The challenges in policy formulation, policy analysis and
implementation in developing countries.
.
1. Introduction In every society, there must exist some problems. These
problems could be in the areas of politics, commerce, education, agriculture,
communication, housing, transportation, health etc. In order to solve these
problems as they might exist at given points in time, government is always seen
formulating policies in response to them and in relation to the objectives of growth,
national development and wellbeing of the citizens. This is necessary because if
attempts are not made to address these problems as they arise, they may
degenerate into uncontrollable stages with the society‟s social-economic growth
and development endangered.(Okoli & Onah, 2002). Fundamentally, a public
policy is a government action or proposed action directed at achieving certain
desired goals or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal
problem, public policy guides and determines present and future public decisions
as well as private individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or
behavior. In essence, a public policy determines the activities of government and
given private institutions in relation to providing services designed to solve a given
problem. Ugwuanyi et al.,(2013). Policymaking involves a combination of
processes. Although not always clear-cut or easily distinguishable, political
scientists have identified these processes for purposes of analysis. They include
the following: Identifying policy problems: Publicized demands for government
action can lead to identification of policy problems. Formulating policy proposals:
Policy proposals can be formulated through political channels by policy-planning
organizations, interest groups, government bureaucracies, state legislatures, and
the president and Congress/parliament. Legitimizing public policy: Policy is
legitimized as a result of the public statements or actions of government officials,
both elected and appointed in all branches and at all levels. This includes
executive orders, budgets, laws and appropriations, rules and regulations, and
decisions and interpretations that have the effect of setting policy directions.
.
2. Implementing public policy: Policy is implemented through the activities
of public bureaucracies and the expenditure of public funds. Evaluating public
policy: Policies are formally and informally evaluated by government agencies, by
outside consultants, by interest groups, by the mass media, and by the public.
Policy processes ideally involve different stages: agenda setting; formulation;
implementation; and evaluation. Although this stages or phases approach to
policymaking has been criticized for being too simplistic, insufficiently explicating
that some phases may occur together, and not saying much about why policy
turns out as it does, it does provide a way to discuss many of the ways policy is
constructed, carried out, evaluated, and made again. All these activities include
both attempts at rational problem solving and political conflict. Definition of a
Policy Policy is defined in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary as a definite
course or method of action selected from among alternatives to guide and
determine present and future decisions. A policy is defined in the New Oxford
Dictionary of English as: “a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a
government, party, business or individual". Other scholars define a policy as
making decisions that reflect values and allocating resources based on those
values. Thus, policy represents a particular political, ethical, or programmatic
viewpoint. Governmental policy reflects theoretical or experiential assumptions
about what is required to resolve a particular issue or problem. It is the process by
which governments translate their political vision into programmes and actions to
deliver 'outcomes' – desired change in the real world. Policy can take a range of
different forms, including non-intervention; regulation, for instance by licensing; or
the encouragement of voluntary change, including by grant aid; as well as direct
public service provision.
.
3. Definition of Public Policy Fundamentally, a public policy is a
government action or proposed action directed at achieving certain desired goals
or objectives (Ikelegbe, 2006). In the light of a given societal problem, public
policy guides and determines present and future public decisions as well as
private individual or private business institutional actions, decisions or behavior. In
essence, a public policy determines the activities of government and given private
institutions in relation to providing services designed to solve a given problem.
Many scholars have defined Public policy as whatever governments choose to do
or not to do. Public policy deciding at any time or place what objectives and
substantive measures should be chosen in order to deal with a particular problem.
Public policy is the strategic use of resources to alleviate national problems or
governmental concerns. Public policy is the public response to the interest in
improving the human conditions. In these definitions there is divergence between
what governments decide to do and what they actually do. Public policy is a guide
which government has designed for direction and practice in certain problem
areas Nduka.E et al., (2010). POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES
Policy-making is the process by which governments translate their political vision
into programmes and actions to deliver „outcomes‟ - desired change in the real
world. Two parts to policy formulation: Effective formulation (analytical phase)
means that the policy proposed is regarded as a valid, efficient, and
implementable solution to the issue at hand. Acceptable formulation (political
phase) means that the proposed course of action is likely to be authorized by the
legitimate decision makers, usually through majority‐ building in a bargaining
process. That is, it must be politically feasible.
.
4.
effective policy alternatives, presumably based on sound analysis, must be
l choice among these
alternatives must be made: The policy must be authorized through a political
authorization –
On Analysis – Professional policy analysts, use their skills and
analytical tools to study an issue and to devise policy alternatives to address the
issue. They consider aspects such as means, behaviour, cost, implementation
ected or appointed officials, however, have the
final choice among the alternatives presented. This brings judgment, wisdom, and
accountability to policy formulation. They consider goals, trade‐ offs, value
priorities, and weighing the overall effects of the policy which makes them
accountable to the people, under our representative form of government. Steps in
Policy Formulation and Implementation: Deciding whether a new policy or reform
is required, promote the new policy or reform an existing one, make the process
more participatory by engaging stakeholders, adopt the new policy, (often merged
with the actual implementation stage). Finally, the policy is implemented, after
implementation, policies must be monitored and evaluated and a strategy and an
action plan are also required for the policy implementation process. Policy Circle
The Althaus, Bridgman & Davis model covers the following: issue identification,
policy analysis, policy instrument development, consultation (which permeates the
entire process), coordination, decision, implementation and evaluation.
.
5. Features of Policy Making Nine Features of Modern Policy Making
include: forward Looking, outward looking, innovative, flexible and creative,
evidence based, inclusive, joined up, reviewed (should be regularly), evaluation
and learns lessons and disseminates them (what worked & best practice). Policy
analysis At this point, it may be said, more generally, that policy analysis is carried
out before policy formulation, since the analysis of the consequences of the
various possible policies has to be made in order to supply the necessary
information to the decision-maker, so that he may select a particular policy and,
after policy formulation, when that policy is being translated into concrete actions,
i.e. in terms of plans, programmes and projects for implementation. In other words,
it shows the role of policy analysis in relation to policy formulation and policy
implementation. Policy analysis means making criticisms. Making criticisms
means exposing the implicit values that guide our research and recognizing that
research which precludes implications for alternative policy choices is not worth
doing. According to Nduka .E et al., (2010), Policy analysis is defined as simply
put is the study of the causes, processes, formulation, implementation and
consequences of public policy. It involves the description and explanation of
particular policy choices and contents; determination of strategies for optimal
policy.-making, performance, implementation and impact of public policies. It uses
collected data to systematically explain, describe and prescribe policies with the
aid of certain social science methods, theories and approaches. However, almost
all participants in policy formulation have stakes in the configuration that policy
takes. Policy analysis as a technique puts data to use in, or deciding about,
estimating and measuring the consequences of public policy. Its purpose is
twofold. It provides maximum information with minimal cost about: The likely
consequences of proposed policies and the actual consequences of the policies
already adopted.
.
6. Establishing the context: What is the underlying problem that must be
dealt with? What specific objectives are to be pursued in confronting this problem?
Laying out the alternatives: What are the alternative courses of action? What are
the possibilities for gathering further information? Predicting the consequences:
What are the consequences of each alternative action? What techniques are
relevant for predicting these consequences? If outcomes are uncertain, what is
the estimated likelihood of each? Valuing the outcomes: By what criteria should
we measure success in pursuing each objective? Recognizing that inevitably
some alternatives will be superior with respect to certain objectives and inferior
with respect to others, how should different combinations of valued objectives be
compared with one another? Making a choice: Drawing all aspects of the analysis
together, what is the preferred course of action?" Although Strokey & Leckhauser
insisted that the five criteria areas must be considered, they did not expect an
analyst always to proceed from one stage of the analysis to the next, but to revise
the framework to suit his own operational style. In establishing the context, it is
essential to focus attention on policy areas where there is widely- shared
consensus and treat delicate issues cautiously. The problem areas in analysis
may be examined in terms of equity/ equality, efficiency and effectiveness in
qualitative or quantitative terms or according to the impact on the economy and so
on. Once the analyst knows what the problem is about, he will conceptualize it in
order to eliminate courses of action that will be costly, redundant and unfeasible,
thus finding a way to seek the preferable choice and propose a course of action.
This proposed course of action should take into account the consequences as
well as the unexpected effects. The issue of making choices that favour the
present at the
.
7. expense of the future is raised and an explanation of how to think about
choices and how they can be compared is presented. CHALLENGES
ENCOUNTERED IN POLICY ANALYSIS The world for which policies have to be
developed is becoming increasingly complex, uncertain and unpredictable.
Citizens are better informed, have rising expectations and are making growing
demands for services tailored to their individual needs. Key policy issues, such as
social need, low educational achievement and poor health, are connected and
cannot be tackled effectively by departments or agencies acting individually. In his
analysis of the major constraints to African development, Balogun (1992) has
pinned institutional rigidity as another characteristic of policy management
dispensation on the continent. He lashes at African cultural values that have
largely contributed to this rigidity. He informs us that due to internal conflict, the
African culture impedes any cooperative action in political associations and in
modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity matters in any given policy?
And what mechanisms are in place to enforce cooperation in policy management
in developmental states? To enhance policy management capacity in Africa,
Basheka et al (2012) suggests the need to review of what he termed the critical
skills in the policy process among policy makers and implementers. Such skills
entail leadership and motivation, entrepreneurial skills and innovation, planning
and forecasting, programming, sequencing, precision-management/coordination,
resource mobilization and optimization, information storage, retrieval/scanning,
utilization, human resource management, conflict resolution, and crisis control. At
a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial for addressing a number of
institutional and process constraints for effective policy management. Most
policies in in developing countries like Uganda are managed through a set of
institutions; defined as a set of informal and formal rules that structure interactions
between organizations and between individuals. The literature also suggests that
a reality gap between ideas of the best practice and the actual legal,
administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low- income and
middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to
produce
.
8. perverse outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208).
Politics has been identified as a key issue to understand policy management. It
has been observed by Goran Hyden (2006) that in neo-patrimonial systems the
president and other politicians at the top play a significant role in policy
implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not control
power, politics emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for
policy determination; subsequently, a policy deficit is caused. The transition from
the movement type of politics to competitive politics has further compounded this
problem because the ruling regime will ensure that there is total monopoly over
state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads those in power to become
directly involved in policy management even where the work would have been
delegated to street level bureaucrats. Another political dimension worth
mentioning has been the issue of donors. In their policy implementation model,
Meter & Horn (1975) explain that several environmental factors can influence the
implementation process. They include the economic, social, and political
conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists
in the implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect.
For instance, the influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for
example has immense influence due to its resource capacity and politics of
residency, which makes it a willing and able lender. Hence, it can impose its
preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and sometimes
the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on
external funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that
may contradict homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such
external agencies have a sufficiently clear vision of successful reforms. However,
we can well ask, why do countries accept donor influence (e.g., agree to
implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time suspect
that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources:
while these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually
profiteer from them. For example, donor money and jobs created in connection
with a reform implementation process can be awarded based on ethnicity and
nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this hypothesis by arguing that
policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and worse still, they
have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the
way policies are managed in Uganda and other developing countries.
.
9. Policy making does not take place in distinct stages The „stages‟ of
policy making do not just often overlap, they are often inseparable. In the real
world, policy problems and policy solutions frequently emerge together, rather
than one after another. In other words, plans may be present at the same time, or
before, a need to act has been identified. This can lead to poorly conceived
policies if ministers present a fait accompli solution that is flawed, or whose
relationship to a policy problem is unclear – but will not hear it challenged. The
current policy process does not do enough to address these difficulties. Policy
makers agreed the solution was „directed exploration‟, where ministers are clear
about their goals, and then are prepared to engage in an honest, iterative
discussion about how to achieve them. However, such discussions are impeded
by a lack of time, appropriate institutional arrangements, and problems in
ministerial-civil service relationships. We need better ways of ensuring that the
policy problem has been fully considered, and the option tested properly.
Hallsworth. M et al., (2011). Unclear or Ambitious Policy Goals It has been
observed that most policies and plans are inefficient in learning from past
experiences. As a result they often devise ambitious targets which ultimately fall
short of their desired outcomes (Ahsan, 2003; The World Bank, 1999). One of the
main reasons for such a situation is the absence of reliable data for educational
planning in Pakistan. It is very often the case that even official documents carry
discrepancies. Ahsan (2003) has shown that great variation exists among many
official and semi-official sources, including such basic educational statistics as the
percentage of literacy. Tsang (1988) strongly suggested that there is a dire need in
developing countries to strengthen the informational base to improve policy
frameworks. Political Commitment The problem related to politics and politicians
sits at the root of the problems of implementation in Pakistan. Literature on
implementation highlights the importance of political commitment by leadership as
critical to policy success (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983, pp. 158-59). Sri Lankan
.
10. reform experience suggests that successful implementation crucially
depends on the consistent support of top political and bureaucratic leadership
(Cummings, Gunawardena, & Williams, 1992, pp. 15-16). Citing the example of
civil service reform in Swaziland, McCourt (2003) noticed that the lack of „political
commitment‟ of government was the principal reason for failure of reform
programmes. In the case of Pakistan there have been many instances where
governments have failed to provide the political support needed for implementing
and sustaining policy initiatives. Each new government has discontinued most
programmes of its predecessors soon after assuming power, for example, a
literacy project titled Nai Roshni (new light) was launched in 1987 and was
discontinued in 1989 with the change of government (Ahsan, 2003, p. 264). Other
mass literacy programmes have also failed due to low political commitment both
at federal and local levels (Akhtar, 2004, p. 176). Governance Structure The
issues of ineffective governance and corruption, particularly among politicians and
civil servants, have also been described as a major obstacle to proper policy
implementation in Pakistan (World Bank. Country Department I South Asia Region,
1997, p. 12). One of the major reasons for the ineffectiveness of governance is
lack of coordination and trust among political representatives and government
officials, and also the lack of cooperation among different government
departments (Aga Khan University Institute for Educational Development &
Department for International Development, 2003, p. 5; The World Bank, 1999). In
the case of SAP, the lack of trust among finance and education departments has
caused a shortage of finances for the project, which has seriously affected the
envisaged outcomes (World Bank. Human Development Sector Unit, 2003, p. 16).
This observation indicates towards the issues that are related to the joint action of
multiple actors, and its inherent problems. The Sri Lankan experience suggests
that a reform that involves fewer government agencies would experience more
cooperation, and stand a better chance of successful implementation (Cummings
et al., 1992, p. 16). The lack of cooperation among different organs of government
and their mutual disrespect create several „clearance points‟ that hamper the
overall organization and implementation of policy (Pressman & Wildavsky, 1973;
Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Eventually due to distrust among different
agencies and due to the tendency of civil services to resist change, the policy is
implemented only symbolically (Firestone & Corbett, 1988, p. 513).
.
11. Institutional challenges In his analysis of the major constraints to
African development, Balogun (1992) has pinned institutional rigidity as another
characteristic of policy management dispensation on the continent. He lashes at
African cultural values that have largely contributed to this rigidity. He informs us
that due to internal conflict, the African culture impedes any cooperative action in
political associations and in modern administrative agencies. So whose rigidity
matters in any given policy? And what mechanisms are in place to enforce
cooperation in policy management in developmental states? To enhance policy
management capacity in Africa, the author suggests the need to review of what he
termed the critical skills in the policy process among policy makers and
implementers. Such skills entail leadership and motivation, entrepreneurial skills
and innovation, planning and forecasting, programming, sequencing, precision
management/coordination, resource mobilization and optimization, information
storage, retrieval/scanning, utilization, human resource management, conflict
resolution, and crisis control. At a close range of analysis, these skills are crucial
for addressing a number of institutional and process constraints for effective policy
management. Most policies in for example in Uganda are managed through a set
of institutions; defined as a set of informal and formal rules that structure
interactions between organizations and between individuals. The literature also
suggests that a reality gap between ideas of the best practice and the actual legal,
administrative, political and economic processes that exist in low-income and
middle-income countries means that a „one size fits all‟ approach is likely to
produce perverse outcomes or what is called „fatal remedies‟ (Hood, 1998: 208).
Politics has been identified as a key issue to understand policy management. It
has been observed by Hyden (2006) that in neo- patrimonial systems the
president and other politicians at the top play a significant role in policy
implementation. He postulates that because African governments do not control
power, politics emerges as supreme and undermines other rational bases for
policy determination; subsequently, a policy deficit is caused. The transition from
the movement type of politics to competitive politics has further compounded this
problem because the ruling regime will ensure that there is total monopoly over
state resources (Lindberg, 2003: 123) and this leads those in power to
.
12. become directly involved in policy management even where the work
would have been delegated to street level bureaucrats. Institutional constraint
Policy analysts also face the problem of institutional acceptance on policy
outcomes. Institutional characteristics limit what can or will be done. Specifically,
an agency accustomed to doing things in a particular way cannot innovate very
often. Rather, it looks for an effort to integrate new demands into existing patterns
of doing business. Donors Dependence. In their policy implementation model,
Meter and Horn (1975) explain that several environmental factors can influence
the implementation process. They include the economic, social, and political
conditions prevailing at the time, as well as the nature of public opinion that exists
in the implementation environment. Yet these factors also have a cultural aspect.
For instance, the influence of donors often leads to failure. The World Bank for
example has immense influence due to its resource capacity and politics of
residency, which makes it a willing and able lender. Hence, it can impose its
preferences on reforms (Harrison 2001:668-670; Polidano 2001) and sometimes
the imposed reforms may be inappropriate. Thus, high-level dependence on
external funding, which comes with conditionalities, may require new policies that
may contradict homegrown policy preferences. It remains to be seen if such
external agencies have a sufficiently clear vision of successful reforms. However,
we can well ask, why do countries accept donor influence (e.g., agree to
implement a reform which the donor recommends), yet at the same time suspect
that a reform programme will fail? The answer to this has to do with resources:
while these countries need resources, civil servants know they can individually
profiteer from them. For example, donor money and jobs created in connection
with a reform implementation process can be awarded based on ethnicity and
nepotism. Mwenda & Tangri (2005), confirm this hypothesis by arguing that
policies are at times accepted primarily for political survival, and worse still, they
have perpetuated neo-patrimonial networks that have a devastating effect on the
way policies are managed in Uganda, Kenya and other developing countries.
.
13. Constraints of politics The activities of political leaders constrain policy
analysis. Policy ideas are dropped because elected politicians and other
appointees oppose them. The reaction of Senators, House of Representatives,
the President and Presidential Advisers are anticipated as proposals are debated.
Many ideas are discarded because specialists cannot conceive of any plausible
circumstances which they could be approved by elected politicians and their
appointees. Policy analysis suffers these political constraints when policy issues
are being analyzed. Budgetary constraint Budgetary constraints also affect policy
analysis. Expectations may always outpace the capabilities of government. Before
any proposals is accepted and approved, decision-makers need to be convinced
that it has the resource to do them. As observed by Kingdom (1984:145-6),
“decision-maker need to be convinced that the budgetary cost of the programme
is acceptable; that there is a reasonable chance that politicians will approve; that
the public in its various facets both mass and activists will acquiesce”. There must,
therefore, be sufficient fund to meet policy expectations, failure which policy
analysis suffers. Values Though, objectivity is relative as many analysts believe
that policy analysis is not value-free since value judgment also influences how
they record or present information. Nonetheless, policy analysts are more
objective than programme administrators as analysts often recommend
alternatives, review consequences before arriving at policy conclusion, whereas
the bureaucrats are national maximizers of self-interests (Down, 1967, Niskanen,
1971). In relative terms, policy analysts are more objective where there is no
conflict of interests. Policy analysis cannot provide solutions to problems when
there is no general consensus on what the problems are. It is incapable of
resolving societal value conflicts. At best, it can offer advice on how to accomplish
a certain set of end values. It cannot determine what those end values should be.
Furthermore, social science research cannot be value-free. Besides, it is difficult
for the government to cure all or even most of the maladies of the society. They
are constrained by certain values in the society, such as: religious beliefs, diversity
in culture and languages. These cannot easily be managed by the government.
.
14. Anticipation of acquiescence by society Anticipation of acquiescence
within a community is another constraint to policy analysis. Specialists in policy
community know that ultimately their proposals must be acceptable to the public
reaction as they design their proposals. The public possible negative reaction to
policy proposals acts as a constraint to policy analysis. Multiple causes of a
problem There are also certain societal problems which may have multiple causes
and a specific policy may not be able to eradicate the problem. There are policies
that solve the problems of one group in society which create problems for other
groups. In a plural society one person‟s solution may be another person‟s
problem. This is a constraint to many policy proposals and such policy analysis
proposal to solve such societal problem becomes an uphill task. Costly solutions
Policy analysis also faces the constraint of solutions to some problem being more
costly. For instance, certain levels of public disorder including riots, civil
disturbances and occasional violence cannot be eradicated without the adoption
of very regressive policies which would prove too costly to democratic values,
freedom of speech and press; rights of assembly; freedom to form opposition
parties. Thus, a certain level of disorder may be the price to pay for democracy. All
these act as constraints to policy analysis. Uncertainty As future is always
uncertain, it is questionable whether policy analysis can find solutions to the
problems regarding the future of society. Poverty, unemployment, inequality, and
environmental pollution are some of the major problems in the society. Of course,
this is an excuse for failing to strive for a better society. It must be realized that
solutions to these problems may be difficult to find. There are several reasons for
tempering our enthusiasm for policy analysis. Lack of communication It has been
observed that policy analyses are gathering dust because they are either too long
or too hard to understand. A policy analysis is of no use if it cannot be
communicated to others. Too often, the policy analysis deals with subjective topics
and must rely upon the interpretation of results. Professional researchers often
interpret the results of their analyses differently.
.
15. Obviously, quite different policy recommendations can come out from
these alternative interpretations of the results of research. Policies need to be
designed, not just conceived Current processes greatly underestimate the value
of policy design. A greater emphasis on policy design helps to ensure that the
planned actions represent a realistic and viable means of achieving the policy
goals. In business, there is a quality control phase where new products are
prototyped and stress-tested, before being trailed and finally going to market.
While such testing does happen for some public sector policies, it should be much
more extensive and rigorous: the policy process still does not provide enough
support to make it happen systematically. Nevertheless, the complexity of modern
governance means it is unlikely that policies can be designed perfectly, so that
nothing will go wrong or need to be revised. Therefore, the people implementing a
policy need the capacity and opportunity to adapt it to local or changing
circumstances. Policy making is often determined by events Policy making does
not take place in a vacuum, where the government is in total control of its agenda.
The result can be sharp discontinuities and apparently illogical decisions, as the
government‟s coherent position can get overwhelmed by events. But not all
events are the result of the external world affecting policy makers; some are
„self-generated‟. Many of our interviewees made it clear that the desire to capture
the news agenda, generate headlines, or be seen to be acting, could lead to
over-hasty announcements. The effects of policies are often indirect, diffuse, and
take time to appear Current guidance presents policies as discrete interventions
to tackle specific problems, whose effects can then be reliably measured and
evaluated. But there is plenty of evidence that the effects of these interventions
may be complex, wide-ranging and unintended. Given the complexity of the
problems with which government deals, it may be unlikely that a policy will
produce effects that are both measurable and attributable. Indeed, it may actually
be unhelpful to
.
16. think of policies as discrete interventions that can achieve a particular
goal on their own. Policy may be the cumulative impact of many different
initiatives in a particular area, or it may be about managing a wider system.
Unless the policy process is set up to capture those impacts and be sensitive to
other, interlinked policies, the real impact of a policy cannot be properly
understood. The more one delves into the reality of policy making, the more that
policy cycles and their like resemble a comforting narrative that imposes specious
order on a complex reality. Maintaining this narrative often means that, in practice,
policy makers often have to fall back on their native wits. This is why many
interviewees voiced concerns about the ad hoc nature of policy making: there is
not so much a lack of recommended processes, just a lack of realistic ones.
POLICY FORMULATION AND CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED There are two
key stages to the policy formulation process: determining the policy options and
then selecting the preferred option (see Young & Quinn, 2002: 13-14). For both
stages, policymakers should ideally ensure that their understanding of the specific
situation and the different options is as detailed and comprehensive as possible;
only then can they make informed decisions about which policy to go ahead and
implement. This includes the instrumental links between an activity and an
outcome as well as the expected cost and impact of an intervention. The quantity
and credibility of the evidence is important. At this stage, the public administration
concerned examines the various policy options it considers to be possible
solutions. It should be noted that coalitions of actors strive, through the use of
advocacy strategies, to gain priority for one specific interpretation of both the
problem and its solution. It is at this stage that power relationships crystallize,
determining the direction a policy will take. This stage is the most crucial one after
policy formulation is its implementation. It is, perhaps, for its importance that some
scholars refer to the policy implementation stage as the hub of policy process.
Fundamentally, policy implementation is the process of translating a policy into
actions and presumptions into results through various projects and programmes
(Okoli and Onah, 2003; Ikelegbe, 2006). Kraft & Furlong (2007) and Ajaegbu &
Eze (2010) state that policy
.
17. implementation actually refers to the process and activities involved in
the application, effectuation and administration of a policy. A variety of activities
are involved in policy implementation that may include issuing and enforcing
directives, disbursing funds, signing contracts, collecting data and analyzing
problems, hiring and assigning personnel, setting committees and commissions,
assigning duties and responsibilities and also making interim decisions etc.
(Nweke, 2006). POLICY IMPLEMENTATION It is difficult to create a conceptual
distinction between policy formulation and policy implementation (Dinica, 2004).
This is because policy formulation basically takes place throughout the entire
policy process. What is needed is a way of combining the analytical benefits
offered by the „stages‟ model with the recognition of the interaction between the
stages. (Hill & Hupe, 2003). Use the term „policy‐ making‟ for the entire process,
„policy formation‟ for the initial part of policy‐ making, Policy implementation‟ for
the latter part of the policy‐ making process. Fundamentally and according to
Hornby (2010), the word effective refers to producing the results that is wanted or
intended or producing a successful result. In the context of this work, effective
policy implementation, therefore, entails implementing a policy in such a way as to
produce, attain or realize the goals and objectives of the policy. In essence, if a
policy is effectively implemented, the designed and planned development goals
and objectives are realized. The basic end or focus of the bureaucratic activities
should then be on how best to effectively implement policies. According to Sajid
Ali (2006), states that policy implementation is generally held to be the step that
follows policy formulation and is viewed as „the process of carrying out a basic
policy decision‟ (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1983). Bhola (2004) suggests that policy
implementation is a process „to actualize, apply and utilize it [policy] in the world
of practice‟.
.
18. At this stage, the policy‟s implementation parameters are established,
which can directly affect the eventual outcome of the policy. Several factors
combine to determine the actual effects of a policy and how well it achieves its
objectives. Factors noted by Sabatier and Mazmanian include: the type and
complexity of the problem addressed, the magnitude of the expected change and
the groups targeted by the policy, the human and financial resources devoted to
implementation, and the administrative structures and regulations that will be put
in place to support implementation of the policy (Sabatier & Mazmanian, 1995).
Note that high demands are placed on the technical-administrative apparatus at
this stage, and on groups associated with this policy sector. The term policy
network is often used to refer to the actors within the government, as well as the
stakeholders associated with a policy sector, who are in sense experts in the area.
This policy network will have a major influence on how the policy is implemented.
Policy implementation includes all the activities that result from the official
adoption of a policy. Policy implementation is what happens after a law is passed.
We should never assume that the passage of a law is the end of the policymaking
process. Sometimes laws are passed and nothing happens. Sometimes laws are
passed and executive agencies, presuming to act under these laws, do a great
deal more than Congress ever intended. Political scientist Robert Lineberry writes:
“The implementation process is not the end of policy-making, but a continuation of
policy- making by other means. When policy is pronounced, the implementation
process begins. What happens in it may, over the long run, have more impact on
the ultimate distribution of policy than the intentions of the policy‟s framers”.
Traditionally, public policy implementation was the subject matter of public
administration. The separation of “politics” from “administration” was once thought
to be the cornerstone of a scientific approach to administration. But today it is
clear that politics and administration cannot be separated. Opponents of policies
do not end their opposition after a law is passed. They continue their opposition in
the implementation phase of the policy process by opposing attempts to organize,
fund, staff, regulate, direct, and coordinate the program. If opponents are
.
19. unsuccessful in delaying or halting programs in implementation, they
may seek to delay or halt them in endless court battles (school desegregation and
abortion policy are certainly cases in point). In short, conflict is a continuing
activity in policy implementation. CHALLENGES ENCOUNTERED DURING
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION The pattern and nature of policy implementation is
the major explanation for the failure or success of any given policy. In this vein,
Nwankwo & Apeh (2008) observe that the implementation of a policy is the most
vital phase in the policy process as it is at this stage that the success or failure of a
policy is determined. Ikelegbe (2006) and Nweke (2006), in this respect too, note
that many policy failures result from ineffective implementation. The public
bureaucracy plays through the effective implementation of government policies,
projects and programmes aimed at achieving development goals and objectives.
Most often in many developing countries, however, policies are well and brilliantly
formulated but ineffectively implemented by the bureaucracy as cited in Nigeria
(Obodoechi, 2009; Ikelegbe, 2006). This leads to the failure of public policies to
achieve their target goals and objectives and to ultimately alleviate the problems
for which they were designed. Indeed, there are usually wide gaps between
formulated policy goals and the achievement of those goals as a result of
ineffective implementation in almost all facets of public administration (Ozor, 2004;
Mankinde, 2005). The ineffective and corrupt political leadership contribute to
poor policy implementation in developing countries. The leadership corruption,
and ineptitude, for instance, affects the content and quality of policy at formulation
stage. For instance, policies are, more often than not, made for purposes of the
selfish and egoistic interest of the political leaders and sometimes only to attract
public acclaim and attention with less regard to their appropriateness in
addressing given problems or the possibility of their effective practical
implementation by the public bureaucracy. It is perhaps for this, that Okoli & Onah
(2002) state that implementation of policies in Nigeria and other developing
countries take the form of “learning process” or “trial and error”. In this context,
policies or programmes are haphazardly implemented and even sometimes
abandoned or
.
20. dismantled midway because the basis for formulating the policy was
not, in the first instance, predicated on existing data, realities or need. Another
factor that constitutes obstacles for the bureaucracy in effectively implementing
policies is the over ambitions nature of some public policies. Some policies
actually tend to be over ambitions, sweeping and overly fundamental in nature
(Mankinde, 2005). In most cases, the formulation of such over ambitions policies
is not even borne out of genuine or sincere effort to bring about rapid and radical
development but just to boast the ego of the political leaders. An example of such
policies is policies having as their basic objectives the provision of free education
or free health services to all the citizens or the total eradication of poverty
amongst the citizens. For such policies, there are usually inadequate resources
(men and materials) for the public bureaucracy to effectively implement them.
Another critical factor inhibiting effective implementation of policies is that some
agencies or institutions saddled with the responsibility of implementing given
policies do not possess the requisite manpower and financial resources to
effectively implement them. On the issue of inadequate resources, for instance,
Governments in developing countries, sometimes, do not budget adequately to
enable the public bureaucracy properly implement formulated policies (Ikelegbe,
2006; Dick, 2003). Indeed, to effectively implement policies, the implementing
agency needs resources in adequate and timely manner and such not being the
case in Nigeria explains, in part, the failure of certain public policies to achieve
desirable ends, (Nweke, 2006; Ikelegbe, 1996). Sometimes, though, government
gives out sufficient fund but the corrupt activities within the public bureaucratic
organizations do not allow for its judicious use to effectively execute policy
programs. In any case, insufficient financial resources have resulted to situations
where laws could not be enforced, services were not provided and reasonable
regulation not developed and applied. On the issue of inadequate human
resources, the public bureaucracy do not, indeed, have adequate staff in terms of
overall numbers and more importantly in terms of specific areas of professional,
technical or managerial competence and expertise (Aluko & Adesopo; 2002). This
is counterproductive as the capabilities of government bureaucracy in terms of
expertise and skill
.
21. determine, to a large extent, policy implementation success or failure
(Ikelegbe, 1996). Where abilities exist, policies could be confidently formulated
with reasonable assurance of their effective implementation. Indeed, as Nnamdi
(2001) notes, development policies has, in contemporary times, assumed
complex and sophisticated dimension that require highly skilled and experienced
bureaucrats for their effective implementation. Again, the challenge of keeping
away personal interest, prejudice and the influence of primordial values in the
conduct of official business by bureaucrats is equally very critical in developing
countries. Usually, if the bureaucrats are not favourably disposed towards a policy,
they may not approach its implementation with the enthusiasm and zeal that it
effectively implementation may require. Makinde (2005), in this respect, contends
that the zeal with which bureaucrats implement policy depends on how they see
the policy as effecting their personal, ethnic and organizational interest and
aspirations. Positive effects will induce enthusiastic implementation while the
contrary may mean that implementation may be resisted, thwarted and even
sabotaged (Ikelegbe, 2006). The ultimate result of this is ineffective
implementation of policies that makes the realization of their goals and objectives
difficult. Another constraining factor to effective policy implementation in
developing countries is undue pervasive political influence on the public
bureaucracy (Amucheazi 1980; Aneze) (in Timi and Tola, 1986). Usually, the
political leaders formulate policies and as well control and direct the
implementation activities of the policy. This situation is not proper as such control
and directive are mostly motivated by selfish personal or political interests. Indeed,
the bureaucracy cannot effectively implement policies and meaningfully contribute
to national development if it is fettered, controlled and directed by political
authorities. This is more so as in extreme cases of such political control, the
bureaucrats are not even allowed to take decisions or actions on basic routine
administrative matters without consultation and the consent of relevant political
authorities. In this process, much time and energy is wasted and prompt actions
required for effective implementation of policies hampered. Given this, therefore,
one can posit that the extent to which politics influence the bureaucratic activities
will continue to determine and shape the extent to which policies can be properly
and effectively implemented by the public bureaucracy in many developing
countries. Very worrisome is the fact that the political influence
.
22. or hold on the public bureaucracy is becoming tighter as promotion to
the headship positions in some public bureaucratic organization is based on
political patronage or loyalty and not on the basis of relevant or cognate
experience and seniority. Bureaucrats promoted under such circumstance will be
more morally bound to subject their official decisions and actions, substantially, to
the wishes, preferences, control and endorsement of their political masters. Finally,
abrogation of a policy effects their implementation by the public bureaucracy in
Developing countries. It is observable that each new political in many developing
countries in Africa is usually and primarily concerned with making its own
impression on public programmes and projects. For this, certain policies or
programmes which are already being effectively implemented are shelved by the
succeeding administration (Nnamdi, 2001). Presidents, Ministers, Governors,
Local Government Chairmen and heads of institutions (both bureaucratic and
political heads) exhibit the tendency to link their administration with distinct social
and economic policies or programmes. Consequently, the policies of preceding
administrations are rarely pursued by succeeding ones and such personalistic
styles of administration help to explain why so little attention is paid to the issue of
maintenance of projects or programmes created or initiated by preceding regimes.
Indeed, succeeding regimes conceive the maintenance of existing programmes
as not politically expedient as it does not bring direct personal glory or credit.
CONCLUSION Public policy analysis faces various problems, such as: politics,
budget, institution, values and expectation of members of the society. In spite of
the constraints, it seems safe to say that social scientists can at least attempt to
measure the impact of present and past public policies and make this knowledge
available to policy-makers. Reason, knowledge and scientific analysis are always
better than the absence of any knowledge. Lineberry (1977:135) notes that “policy
analysis rests on the assumption that information is better than no information,
and that right questions are better than no questions asked, even when the
answers may not be definitive”. Policy analysis may not provide solutions to
society‟s ills, but it is still an appropriate tool in approaching policy questions.
Policy analysis enables us to describe and explain the causes and consequences
of public policy. Policy analysis is applied to inform the policy-maker about the
.
23. likely future consequences of choosing various alternatives. Policy
analysis guides decision- makers in making optimum choices and outcomes
among discrete alternatives.
.
24. REFERENCES Abah, N.C. (2010) Development Administration: A
Multi-Disciplinary Approach Enugu: John Jacob Classic Publishers Ltd.
Abdulsalemi, A. (1990). “Public Policy: Concepts, Approaches and Processes”. In
Obasi, I.N. and Yakub, N.O. (1998)(ed). Local Government Policy Making and
Execution in Nigeria Ibadan: University Press Plc. Adamolekun, L. (1983). Public
Administration: A Nigerian and Comparative Perspectives New York: Longman Inc.
Adebayo, A. (2000) (2nd Edition) Principles and Practice of Public Administration
in Nigeria. Ibadan: Spectrum Book Ltd. Ajaegbu, F.O. and Eze, E. (2010) Public
Policy Making and Analysis Enug: Spring Time Press. Aluko, M.A and Adesopo, A.
A. (2002). “An Appraisal of the Two Faces of Bureaucracy in Relation to the
Nigerian Society” Journal of Social Sciences,, 8(1) 12 – 21. Amucheazi, E.C. (ed)
(1980). Readings in Social Sciences: Issues in National Development Enugu:
Fourth Dimension Publishers. Aneze, L (1986). “Bureaucracy and Modernization”
in Social Change in Nigeria. Simi, A And Tola, P. (eds) (1986) Social change in
Nigeria England: Longman Group Ltd. Anikeze, N. (2011) Fundamental issues in
Nigeria Politics, Government and Development Administration. Enugu: Academic
Publishers Company. Dick I, (2003) Contemporary Public Administration: The
Nigerian Perspective. Enugu: John Jacob Classic Publishers.
.
25. Downs, A. (1967). Inside Bureaucracy. Boston: Little Brown and
Company. Egeran, T. (2011) “The Development State in Africa: Interrogating the
Nigerian Status” Nigerian Journal of Administrative Science. Vol. 9 Nos 1 and 2 Pp.
314 – 334. Egonmwan, J. (1984). Public Policy Analysis: Concepts and
Applications: Benin City: S.M.O. Aka and Brothers Press. Eneanya, A.N. (2010).
Policy Research, Analysis and Effective Policy- Making in Nigeria. Lagos:
Concept Publications Ltd. Ezeani, E. O. (2006). Fundamentals of Public
Administration. Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd. Handbook of Public Policy Analysis:
Theory, Politics, and Methods / edited by Frank Fischer, Gerald J. Miller, and Mara
S. Sidney. Heady, F. (1992). Encyclopedia of Government and Politics London:
Routlege. Hornby, A.S (2010) Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary of Current
English. London: University Press. Ikelegbe, A. (2006) Public Policy Analysis:
Concepts, Issues and Cases. Lagos: Imprint Services. Kingdon, J.W. (1984).
Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. USA: HarperCollins Publishers. Kraft,
M and Furlong, S. (ed) (2007) Public Policy: Politics and Analysis. Washington:
C.Q Press. Lasswell, H. and Deiner, D. eds. (1951). The Policy Sciences.
Standford: University Press.
.
26. Lineberry, R.L. (1977). American Public Policy: What Government
Does and What Differences it Makes. New York: Harper & Row. Makinde, T. (2005)
“Problems of Policy Implementation in Developing Nations” Journal of Social
Sciences, 11(1) Pp 63 – 69. Niskanen, W.A. Jr. (1971). Bureaucracy and
Representative Government. New York: Aldinel/Atherton. Nnamdi, H. (2001)
Comparative Public Administration. Benin City: Trust Publications. Nwankwo, B.
and Apeh, (2008) Development Administration: Principles and Practice. Enugu:
Zik Chuks Publishers. Nweke, E. (2006) Public Policy Analysis: A Strategic
Approach. Enugu: John Jacobs Publishers. Nutley, S. (2003) „Bridging the
Policy/Research Divide: Reflections and Lessons from the UK‟, Keynote Paper at
National Institute of Governance Conference „Facing the Future: Engaging
stakeholders and citizens in developing public policy‟, Canberra, Australia 23–4
April. Obodoechi, O. (2009) Community Development. Enugu: Computer Edge
Publishers. Okafor, (2005). “Public Bureaucracy and Development in Nigeria: A
Critical Overview of Impediments to Public Service Delivery”. CODESRIA Bulletin.
Nos. 3 and 4. Okeke, M. (2001). Theory and Practice of Public Policy Analysis.
Enugu: Bismark Publishers. Okoli, F.C. and Onah, F.O (2002) Public
Administration in Nigeria: Nature, Principles and Applications. Enugu: John
Jacobs Classic Publishers.
.
27. Olaniyi, J. (1998). Foundations of Public Policy Analysis. Ibadan:
University Publishers Ltd. Olarewaju, O, et al (2004) “Evaluation of Programmes
and Policies for Supporting Small Scale Enterprises in Nigeria” Ibadan:
Publication of the Development Policy Centre Ibadan. Onah, R.C. (2005) Public
Administration. Nsukka: Great AP Publishers. Ozor, E. (2004) Public Enterprises
in Nigeria: A study in Public Policy Making in Changing Political Economy. Ibadan:
University Press Plc. Policy sciences--Handbooks, manuals, etc. Public
administration--Handbooks, Manuals, Fischer, Frank, (1942)- II. Miller, Gerald. III.
Sidney, Mara S., 1964- IV. Title. V. Series. H97.H3583 2007 352.3‟4--dc22 Policy
hub website: Impact Assessment and Appraisal:
www.policyhub.gov.uk/better_policy_making/ Policy hub:
www.policyhub.gov.uk/evaluating_policy Sophie Sutcliffe and Julius Court (2006),
A Toolkit for Progressive Policymakers in Developing Countries, Overseas
Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road, London SE1 7JD Email:
publications@odi.org.uk Ugo, S. & Ukpere, W, (2011) “Public Policy: Myths and
Realities in the Nigerian Nationhood since Independence” African Journal of
Business Management, Vol. 5(23