As discussed in the lesson, policy formula on involves the elimina on of policy op ons un l one is le

from among which the policymakers make their nal selec on. The bills led in Congress are considered
to be the best policy op ons to address certain issues at least from the perspec ve of the authors of the
bills. Given below are ve bills led in the Senate on the 18th Congress. Choose ONE from among the
ve, then evaluate the bill using the criteria (E ec veness, Equity, Poli cal feasibility, Social Acceptability,
Administra ve feasibility, etc) given in our lesson. Take note that there is no need to apply all the criteria
in your evalua on, four or ve criteria will do.

PUBLIC POLICY AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION (MPA 203)

POLICY FORMULATION
Learning objec ves
1. Discuss the meaning policy formula on
2. Iden fy the di erent criteria in choosing policy alterna ves
3. Explain what is policy design
4. Iden fy and explain the di erent policy tools

WHAT IS POLICY FORMULATION?

In a tradi onal stages model of the public policy process, policy formula on is part of the pre-decision
phase of policy making. It involves iden fying and/or cra ing a set of policy alterna ves to address a
problem, and narrowing that set of solu ons in prepara on for the nal policy decision. According to
Cochran and Malone, policy formula on takes up the “what” ques ons: “What is the plan for dealing
with the problem? What are the goals and priori es? What op ons are available to achieve those goals?
What are the costs and bene ts of each of the op ons? What externali es, posi ve or nega ve, are
associated with each alterna ve?” (1999, 46). This approach to policy formula on, embedded in a stages
model of the policy process, assumes that par cipants in the policy process already have recognized and
de ned a policy problem, and moved it onto the policy agenda. Formula ng the set of alterna ves thus
involves iden fying a range of broad approaches to a problem, and then iden fying and designing the
speci c sets of policy tools that cons tute each approach. It involves dra ing the legisla ve or regulatory
language for each alterna ve—that is, describing the tools (e.g., sanc ons, grants, prohibi ons, rights,
and the like) and ar cula ng to whom or to what they will apply, and when they will take e ect.
Selec ng from among these a smaller set of possible solu ons from which decision makers actually will
choose involves applying some set of criteria to the alterna ves, for example judging their feasibility,
poli cal acceptability, costs, bene ts, and such.
In general, we expect fewer par cipants to be involved in policy formula on than were involved in the
agenda-se ng process, and we expect more of the work to take place out of the public eye. policy
formula on takes place in government bureaucracies, in interest group o ces, in legisla ve commi ee
rooms, in mee ngs of special commissions, in think tanks—with details o en formulated by sta . In
other words, policy formula on o en is the realm of the experts, the “hidden par cipants” of Kingdon’s
policy stream. Policy formula on clearly is a cri cal phase of the policy process. Certainly, designing the
alterna ves that decision makers will consider directly in uences the ul mate policy choice.
1

POLICY FORMULATION CRITERIA

Every me a policy problem is iden ed, some statement of goals is adopted. The goals are what the
adopted policy alterna ve should accomplish. Goals are broad, formal, long-term problem-solving
achievements that are desired. Goals are translated into objec ves. Objec ves are more concrete
statements about desired end states, with me tables, target popula ons, and resource limits.
fi

fi
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
tti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti

fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ff
fi
ti
fi

ti

fi

ft
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ff
ti

fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft
fl
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ft
ffi
ft
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ff
ti

ti

ff
tt
ft
 Criteria are the measurable dimensions of objec ves. Criteria are used to compare how close di erent
proposed policy alterna ves will come to mee ng the goals of solving the problem. Criteria set the rules
to follow in analyzing and comparing di erent proposed policy alterna ves (solu ons).

1. Economic Criteria
Most policy analysis involves at least one economic criterion. These include impacts on the economy, on
expected public sector revenues, on government spending, etc.
The most common economic criteria are costs. These may include:
borrowing costs--the costs of borrowing funds
decreases in net worth--decreases in assets and/or liabili es
direct costs--directly a ributable to the policy alterna ve
indirect costs--addi onal impacts not included in the goals
intangible costs--costs that cannot be counted or quan ed
one- me xed costs--new capital expenditures, equipment, training, etc.
opera ons and maintenance costs--ongoing costs of the alterna ve
opportunity costs--other things that could have been done with the same resources instead tangible
costs--can be counted and quan ed
Costs need to be counted. One cannot assume that the money was going to be spent anyway. Costs
should be iden ed as completely as possible, elimina ng unpleasant surprises down the road.
Another type of cost criterion that is o en employed is marginal cost. That is, if some good or service is
already being produced, how much more will it cost to.
Another type of economic criterion is bene ts. Bene ts are the opposite of costs. Bene ts are ways in
which the policy actors will be be er o . Bene ts can be measured in many of the same ways as costs,
including:
direct bene ts--directly a ributable to the policy alterna ve increases in net worth--increases in assets
and/or liabili es indirect bene ts--addi onal bene ts not included in the goals interest earned--interest
that will accrue or be paid
intangible bene ts--bene ts that cannot be counted or quan ed monetarizable bene ts--can be
expressed in money/currency one- me bene ts--one- me reduc on in the problem
ongoing bene ts--con nuing decreases in the problem
tangible bene ts--can be counted and quan ed

Bene ts are o en more di cult to quan fy than costs. One alterna ve is to use "shadow prices," or the
value of the bene ts in a perfectly compe ve market, for example, free recrea on facili es, wilderness
areas, parks, etc.

2. Equity Criteria
E ciency and e ec veness are technical and economic ques ons, but equity is a public ques on. Equity
asks about the social alloca on of burdens and bene ts. Equity asks the ques ons of "who pays?" and
"who bene ts?"

Sec on 6

The amount necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act shall be charged against the current year’s
appropria ons of the JJWC under the budget of the Department of Jus ce. Therea er, such sums as may
ffi
ti
ti
fi
ti

fi

ti
fi
fi
ti
fi
fi
ft
ti
ff
fi
fi

fi
ti
ti

ti
tt
ti
fi
tt

ffi
ti
fi
ti
tt
fi
ti

ft
ff
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
fi
fi
ti

fi
ti

fi
fi
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti
ti

ti
ti
fi

ti
ti

ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ft

fi

fi
ti
ti

ff
 be necessary for the con nued implementa on of this Act shall be included in the budget of the DSWD
under the annual General Appropria ons Act: Prowded, That the amount of Four hundred million pesos
(P400,000,000.00) shall be appropriated for the construc on of ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ rehabilita on centers in
provinces or ci es with high incidence of children in con ict with the law to be determined and
iden ed by the DSWD and the JJWC on a priority basis: Provided, further, That the said mnount shall be
[coursed through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)] GIVEN DIRECTLY TO THE LGU
CONCERNED for its proper implementa on.
"The LGUs concerned shall make available, from its own resources or assets, their counterpart share
equivalent to the na onal government contribu on of TWENTY MILLION PESOS (P 20,000,000.00) per
rehabilita on center.
"In addi on, the Council may accept dona ons, grants and contribu ons from various sources, in cash or
in kind, for purposes relevant to its func ons, subject to the usual government accoun ng and audi ng
rules and regula ons."

Explanatory Note

The State must ensure that those children in con ict with the law who are currently exempted from
criminal liability who take advantage of the same must not be given the same privilege.

A proposed policy alterna ve may impact equity if it will change the distribu on of burdens and bene ts
in society. There is no universally approved op mal or right answer for how bene ts and burdens should
be distributed in society. That is a con nuing area of conten on, and essen ally a poli cal decision.
However, there are guidelines for equity, such non-discrimina on, and the same treatment for those
equally situated and di erent treatment for those unequally situated.
Horizontal equity asks whether burdens and bene ts are being shi ed among groups in society which
are rela vely equal.
Ver cal equity asks whether burdens and bene ts are being shi ed among groups in society which are
rela vely unequal.
Inter-genera onal equity asks whether burdens or bene ts are being shi ed from one me period to
another, whether younger genera ons will have to pay more and receive less than older ones, or vice
versa.
Problems in assessing equity include:
how should the popula on be sub-divided?
how should groups be de ned?
should historical criteria, the status quo, or desired states be used? what is a burden?
what is a bene t?
what is a degree of need?
what is an ability to pay?

3. Technical Criteria

E ec veness is o en used as a criterion by which to judge policy proposals. E ec veness is the extent to
which the proposed policy will a ain the goals set forth in the problem statement. For example, if the
goal is to decrease the current teenage driver accident rate, how much will each policy alterna ve
decrease the rate below current levels?
Another technical criterion is technical feasibility. This asks whether the technology exists or is readily
available to implement a proposed alterna ve. For example, one proposed policy alterna ve may be to
install in all cars a breath analyzing device that would not let a car start if the driver has been drinking.
However, this technology is not widely or cheaply available.
ff
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi

ti
ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ft

ti

ff
ti
ti

fi
ti

tt
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
ti
ti

ti

ti
fi
ti
fl
fi
fi
fl
ti

ti
ti
ft
ft
ti

ft
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
 Due to con nuing challenge in the implementa on of RA 9344, as amended, the aforesaid law must be
further amended to lower the minimum age of criminal liability in order to adapt to the changing mes.
The State must ensure that those children in con ict with the law who are currently exempted from
criminal liability who take advantage of the same must not be given the same privilege.

On the other hand, the United Na ons, experts and local human rights group oppose the said law
sta ng that subject Senate Bill will lead to the youth nega ve path.

4. Poli cal Criteria

Many mes, the client for the policy analysis will hold a poli cal o ce. In that case, the policy analyst
must o en include poli cal criteria in the assessment of proposed policy alterna ves.
Poli cal viability asks whether or to what extent a proposed policy alterna ve will be acceptable to
relevant powerful groups, decision makers, legislators, administrators, ci zens, neighborhoods, unions,
or others.
Other ways of assessing poli cal viability include:
acceptability--is the proposed alterna ve acceptable to policy makers, policy targets, the general public,
voters, etc.?

appropriateness--is the proposed alterna ve appropriate to the values of the community, society, the
legislature, etc.?
legal--is the proposed alterna ve legal under current law, or will statutes have to be amended or
enacted?
responsive--will the proposed alterna ve meet the real or perceived needs of the target group, the
public, etc.?

5. Administra ve Criteria
Many public policies are implemented by public agencies. Therefore, administra ve operability or
administra ve ease are o en used as criteria for judging proposed public policies.
Ques ons that may be addressed include:
authority--does the agency have the authority to implement the proposed policy? commitment--does
the proposed policy have the commitment of top managers, eld sta , and
Support sta ?

Sec on 2

The child shall be subjected to a community-based intenen on program supeiwised by the local social
welfare and development o cer, unless the best interest of the child requires the referral of the child to
a youth care facility or ‘Bahay Pag-asa’ managed by LGUs or licensed and/or accredited NGOs monitored
by the DSWD.

The local social welfare and development o cer shall determine the appropriate programs for the child
who has been released, in consulta on with the child and the person having custody over the child. If
the parents, guardians or nearest rela ves cannot be located, or if they refuse to take custody

Sec on 5
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ft

ti
ti
ff

ti

ti

ft
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ffi
ti
fl

ti
ti
ti
fi
ffi

ff
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
 The law enforcement o cers shall, in his/her inves ga on, detennine where the case involving the child
in con ict with the law should be referred.

capacity--does the agency have the resources to implement the proposed policy, in terms of sta ,
skills, money, training, exper se, etc.?
support--are the facili es, equipment, and other support available for the proposed policy?
Kra and Furlong’s Evalua ve Criteria for Policy Proposals

Michael Kra and Sco Furlong (2017), in their book Public Policy: Poli cs, Analysis and Alterna ves,
iden ed several evalua ve criteria for judging the value of policy proposals or alterna ves. The table
below iden es the de ni ons, limita ons, and where most these criteria are likely used.
4

POLICY DESIGN
The most recent wave of literature explicitly focused on policy formula on uses the concept of policy
design. Work on policy design emerged in response to implementa on studies of the 1970s that held
bureaucra c systems responsible for policy failure. Policy design theorists argued that scholars should
look
further back in the causal chain to understand why policies succeed or fail, because the original policy
formula on processes, and the policy designs themselves, signi cantly contribute to implementa on
outcomes. Under the rubric of policy design, some scholars have wri en from the perspec ve of
professional policy analysts, exploring how no ons of policy design can improve the prac ce of policy
analysis and the recommenda ons that analysts make.
They propose that improving the search for, and
genera on of, policy alterna ves will lead to more e ec ve and successful policies. Essen ally, these
5

scholars seek to reduce the randomness of policy formula on by bringing awareness to, and then
consciously structuring, the process.
For example, Shneider and Ingram, in their policy design framework, iden ed the core elements found
in all policy designs which include goals and problems to be solved, target popula ons, agents and
implementa on structures, policy tools, rules, and ra onales and assump ons.
Policy Design
• Goals and problems to be solved
• Target popula ons
• Agents and Implementa on structures
• Rules
• Ra onales
• Policy tools
• Goals and problems to be solved refers to the inten onal aspects of policy designs and indicates what
is to be achieved through policy
• Target popula ons refers to the people, groups, and organiza ons whose behavior or capacity the
policy is intended to change or e ect.
• Agents and Implementa on structures refers to the ins tu ons that are part of the formal governance
structure and responsible for the development and delivery of public policy.
• Rules refers to the procedural aspects of the policy designs and indicate who is to do what, where and
when. It sets everything in order from the recipients of the bene ts of the policy to the sequence of
ac ons that would take place during its implementa on.

ti
ft
ti

ti
fi
fl

ti
ti
ti
ti
ft

fi
ti

ti
ti

ti
tt
fi
ffi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ff

ti

ti

ti
ti
ff
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
fi
ti
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti
fi

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
ff

ti

 • Ra onales refers to the explana ons, jus ca ons, or legi ma ons for the design itself or for some
speci c part of the design. Assump ons refers to the underlying logic that es the elements together in
the policy design.
• Policy tools refers to the aspects of the policy design intended to bring about the policy-relevant
behavior of agents and targets. It provides incen ves or sanc ons, persuasion, educa on, and other
means to ensure that people’s behavior will change as a result of the policy.
POLICY INSTRUMENTS/TOOLS
6

Policy instrument is a linkage between policy formula on and policy implementa on. The inten on in
policy formula on is re ected in policy implementa on through instrument. Applica on of appropriate
policy instruments largely determines the policy success. One of the best de ni ons of policy instrument
is provided by James Anderson who describes it as an element of control, which is, by one means or
another, overtly or subtly, designed to cause people to do things, refrain from doing things, or con nue
doing things that they otherwise would not do. The manifesta on of policy tool in the community ranges
from the direct popula on of goods or prac ces to the process of informing the public on how certain
services can be availed from the government. Likewise, policy tool can also take the form government
regula on and provision of incen ves. Schneider and Ingram iden ed ve tools used by policy makers
in designing most of the government policies. To fully understand policies, we must understand to their
goals, strategies, and assump ons.
1. Authority Tools De ni on
• These are simply statements backed by the legi mate authority of government that grant permission,
prohibit, or require ac on under designated circumstances.”
Elements
• Mandates – Requirements made by higher authority
• Rules – Policies put into place to maintain order Examples: Dress Code, Speed Limits Assump ons
• Without rules, the ac on would not take place to the proper frequency
• The required ac on is necessary and good
Consequences
• Requires coercion
• Creates Uniformity, reduced varia on
• Tension between ini ators and targets
2. Inducements & Incen ves De ni on
• The incen ve category includes tools that rely on tangible payo s, posi ve or nega ve, to induce
compliance or encourage u liza on.
Elements
• Rewards – Provide reinforcement for compliance
• Sanc ons – Provide punishment for non-compliance
Examples
• Fines, Tax Incen ves, Embargos Inducements & Incen ves
7

Assump ons
• Audience will not produce the desired outcome without nancial assistance
• Individuals and agencies have varied ability to produce, and money boosts performance
Consequences
• Manageable in uence upon individual behavior
• Increased compliance from target audience
• Costs to ini ate are less than to completely fund the desired changes
3. Capacity Building Tools De ni on

ti
fi
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti

fl
ti
ti

fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
fl
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti

fi
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
fi

ti
ti
ti

ti
ti

ti
fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
ff
ti
fi

fi
ti

ti

fi

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ti
ti

 • “Capacity Building is the transfer of money to individuals or agencies for the purpose of investment in
future bene ts-material, intellectual, or human resources. ”
Elements
• Training-Improving human capital for an organiza on
• Capital Grants – Money allocated for materials which improve service
Examples:
• Classrooms for the Future Capacity Building,
• Free tui on free in ter ary educa on, technical and voca onal training
Assump ons
• New knowledge or skills are necessary for future produc on
• The developed capacity is helpful or helps future innova on
Consequences
• Short term bene t to individual or agency, long term bene t to society
• Short term costs may produce long-term bene ts
4. Symbolic/Hortatory Tools De ni on
• These pertains to the proclama ons, speeches, or public rela on campaigns which mo vate the target
popula on to act in accordance with the objec ves of the public policy. While these may not o er
tangible payo s, they o er par cipants peace of mind.
Elements Promo ons
• Public awareness campaigns to make a policy important to a broader audience Labeling – Placing a
posi ve or nega ve connota on to ac ons which meet or oppose policy objec ves
8

Examples:
• “By automa cally enrolling our ci zens into the Na onal health Insurance program .....the Universal
Health Care Law that I signed today will guarantee equitable access to quality and a ordable health care
services for all Filipinos”
Assump ons
• People comply with policy more when they align with their personal values
• Posi ve symbols, labels, images, and events can in uence a tudes on a policy
Consequences
• Policy-makers use rhetoric and imagery to shape public percep ons of policy 5. Learning Tools
De ni on
• “Learning tools are used when the basis upon which target popula ons might be moved to take
problem solving ac on is unknown or uncertain. A problem may be recognized, but it is not understood
or there is no agreement about what should be done.”
Elements
• Research - Exploring unanswered ques ons
• Fact-Finding – Gathering and condensing informa on Examples:
• Research Grants, Congressional Commissions Learning Tools Assump ons
• We do not have enough informa on to solve essen al problems
• We can nd answers or evidence with research
Consequences
• Research funding can lead to new products and industries (i.e. the Internet) • Research can fail, leading
to claims of government waste of tax money
Policy Formula on in the Philippines
The policy formula on process in the Philippines is best de ned by the idea of James Anderson, who
claimed that the term includes the crea on of suitable and appropriate courses of ac on to solve public
problems. The path to the implementa on of the right policy solu on is very taxing and does not
necessarily contribute to the achievement of the desired public policy. Professor Carmelo Bihasa

fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
fi

fi

ff
ti

ti
ti
ti
fi
ti
ti

ff
ti

ti
ti
fi
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti

ti
ti
ti

ti
fi

ti
ti

fl
ti
ti

ti
ti
fi
ti

fi
tti

ti
ti

ti

ti
ti

ti

ff
ti
ti
ff

 iden ed a number of observa ons in policy formula on in the country. Some of his observa ons are
the following:
9

• The selec on of the most feasible policy alterna ve is done normally before the introduc on of the
measures. The ini al process of screening and weighing is already being done by di erent policy actors
and legisla ve sta before it is deliberated in the halls of the Congress.
• The di erent policymakers in the congress do not have the monopoly of choosing and ranking the best
policy alterna ve in the government. In the spirit of transparency and par cipa on, the Congress
normally invites people and other ins tu ons to par cipate in the delibera on of most policy proposals
and even encourage the la er to provide the necessary informa on in cra ing the best policy.
• The chosen policy alterna ve is con nuously polished in both houses of congress.
• The adop on of the proposed policy is not yet nal un l it is approved and signed by the president.
• The chosen policy alterna ve makes full use of the available policy tools in the government.
Sources:
Bihasa, Carmelo Rico S. (2017). Understanding Public Policy: Theories, Concepts and Applica on.
Mandaluyong City: Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.
Fischer, Frank, Miller, Gerald J. and Sidney, Mara S. (2007). Handbook of Public Policy Analysis Theory,
Poli cs, and Methods. Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Kra , Michael & Furlong, Sco . (2020). Public Policy: Poli cs, Analysis, and Alterna ves, 7th Edi on.
Research Gate. h ps://www.researchgate.net/publica on/342276535
Establishing Analysis Criteria. h ps://web.csulb.edu/~msaintg/ppa670/p&sch5.htm
What are Policy Tools? h p://www.mrclancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Policy-Tools.pdf
10

ft
ti
ti
fi
ff

ti
ti
ti
ti

tt
ti
ff
tt
tt
ti
ti
tt
tt
ti
ti
ti
ti

fi
ti

ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti

ti
ft
ti
ti
ti
ff

ti
ti
ti

ti