so that the authorities
can make informed decisions.
A lot of time usually passes by from the moment demands for a policy are
made to the moment a policy is announced and put into action or effectuated.
In fact, five categories through which policies have to pass through can be
identified. These are:
Once officials have been sensitised about such demands several decisions
have to be made about demands.
- Policy decisions: The policy decisions phase is one where the
policy demands are debated and several policy options that can
be used to solve the problem are considered. The objectives to
be achieved by solving the problem are developed, the outputs of
each policy option are considered and the options are compared;
There are several use of the concept policy. In fact, a useful and simple
exercise, which a student can easily undertake for himself, is to explore the
variety of different ways in which the word “policy” is used.
The case study approach which has often been favoured by political scientists
tends to focus on particular “decisions”, typically those arising from “moments
of choice” in some famous phenomena.
Another way of looking at policy is in terms of its outcome, that is, in terms of
what is actually achieved. This distinction between outputs (the activities of
government at the point of delivery) and outcomes (the impact of these
activities) is often slurred over, and is sometimes difficult to make in practice,
but it is an important one. Focusing on the impact of policies also serves as a
reminder that policy delivery and impact are rarely a matter of a straight – line
relationship between a single policy instrument or organisation interacting with
its environment to produce a clear – cut impact. The overall outcome will be
the production of the outputs of these organisations and their effect on the
environment and on one another.
14
In the public sector, policy analysis is also concerned with conditions affecting
implementation such as executive structures, efficiency, goods and services,
recipients, equity, availability, distribution, monitoring and enforcement. In
other words, policy analysis is concerned with an explanation of the causes
and consequences of why governments do what they do.
Public policies are aimed at the improvement of the well being of society. It is
therefore, imperative that those policies should be analysed to determine
whether they are in effect contributing towards the common weal, i.e. whether
the policies themselves or the conditions pertaining to their implementation are
producing the desired results and impacts.
The reasons for policy analysis can be scientific, professional or political. The
basic idea underlying the scientific reason for policy analysis is to determine its
feasibility in terms of technology (can it work?), economy (what are the
resource requirements), politics (what is the impact on the executive
institutions?), society (is it socially acceptable?), and time (can it be
implemented within a reasonable period of time?).
Professional reasons for policy analysis are to do with the necessity for
devising the policies most suitable to resolve social problems, bearing in mind
the causes and results of policy decisions and the factors influencing policy. In
other words, there is a search for and assessment of alternative policy options,
inter alia by forecasting the direct and indirect impacts and long – range effects
of existing or proposed policies by the application of cost – benefit analysis,
modelling or simulation to the different options.
Political reasons for policy analysis are concerned with ensuring that desired
aims are realised by appropriate policies and that the political office – bearer is
supplied with the information that will enable him to understand the complexity
of the public issues he has deal with, and on which he has to make feasible
policy.
16
From the foregoing it is apparent that public policy analysis is likely more
concerned with description and explanation that with prescription (which is the
function of policy advocacy); with an in – depth search for the reasons for and
consequences of particular public policies, and with the developing of theories
of public policy that will be reliable and applicable to different issues and can
be utilised by different government institutions.
If the policy – maker does not know exactly what the problem to be solved is,
nor whether progress is being made in solving it, he does not know much,
which could be very costly in policy – making.
Policy analysis can contribute towards the making of rational choices in public
policy. It provides a basis for taking into account the probable consequences
of selected courses of action and can help the political office – bearer and the
appointed public official to work as team – mates in promotion the common
will…
Good policy analysis compares not only objectives or resources, but also
alternative programmes, it markets errors easy to identify by working with
historical contexts and bears in mind that public officials must implement
policies and those citizens are involved.
Public policy is the product (output) of the political process and is inseparable
from politics or the political ideology of the government of the days, hence for
the analysis of public policy politics is an inescapable rarity.
In the public sector the endeavour is to make public policies more rational,
more appropriate, more effective and more efficient, i.e. to promote the
common good. It should, however, be emphatically stated that public policy
analysis is not a panacea for all the possible defects in public policy.
Numerous constraints, of which the following is but a brief inventory, could
result in limiting the impact of the results of policy analysis on the policy –
maker in the adaptation of public policy :
Here we will consider the various levels at which policy is initiated and the
associated problems.
Ministerial initiative:
The most common way in which policy is initiated is when, often party political
dynamics, a minister tables a policy proposal. Public managers should advise
the minister concerned and make recommendations on the desirability,
implementation problems and possible political implications of the proposed
policy.
The second way in which policy can be initiated is through public managers
who initiate policy independently as a result of problems arising from the work
situation. Publics managers are therefore directly involved and play a direct
role in the policy ultimately implemented. However, these policy proposals are
still subject to ministerial and technical approval by legal experts.
Society initiative
The third way in which policy can be initiated is through interest and /or
pressure groups that initiate policy from society.
The role of public managers in this context is to involve all role players form
society and encourage public participation in the policy – making process.
They should constantly make needs analyses in the various communities to
improve the general welfare. Public managers serve as means of
communication between society and legislative authority through which policy
– relevant information is conveyed.
21
Fex, schwella and wissink (1991 : 35) state that needs are formulated by
public managers and conveyed to the policy – makers.
Policy Problem analysis could utilise the methods of issue determination, issue
selection, and issue structuring as steps to be followed in :
It is implied that alternative options are inherent to the issue definition phase,
but it remains important that options are clearly defined in the real world and
their nature is defined to the greatest specificity.
During this process, often seen to be the most difficult task of policy analysts,
all the possible future results and impacts of policy alternatives have to be
defined.
Policy issue analysis can only provide optimal solutions of progress to solution
optimalisation if some critical questions are addressed. The methods for
solution optimalisation are as follows:
Policy systems analysis is often applied in political science and suggests that
the following aspects need to be analysed.
It is often said that powerful persons influence and determine the policy
agenda and eventually the policy proposals.
This analysis focuses on the decision – making arena and the manner in which
information was transformed and utilised to make certain assumptions about
policy claims.
II.1 INTRODUCTION
The generic administrative process can, for example, be used to determine the
impact of policy on any or all the fractions of personnel provision,
development, utilisation and maintenance; financing; organising; designing
work procedure and methods; and devising control and checking
arrangements. It is also possible to determine the impact of any or all of these
functions on policy.
1. Simplify and clarify our thinking about politics and public policy;
Over the years, political science, like other scientific disciplines, has developed
a number of models to help us understand political life. Specifically we want to
examine public policy from the perspective of these models.
These models are not competitive in the sense that any one of them could be
judged “better”. Each one provides a separate focus on political life, and each
can help to understand different things about public policy. These models
describe the separate ways in which public policy can be viewed.
Despite the narrow focus o the process model, it is still useful in helping us to
understand the various activities involved in policy – making. We want to keep
in mind that that policy – making involves agenda setting (capturing the
attention of policy – makers); formulating proposals (devising and selecting
policy options); legitimating policy (developing political support, warning
congressional, presidential, or court approval); implementing policy (creating
bureaucracies, spending money, enforcing laws); and evaluating policy
(finding out whether policies work, whether they are popular).
We all may prefer to live in a political system where everyone has an equal
voice in policy – making, where many separate interests put forward solutions
to public problems, where discussion, debate and decision are open and
accessible to all, where policy choices are made democratically, where
implementation is reasonable, fair, and compassionate.
Group theory begins with the proposition that interaction among groups in the
central facts of politics. Individuals with common interests band together
formally or informally to press their demands upon government. According to
30
Politics is really the struggle among groups to influence public policy. The task
of the political system is to manage group conflict by:
According to group theorists, public policy at any given time is the equilibrium
reached in the group struggle.
Thus, public policy really turns out to be the preferences of elites. Public
officials and administrators merely carry out the policies decided upon by the
elite. Policies flow “downward” from elites to masses; they do not arise from
mass demands.
1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many that
do not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for
society; the masses do not decide public policy.
2. The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are
governed. Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper
socio economic strata of society.
3.
Elite
Policy direction
Policy execution
Mass
Second, elitism views the masses as largely passive, apathetic, and ill –
informed; mass sentiments are more often manipulated by elites, rather than
elite values being influenced by the sentiments of masses; and for the most
part, communication between elites and masses flows downward.
1. Know all the society’s value preferences and their relative weights;
2. know all the consequences of each policy alternative;
3. calculate the ration of achieved result to sacrificed societal values for
each policy alternative;
4. select the most efficient policy alternative.
This rationality assumes that the value preferences of society as a whole can
be known and weighted. Rational policy making also requires information
about alternative policies, the predictive capacity to foresee accurately the
consequences of alternative policies, and the intelligence to calculate correctly
the ratio of costs to benefits.
1. There are no societal values that are usually agreed upon, but only the
values of specific groups and individuals, many of which are conflicting;
5. Policy makers are not motivated to maximise net goal achievement, but
merely to satisfy demands for progress; they do not search until they
find “the one best way” but halt their search when they find an
alternative that “”will work”.
The idea of a “game” is that decision makers are involved in choices that are
interdependent. Each “player” must adjust his conduct to reflect not only his
own desires and abilities but also his expectations about what other will do.
36
System theory portrays public policy as an output of the political system. The
concept of “system” implies an identifiable set of institutions and activities in
society that function to transform demands into authoritative decisions
requiring the support of the whole society.
The concept of “system” also implies that elements of the system are
interrelated, that the system can correspond to forces in its environment, and
37
that it will do so in order to preserve itself. Inputs are received into the political
system in the form of both demands and support.
3.1 INTRODUCTION
The policy process normally starts when a policy issue or problem is identified
by on or more stakeholders in society who feel that the actions of the
government detrimentally affect them or another segment of society. They
then mobilise support to persuade policy – makers to do something in order to
change the status quo in their favour.
writing on the ecology of policy – making, Dubnick & Romzek (1999 : 197)
define the fallowing stages in the process :
- Problem identification
- Agenda – setting
- Programme design and development
- Policy legitimisation and decision
- Programme implémentation
- Programme évaluation
- Policy Dynamic (change).
39
For the purpose of this lecture, we view the policy process as composed of the
following stages:
- Problem identification
- Agenda setting
- Policy design
- Policy decision making
- Policy implementation
- Policy evaluation or assessment
- Policy dynamics: change, facture and success.
With questions of this type and their answers, a clearer picture should begin to
emerge regarding the nature of the problem, its scope, and the benefits likely
to result from an extensive analytic effort.
It must be said that in the narrow sense the agenda – setting is preceded by
problem identification and the ability to articulate those problems before they
reach the agenda state.
This suggests that not all problems or issues identified or even articulated in
public actually reach the agenda setting stage; they must pass through a pre-
screening phase first. Once an issue has been identified as being of sufficient
interest or significance to justify policy attention, it forms focus for further
clarification, formulation and structuring, before the importance of acting on it
by the policy system is conveyed to policy-makers.
Policy issues are conflicts or disagreements about the nature and origin of
policy problems and consequently imply a difference in the approach to
problem – solving. Policy problems, on the other hand, are those needs and
non – use of opportunities that may have a detrimental effect on at least one
41
Undirected viewing
Conditional viewing
Informal search
For example, with violation of copyrights and subsequent loss of revenue for
both authors and publishers, inspectors visit tertiary institutions to look for
specific cases. As a result of these information searches, tertiary institutions
have started to put the issue on the agenda of faculty boards.
Formal search
Contextual issues
Public policy – making takes place in a given situation or context (Dubnick &
Romzek, 1999: 190). Swalling (1992: 7) points out that policy is about power
43
and that policy – making is equally about structuring the agenda of social and
political life. Agenda setting cannot, therefore be studied in isolation from
political, economic, social, technological, cultural and global factors. The
forces in society that accumulate power determine the direction of the policy
agenda. In reality, some forces in society wield more power than others when
agendas are set. Swilling points out that apart from money, communications
and the media, ideologies also influence whether issues appear on policy
agenda or not.
In closed and authoritarian states the power to influence the policy agenda is
largely, if not exclusively, in the hands of the party bosses or the head of state
(dictator).
It is clear that the practice of agenda – setting differs from society to society;
despite this, one can make a few generalisations about factors that influence
agenda – setting in government.
Hogwood & Gunn (1984: 67 – 68) list the following factors which determine
whether or not policy problems appear on the policy agenda:
- Firstly, the problem must reach crisis proportions and can no longer be
ignored by the government. It is when the continued existence of the problem
poses a threat, either to society or the state as a whole. For example, High
crime rate.
44
- Thirdly, policy problems must have an emotive aspect which attrack media
attention. Issues of life and death are very often a driving force in agenda –
setting. During the months of September and October 1999, more than 80
people died in tragic bus accidents in South Africa. Of these, 26 were British
tourists. These accidents were emotive issues, firstly because people’s lives
were at stake, and secondly because they involved foreign tourists. Radio,
television and the print media took up these emotive issues to gain agenda
status.
Emotive issues raise high levels of awareness, which are followed by public
outcries for action. It is these public outcries that force issues onto the policy
agenda.
- Fourthly, issues that have a wide impact have a better chance of reaching
agenda status that low – impact issues. The 1990 S came face to face with a
new world epidemic in the form of the HIV virus which causes AIDS. The HIV
virus has had a devastating impact both nationally and globally that is felt in
almost every aspect of life. Yet another issue that has a wide impact on nation
states is globalisation, so much so that countries have formed new economic
partnerships and realignments with strategic regional governments.
agenda. The elite theory postulates that those with money, knowledge, skills
and resources have more leverage and bargaining power as agenda – setters.
It is also true that governments tend to listen more attention very to their
constituencies and issues raised by them.
- Sixthly, some issues are fashionable for governments to address. These are
issues with symbolic value. For example, governments support major sporting
events like the Olympics, the Africa cup of Nations and the Rugby World Cup
because they are fashionable. Such events give countries worldwide
exposure, stimulate local economies and provide a huge boost for the
personal image of political leaders.
46
This section deals with the principal actors in the agenda – setting process.
Appointed officials
Strategic priorities: officials are more likely to process issues which can be
linked directly or indirectly to the government’s strategic priority areas. It is, for
example, very likely that government officials will process issues of
homelessness, un employment or access to drinking water, because they can
be linked to one of the government’s priority areas, namely the alleviation of
poverty.
Interest groups: Pluralism dictates that interest groups have collective strength
and the capacity to mobilise their members at relatively short notice.
Membership of interest groups is dictated by the desire to access the policy
agenda.
Hypothetically, interest groups exist as long as issues are not formally on the
government’s agenda or are not receiving priority attention once on the
agenda.
threaten with force if one’s views are not accepted. Negotiation is a very
effective form of participation.
Participation is enhanced if certain requirements are met and these are the
following :
The systemic agenda is a broader set of issues facing society. Not all the
issues raised receive government attention (jones, 1984 : 59). Issues raised in
this way have a policy community and involve matters falling within the scope
of the government’s activities. Government officials receive literally thousands
of problems from the public and are expected to act on all of them. In reality,
only a small number of these issues on the systematic agenda receive serious
government intervention.
The institutional agenda, on the other hand is where problems receive formal
attention by the government (Howlett & Ramesh, 1995 : 11-113). Whereas the
systematic agenda is the government’s way of acknowledging the problem, but
doing nothing about it, institutional agendas come with government action in
the form of resources, legislation, and time – frames for action.
For example, the issue of third world debt was on the systematic agenda of the
International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and other major donors, but it
was only after President Bill Clinton announced in 1999 that the United States
Would take the lead in writing of third World debt that it reached the
institutional agenda of these agencies. We may argue that the systematic
agenda is an agenda of discussion while institutional agenda is an agenda of
action.
Cobb et al. (1976) point out that there are four major phases of agenda –
setting as issues move from the systematic to the institutional agenda. Issues
are fist initiated, their solutions specified and their support base expanded;
then if successful, the issues receive status on (or enter) the institutional
agenda.
52
Introduction
In contrast to the private sector, the public sector is primarily concerned with
serving the public. The latter could also be seen as the predominant objective
of the state, in accordance with the philosophic concept of welfare state. This
concept implies that the state, especially the Western democratic state, has
according to its conscience the responsibility of ensuring a minimum or
reasonable right of existence for all inhabitants, particularly the underprivileged
section. Aristotle remarked many centuries ago that “the state exists … not
merely to make life possible, but do make life good”.
Policy design represents probably the most important stage in policy analysis.
This section focuses on the complexities surrounding the identification of clear
goals and objectives for new policy options and the identification of alternative
policies in policy design. It will also discuss what to consider when choosing
between alternative policy options in order to select the best option available,
as well as scenario forecasting.
Over time, policy theorists have devised different models of the process of
policy analysis. Despite some differences in conceptualising the policy
process, it is clear that it will always begin with the identification and definition
of a particular problem.
An objective is described by the same authors as a short – term goal that can
be deduced from an organisation’s mission and that could be stated by means
of a process of negotiation.
Given the above, and for the purpose of policy design, goals are broad
purposes, while objectives set forth specific aims. Goals are rarely expressed
in the form of operational identifications, that is definitions which specify the
set of operations necessary to measure something but objectives are.
Therefore, while goals are not quantifiable, objectives may be, and often are,
measurable in quantifiable terms. Statements of objectives can be linked to a
period of time within which policy alternatives are expected to achieve the
desired consequences, but statements of goals cannot.
What can be done to identify goals and objectives? No government policy over
time is ever complete in terms of its outcomes or effect on society. This is
mainly due to the continually developmental and changing nature of the needs
of the people, or the beneficiaries of public policy.
Sources
CONSTRAINTS
The following limitations should also be born in mind by the policy analyst not
as factors totally disqualifying policy analysis, but as factors that the analyst
should try to avoid.
Political constraints: Certain politician may be more may favour policy options
or alternatives that are not necessary in the interest of society in general.
57
Legal constraints: Legislation and departmental regulations may also limit the
achievement of objectives. It is therefore advisable that the analyst should first
acquaint himself with the legal parameters within which alternative goals and
objectives can be specified, before embanking on options that are unjustifiable
in terms of legislation.
Introduction
Types of decision
• Standards :
Standards are usually adapted only when large – scale changes occur.
• Procedures
• Methods
• Rules
Rules are clear statements that indicate what should and what should not be
done. A classic example is “smoking prohibited”.
This statement deals with a specific pattern of behaviour. Non latitude is left for
judgment or discretion.
• Policy
are made for special purposes such as programmes, strategies and budgets.
Their lifespan is short since they exist for a particular or single use.
• Programmes
A programme comprises all the activities needed for the realisation of the
objective and must specify who must do what, when and by what means.
• Strategies
• Budgets
A more specific definition is provided by Van Meter & Van Horn (1975 : 447 –
488) “Policy implementation encompasses those actions by public or private
individuals (or groups) that are directed at the achievement of objectives set
62
forth in prior policy decisions. “they make a clear distinction between the
interrelated concepts of implementation, performance, and impact and stress.
Lowi’s (1963) states that the nature of the policy itself is critical to the success,
or otherwise, of its implementation. He proposed six “clusters of variables”
and the linkages between them shape policy and performance. The variables
are:
- The relevance of policy standards and objectives
- Policy resources
- Interorganisational communication and enforcement activity.
- The characteristics of the implementing agencies
- The economic, social and political environment affecting the
implementing jurisdiction or organisation
- The disposition of implementers for carrying out policy decisions
What are the preconditions for successful policy implementation? And what
are the primary distances to successful policy implementation? They identify
four interacting and simultaneously operating factors: communication,
resources, dispositions and bureaucratic structure.
Systematic policy planning, design and implementation for the purpose of improving
the quality of policy outputs and outcomes, will be to avail if one is able to assess
whether one has meet or hit the intended target s. Assessment or evaluation is
needed on order to whether to continue a policy curtail it, terminate it or expand it .
For the purpose of these notes, the concept of assessment and evaluation will be
used as synonyms. Some authoritative definitions of these concepts include the
following:
- Evaluation determines the value effectiveness of an activity for the
purpose of decision making;
- Policy evaluation is learning about the consequences, policy outcomes,
policy impact (Policy effects);
- Policy evaluation refers broadly to the process of finding out about
public policy in action, the means employed and the objectives being
served
The key link in the above definitions is that they link policy objectives, means and
outcomes.
65
Policy evaluation or assessment is normally done undertaken for one or more of the
following reasons:
- To measure progress towards the achievement of policy objectives;
- To test the feasibility of a principle, model, theory, proposal, or strategy;
- To provide political or financial accountability;
- To learn lessons for future policy review, redesign or implementation
strategies;
Society is a dynamic entity consisting of living organisms with needs, demands and
preference that continually change, develop and grow over the time. In chapter 1 it
was explained that from a systems perspective, public policy is a reaction to
environmental demands for a change in the status quo, as a result of perceived
problems in society that needs an intervention from the government to improve or
eradicate those problems.
It is important to realise that policy change takes place before, during and after
implementation. There appears to be a misconception that policy change only takes
place after policy evaluation. The truth is that policy change takes place throughout
policy life cycle.
There are a host of reason of reasons for Policy change, as discussed bellow:
• Changing environment
The policy environment is very dynamic, with changes taking place day to day. The
forces in social, political, cultural and technological environment put pressure on
policy makers to make change.
• Changing public opinion
66
Public opinions shape and influence public policy. Changing values perceptions,
belief, systems and /or patterns of behaviour shape the public opinion. The media is
also a dominant force in shaping public opinion.
The availability of resource can also dictate changes in public policies. When there is
change in budget, there should be a reset in terms of the policy life cycle especially in
the agenda setting, in the objectives ….
Discussion themes
References
Beckman, N. 1977. Policy analysis for the congress. Public administration Review,
37 (3)
Cloete, F. 1994. Maximising the use of policy analysis in Public administration
practice, Halfway House
Cloete, JJN. 1983. Introduction to public administration, Pretoria J.L van Schaik.
Wissink, H and Cloete F. 2004 Improving public policy; Pretoria, Van Shaik Publisher
Du Toit, Van Der Waltd & Bayat, Cheminails (1998): Public administration and
management for effective governance, Cape Town: Juta & Co Ltd.
Du Toit, Van Der Waltd (1999): Managing for excellence in the public sector, 2 nd
edition, Cape Town: Juta & Co Ltd