TABLE OF CONTENTS

Policy Cycle.............................................................................................................1
Policy Environment..............................................................................................2
Public Policy Formulation....................................................................................4
Public Policy Process (Thomas R. Dye)..............................................................4
Hurdles/Challenges.............................................................................................5
Approaches to Policy Implementation...................................................................6
Top-down rational System Approach................................................................6
System Building...............................................................................................6
Implementation Game...................................................................................... 7
Bottom-up Approach........................................................................................7
Policy-action Approach..................................................................................... 8
Managerial Approach.......................................................................................8
Policy Evaluation.................................................................................................9
Policy Analysis........................................................................................................9
Elements of Policy Analysis................................................................................ 10
Types of Policy Analysis.....................................................................................10
1. Ex Ante and Ex Post Analysis..................................................................... 10
2. Empirical, Evaluative or Normative Policy Analysis.....................................11
3. Prescriptive and Descriptive Policy Analysis................................................11
Stages of Policy Analysis.................................................................................... 11
Policy Analysis Framework................................................................................. 12
Policy Analysis Cycle.......................................................................................... 12
1. Identifying problems and objectives............................................................13
2. Specifying Policy Alternatives.....................................................................13
3. Evaluating Policy Alternatives.....................................................................13
4. Recommending Policy Action......................................................................14
5. Monitoring Policy Outcomes and Evaluating Policy Performance.................14
Barriers to Policy Analysis..................................................................................14
Attitudinal Barriers........................................................................................14
Operational Barrier........................................................................................ 14
Theoretical Barriers........................................................................................15
POLICY CYCLE
1940s-80s: Herbert Alexander Simon, US Political Scientist, Economics, Computer
Science, Psychology: (Administrative Behaviour, 1947) – Study of Decision making
process in Administrative organization.
3 stages
1. intelligence 2. design 3. choice

Harold D Lasswell (The decision Process: Seven Categories of Functional Analysis,

1956)
7 stages:
1. intelligence 2. promotion 3. prescription 4. invocation 5. application 6.
termination 7. appraisal

William Ieuan Jenkin, Brititsh Professor of Political Science and management

(Policy Analysis: A Political and Organisational Perspective, 1978)
7 stages
1. Initiation 2. Information 3. Consideration 4. Decision 5. Implementation 6.
Evaluation 7. Termination

Judith V May and Aaron B Wildavsky, The Policy Cycle, 1978

5 stages: Agenda-setting, issue analysis, implementation, evaluation, and
termination

POLICY ENVIRONMENT
Policy-making cannot be understood adequately in isolation from the environment in
which it takes place. The political process relates to its environment as much as a
plant or animal does, and it is both influenced by and influences its environment.
Demands for policy action are generated in the environment and are transmitted to
the political system. Environment places limits and constraints upon what can be
done by policy-makers.

James E Anderson, Professor of Economics, Research Associate at National Bureau

of Economic Research (NBER),
International Trade – ‘gravity model of trade’ (Identifying border frictions on volume
of trade); identifies two environment factors:-

1. Political Culture (values, beliefs and attitude concerning governmental

policies and actions) – Major value orientations
 Robin Murphy Williams, Sociologist, Former President of American
Sociological Association: democracy, individual freedom, equality,
progress, efficiency and practicality.
Also identified number of 'major-value orientations' in American society. These
include individual freedom, equality, progress, efficiency and practicality.
Values, such as democracy and individualism clearly have significance for
policy-making. Political culture helps in political behaviour.
Political cultural differences help ensure that public policy is more likely to
favour economic competition in the United States because individual
opportunity is a widely held value there, while it is more likely to tolerate
industrial cartels in China because economic competition has not been highly
valued there.

2. Socio-economic variables and their influence on policy makers, differing

interests and desires are sources of conflict
Pressure groups, interest groups and lobbying
Socio-economic conditions also influence political activities to a great extent.
Public policies can be usefully viewed as arising out of conflicts between
different groups of people—private and official—processing differing interest
and desires. One of the prime sources of conflict, especially in modern
societies, is economic activity. Conflicts may develop between the interests of
different groups. Groups that are underprivileged or dissatisfied with their
current relationships with other groups in the economy may seek
governmental assistance to improve their situation. Thus, it has been labour
groups that have sought minimum wage legislation after being dissatisfied
with the wages resulting from private bargaining with employers.

Public Policy: ‘sequential pattern’ of actions = process system

Policy – purposive course of action – ‘being administered and administered as it is

being made’ (James E Anderson)

1970s-80s: James E Anderson mapped policy process – understand structure

Books: Public Policy making(1975), The Relative Inefficiency of Quotas (1988),
Measuring the restrictiveness of International Trade Policy (2005)
Proposed: framework stages of policy-making: Problem Identification, Formulation,
Adoption, Implementation, Evaluation

1. Agenda Setting (Problem Identification)

Recognition of certain subjects as problem demanding further government
attention.
 2. Policy Formulation
3. Exploring a variation of options. Alternative cause of action available for
addressing the problem. (Appraisal dialog formulation and consolidation)
4. Policy adoption / Decision making
Government decides on an ultimate course of action, whether to perpetuate
the policy status quo or alter it, i.e. decision = Positive / negative / no-action.
5. Policy Implementation.
Ultimate decision made earlier, will be put into practice.
6. Policy Evaluation
Assess the effectiveness of a public policy in terms of its perceived
intensions/results. Policy Actors attempt to determine whether the courts of
action is a success or failure by examining its impact and outcomes.

PUBLIC POLICY FORMULATION

Dynamic Process – attempts to respond to demands of people – involvement of
actors, political institutions in the process.

Prior to exercise of formal authority by a legislative body – Executive/judiciary –

several phases/types of activities by public and private individuals – shape the
emergence and development of policy decisions.

James E Anderson – 4 stages in policy formulation process:

1. Identifying public problems
starting point for public policy questions
Larry Gerston – 4 triggering factors – scope, intensity, time and resources
2. Putting public problems on policy agenda
3. Formulating policy proposals to deal with the problems.
4. Making policy decision. (political will – strong)

Public Policy Process (Thomas R. Dye)

1. Problem Identification
Identifying societal problems, publicizing problems, expressing demands for
government action
2. Agenda Setting
Deciding issues and problems, and their alternatives to be addressed by
government.
3. Policy Formulation
Developing policy proposals to resolve issues and ameliorate problems
 4. Policy Legitimation
Selecting a proposal, developing political support for it and enaccting it into
law.
5. Policy Implementation
Carry a policy into effect.
6. Policy Evaluation
Reporting outputs of government programmes, evaluating impacts of policies
on target groups and proposing changes and reforms.

Broad categories of policy making process are:

1. Policy formulation,
2. Policy Implementation, and
3. Policy evaluation.

Identification of 'public problems' is the starting point for public policy questions.
Larry Gerston identifies four triggering factors which play a vital role in identifying
and clarifying emerging issues for public policy, namely scope, intensity, time and
resources. The first step of a public policy question centres on the scope of the
issue, which refers to the number of individuals who are connected with the topic. It
tells us much about the universality of a problem; it is a quantitative variable. If a
large percentage of the potentially affected population is influenced by a dilemma or
matter of concern, then the problem has widespread scope. More often than not,
people in decision-making positions are very sensitive to scope.

The second triggering component centres on intensity or the extent to which people
feel psychologically affected by the issue. Sometimes, an issue may attract strong
reactions from people. In a world where all kinds of problems arise every day,
intensity helps to separate public policy issues from non-issues. If sizable numbers
are not engaged or worked up about a particular situation, then the likelihood is
that the concern will not emerge as a policy issue.

A third element, duration, centres on the length of time that an issue has bothered
people. The longer an issue attracts the interest of an affected population, the more
likely the sizable numbers of that group will demand change from policy-makers. If
an issue becomes a long- standing part of the public agenda, policy-makers feel
growing pressure to deal with it.

The fourth triggering mechanism is resource, which centres on what and how much
is at stake with the emergence of a potential public policy issue. For example, as it
may be expensive to build a public transportation system, citizens and policy-
makers may sometimes conclude that the benefits will outweigh the costs, on other
occasions, they may decide that the costs exceed the benefits.

HURDLES/CHALLENGES
1. Poor policy design,
2. Absence of adequate financial resources,
3. Minimal bureaucratic cooperation in providing data to substantiate the
findings,
4. Lack of political support and political interference,
5. Conflicting presentation of data by government agencies and pressure groups
and rationalization of their own findings,
6. Lack of public involvement in policy implementation programmes,
7. Lack of administrative will and motivation,
8. Poor coordination and cooperation,
9. Politicization of policies to please the strong groups in the electorate and
10. Centralization of power and hierarchical bureaucratic structure.

APPROACHES TO POLICY IMPLEMENTATION

Top-down rational System Approach
Jeffrey L Pressman and Aaron Wildavsky

Top-down approach studies policy design and implementation in a way that

considers the goals of the highest level policy designers and traces the design and
implementation of the policy through the lowest level implementer. The proponents
of this approach claim that one can understand policy implementation by looking at
the goals and strategies adopted in the statute or policy, as structured by the
implementer of the policy. They focus on the gaps between the goals set by a policy's
drafters and the actual implementation and outcomes of the policy.
Policy message (top) and Implementation (chain)

Criticisms: Ignoring bottom-level realities, being authoritative, over-structured, and

neglecting to take – intersection of factors and in levels.

System Building
Donald von Meter and Carl von horn
Implementation will be me most successful where only marginal change is required
and goal … [based on] consensus is high
 Five variables
1. Need to have concrete and more specific standards for assessing performance.
2. Resources and incentives have to be made available
3. Characteristics of implementing agencies – organizational control, agencies,
formal and informal linkages with policy formulation / policy-enforcing bodies.
4. Economic, political and social environment
5. Disposition of implementers – understanding, acceptance / rejection of policy.

Implementation Game
Prof Eugene Bordach
Implementation as a political game: power, conflict and interests
Implementation is a process and that successful implementation from a ‘top-down’
perspective must involve full ‘follow through’.

Implementation is a game: “bargaining, persuasion, and maneuvering under

conditions of uncertainty.”
Self-interested people who are playing games in power politics
Implementer play to win as much control as possible and attempt to play so as to
achieve their objectives.

Bottom-up Approach
Richard Elmore
Dissatisfaction to the top down model which was ineffective and unsuccessful in
implementation.

It views implementation from the perspective of 'street-level bureaucrats'. Richard

Elmore, calls this 'backward mapping', in which the implementation process and the
relevant relationships are mapped backwards, from the ultimate implementer to the
topmost policy designers. It also refutes that there be a single defined policy in the
statute or any other form. Thus, implementation can be viewed as a continuation of
the conflicts and compromises that occur throughout the policy process, not just
before it begins and at the point of enactment. This makes for a more realistic
depiction of the implementation process.

However, this approach is also criticized for overemphasizing the ability of the street-
level bureaucrats to frustrate the goals of the top policy-makers.
Lipsky: “policy implementation in the end comes down to the people who actually
implement it … state employees such as police and social workers should be seen as
part of the policy-making community and as exercisers of political power.”
Backward mapping

Phase begins: policy reaches its end point, then analyze and organize policy from the
patterns of behaviour and conflict.
Implementation process and relevanr relationships are mapped backwards –
ultimate implementer to topmost policy designers.
Bottom-up approach recognizes that goals are ambiguous rather than explicit and
may conflict not only with other goals in the same policy area, but also with the
norms and motivations of the street-level bureaucrats.

Policy: can be thought of as a set of laws, rules, practices and norms, such as
energy policy, that shapes the ways in which government and interest groups
address these problems.

Policy-action Approach
JR Lewis and R Flynn (1979). The implementation of urban and regional
policies. Policy and Politics = Implementation as Action by Actors
1. Constrained by world outside their organizations and institutional context, within
which they try to act.
2. Interactions with the outside world, the organization and its institutional context
– policy goals are not the source of guides to action.

S Barret and C Fudge (1981). Policy and Action: Essays on the Implementation of
Public Policy = Policy Action Continuum

Policy action is a behavioural approach that views the process of implementation as

a policy-action continuum in which an interactive bargaining process takes place
between those who are enacting the public policy and those who have control over
the resources. This approach was developed by Lewis and Flynn. In this approach,
greater emphasis is laid on issues of power and dependence, interests, motivations
and behavior. It believes that a policy is something which evolves over a period of
time. It is the outcome of an evolutionary process.

Managerial Approach
This approach gives importance to managerial values.
It is based on the concept of reinventing government, which believes in making
government more business-like — downsized, transparent, bureaucratic and so on.
In this approach, changes involve a more market-driven decentralization process.
It focuses on a shift from hierarchy to participation and teamwork in order to
properly facilitate management of a complex society.

It expects the government to serve the people in an efficient and economical manner.
Citizens are treated as customers and they are given a variety of service delivery
options.

POLICY EVALUATION
Assess effectiveness of public policy – perceived intention and results.
Analyze and examine mismanagement/undesirable effects.
1. Synthesizing what is known about a problem and its proposed policy or
programme remedy,
2. Demystifying conventional wisdom or popular myths related to either the
problem or its solution,
3. Developing new information about programme or policy effectiveness, and
4. Explaining to policy actors the implications of new information derived
through evaluation.
The main objective of policy evaluation is to reduce the problem in the light of policy
delivery and is generally used for one or more of the three purposes of assessing:
policy efficiency, policy effectiveness and policy impact. Besides these purposes, it
provides reliable information about policy performance. The aim of evaluation here is
to measure the impact of policies on society.

POLICY ANALYSIS
The main aim of planning a g policy is to promote equality in society, in which
policies and programmes reach all sections of society without any discrimination.

Definition – Use of knowledge for making managing and evaluating public policies.

Assess effectiveness of a policy, its formulation and implementation

Policy analysis involves analysis that takes place at two levels.

Formulation takes place before a policy decision is made, that is before formulating
policies;
Implementation takes place after the policy is implemented in order to assess or
evaluate the impact of a policy.

William N Dunn (2017). Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Routledge

[Book].
“an applied discipline which uses multiple methods of inquiry and argument to
produce and transform policy-relevant information that may be utilized in political
settings to resolve public problems.”

Carl V Patton and David S Sawicki (1993). Basic methods of Policy Analysis and
Planning.
“a systematic evaluation of the technical and economic feasibility and political
viability of alternative policies, strategies for implementation, and the consequences
of policy adoption.”

Thomas R Dye states that policy analysis involves:

1. a primary concern with explanation rather than prescription;
2. a rigorous search for the causes and consequences of public policies; and
3. an effort to develop and test general propositions about the causes and
consequences of public policy and to accumulate reliable research findings of
general relevance.

Policy Analysis as a technique

• Likely consequences of proposed policies; and
• Actual consequences of the policies already adopted

ELEMENTS OF POLICY ANALYSIS

Nagel has identified four key elements to policy analysis:
1. Goals with which policy analysis is concerned;
2. Means for achieving those goals;
3. Methods for determining the effects of alternative means on goal achievement;
(alternatives)
4. Profession of policy analysis, which is applying these methods in relating
means to goals. (applying)
TYPES OF POLICY ANALYSIS
1. Ex Ante and Ex Post Analysis
Ex ante analysis means the analysis that takes place before a policy decision is
made. This is also called prospective policy analysis. It focuses on the future
outcomes of a proposed policy.

Ex post analysis involves the analysis that takes place after a policy is implemented,
to assess or evaluate a policy. This is also referred to as retrospective policy
analysis.

2. Empirical, Evaluative or Normative Policy Analysis

The empirical approach is based on an interpretation of the past policies. This
approach is concerned with analyzing the causes and effects of given public policies.
e.g. NEP 2020

The evaluative approach to policy analysis focuses on programme evaluation. It

determines the worth or value of a policy option.
For example, the National Alliance of Women’s Organizations, evaluates whether the
objectives or targets of the UN Convention on Elimination of All kinds of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) are met or not.

Normative policy analysis is primarily concerned with recommending future courses

of action for a given problem. e.g. Literacy programme and laws, government may
recommend steps.

3. Prescriptive and Descriptive Policy Analysis

Prescriptive analysis recommends actions that result in a particular outcome. When
the policy analysts are not sure about the nature of solution to a problem or there is
no programmed way of selecting a particular solution among alternatives, then they
may opt for prescriptive policy analysis.

Descriptive policy analysis refers to the historical or retrospective analysis of past

policies. Here policy analysis is done after policy implementation. The primary
concern is to understand the problem, rather than to solve it.
STAGES OF POLICY ANALYSIS
Policy analysis models and techniques aim at providing a more rational basis for
decisions.

William Ieuan Jenkins – 7 stages

Initiation; Information; Consideration; Decision; Implementation; Evaluation; and
Termination.

Edward Quade – 5 key stages

1. Formulation: Clarifying and constraining the problem and determining the
objectives;
2. Search: Identifying, designing and screening the alternatives;
3. Forecasting: Predicting the future environment or operational context;
4. Modeling: Building and using models to determine the impacts;and
5. Evaluation: Comparing and ranking the alternatives.

POLICY ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

Inputs Decision-making Process Outputs Outcomes

Demands Policies
(from individuals, Functions, role,
organizations and groups) interactions Impact, effect
Supports (of political parties, Laws (on community,
(from conventions, legislature, executive, target groups)
customs, community, judiciary, bureaucracy)
Decisions
international bodies)

Feedback (change or stability)

Since policy analysis makes use of the required information in examining, deciding
about and finally, measuring the consequences of public policies, it requires a
proper framework.
According to this approach, there are various elements in a system, which act and
interact with one another to have a continuous flow of function. The various
elements include:
• Inputs that indicate needs and demands;
• Processes related to the functions and role of forces;
• Outputs in terms of laws and policies; and
• Outcomes that identify the end results of certain courses of action.

POLICY ANALYSIS CYCLE

1. Identifying problems and objectives
2. Specifying and evaluating policy alternatives
3. Recommending Policy action
4. Monitoring policy outcome
5. Evaluating policy performance

1
Identifying problems and
objectives

5
Monitoring Policy Outcomes 2
and Evaluating Policy Specifying Policy
Performance Alternatives

3
4 Evaluating Policy
Recommending Policy Alternatives
Action

1. Identifying problems and objectives

This is the most important stage because, many times, the objectives of the problem
analysis are not clear and in some cases, the objectives are even contradictory.
Policy analysis requires clarity in identifying the problems which are to be sorted
out.
2. Specifying Policy Alternatives
Once a policy problem has been clearly identified, the policy analyst is required to
specify and generate alternative policies. The analyst determines which alternative is
the most positive in any particular situation. For example, one alternative may be
least expensive than others in achieving the objectives. Once the alternatives are
specified, it becomes easy for the policy analyst to identify the option that will be
suitable for the group for which the policy is intended.

3. Evaluating Policy Alternatives

Once a policy problem has been clearly stated, and alternatives for policy choice
have been determined.
In order to evaluate policies, analysts can either develop suitable models for their
analysis or even conduct survey
research, etc. in order to find the strength of the different policy alternatives.

4. Recommending Policy Action

making the preferred choice
Based on the analysis of various options in terms of favourable and unfavourable
impacts and implications, this stage of policy analysis makes recommendations for
the best alternative or option.

The situation may be so simple for the policy maker that he can simply look at the
advantages and disadvantages predicted for each alternative and select the one that
is the best. In contrast, it may also be so complex that he or she will have to think of
his or her preferences among the various possible outcomes.

5. Monitoring Policy Outcomes and Evaluating Policy Performance

Generally, the policy analyst, is not involved in the implementation and monitoring
of policies. However, for better policies, it is important that policy analysts be
consulted in the maintenance, monitoring and also the evaluation of the
implemented policy. Such maintenance and monitoring of the policy during the
implementation stage assures that “they do not change form unintentionally;
measure their impact; determine whether they have the intended impact; and decide
whether they should be continued, modified, or terminated.
Thus, the analysis should be brought out in such a way that its essential points are
easily grasped and communicated.
BARRIERS TO POLICY ANALYSIS
Attitudinal Barriers
The first and the most difficult barrier to overcome in the process of policy analysis
is resistant mind sets. Policy analysts usually do not recognize the need to analyze
concerns in policies.
One way of overcoming the attitudinal barrier of the policy analyst is by
demonstrating a high level of political and bureaucratic support.

Operational Barrier
Issues relating to operationalization of gender analysis form another major barrier to
policy analysis. In a governmental setting, resources like time, money and expertise
are limited. Another operational challenge in policy analysis is shortage of
information.

Theoretical Barriers
Theoretical issues are the kinds of issues and questions that arise when policy
makers are interested in applying policy analysis tools. Such tools are designed by
policy analysts to facilitate successful implementation of policies.
However, if the tools are too long, too academic or too difficult to read and apply, it
complicates the issue, rather than addressing the issue.