Public Policy and the

Bureaucracy
 PUBLIC POLICY

• A policy, in general sense, is a plan of action. To designate something as a policy

implies that a formal decision has been made, giving official sanction to a
particular course of action
• Public policy can therefore be seen as the formal or stated decisions of
government bodies. However, policy is better understood as the linkage between
intentions, actions and results.
• At the level of intentions, policy is reflected in what government says it will do
• At the level of actions, policy is reflected in what government actually does
• At the level of results, policy is reflected in the impact of government on the larger
society
The Policy Process
• The policy process relates to the mechanisms through which the public (government)
policy is made. Policy-making is a process in two senses. First, involves a linked series
of action or events. These commence with the germination of ideas and the initiation of
proposals; continue with some form of debate, analysis and evaluation.
• Policy-making therefore links certain inputs into particular outputs
• Policy-making focuses on the way in which policy is made rather than the substance of
the policy itself and its consequences (its products);
• Policy-making it is about decision-making and includes the various stages involved in
the policy process
Decision-making
• A decision is an act of choice; a selection from a range of options
• It may be difficult to establish how and why decisions are made.
• Decisions are undoubtedly made in different ways by individuals and by groups, within
small bodies and large organizations, and within democratic and autocratic/dictatorial
structures
 Theories of decision-making
1. Rational actor models
• Decision-making models that emphasize human rationality have been generally constructed on
the basis of economic theories such as the Public-choice theory developed by Anthony Downs.
• At the heart of such theories lies the notion of the so-called “economic man,” a model of human
nature that stresses the self-interested pursuit of material satisfaction, calculated in terms of
utility; (a measure of satisfaction, based on the quantity of pleasure over pain, (usually) derived
from material consumption)
• In this light, decisions can be seen to be reached using the following procedures;
1. The nature of the problem is identified
2. An objective goal is selected on the basis of an ordering of individual preferences
3. The available means of achieving this objective are evaluated in terms of their effectiveness,
reliability, costs, and so on
4. A decision is made through the selection of the means most likely to secure the desired end
Criticized as more applicable to individuals who have an ordered set of preferences rather than to
groups. It also fails to take account of psychological, emotional, cultural, and social factors which
have the capacity to introduce irrationality into the process of decision-making.
2. Incremental models
• This is an alternative to the rational-choice model
• Incrementalism carries the notion that decisions are not made in the light of clear-
cut objectives, but through small adjustments dictated by changing circumstances
• This model implies that in practice, decisions tend to be made on the basis of
inadequate information and low levels of understanding, and this discourages
decision-makers from pursuing bold and innovative courses of action
• Policy-making is therefore a continuous, exploratory process: lacking overriding
goals and clear-cut ends, policy makers tend to operate within an existing pattern
or framework, adjusting their position in the light of feedback in the form of
information about the impact of earlier decisions
• This model has the merit of allowing for flexibility and the expression of
divergent views
3. Bureaucratic organization models

• This approach was pioneered by Graham Allison (1971) in his examination of the
US/Soviet decision-making during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
• Two contrasting but related models emerged from this study
• The first, called the “organizational process” model suggests that decisions are
seen to reflect the entrenched culture of the government, department, or agency
that makes them.
• The second theory, the “bureaucratic politics” model emphasizes the impact on
decisions of bargaining between personnel and agencies, each pursuing different
perceived interests
• This approach dismisses the idea of the state as a monolith united around a single
view or a single interest, and suggests that decisions arise from an arena of contest
in which the balance of advantage constantly shifting
4. Belief system model
• Models of decision-making that place an emphasis on the role of beliefs and
ideology highlight the degree to which behavior is structured by perception
• What people see and understand is, to an extent, what their concepts and values
allow them, or encourage them to see and understand.
• This tendency is particularly entrenched because, in most cases, it is largely
unconscious
• Although decision-makers may believe they are being rational, rigorous, and
strictly impartial, their social and political values may act a powerful filter,
defining for them what is thinkable, what is possible, and what is desirable
• Certain information and particular options are therefore not appreciated, or even
considered, while other pieces of information and other courses of action feature
prominently in the calculus of decision-making – contrary or inconvenient views
may be squeezed out of consideration
Stages in the policy process
• Policy-making cannot be understood simply in terms of how decisions are made.
• The policy process can be broken down into four distinct stages;

1. Policy initiation
• Policy must start somewhere. Without initiation there can be no formulation, implementation,
evaluation etc. This stage in the policy process structures all subsequent debate, discussion and
decision-making
• This stage is important because it sets the political agenda, both by defining certain problems as
issues, and by determining how those issues are to be addressed
• Policy initiation can arise from any part of the political system. It can stem from above, that is, from
political leaders, cabinet, government agencies etc.; or, from below through pressure from public
opinion, the mass media, political parties, interest groups etc.
• In the form of political leadership, policy initiation consists of mobilizing support for initiatives
emanating from the personal vision of the leader, or the ideological priorities of a ruling party or
group
2. Policy formulation
• This stage is seen as the most crucial in the policy process
• Once an issue, or set of issues are on the political agenda, a process of detailed elaboration and
analysis is required to develop systematic policy proposals
• Policy formulation entails not only the translation of broad proposals into specific and detailed
recommendations, but also filtering out proposals, and perhaps, even the fundamental recasting
of the issue under consideration
• According to Hogwood and Gunn (1984), a number of stages are involved in the policy
formulation process. The first stage involves decisions about how to decide; that is, decisions
about which mechanisms or procedures and which political actors should be involved in the
analysis and elaboration of the policy
• The second stage involves issue definition and forecasting. This stage allows considerable scope
for reinterpretation, as those who formulate policy may view “the problem” very differently from
those who raised the issue in the first place
• Third, there is the setting of objectives and priorities taking account of concerns of other bodies
such as the media, political parties, interest groups etc.
• Finally, there is the analysis and review of the policy options, leading to the selection of a
preferred option. This means that an authoritative decision is taken.
3. Policy implementation
• Hood (1976) outlined five (5) conditions required to achieve “perfect implementation” in
the sense of ensuring that policy is delivered exactly as intended
1. A unitary administrative system with a single line of authority to ensure central control
2. Uniform norms and rules that operate throughout the system
3. Perfect obedience or perfect control
4. Perfect information, perfect communication, and perfect coordination
5. Sufficient time for administrative resources to be mobilized
• These conditions are criticized as being difficult to achieve singly or jointly
• Central control and strict obedience may be unfeasible and undesirable. Strict obedience
by those who implement policy(civil-servants/bureaucrats) who may have a better street-
level understanding of what will or will not work, may not be possible. Ones who may
try to demonstrate flexibility may face the danger of job termination.
• These types of models have led to calls for and implementation of new public
management.
4. Policy evaluation
• The policy process culminates with the evaluation and review of policy, leading to
decisions made about the maintenance, succession (refurbishment) or termination of the
policy in question
• This stage completes the policy cycle, in the sense that information acquired through
evaluation can feed back into the initiation and formulation stages
• This process can throw up new policy proposals, and help to refine and improve existing
ones
• As well as addressing issues related to the appropriateness or effectiveness of public
policy, typically carried out through the use of cost-benefit analysis, evaluation may also
shed light on procedural issues such as how the formulation stage is organized, who is
consulted and when, and how implementation is controlled.
• What is clear, is that the outcomes of policy are often very different from what was
intended by those who formulated or made policy decisions
• Thus, for the policy process to work effectively in translating inputs into appropriate
outputs, it must be open at all times to scrutiny and criticisms. A culture of secrecy often
conceals incompetence, and provides scope for arbitrary and self-serving government.
 The Bureaucracy
• Bureaucracy literally means “rule by officials” is, in everyday language, a pejorative term
meaning pointless administrative routine, or “red tape.”
• In the social sciences, the concept of bureaucracy refers to phenomena as different as; rule by
non-elected officials, the process of public administration and a rational model of organization.
• According to Max Weber, bureaucracy is characterized by rationality, rule-governed behavior,
and impersonal authority
• In the field of comparative government, the term bureaucracy refers to the administrative
machinery of the state, bureaucrats being non-elected state officials or civil-servants
• On the face of it, bureaucrats fulfill a single, but vital function. Their primary concern is policy
implementation: the execution and enforcement of the laws made by the legislature and the
policies decided by the political executives.
• Bureaucrats/civil servants implement laws and policies, working under their political masters
(the government of the day). Bureaucrats are formally subordinate to the government, but are
(in theory) impartial.
• They also exert considerable influence on the policy process by virtue of knowledge and/or
institutional memory/experience
 Role/functions of the Bureaucracy
1. Administration
• The core function of the bureaucracy is to implement or execute law and policy; it is thus charged
with administering government business. This is why the bureaucracy is sometimes referred to as the
administration, while the political executive is termed the government
• This distinction implies that a clear line can be drawn between the policy-making role of politicians,
and the policy-implementing role of bureaucrats
• The vast majority of the world’s civil servants are engaged most exclusively in administrative
responsibilities that range from the implementation of welfare and security programs to the regulation
of the economy, the implementation of social necessary programs in the areas of health, education,
sanitation etc., the granting of licenses, the provision of advice to citizens at home and abroad etc.
• The sizes of bureaucracies are therefore linked to the broader responsibilities of government.
• Note: the image of bureaucrats as mere functionaries who apply rules and carry out orders issued by
others can be misleading, since much administrative detail is, of necessity, left to civil servants who
are (often) allowed significant discretion in deciding precisely how to implement policy
• In China, for instance state officials/bureaucrats are subject to strict and continuous party supervision,
while in France, the expertise of bureaucrats guarantee them a considerable degree of autonomy
• In their capacity as policy advisers, senior civil servants have the ability to shape the policies they are
later required to administer
2. Policy advice
• The political significance of the bureaucracy stems largely from its role as the chief
source of the policy information and advice available to government
• This policy role helps to distinguish top-level civil servants (who have daily contact with
politicians, and are expected to act as policy advisers) and junior-ranking civil servants
(who deal with the routine administrative matters)
• The policy role of (usually elite/top) civil servants boils down to two functions; one,
outlining the policy options available to ministers, and two, reviewing policy proposals in
terms of their likely impact and consequences
• The policy influence of senior official is further restricted by the fact that they are either
required to be politically neutral (UK, Guyana), or are subject to a system of political
appointment (USA)
• Bureaucrats also control the flow of information to politicians. Information can thus be
concealed and or shaped to reflect the interest and preferences of the civil service.
• The principal source of bureaucrats power is, nevertheless, the expertise and specialist
knowledge that accumulates within the bureaucracy. Amateur politicians therefore tend to
rely heavily on bureaucrats’ advice.
3. Articulating interests
• Although not one of their formal functions, bureaucrats often help to articulate
and sometimes aggregate interests
• Bureaucrats are brought into contact with interest groups through their tasks of
policy implementation, and their involvement in policy formulation and advice
• This has increased as a result of corporatist tendencies that have blurred the
division between organized interest and government agencies. Groups such as
doctors, teachers, farmers and business corporations thus become “client groups”
serviced by their respective agencies/ministries and also serve as an invaluable
source of information and advice
• By virtue of having access to policy formulation, it is more likely that organized
interests groups will cooperate with government policy
4. Political stability
• The final function of the bureaucracy is to provide a focus of stability and
continuity within the political system
• This is seen as particularly important in developing states, where the existence of a
body of trained career officials may provide the only guarantee that government is
conducted in an orderly and reliable fashion
• This stability depends very largely on the status of bureaucrats as permanent and
professional public servants: while ministers and governments come and go, the
bureaucracy is always there
• Continuity can have its disadvantages. In the absence of effective scrutiny and
accountability, it can undoubtedly lead to corruption, a problem found in many
developing states compounded by widespread poverty and disadvantage
• In some cases, permanence may breathe in civil servants either a tendency towards
arrogance or insularity or a bias in favour of conservatism. Others may feel
justified in resisting radical or reformist political tendencies, seeing themselves as
custodians of the state’s interest.
Organization of the bureaucracy
• The organization of bureaucracies is important for two reasons. It affects the degree to which
public accountability and political control over the bureaucracy can be achieved and, it influences
its efficiency and effectiveness, and so has major implications for the performance and cost of
public services.
• All state bureaucracies are, in some way, organized on the basis of purpose or function. This is
achieved through the construction of departments, ministries, and agencies, charged with
responsibility for particular policy areas (education, health, defense, taxation, housing etc.)
Centralism or decentralism?
• The most important feature of these functionally defined bureaucracies is the degree of
centralization or decentralization within them
• In China, and other communist regimes, bureaucracies are subject to strict party control and
supervision at every level, and are deemed the most centralized bureaucratic systems in the world
• The US is an example of decentralized bureaucracy. While executive departments and agencies
operate under presidential authority via their cabinet secretary or directors, a bewildering array of
independent regulatory commissions have been created, and are founded by congress.
• Although presidents appoint the members of these commissions, they cannot dismiss them or
interfere with their responsibilities as laid down by congress
Bureaucratic power: Out of control?
• Despite their constitutional image as loyal and supportive public servants, bureaucrats have widely been
seen as powerful and influential figures who collectively constitute as “fourth branch of government”
• Three sources of bureaucratic power can be identified
1. The strategic position of bureaucrats in the policy process: The policy process in all modern states
is structured in such a way that offers considerable scope for civil service influence. Most critically, in
their capacity as advisors, civil servants have access to information and are able to control its flow to
their ministerial bosses. In government departments, knowledge is undoubtedly power, and its officials
who decide what ministers know and what they don’t. Policy options can thus be selected, evaluated,
and presented in such as way as to achieve a desired decision. Bureaucrats may sometimes be
deliberately manipulative or openly political, influencing policies to their preference
2. The status and expertise of bureaucrats: Bureaucratic power also comes from the status and respect
that is often accorded to civil servants. This stems from their expertise and specialist knowledge. In
many systems, senior bureaucrats are regarded as a meritocratic elite, and are invested with
responsibilities for the national interest. This is reflected in an emphasis on merit and achievement in
the recruitment and training of civil servants.
• In comparison, governments and ministers often come into office ill prepared, and in need of advice and
support. They thus depend on civil servants to translate broad policy goals into practical and workable
legislative programs.
How can bureaucrats be controlled?
• The perceived need to control the bureaucracy reflects a wide range of concerns. Most importantly,
unchecked bureaucratic power spells the demise of representatives and responsible government
• For political democracy to be meaningful, appointed officials must, in some way, be accountable to
politicians who, in turn, are accountable to the general public
• Political control is also required because of the need to promote efficiency in a bureaucracy that might
be bent on maintaining its professional comforts and material security.
The principal forms of control over bureaucracies include;

(a) Political accountability: State bureaucracies can be made accountable to the political executive,
the assembly, the judiciary or the public.
• The most elaborate system of executive control has been found in the socialist regimes of China
where a hierarchically structured network of party organs has been constructed to run parallel to, and
exercise supervision over, the state administration
• In liberal democracies, especially those with parliamentary executives, political control depends
largely on the respect for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility. This holds that ministers alone are
responsible to the assembly for the actions of their officials and the policies pursued by their
departments/ministries. It implies that civil servants have a responsibility to their ministers, and
therefore the government of the day
• Legislative oversight may also help to ensure that bureaucrats are politically
accountable. The UK for instance, has a departmental select committee to cross-
examine senior civil servants. The US congress scrutinizes the presidential budget
and has the authority to provide funds for the various executive departments. This
gives the congressional committee the opportunity to probe and investigate the
workings of each department, scrutinize their estimates, and expose cases of
maladministration and misappropriation.
• Judicial scrutiny of the bureaucracy is found in systems in which administrative law
is established as a separate branch of public law. In such systems, a network of
administrative courts and tribunals are empowered to resolve disputes between the
government bureaucracy and private citizens
• Bureaucrats can be made accountable to the public in a number of ways, formal and
informal. One method is the ombudsman system (though it may lack enforcement
capacity)
• The media and well-organized interest groups are considered informal pressures on
the bureaucracy. Scandals and exposure by the media relating to corruption and
administrative ineptitude can damage the public standing of bureaucrats.
(b) Politicization
• One of the most common ways of exercising political control is to recruit the senior
bureaucracy into the ideological enthusiasm of the government of the day. This
effectively blurs the distinctions between politics and administration, and between
politicians and public officials
• Control is overtly accomplished through a system of political appointments, where
(sometimes) a percentage of civil servants are replaced by appointed ones
• The attraction of a politicized senior bureaucracy is that it ensures that there is a higher
level of commitment in such a group than would likely be amongst politically impartial
civil servants
• Some criticisms of politicization of the bureaucracy includes the argument that most of
the appointments are as temporary as their political masters, hence, knowledge and
experience are not accumulated over a number of governments.
• It is also difficult to have both political commitment and meritocracy within the civil
service. In a politicized service, not only are appointments made on the basis of
political loyalty, rather than ability and training, but it may be also difficult to attract
high-caliber staff to work in temporary positions that offer no form of job security.
(3) The establishment of counter-bureaucracies
• The final mechanism of political control is through structures designed to support
or assist politicians, or to act as a counterweight to the official bureaucracy.
• The simplest of such systems is the use of political advisors or “outsiders” who
offer advise on policy and implementation
• The purpose of counter-bureaucracies is to compensate for the imbalance in the
relationship between the amateur politician and professional officials/civil
servants
• A drawback of this method is that it leads to duplication of government agencies,
and so causes jurisdictional conflicts and a measure of bureaucratic in-fighting.
• A further difficulty is that allowing politicians to surround themselves with hand-
picked advisers creates the danger that they will cut themselves off from political
reality and be told only what they want to hear.
Primary source:

Heywood Andrew. Politics. (5th ed.) London. Red Globe Press. 2019.
Chapter 16.