BAPS-06 Block-04-1 Introduction to Public Administration PDF

The BAPS, Self Learning Materials follows the UGC prescribed State Model Syllabus under Choice Based Credit System (CBCS). This course material is designed and developed by Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU), New Delhi and K.K Handiqui Open University. Bachelor of Arts POLITICAL SCIENCES (BAPS) BAPS-6 Introduction to Public Administration Block-4 /1 PUBLIC POLICY AND MAJOR APPROACHES IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION (PART-I) UNIT-11 PUBLIC POLICY CONCEPT AND APPROACHES UNIT-12 PUBLIC POLICY: FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION UNIT-13 NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNIT-14 NEW PUBLIC MANAGEMENT UNIT-11 PUBLIC POLICY CONCEPT AND APPROACHES Structure 11.1 Objectives 11.2 Introduction 11.3 Relationship between Politics and Public Policy 11.4 Meaning of Public Policy 11.5 Characteristics of Public Policy Making 11.6 Types of Public Policy 11.7 Approaches to the Study of Public Policy 11.8 Summary 11.9 Key Words 11.10 Exercise 11.11 Reference 11.1 OBJECTIVES After studying this Unit, you should be able to explain:  The meaning of public policy.  The Concept, Nature and Scope of Public Policy.  The concept of policy and public policy.  Relationship between Politics and Public Policy  Characteristics of Public Policy Making  Types and approaches to public policy 11.2 INTRODUCTION Public policies are as old as governments. Whatever be the form, oligarchy, monarchy, aristocracy, tyranny, democracy etc., whenever and wherever governments have existed, public policies have been formulated and implemented. To cope with the varied problems and demands of the people the government has to make many policies, these policies are called public policies. This Unit tries to explain the meaning and types of public policy. It will highlight the different components of a policy and distinguish between policy, decision and goal. An attempt will be made to bring out the relationship between politics and policy, and importance and characteristics of public policy will also be discussed. 1 Running a state requires a well-needed direction and a course of action, which is a minimum expectation from a policy. In its origin policy was not seen separate from the issues of governance. It was only after the Second World War, that some focus has been given to it. Both the political scientists and the public administrators wanted to enquire the basis of success or failure of various programmes and plans of the government. In search for this, they saw public policy as an opportunity to realize their assessment for the same. At the same time, the western countries wanted to increase their influence on the newly emerging developing world for the revival of badly hit economies due to the mega war. Therefore, a group of American scholars, led by Harold Lasswell and others, started promoting the „discipline‟ of policy sciences. The success or failure of a government to a large extent is dependent upon the outcome of public policy. Concept, Nature and Scope of Public Policy As a common person the term policy has always been seen with a particular motive and focus of the government, be it education, health, energy and the like. But one thing, which is to be highlighted, is its link with public, that is, people at large. Since its inception, the study of policy has been dominated by political science, focused on the values that were to be transformed into programmes and actions of the governments of the day. It was only in the 1960s that both as a discipline and practice, the disciplines of public administration and management made it as one the core areas of research. Earlier, the decision makers used to focus on the success or failure of a policy based on its impact on a section for which it was meant. Later, it was found out that, both inter and intra governmental mechanisms are also equally important especially when we are dealing with public policy. Therefore, it was agreed to have an inter-disciplinary approach with multi-disciplinary foci for public policy. Definition of the Term Public In order to understand the term public policy, we must be clear about what we mean by the adjective „public‟. In social sciences, it is extremely difficult to relate and define public due to its vastness and contextualization difficulties. The word public denotes a variety of meanings. It originates from the Latin word publicus (also poplicus). It is related to the English word „populus‟ or (populace). In general, public denotes some mass population ("the people"). Here it means governmental. Public policy, therefore simply means governmental policy formulated in a political setting. Public policies are matters of common interest. They are related with civic or public affairs, or affairs of office or state. One way of defining public is to make a differentiation between the public and private spheres. The realm of public became a necessity when smaller associations with limited role were deemed to be private and coordinate their acts and bring order. Rainey (1997) argues that the distinction between public and private can be made with reference to organizations. Public –private dichotomy involves three factors: 2 i. Interests affected (whether benefits or losses are communal or restricted to individuals); ii. Access to facilities, resources, information, and iii. Agency (whether a person or organization acts for an individual or for the community as a whole). The major task of public policies is to give expression to this public or general interest The Concepts of Policy and Public Policy Just like public, the idea of policy is difficult to conceptualize. It could be goals, objectives, targets, course of action, and social values. Hogwood and Gunn (1984) have specified ten uses of the term policy: a label for the field of activity; an expression of desired state of affairs; specific proposals; decisions of the governments; formal authorization; a programme; output; outcome; a theory or model; and a process. Generally speaking, the term policy has been more confined to direction and course of action that includes guidelines and conduct. Ayyar (2009) was of the view that there is distinctiveness in public policy. Whenever, focus is on the state then it is considered having its own unique character; the policy as such would have a vast scope and far reaching impact; there are multiple actors and consideration with lots of external influences. Therefore, Thomas Dye (1987) was correct in his assessment, when he said “...whatever governments choose to do or not to do” is public policy. It can be stated that public policy is a premeditated action in pursuit of objectives defined by those who have the power and authority. It has certain commonalities: a set of decisions; prescribed procedures and approval levels; suitability; rationality, organizational and personal politics. From a general perspective, it has been described as the process of deciding who gets what, when, where and how. Gerston (2008) identifies four factors which call for a public policy: scope (number of people related with it); intensity (the extent to which people are affected by it); duration (the length of time an issue, problem or challenge has affected people); and resources (the set of conditions necessary to make it a public issue). Policy scientists like Jenkins, Rose and Anderson argue that public policy is best conceived in terms of a process. This is because, according to Gilliat (1984), policy decisions are not something confined to one level of organization at the top, or at one stage at the outset, but rather something fluid and ever changing. Policy refers to a proposed course of action of an individual, a group, an institution or a government to realize specific objectives within a given environment. Public policies are formulated and implemented by the governmental bodies and officials. They are as old as the government. They are formulated and implemented to deal with diverse demands and problems of people. That is why Paul Appleby regards policy making as the essence of public administration. 3 There is a close relationship between politics and policy. Policy making process is a part of politics and political action. Political considerations and decisions lead to emergence of policies. Policies have extensive influence on the minds of people. Therefore, policy making and implementation determine the fate of the government, particularly in democratic countries. Public policy is the result of concerted and collective actions of government over a period of time. Its formulation and implementation entail a well-planned course of activities; and a close collaboration between various governmental agencies. 11.3 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POLITICS AND PUBLIC POLICY Before discussing the meaning of public policy, it would be better if we are clear about the relationship between public policy and politics. Policy making process is a part of politics and political action. According to Gabriel Almond, political system is a set of interactions having structures, each of which performs its functions in order to keep it like an on-going concern, it is a set of processes that routinely converts inputs into outputs. Almond classifies inputs of political system into generic functional categories like political socialisation and recruitment, interest aggregation, interest articulation and political communication. Output activities are those which are carried on by a political system in response to demands or stresses placed upon the system in the form of inputs. Outputs can take the form of governmental policies, programmes, decisions etc. Another model on politics-policy relationship is the Feedback or the 'Black Box Model coined by David Easton. According to this model the remaining demands which have not been included in the decisions and policies will again be fed back through the same process for the purpose of its conversion into decisions. These two models establish clear19 the relationship between politics and policies in a political system. 11.4 MEANING OF PUBLIC POLICY There are various studies about public policy and many scholars have attempted to define public policy from different angles. Before explaining the meaning of public policy, let us first go through some of its definitions. Robert Eye Stone terms public policy as "the relationship of government unit to its environment. Thomas R. Dye says that "public policy is whatever government chooses to do or not to do" Richard Rose says that "public policy is not a decision, it is a course or pattern of activity. In Carl J. Friedrich's opinion public policy is a proposed course o: action of a person, group or government within a given 4 environment providing opportunities and obstacles which the policy was proposed to utilise and overcome in an effort to reach a goal on realise an objective or purpose. From these definitions, it is clear that public policies are governmental decisions, and are actually the result of activities which the government undertakes in pursuance of certain goals and objectives. It can also be said that public policy formulation and implementation involves a well planned pattern or course of activity. It requires a thoroughly close knit relation and interaction between the important governmental agencies viz., the political executive, legislature, bureaucracy and judiciary. The following points will make the nature of public policy more clear in your minds: 1. Public Policies are goal oriented. Public policies are formulated and implemented in order to attain the objectives which the government has in view for the ultimate benefit of the masses in general. These policies clearly spell out the programmes of government. 2. Public policy is the outcome of the government's collective actions. It means that it is a pattern or course of activity or' the governmental officials and actors in a collective sense than being termed as their discrete and segregated decisions. 3. Public policy is what the government actually decides or chooses to do. It is the relationship of the government units to the specific field of political environment in a given administrative system. It can take a variety of forms like law, ordinances, court decisions, executive orders, decisions etc. 4. Public policy is positive in the sense that it depicts the concern of the government and involves its action to a particular problem on which the policy is made. It has the sanction of law and authority behind it. Negatively, it involves a decision by the governmental officials regarding not taking any action on a particular issue. Policy and Goals To understand the meaning of policy in a better manner, it is very important to make a distinction between policy and goals. Goals are what policies aim at or hope to achieve. A goal is a desired state of affairs that a society or an organisation attempts to realise. Goals can be understood in a variety of perspectives. These can be thought of as abstract values that a society would like to acquire. There are also goals that are specific and concrete. Removal of poverty is a goal that the government wants to pursue. Public policies are concerned with such specific goals. They are the instruments which lead to the achievement of these goals. If the government announces that its goal is to provide housing to all the members of the deprived sections of society it does not become a public policy. It is a statement of intention of what the government wants to do. Many a time the government, for political reasons, announces goals that it has little desire to achieve In order to 5 become a policy; the goal has to be translated into action. Programmes have to be designed to achieve specific objectives. As an illustration, let us look at the policy of poverty alleviation. Several programmes have been designed for this, e.g., The Integrated Rural Development Programme (IRDP), The National Rural Employment Programme (NREP) etc. Each programme has certain goals to achieve within a specified time and each programme is provided with financial resources and administrative personnel. These become concrete efforts to achieve a goal. Policy spells out the strategy of achieving a goal. Thus policy is essentially an instrument to achieve a goal. Statement of goal docs not makes it a policy. Policies and Decisions A distinction needs to be drawn between a policy and a decision also. Many a time the terms are used interchangeably but that is not the correct usage. Individuals, organisations or government are constantly taking decisions. But all the decisions that are taken cannot be described as matters of policy. The essential core of decision- making is to make a choice from the alternatives available in order to take an action, if there is only one course of action available then there is nothing one can choose from and therefore, no decision can be taken. A decision can be taken only when there is more than one alternative available. Thus a decision is the act of making a choice. The entire science of decision-making has been developed in order to analyse the conditions that can improve this activity and how a decision maker can improve his choice by expanding the number of alternatives available to him. There can be two types of decisions, programmed and non-programmed. Programmed decisions are repetitive and do not require a fresh consideration every time they are taken. These decisions are routine in nature and for these definite procedures can be worked out. Each decision need not be dealt with separately. In programmed decisions, habits, skills and knowledge about the problem are important. For example, once the decision to open the library from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. is taken, it does not require fresh consideration to keep it open during those hours. The decision is incorporated into procedures that are established for the purpose. Non-programmed decisions are new and unstructured. No well laid-out methods are available for such decisions, each issue or question is to be dealt with separately. Such decisions are required in the situations of unprecedented nature, for example breakdown of an epidemic, occurrence of earthquake, etc. Training in skills, needed for such decisions and innovative ability become relevant in this regard. Both the programmed and non- programmed decisions have to be taken in a broad framework or course of action. Public policy is the broad direction or perspective that the government lays down in order to take decisions. Each organisation or the individual is enjoined to take a decision within a policy framework. Decision can be a onetime action. Policy consists of several decisions that are taken to fulfil its aims. A policy consists of a series of decisions tied together into a coherent whole. There can be some similarity in the 6 processes involved in decision making and policy making. Both are concerned with choice among alternatives and for both similar processes can be followed in generating alternatives. But we should always remember that policy is a more comprehensive term, as it encompasses a series of decisions and has a comparatively longer time perspective. 11.5 CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICY MAKING The planning and nature of public policy will become clearer by throwing light on different characteristics of public policy. Some of the major characteristics of public policy making are: Public Policy Making is a Very Complex Process: Policy making involves many components. Which are interconnected by communication and feedback loops and which interact in different ways? Some parts of the process are explicit and directly observable, but many others proceed through hidden channels that the officials themselves are often only partly aware of. These hidden procedures are very difficult and often impossible to observe. Thus guidance are often formed by a series of single decisions that result in a 'policy' without any one of the decision makers being aware of that process. It is a Dynamic Process: Policy making is a process that is a continuing activity taking place within a structure; for sustenance, it requires a continuing input of resources and motivation. It is a dynamic process, which changes with time. The sequences of its sub-processes and phases vary internally and with respect to each other. Policy making Comprises Various Components: The complexity of public policy making as we know is an important characteristic of policy making. Public policy formulation involves a great variety of substructures. The identity of these substructures and the degree of their involvement in policy making, vary because of different issues, circumstances and societal values. Policy Structure makes Different Contributions: This characteristic suggests that every substructure makes a different and sometimes unique Contribution to public policy. What sort of contribution substructures make, depends in part on their formal and informal characteristics which vary from society to society. Decision-Making: Policy making is a species of decision-making because it lets us use decision-making models for dealing with policy making. Lays down Major Guidelines: Public policy, in most cases, lays down general directives, rather than detailed instructions, on the main lines of action to be followed. 7 After main lines of action have been decided on, detailed sub-policies that translate the general theory into more concrete terms are usually needed to execute it. Results in Action: Decision-making can result in action in changes in the decision- making itself, or both or neither. The policies of most socially significant decision- making, such as most public policy making are intended to result in action. Also policies directed at the policy making apparatus itself such as efficiency drives in government are action oriented. Directed at the Future: Policy making is directed at the future. This is one of its most important characteristics since it introduces the ever-present elements of uncertainty and doubtful prediction that establish the basic tone of nearly all policy making. Actual policy making tends to formulate policies in vague and elastic terms; because the future is so uncertain. It permits policy makers to adjust their policy according to emerging facts and enables them to guard against unforeseen circumstances. Mainly Formulated by Governmental Organs: Public policy is also directed in part at private persons and non-governmental structures, as 'when it calls for a law prohibiting a certain type of behaviour or appeals to citizens to engage in private saving. But public policy, in most cases, is primarily directed at governmental organs, and only intermediately and secondarily at other factors. Aims at Achieving what is in the Public Interest: However difficult it might be to find out what the "public interest" may completely refer to the term never the less conveys the idea of a "general" orientation and seems therefore to be important and significant. Furthermore, there is good evidence that the image of "public interest" influences the public policy making process and is therefore at least, as conceived by the various public policy making units, a "real" phenomenon, and an important operational tool for the study of policy making. Use of Best Possible Means: In abstract terminology, public policy making aims at achieving the maximum net benefit. Benefits and costs take in part the form of realised values and impaired values, respectively, and cannot in most cases be expressed in commensurable units. Often, quantitative techniques can therefore dot public policy be used in this area of public policy making but neither the qualitative significance Meaning and Nature of maximum net benefits as an aim nor the necessity to think broadly about alternative public policies in terms of benefits and costs is therefore reduced Involvement of Various Bodies/Agencies: Industrial workers, voters, intellectual‟s legislators, bureaucrats, political parties, political executives. Judiciary- etc. are the 8 various organs that participate in public policy making and can influence the policy process to a great extent. 11.6 TYPES OF PUBLIC POLICY Having explained the characteristics of public policy making, we will now explain the different types of public policy. There are various types of public policy like substantive, regulatory, distributive, redistributive etc. Substantive: These policies are concerned with the general welfare and development of the society, the programmes like provision of education and employment opportunities, economic stabilisation, law and order enforcement, anti-pollution legislation etc. are the result of substantive policy formulation. These policies have vast areas of operation affecting the general welfare and development of the society as a whole. These do not relate to any particular or privileged segments of the society. Such policies have to be formulated keeping in view the prime character of the constitution socio-economic problems and the level of moral claims of the society. Regulatory: Regulatory policies are concerned with regulation of trade, business, safety measures, public utilities, etc. This type of regulation is done by independent organisations that work on behalf of the government. In India, we have Life Insurance Corporation, Reserve Bank of India, Hindustan Steel, State Electricity Boards. State Transport Corporations, State Financial Corporations, etc., which are engaged in regulatory activities. The policies made by the government, pertaining to these services and organisations rendering these services are known as regulatory policies. Distributive: Distributive policies are meant for specific segments of society. It can be in the area of grant of goods, public welfare or health services, etc. These mainly include all public assistance and welfare programmes. Some more examples of distributive policies are adult education programme, food relief, social insurance, vaccination camps etc. Redistributive: Redistributive policies are concerned with the rearrangement of policies which are concerned with bringing about basic social and economic changes. Certain public goods and welfare services are disproportionately divided among certain segments of the society, these goods and service5 are streamlined through redistributive policies. Capitalisation: Under the capitalisation policies financial subsidies arc given by the Union government to the state and local governments, such subsidies are also granted to the central and state business undertakings or some other important sphere if necessary. Capitalisation policies are different in nature than the substantive, 9 regulatory, distributive and redistributive policies as no provision for public welfare services is made through these. 11.7 APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF PUBLIC POLICY Approaches are significant tools which help in the formulation of a body of knowledge which enables the study of all possible dimensions of policy process. Major approaches to the study of public policy include group approach, rational choice approach, incremental approach and policy networks approach. Group Approach Group approach or group theoretic approach seeks to explain political behavior largely through the study of the nature and interaction of social and political groups. It presupposes that the cardinal feature of political life is the interaction and struggle among diverse societal groups. David B. Truman in his book The Governmental Process (1951) has described an interest group as a shared-attitude group that makes certain claims upon other groups in the society and it becomes political when it makes a claim through or upon the institutions of government. The fundamental nature of politics is the controversy and conflict derived from the activities of interest groups. Public policy is the result of negotiations, bargaining and compromises resulting from competition between diverse groups and individuals with common and shared interests / demands form groups to strengthen their support. Group interventions involve building coalitions or forming political action committees. The groups pressurize the government to formulate and implement those policies that favour their goals and suit their ends. The mission of the political system is to manage group struggle by laying down rules of the game, arranging compromises and balancing interests, making compromises in the form of public policy and enforcing them. Public policies are formulated on the basis of adjustment and equilibrium reached at in the struggle of variety of groups engaged in the policy process. This group struggle maintains equilibrium in the system. Various groups keep a check on each other‟s activities due to which no group becomes enormously powerful in a system for all times. In the ongoing process of struggle groups gain and lose power and influence. At any point of time the interests and demands of dominant groups are revealed in public policy. Rational Choice Approach Rationality in policy making is considered a benchmark of wisdom. Rational policy making involves choosing the one best policy alternative from several alternatives on rational grounds. Rational choice approach is an efficiency maximization approach. It proposes the calculation of policy efficiency on the basis of all social, economic and political values achieved and / or sacrificed by the adjudication of public policy. In framing a policy all pertinent values have to be precisely considered. 10 The champions of rational choice approach are Robert Haveman, Thomas R. Dye and Herbert A. Simon. Robert Haveman, a Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs and Economics at University of Wisconsin-Madison, views that a rational policy is one which is designed to maximize net value achievement. Thomas R. Dye, a Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Florida State University, has equated rationality with efficiency. For him a policy is rational when it is most efficient, that is, if the ratio between the values it achieves and the values it sacrifices is positive and higher than any other policy alternative. Herbert A. Simon (1947), an American political scientist and Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, in his famous book „Administrative Behaviour: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization‟ has described rationality as one which is concerned with the selection of preferred behaviour alternatives in terms of some systems of values whereby the consequences of behaviour can be evaluated. He disregards the concept of total rationality in administrative behaviour. Human behaviour is neither totally rational nor totally non-rational. Rather it involves bounded rationality. In a rational decision-making process policy makers do not go after an ideal decision. They break the complex issues involved in problems into small and understandable parts, opt for one option that can be regarded as satisfactory and avoid unnecessary uncertainty by doing so. He notes that although individuals are by intention rational, their rationality is bounded by limited capacities of cognition and emotions. The human being, who is making efforts for rationality and is constrained within the bounds of his knowledge, has developed some working procedures that enable him to partially overcome these difficulties. These procedures involve the assumption that he can isolate from the rest of the world into a closed system which contains a limited number of variables and a limited range of consequences. Simon, in his work „The New Science of Management Decision‟ (1960), has mentioned the three kinds of activities involved in a rational policy making process. These are intelligence activity, design activity and choice activity. The first phase of decision making process is searching the environment for conditions calling for decision (intelligence activity); the second one involves inventing, developing and analyzing possible courses of action (design activity); and the third one consists of selecting a particular course of action from those available (choice activity). Rational policy making involves several stages: I. Identification of underlying problem. II. Formulation and setting of goal priorities. III. Identification of a range of policy alternatives. IV. Cost-benefit analysis of policy alternatives. V. Selection of most efficient policy alternative. 11 Once the rational policy is formulated it enters the implementation phase. The implementation of policy is systematically monitored to find out the accuracy of estimates and expectations. On the basis of feedback obtained the policy maker may modify the policy or give it up altogether. If the feedback is used to monitor and accustom policy, the policy system tends to become self-correcting or cybernetic. Even though rational choice approach is regarded as a logical and scientific one but there are many barriers to rational policy making. Some of these constraints are: difficulty in accomplishing goals as rational policy making turns out to be a mere exercise; maximization of net goal achievement is missing; conflict between rational choice and need for action; dilemma of political feasibility; inaccurate calculation of cost-benefit ratios; and limited capacity of bureaucracy to frame rational policies. Incremental Approach Incremental approach of the policy making process is associated with Charles Edward Lindblom (1959), a Sterling Professor Emeritus of Political Science and Economics at Yale University, who has developed it as an alternative to the rational model of decision-making. His views appeared in his article “The Science of Muddling Through” which was published in 1959 in Public Administration Review, a journal of the American Society of Public Administration. He rejects the idea that decision- making is something about defining goals, and selecting and comparing alternatives. For him rational decision-making is not workable for complex policy questions as there are constraints of time, intelligence, cost and politics which prevent policy makers from identifying the full range of policy alternatives and their consequences. He proposes his approach of “successive limited comparisons” which he regards as more pertinent and realistic in conditions of bounded rationality. On the basis of his wide-ranging studies of welfare policies and trade unions in the industrialized world, Lindblom comes to the view that under most circumstances policy change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The incremental approach or branch approach of decision-making involves a process of continuously building out from the current situation, step-by-step and by small degrees. This approach points out the real life constraints on public administration such as cost, information, time and politics. According to Lindblom, the prescribed functions and constraints of the public administrators restrict their attention to relatively few values and alternative policies. Democracies change their policies almost entirely through incremental adjustments. Policy does not move in leaps and bounds. Policy making involves marginal and uncoordinated adjustments in conditions of inconsistent demands and interests and in the fear of unforeseen consequences that might emerge from actual division. The key features of incremental decision-making are succession of incremental changes; mutual adjustment and negotiation; and trial and error learning. 12 Charles Lindblom and David Braybrooke in their work A Strategy of Decision: Policy Evaluation as a Social Process (1963) have introduced the idea of disjointed incrementalism. They regard disjointed incrementalism as a method of decision- making in which comparison takes place between policies which are only marginally different from one another and in which there is no great goal or vision to be achieved. Objectives are set in terms of existing resources and policy making takes place by a trial and error method. In his work The Intelligence of Democracy: Decision Making through Mutual Adjustment (1965), Lindblom argues that decision making is a process of adjustment and compromise which facilitates agreement and coordination. Martin Rein in his book Social Science and Public Policy (1976) has commented “the concept of political feasibility is often closely associated with an idea of incremental change. The theory of disjointed incrementalism holds that, in the end, muddling and compromise are the only rational approaches to the management of conflicting multiple and ambiguous goals. The incrementalists see resistance to change not as stupidity but as the muffled rationality which is the outcome of political bargaining.” Lindblom, along with Robert A. Dahl, was a supporter of the polyarchy or pluralistic view of political elites and governance in the late 1950s and early 1960s. According to this view, a series of specialized elites compete and bargain with one another for control. The competition and compromise between elites drive free-market democracy and enable it to thrive. But soon he was aware of the limitations of polyarchy in democratic governance. This polyarchy can be easily converted into corporatism when certain groups of elites become highly successful and begin collusion with one another. In his work Politics and Markets (1977) Lindblom notes the privileged position of business in polyarchy and introduces the concept of circularity or controlled volitions. Even in the democracies, masses are persuaded to ask from elites only what latter wish to give former. In this manner in real life choices and competition are limited. Development of alternative choices and serious discussion on them are discouraged. In his later work The Market System: What It Is, How It Works, and What to Make of It (2001) he has elaborated several concerns raised in his work Politics and Market. In his subsequent article Still Muddling, Not Yet Through (1979), published in Public Administration Review, Lindblom makes clear that the central idea in an incrementalist approach is the belief in skill in solving complex problems, and he intends to suggest new and improved ways of muddling through. He makes a distinction between incrementalism as a political pattern with step-by-step changes and incrementalism as policy analysis. Analytical incrementalism is a mode for securing the balance of power in a pluralist polity in which business and large corporations have tremendous influence over the policy-making process. He mentions 13 three forms of incremental analysis – simple incremental analysis, strategic analysis and disjointed incrementalism. Charles Lindblom and Edward J. Woodhouse in their work The Policy Making Process (1993) have challenged the assumption that political elites and policy analysis professionals hold the keys to improved social problem solving. They argue that policy evolves through complex and reciprocal relations among all bureaucrats, elected functionaries, representatives of interest groups and other participants. Incrementalism has been criticized on the ground that the governments are encountering so serious and critical problems that mere incremental changes in the public policies are not ample enough to cope with them. Amitai Etzioni, an Israeli- American Sociologist; and Yehezkel Dror, a former professor of Political Science at Hebrew University, Jerusalem do not regard that the incremental approach is a realistic and suitable normative account of decision making. A. Etzioni regards that models based on pluralist decision making are biased due to pre-existing imbalances in the power of the participating interests and individuals. Y. Dror in his book Public Policy Re-examined (1968) has said that a sudden transformation of the public policy making system is not possible. Improving public policy making must be a continuing endeavor, requiring sustained effort over a long period. The most harmful effect of the incremental change argument is that it paralyses efforts and thus, tends to be self- fulfilling prophecy. Granted the difficulties exist what we need is an even stronger effort to overcome them. The difficulties of the problems faced by public policy making make improvements in it necessary, and the knowledge we are now developing makes such improvements possible; we must therefore mobilize energy needed to carry out these difficulties. Policy Networks Approach Modern democratic governance makes use of the concept of policy networks to make public policies. A range of different actors, who are linked together in political, social and cultural aspects, are involved in policy formulation. The term policy network connotes a cluster of actors, each of whom has an interest or a stake in a given policy sector and the capacity to help in determining policy success or failure. Policy outcomes are often explained by analysts of modern governance by considering the way the networks are structured in a particular sector. The three basic assumptions of policy network analysis are: i. Modern governance is frequently non-hierarchical. Few policy solutions are simply imposed by public authorities. Governance involves mutuality and interdependence between public and non-public actors, as well as between different kinds of public actors. ii. The policy process must be disaggregated to be understood because relationships between groups and government vary between policy areas. 14 iii. Governments remain ultimately responsible for governance, but that is not the whole story. Before policies are „set‟ by elected political actors, policy choices are shaped and refined in bargaining between a diverse range of actors, including some who are non-governmental, all of whom have an interest in what policy is chosen (John Peterson: 2003). R.A.W. Rhodes, a professor of political science, is a pioneer in analyzing policy networks in British government. The term policy networks refers to sets of formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and other actors structured around shared interests in public policy making and implementation. These institutions are interdependent. Policies emerge from the bargaining between the networks‟ members. The other actors commonly include the professions, trade unions and big business (R.A.W. Rhodes, Wikipedia). His model of policy networks assumes that three variables determine the type of policy network which exists in a specific sector. These variables are the relative stability of a network‟s membership; the network‟s relative insularity; and the strength of resource dependencies. A continuum emerges with tightly integrated policy communities on one end, who are capable of single-minded collective action, and loosely-affiliated issue networks on the other, who find it far more difficult to mobilize collectively. The internal structure of policy networks is usually considered an independent variable, in that the structure of a policy network will help determine policy outcomes (John Peterson: 2003). David Marsh and Martin Smith (2002), in their work Understanding Policy Networks: Towards a Dialectical Approach, have developed a dialectical model of policy networks. They emphasize that the relationship between networks and outcomes is not a uni-dimensional. They argue for three interactive or dialectical relationships which are involved between the structure of the network and the agents operating within them; the network and the context within which it operates; and the network and the policy outcome. 11.8 SUMMARY The study of public policy is a relatively new field of inquiry in public administration. Various approaches have been developed for its study. Each approach studies public policy from a different perspective and this enables a comprehensive study of public policy from various dimensions. In this module, four approaches have been discussed: group approach, rational choice approach, incremental approach and policy networks approach. Group approach presupposes that political life is interaction and struggle among diverse societal groups; and politics is characterized by controversy and conflict due to the activity of interest groups. Public policy is the result of negotiations, bargaining and compromises resulting from competition between diverse groups. 15 Rational choice approach is about maximizing efficiency. Rational policy making involves choosing the one best policy alternative from several alternatives on rational grounds. In framing a policy all pertinent values (social, political and economic) have to be precisely considered. A rational policy is one which is design to achieve net vale achievement. According to incremental approach, policy change is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The reason is that decision-making involves the process of continuously building out from the current situation, step-by-step and by small degrees. The key features of incremental policies are succession of incremental changes; mutual adjustment and negotiation; and trial and error learning. Modern democratic governments use a range of different approaches to make public policies. Policy networks include formal and informal institutional linkages between governmental and other actors. They include state, market, and civil society etc. These institutions are interdependent. They are linked together in political, social and cultural aspects. They are also involved in policy formulation. 11.9 KEY WORDS Hypothetical: From the word hypothesis, which means - a statement of an expected relationship between variables that may be tested empirically to determine its validity A hypothesis is typically presented as an assertive statement to be confirmed or denied. Input: In systems terminology any influence that affects the functioning of a political system. Inputs result in demands upon and support for the system, which converts them into outputs in the form of authoritative policies and implementing actions. Output: Activities carried on by a political system in response to demands or stresses placed upon the system in the form of inputs. Outputs usually take the form of governmental policies, programmes, decisions, and implementing actions. Political Ecology: The study of the relationship of a political system to its environment. 11.10 EXERCISE 1. Define a 'Model' and an 'Approach'. 2. Highlight different types of approaches to policy analysis. 3. Define Elite Theory. 4. Historical approach 5. Functional approach 6. Investigative-substitutive approach 16 11.11 REFERENCE  Anderson, James E. 1979. Public Policy Making, Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York.  Dror, Yehezkel, 1968. Public Policy Making Re-examined, Chandler Publishing Company  Dye, Thomas, R. 1972. Understanding Public Policy, Prentice-Hall, Engle wood Cliff.  Jones, Charles 1977. An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy, Wadsworth: California.  Koenig, Louis W. 1986. An Introduction to Public Policy, Prentice-Hall, New Jersy.  Lindblom, Charles E. 1968. The Policy Making Process, Prentice-Hall.  Rein, Martin, 1976. Social Science and Public Policy, Penguin Books: New York.  Sahni, Pardeep, 1987. Public Policy: Conceptual Dimensions, Kitab Mahal: Allahabad. 17 UNIT-12 PUBLIC POLICY: FORMULATION IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION Structure 12.1 Objectives 12.2 Introduction 12.3 Policy Formulation 12.4 Concept of Policy Implementation 12.5 Public Policy Evaluation 12.6 Summary 12.7 Exercise 12.8 References 12.1 OBJECTIVES After studying this Unit, you should be able to explain:  Formulation, Implementation and Evaluation of public policy.  The concept of policy implementation  The meaning of network governance  Different Approaches to policy implementation  Administrative organization  The Evaluation of Public Policy 12.2 INTRODUCTION Public policies significantly affect the socio-economic life of people. Public policy is expressed in the body of laws, regulations, decisions and actions of government. Process of public policy has several stages. Policy Implementation and Evaluation are as important as policy formulation. This unit presents a brief sketch about public policy implementation and evaluation. The concept, meaning, approaches and process of public policy implementation and evaluation has been discussed here. The module is divided into three sections. First section attempts to provide a conceptual understanding of public policy implementation. While doing so, it offers the concept, consideration, approaches to policy implementation and emphasizes policy implementation as an administrative process. Second section is central to this module as it analyzes the policy evaluation by highlighting conceptual issues, policy impact, problems in policy evaluation and cost benefit analysis of policy evaluation. After going through this unit you will get a 18 broad understanding on policy implementation and evaluation. It also helps you to know problems involved in policy evaluation and how to overcome such problems. 12.3 POLICY FORMULATION During this stage of the policy cycle, expressed problems, proposals, and demands are transformed into government programs. Policy formulation and adoption include the definition of objectives, what should be achieved with the policy and the consideration of different action alternatives. Some authors differentiate between formulation (of alternatives for action) and the final adoption (the formal decision to take on the policy). Policies will not always be formalized into separate programs. A clear-cut separation between formulation and decision-making is very often impossible. Therefore, they are treated as sub stages in a single stage of the policy cycle. Policy formulation implies the definition of policy objectives and the selection of the most appropriate policy instruments as well as their settings. It takes place within the broader context of technical and political constraints of state action. The political constraints can be either substantive or procedural. Substantive constraints refer to the nature of the problem, while procedural constraints are about procedures involved in adopting a policy adoption. These procedural constraints are related to both institutional and tactical constraints (Howlett and Ramesh, 2003, 147– 48). Policy formulation occurs in government bureaucracies; interest group offices; legislative committee rooms, meetings of special commissions; and policy-planning organizations otherwise known as “think tanks”. The details of policy proposals are usually formulated by staff members rather than their bosses, but staffs are guided by what they know their leaders want. (Dye, 2005, 42). Another aspect of policy formulation refers to the impact of policy advice and scientific knowledge. Their functioning is related to ideas about policy networks, epistemic communities and policy learning Most studies dealing with the role of knowledge in policy formulation agree that, in the contemporary age, knowledge is more widely spread beyond the boundaries of (central) governments than some decades ago. Therefore, the perception of a monopoly of information on the side of the bureaucracy is obsolete. Policy formulation proceeds as a complex social process, in which state actors play an important but not necessarily decisive role. (Jann and Kai; 2007). 12.4 CONCEPT OF POLICY IMPLEMENTATION Policy implementation is an important phase of the policy process during which adopted policies are put into effect. It reflects a complex change process where government decisions are transformed into programs, procedures, regulations or 19 practices aimed at social betterment and welfare services. It can be understood that policy implementation is an iterative process in which ideas are transformed into social action (Ottoson and Green). Nicholas Henry defines policy implementation as the execution and delivery of public policies. Policy implementation represents “the stage where government executes and adopted policy as specified by the legislation or policy action” (Theodoule and Krofinis 2004).Policy implementation can succinctly be defined as what happens after a bill becomes a law (James E. Anderson 2004). Policy implementation may be viewed as a process of interaction between the setting of goals and actions geared to achieve them (Pressman and Wildavsky 1984). Policy implementation is called carrying out of a basic policy decision (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1983). It is referred as the connection between the expression of governmental intention and actual result (O'Toole 1995). Elmore identified four main ingredients for effective implementation of public policies:  Clearly specified tasks and objectives.  A management plan  An objective means of measuring sub unit performance  A system of management controls and social sanctions Thus, implementation can be conceptualized as a process output and outcome. It is a process of a series of decisions and actions directed towards another prior authoritative decision into effect. Finally at the higher level of abstraction, implementation outcome implies that there has been some measurable change in the larger problem by the program, public law or indicial derisions. Consideration for Public Policy Implementation Policy implementation is a dynamic and evolving change process. Owing to a confluence of factors including network implementation, structures, socio-political conflicts and administrative reforms to shape how policy ideas are translated into social betterment programs. Network governance Having said this, governance is understood both as a process and a dynamic phenomenon that is aimed at bringing excellence in various governmental operations within a democratic set up. In fact, the process of governance is concerned with a complex interactions and interrelations among different actors and institutions, ideas and practices (Zafarullah, 2015).The network governance may be defined as an alliance among various policy actors, that are linked together as co-producers and aimed at identifying and sharing comment interests (Junki, 2006, p.22). Policy theorists recognize that implementation involves coordination action among multiple 20 organizational actors and implementers. The relationship and interaction among agencies across the implementation chain are growing more complex when newer networked approaches to policy implementation are adopted. There are the networked organizational structures that allow policy ideas to take their shape as real world action. An ideal or an inclusive policy making is the outcome of the contributions of different actors and players are it public or private. These actors play a significant role beginning from agenda setting to policy evaluation. Thus, network governance plays an effective role in successful policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. For instance, it can be seen through public-private partnership, social investments, cooperative management, entrepreneurial community ventures and social forestry (Zafarullah, 2015). Socio-Political Context Socio-Political factors play out at all levels of the policy implementation process. Implementer‟s decisions about whose needs will be served, how they will be served and which outcomes will be valued are determined in part by socio-political factors. Approaches to policy implementation Implementation is the process of converting policy into action. However, it is common to observe a gap between what was planned and what was actually occurred as a result of policy implementation. There are three different approaches to policy implementation. They are: 1) top down approach, 2) bottom-up approach, and 3) the synthetic or hybrid approach as discussed below. Top-Down Approach This approach makes distinction between policy formulation and implementation. Policies are formulated at higher levels in a political process and are then communicated to subordinate levels, which are charged with the technical managerial and administrative tasks of implementing policies. This top down approach requires that following conditions be kept in place for effective implementation.  Clear and logically consistent objectives  An implementation process structure.  Committed and skilled manpower.  Support from legislative and pressure groups.  Adequate time and sufficient resources.  Good coordination and communication. Bottom-up approach Bottom-up-approach begins their implementation strategy formation with the target- groups and services deliver because they find that target-groups are actual implementers of policy. Moreover, bottom uppers contend that if local bureaucrats are not allowed discretion in the implementation process with respect to local 21 conditions the policy will likely fails. Accordingly, goals, strategies and activities must deploy with special attention to the people, whom policy will directly impact. Synthesis or Hybrid Approach This approach is a mixture of both top-down and bottom-up approaches. Synthesis or hybrid approach is characterized by theoretical orientations of perceiving implementation as a process of constituting coalition, structure, networking and institutionalization within which various parties in specific policy domain strive to realise a policy in a context of complexity. Street Level Bureaucracy The concept of street level bureaucracy was propounded by Michel Lipsky, who underlines that policy is not best understood as made in legislatures or top floor suits of high ranking officials, because it is actually made in the crowded offices and daily encounter in street level workers the street level workers. The decision of street level bureaucracy, routine they establish and the devices they invent to cope with uncertainties and work pressures effectively become the public polices carry out (Lipsky, 1969). Policy Implementation is an Administrative Process The vital characteristic of policy implementation is the process by which policies are translated into administrative action. While administrative agencies are the primary implementers of public policy many other actors may also be involved. They are the legislature, judiciary, pressure groups and community organizations. The term administrative process is used to designate the operation of the administrative system for policy implementation. It includes administrative organization, administrative policies and administrative decision-making. Administrative organization The responsibility for effective policy implementation is assigned either to an existing agency or to a new agency established for this purpose. The creation of new agency is usually handled either by legislature or executive. Organizational consideration affects policy implementation but organizational actions are affected by its political context and political support. The environment in which an agency works may contain many forces and these forces may exert influence on the action of implementation. These forces are:  Relevant laws, Rules and Regulation  The Chief executive  The Legislative Supervision system  The Courts  The Interest Groups  Political Parties  Communication Media. 22 Administrative Policy Making Administrative agencies shape policy through implementation of legislation. In administrative agency's decision-making hierarchy is of central importance. Hierarchy means that those at the upper level have a large voice in administrative agency‟s decision because of their high status; even through lower level officials may have more substantive expertness. Administrative agencies constitute a government habitat in which expertise finds a wealth of opportunities to assert it and to influence the policy. Political consideration, secrecy and bargaining are also important in administrative decision-making. Though experts and facts are not only important in administrative decision-making but also in arriving at accommodations and compromises. Administrative decision may be productive of policy in several ways namely rule making adjudication, law enforcement and program operation. Compliance All public policies are intended to influence or control human behaviour in some way, to induce people act in accordance with governmentally prescribed rules or goals. Policy implementation is very much associated with the problem of compliance. It is the task of administrative agencies to secure compliance. The board purpose of administrative enforcement activities, such as conference, persuasion, inspection and prosecution, is to obtain compliance with policies rather than merely punish violators. Compliance with policy may be based on some form of reasoned and conscious acceptance. Even self-interest conflicts with particular policy may be convinced that it is reasonable necessary, or just. Another cause of compliance is the belief that governmental decisions or policy should be obeyed because it is legitimate in the sense that it in constitutional or made by officials with proper authority to act. Self- interest is also a cause of compliance because individual and groups may directly benefit from acceptance of policy norms and standard. The possibility of punishment in form of fine, imprisonment and other sanction also work to secure compliance. 12.5 PUBLIC POLICY EVALUATION The final phase of the policy process is the evaluation of policy. It is as old as policy itself. Policy makers and administrators have always made judgments concerning the worth or effect of particular policies. Systematic evaluation is concern of effect of policy in the public problem to which it is directed. Policy evaluation gives the policy making and general public some notion of the actual impact of policy and provides policy discussions with some grounding in reality. It is a key component of the policy circle or the process of conceiving, developing implementing and modifying public policies. Evaluation helps to determine the success of earlier steps in the policy development cycle, whether the program had the intended impact and met its objectives, and whether the things can be done better in future. Policy evaluation is broader and more strategic in scope and considers the merits and effectiveness of a particular policy. The Policy evaluation applies evaluation principles and methods to 23 analyze the content, implementation or effects of a policy. Evaluation is the activity through which we develop an understanding of the impact of a public policy. Definitions and conceptual issues Evaluation is an activity designed to judge the outcome of government policy. It is systematic process of determining the merit, value and worth of someone or something (John Risley: Public Policy Evaluation). It is process of measuring and assessing the impact and merits of government policies and programs. It is a means of determining and appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of government policies and contributing to policy improvement and innovation (Act Government: Evaluation Policy and Guidance Australia 2010) Public policy evaluation can be understood as „learning about consequences of public policy‟ (Dye). Policy evaluation provides an overview of possibilities and limits of public policy execution. Policy evaluation can be conceptualized either as an ongoing activity throughout policy making process or as a separate stage of policy cycle. The purpose of policy evaluation is to assess whether the policy objectives pursued were met and means employed to achieve these objectives are appropriate ones (Howleft, Ramesh and Perl 2009, 178) Generally speaking, public policy evaluation in concerned with estimation, assessment or appraisal of policy including its content, implantation and effect (Anderson: Public Policy Making, 1975 P. 132) Anderson conceptualized that,  The public policy evaluation is a functional activity that occurs throughout the policy process and not simply in the last stage alone.  The public policy is centered on the operation of particular policies.  The public policy is a systematic, objective evaluation to measure then societal impact of public policies and extent to which they are achieving their stated objectives. Thus, policy evaluation is a key component of the policy cycle or the process of conceiving, developing, implementing and modifying public policies. Policy Impact In discussing policy impact, it is important to have in mind the distinction between policy outputs and policy outcomes. Policy outputs are thing government do such as highways construction, payment of welfare benefits etc. In trying to determine the policy outcome, our concern is with the changes in the environment or political system caused by policy action. Policy evaluation is concerned with determining the impact of policy on real life conditions. The determination of real effects or outcomes of policy is often a very complex and difficult task. The impact of a policy has 24 following important dimensions, which must be taken into consideration in the process of evaluation.  The impact on the public problem at which it is directed and on the people involved. Those on whom the policy is intended to an affect must be defined.  Policies may have effects on situation or groups other than those at which they are directed. These can be called either externalities or spillover effects (Larry Lwade: Element of Public Policy). Many of the outcomes of public policy can be most meaningfully understood in terms of externalities.  Policy may have impact on current as well as on future conditions.  The direct costs of policies are an important element for evaluation.  Policies may have indirect costs that are experienced by community or some of its members. Such costs often have not been considered in policy evaluation, at least partly because they defy quantification. The evaluation of policy becomes most complex when explicit consideration is given to the fact that the effects of policy may be symbolic as well as material. Symbolic outputs include affirmation of values by elites, displays of flags, troops and military ceremony; visits by royalty or high official and statements of policy or intent by political leaders. These are highly dependent on tapping popular beliefs, attitudes and aspirations for their effectiveness "(Gabriel Almond and G. Powel, 1966)". Symbolic policy outputs produce no real change in societal conditions. The analysis of public policy in usually focused upon what government actually does, why and with what material effects will it do things. Problems in policy evaluation The most useful policy evaluation is systemic evaluation that tries to determine the cause and effect relationships and rigorously measure the impact of policy. It is of course, impossible to measures quantitatively the impact of public policies with any real precision. For rigorous measurement it is required to assess carefully and objectively the impact of policy. There are number of barriers, or obstacles that may create problem for the evaluation of policy. These are: Uncertainty over policy goals When the goals of a policy are unclear, diffuse or diverse as indeed they frequently are, determining the extent to which they have been attained to become a difficult and a frustrating task (Carol H. Weiss, 1997). This situation often is a product of the policy adoption process which is based on support of multiple actors: Uncertainty over policy goals When the goals of a policy are unclear, diffuse or diverse as indeed they frequently are, determining the extent to which they have been attained to become a difficult and a frustrating task (Carol H. Weiss, 1997). This situation often is a product of the policy adoption process which is based on support of multiple actors: 25 Causality Systematic evaluation needs their change in real life conditions that must demonstrably be caused by policy actions. But in many cases cause and effect relationship does not exist. The determination of causality between actions, especially in complex social and economic matters, is a difficult task. Diffuse Policy Action Policy action also affects groups other than whom they are directed at. For example, an action of welfare policy may affect not only targeted ones but also others such as tax payers, public official and excluded low income people. Official Resistance The officials who are involved in policy processes have fear of exposure of failure by the policy evaluation. They are concerned about possible political consequences of evaluation. Therefore officials are reluctant for evaluations. Organization tends to resist change, while evaluation implies change. It creates an obstacle to evaluation, along with more overt forms of resistance. Difficulties in data acquisition A shortage of accurate and relevant statistical data and other information may handicap policy evaluation. Policy Evaluation process and obstacles The evaluation of policy is made by variety of ways. Sometimes it is highly systemic other times rather haphazard or sporadic. In some cases it has become institutionalized while in others it is quite informal and unstructured. A few of the forms of policy evaluation are legislative oversight, audit organizations, executive commissions and agency action etc. Beside this, evaluation is also made outside government. The media, university scholars, private research organizations, civil society, pressure-groups and public interest organization all make evaluation of policy that have greater or lesser effects on public official. They also provide the public with information publicize policy action or inaction and sometimes advocate unpopular causes. It is often indicated in policy evaluation that intended policy goals or impact is not achieved due to following factors:  Inadequate resources.  Limited policy areas.  Conflicting goals.  Irresponsive people  Cost overruns.  The changing of policy problem.  New problem may arise after implementation. 26 Cost-benefit analysis of policy evaluation Cost benefit analysis is the implicit and explicit assessment of the benefits and costs (e.g. pros and cons, advantages and disadvantages) associated with a particular policy. It is a technique of comparing all the costs, both visible and invisible, included in a particular policy action with all the benefits expected. The costs and benefits can be either material or symbolic. Following are the policy categories that are based on the allocation of costs and benefits. Broad Benefits and Broad Costs Policies that involve a broad distribution of costs and benefits, such as social security, high way construction, public education, defense, health, tend to becomes readily accepted, institutional sized and beyond major challenge. Board Benefits and Narrow Costs Some policies provide benefits for larger population while their costs fall primarily upon faintly distract identifiable group in society. The policies related to environment pollution control, public utility, regulations, mine safety etc. are example of it. Narrow Benefits and Broad Costs Policies are of benefit to indentified groups while their costs do not appeal to fall upon any particular groups. Aquiculture subsidies, construction of hospital and educational institutions, cleaning of rivers etc. are the examples of it. The costs of policies related with above are in form of higher taxes or prices that effect people generally. Those who benefit from their policies have a clear incentive to organize and act to maintain them. Narrow Benefit and Narrow Costs Policies which are benefited to a targeted group but their cost fall on another distinct group tend to generate organization conflicts among the groups and their partisans. The above classification is useful in gaining insight into responding to various policies. This categorization is also helpful in analyzing the struggles that attend the adoption of policy as to some extent the kind of policy proposed will help to shape the enhancement process. 12.6 SUMMARY From this unit, it is understood that public policy evaluation is a complex task. It is a potentially powerful mechanism that compares goals with their achievement. Since it is an important step in policy process, it must be objective, systematic and fact oriented. To summarize this module, it is understood that public policy primarily attempts to address various socio-economic needs of the society. Public policy has several important stages, in which policy formulation, implementation and evaluation are essential. With reference to policy implementation, the government decisions are 27 transformed into action for the social betterment. Evaluation of the policy is considered to be the final phase of the policy process. This phase is especially important as it assesses the policy objectives and its effects with regard to the social betterment. In fact, this evaluation helps the policy makers to find the gaps in the existing policy and to come up with necessary modifications/actions to formulate better policies in the future. Thus, policy evaluation is a key component of the policy cycle. However, there are some problems in policy evaluation as the evaluation requires a careful assessment of the impact of the policy. The uncertainty over policy goals is one of the difficult tasks which is a product of the policy adoption process. In addition to this, the inadequate resources, limited policy areas, conflicting goals, irresponsive people, cost escalation, the changing of policy problem, arise of new problems after implementation etc. make the intended policy goals unachievable or ineffective. In this context, the cost benefit analysis assumes significance in the implicit or explicit assessment of the cost and benefits of the policy. 12.7 EXERCISE 1. What is public policy? 2. Define policy formulation. 3. Explain the concept of policy implementation. 4. What is network governance? 5. What are the different approaches to policy implementation? Explain 6. How to evaluate public policy? 12.8 REFERENCES 1. Anderson, J. E. (2003). Public policymaking: An introduction. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, pp. 1 – 34. 2. Carol H. Weiss (1997). Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies, 2nd Edition. 3. Daniel A. Mazmanian and Paul A. Sabatier (1984).Implementation and Public Policy, Policy Sciences, Vol. 17, No. 1 (May, 1984), pp. 95-97. 4. Gabriel Almond and G. Powell, Jr., Comparative. Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1966) 5. James O'Toole (1995). Leading Change: The Argument for Values-Based Leadership, Ballentine Books. 6. Larry L. Wade (1972). The Elements of Public Policy, C.E. Merrill Publishing Company. 7. Lipsky, Michael (1969). Toward a Theory of Street-Level Bureaucracy (IRP Discussion Papers No. 48-69) (p. 45). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty (IRP), University of Wisconsin. 28 8. Michael Howlett, M Ramesh, and Anthony Perl (2009).Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems, Oxford Publishers. 9. Pressman and Wildavsky (1984).Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; Or, Why It's Amazing that Federal Programs Work at All, This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration as Told by Two Sympathetic Observers Who Seek to Build Morals on a Foundation, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London. 10. Theodoule Stella and Chris Krofinis (2004).The Art of the Game: Understanding Publi Policy, Wadsworth Publishing. 11. Zafarullah (2015). Network Governance and Policy Making: Developments and Directions in Asia, in I. Jamil et al. (eds). Governance in South, Southeast, and East Asia, Springer International Publishing, Switerland. 29 UNIT-13 NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Structure 13.1 Objectives 13.2 Introduction 13.3 Evolution of New Public Administration 13.4 Landmarks Responsible For the Emergence of New Public Administration: 13.5 First Minnow Brook Conference 13.6 The Minnowbrook Conference –II (1988) 13.7 The Minnow Brook Conference –III 13.8 Summary 13.9 Exercise 13.10 Reference 13.1 OBJECTIVES After studying this Unit, you should be able to explain:  The evolution of new public administration  Attribute for the emergence and growth of New Public Administration.  Minnow brook conferences  The relevance of Minnow brook conferences 13.2 INTRODUCTION This unit presents an account of discussions, deliberations, characteristics, conclusions and impact of three Minnowbrook conferences held in 1968, 1988 and 2008 at Syracuse University. The New public Administration which begins with the Minnowbrook I in 1968 and subsequent conferences contributed the advancement in the discipline of Public administration. There is detailed discussion on all of the stated issues in this unit. 13.3 EVOLUTION OF NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION The New Public Administration (NPA) is a concept evolved to denote the academic advancement took place in the discipline of Public administration as a result of deliberations in first Minnowbrook conferences held in 1968. Rosemary O‟ Leary states “Minnowbrook stands for the spirit of critical inquiry and an honest 30 examination of the field”. The Minnowbrook spirit is still alive and the subsequent conferences held in the year 1988 and recently in 2008 have been enriching the New Public Administration and so the discipline. The concept of New Public Administration was born because of „grave happenings and urgent problems‟ in America during the decade of 1960‟s. There was „social upheaval‟ as lesser privileged (Black Americans) were not been able to avail benefits of the prosperity generated during the 1950‟s and early 1960‟s. This social upheaval was coupled with political violence, conflict of US force in South East Asia and declines in the commitment of Americans to their institutions: the family, the church, the media, the profession, the government etc. Dwight Waldo in his article „Public Administration in a time of Turbulence‟ observed that “ 1960‟s was turbulent period besieged by numerous society problems, but public administration showed no sign of being aware of them, much less being serious to solve them”. While narrating the prevailing state of affairs he stated that “neither the study nor the practice of public administration … responding in an appropriate measure to mounting turbulence and critical problems of the day”. Robert T Golembiewski also stated that “Public administration was shaken and affected by the turbulent or revolutionary 1960‟s. For Public administration, the 1960‟s were like war”. It was indeed a „turbulent period‟ for Public Administration in America. Further, there was also a deep sense of dissatisfaction among practitioners regarding the existing state of discipline and especially its obsession with efficiency and economy, the salient characteristics of traditional Public administration. The mainstream public administration was preoccupied with management ideas, issues and principles. The objective was to maximize economy and efficiency. The course content and practice of public administration found irrelevant and unuseful to the vital problems of society. Besides, the Public administration in 1960‟s in United States comes under the influence of younger generations which was dissatisfied with the contemporary status of public administration. The Honey Report and Philadelphia conference highlighted the prevailing restlessness among these young scholars. It was in this setting, in 1967, Dwight Waldo, the Albert Schweitzer Professor of Humanities of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University with his junior colleagues (H. George Frederickson, Henry Lambright and Frank Marini) organized (first) Minnowbrook Conference at Syracuse University located in Adirondacks on September 3 through, 7, 1968. 13.4 LANDMARKS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EMERGENCE OF NEW PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: The following landmarks are attributed for the emergence and growth of New Public Administration: 31 i) The Honey Report on Higher Education for Public Service, 1967 (USA); ii) The Philadelphia Conference on the Theory and Practice of Public Administration,1967(US, Chairman James C. Charlesworth); iii) Publication of Public Administration in a time of Revolution, 1968 – an article by Dwight Waldo; and iv) The Minnowbrook Conference, 1968; v) Toward A New Public Administration : The Minnowbrook Perspective, 1971( edited by the Frank Marini); vi) Public Administration in a Time of Turbulence, 1971( by Dwight Waldo); and vii) New Public Administration, 1980(by George Frederickson). 13.5 FIRST MINNOW BROOK CONFERENCE Minnowbrook is a Maxwell school tradition conceived and initiated by Dwight Waldo. He brought together scholars under the age of 35 to critique the field and to develop ideas for the future of discipline. As already stated the conference was held at Minnow brook, a very small conference centre owned by Syracuse University in the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York. There, actually, is a brook called “Minnow Brook” that runs through the property. The conference centre has a capacity to house 58 people in 28 rooms. It is lonely retreat centre in one of the most beautiful parts of the United States. Minnowbrook is a tradition of critical self-evaluation that may very well be unique to the field of public administration. It is a spirit of “questioning authority” – asking why our field does what it does – why we study the question we study. The participants (of Minnow) found the field (of public administration) inadequate in its “set of concepts and ideas to explain the modern world of administration” and formulated the ideas of “New Public Administration”, an action oriented perspective that embraced normative inquiry, and advocated for social equity and citizen participation among other issues. (Marini, 1971, Waldo 1980;130). Fifty young scholars had assembled in 1968 under the leadership of D. Waldo to redefine the focus of public administration theory. The objective was to discuss how “public service can better respond to the turbulence and critical problems” at that time. Most of the participants were young and educated in Political Science. The mood, tone and feeling were contentious, confrontational and revolutionary but theoretical. Rosemary O‟Leary is of the opinion that: “The key word at this conference was „relevance‟. Scholars asked if what we were doing and teaching in Public Administration had any relevance to life outside ivory tower”. Frank Marini and Frederickson summarized the theme of the conference as relevance, anti-positivism, dissatisfaction with the state of discipline, personnel morality and 32 ethics, innovation, improved human relations, reconciling public administration and democracy, client centered responsiveness and social equity. Some of the themes identified in this conference were so relevant that they have become important aspects of the present day public administration. These are. 1. Relevance: The NPA has rejected the traditional concept of efficiency and economy in administration. It stresses that the discipline had little to say about contemporary problems and issues and therefore becoming irrelevant. It was realized that the theme of relevance is more a reinterpretation than an original quest. How? First, the traditional Public Administration is concerned with efficiency and economy and the Public Administration had discovered that it paid lesser attention to the contemporary problems and issues which it ought to be. Second the contemporary scholars considered that management oriented Public Administration curriculum is irrelevant and the need to deal things explicitly with the political and administrative action was felt. Third, the character of the knowledge is also related to the relevance issue. The question that asked was: Public Administration knowledge for what? Is the purpose of Public Administration to facilitate use of administrative knowledge of perpetuation of political power? Obviously question challenged the relevance and therefore new movement (NPA) demanded radical curriculum change to facilitate meaningful studies oriented to the realities of public life to make the discipline and profession relevant one. Mohit Bhattacharya also opined that “Management oriented public administration curriculum was found irrelevant and the demand was to deal with the political and administrative implications of administrative action”. Hence there was an urgent need to make the discipline socially relevant. In other words, there was a need for meaningful studies focusing on „policy issues‟ instead of „management of agencies‟. The need of relevance identified and understood in the conference changed the public administrative system. While narrating the influence of NPA on public administration Frederickson in 1989 observed that “The field had shifted focus in significant measure from management of agencies to policy issues. The quality of schooling, the effects of law enforcement…………..have become “units of analysis” or “policy issue” at least as important as managerial practices in schools and in the police…… …departments”. He further stated that “The public policy approach to public administration has flourished and it has had a significant effect on the quality of government”. 2. Value New Public Administration believes in normative concerns in administrative analysis. It rejected the value neutrality like in behavioural political science and management oriented (efficiency and economy) public administration. The career service bureaucrats are no longer considered to be merely implementer of fixed decisions as 33 they were in the dominant theory of the late 1950‟s and 1960‟s; they are now understood to hold a public trust to provide the best possible public service with the cost and benefits being fairly distributed among the people.(Rohr). The NPA movement advocates the openness of the values being served through administrative action. Frederickson observed that “ The New Public Administration is less „generic‟ and more „public‟ than his forbear, less „descriptive‟ more „prescriptive‟, less „institution oriented‟ and more „client impact oriented‟ , less „neutral‟ more „normative‟, and it is hoped no less scientific”. Later on he also stated that “Ethics, Honesty, and Responsibility in government have returned again to the lexicon of public administration” thus again emphasized the normative concerns advocated by New Public Administration. 3. Social Equality It means that public administration should become champion of the under privileged sections of the society and positive discrimination kind of approach/strategy may be utilized to protect and promote the interests of such sections of population in order to ensure social equity in the society. The NPA advocates that the public administration must work for the realization of social equity. Frederickson was of the opinion that “a public administration which fails to work for changes which try to redress the deprivation of minorities will likely to eventually used to repress those minorities”. Therefore, New Public Administration calls the „bureaucrats to become an instrument for achieving social equity‟. Consequently “Social equity has been added to efficiency and economy as the rationale or justification of policy positions. Equal protection of the law has come to be considered as important to those charged with carrying out the law (public administrators) as it is to those elected to make the law”. Thus the concern for social equity has become an objective of public administration under NPA and the responsibility to ensure it has not been left to the public administration alone rather entrusted to the State as a whole. 4. Change: It is considered that the government agencies have often outlived their purpose and public expect a change. Increments of growth and decrements of decline have come to have more equal weight in the lexicon of the public administrator. Therefore, the government must take appropriate measure to get rid of those programmes which are undesirable and initiate the required one as a principle/norm. Frederickson observed that “Change, not growth, has come to be understood as the more critical theoretical issue”. A responsive government „grows‟ when need emerges and „declines‟ when a service of an agency not critically required. Frederickson observed that “Managing change, not just growth, is the standard for (measuring) effectiveness”. He, further, observed that “Effective public administration has come to be defined in the context of an active and participative citizenry”. Besides this, it has been realized that “The 34 implementation has acquired a centre stage in an administrative process of an organisation. It has replaced the decision making considered to be highly significant during 1950‟s and 1960‟s. The implementation has become important due to the fact that it is a difficult challenge to carryout decisions. The scholars also challenged the correctness of the rational model of organization and the usefulness of the strict concept of hierarchy professed in public administration. Thus, NPA emphasizes the public administration to be free from enslavement of the redundant and outworn administrative institutions. At the same time, it suggests appropriate innovations to be effective for the fulfillment of contemporary societal needs. The ideas and contents of Minnowbrook conference received wider recognition and three works: Toward a New Public Administration: The Minnowbrook Perspective (1971) edited by Frank Marini and Public Administration in a time of Turbulence (1971) edited by Dwight Waldo and New Public Administration by George Frederickson(1980) were produced based on what had been discussed in the conference. The Minnowbrook conference I is credited to bring a new era in public administration characterized with relevance, values, social equity and change. Besides this the issues like public interest and relating administration with „political‟ had acquired prominence in the discipline. Narrating the positive effects of NPA, Mohit Bhattacharya states that “Its positive value lies in bringing public administration closer to political science. In fact, the movement has been successful in integrating public administration with the basic concerns of political theory”. He further states that “ The client oriented, normative and socially conscious public administration, as advocated by new movement, is of direct relevance for the third world countries as well, where public administration is dire need of de-bureaucratization and basic qualitative transformation”. However, the New Public Administration was criticized as anti theoretic, anti positivist and anti management. 13.6 THE MINNOWBROOK CONFERENCE –II (1988) There had been significant changes in 20 plus years since Minnowbrook-I in the settings of the American public administration. Frederickson observed that “Since the public was unable to be effective at changing government, some simply concluded that it is better to have less of it”. The era of positive government – “which stimulated rapid sub urbanization, the stringing together of American cities with a national network of freeways, and the growth of schools and hospitals for the baby boom” of late 1960‟s and 1970‟s has given way to the regulatory state. The United States has witnessed more governance in place of directly performing government, more privatization and contracting out, more volunteerism, and more third - party government. The values of public purpose had receded to pave way to the value of private interest (Frederickson 1989). The period has also witnessed the prevalence of 35 the homelessness and poverty and those have become serious problems for the U.S. once again. Further, the discipline of public administration has become much larger, interdisciplinary, analytically and theoretically sophisticated. The second conference includes many individuals who have been trained in policy analysis and policy studies, economics, planning, urban studies, and law. The conference was practical in comparison to the previous conference, which was radical and confrontational one. The themes like ethics, social equity, human relations, reconciling public administration and democracy and general concern for the academic field were retained and deliberated and that has provided continuity in intellectual interest. The themes such as leadership, constitutional and legal perspective, technology policy and economic perspectives come up for the first time (or not so significant in first conference) and made the conference unique in its own. The Minnow brook II which was held in September, 1988 was attended by sixty scholars and practitioners, all belonging to policy sciences as much as history, economics, sociology, political sciences and public administration. The scholars who attended the 1988 conference came from a background and context far different from those of their other colleagues. The themes developed at 1988 largely focus on the current and future vision in the field of public administration. The purpose of Minnow brook II was not only to facilitate a general examination of the future of Public Administration but also to determine whether important differences exist between people who entered public administration in the 1960‟s and those who entered in 1980‟s. Frederickson has made a comparison of the two conferences on certain counts and summarized form of that is presented here. 1. The number of female participants were 14 in II where as it was only one in I. 2. Minorities were less attracted to public administration in 1988 than they were in 1968. 3. Almost the 1960‟s entire group were in their 30‟s at the time of Minnowbrook I but many of than were in their 40‟s or early 50‟s having entered in public administration after working in other occupations in Minnow-II. 4. At Minnowbrook I almost all the participants were educated in political science but on the other hand at Minnowbrook II individuals trained in policy analysis and policy studies, economics, planning, urban studies and law. 5. The mood, tone, and feeling of two conferences were different. It was contentious, confrontational and revolutionary in 1968 whereas it was more civil and more practical in 1988. It was anti behavioural in dialogue in 1968 but 1988 it was more receptive to the contributions of behavioural science to public administration. However, both conferences were theoretical. 36 6. The 1968 themes were summarized by Frank Marini and Frederickson as relevance, anti positivism, dissatisfaction with the state of discipline, personal morality and ethics, innovation, improved human relations, reconciling public administration and democracy, client centered responsiveness and social equity. The 1988 also included many of the same themes, most particularly ethics, social equity, human relations, reconciling public administration and democracy and concern for the state of the field. However, several 1988 themes were not as prominent as they were in 1968, notably leadership, constitutional and legal perspectives, technology, policy and economic perspectives. Unlike the first conference, Minnow II made a conscious effort to conclude, to summarize, to integrate and to compare. Guy summarized the deliberations of the conference under eleven themes, five of which were the legacy of Minnowbrook I and other six focused on the current and future visions of the field. These are: 1. The concerns for social equity that predominated at Minnowbrook-I are largely at peace now. 2. The papers and deliberations advocated a strong consensus about democratic values, like ethics, accountability and leadership, in public administration and the centrality of public administration to promote those values. 3. The debate between the normative and the behaviourist perspective has not diminished. The discussion on paradigmatic issues in field emphasized how to get the anticipated objectives in public administration. But, Guy states that “As a field, public administration is still in disagreement about how to get there”. She believes that “people are able to attend to issues longer and think harder about them when information is presented in the context of emotion, because it serves as a hot dressing emphasizing the issues in question”. 4. Diversity in society and in the work force was accepted as a basic value among participants at Minnowbrook II. The diversity was identified in three main contexts, viz.: the issue of Generalists vs Specialists; Social, Ethnic, and Sexual diversity; and Gender diversity. Guy observed that, “The gender diversity issue was one that was clearly a 1980‟s interpretation”. In other words, the feminist theory has started to influence the literature of bureaucracy and managerial decision making during the decade and therefore it has also affected the discussions there in the conference. The Minnow Brook II has in real sense reflected “the beginning traces of a more heterogeneous work force, at least from the gender dimension”. 5. The tone of Minnow Brook II was one of constrained hopefulness. Mary Ellen Guy states: “Government is no longer seen as the train on which people want to ride”. The public servants were considered “more as conservators than as change agents” and “privatization was accepted in many of those fields, erstwhile considered to be in the domain of the government or public administration only. 37 6. Holzer states: “Society increasingly looks to the private and not for profit sectors to help to solve collective problems. Public Administration must exercise leadership in restoring the centrality of government in collective problem solving as a means of preserving constitutional values, as a way of countering va

BAPS-06 Block-04-1 Introduction to Public Administration PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue