Public Policy and Administration Report
Content
.INTRODUCTION The study of public policy is a very complex topic, and any attempt to force policy into any narrow theoretical frame should be considered with some skepticism. On the one hand, there are some real virtues for policy as an area of inquiry for the social sciences, given that it is amenable to so many different perspectives. On the other hand, however, this complexity requires bringing together a wide range of theoretical and analytical perspectives to gain any sort of understanding of what is happening in any policy area. Both academic disciplines and substantive policy concerns tend to narrow the vision and to limit the ability of analysts to understand the underlying complexity of most policies. (Handbook of Public Policy and Administration)
PUBLIC POLICY: SCOPE AND MEANING Public Policy refers to the purposed course of action pursued by actors to realize specific goals within an environmental context where obstacles and opportunities coexist. (Fredrich, 1969) Another view of public policy considers the actions of government and the intentions that determine those actions. It is the outcome of competitive interactions to influence government to perform particular forms of political action. Public policy consists of political decisions regarding the implementation of programs to achieve societal goals. Public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do. It is the sum of activities taken by the government whether acting directly or through agents with consequences on the lives of the citizens. Public policy can be influenced by key stakeholders including the private sector and civil society. It addresses social needs and wants through the exercise of governmental capacity. (Dye, 1992) Public policy, also commonly referred to as domestic policy, is a system of laws and regulations that reflect the actions of the government. It is the collective attitude, ideas, and opinions of the citizens of the country and individual states, and it influences the enactment and interpretation of legislation. Public policy reflects the course of action taken by the government to address the needs of society and solve its problems,
encompassing governance and administration and public finance. It also reflects the inaction of the government in areas that the government refuses to regulate or govern. Essentially, it is what the government does and does not do in the areas of public health, safety and welfare. Marshal Edward and Gladys Ogden Dimock, in their book Public Administration, defined policy as a choice of a course of action, actual or perceived. It is more comprehensive than a decision because it provides the framework within which particular and specific decisions are made. In certain ways, it is an aggregation of particular decisions, a cumulative result of incremental choices and actions. It may refer to a program of goal values and the accompanying practices that help attain the goal values. Public policy is a composite of decisions that government makes and programs it embarks upon or implements to achieve goals. As a definite course of action taken from among a number of alternatives, the choice considers situational factors and organizational givens. There is always a purposive rationale for a policy and in the process of implementation, it may have to look into certain environmental constraints and utilize opportunities that are offered to achieve what it hopes to accomplish. The making of policy is never solely based upon one specific context or framework. Policy is not administration. The former implies a process of formulating and promulgating a program based on a set of principles; the latter refers to the implementation of the program. The two are not realistically separable—the former is the basis for choosing the mechanism for implementation. Democratic management prescribes that policies be made only after government has consulted the different sectors of society. Policy-making lies within the executive and legislative domain of public affairs expressed through laws and implemented by administrative agencies of the executive branch. Economic and financial advisers and other technocrats do the planning for government but it is the political leaders who actualize the plans. This is precisely the reason why planners and political leaders need to coordinate efforts so that specific target groups and the whole of society will benefit from such policies. Public policy may have either positive or negative effects. Some form of overt governmental action may deal with a problem on which action is demanded (positive), or public officials may decide to do nothing on some matter where governmental
involvement is sought (negative). Inaction becomes a public policy when officials decline to act on a problem. Public policy is derived from the values, morals, and principles of citizens. Public policy law is how the legislature and courts act in what they believe to be the best interests of citizens and the general public. While public policy laws are written and enacted by Congress and state legislatures, public policy can also be implied and vary within the federal, state and municipal levels of government. Public policy changes and fluctuates frequently because it is rooted in the values that tie society together, and those values vary in cultures and changes overtime. Accordingly, policy analysis is used to formulate public policy and to evaluate its effectiveness. Public policy laws are most effective when they reflect the most generally values and beliefs of society. THE POLICY PROCESS According to Paul A. Sabatier (1999,p.3) the public policy making process “… includes the manner in which problems get conceptualized and brought to the government for solution; governmental institutions, formulate alternatives and select policy solutions; and those solutions get implemented, evaluated and revised.” If the knowledge utilization literature is not well linked to the literature of political science, political scientists on their past have not shown much interest in the role of technical information in policy formation, preferring to focus on such things as the individual interests and values of policy actors; the institutional rules and procedures that may structure the policy process; the broader socioeconomic environments in which political institutions operate; and the tendency for people concerned with a specific policy issue (both inside and outside of government) to form a relatively autonomous networks or subsystems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). When political scientists have looked at the role of information in the policy process, they have typically seen it simply as a resource to be used in advancing or justifying individual or factional interests (Margolis, 1974; Wildavsky and Tenenbaum, 1981). This tendency, a disciplinary bias perhaps, means that much of the literature
passes over, or assumes away, many issues of central importance to us. Yet the political science literature does offer models of the policy process that we can put to our own uses. POLICY STAGES The traditional textbook approach to the study of public policy separates policy making into its component steps and analyzes each in turn. Though the basic concepts and metaphors of this stages model are now widely diffused throughout the policy literature, they derive originally from the early works of Harold Lasswell (1951). In both the original and the various modified versions of the stages model, the policy process is broken down into analytic units—activities—that are treated as temporally and functionally distinct. These include: 1. The identification of policy problems, through demands for governmental action This stage concerns those problems among many that receive the serious attention of public officials. Each policy problem must compete for official attention because legislators and executives have limited time and resources. Decisions to consider some problems mean that other will not be taken up. The demands that policy makers appear to be acting on, constitute policy agenda. But is should be distinguished from the term political priorities which designates the ranking of agenda. To achieve agenda status, a public problem must be converted into an issue, or a matter requiring government attention. An issue arises when a public with problem seeks or demands governmental action and there is public disagreement over the best solution to a problem. 2. Agenda setting, or focusing the attention of public officials on specific public problems John Kingdon (1995) holds that agenda setting can be viewed as compromising three mostly independent streams of activity (problems, proposals, and politics), which converge into a policy window and permitting a policy agenda. The problem stream consists of matters on which policy players, either inside or outside of the government, would like to secure action. The policy proposal stream comprises possible solutions for problems. Lastly, the politics stream includes such items
as election results, changes in presidential administration, public opinion, etc. Occasionally these streams converge and for a short time, policy window is open—an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push to their special problems. Agenda building is a competitive process; a number of factors can determine whether an issue gets an agenda, including how the problem issue is defined. At any given time, many problems and issues will be competing for the attention of public official. Only a portion of these problems will succeed in securing agenda status because officials lack time, resources, interest, and information. The denial of an agenda happens because of the following reasons: denial that a problem exists; arguing that a certain problem does not require governmental action; fears about the societal consequence of a proposed policy; argument that a problem can be adequately treated by non-governmental means; further study the problem; and lastly recourse may be directed to electoral activity. Sometimes, agenda setting leads to nondecisions (Bacharach and Baratz, 1970). STREAMS OF POLICY MAKING (Kingdon)
POLICY STREAM Problem Stream
POLICY STREAM POLICY WINDOW
3. The formulation of policy proposals, their initiation and development, by policy-planning organizations, interest groups, the executive or legislative branches of government This pertains to the development of pertinent and acceptable proposed courses of action for dealing with public problem. The writing of laws and rules has to be done skillfully because, as soon as these laws or rules go into effect, people will begin looking for loopholes or trying to bend the meaning of language. Clarity in phrasing and intent also may help protect laws and rules against unfavorable judicial interpretations and provide clear guidance to those assigned of implementation. Policy formulation is also termed as policy design. It is the process by which policies are designed, both through technical analysis and then political process to achieve a particular goal. The table adopted from Birkland (2001) summarizes the elements of policy design.
Elements The goals of the policy The causal model The tools of the policy The targets of the policy The implementation policy of the Questions to ask What are the goals of the policy? To eliminate the problem? To alleviate a problem but not entirely eliminate it? To keep a problem from getting worse? What is the causal model? Do we know that if we do X, Y will result? How de we know this? If we do not know, how can we find out? What tools or instruments will be used to put the policy into effect? Will they rely on incentives, persuasion, or information? Capacity building? Whose behavior is supposed to change? Are there direct and indirect targets? Are design choices predicted on our social construction of the target population? How will the program be implemented? Who will lay-out the implementation system? Willa top-down or bottom-up design be selected? Why?
4. The adoption and legitimation of policies through the political actions of government, interest groups, political parties This focuses on the development of support for specific proposal so that policy can be legitimized and authorized. A policy decision involves action by some official, person or body to adopt, modify, or reject a preferred policy alternative. What is typically involved at the policy adoption stage is not selection from among a number of full-blown policy alternatives but rather action on a preferred policy alternative for which the proponents of action think they can win approval, even though it does not provide all they might like.
Making a choice among policy alternatives leads to discussion of how government officials make decisions. The approaches to decision-making emphasize the procedure and intellectual activities involved in making a decision. The rational-comprehensive theory draws considerably from the economist’s point of view of how a rational person would make decisions—utility maximizing. The incremental theory suggests that decision-making is the art of mudding through. Considering that information, time and resources are insufficient at times; decision-making should be pragmatic and incrementally done. Lastly, the multiple advocacy theory rests on the premise that a competition of ideas and viewpoints is the best method of developing—a multistakeholder approach. It accepts the fact that in large, complex organizations there will inevitably be conflicts and disagreements over policy. Public officials especially policy makers are constrained by decision criteria in making a policy decision. The criteria include the consideration into organizational values, professional values, personal values, policy values and ideological values. Decision-makers are also compelled by a number of factors. Political party affiliation, the interest of the constituency, public opinion, and decision rules affect the nature and process of decision-making with regard to policy decision. Decision styles vary according to the need of support to pass a bill into a law. Bargaining in the form of logrolling, side payments and compromise are not uncommon in legislatures. Decision-makers can mobilize support to a policy by utilizing persuasion and command among members of congress. Perhaps these decision-making styles are best reflected in how majority building in Congress is done. 5. The implementation of policies through bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies It denotes the application of the policy by the government’s administrative machinery. Policy outputs are generated through policy implementation. The culmination of any policy making process is in the policy implementation or policy administration stage, however, the policy process do not end with implementation. Agencies (mostly coming from the executive) are tasked to realize the conception and principles of policies formulated and adopted. Compliance of citizens to policies and enforcement of particular provisions of the policies is mostly in the domain, as what happens after a bill becomes a
law. It consists of those players, organizations, procedures, techniques and target groups that are involved in carrying the policy (Hill and Hupe, 2002). Aside from the executive agencies, other actors are also involved in policy implementation—directly or indirectly. The legislature is interested in policy implementation through approval of executive appointments, congressional veto and caseworks. The courts are involved in implementation significantly in dealing with crimes, interpretation of statutes and administrative rules and decisions in cases brought before them. Civil society—interest groups can influence policy implementation by directly participating in the implementation process (State-civil society projects) or by acting as a watchdog (make them accountable) to government agencies to ensure the proper implementation of a policy. Executive departments, independent regulatory commissions or plural headed agencies, government corporations and independent agencies are the most common implementing arm of public policy. How effectively the agency carries on its legal mandate and what it actually does or does not accomplish will be substantially affected by the amount of cooperation and political support it can muster from other societal actors. The rules of the administration, the chief executive, the congressional system of supervision, the courts, other administrative agencies, civil society, political parties, communications media and the private sector are all actors that can affect the behavior of agencies implementing public policies. The control techniques authorized for their implementation an important component of public policies. Compliance and noncompliance to policies are usually determined by how agencies can effectively implement control techniques may it be coercive and noncoercive. Non-coercive includes declaration of policy; appeals for voluntary cooperation; warning; mediations and conciliation; and education and information dissemination programs. Compliance and regulatory measures can take the form of inspections; license; loans; subsidies, and benefits; contract; general expenditure; market and proprietary operations; taxation; directive power; services; informal procedures; and sanctions.
6. The evaluation of a policy’s programmatic implementation and impact It refers to efforts to determine whether the policy was effective why or why not? The outcome of policy and its impact on the problem that it should address is emphasized in policy monitoring and evaluation. Policy outcomes are measured and analyzed in policy evaluation. Evaluation encompasses the estimation, assessment or appraisal of a policy, including its content, implementation, goal attainment, and other effects. It may also try to identify factors that contribute to success and failure of a policy. Policy outcome and impact is being studied. The impact of a policy may have several dimensions, all of which should be taken into account either in the conduct of a formal evaluation or in the course of an informal appraisal of the policy (Dye, 1992). The following are: a. b. c. d. e. Policies affecting the public problem at which they are directed and the people involved Policies may affect situations or groups other than those at which they are directed (externalities) Policies have consequences for future as well as current conditions; Just as policies have positive effects or benefits, they also entail costs; The effects of policies and programs may be either material or symbolic
Most of the policy evaluation and monitoring is performed by civil society and the private sector. Media and the academe also perform monitoring and evaluation of policies implemented by the government. Formal monitoring and evaluation of public policies are facilitated through mechanisms such as Congressional oversights, general audit or accounting office, the formation of presidential commissions, and administrative agencies perform selfmonitoring and evaluation. Problems in policy monitoring and evaluation become difficult because of uncertainly over policy goals; difficulty in determining policy causality; diffused policy impact; difficulties in data acquisition; official resistance; limited time and resources; and lacking influence in evaluation.
stage 1. Agenda Setting 2. Policy Formulation 3. Policy Adoption 4. Policy Implementation
Policy Process Element Policy Inputs Process Process Policy Output
5. Policy Monitoring and Policy Outcomes/Impact Evaluation
Actor (according to extent of role in the policy process Civil Society, Private Sector, Legislature, Executive Legislature, Executive, Civil Society, Private Sector Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, Civil Society, Private Sector Administrative Agencies, Executive, Civil Society, Private Sector, Legislature, Courts Legislature, Civil Society, Private Sector, Administrative Agencies, Executive, Courts
Legislature The legislature body is engaged in the central task of lawmaking and policy formulation. It is important in almost all stages of the policy process—from agenda setting to policy evaluation. However, it cannot be assumed that a legislature simply has the formal designation to make laws, is one, independent, exclusive entity with regard to policy making. Bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolution, and amendments are outputs expected from Congress. The committee structure helps divide the task in Congress so that each member need not study every bill that is introduced. Organizationally, the committee helps Congress prioritize the legislation that will be addressed. The legislature does more than the role of introducing bills and making laws; it also monitors and evaluate laws passed through casework and oversight activities. Executive The executive branch through its highest official—the President—plays a key role in policy making. Any form of administration or regime sets out strategic plans and programs usually at the national level. The executive lobbies these programs/plans through a State of a Nation address. The president wields her power to be able to mobilize support for priority projects that needs legislation. Priority plans are often
packaged in macro-programs such as the Medium Term Development plans—indicating the goals and strategies of the administration. This makes the executive an integral part in the policy process aside from the power of formulating executive orders, letter of instruction and other policy instruments. Bureaucracy The bureaucracy is engage in the policy process mostly in the policy implementation stage. Administrative agencies serve as the implementing arm in the public policy process. Citizen’s social action and behavior is affected by public policies that will be enforced by governmental agencies. Public policy reiterates how government entities affect societies and vice versa. Implementing agencies are held accountable with regard to enforcement of politics and statutes. Judiciary The court system is a key aspect of the policy process. Decisions made by the judiciary regarding interpretation of a policy can be basis for future policy proposals. The judiciary takes part in the policy as how it is meant to be enforced. Moreover, questions and issues regarding the procedures and content of policy are resolved in the arena of the judiciary. Civil Society Civil society groups take an important part in policy making. Groups can perform an interest-articulation function; that is they can express demands and present alternatives for policy action. Non-governmental organizations, people’s organization—lumped as civil society—can also supply public officials with much information, technical and other forms of support, and perhaps not available from other sources about the nature and possible consequences of policy proposals. Interest groups, organizations such as those representing organized labor, business and agriculture, are a major source of demands for public policy. Interest groups want to influence policy on a specific subject. Groups often have conflicting desires on a policy issue, public officials confront the need to choose
among, or reconcile, conflicting demands. Groups that are well organized and active are likely to fare better. Public interest groups also are important players in the policy process. They represent interested that in their absence would go un-represented such as consumers, environmentalists or good governance advocates. Interest groups also bring pressure to formal policy makers such as legislators through lobbying of certain policy proposals. Political Parties Aside from winning in political contestation; political parties often perform the function of interest aggregation. They seek to convert the particular demands of interest groups onto general policy alternative. Parties also have great influence on segment of society—often defining their political support. In modern political systems, parties have various stances on several policy issues. The ideological stances are basis for the feasibility of a certain policy proposal. Academics “Think tanks”, research organizations, “the academe” are important players in the policy process. Their studies and reports provide basic information and data on policy issues, develop alternatives and proposals for handling problems, and evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of public policy. Media Newspapers, news magazines, radio, television and the Internet participate in policy-making as suppliers and transmitters of information; as agenda setters in that they help determine what people think about; and, whether intentionally otherwise, shapers of attitudes. Support of citizens for a particular policy proposal necessitates effective information campaign.
LEVELS OF POLICY-MAKING
There is a policy making at different levels of the governmental structure, each level having a different kind of output, from the general policy decided at the top level of the administrative hierarchy to the more particular and specific as one move down the lower levels. Thus broad policies of economic development pronounced by the Chief Executive may make for sub-policies like countryside development or rural electrification as geographic variations and resources justify. It is possible that lower level executives formulate sub-policies not in keeping with the broad national perspective especially in the absence of clear-cut guidelines and when too wide latitude of discretion is allowed to local or lower executives. A study of the activities of government discloses four levels of policy. Political Policy This is also known as general policy. It is the policy of the party in power presumably approved by the electorate. Ideally, if the competing political parties have specific and differentiated platforms, the platform of the winning party becomes the political policy. Executive Policy This is the policy of the executive branch which is based upon the general policy. This could be a compromise of different interpretations of general policy by cabinet members, government experts and technocrats, representatives of interest groups constituted as advisory councils like the National Security Council for security affairs, and the National Economic Council for economic, fiscal and monetary affairs. Since executive policy may require amendment of existing law, it is this level that legislative proposals are recommended to Congress. Executive-legislative rapport is important at this point. Responsibility for the implementation of certain aspects of executive policy is assigned to an appropriate department secretary, a board or a committee which the executive chooses to create for this purpose.
REFERENCES Anderson, James 1975, “Public Policy making”. In Paul A. Sabatier.ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press. Colorado Bacharach and Baratz 1970. Power and Poverty. Oxford University Press: New York. Birkland, Thomas 2001. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy-Making. M.E. Sharpe: New York Brewer Gary and Peter de Leon “The Foundation of Policy Analysis.” In Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press: Colorado Caplan, Nathan et al. 1975. The Uses of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research Craig, John 1990. Comparative African Experiences in Implementing Educational Policies. World Bank Discussion paper No. 83. Africa Technical Department Series. Dery, David 1990. Data and Policy Change: The Fragility of Data in the Policy Context. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston Dunn, William 1980. The Two-Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use. Knowledge 2 (June):pp.515-536 Dye, Thomas R. 1992. Understanding Public Policy. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Feldman, Martha S. and James G. March 1981. Information as Signal and Symbol, “Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: pp. 171-186 Fredrich, Carl J. 1969. Man and His Government. Mc Graw Hill: New York
Grindle, Merilee S., and John W. Thomas 1991. Public Choices and Policy Change” The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter 2002. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. Sage Publications: London Jenkins-Smith, Hank and David Weimer 1985. Analysis as Retrogade Action. Public Administration Review 45 (July): pp. 485-494 Kingdon, John 1995. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, Harper Collins: New York 1984. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Lasswell, Harold 1951. “The Policy Orientation”. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell, eds. The Policy Sciences. Stanford University Press: Stanford Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse 1992. The Policy-Making Process. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs: prentice-Hall Margolis, Howard 1974. Technical Advice on Policy Issues. Sage: Beverly Hills Marshal Edward Dimock and Gladys Ogden Dimock Public Administration Meier, Gerald 1991. “Policy Lessons and Policy Formulation.” In Politics and Policy Making in Developing Countries. International Center for Economic Growth Press pp. 3-12: San Francisco Meltsner, Arnold 1976. Policy Analysis in the Bureaucracy, University of California Press: Berkley Nelson, Robert M. 1987. “The Economics Profession and the Making of Public Policy”. Journal Economic Literature 25 (March):pp. 42-84
Rein, Martin and Sheldon White 1977. “Policy Research: Belief and Doubt.” Policy Analysis. Volume 3, Spring. pp.239-271 Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press: Colorado Stone, Deborah A. 1989. Casual Stories and the Formation of Policy Agenda. Political Science Quarterly. Volume 104, pp. 281-300 Webber, David 1983 “Obstacles to the Utilization of Systematic Policy Analysis.” Knowledge 4 (June),pp. 534-560 Weiss, Carol H. and M.J Bucuvalas 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making. Columbia University Press: New York Wildavsky, Aron and Ellen Tenenbaum 1981. The Politics of Mistrust. Sage: Beverly Hills 2002. Lt. Antonio F. Trillanes IV PN 2001. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s State of the Nation Address 2001. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004. NEDA: Pasig City 1995. 60 Years of Development Planning in the Philippines: A Commemorative Brochure. NEDA: Pasig City 1986. Executive Order No. 230, “Recognizing the National Economic Decelopment Authority. Malacanang Palace: Manila
PUBLIC POLICY: SCOPE AND MEANING Public Policy refers to the purposed course of action pursued by actors to realize specific goals within an environmental context where obstacles and opportunities coexist. (Fredrich, 1969) Another view of public policy considers the actions of government and the intentions that determine those actions. It is the outcome of competitive interactions to influence government to perform particular forms of political action. Public policy consists of political decisions regarding the implementation of programs to achieve societal goals. Public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do. It is the sum of activities taken by the government whether acting directly or through agents with consequences on the lives of the citizens. Public policy can be influenced by key stakeholders including the private sector and civil society. It addresses social needs and wants through the exercise of governmental capacity. (Dye, 1992) Public policy, also commonly referred to as domestic policy, is a system of laws and regulations that reflect the actions of the government. It is the collective attitude, ideas, and opinions of the citizens of the country and individual states, and it influences the enactment and interpretation of legislation. Public policy reflects the course of action taken by the government to address the needs of society and solve its problems,
encompassing governance and administration and public finance. It also reflects the inaction of the government in areas that the government refuses to regulate or govern. Essentially, it is what the government does and does not do in the areas of public health, safety and welfare. Marshal Edward and Gladys Ogden Dimock, in their book Public Administration, defined policy as a choice of a course of action, actual or perceived. It is more comprehensive than a decision because it provides the framework within which particular and specific decisions are made. In certain ways, it is an aggregation of particular decisions, a cumulative result of incremental choices and actions. It may refer to a program of goal values and the accompanying practices that help attain the goal values. Public policy is a composite of decisions that government makes and programs it embarks upon or implements to achieve goals. As a definite course of action taken from among a number of alternatives, the choice considers situational factors and organizational givens. There is always a purposive rationale for a policy and in the process of implementation, it may have to look into certain environmental constraints and utilize opportunities that are offered to achieve what it hopes to accomplish. The making of policy is never solely based upon one specific context or framework. Policy is not administration. The former implies a process of formulating and promulgating a program based on a set of principles; the latter refers to the implementation of the program. The two are not realistically separable—the former is the basis for choosing the mechanism for implementation. Democratic management prescribes that policies be made only after government has consulted the different sectors of society. Policy-making lies within the executive and legislative domain of public affairs expressed through laws and implemented by administrative agencies of the executive branch. Economic and financial advisers and other technocrats do the planning for government but it is the political leaders who actualize the plans. This is precisely the reason why planners and political leaders need to coordinate efforts so that specific target groups and the whole of society will benefit from such policies. Public policy may have either positive or negative effects. Some form of overt governmental action may deal with a problem on which action is demanded (positive), or public officials may decide to do nothing on some matter where governmental
involvement is sought (negative). Inaction becomes a public policy when officials decline to act on a problem. Public policy is derived from the values, morals, and principles of citizens. Public policy law is how the legislature and courts act in what they believe to be the best interests of citizens and the general public. While public policy laws are written and enacted by Congress and state legislatures, public policy can also be implied and vary within the federal, state and municipal levels of government. Public policy changes and fluctuates frequently because it is rooted in the values that tie society together, and those values vary in cultures and changes overtime. Accordingly, policy analysis is used to formulate public policy and to evaluate its effectiveness. Public policy laws are most effective when they reflect the most generally values and beliefs of society. THE POLICY PROCESS According to Paul A. Sabatier (1999,p.3) the public policy making process “… includes the manner in which problems get conceptualized and brought to the government for solution; governmental institutions, formulate alternatives and select policy solutions; and those solutions get implemented, evaluated and revised.” If the knowledge utilization literature is not well linked to the literature of political science, political scientists on their past have not shown much interest in the role of technical information in policy formation, preferring to focus on such things as the individual interests and values of policy actors; the institutional rules and procedures that may structure the policy process; the broader socioeconomic environments in which political institutions operate; and the tendency for people concerned with a specific policy issue (both inside and outside of government) to form a relatively autonomous networks or subsystems (Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith, 1993). When political scientists have looked at the role of information in the policy process, they have typically seen it simply as a resource to be used in advancing or justifying individual or factional interests (Margolis, 1974; Wildavsky and Tenenbaum, 1981). This tendency, a disciplinary bias perhaps, means that much of the literature
passes over, or assumes away, many issues of central importance to us. Yet the political science literature does offer models of the policy process that we can put to our own uses. POLICY STAGES The traditional textbook approach to the study of public policy separates policy making into its component steps and analyzes each in turn. Though the basic concepts and metaphors of this stages model are now widely diffused throughout the policy literature, they derive originally from the early works of Harold Lasswell (1951). In both the original and the various modified versions of the stages model, the policy process is broken down into analytic units—activities—that are treated as temporally and functionally distinct. These include: 1. The identification of policy problems, through demands for governmental action This stage concerns those problems among many that receive the serious attention of public officials. Each policy problem must compete for official attention because legislators and executives have limited time and resources. Decisions to consider some problems mean that other will not be taken up. The demands that policy makers appear to be acting on, constitute policy agenda. But is should be distinguished from the term political priorities which designates the ranking of agenda. To achieve agenda status, a public problem must be converted into an issue, or a matter requiring government attention. An issue arises when a public with problem seeks or demands governmental action and there is public disagreement over the best solution to a problem. 2. Agenda setting, or focusing the attention of public officials on specific public problems John Kingdon (1995) holds that agenda setting can be viewed as compromising three mostly independent streams of activity (problems, proposals, and politics), which converge into a policy window and permitting a policy agenda. The problem stream consists of matters on which policy players, either inside or outside of the government, would like to secure action. The policy proposal stream comprises possible solutions for problems. Lastly, the politics stream includes such items
as election results, changes in presidential administration, public opinion, etc. Occasionally these streams converge and for a short time, policy window is open—an opportunity for advocates of proposals to push their pet solutions, or to push to their special problems. Agenda building is a competitive process; a number of factors can determine whether an issue gets an agenda, including how the problem issue is defined. At any given time, many problems and issues will be competing for the attention of public official. Only a portion of these problems will succeed in securing agenda status because officials lack time, resources, interest, and information. The denial of an agenda happens because of the following reasons: denial that a problem exists; arguing that a certain problem does not require governmental action; fears about the societal consequence of a proposed policy; argument that a problem can be adequately treated by non-governmental means; further study the problem; and lastly recourse may be directed to electoral activity. Sometimes, agenda setting leads to nondecisions (Bacharach and Baratz, 1970). STREAMS OF POLICY MAKING (Kingdon)
POLICY STREAM Problem Stream
POLICY STREAM POLICY WINDOW
3. The formulation of policy proposals, their initiation and development, by policy-planning organizations, interest groups, the executive or legislative branches of government This pertains to the development of pertinent and acceptable proposed courses of action for dealing with public problem. The writing of laws and rules has to be done skillfully because, as soon as these laws or rules go into effect, people will begin looking for loopholes or trying to bend the meaning of language. Clarity in phrasing and intent also may help protect laws and rules against unfavorable judicial interpretations and provide clear guidance to those assigned of implementation. Policy formulation is also termed as policy design. It is the process by which policies are designed, both through technical analysis and then political process to achieve a particular goal. The table adopted from Birkland (2001) summarizes the elements of policy design.
Elements The goals of the policy The causal model The tools of the policy The targets of the policy The implementation policy of the Questions to ask What are the goals of the policy? To eliminate the problem? To alleviate a problem but not entirely eliminate it? To keep a problem from getting worse? What is the causal model? Do we know that if we do X, Y will result? How de we know this? If we do not know, how can we find out? What tools or instruments will be used to put the policy into effect? Will they rely on incentives, persuasion, or information? Capacity building? Whose behavior is supposed to change? Are there direct and indirect targets? Are design choices predicted on our social construction of the target population? How will the program be implemented? Who will lay-out the implementation system? Willa top-down or bottom-up design be selected? Why?
4. The adoption and legitimation of policies through the political actions of government, interest groups, political parties This focuses on the development of support for specific proposal so that policy can be legitimized and authorized. A policy decision involves action by some official, person or body to adopt, modify, or reject a preferred policy alternative. What is typically involved at the policy adoption stage is not selection from among a number of full-blown policy alternatives but rather action on a preferred policy alternative for which the proponents of action think they can win approval, even though it does not provide all they might like.
Making a choice among policy alternatives leads to discussion of how government officials make decisions. The approaches to decision-making emphasize the procedure and intellectual activities involved in making a decision. The rational-comprehensive theory draws considerably from the economist’s point of view of how a rational person would make decisions—utility maximizing. The incremental theory suggests that decision-making is the art of mudding through. Considering that information, time and resources are insufficient at times; decision-making should be pragmatic and incrementally done. Lastly, the multiple advocacy theory rests on the premise that a competition of ideas and viewpoints is the best method of developing—a multistakeholder approach. It accepts the fact that in large, complex organizations there will inevitably be conflicts and disagreements over policy. Public officials especially policy makers are constrained by decision criteria in making a policy decision. The criteria include the consideration into organizational values, professional values, personal values, policy values and ideological values. Decision-makers are also compelled by a number of factors. Political party affiliation, the interest of the constituency, public opinion, and decision rules affect the nature and process of decision-making with regard to policy decision. Decision styles vary according to the need of support to pass a bill into a law. Bargaining in the form of logrolling, side payments and compromise are not uncommon in legislatures. Decision-makers can mobilize support to a policy by utilizing persuasion and command among members of congress. Perhaps these decision-making styles are best reflected in how majority building in Congress is done. 5. The implementation of policies through bureaucracies, public expenditures, and the activities of executive agencies It denotes the application of the policy by the government’s administrative machinery. Policy outputs are generated through policy implementation. The culmination of any policy making process is in the policy implementation or policy administration stage, however, the policy process do not end with implementation. Agencies (mostly coming from the executive) are tasked to realize the conception and principles of policies formulated and adopted. Compliance of citizens to policies and enforcement of particular provisions of the policies is mostly in the domain, as what happens after a bill becomes a
law. It consists of those players, organizations, procedures, techniques and target groups that are involved in carrying the policy (Hill and Hupe, 2002). Aside from the executive agencies, other actors are also involved in policy implementation—directly or indirectly. The legislature is interested in policy implementation through approval of executive appointments, congressional veto and caseworks. The courts are involved in implementation significantly in dealing with crimes, interpretation of statutes and administrative rules and decisions in cases brought before them. Civil society—interest groups can influence policy implementation by directly participating in the implementation process (State-civil society projects) or by acting as a watchdog (make them accountable) to government agencies to ensure the proper implementation of a policy. Executive departments, independent regulatory commissions or plural headed agencies, government corporations and independent agencies are the most common implementing arm of public policy. How effectively the agency carries on its legal mandate and what it actually does or does not accomplish will be substantially affected by the amount of cooperation and political support it can muster from other societal actors. The rules of the administration, the chief executive, the congressional system of supervision, the courts, other administrative agencies, civil society, political parties, communications media and the private sector are all actors that can affect the behavior of agencies implementing public policies. The control techniques authorized for their implementation an important component of public policies. Compliance and noncompliance to policies are usually determined by how agencies can effectively implement control techniques may it be coercive and noncoercive. Non-coercive includes declaration of policy; appeals for voluntary cooperation; warning; mediations and conciliation; and education and information dissemination programs. Compliance and regulatory measures can take the form of inspections; license; loans; subsidies, and benefits; contract; general expenditure; market and proprietary operations; taxation; directive power; services; informal procedures; and sanctions.
6. The evaluation of a policy’s programmatic implementation and impact It refers to efforts to determine whether the policy was effective why or why not? The outcome of policy and its impact on the problem that it should address is emphasized in policy monitoring and evaluation. Policy outcomes are measured and analyzed in policy evaluation. Evaluation encompasses the estimation, assessment or appraisal of a policy, including its content, implementation, goal attainment, and other effects. It may also try to identify factors that contribute to success and failure of a policy. Policy outcome and impact is being studied. The impact of a policy may have several dimensions, all of which should be taken into account either in the conduct of a formal evaluation or in the course of an informal appraisal of the policy (Dye, 1992). The following are: a. b. c. d. e. Policies affecting the public problem at which they are directed and the people involved Policies may affect situations or groups other than those at which they are directed (externalities) Policies have consequences for future as well as current conditions; Just as policies have positive effects or benefits, they also entail costs; The effects of policies and programs may be either material or symbolic
Most of the policy evaluation and monitoring is performed by civil society and the private sector. Media and the academe also perform monitoring and evaluation of policies implemented by the government. Formal monitoring and evaluation of public policies are facilitated through mechanisms such as Congressional oversights, general audit or accounting office, the formation of presidential commissions, and administrative agencies perform selfmonitoring and evaluation. Problems in policy monitoring and evaluation become difficult because of uncertainly over policy goals; difficulty in determining policy causality; diffused policy impact; difficulties in data acquisition; official resistance; limited time and resources; and lacking influence in evaluation.
stage 1. Agenda Setting 2. Policy Formulation 3. Policy Adoption 4. Policy Implementation
Policy Process Element Policy Inputs Process Process Policy Output
5. Policy Monitoring and Policy Outcomes/Impact Evaluation
Actor (according to extent of role in the policy process Civil Society, Private Sector, Legislature, Executive Legislature, Executive, Civil Society, Private Sector Legislature, Executive, Judiciary, Civil Society, Private Sector Administrative Agencies, Executive, Civil Society, Private Sector, Legislature, Courts Legislature, Civil Society, Private Sector, Administrative Agencies, Executive, Courts
Legislature The legislature body is engaged in the central task of lawmaking and policy formulation. It is important in almost all stages of the policy process—from agenda setting to policy evaluation. However, it cannot be assumed that a legislature simply has the formal designation to make laws, is one, independent, exclusive entity with regard to policy making. Bills, joint resolutions, concurrent resolution, and amendments are outputs expected from Congress. The committee structure helps divide the task in Congress so that each member need not study every bill that is introduced. Organizationally, the committee helps Congress prioritize the legislation that will be addressed. The legislature does more than the role of introducing bills and making laws; it also monitors and evaluate laws passed through casework and oversight activities. Executive The executive branch through its highest official—the President—plays a key role in policy making. Any form of administration or regime sets out strategic plans and programs usually at the national level. The executive lobbies these programs/plans through a State of a Nation address. The president wields her power to be able to mobilize support for priority projects that needs legislation. Priority plans are often
packaged in macro-programs such as the Medium Term Development plans—indicating the goals and strategies of the administration. This makes the executive an integral part in the policy process aside from the power of formulating executive orders, letter of instruction and other policy instruments. Bureaucracy The bureaucracy is engage in the policy process mostly in the policy implementation stage. Administrative agencies serve as the implementing arm in the public policy process. Citizen’s social action and behavior is affected by public policies that will be enforced by governmental agencies. Public policy reiterates how government entities affect societies and vice versa. Implementing agencies are held accountable with regard to enforcement of politics and statutes. Judiciary The court system is a key aspect of the policy process. Decisions made by the judiciary regarding interpretation of a policy can be basis for future policy proposals. The judiciary takes part in the policy as how it is meant to be enforced. Moreover, questions and issues regarding the procedures and content of policy are resolved in the arena of the judiciary. Civil Society Civil society groups take an important part in policy making. Groups can perform an interest-articulation function; that is they can express demands and present alternatives for policy action. Non-governmental organizations, people’s organization—lumped as civil society—can also supply public officials with much information, technical and other forms of support, and perhaps not available from other sources about the nature and possible consequences of policy proposals. Interest groups, organizations such as those representing organized labor, business and agriculture, are a major source of demands for public policy. Interest groups want to influence policy on a specific subject. Groups often have conflicting desires on a policy issue, public officials confront the need to choose
among, or reconcile, conflicting demands. Groups that are well organized and active are likely to fare better. Public interest groups also are important players in the policy process. They represent interested that in their absence would go un-represented such as consumers, environmentalists or good governance advocates. Interest groups also bring pressure to formal policy makers such as legislators through lobbying of certain policy proposals. Political Parties Aside from winning in political contestation; political parties often perform the function of interest aggregation. They seek to convert the particular demands of interest groups onto general policy alternative. Parties also have great influence on segment of society—often defining their political support. In modern political systems, parties have various stances on several policy issues. The ideological stances are basis for the feasibility of a certain policy proposal. Academics “Think tanks”, research organizations, “the academe” are important players in the policy process. Their studies and reports provide basic information and data on policy issues, develop alternatives and proposals for handling problems, and evaluate the effectiveness and consequences of public policy. Media Newspapers, news magazines, radio, television and the Internet participate in policy-making as suppliers and transmitters of information; as agenda setters in that they help determine what people think about; and, whether intentionally otherwise, shapers of attitudes. Support of citizens for a particular policy proposal necessitates effective information campaign.
LEVELS OF POLICY-MAKING
There is a policy making at different levels of the governmental structure, each level having a different kind of output, from the general policy decided at the top level of the administrative hierarchy to the more particular and specific as one move down the lower levels. Thus broad policies of economic development pronounced by the Chief Executive may make for sub-policies like countryside development or rural electrification as geographic variations and resources justify. It is possible that lower level executives formulate sub-policies not in keeping with the broad national perspective especially in the absence of clear-cut guidelines and when too wide latitude of discretion is allowed to local or lower executives. A study of the activities of government discloses four levels of policy. Political Policy This is also known as general policy. It is the policy of the party in power presumably approved by the electorate. Ideally, if the competing political parties have specific and differentiated platforms, the platform of the winning party becomes the political policy. Executive Policy This is the policy of the executive branch which is based upon the general policy. This could be a compromise of different interpretations of general policy by cabinet members, government experts and technocrats, representatives of interest groups constituted as advisory councils like the National Security Council for security affairs, and the National Economic Council for economic, fiscal and monetary affairs. Since executive policy may require amendment of existing law, it is this level that legislative proposals are recommended to Congress. Executive-legislative rapport is important at this point. Responsibility for the implementation of certain aspects of executive policy is assigned to an appropriate department secretary, a board or a committee which the executive chooses to create for this purpose.
REFERENCES Anderson, James 1975, “Public Policy making”. In Paul A. Sabatier.ed., Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press. Colorado Bacharach and Baratz 1970. Power and Poverty. Oxford University Press: New York. Birkland, Thomas 2001. An Introduction to the Policy Process: Theories, Concepts and Models of Public Policy-Making. M.E. Sharpe: New York Brewer Gary and Peter de Leon “The Foundation of Policy Analysis.” In Paul A. Sabatier, ed., Theories of the Policy Process, Westview Press: Colorado Caplan, Nathan et al. 1975. The Uses of Social Science Knowledge in Policy Decisions at the National Level. Ann Arbor: Institute of Social Research Craig, John 1990. Comparative African Experiences in Implementing Educational Policies. World Bank Discussion paper No. 83. Africa Technical Department Series. Dery, David 1990. Data and Policy Change: The Fragility of Data in the Policy Context. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston Dunn, William 1980. The Two-Communities Metaphor and Models of Knowledge Use. Knowledge 2 (June):pp.515-536 Dye, Thomas R. 1992. Understanding Public Policy. 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall Feldman, Martha S. and James G. March 1981. Information as Signal and Symbol, “Administrative Science Quarterly, 26: pp. 171-186 Fredrich, Carl J. 1969. Man and His Government. Mc Graw Hill: New York
Grindle, Merilee S., and John W. Thomas 1991. Public Choices and Policy Change” The Political Economy of Reform in Developing Countries. John Hopkins University Press: Baltimore Hill, Michael and Hupe, Peter 2002. Implementing Public Policy: Governance in Theory and in Practice. Sage Publications: London Jenkins-Smith, Hank and David Weimer 1985. Analysis as Retrogade Action. Public Administration Review 45 (July): pp. 485-494 Kingdon, John 1995. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies, Harper Collins: New York 1984. Agenda, Alternatives and Public Policies. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Lasswell, Harold 1951. “The Policy Orientation”. In D. Lerner & H. Lasswell, eds. The Policy Sciences. Stanford University Press: Stanford Lindblom, Charles E. and Edward J. Woodhouse 1992. The Policy-Making Process. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs: prentice-Hall Margolis, Howard 1974. Technical Advice on Policy Issues. Sage: Beverly Hills Marshal Edward Dimock and Gladys Ogden Dimock Public Administration Meier, Gerald 1991. “Policy Lessons and Policy Formulation.” In Politics and Policy Making in Developing Countries. International Center for Economic Growth Press pp. 3-12: San Francisco Meltsner, Arnold 1976. Policy Analysis in the Bureaucracy, University of California Press: Berkley Nelson, Robert M. 1987. “The Economics Profession and the Making of Public Policy”. Journal Economic Literature 25 (March):pp. 42-84
Rein, Martin and Sheldon White 1977. “Policy Research: Belief and Doubt.” Policy Analysis. Volume 3, Spring. pp.239-271 Sabatier, Paul A. 1999. Theories of the Policy Process. Westview Press: Colorado Stone, Deborah A. 1989. Casual Stories and the Formation of Policy Agenda. Political Science Quarterly. Volume 104, pp. 281-300 Webber, David 1983 “Obstacles to the Utilization of Systematic Policy Analysis.” Knowledge 4 (June),pp. 534-560 Weiss, Carol H. and M.J Bucuvalas 1980. Social Science Research and Decision-Making. Columbia University Press: New York Wildavsky, Aron and Ellen Tenenbaum 1981. The Politics of Mistrust. Sage: Beverly Hills 2002. Lt. Antonio F. Trillanes IV PN 2001. Pres. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s State of the Nation Address 2001. The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2001-2004. NEDA: Pasig City 1995. 60 Years of Development Planning in the Philippines: A Commemorative Brochure. NEDA: Pasig City 1986. Executive Order No. 230, “Recognizing the National Economic Decelopment Authority. Malacanang Palace: Manila
