See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/342305311

Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches

Article · September 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 8,300

1 author:

Ansuiya Nain
Chaudhary Charan Singh University
8 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Paper: Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches View project

Good Governance in the Indian Context of Rajadharma: A study of Linkages and Contemporary Relevance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ansuiya Nain on 19 June 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Indian Journal of Political Science
Vol. LXXIX, No. 3, July-September, 2018

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Editorial Note
1. Surander Singh Nain 585-592
Changing Dynamics of Indian Federation in the Post Coalition Era

2. Tirthankar Chakraborty 593-600

Thoughts and Contribution of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad:
A Political Review

3. Preeti Singh 601-608

Civil Society, State and Democracy in India: A Conceptual Analysis

4. Sonika Sharma 609-616

Importance of Soft Power in Indian Foreign Policy: Emerging Trends

5. Ansuiya Nain 617-624

Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches

6. Rajeev Ranjan 625-628

Political Participation Induced by Party Affiliation A Study of
Scheduled Caste Women

7. Shobha Kumari Gupta 629-632

Women’s Political Participation An Analysis in Context of Rural India

8. Himashree Patowary 633-638

Indian Women’s Movement Through the Ages: Pre-Independent to
the Era of Globalisation

9. Payal Agarwal, Moushumi Pattnaik 639-646

Contours of Social Exclusion: A Study on Ragpickers in Cuttack City

10. P. Sakthivel 647-650

None of the Above (Nota) in Tamil Nadu Assembly Election 2016

11. Munmun Majumdar 651-656

“An Assessment of the Implications of Border Fencing in Manipur”

12. Vinay Kaura 657-664

Haokamvaiphei Myth and Reality of India-China Cooperation
on Counter Terrorism
13. Torque Mude 665-670
Confronting An Imperialist Court: Africa’s Quagmire in Dealing
with the International Criminal Court

14. Harminder Singh, Ritesh Mishra 671-676

Strategic Relations and Security Concerns of India Regarding
China: A Review

15. Sanjay Gupta 677-686

Twenty Years of International Criminal Court: Why Should
India Stay Away from the ICC?

16. Neeru Sharma 687-692

Political Empowerment of Women in Punjab

17. Renuca Rajni Beck 693-700

Tribal Women in Tea Plantation: A Process of Empowerment in
Terai Region of North Bengal

18. Sushila Bedi Dubey 701-708

Sino – U.S. Relations and India (Since 2001)
 The Indian Journal of Political Science
Vol. LXXIX, No. 3, July-September, 2018

Contributors List

1. Ms. Ansuiya Nain, Research Assistant, Department of Political Science, Chaudhary Charan
Singh University, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh)
2. Mr. HaokamVaiphei, Research Scholar, Dept of Political Science, North-Eastern Hill University,
Shillong (Meghalaya)
3. Mr. Harminder Singh, Department of Political Science, OPJS University, Churu (Rajasthan)
4. Ms. Himashree Patowary, Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Assam University,
Silchar (Assam)
5. Dr. Moushumi Pattnaik, Assistant Professor, P.G. Dept. of Political Science, Shailabala Women’s
Autonomous College, Cuttack (Odisha)
6. Dr. Munmun Majumdar, Associate Professor Dept of Political Science, North-Eastern Hill
University, Shillong (Meghalaya)
7. Dr. Neeru Sharma, Head, Political Science Department, B. D. Arya Girls College, Jalandhar
Cantt, Jalandhar (Punjab)
8. Dr. P. Sakthivel, Associate Professor, Political Science and Public Administration, Annamalai
University, Annamalai Nagar, (Tamilnadu)
9. Ms. Payal Agarwal, M. Phil. Scholar, P.G. Dept. of Political Science, Shailabala Women’s
Autonomous College, Cuttack (Odisha)
10. Dr. Preeti Singh, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Vasanta College for
Women, Rajghat, Varanasi (Uttar Pradesh)
11. Dr. Rajeev Ranjan, Post Doctoral Fellow, Department of Political Science, Patna University,
Patna (Bihar)
12. Ms. Renuca Rajni Beck, Assistant Professor in Political Science, Siliguri Mahila Mahavidyalaya,
Siliguri (West Bengal)
13. Dr. Ritesh Mishra, Department of Political Science, OPJS University, Churu (Rajasthan)
14. Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Professor, Deptt. of Political Science, Lucknow University, Lucknow (Uttar
Pradesh)
15. Dr. Shobha Kumari Gupta, Ph D, (Food and Consumer Protection Department, Govt. of Bihar,
(Bihar)
16. Ms. Sonika Sharma, Research Scholar, Department of Political Science, Vidyasagar University,
Midnapore (West Bengal)
17. Dr. Surander Singh Nain, Associate Professor, Head, Department of Political Science, Gandhi
Memorial National (P.G.) College, Ambala Cantt (Haryana)
18. Dr. Sushila Bedi Dubey, Lecturer in Political Science, Ginnidevi Satyanarain Shekhsaria Girls
(PG) College, Chirawa, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
19. Mr. Tirthankar Chakraborty, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Parimal
Mitra Smriti Mahavidyealayea, Malbazar, Jalpaiguri (West Bengal)
20. Ms. Torque Mude, Lecturer of Political Science at Midlands State University, Zimbabwe
21. Dr. Vinay Kaura, Assistant Professor, Department of International Affairs and Security Studies,
Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, and University’s Centre for
Peace and Conflict Studies, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
The Indian Journal of Political Science
Vol. LXXIX, No. 3, July-September, 2018, pp. 617-624 (ISSN NO. 0019-5510)

PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION IN INDIA:

AN ANALYSIS OF THE APPROACHES

Ansuiya Nain

We are a country, full of paradoxes. The forward-looking elite in the country emphasize the need for
re-skilling but conduct this with backward-looking institutions. We want to be a knowledge economy
without reflecting and contemplating on the demands of the knowledge society. As a result, we lack the
institutions to be systematically innovative and our policies seem short run and sometimes erratic. We
are being out-fought and out-thought in the realm of knowledge and policy, while confusing rhetorical
victories for real-time gains. The recent debates around growth, development and the fate of ecology
have also raised issues that public policy must attempt to answer.

An attempt has been made in the present article
to study public policy formulation in India, the role of
policy intellectuals as well as the public intellectuals
in the process, the aspirations of our knowledge
society and how the public policy framework actually
imbibes into its sphere these demands and then
how these resultant policies are churned out of the
administrative machinery. Various approaches that
are used and sought after in the process have been
discussed comprehensively with their advantages
and disadvantages namely, institutional approach,
neo institutional approach, incremental rationalism,
strategic policy model, analytical rationalism, rational
process model, normative optimum model, group
theoretic approach et cetera. The article also attempts
to explain the lacunae in the process, the flaws and
failures of the policy formulation, the reasons thereof
and how these could be improved upon through
suggestions and reforms.
Public policy is a long-term strategic and
visionary decision. It is necessarily comprehensive,
based on rational choices, effective towards the larger
public good, efficient in its functioning with an eye
for administrative feasibility, easily intelligible and
sensitive towards the needs and aspirations of the
people at large, while keeping the social environment
of the particular system in constant interaction with
the system itself.
Public policies are primarily framed by the
government to satisfy public needs and demands.
They are the means by which, ends of a collective
community are served. Without policy, government
and administration are rudderless. Successful
policies make for successful governments as well as
administration. There is a saying that when the policy
fails, the government fails.1
It is the object of administrative study to discover,
first, what government can properly and successfully
do, and, secondly, how it can do these proper things
with the utmost possible efficiency and at the least
possible cost either of money or of energy.2
Even at this preliminary stage we should
comment on the juxtaposition of policy and science
in the term policy sciences. Science connotes the
competence in the pursuit of empirically verifiable
knowledge and is often perceived as value neutral;
policy on the contrary is commonly assumed to
be value oriented.3 Scientific enquiries are itself
undertaken when the prime value of human curiosity
reaches its apex level.
Public policy is an amalgam of two components-
public and policy. Public administration is an
instrument of the state to serve the interest of the
public rather than private yearnings. Hence public has
to mean consisting of people at large having something
in common and politically speaking, government is
the main apparatus to serve the needs as well as the
demands of the public. The term policy means a plan
of action towards a particular goal. Robert Presthus
defines policy as a choice made by an individual or
group of individuals that explains; justifies, guides,

Ms. Ansuiya Nain, Research Assistant, Department of Political Science, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (Uttar
Pradesh)
618
or outlines a certain course of action.4 Thus, policy
can be defined as 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. Public policy is whatever government
chooses to do or not to do.5 Hence, all the actions as
well as the inactions are included in the circumference
of public policy ambit. James E. Anderson defines
public policy as a purposive course of action followed
by an actor or set of actors in dealing with a problem
or matter of concern.6 This contextual definition
focuses on what is actually done on contrary to what
is proposed or intended to be done. Yehezkel Dror
defines public policy making as a dynamic process
which decides major guidelines for action directed
at the future mainly by the governmental organs.
These guidelines formally aim at achieving what is
in the public interest by the best possible means.7
Hence, public policy is a declaration of goals, course
of action and an authoritative decision towards the
pursuit of achieving pre-defined ends.
Jawaharlal Nehru started the Indian Institute
of Public Administration on the basis of the Paul
Appleby report, making public policy fill in the
empty space between management and public
administration. Public administration is more a
monument to the bureaucratic ego in India than to
administrative reflexivity. Public policy is one of the
fields of the future, linking as it does new notions
of empowerment in democracy with new ideas of
knowledge in policy. What makes public policy
exciting, protean and potentially inventive is the
contested nature of the public sphere. It is anchored
in a diversity of perspectives which challenges
the dominance of one subject. We are looking for
new modes of knowledge which are intercultural,
interdisciplinary and holistic. The emphasis is now on
emergence rather than certainty.
As the relationship between society and its
various public institutions became more complex
and more independent, the need developed for more
comprehensive assessments of what governments do-
how and why they pursue some policy alternatives
over others8. Linking the two fields of knowledge and
power can surely create new realms in public policy
formulations. It also creates two kinds of intellectuals,
the policy intellectual and the public intellectual. The
distinction is critical. The policy intellectual serves as
The Indian Journal of Political Science
an extension of the state. He/ She is more a product
of think tanks which strictly cater to the needs of
policy interests of the state or of corporations and
companies. A public intellectual is a figure who
provides a wide ranging critique of policy, and looks
more creatively at the relation between knowledge
and power. A knowledge society needs both sets of
intellectuals. The policy intellectual when takes his
expertise for granted, the public intellectual questions
the nature of expertise, probing deeper into the ethics
and genealogy of ideas.
In the late 1960s Edward S. Quade noted a number
of converging factors, such as war, poverty, crime,
race, relations and pollution that could be credited
for producing great interest in policy sciences9. In the
recent times also the study of public policy has evolved
into practically a new branch of social science that
is policy sciences. In the post- liberalization period,
India has had more policy than public intellectuals
with think tanks like the Center for Policy Research
(CPR) and the Observer Research Foundation (ORF)
dominating the scene. Public policy formulation has
not really articulated the views of the public sphere.
In fact, the foremost challenges to policy came from
the social movements and from civil society which
identified policy and experts as mere extensions to
the state and saw the need to revitalize this approach
of policy planning. The movements that grew around
the Bhopal gas tragedy, the Narmada dam, the
narratives of displacement and dispossession raised
deep questions about public policy. As a concomitant
corollary, governance is now seen no longer as a
statist exercise but the question of governance has
now started involving civil society, articulating new
epistemologies, notions of citizenship, ideas about the
democratization of knowledge and the assessment of
public policy impacts. Governance has got tucked to
democracy, with public sphere becoming crucial and
public policy a critical field.
The contemporary political dispensation has, in
its initial months empower, come out with an idea
of transforming the age old institution of Planning
Commission into National Institute of Transforming
India (NITI) Aayog. Incidentally the present regime
appears to be conflating the incarnation of NITI Aayog
as a powerful instrument In fact, our new regime
talks of the demise of the Planning Commission as
a feather in its cap. It of achieving the goal of co-
Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches
operative federalism and De-centralised decision
making. Although the claims been scientifically and
systematically substantiated or scrutinised.
The Indian constitution in its Preamble entails
of making the Indian state a ‘Democratic Socialist
Republic’ but post 1990 political developments
administrative decisions and economic policies have
predominantly been tilted towards promoting free
market economy and adhering to the global trajectory
to achieve more and more proximity to globalisation.
This ideological dilemma and operational
contradiction resulted in legal and academic debates
throughout the country over last three decades, the
end result of all this appears to be that we are tangled,
regulatory society without being “socialist” in terms
of justice, which we set out to be.
Our knowledge society does not differentiate
between information and knowledge. Knowledge
is embodied, epistemic, and has tacit elements. By
confusing information with knowledge, we seem
to be lacking in critical and abstract thinking, the
meta-languages and the heuristics that go into the
definition of knowledge. We are seeing education
and knowledge in instrumental terms. We are
consuming knowledge but we rarely add creatively to
the stockpile. The contemporary India has become a
consumer of knowledge rather than a translator and
inventor of knowledge systems as it used to be in past
glorious times.
It is a thing almost taken for granted among us,
that the present movement called civil service reform
must, after the accomplishment of its first purpose,
expand into efforts to improve, not the personnel
only, but also the organization and methods of our
government offices: because it is plain that their
organization and methods need improvement only
less than their personnel.10
What makes public policy exciting and
potentially inventive is the contested nature of
the public sphere. It is anchored in a diversity of
perspectives which challenges the dominance of
one subject. The use of policies is vital in the task
of planning a course of action which helps executive
to keep his activities within a prescribed framework
of action. Policies give meaning to the objectives by
providing concrete form of goals. Public policy is
619
related to public and is opposed to the idea of private
on the other hand.
There are numerous approaches to the study of
public policy. We will be discussing and evaluating
the adequacy of these approaches in this section.
The purpose is to simplify and clarify the thinking
about government and politics, to identify important
political forces in the society, to communicate
relevant knowledge about political life, to pave way
for inquiry into politics, and to suggest possible
explanations for political events and outcomes. These
approaches represent different ways of looking at the
public policies, these are not mutually exclusive but
each has distinct focus and each suggests specific
things about political life and policy.
Public policies having their origin in government
institutions that formulates and implements them, this
is purely institutional approach to the study of public
policy.11 Government lends legitimacy to the policies
and it becomes public only when it is authoritatively
determined by the former’s institutions. It uses
structural changes in the institutional arrangements
to bring policy changes. The institutions not only
constitute a crucial and significant juncture for
policy making, but also determine the formulation or
adoption of policies, it’s possible content, direction
and the exact as well as possible trends and contours
that a body of similar or related policies acquire,
providing it legality, coercion and universalism.
Institutional structure and public policy are within a
given environment having its own culture, traditions
and values thus both influencing each other.
Two major aspects of institutions are seen
here, legality or the legitimacy of the institutions
being executive, statutory or constitutional and
the structure of the organization. Different types of
institutions involved in policy making bring different
types of legitimacy to the policy making process;
judiciary bringing in the legal and constitutional
legitimacy; legislature brings the popular legitimacy
through the elected representatives of Lok Sabha
and federal legitimacy through the representatives of
the state in Rajya Sabha; political executive brings
in the democratic and participative legitimacy;
permanent executive bringing in the administrative
legitimacy; participative institutions and Panchayati
Raj Institutions bringing in the grass root legitimacy;
620
independent agencies bringing in the right based
legitimacy; and advisory boards bringing in the expert
and professional legitimacy to the public policy
process. Despite of all these institutional arrangements
made for the purpose, our legislatures hardly have the
required time, capacity or expertise and as a result
policies are only prepared in the skeleton forms, most
of the detailed drafts are prepared by field experts and
administrators. The main activity and the concern
of public administration is implementing laws and
policies of the government. Bureaucracies make
policy and in essence make laws. The laws passed by
legislatures are often general and require elaboration
by administrators. The secondary legislation prepared
by the bureaucracy not only makes the meaning of
the laws clearer but it permits the application of the
expertise of the career administrators to policy. In
addition they also advice politicians who are formally
responsible for policy making.12
Public policies which have their origin in
socio- political institutions fall under the category
of neo-institutional approach. Main emphasis in this
approach is laid on the role of formal institutions
like legislature, Panchayati Raj Institutions; and
the informal institutions like pressure groups, non-
government organizations, civil society, political
parties, media, etc. Part of the problem of formulation
of public policy also lies in the fact that prevailing
trends in political science have put heaviest stress
on the politics rather than the government side of
the field. This approach has been divided into four
different types namely: Distributive policies relating to
beneficiaries, to whom the services are disseminated,
especially, welfare and development programs, which
requires participation of people instead of any coercive
force and is more of a decentralized policy. For
example; Land policies, tariffs, subsidies, Mahatma
Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act,
Public Distribution System, National Rural Health
Mission, Sarv Siksha Abhiyan, etc. Redistributive
policies are based on haves and have nots wherein
policy making becomes centralized as there is a
deliberate effort for re-distribution, and coercive force
is required for this purpose. For example; progressive
income tax, social security, federal reserve controls
of credit, reservation, land reforms, etc. Policies
related to regulating affairs come under the umbrella
of regulative policies. Here the focus is on regulating
people, which gets regulated through coercion and
The Indian Journal of Political Science
some centralization is also required. For example,
elimination of substandard goods, unfair competition,
fraudulent advertising, taxation policy, fiscal policy,
internal security, law and order policy, defense policy,
etc. In the Constituent policies, the focus is on sectors
or functions with obvious political control over the
policy experts who shape the policies at their own
whims and fancies. Focus here is on the client of
that sector with majorly consultative and advisory
roles. For example; reapportionment, setting up a
new agency, agriculture policy, environment policy,
etc. If we wished to introduce strong national parties
into our system, we might try to pursue more goals
through constituent policies, like effective public
propaganda in the birth control field, or dealing with
monopolies by changing the rules protecting their
limited liability rather than by adding regulations
affecting their conduct.13
Another contemporary approach is Incremental
Rationalism which focuses that instead of sudden
major shifts we can have incremental changes which
are small and successive. Herein we are looking
for few alternatives only which differ very little
from the existing policy. Thus, analyzing fewer
consequences of these alternatives, taking fewer
factors into consideration, it is based on the branch
method of decision making rather than root method.
Foreign policies are generally good examples of
incrementalism. Zero-based approach offers an anti-
thesis approach to incrementalism.
Strategic Policy Model or Analytical
Rationalism is basically an improvement upon
incremental model. Emitai Etzioni has criticized the
work of Charles Lindblom on the basis that there are
different participant interests and different degrees
of importance. Simple incrementalism will lead to
continuation of domination of these interests which
are well established in the society through the various
public policies. Bureaucrats would believe in this
model as they resist much change and have acquired
strategic positions in the systematic bureaucratic
arrangements. But this approach is essential to remove
biasness and always looks at the policies in the light
of newer and contemporary demands emerging in the
society and always have a scope for betterment and
amendments.
In the matters of policy making, Lane observes,
Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches
“It should be pointed out that there is one well-known
public choice model that underlines the preferences
or interests of citizens: the vote popularity model. It
predicts that the popularity of a government depends
on how the voters perceive the economy, in particular
their reaction to the rate of inflation and the level of
unemployment.”14
Rational process model is all about; setting up
of goals and priorities, searching for alternatives,
gathering information on alternatives, cost-benefit
analysis and a rationally sound choice. The following
ways are suggested for increasing rationality;
involving experts and experienced people, making it as
contestable as possible, involving market mechanism,
use of technology, use of mathematical and statistical
tools, having knowledge about political institutions,
increasing knowledge and information about the
number and varieties of options and alternatives
available. Rationality is concerned with the selection
of preferred behaviour alternatives in terms of some
system of values whereby the consequences of
behaviour can be evaluated.15 Rationality is always
bounded. Any policy decision cannot be hundred
percent rational. As Meyerson and Banfield concluded
in their study of Chicago public housing. Obviously
no decision can be perfectly rational choice since no
one can ever know all the alternatives open to him
at any moment or all the consequences which would
follow from any action.16 According to Simon, three
kinds of activities are involved in a rational process:
intelligence activity, design activity and choice
activity.17 Many considerations of interests, perceived
notions and value systems are used in finally reaching
at suitable policy alternative, as Simon also observed,
Human beings make most of their decisions, not
in terms of individual self-interest, but in terms
of the perceived interests of the groups, families,
organizations, ethnic groups and national states with
which they identify and to whom they are loyal.18 We
need a combined standard for judging the desirability
of policies able to pass the test of what is politically
feasible, ideologically acceptable and rationally
compelling and such a common standard can never
be developed.19
Normative Optimum Model is an improvement
on rational method model which focuses too much on
facts while neglecting values, here the idea is to include
values and irrationalities into the policy making
621
process, some of these aspects include; inclusion
of rational elements, application of management
techniques at lower levels in the organization,
application of policy sciences approach at the higher
levels of the organization, inclusion of irrational
elements. Yehezkel Dror suggested three stages in the
policy making process, Meta policy making, policy
making and post policy making. All the three needs
to be kept in mind and should be followed in order to
increase the optimality of the policy making process
to the largest possible extent.
Group Theoretic approach of policy is a result of
contest among competing groups to maximize their
interest, making it more relevant in the legislative
arena than the executive arena of policy making.
Legislature would have large number of formal and
informal groups for particularistic interests. It is
often argued that public choice model scores low
on moral attractiveness as public policy is modified
as only rent-seeking behavior from special interest
groups.20 Wherein each group is trying hard to adjust
and accommodate his own interest into the larger
umbrella of public policy sphere. To quote Earl
Latham, ‘what may be called public policy is actually
the equilibrium reached in the group struggle at any
given moment, and it represents a balance which the
contending fractions or groups constantly strive to tip
in their favour.’21
Despite of all these theoretical frameworks
available for the policy professionals there have been
numerous flaws and lacunas in the actually formed
and framed policies. The reason and causes of its
failure have been diverse. Excessive fragmentation
in thinking and action wherein actually analyzing
the consequences and practical aspects we tend
to formulate policies purely based on whims and
instincts. There have also been seen, excessive overlap
between policy making and implementation process,
the implementing team at the field is unaware of the
technicalities of the policy frameworks and does not
have the expertise to implement in the reality. Thus,
the policy framers also should keep in mind the
practicality of the policies. Therefore, the broad gap
between the theory and practice should be reduced.
Different kinds of uncertainties often accompany
programs. Space, inputs, technology, and even staff
may not be available at specific time and locations,
622
impeding thereby the takeoff of the program.
Resources may fall short of requirements and may not
be flowing in time. Many government programs cut
across departments, and therefore success depends
on inter-agency coordination, interpersonal relations,
superior- subordinate relations, inability to monitor
results in time. In this context, the importance of
administrative feedback needs to be emphasised.22
At times over centralization is hazardous for the
democratic ethos of the country and which even affects
the implementation process. Implementing agencies
being in the direct control of the authority looses its
instincts and sometimes authority sitting at the center
is unaware of the ground realities. Decentralization
would help in catering to the regional imbalances and
specifically crafted policies for the particular ethno-
geographical entity can also be effectively applied.
Another drawback is focusing on operational
convenience rather than on public needs, demands
and aspirations. Politicians, in haste of fulfilling
their election manifestos just after winning over the
elections, try to bring about major policy reforms
suitable to their own ideologies. Hence, these
manifestos and political party’s guidelines are the
major factors in deciding upon the possible course
of public policy rather than the feasibility and actual
need of the hour.
There is also a lack of non-governmental inputs
into the policy making process as we earlier discussed
about the role of public intellectuals who are more
aware of the ground realities as they are part of the
civil society who stays more closer to the public. They
have much casual and intimate interactions with the
public at large, which makes them more aware of the
problems pertaining to the framed policies and lacunae
in the implementation. Thus, they are placed in a better
position for recommending better course of action and
suggesting better policy alternatives that would cater
to the people’s good. Informed debate is always handy
in making the public sphere as contestable as possible
for articulation of varied interests. All should have
equal chances of representation; and this can also help
in constructive feedback. Informed debate helps in
protecting the interests of individual consumers of the
policy which otherwise is not possible. The pre-policy
process should also be given much emphasis as the
policy framing itself as it would help in pre-analyzing
The Indian Journal of Political Science
the pros and cons of the given policy beforehand
henceforth saving the time and resources and testing
the feasibility of the policy. Thus, poor pre-policy
consultative process is also a cause of failure in the
process of public policy.
Another major problem that we face in the public
policy sphere is the lack of identification of stake
holders. The actual beneficiaries of the policy should
be earmarked in advance and policies should be
targeted for redressing their problems. Identification
of beneficiaries will also help in making policy
focused and providing the desired results. Thus,
preventing the wastage of men, material, time and
resources.
Various measures could be adopted to strengthen
the policy making process and to make it more public,
transparent and feasible, like, implementation of a
well-designed career path which has strong incentives
for the progressive acquisition of expertise and
professional skills is very necessary step in order
to appreciate the capable policy intellectuals and
promote an environment of healthy competition.
Designing of a career path which creates
incentives to learn, to acquire and apply the right
skills, strengthens links between academia and the
administration would help both the intellectual and
policy sphere. A system which identifies and weeds
out poor performers ensuring that only those with
the requisite knowledge and intelligence make it to
the top policy levels, creating structures for ensuring
availability of non-governmental inputs and opinions
of subject matter experts. Policy advisory group must
be formed, consisting of, selected top civil servants
covering related sectors, stakeholders and industry
representatives, academics with expertise in the field.
These groups should cut across departmental egos
and offer integrated policy suggestions.
Public policy is an instrument in the hand of
the executive and cannot be questioned in the courts
of law. One can of course criticize or question the
rationale / basis upon which the policy is framed.
One can also challenge the faulty implementation and
might seek redress for it through judicial process. The
platform to judge the credibility of policies is when
the incumbent government seeks to renew its mandate
through elections, wherein it directly comes under
Public Policy Formulation in India: An Analysis of the Approaches
people’s scrutiny and is judged as good or bad.
How big should government be? The
American answer is to keep government small and
to suspect and criticize expansion of governmental
power. But it is also recognized that government
intervention is needed in the economy, energy,
planning, environmental protection and so on. We
have sufficient trouble in making up our mind how
much government we want. Americans want various
forms of government intervention, but scarcely is
the ink on new laws dry before we begin to criticize
governmental bungling. The Europeans generally do
not suffer from this kind of split personality. They
mostly accept that government has a major role to
play and try to live with this fact. Cradle to grave
welfare system is extensively implemented.23
Today public policy making has become a
complex task involving not only elected officials
and public servants but also a host of other private
agencies. The global markets have given rise to
new issues of public concern that require global
solutions. For better policy alternatives, government
must increasingly work with other governments,
non-government organizations and international
organizations. Governments continue to play key role
in setting the legal and political rules of governance,
balancing interests and insuring that principles
of democracy and social justice are respected.
Public servants are called upon to play new roles of
facilitation, negotiation and conflict resolution.
Revolutions in knowledge have been catalyzed
by the new demands of democracy. Democracy is no
more a passive exercise of citizenship reduced only to
the exercise of periodic elections. Today, democracy
is more proactive. The citizens know more and
demand more. Their active role is required to sustain a
society. The public sphere today is more dynamic and
contested. Ethics, science, suffering and philosophy
cannot be ignored in any debate today. A student
has to reach into the best of the academe to answer
the new challenges to citizenship. One has to dream
futuristically in realistic terms. A subject like public
policy is an invitation to construct a feasible future.
It will be interesting to see how many citizens accept
this challenge and construct the dream of a different
623
India.
References:
1. Chakrabarty, Bidyut, et al, Public Administration in
a Globalizing World, Sage Publications, New Delhi,
2013, p.181.
2. Wilson, Woodrow, The Study of Administration, Politi-
cal Science Quarterly, Vol. 2, No. 2 June., 1887, p. 197.
3. Lasswell, D. Harold, A Pre- View of Policy Sciences,
American Elsevier Publishing, 1971, pp. 2-3.
4. Presthus, Robert, Public Administration, The Ronald
Press Company, New York, 6th Edition, 1975, p.14.
5. Dye, R. Thomas, Understanding Public Policy, En-
glewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 6th Edition
,1987, p.2.
6. Anderson, E. James, Public Policy Making, Thomas
Nelson and Sons Ltd, New York, 1975, p.3.
7. Dror, Yehezkel, Public Policy Making Re-Examined,
Leonard Hill Books, San Francisco, 1974, p.12.
8. Gerston, Larry N., Public Policy Making: Process and
Principles, M.E. Sharpe, Armonk, New York, 1974, p.3.
9. Quade, Edward S., ‘Why Policy Sciences’ Policy Sci-
ence, 1(Spring), 1970, p.1.
10. Wilson, Woodrow, The Study of Administration,
op.cit.p. 197.
11. Bhattacharya, Mohit, New Horizons of Public Admin-
istration, Jawahar Publishers and Distributors, New
Delhi, 8th Edition, 2011, p.125.
12. C. Kerwin, Rulemaking, Washington: C.Q. Press,
1999, p.2000.
13. Jane-Erik Lane, The Public Sector, Sage Publication,
London, 2000, p. 75.
14. Lowi, J. Theodore, Four Systems of Policy, Politics,
and Choice, Public Administration Review, Vol. 32,
No. 4. Jul. - Aug., 1972, p. 309.
15. Simon, Herbert, On the Concept of Organization-
al Goal, Administration Science Quarterly, Vol.9,
No.1(June 1964) p. 75.
 624
16. Meyerson, Martin and Banfield, Edward C., Politics,
Planning and the Public Interest: The Case of Pub-
lic Housing in Chicago, Free Press; London, 1964,
pp.314-5.
17. Herbert Simon, The New Science of Management De-
cision, Harper, New York, 1960
18. Simon, Herbert, Why public administration? Public
Administration Review, Vol.58, no. 1, January-Febru-
ary 1998.
19. Rein, Martin, Social Science and Public Policy, Pen-
guin, 1976, p.170.
View publication stats
The Indian Journal of Political Science
20. Buchanan, J.M., et al., Towards a Theory of the Rent-
Seeking Society, College Station, TX: Texas University
Press,1980.
21. Lathom, Earl, The Group Basis of Politics, in Heinz
Eulau, Samuel J. Eldersveld and Morris Janowitz,
(eds.) Political Behaviour, Free Press, New York,1956.
22. Bhattacharya, Mohit, New Horizons Of Public Admin-
istration, op.cit., pp.134-135.
23. Roskin, Michael G.,et al, Political Science: An Intro-
duction, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
3rd Edition, 1988, pp. 368-369