College : ARTS AND SCIENCES

Campus : BAMBANG

DEGREE BSPA COURSE NO.

PROGRAM
SPECIALIZATION COURSE TITLE

YEAR LEVEL TIME FRAME 6 HRS WK 1-2 IM 2

NO. NO.

I. UNIT TITLE/CHAPTER TITLE

POLICY MAKING PROCESS

II. LESSON TITLE

1. Stages of Policy Making Process
a. Policy Initiation/Agenda Setting
b. Policy Formulation
c. Policy Implementation
d. Policy Evaluation

III. LESSON OVERVIEW

Policies address pertinent issues, such as what constitutes acceptable behavior by employees.
Procedures clearly define a sequence of steps to be followed in a consistent manner, such as the
organization will respond to any policy violations.
The role of policy in an organization is to provide general guidance about the organization’s mission.
It provides specific guidance toward implementing strategies to achieve organization’s mission. Provide
mechanism to control the behavior of the organization.

IV. DESIRED LEARNING OUTCOMES

At the end of these lesson, the students should be able to:
1. Understand the rationale behind the stages of policy making;
2. Analyze issues and concerns in agenda setting;
3. Know what entails policy formulation;
4. Understand why policy implementation is the most problematic area in the stages of policy making;
and
5. Analyze the importance of policy review on its overall impact.

V. LESSON CONTENT
 CHAPTER 2
1. STAGES IN THE POLICY MAKING PROCESS
The policy process relates to the mechanisms through which public government policy is made. Policy
making is a process in two aspects. First, it involves a linked series of actions or events. This commences
with the germination of ideas and the initiations of proposals, continues with some form of debate, analysis
and evaluation; and concludes with the making of formal decisions and their implementation through
designated actions. Policy making therefore is similar to the process of digestion in the human body; it links
certain inputs to particular outputs. Second, it is the process in the sense that it distinguishes the “how” of
the government from the “what” of the government. That is, it focuses on the way in which the policy is
made (product). Ultimately, policy can be

Environment
Situationer

Feedback

Policy Decision Implementation Criticism from

Agenda
or of a Citizens and Formal
Setting Non-Decision New Program Program Evaluation

Figure 14. A. Political Environment: The Public Policymaking Process

Stages of
Policymaking Process

Policy Initiation Process

Policy Formulation Process

Policy Implementation Process

Policy Evaluation Process

Figure 14. B. A Framework for Policymaking Process

evaluated only in the light of its impact, according to “what actually happens”.

A. POLICY INITIATION /AGENDA SETTING

The first question to ask here is: “Where does policy come from? How do policy agenda emerged?”
Initiation is the primary stage of policy agenda that resulted from an issue regarded to come out as a
problem if not attended to appropriately. Initiation refers to the making of decisions in a certain aspect
where policy initiation determines the political agenda through identification of emerging problems as issue
of relevance, and by determining how those significant matters are to be responded to by the government.
Agenda setting is the process by which ideas or issues bubble up through the various political channels
to wind up for the consideration by a political institution such as a legislator or court. The agenda setting
process often makes the extensive use of the mass media to take a relatively unknown or unsupported
issue and, through publicity, expand the numbers of people who care about the issue so that an institution
is forced to take some action. For example, why did the Philippines take public ownership of most
companies in the 1970s and then sell them out to the private sector in the early 1990s? this is a question of
policy initiation about the decision to control state ownership and later on privatize them.
On one side, the problem with policy initiation is that policy may originate from any part of the political
system. Policy initiation can be influenced from top leaders, state bureaucrats or lawmakers or “from
above”. On the other side, policy can be influenced “from below” like interest groups, political parties, the
mass media, and so forth. In the form of policy “from above”, policy initiation views to stir support from the
omnipotent vision of a leader or from the ideological perspective of a ruling party og group. They are called
transformational leaders who have the outside capability to carry out a major structural change in the
society like Marcos of the Philippines for his New Society campaign during the 1970s.

Policy initiation from “bottom” is also worth noting. The actors involved can, to a great extent, influence
the policy direction of the state. As what Heywoods (2002) in Lazo stated in this regard:
Public opinion clearly plays a significant role in this process insofar as regular and competitive elections
force aspiring leaders to form policy proposals that take account popular concerns and aspirations.
Opposition parties, for example, do not merely criticize government policy; they also develop alternative
policies in an attempt to appear to be viable parties of government. Interest groups, for their part, highlight a
broad array of grievances and concerns, promote causes and ideals, and give expression to the interest
groups and sections of society. In the case of think tanks, interest groups have been formed specifically to
develop policy proposals and to campaign for their acceptance among key players in the policy process.
Aside from political actors who do influence policy, we can also include three forces that influence policy
initiation like the media, science and technology. Policy initiation focuses on the issue as to which the
government pays attention to, and the decisions that the government may take. The media influence policy
initiation through press releases either in print or in broadcast. They have the capability to cause public
panic, outcry or agitate the situation. Science too is definitely influential, the current concern on
environmental issues and global warming effects rest primarily on scientific assessments of their future
implications and from there policy initiatives towards the protection of the planet and its citizens may come
in many forms. Technological innovations in management can likewise persuade better governance of
public administration like the adoption of e-government system around the world.
Political leaders propagate the ideological or leadership thrust to the public mostly coming from the
advices of their political think tanks or from various theories and philosophies of practical politics. The role
of theories and philosophies in the process of policy initiation is the ability to advance core values that can
be translated into actual specific policy proposals like the idea of conservatism by Edmund Burke, John
Stuart Mill’s philosophy of liberal democracy and the socialism principle advanced by Karl Marx.
 An issue is
identified by
citizens, groups
or a public policy

High publicity like press Because of the noise

releases, violence and the created by its supporters,
media, the issue then is formal decision-makers
expanded too larger are forced to consider
audience this issue

Figure 14. C. The Agenda Setting Process

Anthony Downs attempts to explain the way in which many policy problems evolve in the political agenda.
The cycle is premised on the notion that the public attention rarely remains focused on any one issue.
Downs in Shafritz (2009) said that the cycle consists of five steps:
1. The pre-problem stage (an undesirable social condition exist but has not captured public attention);
2. Alarmed discovery and euphoric enthusiasm (a dramatic event catalyzes the public attention,
accompanied by an enthusiasm to solve the problem);
3. Recognition of the costs of change (the public gradually realized the difficulty of implementing
meaningful change);
4. Decline of public interests (people became discouraged or bored or a new issue claims attention); and
5. The post-problem stage (although the issue has not been solved, it has been dropped from the nation’s
agenda).

B. POLICY FORMULATION
Policy formulation is the job for government officials, politicians, consulted groups and key advisers.
Policy formulation entails also the definition of issues, framing of objectives, and setting of priorities. There
is also the review and analysis from the differing policy choices resulting in the adoption of a most preferred
option. From this portion there are factors that would likely be regarded like the political electoral culture
and consensus of the people other than the traditional administrative goals of efficiency, effectiveness and
economy.
Once an issue is determined to exist, a more careful and planned collaboration takes place, this
time systematic policy proposal. Policy formulation is the conceptualization stage of policy process where
the detailed development of policy is framed into more or less concrete proposals. Formulation of policy
includes “not only the translation of broad proposals into specific and detailed recommendations, but also
the filtering out of proposals and perhaps even the fundamental recasting of the issue under consideration.

As Heywoods (2002) puts it, it is important to note, however, that the final decision which brings the
formulation process to an end, may be little more, than a formality: discussion, arguments, and debate
having summits thus often ratify or “rubber stamp” decisions that have effectively been made elsewhere.
While, public opinion, interest and cause oriented groups, the media and the like, stands to influence or
modify the objective setting, it should always be considered that the priorities identified in the policy by
original formulators have no guarantees to be executed in the like substance and in the same manner so
intended by those policy implementers.
Policy maker react to the complex and difficult decisions they take. One important manner in which
they may differ is in the style or approach to the decision they made. A decision maker may either be
incremental or radical. In analyzing policy formulation, analyst have developed two models, the incremental
model (Lindblom’s 1979) and rational model (Simon’s 1983) as indicated:

Table 10. Rational and Incremental Models of Policymaking

Rational Model
Goals are set before means are
considered.
A good policy is the most
appropriate for the desired ends.
Analysis is comprehensive, all
effects of all options are
addressed.
Theory is heavily used.
Incremental Model
Goals and means are considered
together.
A good policy is one in which all
main actors can agree.
Analysis is selected. The object is
good policy, not the best policy.
Comparison with similar is heavily
used.

Source: Modified from Lindblom (1959:81) and Parsons (1995:285) in Hague’s Policy
Process cited in Lazo, 2009
Incrementalism suggest the theory that decisions are made not in the light of clearcut objectives, but
through small adjustments dictated by changing circumstances. Charles Lindblom is the leading
representative of the incrementalist paradigm. He was one who coined the term disjointed incrementalism
as a description of policy making process. To Henry, the incrementalist paradigm is innately conservative,
new public policies are seen as variations in the past. The policymaker is perceived as a person who does
not have the brains, time and money to fashion truly different policies; he or she accepts the policies of the
past as “satisficing”and legitimate. Incremental policies are nearly always more politically expedient than
are policies that necessitate redistributions of social values. What is more feasible is incremental. To
Shively, a decision maker who operates more incrementally will make only a small change in policy at any
one time, wait to see what the results of that change are, then make another small change, and so on. A
person who is worried about all the uncertainty in devising policies and about the possibility of making big,
costly mistakes will tend to be incrementalist.

Rationalism (Laswell’s) as a way of formulating decisions or policies is posited on the following rational
decision-making approach. Quoting Laswell’s book seven significant phases for every decision should be
considered:
1. The intelligent phase, involving an influx of information;
2. The promoting and recommending phase, involving activities designed to influence the outcome;
3. The prescribing phase, involving the articulation of norms;
4. The invoking phase, involving establishing correspondence between prescriptions and concrete
circumstances;
5. The application phase, in which the prescription is executed;
6. The appraisal phase, assessing intent in relation to effect; and
7. The terminating phase, treating expectations (right) established while the prescription is in force.
No matter how rational we are there seems to be no way anyone could gather all the facts and take into
account every consideration. To Heywoods (2002), a rational model views policy as emerging from a
systematic search for the most efficient means of achieving defined goals. To Shivley (1997), a rational
decision maker is more concerned about lost opportunities than about the possibility of costly error. A
radical is likely to feel that while the incrementalist is creeping upon a decision, a chance for decisive
breakthrough may be lost. Sometimes, says the radical, bold action may accomplished something that
could never be done in steps. As Lazo (2009) observed:
It maybe said that neither one of these approaches or models is necessarily preferable. Partly because
the choice is a matter of individual personality, as some people are more averse with the task than others.
The incrementalists’ caution in the face of uncertainty and complexity makes a lot of sense, and so do the
radicals’ worry that opportunities may be lost through slow, cautious movement.

C. POLICY IMPLEMENTATION
In a broad sense, implementation is he process of putting the government policy into effect; it is the total
process of translating a total mandate, whether an executive order or an enacted statute, into appropriate
program directives and structures that provide services or create goods. Implementation is, thus, the doing
part of public administration. Policy implementation is also called policy execution, meaning putting out the
policy into practice. Putting policy into practice is a technical matter of administration. Furthermore, this
stage of policy process is considered the most problematic area. Traditionally, implementation was taken
for granted and seen only as an aspect of administration and not as a feature of politics.
Policy analysts suggest that to achieve a great deal of desired implementation of a policy, a certain
degree of flexibility too breeds potential drawbacks. The traditional view of implementation adopted a top-
down approach. The question posed was the classical problem of bureaucracy: how to ensure political
direction of unruly public servants. Elected ministers had to secure compliance from the departments and
agencies already committed to pet projects of their own. From a policy perspective, however,
implementation is viewed often as bottom-up approach. Writers in this model asked: “What if circumstances
have changed since the policy was formulated?” That became an issue to deal with.
A top-down approach conceives the task of policy implementation as ensuring that policy execution
delivers the outputs as specified by the policy makers. By contrast, a bottom -up approach considers that
the role of those who execute policy in reshaping broad objectives to fit local and changing circumstances
should be both recognized and welcomed. The bottom-up approach reflects the contemporary emphasis in
governance, with its stress on the multiple actors involved in the policy process.

There are some conditions to be required in order to achieved’ perfect implementation’ in the sense of
ensuring that policy is delivered exactly as intended: a) a unitary administrative system with a single line of
authority to ensure central control; b) uniform norms and rules that operate through the system; c) perfect
obedience or perfect control; d) perfect information, perfect communication and perfect coordination; and e)
sufficient time for administrative resources to be modified.
Towards the end, perfect implementation is not possible or desirable; most of the concerns about policy
implementation have focused on the dangers of flexibility. Flexibility may arise of a number of reasons.
One of these is that those who execute policy may not merely be anxious to use their experience and
‘street level’ knowledge to ensure that implementation is effective, they may also, as public choice theorists
point out wish to protect their professional career and professional interests. Civil servants and public
professionals will then have an obvious incentive to filter out or interpret aspects to public policy that seem
to be threatening or inconvenient.
D. POLICY EVALUATION
The importance of policy review needs to be emphasized on its overall impact. Policy evaluation appraises
outcomes of a policy as implemented; meaning, what the government achieves. Or, how did the policy
affect the lives of the purported stakeholders or beneficiaries? Policy outcomes should be contrasted with
the outputs employed: what the government does from what it attains. Yet, what seems to be undisputable
statement of facts is that the outcomes of the policy process are often very strange from what was originally
intended by those who formulated policy actions and decisions.
The concepts of efficiency and effectiveness, which are the traditional ethos of public administrations, are
the standard criteria for evaluating a policy or government program according to its level of performance
and accomplishment. Any evaluation is an assessment. Shafrits (2009) noted that program evaluation is
the systematic examination of activities undertaken by the government to make a determination about their
effects, both for the short term and the long term.
Policy evaluation is the appraisal of review of a policy being implemented as to its success or
failure. The task of the policy analyst here is to review whether policy has achieved its objectives. Policy
appraisal is the culmination of a course of action, which will result in a decision whether it will be continued,
altered or terminated. This stage completed the policy process in that the result or the information acquired
by means of evaluation can be fed back into the initial and formulation cycles. Thus, this system or review
can build up policy direction and can help refines or improve present policies.
It has been said and overly stated that without the mechanism od policy evaluation, the government
will almost always fail to learn from its experience. In fact in highly developed democracies like the United
States, at least one percent of the funds allotted to any government project or program shall accrue to
system evaluation.
Just as policy implementation in accordance with the top-down model is an unrealistic goal, so
judging policy effectiveness against precise objectives in an implausibly scientific approach to evaluation
(Hauge, 2001). A more bottom-up incremental view is that evaluation should simply gather in the opinions
of all the stakeholders affected by the policy. Evaluation has to be predicted with wide and full collaboration
of all program stakeholders. Agents (funders and implementers) beneficiaries (target groups, potential
adopters); and those who are excluded (victims) (Parsons, 1995). For the policy process to work effectively
in translating inputs into appropriate outputs, it must be open, at all times, to scrutiny and criticism. All too
frequently, a culture of secrecy merely conceals incompetence and provides scope for arbitrary and self-
serving behavior.

I. LEARNING ACTIVITY

1. Discuss the mechanism of the policy making process.

2. Discuss Environment Situationer under figure 14.A
3.
II. ASSIGNMENT

1. What is Policy Initiation?

2. Discuss the role of media in policy initiation.
3. Explain why policy initiation may originate from any part of the political system.

III. EVALUATION

1. Discuss figure 14.C. The agenda Setting Process.

2. Discuss how Policy Formulation is crafted? Whose job is policy formulation? Why?
3. Discuss table 10 Rational and Incremental Models of Policy Making. What is the best model? Why?
4. Explain the importance of Policy evaluation.