Lecture No 25 PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS

What is public policy ?

1. J.E.Anderson , 1975 :

Public policy is a purposive course of action followed by govern ment in dealing with some topic or mater of public concern

2. D.Easton , 1953 :

Public policy is the authoritative allocation of values for the whole society

3. T.R.Dye , 1978 :

Public policy is whatever govrnments choose to do or not to do

4. C.L.Chochran & E.F.Malone , 1995 :

Public policy consists of political decisions for implementing pro grams to achieve societal goals

5.

William Jenkins’ ( 1978 ) Public policy - “ as a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political

actor or group of actors concerning the selection of goals and the means of achieving them within a specified situation where those decisions should , in principle, be within the power of those actors to achieve”

Public Policy Typology

1.

C.L.Chochran & E..Malone , 1995 : 1.1 Patronage / Promotional Policies : as those gvernment actions that provide incentive for idividuals or corporations to undertake activities they would only reluctantly undertake without the promise of a reward.

These can be classified into three types : subsidies ; contracts; and licences.

1.2

Regulatory Policies : as those which allow the government to exert control over the conduct of certain activites ( ‘negative forms of control’).

They include : invironmental pollution; civil & criminal penalties; consumption of tobacco, alcohol; consumer protection ; employee health and safety.

1.3 Redistributive Policies : as those which control people by managing the economy as a whole. The techniques of control involve fiscal (tax) and monetary ( supply of money ) policies. They tend to beneft one group at the expense of oher groups through the reallocation of wealth.

2.

J.P.Lester & J.Stewart,Jr , 2000. ( Following T.J.Lowi & Others ) 2.1. Liberal or Conservative Policies : Liberal policies are those in which the government is used extensively to bring about social change, usually in the direction ofensuring greater level of social equality. Conservative policies generally oppose the use of government to bring about social change but may approve government action to preserve the status quo or to promote favored interests. Such as : Liberals tend to favor a concentration of power in higher levels of government ; whereas Conser- vatives tend to favor decentralization of power and authority.

2.2

Substantive or Procedural Policies : Substantive policies are concerned with governmental actions to deal with substantive problems, such as highway construction; environmental protection; payment of welfare benefits.

Procedural policies

are those that relate to how something is going to be done or who is going to take action, such as the Administrative Procedures Act of 194 G.

2.3 Material or Symbolic Policies : Material policies provide concrete re sources or substantive power to their beneficiaries , or , impose real disadvantages on those adversely affected. For example , welfare pay ments; housing subsidies; etc.

Symbolic policies appeal more to cherished values than to tangibles benefits; such as national holidays that honor patriots, concerning the flag etc.

2.4 Collective or Private Goods Policies : Collective goods policies are those benefits that cannot be given to some but denied to others, such as national defense and public safety. Private goods policies are those goods that may be divided into units, and for which consumers can be charged , such as food, trash collection, home security etc.

Why government intervene ?

When society desires health care and a clean environment for everyone, why does the free market not provide it ?

Do you believe that the free market has proven a superb device for eficient-ly producing goods and services ?

What do you say when efforts to relieve market imperfections by public policy will also be flawed ?

Do you agree when others argue that government may be the only actor that can improve market efficiency or alter economic and social costs, risks, and income distribution in a positive way ?

D.L.Weimer & A.R.Vining , 1999 : “ .... Greater equity in the distributions of

economic and political resources, should be viewed as only necessary

conditions for appropriate government intervention “

Market and Government Failures

( D.K.Gupta , Analyzng Public Policy , 2001 )

Market Failure

1. Lack ofcompetition 2. Barriers to entry and exit 3. Restricted flow of information 4. Externalities and social cost 5. Rising service costs

Government Failure

1. Inability to define social welfare 2. Limits to democracy and the paradox of voting 3. Inability to define the marginal benefts and costs of public goods 4. Political constraints 5. Cultural constraints 6. Institutional constraints 7. Legal constraints 8. Knowledge constraints 9. Analytical constraints 10. Timing of policies

What public policy analysis is ?

1.

2.

3.

Chochran & Malone , 1995:

Policy analysis describes investigations that produce accurate and useful information for decision makers

Dunn , 1981 :

Policy analysis is an applied social science discipline which uses multiple methods of inquiry and argument to produce and transform policy relevant information that may be utilzed in political setting to resolve policy problems

Jenkins-Smith, 1990 :

Policy analysis is a set of techniques and criteria with which to evaluate public policy options and select among them .... to rationalize the development and implementation of public policy .... and as the means to greater efficiency and equity in allocation of public resources

CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS ( H.Lasswell , 1971 ) 1. MULTI-METHODS 2. MULTI-DISCIPLINARY 3. PROBLEM-FOCUSED 4. CORCERNED TO MAP THE CONTEXTUALITY OF THE POLICY PROCESS, POLICY OPTION AND POLICY OUTCOMES 5. WHOSE GOALS IS TO INTEGRATE KNOWLEDGE INTO AN OVERARCHING DISCIPLINE TO ANALYSE PUBLIC CHOICES AND DECISION MAKING AND THEREBY CONTRIBUTE TO THE DEMOCRATIZATION OF SOCIETY

POLICY ANALYSIS ( W.PARSONS , 1997 ) 1. META ANALYSIS : is concerned with understanding the idea that the analysis of public policy proceeds by employing metaphors ……. By describing something in terms of something else….. As devices to explore the ‘unknown’. ( models : ‘stagist’ ; ‘pluralist-elitist’; ‘neo – marxist’; ‘policy discourse’ ) 2. MESO ANALYSIS : is a middle-range or bridging level of analysis which is focused on the linkage between the definition of problems, the setting of agendas and decision-making and implementation processes 3. DECISION ANALYSIS : analysis of decision-making process and analysis in and for decision making : who gets what and how ? ( Elitism , Pluralism, Marxism, Corporatism, Professio nalism, and Technocracy ) 4. DELIVERY ANALYSIS : is the analysis of implementation, evaluation, change and impact

Two Main Concerns : Positive & Normative Analysis

( C.L.Cochran & E.F.Malone , 1995 )

Positive Analysis

1. A concern with understanding how the policy process works 2. Strives to understand publc policy as it is 3. Endeavors to explain how various social and political forces would change policy 4. Tries to pursue truth through the process of tesing hypotheses by measuring them against the standard of real-world expe riences 5. Usually deals with assertions of cause and effect : “ If the Indonesian government raises interest rates , then consumers will borrow less “. This statement may be tested by setting-up an experiment within a state.

The results may confirm or refute statement .

the

Normative Analysis

1. Is directed toward studying what public policy ought to be to improve the general welfare 2. Deals with statement involving value judgments about what should be. For example : “ The cost of health care in Indonesia is too high”. This statement cannot be confirmed by referring to data.

Whether the cost is too high or is appropriate is based on a given criterion.

Its validity depends upon one’s values and ethical views. Individuals may agree on the facts of healthcare costs but disagree over their ethical judgments regarding the implications of “the cost of health care”.

Approaches to Policy Analysis

( J.P.Lester & J.Stewart ,Jr., 2000 )

Type of Approach Primary Objective

1. Process approach 2. Substantive approach 3. Logical-positivist approach 4. Econometric approach 5. Phenomenological ( Postpositivist ) approach 6. Participatory approach 7. Normative approach 8. Ideological approach 9. Historical approach 1. To examine a part of the policy process 2. To examine a substantive area 3. To examine the causes and consequen ces of policy using scientifc methods 4. To test economic theories 5. To analyze events through an intuitive process 6. To examine the role of multiple actors in policymaking 7. To prescribe policy to decisons makers or others 8. To analyze from a liberal or conservative point of view 9. To examine policy over time

Type of Policy Analyst

Scientist

Public Policy Problem

Theoretic Professional Political Administrative Personal Design

Approaches to Policy Analysis

( M.J.Dubnick & B.A.Bardes , 1983 ) Value maximization Application Contention

Motivation

Search for theory, regularities, truth Improvement of policy and policy making Advocacy of policy positions

Approach

Scientific methods, objectivity, pure analytic Utilization of know ledge , strategic Rhetoric Effective & Efficient policy implementa tion Concern for policy impacts on life Strategic, Managerial Mixed

Relevant Training

Basic research metods, canons of social science research Strategic, cost benefit analysis, queuing, simula tion, decision ana lysis Gathering useful evidence, effective presentation Strategic, same as for Professional Use of many mo dels & techniques from other approa ches ; less sophisticated

Models of Public Policy Analysis 1. K.E.Portney , 1987 : 1.1 The Policy Making Process : “ public policy not as a product of government but as a political process “ . (1) Problem formation ;(2) Policy formulation ; (3) Policy adoption ; (4) Policy implementation ; and (5) Policy evaluation .

1.2 The Causes and Consequences of Public Policies :” the focus is on either intended or unintended impacts of governmental decisions or non-decisions “ ( the results of government action or inaction ). (1) Public policy inputs ---- (2) Policy conversion process ----- (3) Public Policy outputs ----- (4) Public policy outcomes ------ (5) Public policy feedback ----- ( back to no.1 ) 1.3 Public Policy Prescription : “ attempts to use a variety of economic, mathe matical, computer science and operations research techniques to systemati cally help us answer the question : What policy should we pursue in the fu ture ? And often attempts to find ways of making policy a more rational process, and mostly never deals with the issue directly but to prescribe ways of improving the policymaking process.

4. D.J.Palumbo , 1987 :

(1) Agenda seting : defining nature, size, and distribution of problem (2) Problem definition : forecasting needs, defining targets (3) Policy design : decison analysis (4) Policy legitimation : opinion polls, surveys etc.

(5) Implementation ( formative evaluation ) ( ) Impact ( summative evaluation) (7) Termination ( political feasibility analysis )

5. J.P.Lester & J.Stewart , 2000 :

(1) Agenda setting (2) Policy formulation (3) Policy implementation (4) Policy evaluation (5) Policy change and termination

2. B.W.Hogwood & L.A.Gun , 1984 : (1) Deciding to decide ( issu search or agenda setting ) (2) Deciding how to decide ( or issue filtration ) (3) Issue definition (4) Forecasting (5) Setting objectives and priorities ( ) Options analysis (7) Policy implementation, monitoring and control (8) Evaluation and review (9) Policy maintenance, succession, or termination 3. J.E.Anderson , 1975 : (1) Problems and Agendas (2) Policy Formulation (3) Policy Adoption (4) Policy Implementation (5) Policy Evaluation

PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS SCOPE OF ANALYSIS POLICY FORMULATION POLICY IMPLEMENTATION POLICY EVALUATION ( IMPACT )

THE POLICY CYCLE AND THE INFORMATION CYCLE

Problem Definition

Forecasting needs, defining targets

Policy Design Agenda Setting

Defining nature size, distributions of problem Decision analysis

Termination

Political feasibility analysis Summative evaluation Formative evaluation Opinion polls, surveys, etc.

Policy Legitimation Impact

Source : W.Persons, 1997, public policy

Implementation

Agendas, Alternatives, & Public Policy (J. Kingdon)

“The agenda…is the list of subjects or problems to which government officials, and people outside of government closely associated with those officials, are paying some attention at any given time.”

PROBLEM STREAM

Indicators, events, definitions, values, collective action.

Policy entrepreneurs

aware of the problem.

POLICY STREAM

Alternatives, solutions, policy communities, feasibilities. Hidden cluster of participants dominate.

POLITICAL STREAM

National mood, public opinion, electoral politics, consensus building, Visible cluster of participants dominate .

Window of Opportunity

(predictable, unpredictable) Kingdon’s Agenda Setting Model

Important Characteristics of Policy Problems

( W.N.Dunn , 1981 ) 1. Interdependent : Policy problem in one area frequently affect policy problems in other areas. In reality policy problems are not independent entities; they are parts of whole systems of problems. 2. Subjective : The external conditions that give rise to a problem are selectively defined, classified, explained and evaluated. Although there is a sense in which problems are objective , but they are typically intrepreted in markedly different ways. Policy problems are mental artifacts that come about by transforming experience through human judgment.

3. Artificial : Policy problems are possible when human beings make judgments about desirability of altering some problematic situation. Policy problems are products of subjective human judgment… and also come to be accepted as legitimate definitions of objective social conditions… and are therefore socially constructed, maintained, ans changed.

4. Dynamic : There are many different solutions for a given problem as there are definitions of that problem. Problem and solutions are in constant flux, hence problems do not stay solved.

AGENDA SETTING PROCESS ( T.A.Birkland , 2006 ) AGENDA SETTING : - is the process by which problems and alternative solutions gain or lose public and elite attention ; - group competition to set the agenda is fierce because no society or poli tical instituions have the capacity to address all possible alternatives to all possible problems that arise at any one time ; - group must therefore fight to earn their issues places among all the other issues sharing the limited space or to prepare for the time when a crisis makes their issue more likely to occupy a more prominent on the agenda.

* An agenda is a collection of problems, understandings of causes, symbols, solutions, and other elements of public problems that come to the attention of members of the public and their governmental officials.

ISSUE ATTENTION CYCLES (IACs)

(Anthony Downs : 1972) 2 Alarmed discovery Euphhoric enthusiasm 1 Pre - problem 3 Realizing cost of significant progress 5 Post - problem 4 Gradual decline of public interest

LEVELS OF THE AGENDA ( T.A.Birkland , 2006 )

Initiator Trigger device

The expansion and control of agendas

Issues characteristics Issue creation Symbol Utilization Mass media emphasis Expansion to larger publics Patterns af access Agenda of decision makers Systemic agenda • All issues commonly perceived by members of a political community as meriting public attention of public authorities.

• To get access to systemic agenda an issue must have : widespread attention/awarness shared concern of a sizeable portion of public shared perception that it is a matter of concern to a public authority Institutional agenda

*

• Explicitly up for active and serious consideration by decision makers.

• May be an old item which is up for regular review or is of periodic concern. Or it may be a ‘new’ item.

* Or governmental/ formal

THE POLICY ARENA

Administrative Process 1. Competence and capacity 2. Decision - Action (Values) Political Process 1. Pressure 2. Supports (Values) Policy Making Arena Negotiating (Actors) Bargaining (Groups) Struggling Judicial Process 1. Restraint 2. Performance (Values) (Values) 1. Review Investigation 2. Enactments Legislative Process

POLICY INSTRUMENTS NO R. Lineberry

1. Organizational Units 2. Standard Operating Procedures 3. Coordination & Communication 4. Allocation of Resources

G. Edwards III

Bureaucratic Structure Disposition Communication Resources

C. Hood

Organization Authority Nodality Treasure

Metaphor of implementation failure

Machine metaphor Result of poor chain of command - problems with structure and roles Domination Metaphor Result of labor/ management conflict Psychic metaphor Result of subconscious forces - groupthink/ ego defenses/repressed sexual instincts Organism metaphor Result of ‘human relations’ or the ‘environment’ ‘implementation failure’ Autopoietic metaphor Result of a ‘self-referencing’ system Brain metaphor Result of poor Information flows-or ‘learning/ problems Culture metaphor Result of the ‘culture’ of the organization Power metaphor Result of power in and around the implementation process

CATEGORY OF POLICY EVALUATION

( Howlett & Ramesh , 1995 )

ADMINISTRA TIVE JUDICIAL POLITICAL

Evaluating Managerial Performance and Budgeting Systems Judicial Review and Administrative Discretion Consultations with Policy Subsystems and The Public

WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS ?

A stakeholder is any person, group or institution that has an interest in a development activity, project or programmed.

This definition includes both intended beneficiaries and intermediaries, winners or losers, and those involved or excluded from decision-making process.

Stakeholders can be devided into :

Stakeholder

Primary Stakeholders Secondary Stakeholders

Definition

Those who are ultimately affected, i.e. who expect to benefit from or be adversely affected by the inter-vention. Those with high power and interests. Those with intermediary role. Those with high

interest but low power , or high power but low interest.

KEY STAKEHOLDERS : are those who can significantly influence the project ; both primary and secondary stakeholders may be key stake holders

What is stakeholder analysis ?

A stakeholder analysis is a technique you can use to identify and assess the importance of key people, groups of people, or institutions that may significantly influence the success of your activity , project or programmed.

A methodology used to facilitate institutional

an interest in the reforms under consideration.

and policy reform processes by accounting for and often

incorporating the needs of those who have a ‘stake’ or

Why use stakeholder analysis ?

Stakeholder analysis aims to :

1. Identify and define the characteristics of key stakeholders ;

Identify people, groups, and institutions that will influence your initiative ( either positively or negatively )

2. Assess the manner in which they might affect or be affected by the programmed / project outcome ;

Anticipate the kind of influence, positive or negative, these group will have on your initiative

3. Understand the relations between stakeholders, including an assessment of the real or potentials conflicts of interest and expectation between stakeholders ; 4. Assess the capacity of different stakeholders to participate

Develop strategies to get the most effective support possible for your initiative and reduce any obstacles to successful implementation of your program

Stakeholder Analysis Matrix STAKEHOLDER

A B C -

STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS IN THE PROJECT

Benefits Change Damage / Conflicts

ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

- Very important - Fair - Not very important

POTENTIAL STRA TEGIES FOR OBTAI NING SUPPORT OR REDUCING OBSTA CLES

- Engage closely - Keep informed / - Keep satisfied - Monitor ( mini mum effort )

Thank you