PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
Prof.Dr.M.Irfan Islamy,MPA
Faculty of Administrative Science
BRAWIJAYA UNIVERSITY
2008
1
What is public policy ?
1. J.E.Anderson , 1975 :
Public policy is a purposive course of action followed by government 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 programs to achieve societal goals
2
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
“
3
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.
4
To be continued .............
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 Conservatives 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.
5
To be continued ................
2.3 Material or Symbolic Policies : Material policies provide concrete resources or substantive power to their beneficiaries , or , impose real
disadvantages on those adversely affected. For example , welfare payments; housing subsidies; etc.
Symbolic policies appeal more to
cherished values than to tangibles benefits; such as national holidays that
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.
6
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 eficiently 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 “
7
Market and Government Failures
( D.K.Gupta , Analyzng Public Policy , 2001 )
Market Failure
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Lack ofcompetition
Barriers to entry and exit
Restricted flow of information
Externalities and social cost
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
8
9
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
10
11
CHARACTERISTICS OF PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
( H.Lasswell , 1971 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
MULTI-METHODS
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
PROBLEM-FOCUSED
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
12
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 decisionmaking : who gets what and how ? ( Elitism , Pluralism, Marxism, Corporatism, Professionalism, and Technocracy )
4. DELIVERY ANALYSIS : is the analysis of implementation, evaluation, change and impact
13
Two Main Concerns : Positive & Normative Analysis
( C.L.Cochran & E.F.Malone , 1995 )
Positive Analysis
Normative Analysis
1. A concern with understanding how the 1. Is directed toward studying what public
policy process works
policy ought to be to improve the general
2. Strives to understand publc policy as it is
welfare
3. Endeavors to explain how various social 2. Deals with statement involving value
and political forces would change policy
judgments about what should be. For
4. Tries to pursue truth through the process
example : “ The cost of health care in
of tesing hypotheses by measuring them
Indonesia is too high”. This statement
against the standard of real-world expecannot be confirmed by referring to data.
riences
Whether the cost is too high or is
5. Usually deals with assertions of cause and
appropriate is based on a given criterion.
effect :
Its validity depends upon one’s values and
“ If the Indonesian government raises
ethical views. Individuals may agree on
interest rates , then consumers will borrow
the facts of healthcare costs but disagree
less “. This statement may be tested by
over their ethical judgments regarding the
setting-up an experiment within a state.
implications of “the cost of health care”.
The results may confirm or refute the
statement .
14
Approaches to Policy Analysis
( J.P.Lester & J.Stewart ,Jr., 2000 )
Type of Approach
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
Primary Objective
1. To examine a part of the policy process
2. To examine a substantive area
3. To examine the causes and consequences 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
15
Approaches to Policy Analysis
( M.J.Dubnick & B.A.Bardes , 1983 )
Type of Policy
Analyst
Public Policy
Problem
Motivation
Approach
Relevant
Training
Scientist
Theoretic
Search for theory,
regularities, truth
Scientific methods,
objectivity, pure
analytic
Basic research
metods, canons of
social science
research
Professional
Design
Improvement of
policy and policymaking
Utilization of knowledge , strategic
Strategic, costbenefit analysis,
queuing, simulation, decision analysis
Political
Value
maximization
Advocacy of policy
positions
Rhetoric
Gathering useful
evidence, effective
presentation
Administrative
Application
Effective & Efficient
policy implementation
Strategic,
Managerial
Strategic, same as
for Professional
Personal
Contention
Concern for policy
impacts on life
Mixed
Use of many models & techniques
from other approaches ; less
sophisticated
16
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, mathematical, computer science and operations research techniques to systematically help us answer the question : What policy should we pursue in the future ? 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.
17
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
18
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
19
PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
SCOPE OF ANALYSIS
POLICY
FORMULATION
POLICY
IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY
EVALUATION
( IMPACT )
20
THE POLICY CYCLE AND THE INFORMATION CYCLE
Problem Definition
Forecasting needs,
defining targets
Agenda
Setting
Policy Design
Defining nature
size, distributions
of problem
Decision
analysis
Political
feasibility analysis
Opinion polls,
surveys,
etc.
Policy
Termination
Summative
evaluation
Impact
Source : W.Persons, 1997, public policy
Formative
evaluation
Legitimation
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
POLICY STREAM
Alternatives, solutions,
policy communities,
feasibilities. Hidden
cluster of participants
dominate.
Indicators, events,
definitions, values,
collective action. Policy
entrepreneurs aware
of the problem.
POLITICAL STREAM
National mood, public
opinion, electoral
politics, consensus
building, Visible cluster
of participants
dominate.
Kingdon’s Agenda Setting
Model
Window of Opportunity
(predictable, unpredictable)
CPM/HSS2/2008
23
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.
24
25
26
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 political 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.
27
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 )
29
The expansion and control of agendas
Issues
characteristics
Initiator
Issue
creation
Trigger
device
Symbol
Utilization
Mass
media
emphasis
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
Source : Adapted from Cobb and Elder (1972)
Expansion
to larger
publics
Agenda
of decision
makers
Patterns
af access
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)
Judicial Process
1. Restraint
2. Performance
Policy Making Arena
Negotiating
(Actors) Bargaining (Groups)
Struggling
(Values)
1. Review Investigation
2. Enactments
Legislative Process
(Values)
32
POLICY IMPLEMENTATION THEORY
( T.A.Birkland, 2006 )
33
DELIVERY MIX
(W. Parsons. 1995. P. 492)
MARKET
MIX
HIERARCHYBUREAUCRACY
•
•
•
•
GOVERNMENTAL MIX
SECTORAL MIX
ENFORCEMENT MIX
VALUE MIX
COMMUNITYNETWORK
An Analytical Approach for Analyzing Implementation Processes
( T.Bredgaard,L.Dalsgaard & F.Larsen , 2003 )
35
36
POLICY INSTRUMENTS
NO
R. Lineberry
G. Edwards III
C. Hood
1.
Organizational Units
Bureaucratic Structure
Organization
2. Standard Operating Procedures
Disposition
Authority
3. Coordination & Communication
Communication
Nodality
Resources
Treasure
4.
Allocation of Resources
Direct and Indirect Impacts on Implementation
Communications
Resources
Implementation
Dispositions
Bureaucratic
Structure
Source : G.C. Edwards III, 1980, Implementating Public Policy, pp. 148
Communications
• Transmission
• Clarity
• Consistency
Resources
• Staff
• Information
• Authority
• Facilities
Bureaucratic Structure
• Standard Operating Procedures
• Fragmentation
Dispositions
• Effect of Dispositions
• Staffing the Bureacracy
• Incentives
Voluntary
Instruments
Information and Exhortation
Subsidies
Auction of Property Rights
Tax and User Charges
Family and Community
Voluntary Organizations
Private Markets
A Spectrum of Policy Instruments
Level of State Involvement
Low
High
Mixed
Instruments
Compulsory
Instruments
40
Metaphor of implementation failure
Machine
metaphor
Result of poor chain of
command - problems
with structure and roles
Domination
Metaphor
Result of labour/
management conflict
Psychic
metaphor
Result of subconscious
forces - groupthink/
ego defences/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
42
43
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
45
46
Types of Evaluations Activities and
Corresponding Evaluating Issues
( Rossi, Freeman & Wright – 1979 )
Research for Program
Planning and Development
Monitoring Evaluation
Impact
Evaluation
Cost – Benefit
Cost - Effectiveness
Purpose
Designing programs in Testing implementation as Testing
program Calculating program
conformity with intended corresponding to program effectiveness in reaching economic efficiency
goals
design
program goals
Evaluation
Questions
1. Extents and distribution 1. Is it reaching targets? 1. Does program cause 1. How much does
of target problem 2. Is it delivering services
intended changes?
each service
population
according to design?
2. Are
changes
unit cost?
2. Research
and
substantively
2. How do the
development
for
significant?
total cost and
program planning and
benefits
implementation
compare
48
49
WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS ?
A stakeholder is any person, group or institution
that has an interest in a development activity,
project or programme. This definition includes
both intended beneficiaries and intermediries, winners or losers, and those involved or
excluded from decision-making process
50
Stakeholders can be devided into :
Stakeholder
Primary Stakeholders
Secondary Stakeholders
Definition
Those who are ultimately affected, ie who expect to
benefit from or be adversely affected by the intervention. 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 stakeholders
51
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
programme
# A methodology used to facilitate institutional and
policy reform processes by accounting for and often
incorporating the needs of those who have a ‘stake’ or
an interest in the reforms under consideration
52
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 programme /
project outcome ;
Anticipate the kind of influence, positive or negative, yhese 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
53
Stakeholder Analysis Matrix
STAKEHOLDER
STAKEHOLDER
INTERESTS IN THE
PROJECT
ASSESSMENT
OF
IMPACT
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES FOR OBTAINING SUPPORT OR
REDUCING OBSTACLES
A
-
Benefits
- Very important
- Engage closely
B
-
Change
- Fair
- Keep informed /
- Keep satisfied
C
-
Damage /
Conflits
- Not very important
- Monitor ( minimum effort )
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
TERIMAKASIH
70