Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr.

PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration

REFLECTION PAPER
CHAPTER I

TOPIC 1 – PUBLIC POLICY

Public policy: it comprises domain of human activity which is regarded as

requiring governmental interventions or common action a domain of life which is not
private or purely individual but held in common policy: a purposive course of action
taken or adopted by those in power in pursuit of certain goals objectives. “Whatever
governments choose to do or not to do” the term public policy always refers to the
actions of the government and the intentions that determine those actions public policy
is the outcome of struggle in government over who gets what. Public policy consists of
political decisions for implementing programs to achieve societal goals public policy is
sum of government activities, whether acting directly or through agents, as it has an
influence on the life of citizens. Public policy is a deliberate plan of actions of the
government to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes public policy can be
generally defined as the course of action or inaction taken by governmental entities with
regard to a particular issue or set of issues.

TOPIC 2 – POLICY PROCESSES AND ACTIVITIES

The public policy process is a multi-stage cycle. These six stages overlap each
other, with additional mini-stages, in a process that never really ends.

1. Problem Identification

Either public opinion or elite opinion expresses dissatisfaction with a status quo
policy. The problem is defined and articulated by individuals and institutions such as
mass media, interest groups, and parties.

Page 1 of 6
Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr. PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration
2. Agenda Setting

The definition of alternatives is crucial to the policy process and outcomes.

Before a policy can be formulated and adopted, the issue must compete for space on
the agenda (list of items being actively considered). An idea must make it through
several levels, including the broad political system agenda, the congressional and
presidential agendas, and the bureaucratic agenda. Key actors in agenda setting
include think tanks, interest groups, media, and government officials.

3. Policy Making

From the problems that have been identified and have made it onto the various
agendas, policies must be formulated to address the problems. Those policy
formulations then must be adopted (authorized) through the congressional process and
refined through the bureaucratic process. Of course, a non-decision (inaction, or
defeating a proposal) is, itself, policy making.

4. Budgeting

Each year, Congress must decide through the appropriations process how much
money to spend on each policy. Generally, a policy must first be authorized (adopted)
before money can be appropriated for it in the annual budget.

5. Implementation

Executive agencies (the bureaucracy) carry out, or implement, policy.

Implementation could include adopting rules and regulations, providing services and
products, public education campaigns, adjudication of disputes, etc.

6. Evaluation

Numerous actors evaluate the impact of policies, to see if they are solving the
problems identified and accomplishing their goals. Evaluation looks at costs and
benefits of policies as well as their indirect and unintended effects. Congress uses its
oversight function and the General Accounting Office for evaluation, agencies evaluate
their own performance, and outside evaluators include interest groups, think tanks,

Page 2 of 6
Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr. PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration
academia, and media. Evaluation frequently triggers identification of problems and a
new round of agenda setting and policy making.

TOPIC 3 – GOVERNMENT POLICY FORMULATION

The policy-making process is ongoing, messy and generally without a definitive

beginning or end, political science scholar Susan J. Buck explains. However, those
involved in the process do tend to follow a general procedure, broken down into six
phases.

As the first phase in the cycle, agenda setting helps policy makers decide which
problems to address. Topics for discussion go through several types of agendas before
these individuals may move them forward. Types of agendas might include: Systemic
agendas. Systemic agendas comprise all issues policy makers deem both worthy of
note and in their realm of authority to address. Institutional agendas. These agendas
are formed from the content of systemic agendas. Here, policy makers analyze
problems and their proposed solutions in a strict amount of time. Discretionary agendas.
These agendas address problems chosen by legislators that have not necessarily made
it into the agendas mentioned above. Decision agendas. Decision agendas are the
finalized list of issues to be moved to the next phase of the policy-making cycle.

In policy formation, solutions to problems are shaped and argued. This phase is
characterized by intense negotiation between parties. Leaders, bureaus and other
factions must fight for their own needs and desires, often in opposition to one another.
Concerns might include budgetary issues, personal or political constraints, or the
protection of certain existing programs. Public policies are therefore formed far more by
the act of bargaining than by any other means. Policy formation continues even after
initial legislation is passed, arising whenever amendments are suggested or the original
legislation is reauthorized.

“Legitimacy” means that the public considers the government’s actions to be

legal and authoritative. To gain legitimacy in the United States, a policy must be moved
through the legislative process. Once this happens, it is considered the law of the land

Page 3 of 6
Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr. PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration
and can be implemented as such. It must be mentioned that the legitimacy of a policy is
only as good as the willingness of citizens to accept it. Therefore, it is possible for
people to reject policy if they view the policy makers’ behavior or the legislation itself as
unacceptable in some way.

Responsibility passes from policy makers to policy implementers, and the

policies themselves may again develop further while this happens. Whether a policy
succeeds can often be traced back to this phase; a well-written policy with a poor
implementation can end in failure.

TOPIC 4 – POLICY EVALUATION

While economic, social and environmental challenges are increasingly complex,

governments are facing growing pressure to deliver more and better for less. Policy
monitoring and evaluation (M&E) has a critical role to play in effectively design,
implement and deliver public policies and services. Ensuring that policy making is
informed by sound evidence on what works is essential to achieve key long-term
objectives.

Therefore, policy monitoring and evaluation and its strategic use throughout the
policy cycle can: Support strategic planning and policy making by improving the links
between policy interventions and their outcomes & impact; Enhance accountability and
provide legitimacy for the use of public funds and resources; Promote learning and
enhance policies’ efficiency and effectiveness.

Policy makers conduct evaluations to determine if the policies they create are
effective in achieving their goals. When determining this, they must consider: How to
evaluate outcomes effectively; How to measure the outcomes; How to navigate
between the efficiency of a policy and its effectiveness (the former is often easier to
measure than the latter); Evaluation may occur either during implementation or after the
policy in question is finished.

Page 4 of 6
Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr. PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration
Once implemented, policies are periodically gauged for their relevancy and use.
This may result in their continuation, amendment or termination. These incidents often
occur due to policy makers’ shifting goals, values, beliefs or priorities. When new issues
arise, the policy-making cycle begins again, helping governing bodies successfully
address new and important challenges.

TOPIC 5 – FEDERALISM

On paper, federalism seems well suited for the Philippines. In reality, however, it
could become a recipe for disaster in a country that is already divided by language,
religion and economic inequality.

First of all, studies show that only a few regions are capable of raising enough
taxes on their own. The vast majority of provinces, which will be submerged into new
federal states, lack the basic administrative capacity for generating revenue. Not to
mention duplication in taxes and further stress on the nascent bureaucracy of peripheral
regions under a federal arrangement.

Under a federal system, the richer states of the north will have even more
resources to enhance their competitiveness, thus deepening the developmental gap
with other southern regions.

Even in prosperous nations like the U.S., the developmental gap between the
rich coastal states of California and New York, on one hand, and the southern and
midwestern states, on the other, has barely narrowed after two centuries of federalist
experience.

In developing countries like India, Iraq and Nigeria, federalism has either failed to
close developmental gaps and ethno-communal tensions among various states or,
more worryingly, in some cases reinforced and reified them over the decades. In places
such as Yugoslavia, a federal setup eventually collapsed into a genocidal civil war.

Moreover, a federal system could further strengthen the power of political

dynasties and warlords, which control the Philippines’ peripheries. According to

Page 5 of 6
Nathaniel M. Dagsa Jr. PMG215 Section B
19-MPMG-038 Policy Formulation and Administration
academic studies, around 178 so-called "political dynasties" – politicians related by
kinship and blood – control 73 out of 81 provinces across the country. They also control
up to 70% of the legislature, thus they seem likely to remove any proposed restrictions
on the proliferation of political dynasties.

Under a federal system, they are best positioned to dominate the newly created
local legislature and state institutions, further consolidating their grip on power in the
country's poorer regions. It's no wonder, then, that most surveys show the vast majority
of Filipinos are either against constitutional change or completely unaware of its
implications.

Page 6 of 6