MPA 810 Public Policy Analysis PDF

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA FACULTY OF MANAGEMENTSCIECES MPA810 Public Policy Analysis Course Team: Dr. (Mrs.) Maryam O. Quadri (Course Writers) University of Lagos Prof E.E. Chukwuemeka (Course Editor) University of Nigeria Dr. Amina Bala Saleh/Musa Zakari (Reviewers) National Open University of Nigeria 1 NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA 91Cadastral Zone, NnamdiAzikiwe Express Way, Jabi-Abuja URL: www.nou.edu.ng Published By: National Open University of Nigeria First Printed 2012 Second Printed 2022 ISBN: 978-058-548-6 All Rights Reserved CONTENTS PAGE Introduction……………………………………………………………………….. 1 Course Guide…………………………………………….................................... 1 Measurable Learning Outcomes………………………………………………… 1 Course Materials………………………………………………………………….. 2 Self-Assessment-Exercise …………………………........................................... 3 Summary………………………………………………………………………...... 3 Introduction Introduction This course, MPA 810: Public Policy Analysis is a 3 -credit unit course consisting of 20 units. It is one-semester course for students offering Master in Public Administration. Each unit is to he covered in 2 hours and it is a core course. This course, PAD810: Public Policy Analysis is a three (3) credit unit compulsory for students studying public administration and related programmes in the Faculty of Management Sciences. The course has been arranged for you in twenty distinct but related units of study activities. In this course guide, you will find out what you need to know about the aims and objectives of the course, components of the course material, arrangement of the study units, assignments, and examinations. Course Contents The course has 5 module and 25 units. Characteristics, (3units) Methods and Approaches in Policy Analysis (3 units) Theories of Policy Making, (4 units), Modules of Policy Making (3 units), and Tools and Techniques in Policy Analysis with 3 units including a case study of National Industrial Policy. The citing of the case study is to enhance your understating of the gap between policy making and policy implementation in Nigeria. Course Guide The aim of this curse is to enrich your knowledge on the concept of policy, its features and implementation process. Therefore, you are introduced to: 1. Concepts of Public Policy and Policy Analysis 2. Different methods and approaches in Policy Analysis. System elite 3. Institutional and Group Theories 4. Models in policy-making techniques and tools of in policy analysis. 2 Measurable Learning Outcomes Upon successful completion of these modules, you will be able to: Explain the Policy Conception and Characteristics Explain the Concept and Field of Public Policy Analysis Outline the Uses and Types of Public Policies Discuss the Prescriptive, Descriptive, Micro and Macro Approaches Discuss the Methods and Approaches in Policy Analysis Explain the Perspective, Descriptive, Micro and Macro Approaches in Policy Analysis Discuss the Approaches to Public Policy Analysis Discuss the System and Elite Theories Explain the Theories of Policy Making Discuss the Institutional and Group Theories Explain the Rational-Comprehensive, Satisfying and Mixed Scanning Models Discuss the public policy process and implementation Discuss the actors in Policy Analysis. Self-Assessment-Exercise (SAEs) Two Self-assessment Exercises each are incorporated in the study material for each unit. Self-assessment Exercise helps students to be a realistic judge of their own performance and to improve their work. Promotes the skills of reflective practice and self-monitoring; Promotes academic integrity through student self-reporting of learning progress; Develops self-directed learning; Increases student motivation and Helps students develop a range of personal, transferrable skills. Summary Each Unit contained a summary of the entire unit. A summary is a brief statement or restatement of main points, especially as a conclusion to a work: a summary of a chapter. A brief is a detailed outline, by heads and subheads, of a discourse (usually legal) to be completed: a brief for an argument. Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s) within the content The materials contained Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s) within the content. The possible Self-assessments answers enable you to understand how well you're performing in the contents. It is a way of analysing your work performance and any areas for growth. Reflecting on your strengths, weaknesses, values and accomplishments can help you determine what goals to work toward next. Course Material The course material package is comprises of following Modules and unit structure: 3 MODULE 1 Unit 1: Concept of Policy and Public Policy 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Learning Outcomes 1.3 Title of the main 1.3.1 Meaning of Policy 1.3.2 Concept of Public Policy 1.4 Public Policy Hierarchy 1.5 Characteristics of Public Policy 1.6 Forms of Public Policy 1.7 The Role of Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.8 Summary 1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources 1.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s) within the content 1.1 Introduction Government policies in today‘s worldare growing more complicated, ambiguous, and unpredictable to due to numerous demands. Citizens are more knowledgeable, have higher expectations, and are making an increasing number of demands for services that are tailored to their specific requirements. Because of the interconnected nature of key policy concerns, such as social need, low educational achievement, and poor health, these problems cannot be effectively addressed by separate departments or agencies operating in isolation. Efficiency in service delivery was a primary emphasis of government reform efforts in Nigeria, as it was in other countries; the overhaul of government and management structures is to improve service delivery to the citizenry. The process of formulating policies, as described in this materials, entails first determining what should be done, which involves analyzing the underlying rationale behind policies as well as their efficacy, followed by figuring out how to carry out the tasks, and finally evaluating, on an ongoing basis, the degree to which the desired results are being achieved. The process of formulating policies is not an exact science, yet it is nonetheless quite challenging to execute successfully. As is the case with any procedure, there are several instruments and methods that can make the work that needs to be done more efficient. Given this concept, in order to accomplish what this book set out to do, it was broken up into six sections, beginning with the introduction. This material discusses and reviews issues associated with public policy, model of public policies, the hierarchy of public policies, their evaluations, and the criteria for those evaluations, along with the processes involved, were examined. 1.2 Learning Outcomes At the end of this unit you should be able to: 4 i. Explain the Meaning of Policy ii. Discuss the concept of Public Policy iii. Examine the Public Policy Hierarchy iv. Explain the Forms of Public Policy 1.3 Policy and Public Policy 1.3.1 Meaning of Policy What exactly does the term "policy" mean? Policy is as a course or principle of action adopted or suggested by a government, party, business, or individual." The process by which governments translate their political vision into programs and activities to create "outcomes" intended change in the real world is referred to as policymaking. This process has been characterized as the process by which governments make policies. Policy can take a variety of different forms, including non-intervention; promotional, distributive, re-distributive, and regulatory, for example by licensing; or the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; as well as direct public service provision. Non-intervention is one of the more common forms of policy (Musa, Ibrahim and Yakubu, 2020). 1.3.2 Concept of Public Policy Public Policy Public Policy has been defined by various scholars in different ways. Ikelegbe (2006) defined Public Policy as the proposed course of action of the government or one of its divisions. Egonmwan (2000) defined Public Policy as important action of government. Olamiyi (1998) defined Public Policy as the management of human and material resources by policy actors to address a policy problem identified at any point in time. Ikelegbe (2006) also defined Public Policy as governmental actions or course of actions, or proposed actions or course of proposed actions that are directed at achieving certain goals. From the foregoing it is evident that Public Policy is governmental action to remedy perceived societal problems. Public Policy could also be seen as an attempt by a government to address a public issue by instituting laws, regulations, decisions, or actions pertinent to the problem at hand. Numerous issues can be addressed by Public Policy including crime, education, foreign policy, health, and social. While public policies are most common in the United States, several other countries, such as those in the United Kingdom, implement them as well. The process to create a new public policy typically follows three steps: agenda-setting, option-formulation, and implementation; the time- line for a new policy to be put in place can range from weeks to several years, depending on the situation (Ezeigwe, 2013). According to the definition provided by George and Klauss (2000), public policy is "an publicly proclaimed objective that is backed by a sanction," where the sanction can either be a reward or a punishment. "a law, a rule, a statute, an edict, a regulation, or an order" is the shape that "a public policy" can take while it's being implemented as a course of 5 action (or inaction). It is possible for public policy to take a variety of various forms, such as non-intervention; regulation, such as via licensing; the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; and direct provision of public services; among other possible manifestations. Geurts (2010) defines public policy as a decision that the government makes in response to a political issue or a public crisis. This decision was made in accordance with our standards and ideals. In order to close the gap that exists between these ideals and standards and a given circumstance, policies are developed. When applied in this setting, the term "public policy" always refers to the decisions and acts taken by the government, as well as the goals that serve as the basis for those decisions and activities. The decisions and activities of the government that have the best chance of achieving a desired goal are those that are guided by policy. Edward (1987) suggests that the process of formulating public policy should be seen of as one that is decision-centered and goal-driven. According to Egonmwan (2000), other characteristics of public policy include the following: (a) The formation of public policy is an exercise in power; it involves the manipulation of dependence relationships; and to the extent that it involves the solution of societal problems for constrained circumstances, it invariably involves political conflict. b). It is not simply a continuous process of decisions and activities; it takes place primarily but not entirely inside the formal and legal organizational structure and agencies of the state. c). It is not only a process that is ongoing (public bureaucracy). It requires a range of decisions to be made, but the primary course of action or specific instructions to be followed might not be one of them. For example, you might not be allowed to utilize your own personal discretion. c). Because it is focused on the future, this entails that it is perpetually concerned with probability and economic conditions that are open to transformation. As a result, it necessitates the use of logic rather than the simple use of power. On the other hand, while it is believed that public policies will express and consolidate the goals that will serve public interests as justified by the government, sectional or self- seeking motivations may be uncovered after conducting a thorough investigation. Interaction with a broad spectrum of a critical mass of external interest group is typically required for the development of public policy. Examples of such groups include civil society organizations, advocacy groups, traders, farmers, professionals, industrialists, and other development associations. According to Egonmwan (2000), the steps involved in the policy formulation process are as follows: I Goal formulation, in which multiple groups operate with different and frequently conflicting objectives; (ii) Problem identification and definition as a result of the partial ignorance problem; and (iii) Agenda setting, which involves attempts by individuals and groups to influence policy decisions. (iv) Identifying alternative policies and assessing those alternative policies (analysis of policy option) (v) Policy choice. According to Egonmwan (2000), the results of the process described above are typically 6 articulated in the official papers of the government. These documents might take the form of legislative acts, decrees, policy statements, directives, laws, and guidelines. Formulation of policy draws from a variety of models and theories, the most prominent of which are the rational comprehensive model, the satisfying model, the instrumentalist model, the mixed scanning model, the facet design model, and the choice theory of planning. In the context of the Nigerian environment, the choice theory of planning, which was developed by Thomas Reiner and Paul Davidoff, and the facet design theory of planning, which was developed by Dror, are not particularly popular. James (1960) provides a definition of policy as a deliberate plan of action that is carried out by an actor or group of actors in order to address a problem or other subject of concern. This idea of policy places the emphasis on what was really done, as opposed to what is proposed or planned, and it distinguishes a policy from a decision, which is a selection made from a number of options that are in competition with one another. The policies that constitute public policy are those that are formulated by governmental agencies and authorities. The fact that a political system's "authorities" are the ones who establish public policies gives these policies their distinctive qualities, as a result of which they are called "public." The Provisional Ruling Council, the Armed Forces, the Ruling Council, the Presidency, the Legislature, Councillors, and so on is all examples of such authorities. According to Mbiele (2006), the definition of public policy is the general articulation of the intentions, goals, and objectives of the people, along with the adoption of actions that are practical for the achievement of targeted interests and the fulfilment of needs. To put it another way, public policy is comprised of the objectives and presumptions that guide the actions of the government and do not in any way contradict what has been said above. It serves as guidance for the actions and inactions of the government (Starling, 1974). In order to formulate policies, the government must make decisions, such as whether or not to do something, how much of something to do, how little of something else to do, or whether or not to do anything at all (Starling, 1974). It follows that an attempt by a government to not act is considered a policy as a result of this. According to Smith (1974), the formulation of public policy is "a logical activity of government that encompasses planning." Policy formulation is a blend of politics and planning. A more precise definition of public policy would describe it as an action or inaction taken by the government in response to the existence of a problem, with the intention of addressing the problem in order to fulfill some kind of purpose or achieve some kind of objective. (Hugo, 1972) A policy can be thought of as a course of action or inactivity that is intended to accomplish particular aims. This meaning derives directly from the term. This concept encompasses those deliberate choices to ignore an issue and do nothing about it (Hugo, 1972). To put it another way, one definition of policy describes it as "a path of action chosen from among a variety of choices on the basis of some defined criteria." Further deduction from the preceding definition reveals that planning and public policy are conceptually 7 distinct terms, despite the fact that planning is similar to public policy in that it involves purposive action. According to Anderson (1975), policy is "what is really done as opposed to what is proposed or intended." This distinction allows policy to be distinguished from other notions, such as "decision," among others. In addition, when defining public policy, it is important to differentiate between policies held by the government and those held by private organizations. This is due to the fact that not only governmental authorities but also commercial groups are responsible for formulating policy. Therefore, public policy can be defined as "those policies produced by governmental bodies and officials" (Anderson, 1975), which refers to a course of action that is chosen from a variety of options based on the application of certain criteria. Further deduction from the preceding definition reveals that planning and public policy are conceptually distinct terms, despite the fact that planning is similar to public policy in that it involves purposive action. Therefore, "those policies created by governmental bodies and officials" is one definition of what we mean when we talk about "public policy" (Anderson, 1975). According to Anderson, the following are the five most important aspects of public policy: 1. It is an action that is carried out in order to accomplish a particular goal. 2. Rather than consisting of a series of independent choices, it is a plan of action. 3. It refers to the actions that the government takes, rather than the goals that it has set for itself. 4. It can either be constructive (in its acts) or destructive (inactions). 5. It is founded on legal precedent and a decision made by an administrative body. This final argument above bolsters the contribution of David Easton's system as another analysis on public policies, through which he defines it as the authoritative allocation of limited societal values. Easton describes public policies in this way since scarce societal values are scarce (Easton, 1965). If the desired outcome must correspond to the consequences that were intended, as determined by a particular environment, the scenario that follows demonstrates how closely policy formulation and implementation are related (Geurts, 2010:23). A significant number of the changes that have been made to our governmental system over the course of the last few decades have focused on modernization strategies that are also being utilized in the private sector to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and value for money. The policymaking process and the way in which it affects the ability of policymakers to satisfy the requirements of constituents in a world that is becoming increasingly complex, ambiguous, and unpredictable received much less attention than it should have (Smith, 2002). This suggests that there is a significant amount of room for innovation and optimization within this sphere. After all, the primary functions of government are policy formulation and policy implementation. If the actors in the chain are going to cooperate on the basis of common goals and outcomes, then it is abundantly clear that some kind of powerful support is going to be required. Therefore, putting purpose into practice ought to be a key component of any future action plans for the e- government (David, 2000). 8 According to Nyong (2005), the goal of every government should be to provide for the needs of its citizens in order to improve the welfare of those citizens. This includes providing for fundamental requirements such as food, education, health, education, housing, good drinking water, power supply, good roads, provision banking facilities, environmental protection, and so on. Since the needs of humans are diverse and continue to expand over time, it is the responsibility of the government to meet these needs, which also include the promotion of rapid economic growth, the reduction of unemployment to a manageable level, the preservation of price stability, and the establishment of a stable and equitable payment balance (Musa, Ibrahim Yakubu, 2020). Self-Assessment Exercises 1 1. explain the Meaning of Policy 2. Discuss the concept of Public Policy 1.4 Public Policy Hierarchy The hierarchy of public policy is seen as a "unbroken claim" through which policy must travel before a solution to a particular problem may be found (Akindele and Olaopa, 2004). According to Akindele and Olaopa (2004), the Public Policy Handbook can be broken down into four primary categories: political policy, executive policy, administrative policy, and technical policy. It is generally accepted that the Political Policy serves as a basic policy process through which conversations are held with various broad aims. It is political in the sense that the government has made a choice with the intention of resolving some issues, the nature of which may include more than one. To be more detailed, public policy is the process of determining the overarching goals of significant policy initiatives in general terms. A result of such a wide policy is to give a basic framework within which successful policy may be worked out. This is one of the effects of good policy (Musa, Ibrahim Yakubu, 2020). The term "Executive Policy" refers to the effective reduction of "general" or "political" policy into "cabinet policy," in which concrete, practical aims express themselves. This concept is widely recognized. After this has been completed, the policy will now shift its focus to administrative sectors or policy. This part of the market is referred to as the "actuation" sector. To put it another way, it is a location where ministerial duty is exercised. This is the structure that the ministerial administration takes when it is put into action. In conclusion, the technical policy is an everyday practice that is adopted by officials in the process of formulating administrative policies for the government. At this point in the process, experienced technocrats and higher-level civil employees are tasked with interpreting the substance of the policy in terms of its implementation. Technocrats are responsible for decoding the contents of policies in order to ascertain whether or not they are positive in relation to the policies' stated purpose (Musa, Ibrahim Yakubu, 2020). Self-Assessment Exercises 2 9 1. Examine the Public Policy Hierarchy 2. Explain the Different Categories of Public Policy 1.5 Characteristics of Public Policy Ikelegbe, (2006) cited in Musa, Ibrahim Yakubu (2020) identified the following characteristics of public policy: a. It is dynamic in nature, which means that it is susceptible to ongoing changes. b. It makes the most of available possibilities and outlines strategies for overcoming challenges in the pursuit of a goal. c. It refers to a pattern of behavior carried out by an individual, a group, or the government. d. It is an activity that involves actors and components from both the government and non-government organizations, among other things. Importance of Governmental Regulations The following are some of the reasons why public policy is important: a. It is a vehicle through which the will of the people can be expressed. b. It is a primary instrument in the hands of the government. c. It fosters the growth of the people on a social, political, economic, and administrative level. d. It is a spoken, written, or implied basic guide that all administrative management operations must adhere to. 1.6Forms of Public Policy Different parts of society are subject to distinctly different policies. There are many distinct sorts of policies, each of which can be classified according to a unique set of characteristics; for example, public policy can pertain to issues of housing, education, health, transportation, agriculture, industry, etc. Intent, operational process, issues, and clientele are some of the other categories that can be used to classify policies (Ikelegbe, cited in Musa, Ibrahim Yakubu, 2020). On the other hand, Lowi (1970) distinguished between three types of policies: distributive, regulatory, and redistributive. a. Policies Regarding Distribution These are policies that pertain to tariffs or taxes, as well as the distribution of public amenities and other such things. According to Ikelegbe (1996), distributive policies are ones that involve gradual dispersal, unit to various parts of the population and to persons and organizations. In reality, these policies are favors, rewards, or patronage handed out to a small number of people. The process of dispersal is ongoing, and as a result, individuals who were not favored at one period may be accommodated through additional dispersal at some later time. One of the characteristics that sets distributive policies apart from other types of policies is that they do not incite conflict among people who are wanting to profit from the policy. 10 The primary reason for this is due to the fact that distribution occurs continuously, and those who are unsuccessful in the beginning almost always succeed in the long run (Ikelegbe, 1996) In this sort of policy, the person making the decision is not aware of either all of the possible alternatives or the effects of each one. This state is more prevalent in real world situations due to the fact that the majority of decision making occurs under settings of uncertainty. In this scenario, judgments are made based on the restricted number of options that are known to the decision maker as well as his limited understanding of the implications of those options. b. Regulatory Policy The actions of various social groupings in a society can be regulated through the implementation of various regulatory regulations. Because regulatory rules are aimed at specific industries, they inevitably cause friction and sometimes even outright conflict between those industries that are in direct competition with one another. In order for the government to fulfill its responsibilities of protecting its citizens, it is required to create guidelines, rules, and regulations that serve as a standard for how diverse groups and sectors of society should behave themselves. Regulatory policies are developed with winners and losers in mind; however, given that most people despise being defeated, these policies frequently result in a great deal of conflict. Those who come out on the losing end of a policy may refuse to accept it in good faith and may work to alter it so that it works more to their advantage. Legislation such as labor laws, import policies, financial regulation, and other forms of government policy all fall under this category. These rules and regulations are enacted with the intention of controlling the activity of various groups and businesses in society. c. Policies of Income Redistribution These are the kinds of policies that have a propensity to move resources away from one industry or group and towards another. for example, earnings from the oil industry going to the healthcare or transportation industries. Policies that the government enacts with the intention of achieving equity or inequity by favoring one group over another and doing so at the expense of others are known as redistributive policies. These are the kinds of policies that almost inevitably lead to conflict and tension. Because the topic in question may entail socioeconomic, ideological, tribal, religious, or geographical lines, it is relatively straightforward to identify the people who will benefit from these policies. Progressive tax policies, social welfare programs, and sectorial allocation preference policies are all examples of the types of policies that fall under this category. 1.7 Summary This unit explained that, Policy is a course or principle of action adopted or suggested by a government, party, business, or individual. The process by which governments translate their political vision into programs and activities to create "outcomes" - intended change in the real world - is referred to as policymaking. This process has been characterized as the process by which governments make policies. 11 public policy is "an publicly proclaimed objective that is backed by a sanction, where the sanction can either be a reward or a punishment. "a law, a rule, a statute, an edict, a regulation, or an order" is the shape that "a public policy" can take while it's being implemented as a course of action (or inaction). It is possible for public policy to take a variety of various forms, such as non-intervention; regulation, such as via licensing; the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; and direct provision of public services; among other possible manifestations. Since the needs of humans are diverse and continue to expand over time, it is the responsibility of the government to meet these needs, which also include the promotion of rapid economic growth, the reduction of unemployment to a manageable level, the preservation of price stability, and the establishment of a stable and equitable payment balance. The hierarchy of public policy is seen as a "unbroken claim" through which policy must travel before a solution to a particular problem may be found (Akindele and Olaopa, 2004). According to Akindele and Olaopa (2004), the Public Policy Handbook can be broken down into four primary categories: political policy, executive policy, administrative policy, and technical policy. It is generally accepted that the Political Policy serves as a basic policy process through which conversations are held with various broad aims. It is political in the sense that the government has made a choice with the intention of resolving some issues, the nature of which may include more than one. The following are characteristics of public policy: a. It is dynamic in nature, which means that it is susceptible to ongoing changes. b. It makes the most of available possibilities and outlines strategies for overcoming challenges in the pursuit of a goal. c. It refers to a pattern of behavior carried out by an individual, a group, or the government. d. It is an activity that involves actors and components from both the government and non-government organizations, among other things. Importance of Governmental Regulations The following are some of the reasons why public policy is important: a. It is a vehicle through which the will of the people can be expressed. b. It is a primary instrument in the hands of the government. c. It fosters the growth of the people on a social, political, economic, and administrative level. d. It is a spoken, written, or implied basic guide that all administrative management operations must adhere to. Forms of Public Policy Different parts of society are subject to distinctly different policies. There are many distinct sorts of policies, each of which can be classified according to a unique set of characteristics; for example, public policy can pertain to issues of housing, education, health, transportation, agriculture, industry, etc. Intent, operational process, issues, and clientele are some of the other categories that can be used to classify policies. On the 12 other hand, Lowi (1964) distinguished between three types of policies: distributive, regulatory, and redistributive. 1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources Akindele, S.T. and Olaopa, O.R. (2004). A Theoretical Review of Core Issues on Public Policy and its Environment. J. Hum. Ecol., 16(3): 173-180. Anderson, J.E. (1975). Public Policy Making.Praeger Publishers, New York, p. 18. David U.I. (2000). Public Policy Analysis, Concept and Applications. Benin, Resyin (Nig) Company. David, E. (1965). A system analysis of political life; New York, Wiley Dror, Y. (1968). Public Policy- Making.Pennsylvania: Shandler Chapter 1 & 2. Easton, D. A. (1965).System Analysis of Political Life. Willey, New York. Edward, T. (1987).The process of formulating public policy. Chicago. Edward Elgar Publishing. Edwards, Michael (2004), Civil Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Egonmwam, 2000). Public Policy Analysis, Concept and Applications; Benin, Resyin (Nig) Company Egonmwan, J.A. (1991), Public Policy Analysis, concepts and Applications. Benin: Resyin. European Union Election Observation Mission to Nigeria (2011), ―Final Report on the 2011 General Election. Dhanagare, D.N. (2001), ―Civil Society, State and democracy : Contextualizing a Discourse‖, In the Sociological Bulletin 5(2), pp.167–91. Ezeigwe, F. O. (2013). Governance, Civil Society And Public Policy-Making In Nigeria: A Study Of The 2010 Electoral Act. Advance Research in Public Policy, Administration and Development Strategies Vol.1 No.2. George H. & Rudi K. (2000) in Egonmwam.Public Policy Analysis, Concept and Applications; Benin, Resyin (Nig) Company. Geurts T. (2010) Public Policy Making the 21st Century Perspective: Apeldoorn the Netherlands Geurts T. (2010) Public Policy Making the 21st Century Perspective: Apeldoorn the Netherlands. Hugo, H. (1972). Review Article: Policy Analysis, British Journal of Political Science, 2: 85. Ikelegbe, A.O. (2006), Public Policy Analysis: Concepts, Issues and Cases. Lagos: Imprint Services. Lowi, T. (1970). Decision making vs. policy making: Toward an antidote for technocracy. Willey, New York. Mbieli, P. (2006) Public administration, a broad view.Megavons (West Africa) limited. 13 Musa, Z. Ibrahim I. S. Yakubu S. I. (2020).An Introduction to Public Policy Analysis and Administration; Germany.LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Nyong, M.O. (2001) Public Policy, Public Sector Economics and Management in Nigeria.Calabar. A & A. Communication. Ogbu, S. (2003). Public Policy Making and implementation: The Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) of Nigeria in perspective. Abuja Management Review (AMR). Vol. 1 issues No. 1 March 2003. Olaniyi, J.O. (1998), Foundations of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan: Sunad Publishers. Smith, D. G. (2000) in Egonmwam.Public Policy Analysis, Concept And Applications. Benin, Resyin (Nig) Company. Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy studies journal, 30(3), 379-395. Smith, S. C. (1964). Economics and public policy in water resource development.Willey, New York. Starling, G. (1988).Strategies for Policy Making. The Dorsey Press, Chicago. 1.8 Possible Answers to SAEs Answers to SAEs 1 1. Policy is a course or principle of action adopted or suggested by a government, party, business, or individual. The process by which governments translate their political vision into programs and activities to create "outcomes" - intended change in the real world - is referred to as policymaking. This process has been characterized as the process by which governments make policies. 2. public policy is "an publicly proclaimed objective that is backed by a sanction, where the sanction can either be a reward or a punishment. "a law, a rule, a statute, an edict, a regulation, or an order" is the shape that "a public policy" can take while it's being implemented as a course of action (or inaction). It is possible for public policy to take a variety of various forms, such as non-intervention; regulation, such as via licensing; the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; and direct provision of public services; among other possible manifestations. Since the needs of humans are diverse and continue to expand over time, it is the responsibility of the government to meet these needs, which also include the promotion of rapid economic growth, the reduction of unemployment to a manageable level, the preservation of price stability, and the establishment of a stable and equitable payment balance. Answers to SAEs 2 1. The hierarchy of public policy is seen as a "unbroken claim" through which policy must travel before a solution to a particular problem may be found (Akindele and 14 Olaopa, 2004). According to Akindele and Olaopa (2004), the Public Policy Handbook can be broken down into four primary categories: political policy, executive policy, administrative policy, and technical policy. It is generally accepted that the Political Policy serves as a basic policy process through which conversations are held with various broad aims. It is political in the sense that the government has made a choice with the intention of resolving some issues, the nature of which may include more than one. 2. The following are characteristics of public policy: a. It is dynamic in nature, which means that it is susceptible to ongoing changes. b. It makes the most of available possibilities and outlines strategies for overcoming challenges in the pursuit of a goal. c. It refers to a pattern of behavior carried out by an individual, a group, or the government. d. It is an activity that involves actors and components from both the government and non-government organizations, among other things. Importance of Governmental Regulations The following are some of the reasons why public policy is important: a. It is a vehicle through which the will of the people can be expressed. b. It is a primary instrument in the hands of the government. c. It fosters the growth of the people on a social, political, economic, and administrative level. d. It is a spoken, written, or implied basic guide that all administrative management operations must adhere to. Forms of Public Policy Different parts of society are subject to distinctly different policies. There are many distinct sorts of policies, each of which can be classified according to a unique set of characteristics; for example, public policy can pertain to issues of housing, education, health, transportation, agriculture, industry, etc. Intent, operational process, issues, and clientele are some of the other categories that can be used to classify policies. On the other hand, Lowi (1964) distinguished between three types of policies: distributive, regulatory, and redistributive. Unit 2:Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Learning Outcomes 1.3 Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.3.1 The Role of Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.3.2 Approaches to Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.4 Stages of the Policy Making Process 1.5 Types of Public Policy 1.6 Summary 1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources 1.8 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s) within the content 15 1.1 Introduction The Administrator "makes his selections based on a straightforward picture of the circumstance that takes into account a handful of the aspects that he considers to be the most significant and important." The Administrator, as opposed to being an economic guy who just maximizes and satisfies-interest in solutions that meet his problems, seeks to maximize and fulfill all of his interests. This is also referred to as "bounded rationality," because the extent of the administrator's knowledge, the information he can gather at any given time, his values, skills, perception, and the amount of time he has available for decision making all act as bounds, or limitations, on the administrator's ability to make sound judgments. 1.2 Learning Outcomes At the end of this unit you should be able to: Itemize and discuss the Approaches to Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process Explain the rational Comprehensive Approach Discuss incremental Approach Explain the decision making model Discuss Mixed scanning Approaches Itemize the stages of the Policy Making Process Mention and briefly explain the Types of Public Policy 1.3 Approaches to Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 1.3.1Rational Comprehensive Approach The rational comprehensive approach can be seen in phases ranging from the identification of the problem to the setting of goals and the gathering of information, a search for alternative courses of action and a thorough investigation into each alternative course of action, and finally the selection of the "rational" course of action as the best course of action to take. On the basis of the limitations and constraints involved in rational decision making, Simon (1976), as cited in Obikeze and Obi (2004: 123), proposed a modified version of decision making known as the satisfying model. In this model, the administrative man makes decisions that are satisfactory in order to solve the problem that is currently being considered. 1.3.2 Incremental Approach The aviator Charles Lindblomsaid that, there is a step-by-step approach to administrative decision making, which he referred to as "Successive-Limited-Comparison." The 16 incrementalist approach holds the belief that choices are not made in the manner outlined above. This strategy merely broadens or expands upon earlier selections that were made. According to Obikeze and Obi (2004), a synopsis of the incremental theory is as follows: "A policy is directed at a problem: it is tried, altered, tried in its altered form, altered again, and so on." In a nutshell, the answer to any given problem is a series of incremental measures that are implemented one after the other. The conclusion that can be drawn from this is that incrementalist thinking entails making adjustments and alterations to pre-existing programs. The approach does not lend support for fundamental shifts in the way that the government runs its policies and programs. This helps to explain why Dror (1968), as cited in Obikeze and Obi (2004), hypothesized that the model "fits the needs of a stable society, because evolution leads to institutions that embody the wisdom of generations and that should not be carelessly harmed." Incrementalism emphasizes care in rejecting government policies (especially by new regimes), it entrenches continuity in government policies, and it makes it simple for the governed to be brought along because of the incremental character of government policies. On the other hand, this method of formulating public policy has been attacked on the grounds that it is insufficiently moderate and helps to preserve the status quo. It is also feasible to argue that the paradigm is not fit for the developmental objectives of developing economies, which require some fundamental reform. This line of reasoning requires some dramatic transformation. As a method of explanation, incrementalism has failed to adduce reasons behind unexpected shifts in government policy, and as a result, its applications have been severely restricted. It's possible that an incremental approach to decision making isn't necessary in today's dynamic environment, which is being driven by the quick pace of technology progress and advancement. The incrementalist strategy will just focus on those places in which comparable patterns arose in the recent past and possibly on a few trouble locations, but the rational approach may be excessively comprehensive. Etzioni proposed that mixed scanning could be broken down into two levels, each with a different level of detail and coverage; the decision regarding how the scanning process should be carried out in each level is based on the amount of time and money that is available. He also canvassed that in utilizing mixed scanning, it is essential to differentiate between fundamental decisions (requiring the rational approach) and incremental decisions. The onus of evaluating the nature of decision to be taken rests on the decision maker who should be able to identify/choose the model that suits the situation. 1.3.3 A decision making model As a decision making model, it attempts to rise to the inability of Incrementalism in explaining radical changes in government policies. It also strives to accommodate the divergent capacities of decision makers as rationalists and Incrementalists. However, as a model, it is too conciliatory and compromising to the directed at a problem: it is tried, altered, tried in its altered form, and altered again and so forth. In a nutshell, the answer to any given problem is a series of incremental measures that are implemented one after 17 the other. The implication of this is that Incrementalism amounts to improvements and modifications of existing policies. The approach does not lend support for fundamental shifts in the way that the government runs its policies and programs. This helps to explain why Dror (1968), as cited in Obikeze and Obi (2004: 124), hypothesized that the model "fits the needs of a stable society, because evolution leads to institutions that embody the wisdom of generations and that should not be carelessly harmed." Incrementalism emphasizes care in rejecting government policies (especially by new regimes), it entrenches continuity in government policies, and it makes it simple for the governed to be brought along because of the incremental character of government policies. On the other hand, this method of formulating public policy has been attacked on the grounds that it is insufficiently moderate and helps to preserve the status quo. It is also feasible to argue that the paradigm is not fit for the developmental objectives of developing economies, which require some fundamental reform. This line of reasoning requires some dramatic transformation. As a method of explanation, incrementalism has failed to adduce reasons behind unexpected shifts in government policy, and as a result, its applications have been severely restricted. It's possible that an incremental approach to decision making isn't necessary in today's dynamic environment, which is being driven by the quick pace of technology progress and advancement. As a decision making model, it attempts to rise to the inability of Incrementalism in explaining radical changes in government policies. It also strives to accommodate the divergent capacities of decision makers as rationalists and Incrementalist. However, as a model, it is too conciliatory and compromising to the Lack of well-defined programme for attainment of goals; Choice of inappropriate organizational structure for implementation of policies; lack of continuity in commitment to policy; lack of clear definition or responsibility; political opposition during implementation; compromises during implementation capable of defeating policy purposes; political insensitivity to policy demands; (wrong) timing implementation; corruption; lack of adequate data for decision making. 1.3.4 Mixed scanning Approaches According to Etzioni (1974), mixed scanning is a combination of the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model, it is not considered to be an innovative theory of decision making. This is because the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model are both based on rationality. Etzioni used an illustration of worldwide weather observation using two cameras to explain this model. The first camera was a wide-angle camera that would cover all parts of the sky but not in detail. The second camera would zero in on those areas that were revealed by the first camera to require a more in-depth examination. Because Etzioni's mixed scanning is a combination of the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model, it is not considered to be an innovative theory of decision making. This is because the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model are both based on rationality. Etzioni used an illustration of worldwide weather observation using two cameras to explain this model. The first camera was a wide-angle camera that would cover all parts of the sky but not in detail. The second camera would zero in on 18 those areas that were revealed by the first camera to require a more in-depth examination. The rational approach could be too detailed, while the Incrementalist will merely focus on those areas in which similar patterns developed in recent past and perhaps on a few trouble spots. Etzioni proposed that mixed scanning could be broken down into two levels, each with a different level of detail and coverage; the decision regarding how the scanning process should be carried out in each level is based on the amount of time and money that is available. He also canvassed that in utilizing mixed scanning, it is essential to differentiate between fundamental decisions (requiring the rational approach) and incremental decisions. The onus of evaluating the nature of decision to be taken rests on the decision maker who should be able to identify/choose the model that suits the situation. The role of public bureaucracy as civil and public servants in the public policy making process (with respect to policy (input) formulation and as implementers) is not in dispute. The two main ‗phases‘ of policy execution are Execution and Enforcement, which are preceded by the two ‗phases‘ of policy making: Formulation and Implementation (Fischer, 2003). Self-Assessment Exercises 1 1. Explain the Role of Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process 2. Discuss the Step-By-Step Approach to Administrative Decision Making Incremental Approach 1.4 Stages of the Policy Making Process According to Lindblom (1990), there are three stages in the policy making process, they are (a) Policy Formulation (b) Policy Implementation and (c) Policy Evaluation. A. Policy Formulation The process of policy formulation varies from society to society. In most democratic societies today, the Judiciary and Legislature play a major role in the policy making process. Individuals and groups are getting more and more involved in decision making process. It is this realization that has given rise to the concept of the pluralist theory of policy formulation‖. Others have argued that instead of talking of pluralism, the dominant factor is the elite. In other to balance the view of both the pluralist theory and the elite theory Lindblom (1990), came out with what is called Partisan Mutual Adjustment, which facilitates agreement among partisans on values and decisions. However in policy formulation, public involvement is very important because it helps in the implementation stage. People easily obey or accept polices they take part in formulating than those forced on them. Steps in Policy formulation process Lindblom (1990) cited in: Musa, Ibrahim and Yakubu (2020), started that, following are steps in Policy formulation process: 19 i. Identification of the problem: What is a policy problem, what makes it a policy problem, how does it get on the agenda of the government? ii. Development of alternative courses of action: How are alternatives for dealing with the problem developed, who participates in policy formulation, what is the cost implication of the proposed policy? iii. Analysis of alternative: Where the alternatives are critical analyze for the best option. iv. Selection of one alternative/policy choice for adoption: How are alternatives analyzed, adopted and enacted, what requirements must be met? B. Policy Implementation This is the critical stage in policy making process as it determines the overview of the quality of the decision made. This stage is very sensitive and subject to criticism. The quality of a policy is determined by its implementation, and not how good it looks on paper. The 6 – 3 – 3 – 4 policy on education looks so good on paper but how effective is it since inception? In Nigeria, it is well known fact that, the ability to implement a policy is a big problem. However, policy implementation centres on, who is involved, what is to be done to carry policy into effect, what resources are available for policy implementation, what impact does this have on policy content. The following factors are considered when policies are to be implemented. I. Clarity and Specificity of Policy: Before policies are adopted for implementation, the intention of such policies would have been known clear and specific on a particular sector, item or purpose. Any policy that is not clear, direct and specific in nature may be rejected by the masses. The interest and opinion of the people have to be considered before implementing such policy. The government should enlighten the people on public policies in order to enlist their support and cooperation. ii. Implementation Organization: Before embarking on Programme implementation there is supposed to be an appraisal of the institutional capacity of the implementing organization to know whether the policy can be implemented or not. Most government policies are not properly implemented due to inadequate institutional capabilities which need to be created or to upgrade the existing ones. iii. Identification/Assessment of the Target Group: Every policy formulation has a purpose and target group once this has been achieved, implementation of such policy takes centre stage. For instance, if a group has an organized leadership, the government may decide to penetrate the group through its leaders. iv. The Environment: The environment where the policy is to be implemented must be taken into consideration. Some salient features within the environment have to be considered for the success and failure of the policies. In Nigeria, the enactment and implementation of Sharia law was restricted to few states of the country because the people‘s religion or way of life permits such policies. The peculiarities of each location must be of much concern to the policy implementation team. C. Policy Evaluation Evaluation of policies can be done by the policy makers, the implementing organ, members of the public and public policy analysts or experts. There are some good techniques used in policy evaluation, these include the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA), the 20 Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA), Management by Objectives (MBO), Programme planning and Budgeting System (PPBS), Programme Evaluation and Review Technique (PERT), and Zero Based Budgeting (ZBB). Public Policy Implementation According to Ogbu (2003), record has shown that, policy implementation is not as easy as policy formulation. Sometimes, policies are made and dumped by the same government, other times; policies that are made by one government are ignored and even scrapped by a new government. This has far-reaching consequences for the social and economic progress of a country, lack of continuity in policy implementation from one government to another result in waste of valuable resources, and hampered services delivery to the people (Ogbu, 2003). In Nigeria, lack of continuity in policy implementation, unsuccessful implementation, or even non-implementation of policies constitutes a great problem in the country‘s development programmes. From the First National Development Plan to vision 20:2020 has faced serious challenges in their implementation. Ayo (2007) points out the reasons for implementation were to increase per capita income, more even distribution of income, increase in the supply of high level manpower, diversification of the economy, balanced development, and indigenization of economic activities. Implementation refers to the process of converting inputs - financial, information, materials, technical, human, demands, support, etc., into outputs. This stage involves translation of goals and objectives of a policy into concrete achievement through various programmes (Egomnwan, 2000). George and Klauss in:Egonmwam (2000) see implementation as the nemesis of designers; it conjures up images of plans gone awry and of social carpenters and masons who fail to build to specification and thereby distort the beautiful blueprints for progress which were handed to them. It provokes memories of a good idea that did not work, but places the blame on others. Self-Assessment Exercises 2 1. List the three stages in the policy making process 2. Explain the policy Implementation 1.5 Types of Public Policy According to Dror (1968) identified types of Public Policy are: Patronage/Promotional Policies: as those government actions that provide incentive for individuals or corporations to undertake activities they would only reluctantly undertake without the promise of a reward. These can be classified into three types: subsidies; contracts; and licences. Regulatory Policies:as those which allow the government to exert control over the conduct of certain activities (‗negative forms of control‘). They include: environmental pollution; civil & criminal penalties; consumption of tobacco, alcohol; consumer protection; employee health and safety. Redistributive Policies: as those which control people by managing the economy as a whole. The techniques of control involve fiscal (tax) and monetary (supply of money) 21 policies. They tend to benefit one group at the expense of other groups through the reallocation of wealth. Liberal or Conservative Policies: Liberal policies are those in which the government is used extensively to bring about social change, usually in the direction of ensuring greater level of social equality. Conservative policies generally oppose the use of government to bring about social change but may approve government action to preserve the status quo or to promote favoured interests. Such as: Liberals tend to favour a concentration of power in higher levels of government; whereas Conservatives tend to favour decentralization of power and authority. Substantive Policies:Substantive policies are concerned with governmental actions to deal with substantive problems, such as highway construction; environmental protection; payment of welfare benefits. Procedural policies: are those that relate to how something is going to be done or who is going to take action, such as the Administrative Procedures. Material or Symbolic Policies: Material policies provide concrete re-sources or substantive power to their beneficiaries, or, impose real disadvantages on those adversely affected. For example, welfare payments; housing subsidies etc. Symbolic policies appeal more to cherished values than to tangibles benefits; such as national holidays that honour patriots, concerning the flag etc. Collective or Private Goods Policies:Collective goods policies are those benefits that cannot be given to some but denied to others, such as national defence and public safety. Private goods policies are those goods that may be divided into units, and for which consumers can be charged, such as food, trash collection, home security etc (Musa, Ibrahim and Shehu, 2020) 1.6 Summary This unit sees the role of Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process to includes; The rational comprehensive approach can be seen in phases ranging from the identification of the problem to the setting of goals and the gathering of information, a search for alternative courses of action and a thorough investigation into each alternative course of action, and finally the selection of the "rational" course of action as the best course of action to take The incrementalist approach holds the belief that choices are not made in the manner outlined above because Etzioni's mixed scanning is a combination of the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model, it is not considered to be an innovative theory of decision making. This is because the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model are both based on rationality Stages of the Policy Making Process There are three stages in the policy making process, they are (a) Policy Formulation (b) Policy Implementation and (c) Policy Evaluation Steps in Policy formulation process The following are steps in Policy formulation process: 22 i. Identification of the problem: What is a policy problem, what makes it a policy problem, how does it get on the agenda of the government? ii. Development of alternative courses of action: How are alternatives for dealing with the problem developed, who participates in policy formulation, what is the cost implication of the proposed policy? iii. Analysis of alternative: Where the alternatives are critical analyze for the best option. iv. Selection of one alternative/policy choice for adoption: How are alternatives analyzed, adopted and enacted, what requirements must be met? Public Policy Implementation Ayo (2007) points out the reasons for implementation were to increase per capita income, more even distribution of income, increase in the supply of high level manpower, diversification of the economy, balanced development, and indigenization of economic activities. Implementation refers to the process of converting inputs - financial, information, materials, technical, human, demands, support, etc., into outputs. This stage involves translation of goals and objectives of a policy into concrete achievement through various programmes (Egomnwan, 2000) Types of Public Policy Patronage/Promotional Policies Regulatory Policies: Redistributive Policies: Liberal or Conservative Policies: 1.7 References/Further Readings/Web Resources Ayo, F. S. (2007). Extreme Poverty and Hunger.Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/. Accessed on 21/08/2022 Dror, Y. (1968). Public Policy- Making.Pennsylvania: Shandler Chapter 1 & 2. Etzioni, A. (1974). Public Policy Processes. McGraw-Hill, New York. Fischer, F. (2003).Reframing Public Policy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. George H. & Rudi, K. (2000). Public Policy Analysis, Concept and Applications; Benin, Resyin (Nig) Company Ikelegbe, A. O. (1996). Public policy making and analysis, Benin; Uri publishing Ltd. Lindblom, C. E. (1990). The science of muddling through; public administration review. London. McMillian publishers. Musa, Z. Ibrahim I. S. Yakubu S. I. (2020).An Introduction to Public Policy Analysis and Administration; Germany.LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing. Obikeze, O. S. and Obi, E. A., (2004).Public administration in Nigeria: a developmental approach. Onisha. Book points Ltd. 23 Ogbu, S. (2003). Public Policy Making and implementation: The Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF) of Nigeria in perspective. Abuja Management Review (AMR). Vol. 1 issues No. 1 March 2003. Simon A. H. (1946), Approaches to public administration, book of the half century 4th edition. 1.8 Possible Answers to SAEs Answers to SAEs 1 1. the role of Public Policy in the Decision-Making Process to includes; The rational comprehensive approach can be seen in phases ranging from the identification of the problem to the setting of goals and the gathering of information, a search for alternative courses of action and a thorough investigation into each alternative course of action, and finally the selection of the "rational" course of action as the best course of action to take. The incrementalist approach holds the belief that choices are not made in the manner outlined above. Because Etzioni's mixed scanning is a combination of the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model, it is not considered to be an innovative theory of decision making. This is because the rational comprehensive model and the incremental model are both based on rationality 2. Stages of the Policy Making Process. There are three stages in the policy making process, they are (a) Policy Formulation (b) Policy Implementation and (c) Policy Evaluation Answers to SAEs 2 1. Steps in Policy formulation process The following are steps in Policy formulation process: i. Identification of the problem: What is a policy problem, what makes it a policy problem, how does it get on the agenda of the government? ii. Development of alternative courses of action: How are alternatives for dealing with the problem developed, who participates in policy formulation, what is the cost implication of the proposed policy? iii. Analysis of alternative: Where the alternatives are critical analyze for the best option. iv. Selection of one alternative/policy choice for adoption: How are alternatives analyzed, adopted and enacted, what requirements must be met? 2. Ayo (2007) points out the reasons for implementation were to increase per capita income, more even distribution of income, increase in the supply of high level manpower, diversification of the economy, balanced development, and indigenization of economic activities. Implementation refers to the process of converting inputs - financial, information, materials, technical, human, demands, support, etc., into outputs. This stage involves translation of goals and objectives of a policy into concrete achievement through various programmes (Egomnwan, 2000). 24 Unit 3: Models of Public Policy Analysis I 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Learning Outcomes 1.3 Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process 1.3.1 Limitations of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process 1.3.2 Application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process 1.3.3 Application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process 1.4 Institutional model of public policy 1.4.1 What is institutional model/approach 1.4.2 Application of Institutional model of public policy 1.5 Model of Rational Policy Making 1.6 Rationality Constraints 1.7 The Lindmom Incremental Model 1.7.1 Characteristics of Incremental Decision-Making 1.8 Summary 1.9 References/Further Readings/Web Resources 1.10 Possible Answers to Self-Assessment Exercise(s) within the content 1.1 Introduction Models and frames that form and provide context for analysis discourse originally appeared in the 1970s and 1980s. They were viewed as problem-solving strategies that provided structure and coherence. A model is the concept of drawing a line around reality that is shared by a group of academics or theorists. When studying public policy, we must be aware of how many different models of analysis exist to define and explain situations, as well as how these models clash and shift: We will explore at some of the models that analysts employ in this Unit. The paradigm for policy analysis will be examined in this unit. 1.2 Learning Outcomes At the end of this unit, you should be able to: i. Explain the Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process ii. State the limitations of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process iii. Explain the application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process iv. State the application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process v. Discuss the institutional model of public policy vi. Define and explain the institutional model/approach vii. Explain the application of Institutional model of public policy viii. Discuss the model of Rational Policy Making ix. Explain the Rationality Constraints 25 x. State the Lindmom Incremental Model xi. State characteristics of Incremental Decision-Making 1.3 Models of Public Policy Analysis 1.3.1 Eastonian’s Model of policy-making Process David Easton has described the policy-making process as a "black box" that translates societal demands into policies. In his analysis of political systems, David Easton contends that the political system is that component of society that is engaged in the authoritative distribution of 'values. Political analysis takes a systems perspective. The intra-societal setting: The environment outside of society: 1. International political systems ecological systems 2. International ecological systems biological systems 3. International social systems 4. Personality system social structure An example of what Easton refers to as an apolitical system. The physical, social, economic, and political products of the environment are referred to as inputs. They are accepted into the political system as both demands and supports. Individuals and groups make demands on the political system in order to change some aspect of the environment. Demands occur when individuals or groups act to affect public policy in reaction to environmental conditions. The environment is any circumstance or incident that is defined as occurring outside of the political system's borders. The rules, laws, and practices that create the foundation for the existence of the apolitical community and the authorities are the supports of the apolitical system. Individuals or groups provide support when they accept decisions or laws. Supports are a system's symbolic or material inputs (such as observing laws, paying taxes, or even respecting the national flag) that represent the system's psychological and material resources. The structures and persons for policymaking are at the heart of the political system. These individuals include the president, legislators, judges, and bureaucrats. They translate inputs into outputs in the system's version. The authoritative value allocations of the political system are thus outputs, and these allocations constitute public policy or policies. According to systems theory, public policy is an output of the political system. The concept of feedback implies that public policies can have an impact on the environment and the demands generated by it, as well as the character of the political system. Policy outcomes may result in new demands and new supports for the system, as well as the withdrawal of old supports. Feedback is critical in creating an appropriate climate for future policy. 1.3.2 Limitations of Eastonian’s Model of policy-making Process 26 The systems theory can help you comprehend the policy-making process. According to Thomas Dye (Understanding Public Policy), the importance of the systems model to policy study rests in the issues it raises. They are as follows: i. What are the key environmental characteristics that place demands on the political system? ii. What are the key qualities of the political system that allow it to translate demands into public policy and sustain itself over time? iii. How do environmental inputs influence the character of the political system? iv. How do political system features influence the content of public policy? v. How do environmental inputs influence public policy content? vi. How does public policy alter the environment and the character of the political system through feedback? However, the systems model's applicability to the study of public policy is limited due to a number of variables. This input-output model appears to be too basic to be effective in comprehending the policy-making process, according to critics. This model is accused of adopting welfare economics' value-laden techniques, which help is based on the maximization of a clearly defined social welfare function.' Another flaw of the classic input-output paradigm is that it fails to account for the fragmentary nature of the 'black box.' The "power, personnel, and institutions" of policy-making are the missing ingredients in the systems approach. Line Berry observes that in evaluating them, "we will not forget that political decision-makers in the political system are significantly restricted by economic considerations in the environment." The Estonian model also misses a key aspect of the policy process, namely, that policymakers (including institutions) have significant influence over the environment in which they operate. According to the standard input-output model, the decision-making system is "facilitative" and value-free rather than "causative," i.e., a wholly neutral structure. In other words, structural differences in the systems are discovered to have no direct causal effect on public policy. Furthermore, it is suggested that the political and bureaucratic elites shape public opinion more than the public does. To demonstrate this argument, the concept of "inside puts" as opposed to "inputs" was developed. Thus, policy changes may be linked to the political and administrative elite's redefining of their own beliefs rather than to environmental needs and support. Quite often, policy is initiated by the bureaucracy. 1.3.3 Application of Eastonian’s Model of policy-making Process In some cases, the bureaucracy can become a dominant institution in designing and legitimizing policies. The function of bureaucracy in dictating policy direction in Western democracies is mostly technical and rather minor. The traditional sphere of the political elite continues to dominate policy decisions. In contrast, in a developing country such as India, where state objectives are not completely specified and obvious, the bureaucracy easily capitalizes on the process of policy selection from alternative policy alternatives. In addition to executing strictly technical responsibilities, it participates in the creation of public policy. Finally, the extent to which the environment is claimed to have an 27 influence on the policy-making process is determined by the beliefs and ideologies held by the system's decision-makers. It implies that policymaking entails not only policy content but also the policymaker's perceptions and attitudes. Policymakers' values are basically thought to be critical in understanding the policy alternatives that are proposed. 1.4 institutional model of public policy In a democratic society, a state is a web of government institutions and organizations. The stale is capable of doing anything. It aims to reconcile clashing social and commercial interests. The good attitude is regarded as the community's guardian. It does not defend the superiority of any single class or division. It should, ideally, protect everyone's economic interests by accommodating and reconciling them. No organization has ever been able to fulfill its objectives across the entire spectrum of public policies, and policy issues are typically addressed in ways that are largely consistent with the preferences of the majority of the public. The institutional approach looks into the relationship between public policy and governmental institutions. With its emphasis on the legal and structural elements of institutions, institutionalism can be utilized to study policy. Structures and institutions' arrangements and interactions can have a significant impact on public policy. According to Thomas Dye, government institutions are established patterns of conduct of individuals and groups that persist across time. Historically, the description of governmental structures and institutions has been the focus of research. The method, however, did not pay sufficient attention to the links between government institutions and the content of public policy. To support the institutional perspective, there was no systematic examination of the impact of these institutional qualities on public policy decisions. As a result, the relationship between government architecture and policy outcomes has largely gone unstudied and unnoticed. Despite its narrow focus, the structural method is not out of date. In reality, government institutions are a collection of individual and group behavioral patterns. These have an impact on both decision-making and public policy content. Government institutions, according to the institutional approach, can be designed in such a way that specific policy outcomes are supported. These patterns may give certain societal interests an advantage while depriving others of an advantage. Rules and institutional institutions rarely have a neutral impact. In truth, they choose certain society interests over others. As a result, under one set of organized patterns, certain individual groups may have greater authority or access to government power than others. In other words, "institutional characteristics influence policy outcomes." 1.4.1 What is institutional model/approach 28 The institutional approach can be used to study the connections between institutional structures and public policy content. Policy issues must be investigated methodically, with a focus on institutional arrangements. The institutional approach to policy analysis provides value by investigating and analyzing the links that exist between institutional structures and the content of public policy. However, assuming that a certain change in institutional structure will result in changes in public policy is erroneous. Without first examining the relationship between structure and policy, it is hard to assess the impact of institutional arrangements on public policies. In this context, "both structure and policy are largely determined by environmental forces," according to Thomas Dye, and "tinkering with institutional arrangements will have little independent impact on public policy if underlying environmental forces - social, economic, and political - remain constant." 1.4.2 Application of Institutional model of public policy Individuals and groups' activities in a pluralistic society are largely directed towards governmental institutions such as the legislature, executive, judiciary, and bureaucracy. Governmental agencies create, execute, and enforce public policy. To put it another way, a policy does not become public until it is adopted and implemented by government institutions. Government institutions attribute three main characteristics to public policy. For starters, government policies are legally sanctioned. Public policy is the product of individual decisions and is distinguished by the use of legal penalties. It is seen as a legal obligation that must be followed. Second, public policy is widely applied. Only public policies benefit all residents of the state. Finally, government policies imply coercion. It is used to support the actions of the government. A policy provides the appearance that the government is capable of imposing sanctions through coercion of the type usually reserved for the government itself. Only the government has the legal authority to impose penalties on policy violators. Individuals and groups generally attempt to get their preferences turned into laws because the government has the ability to impose the allegiance of its whole population, to design policies that dominate the entire country, and to monopolize coercion. As a result, public policy and government institutions are inextricably linked. So it's not surprising that social scientists focus their research on governmental structures and institutions. Institutional analysis has become a key focus of public policy. As a result, one model of the policy-making system is known as the institutional approach since it is based on the interactions of institutions established by the constitution, government, or legislature. In policymaking, several individuals and groups exercise authority, such as the Executive or Cabinet, Members of Parliament, bureaucrats, or leaders of interested groups. Each exercise of power is one of the influences that impact policymaking. To put it another way, public policy is enacted through a process. In general, the process comprises of a sequence of related decisions made under the influence of powerful persons and groups that collectively build what are known as state institutions. The institutional approach also aims to explain how social groups and governmental institutions exert power over individuals who have the authority to make and implement legally binding decisions. 29 Such decision makers include those who hold office under the official and constitutional set of rules and regulations that confer formal authority and power to various positions within governmental structures and organizations Self-Assessment Exercise 1 i. Explain the Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process ii. State the limitations of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process iii. Explain the application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process iv. State the application of Eastonian‘s Model of policy-making Process 1.5 Model of Rational Policy Making Rationality and rationalism are terms that appear and are used far too frequently in social science literature. Both are more widely advocated than applied in policy-making. However, in policymaking, rationality is seen as the "yardstick of wisdom": This approach emphasizes that policymaking is a logical decision among policy alternatives. The goal of rational policymaking is to "choose the best choice." According to Robert Haveman, a rational policy is one that is meant to maximize " (value achievement)." Dye connects reason and efficiency. "A policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, when the ratio between the values it obtains and the values it sacrifices is positive and greater than any other policy alternative," he writes. He goes on to add that efficiency entails calculating all social, political, and economic values sacrificed or attained by a public policy, not only those that can be assessed in monetary terms. As a result, political policymakers must be sensible. But that is not simple. To be rational, the following steps should be taken: I goal identification and determination; ii) goal ranking in order of significance; iii) identification of feasible policy choices for accomplishing those goals; and iv) cost-benefit analysis of policy alternatives. A rational policymaker must: I understand all of society's value preferences and their relative weights; ii) clarify and rank the goals and objectives; iii) understand all of the policy alternatives available; iv) compare the consequences of each policy alternative; V) calculate the ratio of achieved to sacrificed societal values for each policy alternative; and vi) select the most efficient policy alternative that matches the goals. Instead of making a 'perfect' decision, as Simon remarks, policymakers would divide the complexity of situations into tiny and understandable bits; choose the best and most agreeable option; and minimize unneeded uncertainty. "Although individuals are designed to be rational, their rationality is limited by limited cognitive and emotional capacities," Herbert Simon adds. Thus, rational policymaking necessitates making difficult decisions amongst policy alternatives. It has several stages: First, the policymaker recognizes the underlying issue. He develops and prioritizes goals, which is vital because one aim may be more significant than another. ii) In the second stage, the policymaker identifies the range of policy alternatives and options that contribute to the achievement of the goals. He creates a comprehensive set of 30 potential policies and resources, with weights assigned to each. The process of finding policy alternatives is crucial because it influences both the range and quality of options. iii) The third step necessitates the estimation of the costs and benefits of policy solutions. The policymaker must calculate the probability that each policy alternative will achieve the goal as well as the cost of doing so. It is necessary to calculate the "cost-payoff" ratios of each alternative in this case. iv) In addition to calculating net expectation for each alternative, the policymaker must compare the alternatives with the greatest advantages. It is feasible that by comparing two options, one can obtain the benefits at a lower cost. Finally, the policymaker chooses the most efficient policy option. Once a policy option is implemented, the rational policymaker must monitor it systematically to determine the correctness of the expectations and estimations. If necessary, the policymaker may amend the policy or abandon it entirely. This is referred to as the "feedback stage" of rational policymaking. When policymakers employ input to monitor and adjust policy, the policy system becomes self-correcting or cybernetic. 1.6.1 Rationality Constraints Many restrictions impede rational decision-making. The term "rationality" is used so frequently and indiscriminately that it threatens to lose its meaning. It is more commonly advocated than performed. Some of the major obstacles to rational policymaking are as follows: I Achieving Objectives Making rational policy is a difficult task. It is unlikely that a logical policy will emerge. By the time a policymaker suggests a sensible policy, the problem at hand may have gotten so complex that the prescriptions become decisions based on other goals. Decision-makers may instead seek to maximize their personal incentives, such as power, status, money, and re-election. As a result, sensible policy-making may turn out to be more of an exercise than the actual achievement of a set of goals. Attempts at rationality, on the other hand, serve some useful objectives. Rationality is similar to democracy. "As democracy is the measuring rod of virtue in a political system, so too is rationality, presumably the yardstick of wisdom in policy-making," explains Line Berry in this context. ii) Optimization Security The rational policy-making model should yield optimal results. However, this does not always occur. The public interest is regarded as more important than the sum of individual interests in the policy. If air pollution management is a public interest since everyone benefits from it, then the plan may mandate that every automobile sold be outfitted with an expensive set of anti-pollution emission control systems, increasing the cost of the vehicle. However, few people are ready to spend more of their own money to minimize automotive emissions. If pollution prevention is a public good, which is an individual's decision, then others should, too often, be guided by the same rational perspective when making individual judgments. Contrary to this, many of them operate 31 under the idea that "everyone else is doing it, and my small bit won't really mean much." As a result, there is no incentive for policymakers to aim to maximize net objective achievement. Furthermore, government policymakers only aim to meet specific demands for advancement. They do not search until they find the one and only ideal way. iii) Disagreement between Rational Choice and the Need for Action The desire for reasonable behavior and the demand for action are at odds. As previously stated, policymakers are not motivated to make judgments based on logic, but rather to maximize their personal rewards, such as power, status, and money. Second, the time for a full examination of pending legislation may be limited. In an emergency, immediate action is required. Both times are too short for a thorough examination. In everyday policymaking, the sheer number of potential concerns restricts the time available to thoroughly examine any one subject. There is also disagreement about the societal ideals themselves. Because of the existence of various opposing values among distinct groups and individuals, policymakers find it difficult to compare and weigh them. Iv) Political Feasibility Dilemma Every policymaker faces the challenge of political feasibility concern. Political feasibility is defined as "the likelihood that a policy alternative, however rational and desirable, would be chosen and implemented by the political system." Politicians all too often avoid conflict in order to address the challenge of political feasibility. Uncertainty regarding the repercussions of various policy options may also compel governments to continue with earlier policies. Elected politicians do not want to jeopardize their chances of re-election by sacrificing policy logic. In the context of political expenses, decision postponement or other dilatation methods are popular ways to avoid a sensible conclusion. As a result, political leaders frequently weigh intellectual decision against political feasibility. v) Cost-Benefit Analysis Issue When many different social, economic, political, and cultural values are at risk, it is difficult for policymakers to compute precise cost-benefit ratios. Aside from this, policymakers have personal wants, inhibitions, and inadequacies that prevent them from evaluating alternatives and making sensible decisions. Rational policymaking necessitates making difficult choices between policy alternatives. However, there are various limits in acquiring the amount of knowledge needed to be aware of all conceivable policy alternatives and their repercussions, including the time and expense associated in information gathering. vi) Bureaucracy's Nature and Environment The climate of bureaucracy is another significant impediment to rational policymaking. "The segmented character of policy-making in vast bureaucracies makes it difficult to coordinate decision-making so that the input of all of the numerous specialists is brought to bear at the point of decision," observed Thomas Dye. Bureaucracies and other public institutions' ability to make reasonable policies is restricted by fragmentation of authority, appeasing personal gods, conflicting ideals, limited technology, ambiguity about possible policy choices and repercussions, and other issues. Some policy analysts warn against putting too much faith in the rational model. Patton and Sawicki, for example, contend 32 that "if the rational model were to be followed, many sensible conclusions would have to be compromised because they were not politically practicable." A policy that is rational, logical, and technically desirable may not be implemented because the political system will not accept it. Statistics do not always speak for themselves, and excellent ideas do not always triumph. Analysts and decision-makers are continuously confronted with a choice between technically better and politically viable alternatives." Following the rational approach by analyzing facts, presenting choices, and selecting the option with the highest utility weight is frequently undemocratic. Policy analysts, according to Denhardt, often apply technical answers to pressing difficulties, and "under such conditions, technical considerations would supersede political and ethical concerns as the basis for public decision making, therefore changing normative issues into technical problems." Even minor issues, such as the relocation of a small-&ale business from New Delhi's capital, are rarely resolved because the people concerned will not accept a technical solution. Politicians and pressure organizations will intercede unless a conclusion is imposed, which is frequently undemocratic. It stands to reason that the rational policy-making paradigm establishes both naive and utopian aims and methods. It appears that intelligent policymaking is a challenging task. Some decision-making theorists, and arguably the majority of policymakers, feel that rational policy-making is impossible. Nonetheless, this paradigm is crucial for analytic purposes because it aids in identifying rationality limits. Herbert Simon observes that policymakers "satisfy" rather than "optimize." A "good" decision will suffice for him, even if it is not the optimal decision. A reasonable decision requires clear and well-defined goals, as well as adequate authority to coordinate action. The private organization is a profit-maximizing mechanism that single-mindedly pursues its purpose, whereas public organizations frequently lack goal specificity. 1.7 The Lindmom Incremental Model Charles Lindblom proposed the 'incremental model of the policy-making process' as an alternative to the classic rational model of decision-making. In the development of policy analysis as concerned with the "process" of generating policy, his article on the "Science of Muddling Through," published in 1959, earned great acclaim. Lindblom's thinking has progressed beyond his original thesis since then. Lindblorn rejects the assumption that decision-making is mainly about identifying goals, selecting alternatives, and comparing alternatives when he criticizes the rational model proposed by Simon and others. Lindblom wishes to demonstrate that rational decision- making is "not practical for complex policy concerns." According to Lindblom, policymakers are unable to establish society goals and their effects in a reasonable manner due to limits in time, intelligence, money, and politics. He distinguished between Simon's advocated comprehensive (or root) reasoning and his own'successive restricted comparisons' (or branch decision-making). The incremental decision-making strategy (branch method) entails a process of "continually building out from the current situation, step by step and by modest degrees." 33 The policy analysts preferred the 'root' method, which was to start from "fun amentals anew each time, building on the past only as experience embodied in a theory, and always prepared to start from the ground up time, intelligence, and cost limits. According to Lindblom, prevent policymakers from discovering the full range of policy possibilities and their implications. In such a state of "bounded rationality," he proposes that "successive limited comparison" is both more relevant and more feasible. 1.7.1 Characteristics of Incremental Decision-Making The following characteristics characterize muddling through decision-making. It will first go through a series of modest adjustments. Because of the ambiguity regarding the repercussions of new or different policies, policymakers accept the validity of existing policies. It entails reciprocal adaptation and negotiation. Instead of goal achievement, consensus is the litmus test for a good decision. When the subject under contention involves budget increases or cutbacks or changes to current programs, reaching an agreement is easier. As a result, instrumentalism plays an important role in decreasing political tension and ensuring stability. Finally, the incremental technique employs the trial and error method. It is superior than a "futile attempt at superhuman thoroughness." Humans rarely behave to maximize all of their values; rather, they act to meet specific demands. They rarely look for the "one best approach," but rather for "a way that will work." This search frequently begins with the familiar, that is, with policy options that are similar to current policies. Incrementalism is thus more satisfactory from a theoretical standpoint, scoring high on criteria such as coherence and simplicity. Self-Assessment Exercises 2 i. Discuss the institutional model of public policy ii. Define and explain the institutional model/approach iii. Explain the application of Institutional model of public policy iv. Discuss the model of Rational Policy Making v. Explain the Rationality Constraints vi. State the Lindmom Incremental Model vii. State characteristics of Incremental Decision-Making 1.6 Summary Models of Public Policy Analysis include; David Easton who described the policy- making process as a "black box" that translates societal demands into policies. In his analysis of political systems, David Easton contends that the political system is that component of society that is engaged in the authoritative distribution of 'values The systems theory can help you comprehend the policy-making process. According to Thomas Dye (Understanding Public Policy), the importance of the systems model to policy study rests in the issues it raises. They are as follows: 34 i. What are the key environmental characteristics that place demands on the political system? ii. What are the key qualities of the political system that allow it to translate demands into public policy and sustain itself over time? In some cases, the bureaucracy can become a dominant institution in designing and legitimizing policies. The function of bureaucracy in dictating policy direction in Western democracies is mostly technical and rather minor. The traditional sphere of the political elite continues to dominate policy decisions. In a democratic society, a state is a web of government institutions and organizations. The stale is capable of doing anything. It aims to reconcile clashing social and commercial interests The institutional approach can be used to study the connections between institutional structures and public policy content. Policy issues must be investigated methodically, with a focus on institutional arrangements Individuals and groups' activities in a pluralistic society are largely directed towards governmental institutions such as the legislature, executive, judiciary, and bureaucracy. Governmental agencies create, execute, and enforce public policy. Rationality and rationalism are terms that appear and are used far too frequently in social science literature. Both are more widely advocated than applied in policy-making. However, in policymaking, rationality is seen as the "yardstick of wisdom": This approach emphasizes that policymaking is a logical decision among policy alternatives Many restrictions impede rational decision-making. The term "rationality" is used so frequently and indiscriminately that it threatens to lose its meaning. It is more commonly advocated than performed. Making rational policy is a difficult task. It is unlikely that a logical polic

MPA 810 Public Policy Analysis PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue